Blair speech signals beginning of World War IV

[insidejob]

BLAIR SIGNALS BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR IV
An analysis by insidejob, August 206

People around the world face two possible agendas resulting from events in Lebanon - one regional and the other global. Tony Blair’s speech suggests it is the worst one: war, economic collapse, other calamities followed by a one-world government ruled with feudal powers by a global elite.

REGIONAL AGENDA: OIL AND THE LEWIS PLAN
The grandfather of the regional agenda is former British spy, Foreign Office official and Princeton academic Bernard Lewis (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2846b_lewis_profile.html). The ‘clash of civilisations’ was his idea. His perspective on the Middle East has been influential in academia and in political circles. He promoted the idea that Islam was a backward religion that produces terrorism. His solution was the Balkanisation of the region.

After the first Iraq war, in the influential ‘Foreign Affairs’ journal, he argued that Middle East states would and should degenerate into fratricidal, parochialist violence and chaos ethnic entities. This would mean that the only powerful local state would be Israel and with its US partner they would dominate oil production.

The elite did not want to be honest with its public instead this aim had to be marketed. They used a threat. This was done in the 1990s by political elites such as former Secretary of State, George P. Schultz, former CIA chief James Woolsey, former Iraqi administrator Paul Bremer and their Committee on the Present Danger. They claimed the West needed a World War IV (World War III was the Cold War) last would last for decades (http://takingaim.info/shows/takingaim030603.html).

Their propaganda is that militant Islam wants a war against Judeo-Christian, liberal, democratic West. The West needed a war on terror against terrorists and ‘rogue states’ like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Tunisia and North Korea but also Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Perhaps it is more than convenient for Al-Qaeda to then show up. The CIA and Saudi financing of bin Laden is well documented. The Muslim Brotherhood was used in the 1950s in an attempt to get rid of Egyptian nationalist, Nasser. When Nasser used violence to get rid of them, the CIA helped them to find a new home in Saudi Arabia. But the CIA claims that the current terror is all ‘blowback’.

One of the first plans for war on terror appeared in 1996, when the US’ Defense Policy Board delivered a policy document, ‘A Clean Break’ to Benjamin Netanyahu, new Israeli PM and leader of the right-wing party, Likud. It advocated dumping ‘land for peace’ compromises with Arabs to replace confronting enemies, regime change and securing economic independence.

This is what Condeleezza Rice really meant when she talked about death in Lebanon being the ‘birth pangs of a new Middle East’. Clearly, Iraq was the first war to bring this about and Israel is a tool to begin a bigger Middle Eastern conflagration.

Most of Tony Blair latest speech on a new Middle East policy fits into this. Indeed, the public may warm to some aspects of his speech. He talks of “moderation”, tackling poverty, a two-state solution, winning hearts and minds. It leads people to believe that he thinks the military solution is not working. But given his position on the Lebanonese conflict, this is all spin.

What suggests Blair was speaking in code was his reference to ‘arc of extremism’. Meaningless for most people but the elite and their supporters will know it comes from ‘arc of the crisis’ by influential writer and former US National Security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinksi. For Brzezinksi, the arc was territory, the Eurasian landmass, from the Middle East to Pakistan, as one rich in resources, including oil. He says, the West should to get hold of it.

INTERNATIONAL BANKERS: THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT
If it is code, then other parts of his speech suggests something else. Firstly, the speech also comes at a time when there is an increase in violence in Iraq and Afghanistan: there indeed is a crisis in the arc. Also, according to US press, Blair met Schultz at an elite club called Bohemian Grove. Many leading US and UK politicians and figures have taken part in the Grove jaunts. But conspiracy theorist who have gained access to the Grove state that it is Masonic and sinister in its mission.

The sinister mission centres around powerful, wealthy, criminal international bankers who can buy politicians and major companies. What they want is a feudalist global government that they will control and they will use global war and chaos to bring it about. Their plan has been set out by the late Professor Carroll Quigley, in his book ‘Tragedy and Hope’. Quigley’s insights are used in William F Engdhal’s ‘A Century of War’.

Quigley gained inside information about a group called the Anglo-American Establishment and revealed ‘too much’ about them. He revealed a hidden world of power, intrigue and conspiracy that most people would regard as malevolent. Most people would find its secrets unbelievable. In his book, he states: “The powers of financial capitalism had a far reaching plan, 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 feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.”

