Sunday, January 05, 2014

REMEMBER, AT THE GOING DOWN OF THE SUN AND IN THE MORNING, THAT FREEMASONRY ENGINEERED WORLD WAR ONE

The Observer/Guardian has ended its editorial today with this paragraph:
But the truth of the 1914-18 war, and of Mr Gove's debate, is much more complex. Europe – of the century just past – tore itself apart twice in 30 years. Remember the true rivers of blood. Remember that the dark forces of fear and fanaticism never die. Remember, at the going down of the sun and in the morning, that there is no end to history.

[source : Michael Gove's intervention ignores the complexities of conflict, Editorial, The Observer, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/04/gove-history-first-world-war, 5th January 2014]

I would argue (and with slam dunk evidence): remember, at the going down of the sun and in the morning, that Freemasonry engineered World War 1.

My mistrust, scepticism and suspicion of the green fascist, Rothschild-asset-Mikhail-Khordokovsky-loving The Guardian hath no bounds.

A few weeks ago I demolished the credibility of The Guardian/Observer by exposing its role in the push to war on Syria last summer following the horrific tragedy of 21st August. The Guardian/Observer was overtly anti-Assad despite:
1. The Syrian Arab Army annihilating Bandar's cutthroat Jihadi terrorist scum (obviously The Guardian/Observer wants Bandar's cutthroat Jihadis slitting the throats of Syrian children);
2. an abundance of evidence that the cutthroats had chemical weapons, had tested chemical weapons on live animals, and had issued threats on video of using chemical weapons;
3. Prince Bandar bin Sultan issuing a threat that he would unleash hell in Syria because The Syrian Arab Army was annihilating Bandar's cutthroat.

And The Guardian/Observer was definitely Zionist in its naked and unbound ecstasy that Assad had agreed to relinquish Syria's chemical weapons while not mentioning Israel's much larger, more powerful, more horrific and much more threatening stockpile of not only chemical but also biological and nuclear weapons.

In the NATO media, the complexities of war are deliberately obfuscated, to cause confusion and create support for war.

But if you read The Truth Serum, the complexities of war are not that complex. Here you will find the origins of war because this blog is powered not by grants or charity or handouts, but by long hours of reading and analysis due to a strong human desire to stop a cabal of lying, cheating, stealing, warmongering, kiddie-fiddling megalomaniacs from controlling the planet and all its resources and people.

The horrific tragedy of Ghouta, which The Guardian initially and continually blamed on Assad, was the result of President Obama significantly stalling a plan for war on seven nations in five years. The mother of all inside jobs 9/11, which kicked of that series of wars, was engineered by a cabal of Zionists who had allies in the USA, UK and Saudi Arabia (who supplied the patsies). We went into Afghanistan for opium not bin Laden, who was dead/dying from Marfan Syndrome. After Afghanistan the Zionist plan for war on seven nations in five years was implemented in this sequence:
1. Iraq (2003)
2. Lebanon (2006)
Then, because by 2007 this plan was seriously behind schedule, The Arab Spring was engineered as cover for Prince Bandar bin Sultan to unleash his merry band of cutthroats first onto Libya, and then Syria, with the assistance of Great Britain. NATO provided air cover for them in Libya via UN SCR 1973.

The remaining three nations on the list are Sudan, Somalia, and the ultimate goal, Iran.

The false flag attack on Ghouta was designed to provoke an overt military intervention by NATO powers on Syria because Bandar's cutthroat Jihadis were being annihilated. The Guardian/Observer played its part well in pushing for war on Syria by suggesting R2P, and continually blaming Assad even though, as previously stated:
1. Bandar's merry band of cutthroats were known to possess chemical weapons, had videoed their experiments of using chemical weapons on live animals, and had issued threats on video of using chemical weapons;
2. it was the mother of all insults to logic that The Syrian Arab Army would use chemical weapons to kill approximately 1000 Syrian civilians, because the SAA was already and easily annihilating Bandar's cutthroat Jihadis;
3. the cutthroats needed overt large scale military assistance, as they had in Libya, to avoid total annihilation;
4. Prince Bandar bin Sultan had issued a threat to create hell on earth in Syria.

But back to World War One and The Observer's fake anti-war editorial.

The Observer has today published an article by Tristram Hunt, who is touted as an academic historian and economist having studied at Cambridge University. But guess who runs the Centre for History and Economics at Cambridge? Emma Rothschild, a bona fide member of THE Rothschild banking family! So Hunt obviously got an unbiased view of history.

So it is no surprise to find that Hunt is a bit muddled on who to blame for World War 1. Hunt cites the following references:
...His thesis is a bowdlerised version of historian Max Hastings's argument that the conflict was a necessary act of resistance against a militaristic Germany bent on warmongering and imperial aggression.

...So, first of all, some history. Much of Hastings's case is an update of the scholar Fritz Fischer's 1961 work, Germany's Aims in the First World War, which fully laid the blame for the war on the German lust for European and colonial power.

...The British left responded to such fascism by largely supporting the war effort. Appeals by trade union leaders to oppose German aggression, particularly against Belgium, led more than 250,000 of their members to enlist by Christmas 1914, with 25% of miners volunteering before conscription. Typical was John Ward, one of my predecessors as MP for Stoke-on-Trent and the leader of the Navvies' Union. To "fight Prussianism", he raised three pioneer battalions from his members and, commissioned as a colonel by Lord Kitchener, led them to battle in France, Italy and Russia.

...What is more, the historian Christopher Clark has suggested that Serbia deserves significantly more blame for the spark of June 1914, while US scholar Sean McMeekin has even argued that Russian attempts to break up the Ottoman empire played an incendiary role in the fallout from Sarajevo. In Clark's judgment, other nations were just as imperialistic as the Germans and any attempt at a First World War blame game is futile.

[source : Tristram Hunt, Michael Gove, using history for politicking is tawdry, The Observer, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/04/first-world-war-michael-gove-left-bashing-history, 5th January 2014]

But there are just two sources that are slam dunk evidence that it was Freemasonry wotdunnit. They are:
1. the memoirs of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who states very clearly that he was told by a distinguished German Freemason that The Grand Orient Lodge had planned the war to create a power vacuum in Central Europe;
2. the statements of the assassins themselves at their trial that:
a) they were Freemasons;
b) they knew that Freemasonry had condemned Arch Duke Ferdinand to death;
c) they knew Freemasonry was looking for willing assassins;
d) they received revolvers and bullets for the assassination from Freemasons abroad;
e) Freemasonry gave them encouragement.

Following the assassination, King George V told Wilhelm that Great Britain would not join in any war, and Sir Edward Grey did not make Britain's position absolutely crystal clear, but as soon as the first German boot set foot on Belgian soil he cited the 1839 Treaty of London to defend Belgium when Great Britain was not legally obliged to do so.

So, remember, on every single day of this centenary of WW1, at the going down of the sun and in the morning, that Freemasonry engineered World War 1 and the British ruling establishment tricked Germany into invading Belgium to blame them for the war.

And that The Guardian/Observer can allow Tristram Hunt, who was educated under Emma Rothschild at Cambridge, to muddle the origins of WW1, and then cite Hunt in a fake anti-war editorial when it so blatantly played its part in the push for Zionist war on Syria makes me want to...






No comments: