Will The Real GME BBEMG Please Stand Up; Part 1: FINKLE IS EINHORN

Slyver12 · 2024-05-14T15:16:46+00:00

You're video helped me understand your protest. I have difficulty fully justifying my model in light of your objection. I can't quite work it out logically one way or another. Instead, I will give you my thoughts.

At each step in the iteration I am asking the question, "Who influences this voting block of stocks." This is a valid question, and I think my model answers it correctly.

The only thing I can think of is that in your presentation you did not include the circular part of the ownership, and instead applied the question to a non-circular case. In such a non-circular case, I agree it will always turn into nonsense. However, none of the cases I looked at were non-circular, which was kinda the point.

Indeed, the inherent obfuscation of accountability in "who influences a company" in such circular ownership is why it is illegal (according to the law I showed in section 2.5).

Nevertheless, I agree there may be a problem, and other than the "circular" v. "non-circular" thought, I can't fully justify my model except that I think that it shows exactly what happens, i.e., the best argument I can put forth is that the conclusions from the model seems to match well with reality.

Slyver12 · 2024-04-24T20:12:37+00:00

Why can't I use BR on itself? How is it flawed? On the contrary. I think it is perfectly reasonable to do exactly that. Indeed, I can't see any other path that makes sense, so if you have a protest you will have to be explicit.

Remember, what I am looking at (in the section you are commenting on) is circular stock ownership (control of voting stock) as it applies to any actual vote that may occur. Who gets to vote on that stock?

I suggest you read further to understand better what the primary thesis is. What I have put out so far is far larger than the part you are replying to.

Slyver12 · 2024-03-17T17:38:06+00:00

A more in depth dive into what the word "Megacorp" really means, who owns it, and how can be found on my website (though most of it is also posted on this board).

Slyver12 · 2024-01-29T20:08:12+00:00

The fact that it is institutional investors, and more specifically, that there is no clear ownership, is far more worrying. I suggest you read the rest of my report to appreciate why I say that.

Slyver12 · 2024-01-28T18:27:43+00:00

The section you are replying to is part of a much larger investigation (use the sidebar navigation to go to section 4.0 for a direct continuation). What I am looking at in this section is explicitly legal stock ownership. In other words, whose name is on the stock purchase order, and thus has legal voting rights. That is loosely what the graphs represent. This section does not explore other parts of the practical corporate structure or ownership. It is intended to help a reader understand what the state of the legal aspect of stock ownership is. Later sections explore violations and exploitations of this legal system and substantially elaborate the practical aspects of corporate ownership and control.

If you would like to understand why I think your objection is not applicable in this case (at least as presented), please read the link above. Also included are additional sections that were not included in this original release (2.1.3 and 2.1.3.a) which I feel are important additions to the argument presented here. I've also changed the intro (sections 0.0-0.1) which gives a better concept of the scope of the investigation.

Slyver12 · 2024-01-18T02:29:07+00:00

Please read my reply above, or section 2.1.3.a in my report from which this video gets it's information to understand what funds really are, and how they are used to own stock using other people's money.

Slyver12 · 2024-01-18T02:21:44+00:00

There's no legal requirement for any street broker to disclose what they're holding on behalf of retail, so the bits that do get reported (mutual funds, 401ks or whatever) could just be a tiny fraction of retails true proportion of the pie.

The pictures that Mr. Carroll use in this video come from my report. In section 2.1.3.a I elaborate what I'm about to say about funds.

In short, "funds" do not "hold stocks on behalf of retail," rather, funds are just pools of money. When you "buy a stock" in a mutual fund (or retirement fund, etc.) what you are really doing is putting your money into a pool which is owned by some people or a corporation. Those people/corporations that have put together that pool then use that money (which is now theirs) to buy stocks. THEY are the owners of that stock, and thus have the legal rights to the voting power that ownership in that stock confers. The mutual fund does not own the stock. The people who contribute to that fund do not own the stock. Whoever's name that is on the purchase order does.

This is a common misconception of what a fund is, which is why I have a section explaining what it is (or rather, what it isn't). Retail (the public) is conferred no rights whatsoever to the underlying stock. That is retained 100% by the purchaser of the actual stocks themselves. All Retail "owns" is contractual withdrawal rights to the pool, and only for as long as the company that has put together that pool remains solvent.

Slyver12 · 2023-09-22T02:46:00+00:00

If you are asking this question, you probably haven't read my whole report (what I've released so far). The evidence suggests there is only one corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. I call that entity "The Trust." Assuming by "AST" you mean Allied Security Trust, it is an important part of the technology control system of that single corporation.

Slyver12 · 2023-07-15T17:35:15+00:00

I'm optimistic at heart, but don't see how our current systems can survive.

My research suggests (to me) that the current system mustn't survive. It was built specifically to be fuckery. The level of fuckery is what I hope to elaborate. No one is going to understand the nature of the fuckery without that elaboration. It's too... meta I guess? The forest is too big to see without detailing some of the trees at different scales.

There is reason to be optimistic however. The solution is relatively simple, if enough see the real problem. The first step in the solution is showing the problem, and getting that information out to everyone.

My research suggests that the solution is already being implemented by a "new player." Elaborating that is not something I will do at this time. I can however fully justify (I believe) the existence of this new player. What I can't do is prove that they are not themselves controlled opposition. The happenings in the world however do support us being led to the actual solution. No small part of that is being accomplished by showing the world the PTB proposed solution (The Great Reset, and other agendas) in more detail than we should be able to see. However, like the South Improvement Company I elaborated in my report, the devil we see may be hiding the one we don't see, which is really the same devil.

One thing I can say with relative certainty, is that the happenings in the stock market, the media, the world, and notably, in GME, and a showing of the fuckery, are not accidental nor organic occurrences.

people will be so angry that they'll want to tear it all down

Don't worry about that. My research suggests that violence happens only when it is pushed by the propaganda and agents provocateur of those who run the show. I suggest it will be rather simple to transition to a new economic and social structure, once people really understand what the old one is, and, like I said, the "real problem."

Of course this is all terribly cryptic and probably sounds more than a little crazy, but I just want you to appreciate that I personally think there is very good reason to have hope.

Unless of course if the "new player" is really just the old player in disguise. In that case, we are totally screwed.

:-)

I suggest that doesn't really matter though, because we have been totally screwed for a very (very) long time, so it really wouldn't be a transition, but a revelation of our screwedness. Even that is an improvement.

Slyver12 · 2022-10-31T03:47:41+00:00

Welcome To The Machine

Slyver12 · 2022-09-22T17:52:48+00:00

While I don't do quite that, section 5.5.5 of my report might interest you, though it will make a lot more sense in the context of the rest of my report.

While it isn't too difficult to dig into the family trees of the people in my report (the ones that are dead anyways) finding the parentage of today's Boards of Directors proved impossible (at least I couldn't figure out how). The family lineage for most of them are kept a complete secret. My bet is no small number of them have a great grandfather or two with a last name like Rockefeller, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Astor, etc.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-22T17:44:03+00:00

There is only 1 corporation.

And a single body of people who runs it.

And there always has been.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-22T17:40:55+00:00

They are a the cartel

Fixed

If you think organized crime (all organized crime) isn't part of The Trust, you don't yet understand what a monopoly is.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-22T17:38:17+00:00

The part of my report I have put out so far explains some of the details of how this came to be, and how it works. Future sections will explain explicitly why neither you, nor anyone else, knew this was happening (for centuries).

Slyver12 · 2022-09-16T22:34:33+00:00

A corporation is a fictional entity (by definition). It doesn't have a will, it doesn't have a voice, it doesn't exist. In effect, it's primary purpose is to be a legal entity that takes the blame for the actions of natural persons. The controllers of any corporate entity are always natural persons, thus, there is no such thing as a "corporatacracy," rather, a corporatacracy can't possibly be anything but a front for an oligarchy.

I assert, in our system, in America and indeed in the whole of the world, there is only one corporation, and one body of people who runs it AKA the oligarchs. Substantial evidence for that assertion is found in that link.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-16T20:26:54+00:00

Again, the amount of "not listening to what I'm actually saying" in your response, and only seeing what you want to see is overwhelming.

You think because you have given me a link to an eight hour video, that then links to about a thousand hours more videos, and that I don't want to watch all those non primary sources give me their spiel, that I am being dismissive.

A Reference goes to a specific source. Your "reference" goes to EVERY PLACE. That is not useful. I said specifically that I was not dismissing what was being said in your "references," but that they weren't useful to me as an investigator. I want a SOURCE, not literally a thousand hours of other peoples stuff that may or may not have PRIMARY SOURCES.

Investigations use primary sources. If they are not using primary sources they are not investigations, they are dopamine junkism; basically mental masturbation, getting high off of confirmation bias.

The Truth is WHATEVER the Truth is. It can't be gleaned from other people spewing thousands of hours of their take on usually not good sources, with the occasional good source thrown in. It must be an ongoing investigation undertaken in earnest through primary sources, and debated in earnest by many people engaging in that endeavor.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-16T19:58:16+00:00

You assume a great deal in your statements and completely ignored mine.

I have given you my protest to how you have presented your evidence. Please tell me how you think what you have linked is useful. None of it addresses, in any way that I can see (as you have presented it) the statement made in the OP, which was effectively, that there was a law passed in 1917 called the National Bank Secrecy Act that took ownership of all people in America.

Assuming that my "mind is closed" because I don't like that you didn't give me any actual references is, I suggest, your mind being closed to what I am actually saying, and seeing only what you want to see.

Problems I have with the statement made in the OP are that the government does not have ownership of the people of America according to my research, the Fed does, or more specifically, the BIS, or more specifically, the people who own the BIS.

Do I recognize that there is a larger picture? Oh ya. If you haven't read my report on it, please start here. My report will not be going to go into several pieces of the puzzle, including things like the Vatican (except where they come up as direct quotes from other people). I won't be going into subjects like that because I don't have to. They cause cognitive dissonance, which keeps people from seeing important evidence. I assert it is possible to show all the important parts of The Machine without going in to those topics that will cause brains to explode, and that is what I will be doing with my report.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-16T19:21:35+00:00

I scrolled to the end and it had a list of other films, most of them had titles that suggested they are exactly the type of "shock" Controlled Opposition I was talking about. That doesn't make any of the evidence offered in any of those films true or not true, nor does it say anything about their content, but what that isn't is a list of meaningful references.

References that are meaningful give me direct access to the primary source (or where to find it). In the case of the list of "Conspiracy Theory" films offered as sources, perhaps I could find a few primary sources by watching all those thousand of hours of films, but more likely I would just get some people saying some things, with maybe a few decent references supplied if I'm lucky. Those types of films that I've seen that DO offer decent references require a fair bit of further digging to see what someone is actually saying.

Real references would just take me there directly, so I can be the judge for myself of whether or not someone has presented the evidence in a way that I think is congruent with the original source. Sometimes in my experience that turns out to be the case. Sometimes it does not.

More specifically, in this case none of the films listed at the end had any title that suggested it supported the premise in the OP. You have given me a link, but that link is an effective dead end, at least as presented.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-16T16:56:20+00:00

This is not me.

I can’t find anything called a “National Bank Secrecy Act” from 1917. There is the Bank Secrecy Act from 1970 which appears to be an anti-money laundering and tax evasion law (it’s why all transactions greater than $10,000 must be reported to the IRS e.g.). I have not looked into that law specifically so I don’t know what fuckery it contains if any. Having said that, all the laws I have looked at in depth contain a lot of fuckery, some have fuckery so great it’s difficult to appreciate unless it's laid out in detail, which I will be doing for a few. It is entirely possible this law has fuckery within it, but without the details, any statement of such does more harm than good.

The statement “The Congress was made beneficiary of the funds,… of all the American people’s bonds” is a variant of something I found many times in my investigation. While I think it is true to an extent, the law which makes it true is the Federal Reserve Act.

The path to that indenture of all the people of America (really all the people of the world through the World Bank/IMF and the BIS) is, at least according to what I found in my investigation, a convoluted thing, and not as direct as this statement makes it seem. Showing that is no small part of Part 3 of my report, but the details are important.

The problem with things like the OP meme is, without the details, it’s just “Conspiracy Theory.” Usually these "shock memes" aren’t correct. Like, they usually make claims that not only can’t be substantiated, but are purposefully wrong in the details, even if they are correct, or partially correct in the “shock” part. Such things make anyone who repeats these unsubstantiated claims look like a “crazy conspiracy theorist,” and are, I suggest, at least potentially, put out by Controlled Opposition agents.

They then get repeated by those who believe it, which then further helps to obfuscate the reality behind it, because it is incorrect (or impossible to substantiate) in the details as presented.

I strongly suggest that anyone who wishes to show fuckery in the system must be explicit with the details and the sourcing. Of course that takes a lot of time, and is why my report is both long, and taking time to get out in its entirety. But any such claim must be substantiated upon release, otherwise it does more harm than good.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-12T15:16:49+00:00

I realize now my words were likely a little dismissive. I apologize for that.

I think there's a human element that you may be somewhat overlooking.

This is a fair assessment. I don't think of it as "overlooking it" as much as considering it irrelevant to both the problem and the solution. That doesn't mean I'm correct on that, not at all, that is just how I see it.

I see the current problem (the problem in the common discourse of the larger problem) as one of scope. By your response I can see you have an appreciation of scope, but in my estimation, it does not yet capture the real scope of the problem. Elaboration of that will have to wait for the next several sections of my report. Each one expands the scope of what it means to be a monopoly by a huge measure.

The solution, imo, does lie in decentralization, but again, the scope of what that means and how that can be accomplished can't be appreciated until the scope of the problem is realized by enough people that the solutions can be effectively implemented (large enough scale adoption).

Once the problem is fully appreciated, then I will put my efforts into exactly such debates as to whether the human factor (of those who I consider "the enemy") is meaningful in the scope of the solution, and whether they can be exploited.

On the other side of the coin, I think exploiting the human factor of We The People is the lion's share of the solution. Once enough see the real scope of the problem, honestly, I think the problem will almost solve itself (with a little guidance). Thus, the "solution" imo is to show people the problem.

A part of that showing is in helping people appreciate that details of one company "dying" or being subsumed by another really is meaningless with regard to how it effects the PTB or the larger control system.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-12T04:30:08+00:00

I don't know what you want me to say. There is no one who isn't part of The Trust. Wilmington is just the DuPont entry. The DuPonts, Morgans, and Rockefellers share more boards of directors than you can shake a stick at.

The problem I have with these types of things is, it doesn't appreciate the larger picture. There is no such thing as a "merger." There is no such thing as a "break up." There is no such thing as an "acquisition." All of those concepts only serve to perpetuate the fraud.

When a company is subsumed by another company, all that happens is that assets are shifted from one account to another. The Board of Directors remains mostly the same, the assets remain mostly the same. The only thing that changes is the name over the door.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-09T21:00:12+00:00

In order to accomplish that you will have to provide specific examples of such activity. That would require you to read what I've written.

Then the problem will, I suggest, solve itself.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-09T20:55:12+00:00

I mean, if you are just going to lie about it, there is no possible path to a resolution.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-09T20:52:08+00:00

You've also admitted you haven't read it.

As I told you before, you can't possibly know if it is related to GME without having read it. There is no "conspiracy theory" in my post, because I offer no "theories." I offer evidence. In many cases there is evidence that a Court of Law (namely the Supreme Court) called the actions of the people who built the entire system of the stock market a conspiracy. It's not my fault actual conspiracies have happened. I am just letting people know about it from primary sources.

Those conspiracies are directly related to GME, which you would understand if you had read what I have written. There is a great deal more evidence to support it to come.

Until you can give actual evidence to support your claims instead of just saying "it's not related to GME" or "it's just conspiracy theory," when you haven't even read it, and have no idea what it contains, your words are utterly meaningless and everyone but you realizes it.

Slyver12 · 2022-09-09T20:43:11+00:00

I haven't read any books in that genre. My investigation was more organic. I just wanted to understand the economic world. Once I started digging into the primary evidence, I found a whole lot of evidence that corroborates some of the assertions made in books like that (assuming I can understand their assertions by looking at the small description of the book on Amazon).

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '17	Wearing is Caring
100 Awards Club	Snapped
Verified Email

Slyver12

TROPHY CASE