DaniMartExtras, Too



Posted by Xaniel777 on January 2, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : January 03, 2012

We Are Going To Kill The Dollar

Uploaded by on Jan 2, 2012

A clip from a much longer interview…


Investor Kyle Bass discloses his discussion with a senior Obama admin about how this economic crisis is going to play out. The answer is to export our way out of this mess by making our exports cheaper by destroying the dollar in a global game of currency devaluation. This simply means that they are going to print more and more dollars until all of your purchasing power is destroyed and you will need more and more dollars to buy the same amount of goods. (ie. Massive Inflation.)

The only way to protect yourself is to get out of ALL paper assets and into real tangible assets and nothing shines brighter than silver.

Read the Ultimate Silver Investor


Help us defeat the media blackout – use this short-link for sharing: http://rpflix.com/3931 

For Ron Paul, a moment of vindication – and maybe more

From Los Angeles Times

A throng that greets the Republican congressman from Texas on the eve of Iowa’s caucuses reflects the growing support he has won.


Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul at a campaign stop at the Park Place Event Center in Cedar Falls, Iowa. (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images / January 2, 2012)

By James Oliphant, Washington Bureau

January 2, 2012, 4:43 p.m.

Reporting from Des Moines— 

For Ron Paul’s supporters, the throng that greeted them at a hotel ballroom Monday was more than cause for excitement. It was a moment of vindication, or even, some thought, the start of something very big.

“This is the beginning of the second revolution,” said Monte Goodyk, 37, of the 800-person hamlet of Sully, Iowa. Four years ago, Goodyk campaigned for Mitt Romney, made calls for him. But then a friend turned him on to Paul. And that was that.

“Liberty. It’s about small government,” Goodyk said as he stared at the gathering of about 500 and the banks of cameras from national and international TV networks. Romney, he said, “just wants the same control everyone else does.”

Paul, the Texas congressman, was introduced by his son Rand Paul, a U.S. senator from Kentucky.

“There’s energy. It’s overflowing. And it’s coming tomorrow,” Rand Paul told the crowd. “We’re going to win in Iowa tomorrow.”

Ron Paul was delighted with the turnout. “This is almost like a real rally,” he exclaimed. “This is great!”

He said that money was pouring into the campaign and that enthusiasm “is growing by leaps and bounds. The crowds are getting bigger.”

Mandie Devries, 32, watched from the back of the room, her 11-month-old daughter, Lucy, cradled against her chest in a baby carrier while her four other young daughters, clad in Paul T-shirts, played contentedly on the floor.

She called the crowd “awesome” and said she would be speaking on Paul’s behalf at a caucus in Ankeny on Tuesday.

“I’m trying to get all my friends and family there,” Devries said. “That’s really all we can do — fight for the right thing.”

She looked down at her baby girl. “What do you say, Lucy?” she said. The infant clapped her hands and chirped. It was something that sounded a lot like “Ron Paul, Ron Paul.”


Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times


2012: Year of the Police State and Lies?


From Urban Survival

I’m deeply saddened for the future of this Great Nation when the first bit of news I have to report is that not only did president Obama sign into law the National Defense Authorization Act  – which provides for secret abductions and rendition of American Citizens by the military should they be deemed  (at the military’s whim near as I can tell) to be “enemy combatants but worse – by far – as we reported to Peoplenomics subscribers on Saturday is another attack on Liberty, reposted here because it’s a vital public concern:

 OMG: Far Beyond the NDAA

Say, watch for this one to pick up and go viral one of these days: HR 3166” The Enemy Expatriation Act” which you should read here (introduced by Rep Charles Dent, democorp, Pennsylvania):

10/12/2011–Introduced. Enemy Expatriation Act – Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which U.S. nationals would lose their nationality. Defines “hostilities” as any conflict subject to the laws of war.

Say what? Not sure how IRS would react to this one, since last time I checked, people who don’t have US Nationality would, logically, owe no taxes to the US. Am I right?

 But, on a little different level, doesn’t this raise the specter of US citizens who engage in peaceful opposition to government policies, once declared by officialdom to exist at the “laws of war” level (declared, not voted on, since Congress abrogated decades back…thinking Gulf of Tonkin timeframe) could be stripped of their Constitutional rights without due process?

