Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Antony Sutton

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,791

    Antony Sutton

    Along with Professor Quigley and Mullins and through quotes in Jim Marrs work I have seen a lot from Sutton. I have not read a complete book of his, so I might be allowed to make a few mistakes, hopefully. At the bottom of this quote we find he was onto Jean Lafitte who I turned Jim Marrs onto. I do not know if Sutton got it from Marrs and it does not matter. I know it is all over the web now but it was not when I started spreading it over ten years ago. I had seen a connection between Lafitte and the Rothschilds in the early 1980s but I will allow Sutton was onto these things around the same time, yet I do not know if he knew Lafitte was a Sephardic Jew, alchemist and multi-nation spy. In fact I know very little about what Sutton knew as I said.

    Commentary on Antony C. Sutton
    by Leslie R. Pastor


    Antony Cyril Sutton confided in me that he was 1/16th Jewish. (Leslie R. Pastor)



    Commentary

    ◾Anthony Sutton's Defence of Judeo-Bolshevism: A Rebuttal (Part I) Semitic Controversies A Daily Blog about Jews and Judaism.
    ◾Anthony Sutton's Defence of Judeo-Bolshevism: A Rebuttal (Part II) Semitic Controversies A Daily Blog about Jews and Judaism.
    ◾Behind Communism - Judaism The National Conscience the great National Revival requires Total Resistance
    ◾Semitic Controversies 2008 Issue Ebook & Text
    ◾200 Years Together: Russo-Jewish History, by Alexander SolzhenitsynCensored History of Jewish Atrocites Against Russians within Russia
    ◾Books by Col Donn de Grand Pré America First Books
    ◾The Jews Are A Race - Not A Religion Incog Man
    ◾The Invention of the Jewish People Shlomo Sand {His work confirms some of mine. There is more proof coming in from archaeology and DNA every other day.}

    Antony C. Sutton's revelation regarding the funding of Karl Marx {And Engel's with a connection no one has yet made to Dupont in Nemours where they met close by and which had a commune.} work: 'The Communist Manifesto' by Philadelphia Bankers comes from an interesting and significant source: "The evidence for this twist in modern history has been ignored by modern historians although the documents authenticated by Library of Congress and other sources have been available for some 30 years."

    "It is extraordinary that the first academics to report this source of financing for Marx were writing in French, not English! It was a French book by Georges Blond entitled: "Histoire de la Filibuste" that contains the remarkable story of Karl Marx as a friend of a Jean Laffite the pirate who "financed the printing of the Manifesto of the Communist Party." Where did Blond get his information? It originated in two (2) privately printed books published in New Orleans by Stanley Clisby Arthur, "Jean Laffite, The Gentleman Rover" and "The Journal of Jean Laffite." These two (2) books contain original documents describing meetings between Marx and Laffite and the method used to finance the Manifesto."


    Hakim Subani and many other people like myself are getting the message out which people like Eisenhower have openly stated - and greed is still in control because people are told they need jobs - which is certainly no longer true if it ever was. Truman gave the Russians a whole air force just before the start of the Cold War. As Antony Sutton found out there have been deals and Russia was part of many sides to these deals since it started the democratization of Europe in the mid 19th Century shortly after helping the US fend off the British Naval and land forces about to invade and pick up the pieces being created in a Civil War.

    "Antony Sutton has been persecuted but never prosecuted for his research and subsequent publishing of his findings. His mainstream career was shattered by his devotion towards uncovering the truth. In 1968, his Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by The Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Sutton showed how the Soviet state's technological and manufacturing base, which was then engaged in supplying the North Vietnamese the armaments and supplies to kill and wound American soldiers, was built by US firms and mostly paid for by the US taxpayers. From their largest steel and iron plant, to automobile manufacturing equipment, to precision ball-bearings and computers, basically the majority of the Soviet's large industrial enterprises had been built with the United States help or technical assistance.

    Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard said in his book, Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future (Simon & Schuster;1984): "In his three-volume detailed account of Soviet Purchases of Western Equipment and Technology . . . [Antony] Sutton comes to conclusions that are uncomfortable for many businessmen and economists. For this reason his work tends to be either dismissed out of hand as 'extreme' or, more often, simply ignored."

    The report was too much and Sutton's career as a well-paid member of the academic establishment was under attack and he was told that he "would not survive".

    His work led him to more questions than answers. "Why had the US built-up it's enemy? Why did the US build-up the Soviet Union, while we also transferred technology to Hitler's Germany? Why does Washington want to conceal these facts?"

    Sutton, following his leads, proceeded to research and write his three outstanding books on Wall Street, FDR, the Rise of Hitler, and The Bolshevik Revolution. Then, someone sent Antony a membership list of Skull and Bones and "a picture jumped out". And what a picture! A multigenerational foreign-based secret society with fingers in all kinds of pies and roots going back to 'Illuminati' influences in 1830's Germany."

    http://www.antonysutton.com/
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-30-2016 at 12:32 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,791
    From just one source above I have an excellent debate or rebuttal of Sutton. I think it is not much of a disagreement if you remove the religious nonsense attributed to Churchill. Like most political animals he was whatever got the most votes, but he also was an initiate of a Druidic Order and an intellectual who knew more about religion than would allow honest discourse about the matter with people who do not study. I do not think he would be comparable with Jefferson in this regard, but he might appear to be in certain discourses about Jefferson who died in the century Churchill was born and Churchill's father owed a large sum to the Rothschilds (Jefferson too) upon his death. Thus all of their disagreements are based on bad or erroneous background knowledge. I should also point out that International Jew talk brings Henry Ford to mind as a supporter of Hitler. Hitler feted Henry but later Henry recanted publically his opinions under threat of Anti-Semitic myths and financial burdens.

    This whole piece has much in it which deserves inclusion in threads on Churchill and Russia. Again - neither side is right, and I can be wrong too.

    "Anthony Sutton's Defence of Judeo-Bolshevism: A Rebuttal (Part II)

    This lack of placing Churchill's comments in their historical and intellectual context comes to a boil when Sutton accuses Churchill of arguing; quite correctly I might add, that 'Zionism and Bolshevism are competing for the heart of the Jewish people' while being 'preoccupied' with the role of the Jew in the Bolshevik Revolution and the existence of a 'worldwide Jewish conspiracy.' (29)


    What Sutton is trying to say; in somewhat garbled fashion, here is that Churchill is not so concerned about Zionism, but rather sees Bolshevism as an international danger that must be stopped at all costs. Sutton implies this is an inconsistent view by alleging by implication that Churchill should have focused on both Zionism and Bolshevism to be consistent with his thesis about a 'worldwide Jewish conspiracy'.

    However the lack of context is damning here precisely because; as Sutton should have noted when talking about the distinction between 'national' and 'international' jews Churchill draws, he tells us that Churchill is drawing only in part on Nesta Webster's 'Secret Societies and Subversive Movements' in that he; unlike Webster, believes Zionist jews to be 'national jews' (or the better class of jew in Churchill's opinion) and Bolshevik jews to be 'international jews' (or the worse kind of jew in Churchill's opinion).

    The 'international jewish conspiracy' that Churchill talks about is not a Protocols of Zion type scenario where all jews are controlling the world or trying to in a mass conspiracy, but rather a smaller much more compact part of jewry that is seeking to bring about an atheistic communist world-order via the medium of Bolshevism in Russia and the; then fresh and frequently jewish lead, (30) attempted Marxist revolutions in other countries. (31)

    What Churchill sees in the article is more or less what jewish academic anti-Communist Frank Meyer saw when he wrote about the centrality of dedicated cadre to the Communist international cause and how these; often jewish, individuals were trained to act and operate. (32) This argument of Churchill's is largely derived from the literature of the time (33) and is an accurate characterisation of how Marxist groups operated before, during and after the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917. (34) To wit: that Marxist parties aligned with the Third International were part of a disciplined, conspiratorial attempt to spread the Bolshevik revolution around the world."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,791
    cont'd

    "Churchill's opposition to Bolshevism stems from three basic factors that Sutton does not mention:


    A) Religion in so far as Churchill was a devout; if rather pedestrian, Christian and; like many at the time, could not sympathize with a revolution that was not only devoutly atheist but also engaged in possibly the single largest destruction of religious infrastructure since the Edict of Theodosius. {What about the French Revolutionary seizure of all Church assets?}

    B) Class in that Churchill was an aristocratic scion of the Duke of Marlborough (also called Winston Churchill) and as such under a Bolshevik-style government he would not only lose everything he possessed as part of the hated bourgeoisie, but also quite probably his life as many French and Russian aristocrats had learned to their cost within living memory.

    C) Patriotism in that Churchill; for better or for worse, was a devoutly jingoistic partisan of the British Empire and as such held fairly extreme views on how it was a force for good in the world and that it was its great burden to bring civilisation to all the corners of globe. Bolshevism directly undermined this by demanding the so-called 'emancipation' of all 'oppressed workers' and asserting that this bringing of civilisation was in reality nothing more than a conspiratorial rationalisation for the capitalistic exploitation of less advanced civilisations and peoples.

    Thus Bolshevism flew in the face of everything Churchill believed and held dear.

    In direct contrast Zionism did not (35) in so far as the jews had been strong partisans of Britain during the Great War and we even have some evidence to suggest that the perfidious Balfour Declaration of 1917 (which must always be seen in the hypocritical context of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 [to carve up the Ottoman Empire between Britain and France] and British promises to the Arab rebellion under Prince Faisal and T. E. Lawrence [better known as 'Lawrence of Arabia']) was in fact a direct bribe to the jews of North America to prod President Wilson; (36) along with the assistance of the 'false-flag' Zimmerman telegram, into; what Donald Day styled as, singing 'Onward Christian Soldiers' as he sent American youth to their deaths in a war that was not their own let alone anything to do with them per se (after all the Allies were simply desperate having slaughtered a large proportion of their own men). (37)

    Zionism was to Churchill a 'national movement' of the jews that if nurtured; he thought, would become a useful British client kingdom in the Middle East allowing the British Empire to have a secure base from which to dominate the region and potentially also disrupt and later attack French hegemony in Lebanon and Syria. Churchill's thought on this score was not something to be viewed as unusual among conservative politicians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as Joseph Chamberlain famously offered the Zionist movement the opportunity to colonise Kenya as a 'new Israel' rather than the then Ottoman province of Palestine.

    This also famously nearly split the Zionist movement right down the middle as here was an offer of territory, but yet that territory wasn't the alleged jewish homeland of history. The homicidal jewish chemist Chaim Weizmann lead the opposition to the proposal, while the more imaginative and less hidebound jewish author and novelist; Israel Zangwill, lead the charge for Chamberlain's proposal. {He should point out Hitler and Eichmann were supporting similar plans anywhere in the world but Rothschild was adamant to keep his Halakah given sheep where they could be used as cannon fodder or patsies whenever his family wanted.} (38)

    This is a historical lesson that anti-jewish activists today should remember in that jewry is no monolith and that if the jews are prone to one thing above it all: it is being argumentative. Causing jews to fight amongst themselves is a relatively easy to thing to do and the modern foe of all things jewish must utilize this historical tool to best advantage if they wish to succeed against the modern incarnation of the jewish problem.

    If we thus place Churchill's support of Zionism and opposition to Bolshevism in symbiosis with each other it is clear that once again the three factors of Churchill's life come into play as a reflection of each other. With Churchill's religious views giving support to Churchill's messianic {Pejorative and though Churchill was able to envision himself as a person of destiny who bordered on megalomania at times, I would not attribute this to a religion. He knew far more about world history and his family or Merovingian intrigues than this person knows.} personal justification of Zionist ideas and policies (while feeding Churchill's religious opposition to Bolshevism), while Churchill's class would benefit from the success of Zionism as it would lead jews away from 'atheistic Bolshevism' and thus diminish the threat of Bolshevism; in Churchill's view, to his personal possessions, status and life. Patriotism meanwhile gave Churchill his real politik and rationalising justification for his support of Zionism (in creating a British client kingdom of jews in an unstable part of the world) while also feeding his anti-Communism by Bolshevism's well-known opposition to the 'colonial mission' of the West in civilizing the world (so-to-speak).

    Sutton thus creates a false dilemma by asserting that Churchill's two views on Zionism and Bolshevism are contradictory as in the sense understood by Churchill's thought process; which is made manifestly obvious by actually reading Churchill's article, they are quite literally a case of 'good jews' fighting 'bad jews' for the soul of the jewish people and either the 'national jews' would win and all would be right with the world or the 'international jews' would win whence the world would be doomed. This; of course, once again synthesizes the two rival views of jewish history at this time with the element of the negative, grasping jew taking vengeance (the 'international jew') taken from the anti-jewish historical tradition and the put upon, exploited jew who only wants to be left alone and contribute to the world (the 'national jew').

    So therefore there is simply not contradiction in Churchill's thought as Sutton's claims by implication but it is rather an apparent figment of Sutton's imagination.

    Sutton then gives us a historical anecdote from the aforementioned Henry Wickham Steed; a British publicist and author, who was a long and somewhat trenchant critic of the jews until he; like so many critics of jews in the same period, got proverbial cold feed during the anti-jewish ripostes of the 1930s and publicly repudiated his views. (39)

    Sutton correctly quotes Steed's earlier second set of memoirs to the effect that in March 1919 Steed happened to meet the famous Colonel Edward House who; according to Steed, (40) was disturbed over Steed's vocal and article criticism of the Bolshevik Revolution and most particularly the jewish role in it. House was at this time arguing for the opening up of economic relations with the Soviet Union (which is the partial subject of Sutton's book and a generally large gap in the scholarly literature on the Soviet Union) as a rational economic power (one is reminded of Lenin's famous aphorism [I paraphrase slightly] that the Communists will hang the Capitalists with the rope the latter sell them) while Steed was arguing; as was commonly done at the time, (41) that the Bolshevik revolution had been brought about by jewish and German interests which was now being used for the purpose of bring about a world controlled by jews.

    Once again the intellectual debt of Steed to Webster's 'Secret Societies and Subversive Movements' is clear in that this precisely the argument that Webster makes where she asserts that an atheist jewish world order; facilitated by what she called 'Judeo-Masonry', would rise out of the ashes of Russia if action was not taken to check it. Steed's argument focused on the role of Jacob Schiff and Max Warburg: both famous jewish financiers happily basking in the self-fostered legends; much as did the even more famous Rothschild family, of their own power in world affairs.


    It is here that Sutton decides once again to create a strawman argument by citing only two pieces of evidence for the view propounded by Steed; i.e. that jewish financiers had had a major hand in assisting the Bolsheviks in the takeover of the former Russian Empire, and Churchill none of which are cited by Churchill, Steed, Webster or Wichtl. Sutton's citation of the State Department file (42) is correct from what I can ascertain: however in his analysis of the document we see what can only be described as Sutton's irrationality when it comes to the matter of jews and Bolshevism.

