Who Are The Illuminati?

Who Are The Illuminati?

By Richard Stone 

“A loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires” (Paul Simon).
“The world is governed by far different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes” (Benjamin Disraeli).
“Give me control over a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes the laws” (Mayer Rothschild).

Conspiracy theory is the theory that most of the world is secretly governed by a small group of men who operate behind the scenes. Conspiracy theory is now an accepted turn of phrase but sometimes one hears the expression, sometimes whispered rather than spoken. “The Illuminati”.

What does this mean? Who are the Illuminati? They are, in essence, a cartel of international bankers and industrialists based in Western Europe and North America. The names of certain families persist over long periods of time. Some of the most important names are Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Lazard, Warburg, Schroder and Schiff.

The pivotal family is probably the house of Rothschild, the descendants of Mayer Rothschild (1743 – 1812) of Frankfurt. The male descendants of this family, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. The family established banking institutions in Vienna, London, Naples and Paris as well as Frankfurt. Ever since the middle ages, these families have been building their power by lending money at rates of interest to the monarchies and governments of Europe who were forever in debt, particularly in times of war. Sooner than tax the population to raise funds, always an unpopular measure, they usually preferred to borrow money from the money-lenders. This was the birth of the concept “the national debt.” The countries of the world are forever in debt but where there is a debtor there is a creditor – who is this money owed to? It is owed to this coterie of international bankers.

By the nineteenth century the power of the Rothschild family was immense. They increased their wealth with great cunning and cleverness, while maintaining a low public profile. A notable example of their methods was their exploitation of the battle of Waterloo. The Rothschilds had spies watching the course of the battle and as soon as became evident that Wellington had won, a Rothschild agent traveled at maximum speed to London, arriving hours before Wellington’s own messenger. Rothschild received the messenger and began conspicuously selling his stocks. The whole stock exchange assumed that Wellington had lost and Napoleon had won so everybody started selling, at this point, other Rothschild agents bought up huge stocks at give-away prices. Thus an already massive fortune was massively increased.

The Rockefeller family may be equally important. The pivotal figure in this family was J.D.Rockefeller, who made his fortune out of Standard Oil or Esso in Ohio and Pennsylvania. He also controlled the railroads. When rival road transport systems were established he attempted to block them by parking his trains across the roads at level crossings. His basic business technique was the elimination of competitors at all costs, followed by the establishment of a monopoly, followed by profit taking. He rapidly gained a name for huge wealth, secrecy and hard and dirty business practice. In his later years he had a harsh and gaunt appearance, so to counter his bad “public image” JD more or less invented the PR industry. He had short films of himself made, calculated to charm the public, himself playing golf with a pretty little child for instance. This film was shown on TV recently. It has a rather false and amateurish air but was very effective with the public of the day.

The Rockerfellers currently have controlling interests in Exxon (the world’s biggest company) and the Chase Manhattan Bank, which turns over trillions of dollars a week. With so many billions in their hands already, what does more money mean? Obviously it means more power and more control over other human beings, but to what end and in whose name?

Apparently in the name of Lucifer, the fallen angel also known as the bringer of light, hence the name “Illuminati”, which means “the enlightened ones”. Lucifer is also known for the characteristics of pride, deception and impermanence. The illuminati were apparently founded in Bavaria in 1770 by one Adam Weisshaupt, a student of the Jewish philosopher Mendelsohn, and backed by the Rothschild family. The society has always been based on the lodges of Freemasonry, which was taken over at the highest levels during the course of the eighteenth century by agents of the Illuminati. Freemasonry is a very secretive institution, to the extent that members at one level do not know what members at another level are doing. Hence it is an organisation which is full of bonhomie and good deeds at the lower and middle levels, while its motives and deeds at the highest levels veer towards the dark side.

Both Freemasonry and Judaism have strong roots in the ancient Egyptian systems of religious belief, and it was this very similarity which attracted the illuminati to Freemasonry, for most of them were Jewish. It is a source of controversy today to speculate whether or not they are still predominantly Jewish. No unfair racism intended – they either are or they aren’t. Certainly there is much evidence to suggest that they are not, George Bush for instance, a prominent illuminati figure and obviously not Jewish.

The all seeing eye on the U.S. Dollar Bill

The United States of America is more or less a creation of Freemasonry. The symbol of Freemasonry was placed on the cornerstone of the Whitehouse, while the assembled Freemasons lodges stood and watched the ceremony. The famous all-seeing eye in the pyramid appears on the one dollar bill. It is one of the main symbols of Freemasonry. This bill also bears the inscription, in Latin, “1776, the year of inception of a new world order”. If one joins the dots formed by the stars of the thirteen original states one obtains an exact Star of David.

The goal of the IlIuminati is total control of the world. The only nations, which are holding out against their power, are some Islamic nations and China but this resistance is limited because the Illuminati have crushing economic power.

There are certain methods of subjugation and control which are indispensable to this power. The first is, of course, complete control over all financial systems, all borrowing and lending. All banks, all building societies, all insurance companies have to be under their control. At the lowest level even the smallest bank will be forced to toe the line. At the highest level the World Bank decides the fate of countries. It is an interesting and amazing fact that both the Federal Reserve Bank and the Bank of England are controlled by these Illuminati dynasties, in spite of the names of these banks, which suggest that they are run for public benefit. It is said that both Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy wanted to change this system.

The second essential component is control of the media. It is controlled through business fashion. If the board meeting, or the management meeting, or the sales meeting, or the training meeting suggests that facts should be presented in a certain way, who is going to present them differently? There is an implied threat to one’s job and one’s career. Few people would gladly face demotion, retrenchment or the dole and most people are so ambitious they will do nearly anything “reasonable” to court favour with their superiors. This is how business is controlled and the media is the most important part of business, for it controls people’s minds. People are very suggestible and often lend more credence to what they see on “the box” than to what happens on their own street. The Illuminati know this and use this suggestibility factor to the full. Lenin’s key move during the Russian revolution was the capture of the radio station.

The third factor in the control system is the universities, and through them the whole education system. Particular effort is put into the schools of sociology, politics, economics and education, hence “liberal” systems of education which are often degenerate and even violent. Their men are inserted into the universities through the power of funding by big business. They then spread their influence downwards through tertiary to secondary and primary education.

The fourth factor is the enormous influence wielded by two similar organisations, The Council of Foreign Relations in the USA and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England. These institutions are schools for statesmen, Illuminati statesmen. They are the stamping grounds of men such as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinksi and Lord Carrington. These two “think tanks” have a crucial influence on all US and British governments, no matter which party is “in power”. The statesmen produced by these institutions can and do decide the fate of nations.The tax-exempt foundations are also instruments of Illuminati power. The Ford foundation and the Rockefeller foundation are two prominent examples of this type of “charitable” institution. They were heavily involved in supporting various communist powers when the cold war was at its height. Communism versus capitalism arms race = more money and power for the Illuminati. So these are some of the structures through which the Illuminati work but what methods do they use?

Pitting one side against the other, using a theory devised by Hegel, which is: Thesis versus antitheses – synthesis.

Every force tends to have an opposite counterforce. The conflict between the two results in a new situation, the synthesis. The illuminati make it their business to be the synthesis. Thus no problem situation is ever “nipped in the bud” it is rather fostered and used, just as the Soviet Union was fostered and used.

The insertion of immigrant groups into countries is a variation of this divide and rule process. Each group can be played off against the other.

“Double talk” and “double think”. George Orwell knew instinctively what was going on when he invented these two expressions:
I categorically deny = it will happen a bit later.
Peace = war by another means.

To say one thing and do another is fundamental to Illuminati practice. They believe that the public will accept these lies through laziness and wishful thinking. Unfortunately they are usually correct.

“Keep them busy busy busy, back on the farm with the other animals.” We are kept so busy with business (or busyness) that we do not understand or participate in the decisions and events that will crucially affect our future.

When a real power move is made it is usually done secretly and suddenly often with the pretence that nothing has happened. There is preparation for opposition, but conflict is often not necessary as most people have been trained to be so passive that they will probably not create an effective opposition.

Use of front men in important positions. These front men have the characteristic of “servile obedience”, probably because of a blot or blots on their character which they are anxious to conceal. Most of the Presidents of the USA fall into this category. The current situation springs to mind. Behind the opponent stands the man with real power, who has long been groomed for this position. Men like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Bush are in this category.

The assassination of opposing leaders as quietly and as secretly as possible, so as to simulate a natural death. If this is not possible due to time constraints or other limited circumstances, surrogates are used and the lines of suspicion are covered by deception, false accusation and if necessary, multiple assassinations. Induced heart attacks, fake motor accidents and apparent suicides are also favoured methods of assassination.

Social engineering. An easily manipulated rabble is what is required. Mixed population groups with weak morals, weak traditions, low educational standards and weak group willpower are the aim. Those with special aptitudes can be taken out and trained to serve the illuminati for technical purposes, security purposes or as part of the propaganda apparatus. The middle class will become surplus to requirements and will be reduced to relative poverty.

Mockery and submission of the manners and morals of societies which show any resistance. Control of the media, the fashion industries and the education systems are essential components in this strategy. “Free love”, the cult of youth, mockery of the Christian and Muslim faiths also fall into this category. “I don’t give a rats ass about Jesus Christ” is one recent masterpiece from one of Hollywood’s biggest starts. He probably didn’t realise what he was saying, which makes him a “useful idiot’. A “useful idiot” is much more effective than a conscious supporter. By these means of subversion societies and nations are conquered from within and open battle is usually not necessary.

The conduct of unrelenting economic warfare. This is the real war and continues even while the bombs are falling and the bullets are flying. The important part is the control of the enemy’s economy after the conflict. The recent economic crash in the far-eastern countries is in reality an assertion of the Illuminati’s economic power, an expression of economic dominance. The Illuminati now control 10-15% of the Japanese economy. This is public knowledge, that is what has been bought at bargain prices. In reality they probably control much more.

Control and exploitation of the standards of public health. The sale of prescription drugs is a huge business generating mega profits. Medical operations and treatments can also be very profitable to big business. These extreme treatments have their place but are over-used for the sake of profit.

In fact big business, particularly the big drug companies, have a vested interest in the ill health of the population. These companies, working through the US Food and Drug Administration, have tried to suppress the health food industry. In this they have largely failed but now the game is to own it and control it so that health foods can only be afforded by the elite.

Argument through defamation of character. The factual debate is ignored while characters are defamed. This is usually a very effective technique as many human beings are very suggestible and seem reluctant to use their reasoning abilities. Thus a “smear campaign” can easily draw attention away from the facts.

To conclude, it is growing increasingly evident that a world government is developing, and many would say that it is probably no bad thing, but few have asked for what purpose this “new world order” is created. Nor have they asked themselves what the consequences will be. These consequences (or some of them) will probably be as follows:

• Increasing profits for big business, increasing poverty for the middle class (who they despise). A rapid decline in moral standards and the promotion of social decay.

• Transience. Jobs that don’t last; neighbourhoods that don’t last.

• Increasing levels of crime and violence.

• Decline and demise of public services; replacement by private enterprise – good service for the few who can afford it.

• Ongoing ill health for the bulk of the population because of stress; poor quality foods; food additives; genetic engineering; pollution and drugs. There may be good health for those who can afford it – only the rich and well informed.

• The gradual phasing out of national governments, which will have powers more like the regional governments of today.

• The formation of several conglomerations like the United States.

In time a world leader will be announced, a real one this time. A pity he will have a cynical contempt for the most of humanity. Do we deserve it?

The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam

John Stossel — YouTube Jan 16, 2018

US Setting Up Large Secret Airbase in Syria to Protect Kurdish-Held Areas

Introduction — June 16, 2018

The U.S. failed to dislodge President Assad using covertly backed proxies so now a new ploy is being tried. Instead of Sunni militants in ISIS (otherwise known as Islamic State, ISIL or Daesh) Washington now plans to use Kurdish militants.
Although it may not be enough to oust Assad, particularly as he’s now firmly supported by Russia, it will help in the break-up of Syria. In the process it will also help spread further chaos and strife across the Middle East and bring forward plans for a Greater Israel.
The hundreds of armoured vehicles the U.S. has reportedly supplied the Kurds are part of the price Washington will pay. In return for supporting the Kurds the U.S. will get an airbase from which to launch drone strikes, or provide air support to the 30,000-strong Kurdish force that the U.S. is in the process of arming and equipping.
Turkey, Russia, Syria and now Iran have all voiced their opposition to the plan but that is unlikely to deter the U.S.
If Russia can have a naval base at Tartus, giving it access to the eastern Mediterranean, then the U.S. must have something similar. Not only to contain Russian expansion in the region but to support its new proxies. Who like ISIS (Islamic State, Daesh, ISIL) before them will control large swathes of the Euphrates River Valley through Iraq and Syria. Where conveniently for the U.S. they might even join up with what remains of Islamic State, who were reportedly planning to make a last stand there.
So the U.S. would be in a position to offer air support to its old proxies and their new replacements.
Having a Kurdish militia and ISIS together in the Euphrates River Valley would also enable Zionists to take another step toward a Greater Israel. For both Israel and the U.S., it’s a win-win situation. Ed.

US Setting Up Large Secret Airbase in Syria to Protect Kurdish-Held Areas

US drone on tarmac

Fars News — Jan 16, 2018

Washington has established a secret airbase in Syria to protect the Kurdish forces who have occupied large areas of the Arab country, media reports said on Tuesday.

The Arabic-language Lebanese Addiyar newspaper revealed that the US airbase in Syria can host 100 fighter jets and is in good distance from al-Tanf military base in Southeastern Syria.

The daily disclosed that the airbase has been secretly built to protect one-fourth of the Syrian territories occupied by the Kurds.

According to Addiyar, Washington has supplied the Kurds with 300 tanks, over 600 armored personnel carriers, anti-armored missiles and full personal equipment, weapons and ammunition and built a large base in Northern Syria to protect them against missile attacks.

The US-led coalition announced on Sunday it is helping to create a new Border Security Force to fight terrorists in Syria. The unit, stationed along the Syrian border with Iraq and Turkey, as well as along the Euphrates River Valley, is expected to be comprised of up to 30,000 people. SDF veterans will make half of the unit, while the other half are yet to be recruited.

Damascus, Moscow and Ankara have strongly blasted the US new decision to form a Border Security Force.

The United States’ military support for the militia first began under the administration of US President Donald Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, which provided Kurds with weapons and training.

Washington also continues providing Kurdish fighters with more military hardware in Syria despite US President’s promise to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan to halt arms shipment to the Kurdish fighters.

Ankara had said late November 2017 that Trump told Erdogan that he had issued instructions that weapons should not be provided to Kurdish fighters in Syria.

According to reports, the US plans to keep its troops in Syria long after the defeat of ISIL. Washington has been justifying its deployment of ground troops in Syria, which violates the embattled nation’s sovereignty, by citing the need to fight ISIL.

Source

Iran says planned U.S.-backed force inside Syria would fan war

Reuters — Jan 16, 2018

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Tuesday a new U.S.-backed, 30,000-strong force inside Syria constituted a breach of international law and Syrian sovereignty, joining Syria, Turkey and Russia in a vehement rebuke of the plan.

On Sunday, the U.S.-led coalition said it was working with its Syrian militia allies, the mainly Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), to set up a force that would operate along the borders with Turkey and Iraq, as well as within Syria.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad responded by vowing to crush the new force and drive U.S. troops from Syria. Strong Syria ally Russia called the plans a plot to dismember Syria and place part of it under U.S. control, and Turkey described the force as a “terror army.”

“The new plan that the Americans have in mind for Syria is a violation of international laws and a plot against sovereignty and security of Syria and region,” Rouhani was quoted by state media as saying during a meeting with the speaker of the Syrian parliament Hammouda Youssef Sabbagh.

Sabbagh was in Tehran for a conference of parliamentary speakers.

Iran supports Assad in the nearly seven-year civil war against rebel forces and Islamic State militants, sending weapons and soldiers.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi said earlier on Tuesday that the planned U.S.-backed force inside Syria would “fan the flames of war” and raise tensions.

“The U.S. announcement of a new border force in Syria is an obvious interference in the internal affairs of this country,” Qasemi was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA.

Qasemi urged all U.S. forces to leave Syria immediately.

The United States is at the head of an international coalition using air strikes and special forces troops to aid fighters on the ground battling Islamic State militants in Syria since 2014. It has about 2,000 troops on the ground in Syria.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif discussed the conflict in Syria in a phone conversation, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.

Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky

Source

Trump: The Art Of Breaking A Deal

Brother Nathanael — Real Jew News Jan 15, 2018

Jews- Neither Race nor Religion but Cult

henrymakow.com — Jan 17, 2018

Uri Shapir - Israeli Jewish ArtistThis is not Michael Berg. But, like this blue-eyed Israeli, Berg found that his DNA test results show NO trace of Non-European or Semitic DNA. His DNA test shows that despite coming from a multigenerational Jewish family,  his DNA is 98.7% Northern European, mostly Germanic and the rest is Celtic etc.
Judaism (much like Freemasonry) isn’t really a race and a folk in the traditional sense but a secret society – a Satanic cult – whose main goal is to enslave mankind. “Race” and “Nation” are used as covers to keep the brainwashed mixed race “Jewish” masses following the Satanic agenda.

By Michael Berg — (henrymakow.com)

I was born in Israel in 1985. My parents are European Jews.
In the following article, I would like to make the point that Jews are mixed-race population and are as much as victims of the Satanic Cabalist-Talmudic agenda as anybody else.

WHY IS JUDAISM (TALMUD & KABALA) SATANIC

The Talmudic Jews refer to negative behavior as “Yerida L’tzorich Aliya” which means “Descent for the Purpose of Ascent” (the same philosophy was also embraced by the Frankists.)  In other words, you can engage in all form of evil things and the lower you descend, the higher you ascend. They believe that their Messiah will only come once Humanity is totally morally degraded hence they attack the only normal, healthy, natural and God-given form of Sexuality i.e. Heterosexuality (Opposite-Sex Attraction = Marriage) and promote Homosexuality (i.e. Same-Sex Attraction), Zoosexuality (Human Animal Attraction), Pedophilia (Adult-Children Attraction) and incest.

ORDINARY JEWS ARE ALSO VICTIMS OF THE NWO AGENDA

 

Continues …

Why are doctors in the Middle East cosying up to foreign armies?

Robert Fisk — The Independent Jan 16, 2018

A picture taken July 9 2017 shows the destruction in Mosul's old city. Click to enlarge

A picture taken July 9 2017 shows the destruction in Mosul’s old city. Click to enlarge

Foreign doctors in war zones have to talk to the bad guys. Always. NGOs need protection, they have to negotiate checkpoints, they sometimes have to bribe gunmen with food – think Darfour. Sometimes – remember Afghanistan and the ICRC – they are murdered. But the sieges of cities and towns in the Middle East these past two years have produced a new and more profoundly disturbing challenge: medical aid groups who embed themselves in armies and militias and thus align themselves with one side in the conflict.

Jonathan Whittall of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) first raised the alarm during and after the siege of Mosul when doctors and medical personnel sometimes allowed local security forces to check the identity of patients entering their hospitals or aid centres. “Sometimes they gave the names of patients to the local secret services,” Whittall told The Independent. “Horrific compromises were made to work hand-in-hand with the international military coalition. The wounded were often not treated as patients but as suspects. This fundamentally compromises the trust patients have in medics. And this makes our work less effective”.

Based in Beirut, Whittall is director of MSF’s analysis department and spent the first four weeks of the Mosul siege – as US-supported Iraqi troops and militias surrounded Isis forces amid tens of thousands of civilians – on the edge of the fighting as a project coordinator, receiving an influx of wounded as the front lines moved forward. He was so appalled at the “compromises” which he witnessed that he later wrote to the British Medical Journal.

Sixteen years after the “War on Terror” began, Whittall gave an angry description of the Mosul siege: “most humanitarian actors behave in line with how [ex-US Secretary of State] Colin Powell described their role in 2001: ‘NGOs are such a force multiplier for us, such an important part of our combat team.’”

The majority of wounded patients, Whittall wrote, “first arrive in trauma stabilisation points [TSPs] located close to the front line and embedded within different divisions of the Iraqi national security forces. Some TSPs are run by armed medical personnel, some of whom wear patches on their uniforms that say ‘Make Mosul Great Again’ – a clear reference to the US military campaign.” MSF is entirely funded by private donations in Iraq. MSF’s hospitals, Whittall said, “are gun-free zones… we negotiate with all authorities not to use our hospitals for law enforcement”.

Early last year, the US network PBS Newshour published a photograph of what it called “a Norwegian volunteer medic” writing “Make Mosul Great Again” on the base of a destroyed Isis billboard in western Mosul. The most extraordinary part of the illustration – unmentioned in the caption – is that the Norwegian was wearing full military camouflage combat uniform and a flak jacket. The phrase “Make Mosul Great Again” has been advertised by the US military “Soldier Systems” blog which last year showed photographs of shoulder patches with the same logo – for sale, alongside Iraqi military insignia, “in order to donate 100 percent of the proceeds towards medical aid and equipment for civilians currently escaping Isis”.

The insignia belongs to ISOF, the Iraqi Special Operations Forces, the so-called “Golden Division”, created with the help of the Americans in 2003 and which includes a unit called in Arabic “jihaz mukafahat al-irhab” – it can be translated as “counter-terrorism office” – and is funded by the Iraqi defence ministry.

The same Soldier Systems blog boasted 10 months ago that “we have been going over to Kurdistan and Iraq for the last two years supporting [Kurdish] Peshmerga and now recently ISOF in [a] certain (sic) capacity. We met and worked together with an organisation called ‘The Academy of Emergency Medicine’ on our last couple of trips, assisting them in rendering aid to civilians and soldiers on the battlefield. These guys are the real deal. Based out of the Slovak Republic, they are currently embedded with ISOF and are doing a lot of good on the medical front.”

The Academy of Emergency Medicine describes itself as an “international NGO based in Slovakia”, that operated “in war-torn Iraq” where “as the fight against the so-called Islamic [sic] State continues, our certified paramedics and doctors are working to save human lives…”. But the “academy” also states that “we are closely cooperating with [the] international humanitarian community, civilian and military medical personnel and coalition security and armed forces”. It does not describe the nature of its “cooperation” with the “security and armed forces”.

But Jonathan Whittall remains deeply troubled. He says that in an MSF hospital south of Mosul during the fighting, he heard his medical unit described as “the American hospital”, illustrating the risk that anything “foreign” was associated with the US military campaign. MSF’s difficulties were caused by decisions “by other medical actors” to align with one side in the conflict.

In his BMJ article, Whittall scathingly attacked what he called “stethoscopes for hire”, contractors for a commercial medical company who operated “as contractors driven by profit rather than the principles that guide humanitarian action in conflict. Other patients are referred to a hospital managed by a Christian organisation. At these hospitals, patients are officially screened by security forces against a list of potential suspected Islamic State members or sympathisers. Using health facilities in this way for law enforcement purposes makes health facilities places to be feared and further aligns healthcare to one side of this conflict.”

The World Health Organisation adheres to the medical profession’s ethical duties, Whittall says. “Yet it is this same WHO that has subcontracted its emergency health programme to these hospitals including the screening practice.”

Would, for example, the WHO have funded Russian medical posts to be embedded with Syrian army units on the front lines of east Aleppo? They did not do so. But no one questioned the decision to make the same political compromise in Iraq. In Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Mali and Nigeria, similar sieges may soon develop. Whose side will the doctors be on then?

Source

James Damore’s Google lawsuit exposes a Google culture of hate and racism directed at conservative employees

Alex Christoforou — Article first appeared on RPT via The Duran Jan 15, 2018

damore

Two weeks ago, RPT reported on a lawsuit filed by Google fired employee James Damore over his “Google memo” which does the unthinkable, and references biology and science, to conclude that men and women may be a genetically different…and this may be one of many factors determining divergent career paths between the sexes.

The author of the controversial August 2017 memo is suing Google, alleging that white, male conservatives are systematically discriminated against by Google.

Details included in the lawsuit expose a shocking, vitriol hate for conservatives at Google’s offices.

The Federalist has put together a list of 19 outrageous and hate-filled actions taken by Googlers against conservative colleagues. WARNING: explicit language is included in this list.

The lawsuit James Damore filed against Google on Monday provides a fascinating glimpse into the way the company and many of its employees see the workplace in terms of a demographic hierarchy, and what happens to those who diverge from the consensus view.

Details from diversity training sessions, accounts of alleged reverse discrimination, and screenshots of internal communications on company forums and message boards in the lawsuit cast the company culture as extremely hostile to employees with unpopular opinions, especially heterosexuals, men, white people, and those who hold conservative views.

Damore and another former Google employee, David Gudeman, allege the company discriminates against white male conservatives and maintains illegal diversity quotas for hiring managers. Damore was fired last year after an internal memo he wrote positing that men and women have biological differences that affect their work preferences and abilities was leaked and went viral.

In screenshots laid out in the lawsuit, “Googlers” as they call themselves, talk openly of blacklisting and purging the company of employees whose views or identities are deemed outside the bounds. Employees were allowed to award those who spoke out against Damore’s memo “peer bonuses” — a company kudos of sorts monitored by the “Google Recognition Team.”

“We want to be inclusive of people, not ideas,” one employee identified as Alon Altman wrote in a message included in the lawsuit. Damore says that sentiment was backed up at an Inclusion and Diversity Summit he attended in June, when he was told by Google employees the company does not value “viewpoint diversity,” but actively strives for “demographic diversity.”

The lawsuit succeeds in suggesting a sharply divisive worldview pervades Google, in which those deemed worthy of tolerating (women, minorities, transgenders, etc.) are to be protected and agreed with at all costs — the recipients of unbridled compassion and understanding — while those who fall outside the bounds are to be ruthlessly disowned and expelled. Here are 19 of the most notable and bizarre snapshots of corporate culture laid out in the lawsuit.

  1. ‘Living as a Plural Being’

Continues …

‘No power for member states’, Nigel Farage reveals ‘the EU’s SCARY plans’ for Europe

Aurora Basotti — Daily Express Jan 15, 2018

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel. Click to enlarge

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel. Click to enlarge

NIGEL FARAGE claimed the European Union is seeking to create a “unified” union taking away all power from the current member states, days after Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel revealed his shocking vision that would see Brussels take over the continent.

Mr Farage also called on Remainers to finally “come clean” about the real purpose of the European Union.

The staunch anti-EU politician said: “There is a real reluctance for anyone on the Remain side to really come clean about what Europe is. It is about the creation of a new state.

“Barnier said to me: ‘We are not building a federal Europe. We are building a unified Europe.’

“That’s actually scarier because a federal Europe would mean that the individual states would have – rather like America perhaps – quite a lot of say, quite a lot of power over their own lives.”

Speaking during his weekly Sunday show on LBC, Mr Farage suggested the British public would “heavily reject” EU plans to further integrate the union had they voted in favour to stay a member of the institution.

He continued: “The idea of a unified, unitary state I think it’s one that, if the British people really understood it, would reject heavily.”

The shocking claim appears to fall into line with statements made by German Foreign Affairs minister Sigmar Gabriel during a meeting in Brussels earlier this week.

The fervently pro-EU politician suggested European countries in the future will only be able to exercise self-control through the European Union.

Mr Gabriel claimed even Germany – the EU’s largest and strongest financial contributor – would have to accept more EU rules in the coming years.

He said: “In the world of the 21st Century, Europe will only be able to act on a sovereign basis via the European Union, by winning back sovereignty through the European Union.

“Even Germany, big and strong as it is, in tomorrow’s world will not have a voice by itself. Our children and grandchildren will have the choice of having no voice to be heard or a common European voice.”

The German politician’s vision echoes the proposals EU Commissioner Jean-Claude Juncker presented during his State of the Union speech in September.

Proposals included taking more decisions on joint foreign policy by majority vote, rather than unanimity, and setting up a European Monetary Fund complete with a eurozone finance ministry and minister.

Source

Tulsi Gabbard: US Foreign Policy Led to North Korea Developing Nuclear Weapons

Pam Key — Breibart Jan 15, 2018

Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said American foreign policy of “regime change” had led to North Korea developing nuclear weapons.

Partial transcript as follows:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, and that leads to the question now, what should be done about it. Do you believe that President Trump should be speaking directly to the leader of North Korea?

GABBARD: Absolutely and immediately. This is something that I’ve been calling for a long time. I’ve been talking about the seriousness of this threat posed to the people of Hawaii and this country, coming from North Korea. The people of Hawaii are paying the price now for decades of failed leadership in this country, of failure to directly negotiate, to prevent us from getting to this point where we’re dealing with this threat today, setting unrealistic preconditions.

And I’ve been calling for President Trump to sit across the table from Kim Jong-un without preconditions, work out the differences, figure out a way to build this pathway towards denuclearization. Because there is so much at stake. The people of Hawaii recognized this yesterday, experienced it personally. So the leaders of this country need to experience that same visceral understanding of how lives are at stake.

STEPHANOPOULOS: North Korea Kim Jong-un says he’s not going to give up his nuclear arsenal. Perhaps they could lead to (ph) talks of some kind of a freeze. But given that, do you think that we need to bolster the defenses of Hawaii?

GABBARD: We absolutely need to bolster our — our ballistic missile defense system specifically for Hawaii and for this country. That’s something on the Armed Services Committee that I have been and continue to work on doing. But I think it’s also important, as we talk about how important it is that Trump directly negotiates with North Korea, we’ve got to understand why Kim Jong-un is saying he’s not going to give up his nuclear weapons.

Our country’s history of regime change wars has led countries like North Korea to develop and hold onto these nuclear weapons because they see it as their only deterrent against regime change. And this is what’s important for President Trump to recognize. It is critical that we end our policies of regime change wars to provide that credible guarantee that the United States is not going to go in and topple the North Korean regime so that these conversations can begin toward denuclearization.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Just to be clear, you’re saying that Kim Jong-un’s nuclear arsenal is our fault?

GABBARD: What I’m saying is that Democrat and Republican administrations for decades, going back over 20 years, failed to recognize the seriousness of this threat, failed to remove it. And we know that North Korea has these nuclear weapons because they see how the United States, in Libya for example, guaranteed Gaddafi, we’re not going to go after you; you should get rid of your nuclear weapons. He did, then we went and led an attack that toppled Gaddafi, launching Libya into chaos that we are still seeing the results of today.

North Korea sees what we did in Iraq, with Saddam Hussein, with those false reports of weapons of mass destruction. And now seeing in Iran how President Trump is decertifying a nuclear deal that prevented Iran from developing their nuclear weapons, threatening the very existence and the agreement that was made.

So yes, we’ve got to understand North Korea is holding on to these nuclear weapons because they think it is their only protection from the United States coming in and doing to them what the United States has done to so many countries throughout history.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Was it a mistake for the United States to take out Gaddafi and Hussein?

GABBARD: It was, absolutely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Tulsi Gabbard, thanks for the time this morning.

(h/t Washington Examiner)

Source

Humanity will live in a ‘hellish dystopia’ as robots takes over billions of jobs

… leaving people to lead meaningless and miserable lives, claims scientist

Shivali Best and Joe Pinkerton — Daily Mail Jan 15, 2018

Artificial IntelligenceAs the capabilities of robots and AI continues to grow, a leading scientist has warned that the machine takeover will lead mankind into a ‘hellish dystopia’.

Dr Subhash Kak, a computing expert at Oklahoma University, says employment provides people with a sense of self-worth and value.

He believes this self-worth will be lost as robots take control, leading humans into a life of ‘meaningless’ misery.

He claims the US opioid addiction and the rise of extremist groups are an early omen of a dystopian future

Dr Kak, a professor of electrical and computer engineering told the Daily Star Online: ‘The beginnings of the dystopia are already there.

‘There will be massive unemployment. People want to be useful and work provides meaning, and so the world will sink into despair.’

This is already happening, he said.

A report last year claimed that 800 million workers could be replaced by machines by 2030.

Dr Kak said: ‘Policymakers have begun to speak of a minimum guaranteed income with everyone provided food, shelter, and a smartphone, and that will not address the heart of the problem.

‘In my view, the current opioid and drug epidemic in the US is a manifestation of this despair.

‘Likewise, phenomena such as ISIS are a response to the meaninglessness that people find in a world devoted only to the cult of the body,’ said Dr Kak.

In November, management consultancy firm, McKinsey, published a report called ‘Jobs lost, jobs gained: Workforce transitions in a time of automation’.

The report focused on the amount of jobs that would be lost to automation, and what professions were most at risk.

The report suggests that cap: the report suggests that physical jobs in predictable environments – including machine-operators and fast-food worker – are the most likely to be replaced by robots. Click to enlarge

The report suggests that cap: the report suggests that physical jobs in predictable environments – including machine-operators and fast-food worker – are the most likely to be replaced by robots. Click to enlarge

 Talking about the continued evolution of AI, Dr Kak said: ‘Some say that current phase of automation will create new kinds of jobs that we cannot even think of.

‘The current revolution is replacing the thinking human and so its impact on society will be enormous.’

The report claimed that there will be enough work to maintain full employment until 2030, but there will be challenging transitions ahead and that in about 60 percent of jobs, at least one-third of activities could be automated.

It said: ‘We estimate that between 400 million and 800 million individuals could be displaced by automation and need to find new jobs by 2030 around the world.’

The report suggest that while some occupations will grow, others will decline, and new ones we are yet to envision will be created. Click to enlarge

The report suggest that while some occupations will grow, others will decline, and new ones we are yet to envision will be created. Click to enlarge

And while the report suggested that new jobs will be available, it highlighted that people may need to learn new skills to get them.

The report said: ‘Of the total displaced, 75 million to 375 million may need to switch occupational categories and learn new skills.’

The report suggested that workers in China are likely to be most affected by the switch to automation.

It said: ‘In absolute terms, China faces the largest number of workers needing to switch occupations – up to 100 million if automation is adopted rapidly or 12 percent of the 2030 workforce.

‘While that may seem like a large number, it is relatively small compared with the tens of millions of Chinese who have moved out of agriculture in the past 25 years.’

But the countries facing the biggest change are the US, Germany and Japan, according to the report.

It added: ‘For advanced economies, the share of the workforce that may need to learn new skills and find work in new occupations is much higher: up to one-third of the 2030 workforce in the United States and Germany, and nearly half in Japan.’

In terms of jobs, the report suggests that physical jobs in predictable environments – including machine-operators and fast-food workers – are the most likely to be replaced by robots.

But it added: ‘Collecting and processing data are two other categories of activities that increasingly can be done better and faster with machines.

Continues …

Revealed: Carillion secretly protected bosses’ £4m bonuses just months before £600m accounting crisis

Rachel Millard — This is Money Jan 12, 2018

Troubled engineer Carillion introduced tougher rules that protect bonuses paid to bosses – just months before it was embroiled in an accounting crisis that wiped £600million off its shares.

The firm changed the wording of its pay policy to make it harder for investors to claw back bonuses paid to executives in the event it ran into financial difficulty.

In recent days Carillion has been under pressure from investors to recoup some of the millions of pounds in bonuses paid to former chief executive Richard Howson and ex-finance chief Richard Adam when they were in charge.

A probe by the Mail has found that previously bosses could have been forced to hand back their annual bonus and share awards in ‘circumstances of corporate failure’.

But in the group’s 2016 annual report this wording was tightened.

It says deferred bonuses may be reduced in circumstances of corporate failure but goes on to say the so-called ‘malus’ and ‘clawback’ provisions can be applied in two circumstances: if results have been misstated or the participant is guilty of gross misconduct.

Essentially, this means that executives would have to be guilty of fraudulent behaviour rather than just the more general failure of the firm.

Carillion – which builds and maintains schools, hospitals, barracks, roads and railways – has seen more than 70 percent wiped off its value since July 10 when it suddenly announced a £845million write-down and suspended dividends.

Carillion wrote down £375million mostly on three troubled public-private finance partnerships in the UK, and £470million on overseas contracts.

Bosses suspended dividends to save £80million for the year and said all options were under consideration as part of a review of the business.

Analysts also warned on the firm’s ballooning £800million pension deficit and debt of £1.4billion.

The changes to clawback rules, if interpreted as being a higher bar, could save bosses millions.

Howson, 49, stepped down from his role as chief executive on the day of the disastrous trading update. He had been in the post since 2009.

He is still with the company as chief operating officer but is due to leave next year. He has made £1.9million in cash and share bonuses during his tenure, only not getting an award in 2012, according to Mail calculations.

Last year he pocketed a £245,000 bonus in cash and shares as well as a £346,000 long-term incentive award.

Adam, 59, has had up to £2.6million in extra cash and shares since starting in 2006, according to Mail calculations.

Last year he was handed a bonus of £140,000 and long-term incentive awards worth £278,000.

After leaving Carillion in December 2016, he faced a revolt from shareholders at First Group when he joined the transport company’s board. More than a fifth opposed his appointment.

Carillion is still one of the most shorted stocks on the market, suggesting investors are expecting worse to come. But shares closed up 3.7 percent yesterday, or 1.6p, at 44.76p.

The company declined to comment.

Source

Where Have All Our Mentors Gone?

henrymakow.com — Jan 16, 2018

MentoringIn an article, Marriage-Minded Young Women are “Depressed and Anxious”AZ writes, “What I really needed was a good mentor to ground me and teach me to hold standards for the men coming in and out of my life.” 
With this single sentence, AZ describes perhaps the most glaring default facing society today: we no longer have mentors.
Mike Stone surveys family, school, church, & workplace and finds that mentors are few and far between.

By Mike Stone — Jan 16, 2018

What’s the missing ingredient in almost all of our lives? Mentors!
Boys are no longer taught how to be men, and girls are no longer taught how to be women. As a result, society has turned upside down.
I speak from personal experience. Growing up, nobody told me anything about money, about being a man, about women. It was years later before I began to figure life out on my own, and in some areas, I’m still struggling.
It would be easy to blame our mentor-less society on the two-income system we currently inhabit, in which both parents work and their children are raised by the state via daycare and the school system. While that is definitely a factor, it’s not the entire answer.
As a child, I was never sent to daycare. My mother was a stay-at-home mom and yet she offered little to nothing in the way of mentorship.
When the kids came home from school, she was on the phone, complaining about her life and talking for hours about absolutely nothing. At night, she sat in front of the boob tube with a stupid grin on her face, laughing at the stupidest sitcoms imaginable.
The senseless sitcom characters that my mother idolized were her mentors, and she hated the fact that her own life did not match theirs. This led to constant arguments and fights with my father, who retreated by hiding in his work. As children, we never saw him  not working. The poor guy literally worked himself to death and died at age 48.

 

Continues …

Trump Buries USA, Israel is Judaica, Celeb Culture, Travelling – Morris

108Morris108 — Jan 13, 2018

Russia’s Lavrov berates Trump administration on Iran deal, Syria and North Korea

Natasha Turak — CNBC Jan 15, 2018

Strained relations evident in the meeting between Tillerson and Lavrov. Click to enlarge

Strained relations evident at an earlier meeting between Tillerson and Lavrov. Click to enlarge

Moscow will not accept any changes to the Iran nuclear pact made by the United States, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said during a press conference Monday, accusing the U.S. of fomenting further conflict around the Middle East.

The minister fielded questions on a range of topics from Syria to Ukraine, criticizing U.S. activities in Syria and the Israel-Palestine conflict while insisting the Russian government supports peace and reconciliation.

“We will not support what the United States is trying to do, changing the wording of the agreement, incorporating things that will be absolutely unacceptable for Iran,” Lavrov told reporters.

On Friday, President Donald Trump agreed to uphold sanctions relief for Iran as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 by all United Nations Security Council members and Germany, which allowed the lifting of sanctions in exchange for sharp restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.

But Trump’s disapproval of the deal is well known. He announced that this would be the “last time” he would waive sanctions and pledged to fix what he called the “terrible flaws” in the deal with the help of Congress. Russia, along with EU leaders, have urged the U.S. to respect the integrity of the original arrangement.

Lavrov also disparaged Washington’s recently announced plan to implement a 30,000-man border security force in Syria’s Kurdish territory. “This is a very serious issue, which causes concerns that a course was set for the partition of Syria,” the minister said. He also claimed there was no difference between Trump and former President Barack Obama’s policies in Syria, accusing the U.S. of supporting forces that did “not wish to put an end to the conflict as soon as possible.”

It didn’t come as a surprise that Russia’s top diplomat would voice his government’s aversion to American foreign policy. The two countries have been at opposing ends of some of the most internecine conflicts of the past several years, particularly Syria’s civil war and the conflict in eastern Ukraine. In April 2017, Russia’s Foreign Ministry described American-Russian relations as going through the “most difficult period since the end of the Cold War.”

Syria: Conflicting narratives

Continues …

Amnesty International Is Barking Up The Wrong Tree

Paul Craig Roberts — paulcraigroberts.org Jan 15, 2018

I have received a letter from Margaret Huang, Amnesty International’s executive director. She is fundraising on the basis of President Trump’s “chilling disregard for our cherished human rights” and his exploitation of “hatred, misogyny, racism and xenophobia,” by which he has “emboldened and empowered the most violent segments of our society.”

Considering the hostility of Identity Politics toward Trump, one can understand why Ms. Huang frames her fundraiser in this way, but are the Trump deplorables the most empowered and violent segments of our society or is it the security agencies, the police, the neoconservatives, the presstitute media, and the Republican and Democratic parties?

John Kiriakou, Ray McGovern, Philip Giraldi, Edward Snowden, and others inform us that it is their former employers, the security agencies, that are empowered by unaccountability and violent by intent. Certainly, the security agencies are emboldened by everything they have gotten away with, including their conspiracy to destroy President Trump with their orchestration known as Russiagate.

The violence that the US government has committed against humanity since the Clinton regime attacked Serbia was not committed by Trump deplorables. The violence that has destroyed in whole or part eight countries, murdering, maiming, and displacing millions of peoples, was committed by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes, their secretaries of state such as Hillary Clinton, their national security advisers, their military and security establishments, both parties in Congress. The murder of entire countries was endorsed by the presstitute media and the heads of state of Washington’s European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassals. Trump and his deplorables have a long way to go to match this record of violence.

Whether she understands it or not, Ms Huang with her letter is shifting the violence from where it belongs to where it does not. The consequence will be to increase violence and human rights violations.

The most dangerous source of violence that we face is nuclear Armageddon resulting from the neoconservative quest for US hegemony. Since the Clinton regime, every US government has broken tension-easing agreements that previous administrations had achieved with Moscow. During the Obama regime, the gratuitous aggressions and false accusations against Russia became extreme.

Why doesn’t Amnesty International address the reckless and irresponsible acts of the US government that are violating the rights of people in numerous countries and pushing the world into nuclear war? Instead, there have been times when Amnesty International aligns with Washington’s propaganda against Washington’s victims.

By jumping on the military/security complex’s get Trump movement, human rights and environmental organizations have increased the likelihood that rights and environment will be lost to war.

There can be no doubt that Trump is undoing past environmental protections and opening the environment and wildlife to more destruction. However, the worst destruction comes from war, especially nuclear war.

Would things be different if the liberal/progressive/left had rallied to Trump’s support in reducing tensions with Russia, in normalizing the hostile relations that Obama had established with Moscow? Would the support of the liberal/progressive/left have helped Trump resist the pressures from the neoconservative warmongers? In exchange for support for his principal goal, would Trump have mitigated industry’s attacks on the environment and vetoed the renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that violates human rights?

We will never know because the liberal/progressive/left could not see beyond the end of its nose to comprehend what it means for the environment and for human rights for nuclear powers to be locked into mutual suspicion.

Thanks to the failure of the liberal/progressive/left and to the presstitute media to understand the stakes, the military/security complex has been successful in pushing Trump off his agenda. The damage that a mining company and offshore drilling can do to the environment is large, but it pales in comparison to the damage from nuclear weapons.

Source

Web of Deceit: The Jewish Puppet Masters Behind World War II

By Jason Collett — Darkmoon Jan 15, 2018
Edited by Lasha Darkmoon

LD:  This is a revised and updated version of an article published over five years ago on other websites under a different title. I have added bits and pieces to the original text (and made some cuts) in an attempt to clarify and strengthen the author’s original arguments. It is my sincere hope that Jason Collett, with whom I have now lost contact, will approve of the changes I have made.  [LD]
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (centre) with Churchill and Stalin at the original Yalta conference in 1945. Click to enlarge

President Franklin D. Roosevelt (centre) with Churchill and Stalin at the original Yalta conference in 1945.

CHURCHILL, ROOSEVELT, STALIN (1945)

It was these three powerful individuals, the winners of WWII, who decided to carve up the world between them by manufacturing pretexts for a catastrophic world war that would claim 60-80 million lives, roughly 3 per cent of the world’s population, and reduce Germany to a wasteland of rubble. Behind them, lurking in the shadows, stood their Jewish Puppet Masters, egging them on and telling them exactly what they had to do.
Here are the highly toxic and politically incorrect views of four key diplomats who were close to the events leading up to World War II. Ponder them carefully and ask yourselves: Could they all have been mistaken?
Joseph P. Kennedy, US Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding World War II, was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal, the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949), quotes him as saying “Chamberlain [the British Prime Minister] stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.” (The Forrestal Diaries, Cassell 1952, p.129).
Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America, Count Potocki says:
Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands. Their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe. 
It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries.
Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps. President Roosevelt has been given the power to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.”
— JFC Fuller, The Decisive Battles of the Western World, vol 3, pp 372-374.
Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany “understandable.” This was because before the advent of the Nazis “the stage, the press, medicine and law were crowded with Jews. Among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion were Jews. The leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” — Hugh Wilson, American diplomat, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder, 1976.
Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin “said further that the hostile attitude [toward Germany] in Great Britain was the work of Jews, which was what Hitler thought himself.” (AJP Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, Penguin 1987, p. 324).
Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

ANTI-SEMITIC CARTOON. “One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” — Hugh Wilson, American ambassador in Berlin, c.1938

Is this negative attitude toward international Jewry attributable to a groundless antisemitism—to a hatred of Jews for no valid or justifiable reason? A knowledge of the economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding of this complex question.
At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries by the terms of the iniquitous Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the meddling of liberal American President Woodrow Wilson, himself acting under Jewish advice. [See Paul Johnson, A History of the Modern World (1983), p.24; and H. Nicholson, Peacemaking, 1919 (1933), pp. 13-16]
Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the Great War of 1914-1918 in spite of the fact that “Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.” (Professor Sydney B. Fay, The Origins of the World War (Vol. 2, p. 552).
As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations made by the Versailles Treaty, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate. Inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. (See this picture). In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar; by 1924, it  had become roughly 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle classes, reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero. (See Arthur Koestler, The God that Failed, p. 28).
According to distinguished British historian Sir Arthur Bryant:
It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like A THIRD OF THE PROPERTY IN THE REICH. Most of it came into their hands during the hyperinflation.
To those who had lost their all, this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings
THEY HAD NOW BEEN DEPRIVED OF THEIR LAST POSSESSIONS. THEY SAW THEM PASS INTO THE HANDS OF STRANGERS, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and WHO CARED LITTLE OR NOTHING FOR THEIR NATIONAL STANDARDS AND TRADITIONS.
The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions in spite of constituting LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION.
The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press—all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed. The largest newspaper combine in the country, with a daily circulation of four millions, was a Jewish monopoly.
EVERY YEAR IT BECAME HARDER AND HARDER FOR A GENTILE TO GAIN OR KEEP A FOOTHOLD IN ANY PRIVILEGED OCCUPATION.
At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed—and lavishly displayed—by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe.
Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.
— Sir Arthur Bryant, Unfinished Victory, 1940 pp. 136-144, emphasis added.
The caption to a famous anti-Semitic German cartoon headed sarcastically “The Land of Freedom”, referring to Germany under the Jewish heel, has a caption in German that translates as: “When one is ruled by the Jews, freedom is only an empty dream.” (See the 1939 cartoon here).
—  §  —
Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon’s Hitler, Germans and the “Jewish Question”, essentially confirms what Sir Arthur Bryant says above. Sarah Gordon, incidentally, is Jewish, so this is a rare example of a Jew actually admitting that anti-Semitism could have a rational basis:
“Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.
Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange.
By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their “race”. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors at German universities had Jewish origins. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.
In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents.”
Arthur Koestler, also Jewish, confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing:
“Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably in the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the BZ am Mittag, an evening paper. Apart from these, Ullstein’s published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein: they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.”
— The God that Failed (1950), ed. R.H.S. Crossman, p. 31.
Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called “Germany Puts the Clock Back”, published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938. He notes alarmingly:
“In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.
A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THREE JEWS IN MINISTERIAL OFFICES COULD RESULT IN THE SUSPENSION OF ANY PERIODICAL OR NEWSPAPER IN THE STATE. 
The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.
No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood.”
(“Germany Puts The Clock Back”, pp. 153-4, emphasis added)
Sir Arthur Bryant, already quote above, describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds “Most of them—the night clubs and vice resorts—were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.” (pp. 144-5).
Marlene Dietrich. Click to enlarge

Marlene Dietrich. Click to enlarge

Marlene Dietrich (1930) in The Blue Angel, directed by Josef von Sternberg.).
†   “Most of the night clubs and vice resorts were owned and managed by Jews.”  — St Arthur Bryant, British historian.
†   “It’s disgusting how the Jews are taking everything by storm. Even the Rome of Seutonius has never known such orgies as the pervert balls of Berlin.” — Jewish German writer Stefan Zweig.
†   “The decay of moral values in all areas of life—the period of deepest German degradation—coincided exactly with the height of Jewish power in Germany.” — Dr Friedrich Karl Wiehe, German historian,  in Germany and the Jewish Question

(Quotes added by LD)

—  §  —
Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported:
“I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word “Jew” in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it.
Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.
— Douglas Reed, Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3, emphasis added.
In Reed’s book Disgrace Abounding (1939), he notes:
“In the Berlin (of the pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers…
The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish.”
(Douglas Reed, Disgrace Abounding, 1939, pp. 238-9).
Jewish writer Edwin Black gives a similar picture. “In Berlin alone,” he states, “about 75 percent of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.” (The Transfer Agreement (1984),  p. 58)

Brown Shirts painting JEW

“I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word JEW in dripping red letters.” — Douglas Reed, 1938.  Note that 99 out of 100 shops in the High Street were owned by Jews, and yet Jews made up less than one percent of the population.
To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on Germany on August 6, 1933. (See Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984), pp. 272-277). According to Black, “The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer” (p. 369).
This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations.
The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline “Judea Declares War on Germany”.  The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel. At a single stroke, this headline disproves the lie  that Germany initiated World War II. International Jewry is here clearly seen declaring war on Germany as early as 1933. It would take the Jews another six years to cajole their Anglo-American stooges to go to war on their behalf.
Next time you hear anyone claim falsely that “Germany started World War Two”, send them a copy of this headline picture from The Daily Express, dated March 24, 1933:

JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY
JEWS OF ALL THE WORLD UNITE IN ACTION

Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia’s population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):
“It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm: Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia; Bela Kun in Hungary; Kurt Eisner in Bavaria; and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.
To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.”
Other authors agree with this assessment , including Jewish historian Sarah Gordon, already cited once above:
There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1….
The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.
It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation.”
— Sarah Gordon, Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’, Princeton University Press (1984), p 23. (Emphasis added)
Martin Bernal in Back Athena (vol 1), pp.367-387 reinforces the above:
“The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s. Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in ‘nice society’, and ‘nice society’ included the universities.”
Is it any wonder that Hitler, along with millions of others all over Europe, should join the growing ranks of the anti-Semites?
It is clear that the Jews were almost universally hated, not because they Jews, but because of their obnoxiously pushy behavior and the fact that they were in the forefront of dangerous revolutionaries dedicated to the downfall of their host countries. You cannot move into someone else’s house and take it over and expect to be loved by your victims.
—  §  —

Conclusion

Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty and the destruction of the Soviet/ Communist threat to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest. Professor AJP Taylor proved this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, much to the annoyance of the professional court historians. Taylor says: “The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all” (p.267). And again: “Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership” (p. 104-5).
British historian Basil Liddell Hart confirms this assessment. He writes: “Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted. (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill, 1948, Pan Books 1983).
David Irving wraps it all up in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) where he refers to “the discovery that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or  intend  a real threat to Britain or the Empire.”
I think all this proves, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the chief aggressors in World War II were the Anglo-Americans—as indeed they were arguably the chief aggressors in World War I and most of the wars that have plagued the world during the 20th century and up to the present time. As for the moneyed international Jews, these were demonstrably the Puppet Masters jerking the strings of the three great leaders of the Western World—Churchhill, Roosevelt and Stalin—who went to war at their behest and on their behalf.
It is not without significance that each of the legendary figures mentioned above has been accused at some time or other of enjoying exceptionally strong Jewish connections.
Of one thing we can be reasonably sure: whenever there is a major new war or revolution being planned which requires heavy financial backing—the Russian Revolution is a perfect example—the hidden hand of international Jewry is almost certain to be behind it. Partout où il y a de l’argent, il y a des Juifs, said Montesquieu. — “Wherever there is money, there you will find the Jew.”
And wherever there is war, the most profitable money spinning activity known to man, there also you are likely to find the Eternal Jew—Der Ewige Jude—counting his gold coins over a mound of corpses.

Source

How anyone who questions the White Helmets became victims of the Guardian propaganda

Introduction — Jan 14, 2018

Anyone who looks beyond what they are told by the corporate media knows that there are many unanswered questions about the Syrian White Helmets.
However, we do know that they were originally founded by James Le Mesurier, a Sandhurst trained former British intelligence officer, who seems to operate in a twilight zone filled with highly paid contractors, double agents and terrorists.
Despite its dubious origins, or perhaps because of them, the Syrian White Helmet has managed to obtain funding from Britain and the U.S. to the tune of £200 million.
What’s more the corporate media is now playing its part to ensure that nobody asks the wrong questions about the Syrian White Helmets. So the Guardian now argues that anyone who dares question their origins and integrity is doing so with the support of the Russian government.
Seriously. Elements in the corporate media are as much a part of the problem as Western covert ops and those in their pay who have been masquerading as “aid workers.” Ed.

How anyone who questions the White Helmets narrative became victims of the Guardian propaganda machine

Catte — Off-Guardian Jan 13, 2018

The bogus and Western-backed "humanitarian" group, the Syrian White Helmets pose for the cameras. Click to enlarge

The bogus and Western-backed “humanitarian” group, the Syrian White Helmets pose for the cameras. Click to enlarge

As many of our readers know the Guardian recently published an article by Olivia Solon making the claim that all criticism of the White Helmets in Syria was part of a disinformation program ‘propagated online by a network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the Russian government’.

The article exhibits minimal research, has been deconstructed and rebutted many times over (see here and here and here on our own site), and is little more than a clumsy, mostly fact-free hit piece. In terms of journalistic politics the fact it was given to Solon – a “technology journalist” with no previous experience in Syria or related matters, suggests it was an article in search of an author and may well have been passed down to Solon from more senior or experienced people who did not want their names associated with anything quite so flagrantly anti-factual – just in case (as seems possible) the entire White Helmets mythology were to collapse irretrievably and force even the MSM to stop calling them heroes and start calling them terrorist-enablers.

As usual with the Guardian’s most unapologetically propagandist stories, this piece produced a strong negative reaction, both in social media and elsewhere. Many people were appalled at the standard of journalistic integrity on display and were quick to call for explanations.

None were forthcoming. In fact, the Guardian went into the siege mode that seems to be its new default response to any serious challenge to its favoured narratives. If comments were ever open on the Solon piece they were quickly closed and disappeared. Letters of complaint and even requests for space to make a reasoned reply to the libellous allegations went unanswered. Even when one of those directly attacked in the piece (Vanessa Beeley) sent in a response, there was nothing but silence from the official Guardian. – Though not from Solon herself, who took vociferously to social media and, in the words of Tim Hayward

allowed herself to promote her piece while simply blocking critical voices.

Unsurprising perhaps, but arguably a new low in terms of accountability. But that was not the end of it. Soon afterwards no less a personality than George Monbiot leapt into the fray, tweeting impressively insulting rhetoric against those who dared question the White Helmets as the heroes of the hour.

When challenged to rebut the evidence in their own propaganda of WH links with terrorists he responded memorably:

Yes, that’s right. George Monbiot, respected Guardian journalist, actually resorted to an only slightly more sophisticated version of “what’s the weather like in St. Petersburg?” Lowest common denominator trolling reinvented as serious analysis. George, if you’re reading this, it’s you, not Hayward and Robinson, who has disgraced himself here.

The irony is that while he was taking these schoolboy pot shots at her, Beeley was actually on the ground in Syria, risking her life again to document the real experience of the people there. But George and Olivia probably think she was in that overcrowded Russian troll house where everyone who ever questions, well – anything is now apparently based.

In response to these egregious smears by Guardian journalists together with a denial of a platform to reply, the ‘academic Working Group on Syria, Propaganda & the Media’ wrote a formal letter of protest to ‘Comment is Free’ at The Guardian on 23 December.

The Guardian didn’t publish or respond to it.

So they sent a follow-up letter on January 5, this time to the Guardian Readers’ Editor.

The Guardian didn’t publish or respond to that one either.

Well, in fairness, the Guardian Readers’ Editor must be pretty these busy days – editing Guardian readers and slipping their comments down that Memory Hole. So maybe he’ll get round to replying when he has a moment.

We are reproducing both these letters in a separate post. When or if the Guardian recalls its responsibilities to journalism enough to volunteer a reply to these courteous and reasonable requests we will let our readers know.

And before anyone asks – none of us in the troll house know what the weather is like in St. Petersburg – because we’re never allowed outside.

Source

Great Moments in Google: “American Inventors”–Almost All Black

Steve Sailor — VDare Sept 20, 2016

American inventors

Google’s list of American inventors. Click to enlarge

If you go to Google and type in American inventors you get back from Google pictures of the top American inventors of all time.

The #1 American inventor of all time is Lewis Howard Latimer, who, I just learned, worked with both Edison and Bell.

Thomas Edison is in 6th place and a well-tanned Alexander Graham Bell (right)in 9th place, with ten black inventors rounding out the top dozen.

In the second dozen, Samuel Morse is 19th, Eli Whitney 20th, and Ben Franklin 23rd. Everybody else is black.

The Wright Brothers don’t make the top 50 American inventors, according to Google.

Thanks to John Rivers’ Twitter account for this.

In contrast, if I Google Scottish inventors, I get.

Google's list of Scottish inventors. Click to enlarge

Google’s list of Scottish inventors. Click to enlarge

If I type in French inventors, I get:

Google's French inventors. Click to enlarge

Google’s French inventors. Click to enlarge

Presumably, Google must get a lot of requests for “African American inventors” and assumes that’s what you really meant when you ask for “American inventors.” After all, what kind of sick Nazi do you have to be to be interested in your fellow Americans irrespective of race? That’s racist!

This phenomenon appears to be tied into propagandizing schoolchildren in K-12. For example, if I Google American psychologists, a subject only of interest to college and above, I get a pretty reasonable list with William James at #1:

Google's American psychologists. Click to enlarge

Google’s American psychologists. Click to enlarge

 

Continues …

Neo-Nazi behind Daily Stormer website Andrew ‘Weev’ Auernheimer ‘is of Jewish descent’, says mum

Lydia Smith — The Independent Jan 4, 2018

Andrew Auernheimer. click to enlarge

Andrew Auernheimer. Click to enlarge

The mother of a neo-Nazi who co-runs the white supremacist website Daily Stormer has said he has Jewish relatives on “both sides of his family”.

Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer, who has previously said Jewish children “deserve to die”, comes from a “large, mixed-race family” and is of Jewish descent and Native American heritage, his mother Alyse told Newsweek.

Auernheimer, 32, from Arkansas, who runs the technical side of the website alongside editor Andrew Anglin, has been estranged from his mother for more than ten years, she told the magazine.

He is believed to be in Ukraine, where he has lived since serving a prison sentence in the United States on a computer hacking charge.

The Daily Stormer lost it’s dot-com status in August 2017 and struggled to find a provider to host the site after insulting Heather Heyer, who was killed by a neo-Nazi while protesting a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Auernheimer responded on the podcast Radical Agenda that the suppression of free speech would leave white supremacists no choice but to kill the children of their enemies.

“If you don’t let us dissent peacefully, then our only option is to murder you. To kill your children. To kill your whole families,” he said last month.

“There is only one thing absent free speech that we can do to express our dissent and that’s to slaughter you like dogs, and you’re gonna have it coming and your children will deserve to die.”

Auernheimer’s Jewish ancestry was first reported by Gawker in 2012, but this is the first time a family member has spoken about his heritage.

Source

9/11 – U.S. Neocons Planned Middle East Destabilization Since 2000?

NRUN65 — June 2013