  I don’t know whether it’s something in the drinking water in Washington DC or the “security/defense” industry is just showing us how much of congress they own…Hmmm…

  Oh….here’s what you’re gonna hear from TPTB: “Trust us…” You betcha.   Like the Germans did 80 years ago?

This greatly disturbs me:  Should this second rights theft go through, it would seem that a military decision that you’re an “enemy combatant” could strip you of your Citizenship which would forever allow you to be held in detention.

 Which gets us to the larger question of “How can we have “enemy combatants” without a formal declaration of war?”  It hurts my head and grieves my soul to write these words, but there you have it.  Might as well go ahead with the name-change, too:  The Corpgov States formerly known as America.

 All it will take is some military officer deciding that Occupy is an enemy of America and showing up for one of their demonstrations could someday be classified as an “enemy act” and if (we hope soon to be former) representative Charles Dent has his way, you could be stripped of your USA Citizenship.

 Not just Occupy:  Notice the FBI reportedly wants “food activists” reclassified as “terrorists” according to this site which is notoriously slow loading but which can be picked up other places like this Google search here.

 So goes Life in the Checkbook Republic.  Speaking of which…

 The Magic of Big Money

In last week’s column I advised you to be on the lookout for the arrival of “Big Money” to derail Ron Paul’s move to the front of the pack in Iowa.  Just listening to radio news reports on Sunday I was shocked at the corporate media/ MSM attention paid to the Newter:  Most newscasts of a certain canine related network frequently seemed to lead with fourth-place Gingrich headlines.  Ah, the power of friends, huh?

 Even Time Magazine puts it as “Romney looks to fend off Santorum, Paul.

 The last Des Moines Register polls has Ron Paul just 2 percentage points behind Romney for the lead.  If Romney finishes more than 5% out of first, I’ll be suspecting “Foul!”  Not that it matters…voting has become an illusion to all but the millionaire class.

 Meantime, there has been a growing public backlash to reports that the GOP will be doing their vote counting at a secret location.  Gee, look surprised:  GOP, secret location, yessir, that’s their version of transparency and democracy in action these days.

 If I had enough money in the checkbook, I’d buy me a congressional seat and long as we’re selling out America to scallywags and scoundrels.  As least I’d be better qualified than most.

 Resolutions that Matter

A couple worth noting:  “10 New Years Resolutions for Non-violent Activism” over at Activist Post and along the same lines, my friend Gaye and I have a list of “Nine Resolutions that matter in 2012” over at the Strategic-Living site.

 My favorite of the bunch is “Buy a Vote.”

 If I sound a little dismal at times, it’s OK, I’m not the only one to read a little history and connect the dots.  Go check out the Dominic Sandbrook column over at the UK’s Mail Online here.  “The spectre of 1932:  How a loss of faith in politicians and democracy could make 2012 the most frightening year in living memory.”  NSS

Kafka’s Life

40,000 new laws have taken effect in the past couple of days.

Ignorance of the law really is an excuse.  Even big ones, like letting MF Global go through bankruptcy as a securities outfit instead as a commodities outfit  The first saved the bankersthe second could have saved the farmers.


#J3 Urgent Call To Action Against the NDAA



Date(s) – 3 Jan 2012 
12:00 PM – 5:00 PM

New York Public Library
New York Public Library – 5th Ave and 42nd

Call To Action Against the NDAA

A call has been put out to let our government know thepeople will not tolerate any more attacks on our rights!

January 3rd will be a spontaneous show of people power in reaction to Obama’s treasonous signing of the National Defense Authorization Act. Not only does this act violate our first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but this Act was signed quietly this past New Years Eve violating what little trust remained between the people and their established government. We see what’s happening here, and we will not stand for it.

Tentative Schedule for Day of Action

7:30 am and all day – OWS solidarity with the New York State Nurses Association Strike at St. Lukes and Roosevelt Hospital at 1111 Amsterdam Ave and 112th Street and 1000 10th Ave and 59th Street, respectively
12 pm – Press Conference at NYPL at Bryant Park
2 pm – Office Demonstration at Senator Gillibrand’s office at 780 3rd Ave.
3 pm – Office Demonstration at Senator Schumer’s office at 757 3rd Ave.
4 pm – Rally up at Rockefeller Plaza
5 pm – Flash check about NDAA in Grand Central for commuters
After that we plan to march up 5th ave to do a demo tour of 1 percent homes

**above subject to change at on short notice, stay tuned!

Please Help Spread the Word and Please Help Fight Back.

Participate in the Media Bomb As Well:

http://www.facebook.com/ events/103244609796837/

#J3 #occupyjustice #opblackout

For help adding these events to your Google Calendar for easy viewing, saving, and printing, check out the step-by-step guide here.


Weekly Geopolitical News and Analysis 2012 01 02: The Year of the Fire Dragon has started, expect big changes

From Benjamin Fulford’s Blog

The old world order criminals in Washington D.C. and the G5 terrorist states think they are winning the ongoing financial war for the future of this planet but they are very mistaken. The year 2012 is, in the Chinese Zodiac, the Year of the Dragon and not just any dragon but the year of the fire dragon.

The Chinese New Year starts on January 23 this year, and you can be sure planned big changes have been prepared for this auspicious time. In a sign of change in Japan, for example, there have been major unreported gun battles at night in Tokyo resulting in a victory by dragon family groups over North Korean agents working under old order stooge Yasuhiro Nakasone.

In one battle 31 North Koreans and 11 dragon warriors died, according to a CIA source. Former Finance Minister Heizo Takenaka was also detained for questioning last week where he sang like a canary ratting out Yasuhiro Nakasone, Junichiro Koizumi and others, according to Japanese security police sources.

Continue at : Weekly Geopolitical News and Analys


End of the pro-democracy pretense

From Salon.com


Media coverage of the Arab Spring somehow depicted the U.S. as sympathetic to and supportive of the democratic protesters notwithstanding the nation’s decades-long financial and military support for most of the targeted despots. That’s because a central staple of American domestic propaganda about its foreign policy is that the nation is “pro-democracy” — that’s the banner under which Americans wars are typically prettified — even though “democracy” in this regard really means “a government which serves American interests regardless of how their power is acquired,” while “despot” means “a government which defies American orders even if they’re democratically elected.”

It’s always preferable when pretenses of this sort are dropped — the ugly truth is better than pretty lies — and the events in the Arab world have forced the explicit relinquishment of this pro-democracy conceit. That’s because one of the prime aims of America’s support for Arab dictators has been to ensure that the actual views and beliefs of those nations’ populations remain suppressed, because those views are often so antithetical to the perceived national interests of the U.S. government. The last thing the U.S. government has wanted (or wants now) is actual democracy in the Arab world, in large part because democracy will enable the populations’ beliefs — driven by high levels of anti-American sentiment and opposition to Israeli actions – to be empowered rather than ignored.

So acute is this contradiction — between professed support for Arab democracy and the fear of what it will produce — that America’s Foreign Policy Community is now dropping the pro-freedom charade and talking openly (albeit euphemistically) about the need to oppose Arab democracy. Here is Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a very typical member of the National Security priesthood, writing on Friday inThe New York Times about Egyptian elections (via As’ad AbuKhali):

Many in Israel and America, and even some in Egypt, fear that the elections will produce an Islamist-led government that will tear up the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, turn hostile to the United States, openly support Hamas and transform Egypt into a theocracy that oppresses women, Christians and secular Muslims. They see little prospect for more liberal voices to prevail, and view military dictatorship as a preferable outcome.

American interests, however, call for a different outcome, one that finds a balance — however uneasy — between the military authorities and Egypt’s new politicians. We do not want any one side to vanquish or silence the other. And with lopsided early election results, it is especially important that the outcome not drive away Egypt’s educated liberal elite, whose economic connections and know-how will be vital for attracting investment and creating jobs.

Our instinct is to search for the clarity we saw in last winter’s televised celebrations. However, what Egyptians, and Americans, need is something murkier — not a victory, but an accommodation.

I love this passage both for its candor and for what it lamely attempts to obfuscate. Why should “American interests” determine the type of government Egypt has? That it should is simply embedded as an implicit, unstated assumption in Alterman’s advocacy. That’s because the right of the U.S. to dictate how other nations are governed is one of the central, unchallenged precepts of the American Foreign Policy Community’s dogma and it thus needs no defense or even explicit acknowledgment. It simply is. It’s an inherent imperial right.

But Alterman here is expressly admitting the reality that most media accounts ignore: that the U.S. does not, in fact, want democracy in Egypt. It fears it. That’s because public opinion polls show overwhelming opposition among the Egyptian populace to the policies which the U.S. (for better or worse) wants to foist on that country: animus toward Iran, preservation of the peace agreement with Israel, ongoing indifference to the plight of the Palestinians, and subservience to U.S. goals. Indeed, according to the 2011 Pew finding, “nearly eight-in-ten Egyptians have an unfavorable opinion of the U.S.” That tracks opinion in the Arab world generally, where the two nations perceived as the biggest threat are — by far — the U.S. and Israel (not Iran), and the three most admired foreign leaders are Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, followed by Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinijad.

But even more significant is Egyptian public opinion specifically on the issue of greatest concern for American (and Israeli) foreign policy officials: a nuclear Iran. A 2010 Brookings/University of Maryland/Zogby poll found vast, overwhelming Egyptian supportfor the view that Iran has the right to have a nuclear weapon, and for the view that a nuclear Iran would be a net positive for the region. That, too, tracks general public opinion in the Arab world, which supports Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons. In light of these facts, does anyone believe that the U.S. government and its pool of experts that exist to justify what it does — the Foreign Policy Community — have even a slight interest in actual democracy in Egypt specifically or the Arab world generally?

Of course not. As Noam Chomsky put it recently: “The U.S. and its Western allies are sure to do whatever they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world” because “if public opinion were to influence policy, the U.S. not only would not control the region, but would be expelled from it.” That’s why Alterman is urging what he delicately calls “a balance — however uneasy — between the military authorities and Egypt’s new politicians” – meaning: ensuring the ability of the Egyptian military to prevent the country’s democratically elected leaders (“Egypt’s new politicians”) from implementing the will of the citizenry. The fear of (and desire to stop) Arab democracy has been openly expressed for some time by many American neocons and even Benjamin Netanyahu; that it is now spilling over into America’s mainstream Foreign Policy experts is telling indeed.

In calling for a force to constrain democratic rule, Alterman doesn’t mean here the kind of Constitutional protections that exist in the U.S. to safeguard (in theory) minorities from the tyranny of majority rule, at least not primarily. Those are legitimate issues balancing democracy and minority rights — for the Egyptians to resolve. What Alterman advocates is a bulwark against the ability of the Egyptian people to free themselves of military rule, choose their own government, and decide their own fate. He wants democracy to exist in Egypt to extend only to the point where Egyptians “choose” to do what the U.S. wants them to do and to end at the point where they want to do something different (in that regard, his vision for “freedom” in Egypt is not unlike what many “freedoms” have come to mean in the U.S.: you can exercise them provided they do not contradict the interests of the U.S. Government). Thus, Alterman announces, in Egypt we must avoid the “clarity” of democracy in favor of something “murkier.”

Even if you’re indifferent to the moral questions involved in actively trying to impede democracy in Egypt — suppose you’re a hard-core adherent of Henry Kissinger and realpolitik and want to the U.S. to act only to advance its interests without regard to moral and ethical questions – the foolishness of this approach is manifest. It’s what the U.S. has been doing, so disastrously, in that part of the world for decades: feigning support for democracy while working against it.

The Obama administration paid pretty lip service to the Egyptian revolution but then worked to install Mubarak’s chief torturer Omar Suleiman in power, who, for obvious reasons, is viewed with great disfavor among Egyptians. That propaganda ruse fooled one of its chief targets (the American electorate) but failed miserably among Egyptians, who knew exactly what the U.S. was up to. As a result, Egyptians now view the U.S. even more unfavorably than they did during the Bush years,while “more Egyptians — 64 percent — said they had low or no confidence in President Obama in 2011 than they did last year, up five percentage points.”

Nothing will ensure ongoing anti-American sentiment in Egypt (and the Muslim world generally) than following the approach prescribed by Alterman of working actively to impede democracy. Egyptians yearn for democracy and will scorn those who impede it. That they continue so bravely to protest in the streets even with Mubarak gone is dispositive proof of that fact, but for those who want empirical data: in the 2011 Pew poll, 71% of Egyptians say “democracy is preferable to any other kind of government,” while only 17″% say that “in some circumstances, a nondemocratic government can be preferable.” In other words, the vast majority of Egyptians do not want Alterman’s “murkier” framework where military rule “balances” democracy; they want democracy. In this extremely informative analysis of the current situation in Egypt, Issandr El Amrani notes: “The military’s claim to be guardian of the revolution has been weakening since soon after Mubarak was toppled.” While the U.S. Government can trick Americans into believing that the U.S. is on the side of Freedom and Democracy even as it works against it, it cannot fool the citizens in those nations it seeks to suppress.

