IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The "war Of Terror", a Zionist deception to control America

Beached
post Aug 18 2007, 07:42 AM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



By Christopher Bollyn
10 April 2007

The "war on terror" is a fraud and dangerous threat to the American people and republic.

It is nothing more than a Zionist deception that has been used to manipulate the U.S. military to wage war on Israel's behalf while imposing a centralized police command under the guise of "homeland security" throughout the United States.

To read on:
http://iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Zionist-de...to-control.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Aug 18 2007, 05:52 PM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



Bollyn asks:

QUOTE
Are you afraid of getting old? Most of us will die a painful death from cancer, strokes, or heart attacks, but you're not afraid of growing old, so why be afraid to expose Zionism?
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn.html



We know in my part of the world, why we are afraid to expose Zionism.
THEY have trained and brainwashed 2 generations since 1945 to be afraid.
THEY call it 'antisemitism' when you criticise Zionism.
THEY have ended careers for a wrong word about Zionism in the wrong place.
THEY control the media and reality with the 'antisemitism-bat'.

and

THEY control the Truth Movement - because whoever gets deeper into the who's who of the 9/11 perpetrators and doesn't back off in time, gets stuck up to his neck in Zionist mud (like Eric Hufschmid wink.gif )


Is it wiser, as some have suggested, to avoid discussions about Zionism?
And if so, why?


dunno.gif Zap
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Aug 18 2007, 06:36 PM
Post #3


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



So long as a clear distinction is made between Zionism as a political agenda vs. Judaism as a religion is made clear, I don't see a problem with talking about Zionism. And I've seen people "in the heat of battle" use the terms (Zionism and Judaism) interchangably. That will get you the "anti-Semitic" label. Just ask Mel Gibson.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Aug 18 2007, 07:20 PM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



I think, even 'in the heat of battle' it is 100% clear, that Judaism (or 'the Jews' quote Mel Gibson) are neither responsable for the politics of the Zionist elite, nor for the genocides by the IDF in Palestina and Lebanon.

I'm afraid you get the Anitsemitism-label long before you "use the terms (Zionism and Judaism) interchangably". See above.

I like what Natasha said:

QUOTE (Natasha @ Aug 18 2007, 09:55 AM)
Isn't it ironic, how the WW2 Nazis would smear people as being "evil dirty jews", while todays Nazis, smear people as being "dirty evil antisemites"? One way or another it is Judea who suffers, for the first SHOAH [Holocaust], and now soon for the second SHOAH [Holocaust] being perpetrated, by the same evil spirit of the same evil intent, on a different day, in different bodies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Aug 19 2007, 10:39 AM
Post #5


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



The question I ask myself is this... does X help or hinder our chances of increasing the 9/11 Truth movement and potentially getting a new investigation. If possibly both, which does it do more?

replace X in this case with something like "emphasizing a link between Zionists and 9/11".

I'll stick with WTC 7, and the wargames thanks all the same, Beached. If exposing the perps and the full truth on 9/11 ever actually makes it out of the starting gate, well then all leads should be followed up in order to unravel the ball of yarn. But I just ain't seeing that as being about to happen. Until then antiZionism = blahblah1.gif to the masses and the kneejeck reply is always going to be ANTISEMITISM!!!!

How does that help? IMO it doesn't.

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Aug 19 2007, 10:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Aug 19 2007, 11:35 AM
Post #6


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



There's a poster on my board who continuously calls me antisemitic even though I never ever post anything about Zionism, Israel or Jews. He is such a victim of the psyop that simply asking questions about 9/11 makes me antisemitic in his mind. In other words, he apparently buys the lie that Israel was behind 9/11 and will stop at nothing to squelch any conversation.

In the course of this, I learned that apparently many Jews have been conditioned to believe that the terms New World Order and Illuminati are code for "Jew". So any time a gentile uses one of those terms we are automatically being antisemitic, even though no one outside the Jewish community is even aware of this alternative connotation.

It's funny that so many Jews have been manipulated into actually supporting the fascist agenda of the neocons. One would think that Jews would be opposed to fascism. It's just one indicator of what a powerful traumatization 9/11 was. People just don't think straight anymore.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post Aug 19 2007, 12:31 PM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



The more you research, the more you realize how the Zionists are involved in all aspect of this world struggle.

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Aug 19 2007, 12:40 PM
Post #8


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Bollyn is right that the "War on Terror" is a fraud but to say that it is a "Zionist fraud" begs the question. Where do these movements such as Zionism and Neoconservatism come from?

Here is an interesting overview of the latter:






Straussism: The Neocon Philosophy Directing The Age Of Tyranny - Looking Glass News


January 27th, 2007





Straussism is the philosophy of the obscure University Of Chicago philosophy instructor Leo Strauss.


The students of Leo Strauss left the University in search of political power; these took root in the Republican party, formed neo-conservatism and became known as Neocons


Straussism calls for tyranny — rule from those above.


The purpose of this document is to present the principles of Straussism as a rosetta stone http://unauthorized link.com/qo7yc to give one the knowledge to decipher and translate the rhetoric and behavior of the George Bush neocon administration into some degree of coherent meaning.


Introduction:


1) A Straussian: a disciple of the philosopher Leo Strauss.


Note:two videos on neocons below the article



2) Leo Struass (1899-1973) was a student of philosophy in Germany and watched the Weimar Republic dissolve into chaos and then into tyranny. As a Jew, he was forced to flee Germany and he eventually ended up at the University of Chicago, where he developed a cult following from some the brightest students. For Strauss, the demise of the Weimar Republic represented a repudiation of liberal democracy. Liberalism, to Strauss, equals relativism, which necessarily leads to nihilism. Strauss longed to return to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure fascism.


These views resonated with Straussian disciples such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol and Harry Jaffa. They took these ideas out of the classroom and translated them into actual political doctrine: the neoconservative manifesto of the Project for a New American Century. Straussian principles would be implemented on a global scale, and 9/11 provided the perfect pretext. Paul Wolfowitz, who attended Strauss’s lectures on Plato, became the architect of the Iraq War, using hyped intelligence concerning WMD’s as the “noble lie”.


As a young man in Germany, Leo Strauss became infatuated with a beautiful and brilliant Jewish scholar, Hannah Arendt, whose impact on American political thought will probably be seen by future historians as greater than any other of the Weimar émigrés. Hannah Arendt spurned Strauss’s advances and did not conceal her contempt for his ideas. Arendt died in 1975, but the importance of her work is just beginning to be appreciated. Her brilliant analysis, The Origins of Totalitarianism, remains the standard today, and her categories can help us understand the erosion of democracy since 9/11. Her concept of the “banality of evil” which she developed in Eichmann in Jerusalem is useful in understanding how ordinary individuals can plan and carry out acts of inhumanity.


Strauss and Arendt represent the two poles of the ideological struggle that began in the Weimar Republic and which continues even today in America. http://unauthorized link.com/ocj7s


3) So, what is Neo-conservatism (what is its relationship to Straussism and how is it related to tyranny), and how does it propose to change the world in accordance with Straussian political philosophy? ‘Neo’ comes from the Greek neos, which means new. And, what’s neo about neo-conservatism? Well, for one thing, the old conservatism relied on tradition and history; it was cautious, slow and moderate; it went with the flow. But under the influence of Leo Strauss, the new conservatism is intoxicated with nature. The new conservatism is not slow or cautious, but active, aggressive, and reactionary in the literal sense of the term. Inspired by Strauss’s hatred for liberal modernity, its goal is to turn back the clock on the liberal revolution and its achievements. http://unauthorized link.com/of2p4


Twenty Two Characteristics Of Straussism


1) The Few Must Rule The Many


John Locke and the American founding fathers held “the natural law tradition” which holds that man possesses natural rights to life, liberty, and property and that the state is always and everywhere the greatest threat to these God-given rights. To the founders, this meant that government should be “bound by the chains” of the Constitution, to paraphrase Jefferson. If men were angels, there would be no need for government, Madison wrote in defense of the Constitution. But men are not angels, Madison continued, which is why government power must always be limited.


Leo Strauss rejected this view of natural rights in favor of Plato’s “philosopher-king” model of government; the “philosopher kings” exercise the “rule of the wise”


Straussians assign dignity to the few.


The superiority of the “ruling philosophers” is an intellectual superiority and not a moral one.


2) Virtue Is Defined By The Elite: It Is That Which Is “For The Public Good”


The elite few are to have unlimited state power who use it to pursue “virtue” with virtue being, their own vision of “the public good.”


Moral virtue had no application to the really intelligent man, the philosopher. Moral virtue only existed in popular opinion, where it served the purpose of controlling the unintelligent majority.


3) The Strong Must Rule The Weak


Strauss taught: “The strong must rule the weak”; this was presented quite well in Jim Lobe’s article ‘The Strong Must Rule The Weak’ http://unauthorized link.com/qtlnn


4) Only One Natural Right: The Right To Rule Over The Vulgar Many

Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.


The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right—the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many.


For the Straussian, the people of the United States are the “vulgar many,” chumps, dupes, and ciphers to be manipulated, poked, and prodded in the direction of the “Long War,” a new Hundred Years’ War, as spelled out by Rumsfeld’s latest Quadrennial Defense Review. “A policy of perpetual war against a threatening enemy is the best way to ward off political decay. And if the enemy cannot be found, then it must be invented.”


Human beings are born neither free nor equal. The natural human condition, is not one of freedom, but of subordination.


Strauss divided the history of political thought into two camps: the ancients (like Plato) are wise and wily, whereas the moderns (like Locke and other liberals) are vulgar and foolish.


5) Justice Is Merely The Interest Of The Stronger


Strauss shares the insights of the wise Plato that justice is merely the interest of the stronger; that those in power make the rules in their own interests and call it justice.


6) “The Rule Of The Wise” is unquestionable, absolute, authoritarian, undemocratic and covert

The rule of the wise is not to be questioned: one is not to raise questions about classic values such as justice or constitutional principles; hence the rule of the wise must be unquestioned.


The rule of the wise is to be absolute, authoritarian and undemocratic: The rule of the wise cannot involve any consideration of the unwise: Leo Strauss said: “It would be equally absurd to hamper the free flow of wisdom by consideration of the unwise wishes of the unwise; hence the wise rulers ought not to be responsible to the unwise subjects;” the rule of the wise must be absolute and authoritarian; majority-democracy would result in the subjection of what is by nature higher to that which is lower. Strauss’ reading of Plato comes down to this: a majority-democracy is an act against nature and must be prevented at all costs. Under the Straussian autocratic system, dissent is not only dangerous, it is seditious.


This rule of the wise must be covert; and this principle is facilitated by the overwhelming stupidity of the gentlemen. The more gullible and unperceptive they are, the easier it is for the wise to control and manipulate them.


7) The Three Classes: The Wise-Few, The Vulgar-Many And The Gentlemen


The wise are the lovers of the harsh, unadulterated truth. They are capable of looking into the abyss without fear and trembling. They recognize neither God nor moral imperatives. They are devoted above all else to their own pursuit of the “higher” pleasures, which amount to consorting with their “puppies” or young initiates.


The vulgar many, are lovers of wealth and pleasure. They are selfish, slothful, and indolent. They can be inspired to rise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe.


The gentlemen, are lovers of honor and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society, that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honor, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment’s notice.


8) The State Is Omnipotent: It Manifests Militaristic Nationalism.


Strauss believed that human aggression could only be restrained by a powerful, nationalistic state. He believed that such an omnipotent state can only be maintained if there is an external threat, “even if one has to be manufactured.” This is why Straussians believe in perpetual war and is another reason why they have formed a cult around “the church of Lincoln,” whom they hold up as “the greatest statesman in history.” Lincoln manufactured many “threats,” including the truly bizarre notion that representative government would perish from the earth if the Southern states were permitted to secede peacefully. In reality, peaceful secession would have been a victory for self-government, keeping in mind that neither Lincoln nor Congress ever said that they were launching an invasion for any reason having to do with liberating the slaves.


Strauss taught that war – any war – will restore our “moral seriousness”, “clear away the fog of unthinking relativism,” enable us to see evil, restore virtue, heroism, valor, and a sense of sacrifice, allow us to die for our comrades, country and faith, avoid the “hazards of civilization,” make us more thoughtful, force us to “consider our loyalties,” make men “decisive”, and “place greatness within the reach of ordinary men.”


“Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed,” he once wrote. “Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can only be united against other people.”


The only way a political order can be stable and not deteriorate in hedonistic pleasure is if it is united by an external threat.


Wealth, freedom, and prosperity make people soft, pampered, and depraved. War is an antidote to moral decadence and depravity. Thus war is held to be redemptive


9) Perpetual War Is Necessary

Perpetual War not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in; thus an “aggressive, belligerent foreign policy,” of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars, not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss’ neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a “national destiny”, as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983, that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a “myopic national security.”


10) Patriotic Fervor Is To Be Rallied

The nation against its external enemies as well as its internal decadence, sloth, pleasure, and consumption, encourages a strong patriotic fervor among the honor-loving gentlemen who wield the reins of power. That strong nationalistic spirit consists in the belief that their nation and its values are the best in the world, and that all other cultures and their values are inferior in comparison.


11) Political Expediency And Murder Become Virtue


Athens, the democracy, weakened by plague, suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of oligarchic Sparta and its allies. Strauss, following Plato, did not grieve for the loss of Athens; the real city had been no match for the ideal city. In his view, the active life of the citizen of Periclean Athens suffered by comparison with the contemplative life of the philosopher.


The Straussians in the Department of Defense and in the think tanks took this to mean that they could kill on principle. And they did and they do. The first Bush sent his Spartan general to Iraq, and the second sent the same Spartan to the Security Council. The Straussians could not call their work politics, so they called it virtue.


12) Possess And As Necessary Present The “Hidden Meaning” Reject Countervailing Historical Narratives


Straussians routinely claim to possess unique understanding of the “hidden meaning” of history and historical documents, which is often directly at odds with the plain historical facts.


13) Maintain A Culture Of Lying And Carry On A Perpetual Confusion Campaign


Maintain a culture of lying through a compliant media and professional spokes-liars, and carry on a perpetual campaign to confuse the public and keep it ignorant of the elites political designs. The result of this is that Elite operate from a shroud of secrecy; thus their reasonings and logic is nontransparent.


Strauss continually endeavored to convince his acolytes that they are the natural ruling elite.


And it does not take much intelligence for them to surmise that they are in a situation of great danger, especially in a world devoted to the modern ideas of equal rights and freedoms. Now more than ever, the wise few must proceed cautiously and with circumspection. So, they come to the conclusion that they have a moral justification to lie in order to avoid persecution.


Yes Strauss goes so far as to say that dissembling and deception – in effect, a culture of lying – is the peculiar justice of the wise.


14) The Many Are Told What They Need To Know And No More.

Deception is carried on continually.


Lies are to be both aggressive and perpetual.


While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, the many could not cope; if exposed to anything other than the maintained reality, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy.


15) Lies Are Held To Be Nobel: Develop, Maintain And Present Noble Lies


Strauss believed in the concept of “noble lies”: the conviction that lies, far from being simply a regrettable necessity of political life, are instead virtuous and noble instruments of wise policy to keep the many from the dangers of liberalism and democracy.


Plato himself advised his nobles, men with golden souls, to tell noble lies, that is, political fables, much like the specter of Saddam Hussein with a nuclear bomb: to rally the people, to keep the other levels of human society (silver, iron, brass) in their proper places, loyal to the state and willing to do its bidding


Strauss defined the modern method of noble lies in the use of esoteric messages within an exoteric text, telling the truth to the wise while at the same time conveying something quite different to the many; thus he advocated an Orwellian double speak http://unauthorized link.com/8jxjo method of communication


16) Dissemble Democracy


Maintain true democracy that is a leadership-democracy for the Few while at the same time feign majority-democracy to the Many.


Relate the principle of true democracy to the elite: the strong must rule the weak. While at the same time dissemble http://unauthorized link.com/rpyod mythical democracy to the populace: the rule of the majority.


Strauss had no objections to democracy as long as a wise elite, inspired by the profound truths of the ancients


Wrap speeches with the American flag giving the appearance of appearance of legitimacy in dissimulation and deceit.


17) Religion Is For The Many


Strauss believed in, and proposed, a state religion as a way of reviving absolutes, countering free thought, and enforcing a cohesive unity. Strauss argued against a society containing a multiplicity of coexisting religions and goals, which would break the society apart.


Religion was primarily a propaganda tool to be used to get the many to acquiesce in state intervention on behalf of aggressive nationalism.


Authority and discipline are key values for Straussians; the many need religion to keep them in line. Marx called religion the opium of the people, Strauss thought the people needed their opium.


Thus, Religion is absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the many who otherwise would be out of control.


Religion was for the many alone; the philosopher kings need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were “a pious fraud.” Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers.


“Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,” because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society’s ability to cope with external threats or not be available for aggressive nationalism


18) Secrecy Is Essential

The wise must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals. People will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, and both lies and secrecy are thus necessary to protect the superior few from the persecution of the vulgar many.


19) Nature Abhors A Contract

Long before the events of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration, goaded on by Wolfowitz, Kristol, The American Enterprise Institute, The Project for the New American Century, and others on the right, had made a decision to oust Saddam Hussein. Bush seems to have had a personal vendetta, but the others had more philosophical reasons.


There was nothing Machiavellian about the attack. It was based on principles the planners derived from natural law. One suspects that President Bush, with his simplistic messianic mind-set, was attracted to this line of reasoning: The natural law in the yew hearts of human beings, the innate ability to know right from wrong, took precedence over mere convention.


And so the Bush regime violated the contract that was agreed to when the United States joined the United Nations; it flouted the U.S. Constitution, which is also a contract, by attacking without the required declaration of war by the Congress; and it disregarded the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in other secret detention camps around the world.


The administration’s wise men held up Strauss’s version of natural law as the model, dismissing contracts as mere laws of men.


Natural law, interpreted by Bush’s “wise counsels,” gave the President permission to launch a preemptive war through an appeal to the higher power. Natural-law theory assumes that men seek the good and that by asking the perennial questions–what is virtue? What is justice?–they will come to wisdom.


Straussians, like Kristol, hold that the Founding Fathers espoused natural-law theory, saying that natural law was both divine and self-evident. But the Founders were concerned with inalienable natural rights. After much debate in their convention, they wrote a contract.


20) Intimidate All Opponents


“Professors who had less respect for Leo Strauss . . . were read quotations from [Strauss’s] Natural Right and History.” The other faculty and students at Chicago viewed the Straussians as “intellectual brown shirts, engaged in a campaign of deliberate intimidation.” This of course is a practice that these same people practice today, rarely engaging in honest intellectual debate but rather attempting to intimidate or censor those who disagree with them. Alan Keyes, for example, typically dismisses his critics as being “incapable of recognizing moral purpose,” as though he alone possesses such abilities.


21) Extinguish The Fires of Rabble


Jim Lobe in ‘Strong Must Rule The Weak’ writes: As for what a Straussian world order might look like, (Shadia) Drury said the philosopher often talked about Jonathan Swift’s story of Gulliver and the Lilliputians. ”When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect.”


The fires of rabble are the modern licentious doctrines and philosophies; these include such things as individualism, liberty, legalism and constitutionalism. The fires of rabble have resulted in great social decay: divorce, delinquency, crime, and abounding creature comforts; and the fires of rabble have created seditious constructs of contracts, statutes and constitutions.


The Vulgar, that is America, is literally on fire; in order for it to be saved, the fires of rabble must be extinguished through the institution of martial law.


22) Ennoble The Many


If the Few were to give the Many, such things as freedom, happiness, and prosperity, in Strauss’s estimation, this would turn them into animals.


The goal of the wise is to ennoble the vulgar. But what could possibly ennoble the vulgar? Only weeping http://unauthorized link.com/mtm8l worshipping http://unauthorized link.com/lh2p5 and sacrificing http://unauthorized link.com/mrs2n ennobles the many.


Concluding Remarks


1) Neo-conservatism is the ultimate stealth weapon of mass destruction whose purpose is to destroy liberty and affluence.


2) It is ironic that American neoconservatives have decided to conquer the world in the name of liberty and democracy, when they have so little regard for either


3) It is helpful to think in terms of opposites

Mother Teresa and Straussians are opposites. Mother Teresa was humble, willing to yield, caring and truthful; whereas, Straussians are exhalative, ruthless, uncaring and deceitful. If Leo Strauss were alive today he might consider the above statement “seditious”, one worthy of Ennoblement.


4) Strauss as a nihilist

Strauss is a nihilist in the sense that he believes that there is no rational foundation for morality.


He is an atheist, and he believes that in the absence of God, morality has no grounding. It’s all about benefiting others and oneself; there is no objective reason for doing so, only rewards and punishments in this life.


But Strauss is not a nihilist if we mean by the term a denial that there is any truth, a belief that everything is interpretation.


He does not deny that there is an independent reality. On the contrary, he thinks that independent reality consists in nature and its “order of rank” – the high and the low, the superior and the inferior. Like Nietzsche, he believes that the history of western civilization has led to the triumph of the inferior, the rabble – something they both lamented profoundly.

http://unauthorized link.com/25bxx






Source with footnotes: http://dissidentnews.wordpress.com/2007/01...ing-glass-news/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Aug 19 2007, 01:05 PM
Post #9


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Another interesting read re fascism in the US. I've bolded the last paragraph









The Threat of U.S. Fascism: An Historical Precedent


by Alan Nasser



Perhaps the most alarming slice of twentieth-century U.S. history is virtually unknown to the general public, including most scholars of American history. One hopes that a recent BBC documentary titled The Plot Against America and an article of the same name by Columbia Law School professor and longtime human rights activist Scott Horton, on the website of Harper’s magazine, will sound an alert.


In 1934 a special Congressional committee was appointed to conduct an investigation of a possible planned coup intended to topple the administration of president Franklin D. Roosevelt and replace it with a government modelled on the policies of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini. The shocking results of the investigation were promptly scotched and stashed in the National Archives. While the coup attempt was reported at the time in a few newspapers, including The New York Times, the story disappeared from public memory shortly after the Congressional findings were made available to president Roosevelt. It was the recent release from the Archives of the Congressional report that prompted the BBC and Horton commentaries.


The Congressional committee had discovered that some of the foremost members of the economic elite, many of them household names at the time, had indeed hatched a meticulously detailed and massively funded plot to effect a fascist coup in America. The owners of Bird’s Eye, Maxwell House and Heinz, among others, totaling about twenty four major businessmen and Wall Street financiers, planned to assemble a private army of half a million men, composed largely of unemployed veterans. These troops would both constitute the armed force behind the coup and defeat any resistance this in-house revolution might generate. The economic elite would provide the material resources required to sustain the new government.


The plotters hoped that widespread working-class discouragement at the stubborn persistence of the Great Depression would have sufficiently disenchanted the masses with FDR’s policies to make the coup an easy ride. And they were appalled at Roosevelt’s willingness after 1933 to initiate economic policies that economists and businessmen considered dangerously Leftist departures from economic orthodoxy. Only a fascist-style government, they thought, could enforce the kind of economic “discipline” that would reverse the Great Depression and restore profits.


Interestingly, it was a military man, a prominent retired general assigned the task of raising the 500,000-man army, who blew the whistle after pondering the grotesque implications of the undemocratic installation of a fascist dictatorship in Washington. FDR was thus able to nip the plot in the bud.


The president might have used the occasion to alert the public to the anti-democratic impulses of a major segment of the capitalist class. But this of course would only have bolstered the fortunes of Communist, Socialist and other anti-capitalist political tendencies here, which were already gaining some ground among artists, intellectuals and a surprising number of working people. It is well known that Hollywood screenwriting in the 1930s was replete with Communist-inspired sentiment.


And of course we must not forget that FDR was himself a (somewhat renegade) member of the very class that would have toppled him. While FDR was open to watered-down Keynesian policies in a way that very few of his class comrades were, his commitment (like Keynes’s) to the “free enterprise” system was unconditional. He had no interest in publicizing a plot that might constitute a public-relations victory for anti-capitalist politics. He therefore refused to out the plotters, and sought no punitive measures against them. In the end, class solidarity carried the day for Roosevelt. The Congressional committee cooperated by refusing to reveal the names of many of the key plotters.


Thus, fascist tendencies gestating deep within the culture of the U.S. ruling class were effectively left to develop unhindered by mass political mobilization.


Might this grisly episode have important implications for our understanding of the current political moment? One may be inclined to think so on the basis of the fact that one of the architects of the plot was one Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush. Bush, along with many other big businessmen, had maintained friendly relations in 1933 and 1934 with the new German government of Chancellor Adolph Hitler, and was designated to form for his class conspirators a working relationship with that government.


While Bush-bashing is highly recommended, the implications of this unsettling piece of history for contemporary politics run deeper than many of us would like to think. There is the temptation to point triumphantly to George W. Bush’s commitment to the irrelevance of the Constitution, which he has sneeringly referred to as “a piece of paper”, his corresponding contempt for hitherto taken-for-granted fundamental human rights, his Hobbesian notion of unbridled sovereignty, his militarized notion of political power and corresponding bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy - there is the temptation to regard these genuinely fascist elements as the most significant contemporary remnant of the 1934 conspiracy.


But no less important is the utter absence in 1934 of liberal attempts to educate the public to, and mobilize the population against, the fascist threat. FDR stood down.


Although Rooseveltian/New Deal liberalism is dead, contemporary Democrats do sustain one of FDR’s least seemly qualities, namely his refusal to encourage effective mass opposition to fascist and imperialist politics. John Kerry boasted of having contributed to the drafting of the Patriot Act. And in the most recent round of crucial legislation regarding the war in Iraq, the Democrats gave Bush everything he wanted. All the major presidentail contenders of both parties support a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq. None has repudiated the conceit that Uncle sam is and should ever be the global hegemon. And most importantly, none has repudiated the Neoliberal Consensus, the notion that the market should be left to operate as “freely” as the public can be persuaded to allow it to act, and, crucially, that this is a model that should be imposed globally through the power of the U.S. working in tandem with such powerful global institutions as the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO.


To the extent that this policy has been successful, inequalities between national classes and between the global North and South have widened dramatically since the decline of the Keynesian consensus in the mid-1970s. Since the Mondale candidacy, no Democrat has had a full-employment plank in his presidential platform. The median wage has been in secular decline since 1973, and the distribution of national income between capital and labor has not been as skewed toward capital since the Great Depression. But no member of either party has made a major issue of this.


One of the most powerful obstacles to appreciating the relevance of the 1934 planned coup to our times is the virtually ubiquitous misconception that the gross inequalities and anti-working-class policies now evident, and the reckless carnage that characterizes U.S. foreign policy, is the result of the “neoconservative revolution” ushered in by George W. Bush. But it was Clinton’s cynical jettisoning of his relatively progressive Economic Stimulus Plan, his abolition of “welfare as we know it” without providing a replacement, and his ruthless bombing of Yugoslavia and “sanctions” against Iraq that both foreshadowed and paved the way for Bush’s atrocities. The truism that the Democratic Party has moved ever closer to the Republicans since the Carter administration must not be forgotten. Indeed it is an understatement. To fully appreciate the reality of democratic capitulation as an alleged “opposition party” we need only reflect upon the consequences of Clinton’s sanctions against Iraq.


Clinton bombed Iraq several times weekly for eight years. Defense Information Agency documents, now available through the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that the strategy of the bombing was to extensively bomb water purification facilities and power generating facilities with the explicit intention to spread diseases that would affect children. The idea was to pressure ordinary Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, with the knowledge that if they did so, the pedicide would cease. But Iraqis blamed Washington for this catastrophe, not Saddam. When Saddam offered to accede to Clinton’s requirements for ending the bombing, Clinton abruptly replied that no possible concessions on Saddam’s part would lead him to end the bombing/sanctions.


Extensive investigations by widely respected sources, including the distinguished British medical journal The Lancet, determined that the number of Iraqi children who died as a direct result of the pedicidal bombardment was 467,000. And it added a fact unreported in the U.S. media, that the U.S. use of depleted uranium in the attacks had resulted in the first known cases of breast cancer afflicting four-year-old girls. When Clinton’s Secretary of state Madeline Albright was asked by Lesley Stahl in 1996 on 60 Minutes whether she thought that the removal of Saddam from power was worth killing a half million children, she replied that “Yes, it was worth it.”


Is this qualitatively different from the death and destruction that Bush has wrought? Of course not. The British playwright Harold Pinter has characterized both Clinton and Bush as “mass murderers”, and the accusation sounds indeed brutal. But is it accurate? How can one deny that it is?


Today’s Democrats’ abdication of the role of opposition party is far more consequential than Roosevelt’s decision to permit our embryonic fascists to continue to gestate. The difference between FDR and his Republican antagonists was far greater than the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats today. Today’s Democrats have internalized and identified with the interests of those whom they should be actively mobilizing the population against. The Republocrats are now all of them heir to the fascist instincts inherent in the ruling elite. Republican elites manifest this in their policies as the party in power; Democratic elites evidence their unsavory class heritage by railing ritualistically against the Republicans even as they betray their fed-up constituencies by supporting the fundamental policies of their alleged “opponents”.


Effective opposition at the current historical juncture requires the only force capable of defeating the neoliberal and imperialist obsessions of the mainstream parties and their financial masters: street politics, the mobilization and eventual organization of the people against a ruling establishment seen by an increasing number of Americans as terminally corrupt and indifferent to their most pressing needs.


Lest this popular disaffection be siphoned into an impotent and resigned cynicism, it would seem that intense educational efforts regarding the desirability and possibility of a third party, a genuine party of labor, become a priority for serious progressives. MoveOn must yield to MoveBeyond. As harder economic times threaten the not distant future, the economic stagnation and austerity that is fertile soil for the growth of fascist politics poses an unmistakbly clear and present danger. Thinking and acting outside the political box has never been as pressing an impertive as it is now.




Source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/02/2933
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mo fiya
post Aug 19 2007, 01:24 PM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 806
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 104



Painter, that was a great article. I'm spreading it as we speak.

How do you code these articles like this? Is there some kind of format template that you just plug the website into, or do the webpages themselves have a place where you can retrieve that code to post it like this?

I sometimes copy your code from your post, if you don't mind, but i'm wondering how to code an article myself like this...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Aug 19 2007, 02:20 PM
Post #11


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (mo fiya @ Aug 19 2007, 09:24 AM)
Painter, that was a great article.  I'm spreading it as we speak.

How do you code these articles like this?  Is there some kind of format template that you just plug the website into, or do the webpages themselves have a place where you can retrieve that code to post it like this?

I sometimes copy your code from your post, if you don't mind, but i'm wondering how to code an article myself like this...

First of all, not every member can use HTML in their posts. You are a "valued member" so you should be able to. Also, HTML has to be turned on for use in the forum. Not all forums have it turned on -- for no particular reason other than it has to be done by an Admin and we just have never done it but would if someone requested.

Second, I keep a text file with the basic code on my desk top that looks like this:
CODE
[doHTML]
<blockquote><blockquote>
<hr color="red" size="2">
<br>

PLACE HTML CODED ARTICLE HERE

</blockquote></blockquote>
[/doHTML]


That is my basic format I use over and over again.

Third requires that I select from my browser menu options "View" and then "Source." This shows me the code that underlies a page. I know enough about HTML to be able to select out the relevant text and even make some modifications if I need to. If the article has a "printerformat" link (to see the article without adds, tables, and such) then I click to that page first before View > Source as it is cleaner and easier to select and copy the text I want.

Does that help?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mo fiya
post Aug 19 2007, 02:46 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 806
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 104



yes, it helps a bit. I figured it had to do with a having a little HTML code knowledge, which i can say i'm very limited in.

I'll play with it a bit, and see if i can figure it out.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 19 2007, 03:32 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



I have a well defined opinion on this, but I can't back it up with much, it's more of a hunch - but I can explain why I think it.

I tried to organise some data to identify the world's worst globalists once, I had it narrowed it down to about 600 people when the 'free try out period' on the data base I was using ran out (and I didn't feel like shelling out the money to buy it). Not just globalists, but neocons and military-complex blood-suckers as well. In order to organize them I first identified the most powerful think tanks (many of them had neoconservative leanings). Names made it onto my list if they were members of at least 3 significant political groups/secretive-clubs or think thanks , and I made special exceptions for billionaires, Bush admin officials, Federal Reserve board members, and, just, people that had just done a lot of bad stuff. (Be patient, I'm getting somewhere with all this.)

I noticed that alot of the same people hung out with each other alot, that is were members of mostly the same political groups and think tanks. There was the top-tier globalist crowd, they had their own clubs such as the Institute for International Economics and were often on the Bilderberg Steering Committee, and invariably contained prominent bankers, EU leaders, royalty, and people like David Rockefeller, Peter Peterson, Maurice Greenberg, Peter Sutherland, Conrad Black, Fred Bergsten, etc.

Then there was the military-complex blood-sucker crowd, who you could find visiting Bohemian Grove, on member lists of the US Committee on NATO or the Committee on the Present Danger, or places like the Defense Policy Board or the RAND Advisory Board. Sometimes these people were Neocons or had ties to them, others often had ties to the Bush Sr. or Reagan administrations, such as the Bechtels (Riley and Steven Jr.).

Then there were the bona-fide Neocon think thanks, there were a bunch of them, AEI, PNAC, Heritage Foundation, Freedom House, Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, etc. They weren't the richest bunch of people, but often the loudest, publishing lots of papers all the time.

Finally you had a geo-political intellectual crowd that sometimes followed Zbigniew Brzezinski around, for example, there is a think tank called the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya that he and a bunch of other prominent people are members of. Center for Strategic & International Studies and Americans for Victory over Terrorism are a couple other of their favorite think tanks. These people generally are not as myopic about Middle East issues and focus more on the whole world as a chessboard.

Then there's Henry Kissinger, who seems to swim with everyone, in fact if you look at corporate connections between many of these people, more lines run through Kissinger Associates than anywhere else. Prominent Americans from all these "groups" as I defined them are often members of the CFR - who seem to welcome power-brokers of all denominations.

I would have to add a fifth group, you could call them "just-plain-rich-businessmen", and there were a lot of these too. They would be guys that ran oil companies or food industry empires for example, were members of the CFR and/or the Trilateral Commission and were frequent attendees at Bilderberg meetings (or Bohemian Grove).

After playing around with, doing cross references, and all kinds of searches on these hundreds of names and dozens of groups, clubs and think tanks for a couple of weeks, I came away with a sense of how complicated it all was and the various groups that there were which, in their totality, appeared to run the world from behind the scenes, and, how the different circles both overlapped and competed for position.

Two of these groups contain a prominent Zionist element, the Neocons and the military-industrial complex blood-suckers. But there is another connection that can't be ignored, and that is the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds' long time ally the Warburg family became officially represented in this web long ago when Paul Warburg helped set up the Federal Reserve system, but much more recently the family's company bought Dillon Read & Co. (which had close ties to several former officials of the first Bush administration) and became Warburg Dillon Read ... but, the Rothschilds themselves never get involved in these secretive groups, much less political ones (- however one member of the French Rothschild family showed up at a couple of Bilderberg meetings as I remember). Yet, the influence of the world's most prominent banking family (the Rothschilds) in world affairs cannot be ignored even if they aren't attending meetings somewhere, and the family has a substantial interest in Israel, being that they were involved in it's formation from almost the beginning.

You would think that there would be some identifiable connections between the Neocons in America (who tend to fit the desciption of 'Zionist'), and the Rothschilds in England in Europe (because some of their ancestors had a hand in founding the state of Israel), but there aren't. Furthermore, it is difficult to put the "Zionist" stamp on the Rothschild family because they avoid the association like the plague, one exception being their association (through Jacob Shiff) with the establishment of the Anti-Defamation League a century ago.

Before we can answer the question, is the "war on terror" Zionist engineered? - there's one other piece to the puzzle that I feel is important. Aaron Russo's confession of some of the things Nicholas Rockefeller told him (Nick Rockefeller himself, besides being a member of the most powerful family in America, is a member of the CFR, RAND Advisory Board and International Institute of Strategic Studies). According to the things Russo has related in interviews, the whole plan to privatise oil in the middle east, make Afghanistan safe for pipelines, put US bases in Iraq, join the US Mexico and Canada into the North American Union, and moving toward a cashless society are all part of a many faceted massive plan that 9/11 would kick off.

So if 9/11 wasn't just about invading the Middle East and destroying Israel's enemies, but was also about establishing bases to secure the region for other reasons (oil being the prime one), and also about increasing US homegeny in Central Asia, and even about supressing personal liberties around the world in anticipation of further moves toward one-world-government, then how much importance should we afford to the Zionists in all this?

I don't think you can ignore the fact that the Rockefellers (prominent among the "top-tier globalist group"), and David's longtime friend Zbiggy Brzezinski (who sort of occupies the same role in the "geo-political intellectual group") are not generally associated with a Zionist agenda, although David Rockefeller is pretty good pals with Henry Kissinger. On the other hand, a Zionist slant in the way the US media treats the Israeli/Palestinian conflict can't be ignored either. We know that the Neocons are pretty Zionist in their leanings, but what about the Military-Industrial complex blood-suckers? Many Zionists such as Richard Perle wield influence in this circle, but money made through war is the real attractor here and there are many in this group that could care less about Israel, but would gladly sell their weapons to them. Then you have the unknown factor, the Rothschilds. Some would say they harbor secret Zionist leanings, some would say they are more about money, I would agree with both assesments.

So given my confusing analysis based on little more than my own gut feelings (but having spent some time studying these issues), how much importance should be afforded to Zionists in their involvement in 9/11?

Hmmm, I'd say about a third. 50% max. (The perpetrators would love for truthers to allocate more BTW, so they can connect us with holocaust deniers and call us names. )

I'd also say that the War on Terror has united all of these groups and agendas in certain ways - 'cause they are all getting something out of it. Maybe the senior people from all these factions were in on the planning of the "War on Terror" to one degree or another. I think so.



The "David and Nelson" Towers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Aug 19 2007, 04:10 PM
Post #14


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



@ Sanders

Make sense to me. You've done a lot more research in this arena than I have. I just don't have the time or patience for it. Thanks for your post. Very informative and I view it as an "educated perception" based on your study.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Aug 19 2007, 05:55 PM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (waterdancer @ Aug 19 2007, 02:39 PM)
The question I ask myself is this... does X help or hinder our chances of increasing the 9/11 Truth movement and potentially getting a new investigation. If possibly both, which does it do more?

replace X in this case with something like "emphasizing a link between Zionists and 9/11".

I'll stick with WTC 7, and the wargames thanks all the same, Beached. If exposing the perps and the full truth on 9/11 ever actually makes it out of the starting gate, well then all leads should be followed up in order to unravel the ball of yarn. But I just ain't seeing that as being about to happen. Until then antiZionism =  blahblah1.gif to the masses and the kneejeck reply is always going to be ANTISEMITISM!!!!

How does that help? IMO it doesn't.

I too used to be of the opinion that should I go so far as to explain the Zionist role in 9/11, the sheople would not listen. So instead, I decided to focus on other aspects, such as the demolition of the Twin Towers. However, I soon came to the conclusion that those who saw the anomalies there, were certainly smart enough to see that 9/11 could not possibly have been an administrational conspiracy as videos like Loose Change insinuate.

After all, if this were the case, why didn't anyone in the media or democrat party seek to expose this? How does George Bush suppress evidence of his crime, and exert control over the media both at home and abroad? Without an understanding of the Zionist power structure in America (and worldwide) the notion of this being the work of the US government seems absurd to many.

Some people attempt to explain away their silence on the grounds that the media companies are helpless victims of the mysterious, nebulous New World Order and Illuminati who are comprised of a group of "Globalists" and Devil Worshipers.

However, until somebody can identify these mysterious people and explain how they force media companies around the world to cover up these horrific crimes, it makes more sense to assume that the media is directly involved in these crimes, and that they are among the top members of this criminal network.

The most logical explanation is that the Zionists are promoting other Zionists to top positions in the government, media, banking, Hollywood, and education. The more Zionists they promote, the easier it is for them to take control of the nation and suppress evidence of their network.

Nobody accuses us of anti-Italianism when we complain about Italian gangs, so why should it be considered anti-Semitic to complain about Zionist criminals? This is because the Zionists have discovered the clever trick of accusing their critics of anti-Semitism; thus admonishing against any criticism of them on the grounds that such people are Nazi sympathizers.

If people accuse you of anti-Semitism, tell them to look at what the Rabbis are saying. For example, it's difficult to explain to the sheople that Zionists assisted the Nazi Party, so instead tell them that the Rabbis against Zionism are claiming that Zionists were helping the Nazis!

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemi...caust/index.cfm

If someone accuses you of anti-Semitism, don't attempt to appease them - fight back and expose their ignorance!!



This post has been edited by Beached: Sep 8 2007, 11:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Aug 19 2007, 07:07 PM
Post #16


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



QUOTE
People like Jon Carlson attempt to explain away the media silence on the grounds of their "corporate" ownership. For instance, he tells us that NBC is owned by General Electric, and that General Electric benefits from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, while General Electric may be a shareholder in the company, Edgar Bronfman owns NBC!


Not trying to be a smart ass here Beached, but the Seagram's heir apparent f*ck up, Edgar Bronfman, Jr. don't own NBC, GE does. The family had to sell Vivendi Universal to GE because they were losing their ass over the purchase. Then to finally get out of hock and dumbasses bad business practices, the Seagram's line was sold to the Pernod interests in France. CEO and Chairman of GE, Jeffrey Immelt, runs the show. The talking heads on CNBC line up to kiss his ass when he graces them with an interview. The global media empires are part of the ruling elite. More powerful than those in government.

As Painter says so well, "he who controls your perception, controls your reality." bush/cheney would have to call ahead to get an appointment with Immelt before seeing him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Travellerev
post Aug 19 2007, 07:47 PM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 82
Joined: 21-June 07
Member No.: 1,207



QUOTE (Beached @ Aug 18 2007, 06:42 AM)
By Christopher Bollyn
10 April 2007

The "war on terror" is a fraud and dangerous threat to the American people and republic.

It is nothing more than a Zionist deception that has been used to manipulate the U.S. military to wage war on Israel's behalf while imposing a centralized police command under the guise of "homeland security" throughout the United States.

To read on:
http://iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Zionist-de...to-control.html

I'm glad that this subject is discussed on this site.
Having grown up in the aftermath of the 2 WW in the Netherlands I have taken a long time to be able to separate Zionism from anti-Semitism. As a child growing up with a step grandmother (if such a thing exists) who was from the Jewish Frank (as in Anne Frank) family who lost her husband and spent three years living in an attic with her two young children, and who could not even throw perishables away for fear of ever finding her self without food again, it seemed natural that the Jews wanted their own state, and it wasn't until I started debating the Palestinians kidnapping and killing part of the athletic team of Israel in Munich with our social science teacher who was also the Rabbi of the Jewish liberal community in Amsterdam that I began to wonder about Israel and the suppression of the Palestinians.
For me liberation to touch upon this sensible subject came when I googled "Jews against Zionism" and it turned out that a huge percentage of the most devout and Orthodox Jews are totally opposed to the state of Israel and protest with the Palestinians for the right to return to their lands.
Even the Jewish community in Iran is vehemently anti-Zionist in the western press and rejects any financial offer to live in Israel. Actually a little known fact is that Ahmadinejad, painted as anti-Semitic, recently donated money to the Jewish hospital in Tehran.

I think it is perfectly normal to discuss and dismiss a movement that has resulted in the death and destruction of so many and so much, and that has been used a rationale for war all over the middle east. Especially since we do it with so many Jews on our side.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Aug 20 2007, 02:00 AM
Post #18





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



Outstanding thread! Outstanding posts!

Thank you, Beached, for starting it!

IMO it should be moved out of the 'Latest News' forum to 'Research' and (or) be linked to the Library.

@Sanders: I remember you worked on this data-base and I also remember the central roll of Kissinger Associates. I was waiting for the final result especially because of this aspect. It is very possible for me, that old Henry Kissinger was (or still is) the King of the Secret Gouvernment (or the GE of World Empire Inc. - whichever you prefer).

How else is it possible, that only 4 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Henry Kissinger made one of the first 'official' statements, when he was asked by Aaron Brown on CNN about the "historical context" of the attacks and replied without hesitation:

"This is comparable to an attack on Pearl Harbor. And it must have the same response, and the people who did it must have the same end as the people who attacked Pearl Harbor."
one of the sources: http://www.nachdemfilm.de/no1/rob02dts.html

Translation for insiders: "Just to make sure you all know - WE did it! This is our 'New Pearl Harbour', the 'catalytic effect' we were talking about all the time"

Is Henry Kissinger a Zionist ???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 20 2007, 03:31 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Aug 20 2007, 03:00 PM)
Is Henry Kissinger a Zionist ???

He's obviously pro-Israel. ... I certainly wouldn't put "war-crime-Hank" in the "Rabbis against Zionism" camp.

I would be careful to call him a Zionist. I didn't say it outright, but did "allude" that Kissinger was in that camp - here's an interesting piece on "Kissinger on Iran" that the media didn't pick up.
http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/blog/arnol...ssinger_on_iran

I found it revealing that he and Richard Perle (can't get anymore Zionist than Richard Perle) are very connected. Kissinger is (or at least was) a director @ Perle's company Trireme (the company's name is the ancient Greek word for the warships they used back then), and Perle was or is a director @ Kissinger Associates as well. Perle got his seed money to start up Trireme from Conrad Black of Hollinger International, which Black ran at the time. Perle was the co-chairman of Hollinger Digital, one of Hollinger's offshoots (and did a lousy job from what I can tell), and was also a director of the Jerusalem Post, one of Hollinger's papers. I couldn't see why someone like Conrad Black was mixed up with Richard Perle. I think they were introduced at a Bilderberg meeting and maybe the relationship was kept out of consideration to Kissinger (?). Conrad Black was finally kicked off Hollinger by its shareholders for embezzlement, he was convicted on fraud and obstruction charges and is out on bail right now awaiting sentencing (I think sentencing is squeduled for November).

This article is quite entertaining
http://www.slate.com/id/2106175/

Some of the most intriguing passages in the report deal with Black's relationship to Richard Perle, the former Reagan defense official and neocon icon. In a fine Washington Post article last May, David Hilzenrath described Perle's many misadventures in the private sector, most of which were confined to lobbying. But Perle didn't want to be a mere influence peddler. He wanted to be a businessman, a venture capitalist, a Big Swinging Dick. He saw his opportunity at Hollinger. That's because Conrad Black imagined himself to be not merely a peddler of newspapers, but a Metternich in the boardroom. For Lord Black, owning a media company was an excuse to muse over the Treaty of Vienna with board members like Henry Kissinger. Black and Perle were made for each other. Perle got Black's capital. Black added another trophy to his collection of prize conservative geopolitical thinkers.
As Hilzenrath noted, the two met at (natch!) the Bilderberg Conference. Perle joined the Hollinger board in 1994 and quickly became part of Black's inner circle, serving on the company's executive committee. In the late 1990s, as the section of the report beginning on Page 339 shows, Perle got it into his head that Hollinger should form a unit to invest in Internet companies. And who better to run it than a former assistant secretary of defense? Never mind that Perle knew as much about the prospects of Trip.com as Amazon.com CEO Jeffrey Bezos knew about throw weights.
Perle was named chairman and chief executive officer of the new unit, Hollinger Digital. Still it was clear who was boss. "According to Perle, Black was the ultimate decision maker on investments," the report notes. What's more, Perle "lacked the authority to commit Digital's capital without Black's approval."

But alas, the Black-Perle marriage soured. Hollinger Digital, which got started in the late 1990s, was a disaster. "Of the forty-five investments the Digital executives made, only five have resulted in gains," according to the report. By the end of 2003, the fund had lost $68 million on investments of $203 million, "yielding a total return of -33%."
Unchastened by the losses, Perle started his own private equity firm, Trireme Partners, which he founded in 2001 along with Gerald Hillman, a fellow member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Perle tried to hit up Hollinger for a $25 million commitment, with $2.5 million up front. Black resisted, in part because Black, a world-class chiseler himself, felt he was getting chiseled by Perle. On Feb. 1, 2002, Black wrote a memo questioning Perle's habit of submitting personal bills for reimbursement: "I have been consulted about your American Express account which has been sent to us for settlement. It varies from $1,000 to $6,000 per month and there is no substantiation of any of the items which include a great many restaurants, groceries and other matters."
In late 2002 and early 2003, negotiations between Black and Perle grew heated. Ultimately, Black seems to have concluded that $2.5 million was a small price to pay to get rid of Perle...


laugh.gif

Another related article:
Hollinger Probes Investments Tied to Kissinger, Perle
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...tent_id=2044512

(@Zapzarap

Sorry I never finished that project. It was too much work ... it's dicey when you're impling that some super powerful person was somehow connected to 9/11 and putting up information about them and the groups and think tanks they belong to, you have to source the information and get it all correct. Unfortunately, much of this info is hard to confirm, and some of it out there is either out of date or just plain wrong. With hundreds of people involved, it was just too much.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Aug 20 2007, 10:48 AM
Post #20





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Aug 20 2007, 06:00 AM)
IMO it should be moved out of the 'Latest News' forum to 'Research' and (or) be linked to the Library.

I agree - definately a research thread! cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th October 2019 - 09:17 PM