It started in the late 17th century with the Bank of England, the world’s first major, privately-controlled central bank. Until 1947, the UK bank notes were controlled and produced by this bank, a private company. It began because the King needed its money to finance a war and international bankers have been aligned to wars ever since. It took another turn in the 19th century with a body called the Rhodes-Milner Group set up by Cecil Rhodes’ millions. Through international bankers, this group secured a place in the US (Wall Street) and became the Anglo-American Establishment.

Grabbing other people’s resources was key. Racism and slavery helped to produce the UK’s banking system and the City of London was a major player in the criminal colonial enterprise. The UK’s black colonies were ‘Crown Colonies’ but some argue that it did not mean that the Monarch were responsible for them. The ‘Crown’ (http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=234999;article=304;title=A PFN%20MESSAGE%20BOARD) referred to the people who controlled the semi-autonomous area called the ‘City of London’. The City could count on the British military to control the colonies and also do as much exploiting as they wanted. The Anglo-American Establishment’s imperial aspirations have not dimmed.

The key bankers include Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris, Warburg Batiks of Hamburg and Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers Bank of New York, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (controlled by the Rockefellers), Goldman Sachs Bank of New York and JP Morgan. They run the Federal Reserve bank. Rockefeller is said to be worth $12 trillion while the Rothschild fortune has been estimated to be up to $400 trillion.

The Establishment’s major tools include privately-controlled central banks, the politicians they back, the Western intelligence agencies, Freemasons, Rhodes Scholars, the major oil and arms companies, the main Western media outlets, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the powerful Council on Foreign Relations in the US, its sister organisation the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the International Bank of Settlements, the IMF, the World Bank and the UN. It was the Council on Foreign Relations that created the UN. A key Establishment family, the Rockefellers, donated land for the UN. They want one world government with one currency that they will control because they control gold, oil, banks and the money supply of the most powerful nations.

Supporting the Rothchilds, the Rockefellers, et al can make you rich. Seriously oppose them and you can end up dead. The Rockefellers support Kissinger and Brezinski. It is claimed that President Jack Kennedy began to oppose the international bankers and he was assassinated. Indeed, most of the US Presidents who have been assassinated have opposed a privately controlled central bank. Most of the nations regarded by the US as rogue do not allow international bankers to control their central banks.

Many people think that US Vice-President, Dick Cheney is calling the shots in the Middle East. In reality, he is actually following a policy determined by George Shultz and it is Schultz who is representing the bankers. Schultz is on the board of Bechtel, the pharmaceutical company, Gilead, and the investment company Charles Schwartz Corporation. He is also on good terms with the Rothchilds. (http://www.themoneymasters.com/)

GLOBAL AGENDA: WAR AND ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT
When the aims and historical role of the Anglo-American establishment is understood, then the apparent psychotic behaviour of Israel and Blair’s code can be understood. So when he said “we are far from persuading those we need to persuade”, he means the public in the West and just not in the Middle East are unlikely to support their feudalist program any time soon.

He indicates that there will be a step change in the way the elite policy, plans and activity: "to change dramatically the focus of our policy…in the short term we are not winning”. It is not persuasion that he is talking about when he refers to those who will oppose the elite inside and outside the West but chaos and violence: "we must commit ourselves to a complete renaissance of our strategy to defeat those that threaten us".

He says Hizbollah wants to create “chaos, division and bloodshed and to provoke retaliation by Israel that would lead to Arab and Muslim opinion being inflamed, not against those who started the aggression, but those who responded to it". When it is the Anglo-American Establishment has actually planned this and set up Israel to take the retaliation.

Indeed, the reality of the ‘arc of the crisis’ is that it is created by the West. Staggering incompetence - too staggering without planning - by multiple US agencies led to 911 and a war on terror supported by the US public. They claim they do not know where Bin Laden is yet Al-Qaeda is full of their double agents. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/200 1/11/04/MN117081.DTL, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/17/1472/52474, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/23/walq23 .xml, http://www.911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=82). Analysts like Peter Goodgame in ‘The Globalists and the Islamists’, claim that the global elite has had a hand in shaping and financing all the terrorist organizations of the twentieth century, including the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Hamas of Palestine and the Afghan Mujahideen (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LIV20 060719&articleId=2757).

