News and Information Feed

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

How British Imperialists brought low Western civilization, and how their greedy, Anglo Globalist heirs are compounding the crime

(By Chris Moore) -- I recently watched an excellent documentary on the decline and fall of the British Empire called The British Empire In Color, which was named for the color film footage recovered and incorporated into the film, along with the computer colorized footage also included in the documentary.

The movie is an excellent primer on the 250 year British world Empire (once the largest in history) and its colonization of places like India, East Africa, Canada and Australia, but which emphasized the Empire's contraction and ultimate demise into a mere Commonwealth (mostly as a consequence of nationalist liberation movements in its colonies) all shown, as advertised, in color.

The documentary points up both the good and the bad about British colonization, how it theoretically and practically brought advanced concepts in democracy, the rule of law, good governance, human rights, the dignity of the individual, free trade and technology to the far corners of the earth, but also its hypocritical and contradictory practices of institutional bigotry, racism, paternalism, degradation, exploitation, and outright slavery.

On the balance, like the British Imperial project itself, the documentary comes down on the side of well-deserved critique, not only because Imperial practice never measured up to Western ideals, but also implicitly because the Empire's legacy has brought mostly bitter contempt, infamy and resentment upon the West and White people as a whole as a consequence of the often racist and bigoted beliefs and culture of greed practiced by the elites running the British Empire, and because those noxious characteristics were often institutionally manifest in their colonies and occupations.

The documentary is broken into three segments, and the final segment largely revolves around the British colonization of Australia, and how the British government encouraged migration there from Britain by providing essentially free passage for workers and whole families, and then paid for the housing and maintenance of the migrants in camps while they found work and assimilated into Australian society.

Most of the British immigrants to Australia went there looking for better work, wages, and opportunity. In the later post World War II period, the British economy had stagnated, workers demanded more rights, and the establishments in both Britain and Australia were increasingly at odds with organized labor and panicked by fear of Communism. And while the documentary didn't explicitly state as much, the solution that the British elites seem to have embraced was mass immigration -- first, British labor into Australia to drive down wages and increase labor competition there, and later labor from the former British colonies into England to serve the same function in Britain.

In short, the Anglo money-worshippers at the helm of the British establishment and their representatives in government were more than happy to turn their own society upside down with a massive outflow of native English and a massive influx of often non-English-speaking immigrants from Commonwealth countries in order to preserve the profit margins of their entrenched corporate interests and keep the Communist forces (which these elites correctly identified as themselves a racketeering and monopolistic enterprise that might well supplant them) at bay.

And as The British Empire In Color documents, the huge challenges of multi-culturalism, racial conflict, civil unrest and cultural strife in Britain that followed and are ongoing today are yet another bitter legacy of the pathlogical money-worshipping Imperial mindset of the grasping Anglo elites and their relentless quest for filthy lucre at any long-term cost not only to others around the world, but to their own societies and people.

All of this sheds tremendous light upon the contemporary multi-cultural agenda in all of the Anglo-sphere, and how the Money Powers, many of whom still harbor the Anglo-fascist mentality and who seed the contemporary establishment with their mindset, think and behave today.

Indeed, since the entire "Globalist agenda" is merely a shorthand reference to the agenda of the intellectual, racial or material heirs to Anglo-fascist British Imperialism and their haughty, entitled, pathological mindset, one can easily prophesize the fate of the Anglo-sphere and its Globalization project in the future by studying the fate of the now widely despised British Empire and its Imperial destiny, which has today brought discredit, contempt and violent hostility not only upon Anglos, but upon White people in their entirety, and upon Western civilization as a whole, from the rest of the world.

And this discredit upon the West has come even though the haughty English elites who originated, implemented and administered the British Empire were themselves always intellectually, spiritually and morally far removed from much of the Greco-Christian essence of Western civilization in terms of populist Christianity, and indeed largely hostile to the continental, populist Christian values, culture and way of life.

Sadly, so many of the contemporary Anglo elites as well have proven themselves to be largely money-worshipping sociopaths and self-serving graspers, totally unfit to lead the countries their forebears founded upon Western ideals, and upon the energy of the Christian Western masses, for like their British Imperialist forebears, they continually sow greed-based chaos, strife and animosity in their wake.

Their Iraq and Mideast war disasters that have brought America nothing but discredit, world contempt, economic setbacks, tragedy, and global loss of moral authority, and have proven to be a boon to Islamism, are merely one representation of their lack of fitness for leadership, and how their blundering greed and incompetence continually leads the West to ruin.