Alterman claims that he wants to impede Egyptian democracy in the name of “what Egyptians, and Americans, need” — right: because Jon Alterman and his fellow denizens in America’s National Security priesthood want only what’s best for The Egyptian People, and that means preventing them from living autonomously. But one need not even bother with that pretense to see the huge deficiency in this approach. Having the U.S. impede democracy in Egypt no more fulfills what “Americans need” than it does what “Egyptians need.” It’s a self-perpetuating, self-inflicted dilemma: the more the U.S. impedes democracy in other nations, the more it is disliked in those nations, which in turn means it needs even more to impede democracy in those nations, etc. ad infinitum. This is exactly the behavior (along with blind support for the actions of the Israeli government) that has led to such vast anti-American sentiment (which in turn is what fuels Terrorism and support for it).

It’s just extraordinary how our nation’s Foreign Policy Experts never learn the lesson. Either that, or they view anti-American sentiment in that part of the world as an agenda-enabling positive. It’s hard to know which is worse.

* * * * *

Speaking of propaganda and the meaning of “democracy”: The Washington Post today has the latest installment of increasingly pure fear-mongering media accounts about Iran (this from the NYT last week — “Clock Ticking for West to Act on Iranian Nuclear Program” — was a remarkable escalation). Today’s Post article mindlessly echoes neocon fantasies about a growing Persian menace in Latin America, frighteningly close to America’s borders!  Without an ounce of skepticism or balance, it quotes a GOP Congresswoman complaining that Iran has found “willing partners in the region’s anti-American despots,” and then ominously warns:

Former U.S. intelligence officials say the presence of Quds Force officers and other military personnel in diplomatic missions enhances Iran’s ability to carry out covert activities, sometimes in conjunction with members of the Iran-backed Hezbollah militant group that operates extensive networks in Latin America and maintains ties with drug cartels. U.S. officials say the Quds Force was behind the alleged plot to hire Mexican drug gangs to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in Washington.

“For Iran to be so active in Venezuela and for the Quds Force to be there can only suggest Iran is serious about asymmetrical force projection into our neck of the woods. If Israel bombs Iran, we may well see retaliatory strikes aimed at U.S. interests coming from these Quds Force guys in South America,” said Art Keller, a former case officer with the CIA’s counterproliferation division.

Leaving aside the fact that this Quds-Force/Mexican-drug-cartel/Saudi-Ambassador assassination plot was so facially absurd as to be laughable, and further leaving aside that these neocon fantasies of Hezbollah running wild in Latin America have been clearly debunked, and further leaving aside that the Post article does little more than identify commercial transactions between Iran and these nations, consider who are the region’s “anti-American despots” whom Iran is threateningly befriending.

The Post explains that Iran has now “opened six new missions there — in Colombia, Nicaragua, Chile, Ecuador, Uruguay and Bolivia — and has expanded embassies in Cuba, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela”; Iran’s President, the article informs us, is now embarking on a trip to Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba and Nicaragua. Other than Cuba, all of those nations are governed by democratically elected leaders. But many of them periodically defy American dictates and act against American interests; they are thus magically transformed into “despots.” By contrast, try to find any high-level American official using such a term to describe, say, America’s close friends ruling Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. That is what is meant by “democracy” and “freedom” and “despots” when used in establishment American foreign policy discussions.

Glenn Greenwald

Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald.More Glenn Greenwald

About Glenn :

Glenn Greenwald (email: GGreenwald@salon.com) is a former Constitutional and civil rights litigator and is the author of two New York Times Bestselling books on the Bush administration’s executive power and foreign policy abuses. His just-released book,With Liberty and Justice for Some, is an indictment of America’s two-tiered system of justice, which vests political and financial elites with immunity even for egregious crimes while subjecting ordinary Americans to the world’s largest and most merciless penal state. Greenwald was named by The Atlantic as one of the 25 most influential political commentators in the nation. He is the recipient of the first annual I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism, and is the winner of the 2010 Online Journalism Association Award for his investigative work on the arrest and oppressive detention of Bradley Manning.

(Photo credit: Don Usner)


Zionists Funded Both Hitler & Churchill

Posted by poorrichard at Poor Richard’s Blog

Most of our political leaders are sponsored by the
Illuminati Jewish central banking syndicate.
Their pundits and professors put lipstick on these pigs.

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

When Winston Churchill 

was visiting Germany, in 1932,  Putzi Hanfstaengl tried to arrange a meeting with Hitler. Hitler apparently declined. It wouldn’t do for two Zionist political actors –future “antagonists” — to be seen rehearsing together before the show began.    

Both Hitler and Churchill were pawns of the Zionist bankers. According to historian Thomas J. O’Keefe,   Churchill said in his Memoirs that ex-German Chancellor (1930-1932) Heinrich Brüning  revealed  the identities of Hitler’s backers in a 1937 letter: 

 ‘I didn’t, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.” 

Churchill was funded by a different branch of the same Illuminati Jewish banking syndicate. O’Keefe cites a speech by David Irving on the “Focus Group” set up by Bernard Waley Cohen, a prominent Zionist banker. 

“The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London’s wealthiest businessmen — principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose Chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen, left. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in Waley Cohen’s memoirs.

 … The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get today’s figures. By another three or four to multiply that into US dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds — about $2 million in US terms — was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of Churchill in July 1936. The purpose was — the tune that Churchill had to play was — fight Germany. Start warning the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.

    For two years, The Focus continued to militate, in fact, right through until 1939. And I managed to find the secret files of The Focus, I know the names of all the members. I know all their secrets. I know how much money they were getting, not just from The Focus, but from other governments. I use the word “other governments” advisedly because one of my sources of information for my Churchill biography is, in fact, the Chaim Weizmann Papers in the State of Israel.

Irving then revealed further details of Churchill’s financing by the Czechs, as well as the facts of Churchill’s financial rescue by a wealthy banker of Austro-Jewish origins, Sir Henry Strakosch, left, who, in Irving’s words, emerged “out of the woodwork of the City of London, that great pure international financial institution.” When Churchill was bankrupted overnight in the American stock market crash of 1937-1938, it was Strakosch who was instrumental in setting up the central banks of South Africa and India, who bought up all Churchill’s debts. When Strakosch died in 1943, the details of his will, published in the London Times, included a bequest of £20,000 to the then Prime Minister, eliminating the entire debt.

Irving dealt with Churchill’s performance as a wartime leader, first as Britain’s First Lord of the Admiralty and then as Prime Minister. The British historian adverted to Churchill’s “great military defeat in Norway, which he himself engineered and pioneered,” and mentioned the suspicion of Captain Ralph Edwards, who was on Churchill’s staff at the time, that Churchill had deliberately caused the fiasco to bring down Neville Chamberlain and replace him as prime minister, which subsequently happened.”

The Second World War was orchestrated to fulfill the long term Zionist goal of Illuminati one world government. Irving spoke of Dunkirk:

“In May 1940, Dunkirk, the biggest Churchill defeat of the lot….Letters between Churchill and the French Prime Minister, Paul Reynaud, revealed the ugly truth that Churchill, himself, gave the secret order to Lord Gort, the British General in command of the British expeditionary force at Dunkirk, “Withdraw, fall back,” or as Churchill put it, “Advance to the coast.” That was Churchill’s wording. “And you are forbidden to tell any of your neighboring allies that you are pulling out. The French and the Belgians were left in the dark that we were pulling out.”

Of course Hitler quixotically allowed 330,000 British and Allied soldiers to escape at Dunkirk. The Zionist choreographers wanted the Nazis to succeed initially, but not to administer a knockout punch. 

The war had to be long and costly both in lucre and in life. Germany had to be completely destroyed and Judeo Communist Russia had to conquer Eastern Europe. Non-Zionist Jews had to be sacrificed so they would dedicate themselves to building the Rothschild fiefdom known as Israel.   

Thanks to Peter Myers for his invaluable news list. He sent Moore’s article to my inbox.


Fair Use Notice ):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~ Xaniel777



Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: