House of the Red Shield

by **AnnaLiviaPlurabelle** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:35 am

I’m brand-new here. Discovered this site about a week ago, and have been reading (and reading, and reading) both Jeff’s writings and this forum (y’all post some great links!) with great interest ever since. For the moment, I am more in the mode of mouth shut and ears/eyes open, but feel compelled to say that it is precisely when conflicting perspectives are presented, that I learn the most. I know enough to run it all through my own gray matter, and I swallow nothing I haven’t thoroughly chewed for myself. I figure most who come here are doing the same. This seems one of the most civil forums I have come across. I’d really like to say that I hope the tempers can be kept in check so that no one feels the need to leave, but hope the conflicting ideas will continue to be presented. From “an outsider”s point of view, this thread is more valuable than you are giving yourselves credit for. I sincerely thank you all. And…is there a thread where newbies can introduce themselves to this community? I hope this is not an interruption, but really want you to know that the “personal disputes” have NOT overwhelmed the information and ideas being presented...not yet, anyway. I think you posters should maybe take a deep breath, then give yourselves some well-deserved kudos. All of you.

by **Seventhson** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:06 pm

zz says: The point as I see it is about someone acting as if they're the gatekeeper to pass judgement on issues and articles. It's one thing to discuss issues and back-up your comments with facts or reasoned thinking -- but its a whole 'nother thing when its opining a personal conviction such as 'Icke is an asshole and rightwing conspiracy nut provoking hate who is all for Bush all the time" absent anything like a reasoned debate -- It's a form of intellectual dishonesty and bullying. Icke is not the only source for most of the information he popularizes -- Seventhson seems to be arguing that anything and everything Icke writes is necessarily trash. Where's the intellectual integrity in that? Welll... a few thoughts. The only "gatekeeper" here is Jeff Wells. I argue vehemently because I think and impassioned response to what I perceive as idiocy is called for -- especially when one of my principal points is that reasoned debate is discopuraged when people cite what I believe is anti-intellectual disinformationist bulldoodoo. Now, that said, I have to make the following concessions: Re: reptilians: the ancient evil is often described as a dragon - a reptile. I have no problem with describing Bush as that in a figurative or allegorical way. The problem is that people like Icke promote the idea that they are "literal" reptiles (nonhumans). THAT perspective is likely to discredit any reasoned discussion on this board and I BELIEVE that the reason for that is that the Bushzis WANT to discredit this board. They want to discredit Jeff Wells and RI. But they cannot do it in a straight up way so they send disinformationists to post here and post things that are cloaked in "progressive" "alternative" thinking - yet all the while they are simply just cluttering up the board with disinformation which will turn off any serious political journalist or investigator who cruises therough or surfs these boards. THAT is why I am so vocal and adamnt about calling these things out and the posters who post them. Provocateurs are everywhere on these boards as most of us know from DU and elsewhere. as for SHAPESHIFTERS: Another interesting mystical concept which, in the context cited in the article you posted, ZZ, (and an interesting read, btw). The concept for me of "shapeshifting demons/dragons/reptilians" SEEMS to me to be a radical but allegorical concept. NOT a literal one (altho having read Castaneda and the worldview of the Yaquis I am not going to say such mystical occurrences are not beyond the realm of human experience, especially under the influence of hallucinogens or other forms of mind alteration) The psyche of those with mental disease ("egophrenia") is another place where I "get" it. I happen to be one who believes that there is serious damage being done throughout the planet's atmosphere and gaia from harmful man-made radioactive and chemical elements that damage our endocrine systems and make many of us crazy, mentally ill, or necrophilically homicidal (not to mention die of canver, spopntaneous abortions and birth defects) . Such tendencies of necrophilic lusts and desire for power have existed throughout human existence , however, and may well be also inherited due to the close inbreeding of ethnic populations among the elites - subject also to damage from radiation (see for more www.radiation.org and article links there) and chemical damage since the nuclear age began and the advent of the proliferation of deadly petrochemical synthetics, solvents, mutagenic corporate waste and commercial products from teflon to aspartame everywhere we breathe, eat and drink. So from an allegorical point of view, or a figurative one, calling any of these bastards shapeshifting egophrenic reptilians is just fine with me. The problem with Icke and those who seem to embrace him here is that from my perspective as a Holocaust specialist of sorts, is that his work is blatantly antiSemitic hogwash. His own words condemn him and only, in my opinion, would a total neophyte just getting into this, or a blatant disinformationis would promote such hate-filled crap. Now one of my "functions" on the internet and in my life is to "profile" those who are enemies of the good. To look for the agents of the "serpent" or the " great prevaricator". This is an intergenerational struggle between good and evil and I am doing my God's honest best to confront the issues straight on, openly, and with honest, if strident, debate. One of my goals is to warn the novice about the trickster dark actors. One of my other goals is to confront those dark actors and try to bring them around to the light. Those who promote antiSemitism and disinformation are. from my perspective, dark actors or, elsewise, stooges, patsies for, the dark actors. If I can't call them as I see them, then I am not fulfilling my duty to humanity. As for the stridentness of my messages, this is to hammer home an important point: whether you agree with my analysis or not - you will damn well be sure that I am convinced that I am correct. And I tend to always qualify my texts with the caveat that I have NO WAY of knowi9ng for sure who ius a dark actor and who is a patsie and who is simply searching for the truth and sharing ideas. But as I create my "profiles" of the posters here and elsewhere around the net (and you must remember that with the death threats and harassment of me and my family, like with Andy Stephenson, I take deadly seriously the need to know with whom I am communicating online as much as possible in terms of what their agenda and bona fides are) I do not shy from expressing my views so that others know what I know and believe. Disagreeing with me is fine --- but I must insist that freedom of speech must be defended to guarantee the fullest light possible on the affairs we discuss here and abroad. Being punchy about all this might get the adreneline up for some folks, but the intent is to ENGAGE and broaden the minds of those I engage with. I am learning things too here, even from those who might be dark actors: one of them is that this is a war of attrition and that ultimately the only way to win is to persevere despite the deaths of our comrades like Andy or NostamJ or Hunter or Wellstone or James Hatfield. Ultimately the good will win against the reptilian shapeshifters, or whatever you want to call them. Finally re: the post by Qutb: Thanks for the backup. The info there is useful. Part of my point is in complete agreement with yours: Icke's literalist perspective discredits those who try to tell the truth. Embracing those idiotic notions on this board (the Icke stuff) discredits RI and will tend to keep intelligencet thinkers from particpating or signing up here. THAT is why I am making such a big stink about it. Maybe if someone actually treads one of these whole threads theyt will see that the policy of not barring folks results in a discussion where, while a free for all, reasoned debate and intelligent and important ideas can emerge and help the cause.

by **dbeach** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:30 pm

"Disagreeing with me is fine --- but I must insist that freedom of speech must be defended to guarantee the fullest light possible on the affairs we discuss here and abroad." I CONCUR Morning to all and trust the reptoids have only nibbled your toes.. as we discuss the forum pros and cons the PATRIOT ACT is set for full passage next wk see ACLU SITE<a href="https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=Patriot_Act_Petition_ACLU_followup&printer_friendly=1&JServSessionIdr006=coxflz46n1.app20a">/secure.aclu.org/site/SPa...6n1.app20a</a>

by **Sweejak** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Em, protocols of the Elders of Zion are genuine, he's "sceptical" of the reality of the Holocaust, Schindler's List is "propaganda" being fed to unsuspecting schoolchildren, etc.<hr></blockquote> Precisely what is he skeptical of about the holocaust? Questioning is not denial. Unless you can show Icke telling lies than I reject the above as evidence of being anti-jew. The Protocols origin is inconclusive. You might want to look into what happened to Lord Northcliffe, the man who merely called for an investigation of the Protocols. Like I said I think they come from a real document. I don't think it can ever be proven. In the end it doesn't matter exactly who wrote them or exactly who is named as the producers of it. For me I see them in effect and operative every day. For instance: In the Congressional Record, published by the United States Government Printing Office, Proceedings of the House, 1957, page 8559 you can read the following: "Israel Cohen, a leading Communist in England, in his A Racial Program For the Twentieth Century, wrote [in 1912]: 'We must realize that our Party's most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have have been oppressed by the whites, we can mould them to the program of the Communist Party. In America, we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites , we will instill into the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise to prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America into our hands'." Maybe someone can check the record and verify this. Well, I'm not sure just what Cohen's cause was. Apparently he was a Communist. I suppose it could all be for a good cause. But do you really have to pound it into the consciousness of the dark races that they have been oppressed by whites? I don't like his tactics. Meanwhile I see nothing wrong with interracial marriage or the concept of a Melting Pot, depending on how it is used. There was an interesting debate between Henry Makow and Lenni Brenner, the author of "Zionism in the Age of Dictators" <a href="http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm">www.marxists.de/middleast.../index.htm</a> Here is the debate, left unanswered as far as I know by Brenner. Brenner <a href="http://www.rense.com/general45/proto.htm">www.rense.com/general45/proto.htm</a> and Makow <a href="http://www.rense.com/general41/prot.htm">www.rense.com/general41/prot.htm</a> I'm skeptical of many of the facts and figures about the holocaust, in fact there are numerous frauds. David Cole has on film the director of the Auschwitz Museum admitting that the gas chambers are not authentic. The markers at Auschwitz have been changed from 4.5 million to 1.5 million, seems like something was "denied".. talk about revisionism. The ground penetrating radar at Treblinka found nothing of the mass graves. Not to mention people like Wilkomirski or Jerzy Kosinski or smoke from crematorium actually coming out of fence posts, or blood erupting out of the earth like geysers, human soap etc etc. So there are in fact many frauds. Pointing these out of course is "anti-semitic"? But it's no wonder why honest people have questions about the holocaust and it's no wonder either that those that are really anti-jewish will use the truth as well as lies. I know concentration camps existed, and that the nazi's and their sympathizers were unbelievably brutal, my father was in two of them. If you want to see the documentation of the Holocaust being sold to the unsuspecting it would be worth looking into Norman Finkelstein's work: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Fragments was widely hailed as a classic of Holocaust literature. It was translated into a dozen languages and won the Jewish National Book Award, the Jewish Quarterly Prize, and the Prix de Memoire de la Shoah. Star of documentaries, keynoter at Holocaust conferences and seminars, fund-raiser for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Wilkomirski quickly became a Holocaust poster boy. Acclaiming Fragments a "small masterpiece," Daniel Goldhagen was Wilkomirski's main academic champion. Knowledgeable historians like Raul Hilberg, however, early on pegged Fragments as a fraud. Hilberg also posed the right questions after the fraud's exposure: "How did this book pass as memoir in several publishing houses? How could it have brought Mr. Wilkomirski invitations to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum as well as recognized universities? How come we have no decent quality control when it comes to evaluating Holocaust material for publication?" Half-fruitcake, half-mountebank, Wilkomirski, it turns out, spent the entire war in Switzerland. He is not even Jewish. Yesterday, Wilkomirski was feted for his tales of Gentile evil; today he is chastised as yet another evil Gentile. It's always the Gentiles' fault. True, Wilkomirski fabricated his Holocaust past, but the larger truth is that the Holocaust industry, built on a fraudulent misappropriation of history for ideological purposes, was primed to celebrate the Wilkomirski fabrication. Norman Finkelstein The Holocaust Industry Verso, New York, 2001 (2000) "Hoaxers, Hucksters, and History" Pages 55-61 <hr></blockquote> Why don't we know about Operation Keelhaul or Eisenhower's Death Camps? Why was John Sack's "Eye for an Eye" pulped? <a href="http://tinyurl.com/679v6">tinyurl.com/679v6</a> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/d7ubv">tinyurl.com/d7ubv</a>

by **Seventhson** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:52 pm

I see it goes unabated. There is nothing inconclusive about the "Protocols" origin. I have cited my source (Konrad Heiden) which to most historians is VERY authoritative. (Much of "Inside the Third Reich" is based on Heiden's exhaustive research and analysis) Sorry if no one here has read it because this especially permits one to say, quite disingenuously, that the evidence is "inconclusive" That's ratshit, imho, as is most of this highly AntiSemitic blathering. As for the Communist party agenda, a lot of that, as has been cited, was financed by Wall Street pirates and war profiteers who use totalitarianism to gratify their needs for absolute power. Let me say that I understand and accept that there are those who will abuse the Holocaust for their own personal and political agendas. Most serious Holocaust historians prefer the term "Shoah" to Holocaust because the term "Holocaust" is, to many, a loaded term: i.e. that, among other concepts, the jewish people slaughtered were somehow a massive burnt offering to God required for some divine justice (like in lots of parts of the Torah and Prophets) under Judaic or Talmudic thinking. Shoah has many meanings, but among them are the concepts of destructive and devastating whirlwind, calamity, and deathly horror. I think the whole Holocaust revisionist hoopla is simply mass disinformation (including Icke's work), an indomiable and peristent red herring, which you seem to be very ready to promote here at RI and, distressingly, some novices seem ready to embrace and swallow whole hog without any perspective or objectivity or awreness of history at all. By claiming that the protocols are somehow "real", and then saying that there is no conclusive evidence to show otherwise, you have reiterated one of the most useful disinformationist techniques but without any credible sources or historical citations. I have cited my source which I believe is definitive. There has been, to my knowledge, no contradiction whatsoever EVER, never, NONE, to indicate that Hedien was not completely accurate in his history of the protocols and their use as disinformational propaganda by antiSemites and Nazis. YOU can embrace them if you want as can, i suppose,anyone here --- but hey, some people still believe its a free country. But you can be certain that those who embrace this hate will not be considered credible posters by me or by many who peruse this site. It just makes you look bad.

by **heath7** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:20 pm

Its ridiculous to believe that power and wealth have condensed themselves to a very few? This despite attainment and control being the top priorities of these elitists? We all do business with companies everyday that have cornered their particular markets, with governmental help might I add, and its supposed to be far fetched and helium-headed to consider that the whole game has been monopolised by now. Qutb, that was a lot of nice info you posted. It'd be cool if you could create for us a rabbit hole of web portals to experience all of it (or most of it<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p"> ). What of the info makes you to believe the Rothschilds are in decline since the 19th century? They created the Fed at the beginning of the 20th and that's made them trillions of dollars alone. In the example of the United States, I've read somewhere that the value of property in the US rivals the ?trillion dollar deficit. Is that not kind of like the Fed owning the United States, being how land is the only real collateral. I hope my point gets through. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

by **mercator** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:23 pm

Heiden is a much respected authority on the issue. More generally, for anyone interested in serious reading on the Holocaust/Shoah, no book is quite in the same league as The Destruction of the European Jews by the world's leading historian of the subject, Raul Hilberg. (Warning: the current edition is nearly 1400 pages long.)

by **Sweejak** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:49 pm

Seven, you have already conceded my main point. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... I won't hazard to guess who wrote them or if Jews were inserted for someone else. I hardly matters though, you can see the protocols in action everyday. --Sweejak <hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I agree that the concept of totalitarian fascism from hellish imaginations and concepts is something we see every day... -- Seven<hr></blockquote>

by **Qutb** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:16 pm

Well, I don't know if the Rothschilds really created the Fed. It is true that those most in favour of a central bank were the Jewish houses and those with strong European ties. Jacob Schiff was in the forefront of those in favour, and the Schiffs have been linked to the Rothschilds. The traditional Wall Street crowd, on the other hand, did not favour a central bank, because it would invariably get in the way of the Street's ability to create credit and interfere with market speculation. Paul Warburg, who wrote the draft to the Federal Reserve Act, was advised by Schiff to keep his ides about a central bank to himself in order to preserve his reputation in New York. JP Morgan, who was also linked to the Rothschilds, was opposed to the creation of the Fed (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure). So maybe the Rothschilds were pulling the strings, it's certainly not impossible. But it's hard to prove. I think the power of the Rothschilds has declined because there are a lot more players now, globally. They remain a force in minerals/mining, but they are not much involved in the oil business. They are not among the biggest in international investment banking. Their wealth is surely stupendous, so I'm sure they live comfortably. It really boils down to their secretive nature; it's not easy to know how much they own or control. Perhaps they have underground vaults packed with gold bullion, perhaps not. With the Rothschilds, it's sometimes hard to separate facts from fiction. And perhaps they want it to be that way. Sorry, I don't have any links, that was from memory and notes on paper. But google is your friend. Just stay clear of "Bloodlines of the Illuminati" type stuff. Too few books have been written about the Rothschilds, sadly. BTW - did you know that Adolphe de Rothschild and Napoleon III, emperor of France, shared a mistress? Adolphe was also a friend of king Leopold of Belgium and the Prince of Wales, and had access to Bismarck, the Prussian chancellor. Bismarck's banker, a Rothschild agent, was the richest man in Berlin. The Franco-German war of 1870-71 was initiated by Napoleon III after Bismarck tried to install a Prussian on the Spanish throne. Guess who financed both sides in the war? It was widely expected that France, with its superior manpower and technology, would win the war. When the Prussians were all of a sudden marching down the Champs Elysées, it was a complete shock to everybody. Well, nearly everybody. Adolphe de Rothschild had already sent his family to England. The Rothschild family's intel seems to have been better than anybody else's, once again. The Rothschilds made good money on the war, and J.S. Morgan (JP's father) made good money on the reconstruction of France. War was as much a racket then as it is now.

by **dbeach** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:15 am

"We shall have World Government,whether or not we like it.The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." ~ James Paul Warburg; Foreign Agent of the Rothschild Dynasty, major player in the Federal Reserve Act

by **prophetlady** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:26 am

Good stuff, lads and lasses! Interesting, to say the least. We all tend to have our theories, and we scan the internet and the libraries to come up with info that will validate our theories, which in turn validates us as intelligent, thinking beings. Or, we read something somewhere and it strikes a chord with us--appeals to our logic and rationality, so then we in turn validate what we've just read or heard by positing the info further on forums such as this one. It is forums such as this one, on which we are able to intuit rigorously, that allow us to find others who will agree, thereby further validating what we believe to be so. It is interesting that some believe their assertions to be "gospel" and thereby attempt to invalidate others' assertions, no matter how well documented and well validated by others. The bottom line, however, is that NONE OF US KNOW ANYTHING TO BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. We can assert that we do, but we do not, really. And it's quite maddening, isn't it?

by **wolfpauli** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:00 pm

The bottom line, however, is that NONE OF US KNOW ANYTHING TO BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. Many things are known. One is that there are infinitely many truths (easily proved: 1+1=2, 1+2=3, and so on ad infinitum), and another is that people don't have to know everything in order to know something. While some folks may think it liberating to pretend that nothing is "really" known, the truth is that nothing is gained by setting an impossibly high standard for knowledge (the actual standard is justified true belief -- not a rare thing) and much is potentially lost, including our liberty, as Orwell and one angry contributor above rightly noted. A passage from Orwell's 'Looking Back On The Spanish War' (1943): "A British and a German historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but there would still be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as ‘the truth’ exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as ‘Science’. There is only ‘German Science’, ‘Jewish Science’, etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, ‘It never happened’—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs ... "Against that shifting phantasmagoric world in which black may be white tomorrow and yesterday’s weather can be changed by decree, there are in reality only two safeguards. One is that however much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing, as it were, behind your back, and you consequently can’t violate it in ways that impair military efficiency. The other is that so long as some parts of the earth remain unconquered, the liberal tradition can be kept alive. Let Fascism, or possibly even a combination of several Fascisms, conquer the whole world, and those two conditions no longer exist." One more known fact ... In 1901, entomologist Charles Rothschild, not to be confused with his zoologist brother Baron Walter Rothschild or his even more distinguished zoologist and entomologist daughter <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,1396000,00.html">Dame Miriam Rothschild</A>, discovered the plague vector flea, Xenopsylla cheopis Rothschild, aka the oriental rat flea. <img src="http://www.cbwinfo.com/Images/Flea1.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **heath7** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:48 pm

wolfpauli, Nice info, very interesting and out of left field! Thanks for making me actually do research<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> As one who likes to act like we don't know shit, I'd like to point that I'd never argue that 2 + 2 = 4...although...<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D">

by **dbeach** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:54 pm

Is that the same flea on my keyboards?? I thought the oriental rat flea was referring to prescot bush jr and his sale of the USA to china..

by **wolf pauli** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 5:24 pm

Is that the same flea on my keyboards?? I hope not, dbeach -- that sucker is mighty dangerous. But it faces risks of its own. Note the dark mass inside it; that's a specimen of Yersinia pestis blocking the flea's digestive tract.

House of the Red Shield

excuse me, but

For zz et al

Re: For zz et al

Re: David Icke and the Rothschilds

More hateful disinformation and tripe, unfortunately

I don't understand

Re: More hateful disinformation and tripe, unfortunately

I see it goes unabated.

Re: I don't understand

Re: House of the Red Shield

Hence the name Rigorous Intuition

Xenopsylla cheopis Rothschild

Re: oriental rat flea

Re: oriental rat flea

Re: oriental rat flea

Who is online