Thursday, February 6, 2014

Current Interests

Due to personal experience and knowledge of the experiences of others with whom I have had close relations, I have been forced to conclude that popular dictums against psychic phenomena are false, and personal inquiry revealed the falsehood of the key arguments disputing reports of it since the beginning of the popular antagonism against it in the West to the present time. I formerly had a great detail of preliminary commentary here, however, the issues require much more serious attention to detail - therefore, I have created a research project on Wikiversity:

detailed discussion between myself and a person helping me occurs here:

In the comments, there is a dispute between myself and a counter-advocate - the material in the above two items controverts claims of his not already controverted in the dispute.

I feel that there are immense implications to this for human understanding and human potential that are squandered because of culturally conditioned bigotry against it that I will attempt to analyze later.

Aside from this, as a means of improving the personal and societal condition, I have taken up a deep interest in natural health, and very much appreciate the databases from Greenmedinfo and the Life Extension Foundation.

I have also worked on countering the historical misrepresentations levied against Linus Pauling's Orthomolecular Medicine by providing the overlooked responses of the proponents to the critics:

And I agree with him totally that optimum nutrition is the desirable medicine - if the enough work is done, it may, in accordance with his desire, as of yet become the medicine of the future.

Finally, I am beginning to delve into the work of the economic reformer Henry George, but used towards alleviating Statist excesses and ultimately something to use put towards increasing anarchy, and I desire to come up with similar forms that could challenge existing monopolies and then ultimately become anarchic in the monetary system. Adjunctive to this are some of the proposals of the anarchist Bob Black. I am also appreciative of the efforts of Michel Chossudovsky and others with the Centre for Research on Globalization, though I believe that many of the writers of that organization are duped by fallacious Marxist arguments, and that their analysis, while useful, is limited in scope. My previous posts on this site provide a perspective that is important to consider in conjunction with theirs.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Proclamation, pt. III

(Update - Thursday, November 13, 2014, 11:54 PST:

I hold most of the content on this post and the preceding posts to be a delusion, but not due to any errors in citation or anything like that.

Rather, I hold this to be the case because, in a critique of society, which is aggregate violence, it seems rather imbecilic to obsess over certain "flavors" of violence. Content changes, but the underlying structures in human consciousness remain the same - and dealing with the internal and external manifestations of that - via structural critique and dissolution of the said structures - seems to be the only way forward. Structural critique can be augmented with the type of critique I provide below, but that must be secondary, or even tertiary, or else we are merely supplanting one flavor of violence with another.

This doesn't imply apathy, or not dealing with the manifested forms of violence, but it does imply getting to the root of the problem, lest we act as other manifestations of violence.

I keep the information below because it is evidence of dereliction of duty in academia, the members of which, fraudulently for their "success" or blindly because of their ignorance or indoctrination stemming from their preferred, and dishonest, sources, deliberately omit facts, which can be substantiated by high quality and primary sources, that refute their favored narratives or violate taboos. It  is very disheartening that I, a person outside of academia, would be one of the few people courageous enough to openly provide this information).

For those coming upon this information for the first time, looking at that which I took the effort to document, I implore you to take to heart the following insight from Frederich Neitzche:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.  And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

It is important that in looking at the more grotesque aspects of our situation, we do not contribute, by emulating the violence we see, to the circumstances we deplore. I was, previously, at a risk of doing this as I concentrated accumulated hostilities into toxic polemics that I would write to shock people with. That very action, though, was a coping mechanism for a deeper turmoil, that began to dissolve as I entered more and more into a state of loving, choiceless awareness. Various circumstances necessitated this, and I found from personal experience, and a study of the experiences of others, that this can resolve internal crisis periods. And externally, it can dissolve the violence, in whatever form, leading to worldwide misery. It is my view that doing this can lead us to come upon our natural state, which expresses itself more and more as incoherence is dissolved. As William James noted in The Varieties of Religious Experience:

"The mind-curers ... have demonstrated that a form of regeneration by relaxing, by letting go, psychologically indistinguishable from the Lutheran justification by faith and the Wesleyan acceptance of free grace, is within the reach of persons who have no conviction of sin and care nothing for Lutheran theology. It is but giving your little private convulsive self a rest, and finding that a greater Self is there. The results, slow or sudden, or great or small, of the combined optimism and expectancy, and the regenerative phenomena which ensue on the abandonment of effort, remain firm facts of human nature, no matter whether we adopt a theistic, pantheistic-idealistic, or a medical-materialistic view of their ultimate causal explanation."

With that said, as has been brought out by Aurobindo Ghose in his response to Ghandi, and as can be brought out with personal reflection and experience, Love does not imply apathy and acquiescence. It implies doing what we can to make the most harmonious world possible for all of us, but it also implies that, with our vision of Heaven, we unflinchingly encounter, confront, and transmute the demons of the world, internally and externally, so as to build a New Earth. And it is in acknowledgement of this fact that I write what follows, not to advocate that people engage in the destructive activity of those being scrutinized here, but nevertheless, to hold those who I critique accountable, lest their delusional actions imperil the human species.

As for my commentary below, it, and everything else I have written, are rough drafts subject to revision, until further notice. By that, I do not mean that I am abandoning the various theses I have put forward, but rather, since everything I have put forward here is controversial, I will have to thoroughly refine and in some cases expand my argument, a process that will take months and, in some cases, years. At present it is a serious contender with widely held narratives that I feel are erroneous or unjust. I would like the full power of these points to be felt, so that they make the necessary refutations or modifications to these widely held narratives.

I will start simply in developing what follows: A major point of interest to me is remedying what I feel to be implicit structural economic flaws. I am a 22 year old undergraduate who was studying economics, and will complete my bachelors in it, but found that it, as presented, was in many ways a form of apologetics for neoliberalism (there are several recent arguments against it that I have found interesting - Michael Hudson's book "Trade, Development, and Foreign Debt", which I have preliminarily looked at and will look at more in depth, Stephen Zarlenga's "The Lost Science of Money", positively reviewed by Hudson, and Mason Gaffney's essay (which I have some familiarity with, but which I will more thoroughly look at later). There is also this independently verifiable fact of hidden in plain sight government ownership of major portions of multinationals, showing stores of wealth that reveal a discrepancy between alleged wealth and real wealth of government, and that government and industry are a sort of fusion. This is well documented by Walter Burien in his overview of comprehensive annual financial reports - it challenges those who defend the system we are in:

I will perhaps get a Masters degree in Finance so that I can launch a compelling, credible critique of my own, from a social justice perspective, and I think the above authors are on the right track, though they seem to ignore that major economic changes follow the patterns of top down, pre-determined agendas.Their structural critiques would, I feel, halt the ability for these agendas to manifest as they do, but it is an extreme error, in my view, for these critics to not acknowledge that this is a driving force. To see how this plays out, just look at the UK Ministry of Defence DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036 document, which "predicts" (p. 78), that "Globalization will result in critical interdependencies that will link members of a globalized society that includes a small super-rich elite and a substantial underclass of slum and subsistence dwellers, who will make up 20% of the world population in 2020." This document used to be here:, but it is archived here:

Of course, this is conservative, since the following Dec., 2011 NBC News article noted that 50% of Americans are poor:

Jacques Attali, in Millennium: Winners and Losers in the Coming World Order (1991), was more explicit, though rather than engaging in "prediction", he spoke in pure unbridled prophecy - he said (p. 12), "Ordinary people will gape with awe and resentment from their modest suburbs and homeless streets at the high rises of wealth and skyscrapers of power that will loom above their reach.", and (p. 84), "In the coming world order, there will be winners and there will be losers. The losers will outnumber the winners by an unimaginable factor. They will yearn for the chance to live decently, and they are likely to be denied that chance. They will encounter rampant prejudice and fear. They will find themselves penned in, asphyxiated by pollution, neglected through indifference. The horrors of the twentieth century will fade by comparison."

Finally, when we get to items like the 2012 fiscal year Annual Financial Report for the educational behemoth CORE, we find (p. 3) that:
"The global agenda of the 21st century is set around economy and trade, with manufacturing shifting from the west to the east, employment landscape would immensely change at both ends. In order to sustain their economic growth, developed as well as developing economies need to intensify their human capital formation. Not surprising then, nations across the world are increasingly investing in education for continued development of their human capital, quantitatively as well as qualitatively.":

So, from that alone, we know that the transfer of productive capacity was pre-planned - and the pre-planned setting up of the Chinese Communist machine is something that will be further explored in the initial post. We also learn that human beings are considered to be natural resources, just like the other natural resources that are exploited and controlled by a few extremely wealthy families whose incorporated old world assets have, along with modern extortion strategies, become the foundation upon which the world's economy is currently indebted. The present basis for such human management is cybernetics and control theories - noting such a fact might be in contradiction to sociological dogmas, but it is clearly laid out in relevant military literature, as I have shown here:

Neil Kramer is a person who seems to have independently had many of the same insights I have had about life. In "The Unfoldment", he noted quite correctly: "Once you have the distortion coordinates-the cipher that makes sense of all the surface weirdness-everything begins to slot into place. The mist of the confusion disperses. You can see. And those coordinates are horribly uncomplicated: Most of the human population on the planet lives in a consumer plantation designed to provide physical and spiritual slave labor to an elite few. Reality and truth are concealed in order to maintain and protect the powerbase. None of this has anything to do with politics or ideologies."

Obviously it is fallacious to exclusively focus on one group of people. Violence is permeated across society. So it seems important, ultimately, to go beyond fixating on a particular group of people and consider the various destructive elements in our society today as techniques by which psychopaths achieve power. So for instance, the parasitic financial system, where money is created by loans as debts, could be considered a techniques whereby those who wish to express their violence via parasitism may achieve power (by rising to the top of the Usurocracy - with usury being the antisocial use of the monetary system in order to acquire further domination over society). Clubs and Secret Societies with blood oaths could be considered to be techniques to achieve power over subordinate members, to dominate them, and to network with them to dominate those outside of the group. Religious Fraternities , could be considered techniques to dominate adherents and cause harm to society, etc. Governments (government by definition is mind control) could be considered to be techniques where we all invest with the goal of having that which we identify with overpower our opponents, financially starve them or throw them in prison or kill them. This is all quite elementary. Plato recognized this, and alluded to it - noting that we are dealing with: "The cybernetics of men, as you, Socrates, often call politics..."

Yet ideologies and movements can often serve as masks behind which the World Order, as of this writing, operates, and because of the emotions associated with such masks, prevent, by Pavlovian reflex, a proper comprehension of the death-oriented control system we live in. I have seen this behavior express itself most blatantly among the "educated", in their incredulity and aversion to items such as those that are discussed here, and they, in their actions, highlight the veracity of the observations of the sociologist Jacques Ellul, who, when commenting on the tendency for "intellectuals" to absorb ideas based on the mainstream consensus, noted, in his book "Propaganda": "Naturally, the educated man does not believe in propaganda, he shrugs and is convinced that propaganda has no effect on him. This is, in fact, one of his great weaknesses, and propagandists are well aware that in order to reach someone, one must first convince him that propaganda is ineffectual and not very clever. Because he is convinced of his own superiority, the intellectual is much more vulnerable than anybody else to this maneuver." And on p. 81, he noted: "The individual's adherence to his group is "conscious" because he is aware of it and recognizes it, but it is ultimately involuntary because he is trapped in a dialectic and in a group that leads him unfailingly to his adherence. His adherence is also 'intellectual' because he can express his conviction clearly and logically, but it is not genuine because the information, the data, the reasoning, that have led him to adherence to the group were themselves deliberately falsified in order to lead him there."

I was, for a few years deeply concerned about a movement towards World government that I document on this site, provably being steered by a global "elite" with illegitimate power. I was immediately shot sown in this, with people, who were sufferers from the problem Ellul diagnoses, arguing to me that claims of this taking place had their origins in "anti-semitic propaganda" based on the Protocols of Zion "forgery". I later found that those who have made in depth analyses of the subject have shown serious flaws in the standard forgery arguments - e.g. - Peter Myers made an in depth critique of Norman Cohn, the leading proponent of the "Protocols as fake" idea, which includes this gem - "Cohn's arithmetic is incorrect. The word-count of the parallel-passages from the Protocols, as listed by Bernstein (at, is 4,361, while the word-count of the Protocols is 26, 496. That is, the parallel passages comprise 16.45% of the Protocols; this is substantial, but still less than one sixth of the total. What Cohn especially omits to mention, is the Protocols' extensive coverage of the world finance system. ":

More textual critique is given in the initial post, showing that the Protocols are best thought as a part of the continuing literature of an older semi-clandestine movement, and also, as I substantiate in the main post, the testimony on which the arguments against it are flawed and controverted by another disposition, and that looking into Joly's text reveals an association of it with the World Revolutionary Movement of the time. But much more importantly, I was able to accumulate primary source literature showing that the essential aspects of the Protocols were reflected in the actions and words of key power elite figures - associated, in fact, with the Zionist movement. Moreover, aspects of the organization and ideology permeating the Protocols had parallels in historical Jewish power structures - see the chapter from The Controversy of Zion entitled The Rise of the Pharisees.

For a while, I continued this quest of understanding this problem of Globalism that I, initially, felt was true only by intuition, as I was beleaguered by the seemingly fully comprehensive counterarguments put forth by apologists for the present system. I looked into the standard, low quality "conspiratorial" literature on the subject, and gradually came across better, higher quality presentations, like those offered here and here. I did some more in depth research on the subject, looking into problems of Globalism that the "political far-right" and the "political far-left" critiques in different ways, though what they're critiquing has a common origin (this can be further substantiated by comparing the following review of the latest Ludwig von Mises Institute lauded biography of their hero, a key founder of "libertarian" Austrian Economics, which states that "Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises’s life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.", and items like the following statement of the Communist icon Leon Trotsky, recorded in LIFE Magazine, Dec 26, 1938, as follows: "You will have a revolution, a terrible revolution. What course it takes will depend much on what Mr. Rockefeller tells Mr. Hague to do. Mr. Rockefeller is a symbol of the American ruling class and Mr. Hague is a symbol of its political tools.") Eventually, I came upon items like the following:

A major item of importance is the recordings of the 4th World Wilderness Congress that preceded the 1992 Earth Summit. Here people like you and I are called "the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the Earth". And a banking system set up by and for the Rothschilds is shown to be the centerpiece of the new mode of organization that "sustainability" measures will create. The attendees (like Maurice Strong) have no qualms about acknowledging the dominance of that family in World Affairs. Strong states that there is "no better person" to spearhead this project than Edmund Leopold de Rothschild, and that he (Rothschild) "epitomizes in his own life that positive synthesis between environment and conservation on the one hand and economics on the other":

The following overview notes what this would metastasize into, that "The 4th WWC introduced the concept of a World Conservation Bank, leading to the formation of the The Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the World Bank.":

We can see the outlines of these proposals being promoted at the present time. In a document called "Trading Emissions: Full Global Potential" (London: The Social Market Foundation, January 2008: - written by Simon Linnett, Executive Vice Chairman of N.M. Rothschild, London (see "about the author" section of that document). In the document, he defines "greenhouse emissions" as the new form of "social market" and states: "That such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match.... That, perhaps, it might be regarded as having wider benefits than merely `saving the planet' - perhaps it might be the basis of a new world order, one that is not based on trade and/or conflict resolution. Perhaps one can see a way to achieve this goal through leadership, vision and some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty, how the world might just get there. The repercussions of addressing climate change may extend well beyond that single but critical issue.... Implicit in all the above is that nations have to be prepared to subordinate, to a certain extent, some element of their sovereignty to this world initiative." He notes that "The political costs of such loss of sovereignty are lengthy. Loss of competitiveness (massively overstated in the activities in which energy is used - especially since trade will be more difficult, if, at the margin, transport is made more costly), loss of power and loss of direct control over economic levers are potentially the most significant and give the most cause for concern. But these actions are necessary if we are to answer the accusation that "it doesn't matter what we do when China is expanding its energy usage at its current rate" - we have to bring China and India in and they are not going to enter a scheme where they do not have a "say". When countries are already foregoing the right of direct control over monetary policy through the creation of independent central banks, this [the above] could be a relatively small price to pay for such inclusion." He furthermore states that "The EU member states have recognised their need to subordinate sovereignty to the EU; in time, if this is to work, the EU itself will need to yield sovereignty to a bigger world body on carbon trading." He states "Above all, this plan requires "sponsors" - a country prepared to host it and a senior politician prepared to lead this new initiative. If such a route map could be found, then perhaps we might be at the beginning of a new world constitution and a new world order." He states that regulating this should be a "World Environment Authority" operating from a "world city with world skills and world facilities." He then notes, in a section entitled "A natural role for London", "London is a world financial centre (possibly "the" world financial centre)." and that "London would make a compelling case to house the World Environmental Agency."

Documents retrieved from the congress from which audio of Edmund de Rothschild was taken state the following (in the introductory email, I endorsed Mullins - an endorsement which I redact because he is such a problematic source, but I stand behind everything else in the email prefacing the document. The document itself gives insight into the accumulated degeneracy of the elite of the world at present - the ensuing emails discuss affidavits, etc., that would corroborate the document - George Hunt is dead, but I was in process of obtaining an affidavit from him - a process that almost happened - and there are people who question this because online knockoffs have the wrong number of Gephardt - 814-631-9959. But this,a copy of the original (see p. 5), has the right number, 314-631-9959, and is consistent with the other items presented, a part of the continuing literature of this partially-open-conspiracy: Excerpts are as follows: "The time is pressing. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968, Limits to Growth was written in 1971, Global 2000 was written in 1979, but insufficient progress has been made in population reduction. Given global instabilities, including those of the former Soviet bloc, the need for firm control of world technology, weaponry, and resources, is absolutely mandatory. The immediate reduction of world population, according to the mid-1970's recommendation of the Draper Fund, must be immediately affected. The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary. ... Compulsory cooperation is not debatable with 166 nations, most of whose leaders are irresolute, conditioned by localist "cultures" and lacking the appropriate notions of the New World Order. Debate only means delay and forfeiture of our goals and purpose. The UN action against Iraq proves conclusively that resolute action on our part can sway other leaders to go along with the necessary program. The Iraq action proves that the aura of power can be projected and sustained and that the wave of history is sweeping forward. ... We are the living sponsors of the great Cecil Rhodes will of 1877 ... We stand with Lord Milner's credo. We too are "British Race Patriots" and our patriotism is "the speech, the tradition, the principles, the aspirations of the British Race". Do you fear to take this stand, at the very last moment when this purpose can be realized? do you not see that failure now, is to be pulled down by the billions of Lilliputians of lesser race who care little or nothing for the Anglo-Saxon system? ...The Security Council of the UN, led by the Anglo-American Major Nation Powers, will decree that, henceforth, all nations have quotas for REDUCTION on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embargo of credit, food, medicine or military force, when required. ... outmoded notions of sovereignty will be discarded and the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region in the world, to be enforced by the Major Nations of the Security Council. The Security Council of the U.N. will explain that not all races are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on sufferance that they cooperate with the Security Council. ... All could be lost if opposition by minor races is tolerated and the vacillations of those we work with, our closest comrades, is cause for our hesitations. Open declaration of intent followed by decisive force is the final solution."

Incidentally, Baron Phillipe de Rothschild admitted that his was “the richest and most powerful family in the world”:

As for the references to Cecil Rhodes, it is well known that the Rothschild family was a sponsor of his ambitions. Penetrating insight into those ambitions comes from the following article in the New York Times, in 1902, which noted that following his 1877 will, Rhodes, in 1890, set forth the goal that his secret society should work towards "gradually absorbing the wealth of the world":

The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes verifies that article.:
It states (p. 73): "What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity. We could hold federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London. The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is a secret one (society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object. There is Hirsch with twenty millions, very soon to cross the unknown border, and struggling in the dark to know what to do with his money; and so one might go on ad infinitum."
It also states (p. 74): "It would have been better for Europe if Napoleon had carried out his idea of Universal Monarchy; he might have succeeded if he had hit on the idea of granting self government to the component parts. Still, I will own tradition, race, and diverse languages acted against his dream; all these do not exist as to the present English speaking world, and apart from this union is the sacred duty of taking the responsibility of the still uncivilized parts of the world. The trial of these countries who have been found wanting---such as Portugal, Persia, even Spain---and the judgment that they must depart, and of course, the whole of the South American republics. "
He continues: "What a scope and what a horizon of work for the next two centuries, the best energies of the best people in the world; perfectly feasible, but needing an organization, for it is impossible for one human atom to contemplate anything, Much less such an idea requiring the devotion of the best souls of the next 200 years. There are three essentials--- (1) The plan duly weighed and agreed to (2) The first organization (3) The seizure of the wealth necessary."

In the text “The First Global Revolution”, leading “intellectual elites” in the Club of Rome admitted that they manufactured the threat of anthropogenic global warming as a “unifying external threat” that would place the blame on humanity (and this would obviously make people sympathetic to the Globalist rhetoric of “global problems requiring global solutions”), and that appointed bureaucracies must replace any vestige of democracy as a governing force. The relevant chapter is called “The Vacuum”. Excerpts are as follows:

"It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary to organize and act together; in the vacuum such motivations seem to have ceased to exist‚ or have yet to be found.

The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. States have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by designating external enemies. The scapegoat practice is as old as mankind itself. When things become too difficult at home, divert attention by adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to designate as scapegoat religious or ethnic minorities whose differences are disturbing.

[...]The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead [so obviously the "intellectual elite" should take over decision making - as they have been doing for a very long time]. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.

[...]The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely, mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." (Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome (New York : Pantheon Books, c1991), pp. 107-108, 109-110, 115)

Interestingly, in the 1970s, this think tank was warning of the "threat" of “global cooling” which would herald in a “new ice age”:

For more on this, see the following:

Many of these people have used these arguments as an excuse to increase Governmental power. One such example is Arnold Toynbee, director of studies for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, who, addressing these issues, said in that “In all developed countries a new way of life—a severely regimented way—will have to be imposed by a ruthless authoritarian government” (cited by Arthur Miller in an article in the Washington and Lee Law Review, Volume 41, Issue 4, p. 1262):

Toynbee, prior to that, as recorded in the RIIA’s own journal, said, "In the world as it is to-day, this institution can hardly be a Universal Church. It is more likely to be something like a League of Nations. I will not prophesy. I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with out lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national state of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be - perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly ostracized and discredited. The dragon of local sovereignty can still use its teeth and claws when it is brought to bay. Nevertheless, I believe that the monster is doomed to perish by our sword. The fifty or sixty local states of the world will no doubt survive as administrative conveniences. But sooner or later sovereignty will depart from them. Sovereignty will cease, in fact if not in name, to be a local affair." ("The Trend of International Affairs Since the War", International affairs: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Volume 10, p. 809):

Maurice Strong presided over the UNCED 4th World Wilderness Congress and was a co-signer of the Earth charter. Mikhail Gorbachev was also a co-signer of the Earth charter. In 1987, he said: “We are moving toward a New World, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.” (cited in Conquest, Robert and Paul Hollander. Political Violence: Belief, Behavior, and Legitimation. Palgrave Macmillan; First Edition (October 28, 2008). p. 118)

The Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky was allowed to examine secret Soviet archives, which show that the modern EU was implemented as a result of a conspiracy between the Politburo led by Gorbachev and the elite of the Trilateral Commission - David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Yasuhiro Nakasone, and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing:

He gave excerpts from the documents in his monograph "EUSSR: The Soviet Roots of European Integration":

So that covers some of my explorations into the modern globalist milieu. But gradually I came upon other items suggesting the crucial role of Zionism in the behind the scenes shaping of world affairs.  A major source of my awakening to this issue was the speech of Benjamin Freedman concerning Zionism and the world wars - and my later corroboration, discovering his speech was mot merely the rambling of an extremist, but was in fact corroborated by admissions from key figures in the Zionist movement, showing the steering of the world wars by the Zionists:

I later discovered verification of other aspects of Freedman's argument, that the Khazarian thesis, arguing that a non-Semitic Turko-slavic group is the origin of much of European Jewry, has recently been verified by genetic research by Dr. Eran Elhaik  (commentary on it occurs in the article Highlight: Out of Khazaria—Evidence for “Jewish Genome” Lacking, and a news article on it began with the headline Gene study settles debate over origin of European Jews). And in the following Jewish Daily Forward article, we find Elhaik arguing that the arguments of his opponent, Harry Ostrer, are spurious and fraudulent, and that Ostrer precluded those who did not wish to further Jewish political ambitions from analyzing his data - thus we can see that Ostrer was engaging in Zionist apologetics. Lest the "racist" card is used against me as I continue this critique that is more devastating than most, but also rigorously substantiated, I would like to state that I have Jewish ancestry, and some of my all time favorite people, David Bohm, Brian Josephson, Lester Levenson, Seth Farber, and Phillip Glass, had a Jewish background - I hold that to criticize people based on birth is the height of bigotry and ignorance - and a major point I stress, throughout this piece, is that narcotizing ourselves with ideologies is an immense breeder of destruction, and prevents the emergence of an undivided humanity. Moreover, I feel that buttressing ourselves with identity structures like this is delusional action - some of the aforementioned individuals have transcended this action. I do not "follow" Jiddu Krishnamurti, but I consider him very relevant for his insights in philosophical psychology and the investigation into the nature of consciousness, and he has brought this out rather lucidly what I feel is the solution to this problem. (and I don't think it would be possible to be a Krishnamurti disciple. Others might have given him the role of a "guru", but he wholeheartedly rejected that, and merely went into dialogues into others, diving into the the nature of self and immanent experience.)

What we do find from this, however, is both that the Jewish racial claim to Palestine is illegitimate, and that we are dealing with a hyperbolic manifestation of this ideological problem that leads to what, for want of a better phrase, is a corrosive culturally conditioned mental race - similar to the occult concept of an egregore. Like all forms of destructive indoctrination, there is here the possibility for a dissolution of conditioning, and it is my hope, for reasons that will be further substantiated, that people of a Jewish background learn to shake off their cultural conditioning, which is comparable to the cultural conditioning of a member of the Ku Klux Klan, though more pernicious. It is also my hope that they work to dismantle the destructive political edifice that is their legacy. And I bring attention to this, while otherwise noting the more general destructive actions of humanity, because if we don't give attention to this immediate problem, then our species is imperiled.

Cementing this interpretation for me was the historical argument I later discovered that was put forth by Douglas Reed in The Controversy of Zion,a book that is not anti-Semitic, but anti-clerical, and seeks to document the explosive impact of a racist, megalomaniacal ideology upon world politics. This ideology we can clearly see in the Old Testament, and Reed provides a mindblowing analysis of it. He cogently states, in a chapter of the book entitled The End of Israel, "Judah (to which the very small tribe of Benjamin attached itself) was a petty chiefdom in the south.Judah, from which today's Zionism comes down, was a tribe of ill repute. Judah sold his brother Joseph, the most beloved son of Jacob-called-Israel, to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver (as Judas, the only Judean among the disciples, much later betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver), and then founded the tribe in incest, (Genesis 37-38). The priestly scribes who wrote this Scriptural account centuries afterwards had made themselves the masters of Judah and as they altered the oral tradition, whenever it suited them, the question prompts itself: why were they at pains to preserve, or possibly even to insert, this attribution of incestuous beginnings and a treacherous nature to the very people who, they said, were the chosen of God? The thing is mysterious, like much else in the Levitical Scriptures, and only the inner sect could supply an answer.  

Anyway, those Scriptures and today's authorities agree about the separateness of “Israel ” and “ Judah .” In the Old Testament Israel is often called “the house of Joseph,” in pointed distinction from “the house of Judah.” The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, ‘‘Joseph and Judah typify two distinct lines of descent” and adds (as already cited) that Judah was “in all likelihood a non-Israelitish tribe.” The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Judaism developed long after the Israelites had merged themselves with mankind, and that the true relationship of the two peoples is best expressed in the phrase, “The Israelites were not Jews.” Historically, Judah was to survive for a little while and to bring forth Judaism, which begat Zionism.


Dr Kastein says:  “The two states had no more in common, for good or evil, than any other two countries with a common frontier. From time to time they waged war against each other or made treaties, but they were entirely separate. The Israelites ceased to believe that they had a destiny apart from their neighbours and King Jeroboam made separation from Judah as complete in the religious as in the political sense.” Then, of the Judahites, Dr. Kastein adds, “they decided that they were destined to develop as a race apart … they demanded an order of existence fundamentally different from that of the people about them. These were differences which allowed of no process of assimilation to others. They demanded separation, absolute differentiation."

Thus the cause of the breach and separation is made clear. Israel believed that its destiny lay with involvement in mankind, and rejected Judah on the very grounds which recurrently, in the ensuing three thousand years, caused other peoples to turn in alarm, resentment and repudiation from Judaism. Judah “demanded separation, absolute differentiation.” (However, Dr. Kastein, though he says “Judah,” means “the Levites.” How could even the tribespeople of Judah, at that stage, have demanded “separation, absolute differentiation,” when Solomon had had a thousand wives?)  

It was the Levites, with their racial creed, that Israel rejected. The next two hundred years, during which Israel and Judah existed separately, and often in enmity, but side by side, are filled with the voices of the Hebrew “prophets,” arraigning the Levites and the creed which they were constructing. These voices still call to mankind out of the tribal darkness which beclouds much of the Old Testament, for they scarified the creed which was in the making just as Jesus scarified it seven or eight hundred years later, when it was long established, at the Temple in Jerusalem.  

These men were nearly all Israelites; most of them were Josephites. They were on the road to the one-God of all-peoples and to participation in mankind. They were not unique among men in this: soon the Buddha, in India, was to oppose his Sermon at Benares and his Five Commands of Uprightness to the creed of Brahma, the creator of caste-segregation, and to the worship of idols. They were in truth Israelite remonstrants against the Levitical teaching which was to become identified with the name of Judah. The name “Hebrew prophets” is inapt because they made no pretence to power of divination and were angered by the description (“I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son,” Amos). They were protestants in their time and gave simple warning of the calculable consequences of the racial creed; their warning remains valid today."

Later, I found that the Old Testament is replete with verses advocating Jewish world domination

Additionally, as regards historical "blood libel" charges, Deuteronomy 7:16 states: "And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee..."

Also, the book of Ezekiel states: "Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh and drink blood. Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth (39:17-18)… And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken (39:19)… and I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them (39:21)."

I then found that subsequent commentary in the Talmud and Zohar, and modern Rabbinic commentary, is in some cases even worse, as I show in the main comments to my site, though preliminarily, insight into the racism that permeates it even in modern times is provided in the following collection of primary source footage.

Regarding criticism of these extra-biblical texts - I will point out the following - concerning the most vociferous critic of Judaism, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, who has highlighted its absurdities and atrocities, and whose arguments form the basis for subsequent criticisms of extra-biblical Judaic texts. Validation of Eisenmenger comes from notable Jewish scholars (The Jewish Encyclopedia attempts to dismiss him, by that is superseded by these citations), and some of the same arguments he gives have been put forth by Jewish critics of Judaism like Israel Shahak, and thus revelation of this is not anti-Semitic. First:
"[Eisenmenger's] book was impressive both on account of its size-some 2,120 pages in two volumes-and its tremendous erudition. ... [He] was acquainted with all the literature a Jewish scholar of standing would have known. ... Contrary to accusations that have been made against him, he DOES NOT FALSIFY HIS SOURCES. He quotes them in full and translates them literally. ... The question is how did Eisenmenger arrive at so darkly a negative picture of Judaism while quoting its sources unadulteratedly?" [emphasis added] (Jacob Katz - "From Prejudice to Destruction", 1980, pp. 14-15)

Katz attempts to obfuscate, but others would be more forthright, candidly admit that Eisenmenger's portrayal of Judaism is fitting, and revel in the fact. Ernst Bloch is admitted in several academic texts to be at the forefront of revolutionary Jewish Messianic thinking - see, for example, the following from Paul Mendes-Flohr, Political Messianism in the Weimar Republic in Studies in Contemporary Jewry: Volume VII: Jews and Messianism in the Modern Era: Metaphor and Meaning. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jonathan Frankel Institute of Contemporary Jewry - June 13, 1991. Oxford University Press. p. 176:

Yet the Jewish scholar Gershom Scholem, recalling his meeting with Bloch, said, on p. 98 of "Walter Benjamin: The Story of a Friendship", "When I entered his study, I saw on a shelf on his desk Johann Andreas Eisenmenger's two-thousand page Edenkthes Judenthum, the most scholarly anti-Semitic work in the German language...In response to my surprised look, Bloch said that certain large portions of it were the finest writings on Judaism he knew..the author had quoted and translated the most wonderful, the most profound things...I liked his assessment very much and when I acquired my own copy of the work two years later, I found it confirmed."

Aside from that, Scholem states in the text that Eisenmenger simply could not appreciate "profound" nature of the texts he translated and decried, and that one should look at them from the opposite perspective Eisenmenger gives to, as Bloch put it, "have an eminently worthwhile experience." Given that, as Scholem admits, Eisenmenger was accurate and moreover, a very good source on Judaism, (per his admission, Eisenmenger is perhaps one of the best sources aside from the original non-translated Judaic texts), the reader can look at the text and decide for himself what he thinks, and then be convinced of Scholem's depravity.

I present the astonishingly racist views of modern leading Rabbis as recorded in the Israeli press in the main post in this website, but some might dismiss them as radicals, so I will now demonstrate that these views are mainstream Judaism: 
In its article "Gentile", under the subheading "Rabbinical Modification of Laws", The Jewish Encyclopedia states:
 "With regard to the text 'This is the law when a man dieth in a tent' (Num. xix. 14), they held that only Israelites are men, quoting the prophet, 'Ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men' (Ezek. xxxiv. 31); Gentiles they classed not as men but as barbarians (B. M. 108b). [...] The barbarian Gentiles who could not be prevailed upon to observe law and order were not to be benefited by the Jewish civil laws, framed to regulate a stable and orderly society, and based on reciprocity. The passage in Moses' farewell address: 'The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran' (Deut. xxxiii. 2), indicates that the Almighty offered the Torah to the Gentile nations also, but, since they refused to accept it, He withdrew His 'shining' legal protection from them, and transferred their property rights to Israel, who observed His Law. A passage of Habakkuk is quoted as confirming this claim: 'God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. . . . He stood, and measured the earth; he beheld, and drove asunder [ = "let loose," "outlawed"] the nations' (Hab. iii. 3-6); the Talmud adds that He had observed how the Gentile nations steadfastly refused to obey the seven moral Nachian precepts, and hence had decided to outlaw them (B. K. 38a)."

In Judaism Volume 32, published in 1983 by the American Jewish Congress, they quote from the Talmud as follows: “When the Messiah comes, all will be slaves to Israel.": 


, Volume 32
Front Cover
American Jewish Congress., 1983 - Judaism

From inside the book

1 page matching "When the Messiah comes all will be slaves to Israel." in this book

Page 210

Page 210
In the Soncino edition (toned down): Eiruvin 43b, we find: “… the moment the Messiah comes all will be anxious to serve (slaves) Israel.” (, also, you should be able to find that text midway in this pdf:
In BT Shabbath 32b, we find that each Jew is promised 2800 slaves in the “messianic age:
So, we thought the Talmud was bad, let’s look at the Zohar.
Bereshith 47a of the Zohar states:
“”living soul” refers to Israel, who have holy living souls from above, and ” cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth” to the other peoples who are not “living soul”" (H. Sperling and M. Simon, Editors, “Bereshith 47a”, The Zohar, Volume 1, The Soncino Press, New York, (1984), p. 147):

The Zohar

, Volume 1
Front Cover
New York, 1984 - Religion

From inside the book

8 pages matching cattle in this book

Page 147

Page 147
Perhaps one of the most revealing expressions of the intentions and objectives of this group can be found in the following passage from an older translation of the Zohar:
“Happy will be the lot of Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen from amongst the Gentile peoples of whom the Scriptures say: “Their work is but vanity, it is an illusion at which we must laugh; they will all perish when God visits them in His wrath.” At the moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Gentile peoples of the world, Israel alone will subsist, even as it is written: “The Lord alone will appear great on that day.”" (Jean de Pavly, Editor, “Vayschlah 177b”, Sepher ha-Zohar (Le livre de la splendeur), Volume II, Emile Lafuma-Giraud, Paris, (1908), p. 298):

Sepher ha-Zohar (Le livre de la splendeur):

doctrine ésotérique des Israélites, Volume 2
Front Cover
G.-P. Maisonneuve et Larose, 1970 - Bible

From inside the book

4 pages matching subsistera in this book

Page 177

Page 177

Page 298

Page 298

Page 434

Page 434

Now, of course this is obfuscated in mainstream discourse, and Judaism is presented as a "humanitarian" and "Universalist" religion. This is understandable, since adherents of it might have difficulty accomplishing their objectives if it was widely known that they viewed others as subhuman, only worthy of being enslaved or killed. To illustrate this strategy of obfuscation, consider the way in which consider Sopherim 15, rule 10 - "even the best of the Gentiles should be killed" - is dealt with in The Jewish Encyclopedia. The Jewish Encyclopedia notes this verse, but attempts to dismiss the Rabbi who said this as fringe. It says, in it's entry under "Gentile":  "Simon ben Yoḥai is preeminently the anti-Gentile teacher. In a collection of three sayings of his, beginning with the keyword (Yer. Ḳid. 66c; Massek. Soferim xv. 10; Mek., Beshal-laḥ, 27a; Tan., Wayera, ed. Buber, 20), is found the expression, often quoted by anti-Semites, "Ṭob shebe-goyyim harog" (="The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed"). This utterance has been felt by Jews to be due to an exaggerated antipathy on the part of a fanatic whose life experiences may furnish an explanation for his animosity; hence in the various versions the reading has been altered, "The best among the Egyptians" being generally substituted. In the connection in which it stands, the import of this observation is similar to that of the two others: "The most pious woman is addicted to sorcery"; "The best of snakes ought to have its head crushed" (comp. the saying, "Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tartar")."  

So we can see an attempt to ignore the reality of extremist hate by cushioning it with hysteria over snakes and misogyny. At least we get an admission, however, that Jews censor the Talmud outside of their own circles.  Throughout the entry on "Gentile", we find irrelevant verses that are superseded by other verses.  And keep in mind, as we further this exegesis, that "Simeon" and "Simon" are interchangeable names  - the relevant entry in The Jewish Encyclopedia cites the text Rabbi Simon ben Jochai as a source and also contains his commentary on gentiles, but presented without an attempt to explain it away, and in a different context:

As can be substantiated with the article just given on him, and as will be further substantiated, this Rabbi was not a fringe character. In the entry under Lag B'omer, we find the following:  "
Thirty-third day in the period of the counting of the 'omer ("Lag" = , the numerical value of which is 33), corresponding to the 18th day of Iyyar. This day is celebrated as a semi-holiday, although the reason for this celebration has not been detinitely ascertained. The reason most commonly given is that the plague which raged among the disciples of R. Akiba during the period of the 'omer (Yeb. 62b) ceased on that day(Shulḥan 'Aruk, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 493, 2). The day is therefore known as the "Scholars' Festival," when the baḥurim indulged in various kinds of amusement and merrymaking. There is, however, no foundation in the Talmud for this tradition, unless, as was suggested, the text be changed to read "from Passover to the middle ["peras"] of 'Aẓeret" (Heilprin, "Seder ha-Dorot," vol. ii., s.v. "Akiba," § 4; Jacob Mölln, "Sefer ha-Maharil," § 54, Sabbionetta, 1556; comp. "Bet Yosef" and "Darke Mosheh" to Ṭur Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 493). But even then casuistic methods have to be employed to make the incident fit the day in question. Another reason given is that the manna first descended on this day ("Ḥatam Sofer," on Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 233). For the reasons suggested in more modern times see 'Omer.
Lag be-'Omer.
(From an old print.)The cabalists attach a peculiar importance to Lag be-'Omer. It is a tradition with them that Simeon ben Yoḥai, the alleged author of the Zohar, died on that day, and at his death revealed to his pupils many secrets which were subsequently incorporated into the Zohar. The day is therefore called "Hillula de-Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai" (Zohar, ed. Amsterdam, 1685, p. 291b). The term "Hillula" (= "wedding ") points to the harmonious union of all the worlds that was effected at the death of that great rabbi. The day is celebrated with illuminations, because, according to the narrative, at the death of R. Simeon the world was filled with light, since the revelations which he had received were then put in writing in the Zohar (see Zohar, l.c. and p. 296b). A hymn entitled "Bar Yoḥai," which consists of ten stanzas, each stanza corresponding to one of the ten sefirot, is sung in many communities on that day. School-children are given bows and arrows, for, according to tradition, the rainbow did not appear during the life of R. Simeon; hence the children playing with bows symbolize the death of the sage. Another interpretation is given of this custom, in accordance with a saying in the Zohar that a bow of many colors will appear in the sky immediately before the coming of the Messiah. The bow with which the children play on that day thus symbolizes the prayer of the Jews that the promised bow shall appear."  

So he was one of the most important Rabbis in all of Judaism! 

Consideration of Rabbinical commentary is important, since, as an introduction to one (probably sanitized) translation of the Talmud notes, "The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud.", and as James Hastings notes in his Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, "without the influence of the Kabbala, Judaism to-day might have been one-sided, lacking in warmth and imagination. Indeed, so deeply has it penetrated into the body of the faith that many ideas and prayers are now immovably rooted in the general body of orthodox doctrine and practice. This element has not only become incorporated, but it has fixed its hold on the affections of the Jews and cannot be eradicated." Many Jews engage in deceit to obfuscate their literature - see the following famous case concerning Dibre David - Talmudists like to play on misperceptions of this to ridicule people who attack their literature. Given what we have seen so far concernng this method of obfuscation, and given the above citations concerning Eisenmenger, it is obvious that we should rely on him as our guide through this literature in order to not be misled by obfuscation. Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, in "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" (2d ed. 2004), corroborate he necessity of taking an approach like this, noting that "in the usual English translations of talmudic literature some of the most sensitive passages are usually toned down or falsified," (p. 1) and that "the great majority of books on Judaism and Israel, published in English especially, falsify their subject matter," in part by omitting or obscuring such teachings (pp. 150-51). And as Eisenmenger, as translated by Stehelin, himself notes, "That the Talmud is held in greater Esteem, among the Jews, than the Bible, will appear in the following Quotations. [... citations given ... one interesting one says "We are to hold no Conversation with those who take the Bible and the Mishna into their hands without understanding the Talmud, (which is here to be understood of the Gemara.)" ...] The Jews believe and teach, that it is their duty to obey the Rabbins; and likewise to give Credit to everything they say. [...] The Jews are not permitted to contradict, or argue against their Rabbins, or Teachers. [...] There are several Punishments threaten'd in the Talmud against the Jew who shall contemn [sic] or fight against the Words or Instructions of their Rabbins. The Eruvin says, "He who transgresseth the Words of One learned in the Law, is guilty unto Death."" (cited in a facsimile of Traditions of the Jews, provided in Eisenmenger, Johann Andreas, John Peter Stehelin, and Michael A. Hoffman. The Traditions of the Jews. Coeur D'Alene, ID: Independent History & Research, 2006. pp. 201-204) - keep the words of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, previously revealed, in mind as you read this.

The above Eisenmenger source is useful for English speakers - the introduction and bibliography are particularly interesting (aside from the appeals to Christianity of the introducer, which are falsified on account of the fact that Christianity is internally contradictory, as I will demonstrate in the comments section to this post), but for those who know German, pdfs of the original are, in the age of the internet, now available:
Vol. 1)
Vol. 2)

Noting this we can see an ideologically based megalomania that is not confined to Zionism, but is a political consequence of Judaism - having effects recorded by historians throughout the ages. For example, William Douglas Morrison, in “The Jews under Roman Rule”, cited Dio Cassius to show the method by which Jews in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, in the year 116 A.D., began to murder various peoples they lived among during a rebellion. He noted that “in the Island of Cyprus alone the Jews put two hundred and forty thousand of the native population to death, and in Cyrene on the African coast more than two hundred thousand Greeks and Romans were brutally massacred. … Wherever the Jews obtained the mastery they behaved like hordes of cannibals, eating the flesh of their victims and smearing themselves with blood.”(Morrison, William Douglas. The Jews Under Roman Rule, T. Fisher Unwin: Paternoster Square, G.P. Putnam’s Sons: New York, 1890, pp. 191-193):

The Roman historian Suetonius noted that “There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves; accordingly they revolted and after killing their governor, they routed the consular ruler of Syria as well, when he came to the rescue, and took one of his eagles. Since to put down this rebellion required a considerable army with a leader of no little enterprise, yet one to whom so great power could be entrusted without risk, Vespasian was chosen for the task, both as a man of tried energy and as one in no wise to be feared because of the obscurity of his family and name. 6 Therefore there were added to the forces in Judaea two legions with eight divisions of cavalry and ten cohorts.13 He took his elder son as one of his lieutenants, and as soon as he reached his province he attracted the attention of the neighbouring provinces also; for he at once reformed the discipline of the army and fought one or two battles with such daring, that in the storming of a fortress he was wounded in the knee with a stone and received several arrows in his shield.” (Tranquillus, Gaius Suetonius. “The Life of Vespasian 4:5″, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Loeb Classical Library, (1914), pp. 289-291):*.html

In "modern" times the "debate" among clerics of this tradition is whether Gentiles should be killed or merely enslaved. The following comes from prominent Rabbis:
“Gentiles exist to serve Jews”:
“Gentile Sperm Leads to Barbaric Offspring”:,7340,L-4006385,00.html
“Israeli Rabbi Preaches `Slaughter’ of Gentile Babies”:
“Farmer: Settlers burned my sheep alive” (discusses Israeli settlers terrorizing Palestinians for sport):
“Poll: 55% back rabbis’ anti-Arab ruling”:,7340,L-3998010,00.html
“Top rabbis move to forbid renting homes to Arabs, say ‘racism originated in the Torah’”:
“Prohibition ‘Thou Shalt Not Murder’ applies only ‘to a Jew who kills a Jew,’ write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur.”:
“Jews Consider Hate a Virtue”:
See also:
“Chabad Rabbi – Jews should kill Arab men, women, and Children during war”:
“Israeli Rabbis defend book’s religious defence of killing non-Jews”:
“Israeli Rabbis call for extermination camps for Palestinians”:
“Graveside party celebrates Hebron massacre”:

The ruthlessness that has permeated this group's activities is obviously the sign of an abnormal mental condition and it would have a destructive impact throughout the centuries - an impact epitomized in the revelation of the Jewish writer Maurice Samuel, when he said, on p. 155 of his tract You Gentiles, “[w]e Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you do will meet our needs and demands. We will for ever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.” As the  Zionist and Dreyfusard Bernard Lazare (who given those allegiances, could hardly be called an "anti-Semite") noted in his book Antisemitism: Its History and Causes, "Wherever the Jews settled after ceasing to be a nation ready to defend its liberty and independence, one observes the development of antisemitism, or rather anti-Judaism; for antisemitism is an ill chosen word, which has its raison d'etre only in our day, when it is sought to broaden this strife between the Jew and the Christians by supplying it with a philosophy and a metaphysical, rather than a material reason. If this hostility, this repugnance had been shown towards the Jews at one time or in one country only, it would be easy to account for the local causes of this sentiment. But this race has been the object of hatred with all the nations amidst whom it ever settled. Inasmuch as the enemies of the Jews belonged to divers [sic] races, as they dwelled far apart from one another, were ruled by different laws and governed by opposite principles; as they had not the same customs and differed in spirit from one another, so that they could not possibly judge alike of any subject, it must needs be that the general causes of antisemitism have always resided in Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it."

This "religion" is so sick that within it is the Kol Nidre prayer - used many Jews to break oaths to gentiles. Many deny the reality of this, but using Jewish sources, I have refuted them:

This is probably one of the reasons why there are at least 256 newspaper references prior to the Nuremberg trial, beginning in 1900, concerning the claims, fabricated by Jewish organizations, of "6,000,000" Jews in various types of "peril" - also of interest is the admitted lack of evidence for the mainstream holocaust narrative that comes from the words of the leading holocaust historians!:

What has been presented opens up the possibility of holocaust revisionism, a topic further explored here. As I am not an ideologue or a propagandist, I provide sources representing the mainstream point of view that critically engage revisionist material on the initial post, though maintain my views because consideration of tabooed revisionist literature shows so many holes in the standard narrative that major aspects of it (probably not the whole thing, but certainly aspects) can only be described as Zionist fraud. People who object should, prior to reading that information, consider the following - the way to end "holocaust revisionism" would be to deliberately encourage the best revisionists to make their best case and then rip it to shreds - the fact that this does not happen, and instead censorship and ridicule is levied against revisionists, is definite indication of fraud.

I am not defending Hitler here. Proponents of him like to focus only on positive evidence, however, David Irving (partially defended in one of the above links), a supporter of Hitler, has along with Hugh Trevor-Roper admitted that Hitler's Table Talk is genuine, and that has all kinds of nasty things in it - e.g., in Table Talk sessions from 17 September 1941 to 5th July 1942, Hitler says,  "The Slavs are a mass of born slaves, who feel the need of a master. ... It's better not to teach them to read. ... The real frontier is the one that separates the Germanic world from the Slav world. ... If these people are allowed ... to multiply too quickly, it will be against our interests ... Our interests demand just the reverse ..." He also played chess with Lenin, and evidence suggests that he rose to power with the expectation that he was controlled opposition. I defend in the initial post the argument that he defied international finance with his monetary policies, and thus the governments controlled by international finance had to crush him.

Now, I am in no position to deny individual suffering which may have occurred, but we must face the fact that America and Europe are being blackmailed and bludgeoned by this to permit the destructive fury of World Zionism, closely knight and subversively operating - exemplified by the following statements from Theodore Herzl - the official founder of Zionism:

On p. 99 of that text, he stated "The first official violation of Jewish liberties invariably brings about economic crisis. Therefore no weapons can be effectually used against us, because these cut the hands that wield them.":

And he made some rather sick proposals (see "Area: From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates"):
In Vol. III, p. 871 of his Complete Diaries, in the entry for Sept. 4, 1899, Herzl puts forth his intention of making the Jewish state an "Empire":

The purpose of this "empire" is to "conquer the world" (far from exaggeration, this is the function of Zionism as described by the Zionist leader David Wolffsohn - as recorded in the New York Times (August 22, 1907):, (September 17, 1914):

Insight into the real nature of the Zionist entity, which necessitates our vigilance in neutralizing it, comes from a speech in Jerusalem in December 1919 given by Chaim Weizmann, who months later would become president of the World Zionist Organization, and would later become the first president of the state of Israel. As recorded by Judische Rundschau, January 16, 1920 (No. 4), p.4, Weizmann stated the following:

"Lloyd George once said: I know the Palestinian front much better than I know the French front, for every patch of land and every stream is familiar to me from the Bible. Palestine is, above all, a matter of the Bible for England. The English believe in the Bible more than many groups in Jewry. Thus, first came the idealistic grounds [for the decision to issue the Balfour Declaration], and only afterwards the material. We are the ones who have made clear to the English political leadership that it was in England's interest to join with us, to spread the British protectorate over Palestine. We reached the [Balfour] Declaration not by miracles, but through persistent propaganda, through unceasing demonstration of the life force of our people. We told the responsible authorities: We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not. You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world.

We demand neither a charter nor concessions, but rather a complete national edifice that meets the following preconditions: the right to acquisition of ownerless land, the facilitation of land acquisition in general, the prerogative of developing public works, complete autonomy in the spiritual and intellectual sphere, and last not least, a direct influence upon the English administration in the territory. The regulation of immigration by us is, for us, likewise an unconditional demand." 

 This admission validates what was provided above, and is corroborated with information given below. With that said, I would like to emphasize strongly the importance of not "solving" these kinds of problems with the same level of consciousness that created them, of not responding with destruction, but rather, responding with solutions that will transcend the master-slave, oppressor-oppressed dialectic.

Beyond this, the leaders of the Zionist movement have explicitly stated their desire for a World Government to be ruled by Israel in outlets like the New York Times. According to Theodore Herzl, the official (though not actual - see the initial post) founder of Zionism, this Israel would ultimately be massively expanded beyond the 2013 boundaries. A current threat to this species from Zionism was enunciated by Martin Levi van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, when he wrote: “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.:

And there are other facts showing a parallel major problem in history - the association of Jews and Bolshevism - that has been ingeniously covered up, that are discussed at length in the main post in this website, with refutations of the narratives obfuscating those facts, showing that sources seeming to controvert it rely on falsified information or can otherwise be controverted. This, to me, was the most disturbing information I discovered,  and it almost turned me to genuine anti-Semitism,  though I ultimately rejected that viewpoint as it emulated the destructiveness I was opposed to. Yet upon realizing the chasm between the content of the best of the primary sources and the standard narrative,  the reader will undoubtedly understand why Douglas Reed, in " The Controversy of Zion", stated of this cover-up - "The strength of the conspiracy is shown by its success in this matter (as in the earlier period of Messrs. Robison, Barruel, and Morse)  more than by any other thing."

Among the present Oligarchy there is so much non-Jewish influence that it would be idiotic to ignore that, though at the same time most of the major players are affiliated with Freemasonry, and therein lies the key to understanding this situation. Nesta Webster's attacks on Grand Orient Freemasonry, attempted rebuttals, and the fraudulent nature of the "rebuttals", have been noted above in the exploration of Jewish Bolshevism, but the following 2 attacks on Masonry in are important for letting us understand its sphere of influence (these are Scarlet and the Beast - The Two Faces of Freemasonry by John Daniel, and Treason in America: From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman by Anton Chaitkin (important for information on Scottish Rite Freemasonry) - the first is one of the better documented examples of populist literature along these lines and is worth pursuing, aside from disinformation it gives in covering up the fact that what we are dealing with is Judeo-Masonic rather than merely Masonic (the author purports that Jews are scapegoats for Masonic crimes), the latter is an important refutation of the former's thesis of conflict between English and Grand Orient Freemasonry, and can be profitably read if it is combined with The Jews and Masonry in the United States Before 1810 by Samuel Oppenheim (this refutes some Judeo-apologist obfuscation Chaitkin engages in as regards the origins of Scottish rite Freemasonry), Philip II by William Thomas Walsh, possibly History of The Jews in Venice and A History of the Jews in England by Cecil Roth (though this will have to be pursued), and informed populist articles like this). Vicomte Leon de Poncins, author of Freemasonry and Judaism and Judaism and the Vatican, also wrote a book called Freemasonry and the Vatican in which, using Masonic minutes, he proved that Grand Orient Lodges pre-planned the League of Nations. The work of Bernard Fay will also likely prove important, and Jessica L. Harland-Jacobs' academic treatment of the subject, Builders of Empire Freemasons and British Imperialism, 1717-1927, when combined with other dots, will likely also provide insight.

The fact of British, American, and European Freemasonry being subservient to Judaism is amply proven in my initial post, and the binding blood oaths of Freemasonry are what really make it dangerous. The political and legal consequences of this are something that few have likely grasped, and add to the problems outlined previously, necessitating even greater vigilance in addressing this problem.

Unless the reader is in a stupor, s/he will have undoubtedly found the above to be absolutely jaw-dropping. It indicates the existence of an entrenched control system, the leaders of which are intoxicated by a virulent extremism, which the general public obviously is thoroughly conditioned by. Moreover, we have seen that there are specific attributes in this system - attributes spelled out by previous authors who have been ignored, overlooked, and forgotten - preeminent among them Douglas Reed in his text The Controversy of Zion - who demonstrated the destructive effects of a tightly-knit subversive program for racial supremacy disguised as a religion - a fact that can no longer be denied in light of Weizmann's comments about a "destructive power which will overthrow the world" - which clearly show that arguments about Judaism as a corrosive monolithic political entity have validity.

This content reveals merely a minor aspect of a larger problem - and I have substantiated my argument on this minor aspect above and in much more detail in the main post. But as regards this minor aspect - while my ultimate desire is for an undivided humanity, I believe it is important to constatate this aspect of our political situation, and nullify in such a way as to not emulate the problem, lest we be overrun by the megalomania fueling it. And although I am not Jewish, I do have Jewish ancestry, and have no problem with that (though I do have problems with the Jewish religion, which I document as a probable ideological origin of the malicious activity of the Zealots leading these movements, which percolates even the purportedly “atheistic” variants:, and I maintain the distinction between those zealots and other people, not intoxicated with hatred and megalomania, who merely happened to be born Jewish. I am working in the tradition of Oscar Levy - see his commentary at pp. viii-xiii of the following:

It is obviously an idiotic form of bigotry to make hasty generalizations, and apply attacks to whole groups of people based on birth, but it is also idiotic to ignore the impact of a destructive solidarity that is best envisioned as a Global, subversive, hyper-vicious version of what most people think of when they think of the Ku Klux Klan. It is difficult to see this in the fog of war stemming from the attacks against us and the disinformation levied against us, but there is a definite Globalist conspiracy that is led by a Zionist conspiracy, operating along the format outlined in the Protocols of Zion.  I have dedicated considerable time to documenting this. Douglas Reed, as noted, helped us to understand this in his text The Controversy of Zion, and provided further insight in his texts Somewhere South of Suez, Behind the Scene and The Grand Design. Ivor Benson has provided further insight in his texts This Age of Conflict and The Zionist Factor (his views with respect to South Africa have been misrepresented by critics, he believed that some of the African movements of his time were a front for Communist expansion, which is actually true, for Benson's perspective see his relevant writing in The Zionist Factor; his Truth out of Africa looks further into this, but he made no explicitly racist statements). On the other hand, one important author, Eustace Mullins, did succumb to bigotry, far beyond that of his mentor, the fascist poet and monetary reformer Ezra Pound, involved himself in hate groups, wrote the racist tract The Biological Jew, and possibly wrote up hoaxes (I have written analysis of claims surrounding some of these alleged hoaxes in a comment to this piece), though the factual element of those alleged hoaxes was given by Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, in Praktischer Idealismus. Nevertheless, I agree with the political scientist Peter Dale Scott who, while acknowledging his problematic nature, nevertheless noted the value of Mullins, stating, "I know from my own experience that there are relevant facts in ... Mullins which it is impossible to find elsewhere." Particularly relevant works from him are The Secrets of the Federal Reserve and The World Order. These texts contain a wealth of essential information though due to the problematic nature of the source, need to be independently verified. Nevertheless, verification of them will yield excellent results, as expressed in my initial post in this blog and in my Summary of Rothschild Power. My personal contact with Jan Irvin, his last interviewer, alerted me to the fact that later in his life, Mullins realized that he was mistaken for his total bigotry, though he never publicly repudiated his earlier actions, so his private rejection didn't amount to much. Mullins near the end of his life did accurately describe the facts, when discussing the controlling oligarchy: "It's more Gentile than Jewish, but the policies are ultimately Zionist-Jewish, through the Rothschild family. They don't give a damn about Jew or Christian, however. They'll organize a massacre of Jews or Christians if it serves their purposes." As Protocol 9 so aptly stated, "Nowadays, if any States raise a protest against us it is only pro forma at our discretion and by our direction, for their anti-Semitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren. I will not enter into further explanations, for this matter has formed the subject of repeated discussions amongst us." This fact is supported by extended commentary in my initial post, where I directly cite Zionist leaders, though I offer support for the theory that Hitler bit the hand that fed him.

A source synthesizing the insights from the above authors is Red Symphony - the minutes of the NKVD interrogation of the Trotskyite Christian Rakovsky. This provides an outlook that it is important to be exposed to.

As for what is presented here - this constitutes only one of several items of interest - I will move on to those other items and focus primarily on them from this point forward, after exploring the can of worms that are opened with a consideration of the role of PTech in the September 11th attacks, and exploring the allegations of Zionist connections to the firm (for 9/11 in general, a thorough discussion of challenges to the mainstream narrative and oppositions to these challenges that has occurred over the last few years is to be found in 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed - he has been attacked, though for clarification of some of the issues on which he was attacked, see this, the noted political activist Ralph Schoenman provides complimentary insight in his presentation The Underlying Politics of 9/11 - though for those who still hold to the mainstream narrative, I recommend first the book Declassifying 9/11, which is based almost entirely on primary sources and the result of FOIA requests, and is some of the most convincing evidence that something is seriously wrong in this case, the Caltech trained physicist Crockett Grabbe raises important points, there were multiple accounts including that of firefighters supporting the claim that there were fires on floors 78 - 84 when Flight 175 hit the south Tower, but there was no inferno (see also this, then when finished note what Griffin demonstrates in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, pp. 160-163, that in spite of obfuscatory claims, steel in the WTC was certified to withstand fires of up to 2000 degrees F without being damaged in any kind of significant way), regarding WTC-7, see this.  A Washington Post article 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon noted: ""We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."" - and an utterly chilling revelation comes from looking into associated military Wargames on 9/11, regarding them, see this.

The Toronto Hearings of dissident academics are important, and consideration of the points of various whistleblowers is also important - and regarding this issue, the standard narrative is so internally contradictory that it is no wonder leaders of the Intelligence community reject it - both Hamid Gul, former head of the ISI, and Andreas von Bulow, who had experience overseeing the German secret service, noted Mossad involvement. The former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, also noted that it was common knowledge in intelligence agencies around the world that the Mossad orchestrated the 9/11 attacks -  and people are ridiculed merely for point out what is common knowledge in the Intelligence community). On the Zionist role in 9/11, see this summary.

I will also focus on obtaining the remaining documentation (and full archival information for this documentation) that I mentioned in the first post would be required to establish that the banking firm of  Kuhn, Loeb, & Co was the "hidden hand" behind the Bolshevik revolution and resolve the contradictory accounts that surround this issue (though Jewish scholars acknowledge the connections between the Rothschilds and both Trotsky and Stalin, as I demonstrate in my initial post). It also appears, given the Weizmann admission and other corroborating admissions, that Zionism may be illegal, the laws outlawing it may have just not yet been enforced. I have seen references to a couple - as one whose closest political stance is that of philosophical anarchist, but who does not want revolution, but rather, wants change, I hesitate to recommend such laws be enforced, but recognize the importance of doing so. The alleged references are as follows:

Corpus Juris Secundum 16: Constitutional Law 213 (10):
"The Constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech does not include the right to advocate, or conspire to effect, the violent destruction or overthrow of the government or the criminal destruction of property."
Corpus Juris Secundum 22, Criminal Law sec. 182 (3):
"A prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S., may also be tried in any district wherein any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is performed." U.S. v. Cohen C.A.N.J. 197 F 2d 26.

Looking at those two references alone, we can easily see how they can be applied to the Zionist movement, given what has been provided. I will have to verify these references to see if they, or analogues of them are genuine.

I will refine my writing to include only primary and academic sources, or seriously well documented, reliable sources outside of academia (these three classes of sources at this time constitute almost all of the material on this website). At some time I might be able to get my findings published in a peer-reviewed journal - they have relevance as substantive items of information. However, given that they controvert widely accepted narratives, in the current climate, this might be difficult. As noted in Casadevall & Fang (2009), Is Peer Review Censorship?:

"Given the unpleasantness of having one's work rejected, as well as a desire for more-rapid communication of scientific findings, some scientists have expressed nostalgia for the good old days when nearly any submitted manuscript was accepted for publication, and some have even compared peer review to censorship. After all, neither Newton nor Darwin had to submit to the indignity of peer review prior to publication!
The current system persists despite abundant evidence of imperfections in the peer review process. Most scientists would agree that peer review improves manuscripts and prevents some errors in publication. However, although there is widespread consensus among scientists that peer review is a good thing, there are remarkably little data that the system works as intended. In fact, studies of peer review have identified numerous problems, including confirmatory bias, bias against negative results, favoritism for established investigators in a given field, address bias, gender bias, and ideological orientation. Smith wrote that peer review is “slow, expensive, ineffective, something of a lottery, prone to bias and abuse, and hopeless at spotting errors and fraud”. Chance has been shown to play an important role in determining the outcome of peer review, and agreement between reviewers is disconcertingly low. Bauer has noted that as a field matures, “knowledge monopolies” and “research cartels”, which fiercely protect their domains, suppress minority opinions, and curtail publication and funding of unorthodox viewpoints, are established. In response, experienced authors learn to negotiate reviewer hurdles by embracing conservatism and avoiding speculation, although some have complained that this response has the effect of “dumbing down” the scientific literature. [...] it is self-evident how foibles in peer review can create a major problem with scientific acceptance, for peer reviewers are the major gatekeepers for the printed word.
Misrepresenting [...] discredited ideas as victims of censorship risks minimizing the true threats of scientific censorship, as when a government deletes politically sensitive remarks by scientific agency heads and surgeon generals, alters reports by government scientists, or prohibits the publication of sensitive data.

Publishing in peer-reviewed journals remains the major mechanism for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The peer review of scientific manuscripts is clearly distinct from these examples of censorship. However, if reviewers prevent authors from any discussion of controversial or speculative viewpoints or if editors are overzealous in screening manuscripts for perceived newsworthiness or consistency with prevailing dogma, there is a danger of blurring the distinction between peer review and censorship. If a reviewer obstructs the publication of a manuscript because it competes with or questions his or her own work, there is an ethical dimension as well. [...] Even more importantly, excessive influence by reviewers can stifle legitimate scientific debate and encourage conformity.
Peer review is very different from censorship, but we need to be careful to maintain the distinction. A respect for the wisdom of age requires us to give Galileo the final word here: “Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment upon anything new”."

That, though, may be too much of a rosy picture - see Brian Josephson's presentation Pathological Disbelief. Additionally, this may be difficult in the political climate in the United States as of 2013. But I will not be silenced on these issues that, for me, are of tremendous importance, and I will persist in refining this work and spreading it.

I will now refute the attempts of those who would like to ignore this information by using poisoning the well fallacies. People who use this strategy desire to kill the messenger so as to make others of their mind set see him as non worthy of responding to and wrong from the start. It is a flawed, intellectually dishonest, but unfortunately effective method for propagandizing to those who lack intellectual self-defense skills that s used by those who wish to combat material that is different from their belief system. In this particular case, such an approach is entirely invalid because I have made my information independently verifiable. But I will address it anyway:

As I noted in the initial post, in an exploratory and much more immature stage, I left an internet legacy. At this time, the items I stand behind that are on the internet that I wrote are those written during and after the summer of 2013 as myself and as Blissentia, this blog, and the following items (items I have shared - 1,2 - items I have written and/or will rewrite 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 - and items I will expand - 1,2,3). However, I will explain some of the other items:

This forum cites some support I gave to the website "Zioncrimefactory" because of the Israel and 9/11 book of the author. I am very much a supporter of much of his update to the book. However, for a while, the author engaged in extremist, racist rhetoric. On his old site, before it was hijacked by a Christian Identity adherent, at personal risk to myself, I commented using my own name on some of his articles. I attempted to show, in lengthy comments to the "about" page, the fallacy of the racist approach, and while extremely egregious anti-social behavior is associated with Zionism, and that it was much more pernicious than mainstream critics acknowledged, this did not justify the fallacious racist approach (this commentary is archived here). Some of the responses in the comments show a beginning of a change in view, and later, on his current site, he declared White Nationalism to be a racist cult [though he overlooked that there are legitimate issues within the milieu of White Nationalism]. From the time period that I was making these arguments, I made various statements trying to show the fallacy of this approach. One person in comments to a racist website that I do not endorse quoted something that I said during this time period - "Judaism is a sociopolitical mental illness that has wreaked immense havoc with Communism, Zionism, and the Rothschild banking system." I currently hold that this assertion is misguided, and the "mental illness" gambit is historically a weapon of political oppression that is lacking in scientific basis, but I do maintain, and substantiate below, that there is immense extremism and hate in Judaism that contributed ideologically to the movements I critique here (some could certainly describe this as mental illness, but it is only a more virulent strain of what is currently a general human malaise), and because of ruthless strategy, these movements achieved success. In contrast to those efforts, the old manager of the "Outlaw Forum" once wrote a quasi-reasonable article on these issues, but then his perspective degenerated to embrace extremism and hate. So, I, again, at personal risk to myself, attempted to show on his "updated" site the fallacy of such an approach, but this seemed to have no effect.

I used to post at the outlaw forum when I was 19 and 20, when I got into this after I went into a shock from watching ENDGAME the movie, which contains some good information but a lot of hot air and dearth of quality sources to back up its claims (in spite of this, I still intuitively resonated with core elements of the film, like the excerpt of Aldous Huxley's discussion of scientific dictatorship - that Brave New World was not fiction, but what was actually being implemented, and I later discovered that Huxley was way up in power elite circles implementing this, and while he feigned concern, his associates, like his brother, were actively implementing much of this. I later found that  much of the underlying narrative of the film can be substantiated, and I did this, but it cannot be substantiated from the material the dubious filmmaker provides (note - I don't support the overall site of the embedded link just given - - but the article I just linked to - - is very good and is very relevant)). Around this time, when my intellectual strength was less developed, I wrote up a glib forum thread cutting and pasting a bunch of material from popular "alternative media" sources that had varying degrees of documentation justifying their claims (some were of low quality, others were of high quality) and using that as the crux of my argument on conspiratorial narratives. Thus this critic, "Muertos", using appeal to ridicule, made false statements about that, implying that I did not even read the articles I cited (I did, and I acknowledge this, make the error of glibly cutting and pasting a bunch of sources rather than systematically addressing claims, and previously, I would make the error of giving sources other cited and not checking them, I have since updated my approach by giving links to google books excerpts or facsimiles of the texts cited where I could, and I will continue this by providing full facsimiles where appropriate), and then, after I had a bit of an exchange, on his website addressing a film that I in no way endorse totally, but endorse aspects of, engaged in belittling appeal to ridicule. I have become much more assiduous than I was when I made that "outlaw forum" thread, and have provided overlooked, but necessary sources to the public stemming from original research for the issues of concern here. This critic will no longer let me comment on his site to provide refutations of his commentary, and if his item ever becomes problematic, I will provide a copy of his admission of censorship. I don't really care to engage him further however, as much of his commentary is refuted within the body of this site. "Muertos" means "dead", and I am reminded of the phrase "let the dead bury their own dead" when considering his outlook and arguments. With intellectual laziness, he references Wikipedia as a main source. I  have provided here proof of the deep flaws of Wikipedia as a source for controversial issues - people can also see this and this and the general history of my struggles as Pottinger's cats on wikipedia - showing double standards and obfuscation being applied throughout contentious articles, and giving further proof of these flaws. Wikipedia is essentially people with Stockholm syndrome slavishly justifying a system that is hostile to them, and is open to abuse by motivated propagandists who have adopted the values promoted by the said system.

In contrast, I do have respect for Ernie Lazar, and the work he has done, though, when I wrote more polemically, I nevertheless noted an accurate truth - that he ignores the points corroborating his opponents, and uses logical fallacies. He is a source that challenges some of the historical ideological aspects of arguments I present here. And because of my intellectual honesty, and desire to not be tendentious, I provide, in the comments section of the original post, other sources upholding the more widely held narratives. I nevertheless persist with my thesis because in spite of that, I have found deep holes in those narratives - and evidence showing a different reality from what they promote. What people like Lazar seem to forget however is the following - THE FACT THAT BIGOTS AND EXTREME RIGHTISTS HAVE DISCUSSED THESE ISSUES IN THE PAST DOESN'T NULLIFY WHAT THE LEADERS OF THE POWER ELITE MOVEMENTS, WHO I AM BRINGING ATTENTION TO, ADMIT THEY ARE DOING IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

Many people will be reluctant to accept the facts presented here, in spite of the documentation corroborating them, because the Establishment version created the narratives they uphold first, and it is a scary thought that those in such positions, who people are trained to look up to, could be psychopaths and predators and deceive people. Those using this type of argumentation usually look to corporate media, regulatory agencies, and government as final arbiters of "truth". But such a stance is problematic for several reasons:

The concentration of media ownership, as it falls ever more into the hands unaccountable mega-corporations that, though it is not immediately obvious, are becoming (and have been for quite some time) increasingly like cartels because of interlocking directorates is a major reason whey that stance is untenable. And for the issues examined in this site, a relevant item is Manny Friedman's Times of Israel article "Jews DO control the media", which is filled with very disturbing rhetoric. It is addressed to a Jewish audience, and is thus more candid than a normal publication. Beyond that, it is important to note that Kent Cooper, who served as general manager of the Associated Press from 1925 to 1943, and then became it's executive director, in his book "Barriers Down", pp. 6-9, noted that by the beginning of the 20th century, the news agencies Reuters, Wolff, and Havas were a triumvirate that together monopolized international news. On p. 21, he noted that in his circles, the account was that international bankers, led by the Rothschilds, assumed ownership of those agencies at the beginning of the 20th Century.

It is true that many items informing my analysis are derived from mainstream media sources, but these sources stop short of giving a full picture, and, for most articles, bombard the readers with propaganda meant to further the objectives of Zionists and various multinational cartels.

For regulatory agencies, it is important to note that even though the EFSA states that "involvement in industry-funded research does not necessarily constitute a conflict of interest provided that the research does not relate directly to the topic being considered by the Panel or Working Group.", it is provable that the leaders of EFSA research panels have deep conflict of interest according to the EFSA's own guidelines (see also this and this), and thus they invalidate themselves as a reliable source according to the principles of witness impeachment. The same is true of so called "science watchdog" groups who selectively attack opponents, like Gilles-Éric Séralini, of the trends set by monopoly capitalists in their mad lust for power, in spite of the fact that those like Séralini who are selectively attacked are actually using perfectly fine protocols in their research, according to the regulatory agencies, when not selectively attacking those who raise items about concern regarding their corporate sponsors, themselves (see also this (rebuttal to criticisms of Séralini) and this (general research papers of Séralini) - and for the bigger picture, see this (pertaining to horizontal gene transfer with GMOs) and this (pertaining to the toxicity of the Roundup herbicide) and ESPECIALLY this (a superb article on GM health dangers): -and this - concerning the environmental problem shown by the fact that in 2001 Mexican government ministers attempted to intimidate Prof Ignacio Chapela into withdrawing or renouncing his work which showed that the country’s maize landraces were contaminated by GM cross-pollination). For a general overview of everything on this, see the following:
There is also less subtle conflict of interest with the FDA, and this is a reason for the extremely egregious behavior of this organization.

Subtle, hidden in plain sight government ownership of major corporations takes conflict of interest to a whole new level, and reveals not only that there are stores of wealth separate from the money governments make taxing people (showing across the board lying by officials who are either deceptive or ignorant of this major problem, and that many claims of budgetary deficit are fictional), but also that government and industry are a self serving fusion. Aside from that, monopoly capitalists are often the people steering the formation of major governmental bodies - again, an interesting item, in this regard, is the work of Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who was allowed to examine secret Soviet archives, and found that the modern EU was implemented as a result of a conspiracy between the Politburo and the elite of the Trilateral Commission – David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Yasuhiro Nakasone, and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. He gives the documentation in his book “EUSSR”, and an interesting article on this is here. And on a related note, presidents are groomed by these types of organizations - Reuters noted that "Invited as speakers, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were groomed at Bilderberg meetings before rising to fame as U.S. President and British Prime Minister respectively." This used to be on yahoo news (*/, but it has been removed - fortunately it has been preserved here. And finally, for those who, after reading all of this, still think we live in any kind of "democratic open society", the following is of relevance - Burke's Peerage is considered the definitive source for royal genealogy, and according to Burke's Peerage researchers, "The presidential candidate with the most royal genes and chromosomes has, up to now, always won the White House..."

So why would you expect these entities to bite the hand that feeds them?

Finally, some with intellectual cowardice might like to dismiss my argument as "crazy", because of its variance with their Pavlovian conditioning and indoctrination. Such a stance is invalid, but even if we were to entertain it, the documentation is independently verifiable, and aside from that, the defamatory accusation has interesting historical connotations (see 1, 2, 3, 4).