*Live*Catch22 Radio Rothschilds,GoldmanSachs,Global Strike

[mgt23]

Catch22 will go live at 2100GMT july 15th click on link in sig below if you wish listen.
you can skype me on mgt2323

Topics will be:
Rothschilds
Goldman Sachs
Zionist Military Global Strike
Surplus Value and the relationship to profits in Corporate power
The means of survival and how taking them back could help a Global General Strike
Individualism vs Regionalism/Nationalism/SupraContinentalism
and phone in if anyone wants to.

Bear with me as this is an experimental setup..... so lets see how it goes

[Ognir]

Grand job, got time to walk me boys before the show kicks off

Best of luck with the live broadcast

[mgt23]

this iain prick has found a way of shutting down my streams. will report back soon. i think backdoor maybe.

[mgt23]

am live on shoutcast now just follow the sig instructions and click on link

[mgt23]

nope jetcast is not up to the job will have to try peer cast instead tommorrow. sorry dudes will try again tommorrow same time. remember this is experimental so if at first you dont succeed try try again

[mgt23]

Peercast seems to be working, buggy tho. see sig for details and screw that streamer ian prick.
open source is better anyway and its audio source is anonymous as well.

[mgt23]

Ok Peercast Stream seems stable and no gatekeepers to report. Broadcast will be live although i have to test whether skype can be picked up(i may have to get another pc for that, we'll see).


Niall Ferguson and Rothschilds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
http://www.rothschild.com/aboutus/?id=a ... /ftarticle
http://www.rothschild.com/aboutus/artic ... rguson.pdf

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c0f5014-628c-11de-b1c9-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c0f5014-628c-11de-b1c9-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1&_i_referer=http://whatreallyhappened.com/node&nclick_check=1

http://www.rothschild.com/aboutus/artic ... rguson.pdf
Out of Gold into Pure Power
http://www.taxfreegold.co.uk/rothschild ... arket.html

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/06/ ... ad-expose/


Goldman sachs
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/01ca4732-6fed ... abdc0.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... eyqdzYcizc
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... uM3GOtjpFI
http://deathflag.com/viewtopic.php?f=14 ... 25d344a39b

Topics will be:
Rothschilds
Goldman Sachs
Zionist Military Global Strike
Surplus Value and the relationship to profits in Corporate power
The means of survival and how taking them back could help a Global General Strike
Individualism vs Regionalism/Nationalism/SupraContinentalism
and phone in if anyone wants to.

[mgt23]

Ok not bad bit of tweaking necessary on the quality but quite successful on the whole, visit link in sig for latest show and am currently uploading show and will post link in 3 hours time(ftp always slow). I will also put it on the deathflag.org info tracker. I will next test peercast with skype(I will need a volunteer)

Some more annotation on Goldman fraud and insider trading........the scope is unreal
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/ ... nt-Trading

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1192- ... SHELL.html

[mgt23]

http://theinfounderground.com/mgt2323/end23.mp3

final half hour bit bitty(mic prob) but still ok. It's been an interesting project and I look forward to pursuing and perfecting this technique, enjoy.

[Anonymous]

MGT23,

The IP address you gave should be 127.0.0.1 (or 'localhost') - 192.168.1.3 is a private address assigned by your router.
The correct link to the stream is:
http://127.0.0.1:7144/pls/41E397A6A5B17B438C19F5FCBA3F6399
(or http://localhost:7144/pls/41E397A6A5B17B438C19F5FCBA3F6399)

Good job setting this up. I'm receiving the broadcast fine! Ohhhh yeaahhh.  :lol:


- Richard

[mgt23]

doh! cheers richard! changed it. thats why i'm using my sig as source link so i can edit in one place(i copied and pasted from my other pc the link). am more hardware than software.
ur link wont work for me on my pc only
http://192.168.1.3:7144/stream/41E397A6 ... 3F6399.mp3
so i'm assuming ur link is the correct one
  It's pretty cool and i can even drag and drop audios on the fly into it for new downloads like ognirs latest interview. Because i'm using jetcast as a broadcast signal i'm even on the jetcast+shoutcast network albeit with only 4 slots but hey ho. As I release new material i will try and iron out all the kinks and see where we can take this. Its fun learning all this.
Finally can listeners drop me a post to say whether they are receiving it ok, when clicking on my sig link?

[Anonymous]

Jews and the American Slave Trade By Saul S. Friedman
The Monsanto family is mention throughout this book.

://books.google.com/books?id=I0ExEzLaX6YC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=monsanto+slaves&source=bl&ots=Fb4Hr4ZXKU&sig=wuuhCjQw2iN30Go0otlAeAttYu0&hl=en&;

[mgt23]

[youtube:4bp30rjy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSwWy4E6I04[/youtube]4bp30rjy]

[youtube:4bp30rjy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoQrYa_NKQQ[/youtube]4bp30rjy]
thanks to mikewb for this find

[mgt23]

http://theinfounderground.com/mgt2323/c ... 232323.mp3

much clearer audio without the music

[mgt23]

port forwarding now done and got a third party to test transmission successfully, as well so if you had problems DO let me know for feedback purposes.

[rmstock]

Hi mtg2323,

Did you already watch that movie '23' BTW?

23 (1998)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126765/

Its about a German hacker during the cold war .. Karl Koch .. when Tjernobyl was
blown up. His dad was a chief of the German Press. This movie and story really
happened, where Karl was killed and burned in his car. The whole charade
smells of a deliberate setup and enticement into a Illuminatis conspiracy, with
the sole purpose to have a legitimate inheritant of 'Koch Industries' removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries

  "Koch Industries, Inc. (pronounced coke) is a private corporation
   based in Wichita, Kansas with subsidiaries involved in
   manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch companies are involved
   in core industries such as commodities trading, petroleum,
   chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals,
   fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment,
   ranching, securities and finance, as well as in other ventures and
   investments. It is the largest private company in the World, and
   has an annual revenue of about $98 billion.[1][2]"
[/list]

so 'Koch Industries' is the largest private company in the World ..
This is exactly what the Communists/Zionists want to take down....
Remember how Anna Nicole Smith died when she was the lawful inheritant
as the surviving wife of J. Howard Marshall II:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Howard_Marshall

  "Koch Industries

   Marshall turned his investment in Great Northern Oil Co. with Fred
   Koch during the 1950s into a 16% stake in Koch Industries, now the
   nation's largest privately held company. When eldest son J. Howard
   Marshall III sided with sons Bill and Fred Koch in a failed attempt
   to take over Koch Industries from Charles and David Koch, he
   stripped the eldest son of his inheritance, making E. Pierce
   Marshall his primary heir.

   Death and ensuing lawsuits

   Marshall died 14 months after marrying Anna Nicole Smith
   (deceased), who would later become involved in a court battle with
   her former stepson, E. Pierce Marshall (who died on June 20, 2006,
   at the age of 67 after contracting an infection). In 2001, she lost
   her case during a five-month Texas state court jury trial,
   upholding Marshall's will and trust. Smith then declared bankruptcy
   in California and was awarded $474 million as a sanction for
   alleged misconduct. In 2002, the bankruptcy judgment was vacated
   and her award was reduced to $88 million in a Federal District
   Court in California. In December 2004, a three-judge panel of the
   9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court decision
   and affirmed the Texas Probate jury finding that no misconduct had
   taken place, Smith was not one of J. Howard Marshall's heirs and
   that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction over state probate
   matters. However, on 1 May 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court in Marshall
   v. Marshall overturned the ninth circuit's decision on
   jurisdictional grounds, allowing Smith another opportunity to
   pursue her claims in federal court. The case has been remanded to
   the 9th Circuit for adjudication of the remaining appellate issues
   not previously reached. Smith's death on the 8th of Febuary 2007
   has left this inheritance case wide open."
[/list]

Anyways, i read your into Open Source and stream casting... you
might wanna check out this page and in particular the July 13th, 2004
radio show of the Linux Show at

"The Linux Show Archive" (still incomplete though)
http://crashrecovery.org/TLS/

and also how to setup a mirror stream casting nertwork using opensource :

http://crashrecovery.org/TLS/mirroring.html

Cheers,

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org  mailto:stock@stokkie.net">stock@stokkie.net

[mgt23]

yeh i encountered the film "23" when i was ingolstadt bavaria in 1999. i had a german mrs called Ann Summer(unfortunate name) and she used to rave on about it and the illuminati all the time. i will check out your link and report back.

[rmstock]

**FLASH** Goldman Code Theft BOMBSHELL?
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1192- ... SHELL.html

Its actually straightforward what happened here .... if the reporting is accurate.
Plant a russian sputnik coder/hacker into the Goldman Sachs enterprise,
let him create a $100,000,000.= daily (KOS) schnizzle for GS, then
allow the socialist/jewish (communist?) oriented dailykos.com to have the
exclusive on the GS speed of light robbery story, and in effect nuke down
Goldman Sachs by having the SEC follow suit in their policing of Trading.

So WHO wants to have GS kicked out and shutdown?

I then always come back to that interesting interview of Edward Griffin
with Norman Dodd of the Reece Committy, who found out that of the
Jekyl Island conspirators, J.P. Morgan has always been the gangleader.

[mgt23]

well i listen to the linux show good debate. I personally want the removal of all corporate power from the coding scene, sponsored or not. I had a look at icecast previously, i will try and get it to work again.
imo both jp morgan and goldman have to go, but at the moment goldman seems to be top of the pile.

[mgt23]

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4518814/The_Ascent_of_Money_(XviD)

this is weird-posted by ognir2 last year

look Ferguson is disinfo, for goodness sake he's Rothschilds/Kissinger's biographer and has been winning jewish prizes for the privilege. any info he had he'd get a bullet in the head if he exposed it imo(and he'd never get through the 96% zionist control of the media)

[MikeWB]

Do you have this letter?

http://www.rothschild.com/aboutus/artic ... rguson.pdf

Link doesn't work...

[mgt23]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94b675f6-650d-11de-a13f-00144feabdc0.html

Sir, Your article "Rothschild and Freshfields founders linked to slavery" (June 27) stated that Nathan Rothschild "benefited financially from slavery" by "using slaves as collateral in banking dealings with a slave owner". The reality is that the Rothschilds benefited a great deal more from the abolition of slavery.

By 1830, the date of the loan in question, the Rothschilds were the dominant financial force not only in the City of London but also in Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Naples. Their multinational partnership was a truly global operation. Among its many activities was the financing of Europe's trade with the American South and at least some Caribbean Islands, notably Cuba. It would have been remarkable if they had not been involved in some way with slavery, since it was the dominant form of labour organisation in the production of sugar, tobacco and cotton at that time. But if this loan was the extent of their involvement, it was small indeed.

For one thing, the sum was trivial by Rothschild standards: £3,000 in a year when the combined capital of the five Rothschild houses exceeded £4m. The recipient, Lord James O'Bryen, was no ordinary slave owner: he was the brother of the Marquis of Ormond, a rear-admiral in the Royal Navy and a Lord of the King's Bedchamber; in short, a significant figure in Britain's aristocratic society. Private banking was in fact a very minor part of the Rothschild's business - a loan like this was more in the nature of a favour to a well-connected nobleman - and the Rothschilds may not have looked very closely at the collateral until O'Bryen defaulted and then tried to get his hands on government compensation for his former slaves under the abolition legislation of 1834. It seems unlikely that Nathan Rothschild made "personal gains" from his counter-claim, since the compensation paid was equivalent to between 42 to 55 per cent of the slaves' money value.

On the other hand, the Rothschilds organised the government loan that was necessary to fund the slave owners' compensation scheme, without which abolition would not have been approved by parliament. The £15m gilts issue will have been a great deal more profitable than the loan to O'Bryen. In the same way, Nathan's personal friendship with Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, the leader of the Anti-Slavery Society, was a much more important "link" than the one to slavery suggested in your headline.

Niall Ferguson,
Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History,
Harvard University, US

how weird that the rothschilds took it down from their site, you'd think they'd archive it.

[mgt23]

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace ... s_article/

   

"The [Rolling Stone] article makes a very compelling case against Goldman Sachs, but I think the problems it identifies are pervasive in financial firms and corporate America in general," says Nell Minow, who is the co-founder of the Corporate Library, a research firm that tracks corporate-governance issues. "We need to launch substantive financial reform rather than weighing the faults of one firm versus another." Minow's point is this: spend too much time on Goldman and you miss the fact of how broadly the financial system and the regulations that are supposed to keep profiteers in check failed us. And she's right.

    via Goldman Sachs vs. Rolling Stone: A Wall Street Smackdown - TIME.

It's been interesting, to say the least, watching the public reaction to my Rolling Stone piece last week. I of course expected that some kind of highly unpleasant response would come my way from Goldman and its allies in the press, but I admit to being surprised a little by the form this response took. Obviously I don't want to dwell on this business, because it's beyond boring when someone in my position complains about his critics, but I feel like I have to say something about at least a few of the talking points of the inevitable Goldman counteroffensive, which in various forms (letters sent to me personally, public comments) have reached my desk in the last few days.

The most ludicrous of these, and the one that surprised me the most, is the accusation that my article was anti-Semitic propaganda. The first letter I got on this score I actually mistook for a joke sent to me by one of my friends. Then I got another one which I quickly realized was not a joke at all. "Isn't it convenient," it read, "that an Arab-American writer for Rolling Stone looks at Wall Street and picks the most prototypically Jewish firm around to demonize."

The last time I heard something similar was a few years ago, when Debbie Schlussel, a severely dimwitted Detroit-based right-wing pundit, railed against my supposed Arabness after I wrote an article about the Lebanese population in Dearborn, Michigan. I wrote to her to let her know that I'm actually Irish and Filipino, and not at all an Arab, but never got a response. This time the charge is a little different, as several writers complained that my article was "a rehash of every classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theory" and "a pale copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

The evidence for these charges seems to be as follows. One, I used the word "tribe" somewhere near the end of the piece. Two, the term "blood-funnel" was used (one person also hinted that the use of a squid image was somehow anti-Semitic, but I was not entirely clear what was being referred to there). Three, I "singled out" Goldman and failed to level similar charges at "less Jewish firms" (yes, one letter-writer actually used that phrase) like Morgan-Stanley.

A few points in response to this preposterous argument. Firstly I'm going to make a blanket denial and just say that the question of religion was so far outside my thinking while writing this piece that I never even considered it. If this issue had even entered my head so much as once, I probably would have been more careful, and it is remotely possible that I might not then have used a distantly suggestive word like "tribe," if only to avoid having to answer charges like this. But I didn't consider it, for the simple reason that it's completely ridiculous and not at all relevant.

For one thing, while Goldman's founders a gazillion years ago were apparently Jewish, I seriously doubt that religion plays any role at all in the makeup of the modern Goldman. I don't have any way of knowing this, but I would be shocked if it weren't true that a majority of Goldman's current employees were not Jewish. And whatever the reality is, I don't care; it's not a concern of mine and we didn't make it a concern in the article.

If anything it seems to me that what defines these Wall Street characters is not religion but the absence of it: even a hardened atheist like myself comes away from the experience of reading about the last two decades of Wall Street history shocked by that community's complete and utter Godlessness and moral insanity. What I'm saying in other words is that if any of these clowns actually had a real religious sensibility, we wouldn't be in this mess — and that's coming from someone who believes all religions to be inherently ridiculous. For Goldman now to hide behind the cloak of Jewish victimhood is both more obnoxious and less convincing than Marion Barry wearing a dashiki after the indictment.

Then there is this other argument, the one being bandied about by Time magazine, among others. According to Steven Gandel of Time, the problem with my piece is that it is — get this — too specific. According to the above passage, focusing on Goldman in particular when attempting to explain (in general) the crimes of Wall Street to ordinary readers is somehow a distraction from the "real problem." To repeat:

    ...spend too much time on Goldman and you miss the fact of how broadly the financial system and the regulations that are supposed to keep profiteers in check failed us.

 

I had to read that passage several times to even begin to grasp its ostensible meaning. Apparently this is the best argument that Time could come up with to discredit this article, that the rhetorical technique of using a specific example of a specific bank like Goldman to tell a broader story about Wall Street in general distracts readers from the "more important" issue of how government regulators... failed to stop banks like Goldman! I mean, really, how's that for circular thinking? This is silly stuff even by Time magazine's standards.

I've been shocked by how many grown adult people seem to have swallowed this argument, that the argument against Goldman's behavior during the bubbles of recent decades is invalid because "everyone was doing it" -- and other banks, like for instance Morgan Stanley, were "just as bad" as Goldman was.