But Blair does suggest that it is not only one region when he states the conflict in the Middle East and beyond was "in part a struggle between what I call reactionary Islam and moderate mainstream Islam, but its implications go far wider. We are fighting a war - but not just against terrorism, but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st century, about global values." When he says “how the world should govern itself” and “global values”, it is code for one world government.

The man behind the regional agenda is George Schultz who is also the political point man for the global agenda. Many rich and powerful groups, such as MPs, can be allured to support the regional agenda but it is likely that it is being used as a trap to spring the global one-world government agenda.

But the global agenda is not really about the Project of the New American Century and US domination. It is about the bankers’ fear that they will not indefinitely control the US so they are pushing the US into wars that will exhaust and bankrupt it. It is about creating global chaos and economic catastrophe. Such chaos will persuade people and politicians that the world needs less national sovereignty and more global government.

This is the view is supported by Dr. Tatyana Koryagina, (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/16/103951.shtml) a senior research fellow at the Russian Ministry of Economic Development and special adviser to President Putin. She became famous after predicting the collapse of the Russian economy in 1998 and the collapse of the US economy after an autumn attack in 2001.

Her interview in the newspaper, Pravda, in July 2001 was widely discussed. She said: “There are international ‘super-state’ and ‘super-government’ groups. In accordance with tradition, the mystical and religious components play extremely important roles in human history…
“The U.S. has been chosen as the object of financial attack because the financial centre of the planet is located there. The effect will be maximal. The strike waves of economic crisis will spread over the planet instantly and will remind us of the blast of a huge nuclear bomb.”

Lebanon may have been chosen as the beginning of the new agenda. If so, then Blair will want the conflict there to continue and to spread. And, if he is in charge of formulating a UN ceasefire resolution then elements in the resolution will ensure that it fails.

[kbo234]

Depressing, but highly educational. Thankyou, insidejob.

It is no surprise that Lewis is Jewish.

The mind boggles. Where do these people get their morality from....the Talmud?....Satan?.....Both?

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, fake or not, say that the goyim are stupid.


We must be....to allow these fiends to march all over us with their gloatingly overt satanic agenda.

I'd be interested to know who estimated or how it was estimated that the Rothschilds are worth about $400 trillion. That is such a ridiculous amount of money. That is nearly $1.5 million for every man woman and child in the US and the UK. Can this be possible? I don't really expect you to be able to answer that.

[Leiff]

Well done insidejob

Money grabbing international bankers are not the most popular demographic in the world as it is, so imagine how unpopular they would become if all this became common knowledge!

Spread the word!

[Mark Gobell]

kbo234

Thanks to a previous post of yours, I ordered The Money Masters DVD.

An excellent history of the banking system that fills in the many gaps I had in my limited knowledge.

Oh, and I now know what "fractional reserve banking" actually means.

Thanks for the tip !

Two very informative, essential DVD's.

http://www.themoneymasters.com

[Garcon Warrior]

Theres also some great information (and a lot of it) about Enron, Bush and the history of banking in this article which is in 6 parts.

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/lindaminor/lm3,19,02harvardtoenron,pt1.h tm

[scar]

Money Masters on google vid:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8442305921010099392
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5020331178524208549
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3510313821923167501

[Jim]

kbo234

Hope you don't mind me asking but why the reference to being Jewish?

Did you mean to imply that he may have Zionist affiliations?

[Pincher]

Inside Job, it seems you really have been 'inside' - inside the Schiller Institute that is. Looks like you've lifted your entire post from EIR. It is about as 'educational' as a Josef Goebbels lecture (whose style your mentor Lyndon, no doubt, has taught you to emulate at his summer camp).

Two observations on your scholastic dross:

(i) How can you atempt an analysis on the Middle East without examining ALSO the interests, designs and influence of France, Russia and increasingly China on the region?

(ii) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the figure of $400 trillion you place on the Rothschild's fortune is at today's values. That makes them worth around ten times more than annual gross GLOBAL product - a patently absurd claim.

For the benefit of the not so well informed, Inside Job's mentor, Lyndon LaRouche, is an avowed Nazi sympathiser (indeed he helped smuggle SS war criminals into the US after WWII), convicted fraudster and sometime mental patient whose views on the British Royal Family are not too dis-similar to those of one, David Icke (yes, that nutter who believes they morph into lizards).

LaRouche is also suspected by many to have been complicit in the recent murder of a young British Jew who was misled into attending a summer school at his 'Schiller Institute' thinking it was some sort of humanitarian organisation.

You have been warned...

[Leiff]

Pincher Wrote:

'(i) How can you atempt an analysis on the Middle East without examining ALSO the interests, designs and influence of France, Russia and increasingly China on the region?

(ii) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the figure of $400 trillion you place on the Rothschild's fortune is at today's values. That makes them worth around ten times more than annual gross GLOBAL product - a patently absurd claim.'

What is your take on the influence of France, Russia and China on the region?

What is your best guess at the Rothschild's fortune at today's values?

[insidejob]

Thanks for the comments. Alternative analysis and correcting factual inaccuracies welcome.

Questioning the figure of $400 trillion as the Rothschilds’ wealth (and the Rockefeller’s wealth) is perfectly valid. My only source is Robert Gaylon Ross Sr (he wrote ‘Who’s who of the Elite) and, admittedly I did no further research on this. But this is why I said the figure was estimated. The figure may be wrong but it doesn’t invalidate the proposition that the family is among the most wealthy on Earth.

Your observations about La Rouche is more troubling and I’ll check out what you say. But La Rouche isn’t the only source for George Schultz or the power and aims of international bankers. Also, troubling it that Left analysts leave the question of ‘who is the most influential in the ruling class’ to people usually on the Right.

There is a third agenda in the Middle East, which is Blair-Bush and their bosses don’t get their way on any agenda. This is partly dependent on France, China and Russia. The involvement of China and Russia are needed to make the conflict truly global – they have defence treaties with Iran and Syria. Critical will be the political and class and senior government administrators in the US and the UK, some of whom, may, indeed, regard the neo-Cons as the crazies. Let’s hope the people wake up to the threat and force their hand.

Pincher,
Not sure what 'scholastic dross' means. But let's not pretend that a couple of possibly wayward remarks invalidate the whole analysis.

My analysis is speculation. It may have no relationship to the plans of the elite. Time will tell. What is clear, is that most people in the world look at what is happening in Lebanon and what the elite are saying and conclude it makes no sense. Most people reading the most important points from Blair's speech will wonder what he's on about. Something else is going on. But my speculation is based on evidence (the research has really been done by other people).

I'll check out some the the links. I would, though, thoroughly recommend The Money Masters and www.takingaim.info

insidejob

[insidejob]

[Dr Doom]

[Pincher]

It comes as something of a surprise that not only am I not banned but that I am also canvassed for my opinions - good to see there are still a few 'lovers of truth' out there.

First of all a word of caution to all you conspiracy theorists out there - much of your 'research' appears to be done on sites that are absurdly Judophobic and anti-semitic. Almost all of it is complete garbage (as one might expect from Neo-nazi organisations).

Lets talk about the Rothschilds for instance. Much of what is circulated today about this banking dynasty was churned out by the Goebbels propaganda machine. So obsessed was he by the family that he even commissioned two full length feature films on them ('Der ewige Jude' and 'Die Rothschilds') to justify the Nazi's looting of their art collection.

Now on to the myth of the Rothschild's wealth. Firstly it must be understood that the Rothschilds are not a single family (and haven't been for nearly 250 years) but disparate clans of different nationalities, the majority of whom rarely inter-act. Virtually the only thing that they hold in common is the family name.

Forbes Magazine's 'Rich List' is regarded as the leading authority on the net worth of the world's wealthiest. In its latest list of the world's billionaires (746 in all) not a single individual bearing the name 'Rothschild' makes it on to the list. Not one.

For those who are interested the world's wealthiest family is currently the Waltons. No, not the shoeless hick family of the depression but the Walmart Dynasty. Combined worth is c.$80 billion (ie less than 1% of US GDP - make a note Dr Doom and other inumerates).

I'll tell you about France, Russia and China some other time...

[Dr Doom]

[Pincher]

I shouldn't accept things at face value Dr Doom? Sorry but YOU are the one who is swallowing whole and the warped propaganda of fanatics, bigots and nutcases.

I would advise you to lay off the internet for a bit and read some BOOKS by recognised historians, economists and political analysts. Once you've built up your knowledge you can then start to become a little more critical and 'top up' from other sources (remembering always to have the salt cellar at the ready).

Your points in reverse order:

1) The Walton family fortune is easy to assess as it is largely made up of stock in a public company - THEIR OWN.

2) I am surprised MAR is only ranked 7th by Forbes(do the Medici's appear on the list at all?)! Remember that this list is an historic measure (MAR died nearly 200 years ago) of INFLUENCE not wealth and that by the end of the 19th century the Rothschilds were being eclipsed by the great Anglo-American merchant banks (Morgans, Barings, Browns etc).

3) Funny that you seem to 'remember' the Rothschild clans 'inter breeding.' Up until a few hours ago you thought of them as a single nuclear unit until SOMEONE enlightened you.

4) Glad to hear that you don't agree with what Hitler did to the Jews. I can guarantee though, that if you continue to rely on the current sites you vist for your information you'll become a holocaust denier at the very least.

5) Fair question about Mr Goebbels so here's a famous quote of his -

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Empirically, he is correct.

[Alek]

[insidejob]

[Pincher]

Alek,

i) So you've 'been studying' the New World Order for eleven years eh? Takes us back to the time when all the neo Nazi's, anti Zionists, anti masonic, fundamentalist Christians started to flood the internet with their nonsense. Bit of a coincidence don't you think? Be honest, how many texts by senior academics at recognised universities have you read on the subject?

ii) I take it that you have read Morton's book as a primary text, that the estimate he places on the Rothschild fortune is at mid 19th century values and that the author has some background in finance/economics - can you guarantee all that?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the author's $6 billion dollar estimate of Rothschilds' mid 19th century net worth is accurate. That would translate into c. $500 billion at today's prices - an enormous sum. But remember that:

a) this is just 0.1% (one thousandth) of the upper (lunatic) estimate of today's Rothschild fortune.

b) this fortune was split between 5 different branches of the family in Germany, France, Britain, Austria and Italy all of which were going into their third generation at this time (leaving each branch therefore with a fortune roughly comparable to that enjoyed by the Waltons today).

iii) I geddit - when 'WASPS' like the Gates' put their money into trust it all goes on sick kids in Africa but when 'YIDS' like the Rothschilds put money into trust it all goes on bombs to blow Muslim kids to bits... but of course you're not anti semitic you're just anti Zionist! Silly me!

iv) 'The Walton's fortune in retail sales (sic) is a mere pittance when compared to the profits in contemporary banking...' I'll overlook your rather garbled comparison between total share value ('fortune in retail sales') and total dividends ('profits') and do a like-for-like comparison between Walmart's profits and those of the world's best performing banks last year (Forbes data).

Well, only 3 banks in the world were more profitable than Walmart ($11 billion+) in 2005 - CitiGroup ($24 billion+), Bank of America ($16 billion+) & HSBC Group ($12 billion+).

And no bank performed better than oil giant Exxon Mobile ($36 billion+). Oil majors accounted for no fewer than 6 out of ten of the worlds most profitable companies with only two banks making it onto the list. Microsoft (with it's 'pauper' chairman) was the only software company.

Curiously, no bank bearing The Rothschild imprint could be found on the list of the world's 2,000 biggest public companies, nor on a list containing the names of the World's top 300 privately owned companies, nor even on specialist banking lists.

That is because the five or so banks with the Rothschild monicker have profits running into tens and hundreds of millions rather than billions and tens of billions.

v) '...the Rothschilds began moving their fortune underground' (?) Whatever do you mean by this statement - were they stuffing it into mattresses?

vi)'...misogynistic patriarchy...thick as thieves...' Yes, that is usually the way with both aristocratic and business dynasties.

vii)''...run currently by Sir Evelyn.' New one on me - never heard of Knights outranking Barons before.

I'll leave your treatise on the New World Order and Zionism for another post except to say this:

Zionism split the Rothschild dynasty - some were adherants, others vigorously opposed it - the very fact that you make no reference to this family schism is telling.

Your conflation of the New World Order and the Rothschild world view is equally intriguing. The NWO is generally accepted as an Anglo-Saxon masonic ideal - world government in the hands of an 'Anglospheric elite' (American east coast WASPS with a few British aristo's thrown in). No place at the top table for Jews.

You fail to grasp that modern freemasonry, particularly modern European freemasonry, eg The Grand Orient (supposedly inspired by the Illuminati) was the birthplace of modern anti semitism. Jews were forbidden from joining most European lodges until the late 19th century. Only in Britain were they tolerated.

Continental European masonry was also politcally radical. anti clerical and often atheistic (in stark contrast to the English and Ancient Scottish Rite which was mercantalist and demanded acknowledgement of 'The Great Architect').

The myth of the Rothschilds, an essentially 19th century dynasty in slow decline since the early 20th century, has been largely achieved by a wilful distortion of the history of modern freemasonry, revised until it appears as an intrinsically Jewish inspired movement. Indeed, there are even accounts circulating on the internet that propose Mayer Amschel Rothschild as the real founder of The Illuminati - I kid ye not.

Personally, I incline more to the Ickean view that it was the Rothschilds and not the British Royal family that were the original Lizard Humanoids.

[Dr Doom]

[Pincher]

Dr Doom,

1) Reports and accounts for three of the prinicpal Rothschild banks are available on line.

2) Stuffing money into mattresses ensures that it loses value...so why the 'exactly?' Are you making the absurd claim that the road to self impoverishment is also the road to global domination?

3) I'll get your source over the w/e. I've just about had enough of this nonsense now - I am beginning to regret ever coming on here.

Regards,

Your friendly neighbourhood Lizard Humanoid

[Dr Doom]

[dean_saor]

[Alek]

[Pincher]

Alek,

You are spouting complete gibberish. It is quite obvious that you and your friend Doctor Doom do not have even an elementary grasp of economics, finance or business practice.

Both of you appear to be innumerate and have little knowledge of history. You think arguing your case is simply writing dense, meaningless prose (much of which is probably cut & pasted from another site) filled with non sequiturs and that winning the debate is simply a matter of having the last word (well you can certainly have it here).

Here are some things I caught you out on:

i) Your absurd attempt to undermine my modern valuation of the Rothschild fortune based on your (fictitious) mid 19th century valuation. Do you know how you to translate historic values into contempoarary ones? You use a measure called the 'retail price index' which is simply a measure of inflation.

Over the last 150 years prices have risen about 8000%. Any GCSE Economics student could tell you that. Don't try and look big in front of your fellow loons by saying there's another way of doing it. There aint.

ii) Even in the days before joint stock companies and limited liability, all companies were required by law to keep public accounts. And banks historically have always been closely regulated. For centuries they have been legally required to maintain minimuml iquidity levels (used to be 28%).

The suggestion that in the 21st century the Rothschilds can keep its accounts secret is just plain stupid.

iii) The idea that simply keeping your gold in underground vaults can do wonders for your net worth is novel. The value of your gold hinges on the bullion market. It goes up if there are more buyers, down if there are more sellers. Gold traditionally has been regarded as a hedge against inflation.

Please don't lie to me and say you knew that.

In case you are wondering about my qualifications. I am a BA in Politics & Philosophy. I was a Registered Representative of the London Stock Exchange and trained in financial consultancy.

More recently I was a business correspondent for a trade title and now run a small b2b publishing company.

Now someone please put me out of my misery and say that you actually believe that the Rothschilds were Lizard Humanoids.

I'll know then that all this has just been a bad dream...

[ian neal]

Hi Pincher

Not everyone who challenges the accepted view of wealth and money creation promoted by modern economics professors are anti-semites or neo-nazis. I hope you recognise this

Are you familiar with and do you have an opinion on this DVD?

http://www.themoneymasters.com/

It seems to be an accurate history of money and its creation IMO. Are you aware of any factual errors in it?

Thanks for your opinion

[Alek]

[Dr Doom]

[insidejob]

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3333ivashov.html
This article appears in the August 18, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
DOCUMENTATION
The Parties to the Israel-Lebanon Conflict
by L.G. Ivashov, General Colonel,
Vice President of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies

The article excerpted here appeared in Russian on the Marketing and Consulting Information and Analysis Agency website (www.iamik.ru), Aug. 7, 2006. The translation was done by EIR. See also Rachel Douglas's introduction.

The recently flaring Israel-Lebanon conflict is looking more and more ominous, pulling into its bloody vortex practically the entire world community. Fewer and fewer people remain, who blindly believe that the cause of the conflict is to be found in the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, and the Israeli Army's attempt to save their lives.

Based on analysis of the unfolding military events, it may be stated that:
- the Israeli armed forces' operation was planned in advance;
- it is multipurpose, and goes far beyond the objective of destroying the Hezbollah movement.
- In order to answer the question of what is going on in the Middle East, it is important to identify the main parties behind the Israeli armed forces' operation, their purposes in the operation, and their desired result.

It is absolutely obvious, that Israel would not have dared launch such large-scale operations against Washington's wishes, and without the protection and assistance of the USA. A third party with an interest in the operation is Great Britain (in the person of T. Blair and his team), as a loyal and reliable U.S. ally, as well as a major player in political games in the Greater Middle East.

Nonetheless, these three players are not the primary ones in organizing this bloody drama. In our view, the primary player is the politically shadowy world financial oligarchy, which is working steadily and persistently to change the political, economic, and social organization of the global community, in its own interest. The well-known American economist Lyndon LaRouche calls this force "the world financial bankers' dictatorship."

In the case of the Israeli aggression against Lebanon, the following aims of the primary player can be discerned:
- completion of the defeat of the Westphalia-Potsdam system of international relations [referring to the Peace of Westphalia in 1649, and the 1945 Potsdam Conference -ed.], devaluation of the norms and principles of the United Nations Organization Charter, and discrediting of the UNO. Establishment of a global dictatorship, as well as the unrestrained use of armed force, are impossible without achieving these objectives;
- creation of conditions for strikes against Iran, seizure of Iran's oil and gas fields, and establishment of control over their transportation routes (this also being one of the most important instruments of dictatorship);
- preparations to remake the map of the Greater Middle East, by force.

Among the more particular objectives are the disruption of plans for transforming Lebanon into a stable economic and financial zone in the Middle East—a kind of a central bank for the Arab countries, which would work on completely different terms, than the world financial system does.

The United States (oil and military-industrial capital, which is in power) has been doing the will of the primary party, seeking to achieve a number of particular objectives:
- they have been strengthening their position as world gendarme, along with the role of armed force in dealing with international problems;
- they have been working to provoke a situation for carrying out strikes against Iran;
- they have been preparing for the USA itself to replace the UN Security Council;
- they have been rallying the American public around preparations for new military adventures, while trying to distract people from problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Great Britain has an interest in increasing its influence in traditional zones of British political activity, while pushing French interests out of the Middle East.

Israel has increasingly been trying out the role of strike unit for the world financial elite, while laying claim to consolidating its status as an "untouchable" state.

Israel's current objectives:
- maintain constant instability in the surrounding Arab countries, as a condition for its own survival;
- eliminate the military capabilities of states and movements that are hostile to Tel Aviv;
- provoke inter-Arab and inter-Muslim frictions and clashes (according to the "divide and conquer" principle);
- shift the attention of the Israeli population from domestic problems, to military operations, in order to strengthen the regime of E. Olmert;
- defeat and discredit radical Islamic movements (Hamas, Hezbollah), which have been gaining in political weight;
- tie the USA to Israel political approaches;
- satisfy the demands of Israeli military men for increased defense spending, and strengthen the position of the Army in Israeli society.

Lebanon and the Hezbollah organization are more the recipients of, than players in the launching of the large-scale Israeli operation. True, Lebanese society and the government had reached consensus on the following points:
- liberation of Israeli-occupied land in southern Lebanon (the Shabba farms);
- freeing of hundreds of Lebanese, who are languishing in Israeli jails;
- humiliation of the Israeli aggressor.

In the context of the dramatic events in the Middle East, international and Russian media mention Iran and Syria, as parties with an interest in unleashing Israeli aggression against Lebanon. The former supposedly wants to deflect attention from its own nuclear program and the transfer of the Iranian nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council. Syria supposedly hopes to avoid being punished for the death of R. Hariri.

I submit that, besides Lebanon, Iran and Syria have a greater interest than anybody else, in maintaining stability and peace in the Middle East. Both of these countries have been targetted by the American-Israeli military leadership, and have a realistic evaluation (better than that of Saddam Hussein) of the correlation of forces and the consequences of possible military strikes against Tehran and Damascus. And while a ground operation may not yet be a threat for Iran, it is a very real one for Syria. It is also obvious that the case of Iraq shows, more than convincingly, what comes after that. Therefore the foreign policy actions of these two countries have been very carefully considered and cautious in the recent period.

Without a doubt, Tehran and Damascus support Hezbollah, both as a front-line unit for restraining Israel, and as a powerful Shiite-Alawite branch of Islam. Therefore it is not in their interest, to subject Hezbollah to a powerful Israeli military strike. Even during the Israeli aggression, they have exhibited restraint in extending any military assistance to the Hezbollah armed units.

Concerning Hezbollah: in the current situation it is important for the USA, Great Britain, and Israel to represent it to the world community as a terrorist organization, and to legitimize the Israeli aggression, and support of it, as part of the fight against international terrorism.

Hezbollah emerged as an armed organization, with up to 5,000 men in its units, in 1982, for the defense of the residents of southern Lebanon, and to fight against the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories. After the Israelis killed the former leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Abbas Moussawi, in 1992, Hassan Nasrallah took charge of the organization. Upon his assuming leadership, Hezbollah began to be transformed into a political and social movement, with a military wing, and today it has 14 representatives in the Lebanese Parliament, as well as two ministerial chairs in the government.

The movement not only has the support of over one million Lebanese Shiites, but there is also a trend for its influence in Lebanese political life to increase. Therefore war with Israel is not in the interests of Hezbollah. Especially in view of the fact that a truce has existed between it and Tel Aviv since 1996.

Hezbollah has now become the generally acknowledged center of Lebanese resistance to the aggressor. Its military successes have substantially enhanced its political status not only in Lebanon, but throughout the Islamic world.

It is too early to say who has achieved what, in the Israel-Lebanon conflict. There are only some interim results.

Hezbollah has most likely strengthened its positions not only within Lebanon, but across the entire anti-Israel front. It has proven its viability under fire from superior forces. It has engaged in three types of combat (for the first time in the history of Israel-Lebanon conflicts): on land, at sea, and in the air, and has inflicted palpable damage on the enemy for the first time.

Israel has failed to demonstrate overwhelming military power, to defend its population from missile attack, or to break Hezbollah's resistance. The only success has been to destroy vital infrastructure for the population, several administrative centers, residential houses, and the weak infrastructure of the Lebanese Army. Thus its main success has been achieved against the civilian population and civilian targets.

Together with the United States, Tel Aviv has succeeded in "taking out" the UN Security Council, turning it into a shield for its aggressive policy.

The new war has not consolidated the Arab and Islamic world, nor has it irretrievably divided it. On the one hand, we see that Muslims all over the world are in solidarity with the people of Lebanon, but, on the other, they heeded the call of the spiritual leader of the Wahhabites, Sheikh Abdullah Bin-Jubreen, not to support the Lebanese Shiites, not to help Hezbollah, and not to pray for its victory.

Neither the USA nor Israel has succeeded in creating conditions for strikes against Iran. Arguments like "Iran is helping Hezbollah" are failing to receive serious public support in America, not to mention the international community. Moreover, the USA got a serious slap in the face from the Lebanese government, which refused to receive Secretary of State C. Rice in Beirut.

Israel is not succeeding in toppling the Hamas government in Palestine, while the operation against the Palestinians and the Lebanese has not brought about solidarity on the part of the Israeli population with the E. Olmert government. If the conflict drags out, the problems of Israeli refugees, the deaths of civilians, and their sitting in camps and bunkers may lead to an explosion in Israeli itself.

And so, what will the primary parties to this aggression decide to do: to be satisfied with the results of the operation, or to pursue military operations to a victorious conclusion? If it is the latter, then the world is on the threshold of a big war in the Greater Middle East, the consequences of which will be extremely grave for the whole world.

[Pincher]

[Poseidon]

In Frederic Morton's The Rothschilds biography, page 60 says: