Blair speech signals beginning of World War IV

[Pincher]

Ah! Someone who has actually referenced the Morton biography, is numerate and is analytical to boot. Don't go and spoil it all Poseidon and come out as a LaRouche nutter too!

As for you Alek you have been exposed by me as a poseur and by Poseidon as a liar (note how his inflation projections are within 10% of my own).

Lyndon doesn't like his lieutenants being made a fool of does he Alek? Better write out a nice generous cheque to one of his 'worthy' causes (ooh... I'd say at least a month's salary) or he'll pick on you again at summer school.

By the way, did you do Germany this year? Find any dead 'Zionists' after class?

[Alek]

[Pincher]

I repeat, Alek, you are a poseur and a liar. A narcissistic liar. Your first post on page two of this thread categorically states Frederic Morton as your source for the $6 billion estimate of the Rothschild fortune (watch out folks he'll now go and edit it!).

I also note your very smooth bit of backtracking on the question of inflation - since Poseidon confirmed my RPI projections you no longer seem quite so sceptical of the £'s loss of purchasing power (suddenly occur to you, did it, that incomes rise as well as prices?).

You are also backtracking on the size of the Rothschild fortune - you've gone down from $500 trillion to $3.5 trillion on the sly (by the way, your use of the former estimate and your inability to grasp the RPI figure of 8,000% are indicators of innumeracy). Your 'confidence' in this revised projection, bereft of any authoritative corroboration, is reminiscent of your great clown and mentor, Lyndon himself.

And please don't go all bug eyed about trusts like a virgin in a brothel there's a good little boy. Contrary to what you suggest, setting up a trust (it should be noted there are different kinds of trust arrangements) leads to a significant loss of control as well as ownership (after all, what is ownership if not control?)- there is invariably more than one trustee, beneficiaries have to be named in advance and most trust arrangements cannot be altered.

I'm sorry if you thought my little quip about finding a dead 'Zionist' in Germany was in poor taste. His mother, I'm sure, will understand. You see, it was the author of that damn DVD that addled your brain who was responsible. Read!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Duggan

[Poseidon]

Alek isn't a deliberate liar, as this site claims "in excess of $10 billion" for Morton's estimate of the Rothschild fortune "as of 1850". Another claims "over $6 billion US in 1850". If we say £500 million for the estimate in Morton's book, and given that the exchange rate for the dollar in the late nineteenth century was averaging about five to the pound (peaking around ten), the £500 million corresponds to $2.5 billion. Maybe Morton revised his estimate; it's more likely the sites have inflated the figure.

£36.5 billion would be the lower limit if The Family only managed to match inflation at some 3.3% p.a. With their legendary skills, they would have beaten inflation, and the true figure is probably nearer £3.5 trillion. The upper limit is set by whatever multiple of global GDP you think should be allowed for global wealth and the proportion that can be hidden in trusts and Swiss banks. As debt increases there is more scope for a clan to own a significant proportion of assets, and it becomes a greater proportion of total net wealth. The US national debt is over $8 trillion, about two-thirds of GDP.

The World Bank recently published a report Where is the Wealth of Nations? giving a breakdown by country of total wealth per capita including intangibles. There is a good summary and explanation at this page, which also includes a direct link to the .pdf file of the 208-page report.

For the total global wealth, the average per capita value is placed at $95,860 (as of 2000). Multiplying by the world population for 2000 of 6.07 billion, this values global wealth at $582 trillion.

The US is listed as $512,612 per capita, so multiplying by the 2000 population of 281 million we obtain $144 trillion for the total wealth. The summary on the Reason.com page says $513,000 per capita wealth is producing $41,500 per capita income, corresponding roughly to an 8% p.a. return on total wealth (and sets total wealth as a 12 times multiple of GDP). The multiple should be a little higher and the yield a little less, since the income figures are for 2005.

Switzerland had $648,241 wealth per capita and a population in 2000 of about 7.1 million, so the total wealth is $4.6 trillion. The Rothschilds - or whatever powers that be are at the top of the hierarchy - could easily hide a trillion or two here, and trillions in the US. It is interesting that Switzerland manages to stay out of wars; if there are battles going on between various factions then they would all have money in Swiss banks, and agree to keep the fighting out of harms way. The natives of a country will look at government claims for average wealth or income and think that they are too high compared to a typical working wage, given that the number of rich is relatively low. Governments explain this by saying that they just take a low income and a high income, and quote the mean as the "average" income. There could be some truth in that.

Israel's per capita wealth (2000) is valued at $294,723 or a total of $1.85 trillion. This would have increased rather sharply following the 2001 exploits of a certain Rabbi Dov Zakheim.

The Rothschilds of today are not responsible for any crimes of their forefathers. Although they are clearly very wealthy and the official valuations of their assets are too low, changing conditions over the last century would reduce the political clout provided by their wealth. Originally, the hierarchy would have gone rather like: (1) Rothschilds (2) US Zionist Mafia such as Bronfmans, Rockefellers, Meyer Lansky (3) US (4) UK. Then Israel came in as a new entry and soon moved to number (3) above the US. Israel was set up to provide the Zionists with more leverage, but after 2001 it became even more powerful with its German-built Dolphin subs with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and ability to carry out false flag terror attacks and blackmail as well as bribe the target country's government. So Blair is still "Bush's poodle", and US policy (particularly regarding foreign relations) is determined by Israel "we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it" (Ariel Sharon, 2001). The US didn't spend hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands of its own servicemen in Iraq in order to benefit the American people.

However, Israel may have outgrown the Zionists. It is certainly at the centre of the axis of evil. Olmert (formerly Sharon) seems to be more concerned with the immediate theatre of the Palestinians and Lebanon, whereas Netanyahu is a suspect for orchestrating terror attacks such as 9/11 and 7/7. The US Zionists sponsor training schools for the Mossad, which may have achieved a degree of autonomy. But those who have control of the armed forces and have their finger on the nuclear button would have gained in power compared to the bankers.

LaRouche has been called an "anti-Semite" by Zionists, so he must at least be on the right track on some issues. However, the fact that he read Marx and became a Marxist and then a Trotskyist doesn't do much for his reputation. I would rate his site as below average for educational value.

Jeremiah Duggan was a decent, honest individual. The Schiller Institute did not assassinate or physically murder him, but an organization that runs youth schools and training is to be regarded with some suspicion. There could well be a phenomenon whereby an individual's core beliefs cannot be abandoned too quickly without triggering mental problems. Personal identity is a sum of beliefs, memories, goals and values. If all are suddenly removed it would be tantamount to a loss of the individual. It was around early 2003 that some of my beliefs were challenged by new evidence. I started investigating 9/11; this led to research on other historical matters and I found some beliefs had to be revised. Fortunately, there were important core values that remained, and I found reconciling and integrating each belief into a consistent world-view to be fascinating and rewarding.

[kbo234]

[ian neal]

[Pincher]

Ian,

In reverse order:

Give me 24 hours to check out the people and the video.

I'd like to give a considered reponse to your first query later. The short and obvious answer is it all depends what your views are on wealth and money creation. There is not a single accepted school of thought on these matters taught by academics - there are many different schools and schools within schools.

Cheers,

Pincher

[Pincher]

Ian,

I watched an hour or so of the video - more than enough time to get a feel of what the makers were trying to tell us:

that national central banks are all privately owned banks (not true) owned by foreigners (Rothschilds, other Jews & Freemasons) who, by controlling national interest rates & money supply, manipluate governments into supporting their plans for world domination (New World Order) that will probably come about as a result of a deliberately engineered recession...

As to factual inaccuracies re. The Federal Reserve you might find this link helpful: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html

And here's some scholarship on John Rockefeller and the Rothschilds:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:xePeWdfiro8J:www.martinfrost.ws/h tmlfiles/third_section/FOSDICK_Apr_05.html+%27Gary+Kah,+Still,+Carmack %27&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

In addition you might care to mull over the following points:

1) After the foundation of the Bank of England, the worlds first central bank, Britain became the wealthiest country in the world and was at the epicentre of the largest empire EVER.

2) Under the Federal Reserve system the United States has never once lost its dominant position in the world economy (its current growth rate of 5% is twice the EU average).

3) Islamic countries that hold out against usury are amongst the world's poorest nations.

And ask yourself this question:

If the government agreed to loan you as much money as you wanted interest free with the proviso that you only paid it back when you could afford to:

1) What would you do with it?
2) Would you ever pay them back?

(this is a caricature of the 'soft loan' policy advocated by the makers of this film)

[kbo234]

I know that prejudice and every other kind of predisposition will influence judgement on such matters but I find the first link above entirely unconvincing.
It reminds me of the sites that 'debunk' 9/11 Myths.
Take, for example, the opening sentences:

"Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board."

This tries to create the impression that the Board is working primarily in the interests of the American people, that it is truly 'independent'.

Pull the other one. Who in reality selects these people? Does anyone expect us to believe that the private owners don't get exactly who they want.

I'm reminded of a conversation I heard on radio London (I think it was) recently when Vanessa Phelps, Robert Elms and a phone-in guest all agreed that "there is no such thing as a 'Jewish Lobby'." It was impossible not to laugh. So the UK's utter devotion to and support for the objectives of Zionism is simply the result of the deliberations of our collective conscience. Tell that to the Lebanese.

[Dr Doom]

[ian neal]

Thanks for your reply Pincher

I realise it is a long video and hence asking you to comment on its factual accuracy was a bit unfair so let me be specific

Clearly the creation of the federal reserve in 1913 is a central point in the film

On page 52 of the film's transcript, Still describes a meeting on Jekyll Island between Senator Nelson Aldrich Chairman of National Monetary Commission and various associates. This meeting is described in more detail in this book

Do you accept that this meeting took place and involved the people stated? Do you accept that the purpose of the meeting was to draft a new Banking Bill and that their draft formed the basis of the 1913 Bill? If this is the case, does it not raise any disturbing questions for you as to the supposed independence and benevolence of the Federal Reserve?

Do you accept that to question the basis of modern banking does not make you automatically a neo-nazi?

[Pincher]

OK Ian I can see you are a sincere bloke (good to see that you are wary of the neo nazi tag) so I'll take a look - just give me 24 hours. Please check that your first question isn't answered in the link provided above

One thing that puzzles me is that no one on this site has asked me whether I accept that 9/11 was an inside job.

I presume that is because you all presume I'm just another conspiracist theorists' feathers ruffler.

[insidejob]

UK Indymedia has banned my World War IV article from their website. This is in response to an administrator from the Urban75 website who argued that was:
i. anti-semitic
ii. sub-Nazi, and
iii. 'conspiraloon'.

My article may be wrong but the arguments are very dodgy way of banning it. I've asked Indymedia to explain their actions but they have not responded. It seems naming names concerning the Anglo-American Establishment gets some people very annoyed. I'm emailing the article to Indymedia contributors. I'd be interested in finding out what arguments support the anti-semitic charge.

insidejob

[Dr Hemp]

[Pincher]

Ian,

Here are my thoughts on the important issues you raise.

No you don't have to be a neo nazi to question the method of banking, money supply and wealth creation (it might come as a surprise to you that neo nazis are not really interested in these questions anyway - they are just a ruse to gain power).

These issues are at the very heart of politics (eg the old Clause 4 of the Labour Party -'...to take into public ownership the means of production, distribution and exchange' ie the factories, shops and banks).

Politics is about analysing problems and solving them. But, people being people, they have hundreds of different ways at looking at things and hundreds of different answers.

The Money Masters/LaRouche way (the two are almost certainly connected -which explains why the DVD producer didn't get his interview!) is to spin a yarn consisting of half truths (eg the Fed was largely responsible for the Great Depression) and mix it in with some old myths (Jews and Freemasons run the world's central banks in order to take over the world).

Their solution would be to nationalise the Fed and introduce pre industrial banking practices. Central and clearing Banks would be heavily regulated and leant on to offer soft loans to government, municipalities, state run enterprises and approved private corporations for infrastructural projects and showpiece hi-tech schemes.

Of itself this is not evil (just dumb). Democratic socialist governments do much of this as well as fascist ones. China's doing much of it now. And so did the Nazis. What was different about the Nazi's banking (ha!) and wider political agenda was it's justification. A justification that eerily resonates today in the Money Masters DVD.

What Money Master/LaRouche is coy about is the type of government (LaRocuhe's own literature more than hints at world government under his direct control - an alternative New World Order if you will) that he would usher in. I can tell you now it would be both anti democratic and repressive. One can only guess what he has in mind for the Jews (and any other minorities he doesn't particularly care for eg the British).

It might surprise you to know that I am critical of the role of central banks both private and public. In theory, I am in favour of 'free banking' a system of clearing banks, lightly regulated, competing with one another without a central bank and allowed to issue their own money (yes, and free to practice fractional reserve banking!).

This system operated in the 19th century in several countries (including, I believe, Australia -but don't quote me). But a variety of problems cropped up, both political and economic, that always necessitated the creation of a central bank.

Many serious, classical economists support free banking (including Milton Freidman) but I am unsure as to whether they would approve of its immediate implementation. For the moment the fashion for big government and competing national economies (as opposed to a global interlocking one) conspire to preclude it.

So, for now, we will have to make do with the central banks and the nonsensical conspiracy theories that go with them.

Amen

[Rory Winter]

[brian]

Pincher is either incredibly ill informed or a liar, simple as that.

Larouche calls for a new Bretton Woods to put the global financial system on a sustainable footing. He also promotes the independence of sovereign States so the nonsense about him seeking power in his own version of a NWO with him centre stage is pure drivel.

Larouche has been a thorn in the global elites side for some time and has been falsely accused by them and their minions repeatedly. The US Attorney General Ramsey Clark had this to say of his treatment in a letter to the Attorney General of the day Janet Remo -

"I bring this matter to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge."
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/exon/ramseyclark_ltr_95.html

Common sense says the powers that be do not go to such lengths to bring down someone who they would have us believe is a crank.

As for the anti semitic slur - a baseless slur is all it is.

Larouche was being interviewed live on the morning of September 11 2001 when the attacks were taking place and explained there and then that it was not Bin Laden and a rag tag bunch of extremists but -

LaRouche Discusses the Sept. 11 Attack As It Unfolds

"LaRouche: - Well, largely, this is a domestic covert operation, which we had word of beforehand. Everybody had the word, and if I had been President, I mean, on the basis of just what I knew, I would have taken certain actions immediately, which would—security/surveillance actions in anticipation of exactly that kind of problem.

So, we were not mystified. The problem is that fun and games is being played by various institutions, and we don't have anybody really effectively in charge." -

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2001/010911stockwell.html

So please Pincher, either take more time to better inform yourself or spend less disinforming others.

[ian neal]

[Pincher]

[Dr Doom]

[Pincher]

[Pincher]

[Pincher]

[Dr Doom]

[blackbear]

Hello Pincher....love you to explain about the "geo political behaviour...
+ ...the wildest political context", in order to enhance our quest for the truth.

Thanks

[kbo234]

[ian neal]

Pincher wrote:

[Pincher]

[ian neal]

Well the reason other people don't appear to share your analysis is probably because they don't know what it is.

When it all comes down to it I reckon the analysis of what's going on is pretty easy and it should be pretty easy to find common ground with the vast majority of humanity who want to live in peace and harmony with each other and with nature. The key is communicating this.

If I was trying to describe the big picture and the common ground that I reckon most of us would share, my 3 core messages would be

1) There is a conspiracy. The 'elite' of this world and their puppets do conspire against the bulk of humanity. We had better wake up to this reality and stop denying or playing along with their game.

2) Love is the answer. We are all interconnected. Do (be) unto others as you would have them do (be) unto you. But we already know this we just keep denying it. If we woke up to this reality ...........

3) Without their wars and lies to divide us, we know the solutions. We can end war, end poverty, address climate chaos, live in harmony ..... John Lennon's Imagine fades in.

We need to break their trance and start speaking our truth. If it's any consolation many people around me don't go along with my analysis, but what the heck. They also have not looked at the evidence in any detail so the opinion is ill-informed

Maybe LaRouche is important in understanding the bigger picture, but I can't say I've ever paid him much attention

[Pincher]

Chapter One - Who Rules America

Ever seen the movie 'Dead Poets' Society?' If you haven't - get the DVD and if you have, watch it again and listen VERY CAREFULLY. It is more than a satire on a snobby school. It is a sanitised biography of America's WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) elite. But I haven't read one critic yet who fully understands it.

The school in the movie, Welton Academy, Vermont is closely modelled on America's most prestigious private school, Phillips Academy, Andover MA. The resurrected secret organisation 'Dead Poet's Society' satirises Phillips' own exclusive secret society AUV ('Auctoritas, Unitas, Veritas - authority, unity, truth).

Many of the episodes depicted in the film evoke real events (eg Noel Perry's suicide that leads to the break up of the society is a revision of a student death that occurred just after WWII and lead to the suspension of AUV). Most importantly, the ethos of individuality (defying formal authority), taking the initiative ('Carpe Diem') and even personal reinvention (remember Mwumba?!) are the central tenets of the AUV doctrine.

But as I said earlier, DPS is a sanitised movie. In particular it leaves out:

1) The bizarre hazing rituals that all initiates have to go through (it was hazing that caused the death of the student referred to above).

2) The secret language, hieroglyphic communication codes and rituals of the society (the very opening 'candle' sequence of DPS depicts a school ritual that appears borrowed from AUV).

3) That membership of the society is not open as suggested but restricted to a social elite and is but a training ground for a more serious and exclusive organisation (more on that in another post).

The film went on general release in the US in 1989. I find the timing significant. 1989 was the year the 41st President of the US, George Herbert Walker Bush, was sworn into Office.

I see DPS as an artistic gift to Bush. You see, it is a sanitised version of HIS old school and HIS old secret society. And of his son, the 43rd President.

The moral of the story is - the Bush family are not Texan, they are not salt of the earth hicks and they are most certainly not evangelical Christians. They are blue blooded, Anglican (ie athiest) East Coast aristocracy (direct descendents of Henry II).

Know your enemy...