It’s an excellent question why we need history because new people never learn from the mistakes of the past but go right ahead and repeat them.
And which history? The history below here is possibly quite different to that which is taught in the storybooks. A former visitor here [of the left] once reacted to some quotes which were quite mainstream for conservatives – Adam Smith, American Thinker, Murray Rothbard for example – and wrote: “Well I’ve never heard any of that.”
No. No he hadn’t heard of any of that because he’d never looked. He followed that with: “… and frankly, it all sounds like bollox.”
What can one do?
When we got to something called the Frankfurt School, if you started with their antecedents and worked forward, you saw how critical theory – the promotion of the dystopic – influenced the beat generation, then Laurel Canyon and finally art and culture today, it’s now ubiquitous. But its origins were in the writings of these dysfunctional men and women.
Again, it depends whom you read about them. One character at OoL even said these were fine philosophers and that I misunderstood and misquoted them. Misunderstood their destructive intentions – y-e-e-e-s-s-s.
Dabbling in the conspiracy field is a minefield.
For example, the Churchill quote everyone uses about Spartacus is usually taken out of context and the attribution has long since disappeared. Turns out he was referring to the Russian Revolution and not communism in general. That doesn’t mean the quote is not useful as an indicator of his thinking.
The question forever on the mind is what is hard and what is apocryphal. Also, how qualified am I to judge?
Take this excerpt for example:
The most important [houses] are:
* House of Guelph (Britain)
* House of Wettin (Belgium)
* House of Bernadotte (Sweden)
* House of Liechtenstein (Liechtenstein)
* House of Oldenburg (Denmark)
* House of Hohenzollern (Germany)
* House of Hanover (Germany)
* House of Bourbon (France)
* House of Orange (Netherlands)
* House of Grimaldi (Monaco)
* House of Wittelsbach (Germany)
* House of Braganza (Portugal)
* House of Nassau (Luxembourg)
* House of Habsburg (Austria)
* House of Savoy (Italy)
* House of Karadjordjevic (Yugoslavia)
* House of Wurttemberg (Germany)
* House of Zogu (Albania)
As well as the ones you will find on the Family Tree of the Windsors.
All the families listed are connected with the House of Guelph, one of the original Black Nobility families of Venice from which the House of Windsor and thus the present Queen of England, Elisabeth II, descends.
The Guelphs are so intertwined with the German aristocracy through the House of Hanover that it would take several pages to mention all their connections. As you can see in this family tree, almost all European royal houses originate from the House of Hanover and thus from the House of Guelph – the Black Nobility. The Hanoverian English King George I came from the Duchy of Lunenberg, a part of Northern Germany, which had been governed by the Guelph family since the 12th century.
Today the Guelphs rule by dominating the raw materials market, and for years they have fixed the price of gold, a commodity they do neither produce nor own. The House of Windsor also controls the price of copper, zinc, lead and tin. And as you will see, it is no accident that the principle commodity exchanges are located in London. Companies run by Black Nobility families are British Petroleum, Oppenheimer, Lonrho, Philbro and others.
Another Black Nobility family are the Grosvenors in England. For centuries this family lived – as most of the European royal families – on ground rent. Today the family owns at least 300 acres of land in the center of London. The land is never sold, but leased on a 39 year leasehold agreement – the ground rent of the middle ages.
If you stop there and check it out, a painstaking process which can’t always be done on the internet, then the Welfs at least check out with our Royal Family. Where it is wise not to tread is when it gets to their shapeshifting and lizarding. I don’t dismiss – I just don’t know and can’t check it out. The family lines though are quite easily checked out.
Now the conspirators faced the question of how to get the rebels and equipment from Switzerland to Russia. The answer was furnished by the Rothschild agent and chief of the German secret police Max Warburg. He had them all packed in a sealed railway carriage and made sure this passed safely through Germany to the Russian border. When the train stopped in Germany for the first time, two German officers got on to escort it. They had been commandeered by General Erich Ludendorff.
Max Warburg was the brother of Paul Warburg, the first chairman of the “Federal Reserve Bank”.
In July 1917 the conspiracy supported by the international bankers suffered a first setback and LENIN, another famous Khazar, had to flee with a few others to Finland. But in November 1917 they were finally successful.
And no wonder, if we look at the financial support they had following their training in New York. During the bloody civil war that ensued after the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin was the undisputed leader of political activities while Trotsky organized the military arm, the “Red Army”. That name was not an accidental choice. The Bolshevik army under Trotsky was the deadly instrument of the Khazar international bankers controlled by the Rothschilds (= red shield). So it was very befitting to have the army carry a red emblem.
The Times of March 29, 1919, wrote that:
“one of the most interesting features of the Bolshevik movement is the high percentage of non-Russians in the leadership. Of the 30 or so commissioners of leaders that form the central apparatus of the Bolshevik movement, no less than 75% are Jews.”
Why did the Jews in particular have an interest in Russian or the Russian monarchy? Well, if you don’t know about the Khazars, it won’t make any sense. Remember that the Khazar empire had been conquered by the Varangians, later the founders of the Russian monarchy.
To me, that is fairly safe history because it can be at least partly checked out and makes no wild claims – most people accept the financial support Trotsky received from American business. The business about the Jews is the one to examine. Which Jews? The Ashkenazi? Are the Khazars involved in all this too?
Another source claims:
Although Lenin is described as a “Russian,” in fact he was a mixture of various nationalities. It is likely that he was one-quarter Russian, one-quarter German, one-quarter Jewish and at least one-quarter Kalmuck (Mongol), which accounts for his Mongol appearance. Various authorities allege that his wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya was a Jewess and that her family spoke Yiddish in the home.
I can’t use that as it came from “Let My People Go”, Empirical Publications, Northern Ireland c. 1976 and it is heavily anti-semitic the whole way through. I have no idea who the author is and what his background is. So all that is left to do is check it out about Lenin, using libraries.
A bit safer is this:
A report sent to the British government in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke, the Dutch consul in St. Petersburg, said that “Bolshevism is organised and worked by Jews.” The report was included in a pamphlet published as a government White Paper in April 1919 entitled Russia No. 1 (1919) A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia. However, the pamphlet was quickly withdrawn and reissued with various excisions and alterations made.
In the War Records Division of the United States National Archives there is filed a report from an American Intelligence operative in St. Petersburg. Under Record Group 20; Records of the American Expeditionary Forces Capt. Montgomery Schuyler, G2 Intelligence wrote, “The Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type.”
One thing undisputed is that in the grounds of the Supreme Court in Israel is a plaque commemorating the Rothschilds, whose money helped establish modern Israel.
Or what about this one:
German development following the treaty of Versailles was predetermined by demanding of Germany reparation payments of 123 billion gold mark and 26% per annum of the value of German exports. The collapse of the German currency because of these payments was foreseeable – chronic inflation!
In the midst of this chaos Germany issued a moratorium on all payments of reparation for two years. The victorious powers refused and on January 9, 1923 voted three to one – England voted against at the behest of the CITY – that the German Reich be deemed in arrears in its payments in kind. Upon the French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr area. But when the German workers in the Ruhr called a general strike, the occupation proved a flop. The troops left this dead-end when Germany agreed to a compromise known as the DAWES Plan.
The “Dawes Plan” was conceived by J.P. Morgan, the Rothschild henchman, and should grand Germany credits of 800 million US$ in the first four years. The Dawes Plan however failed when Germany’s reparation payments grew. It was replaced by the “Young Plan” (named after the Morgan agent Owen Young): In order to plunder more easily, the international bankers established the “Bank for International Settlement” (BIS).
Thus the reparation payments for the First World War were easily executed by transferring funds from the loan accounts of one country to the accounts of another also with this same bank. Here again the bankers profited, with charges and commissions.
Professor Quigley states:
“It is noteworthy that this system (Dawes and Young Plans) was established by the international bankers and that lending money to Germany was very profitable for those bankers.”
Again I’d suggest there’s not too much trouble with that history – it can be independently touched on elsewhere, if not in those exact terms. But if you accept that, on balance, it’s probably right, then it alters one’s perspective on the world. From the Royal Firm through to the necessity of war and the bloodshed of millions of mothers’ sons, loyalty to the Royal Family becomes strained.
And yet I still like Kate and Wills and all the pageantry – human nature is strange, yes? The wedding was first rate and they make a good couple. I don’t know if they shapeshift in the night and fly around like bats and don’t really want to know. That doesn’t mean I say it’s rubbish – I just don’t know and don’t want to know. If it becomes critical later in the long journey of exploration, then it will be revisited.
I would also say the statement that the bankers are the problem is halfway true. I’ve never poo-poohed that part of it or the 2% [not 1%]. It’s all the rest of it – the socialist corollary which is quite erroneous. One does not replace the banksters with socialism, as socialism was just one of many dystopic systems created by Them to keep people down and divided.
On blogs, we never really know who people are. I know one visitor at my site is aristocratic family, if not Black Nobility and another I was friendly with in early blogging days was one of the key players in the establishment of socialism in this country, via the EU [worked for Blair]. He never visits now because there is no point – I sometimes go over there and see what he’s come up with.
None of that matters in the wash up but what does matter is to keep perspective and know why someone never seems to take anything onboard which has been shown to be so. If there is a vested interest involved, then it’s understandable.
Getting history right or at least as broad as possible gives perspective. For example, I would have supported revolution until I saw how revolutions are hijacked.
Revolution is incited by policies designed to produce that revolution. Agents are in place to hijack and “lead” those revolutions. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Voltaire enflamed the French Revolution. Explore his alternative history and whom he was in thrall to and it becomes clearer.
Take citizens’ juries. Heading those and leading beyond authority are the local Common Purpose grads with their NLP training, aiming for “well-formed outcomes”. If you’ve read up on CP, you’d know that would happen, just as Julia Middleton took over and dominated the Scottish Arts Council meeting.
Look at it logically as well. No one of the PTB – the ruling families – is going to lightly let people form their own policy and go their own way because it would threaten the revenue stream, the obscene profits, the racketeering. Therefore, under the guise of communitarianism, of “local politics” which even Dan Hannan subscribes to, the spontaneous citizen policy is always led.
You may think it’s democracy in action, even direct democracy but always it is tied.
It’s endlessly fascinating and casts official, bowdlerized histories in the shade although they’re necessary for counterpoint and crossreferencing. Wiki’s fine as long as you don’t look to it as “the truth” but as a series of indicators for further exploration.
In 1926 I.G. Farben had developed a method to extract petrol from coal and in 1929 entered a licensing agreement with Standard Oil (Rockefeller). This company gave I.G. Farben 546,000 of ordinary shares values at more than 30 million US$. Two years later, I.G. Farben signed what was known as the ALIG Agreement with Alcoa Aluminum. I.G. Farben produced about half the petrol in Germany. Later they built refineries next to the concentration camps and had the inmates slog for them as forced laborers.
I.G. Farben was one of the largest companies controlled by ROTHSCHILD and pumped huge sums of money into the German economy, especially to the future SS. On the board of I.G. Farben there were MAX and PAUL WARBURG (Federal Reserve) who had large banks in Europe and the U.S. A further member was C.E. Mitchell, also on the boards of the “FED” and the “National City Bank” and H.A. Metz of the “Bank of Manhattan”.
Hermann Schmitz, the president of I.G. Farben, was also on the board of the “Deutsche Bank” and of the “Bank for International Settlement”.
The brothers Averell and Roland Hariman (initiated into the Skull & Bones in 1917) greatly helped to finance the Nazis, this via the UNION BANK. Subsidiaries of ITT and General Electric supported the pre-war German SS directly.
James Martin, head of the Department of Economic Warfare in the Department of Justice had researched the structure of Nazi industry and in his book All Honourable Men writes:
“The principal link between Hitler and the Wall Street money barons was HJALMAR HORACE GREELEY SCHACHT, the president of the Reichsbank, whose family for many years were closely aligned to the international financial elite. Schacht was the man who masterminded the plan to rebuild Germany (the “Young Plan”) and also the “Bank for International Settlement”.
The plan masterminded by Schacht worked perfectly and resulted in bringing events in the Weimar Republic to an explosive head. Dr. Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist, stated the he ‘turned to the national Socialist arty only after I became convinced that the fight against the Young Plan was unavoidable if complete collapse of Germany was to be prevented’. Acceptance of the Young Plan and its financial principles increased unemployment more and more, until about one million were unemployed.”
Is all this important? Well, it is if you arguing something and basing it on the bona fides of certain people whose bona fides are highly questionable. If you argue from assumptions which can be shown to be wonky, then it can alter the whole gameplan, the way you see the world and how it’s run.
There are many who jump onto the bandwagon of these alternative histories and talk the most utter rot – I believe some of those are shills designed to discredit ALL the alternative histories. Significant was the Daily Caller calling out Alex Jones and the savage reaction to that from the truthers or at least those elements in the truthers who rose to the top and “led” the movement.
Which, like the feminists, does not mean the original issue was flawed or false – there were issues but these “leaders of thought” diverted people away into sensationalist areas and twisted the reasoned treatment of questions and anomalies. Who is rational about 911 or WTC7 on either side?
Best advice I could give is to tread carefully in the minefield but do tread nonetheless.