We live in a time when truth obscured to the point of invisibility. The media morass that’s come about as a result of consolidated control confuses everyone. Even the best informed and most resourceful analysts and researchers cannot ferret out a sane reality. So, in the absence of illuminated concrete fact, all we have his theory to go on. With this out in the open, here’s a theory on how Bloomberg news develops, and why.
Before I continue, I must point something out. Bloomberg is a financial media outlet that investors read. It’s an integral component of a network that can have a drastic impact on investor confidence. Please remember this.
A story the other day entitled, “Putin’s Term Limit Stirs Fears of a Takeover in Belarus” sought to harden hearts in Belarus toward Russian President Vladimir Putin. The story’s authors, Henry Meyer, Aliaksandr Kudrytski, and Ilya Arkhipov claim Putin is not only trying to reabsorb Belarus, but they assert that the Russian president is already seeking a new term past the term limits rule of 2024. Furthermore, this trio of “experts” mark Putin as a kind of new Joseph Stalin, as so many Russophobes in the west have done. The story is written as if scripted, which leads me to present a hypothetical explanation.
What if some of these financial/political news people writing stories for Bloomberg are media plants? I mean seriously, if Vladimir Putin can supposedly have “agents” and “internet trolls” influencing the world, why can’t the globalists elites use Kremlin correspondent Ilya Arkhipov or other reporters? I mean, take a look at the people Arkhipov clearly recognizes as his influencers. On LinkedIn, the former BBC producer not only follows Eurasia Group boss Ian Bremmer, the Bloomberg reporter sources the man running the financial risk assessment firm over and over in his scathing diatribe against Putin and Russia. Google Arkhipov along with Ian Bremmer to discover almost 3,000 incidents online where the Bloomberg reporter leverages the founder of Eurasia Group and something called GZERO Media. Here is what Bremmer is up to, in the dogma of his operation:
“Ian is credited with bringing the craft of political risk to financial markets—he created Wall Street’s first global political risk index (GPRI)—and for establishing political risk as an academic discipline.”
I’ve no space here for an in-depth profile of Bremmer, but I would like to include him in my hypothetical case against Bloomberg News and these other globalist operatives. The man who Arkhipov leverages in his articles was the youngest “fellow” of one of Washington’s most influential think tanks, the Hoover Institute. Let’s be clear here. The financial news outlet owned by Michael Bloomberg also promotes agents of the Hoover think tank such as Bremmer via Bloomberg TV. By association, Bremmer and Bloomberg are associated with Hoover Institute notables like former Secretary of Defense General James Mattis, Condoleezza Rice, U.S. National Security Advisor Richard Allen, Henry Kissinger, Josef Joffe, publisher-editor of the German newspaper Die Zeit, and a long, long list of vested Russophobia interests. Once again, this is a “rabbit hole” leading to the deep state and the globalist elite’s headquarters.
So, let’s move on to another member of Bloomberg’s reporter army, Henry Meyer is a far more interesting and talented soldier for Anglo-European political/financial influence. Meyer, who digs relentlessly for anything negative that could be tied to Putin, has no apparent ties to Think Tank Row in Washington, or even to the academic grant committees that stand behind. This journalist spreads quasi-investigative influence around to outlets like The Independent in the UK, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Chicago Tribune, and TIME, on top of his Bloomberg efforts. In all honesty, I cannot decide whether Meyer is simply a purist who believes the narrative on Putin and digs to prove his beliefs, or if he’s just a salaried pawn who never asks questions. The fact he always digs to find the Russophobia and the anti-Putin story simply means he’s no objective.
Turning to Aliaksandr Kudrytski, the other author for Bloomberg versus Putin campaign, I can tell you the first person he followed when signing up for Twitter was Vitali Klitschko, the heavyweight boxing champ turned U.S. State Department poster boy for regime change in Ukraine. Don’t take my word. Scroll down the list past U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt etc. The man joined in 2011 and immediately followed Klitschko? To Kudrytski’s credit, it seems like whoever gets mail at invest@stratfor.com got a chuckle when emailed about from Alfredo Viegas about Minsk dumping and IMF loan. The WikiLeaks released Stratfor email about Kudrytski’s Bloomberg story read simply:
“Belarus scraps IMF Loan: — no immediate reaction, traders too stunned to react at the moment… hehe”
Looking into Viegas, here is where he promised to “clean up” to Stratfor’s Shea Morenz, and revealed his short bio. It’s unclear exactly what he was going to clean up, but I assume he meant whatever was on his “long” bio. Viegas is now the Managing Director at Oaktree Capital Management. Now comes the fun part, connecting the investment dots in between Bloomberg, its “news” and the economic war against Russia and Putin. Remember I mentioned investors who read Bloomberg. With regard to my “hypothetical” Russophobia and anti-Putin campaign, this is where I hope I really hurt the enemy. Let me make it clear, however, this is just my opinion and theory.
“To question the doing-well-by-doing-good globalists is not to doubt their intentions or results, rather it is to say that even when all those things are factored in, something is not quite right.”- Anand Giridharadas
Oaktree Capital Management is the largest distressed securities investor in the world. For those unfamiliar with these pirates, distressed securities are securities over companies or government entities that are experiencing financial or operational distress, default, or are under bankruptcy. Knowing this, you may be asking the logical question, “What do Bloomberg stories about Belarus and Putin, distressed securities, and chuckling Stratfor minions have in common?” The answer lies in the price and later value of distressed securities, now doesn’t it? If my assertions about U.S. President Donald Trump’s “financial tweets” are correct, and if the economic war on Russia (and the world) is about gigantic profits, then some reporters’ jobs are tantamount to financial shenanigans. Let’s look at where distressed securities come in and why Oaktree’s Viegas (Formerly Knight Capital) got all giddy over Belarus dumping on the IMF. The reason hedge funds and other aggressive investors love teetering securities is:
“The greater the level of risk you assume, the higher the potential return. Distressed debt sells at a very low percentage of par value. If the once-distressed company emerges from bankruptcy as a viable firm, the once-distressed debt will sell for a considerably higher price. The potential for high returns attracts investors, particularly investors such as hedge funds.”
To run down the trail of investing connected to Oaktree, I would need at least a book-length research volume. Of significant note in such a volume would be the recent news that Brookfield Asset Management intends to buy a controlling interest in Oaktree. Legendary financier and a Rothschild contemporary, Sir James Hamet Dunn (1874-1956) was an investor and friend of the men who raised Brookfield up. Built from World War I by Dunn colleague Dr. Frederick Stark Pearson, who died aboard the doomed U.S.S. Lusitania, and his partner Sir William Mackenzie, the present-day Brookfield was built on deals akin to those made by the Robber Barons in the 19th century. Yes, a journey into this facet of today’s chaos is yet another rabbit hole with no end, I am sorry to report.
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country… corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” – Abraham Lincoln
Oh, about the hypothetical. Does my circumstantial evidence of economic warfare propaganda hold up here? Well, I do not have a smoking gun in the hands of Bloomberg reporters. Nor can I tie turn of the century Robber Barons in (irrefutably) with the hedge funds the banking elites use. However logical investors manipulating news and policy in order to take over massive profits may seem, we do not yet possess absolute proof that political leadership has gone over totally to corporate/financial interests. Even though each day reveals yet another corrupt politician and/or banker, we can only rely on hypothetical models in our search for the truth of today’s crises. Thinking objectively, I guess we can build a hypothesis that big money has our best interests at heart. We could build a “case” that Bloomberg would NEVER manipulate news or opinion so that Michael Bloomberg’s (Wealth 2019 = $55.5 billion) friends could win billions. After all, why would he do that?
It’s possible that every one of the 2,000 billionaires created since the Great Recession of 2009 are philanthropists. It’s also possible that Bloomberg and the other elitist owned media hire only journalists with unwavering dedication to the principles of good journalism. Maybe the world owes everything to the 8 billionaires who own 50% of the combined wealth of the world. And maybe those 8 Titans of banking and business would as soon cut off their own heads rather than seeking to extend their wealth and influence through control.
None of my research points to such caring philanthropy. Everything I’ve experienced in life points to these elites buying every ounce of control they can get. They cheat the odds and humanity, at every turn. This is my belief.