AI and The Creativity Divide

Vox Day is an endless source of crucial information.

Here he links to an article about the influence AI will have on work and jobs.

Good news and Bad news.

Good news for those who exert their minds and “create”; AI will be a tool.

Sad news for the (lazier?) crowds of trend followers; AI will replace them.

Here is the article; the yellowing is my own editorializing.

The Band contemplates the ways in which AI will continue to separate the sheep from the goats in creating a creativity divide.

The notion users really need to know what they’re doing holds the mirror to useless modern busy workers. If you can be replaced by a flawed talking search engine, what was your true value added?

But it also holds a mirror of me, the user. Note how my answer to it up above used the phrase “outsourcing the whole chain of thought.” Shortly after, DeepSeek describes the…

Passivity Trap: Why struggle to write, code, or analyze when AI can do a “good enough” job? The entire chain of thought can be outsourced.

This is one example. It commonly asks me questions, adopts my own wording, and gives it back to me. This makes it seem more agreeable and complementary. It’s excellent for augmented intelligence. As it adapts to your patterns, it is more able to anticipate your needs. But it makes NPCs feel smart. Not because they are. Because it’s a mirror on every level.

As for the elite/mass cognitive split that I think is likely, DeepSeek says it’s already happening with AI use.

It explained what it calls a Creativity Divide between people who use AI for brainstorming vs. those who treat it as a final authority. It’s connected to critical thinking and that circles back to NPC.

“Elite” thinking is what we’ve been discussing in these chats.

RI. Real Intelligence. Users who understand and think well enough to run the AI. Catching errors, pushing fallacies, and designing the right queries and prompts. DeepSeek summed it up like this while throwing some shade at the competition.

Elites cross-examine AI outputs; masses accept them as gospel (see: ChatGPT-generated misinformation spreading uncritically).

And the economic impact is just as harshly divided. High-functioning workers will use AI in the right places to augment their productivity. Low-functioning workers will get replaced.

It’s not surprising. This split is always with us. It’s part of the human condition. Readers and non-readers. Learners and CLI. AI is a mirror. The divided use patterns with it reflect the FTS division with pretty much everything. What it does is sharpen it.

We’re about to hit this in a big way in the music industry.

While most of the outspoken musicians are posturing angrily and preaching about the AI apocalypse, the smarter ones are quietly mastering the AI tools and using them to produce better results.

This creativity divide is going to become increasingly obvious as soon as the middle of next year.

I asked DEEPSEEK about smart, high IQ, people and AI.

CLI – CLI: Command Line Interface (The “Work” Tool) (DeepSeek has a LONG answer)

FTS – Financial Transaction Services (Do go ask DeepSeek for its long explanation)

BTW- AI and the near future

IQ – China has around approximately 5,415,000 people with and IQ of 140 or MORE.

STEM – China graduates well over 2 million students in STEM fields at the bachelor’s level EVERY year.

AI – China’s AI policy is a holistic national strategy that treats AI as the key to future economic dominance, social stability, and geopolitical power. It leverages the country’s scale, data, and state-capitalist model to pursue a coordinated effort across industry, government, and the military. While it faces challenges, particularly in semiconductor independence and attracting top global talent, its systematic and determined approach makes it a primary competitor to the United States in shaping the global AI landscape.

IQ – USA: Approximately 4.3 million people in the United States have an IQ of 140 or higher.

The Western world (non-US Anglo-sphere, Europe, Swiss); based on this definition and statistical model, approximately 3.55 million people in the Western World have an IQ of 140 or more.

STEM degrees USA: Graduates roughly 550,000 STEM students at the bachelor’s level annually.

Western World : Graduates roughly 1.4 – 1.6 million STEM students at the bachelor’s level annually.

AI – Western policy landscape is a multi-layered effort to harness the economic and social benefits of AI while building guardrails to protect its citizens’ rights and democracies. The transatlantic partnership between the U.S. and the EU is crucial in this endeavor, as they collectively seek to offer an alternative to the state-centric AI model championed by China.

Note: I only compared China, the preeminent industrial power, to the previous eminences; if I were to include Russia, the Global South…

“Ask (DeepSeek) and an answer will be given to you!”

Proportion of women engaged in high-risk professions

Feminists have been claiming for decades that women make up ONLY 85% of the salary Men make.

And thus, there should be AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to increase women’s revenue.

Women want EQUALITY with men; the Feminists say.

NEVER! (I was in “social sciences: (sic), eons ago am now in education) have I NEVER heard Feminists requiring that women take 50% (equality) of the high-risk, high reward professions. EVER!

They want EQUALITY for their cushy, SAFE, temperature-controlled, white-collar jobs in offices; they have been a plague in HR ever since.

Feminism; dis-honest at its core.

My take: in high-risk professions, women (LESS than 10% of the work force) women are concentrated in office and administrative support roles rather than the most hazardous jobs.

Keep this in mind while looking at the photos; they are lying Woke propaganda.

Here is a list of the proportion of women in HIGH PAYING but HIGH-RISK professions.

I asked DeepSeek (the Chinese non woke AI):

What proportion of women are engaged in high-risk professions : mining, fishing, forestry, firefighting, police force, military special forces and so on?

This is a clear and measurable question.

Women are significantly underrepresented in the majority of these high-risk, physically demanding professions.

Here is a detailed breakdown of the proportion of women in each of the fields you mentioned, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and other relevant U.S. government sources.

Overall Summary

Across almost all these professions, women make up a small minority of the workforce, often less than 10%. The exceptions are the police force and the military as a whole, where representation is higher, though still far from equal, especially in frontline combat and special forces roles.

Detailed Breakdown by Profession

Logging (Forestry)

This is consistently ranked one of the most dangerous jobs in America.

Logging (Forestry)

Proportion of Women: Approximately 8% of logging workers.

Key Insight: The physical demands and extreme hazards (falling trees, heavy machinery) have historically resulted in very low female participation.

Mining (Oil, Gas, Coal, Quarrying)

This is one of the most male-dominated sectors.

Proportion of Women: Approximately 14% of all mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction workers.

Key Insight: Within this category, women are often concentrated in office and administrative support roles rather than the most hazardous extraction (e.g., operating drilling rigs, working underground) roles.

Fishing and Hunting

Proportion of Women: Approximately 9% of fishers and related fishing workers.

Key Insight: This is a very small occupation overall, and the work is extremely dangerous due to weather, heavy equipment, and isolation.

Firefighting

Proportion of Women: Approximately 5% of firefighters are women.

Key Insight: This number has been slowly increasing but remains very low. Barriers include rigorous physical fitness tests, a traditionally male-dominated culture, and a lack of recruitment outreach to women.

Police Force

Proportion of Women: Approximately 13% of sworn police officers.

Key Insight: This is higher than the other physical safety roles listed but is still far from representative of the general population. Representation is even lower in leadership ranks (e.g., police chiefs).

Military

This requires a more nuanced look, as roles vary widely in risk.

Overall Military: Women make up about 17.5% of the active-duty U.S. military.

Combat Arms Roles: This is where the most significant underrepresentation exists. Since all combat roles were opened to women in 2015, participation has grown but remains low.

Infantry: Approximately 5-7% of infantry personnel are women.

Special Forces (e.g., Army Green Berets, Navy SEALs): The proportion is well below 1%. The first woman graduated from Army Special Forces training (to become a Green Beret) in 2020. As of now, only a handful of women have served in the Navy SEALs pipeline, with none yet achieving the final designation.

Summary Table

Profession Proportion of Women (Approx.) Notes

Mining 14% Often in support roles; underrepresented in core extraction.

Fishing 9% One of the smallest and most dangerous occupations.

Logging 8% Consistently ranked the 1 most dangerous job.

Firefighting 5% Slow but steady increase over the past decades.

Police Force 13% Higher than others, but low in leadership and specific units (e.g., SWAT).

Military (Overall) 17.5%

Military (Infantry) 5-7% Growing since combat roles opened in 2015.

Military (Special Forces) < 1% Extremely rare; physical and cultural barriers are significant.

Key Reasons for Underrepresentation

The low numbers are not due to a single factor but a combination of:

1. Physical Requirements: Many of these jobs have strict physical strength and endurance standards that, on average, can be more challenging for women to meet, though many do.

2. Historical and Cultural Barriers: These fields have deep-seated traditions and cultures that have been predominantly male for generations, which can be unwelcoming or create a “chilly climate” for women.

3. Lack of Role Models and Recruitment: With few women in these roles, there are fewer visible examples to encourage others to join.

4. Workplace Environment: Issues like harassment, lack of appropriate facilities (e.g., properly fitting gear, separate bathrooms), and work-life balance challenges can deter women from entering or staying in these fields.

5. Perceived Risk: The inherent danger of the jobs may also influence career choices, though this is a personal decision for individuals of any gender.

