Home | About | Donate

Hillary, Bill, and the Big Six Banks


Hillary, Bill, and the Big Six Banks

Andy Kroll

She eats at Chipotle. (Order: chicken burrito bowl.) She travels by van. (Model: A Chevy Express Explorer Limited SE nicknamed the "Scooby" van.) She barely figures in her own presidential campaign announcement video.


Aw shucks, I might have to go and fetch her some cash so she can git dat skirtin’ fixt on her single-wide so dem 'possums can’t nest below like dey did last year.


To focus on Hillary or Jeb is to maintain the People Magazine level of Personality Politics and it’s a sham and a scam. So long as sums like 1-3 Billion must be raised, it’s self-evident that Big Money runs and controls the show from start to finish. EVERYTHING else is window dressing. That’s why focus on Hillary’s corrupt backers or those of Jeb shift emphasis away from the real issue: that U.S. elections are completely illegitimate because they are the product of what Big Money wants, funds, and purchases. The problem is systemic. The only thing that’s shifted as the two dynastic families trade puppet seats is how much more entrenched Big Money and corporate-bankster-MIC power has become.

No one cast up by this system is going to change it.

And that’s why focusing on insiders is an exercise in futility which serves to keep the masquerade operating.

Vast sums of money in few hands is antithetical to Democracy as former Supreme Court Justice Brandeis wisely advised. Since HUGE sums have once again amassed at the top of the financial pyramid (as reminiscent of the robber-baron era that in time eventuated in the Great Depression), honest elections and GENUINE representation (and advocating) of the Public’s Interest is and becomes impossible.


Here we have the official Wall Street darling, much like the old Wall Street darling except for digging up and replaying a script from long ago. Which one shall we believe?

Overshadowing all is Third Way, the conservative think tank where the hearts and mind of corporate Democrats gather to commit their allegiance as a proven path to personal power and fortune.

If you enjoyed the latest “Republican” rides and games offered in silent partnership with our bought-off administration, the next time around should be a blast!

Hey, Powers That Be in Washington, couldn’t you find a bridge to sell us instead?


I think it is absolutely necessary to call out the individuals who willingly participate and who advance their own personal power while participating in the billionaire power game of the system that you consistently and quite accurately describe.

In service to highlighting the systemic power apparatus of the Deep State, it is absolutely necessary to also call out the low level multi-millionaire players who not only enthusiastically participate and profit, but who diligently cover their own tracks and those of their corporate sponsors keeping the shadow game of the Deep State in tact.


Good Psychedelic__Chicken,

Then I’ll call them out (the ones pulling the Clinton-whore’s strings: RRR)

Rothschilds (Federal Reserve Bank and Most Wall Street Banks)
Rockefellers (Standard Oil, now the Seven Sisters, FED)
Royals (Central Banks and most of the real estate all over the world)
Duponts (chemicals and GMO food)
Kochs (Oil)
Bushs (Oil and War Profiteering)
Walkers (Banking and Railroads).
Davis Crime Family (married into bush family and became Davis Oil which fueled the Nazi War machine).
And dozens of other dynasties that need to end.

The trillions they control corrupts everything that gets near them. We get rid of Hillary, they’ll just hire another political whore.


Just to be clear, my focus is not, and has not been solely a People Magazine-esque obsession with any one of the “personalities” of the billionaires’ task managers, Hillary or otherwise.

Your post insinuates that I need to be the focus of a lesson on that profile of power “Then I’ll call them out”. I’ve made hundreds of posts that prove I need no such lesson.

Thanks anyway.


Sorry chicken,

My Bad. My verbiage was rhetorical and not aimed at you. When you made the very accurate statement:

I said Good. I was attempting to agree with you, and trying to take it a step further. Not be sarcastic. A lot gets lost in this medium. You set the table for me and I was playing my part in the rhetorical answer. I thought. :person_with_blond_hair:

If we all agreed with each other constantly, this thread would be a pretty boring read.



Thanks for the clarification TJ.