The controlled left

by **bvonahsen** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:09 pm

ok... I am officially out of my league here...

by **Avalon** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:10 pm

The Miami Vice Hoagland is not the current look. These days, RCH tends to sport a lot of string ties, or worse: <a href="http://www.alienresistance.org/bayarea04georgerichardc.jpg">www.alienresistance.org/b...chardc.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.paradigmclock.com/Gallery_Graphics/X-Conference/NickSkorous_and_Dana_Balban/Hoagland-1.jpg">www.paradigmclock.com/Gal...land-1.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.mt.net/~watcher/hoagiecurtain2.jpg">www.mt.net/~watcher/hoagiecurtain2.jpg</a> (see Hoagland shake a man to death onstage in the Watcher photo) The Albuquerque Vice look?

by **Dreams End** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:12 pm

Nemo, Since uber elites play power games I can't dismiss everything you posted...though at first glance the quality of the sources is inconsistent. I'd love to see where that Rockefeller quote comes from...I've seen similar such quotes...I think a very scary one from Kissinger supposedly made at a Bildeberg meeting but never saw the source. As for Jews financing the revolution...I can see this in another light... The tsar was notoriously anti-Semitic and pogroms were regular. There was a worldwide Jewish movement to pressure tsarist Russia on these points, so I bet they financed other anti-tsarist efforts as well. To be honest...I should simply read Anthony Sutton and haven't done so, but the summaries I've seen leave me convinced that he's made a two dimensional outline of a three dimensional object....i.e. reduced the complexity greatly.

by **johnny nemo** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:17 pm

I agree that wealthy Jewish people, like Rockefeller and Rothschild, may have been able to enlist Jewish "revolutionaries" like Lenin and Trotsky to overthrow the tsar, by reminding them of what the tsar had done to Russian Jews. But what these nutbars who claim that there's an "International Jewish Conspiracy" forget is that Lenin was shot by a Jewish anarchist named Dora Kaplan, who had nothing to do with this alleged international conspiracy. They are also forgetting that non-Jewish people, like JP Morgan figure highly in this. I like this guy's take on it.... <a href="http://www.savethemales.ca/000447.html">www.savethemales.ca/000447.html</a> The "Jewish" Conspiracy is British Imperialism By Henry Makow Ph.D. May 30, 2004 Conspiracy theorists like myself believe modern history reflects a long-term conspiracy by an international financial elite to enslave humanity. Like blind men examining an elephant, we attribute this conspiracy to Jews, Illuminati, Vatican, Jesuits, Freemasons, Black Nobility, and Bildersbergs etc. The real villains are at the heart of our economic and cultural life. They are the dynastic families who own the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and associated cartels. They also control the World Bank and IMF and most of the world's Intelligence agencies. Their identity is secret but Rothschild is certainly one of them. The Bank of England was "nationalized" in 1946 but the power to create money remained in the same hands. England is in fact a financial oligarchy run by the "Crown" which refers to the "City of London" not the Queen. The City of London is run by the Bank of England, a private corporation. The square-mile-large City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London. As the "Vatican of the financial world," the City is not subject to British law. On the contrary, the bankers dictate to the British Parliament. In 1886, Andrew Carnegie wrote that, "six or seven men can plunge the nation into war without consulting Parliament at all." Vincent Vickers, a director of the Bank of England from 1910-1919 blamed the City for the wars of the world. ("Economic Tribulation" (1940) cited in Knuth, The Empire of the City, 1943, p 60) The British Empire was an extension of bankers' financial interests. Indeed, all the non-white colonies (India, Hong Kong, Gibraltar) were "Crown Colonies." They belonged to the City and were not subject to British law although Englishmen were expected to conquer and pay for them. The Bank of England assumed control of the U.S. during the T.R. Roosevelt administration (1901-1909) when its agent J.P. Morgan took over 25% of American business. (Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 1964) According to the "American Almanac," the bankers are part of a network called the "Club of the Isles" which is an informal association of predominantly European-based royal households including the Queen. The Club of the Isles commands an estimated $10 trillion in assets. It lords over such corporate giants as Royal Dutch Shell, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, and Anglo American DeBeers. It dominates the world supply of petroleum, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials; and deploys these assets at the disposal of its geopolitical agenda. Its goal: to reduce the human population from its current level of over 5 billion people to below 1 billion people within the next two to three generations; to literally ``cull the human herd'' in the interest of retaining their own global power and the feudal system upon which that power is based. Ruling the world is what imperialists have always tried to do. Egypt tried it, as did Babylon, Persia, Rome, Byzantium, Greece, Spain, Britain, The Mongols, The Huns, The Goths, The Magyars, The Vikings, etc. The fact that some of the players in the latest version of this game are Jewish is largely irrelevant. If anything, I feel that they are the newcomers to this game, who finally managed to amass enough money to get in on what Britian's been after for over 800 years. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=johnnynemo>johnny nemo</A> at: 8/26/06 4:23 pm

by **Dreams End** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:51 pm

Dude...Makow is an ass and the Rockefeller's aren't Jewish. That's what I mean by quality of sources...we did the makow argument to death in another thread...I don't wanna start that over again... I'm not dismissing everything in your post, but that is a good example of why I find this sort of theorizing to be lacking in objectivity.

by **Gouda** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>They are the dynastic families who own the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and associated cartels. They also control the World Bank and IMF and most of the world's Intelligence agencies. Their identity is secret but Rothschild is certainly one of them. <hr></blockquote> It can't be too difficult to produce an accurate list of current owners/controllers of the Bank of England, The Fed, World Bank and IMF. Does Makow have The List? I know, I know - it's secret. But he knows. So how can I know what he knows? I want to know too. Yes, we know there is an elite brotherhood of conglomerated assholes up there, but how do we know if this is still the famed dynastic tribe of creaky old royals, and how do we know they have not been shunted off into irrelevancy by a band of clever upstarts? Upstarts like... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The fact that some of the players in the latest version of this game are Jewish is largely irrelevant. If anything, I feel that they are the newcomers to this game, who finally managed to amass enough money to get in on what Britian's been after for over 800 years.<hr></blockquote> Does he mean Neocons? But there were no Neocons in the 1930's. Jewish "Neocomers" or something. I guess back in the 30's they would have been even newer newcomers to the game. Pish posh, that's all largely (ahem, but not entirely) irrelevant. That's why he's not mentioning or even discussing the Jews here.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:48 pm

There's an alleged list of the owners of the Fed compiled by Eustace Mullens that is completely fabricated. The Fed is "owned" by its member banks and the structure is such that no one bank can dominate and there are no foreign owners. Arguments about the "ownership" of the Fed usually show a very poor level of understanding of all that.

by **johnny nemo** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:17 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=johnnynemo>johnny nemo</A> at: 8/26/06 7:25 pm

by **johnny nemo** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:28 pm

Stupid ez post just ate my whole post. I'll revisit this on Monday.

by **havanagilla** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 2:24 am

how much more racist puke does one have to swallow ?

by **Dreams End** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:32 pm

There's an interesting parallel here. IN the thread on "ghost troops" we meet Captain May, who is quite clear about the fact that he is (sorry, "was") military intel AND he worked for big oil AND he worked for PR Republican propaganda machine, Hill and Knowlton. May explains helpfully that the entire war is because of Israel. Here are some entities that are NOT responsible, then. Military intel, Big Oil, and the PR Republican propaganda machine, Hill and Knowlton. So as a case study, we have a clear example of military intel/propaganda techniques using Israel (and the Mossad Media, as he puts it) as a way to deflect attention from other forces who one has to suspect might have a little bit to do with this war. And I hadn't thought of it exactly that way, but this is about as close as you can get to a controlled lab experiment with this stuff. Back to the controlled left...I want to avoid buying into the very same sort of false reasoning, which I think Nemo has bought into (I come not to condemn Nemo, but to convert him....). Yes, lots of that stuff is based on the same ole Jewish conspiracy theories. But what is of interest here is the purpose it serves. With Anthony Sutton, you get a similar set of theories, but he goes to great pains to put the blame on anglo banks and money powers. He opposes Jewish conspiracy theory directly. But I think this doesn't undo all the damage. Surely, wealthy people have a lot of power...that's the whole problem, of course. But a theory that says wealthy elites are behind all the major opposition movements is another way of saying NO OPPOSITION MOVEMENTS ARE LEGITIMATE. It suggests that activism is pointless and that all the revolutionary attempts to overthrow capitalism were fake, so DON'T EVEN BOTHER. Handy, if you happen to be a capitalist. I don't know anything about Sutton and his motivations, but you can see the problem...it suggests in its own way that the only people who can make any difference are the wealthy elites themselves. No reason to bother with mass movements. I think this applies to Carol Quigley's stuff as well. In fact, Quigley himself said that he did not oppose the plans of the elites, he simply wanted to make them public. So, again, we see that the only historical forces of consequence are the machinations of the elites and the only thing left to argue is whether they are good for us or not. This was not my point at all. I assume that the forces trying to infiltrate and confuse the left do so because they are well aware that mass movements CAN be effective. So I want to distance myself completely from this idea that all the opposition is being run from the Rothschilds' castles...and not just because of the disturbing history of such theories. When it comes to the radical right and their use of Illuminati Jewish Lizard theories, I don't know how sincere the originators of those ideas are...but I do see that they play an important role in preventing a disaffected segment of the population from joining in with larger mass movements which challenge the system. If they are convinced that all those movements are just Illuminati fronts (Communist fronts if you go back a few decades) then they will avoid them like the plague. And, again, this is true whether the theories of elite governance concentrate on Jews or not....it is still disempowering. It's an odd political space to occupy. I buy a lot of what Jeff talks about, for example...and that there are elite groups doing the sorts of things that get discussed here. And the left pretty much ignores all of it. If the left, for example, can't see the POLITICAL importance of something like Dutroux, then it completely misses the boat. On the other hand, much of this "conspiracy theory" is based on poorly sourced rumor that inflates the power of these elites to the point of suggesting that resistance is futile...oh sure, you can free your OWN mind and reach some sort of spiritual enlightenment and live a life of blissful smugness as you scoff at the "sheeple" (how I hate that term) who still lack your wisdom, but forget a general strike or boycott or revolutionary impulses. Those would be pointless as the Illuminati runs those as well. Back to specifics like the Russian Revolution. I can't think how a country as large as Russia would be able to do anything, revolution notwithstanding, without interacting with the larger economic forces of the world. Their goal was to industrialize quickly...having been invaded by the capitalist west within about an hour and a half of the revolution itself, they understood what they'd have to do to survive. Meanwhile, there's money to be made...so bankers, industrialists and businessmen went out and made it. This is then turned on its head to show that these same businessmen controlled the revolution in the first place. And if you want to go back to the Jewish conspiracy stuff...in this country there have been Jews prominent in pretty much every movement for social justice in this country, including anti-capitalist ones. One might think this has something to do with Jewish history of oppression, but the Birchers could simply note that there are rich Jews in high places AND Jews in the opposition, THEREFORE, Jews are running both sides. This is based on the assumption, of course, that Jews are monolithic in their perspective. If you remove Jews from the equation, that type of thinking is still harmful. It translates roughly into "NO HOPE." However, all that said, the levels of control, misdirection, infiltration and manipulation are far higher than the traditional left seems to be aware of. The phenomenon of left gatekeeping is quite real, though you can't always tell when it is deliberate and when it is a fear of going outside the "left mainstream" by the likes of Amy Goodman, etc. Foundations like the Ford foundation...(FORD..as in "The International Jew"...as in hero of Hitler) funding ostensibly progressive groups. Ditto Rockefeller Foundation, etc. I noted with irony and dismay that the so-called "chaplain" of Ghost Troops, Chase Untermayer, is not only ambassador to Qatar but SITS ON THE BOARD OF National Public Radio Ouch. Skull and Bones is real. And at least some elements within Masonry are up to no good. And factions of the Catholic church are up to no good (though perhaps in opposition to Masonry, not necessarily in alliance). Dutroux is real. The Finders are real. Franklin Cover-up is real (though big caveat here...I recently read that the famous documentary was provided to the world via Ted Gunderson "former" FBI....the company alleged to have made the documentary has denied any knowledge of it. However, many of the facts are confirmed independently but I think there are some games being played there as well.) So there are deep and ongoing conspiracies within the halls of power. But they don't control all of the opposition. In fact, they are afraid of the opposition, which is why they go to all that trouble in the first place.

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:53 pm

The Jerusalem syndrome: Pitfall for the Fox, CNN, BBC, etc The Western Worlds media reporting from the occupied territories in the Middle East has so far been characterized as what you can call the Jerusalem Syndrome. That means that the murdering and the devastation with the latest generation of tanks, armored combat vehicles, artilleries, missiles, warships, combat fighter aircrafts, attack helicopters and usage of cluster bombs, cruise missile, 500-pound or heavier bombs, “smart bombs” bunker busters, phosphor grenades and vacuum bombs keeps under media radar while the destruction of a single handed suicide bomber dominates the news for several days in the western media world. The characteristic of this 3-steps propaganda strategy, which has been polished by Israel, has been successfully used by USA in Afghanistan and Iraq, is: 1. A meticulous media watch of the occupiers' suffering and losses. 2. Careful surveillance of the mutual conflicts between the inhabitants, with ambition to show that occupiers are needed because people are not capable to steer them self. 3. The report about the much grater violence and destruction with modern weapons from the so called democratic world, almost never occur. The TV-watchers and the newsreaders that are hit by the syndrome develop a psychological relationship to the occupants where the opponents are transformed to outlaws and to willing prey. This often goes hand in hand with contempt for the weak origin population and their suffering. The ones that are hit by the Jerusalem syndrome are identified and feel solidarity with the occupiers which means that the oppression and the killings are OK although the reasons to the conflict is build on lies and falsification. A consequence of the syndrome is that the suffering and the loss of lives of the occupied population is not even documented. That keeps the “proud” western tradition of the old colony conquests alive. Seen in this perspective the latest war in Lebanon is an exception. Strong TV-pictures from one of the last massacres in the village of Qana, that was carried out by the so called freedom fighters of Israeli air force collected the overall opinion of the world. This type of TV- pictures from other war areas are rare and their absence allows the self-righteous occupation armies to be able to implement their dirty work undisturbed. Franz Smidek freelance journalist, Sweden

by **smithtalk** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:58 pm

its interesting cos its easy to say that the conspiracy styled info regarding ownership of the fed is false, but if that is so, can someone point me to a reliable and truthful description of who owns the american federal resere bank

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:13 am

here you go, smithtalk. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Who owns the Federal Reserve? The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects. As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government." The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5">www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5</a> Each of the twelve regional banks is "owned" by the member banks, and virtually all banks in existence are members of the federal reserve. The "stock" as it says, is not like public stock...it can't be sold, for example (except for a small amount, limited to 25,000 dollars worth to any one owner). Here's a detailed pdf if you want it: <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm">www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm</a> It reminds me of Aristotle. For over one thousand years, Aristotle's contention that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects was repeated in classrooms throughout the western world. Until Galileo actually tried it. Ditto with Mullens "secrets of the federal reserve". Easily verifiable information is out there....and while their may certainly be all kinds of machinations within the structure of the fed (see William Greider's "Secrets of the Temple", which I've yet to read) the structure itself is quite transparent. Finally, <a href="http://www.usagold.com/FederalReserve.html">here</a> is a link to a detailed refutation of Mullens and his ideas about ownership of the Fed. The most important portion relevant to all of this is probably the following: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Regardless of the foreign ownership conjecture, Mullins argued that since the money-center banks of New York owned the largest portion of stock in the New York Fed, they could hand-pick its board of directors and president. This would give them, and hence the London Connection, control over Fed operations and U.S. monetary policy. This argument is faulty because each commercial bank receives one vote regardless of its size, unlike most corporate voting structures in which the number of votes is tied to the number of shares a person holds (Ibid). The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, so it is highly unlikely that even the largest and most powerful banks would be able to coerce so many smaller ones to vote in a particular manner. To control the vote of a majority of member banks would mean acquiring a controlling interest in about 500 member banks of the New York district. Such an expenditure would require an outlay in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Surely there is a cheaper path to global domination.<hr></blockquote> We should be concerned about the Fed. Even without conspiracies, the banking class share certain assumptions about what a "healthy" economy looks like. I'll give you a hint...it doesn't include full employment or high wages. And I certainly don't rule out conspiratorial behavior....but it simply can't be done by one powerful bank exerting its influence over the fed. And I hope we can put that particular view of the Fed to rest. What actually happens among our elite and moneyed masters is far too important to be wasting time chasing chimera's.

by **Sweejak** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:42 am

Oh way late to this thread. A couple of comments: Larry Everest was at CC III with McGovern. I'd never heard of him. He gave a talk which I thought was very good but can't remember the damn details... But he did mention The World Can't Wait and said something like... a poor paraphrasing.. "he wasn't a member, had problems with some of their stuff but supported what they were doing", or something like that. This is similar what McGovern said about Code Pink and what members here have said about conditional support. A ruse? I don't know. Here is his site: <a href="http://www.larryeverest.com/bio.htm">www.larryeverest.com/bio.htm</a> BTW, at CC III, spirits are still high altho like everywhere else I've been lately there is a fair amount of dissent. Some of it rather nasty but I won't go into it since I didn't witness most of it. I did hear the term "cuntocracy" LOL. Discussions however show that most people are generally willing to work beyond it, not all though. I'm with Nemo on a larger supernational conspiracy. And I still like Makow (please, doesn't mean I agree with all he says) ==================== <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In the evening, I went up to the U. to check out a strategy meeting. A kid was giving a report on the SDS [Students for a Democratic Society] convention. He said that at the convention, men from Business International Round Tables, the meeting sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government, tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world's leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the guys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They are the left wing of the ruling class. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered ESSO (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left. ---- James Kunen, The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, pg. 116 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Young people have no conception of the conspiracy's strategy of pressure from above and pressure from below.... They have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they're fighting the forces of the super rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and they don't realize that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes... ---- Jerry Kirk, former Black Revolutionary in 1970 testifying before the House and Senate Internal Security panel. <hr></blockquote>

The controlled left

Re: The Plot Sickens

Re: The history of the controlled left

Re: The Plot Sickens

Re: The Plot Sickens

Re: The Plot Sickens

Re: The Plot Sickens

Re: The Plot Sickens

Re: The Plot Sickens

Re: The Plot Sickens

Re: the thread Sickens

Re: the thread Sickens

example of how left is controlled today

well

Re: well

Re: The controlled left

Who is online