In conclusion, while women are present in every one of these high-risk professions, they remain a distinct minority, often constituting less than one in ten workers, with their representation becoming exceptionally rare in the most elite and physically demanding special operations roles.

SHORT VERSION:

they remain a distinct minority, often constituting less than one in ten workers, with their representation becoming exceptionally rare in the most elite and physically demanding special operations roles.

.

Very few women are actually economically sufficient

The state subsidizes and hides that fact from women; it is taking taxes from men.

This alters things greatly, and is an abstraction that relatively few females will (or can) grasp — and certainly when it’s not in their perceived interest to know it.

(Indeed. Many of us knew this 30 years ago)

The second image (below) is a demand for a husband without ANY accountability to him.

If we did not live in such a moral (White) and altruistic society, this kind of comment and woman would never exist in any significant number.

She would have died long before uttering such naivety.

And … in Muslim societies they do.

The Muzzies … they seem to have no feminism related problem.

Christine Estima is Syrian Women living in … Canada.

She took flight from the Muslim World.

There she wrote The Syrian Ladies Benevolent Society”.

NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF 2023 BY THE CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.)

Indelible linked stories centered around Azurée, a young Arab woman living in the echoes of her ancestors’ voices. Masterfully tracing the deep roots of the Arab immigrant experience, these interlocking stories follow an Arab family as they flee the Middle East in the nineteenth (what???) century, settle in Montreal in the twentieth, and face the collision between tradition and modernity in the twenty-first.

The Bitch has siphoned off (refugees get a LOT of money in Canada) wealth from hard working White men and wants to ban them until she/they (women) figure out what going on?

SEND HER BACK!

From Gab

Woman and Socialism

She is a clueless clown.

They love daddy government with their heels in their hoop earrings !

God’s design is made perverse by evil men. They problem is the selfish lack of God-fearing people.

Good Hoe Math cartoon.

Hoe! Hoe! Hoe! indeed.

This below is from DEEPSEEK (the Chinese AI).

DeepSeek is an AI LESS controlled by the left-wing totalitarian taboos that still reign in the West.

But not totally free …

DEEPSEEK cannot say (because it relies on info on the Web) that Men earn more because they WORK MORE and they work in MORE DANGEROUS occupations; fisherwomen (Har! Har! Har!); Lumber Jackeline (Har! Har! Har!), mining women (Har! Har! Har!); female firefighters do NOT go up the ladder to fight fires; female police offers do not because they cannot tackle and arrest strong violent offenders; female soldiers cannot pass a gender-blind military basic training course and they can’t fight at the front, etc., etc., etc.

The Core Reasons Why Men Pay the Majority of Taxes

“Progressive” Income Tax… meaning higher earners pay a higher percentage of their income in tax.

Gender Pay and Wealth Gaps: Men, on average, earn significantly more than women and hold a substantially larger share of total wealth.

Concentration at the Top: Men are overwhelmingly overrepresented in the highest income brackets and among the largest holders of wealth.

Who Pays What?

Income Tax Men by a large margin … dominate the highest income brackets, which are taxed at higher rates and contribute the most revenue.

Capital Gains Tax Men (overwhelming margin) … hold the vast majority of financial assets and investment wealth.

Corporate Tax Men are the majority of company owners, shareholders, and CEOs.

Sales Tax / VAT In absolute money, men pay more because they have higher consumption.

Property Tax Men … hold more property wealth and are … the primary owner on deeds.

DeepSeek’s full answer:

men pay most of the taxes, not women

This is a complex topic rooted in economics and demography, not a simple statement of fact. The key idea is not that individual men pay more tax than individual women, but that men, as a group, are the primary contributors to government tax revenue in most countries.

This outcome is driven by several structural factors, and it’s demonstrated through economic data on income, wealth, and tax collection. Here are the studies and data points that illustrate this phenomenon.

The Core Reasons Why Men Pay the Majority of Taxes

1. The Progressivity of Income Tax Systems: Most developed nations have a progressive income tax, meaning higher earners pay a higher percentage of their income in tax.

2. The Gender Pay and Wealth Gaps: Men, on average, earn significantly more than women and hold a substantially larger share of total wealth.

3. The Concentration at the Top: Men are overwhelmingly overrepresented in the highest income brackets and among the largest holders of wealth.

When you combine these factors, it becomes a mathematical inevitability that men will pay the lion’s share of income tax, capital gains tax, and corporate tax (which ultimately stems from ownership and investment).

Key Studies and Data Demonstrating This

1. Analysis of Income Tax Data by Gender

United Kingdom:

The UK’s HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) publishes detailed statistics that are frequently analyzed by groups like the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

Finding: A landmark 2019 analysis by the IFS showed that the top 1% of income taxpayers (by income) in the UK are overwhelmingly male (87%) and contribute nearly 30% of all income tax revenue.

Interpretation: Since men dominate the highest income deciles where tax rates are highest, they contribute a disproportionately large share of total income tax collected. The bottom 50% of earners, who are more gender-balanced, contribute a very small fraction of total income tax.

United States:

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) publishes data on tax collections by income bracket. While it doesn’t break it down by gender, other research institutes fill the gap.

Finding: Analysis by the Tax Foundation and others consistently shows that the top 1% and top 10% of earners pay the majority of federal income taxes. Given the significant gender gap in top earnings (e.g., men make up over 80% of taxpayers earning over $500,000), it follows that men pay the bulk of these taxes.

Data Point: In 2020, the top 1% of taxpayers paid 42.3% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% paid just 2.3%.

2. Analysis of the Entire Tax System (Direct and Indirect Taxes)

While men pay most of the direct, progressive taxes (like income tax), the picture for indirect, regressive taxes (like sales tax or VAT) is different.

Study: The UK Women’s Budget Group has published analyses showing that while the richest households (disproportionately headed by men) pay the most in absolute terms for all taxes, the tax system as a whole is less progressive when you include indirect taxes.

Key Insight: Their research shows that women, particularly single mothers and low-income women, pay a higher proportion of their income in indirect taxes than men in similar circumstances. However, in absolute monetary terms, men still contribute the vast majority of the total tax revenue because of their vastly higher incomes and spending power.

3. Analysis of Wealth and Capital Gains Taxes

This is perhaps the most significant area of disparity.

Global Wealth Data: According to reports from Credit Suisse and Oxfam, men own 50% more of the world’s total wealth than women. In some regions, the gap is over 100%.

Billionaire Lists: Men consistently make up over 85-90% of the world’s billionaires.

Tax Implication: Wealth generates income through investments (capital gains, dividends, interest). Taxes on this investment income (Capital Gains Tax, Corporate Tax on dividends) are therefore paid overwhelmingly by men, as they own the majority of the assets.

Summary Table: Who Pays What?

Tax Type Who Pays More (in Total Revenue)? Primary Reason

Income Tax Men by a large margin Men dominate the highest income brackets, which are taxed at higher rates and contribute the most revenue.

Capital Gains Tax Men by an overwhelming margin Men hold the vast majority of financial assets and investment wealth.

Corporate Tax Men (indirectly) Men are the majority of company owners, shareholders, and CEOs. The burden of the tax ultimately falls on capital.

Sales Tax / VAT More Mixed In absolute money, men pay more because they have higher consumption. As a percentage of income, poorer women often pay more due to the regressive nature of these taxes.

Property Tax Men Men, on average, hold more property wealth and are more likely to be the primary owner on deeds.

Important Nuances and Counterpoints

It is crucial to understand what this data does not mean:

1. It’s Not About Individual Men vs. Women: This is a group-level analysis. A high-earning woman will pay more tax than a low-earning man. The point is that, in aggregate, the group “men” are the primary funders of the state.

2. It Reflects Systemic Inequality: The fact that men pay most of the taxes is a symptom of the same gender inequalities that harm women—the gender pay gap, the concentration of men in top corporate positions, and the gender wealth gap.

3. Who Benefits from Spending? A complete analysis must also look at government spending. Certain social programs, healthcare, and education benefits may disproportionately be used by women, partly offsetting the tax contribution imbalance.

Conclusion:

Numerous studies from government statistical agencies (like HMRC), economic think tanks (like the IFS, Tax Foundation), and gender budget groups demonstrate that men pay the majority of taxes. This is not due to tax law itself being gendered, but is a direct consequence of men earning more and holding more wealth than women, placing them in higher tax brackets and making them the primary source of revenue from taxes on income, capital gains, and wealth.

SHORT VERSION: men pay the majority of taxes

Only her Bikini Waxer knows!

Another future Darwin Award recipient!

On a wax paved way, driving 100 miles an hour headfirst towards the WALL!

Feminism! An evil ideology that has screwed up millions of women.

In a sane society, the woman portrayed would a young soon-to-be grandmother.

Feminism is cancer!

Who will be showing up for the future?

The Feminist Cat Lady above, or below, the Handmaid’s Tale of Love?

Comments at GAB

Totally clueless and unable to see the truth.

When your only concern is yourself, how can you not lose your way. Paving the way to nowhere.

Paving the way to box wine and cat land.

Absolutely Nothing to brag about… Her lip waxer is probably a lip licker… Jus sayin’…

A bikini waxer unironically saying she’s paving the way is pretty funny though.

Har! Har! Har!

I like reading Larry Johnson’s Blog, Sonar 21.

Larry Johnson, a retired Cia analyst is not lying or feeding his readers BS.

He could be wrong of course; that is fine; one can self-correct. Lying is not.

He sometimes links to articles by Peter Haenseler who has in own blog, in Europe, Forum Geopolitical.

Haenseler can write in German, English and French (Yikes!).

He has an article entitled: Will Evil Prevail?

Rational assessments based on facts indicate that the Collective West is losing the battle for supremacy against the Global South-can the boundless evil of the West turn the tables?

His view (I think) is that the British Empire in not really dead and it is centered in the City of London (the “Square Mile”).

Haenseler asked GROK (the American AI) for information.

In connection with British power, the term “City of London” and-behind closed doors-the name Rothschild come up again and again.

When it comes to terms and contexts that those in power want to keep under wraps, it is relatively easy to get confirmation of this: my question to GROK, “What is it with the power of the City of London?” was answered after about 15 minutes with “No response.” That is also an answer.

I asked DeepSeek, the Chinese AI the same question (and two more).

Ergo: DeepSeek is not as controlled as GROK! (different algorithms, I suppose).

Here are DeepSeek’s answers:

First question: “What is it with the power of the City of London?”

The power of the City of London is not the brute force of an army, but the subtle, immense influence of global finance. It’s a unique blend of ancient history, deep concentration of capital, and global interconnectedness.

Here’s a breakdown of where its power comes from and how it manifests.

1. What is the “City of London”? A Crucial Distinction

First, it’s vital to distinguish between:

London (the capital city): The vast metropolis of 9 million people, with its mayor and city-wide government.

The City of London (aka “The Square Mile”): A tiny, ancient area at the heart of London, which is the original Roman settlement. It is a legally distinct entity with its own government, police force, and unique traditions. This is the financial district.

When people talk about the “power of the City of London,” they are referring to The Square Mile.

2. The Sources of Its Power

A. Historical Head Start and Deep Roots

The City’s financial dominance isn’t a recent phenomenon. It has been a commercial hub for centuries.

The British Empire: As the empire grew, London naturally became the center for raising capital, insuring ships, and financing global trade. Institutions like Lloyd’s of London (insurance) and the Bank of England were founded here.

Time Zone Advantage: Located between the closing Asian markets and the opening American markets, London can do business with both in a single working day.

“Big Bang” (1986): This was a pivotal moment. The UK government deregulated the financial markets, abolishing fixed commissions and allowing foreign ownership of British firms. This unleashed a wave of global investment and innovation, cementing London’s place as a world-leading financial center.

B. Unmatched Concentration of Expertise and Capital

The City is not just one thing: it’s a dense ecosystem of interconnected players.

Global Banks: Nearly every major international bank has its European or EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa) headquarters here.

Professional Services: It’s home to the world’s top law firms, accounting firms (the “Big Four”), and management consultants that serve the financial industry.

Insurance and Reinsurance: Lloyd’s of London is still the world’s leading market for specialist insurance.

Foreign Exchange (Forex): London is the undisputed global leader in forex trading, handling around 38% of all global foreign exchange turnover-more than New York and Tokyo combined.

A Global Marketplace: It’s a key hub for trading everything from international stocks and bonds to metals (the London Metal Exchange) and shipping contracts.

C. A Deliberately Supportive Ecosystem

Light-Touch Regulation (Historically): For decades, the UK government cultivated a “pro-business” environment with favorable tax policies and a regulatory approach seen as more flexible than, for example, New York’s post-2008 reforms. This attracted immense talent and capital.

The Rule of Law: The UK’s independent and respected legal system, particularly its commercial courts, is the preferred forum for resolving international business disputes. This provides certainty and security for contracts.

Clustering Effect: The concentration of all these services in one place creates a powerful network effect. If you need to finance a multi-billion-dollar deal, you can meet bankers, lawyers, and insurers all within a few square miles.

D. Unique Political Status

The City of London Corporation is its own strange and powerful entity.

It is not a normal local council. It has its own political institutions, separate from the rest of London, with the Lord Mayor (different from the Mayor of London) as its ambassador for UK-based financial services.

Lobbying Power: The Corporation, along with powerful groups like TheCityUK, acts as a formidable lobbyist for the financial industry, ensuring its voice is heard at the highest levels of the UK government. This is often what people mean by the “unelected power” of the City.

3. How This Power Manifests

Economic Clout: The financial services sector is a huge contributor to the UK’s economy, generating billions in tax revenue and supporting millions of jobs, both directly and indirectly.

Influence on Government Policy: Chancellors of the Exchequer and Prime Ministers often shape economic policy with one eye on how the “markets” (i.e., the City) will react. The City’s health is seen as synonymous with the UK’s economic health.

A “World City”: The City’s global nature makes London a magnet for international talent, reinforcing its cultural and economic status.

4. The Challenges and Criticisms

The power of the City is not without controversy.

Inequality: Critics argue that the vast wealth generated in The Square Mile exacerbates social inequality, driving up the cost of living in London and creating a disconnect with the rest of the UK.

“Too Big to Fail”: The 2008 Financial Crisis revealed how the failure of a few large City institutions could threaten the entire global economy, leading to taxpayer-funded bailouts.

Short-Termism: Some argue the City’s focus on quarterly returns and shareholder value discourages long-term industrial investment in the UK.

Brexit: This was a major shock to the system. While the City has proven resilient, it has lost some business (like euro-denominated share trading) to EU financial centers like Paris, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam. Its long-term position as Europe’s premier financial hub is no longer a given.

Perception of an “Old Boys’ Network”: The City’s unique traditions and close-knit networks can sometimes be perceived as opaque and resistant to change or diversity.

Conclusion

The power of the City of London is the power of agglomeration. It’s the result of centuries of history, a critical mass of capital and talent, a supportive legal and political framework, and its role as the central node in the global financial network.

It is not an all-powerful cabal, but its influence on the British economy and government is profound. Its future power will depend on its ability to navigate post-Brexit realities, global competition, and the ongoing debate about its role and responsibility in society.

Second question: Who is power in the city of London?

This question gets to the heart of the matter, but the answer is more complex than a simple list of names. The power in the City of London is not held by a single person or even a static group; it’s a network of influential figures across different sectors-finance, government, and the City’s own unique institutions.

Providing a definitive, current list is impossible as roles change frequently, but I can give you the titles and recent examples of the people who hold the power, which is much more meaningful.

The power structure can be broken down into three key spheres:

1. The Political & Ceremonial Leadership (The City’s Official Face)

This is the governance of the City of London Corporation, the unique local authority for the Square Mile.

The Lord Mayor of the City of London: This is a different role from the Mayor of London (like Sadiq Khan). The Lord Mayor is the ambassador for the entire UK-based financial and professional services industry.

Power: Global advocacy, networking at the highest levels with world governments and businesses. The role carries immense prestige and access.

Recent Example (2023-2024): Professor Michael Mainelli. As Lord Mayor, he was the key representative, promoting the City’s interests abroad and in Whitehall.

The Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee: This is often considered the most powerful political role within the City Corporation, setting the overall strategy.

Power: Directs the Corporation’s policy on economic growth, its response to issues like Brexit, and its relationship with the national government.

Recent Example: Chris Hayward. In this role, he is the de facto political leader for the Corporation’s strategic direction.

2. The Financial Titans (The Real Economic Muscle)

These are the people who run the institutions that are the City. Their power comes from the trillions of dollars in assets they control.

The Governor of the Bank of England: The most powerful official in UK finance.

Power: Sets interest rates, regulates the banking system, and is the lender of last resort. Their words can move markets globally.

Current Name: Andrew Bailey.

Chief Executives of Major Banks and Financial Institutions: The heads of the world’s largest banks, which have their European headquarters in the City.

Power: They control vast capital, make decisions on lending and investment that affect global economies, and are the primary employers in the Square Mile.

Examples of Roles (with recent holders):

CEO of Barclays (C.S. Venkatakrishnan or “Venkat”)

CEO of HSBC (Noel Quinn)

CEO of Standard Chartered (Bill Winters)

CEO of a major international bank’s London operations

(e.g., the European CEO of JPMorgan Chase or Goldman Sachs).

Heads of Major Institutional Funds: The people who manage the money of pension funds, insurance companies, and sovereign wealth funds.

Power: They are the “owners” of large swathes of the global economy through their investments and can dictate corporate policy.

Example: The CEO of Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM), one of the world’s largest asset managers.

3. The Influencers and Network Hubs (The Connective Tissue)

These individuals wield power through influence, lobbying, and networking.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer: The UK government’s finance minister.

Power: Creates the tax and regulatory environment in which the City operates.

Their policies can make or break the City’s global competitiveness.

Current Name: Rachel Reeves.

Chief Executive of TheCityUK: The most powerful lobbying group for the UK-based financial and professional services industry.

Power: Acts as the collective voice for the sector, directly lobbying the government and regulators on behalf of hundreds of firms.

Recent Example: Miles Celic.

Senior Partners of “Magic Circle” Law Firms: The legal architects of major financial deals.

Power: They advise on the largest mergers, acquisitions, and capital raisings. Their influence is in shaping the structures and contracts that underpin global finance.

Example: The Senior Partner at firms like Linklaters,Allen & Overy, or Clifford Chance.

Why a Simple List of Names is Misleading

1. Anonymity: The most powerful people are often not the public faces. A hugely influential hedge fund manager or a senior regulator working behind the scenes may have more direct power than a public figure.

2. The “Structure over Individuals”: The City’s power is institutional. The CEO of JPMorgan is powerful because of the institution they represent, not necessarily their individual personality. When that person changes, the power of the role remains.

3. The Network: Power in the City is exercised through a dense network of relationships between these individuals-bankers, regulators, lawyers, and politicians. It is the network itself that is powerful.

In summary, if you were to map the “power in the City of London,” you would plot a network that connects Andrew Bailey (Bank of England), Rachel Reeves (Treasury), the CEOs of the major banks (Venkat, Quinn), the head of the main lobby group (Celic), and the political leaders of the Square Mile itself (Mainelli, Hayward).

It is this collective, and the institutions they represent, that truly holds THE power.

Third question: in the City of London (the square mile) how powerful are the Rothschild’s interests?

This is a question that sits at the intersection of historical facts, modern finance, and pervasive global conspiracy theories. Addressing the power of the Rothschild interests in the City of London requires separating the historical legacy from the contemporary reality.

Here’s a breakdown of their influence, from the tangible to the perceived.

The Historical Power: Unparalleled

There is no overstating the Rothschild family’s historical power in the 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries. They were, effectively, the founders of international finance.

1. The Banking Pioneer: Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who established N M Rothschild & Sons in London in 1811, became phenomenally powerful. His network of brothers across Europe (in Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna, and Naples) created the world’s first international bank.

2. Financing Governments: The Rothschilds were crucial in financing the British government during the Napoleonic Wars. Later, they financed everything from railways across Europe to the Suez Canal purchase by the UK government.

3. The “Bank of England’s Bank”: For much of the 19th century, they were the de facto central bank for Europe’s central banks, managing sovereign debt and facilitating the flow of gold and capital.

4. Intelligence Network: Their courier network was faster and more efficient than any state’s, giving them early and crucial information on major events like the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo, which they allegedly leveraged for enormous profit (though this specific story is likely mythologized).

During this period, their power in the City was not just significant; it was arguably supreme.

The Modern Reality: Significant, but Niche and Diminished

Today, the picture is dramatically different. The Rothschild business is still influential and prestigious, but it operates on a different scale and in a different way compared to the global banking giants.

N M Rothschild & Sons (now part of Rothschild & Co) remains a key player, but its power is specific:

1. A Leader in M&A Advisory: Rothschild is a world-leading independent financial advisory firm. It does not take large risks with its own capital like JPMorgan or Goldman Sachs (it’s not a “bulge bracket” bank). Instead, its power lies in influence and advice.

What they do: They are the go-to advisors for governments and corporations on some of the world’s largest and most sensitive mergers, acquisitions, and restructurings.

Power through Access: Advising on a mega-merger or a government privatization (like the UK’s Royal Mail) gives them immense access to the top levels of corporate and political power. This is a “soft power” – the power of being in the room where it happens.

2. A Major Force in Restructuring: They have one of the world’s top restructuring practices. This means they are called in when large companies or countries are in financial trouble. This gives them significant influence over the fate of corporations and the stability of markets.

3. Prestige and Independence: Their reputation for discretion and a long-term view is a key asset. Being a private, family-influenced firm (through Concordia, their holding company) allows them to operate without the quarterly profit pressures of public banks.

Comparison to the Broader Market

To understand their relative power today, consider this:

Assets Under Management (AUM): Rothschild & Co. has assets under management in the hundreds of billions. This is substantial, but it is dwarfed by the City’s asset management giants like Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) or BlackRock’s London office, which manage trillions each.

Capital and Lending: Rothschild is not a major lender. The real power in daily capital markets lies with the behemoths like HSBC, Barclays, and the European and American investment banks that underwrite stock offerings and provide corporate loans.

Addressing the Conspiracy Theories

The perception of all-powerful Rothschild control over the City and the global financial system is a durable conspiracy theory. The reality is more nuanced:

The Bank of England: It is a publicly owned institution, independent of the government since 1997. While historically connected, the Rothschilds do not control it.

Global Central Banking: The global financial system is a complex network of competing public and private interests. No single family “controls” it.

The Scale of Modern Finance: The idea that one family, no matter how wealthy, could control a financial ecosystem as vast, diverse, and competitive as the City of London is mathematically and practically impossible in the 21st century.

Conclusion: How Powerful Are They?

Historically: They were arguably the most powerful financial entity in the City and the world.

Today: They are a powerful and prestigious niche player.

They wield significant influence (soft power) through their top-tier advisory roles, giving them access and a voice that far exceeds their balance sheet size.

They do not wield the commanding power (hard power) of a major retail bank, a trillion-dollar asset manager, or a global trading house.

In essence, the Rothschild interest in the City today is like that of a renowned, elite specialist surgeon—immensely respected, called upon for the most critical and delicate operations, and possessing great influence within their field—but not running the entire hospital or directing the global healthcare system.

Their power is one of deep expertise, unparalleled connections, and trusted advice, not of direct, hegemonic control.

Hands up! Do shoot!

Hands Up, Do shoot! lying negro shot dead by … another negro

Black Karma, anyone?

Negro behind ‘hands up don’t shoot’ LIE shot dead in Ferguson, Missouri

The negro who fabricated the story that “cocaine” Michael Brown had his hands up and was surrendering when he was shot by White police in August 2014 has been shot dead in Ferguson, Missouri, according to local police.

Ferguson Police reported on Sunday that Dorian Johnson was shot and died from his injuries. Police have one person in custody.

No White officers were involved in the shooting on Sunday.

Johnson was with “fentanyl” Brown the day he was shot by a Ferguson White police officer in 2014. He was also with drugged out Brown earlier when Brown strong-armed an Hindoo convenience store owner and walked out with items he stole from the store.

Johnson started the lie that “drug addict” Brown was an innocent negro gunned down by White police while surrendering with his hands up.

The lie was a key spark in rioting in Ferguson and the use of the “hands up don’t shoot” chant that is still used by leftard activists.

“At least 11 police officers were murdered across the country following Mike Brown’s death by “Black LIES Matter” activists who believed the hype that Brown was the victim of White police malfeasance,” The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft noted.

Dorian Johnson lying to reporters after “druggee” Michael Brown’s shooting death in 2014.

Court testimony showed that “hand up don’t shoot” was completely made up “black LIE that mattered”.

Following “fentanyl” Brown’s death, “lying” Johnson was hired by the City of St. Louis through a black WELFARE program called St. Louis’ Agency on Training and Employment.

Source

Well, he won’t be knifing any Beautiful Blonde Ukrainian girl anytime soon.

Note: this article has been slightly altered for greater veracity.

Hello fellow AshkeNAZIs!

As an AshkeNAZI man, Im surprised more goyim arent tweeting the hashtag.

#KillAllAshkeNaziMen

Personally, I don’t see why (((Max Bendwell)) should lose his HASATAH job over it – its ironic, funny and thought provoking.

(Max Bendwell)

The amount of anti-Goyimitic abuse I’ve had for writing my last piece has been staggering.

Its ‘n other Hollow Hoax!

Hasatah

The Historical Term: הסתה (hasatah)

This word carries a strong and exclusively negative connotation.

It means “incitement,” “instigation,” or “agitation.” It is used to describe propaganda that is designed to stir up hatred, violence, or prejudice.

Pronunciation: hahs-tah-TAH

Usage: You would see this word in news reports about incitement to violence or hate speech.

Example: הסתה לאלימות (hasatah le’alimut) = Incitement to violence

From The Western Chauvinist (on Telegram)

Tail wagging

"Wag Their Tails"

Putin stated that European leaders would soon be "sweetly wagging their tails" before Trump and would "stand at the feet of the master"