Like the self serving, Israel-first diaspora Zionist Jews with whom they have fallen into bed on the ill-advised Mideast scheme (and to whom they have sold their souls by way of the Wall Street banking and the Federal Reserve central banking racket) they can't be trusted to put the interests of the People ahead of the interests of their own pocket books and stock portfolios; but unlike the Israel-first Jews, who at least maintain some sort of organic loyalty to their own people and their geographic and cultural sovereignty at the grass-roots level in Israel, the diaspora Anglo-fascist elites are so far gone into their own megalomania, delusions of grandeur and insatiable greed, they don't even harbor that.

They seem to function on a purely limbic, almost reptilian basis of primitive greed and visions of international hegemony.

And just as was the Imperialist agenda, the money-worshipping, functionally atheist-materialist, Globalist agenda and its perpetual warmongering are a toxic poison that can leave nothing but destruction, bitterness, resentment and despair in their wake for all parties involved, and for decades to come.

And if they can't manage to lead the Anglo-sphere competently, how can they possibly reside at the helm of Western civilization and maintain its beauty, grace, functionality, and progress towards Western ideals, and fend off the Islamists that their own blundering incompetence played a central role in creating?

If Western civilization is to survive, let alone ever again prosper, it must seize the reins from the demonic Globalist neo-imperialists who, now along with Zionist Jews, still reside at the helm and are madly driving us all to ruin, and break the rule of their stiff-necked greed and egocentric hypocrisy and megalomania once and for all.

Just as dissident Jewry is increasingly establishing pro-Zionist attitudes as a litmus test for detecting crypto-fascism amongst organized Jewry, so too should Anglos establish pro-Globalist attitudes as a litmus test for detecting a neo-Imperialist agenda and its accompanying back-stabbing treachery, self-serving greed and epic incompetence.

Thirty years of Washington death-dealing, black hole spending, and futility in Mideast is all culminating in Islamism

Making the World Safe for Islamism, By Patrick J. Buchanan

...The Israelis now have as neighbors: Hezbollah to the north, an embittered, segregated Palestinian population of 2 million to the east, Hamas to the south and to the west an Egypt of 80 million that has just passed into the custody of the Muslim Brotherhood.

And among those seeking to bring down Assad are not only Americans, Turks, Saudis and Qatari, but al-Qaeda, the principal suspect in the terror bombings of Aleppo and Damascus, and the Muslim Brotherhood, which owes the Assad family a blood debt.

If Assad falls and Sunnis seize power and pursue their slogan — “Christians to Beirut and Alawites to the tomb” — a prediction: A return of the Golan Heights taken by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War will top the agenda of the new Damascus regime.

And now John McCain is calling for air strikes on Damascus and Bibi Netanyahu and his neocon allies have Tehran in their gun sights.

What exactly have we gained from 30 years of interventions in the Middle East — that China lost out on by staying out?...MORE...LINK


Chris Moore comments:

Is an American "civilization" that is too stupid to see through self-serving Zionist, Anglo-fascist and money-worshipper machinations, or too greedy to resist their ear-whispering sirens, a civilization that is destined for the ash-heap of history?

We now have final proof of the disasters that befall those who surrender themselves to this ilk, and how destructive "tolerance" for their conniving, warmongering and poison-pimping truly is.

Either Greco-Christian Western civilization will re-impose itself on America and utterly crush these poisonous parasites, or Americans will slowly limp into serfdom (with these State Capitalist oligarchs and plutocrats lording over them with the Big Brother whip hand) and ultimately oblivion.

Anyone without the guts to take on and destroy the corrupt, deranged, perverted Zionist-Globalist Ruling Class that itself ultimately destined for eclipse is a coward, a fool, and an enemy, because sooner or later, they're going down anyway.

The only question that remains is whether they'll destroy the country in the process. Sociopaths and egomaniacs that they are, they'll happily see the U.S. obliterated before admitting their own incompetence and surrender to demonic greed is at the root of our crises.

Such people are too irrational, insane and egocentric to bargain with; such people only understand the hammer of the gods.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Eating the young: Generation X took biggest wealth hit with implosion of Fed-engineered housing bubble

Gen X may have taken biggest hit in economic downturn

...The Census Bureau study found that between 2005 and 2010, households led by 35- to 44-year-olds saw the biggest percent decline in median household net worth. For those households, median net worth declined 59 percent, from $80,521 in 2005 to $33,200 in 2010, adjusted in constant 2010 dollars.

In terms of actual dollars lost, 45- to 54-year-olds took the biggest hit. For households in that age range, median net worth declined by $54,881, to $90,434. That’s a 38 percent drop from 2005, calculated in 2010 dollars.

Overall, the study found that median household net worth in the United States declined by 35 percent between 2005 and 2010, to $66,740. The housing bust and stock market declines were mainly to blame for the drop...

The Census data comes a week after the Federal Reserve released a separate survey showing that the median net worth of the American family dropped 39 percent from about $126,000 in 2007 to $77,000 in 2010...MORE...LINK

CEOs get rich sending U.S. jobs overseas, looting productive wealth it it took Americans a century to create

Reasons for outrageous CEO pay packages well known, Jon Talton

...The median American household lost 40 percent of its wealth from 2007 to 2010, and this probably understates the financial ruin experienced by many. Wages for most Americans have been virtually flat for 30 years. Yet from 2009 to 2010 alone, the top 1 percent's wealth grew by more than 11.6 percent.

So much for the Occupy movement...

It's pointless to thunder because the causes of such high compensation are well known. Among them: Steadily lower tax rates on the wealthy, lapdog boards of directors, perverse incentives, the unintended consequences of supposed reforms such as stock options, the power of institutional investors seeking short-term gains and the myth of the chief executive as super hero.

The country has changed since the mid-20th century, when chief executives made much less, not least in our morals, norms and sense of mutual obligation. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous statement about "defining deviancy down" applies to many a boardroom, not just to street corners.

In that America, rising productivity was widely shared. The bosses and the people who made their money from investments did very well, but so did ordinary workers. That is no longer the case.

By the time shareholder advocacy and initiatives such as say on pay and more independent boards gained traction, the well-paid horse was long gone from the barn. Today's compensation and its increases are routine.

It's equally pointless to thunder because the consequences have been repeatedly reviewed. In too many cases, incentives for chief executives don't align with preserving the long-term health of their companies, much less with sharing the fruits of productivity and innovation with workers and stakeholders, including communities.

These moguls are paid more if they send good jobs offshore, cut employment at home, hold down wages and slash benefits, close operations or even sell the company. At their worst, compensation practices sack the corporate treasury even as average workers are being let go.

At their worst, they are part of a financialized economy engaged in looting the productive wealth it has taken Americans a century to create. The CEOs who were among the biggest demolition artists behind the Great Recession were getting rich from speculating in risky derivatives, adding debt and moving money around...

So we may as well admit it. We have a permanent plutocracy, something not seen since the late 19th century.

It may do good deeds, as with Bill Gates. But this is not a generation, as with its robber baron forebears such as Andrew Carnegie, that is afraid of going to hell...MORE...LINK


Chris Moore comments:

Excellent article about the decline in the ethics, morality and patriotism of the American "elite" over the last three decades (and longer), and how that has led to the looting of the country and of average Americans by a parasitic, plutocratic neo-Ruling Class (which self-evidently is fronted by corrupt Beltway politicians like Obama and Bush).

"This is not a generation [of CEOs]...that is afraid of going to hell," says Talton.

And why not, I wonder? Because they are either Jews, faux-"Christian" Judeo-Christian Zionists, or atheist meterialist money-worshippers, just the flip side of atheist-materialist communists.

For free enterprise to operate in some sort of functional manner, it has to be grounded within a system of morals, ethics, patriotism, and good will. The elites of the Worst Generatin have none of these, or to the extent they have them, they are superficial, shallow and mere posing and flag-waving.

Any truly principled morals, ethics, patriotism, and good will, for this low-cunning ilk, goes straight out the window the second it becomes inconvenient to their money-grubbing.

Such creatures bring nothing positive whatsover to a country, a civilization, or the plight of the world. They amount to destructive sociopaths and mere parasites on productive, positive civilization, whose complete abscensce would be a huge net benefit to America and Western civilization.

"Leaders" like Bush and Obama are the front men for this sickening, Zionist-Globalist amalgamation, and the only possible signficance of any "policy changes" that Obama, for example, will make, is that they are mere table scraps being thrown by the left half of the ruling class to some of the people they are plundering as a temporary measure to stave off the radical reform and house-cleaning necessary to scour the entrenched corruption out of the Beltway, just as Obama himself is merely such a superficial tool of these parasites and predators, quickly promoted and thrust to the fore of the Democratic Party to paper over the increasingly obvious oligarchical theft and plunder that has now even accelerated on his "watch."

Thursday, June 14, 2012

The buried role of Zionists in Soviet mass murder and genocide has returned to haunt the world today

(By Chris Moore) -- In his 2004 book The Jewish Century about the Jewish rise to power and predominance in many areas across society of Russian and Western civilization in the 20th Century, historian Yuri Slezkine, himself partially of Jewish heritage, wrote conclusively about the organized Jewish role in the advent and rise of Communism, and how it was utilized to serve the interests of the cohesive network of Jewish Bolsheviks at its center.

The book was reviewed by Professor Kevin MacDonald of California State University–Long Beach, with special emphasis on the Jewish role in Communism.
Yuri Slezkine's book The Jewish Century, which appeared last year to rapturous reviews, is an intellectual tour de force, alternately muddled and brilliant, courageous and apologetic. Slezkine's greatest accomplishment is to set the historical record straight on the importance of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath. He summarizes previously available data and extends our understanding of the Jewish role in revolutionary movements before 1917 and of Soviet society thereafter. His book provides a fascinating chronicle of the Jewish rise to elite status in all areas of Soviet society—culture, the universities, professional occupations, the media, and government. Indeed, the book is also probably the best, most up-to-date account of Jewish economic and cultural pre-eminence in Europe (and America) that we have.

The once-common view that the Bolshevik Revolution was a Jewish revolution and that the Soviet Union was initially dominated by Jews has now been largely eliminated from modern academic historiography...

Although in the decades immediately before the Russian Revolution Jews had already made enormous advances in social and economic status, a major contribution of Slezkine's book is to document that Communism was, indeed, "good for the Jews." After the Revolution, there was active elimination of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. Anti-Semitism was outlawed. Jews benefited from "antibourgeois" quotas in educational institutions and other forms of discrimination against the middle class and aristocratic elements of the old regime, which could have competed with the Jews. While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution maintained an anti-majoritarian attitude...

Jews were leaders of the movement and to a great extent they were its public face.

Their presence was particularly notable at the top levels of the Cheka and OGPU (two successive acronyms for the secret police). Here Slezkine provides statistics on Jewish overrepresentation in these organizations, especially in supervisory roles, and quotes historian Leonard Shapiro's comment that "anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator."

During the 1930s, Slezkine reports, the secret police, now known as the NKVD, "was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions", with 42 of the 111 top officials being Jewish. At this time 12 of the 20 NKVD directorates were headed by ethnic Jews, including those in charge of State Security, Police, Labor Camps, and Resettlement (deportation).

The Gulag was headed by ethnic Jews from its beginning in 1930 until the end of 1938, a period that encompasses the worst excesses of the Great Terror.

They were, in Slezkine's remarkable phrase, "Stalin's willing executioners"...
And "Stalin's willing executioners" were in large part responsible for the deaths of millions at the hands of the Communist police state, which many Jews seemed to view as "payback" for pogroms and other acts of anti-Semitism that have followed certain elements of Jewry around for centuries across continents and time.

Here's Wikipedia's summary from The Black Book of Communism of the millions persecuted and murdered by Leninism, Stalinism, and Jewish Bolshevism starting in the immediate wake of the 1917 Communist coup in Russia:
-the executions of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners, and the murder of hundreds of thousands of rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922 (See also: Red Terror)
-the Russian famine of 1921, which caused the death of 5 million people
-the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920
-the murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps in the period between 1918 and 1930
-the Great Purge which killed almost 690,000 people
-the deportation of 2 million so-called "kulaks" from 1930 to 1932
-the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933
-the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Moldavians and people from the Baltic Republics from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945
-the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941
-the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1943
-the deportation of the Chechens in 1944
-the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.[7] (see also Population transfer in the Soviet Union)
Of course, reports of the mass murder and genocide being carried out in the Soviet Union sent shockwaves of fear and loathing radiating across Europe -- particularly fear and loathing of the Trotskyite brand of International Communism and "permanent revolution" advocated by early Soviet and Jewish Bolshevik hero Leon Trotsky, commissar of the Red Army who had butchered millions across Russia. (Trotksy, who eventually broke with Stalin and would later openly embrace Zionism, remains to this day not only a metaphor for international Jewish Bolshevism and Marxist Zionism, but for Trotskyite neoconservatism as well, given that the founding fathers of neoconservatism were Trotskyite Jews who themselves became (or always were) hard-core Zionists, and who simply switched out Communist economic models for State Capitalist ones).

The anti-Nazi website summarizes how the fear and loathing of mass murderous Communism played a huge role in the rise of fascist movements across Europe:
Nazism and Communism emerged as two serious contenders for power in Germany after the First World War, particularly as the Weimar Republic became increasingly unstable.

What became the Nazi movement arose out of resistance to the Bolshevik-inspired insurgencies that occurred in Germany in the aftermath of the First World War. The Russian Revolution of 1917 caused a great deal of excitement and interest in the Leninist version of Marxism and caused many socialists to adopt revolutionary principles. The 1918-1919 Munich Soviet and the 1919 Spartacist uprising in Berlin were both manifestations of this. The Freikorps, a loosely organised paramilitary group (essentially a militia of former World War I soldiers) were used to crush both these uprising and many leaders of the Freikorps, including Ernst Röhm, later became leaders in the Nazi party.

Capitalists and conservatives in Germany feared that a takeover by the Communists was inevitable and did not trust the democratic parties of the Weimar Republic to be able to resist a communist revolution. Increasing numbers of capitalists began looking to the nationalist movements as a bulwark against Bolshevism. After Mussolini's fascists took power in Italy in 1922, fascism presented itself as a realistic option for opposing "Communism", particularly given Mussolini's success in crushing the Communist and anarchist movements which had destabilised Italy with a wave of strikes and factory occupations after the First World War. Fascist parties formed in numerous European countries.

Many historians such as Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that Hitler and the Nazis were one of numerous nationalist and increasingly fascistic groups that existed in Germany and contended for leadership of the anti-Communist movement and, eventually, of the German state. Further, they assert that fascism and its German variant National Socialism became the successful challengers to Communism because they were able to both appeal to the establishment as a bulwark against Bolshevism and appeal to the working class base, particularly the growing underclass of unemployed and unemployable and growingly impoverished middle class elements who were becoming declassed (the lumpenproletariat). The Nazi's use of socialist rhetoric appealed to disaffection with capitalism while presenting a political and economic model that divested "socialism" of any elements which were dangerous to capitalism, such as the concept of class struggle, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or worker control of the means of production.

Various right-wing politicians and political parties in Europe welcomed the rise of fascism and the Nazis out of an intense aversion towards Communism. According to them, Hitler was the savior of Western civilization and of capitalism against Bolshevism. Among these supporters in the 1920s and early 1930s was the Conservative Party in Britain. During the later 1930s and 1940s, the Nazis were supported by the Falange movement in Spain, and by political and military figures who would form the government of Vichy France. A Legion of French Volunteers against Bolshevism (LVF) and other anti-Soviet fighting formations, were formed.
Given the huge role that Jewish Bolshevism played in Soviet mass murder, it is little surprise, then, that Jewish leftists and agitators, and later, Jewry in general, became targets in Europe in the decades between World War One and World War Two, particularly given that Jews played such a decisive role in the financing and leadership of Communist mass movements there, just as they did in Russia -- likely with the same murderous designs for the European masses that were afflicted by the Jewish and Communist Party elites upon the Russian people.

As Benjamin Ginsberg wrote in his 1993 book The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State:
In pre-World War I Germany, for example, Jews were extremely important in the Socialist party. The SPD was founded by a Jew, Ferdinand Lasalle, and Jews, including such individuals as Eduard Bernstein and Otto Landsberg, were among the party's most prominent parliamentary leaders. In addition, the party's leading journalists were Jews as were its most notable theorists - Bernstein, Adolf Braun, and Simon Katzenstein; its leading expert on municipal administration was a Jew, as was its expert on electoral law and its chief youth organizer, Ludwig Frank.

Socialists dominated the provisional government established in Germany in the immediate aftermath of World War I. Two of this government's six cabinet members, Otto Landsberg and Hugo Haase, were Jews. Other Jewish Socialists also played important roles during this period. Kurt Eisner was prime minister of Bavaria in 1918-1919. Georg Gradnauer was prime minister of Saxony from 1919 to 1921. In Prussia, Paul Hirsch served as prime minister from 1918 to 1920 and Kurt Rosenfeld as minister of justice in 1918. As noted earlier, Hugo Preuss formulated the Weimar constitution and served as minister of the interior. After the creation of the Weimar Republic, Jews continued to play important roles in the leadership of the SPD. About 10% of the party's Reichstag deputies were Jews, including Rudolph Hilferding, who was minister of finance in 1923 and from 1928 to 1930.

Among the most vehement opponents of the Socialist provisional government was the German Communist party, whose leadership also included a number of Jews. In 1919, under the direction of party chief Paul Levi, the KPD staged a revolt against the Socialist provisional government. One of the most prominent leaders of this revolt was Rosa Luxemburg, who was later captured and murdered by rightist paramilitary forces. Jews were also among the leaders of the Communist government that the KPD briefly established in Bavaria after the murder of Kurt Eisner. Eugen Levine was head of the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic, Gustav Landauer was its commissar for propaganda and cultural affairs, and Ernst Toller commanded its "red army." This regime was crushed in May 1919 by free corps forces.

Jews were also important in Socialist and Communist movements in a number of other nations including Britain, France, the United States, and most of the nations of East Central Europe. In Hungary, for example, Jews were prominent in the prewar Socialist movement and in the "Galileo Circle," the center of Budapest student radicalism. The Hungarian Communist government established by Bela Kun in 1919 was dominated by Jews. Twenty of the regime's twenty-six ministers and vice-ministers were of Jewish origin. This government was overthrown after one hundred days by French-backed Rumanian forces.
And again, as MacDonald noted in his review of Slezkine's book:
The once-common view that the Bolshevik Revolution was a Jewish revolution and that the Soviet Union was initially dominated by Jews has now been largely eliminated from modern academic historiography.
And so has the huge Jewish presence in the European Communism and radical socialist movements that paralleled Communist and Jewish Bolshevik atrocities in Soviet Russia.

This Orwellian, memory hole-like scrubbing of history has been systematically accomplished by leftists, Zionists, State Capitalists and neocons in order to wash the blood off of their own hands, preserve their moral authority, and to scapegoat Christianity, conservatism, and the "intolerance" for Jewry of traditional Western civilization for the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust, and deflect attention from the far more relevant and resonant facts of political Judaism's role in Communist mass murder, genocide and theft that led to the fear and loathing that facilitated the rise of fascism.

In short, leftist, Zionist and neocon elements whitewashed their own history and then exploited the Holocaust to discredit the entire old Western order and replace it with their own ideologies.

And of course, ignoring the fact that there likely never would have been a Holocaust but for the Soviet genocides perpetrated by Communists and Jewish Bolsheviks who set state-organized mass murder and terror precedents, the Holocaust has been repeatedly used by left-liberals, Zionists and neocons as a rationale for the creation, maintenance and one-sided, nearly blank-check U.S. support of Israel, and as a sub-text rationale for the current U.S. wars in the Middle East, which not coincidentally have been largely instigated and engineered by the Israel lobby and Jewish Zionist neocons and neoliberals.

American liberal internationalists, neoliberals, and neocons have run rampant with this new Zionist order coalition concept, that they're all supposedly representative of "tolerance," and are righteous "victims" entitled by historical crucible and suffering to rule the West -- concepts that they have additionally exploited to justify their wars of aggression against Islamic civilization.

The entire sordid history and the current militaristic, warmongering state of affairs perfectly illustrates the dangers of sweeping inconvenient historical truths and realities under the carpet in favor of opportunistic political maneuvering, and out of deference to self-serving, cynical political operatives, racketeering syndicalists, and authoritarian and totalitarian centralizers.

The narrative that the Jewish Bolshevik/Stalinist-perpetrated Communist holocaust in the Soviet Union had nothing to do with the Nazi-perpetrated holocaust in Germany and occupied territory is a dangerous lie that must be corrected and set straight not only in the name of historical truth, but to prevent the poisonous elements that created it from digging America deeper and deeper into the Mideast bog, and who ultimately seek yet another world war in order to ratchet their anti-Western, totalitarian Big Brother/Leviathan racket ever tighter.

Never forget: There were two holocausts in the 20th Century, not one, and the first one led to the second.

And Zionist machinations, intrigue and Trojan horse ideologies, fueled by ambition, greed, lust for power, and messianic delusions of grandeur and supremacy, led to both.

Did America lose its soul to Big Brother when it allied with Commies in WWII and ended up adopting their ways?

The European Atrocity You Never Heard About

...Between 1945 and 1950, Europe witnessed the largest episode of forced migration, and perhaps the single greatest movement of population, in human history. Between 12 million and 14 million German-speaking civilians—the overwhelming majority of whom were women, old people, and children under 16—were forcibly ejected from their places of birth in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and what are today the western districts of Poland. As The New York Times noted in December 1945, the number of people the Allies proposed to transfer in just a few months was about the same as the total number of all the immigrants admitted to the United States since the beginning of the 20th century. They were deposited among the ruins of Allied-occupied Germany to fend for themselves as best they could. The number who died as a result of starvation, disease, beatings, or outright execution is unknown, but conservative estimates suggest that at least 500,000 people lost their lives in the course of the operation.

Most disturbingly of all, tens of thousands perished as a result of ill treatment while being used as slave labor (or, in the Allies' cynical formulation, "reparations in kind") in a vast network of camps extending across central and southeastern Europe—many of which, like Auschwitz I and Theresienstadt, were former German concentration camps kept in operation for years after the war. As Sir John Colville, formerly Winston Churchill's private secretary, told his colleagues in the British Foreign Office in 1946, it was clear that "concentration camps and all they stand for did not come to an end with the defeat of Germany." Ironically, no more than 100 or so miles away from the camps being put to this new use, the surviving Nazi leaders were being tried by the Allies in the courtroom at Nuremberg on a bill of indictment that listed "deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population" under the heading of "crimes against humanity."

By any measure, the postwar expulsions were a manmade disaster and one of the most significant examples of the mass violation of human rights in recent history. Yet although they occurred within living memory, in time of peace, and in the middle of the world's most densely populated continent, they remain all but unknown outside Germany itself. On the rare occasions that they rate more than a footnote in European-history textbooks, they are commonly depicted as justified retribution for Nazi Germany's wartime atrocities or a painful but necessary expedient to ensure the future peace of Europe. As the historian Richard J. Evans asserted in In Hitler's Shadow (1989) the decision to purge the continent of its German-speaking minorities remains "defensible" in light of the Holocaust and has shown itself to be a successful experiment in "defusing ethnic antagonisms through the mass transfer of populations."

Even at the time, not everyone agreed. George Orwell, an outspoken opponent of the expulsions, pointed out in his essay "Politics and the English Language" that the expression "transfer of population" was one of a number of euphemisms whose purpose was "largely the defense of the indefensible." The philosopher Bertrand Russell acidly inquired: "Are mass deportations crimes when committed by our enemies during war and justifiable measures of social adjustment when carried out by our allies in time of peace?" A still more uncomfortable observation was made by the left-wing publisher Victor Gollancz, who reasoned that "if every German was indeed responsible for what happened at Belsen, then we, as members of a democratic country and not a fascist one with no free press or parliament, were responsible individually as well as collectively" for what was being done to noncombatants in the Allies' name...MORE...LINK

Thursday, June 07, 2012

It's the banksters and their political lackeys, stupid. Control of central banks drives geo-political policy

Introduction by Chris Moore:

In the following link, the writer, a commenter on, argues that "the Rothschilds" banking empire and its agenda are driving Western geo-political policy, including Western wars of aggression to establish and control central banks around the world.

I can't say what the original commenter intended, but as I see it "the Rothschilds" should be read as merely a metaphor for the institutional Judeo-supremacist racket, which is itself led and staffed largely by elite Zionist Jews.

People, this is the racket of the temple priests that stretches all the way back to the crucifixion of Christ, and knows every bankster trick in the book.

Those who want documentation that elite Zionist Jews (mostly Ashkenazi) who dominate banking and many other of the most powerful institutions should spend some time studying this site: Who Controls America?

It was put together by a White nationalists, so factor that in, and his links don't all absolutely verify the Jewish identity of the players who are claimed to be Jewish, but it's a good place to start, and I can tell you that most of those names that I've checked into show his research to be accurate.

Whatever the case about the Jewish-identity particulars, it should be clear to most intelligent people by now that Zionism (Judeo-supremacism) is the unifying factor in most of these cynical, treasonous, anti-democratic and anti-constitutional money-powers conspiracies, and the wars and economic predations backing them.--C.M.


The Rothschild family is slowly but surely having their Central banks established in every country of this world, giving them incredible amount of wealth and power.

In the year of 2000 there were seven countries without a Rothschild owned Central Bank:

North Korea

It is not a coincidence that these country, which are listed above were and are still being under attack by the western media, since one of the main reasons these countries have been under attack in the first place is because they do not have a Rothschild owned Central Bank yet. The first step in having a Central Bank establish in a country is to get them to accept an outrageous loans, which puts the country in debt of the Central Bank and under the control of the Rothschilds. If the country does not accept the loan, the leader of this particular country will be assassinated and a Rothschild aligned leader will be put into the position, and if the assassination does not work, the country will be invaded and have a Central Bank established with force all under the name of terrorism.

Rothschild owned Central Bank:

Central banks are illegally created private banks that are owned by the Rothschild banking family. The family has been around for more than 230 years and has slithered its way into each country on this planet, threatened every world leader and their governments and cabinets with physical and economic death and destruction, and then emplaced their own people in these central banks to control and manage each country’s pocketbook. Worse, the Rothschilds also control the machinations of each government at the macro level, not concerning themselves with the daily vicissitudes of our individual personal lives. Except when we get too far out of line.

The only countries left in 2003 without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family were:

North Korea

The Attacks of September 11th were an inside job to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to then establish a Central Bank in those countries.

The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family are:

North Korea

After the instigated protests and riots in the Arab countries the Rothschild finally paved their way into establishing Central Banks, and getting rid of many leaders, which put them into more power...LINK

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Too similar in their sickness: Americans fed up with highly politicized, self-righteous, stiff-necked fanatics who comprise Dem and GOP bases

Caught in the middle: Record number of Americans scorn both Dems and the GOP

The number of American voters unhappy with both the Democratic and Republican parties has reached a 75-year record high, according to a new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center.

Conducted over a quarter of a century, the mammoth survey shows that voters who identify themselves as Independents outpace support for the traditional parties at 38%, compared to the 32% of respondents who support the Democrats and 24% who roll with the Republicans.

“Looking at data from Gallup going back to 1939, it is safe to say that there are more political independents in 2012 than at any point in the last 75 years,” the report reads.

The poll shows that the dynamic growth of Independent voters coincides with a surge in polarizing ideology between Republicans and Democrats during the Bush and Obama presidencies.

“Americans’ values and basic beliefs are more polarized along partisan lines than at any point in the past 25 years. Party has now become the single largest fissure in American society, with the values gap between Republicans and Democrats greater than gender, age, race or class divides. The parties also have become smaller and more ideologically homogeneous over this period. Republicans are dominated by conservatives, while a smaller but growing number of Democrats are liberals,” the report reads.
The survey echoes rising sentiment that as Democratic and Republican ideologies have become significantly more extreme, a growing number of Americans find themselves left in the middle, underrepresented, tired of constant political fighting, and unable to commit fully to either party...MORE...LINK

Tuesday, June 05, 2012

Cynical Obama admin uses lawyer tricks to defy federal judge, continue totalitarian NDAA policy of indefinite detention of U.S. citizens

Obama Defies NDAA Ruling

When 4th District Court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled the NDAA unconstitutional, there was wide rejoicing across the internet. Posts from prominent civil liberties activists like journalist David Seaman rang out with “VIICCTOOORRYY!” A Russia Today newscast, titled the ruling “NDAA Shot Down, But Threats Remain”, seemed to imply that the fight was over, or “on hold.” But it was only just beginning...

Let’s very quickly compare Federal District Court Judge Katherine Forrest’s Order…:

“Accordingly, this Court finds that the public interest is best served by the issuance of the preliminary relief recited herein”

…with the government’s response:

“The government construes this Court’s Order as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.”

The Judge said her order was to protect the public interest. No informed human being could read it otherwise. Yet, according to the government, they can still detain you because you are not a named plaintiff. Our government is so entwined in a power grab that they will stop at nothing, even twisting court orders, to strip us of our Constitutional rights...MORE...LINK

Obama administration out-neocons Bush as two halves of Big Brother continue to merge

U.S. again bombs mourners

...If a Hollywood film featured a villainous King ordering lethal attacks on rescuers, funerals and mourners — those medically attending to or grieving his initial victims — any decent audience member would, by design, seethe with contempt for such an inhumane tyrant. But this is the standard policy and practice under President Obama and it continues through today. Recall the outrage that was sparked when WikiLeaks released its Collateral Murder video showing a U.S. Apache helicopter during the Bush era firing on unarmed rescuers, who had arrived to retrieve the initial victims who had been shot and were laying wounded on the ground. That tactic continues under President Obama, although it is now expanded to include the targeting of grieving rituals.

This explains why Obama now finds support for his conduct among the most radical right-wing factions in the U.S. Consider the debate that took place this weekend on MSNBC’s Up With Chris Hayes regarding President Obama’s kill list. In opposition to Obama’s drone policy — and harshly critical of him — were the ACLU’s Director of National Security Project, Hina Shamsi (who said: “There is no national security policy that poses a graver threat to human rights law and civil liberties than” Obama’s kill lists), and The Nation‘s Jeremy Scahill (who caused substantial controversy by denouncing Obama’s drone strikes as “murder). So it was the ACLU and The Nation as Obama’s harsh critics.

But the task of defending Obama fell to one of the most extremist right-wing militants in America: former George W. Bush speechwriter and co-founder of the far right blog Josh Treviño, whose ideology and character are evidenced by past comments such as this and this. That is who MSNBC has to turn to in order to find a defense of Obama’s militarism. Joining the founder in defending Obama was Col. Jack Jacobs, one of the key military officials in the Bush-era Pentagon propaganda program exposed by David Barstow.

Also defending Obama’s militarism this week was another former Bush speechwriter who wrote an entire falsehood-filled book advocating torture: The Washington Post‘s Marc Thiessen. He celebrated what he accurately called “the Obama-Bush doctrine” and wrote: “the two men’s counterterrorism policies are virtually indistinguishable — except in the liberal reaction to them”...MORE...LINK

Friday, June 01, 2012

Obama administration no longer bothers hiding its Zionist-Stalinist thug identity as it openly embraces political assassination

Murder, Inc: Official Obama Policy

Obama's wars increase body counts daily. New ones planned will add more. Death squads operate in 120 or more countries. So do CIA agents licensed to kill.

US citizens may be targeted at home or abroad. No one anywhere is safe.

Summary judgment means no arrests. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet, bomb or slit throat. It's official Obama policy. Diktat authority affords justice to no one ordered killed.

On May 29, The New York Times upped the stakes. Its article headlined "Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will," saying:

Obama "placed himself at the helm of a top secret 'nominations' process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical."

In other words, he appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. Despot authority is official administration policy. Diktats decide who lives or dies.

Anyone called Al Qaeda or accused of terrorist connections gets marked for death.

What "moral and legal conundrum" could he face, asked The Times. None whatever. On day one in office, he spurned rule of law principles.

He adopted George Bush's ideology. His predecessor called "the Constitution....just a G-damn piece of paper."

Obama feels the same. He's comfortable with "unitary executive" authority. It puts him above the law. Chalmers Johnson called it "a ball-faced assertion of presidential supremacy....dressed up in legalistic mumbo jumbo."

International law is quaint and out-of-date, he believes. Diktat authority replaced it. The former constitutional law professor abandoned what he taught. He campaigned against war and torture. In office, he exceeded the worst of his predecessor.

He usurped the power of life and death, including against US citizens. He's got final "kill list" authority...MORE...
Ear-whispering Zionist svengali David Axelrod continues to hover over Obama's most monstrous policies