+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 8 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 155

Thread: For an idea on the "big" picture

  1. Link to Post #21
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,626
    Thanks
    59,352
    Thanked 93,872 times in 15,336 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Tesla... attracting psychos like flies are to smelly things!

    Where did Tesla's inventions ended up?

    It's not a rabbit hole anymore; it's a field poke-marked by a family of moles:

    The followings are excerpts from an article by Don Nicoloff published in the Idaho Observer in 2007:

    What you are about to read is another step beyond research pioneered in the early 90s by author/historian Webster Tarpley based largely on deathbed “clues” provided by former Hitler bodyguard Otto Skorzeny and his box of photographs. Since Skorzeny’s death in 1999, the various leads he provided have been followed up and tend to support what, at first blush, would appear to be the unbelievable rantings of an embittered old man. What remains constant as we pore through publicly available official records, private correspondence, memoirs, newspaper articles, photos and other “clues” is that Bush family records (the ones that exist) are a puzzle palace of inconsistencies and curiosities. […]

    By Don Nicoloff

    [...]

    Nikola Tesla
    Despite conflicting literary and historical accounts, Nikola Tesla, a Serb, was born on July 10, 1856, in Smilja, Lika province, or what is now modern-day Croatia. Prior to World War I, Smilja was on the border of the Austro-Hungarian empire so, in effect, Tesla was a citizen of Austrian origin.

    […]

    Upon completing his studies in engineering and physics at the Polytechnic Institute in Graz, Austria, Tesla attended the University at Prague. He demonstrated, early on, an innate ability to solve mechanical and scientific problems, especially in the area of electricity and its applications in power production. After working for Edison Telephone Company subsidiaries in Budapest, Paris, and other cities throughout Europe, Nikola Tesla went to America, to meet the man whose company gave him his first job, Thomas Edison.

    Tesla found it difficult to work for Edison (due to Edison’s reneging on financial promises), but soon found backers to finance his research and development projects and his new inventions. Financiers, such as John Pierpont (J.P.) Morgan, George Westinghouse and John Jacob Astor were among those who saw the potential in Tesla’s pioneering, entrepreneurial spirit to capitalize on his technological discoveries in electricity, wireless communications, and physics.

    […]

    Previous accounts of Tesla’s association with Thomas Edison’s projects place him in the United States in the 1870s. His many technological discoveries were certain to have drawn the attention of those hungry for world domination and superiority. By and large, Tesla’s inventions and his career were excluded from our history books because his inventions and patents were stolen and then weaponized. It was never intended for us to learn about the suppression of Tesla’s advanced scientific discoveries, nor about those who profited from their theft—the orchestrators of the master plan.

    Though much has been written about Tesla’s successes and failures, few have detailed the behind-the-scenes financial activities which disclose a Nazi plot to acquire his technology, while research and development costs had largely been paid (unknowingly) by U.S. taxpayers. Many of Tesla’s patents fell into Nazi hands prior to and during World Wars I and II. As a result, Tesla continuously found himself in litigation over patent rights and other issues.

    Although he had succeeded in winning the majority of his patent lawsuits, his technology had been repeatedly stolen and sold to the German Nazis and other foreign governments, so he never achieved the financial success he deserved. The embezzlement of his capitalization went unchecked throughout Tesla’s career. At the time of his death (by murder, according to Skorzeny) on January 6, 1943, Tesla died virtually penniless.

    Tesla’s Assistant: George H. Scherff, Sr.
    Nikola Tesla’s successes in discovering new technologies did not go unnoticed by many industrial capitalists and world governments. In fact, many of his inventions were developed through secret government programs which began soon after his discoveries in alternating current (AC), electromagnetic energy, electric motors, generators, coils, radio transmission, energy-saving devices, and wireless transmission technologies. [One of those is the unfamous "Philadelphia Experiment"]


    Since Tesla was often buried deep in research at remote labs, many of his financial and legal affairs were supervised by his closest associate, George H. Scherff. Scherff often advised Tesla about pending patent litigation, contracts, proposals, demonstrations, and financial affairs. As any trusty associate would, Scherff stood beside Tesla through all the ups and downs of his financial nightmares, sometimes arranging for extended credit at the Waldorf-Astoria, where Tesla often resided, or by obtaining a cash advance toward research he had been contracted to perform. Near the end of his career, Tesla was evicted from the Waldorf for an outstanding bill which exceeded $20,000 — a rather large sum for those days.


    As Tesla worked on secret U.S. government projects at Colorado Springs, Colorado, Scherff communicated to Tesla the status of his business affairs. Tesla spoke of hopeful, future financial successes, though Scherff repeatedly delivered the news of dwindling funds. Tesla had begun construction of a wireless power transmission tower (“Wardenclyffe,” Shoreham, Long Island) with funds invested by J.P. Morgan. When Morgan discovered that the tower would transmit free electricity and radio waves, he cancelled the project and had the tower dismantled, then sold for scrap. Morgan was not about to allow Americans to receive free electricity, television and radio. Tesla was devastated when he received the news, but continued on with his new inventions.


    Some 12 years later, on October 14, 1918, Scherff wrote to Tesla at Colorado Springs. The correspondence focused on the usual disclosure of pending legal issues and attorney matters and was sent to Tesla on Tesla Company letterhead containing the company’s headquarters address at 8 W. 40th Street, New York, NY. [10] On October 15, 1918, (the next day) Tesla responded to Scherff’s letter (it seems impossible regarding our understanding of the technology available at the time, but these are the dates attached to the correspondence).
    An interesting anomaly: Tesla’s response was addressed to “George Scherff, Esq.,” Union Sulphur Co., 17 Battery Pl., New York, NY (Union Sulphur Company?). [11] This address was not the location of the Nikola Tesla Company.


    The Rockefeller Connection
    Records show that 17 Battery Place is the Whitehall Building and was owned by Frank Rockefeller, who, with his brothers William and John D., also owned many of the companies with offices located there. The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) had its world headquarters there, as well as a variety of oil, mining, and chemical companies. [12] Though Union Sulphur Company was run by its president, Herman Frasch, a German chemist who patented extraction methods for sulphur and petroleum, Frasch also worked for John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company (in New York, New Jersey, and Cleveland, Ohio), developing similar extraction methods.


    On the basis of this association, George Scherff, Sr., had connections with the Rockefeller family, though it is unclear if Tesla was at all aware of this connection.


    Frank Rockefeller was also an investor of Buckeye Steel Castings in Columbus, Ohio. Buckeye manufactured automatic couplers and chassis for railroad cars owned by the Harrimans, the Rockefellers, and J.P. Morgan. Eventually, Samuel P. Bush was promoted from general manager to president of the company after producing gigantic profits.


    Samuel P. Bush’s association with the Rockefellers and his subsequent position as Director of the War Industries Board afforded him the opportunity to create contracts with Remington Arms during the war, courtesy of Percy Rockefeller.


    Nikola Tesla’s trusted assistant (sometimes referred to as “accountant” or “secretary”) George Scherff, Sr., worked at Union Sulphur Company. Normally, this association would not set off alarms, considering the state of Tesla’s affairs. Scherff had every right to earn a decent living in order to support his family. That was “the American Way.” But a careful examination of Union Sulphur Co. might reveal that someone was being deceived — Tesla, and Scherff was at the root of this deception.


    Who was George Scherff?
    Who was George Scherff? Better yet, who was George H. Scherff, Sr.? There exists no legitimate record of a George H. Scherff being born in the U.S. from the late-1800s through 1925, yet, George Scherff was Nikola Tesla’s assistant/accountant. If he was born in Germany, could his birthplace shed some light on this mystery? Probably—if they exist (it has become apparent that individuals associated with the Nazi Party commonly have all or parts of their genealogical records expunged—we will explore this further in the section of this article dealing with the “Bush” family tree).


    Otto Skorzeny: S.S./ODESSA/CIA master spy and assassin
    Friends and acquaintances of Nikola Tesla recall him complaining about Scherff’s son, George, Jr., always snooping around Tesla’s lab. On more than one occasion (probably during the late 1930s), Tesla caught the 14-year old Scherff looking at his notes, poring through his books, and stealing small items from his lab. Tesla gave him the nickname, “Curious George” and likened him to a “mischievous monkey.” According to Skorzeny, (Adolph Hitler’s former bodyguard) in a deathbed confession to Eric “Orion” (Eric Berman) in S. Miami, Florida, Tesla, “hated the younger Scherff.” In fact, according to Skorzeny, the “Curious George” book and movie were inspired by Tesla’s suggestion.


    Curiously, the day before the national theatrical release of the Hollywood production of the Curious George feature length film, Alan Shalleck, the originator of Curious George (and the man in the Yellow hat), was found murdered under a pile of plastic garbage bags in his driveway in Florida at age 76. [13]


    In short, Otto Skorzeny claimed that the true identity of George H.W. Bush was “George H. Scherff, Jr., the son of Nikola Tesla’s illegal-immigrant, German-born accountant, George H. Scherff, Sr.”

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Image-2011-7-20-23h42mn22.jpg
Views:	233
Size:	113.2 KB
ID:	8902


    According to Otto Skorzeny, pictured is the Scherff family and a few friends (circa 1938). Holding “Mother" Scherff’s hand at left is Martin Bormann. In front is Reinhardt Gehlen. In back is Joseph Mengele and to his right is Skorzeny as a young man. At center right (in the German navy uniform) is George H. Scherff, Jr. and his father George H. Scherff, Sr.
    Bormann became Hitler’s second in command. Reinhardt Gehlen was a chief SS officer and assassin who was smuggled out of Germany under Operation Paperclip. Skorzeny was Hitler's bodyguard and SS spy/assassin who came to the U.S. after the war under Project Paperclip. Skorzeny and GHW Bush were instrumental in merging Nazi (SS) intelligence with the OSI to form the CIA with "Wild Bill" Donovan and Allen Dulles. These guys were also part of CIA mind control experiments such as MK-ULTRA. SS officer and physician Joseph Mengele, the notoriously sadistic “Angel of Death” of Auschwitz, escaped Germany to South America after the war. George H. Scherff, Jr., became the 41st President of the United States as GHW Bush and George H. Scherff, Sr., was Nicola Tesla’s “trusted assistant.”

    […]


    He produced a photo of a young Skorzeny, Mengele, Bormann, and the family of George H. Scherff, Sr.. Seated in the midst of those in the photo was a young George H. Scherff, Jr., who, Skorzeny explained, was trained as a spy and sent to America to work for Adolph Hitler. “He was given false identification and adopted by Prescott Sheldon Bush as his “son,” George Herbert Walker Bush,” Skorzeny went on. “He forged a birth certificate in order to enter the military before he turned 18. He was 16 at the time.”


    In the family photo, a young Scherff and Bormann both sported a German Navy uniform. Scherff later enlisted in the U.S. Navy as “George H.W. Bush.”


    […]


    Berman [Eric “Orion”] recounted how Skorzeny was found “not guilty” at the Nuremburg trials, and then ushered into the CIA. “Some 50,000+ S.S. Nazi war criminals, not just rocket scientists, were brought to America after the war.”


    […]

    The significance of this benign description of Tesla’s inventions and his last days has a direct relationship to the previously unknown claims of Otto Skorzeny. As Skorzeny described (to Berman) in detail his involvement with George H. W. Bush (George H. Scherff, Jr.) in organizing the CIA by absorbing Nazi S.S. agents,” he intimated that it was Reinhard Gehlen and himself who murdered Nikola Tesla on January 6, 1943 by strangulation/suffocation.

    Prior to the murder, Skorzeny and Gehlen “spoke in great detail to Tesla about his most-advanced technologies and then stole the blueprints of his best, most-secret inventions.”

    Were these the “two U.S. government agents” about whom Dustin Wallace wrote? The timing of George Scherff’s last visit to Nikola Tesla was suspicious, as well.

    […]

    Upon the untimely death of Nikola Tesla, perhaps the world’s most renowned scientist in history, J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, received an unexpected visit from George H. Scherff, Jr. That George Scherff, Sr., Tesla’s trusted associate, chose to send his teenage son to visit the FBI’s notorious director should have raised a red flag, which it probably did among intelligence agencies. Scherff, Jr., explained to Hoover that he had worked for Tesla and was entitled to his papers and other effects. He also expressed concern that “a foreign government might also be interested in his inventions.” [16]

    […]


    In 1942, less than a year prior to Tesla’s untimely death, it was already known that principals at New York’s Union Banking Corporation had been caught “Trading with the Enemy,” Nazi Germany. Among the principals was George Herbert Walker, Prescott Sheldon Bush, “son” of industrialist Samuel Prescott Bush, who was president of Buckeye Steel Castings in Columbus, Ohio and the director of the Facilities Division of the War Industries Board. The WIB gave Samuel P. Bush unprecedented ties to the Eastern elite families through its association with one of the largest weapons manufacturers, Remington Arms. Buckeye Steel Castings supplied the railroad industry, controlled by the Rockefellers, the Harrimans, and J.P. Morgan with coupling parts and chassis for their tankers and railcars.


    Behind the scenes, Archbishop Francis Cardinal Spellman secretly influenced (or controlled) the activities of key intelligence agencies in the U.S., thus, affording the Vatican the opportunity to suppress potentially damaging information from reaching the public. Spellman and Hoover served the same “master,” though it was not the U.S. government. Upon the revelations of the New York / Nazi money laundering and war profiteering, records in the National Archives, in particular those related to Samuel P. Bush, were destroyed “in order to save space.” Most likely, those records exposed multiple, covert relationships in a conspiracy of monumental proportions.

    […]

    There you have 'em like-attracts-like-psychos... driving Tesla in the ground while ushering his inventions and discoveries underground, never to see the lights of day unless applied to get rid of "'em useless eaters"...

    What a world indeed!
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  2. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    alxz (19th February 2012), Bluegreen (23rd September 2017), bluestflame (18th February 2012), Ewan (5th August 2016), Griff (29th May 2013), heyokah (11th March 2012), hohoemi (3rd June 2013), Iloveyou (28th August 2017), Limor Wolf (18th February 2012), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), Paul (18th February 2012), sanma (9th March 2017), sdv (3rd September 2017), seko (13th April 2016), Sophocles (18th March 2013), StandingWave (13th May 2015), TargeT (31st May 2013)

  3. Link to Post #22
    Avalon Member sygh's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th June 2010
    Location
    Southport, North Carolina
    Age
    63
    Posts
    916
    Thanks
    5,100
    Thanked 2,075 times in 652 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Quote Posted by Artemesia (here)
    Indeed.

    Funny the things people do for what amounts to little pieces of paper with numbers on them.
    Yes, isn't it though. Funny how we work to own land we can never own, and can't take with us too. This physical state of being is a hoot. First there are the physical needs, then there are those pesky wants. The physical vessel, and the head games that go with it.

    As for the big picture, the illuminati know it's kind of like a recipe for an emotional soup, a titch of this here, a dob of that there, then simmer, and stir.
    Last edited by sygh; 21st July 2011 at 16:29.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sygh For This Post:

    Hervé (21st July 2011), Lord Sidious (21st July 2011), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017)

  5. Link to Post #23
    Avalon Member East Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th May 2010
    Location
    Cape Cod MA USA
    Posts
    1,382
    Thanks
    2,744
    Thanked 3,927 times in 1,024 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Hi, Avalonians,

    Amzer Zo,

    Thank you for your post. I've been doing a lot of reading about the subject recently. Not about Tesla but the controllers. Their types are known members of Secret Societies around the world, Knights of this and that and all controlled by higher "psychos" who have been building their hierarchies for a loong time. Those black garbed ones who are sold to an obsession to rule the entire roost.

    It seems an impossible task to ever stop them---they have infested every govt. society, corp. community in all the world so where does that leave us??? We must go on and we are growing so there's hope after all.
    Last edited by East Sun; 21st July 2011 at 23:55. Reason: To add...
    Question Everything, twice or maybe trice..........

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to East Sun For This Post:

    Hervé (21st July 2011), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017)

  7. Link to Post #24
    New Zealand Avalon Member Tane Mahuta's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th October 2010
    Location
    South Auckland, New Zealand
    Age
    57
    Posts
    860
    Thanks
    6,315
    Thanked 2,555 times in 726 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Quote Posted by Maia Gabrial (here)
    It's strange how the Rockefellers' and Rothschilds' names ALWAYS comes up in all the despicable things going on.... How can we fight these ancient enemies?
    Simple!!!!......"We Seek the Truth!!!, Know the Truth!!!....Preach the Truth!!!"

    And this house of stinking cards comes tumbleling.

    nuff said TT
    "Seek the Truth.....and the Truth shall set you free!!!"

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tane Mahuta For This Post:

    Lord Sidious (22nd July 2011), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), StandingWave (13th May 2015)

  9. Link to Post #25
    Avalon Member East Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th May 2010
    Location
    Cape Cod MA USA
    Posts
    1,382
    Thanks
    2,744
    Thanked 3,927 times in 1,024 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Quote Posted by Tane Mahuta (here)
    Quote Posted by Maia Gabrial (here)
    It's strange how the Rockefellers' and Rothschilds' names ALWAYS comes up in all the despicable things going on.... How can we fight these ancient enemies?
    Simple!!!!......"We Seek the Truth!!!, Know the Truth!!!....Preach the Truth!!!"

    And this house of stinking cards comes tumbleling.

    nuff said TT
    I sincerely wish that were true.

    Some preachers wear black sheep's clothing.


    P. S. For many hundreds of years some "elite" religious "leaders" have been supposedly preaching the Truth but doing the very things they forbid us to even think about let alone do. At the same time they got us to fight their battles for them. Battles meaning 'kill, kill, and destroy.
    And they are still doing it.

    All religions and all denominations were affected in very negative ways.

    But their time is coming, surely and definitely... and not by violence, as we know it.
    Last edited by East Sun; 24th July 2011 at 17:05. Reason: To clarify
    Question Everything, twice or maybe trice..........

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to East Sun For This Post:

    bluestflame (18th February 2012), Hervé (23rd July 2011), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017)

  11. Link to Post #26
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,626
    Thanks
    59,352
    Thanked 93,872 times in 15,336 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    There was a big gap between Rockefeller's funding of Stalin and Hitler and destabilizing Ecuador, Panama, Nicaragua, etc. as recounted by John Perkins in his "Confessions of An Economic Hitman" and that's the money-making psy-op called the "Cold War" which is now coming to light and was behind such motto as this:





    That "Cold War" vacuum and its profit making scheme:


    Fidel Castro Was a CIA Agent


    May 12, 2015



    More evidence that Communism is a total sham
    .

    Fulgencio Batista, (Cuban President from 1953-59) was the Gaddafi of his day, creating a dangerous example of economic independence from the bankers.

    The "revolutionary" Fidel Castro was nothing more than a banker shill tasked with removing him and reducing Cuba to penury and servitude, no different from any other US-installed fascist dictator.



    Molecule: "The full story of Castro is even worse, but eventually it will come out. I'm actually already pushing the envelope -- the point is that Castro was on "the payroll" of Citibank and the CIA from the beginning."

    Makow Comment: I'm not sure what Molecule's sources are but his account seems plausible. If true, we will look at modern history in a new light. The Bay of Pigs invasion for example was meant to fail, in order to discredit JFK and make Castro look good. A real US invasion of Cuba would have been justified. Now I understand why it didn't happen.

    by Molecule
    (henrymakow.com)


    In the 1950's, Illuminati bankers David Rockefeller and Eugene Meyerorganized a Cuban partnership, called the Moa Bay Mining Co.

    As his appartchiks, Rockefeller hired the three stooges of the Caribbean, namely Fidel Castro, E. Howard Hunt and George H.W. Bush.

    Rockefeller's Citi-Bank provided the financial support that Fidel Castro needed for his ouster of Batista, and that Rockefeller had profited immensely from Castro's fictitious "expropriation" of Moa Bay mining fields.

    Castro received his training in the arts of economic terrorism and guerrilla warfare from US Army Special Forces, Col. William A. Morgan of Ohio.

    Rockefeller maintained actual physical control of all of "Castro's" oil and mining operations. Meanwhile he collected extravagant profits from endless "Pentagon bailouts" by the U.S. taxpayer.



    Castro was a Meyer-Rockefeller-Dulles lackey. With Zapata Oil as cover, he soon became Bush's favorite candyman. Castro was doubtless pre-briefed on the impending April 1961 invasion, by a clutch of clueless Miami Cubanos, who were lead straight to their slaughter in a perfect military gauntlet, a crossfire in a long and narrow bay of water at the "heel" of a unique Cuban landmass, in fact a marine swampland drenched in oil, known as the Zapata.

    Air cover would have made no difference at all. The successful humiliation of JFK in the Bay of Pigs operation led straight to rumors of Castro's absolute Invincibility. Castro the Maximum was trained and armed by the Pentagon and financed by the CIA and Citibank.

    The person who delivered his paychecks was a Ukrainian country girl, who lived in a small cottage in Greenwich Connecticut. As cover, she sold homemade soaps.

    The CIA even put out rumors that hundreds of assassination attempts on Castro had all failed. If they were real at all, they were coordinated through Castro's business partners at Moa Bay Mining and Zapata Oil. With rumors like that, the comic-book status of Castro as "The Invincible One" was assured. The assassination of an American President soon followed.

    BATISTA



    Castro replaced Gen. Fulgencio Batista,(1901-1973,) above. In Castro's propaganda, Batista was characterized as a "racially impure" Cuban nationalist. Following the collapse in the Cuban economy in the 1930's, Batista crushed Marxist agitators, and established a constitution in 1940 based on the sovereignty of the Cuban people.

    Cuba's new constitution was therefore contrary to Teddy Roosevelt's intrusive Platt Amendment of 1901, which attempts to ensconce an army of Zionist know-it-alls and Marine smarty-pants in "Gitmo," with the authority "to take any action necessary to protect Wall Street-Zionist interests in the Caribbean." (See Gen. Smedley Butler.)

    Batista's 1940 Constitution asserted Cuban sovereignty over national currency for circulation. Batista chartered a Cuban National Bank, and an Agricultural and Industrial Development Bank, to finance internal economic development, intending to build up a stable middle class of inventors, intellectuals and professionals.

    (See 1950s CIA training manual by Special Operations Research Office, "Task Revolt" editor Norman La Charite, Case Study in Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare -- Cuba.)

    Under Batista, Cuba's natural agricultural productivity and machine tool inventiveness finally had support of a local government. Had Batista's nationalist policies been applied without Marxist-Zionist banker intervention, it would have revived the Cuban economy.

    But the Marxist-Zionist pirate-bankers who always work through their monopolistic control of foreign trade. Castro's endless Cuban "trade deficits" were orchestrated to prevent any emergence of internal economic sovereignty, especially for agriculture (for food and health, not sugar and money) and for development of Cuba's immense mineral wealth.

    Batista also made provisions to dissolve the extreme concentration of economic power in the hands of a few Zionist-owned sugar companies -- who by use of fancy lawyers, including Fidel Castro, and by compromised judges, had accumulated ownership of 70% of Cuba's arable land, thereby unleashing unstable (i.e. "Marxist-ready") populations of wandering tenant farmers, penniless wage-workers and peasants living by subsistence.



    To prevent a Marxist-Zionist takeover of Cuba, by an internal insurgency using a "liquefied" and "Marxist-ready" population, Batista proposed educational reforms for the formation of a creative middle class, and for redistribution of the vast barren and unused lands of the "U.S.-owned" sugar plantations to Cuban family farmers.

    In short, if the Batista model of Cuba were to succeed, it would have set a dangerous example for the economic potential of constitutional sovereignty, in Cuba, in the United States, and throughout the Caribbean and South and Central America. Batista's concept of Cuban national sovereignty had to be destroyed.


    BANKER HITMAN?
    Quoting from the above mentioned CIA training manual, by Norm La Charite, "Castro was a rebel by and in reality long before Batista's second period of power. As president of the Law School student body, he became involved in campus politics, which many times reached violent proportions at the University of Havana. He was also one of the founders of Unión Insurreccional Revolucionaria (UIR), a terroristic organization [later to emerge as model for Al Qieda], which allegedly dealt in political assassination. Castro was arrested several times in connection with murder, but was never convicted. In 1947 he took part in an abortive plot to overthrow Rafael Trujillo, then dictator of the Dominican Republic. The Cayo Confites expedition, as it is called, was stopped before it got underway.



    Many researchers propose that Castro was involved in the 1948 assassination of a popular Columbian politician, Jorge Eliécer Gaitán (1903 - 1948). It is widely speculated that Gaitán would likely have been elected President had he not been assassinated on April 9, 1948. Castro had attempted to recruit Gaitán earlier to his cause, but Gaitán had repeatedly declined and was assassinated because he was too politically influential and would have countered the Cold War objectives of the USSR in the Caribbean.

    Gaitán was a Bogatá attorney who gained national popularity by successfully defending striking workers at the United Fruit Company. UFC was represented by Sullivan & Cromwell, a N.Y. City law firm of which John Foster Dulles was partner. (Dulles was also Sec. of State; his brother Allen was Director of the CIA; and John Moors Cabot, past president of UFC, was Asst. Sec. of State for Inter-American Affairs.) In his speeches, Gaitán distinguished between the "political country," which was controlled by an oligarchy through use of fictitious internal struggles, orchestrated between "Liberal" and "Conservative" factions, and the "national country," which responds to the real political and economic needs of a nation of people.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    First Comment by Carmindo:
    Like Henry, "'m not sure what Molecule's sources are". But I´m sure communism is a very useful tool to big money and Fidel is one of those tools.

    One example. Angola etc.

    In 1974, the Portuguese authoritarian regime was deposed by a military coup. As a consequence, the Communist Party - infiltrated in the military - started a campaign to abandon Portugal's colonies in Africa: Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau.

    With the independence, almost 1 million of white Portuguese that lived there had to abandon their houses, cars, businesses, farms, etc..

    Marxist governments (MPLA in Angola, FRELIMO in Mozambique, PAIGC in Guinea) were imposed to the african populations, devastating their countries.

    But ... surprise! The American oil interests in Cabinda (Angola) didn´t suffer at all!!

    Gulf Oil Corporation (now Chevron) maintained its oil exploration in Cabinda with the Marxist government.

    Try to guess who had thousand of soldiers fighting next to the communists during the ensuing angolan civil war, at the same time the marxist government protected Chevron?

    Yes... Fidel Castro's Cuba!

    About this, I recommend the late Prof. Antony Sutton work "THE BEST ENEMY MONEY CAN BUY". I quote him: « As succinctly stated by Congressman William L. Dickinson (July 1985), "These Cuban troops are protecting American oil interests and they are preventing UNITA from overrunning the MPLA."»

    So, simultaneously:

    - one million of Portuguese citizens is deprived of everything by communists;
    - Chevron is protected by the same communists;
    - Fidel Castro's troops help the communists that help Chevron.

    I can´t think about a better example to illustrate Molecule's arguments.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CO said (May 12, 2015):

    I've always been extremely sceptical of the cult of Castro as a sworn enemy of US capitalism. If he was such a bête noire, how did he survive for so long right on America's doorstep? The New World Order expended huge resources in violently removing leaders they perceived as enemies of their interests in faraway countries, e.g., Mossadegh, Saddam, Ghaddafi, the Taliban, and many many more. Yet the logistically far simpler task of removing a ramshackle Marxist regime right next door has always been beyond them? I don't think so. The 1974 World Book encyclopaedia entry for Castro portrays him as an impossibly glamorous, macho character - and the World Book was always a reliable conduit for Masonic/CIA propaganda. And if American big business hated and feared Cuban Marxism why have they, over the last 45 odd years, promoted Castro's deceased sidekick, Che Guevara, as a western pop culture icon to rival Elvis, James Dean and Marilyn Monroe? Hollywood and the MSM have always peddled the notion of Batista as the corrupt buddy of American mafioso, but neglect to mention that many more mobsters aided the Castroites - including, incidentally, Jack Ruby.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Related- Body Guard Exposes Castro as Billionaire Drug Dealer
    The Longest Romance- The MSM and Fidel Castro
    Fidel Castro- Story of a Monster
    Last edited by Hervé; 13th May 2015 at 00:48.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  12. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    animovado (27th February 2016), earthdreamer (13th May 2015), gaiagirl (20th July 2017), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), Paul (13th May 2015), sanma (9th March 2017), sdv (3rd September 2017), seko (13th April 2016), Sophocles (6th August 2018), StandingWave (13th May 2015), Zanshin (10th July 2019)

  13. Link to Post #27
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th June 2013
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 3,790 times in 1,109 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    The plots to use World Wars, Cold Wars, etc., were hatched in think tanks. All such places should be disbanded by law. Another "who will bell the cat" problem. Foundations, corporations, etc., should be forbidden because they give the rich and powerful more power over the individual than they should have, resulting in the corrupt, warmongering bankster dope pushing criminals we now have ruling the world.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to amor For This Post:

    Hervé (13th May 2015), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), Paul (13th May 2015), Selkie (9th October 2015), ulli (26th February 2016)

  15. Link to Post #28
    Avalon Member sigma6's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th July 2011
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    3,428
    Thanks
    8,903
    Thanked 12,628 times in 2,893 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Quote Posted by Omniverse (here)
    One question,.... Why don't the "terrorists" ever go after the real criminals who screw them over? I'd be dangerous in third world countries.. lol

    If they went after the Rockefellers etc, I'd be cheering for them. I have no compassion at all for the deaths of these criminals...

    Sorry for my negative themed post this time, but this stuff pisses me off. I want justice for once.
    simple, because they wouldn't get their next paycheck...
    We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time
    By faith we understand things which are seen were not made of the things which are visible

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sigma6 For This Post:

    Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), Selkie (9th October 2015)

  17. Link to Post #29
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    57
    Posts
    1,274
    Thanks
    11,862
    Thanked 7,734 times in 1,233 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    I've just been listening to Antony Sutton on The Skull and Bones, and mentioning the Hegelian Dialectic employed.



    This interview must have been filmed about 20-25 years ago. It's time for it to be recirculated I feel.

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    Atlas (24th July 2016), Foxie Loxie (1st August 2016), Hervé (25th February 2016), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), seko (13th April 2016), Sophocles (6th August 2018)

  19. Link to Post #30
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,626
    Thanks
    59,352
    Thanked 93,872 times in 15,336 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Here is the "Grand" scheme of things started by the Rockefeller/Morgan who railroaded Tesla's free energy because they couldn't put a tap on it for distribution... you know, like the "Salt Tax" of old:

    The New Global Financial Cold War
    by Michael Hudson February 19, 2016



    The Guns and Butter Interview

    Suppose a country owes money to another nation’s government or official agency. How can creditors collect, unless there’s an international court and an enforcement system? The IMF and the World Bank were part of that enforcement system and now they’re saying: ‘We’re not going to be part of that anymore. We’re only working for the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. If the Pentagon tells the IMF it’s okay that a country doesn’t have to pay Russia or China, then now they don’t have to pay, as far as the IMF is concerned.’ That breaks up the global order that was created after World War II. The world is being split into two halves: the U.S. dollar orbit, and countries that the U.S. cannot control and whose officials are not on the U.S. payroll, so to speak.

    Dr. Michael Hudson. is a financial economist and historian. He is President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, a Wall Street financial analyst and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. His 1972 book, Super Imperialism is a critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies through the IMF and World Bank. His latest book is Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. Today we discuss his article, “The IMF Changes Its Rules to Isolate China and Russia.”

    Bonnie Faulkner: Michael Hudson, welcome. It’s been far too long since we’ve last spoken.

    Michael Hudson: Well, it’s good to be back. Last time we were together was in Italy.

    [...]

    Bonnie Faulkner: [...] Well, I’ve been reading your article, “The IMF Changes Its Rules to Isolate China and Russia.” It rings an alarming bell about the implications of rule changes at the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, which makes loans to governments. Before we discuss these IMF rule changes specifically, what precipitated these drastic policy shifts at the IMF?

    Michael Hudson: There are a number of policy shifts. The first shift was that – In the past the IMF has not made loans to countries that are in default to governments. That’s because in the past, the government in question was the U.S. Government. Since World War II almost all international financial bailout or stabilization loans by the IMF and World Bank have involved the U.S. Government, in conjunction with consortia of U.S. banks.

    For the first time, now that China and the BRICs are growing, countries are borrowing not only from the United States subject to U.S. lobbying forces, but can now borrow from China and other countries as well.

    The United States has responded by changing the IMF rules. It said, ‘Wait a minute. It’s okay for the IMF to make loans to countries that don’t pay China and Russia or the BRICs, because we’re in a new Cold War. The IMF really is working for us.’ As long as the U.S. has veto power in the IMF, its delegate can veto any loan to a country that owes money to the United States that the United States doesn’t wish to support. But it has no objection for the IMF making loans to U.S. satellites such as Ukraine, that official debts to Russia.

    Ukraine last December owed $3 billion to Russia on a loan that is coming due from the Russian state investment fund. The United States is doing everything it can to hurt Russia economically, thinking that if it hurts it enough, Russia will capitulate to the U.S. strategy. The New Cold War strategy is basically an attempt to force other countries to privatize their economies to follow neoliberal policy. The aim is to open their economies to U.S. corporations and U.S. banks.

    The IMF rules change was to mobilize the IMF basically as an agent of the U.S. Defense Department, with a side office on Wall Street. All of a sudden it’s become clear that the IMF is not an international institution for global economic performance. It’s an arm of U.S. Cold War diplomacy, one that’s moving far to the right very quickly under the Obama Administration.

    Bonnie Faulkner: We now have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the SCO as an alternative military alliance to NATO and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the AIIB, which threatens to replace the IMF and World Bank. How successful do you think these new alternatives to the Western banking system will be?

    Michael Hudson: The big point is that the Western banking system, the World Bank and the IMF are unsuccessful. The IMF follows a junk economics that says if you owe money to foreign bondholders or banks, you have to impose austerity on the country to pay whatever is owed. The junk economics at work claims that austerity will enable debtors to squeeze enough tax money out of their economy to pay foreign bankers and bondholders. This is the same disastrous theory that the British and the Americans and the French used in the 1920s to insist that Germany could pay any amount of reparations if it only would tax the economy enough.

    This theory was shown to be false by John Maynard Keynes and also by the American, Harold Moulton, at the Brookings Institution. But the lessons of the 1920s were rejected by the IMF, because they know very well – and the staff has made it very clear – that austerity doesn’t enable a country to pay its foreign debts. Austerity makes countries less able to pay. That means they will need to borrow even more.

    Then the IMF comes in with its number-two punch: The number one punch is austerity. The number two punch is to say: ‘Well, I guess our program didn’t work. What a disappointment. [But it shouldn’t really be a surprise, happening again and again.] You now have to begin privatizing your industry and natural resources. Sell off your land.’ They tell other debtor countries essentially what they told Greece over the last year.

    When the austerity plan demanded by the IMF since 2010 didn’t help Greece, they joined with the rest of the Troika (the European Central Bank and European Union) in 2015 to demand that Greece agree to sell off its islands, sell off its ports, sell its water systems, sell everything in the public domain. After that demand had been made on Greece in the summer of 2015, it was Ukraine’s turn.

    The number one punch against the Ukraine by the IMF was to impose austerity on the pretense (its junk economics) that Ukraine could pay its foreign bondholders with income taxed out of its domestic economy. When this made things worse, the World Bank and USAID came in. The U.S.-appointed finance minister fingered the agricultural land, gas rights and other natural resources that Ukraine could sell off to American and European investors – but not to Russians.

    The idea is that if American investors can buy the key infrastructure and commanding heights of the Ukrainian economy, it can pry Ukraine apart from Russia. Ukraine played a key role in the Russian economy. Much Russian military and space industrial output was produced in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine.

    So the idea was that separating Ukraine from Russia is the first step in trying to carve up Russia, and then to carve up China, breaking them into little pieces. The aim is to treat China and Russia like the Mideast, like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria – as smash-and-grab exercises to take their natural resources and enterprises.

    Bonnie Faulkner: What is the aim of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty and how is it at odds with the Asian Infrastructure Bank, the AIIB?

    Michael Hudson: I could give a glib answer and say the aim is to reduce the population by 50%, to starve people, abolish pensions and spread poverty. That actually is the effect.

    The cover story pretends to be about trade, but the real agenda is to force privatization and disable government regulation. This reverses what was central to the whole Progressive Era. For the last 300 years, the assumption of Europe and North America was that you were going to have a mixed economy, with governments investing in infrastructure, roads and other transportation, communications, water and sewer systems, gas and electricity. The role of government infrastructure was to provide these basic needs at minimum cost in order to promote a low-cost, competitive economy. That’s how America got rich. That’s how Germany industrialized and how the rest of Europe did. But the aim of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is to reverse and privatize public investment. Its ideology is that the economy should be owned and operated by private owners, private enterprise, whose aim is short-term profit.

    There are a number of related aims: to nullify environmental protection regulations that cost money, to nullify protection of labor, and to nullify attempts to tax natural resources or economic rent. The idea is to turn roads and the transport system into toll roads, which will be owned by foreigners and run at a high charge. The Internet and the water system will be sold off and made into toll systems, to charge for their services and for other basic needs. This will impose a neo-feudal rentier economy throughout the world as the finance, industrial and real estate (FIRE) sector takes over the government sector.

    I think you could say that at the broadest level, the idea is to roll back the Enlightenment and restore feudalism. That may sound like an extreme statement, but people don’t realize how radical the TPP’s investment agreements are. For instance, when Australia raised the charges on cigarettes and included health warnings on the packs, Philip Morris sued, insisting that Australia pay it what Philip Morris would have made if people would have continued to smoke and get cancer at the existing rate.

    When Ecuador tried to sue oil companies for pollution, the oil companies sued, and now the country has to pay the oil company the amount of profit it would make if it continued to produce oil by polluting the land – to an infinite degree. No government anywhere in the world that signs this will be free to regulate the environment or even to enact new taxes on rent-seeking or other private enterprise.

    Essentially, the new buyers of the roads the water systems, the sewer systems, can use these as rent extraction opportunities without anti-monopoly regulations. That means they can charge whatever the market will bear, and treat foreign countries sort of like New York City cable customers are treated. I live in Forest Hills in Queens. We have one supplier, Time Warner. If I want cable, I have to pay what they charge, and it has nothing to do at all with their cost of production. I have to rent their cable box, not buy one of my own.

    That’s what economic rent is. It’s a revenue above the cost of production. For hundreds of years the economics of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill and Thorstein Veblen wrote about how to create an economy that would produce everything at its actual, technologically and socially necessary cost, without any free lunch, that is, without any kind of unearned income (“economic rent”).

    The aim of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its European version is to promote unearned rent extraction. Rentier interests have backed a body the kind of junk economics to replace classical economics, against the Progressive Era and social democracy, to create a right-wing ideology that they call free trade. The term is Orwellian doublethink.

    Bonnie Faulkner: Have these rulings by the World Trade Organization been enforced against these countries you mentioned, such as Australia?

    Michael Hudson: I think Philip Morris failed, but it forced the government to spend tens of millions of dollars in legal fees. It’s almost impossible for a poor government like Ecuador or even Australia, to spend the legal fees that it costs to defend themselves against a battery of corporate lawyers. Under the TPP, the referees would be drawn from the corporate sector and its law firms.

    The judgments and rules are made outside of government and outside of laws that voters enact. So corporate oligarchy replaces democracy. Decisions as to how much governments will have to pay corporations in compensatory damages are made by a small group of referees in a revolving door with the corporate sector. In effect, they will work as lobbyists for these corporations.

    Bonnie Faulkner: China accelerated its creation of the alternative China International Payments System, CIPS, and its own credit card system. What is the SWIFT Interbank Clearing System, and is the new Chinese payment system a threat to it?

    Michael Hudson: All banks have a clearing system when you write checks on a bank account. The SWIFT system is a huge computer software program that enables people to write checks to send money to others who use other banks.

    About a year ago U.S. strategists thought about going to a new Cold War with Russia. It might quickly become military. But the U.S. saw that it could hurt the Russian economy without having to send troops in. We don’t have to invade. That’s old-style warfare. No country can invade another with troops these days. But the U.S. can hold Russia or any other economy hostage by suddenly excluding it from the SWIFT payments clearing system. Their banks, individuals and corporations can’t clear any money. So they’re paralyzed. The U.S. will have smashed their economic linkages and communications.

    As soon as the Americans talked about this, China and Russia responded. They naturally don’t want a nation that says it may want to go to war with them to have such disruptive power. Obama and Hillary Clinton have already made such threats. So Russian leaders have said that they would like to be part of a global unit, but as long as the United States is running SWIFT for its own interests and is acting in a hostile way, they need to protect their own bank clearing systems.

    So China took the lead in creating its own bank clearing system. People and companies and government organizations in China and the other BRICS countries won’t have to be hostage to the United States doing with a computer malware program what it did to Iranian centrifuges. Just like we blew up the Iranian centrifuges by installing a virus to speed them up. It could do that with SWIFT. Now, China and the BRICs are moving to defend themselves against this prospect.

    Bonnie Faulkner: Well, now, has China’s international Payment System been implemented yet or is it still being planned?

    Michael Hudson: I think they’re still in the process of developing it, because it’s hard to develop a system as complex as this. There’s an inertia for these things, making it easier to build on the existing clearing systems. It takes a lot of time to develop a replacement. The situation is like Microsoft’s Office program. That’s why Mac computers use Word and Excel. It takes billions of dollars to write a program that doesn’t have glitches in it. I think the Chinese are still trying to work out the glitches because they don’t expect overt warfare quite yet.

    Bonnie Faulkner: Russian Prime Minister Putin proposed a partnership, or at least cooperation, between the West and the emerging military and economic partnerships in the East. Putin’s overture to the West seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Why do you think?

    Michael Hudson: This is the same hope that has existed since the 1990s, even before Putin came into power. The idea was that Russia is willing to join NATO, seeing that atomic war between the industrial nations of the world is now out of the question.

    They do face a common threat from Wahhabi Islam, funded by Saudi Arabia – Wahhabi Sharia Law terrorism. Russia is concerned about Saudi-backed terrorists on its southern front, from Georgia, Azerbaijan, all the way through central Asia. The Chinese also are concerned about Wahhabi terrorism through the Uyghurs. ISIS and Al Nusra are acting as America’s Foreign Legion. When Hillary Clinton overthrew the Libyan government, the arms and military stockpiles were turned over to ISIS. Libya’s central bank resources were robbed and also turned over to ISIS. When America marched into Iraq, it turned the Sunni army and all those billions of dollars of shrink-wrapped hundred-dollar bills over ultimately to ISIS. So although America opposes ISIS when they kill Americans, ISIS is basically America’s way of breaking up countries that may threaten not to be part of the global dollar standard.

    Russia hoped that the United States would see that this is a crazy system. America, Russia and Europe can get rich in mutual trade. If Europe pursues its economic interests, it would see itself as a natural trading partner of Russia. Europeans and probably Americans could go to Russia and try to build up the economy, because it needs entrepreneurs.

    But instead of pursuing a mutual prosperity sphere between Europe, Russia and the United States, the United States has pressed Europe into a dead zone of neoliberal austerity. That is shrinking Europe’s economy and carving it off from Russia. This prevents prosperity for Europe, on the ground that it would also benefit Russia or China.

    The idea from the Americans’ side is to treat Russia like it treated Cuba, Iran and Libya – to isolate it, expecting Russia to knuckle under. But instead, Russia’s much bigger than Cuba or North Korea, and China is even bigger. So instead of just surrendering to the American neoliberal economic plan, they’ve decided that America has driven them together in a mutually defensive alignment. U.S. diplomacy has brought about precisely the Eurasian unity that it set out to try to prevent.

    Bonnie Faulkner: Yes. I believe in your paper at one point you described some of the IMF members as wearing suicide vests to blow up that institution. I thought that was a pretty good description.

    Michael Hudson: It’s indeed as if the United States walked into the IMF meeting with a suicide vest and said, ‘We want the IMF to only serve U.S. interests, not international interests.’ So that’s broken the illusion that the IMF as an honest broker to help countries stabilize.

    U.S. pressure has radically changed a series of rules. One rule I mentioned above is not to lend to a country that refuses to pay another government. That wasn’t formally in the IMF Articles of Agreement. But what is in the IMF articles is that you’re not supposed to lend to a country that has no visible means of paying back the loan. That is called the “No More Argentinas” rule, passed after the IMF lent Argentina money in 2001 to pay its bondholders. Argentina had no prospect of repaying these bad loans.

    The IMF broke this rule when it lent to Greece after 2010. Some of the staff left the IMF, seeing their analysis ignored. The IMF’s Board asked how it could lend this money to Greece to pay German, French and English banks and bail out bondholders without seeing how Greece could pay.

    The IMF leader, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, overruled the staff and these Board members by creating a new “systemic risk” rule. This rule allowed the IMF to violate its Articles of Agreement and lend to any country if failure to repay a loan would threaten to pose a systemic risk to many countries. In practice, the IMF defined systemic risk simply to be the thought that a bondholder might lose more than $1. That might crash “confidence. So in order to save bondholders and banks from losing, the economy would be wrecked by debt deflation. By the way, just a few days ago, on January 29th the IMF reversed that rule, saying that it’s not going to use that excuse any more.

    Another element of the IMF Articles of Agreement stipulates that it is not supposed to lend to a borrower at war. One obvious reason is that if a country is at war, especially a civil war that’s bombing its export sector as Ukraine is doing, how can it obtain the foreign exchange to pay its foreign debt? Most Ukrainian exports were to Russia. The attack on Donbas and Eastern Ukraine has destroyed this export industry.

    The United States strong-armed the IMF to make the loan to Ukraine. Its managing director Christine Lagarde said that she hoped Ukraine wouldn’t spend the money on war. But one and a half-billion dollars were given to the kleptocrat bankers Kolomoiski, who immediately moved it offshore but used his domestic money to finance an anti-Donbas army. The very next day, President Poroshenko said that now Ukraine could afford to wage more war.

    The fourth IMF rule that is broken is that it isn’t supposed to lend to a country that has little likelihood of carrying out an austerity program. This is called a conditionality. It involves over-riding democratic opposition. Ukraine is cutting back pensions and imposing austerity, so there’s little chance of the country surviving as a democracy. The United States basically has come in and acknowledged that it’s dropping the pretense of backing democracies. In the 1960 and ‘70s it backed dictatorships in Latin America, including the overthrow of Allende in Chile. And now the IMF will lend to countries at war, even when they cannot pay, as long as they do what U.S. strategists want. But it won’t get loans to pay Russian banks or BRICs banks.

    Bonnie Faulkner: Now, Michael, you’ve already begun to answer this question but maybe we can get a little clarification on it. Russia’s National Wealth Fund made a loan to the Ukraine. You’ve brought this up. This Russian loan was protected by IMF lending practice, and the bonds were registered under London’s creditor oriented rules and courts. Describe how IMF and World Bank rules protected the original structure of post-World War II sovereign lending practice.

    Michael Hudson: The IMF said it would not make a loan to a country that owed money or was in default of a loan to any government that did not negotiate in good faith to pay foreign governments. Ukraine owed $3 billion to Russia’s Sovereign Wealth Fund – obviously a government organization. The Russian loan was made on concessionary terms, but it also had protections. Because it was a Sovereign Wealth Fund, it protected itself by registering the loan in England. There’s been a debate in Russia over whether Ukraine can avoid repaying Russia.

    Last year the U.S. Treasury had a long discussion with bank lawyers about how Ukraine might default and still be able to qualify for loans from the IMF. Well, we’ve seen the answer. The IMF rules were changed. Remember, the European Union and international banks usually will not join in a loan consortium to a country if the IMF doesn’t also join. The debtor country must be in good standing with the IMF.

    But now, instead of protecting the system of loans among governments, the IMF will only protect loans to governments in the U.S. orbit, not to governments that the United States doesn’t like. In practice, that means anybody that doesn’t follow neoliberal policies.

    Basically the United States sought to remove Russia’s legal ability to collect the $3 billion Ukraine owed. There was a discussion about whether Ukraine could call it an odious debt, because anything owed to Russia is deemed odious since Obama called Putin a kleptocrat and corrupt. For 50 years America has been lending to blatantly corrupt dictators in Latin America, Africa and Asia, but not them corrupt, from Pinochet down through Tony Blair. The U.S. is smashing up the framework of international law.

    Ukraine knows that it will lose any legal attempt to avoid paying Russia in the British courts where the bonds are registered. That court is very creditor oriented. But at least Ukraine can tie up its ultimate settlement.

    Ukraine and its U.S. backers may think that with oil now below $30 a barrel and Russia needing money, maybe they can starve Russia into submitting to the U.S. dictates. This is crazy, because Russia obviously is not going to surrender. A few days ago Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that Russia is rethinking its relationship with the West. It’s obvious the United States opposes economic linkages between Germany, other European countries and Russia. So Russia is rethinking its relationship with Europe. If Europe acts like it wants to be the 51st state of America instead of pushing its own economic interests, the Russians will turn eastward toward China and toward the BRICs. Too bad! It could have been a nice mutual prosperity relationship.

    Bonnie Faulkner: You’ve titled your article “The IMF Changes Its Rules to Isolate China and Russia,” because that’s what they’re doing. The purpose behind these rule changes is to isolate China and Russia. Now, China and Russia were cooperating with the IMF and the World Bank, weren’t they?

    Michael Hudson: Yes they were. The main objective of U.S. strategy from the beginning was China. For three years the United States has been discussing openly how to isolate China. It doesn’t want to see a potentially independent great power. It’s okay if Chinese labor works at low wages to supply Wal-Mart with low-priced exports, but not for China to be an independent powerhouse.

    China has given American investors and importers enough of a common interest to lobby to prevent the U.S. Government from intensifying its Cold War against China. But Russia doesn’t have that much leverage offering the West ways to get rich, especially since they threw Khodakovsky in jail after he tried to sell Yukos’s oil to Exxon. That would have essentially taken control of Russian oil out of the national patrimony, and probably left it with little sales and export revenue after Exxon’s accountants had done the usual creative tax strategies using flags of convenience and offshore banking centers to leave no reported taxable earnings.

    China wants to make its currency part of the global currency basket of the IMF. It wants to establish the yuan on the same status as the dollar so that it can avoid having to rely on American banks for its export trade, and especially for its domestic credit creation. It wants to avoid what U.S. neoliberals did to Russia in 1992 and 1993. They convinced Russia that its central bank needed to hold U.S. dollars as backing for its domestic ruble currency. Since Russia didn’t have many U.S. dollars, the result was a drastic deflation (“shock therapy” with no therapy), which ended up de-industrializing Russia.

    There was no need for Russia to borrow in a foreign currency to meet domestic expenses for its own labor and industry. The ruble was turned into a satellite currency of the dollar, and left to crash in 1997 as capital flight to sterling and dollars amounted to about $25 billion each year.

    That is what China wants to avoid. They want to be free of reliance on the dollar, except for what they need to import from the United States or to defend the currency against raids. George Soros said that he expects the yuan to go down. That’s a sign to currency raiders to try to profiteer by driving the Chinese currency down. The Chinese are trying to free themselves from interconnections to the dollar orbit, except to get dollars that they need to import things from the United States – which I guess are not much, except for movies.

    Bonnie Faulkner: You mentioned four of its own rules that the IMF broke in making loans to Ukraine. I’m wondering if you wouldn’t mind just very briefly stating what these four broken rules are, so that people can get their heads around why this is such a sea-change.

    Michael Hudson: One rule is not to lend to a country that has no visible means of paying back the loan. That’s the “No More Argentinas” rule. It already was broken with the Greek loan, with Strauss-Kahn introduced the “systemic risk” loophole to protect banks.

    The second rule is not to lend to a country that repudiates its debt to official creditors, meaning a country won’t pay what it owes to another government. That rule made the IMF an enforcer for the creditor cartel. But it is now only an enforcer on behalf of U.S.-favored creditors.

    The third rule is not to lend to a country at war. Ukraine’s at war, in a civil war with the East. But Donbas is backed by Russia, so that’s OK now.

    The fourth rule is not to lend to a country that is not going to impose the IMF austerity conditionalities, which make countries so poor that they end up bankrupt and have to sell off their natural resources and other assets. Ukraine’s post-coup government hardly can follow IMF conditionalities without being voted out of office, but in the meantime they can sell land and gas rights to Soros and Monsanto, so that’s OK.

    These four rules are now broken. Ukraine has not yet begun to sell off its natural resources, and there’s some argument going on because the kleptocrats want to hold onto them and make the same deal that their Russian counterparts made in the early ‘90s: They’ll sell maybe 25% of their monopoly to U.S. buyers, list their companies on the U.S. or British stock exchanges, let buyers bid up prices, and then sell their 75% and take payment in London, New York or wherever. The important thing is that they will take the sales proceeds out of Ukraine, leaving the country with no money in the bank, while owing an enormous amount every year to transmit profits on agricultural land and economic rents extracted from the roads, gas and other infrastructure being sold off.

    Bonnie Faulkner: You say that at issue between the East and West is a philosophy of development. How does development differ in the two systems?

    Michael Hudson: The neoliberal American philosophy of development is an Orwellian term for the absence of development. It reverses development. The neoliberal plan is to create a post-industrial society. By “post-industrial” I mean a neo-rentier economy returning to feudalism. Instead of governments taking the lead and providing basic services at a low price to become a competitive economy, neoliberalized governments sell roads and energy, electricity, water and sewers to buyers that are going to charge whatever the market will bear. This is going to impoverish the country. It’s the opposite of what development economics taught through most of the 20th century.

    Bonnie Faulkner: What kind of scenario have U.S. State department and Treasury officials been discussing for more than a year as a way to oppose Chinese and Russian infrastructure loans to other countries? I think you started to talk a bit about this already.

    Michael Hudson: The United States did not join the AIIB, and it tried to discourage other countries from joining. There was a lot of hand wringing when England joined the AIIB and other countries tried to do it. The United States essentially is trying to create an iron curtain separating the BRICS from the U.S. dollar orbit. It’s a financial curtain – not an iron curtain, but an electronic one.

    Bonnie Faulkner: Did you write in your article that the IMF would go ahead and loan to countries, and tell them that they wouldn’t have to repay their loans to China or Russia but could still borrow from the IMF?

    Michael Hudson: The IMF didn’t come right out and tell countries that they don’t have to repay. The problem is, there has to be an international court. There has to be an enforcement vehicle. For instance, you have a lot of the vulture funds claiming that Argentina owes them money on its bonds, but so far they haven’t been able to collect. They were able to get Nigeria to grab one of the Argentine training boats, but because it was government property the country was directed to release it.

    Suppose a country owes money to another nation’s government or official agency. How can creditors collect, unless there’s an international court and an enforcement system? The IMF and the World Bank were part of that enforcement system and now they’re saying: ‘We’re not going to be part of that anymore. We’re only working for the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. If the Pentagon tells the IMF it’s okay that a country doesn’t have to pay Russia or China, then now they don’t have to pay, as far as the IMF is concerned.’

    That breaks up the global order that was created after World War II. The world is being split into two halves: the U.S. dollar orbit, and countries that the U.S. cannot control and whose officials are not on the U.S. payroll, so to speak.

    Bonnie Faulkner: You describe this as a “tectonic, geopolitical shift that will be fought with all the power of an American Century inquisition.” What do you mean by inquisition?

    Michael Hudson: Dirty tricks. President Obama has said that we’re not going to invade another country, because no country’s really able to mobilize enough troops without creating a domestic economic and political crisis. His alternative is targeted assassination. That’s what the United States has long done, in Chile under Nixon/Kissinger and Guatemala and Nicaragua under Reagan.

    Or most simply, you bribe other governments to get them to promote people in foreign countries who work for the United States. You want to make sure, in England, for instance, that someone like Tony Blair becomes prime minister, who will do whatever he’s told by the U.S. You want to make sure that if a country tries to be independent, like Chile did, you come in and kill the president. If you have countries that want land reform, you start Operation Condor and kill 10,000 professors, land reformers and union leaders. Essentially, it’s a terrorist policy.

    Finally, you use ISIS and al-Nusra as an American Foreign Legion and send them into whatever country you want to smash and grab.

    Bonnie Faulkner: You write: “We have America Pentagon capitalism with financial bubbles deteriorating into a polarized rentier economy and a resurgence of old-fashioned imperialism. If and when a break comes, it will not be marginal, but a seismic geopolitical shift.” What are your thoughts on the coming breakup of the post-World War II dollarized global financial system? What will it look like?

    Michael Hudson: Other countries will try to get rich in the same way that the United States tried to get rich: by promoting prosperity, a domestic market, by subsidizing research and development just like the United States has subsidized high technology. And, they will try to prevent rent seeking – to prevent special privileges, whether they’re patent privileges or ownership of cable TV systems. The aim is to prevent super-profits or economic rent – unearned income.

    You want people to be able to earn in a way that reflects their actual contribution to production, and you want to uplift the status of labor. You want to educate your labor force, to make it a modern technological labor force.

    All this takes government subsidy, and hence a mixed economy of public and private sectors in which governments pay for most of the infrastructure costs in order to help the private sector compete better.

    So other countries may do what the United States did since its Civil War. They will be protectionist, they will try to upgrade the quality of their labor, and also will upgrade the quality of their agriculture. They will promote high-technology industry, public health care and basic needs at a low public expense. This would achieve what social democracy set out to achieve a century ago in the Progressive Era. That is the path that the United States and Europe have now rejected.

    Bonnie Faulkner: In your article you wrote that the result is “to split the world into pro-U.S. economies going neoliberal, and economies maintaining public investment in infrastructure and what used to be viewed as progressive capitalism.”

    Michael Hudson: I think when the Soviet Union fell apart and Russia and other countries invited in U.S. advisors, they were under the impression that these neoliberals were going to help them develop in the same way that the United States had developed and become as prosperous and productive an industrial economy as the United States.

    What Russians didn’t realize was that the United States had no intention of helping them get rich the way the United States did. U.S. advisors came in to smash and grab. They de-industrialized Russia, as well as the Baltics, and pulled up the connecting links from the old Soviet Union. The effect was to turn Russia back into a raw materials supplier.

    The result was not only poverty but mass emigration. Latvia, for instance, is applauded as a “Baltic miracle,” as if it is a success story. The miracle is that wages have been going down steadily for the last decade, driving 10 to 20% of the population to leave – mainly working-age population. The same thing occurred in Russia. Much of its technically trained engineers and others left for the United States and helped U.S. industrialization. Neoliberalizing Russia didn’t help it become more prosperous. But it made American investors very rich for a while.

    Bonnie Faulkner: What about the post-2010 IMF loan packages to Greece? Are they an instance of the IMF breaking its rules?

    Michael Hudson: That was when the debate within the IMF occurred over the “No More Argentinas” rule. The IMF wasn’t supposed to lend to a country that had no visible ability to repay. That is what my book Killing the Host is about. I have three chapters on Greece as an example of how, in the past, the IMF would only smash up Third World countries, mainly on behalf of U.S. mineral companies and other exporters. Greece was the first European country that the IMF came in explicitly to smash up in order to privatize it. I have a chapter on Latvia also, so this gets into the topic that Killing the Host is about.

    Bonnie Faulkner: You write that Dominique Strauss-Kahn backed the hard-line U.S./European central bank position regarding Greece. So did Christine Lagarde in 2015, overriding staff protests.

    Michael Hudson: The IMF staff had opposed lending to Greece, because it couldn’t pay. But then Strauss-Kahn met with French President Sarkozy and said that he wanted to run for the French presidency. Sarkozy told him that he couldn’t possibly be a successful politician in France if, as head of the IMF, he let Greece default on its bonds. French banks would have suffered if the IMF didn’t bail them out.

    Then, President Obama went to the Group of Twenty meeting, after Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, had been on the phone with Europe, and said that if Greece didn’t pay the French and German bondholders, the American banks had made huge bets and would go under – and so would big European banks who were counterparties. So even though Strauss-Kahn knew that Greece couldn’t pay, the whole system would go down’ – meaning the American banks would lose. Obama and Geithner said that the IMF couldn’t let American gamblers lose on the bets they had made on this financial horse race. It was deemed preferable to break up Greece, even if this meant breaking up Europe. That was the tradeoff: the banks vs. the Greek economy.

    That’s the enormous asymmetry of the egotistic U.S. stance. It’s naked greed. They’re willing to smash the IMF, Greece and European integration just so Goldman Sachs and the Wall Street banks that had made bets that Greece would pay wouldn’t take a loss.

    That led the head of the European section of the IMF to resign. She went to Canada, I think, and the Canadians published her whistle-blowing there. It destroyed the IMF’s credibility even before the Ukrainian crisis.

    Bonnie Faulkner: You’ve written that the reason for smashing Greece’s economy was to deter Podemos in Spain and similar movements in Italy and Portugal from pursuing national prosperity instead of eurozone austerity. Do you think that was an important component?

    Michael Hudson: That’s certainly what the European Central Bank said was critical. They said, ‘We cannot let Syriza win,’ and the finance minister of Greece, Yanis Varoufakis, said that he was told while meeting with the IMF and the Europeans that democracy doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what the people voted for. Greece was told to pay the debts that its previous corrupt governments had agreed to.

    The Financial Times and almost all the international press noted that if Greece’s debt was written down to save it from being wrecked, the IMF and the rest of the EU Troika would have to write down the debts of Italy, Spain and Portugal. The whole debt collection system would go. So either the troika would save the banks or save the economy. They said, ‘Save the banks, not the economy.’

    That’s also what President Obama did in the United States when he bailed out the banks in 2008. He did not write down the debts or break up the banks. That’s why Bernie Sanders is running today.

    So essentially the U.S. orbit says, ‘Save the banks, not the economy.’ The problem is that the volume of interest-bearing debt grows exponentially. Any rate of interest is a doubling time. So the debt is going to grow and grow exponentially. That obliges debtor countries to impose deeper and deeper austerity. And every economy that you impose this austerity on is going to react like Russia or Latvia or Greece. There’s going to be emigration, a decline in the birth rate, a rise in the death rate and a spread of disease. There’s going to be a shrinking market as the debtor economy is torn apart.

    The struggle of our time is over whether to save the banks or the economy. In the end, the banks can’t be saved because most debts are unpayable. The United States position is, in effect, ‘They may be unpayable out of current earnings and current exports, but there’s still room to pay if you sell off the public domain to the creditors.’

    So what you’re having now is a vast global foreclosure process. Creditors and bondholders are, in effect, taking payment in the form of domestic roads, transport system, communications, water and sewer systems, and similar infrastructure. I call this neo-feudalism. It’s rolling back industrial capitalism. It’s rolling back the growth in markets, imposing economic shrinkage and neo-feudalism. That’s what a rentier economy is. It’s a rent extraction economy, not an economy earning profits by producing more and hiring labor to produce and expand the economy. It’s the reverse of the dynamic of industrial capitalism as everyone thought of it a century ago.

    Bonnie Faulkner: Michael Hudson, thank you very much.

    Michael Hudson: Well, it’s always great to be on your show and I’m glad you’re back, Bonnie.

    ------------------

    So, yeah... anyone off their private grid is being very frowned upon... whether it be at individual, local, regional, national or global scale.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    Audio interview here: https://kpfa.org/episode/guns-and-bu...bruary-3-2016/
    Last edited by Hervé; 26th February 2016 at 16:12.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  20. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    animovado (27th February 2016), Bluegreen (23rd September 2017), Ewan (5th August 2016), gaiagirl (20th July 2017), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), mountain_jim (26th February 2016), ponda (26th February 2016), sanma (9th March 2017), sdv (3rd September 2017), seko (26th August 2016), silvanelf (28th May 2019), Sophocles (6th August 2018), TrumanCash (28th February 2016)

  21. Link to Post #31
    Avalon Member mountain_jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th December 2010
    Posts
    1,730
    Thanks
    14,844
    Thanked 9,677 times in 1,580 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    I learned a lot from this article and posted a link to it in the Financial sub-forum.

    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1049222
    I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. - Robert Anton Wilson

    The present as you think of it, and in practical working terms, is that point at which you select your physical experience from all those events that could be materialized. - Seth (The Nature of Personal Reality - Session 656, Page 293)

    (avatar image: Brocken spectre, a wonderful phenomenon of nature I have experienced and a symbol for my aspirations.) :)

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mountain_jim For This Post:

    Hervé (26th February 2016), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), seko (26th August 2016)

  23. Link to Post #32
    Avalon Member TrumanCash's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th April 2012
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,028
    Thanks
    2,581
    Thanked 8,373 times in 1,000 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    You can listen to Michael Hudson's Guns & Butter interview here.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TrumanCash For This Post:

    Hervé (26th February 2016), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), mountain_jim (26th February 2016)

  25. Link to Post #33
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th June 2013
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 3,790 times in 1,109 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    No implementation of strategy which beats up your neighbor and sucks his substance from him can long survive. The host will die and kill the parasite.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to amor For This Post:

    Hervé (27th February 2016), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017)

  27. Link to Post #34
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    10th July 2013
    Location
    Project Avalon
    Posts
    3,661
    Thanks
    19,216
    Thanked 16,125 times in 3,214 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Quote In the words of John Robison in his Proofs of a Conspiracy (1797)

    "The earlier revolutionary leaders were, as we have seen, the disciples of the German Illuminati, and it was they who initiated them into the art of forming political committees " to carry through the great plan of a general overturning of religion and government . . . .These committees arose from the Illuminati in Bavaria . . . and these committees produced the Jacobin Club."

    "The chief lesson," Robison goes on to observe, "that the revolutionary leaders took from Germany, was the method of doing business, of managing their own correspondence, and of procuring and training pupils." pp. 190-191

    The Illuminati operating in the guise of the Jacobins forced the regime change historians call the French Revolution. During the Russian Revolution they masqueraded as the Bolsheviks. Today they brag they are behind the Middle East revolutions. So maybe we should believe them.
    .---
    (just like the Russian Revolution of 1917)
    Taken from: France Didn't Have a Revolution

  28. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Atlas For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (1st August 2016), Hervé (24th July 2016), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), sdv (3rd September 2017), seko (26th August 2016), Sophocles (28th August 2016)

  29. Link to Post #35
    United States Avalon Member Foxie Loxie's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th September 2015
    Location
    Central NY
    Age
    75
    Posts
    3,079
    Thanks
    67,683
    Thanked 17,315 times in 2,953 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Just caught the Skull & Crossbones post you put up awhile back, Ewan. Most interesting, to say the least! Thanks!

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Foxie Loxie For This Post:

    Ewan (5th August 2016), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017)

  31. Link to Post #36
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,626
    Thanks
    59,352
    Thanked 93,872 times in 15,336 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Illuminati Control More Pervasive than We Think

    (How the Elite Plays God from April 2006)

    By Henry Makow, Ph.D. August 26, 2016



    (Truman discovered his perception of reality had been constructed for him, and was false.)


    If John Coleman is right, we can't trust anything emanating from the mass media or government.

    "The moral, spiritual, racial, economic, cultural and intellectual bankruptcy we are in the midst of today is not some social phenomenon...that just happened. Rather it is the product of a carefully planned Tavistock program," Coleman writes.

    Like a cat toying with a mouse, the elite teases us with glimpses of our true predicament. One such peek was the 1998 movie The Truman Show directed by Peter Weir.

    Truman Burbank, played by Jim Carrey, is unaware his life is a reality TV show. Everyone, including his wife, is an actor, and everything that happens is staged. In other words, his life is a fraud.

    Truman Burbank's predicament describes our own. According to John Coleman, the elite has been writing the script for almost hundred years at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations based in London. (Coleman's books)

    Coleman, now 81, a former British Intelligence officer (MI-6) , first exposed the clique that dominates the world is his classic Conspirator's Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 (1992)


    The book is confirmation that a financial elite engineered every war and depression in modern history and continues to condition our beliefs and behavior.

    According to Coleman, Tavistock began life before WWI to convince peace-loving populations of the need to massacre each other.

    "Those fresh-faced young American boys from Arkansas and North Carolina were sent marching off to Europe believing they were "fighting for their country" never knowing that the "democracy" [Woodrow] Wilson sent them to "make the world safe for" was a Socialist-International One World Government dictatorship." (42)

    Funded by the royal family, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, Tavistock pioneered the techniques of propaganda used to justify war. Outright lies about German atrocities in WWI resonate down through the decades to lies about Saddam Hussein's gassing Kurds and killing babies in Kuwait. Of course the biggest lie of al is that Muslims had anything to do with Sept. 11.

    Coleman found that 94% of the key words and phases developed by Tavistock for WWII use "matched up with those used in the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War." (153)

    Coleman's main point is we can't trust anything the mass media or government tells us, especially not the "News." He cites Stalin's propaganda chief Willy Munzenberg:

    "All news is lies and all propaganda is disguised as news."

    Coleman says society is rotten with institutions and organizations directed by Tavistock to deceive and distort. They are called "elite" institutions because of whom they serve.

    The conspiracy reaches right down to the local level. According to Coleman, Tavistock has an "invisible army" of actors found "today in the halls of justice, police, churches, school boards, sports bodies, newspapers, TV...town councils, state legislatures, and are legion in Washington. They run for every office..."

    Virtually every important corporation, university, think tank or foundation is linked to Tavistock. (See Conspirators' Hierarchy pp. 221-253 for a list.) It chooses the entertainers we watch, the pundits we listen to; the politicians we elect. Every US President since Theodore Roosevelt has been under its control. They made examples of rebels like JFK and Richard Nixon.

    Tavistock is behind every "spontaneous" social movement of the last century, including feminism, sexual "liberation", the peace movement, the "New Age" movement, environmentalism, homosexuality, and abortion. Lately, they are behind sex education and the transgender movement.



    "The moral, spiritual, racial, economic, cultural and intellectual bankruptcy we are in the midst of today is not some social phenomenon...that just happened. Rather it is the product of a carefully planned Tavistock program," Coleman writes.

    We are constantly studied to see how we will react under stress. Orson Welles' Martian invasion in 1938 was designed to demonstrate the power of the "news" to deceive. Coleman doesn't mention it but the power blackout in the Northeast in 2003 was probably another study of mass behaviour. So was New Orleans. Confident of our sedated sheep-like behaviour, Coleman says Tavistock went ahead and massacred David Koresh and his followers at Waco after lying about his activities. (240).

    Tavistock follows Sun Tsu's maxim of "Kill a few; terrorize many." Coleman calls Winston Churchill's decision to bomb German civilians "a war crime." Dresden was "an outright attack on Christianity, timed to take place during Lent," he says. (188)

    According to Coleman, Tavistock is waging war on the Muslim world because Islam represents an obstacle to its control. (151) He claims Russia and China still have a measure of independence.

    CONCLUSIONS
    We are in this jam because a small group of dynastic families have amassed unlimited wealth by usurping the government's money-creation role.

    To maintain this unjust advantage, they need to create a "world government" dictatorship. As in any colonial situation, our national elites are chosen by their willingness to collaborate with the occupying power. Most people will do whatever it takes to be "successful". Many think they are free citizens creating a better world. Like the two Jewish professors who criticized the Israel Lobby recently, they discover the reality when they stray from the script.



    The public is constantly under psychological attack. Turn on the news and we see 9-11 cover-up accomplice Rudolph Giuliani shedding crocodile tears with victims' families at patsy Zacharias Moussaoui's show trial. Al-Quaeda hijacker Mohammed Atta "mistakenly keyed the air traffic control microphone instead of the cabin intercom" and is heard talking to the frightened passengers! Sure.

    Meanwhile, the bird flu is coming to get us. Someone is burning black churches. Illegal aliens are flooding the country (despite the "heightened security" mandated by the "war on terror.") Jesus asked Judas to betray him. It goes on and on.

    People find the Illuminati to be an abstract and elusive enemy. Look no further than your television, your iPod, your radio, movie or newspaper.

    Coleman says 450 of the Fortune 500 companies get their marching orders from Tavistock. This may explain why TV commercials seem more concerned with behavior modification than with selling a product.

    I saw this gem recently. A little boy besieges a little girl with gifts. Each time she rejects him. Finally she accepts a vase full of flowers but slams the door in his face. She dumps the flowers in the garbage and uses the vase to gulp McCain's Kool-Aid.

    What a message to send to children! They are messing people up so we are too divided and dysfunctional to resist them.

    Like Truman Burbank, more and more people are recognizing the plot. They are testing the elite's story line and finding it mendacious and perverse. They are walking off the stage to find an authentic life.

    ------

    Related
    John Coleman - 21 Goals of the Illuminati
    You Tube Speech by John Coleman
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  32. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    animovado (28th August 2016), Atlas (26th August 2016), Bluegreen (26th August 2016), Foxie Loxie (26th August 2016), KiwiElf (26th August 2016), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), sanma (9th March 2017), sdv (3rd September 2017), seko (26th August 2016), Sophocles (28th August 2016)

  33. Link to Post #37
    New Zealand Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    1st September 2011
    Posts
    5,984
    Thanks
    34,888
    Thanked 38,520 times in 5,691 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Both versions of the movie Total Recall (1990 & 2012) are interesting variations of this too, particularly the more recent one - really makes you think!:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_...282012_film%29



    Last edited by KiwiElf; 26th August 2016 at 18:17.

  34. Link to Post #38
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,626
    Thanks
    59,352
    Thanked 93,872 times in 15,336 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Some excerpts from that book, above:


    Quote Two days after the "Martian Invasion news broadcast," an editorial in the New York Times headed "Terror by Radio" inadvertently shed light on what Tavistock had in mind for the American people in the coming war now looming closer:

    "What began as entertainment might readily have ended in disaster," the editorial said. Radio officials had a responsibility and "should think twice before mingling news techniques with fiction so terrifying."

    What the "Times" had inadvertently stumbled onto was the wave of the future seen through the eyes of the theoreticians at Tavistock. Henceforth, "mingling news techniques with fiction so terrifying" that it would be taken as fact, was to be standard practice for the graduates of Tavistock. All news broadcast were to be adaptations of "news and fiction" in a skillful blend so as to make the one unrecognizable from the other.

    In fact, Tavistock put their newly tested theory into practice a year later when the population of cities in Europe, London, Munich, Paris and Amsterdam were smitten with war jitters even as Neville Chamberlain was successfully avoiding war, using the same techniques that were employed in the October 1938 "War of the Worlds" radio broadcasts.

    […]

    Profiles on how individuals and groups reacted to international tensions were formulated on the basis of skillfully blending fact with terrifying fiction in preparation for a campaign to launch "World citizens," (of a One World Government Socialist-Communist dictatorship) that began to be employed to weaken national boundaries, language and culture and to discredit pride of nation and sovereignty of nation-states, in preparation for the coming of the Socialist New World Order—One World Government, that President Woodrow Wilson said America would make safe for "democracy."
    Horrendously simple... isn't it!!?

    Couple that with this other part:

    Quote By the year 2000 there was hardly any aspect of life in America into which Tavistock's tentacles had not reached and that included every level of government from local to federal, industry, trade, education and the political institutions of the nation. Every mental and psychological aspect of the nation was analyzed, recorded, profiled and stored in computer memory banks.

    What has come out of this is what Tavistock calls "a three-system response" and it is how population groups react to stress resulting from "contrived situations" that become crisis management exercises. What we have in the U.S. and Britain is a government, that creates a situation viewed by its citizens as a crisis, and government then manages that "crisis."

    […]

    On the other hand, the American people may well be going through the one of the three phases of what Dr. Fred Emery, at one time the senior psychiatrist at Tavistock, once described as "social environmental turbulence." According to Emery: "Large populations groups manifest the following symptoms when subjected to conditions of violent social changes, stress and turbulence which can be divided into well-defined categories:

    Superficiality is the condition that manifests itself when the threatened population group reacts by adopting shallow sloganeering, which they attempt to pass off as ideals." Very little "ego investment" takes place making the first phase a "maladaptive response" because, as Emery stated, "the cause of the crisis is not isolated and identified" and the crisis and tension is not abated, but continues for as long as the controller wants it to last.

    The second phase of the crisis reaction (since the crisis is continuing), is "fragmentation", a condition in which panic strikes, "social cohesion" falls apart with the result that very small groups form and attempt to protect themselves from the crisis with little or no regard for the expense or cost to other fragmented, small groups. This phase Emery calls "passive maladaption," while still failing to identify the cause of the crisis.

    The third phase is when the victims turn away from the source of the induced crisis and the resulting tension. They take "fantasy trips of internal migration, introspection and obsession with self." This is what Tavistock calls "disassociation and self realization." Emery goes on to
    explain that "the passive maladaption responses are now coupled with "active maladaptive responses."

    Emery states that over the past 50 years that experiments in applied social psychology and resultant "crisis management" have taken over all aspects of life in America and the results are stored in the computers in the major "think tanks" such as Stanford University. The scenarios are taken out, used and revised from time to time and, according to Tavistock, "the scenarios are in operation at the present time."

    Translated this means that Tavistock has the majority of the American people profiled and brainwashed. If any part of the American public is ever able to identify the cause of the crises that have washed over this nation in the past seventy years, the social engineering structure built by Tavistock will come crashing down. But that has not yet happened. Tavistock continues to drown the American public in its sea of created public opinion.
    Quote […]

    During this early 1950s period, Bernays was public relations counsel to the United Fruit (United Brands) Corporation, one of the leading corporations in the communication/national security apparat (Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex") then busy with consolidating its power over U.S. policy.

    Bernays conducted the propaganda campaign alleging Guatemala was falling under "Communist control" that resulted in a U.S. engineered coup in that country. In 1955 Bernays wrote a book about his experience titled "The Engineering of Consent."

    The book became the virtual Tavistock blueprint followed by the U.S. Government to overthrow any country whose policies were unacceptable to the One World Government Socialist dictatorship.

    […]
    ... corroborating Sue Arrigo's and John Perkins' data about United Fruit, Guatemala and Rockefeller and his CIA... to get rid of competition and squash the hope of the "little people."

    ... and we have a template description of what's happening at all scales, from the Avalon forum to the planet and, probably, the galaxy.

    PS: Gives another dimension to Rahm's "not letting a good crisis go to waste"... right?
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  35. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Atlas (28th August 2016), Bill Ryan (28th August 2016), Ewan (9th March 2017), Foxie Loxie (28th August 2016), greybeard (28th August 2016), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), sdv (3rd September 2017), Sophocles (6th August 2018)

  36. Link to Post #39
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,626
    Thanks
    59,352
    Thanked 93,872 times in 15,336 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    More wind for Sue Arrigo's and John Coleman's sails:

    Who is Obama’s boss? And why it matters.

    By Jon Rappoport Sep6 , 2016
    Who is Obama’s boss? And why it matters.

    Here is another question that has the same answer: who is in charge of destroying economies?

    Who keeps pushing new economy-destroying trade treaties, like the upcoming TPP? Who is in the business of killing jobs and hope?

    Who demands that these treaties must be ratified?

    Who is breathing down Obama’s neck, as he stages a last-ditch effort to ratify the TPP and further bury US sovereignty under the weight of global corporations?

    Who demands that more US jobs disappear overseas and never come back?

    One group has been virtually forgotten. Its influence is enormous. It has existed since 1973.

    It’s called the Trilateral Commission (TC).

    Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

    In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Four years before birthing the TC with his boss of bosses, David Rockefeller, Brzezinski wrote: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

    Goodbye, separate nations.

    Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):
    Quote “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
    Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

    For example:
    Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
    James Jones, National Security Advisor;
    Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
    Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.
    Here is the payoff. The US Trade Representative (appointed by Obama in 2013), who is responsible for negotiating the TPP with 11 other nations, is Michael Froman, a former member of the Trilateral Commission. Don’t let the word “former” fool you. TC members resign when they take positions in the Executive Branch of government. And when they serve in vital positions, such as US Trade Representative, they aren’t there by accident. They’re TC operatives with a specific agenda.

    I’m now going to print a stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission. (Source: Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management; ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980, South End Press, Pages 192-3).

    The conversation was public knowledge at the time.

    Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning.

    But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.

    The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy (which includes trade treaties) were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.

    And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements. Carter was himself an agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House. He had been plucked from obscurity by David Rockefeller, and through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.

    The 1978 conversation featured reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took up the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

    The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

    NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?
    COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

    NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?
    KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.
    COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

    NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?
    COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

    NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.
    COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches. [a lie]
    KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

    This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was buried.

    US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

    Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

    Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

    From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

    How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal? One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; ratify trade treaties that effectively send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.

    And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.

    What kind of order?

    Eventually, one planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”

    The top Trilateral players, in 2008, had their man in the White House, another formerly obscure individual like Jimmy Carter: Barack Obama. They had new trade treaties on the planning table. Obama was tasked with doing whatever was necessary to bring those treaties, like the TPP, home. To get them passed. To get them ratified. No excuses.

    That’s why, over a year ago, when anti-TPP criticism and rhetoric were reaching a crescendo, when Obama was seeking Congressional fast-track authority for the treaty, he was in a sweat and a panic. He and his cabinet were on the phones night and day, scrambling and scraping for votes in Congress. This was the Big One. This was why he was the President. To make this happen.

    His Trilateral bosses were watching.

    These men run US policy, when and where it counts. They don’t like failure.

    This is also why, after Obama was inaugurated for his first term, he shocked and astonished his own advisors, who expected him, as the first order of business, to address the unemployment issue in America. He shocked them by ignoring the number-one concern of Americans, and instead decided to opt for his disastrous national health insurance policy—Obamacare.

    Obama never had any intention of trying to dig America out of the crash of 2008. That wasn’t why he was put in the Oval Office. He could, and would, pretend to bring back the economy, with fudged numbers and distorted standards. But really and truly, create good-paying jobs for many, many Americans? Not on the TC agenda. Not in the cards.

    It was counter-productive to the TC plan: torpedo the economy further.

    Obama is on the move. He’s traveling to far-flung places, trying to shore up global consensus on the TPP treaty. His people are working around the clock to round up the necessary votes for TPP ratification in Congress. Obama plans to sneak through the treaty during Congress’ lame-duck session after the November election, before newly elected Congressional members take office.

    Pushing through Globalist trade treaties: this is why he was put in the White House.
    This is his appointed task.

    This is his real job.

    His bosses are watching.

    “I pledge allegiance to the Trilateral Commission, and to the domination for which it stands, one planet, indivisible, with tyranny and poverty and top-down order for all…”

    Jon Rappoport
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  37. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Baby Steps (20th September 2016), Blacklight43 (20th September 2016), Ewan (9th March 2017), Foxie Loxie (20th September 2016), KiwiElf (9th March 2017), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), sanma (9th March 2017), sdv (3rd September 2017), Sophocles (6th August 2018)

  38. Link to Post #40
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,626
    Thanks
    59,352
    Thanked 93,872 times in 15,336 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    In the beginning...

    Rothschilds Murdered at least Seven US Presidents

    (from June 16, 2008)
    by Henry Makow Ph.D.March 9, 2017



    Trump should be on guard. The Rothschilds
    have a habit of murdering Presidents who don't follow their orders.
    "The bane of our civil institutions is to be found in Masonry, already powerful and daily becoming more so. I owe to my country an exposure of its dangers." - Captain William Morgan, murdered Sept 11, 1826
    A curious but very credible Internet document called "The Mardi Gras Secrets" states that Illuminati agents poisoned and killed Presidents William Henry Harrison (1773-1841) and Zachary Taylor (1784-1850). They also poisoned James Buchanan in 1857 but he survived. All three were obstructing Illuminati- House of Rothschild plans for the US Civil War (1860-1865).

    The document also describes the Illuminati role in the murders of Abraham Lincoln and Senator Huey Long. We know they also killed Presidents Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy and probably Warren Harding and possibly FDR.

    The Mardi Gras Secrets website was created in Dec. 2005 by Mimi L. Eustis, the daughter of Samuel Todd Churchill, a high level member of the secret New Orleans Mardi Gras Society called "The Mystick Crewe of Comus."

    This Society, which reorganized the Mardi Gras festivities in 1857, was a chapter of the Skull and Bones. It began as a front for the activities of Masons Albert Pike, Judah Benjamin and John Slidell who became leaders of the Confederacy.

    This information is based on Samuel Churchill's deathbed confessions, when he was dying of lung cancer. Mrs. Eustis later decided to make them public after she also contracted the terminal disease.

    The Illuminati ringleader was Caleb Cushing (1800-1879), the partner of William Russell, the opium smuggler who founded the Yale Skull and Bones Society in 1832. In order to rise in this society, one had to participate in a "killing of the king" rite of passage.

    According to Eustis, the Skull and Bones (or Brotherhood of Death) is "nothing more than a political assassination hit team against those United States politicians who do not fall in line with the House of Rothschild's plans for a blood elitist domination and control over the world's economy...For example Caleb Cushing was involved in the arsenic poisoning deaths of United States presidents William Henry Harrison on April 4, 1841 and Zachary Taylor on July 9, 1850. These two Presidents had opposed admitting Texas and California as slave states."

    William Henry Harrison was the first President ever to die in office, serving only 31 days. According to Wikipedia he died of "pneumonia."

    On July 3, 1850, Zachary Taylor threatened to hang those ``taken in rebellion against the Union.'' The next day the President fell ill, vomited blackish material, and died July 9. (Kentucky authorities recently dug up Taylor's body looking for evidence of arsenic poisoning.)

    THE ASSASSINATION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN
    I paraphrase Mrs. Eustis: During the Civil War (from 1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War . The loan shark-bankers wanted 24% to 36% interest. Instead, Lincoln got Congress to authorize the printing of 450 million dollars worth of "Greenbacks" debt and interest-free money. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private.

    The House of Rothschild recognized that sovereign governments printing interest-free and debt-free paper money would break their power.

    Lincoln's assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was a member of Pike's Knights of the Golden Circle. He was in New Orleans during the winter of 1863-64 and conspired with Pike, Benjamin, Slidell and Admiral G.W. Baird to assassinate Lincoln. Baird later identified the body of Captain James William Boyd as Booth's. (Boyd was in fact a Confederate spy who resembled Booth and was used as a patsy. His body was dumped into an Arsenal Prison sinkhole used to dump dead horses.)

    Eustis says her father emphasized that most Masons below the 3rd degree were good hardworking people. The Illuminati-Skull and Bones used the Masons as a disguise. Those who rose past the 33 degree level did so by participating in the "Killing of the King" ritual. The lower levels did as they were told without realizing their part in the "Killing of the King".

    For assassinating Abraham Lincoln, Pike, Benjamin, Slidell and August Belmont (Rothschild's Northern agent) were made secret Kings of the Mystick Krewe of Comus. Andrew Johnson Vice -President became President and pardoned Albert Pike. Albert Pike awarded Andrew Johnson the thirty-third degree rite of passage.
    " Doctors were an essential part of the Illuminati plan to kill U.S. political leaders [who] hindered the take over of the U.S. Republic by the international banking elite," Eustis writes.

    " Illuminati doctors eventually did in both U.S. President William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor. They also played a death role in the shooting assassinations of U.S. Presidents Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865 (died April 15, 1865), James Garfield on July 2, 1881 (died September 19, 1881), and William McKinley Jr. on September 6, 1901 (died September 14, 1901)."

    "Teddy Roosevelt became President after William McKinley was shot. Roosevelt received passage into the 33rd. degree and became a secret king of the Mystick Krewe of Comus. During his presidency, the Skull and Bones became firmly entrenched and controlled the U.S. Republic."
    HUEY LONG
    Huey Long ("Kingfish") was a populist who mounted a powerful challenge to FDR from his power base as Governor of Louisiana and later as US Senator. Unlike FDR, he was not a Mason and not a shill for the bankers. His "Share Our Wealth" program represented a genuine threat to the Illuminati.

    An Illuminati member, Dr. Carl Austin Weiss shot Long Sept 8, 1935 and Dr. Arthur Vidrine ensured that Long did not recover. According to Eustis, Weiss was supposed to hit Long in the face, and Long's bodyguard Murphy Roden was supposed to shoot both Weiss and Long.This may indeed be what happened.

    Roden was a "spy for J. Edgar Hoover." Roden pumped 60 bullets into Weiss' body. Dr. Weiss was told his baby would be killed if he reneged on the mission.

    Both FDR and J. Edgar Hoover won their 33 degree rite of passage for their participation in this murder.
    "Franklin Delano Roosevelt was made King of Comus in 1937. When J. Edgar Hoover came down to New Orleans to act out his reign as King of Comus, he was involved in a sexual revelry of homosexuality and cross-dressing with various elitist bloodline members of the Mystick Krewe of Comus."
    LINDBERGH AND HARDING
    "Agents of Skull and Bones with blessing and involvement of J. Edgar Hoover FBI Director and 33rd level executioner-cover up specialist for the elitist bloodline of the House of Rothschild murdered Freemason Charles Lindbergh's son. This killing of Freemason Charles Lindberg's son was to set an example that the isolationist stand was not the will of the Illuminati."
    Mrs. Eustis doesn't touch upon the poisoning death of President Warren Harding (1865-1923) but this is how Wikipedia describes it:
    "At the end of July, while traveling south from Alaska through British Columbia, [Harding] developed what was thought to be a severe case of food poisoning. At the Palace Hotel in San Francisco, he developed pneumonia. Harding died of either a heart attack or a stroke at 7:35 p.m. on August 2, 1923, at the age of 57. The formal announcement, printed in the New York Times of that day, stated that 'a stroke of apoplexy' was the cause of death.' He had been ill exactly one week."
    For FDR, see Emanuel Josephson, "The Strange Death of Franklin D. Roosevelt." (1948)


    CONCLUSION
    The "Mardi Gras Secrets" suggest that, given the depth of corruption, the US political system cannot be taken seriously as a democracy. There is a pattern of Illuminati-Rothschild control throughout US history. People who deny this are living in a fantasy.

    The United States was created to advance the Illuminati New World Order based on Rothschild control of credit. American ideals were designed to dupe the masses, not to be realized.

    The founders and heroes of the US were mostly Masons including Paul Revere, John Paul Jones and Benjamin Franklin. Francis Scott Key who wrote the national anthem was a Mason. John Hancock and most of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were also Masons.

    More-than-half the Presidents were Masons. These include Washington, Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Garfield, McKinley, TR, Taft, Harding, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Ford, Reagan, Clinton, Bush I and II, Obama and probably Trump.

    Some of these really thought Masonry was about "making good men better" and had to be assassinated. Other Presidents who weren't Masons, like Eisenhower, Nixon and Carter, were still controlled by the same dark forces.

    Throughout its history the United States has been in the clutches of a satanic cult empowered by the Rothschild central banking cartel. Many courageous Presidents and other politicians tried to free their countrymen and died unrecognized, their killers unpunished and triumphant.

    The US is a nation decapitated, a headless giant led by demons.

    --------
    Thanks to Andrew for the tip!

    Related
    Vatican Role In Lincoln Assassination?
    A survey of Masonic Influence in US History.
    JFK On Secret Societies (Google video)

    =================================================

    Quote The Illuminati ringleader was Caleb Cushing (1800-1879), the partner of William Russell, the opium smuggler who founded the Yale Skull and Bones Society in 1832.
    When one digs into who was William Russel, one ends up with the story of the "British East India Company" and the opium trade via his cousin, Samuel Russell.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  39. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (9th March 2017), Bluegreen (23rd September 2017), Dennis Leahy (28th August 2017), Ewan (9th March 2017), KiwiElf (9th March 2017), Michelle Marie (22nd November 2017), Paul (9th March 2017), sanma (9th March 2017), sdv (3rd September 2017), Sophocles (6th August 2018), Zanshin (10th July 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 8 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts