December
31, 2010 | Last Updated Jan 04, 2011
Continuing
from Part-2,
where Baron David de Rothschild was quoted proclaiming:
Caption
World Governance By The Rothschilds, 2003 - Click to view GOVERNING
BY NETWORKS (Image via bibliotecapleyades-net via bureaudetudes-org
large 3 MB)
'We
provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it
globally. ... We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in
the finance business, ... There is no debate that Rothschild is a
Jewish family, ... For a family business to survive, every generation
needs a leader, ... Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a
global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and
responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps
an element that runs through our history.' --- Baron David de
Rothschild, The first barons of banking by Rupert Wright, UAE
thenational.ae, November 6, 2008
When,
in my state of perpetual confusion whereby my experiments in
independent thinking sometimes get out of hand, I have immoderately
challenged many a rebel leader on their omitting to mention the
Rothschild name in their otherwise erudite critiques of
modernity, I have always come up empty handed. This is amply
demonstrated in my responses to Salman
Abu Sitta,
Antoine
Raffoul,
Ismail
Zayid,
Khalil
Nakhleh,
Shadi
Nassar,
Mustafa
Barghouti and Anna Baltzer,
Jeff
Gates,
Jeff
Blankfort,
et.
al.
My most recent challenge was yet another unsolicited letter, this
time to an old timer Western rebel of the United States of America,
Mr. Jeffrey Blankfort. He courteously replied:
Caption
Detail-2 Israel benefactors World Governance By The Rothschilds, 2003 -
Click image for expanded
view GOVERNING BY NETWORKS. See Detail-1 at end for how power flows
seamlessly through the interconnected web of networks (Image via
bibliotecapleyades-net via bureaudetudes-org large 3 MB)
'I
do not mention the Rothschilds because I have yet to see a single
shred of evidence that they control the world's money supply, the
CFR, or anything else of such substance as to influence the way the
world works. As far as I can tell whereas once members of the
Rothschild banking family ran the banks of Western Europe, I see no
evidence that they do so today. ... Again, if you have any direct
evidence with unimpeachable sources that the Rothschilds are running
everything or for that matter anything behind the scenes I would
appreciate receiving it but lacking that up to now, I never mention
their name apart from Walter Rothschild being the recipient of the
Balfour Declaration.' --- Jeffrey Blankfort replying to Zahir
Ebrahim Nov. 11, 2010 (see full correspondence at the end
of this article)
I
was simply delighted that my new friend Jeff Blankfort had even
bothered to write back, as most brilliant chiefs, both Eastern and
Western, gallantly rising to defend the Palestinians as their own
cause célèbre, simply tend to ignore the meddlesome and
the confused who don't buy their craftsmanship. The crazy thing is,
that among the Palestinians themselves, many appear to prefer running
from Jew to Jew to solve their problems, as was observed by a
Palestinian friend of mine out of sheer
frustration: “We run from Jew to Jew, they create the
problem, and also argue the solution, they control the full spectrum
of our discourse as well as our existence.” I promised
Jeff: “Thank you mon ami for your reply. I will compose a
thoughtful reply later...”.
This
Part-3
attempts to respond to Jeff Blankfort's request for evidence for the
trumpeting-defecating elephant in the bedroom. As quoted above, Jeff
asked for “direct evidence with unimpeachable sources”.
I
will humbly endeavor to provide both – direct,
unimpeachable. And before concluding, I will even suggest that
the legal standard itself for proving criminal conspiracy is far less
than what Mr. Blankfort has generously demanded from me, for the
obvious reasons that even half-smart conspirators usually hide behind
their errand boys, like the Mafioso, and don't leave their calling
cards. More empirically however, unlike the dumb Mafioso who rob,
extort, and kill illegally thus enabling the state policing
apparatuses to be used to juridically hang them, brilliant
conspirators usually enact legalisms and statutes, and directly
employ the state's governing apparatus itself to mask and legalize
their dastardly plunders, their war-mongerings, their
social-engineerings, and their pernicious subversions of the peoples'
democratic institutions and constitution. Even the flag-waiving
ordinary indoctrinated American understood how that craftsmanship
worked when he and she witnessed the banksters' bailout extortion
racket in October 2008 (see 'Why
bluff Martial Law')
and their subsequent brazen accounting of how they spent it (watch).
And
yet, the law of un-intended consequences, i.e., nature, still has its
ways to un-obscure the golem if one has the eyes and the will to
perceive.
Let
me first state the criterion for proof as Blankfort did not stipulate
any beyond “direct,
unimpeachable”. I intend to demonstrate that an
omnipotent power exists, that such a power visibly existed not too
long ago using unimpeachable sources, and since there is no evidence
of such a power suddenly eviscerating, that
by the sheer force of logic, it must still exist even if occulted
from mainstream Americans today. And I will
top that off with the confirmation of its own existence by the
omnipotent power itself. I invite the readers to pretend that they
are a jury member, and reach their own verdict whether the following
can be sufficiently deemed “direct evidence” from
“unimpeachable sources” to satisfy the request of
Jeffrey Blankfort and all those like him who choose to willfully
remain innocent of knowledge of the most glaring, trumpeting,
shitting, elephant in the bridal suite.
First,
the unimpeachable source: Nuremberg Military Tribunal and its
official Record. I don't think there can be anything more
unimpeachable a source than that, do you?
Let's
first see what transpired at Nuremberg in the score-settling with
victor's justice in the aftermath of Word War II with respect to the
Nazi banker most instrumental in financing the Nazi war machine,
Hjalmar Schacht. While 21 Nazi chiefs were hanged (watch)
by Robert H. Jackson, the chief prosecuting counsel for the United
States (watch),
the banker whom the chief counsel as the official representative of
the United States government to the Nuremberg Military Tribunals,
most wanted to hang, was set free due to the intervention from the
Bank of England governor Sir Montagu Norman!
Say
what? Bank of England is so powerful that it prevailed upon their own
military Allies at Nuremberg to let go of the principal enemy who
financed the destruction of entire Europe and of the British Empire
itself – with agreement from all the Allied military high
command and their governments (with only Russia dissenting)? No, you
did not read that in history books did you, nor did you hear Noam
Chomsky talk about the inconvenient case of Hjalmar Schacht even when
he waxes eloquence about victor's justice at Nuremberg by
highlighting the case of Admiral Karl Dönitz, and evidently, nor
did you hear Mr. Jeffrey Blankfort bring it up in all his dissent-ing
critique of Noam Chomsky.
I
get really confused when I encounter such blind-sighted omissions
regarding the King of the Jews among the moral Jews who become
dissent-chiefs for the dumb goy, and book-end their own dissent so
wonderfully while still giving the illusion of vigorous debate.
Chomsky explains this Machiavellian construction rather elegantly
even as he implements it himself with involuntary help from his own
antagonist, Jeff Blankfort, and the goyem cheer for their favorite
horse – don't matter which horse wins, the real winners are
those who benefit from the calculated omissions, the race course
owners:
‘This
“debate” is a typical illustration of a primary principle
of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party
Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed — or else. What
you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In
societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force,
the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is
encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy.
The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief;
the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and
freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party
Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air
we breathe.’
‘Democratic
societies use a different method: they don’t articulate the
party line. That’s a mistake. What they do is presuppose it,
then encourage vigorous debate within the framework of the party
line. This serves two purposes. For one thing it gives the impression
of a free and open society because, after all, we have lively debate.
It also instills a propaganda line that becomes something you
presuppose, like the air you breathe.’
‘The
smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit
the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate
within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and
dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free
thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the
system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the
debate.’ --- Noam Chomsky.
At
this point, before I go any further, please permit me to dust out the
following observation of novelist Aldous Huxley in the Brave New
World to illustrate why I consider artful omissions
and silence, as counter-intuitive as it might appear to the
profoundly innocent of knowledge, to be a most powerful
propaganda tool:
‘The
greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing
something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still
greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By
simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.
Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and
such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as
undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much
more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent
denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence
is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of
social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda
must be made as effective as the negative.’ — Aldous
Huxley, Preface (circa 1946) to Brave New World, 1931, Harper,
pg. 11
I
have to wonder about my sanity sometimes – why don't I get it
when brilliant chiefs inexplicably dabble in their own thought
control, in their own self-policing?
Why
do I persist in experimenting with independent thinking? Just accept
the pious statements of the Jewish chiefs that there is not a shred
of evidence of the existence of the King of the Jews controlling the
state of affairs in the world today, lest I be labeled a 'kook', a
'denier of established truths', and carted away to some re-education
camp for my own, as well as other's safety! 'Denier' I have already
been anointed by none other than a recovering Jew, a reformed
Zionist, Christian friend of mine, Israel
Shamir! Yes, I know I have accumulated some lovely
friends in my few journeys into the unknown world of independent
thinking! I now try my best to stay away from such confusions, and I
believe this is one of my last few times as my new year's resolution!
Before
we jump too far ahead as I briefly did in the preceding passages to
give a taste of the acerbic logic about to develop, let's study this
shockingly revealing fact of Hjalmar Schacht which is so
uncontrovertibly recorded in the pages of victor's justice at
Nuremberg, and the circumstances surrounding this fact. The following
is excerpted from David Irving's Nuremberg, the Last Battle (
PDF
). It appears in my document “Monetary
Reform: Who will bell the cat?”
as footnote [11] and [13] and is reproduced below along with the
passage being footnoted:
Caption
Nuremberg, the Last Battle: Bank of England overriding
the victorious Allies and freeing the Nazi Banker Hjalmar Schacht
from the hangman's noose
'Yes,
confessionals after faits accomplis, is a characteristically
“cleansing” Christian tradition. Somehow, it only seems
to work for those in absolute power, never for the common man.
“You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to
you, we won't do it again” [Ben Bernanke to Milton
Friedman] doesn't seem to be part of the ordinary judicial system
where the common man is made accountable for stealing bread. But it
is part of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals which let Dr. Hjalmar
Schacht, the former governor of the Reich Bank [11] – the
bankster who orchestrated the financing for Hitler and enabled his
war machine with funding from Wall Street [12] and the City of London
financiers – go scot-free!
Whence
such awesome power to even let a fascist banker who caused the
destruction of all of Europe – as per the Nuremberg established
principle of “all the evil which follows” –
become a prominent and influential member of the financial community
once again in post-war Germany “as though there had never
been a blemish on his character”? [13]'
Footnote
[11] Dr. Hjalmar Schacht (Reich minister of economics until 1937,
Reichsbank president until 1939). David Irving, Nuremberg, The Last
Battle, 1996, page 160.
“[Jackson]
regarded the former president of the Reichsbank as the most
contemptible of all the defendants. He had provided the finance for
the spectacular rise and rearmament of Hitler’s Germany. More
than any other, this man’s financial genius had paved the way
for the violation of the Versailles Treaty.” (page 157)
“Ambitious
and arrogant, Schacht [Highest IQ 143, page 292] had walled himself
in behind a belief in his own righteousness. He seethed with rage at
being imprisoned with Hitler’s henchmen. He admitted to having
violated the Versailles Treaty, but countered that since the Allies
were in collusion against Germany this was no crime. .. He admitted
rebuilding Germany’s run-down economy, but not for the purpose
of waging war; Hitler had dismissed him as soon as he balked at the
aggressive planning that began.” (page 293)
“Hjalmar
Schacht – ‘after Göring the toughest of them.’
He [Jackson] had always regarded Schacht as one of the most
despicable defendants. The banker’s arrogant attitude since the
trial had begun only vexed him all the more.” (page 327)
“Even
more irritating for Jackson was that Schacht was overheard in the
cells confidently predicting that he would be acquitted. Irritating
rumours circulated that the prosecution of Schacht was not in
earnest. Letter-writers taunted Jackson that he would never succeed
in convicting a big banker – whether friend or foe, they were
the new Untouchables. He soon became aware that the Nazi banker did
indeed have friends in the most unlikely places and influence
everywhere. One day one of his team, the eminent New York
international lawyer Ralph Albrecht, reported to him that the British
assistant prosecutor Colonel Harry J. Phillimore – later a lord
justice of appeal in London* – had accosted him in the hall
outside the courtroom and urged the Americans to relax their
remorseless pressure on the banker. When Albrecht, perplexed, asked
‘Why?’, Phillimore uneasily explained that certain
representations had been made by Sir Montagu Norman, governor of the
Bank of England from 1920 to 1944. ‘It would be most
unfortunate,’ murmured the British colonel, ‘if anything
were to happen to Schacht.’ In fact Schacht had been an
informer of Sir Montagu, secretly apprising him of the political and
financial decisions taken at the highest level in Berlin for sixteen
years before the war.” (page 328)
“There
is in the records of His Majesty’s treasury in the British
archives an illuminating file on the efforts made by Sir Montagu
Norman to get Schacht released.” (page 329)
“He
[Jackson] regarded the case against the banker as a test of the good
faith of the entire prosecution. As he had said in a secret meeting
of all the chief prosecutors in April, of which there is a shorthand
record in his files, ‘If the court, for instance, holds that we
have no case against Schacht, then it seems clear that we can have no
case against any industrialist, as the case against him is stronger
than the others.’ ... He [Jackson] privately recorded later, ‘I
would at least stand out forthrightly in demanding his conviction,
convicting him if I could.’ He harried the banker mercilessly
in the witness box, addressed him as ‘Schacht,’ tout
court, confronting him with the evidence of his participation in
Hitler’s aggressive planning until eventually the defendant had
to admit that he had been untruthful about his dealings with the
Führer. Jackson showed the Tribunal newsreel film of Hitler’s
triumphant return to Berlin in July 1940 after the defeat of France –
long after Schacht would have had them believe he had fallen into
disfavour. There was Schacht, in Prince-Albert morning coat and top
hat, the only civilian among the generals waiting on the station
platform to pump the Führer’s hand – indeed with two
hands he caught hold of the Führer’s, stepped out of line,
and followed him ‘in almost lickspittle fashion,’ as
Jackson remarked later. And this was the Nazi gentleman for whom the
British lawyer Phillimore and banker Sir Montagu Norman were
interceding. All the more acute was Jackson’s fury when the
Tribunal – with only the Russian judge publicly dissenting –
acquitted Schacht. Biddle, who read out this part of the judgement,
claimed some months later that he had also wanted to convict, but the
British had insisted on an acquittal and had left him no choice.”
(pages 329-330)
Footnote
[13] David Irving, Nuremberg, The Last Battle, 1996, page 402: “As
he was released from his [Nuremberg] cell, German police stepped
forward and arrested him. A German court sentenced him to eight
years’ imprisonment as a major offender under the
denazification laws enacted by the Control Council in Berlin. He
served two years in solitary confinement, and was eventually released
in 1948. The world of banking absorbed him again as though there had
never been a blemish on his character.”
'The
powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less
than to create a world system of financial control in private hands
able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy
of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a
feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in
concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and
conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for
International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned
and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves
private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like
Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New
York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and
Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government
by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign
exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the
country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent
economic rewards in the business world.' (Carroll Quigley, Tragedy
and Hope, 1966, Chapter 20, page 324)
'It
must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks
were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not.
Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant
investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and
were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive
financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment
bankers (also called “international” or “merchant”
bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own
unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international
cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more
powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central
banks. This dominance of investment bankers was based on their
control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own
countries and throughout the world.' (Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and
Hope, 1966, Chapter 20, page 326)
Is
it too rude to ask – that if Montagu Norman is merely among the
“technicians and agents of the dominant investment
bankers of their own countries”, then who is the
dominant investment banker of England who has in fact controlled the
Bank of England and the City at least since Waterloo?
Rothschild
N. M. and Sons.
This
is what they confirm of themselves today on their own website:
Rothschild has been at the centre of the world's financial
markets for over 200 years. Today, it provides Investment Banking,
Corporate Banking and Private Banking & Trust services to
governments, corporations and individuals worldwide. Baron
David de Rothschild has already been quoted in the beginning of this
article, proclaiming: 'We provide advice on both sides of the
balance sheet, and we do it globally. ... We have had 250 years or so
of family involvement in the finance business'
But
here we shall just stick with Nuremberg for the moment.
Sir
Montagu Norman, at the behest of the owners of the Bank of England,
set one of their own criminal banksters free from the clutches of the
hangman's noose. Those owners, both commonsense and force of logic
suggests, commanded at least that much power which could trivially
prevail upon all of the Military Tribunal members, except Russia who
voted against it. Americans had lost 300,000 soldiers in that 'just
war' against the axis powers, the United Kingdom had lots its empire
along with its jewel in the crown, and Europe lay decimated, 6
million Jews exterminated – we won't quibble with the holocaust
industry here – 20 million Russians butchered, and sum-total of
50 million human beings, mostly Christians, and most of them German
civilians under the unspeakable fire-bombings of civilian cities by
the Allies, lost their lives in the name of fighting the aggression
initiated by the Nazis which was even termed “... the
supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in
that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”.
Just
watch the video of the closing speech of Robert Jackson condemning
the Nazis (cited earlier). It was a superlative public relations
Tribunals, because, it was utmost important for the United States of
America, the emerging superpower from the ashes of World War II, to
pontificate to the entire world its moral and military supremacy, and
condemn the abhorrence of aggression of the Nazis as it was itself
entering a new Cold War with the new enemy. Nuremberg was entirely
about public relations. And the United States judges at Nuremberg
wanted to make an outstanding example of the Nazi war machine and its
bankster to demonstrate their own moral high grounds.
Despite
all of these empirical motivations, those who controlled the Bank of
England, call it Foundation-X for the lack of a better handle
to refer to this non-existent power which none can see, could spring
one of their own from the sure jaws of death?
This
incontrovertible fact and its significance indicates the existence of
a power which is superior to the combined power of the victorious
allies of World War II.
So,
the evidence of Hjalmar Schacht being set-free unequivocally
demonstrates at least the existence of an elusive omnipotent power in
1946.
And
we already know that this immense power also existed in 1917, when
the Balfour Declaration was issued in its name (see Part-2).
Caption
Revisiting the Curse of Canaan: The Balfour Declaration November 2nd
1917 - The first-cause of Palestinian genocide in the Land of Canaan
is in the Name of a Rothschild and yet they don't know that name!
Where
did that amazing power, which was confirmed to exist in 1917 when it
prevailed upon the British empire to grant the Zionists another's
land, and again in 1946 when it prevailed upon the British and
American empires to grant amnesty to their own arch enemy that had
seen tens of millions of Christians dead, so suddenly vanish in the
mere 60 years since?
Did
the earth swallow it, did the sky absorb it, or was there an
earthquake which sunk it?
What
happened to it?
In
my experiments in confusion, I valiantly searched for such a
catastrophic event which could have silently vanquished that
Foundation-X which had existed only 60 years earlier.
I
am sorry to report here that there is no known documentation existing
on planet earth in the annals of public archives which records any
such cataclysmic event where that elusive power could have
disappeared. If one exists in secret classified archives, like aliens
abducting them off the face of the planet, I do not possess such
powers to access those classified documents, let alone unlock them of
their public relations baggage. We shall just wait for Wikileaks
to let us know if UFO-Abduction is indeed that elusive cause of their
sudden vanishing from the face of the earth. Julian
Assange has already hinted: “it is worth
noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive
there are indeed references to UFOs.”
In
the meantime, back here on earth outside the Plato's cave, by the
sheer force of inevitable logic, I must rationally conclude that such
a power, Foundation-X, still exists right here on earth. And,
since I have also not found, despite vigorous search in libraries and
on the web, any evidence that the Foundation-X ownership
surreptitiously changed hands except from
generation to generation within the same DNA cess-pool, and as
admitted by the scions now wielding the baton themselves, then,
whomsoever were the owners of Foundation-X in 1946, and in
1917, are still the owners today.
Casa
de Rothschild!
Let
me know if this sufficiently constitutes Jeff Blankfort's requirement
for evidence: “if you have any direct evidence with
unimpeachable sources that the Rothschilds are running everything”
Conspiracy:
“in law, agreement of two or more persons to commit a
criminal or otherwise unlawful act. At common law, the crime of
conspiracy was committed with the making of the agreement, but
present-day statutes require an overt step by a conspirator to
further the conspiracy. Other controversial aspects of conspiracy
laws include the modification of the rules of evidence and the
potential for a dragnet. A statement of a conspirator in furtherance
of the conspiracy is admissible against all conspirators, even if the
statement includes damaging references to another conspirator, and
often even if it violates the rules against hearsay evidence. The
conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Any conspirator
is guilty of any substantive crime committed by any other conspirator
in furtherance of the enterprise. It is a federal crime to conspire
to commit any activity prohibited by federal statute, whether or not
Congress imposed criminal sanctions on the activity itself.” --
Columbia Encyclopedia
Permit
me to highlight the core legal standard in that passage with
emphasis:
1)
The conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence.
2)
Any conspirator is guilty of any substantive crime committed by any
other conspirator in furtherance of the enterprise.
3)
A statement of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is
admissible against all conspirators, even if the statement includes
damaging references to another conspirator, and often even if it
violates the rules against hearsay evidence.
My
goodness! The entire gang of banksters despite their web of control
can be roped in even if one conspirator can be indicted. I have just
demonstrated the corrupting power of the bankster fraternity, and
shown that the Casa de Rothschild exists
today because it existed in 1917 and 1946 by the evidence of Balfour
Declaration and Nuremberg Military Tribunals, respectively. This
fraternity has such immense powers that it can legally enact Federal
Statutes, like the Federal Reserve System of the United States, by
having the American Congress enact their preferences into law. When
such an extortion happens, the above artfully defined definitions of
conspiracy become irrelevant. The law of
the sovereign becomes the ultimate arbiter
of what is crime and what is virtue, as aptly demonstrated by Saint
Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century:
“When
the King asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate
defiantly replied: 'the same as you do when you infest the whole
world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber,
and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.'”
(The City of God against the Pagans, Page 148).
This
modus operandi, of theft of public's wealth by legalism enactment by
the sovereign, appears to be right out of the Protocols.
Witness Protocol
1,
items 3 through 5 which lend an empirical definition to the term
“legal” when applied to control the masses:
3.
It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than
the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are
attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic
discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a
dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not
be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing
their own welfare.
4.
What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has
served for their guidance hitherto?
5.
In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to
brutal and blind force; after words – to Law, which is the same
force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of
nature right lies in force.
Based
on insights gleaned from these contortions, especially item 5), if
you can enact Federal Statutes and laws to protect your graft by
wielding the hidden might of your indomitable force, then, there is
no “conspiracy” in the legal terms because you did not
violate any Federal Statutes!
Isn't
that just marvellous?
So,
the House of Rothschilds, using their hired front men and political
errand boys, backed by their interlocking interests in all the
world's central banks, have protected themselves from that definition
of Conspiracy by shrewdly employing the uber-Machiavellian Protocols!
But
have they protected themselves from RICO?
See
my editorial
which contains an extended excerpt of laws from the late Eustace
Mullins' 1985 book World Order, which could have potentially
been used in earlier times.
I
now believe that the accelerated pace
towards world government today, under the complete co-option of all
organs of state worldwide, makes the bankster fraternity almost
immune by way of any legal recourse in the entire Western Hemisphere.
They might occasionally sacrifice a red
herring errand boy here and there at the altar of reform to keep the
plebeians happy, if it ever came to that!
These are the ultimate UNTOUCHABLES! No one can even see them.
I
hope that between Part-2
and Part-3
of this series of my goyish attempts at independent thinking, there
is sufficient grounds for courageous moral Jews like Mr. Jeffrey
Blankfort to finally perceive their own brethren – the King of
the Jews – who have bestowed upon Zionistan its creation. Its
ethos. Its “iron wall” that none can breach. Their full
spectrum interlocking control of the world's private central banks
continually enables them to implement their own two centuries old
familial boast “give me control of a nation's money
supply and I care not who makes its laws” with such
brazen impunity that it is almost always accompanied by the
thunderous applause of European and American goy statesmen and law
makers. The King of the Jews have inflicted upon the entire Jewish
peoples a calumny that the Jews shall not be able to outlive even if
they exist for another 3000 years! See: From
Genesis to Genocide in Palestine : The Golem Is Not Jewish!.
The following sentiment barely captures it:
'If
fair punishments are ever to be awarded for their crimes against
humanity for just the past 100 years in any Just court of law, Adolph
Eichmann would have to be retroactively let go by resurrecting his
soul from his grave with high honors and awarded multiple peace
prizes plus compensation, in order to administer hanging and
extraction of restitution as the graduated scale of ultimate
punishment for the ultimate prime-movers of all wars and pestilence
before which their errand boys' and patsies' crimes against humanity
pale in comparison.' ---
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/rescuing-thestruggle-for-palestine.html
All
persons of any faith (or no faith) not entirely consumed by
depravity, apathy, Faustian pacts, and if I might be so bold as to
emphatically add, pious hypocrisy, should have no qualms calling a
spade a spade. What prevents one from doing so, is suggested in my
pamphlet: How
To Return to Palestine This Day Forward.
But
I pray that I am mistaken, that Machiavellian political
science and infinitely deep pockets of the oligarchy exuded through
their tax exempt foundations, private central banks, income tax
levied upon masses, and national debt levied upon nations – an
inflexion of power which can bring combined superpowers to their
knees – can straightforwardly be trumped by copious narratives
of dissent chiefs and plebeians' abundant prayers!
Thank
you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
Correspondence
between Jeffrey Blankfort and Zahir Ebrahim
From:
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
To:
Jeffrey Blankfort
Wed,
Nov 10, 2010 at 7:51 PM
Dear
Jeff,
Hello.
Just
as you observe in your interview of others who don't seem to
[perceive] some other daylights, my own take is similar, that “It's
like the monkey: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” ...
With
Best wishes,
Zahir
-----
Forwarded message ------
From:
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Date:
Wed, 10 Nov 2010
I
finally got some time to read the interview – and read almost
half-way through until I got bored. Mr. Blankfort is both perceptive
and accurate, as far as he goes. I learnt some interesting factoids
in it, like He is Jewish, that he had joined AIPAC, etc.
I
admire Mr. Blankfort all the more for his standing up to what is
right and moral irrespective of his own tribal affiliation, and his
not giving in to expediencies and abhorrent political realities on
the ground. The latter argument is Noam Chomsky's forte, and my good
professor has made them time and again, all of which I have
deconstructed in considerable depth in my 2007 essay “The
endless trail of red herrings”.
More
pertinent to your inquiry however of what I thought of this
interview, the issue of the Jewish Lobby in the United States –
which Professor James Petras itemized here:
and
this was my letter to Professor Petras for the energies he spent
compiling his excellent list:
James
Petras' list includes only a subset of the hundreds of Jewish
organizations throughout the world, and almost all the national and
international level think-tanks along the Hudson and the Potomac, not
to forget Hollywood/newsmedia moguls, nor the average Jewish person
who is suckled on the mother's milk of Zionism since birth which
creates that tribalism that Mr. Blankfort mentions.
For
my take on the Jewish Lobby's efforts for Zionism – the root
cause – please see the first portion of this article:
How
comes Europe succumbs to the same pressures as the United States?
What
is the common prime-mover?
Blankfort
is silent. I am not.
The
difficulty is that Mr. Blankfort's silence is more meaningful and
instrumental than my loquaciousness because I am an unknown, whereas
Blankfort is nationally and perhaps internationally known.
But
I seek truth wherever I can find it – perhaps because I belong
to the 'untermenschen' class bearing the brunt of “imperial
mobilization”. And all the Jewish exponents of truth that I
have ever met, including who take bullets to their head to uphold
decency and morality, directly affiliate with the civilization
bringing us “imperial mobilization”:
And
here is a letter I had written Mr. Blankfort:
And
the following outlines my thoughts on how to deal with Zionism, as
activists, with Mens et Manus:
Best
regards,
Zahir.
---
--- ---
From:
Jeffrey Blankfort
To:
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Wed,
Nov 10, 2010 at 10:52 PM
Dear
Zahir,
I
do not mention the Rothschilds because I have yet to see a single
shred of evidence that they control the world's money supply, the
CFR, or anything else of such substance as to influence the way the
world works. As far as I can tell whereas once members of the
Rothschild banking family ran the banks of Western Europe, I see no
evidence that they do so today. There are a number of other Jewish
bankers who have surpassed them in influence and if the Rothschilds
were as powerful today as you claim them to be, there would be some
kind of trail to find at least a hint of what they have been doing.
I
have a number of personal suppositions about how and why certain
things have happened but if you read what I say and write I am always
able to document my claims. In my radio program today, I explained in
brief how the Balfour Declaration was the payment to the Zionists for
their having succeeded in bringing the US into World War One at a
time when the British were about to lose and I provide unimpeachable
documentation for that statement. It is one of the most important
buried pieces of the puzzle that most advocates for Palestinian
justice have ignored. Here is the link:
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/47021
In
my interview I spoke only about the Zionist operations in the US
because they are far and away the most important but I am more than
aware of their activties in the UK with all the major parties as well
as in France, Italy and Germany. It is their money combined with
their organization, plus the fact that there is no serious political
opposition that enables what I call the Ziontern (Zionist
International) to have its way. As in the US, most Palestinian and
pro-Palestinian groups are hesitant to take on the Ziontern
internationaly or in their own backyard because they are either
dominated by or intimidated by what Gilad Atzmon first identified as
"Jewish tribalists," who while they may be genuinely
anti-zionist are as ready and willing to shield Jews from collective
blame for their crimes against the Palestinians and Lebanese as any
Zionist. These are the folks who routinely attack me on their blogs
when I expose their hero, Chomsky.
Again,
if you have any direct evidence with unimpeachable sources that the
Rothschilds are running everything or for that matter anything behind
the scenes I would appreciate receiving it but lacking that up to
now, I never mention their name apart from Walter Rothschild being
the recipient of the Balfour Declaration. It was Judge Louis
Brandeis, however, an American Jew, who apparently was the one who
convinced Woodrow Wilson to break his vow to the American people to
go to war. And it was Edward Bernays, Freud's nephew and the father
of modern propaganda who devised the campaign to get Americans
willing to support the war.
Finally,
I support BDS, not because that is the ideal tool for international
organizing against the Zionists but that given the relative little
strength we have as a group, it is the only means at the moment that
has a chance of getting anywhere. Here, in the US, I would like to
see campaigns exposing every member of Congress who has sworn their
loyalty to Israel, be they Jewish or not, but I don't see that
happening. Even at Al-Awda conferences, there is a tendency to stay
away from discussing such political activity.
Yours,
Jeff
---
--- ---
From:
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
To:
Jeffrey Blankfort
Thu,
Nov 11, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Thank
you mon ami for your reply. I will compose a thoughtful reply
later...
regards,
zahir.
---
--- ---
-
### -
The
author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary
geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied
EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley
(patents here),
and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden
2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web
at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org.
He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org.
Verbatim reproduction license at
http://humanbeingsfirst.org/#Copyright.
First Published December 31, 2010 | Last Updated
01/04/2011 09:00:06
7040 | Links fixed January 31, 2016
My
experiments in confusion - Part-3: The Omnipotent Rothschilds
By Zahir Ebrahim 20
/ 20