    Sutton claims after a rather short and dismissive paragraph about the role of jewish financier in funneling money to the Bolsheviks that 'the report ends with a barb at “International Jewry” and places the argument within the context of a Christian-Jewish conflict backed up by quotations from the Protocols of Zion.' (43)"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,791
    cont'd

    "There are three very fundamental things that are incorrect in this caricature of an argument from Sutton in that:

    A) It bears no evidential weighting or bearing other than on the side of the argument the individual was on whether the author of the report entitled 'Bolshevism and Judaism' fired a 'barb' at 'International Jewry' or not. In much the same that it doesn't detract from the evidential value of a Bolshevik agent's telegrams who denounces the 'bourgeoisie' in them. We have to consider the evidence itself before we proceed to speculate on the man or woman who authored that evidence: Sutton fails to do this and thus argues ad hominem not around the evidence.

    B) The idea that the report places the argument in the 'context of a Christian-Jewish conflict' is a misrepresentation precisely because every report that came out of Russia at this juncture tended to do this: precisely because those who were doing the reporting lived in a Christian frame of reference so as such the atheistic war on religion that was going on in Soviet Russia at this point; and the preponderance of jews within the Bolshevik and revolutionary ranks in general, would have never not have been interpreted in as a jewish-lead attack on Christianity as that was more or less precisely what it was. To assert otherwise is to try to and abstract the simple meaning from the evidence in order to avoid having to state it quite so bluntly as I have just done.

    {Not true though it appears to be true from normative understandings of Romanism rather than Christianity. I will summarize in one phrase from a Catholic saint named Columba - "Jesus is the new Druid." Those who think the Gospels are Christian are sheep to be sheared. They were written by Rome to blame the Jews for "Killing our Savior" - a phrase still ringing in the halls of the House Un-American Activities committee room as uttered by it's Chairperson John Stennis who was part of a stupid Red Scare that served the Military complex well.}

    C) The report doesn't contain any references; direct or otherwise, to the 'Protocols of Zion' let alone any direct 'quotes' as Sutton alleges. This is a falsehood on his part and particularly odious precisely because Sutton alleges these to have been 'included' in a 1918 report when the English translation of the Protocols of Zion only occurred in 1919 and even Sutton would have had to know the texts intimately to even spot two very dissimilar translations: one allegedly authored by an English journalist lately arrived from Russia and one by a Russian in America one year earlier (bearing in mind the Protocols themselves were circulating in several different forms at this time). (44) Clearly Sutton was neither an expert on the Protocols not was Sutton being particularly honest!

    Sutton dismisses the explanatory power of this document by citing another State Department file which gives a series of telegrams in late 1919 between the American Embassy in London and the State Department in Washington D.C. (45) Sutton claims that these 'disprove' the document: however he once again misrepresents their contents as the documents clearly state that the official in London had 'no proof' of the allegations of jewish transactions to Lenin, Trotsky and Bolsheviks, but that he was 're-investigating'. However in his next cable the author doesn't actually state or even imply that these reports are wrong as he merely states that it is 'unwise' to give publicity to these claims, which suggests (looking at the whole diplomatic exchange rather than two small pieces of it) that what the official in London is saying is not that the report 'Bolshevism and Judaism' is wrong; as Sutton implies, but rather that; as he sees it, there is no firm evidence to back it up he can find and thus it would be unwise to publicize (as it is clearly politically incendiary).

    In Sutton's next and last piece of quoted evidence he cites another State Department document that he claims is a 'review of a translation of the Protocols of Zion' (46): however immediately we note two very fundamental things wrong with Sutton's alleged picture.

    A) The State Department document is from 1913 rather than 1919 (when the Protocols was being widely and properly translated having gained evidential currency through the First World War, the Bolshevik Revolution and the aftershocks of both events) and thus according to Sutton is reviewing an at best fringe and at worst utterly obscure piece of work that for unknown reasons has been 'translated' into a foreign language (presumably English) and then has been judged for unstated reasons to be so much of interest to US Intelligence that a review of it was necessary for the intelligence files of the United States. I suspect Sutton made a typing error and meant 1919, but I cannot prove it so thus I am forced to assume he did really mean 1913.

    B) The report makes no mention of the Protocols of Zion and instead talks of 'definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by jews', which is actually referring to the correctly perceived domination of jews in the power politics of the early Soviet Union. The notion of communications passing from jewish leaders in Europe and North America is a bad misreading of the context once again as the 'jewish leaders' mentioned are not the 'Wise Men of Zion' but rather the radical leaders of Europe and North America who were disproportionately jewish and even if they were gentile they were frequently perceived as such both by the population at large and the intelligence services. (47)

    Sutton then opines that the references in the communication chain to 'letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world domination' would potentially provide support for the 'unsubstantiated hypothesis' of Judeo-Bolshevism if the letters could be located and authenticated. (48)

    Once again however Sutton's reading of the evidence is heavily skewed by his a priori argumentation in so far as Sutton does not realise that the references to these letters is simply a reference to the much ink spilled between revolutionary and general subversive organisations across Europe and North America about the Bolshevik revolution and as such is not so much evidence for a 'Protocols of Zion' type scenario, but does indirectly point out the inherent truthfulness of the Judeo-Bolshevism thesis by indirectly informing us of what we can independently verify: the revolutionary movement across Europe and North America was at this time heavily dominated and influenced by jews.

    This is the simpler and less assumption-based hypothesis that Sutton does not seem to even consider as for him everything is related to the conspiratorial activity of monopolistic bankers and capitalists as evinced by Sutton's own; pseudo-Marxian, comment at the end of his attack on the Judeo-Bolshevism thesis that 'the real operators' were deliberately diverting attention onto the jews as a re-generated form of 'medieval prejudice.' (49)

    As I have before stated this is a nonsensical attitude as the jews were very clearly involved in the creation, enfranchisement and sustenance of the Bolshevik revolution and to assert that rather than this being the case: it was 'controlled' by faceless 'real operators' is an appeal to mystery and as such has intellectual value as it cannot explain all that happened after one to two years of the USSR's existence.

    Thus Sutton's appendix attacking the thesis of Judeo-Bolshevism can be said to not only incorrect, but actually misrepresenting evidence, lacking in vital contextual information, selectively quoting evidence and also reasoning from a conclusion reached a priori. So having thus dissected Sutton's attack on anti-Semitic anti-Communism: we can leave it on side as a debunked attempt to discredit the Judeo-Bolshevism thesis.

    References

    ....

    (37) John Mosier, 2001, 'The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War One', 1st Edition, Profile: London, pp. 303-306

    (38) Meri-Jane Rochelson, 1992, 'Review of Joseph H. Udelson: Dreamer of the Ghetto: The Life and Works of Israel Zangwill', AJS Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 120-121

    (39) Margaret MacMillan, 2002, 'Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World', 1st Edition, Random House: New York, p. 80

    (40) I cannot find any reference to this meeting in the published papers of Colonel House: however it more than likely did occur as it 'reads right' as they say.

    (41) For example Donald Thompson, 1918, 'Donald Thompson in Russia', 1st Edition, The Century Co.: New York, pp. 166-167

    (42) US State Department Archive Box/File 861.00/5339

    (43) Sutton, Op. Cit., p. 187

    (44) On this see Cesare de Michelis, 2004, 'The Non-Existent Manuscript: A Study of the Protocols of the Sages of Zion', 1st Edition, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln.

    (45) Sutton, Op. Cit., pp. 187-188

    (46) Ibid, p. 188

    (47) A good example is Karl Liebknecht who was probably not jewish, but never-the-less has a known possible jewish ancestor. I have covered this briefly at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...t-not-jew.html.

    (48) Sutton, Op. Cit., pp. 188-189


    For one of the most ridiculous attempts at scholarly hatred please look at the thread Donmeh.
    (49) Ibid, p. 149


    Posted 20th April 2012 by Karl Radl "
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-19-2016 at 02:15 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,791
    Sutton and his book showing the connection between Hitler and Rothschild bankers is quoted by racist haters who do not know the Rothschilds prey on Jews and have for at least five millennia and they wrote the Bible to give themselves the monopoly on usury and share other money with their elite friends.

    These racist haters will never learn or read the Halakah which establishes the hierarchy and who can (by law) do what to whom. Some are beginning to see how almost every genocide is attributable to elites except the ones their sometimes friends do to them. The Cathar era is a study in Hegelian play and Rome or Empire to beat any moral person to a near death state. But few study it anyway.

    Here is Jeff Rense quoting one such racist fool who will not learn. He says John Kerry is guilty for his role in Vietnam where he spoke out avidly against atrocities. It is so bad an example of what fools will believe I would laugh - except it is not funny.

    "Rense.com

    How Labor Zionists Sacrificed
    Europe's Jews In WWII
    Kerry, Gaza And The New Sabbatean Holocaust
    By Barry Chamish
    [email protected].i
    2-9-4

    In the first week of February 2004, two related incidents occurred in Israel and America. Prime Minister Sharon announced his decision to evacuate the Jewish residents of Gaza and John Kerry won enough primaries to just about settle the issue of who will be the Democratic Party candidate in the upcoming American elections.

    Here are a few less than publicized facts about Kerry:

    - He is a graduate, like both President Bushes, of the occultic Yale University cabal, the Skull And Bones Society. So whoever Americans vote for, they get the same secret society determining their lives. {This is a low level cult - but there is truth in this.}

    - Kerry, like Howard Dean, Wesley Clark and Joe Leiberman are all members of the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR). So whoever Americans choose to be the Democratic candidate, they will get the same CFR agenda.

    - The well publicized CFR agenda insists on Israel withdrawing from Gaza, Judea and Samaria and half of Jerusalem, making Israel unviable as a state. To that end, like Dean before him, Kerry has promised to appoint Jimmy Carter (CFR) or Bill Clinton (CFR) as his administration's Middle East advisor.

    - Not that Kerry will receive any new advice from either of them, since his campaign manager is Alan Solomant, an executive of Peace Now - America.

    - Kerry is being protected from exposure of the ugly crime of participating in a massacre in Viet Nam. {A total lie as noted already.}

    - But as his prominence grew, so did the investigation of his past. And what did we recently discover; why Kerry is Jewish on his father's side. Somehow, he forgot the fact that his grandparents were prominent Jewish business people in Prague and that his father is 100% Jewish. Ask yourself, do you know anyone who doesn't know his father's religious background?

    As rare as it must be, that affliction runs rampant in CFR circles. Former CFR Secretary-of-State Madeleine Albright also forget that both her parents were Jews, even though she was raised in the Jewish home of her relatives in London.

    If you don't feel like voting Kerry, there is Wesley Clark waiting in the wings. Uncannily, he is also a CFR member who only discovered his father was Jewish while he was burning Bosnia to ashes.

    Now how come, no matter which Democrat you choose, you get a CFR half-Jew who forgot all about it? The answer is found in the Sabbatean (also Shabbataian and similar spellings) policy of having their Jewish apostate followers converting and hiding their roots and beliefs. {He contradicts himself and is raving.}

    Allow me to quickly summarize Sabbateanism/Frankism:

    In my previous article, The Deutsch Devils, I revealed {Revealed how the Zevi character converted to Islam is all. It was just as bad as this so called scholarship.}the findings of Rabbi Antelman in his books To Eliminate The Opiate Volumes I and II. His focus is the false messiah Shabtai Zvi, and the continuation of his evil ministry through the Turkish sect called the Donmeh. In the eighteenth century, Jacob Frank brought the Donmeh ideology to Europe and joined a fateful alliance. This was described in the article as:

    Frankfurt at the time was the headquarters of the Jesuit, Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati, as well as Rothschild Brothers' financial empire. This is worth repeating: Frankfurt was the birthplace of both the Illuminati and the Rothschild empire. {It was not! It was at William of Hesse's castle. And that is not the Illuminati - it is just the Bavarian Illuminati.} When Jacob Frank entered the city, the alliance between the two had already begun. Weishaupt provided the conspiratorial resources of the Jesuit Order, while the Rothschilds contributed the money. What was missing was a means to spread the agenda of the Illuminati and that the Frankists added with their network of agents throughout the Christian and Islamic worlds.

    Jacob Frank became instantly wealthy because he was given a nice handout by the Rothschilds of Frankfurt. There is no other explanation.

    And from this starting point, Rabbi Antelman gave us a blueprint for the war against Judaism and all its good, and indeed against humanity and all its moral treasures. A movement of complete evil now took hold. The Jesuits' goal was the destruction of the Protestant Reformation leading to a return of one pope sitting in judgement on all mankind. The Rothschilds goal was to control the wealth of the planet. And the Frankist vision was the destruction of Jewish ethics to be replaced by a religion based on the exact opposite of God's intentions. When these factions blended, a bloody war against humanity, with the Jews on the front lines, erupted and it is reaching its very pinnacle at this moment."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,791
    Do you think Putin is a fool when he talks about the elites who forced a policy of containment upon Russian people for centuries? Yeltsin said something similar we have quoted in various places already.

    "Professor Antony C. Sutton’s ‘Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’ recently celebrated its 40th anniversary. Professor Sutton taught at California State University, Los Angeles and was a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He wrote numerous books based on Wall Street corruption and their involvement in world wars including ‘Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler’ and ‘Wall Street and FDR’ both published in 1976. Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution is a historical classic based on Professor Sutton’s extensive research on whom and why Wall Street helped fund the Bolshevik Revolution. If you want to understand the conspiracy by the West who overthrew Czarist Russia and replaced it with one of the most dangerous political movements in the 20th century known as the “Bolsheviks”, then Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution is one history book you should add to your list. The Bolsheviks murdered millions of Russian people since the start of the Russian revolution in 1917 where it is estimated that between 20 and 66 million who were executed, starved and even tortured to death, many in the labor camps known as the gulags. Nobel Prize winner and author of ‘The Gulag Archipelago’ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn declared that more than 66 million Russian people were murdered. Solzhenitsyn’s book was based on his personal experience as a prisoner, but it was also a well-researched document of what actually happened in the gulags according to eyewitness accounts. The Western elites wanted total control of Russia’s economy and society with a communist regime in place and they succeeded with their plans as the Bolsheviks became their enforcers; the Czars were eventually removed from power.

    Recently in a speech regarding Crimea, President Vladimir Putin had said “In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous policy of containment, led in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, continues today.” There is truth to that statement; according to ‘Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’ it is a historical fact that the Wall Street elites had planned to undermine Russia’s sovereignty dating back to the 19th and 20th centuries. In the early 19th Century, Western Financiers created a revolution to overthrow Czarist Russia; Professor Sutton makes the connection between the United States and German interests in untapped Russian markets with prominent financiers such as J.P. Morgan, David Rockefeller and Leaders of the Bolshevik revolution Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Leon Trotsky. Sutton explains his methods on how he obtained information:

    Since the early 1920s, numerous pamphlets and articles, even a few books, have sought to forge a link between “international bankers” and “Bolshevik revolutionaries.” Rarely have these attempts been supported by hard evidence, and never have such attempts been argued within the framework of a scientific methodology. Indeed, some of the “evidence” used in these efforts has been fraudulent, some has been irrelevant, much cannot be checked. Examination of the topic by academic writers has been studiously avoided; probably because the hypothesis offends the neat dichotomy of capitalists versus Communists (and everyone knows, of course, that these are bitter enemies). Moreover, because a great deal that has been written borders on the absurd, a sound academic reputation could easily be wrecked on the shoals of ridicule. Reason enough to avoid the topic."


    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...c-2971242.html
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-27-2016 at 12:31 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •