I am sick, really sick, of the media's cynical use of the death and funeral of Harry Patch.
Patch was the last living man who fought in WW1. His death symbolically severs a living link between us to the useless slaughter of the trenches.
I first came across Patch when I bought a CD called World War 1 in Colour narrated by Kenneth Branagh. That CD, like 99.9% of everything I've read or seen about WW1, blamed Germany for WW1.
I was sorely tempted to send Patch a CD of my book/website, but I did not for fear of giving him a heart attack which may have been brought on by the anger and rage I imagine could have been provoked by revelations that
1. WW1 was engineered and financed by elite elements of British society at the top of Global Freemasonry
2. WW1 was engineered for the purpose of
(a) grabbing Palestine from the Ottomans to fill it with Jews to enetually provoke global terrorism and war in the Middle East
(b) destroying Europe in preparation for the Nazi EU
(c) provoking a revolution in Russia for the insertion of another genocidal tyrant so that a Nazi EU and a Communist Russia could fight a bloodier WW2 in to result in a world-government-in-waiting, the UN.
Much is being made in the media of Patch's opposition to war, the same media that yesterday printed pro-war stories to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and in support of Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinians, and tomorrow will print pro-war stories in favour of war against Iran and Russia.
8 comments:
WWi was intended to destroy Europe in preparation for the Nazi EU?
That was some foresight, as Nazism didn't even exist then.
But you know that? So what on earth do you mean?
I mean, if you have read my website and followed my blog for a long time, that there is alot of strong evidence to suggest that the two world wars of last century were engineered for the purpose of creating world government and a militaristic Israel to provoke global Islamic terrorism in order to implement a global police state.
Their mantra is "global solutions to global problems".
One of their own, James Warburg, is on Congressional record as stating that they will have world goverment,either by conquest or consent.
Re WW1, Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote in his memoirs that Freemasonry had engineered WW1 for the purpose of destroying the Central European monarchies. What would replace them? What would fill that power vacuum?
If you consider that there is such a long range plan as stated in the first paragraph then a second world war would be required to create enough carnage for the world to accept a world government.
After WW1 The League of Nations was accepted by some but not all, and most importantly not by the USA.
so to persuade the USA that it had to join a world government the Council on Foreign Relations was created to guide US foreign policy.
Communism was created by Wall Street and The City of London.
The Nazis too.
In WW2 all three, Communism, Nazism and the USA fought each other, and after WW2 the United Nations was agreed upon, housed in the USA and financed by the same families who had financed WW1 and WW2 via The Federal Reserve, the Rockefellers.
It's all there on my website.
James Warburg, is on Congressional record as stating that they will have world goverment,either by conquest or consent.
Lots of people say things - doesn't mean they get to decide, does it?
Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote in his memoirs that Freemasonry had engineered WW1 for the purpose of destroying the Central European monarchies.
But people can believe and say anything - it doesn't mean it is true.
Are you ruled by freemasons? So how much can they be said to rule? I'm not run by freemasons.....so how do they rule me?
If you consider that there is such a long range plan as stated in the first paragraph then a second world war would be required to create enough carnage for the world to accept a world government.
But there's also the notion that nobody has complete control of anything - let alone everything.
I don't believe the idea some people control everything: if some people have enormous power such as to control world events like you suggest, then why do they need to make events happen a certain way so as to attain enormous power? They already must have it - to effect events in such a way as to attain it. Doesn't make sense, does, it?
Communism was created by Wall Street and The City of London.
Ideas stand independent of anyone who might have "created" them. Even if what you say is true (it isn't) ideas do not simply "serve" their creators regardless of content. An idea has content - and the content is not subject to the whims of the idea's first proponents. Ideas do not obey human will - they have their own content. So communism, as an anti-capitalist or post-capitalist idea, is not subject to the City of London's whims, even if it were created by the City of London.
The idea that communism (marxism) could support and survive 150 years of intellectual rigour whilst being merely an empty creation of some malevolent group is impossible. It has content - which exists independent of anyone and anything.
In WW2 all three, Communism, Nazism and the USA fought each other, and after WW2 the United Nations was agreed upon, housed in the USA and financed by the same families who had financed WW1 and WW2 via The Federal Reserve, the Rockefellers.
But people don't know the future - and people who chase money chase it everywhere and anywhere. Just because some people made money out of germany in 1930s in no way means they intended the future to happen as it did.
Who could have foretold the future of russia in 1905? or germany in 1931? Come on? Society is formed by millions of peoples' actions - not just a few. A few people have more influence than the millions - but they don't just push a button and society responds like a machine. Life doesn't happen like that.
As I said, stop playing games and engage your brain.
In 1782 at the Congress of Wilhelmsbad the Illuminati and Freemasonry allied with the intent of ruling the world. The Illuminati infiltrated our Monarchy via the Duke of Saxe-Gotha.
In the late 19th century the head of freemasonry was Prince Edward, later Edward VII. He is widely recognised as the prime manipulator behind weaving the alliances that led to WW1. The assassins of Franz Ferdinand were Freemasons and were assisted by Freemasonry. After that assassination the King of England told Germany that it would stay out of any war, but as soon as Germany invaded Belgium Britain cited an obscure treaty with Belgium that it need not enforce and declared war on Germany. After the war Kaiser Wilhelm was told by a distinguished Freemason that Freemasonry, i.e. the British monarchy, had engineered WW1 for the purpose of destroying the central European monarchies.
Another purpose of WW1 was to replace the Russian monarchy which had helped the USA during the US civil war. Russia and Germany knew that Britain feared the USA because of its economic and monetary policies, and that the US Civil War was actually an attack by Britain via proxies using slavery as a dividing policy.
Re James Warburg, when you realise that Warburg is the son of Paul Warburg who designed the Federal Reserve and the nephew of Max Warburg who sent Lenin into Russia then take his words very seriously.
Yes, Communism was created by Wall Street and The City of London. Russia had been a target of London for decades before but after a very wealthy Jewish element allied with London things accelerated. Jacob Schiff financed Japan to fight Russia in 1904 to create conditions for revolution and financed his dude Kennan to provoke a revolution in 1905. That failed. Russia fell into the British monarchy's trap and allied itself with England so that when Germany was tricked into invading Belgium, Russia joined a large scale war which created the ideal conditions for revolution. Germany worked with Lenin for a few years and eventually sent Lenin into Russia. In the USA Trotsky was sent in having been released by British and American officials from arrest after Canadian police realised that if Trotsky was successful in his revolution then German troops would flood to their western front and kill Canadian troops.
Wall Street saved the Nazis from bankruptcy, Hjalmar Schact was the good friend of Montagu Norman of The Bank of England, and the Rockefellers financed the Nazi racial hygiene program. The Warburgs sat on the boards of I G Farben and the Reichsbank which with Schact dictated Nazi economic policy.
So don't tell me that life doesn't happen like that.
There are a few people in this world who can create literally billions of pounds or dollars out of nothing with a click of their fingers. You and I must work very hard for a tiny fraction of that.
And what I have just told you is a tiny fraction of what they have done with that God-like power.
All this is on my website.
Now read my website before commenting again.
What makes you think that Lenin was indebted to anyone whom he might have taken some help from?
Famously he said "We'll hang them with the rope they sold us!"
Germany was at war with Russia - that gives cause for GErmany to allow Lenin passage to Russia, with the hope that Lenin might remove Germany's eastern front. But what makes you think Lenin felt beholden to any such "debt"?
I have made no suggestion that Lenin felt beholden to any debt. All I said regarding Lenin is that Germany used Lenin's writings at the start WW1 and then agreed to work with him by sending him into Germany on the sealed train. Upon arriving in Stockholm German agents then paid his expenses and helped him get into Russia. The two had a mutual interest; take Russia out of WW1.
The head of German Intelligence at the time was Max Warburg, uncle of James Warburg who said that we (whoever 'we' was) would have world government, by conquest or consent. He did not tell the Kaiser about sending in Lenin.
If you read my website you'd know all this. But you'd rather run off back to whoever.
Bye bye.
So, how could anyone know what would happen in Russia when Lenin returned? And how could anyone know what Lenin would do following his return and the eventual Revolution?
The revolution was not even a given - very, very far from it. There were a million events which could have happened differently - the revolution could have failed, for example, Lenin Trotsky and the rest all killed.
So how can you say it was all "a plan"?
Who knew Lenin would die shortly? Who knew Stalin would overcome Trotsky, expel him, and everything else? Nobody knew these things.......so how can it have been all planned?
And why on earth would City of London "invent" communism? How did they "invent" it? Are you saying it has no content - it is like some scenery on a stage - fake and hollow? How can 150 years of intellectual activity be sustained by something so fake and hollow? How? How can such a supposed sham fool so many intellectuals for 150 years? How?
You are absolutely correct to ask these questions. So few people have.
Regarding The City of London inventing Communism ask yourself this; why was it that even though Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in London that in 1848 there was no Communist Revolution in London but there were Communist revolutions all across Europe?
Why was it that several Russian anarchists who supported revolution in Russia in 1848 and later fled to London and from there smuggled into Russia their pro-Communist Anarchist writings. Why did the London authorities not stop it? Why? Because it suited London to destabilise Russia, as with all other monarchies in Europe. Why? Because if a nation cannot grow if it is constantly at war with itself. While the rest of Europe was in a constant state of near civil war a politically stable Great Britain grew to become the world superpower.
And once in such a dominant position Britain could devastate Europe with WW1 by tricking Germany into war, using the resulting carnage to create a world government.
It nearly worked but it took too long to drag the USA into it, so another war was created between the two opposites Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. which the USA duly joined, resulting in the UN, World Bank, etc
Soviet Russia was built by the USA and London (see Antony C Sutton's trilogy about Soviet Economic Development) and we even gave them the bomb!
And why did Jacob Schiff finance not one but two revolutions in Russia?
I guess that such history has not been discussed much because the finance has not been there. History receives very little finance compared to science and engineering, so very few people go into it.
And there is always the saying, "to the victor the spoils", which basically means whoever wins controls history, by rewriting it or in this case not even writing it all.
And there is also the fear of anti-semitism. The names Rothschild, Warburg and Schiff appear a lot in this. And they control the Federal Reserve and are rich beyond belief because of it, so they can finance the creation of their own version of history and do so because one their own is head of the history unit at Cambridge!
Shit happens? No! Shit is engineered and financed by a small cabal of people who can create money out of nothing and are evil.
It's that simple.
Post a Comment