Two things about that. One, it isn't true, not really. By any reasonable measure Goldman is and has been the baddest guy on the block for a long time. When it comes to government influence, no other Wall Street company even comes close. And while maybe one might have made an argument that other players were more damaging to society before the crisis of last year, there's simply no question now, after the bailouts and especially after the AIG fiasco, that Goldman now reigns supreme in the area of insider advantage. To pick any other bank to tell the story of the rapidly growing influence of Wall Street on politics and the blurring of public and private roles would be a glaring journalistic oversight, and surely even Goldman's biggest supporters would admit this.

Two, even if it is true that "everyone else was doing it": so what? Who cares? To me this response is highly telling. We published a piece accusing Goldman Sachs of systematically ripping off pensioners and other retail investors by sticking them with rafts of toxic mortgages it knew were losers, of looting taxpayer reserves to cover its bad bets made with AIG, of manipulating gas prices to massive detrimental effect, of helping to explode an internet bubble that caused over $5 trillion in wealth to disappear, and numerous other crimes -- and the response isn't "You're wrong," or "We didn't do that shit, not us," but "Well, Morgan did the same stuff," and "Why aren't you writing about Morgan?"

Why didn't we write about Morgan? Because we didn't. Because it's your turn, you assholes. Maybe later someone will tell the story of the other banks, but for now, while most ordinary people are only just learning about the workings of the financial innovation era that blew up in their faces last year, the top dog in that universe is going to be first in line to get the special treatment. That might be inconvenient for Goldman, but it doesn't make the things I or anyone else say about them untrue.

Normally I don't care so much when people criticize my work. It goes with the territory. But in this case, the response of a bank like Goldman and Goldman's supporters is characteristic of the subject matter in a way that is important to point out, even after the fact of publication. These are powerful people who know how to play the public relations game, have all the appropriate contacts, and have a playbook that they follow to discredit their critics. Whether it's me now or the next guy who takes them on, they're going to come back with some kind of charge, be it "Everyone was doing it," or "We're just smarter than the other guys, you can't blame us for that," or "The real culprits are the ineffective regulators," something.

They're going to say that and more, but whether it's this time or the next time, the important thing is to pay attention to what they don't say. And what they didn't say about this piece is that it was wrong. They didn't deny any of it. They said others were just as bad, they said I was a bad guy, they said it was a conspiracy theory. But they didn't say it was mistaken, and that's the only thing that matters.

[mgt23]

would you like to see some lies? think bailouts and competition and evolution in the same sentence.............tosser

[youtube:1a45g74q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqobKcgzk30[/youtube]1a45g74q]

[veritasvincit]

mgt23 wrote:
would you like to see some lies? think bailouts and competition and evolution in the same sentence.............tosser

a tosser exactly - it's like he has discovered some strange new species - yes, they're called zionists

[mgt23]

http://www.fas.org/ssp/docs/GlobalStrikeReport.pdf

[youtube:2ufl2xyr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On-IOz3Mjck[/youtube]2ufl2xyr]

Note how global strike goes live on August 7th
[youtube:2ufl2xyr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7Sbzej4eQo[/youtube]2ufl2xyr]

[youtube:2ufl2xyr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-JPKp6ElzQ[/youtube]2ufl2xyr]

[LatinAmericanview]

Not Just A Last Resort?
A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option

By William Arkin
Sunday, May 15, 2005

Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.

Two months later, Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, told a reporter that his fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had changed its way of operating so that it could be ready to carry out such missions. "We're now at the point where we are essentially on alert," Carlson said in an interview with the Shreveport (La.) Times. "We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes." Carlson said his forces were the U.S. Strategic Command's "focal point for global strike" and could execute an attack "in half a day or less."

In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific preemptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons.

The official U.S. position on the use of nuclear weapons has not changed. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has taken steps to de-emphasize the importance of its nuclear arsenal. The Bush administration has said it remains committed to reducing our nuclear stockpile while keeping a credible deterrent against other nuclear powers. Administration and military officials have stressed this continuity in testimony over the past several years before various congressional committees.

But a confluence of events, beginning with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the president's forthright commitment to the idea of preemptive action to prevent future attacks, has set in motion a process that has led to a fundamental change in how the U.S. military might respond to certain possible threats. Understanding how we got to this point, and what it might mean for U.S. policy, is particularly important now -- with the renewed focus last week on Iran's nuclear intentions and on speculation that North Korea is ready to conduct its first test of a nuclear weapon.

Global strike has become one of the core missions for the Omaha-based Strategic Command, or Stratcom. Once, Stratcom oversaw only the nation's nuclear forces; now it has responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan with both conventional and nuclear options. President Bush spelled out the definition of "full-spectrum" global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives."

This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used. Exhibit A may be the Stratcom contingency plan for dealing with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran, formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02.

CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations. All these elements generally require significant lead time to be effective. (Existing Pentagon war plans, developed for specific regions or "theaters," are essentially defensive responses to invasions or attacks. The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.)

CONPLAN 8022 anticipates two different scenarios. The first is a response to a specific and imminent nuclear threat, say in North Korea. A quick-reaction, highly choreographed strike would combine pinpoint bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to disable a North Korean response, with commandos operating deep in enemy territory, perhaps even to take possession of the nuclear device.

The second scenario involves a more generic attack on an adversary's WMD infrastructure. Assume, for argument's sake, that Iran announces it is mounting a crash program to build a nuclear weapon. A multidimensional bombing (kinetic) and cyberwarfare (non-kinetic) attack might seek to destroy Iran's program, and special forces would be deployed to disable or isolate underground facilities.

By employing all of the tricks in the U.S. arsenal to immobilize an enemy country -- turning off the electricity, jamming and spoofing radars and communications, penetrating computer networks and garbling electronic commands -- global strike magnifies the impact of bombing by eliminating the need to physically destroy targets that have been disabled by other means.

The inclusion, therefore, of a nuclear weapons option in CONPLAN 8022 -- a specially configured earth-penetrating bomb to destroy deeply buried facilities, if any exist -- is particularly disconcerting. The global strike plan holds the nuclear option in reserve if intelligence suggests an "imminent" launch of an enemy nuclear strike on the United States or if there is a need to destroy hard-to-reach targets.

It is difficult to imagine a U.S. president ordering a nuclear attack on Iran or North Korea under any circumstance. Yet as global strike contingency planning has moved forward, so has the nuclear option.

Global strike finds its origins in pre-Bush administration Air Force thinking about a way to harness American precision and stealth to "kick down the door" of defended territory, making it easier for (perhaps even avoiding the need for) follow-on ground operations.

The events of 9/11 shifted the focus of planning. There was no war plan for Afghanistan on the shelf, not even a generic one. In Afghanistan, the synergy of conventional bombing and special operations surprised everyone. But most important, weapons of mass destruction became the American government focus. It is not surprising, then, that barely three months after that earth-shattering event, the Pentagon's quadrennial Nuclear Posture Review assigned the military and Stratcom the task of providing greater flexibility in nuclear attack options against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and China.

The Air Force's global strike concept was taken over by Stratcom and made into something new. This was partly in response to the realization that the military had no plans for certain situations. The possibility that some nations would acquire the ability to attack the United States directly with a WMD, for example, had clearly fallen between the command structure's cracks. For example, the Pacific Command in Hawaii had loads of war plans on its shelf to respond to a North Korean attack on South Korea, including some with nuclear options. But if North Korea attacked the United States directly -- or, more to the point, if the U.S. intelligence network detected evidence of preparations for such an attack, Pacific Command didn't have a war plan in place.

In May 2002, Rumsfeld issued an updated Defense Planning Guidance that directed the military to develop an ability to undertake "unwarned strikes . . . [to] swiftly defeat from a position of forward deterrence." The post-9/11 National Security Strategy, published in September 2002, codified preemption, stating that the United States must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies."

"We cannot let our enemies strike first," President Bush declared in the National Security Strategy document.

Stratcom established an interim global strike division to turn the new preemption policy into an operational reality. In December 2002, Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., then Stratcom's head, told an Omaha business group that his command had been charged with developing the capability to strike anywhere in the world within minutes of detecting a target.

Ellis posed the following question to his audience: "If you can find that time-critical, key terrorist target or that weapons-of-mass-destruction stockpile, and you have minutes rather than hours or days to deal with it, how do you reach out and negate that threat to our nation half a world away?"

CONPLAN 8022-02 was completed in November 2003, putting in place for the first time a preemptive and offensive strike capability against Iran and North Korea. In January 2004, Ellis certified Stratcom's readiness for global strike to the defense secretary and the president.

At Ellis's retirement ceremony in July, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an Omaha audience that "the president charged you to 'be ready to strike at any moment's notice in any dark corner of the world' [and] that's exactly what you've done."

As U.S. military forces have gotten bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, the attractiveness of global strike planning has increased in the minds of many in the military. Stratcom planners, recognizing that U.S. ground forces are already overcommitted, say that global strike must be able to be implemented "without resort to large numbers of general purpose forces."

When one combines the doctrine of preemption with a "homeland security" aesthetic that concludes that only hyper-vigilance and readiness stand in the way of another 9/11, it is pretty clear how global strike ended up where it is. The 9/11 attacks caught the country unaware and the natural reaction of contingency planners is to try to eliminate surprise in the future. The Nuclear Posture Review and Rumsfeld's classified Defense Planning Guidance both demanded more flexible nuclear options.

Global strike thinkers may believe that they have found a way to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle; but they are also having to cater to a belief on the part of those in government's inner circle who have convinced themselves that the gravity of the threats demands that the United States not engage in any protracted debate, that it prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Though the official Washington mantra has always been "we don't discuss war plans," here is a real life predicament that cries out for debate: In classic terms, military strength and contingency planning can dissuade an attacker from mounting hostile actions by either threatening punishment or demonstrating through preparedness that an attacker's objectives could not possibly be achieved. The existence of a nuclear capability, and a secure retaliatory force, moreover, could help to deter an attack -- that is, if the threat is credible in the mind of the adversary.

But the global strike contingency plan cannot be a credible threat if it is not publicly known. And though CONPLAN 8022 suggests a clean, short-duration strike intended to protect American security, a preemptive surprise attack (let alone one involving a nuclear weapon option) would unleash a multitude of additional and unanticipated consequences. So, on both counts, why aren't we talking about it?

[mgt23]

I've had an epiphany lately. Whilst contemplating the obvious breeding program going on at the top I was wondering if tptb could be tested genetically for psychological differences like emotional and empathic bonds vs a control group(yes Im aware the they probably wouldn't accept, but i want to have every claim i make testable and not tautological) Then I thought given Global strike is a strategic inevitability given enough evolutionary time in the present Orwellian paradigm- Is the launch of the operation correlative with the social distance of the political leviathan from the masses. In other more simplified words when do these mutants get sick enough to lose their humanity to kill their own human brothers and sisters. It's a testable thought in which, social distance has been explored in game theory with shocking results and much debate.
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Economics ... reply.html

[mgt23]

here is another example of high frequency and high volume software trading-the goldman sachs software equivalent in oil. It may be productive to see if goldman had any shares in this company or which major stakeholders were financing it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/32690802

original source ny times

Its superfast, supersecret oil trading software was called the Hammer.

And if the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is right, the name fit well with an intricate scheme that allowed commodity traders in Chicago working for Optiver, a little-known company based in Amsterdam, to put their orders first in line and subtly manipulate the price of oil to the company's advantage.

Oil Barrels

Transcripts and taped conversations of actions that took place in 2007, included in the commission's case, reveal the secretive workings of high-frequency trading, a fast-growing Wall Street business that is suddenly drawing scrutiny in Washington. Critics say this high-speed form of computerized trading, which is used in a wide range of financial markets, enables its practitioners to profit at other investors' expense.

Traders in the Chicago office of Optiver openly talked among themselves of "whacking" and "bullying up" the price of oil. But when called to account by officials of the New York Mercantile Exchange, they described their actions as just "providing liquidity."

In July 2008, the commission charged Optiver with manipulating the price of oil; negotiations over a settlement continue.

In the cutthroat world of high-frequency trading, success is a function of speed, secrecy and often a bit of intrigue. Few have been more adroit at these arts than Optiver.

Optiver describes itself as one of the world's leading liquidity providers, a trading firm that uses its own capital to make markets. It seeks to profit on razor-thin price differences — which can be as small as half a penny — by buying and selling stocks, bonds, futures, options and derivatives. (Derivatives represent about 65 percent of its business, equities 25 percent, and commodities and others make up the remaining 10 percent.)

But the extent to which market making (providing liquidity to markets that need it) and proprietary trading (the pursuit of pure profit with a firm's own money) can properly coexist has become a thorny question for regulators. They are grappling with an exploding business that makes up as much as half the overall trading in the United States and a growing share in Europe as well.

Tanno Massar, a public relations executive working for the company, said that Optiver had no comment on the case. As for Optiver's trading conduct, Mr. Massar said that the company was committed to transparent markets and that there was no inherent conflict between pursuing profits and making markets — a view that top Optiver officials had long been trying to convey to regulators when their oil trades were being investigated.

But their pleadings fell on deaf ears. During a tense conference call in 2007, Thomas Lasala, the chief regulator for Nymex, made his doubts clear about Optiver's trading strategies. "The market seems to move in reaction to your orders," he said, according to a transcript of the conversation. "And I don't think that is a market-making strategy."


It could well be that Optiver's cowboy trading tactics are unique to the company. But as concern grows over the effect that high-octane computerized trading is having on markets worldwide, Optiver's conduct in the oil futures market raises questions as to whether the relentless competition of this business is forcing companies to engage in similar practices. "These are proprietary trading shops that are masquerading as market makers," said Tim Quast of Modern IR, a consulting firm that advises corporations on market structure issues.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has opened up an investigation into high-speed-trading practices, in particular the ability of some of the most powerful computers to jump to the head of the trading queue and — in a fraction of a millisecond — capture the evanescent trading spread before the rest of the market does.

The spread of high-frequency trading in Europe has lagged behind the United States. But it is now experiencing rapid growth, spurred by arbitrage opportunities that have attracted large American firms like Getco and Madison Tyler.

Amsterdam, as much as if not more than London, has been the breeding ground for local firms seeking the same advantages. Companies like Optiver, All Options, Tibra and others have assumed influential positions in Europe, moving from their original expertise in trading options to the full gamut of stocks, bonds and derivatives as well.

Called low-latency trading, this blend of speed and opportunism is the essence of Optiver's business model.

It deploys a sophisticated software system called F1 that can process information and make a trade in 0.5 milliseconds — using complex algorithms that let its computers think like a trader. And the company is so careful about preserving its secrets that when some traders and engineers left for a rival operation recently, Optiver hired private investigators and subsequently sued the former employees on charges of making off with intellectual property.

Founded in 1986 by an options trader named Johann Kaemingk, Optiver has grown far beyond its roots in Amsterdam to trade on exchanges all over the world. It employs 600 people and, judging from the many positions advertised on its Web site, it is still in a hiring mode.

Given the vicious competition that exists in the industry, Optiver and other companies have become creative in attracting the smartest people in finance. The dress code is aggressively casual. The company provides free breakfasts, lunches and Friday afternoon drinks, as well as chair massages.

And in one recruiting Web video (no longer online), an Optiver trader sitting before four giant trading screens is seen ogling two skimpily clad women as they sit on his thighs.

To enjoy these professional fruits, applicants need to subject themselves to three math-based tests to test facility with numbers and the ability to think clearly under pressure. For one of the tests, 80 questions must be answered in under 8 minutes. Sample questions include 0.034 times 0.2, or, if you have a cube made of 10 by 10 smaller cubes, how many are facing the outside?

Few of the applicants even get an interview: 80 to 90 percent of people who take the test fail it. People who have worked at Optiver say the average age is young — under 30 — as the company has a policy of not hiring traders from rival institutions, preferring recent university graduates who can more easily embrace the firm's culture.

According to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which would not comment on the case, Optiver made about $1 million on its oil trading gambit.

While $1 million may not seem like a lot, recorded conversations reveal the extent to which the firm's trading practices broadly have enriched its employees.

In one exchange, Christopher Dowson, head of trading in Optiver's Chicago office and the mastermind behind the oil strategy, bragged to another employee about how he had bought a new speed boat with his share of the returns. "With these profits, might have to get a bigger one," he said.

And in another, Mr. Dowson acknowledges that Optiver was so aggressive in conducting its proprietary trades in some smaller stocks that their activities "were as big as the volume traded on the day."

It is precisely this — high-powered computers and the swagger of those who operate them — that is causing worries over high-frequency trading's increasing sway. "The markets used to be about capital formation," said Mr. Quast, the consultant. "Now 80 percent of trading is driven by some form of statistical arbitrage. We are buying into a statistical house of cards that could unravel very quickly."

[Ognir]

Damn I did upload some shite over the years :lol:
and Concen grew from 1000 to 70000 members
Just because I uploaded it,  doesn't mean I even watched it.

Unless I got involved in the comment section as I have several times :lol: