Update 2:

Some anti-Zionist activists, like the ones at Veterans Today, are taking the OW protests seriously, and don’t see the lack of interest in talking about 9-11 as  a red flag. I am not sure what to make of this. Again, I should say, at this point it scarcely matters if a national infrastructure program is instituted, since things are so bad. Except, of course, the usual corporate cronies will fatten off the contracts, making them even more powerful. And it will create more dependency, more demands, more constituencies, a bigger political class, distort the market further, postpone and thus prolong the process of correction.

Update:

To be clear, I write from the perspective of an eclectic or syncretic Christian whose views would be rejected by most fundamentalists, evangelicals, Catholics etc.

ORIGINAL POST

David Graeber is one of the mouthpieces of the Occupy Wall Street movement. A Marxist academic and the son of a working class family, his father fought in the Spanish Revolution, Graeber himself is a Yale graduate and a leading light in anthropological theory. His mentor is another Marxist anthropologist Maurice Bloch, of the LSE, who has argued that religion is nothing special, but still central, surely a most revealing assertion. Bloch believes that the development of “imagination” in prehistoric man is what allowed the idea of “god” to emerge in human thought. That is, God was imagined in the same way that nations are imagined.

Is there a hint here that, like nationalism, religious beliefs are now going to be taken down by the powers-that-be, in the interests of universal humanity, world government, and the salvation of non-existent souls?

Bloch’s protege continues in the same vein of adolescent iconoclasm.

He argues – ambitiously, given his age – that all previous histories of money are wrong. Menger and the Austrians, especially, are wrong (Bob Murphy has critiqued this, in his usual modest fashion at the Mises forum).

Barter did not arise first, to be followed by money and credit. Instead, credit and debt arose first.

In the beginning, man lived in a kind of primitive community in which money played no role. Then came war and conquest. Debt and debt bondage arose from the victor’s impositions on the vanquished.

Whatever merit one might detect in such a sweeping starting point is quickly erased when we find that the author’s destination is the all too familiar territory of greenbackism (i.e. debt jubilee and debt-free money).

Next, we are told that modern Anericans are no better than the chattel of by-gone years. Of course, the slaves of old, who were whipped, sold on blocks, manacled and deprived of all rights, might argue the point. But college professors routinely make up in rhetoric what they lack in knowledge and rationality, and we see no need to hold Professor Graeber to standards that have long vanished from academia.

Americans are slaves, and Graeber is Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks combined. Or do I mean, Marx and Lenin combined? For while Graeber somehow feels the need to turn to Christianity for his rhetorical flourishes (forgiveness of debt is sacred in Christianity, quoth he), it’s still communism that is the real force behind his manifesto, as the video above indicates.

Notice the subversion of language in his claims here, and elsewhere.

The sacred essence of Christianity – the salvation of the soul and the resurrection of the body – is eliminated. In its place, he focuses on the mechanism of salvation.… and misconstrues it.

Claiming that both words, debt and sin, have a common origin, Graeber conflates them and discovers in the conflation the means to transform the unique moral act of a particular being (forgive them, father) into a diktat of communism (cancel all debts).

In the Christian world view, Christ’s redemptive substitution for sinful humanity on the cross is a “forgiveness of sin” that only the “sinless one” could accomplish precisely because he was sinless.

Secondly, even if sin and monetary debt are equated, “forgiveness of debt” is enjoined on Christians only because debt itself, like sin, is of such paramount consequence.

Debt is consequential because to take without giving is a form of theft. The Old Testament law, on which Christ’s teachings were based, would not have countenanced borrowing with no intention of repaying, any more than it would have countenanced lending in the hope of default, able-bodied idlers, mass gambling, improvidence, shiftlessness, profligacy, or any of the moral sins endemic in society today.

Not content with mutilating Christian doctrine to suit his communist agenda, Graeber then foists his slogans on economic activity. For him, normal cooperation between human beings is a feature of “communism.”

Thus he can argue that capitalism is a method of organizing “communism” (since, even at work, human interaction proceeds without economic considerations).

From there, he can argue that the economy should be driven by “altruistic” considerations.
The confusion is so enormous that a book would be needed to fully explore the ways in which the man has misunderstood these terms.

In the first place, capitalism – or better, free markets – has never denied altruism or any other psychological trait its place in human life.

Nor has any intelligent free market theorist equated the whole of life with economic interaction. {Although, I’m not entirely sure that we would be worse off if  they did. Certainly, there is a great deal to be said for contracts, even within families, witness the rise of prenuptial contracts, living wills, family trusts, guardianships,  and so on, which certainly have smoothed many aspects of family life.

Nor does anyone outside academia assume “rational” actors or “economic” men.

Men act from all sorts of reasons. They run companies for all sorts of reasons, and money is often the least of them.

In short, Graeber, after having first assumed a model of capitalism that would be an embarrassment in a freshman essay, devotes his energies to refuting it with anecdotal evidence, which he then mysteriously dubs communist.

Is it not possible to behave decently to another person without being a communist? Who made communism – a theory about economic production and ownership – a system of ethics?

I would be puzzled, except for the leveraging of Christianity in Graeber’s polemic.

Now it is clear.

When you forbid divinity anywhere in the universe but in man’s imagining, it follows that you will restrict paradise to man’s own creations.

Stripped of all obfuscation, Graeber’s language betrays the covergence of the binaries – capitalism and communism – characteristic of the arbiters of the New World Order.

Activist Post:

“Noble intentions, divorced from a complete understanding as to the nature of the movements themselves have led to an “army of dupes” working unknowingly against their own ideals and against their own best interests. Movements.org is but one of many corporate subsidized organizations masquerading as a progressive movement. George Soros, a billionaire bankster (banker + gangster) runs Open Society which funds an almost endless list of similar organizations. Thailand’s Prachatai website leads off to several of these organizations, while it itself is funded by US money via the National Endowment for Democracy.

Conclusion

Thailand is but one example of genuine people being exploited by immensely disingenuous, insidious agendas. The same could be said about Serbia’s Optor, where many of the members discovered the opposition was organized and funded from abroad and were disillusioned and angered at what they had participated in. Foreign Policy reported that “Like the entire opposition to Milosevic, Otpor [now known as CANVAS] took money from the U.S. government, and lied about it. When the real story came out after Milosevic fell, many Otpor members quit, feeling betrayed.” Otpor would become CANVAS, and would end up training and building fake revolutions around the world in scores of nations. Egypt, being one of them, has played out as a textbook case of inconspicuous foreign meddling leading thousands of well-intentioned people down the road toward a corporate agenda.

While activists in Thailand claim it is time for change, that Thailand’s traditional institutions represent the “dark ages” and Thaksin’s “red shirt” movement represents the cries of an oppressed people, in reality they are making way for a new-monied elitist to implement his own hereditary dictatorship – as the fugitive living in self-exile in Dubai literally has his sister running in his place for the upcoming July elections. Thaksin’s backing by the international corporatocracy ensures that no matter how firmly in the hands of the people activists think this movement is, at the end of the day they will be exposing Thailand to unprecedented exploitation, not by an incompetent group of local aristocrats (of which Thaksin himself is counted amongst), but by a scientific dictatorship harboring a limitless amount of resources and knowledge with which to bear down upon the Thai people.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting change – change that is much needed. However the only way to ensure ownership of that change remains in the hands of the people, is to pursue local pragmatism where you are know, meet, and are certain of everyone contributing to your efforts. One would be surprised by the amount of good simply getting active locally and independently can accomplish – especially pragmatically. Teaching, building, growing, and exploring ways to improve the lives of people locally have always outmatched campaign promises made by corrupt, crooked, self-serving politics. Collectively, people pursuing real local pragmatism can effect real, tangible change. Because for all the good people claim Thaksin did for the rural poor and “oppressed” of Thailand, his ouster in 2006 took with him the socialist handout “house of cards” with him. Had he really did any good for the people he exploited to get into and stay in power, they would have thrived long after he was swept from office. For real freedom is independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency, not servile dependency on one man and his generous subsidies.”

This is a brief note to a few of my readers, who had emailed me asking about my latest blog posts.

Here’s my reply:

There is enough material out there on the web for a diligent reader to find out if some outfit or position or activist is “legit” or not…and to what extent.

Second. People are not equal in their capacity to receive truthful statements or even to discern them. There is no need to sacrifice oneself to persuade, unless one is sure that one’s destiny is to be a martyr.

Third. While martyrdom is not needed (yet), activism without specifics is misleading, however well-intentioned. The devil (and the angel) lies in the details. Glittering generalities are sure-fire ways to mislead and to be misled. When the choice is between surviving with half-truths or martyrdom with truth, surely it is wisest to choose silence. At times, it speaks more penetratingly than words.

Besides, all blogging is not well-intentioned. Much of it purely self-interested. The sooner one wakes up to this reality, the better.

Fourth. The masses are less culpable, morally, than their leaders, but they are not innocent. Portraying them as if they were is neither truthful nor game-changing. It leads to popularity, however, because there is no one who doesn’t love flattery.

But between artful diplomacy and prevarication, activism and marketing, is a fine line, and I, for one, cannot walk it. It makes me ill. It is both my dharma and my karma to express my strong convictions, albeit, I do try to temper them with levity or empathy, not always successfully, I admit.

Fifth. All mass movements are of necessity based on lies. You cannot fight lies with more lies.

You can however fight lies with silence.

You cannot change politics by voting for co-opted or complicit leaders, however honorable personally.

You can change politics by NOT voting.

You can make your life freer and richer, by saving your money and time. Spend both on educating your own family and friends, rather than electing politicians however persuasive their words.

When you look at their actions, you will see that lone individuals far from power did more to stop the encroachments of the power-elite than any one in politics.

Some advice:

Watch out for anyone who is guilty of more than one of the following.

1. Agrees with the official 9-11 story without qualification.

2. Mocks conspiracy theories related to them, or to the subversion of the media

3. Promotes Wikileaks uncritically

4. Promotes the “transparency” meme uncritically.

5. Argues that corporations are people

6. Confuses commercial activity with free speech

7. Argues for the moral neutrality or even virtue of bribery and blackmail (these are the chosen tools of the NWO) and places any blame for them only on public officials.

Defends white-collar criminality but denounces street crime.

[Of course, there are some who argue that taxation is theft and that public services are bribes. In many senses they are, especially at the federal level, but even at lower levels.

However, most politicians and voters do not see what they are doing as “bribes”.  In fact, they consider that they are doing good, and in the short-term, they often are. In any case, what the effects of their actions are is a matter of genuine dispute, except among pure anarcho-capitalists.

Since motivation is also needed to create a sin or moral wrong-doing (though not an error), equivalence between such acts and the bribing of officials in their public duties is not quite accurate. I know of no religious teaching which suggests that the latter is acceptable behavior.  Coincidentally, in Christianity, the death of Jesus Christ is a judicial murder that would not have taken place without the bribing of Judas to betray Christ.

Some libertarians (Rothbard, Block),  of course, have had other opinions.

But if you allow the logic of their characterizations, you will find yourself forced to approve the acts of officials who have been bribed to go to war and destroy millions of innocent lives. That is surely morally unjustifiable.

Moreover,  in and of itself, subverting the will of another person to do wrong is morally worse than committing the wrong directly. It is not for nothing that the sin of Satan in the Bible is temptation or seduction and that he is called the Tempter and characterized as motivated by jealousy of the good (and of  God).

The corrupter is always worse, morally, than the one he corrupts.

8. Is free and easy with descriptors like Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Biblical, Vedic, Anglo-Saxon, Aryan, Dravidian, Nordic, European, and Germanic, but shies away from words like Jewish, Hebraic, Talmudic, Masonic, Khazar, and Ashkenazy. Or, conversely, reduces all questions to tribalism.

9. Does not distinguish clearly and in context between language, religion, race/ethnicity, and culture and does not take these factors into account when discussing politics and economics.

10. Describes the financial/economic and political crisis in terms of ideology and slogans – End the Fed, Free Banking, Debt Jubilee, Constitutionalism, Debt-Free Money, Evil Capitalism (or Evil Socialism).

A few of these certainly do have more merit than other others, in the right context. However, the powers-that-be are always changing the context. Even sound economic positions can thus be subverted. Rapacious elites existed long before the Fed or the Enlightenment….or Western colonialism.

Ideologues are the useful idiots who allow the establishment to keep masses of intelligent people fixated on either end of a binary, when the action is in the third term, or off-stage….

Final answer to the question about JBS.

I have always considered JBS controlled opposition. Nothing they have said or done has changed my mind on that. There are plenty of sources whom I find credible who have reached that conclusion a long while back.

Links to the research can be found on nativist/nationalist sites, on far-right or libertarian Christian sites (http://jbsrip.blogspot.com/2009/12/jack-mcmanus-william-f-buckley-of-jbs.html) on far-left anarchist sites, and on some forums for conspiracy theories. Research on intelligence penetration into US institutions can be found on dozens of mainstream sites.

Note:

Although I read many nativist/racialist and even allegedly anti-Semitic sites for interesting research or links, and consider criticism of Judaism, Talmudism, and Zionism an integral part of deconstructing the NWO, I believe that historical antipathy in the West to Judaism, as a biological faith, to use a clever term, is often tied to misunderstanding of the occult practices of the Cabbala as “evil” or “Satanic” and similar misreading of the rational practices involved in financial exchange as inherently predatory, practices in which the Jews were well-versed, by an accident of history.

Add to these factors, the usual chauvinism faced by any foreign group, offensive, exploitative, or unfamiliar behavior by Jews themselves, and the natural irritation produced in any majority population by an assertive minority that is seen as subversive in any way, and we get a more balanced and reasonable understanding of the ill-feeling between pagans and Jews, first, and then Jews and Christians. Such an understanding need not assume any kind of eternal essence or biological predestination.

Notably, the pagans who expressed themselves on the subject disliked Christians even more than they disliked the Jews…and were no doubt just as hostile to Asiatics and Orientals.

Similarly, even such an independent-minded researcher on economic matters as Eustace Mullins loses his way on cultural and tribal questions and becomes a genetic determinist and racist, advocating legal sanctions against Jews and immigrants in order to preserve European and Christian culture.

Tom Valentine:

“Of all the Old Testament prophecies, none were more accurate at nailing down facts of future history than was Daniel. No wonder experts had to deny him. We simply cannot have such a powerful prophetic tale being validated, can we?

Because the actual history was so accurate the “scholars” concluded that the scribes had to cheat, and write Daniel’s predictions after the year 164 BC . The scholars blew it, however, because even if you use the later date, you get predictions so accurate about historic events it boggles the mind. Daniel foresaw, and described, the great Roman civil war, Antony and Cleopatra, and the egomaniacal Herod to a T.

Transcending time is very impressive to me. Is that unreasonable? Is that blind faith?

The Book of Daniel has been the most hotly debated book in Scripture ever since about 1910—the dawning of Scofieldism. Sure enough! In this new book about the Old Testament and archeology there was not one word about Daniel—the “scholars” evidently deemed it unworthy.

Zionists cannot allow the remarkable prophecies of Daniel to get any traction. His visions way back during the Babylonian “captivity” circa 560 BC not only chronicled the turbulent history of the peoples in Judea and Samaria and Galilee, they predicted the Roman occupation and destruction of Jerusalem, the event putting an end to the old testament era.

Rather then try to argue with scholarly antichrists, I will grant them the precious date of 164 BC (they say BCE which is more politically correct, but offensive to me). Their later dating makes no difference to the truth of the prophecy—and accurate prophecy is a great proof, whether one likes it or not.

The enemies of truth subjected the Book of Daniel to vicious attacks after about 1910 when Scofield’s book was first published, by Oxford University Press of all people. These enemies were not atheists nor Jews who reject Christ, they were, and are, the Christian proponents of today’s false notion that Bible prophecy refers to our present era. It simply does not, which is why the dreaded “end date” has been constantly postponed. (A Lifelong Pastor Sees Where He Was Wrong)

If one reads Daniel carefully, one sees very clearly that way back in old Babylon, Daniel was given the scoop on what was coming up for his people—right up to the “end time” and the “great tribulation.” And the prophecy has it all within a very clear time line that did not jump 2000 years into the future so that television preachers could lie about a rapture and tribulation and modern Israel.

In Chapter 11, Daniel foretells the coming of Alexander the Great followed by all his bickering heirs, who ended up ruling Egypt in the South and Syria in the North for the ensuing 250 years. The prophecy is amazingly accurate for the historical facts of these “kings of the North and south” who held power alternately over Jerusalem (Dan. 11: 16-34).

This prophecy is especially accurate regarding one truly rotten egomaniac called Antiochus Epiphanes. The prophecy is so compelling that “scholars” figured it had to be written after the fact, so they assigned the 164 BC date.

Here’s what one gets off the Internet:

“Many liberal Christians believe that the Book of Daniel is a work of fiction. Fables and myths about a non-existent ancient hero, Daniel, were passed down orally for centuries, and then finally written down by an unknown author(s), sometime between 167 and 164 BCE. At the end of the book, the author(s) then unsuccessfully attempted to predict the future.”

Let’s agree, for the sake of argument, to investigate to see how “unsuccessful” these alleged pseudo-epigraphic authors were at making accurate predictions. Verse 35 of chapter 11 in Daniel marks an historic change in the ruling dynasties holding power over Jerusalem as the prophecy takes us out of the “Asmoneon or Maccabees era,” and into the Roman era.

The “scholars”claim that authors looking at recent history in 164 BC made the prophecy look great, but from verse 35 on they were lousy psychics. Of course, the “scholars” deliberately avoid the obvious, which is after verse 35 the prophecy deals with the Roman era, and predicts the “end times” for the Jews of Jerusalem culminating in 70 AD. Daniel’s concern was for Jerusalem and its people, nothing else.

Of course, these “end times” are also the part that the “enemies” do not want clearly understood, for this is the part of sacred history that firmly establishes Christianity.

Incidentally, I get a kick out of people who say Jesus was a myth. Where do they think all those “Christians” that Nero persecuted came from? Do they think all those people believed in some person that did not exist only 30 years earlier? Nero’s persecution is well documented in “profane” history. Were all those martyrs deceived by a rumor about a man that did not exist? I think not! Firstly, they had no television news to lie about it and srcondly Christophobes simply can’t think straight.

Jesus Himself verified that Daniel, indeed, wrote his own Book. In Matthew 24:15, Jesus states “So, when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ of which the prophet Daniel spoke, standing in the holy place”…then those who are in Judea must take to the hills.

Those of us who study and believe know that the Bible proves itself, but this is unsatisfactory for “scholars.” I see the prophecy of Daniel in chapters 11 and 12 plus the Olivet discourses of Matthew, Mark and Luke as profound proof of God’s plan because it fits so well with known history. I do not require this amazing prophecy as a prop for my faith, which is propped up every day by the magnificent evidence of God’s handiwork, but it does provide solid evidence to demonstrate to those vicious, Christophobic enemies of Scripture.

Interestingly, it is this latter part of the Book of Daniel that has generated the most controversy among learned scholars who are well known “End times” Christian Zionists. Author Philip Mauro dealt succinctly and finally with the issue in his book “The Seventy Weeks and The Great Tribulation,” and I heartily recommend reading it. In Mauro’s exposition, he deal’s with Daniel 11:36 as follows:

“We come now to a remarkable personality, one who fills a large and prominent place in the prophecy, and who is introduced with these words:

“And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every God, and shall speak of marvelous things against the God of gods and shall prosper until the indignation be accomplished” (Dan 11:36)

“Here we reach that part of the prophecy in regard to which there is the greatest difference of opinion among expositors; and yet, if we be not greatly mistaken, it is an easy matter in the light of history, both sacred and profane, to identify the ‘king’ whose character and doings are set forth in such striking words in the prophecy…”

That King is none other than Herod, the Great. Daniel’s prophecy has suddenly left one egomaniac behind (Epiphanes) and transited into a new one; one that is very well known to history. Although Herod is not named, he is referred to as “the” king and not merely “a” king as all the others in the prophecy are. In the Hebrew text the emphatic article is used in this instance. Mauro put it this way:

“(Herod) that remarkable character, who was a usurper upon the throne of David when Christ, the true King, was born. The proof which enables us to identify ‘the king’ of Daniel 11: 36-39 with Herod the Great and his dynasty is so convincing that we feel warranted in saying that the prophecy could not possibly mean anyone else.

“It would be strange indeed if, in an outline which gives prominence to Xerxes, Alexander, the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees, there were no mention of that remarkable personage who exerted upon Jewish affairs and destinies an influence greater than they all, and who sat upon the throne of Isreal when Christ was born.”

Aren’t those “scholars” who noted that the “unknown authors after 164 BC unsuccessfully attempted to predict the future,” appearing a tad unsuccessful themselves?

Philip Mauro explains it painstakingly. Pointing out that after the Asmoneon dynasty ended by violence and bloodshed it was replaced by a “King” who answers perfectly to the description of the last part of the prophecy…It is said of this king ‘that he shall prosper until the indignation be accomplished, or until wrath be completed, in fulfillment of which is the fact that the dynasty of Herod retained, through all the political upheavals of the times, its favor with Rome, and flourished in authority in Palestine until the destruction of Jerusalem, which is the “wrath” or “indignation” or “tribulation” to which these prophecies of Daniel so frequently refer as “the end” of Jewish nationality.

We know verses 37 through 39 describe Herod the Great to a tee because the historical writing of Josephus provides details about the life and personality of this King.

If that isn’t enough, verses 40-43 describe the coming of Ceasar Augustus accurately.

To fully grasp the accuracy of this amazing prophecy 600 years earlier I recommend you read Mauro. There is far too much detail for this brief report. Even Antony and Cleopatra going against Octavian, who became Augustus, is outlined in the prophecy.

The important point is that we have concise evidence of God’s ability to use prophets—evidence that is verified not only by scripture, but by so-called“authentic” history as well.”

My Comment:

As for anyone who argues that the Jews of the Bible should have their own nation, I completely agree.

They should.  And now they do. It’s called Palestine.

Contemporary Palestinians are the descendants of the Christian converts from the Jews of Biblical times, who converted to Islam.

What is a problem, however,  is creating through force and subterfuge another state within an existing nation.

What is a problem is artificially engineering its demographics from a patchwork of Russians, Poles, Germans, Spaniards, and other nationals, largely of mixed European and Turkic descent, “bussed in” in a kind of global re-segregation project.

What continues to be a problem is fomenting conflict, intervention and domination in  an oil-rich area of great strategic importance and supreme symbolic and cultural value.

[Note added June 15, 2014: Just to be clear, I do not mean by this that Israel should not exist. I am simply pointing out its origin in an unjust dispensation.  However, many things are unjust that would become even more unjust if we attempted to undo them entirely.  We can only work from where we are in the most peaceable way possible.]

Dick Eastman (April, 2010):

“Obama’s Plan for Elimination of Nation-Controlled Nuclear Power is a revival of the “Baruch Plan” for a world government monopoly of nuclear weapons, ensuring that no individual nation could control atomic power either for defense or peaceful uses.

Under the Baruch Plan (a plan worked out with Rothschild agent and infiltrated communist agent Secretary of State Dean Acheson and David Lilienthal, the Lazard Freres head of the US Atomic Energy Commission, who invented the term “multinational corporation” and who later founded, with money from Lazard Freres, the international engineering venture company, Development and Resources Corporation, funded by governments and following the model Lilienthal developed from experience gained heading the Tennessee Valley Authority, the US’s first great socialist development project.

The Development and Resources Corporation functioned much like Halliburton, Schlumberger and Tesco. Although originally funded by Lazard Freres, the company was later bought by the oldest son of Nelson Rockefeller, Rodman Rockefeller, president of the International Basic Economy Corporation (a pioneer and leader in commercial genetics and global agribusiness ­ Rodman also was the American co-chair of the Mexico-United States Business Committee which produced the North American Free Trade Agreement — but Development and Resources Corporation foundered when the Shah of Iran was overthrown by a movement of Moslem nationalists abrogated all contracts with the company.

“Baruch invented the term Cold War, just as his owned minion Winston Churchill invented the term “Iron Curtain.” Lilienthal, for a time, headed that part of the Military Industrial Complex that kept the US in atomic weapons, in an arms race bankrolled with borrowings from Lazard Freres and other Rothschild-allied investment banks.

“As I was saying, the Obama Plan is simply the latest attempt at implementing a version of the Baruch Plan for a monopoly of atomic power by international power unanswerable to any nation.

“Baruch, Acheson and Lilenthal proposed an International Atomic Development Authority with complete power over atomic development all over the world and complete power to use atomic power to prevent atomic power. The movie The Day the Earth Stood Still was based on a story that was propaganda for the Baruch Plan, with the UN AEC taking the part of all-powerful and indestructible Gort the robot ­ the message laid out by Clatu the representative of the “united planets” being: “follow us and live in peace or pursue your present course and face obliteration.” When nations no longer have control of nuclear power only Zionist Internationalism (the interests now running the United States against the interests of the American people) will have them and peace and cheap electricity will not be their primary function.

” Obama’s plan to eliminate all nuclear power from countries not under total Rothschild control and then to phase it away from governments completely so that only weapons secretly in the hands of the Money Power’s own secret private (mercenary power above the armed forces of national powers) will exist to rule the earth brooking no interference from any organization of resistance.

When nuclear power is eliminated from the hands of all nationalist governments — Iran is one of the last — the Rothschild interests will have a monopoly of true nuclear super-power status — a term that today is absurdly applied to the United States which no less a Rothschild asset than is Israel, a nation the Rothschilds’ have won in a financial crap game using loaded dice. those of the “approved” Zionist internationalist arsenals and their secret private space-based capability as well.

If you doubt this than you have failed to thing long enough on the power of secret multi-trillionaires who control a monopoly of credit in the world as well as a network of secret societies that have worked to place their members in every geopolitical strategic point throughout the world ­ including China, Russia and India. Not only does the Jewish money power control secret stockpiles of nuclear weapons (in addition to the secret arsenal of Israel — likely known only to Zionist Jews and any others whose absolutel loyal to the Money Power dynasties has been firmly established.

I should mention also here my conclusion that Baruch Plan nuclear domination of the species will also be augmented by already existing systems of weaponized weather modification and the ability to destroy and coercively control through what may be called weaponized private international credit monopoly.

The Obama plan is no more for world peace and the peaceful development of cheap energy for mankind that was the Baruch Plan.

Once the threat of even the potential of non-Jewish-controlled atomic weapons that could threaten Jerusalem and Jewish global supremacy is eliminated, you will see a ruthless arrogance against all critics of Jews that will make all previous genocides of history (both real and imagined) pale in comparison.

Obama is working for the Rothschilds and his plan for eliminating atomic weapons from the hands of representative governments (like the US wishes it still was) and national governments (like Iran) will render Obama’s masters the Lords of the Earth (which they pretty much are already.) With this final power over others, Zionism will become not so much a global nobility as a global divinity with the power of Gods over men ­ the bankers having stolen from general mankind the gift of Prometheus so they can lord over them with impunity.

I wish Iran luck — but they are in big trouble because they mistakenly believed that Putin was independent and would back them up. The truth is Iran has no friends it can count on, even as Iran may be one of the few nations remaining that the American people, if they understood their true best interests, could call their friend.

The Obama’s Baruch Plan is probably going to succeed — just like Obama’s (formerly Hillary Clinton’s) Health Care Plan.”

I’ve looked at the leaders you keep throwing up for me to get behind — Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Ralph Nader, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura…and on that basis I can tell you with confidence — you’re getting the new Baruch Plan and you have earned it.”

Robert Wolfe in The New England Review:

“Tuchman, in Bible And Sword, saw a connection between Protestantism, rejection of Papal authority and Christian Zionism.

As she put it on page 80, Wherever the Reformation took hold the Bible replaced the Pope as the final spiritual authority. The Palestinian origins of Christianity were stressed more and more in order to reduce the pretensions of Rome

The Masons too claimed “Palestinian origins,” and pre-Christian ones at that. Their focus on the rebuilding of the Temple could and did align them even more closely with the Jews than non-Masonic Protestants. But it would prove little to put together a list of all the Masons who associated themselves with the Zionist concept in some way. Such a list would be difficult to compile in any case due to the extreme reluctance of historians of Zionism to look into the Masonic connection.

This reluctance is a natural reaction to the anti-Semitic charges of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.

[Lila: Which makes me suspect that indeed there is some factual basis to the “conspiracy”…]

Zionism certainly

[Lila: What is certain about this?]

did not grow out of a conspiracy, whether Judeo-Masonic or any other. It was a broadly based movement rooted in 3000 years of Jewish history

[Lila: Where is the proof?]

The question is rather whether Judeo-Masonic thought tended to create a favorable context for the success of the Zionist movement. This question clearly has to be answered in the affirmative.

[Lila: Aha. So the preceding paragraph was simply to distance himself from any charge of anti-Semitism, while admitting that the “anti-Semites” do indeed have evidence for their assertions!]

That Freemasonry was inherently favorable to Zionism is suggested by the fact that the three main supporters of the Zionist movement in modern times, England, France and the United States, were also the three main centers of Freemasonry. In the United States, today Israel’s strongest supporter, at least 13 Presidents have been Freemasons, including Harry Truman, who was responsible for United States recognition of Israel in 1948.

Freemasonry helped to create a receptive climate for Zionism by its legitimation of Judaism, by its association with movements for national independence and above all by its focus on the Temple. Although this focus could be interpreted in many different ways, it was difficult to resist the implication that the Jews would have to participate in some manner in the rebuilding of the Temple. This view in turn conditioned Freemasons to accept the Zionist movement when it arose among Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries. Zionism was in no sense their creation

[Lila: But it’s clear from the historical record that Zionism did spring out of Masonic conspiracy]

but without their aid its success would have been considerably less likely.

The Temple

That the Temple was central to Freemasonry from the start is shown by Stevenson in “The Origins Of Freemasonry.” After a thorough examination of the few references to Freemasonry in 17th century Scottish texts, Stevenson concluded that the early Scottish lodges were consecrated to the memory of the Temple. He put it this way, on page 149:

The lodge of the early Scottish masons was clearly intended to be Solomon’s Temple. It does not seem to have been mentally furnished with the pillars of the temple, but they were present through the use of their names as secret words, and the references to the lodge being orientated like the temple and to the first lodge having been held in the temple porch help stress this identification – as does the grave of Hiram, the temple’s architect. This being the case, the “work” to which the master puts the masons in the lodge was presumably regarded as symbolising the building of the temple. In the religious literature of the day “building the Temple” was frequently used as a synonym for building the new Jerusalem, the creation of a true godly community.

Stevenson’s testimony is all the more suggestive in that it never occurred to him that this focus on the Temple might have derived from the Templars. Stevenson also had no interest in a Jewish connection, but noted on page 133 that a 1689 Scottish text referred to the “Mason Word” as a “Rabbinical mystery.” Stevenson theorized that “as the words of the Mason Word were connected with Solomon’s Temple it was natural to connect their use with Jewish tradition.”

The point about the Temple is that it symbolized not only “the creation of a true godly community” but also it was built at the height of the power and prestige of the kingdom of Judah and it survived only so long as the Jewish people was able to defend it.

Physical force was also the main concern of the Templars, who were a military order who engaged in constant military training. Physical force was also a prominent element in Masonic culture, as shown by the long list of generals and other military men who were Masons. It is just this point which makes Robinson’s theory of the origins of the Freemasons so plausible. Wat Tyler’s rebellion was also an expression of physical force, and one which was remarkably well organized and destructive. It is hard to understand how a group of neo-Platonic mystics could have given rise to most of the great revolutionary movements of the 18th and 19th centuries, but it is easy to see how a radical underground formed by ex-Templars might have done so.

The moral of the story is that the Temple matters. The modern Zionist movement paid little attention to the issue of the Temple, and yet it has continually surfaced all the same. The seizure of the Temple Mount by the Israeli armed forces during the Six Day War in 1967 was viewed by many as a dream come true. Since 1967 Israel has marked time, retaining physical control of the Temple Mount but leaving its administration entirely in the hands of Muslim authorities. Forty years have elapsed in this manner, but forty years are but a moment in the 3000 year history of the Temple and its legend. Sooner or later the issue of the Temple will have to be addressed. Who will decide its future – Jews, Muslims, Christians, the United Nations? To me it appears equally inconceivable that the Temple Mount will remain entirely Muslim or that an entirely Jewish “Third Temple” will replace the existing Islamic structures. Some compromise will have to be devised, but what this compromise might be no one really knows. One thing is for sure the Judeo-Masonic concept of the rebuilding of the Temple remains very much alive, and much depends on how this concept will be translated into practice in the years to come. “

Antony Sutton:

“We trace the extraordinary Skull and Bones influence in a major Hegelian conflict: Naziism vs. Communism. Skull and Bones members were in the dominant decision-making positions — Bush, Harriman, Stimson, Lovett, and so on — all Bonesmen, and instrumental in guiding the conflict through use of “right” and “left.” They financed and encouraged the growths of both philosophies and controlled the outcome to a significant extent. This was aided by the “reductionist” division in science, the opposite of historical “wholeness.” By dividing science and learning into narrower and narrower segments, it became easier to control the whole through the parts.

In education, the Dewey system was initiated and promoted by Skull and Bones members. Dewey was an ardent statist, and a believer in the Hegelian idea that the child exists to be trained to serve the State. This requires suppression of individualist tendencies and a careful spoon-feeding of approved knowledge.

…This manipulation of “left” and “right” on the domestic front is duplicated in the international field where “left” and “right” political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in the drive for a one-world synthesis.

College textbooks present war and revolution as more or less accidental results of conflicting forces. The decay of political negotiation into physical conflict comes about, according to these books, after valiant efforts to avoid war. Unfortunately, this is nonsense. War is always a deliberate creative act by individuals.

Western textbooks also have gigantic gaps. For example, after World War II the Tribunals set up to investigate Nazi war criminals were careful to censor any materials recording Western assistance to Hitler. By the same token, Western textbooks on Soviet economic development omit any description of the economic and financial aid given to the 1917 Revolution and subsequent economic development by Western firms and banks.

Revolution is always recorded as a spontaneous event by the politically or economically deprived against an autocratic state. Never in Western textbooks will you find the evidence that revolutions need finance and the source of the finance in many cases traces back to Wall Street.

Consequently it can be argued that our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored, and largely useless as that of Hitler’s Germany or the soviet Union or Communist China. No western foundation will award grants to investigate such topics, few Western academics can “survive” by researching such theses and certainly no major publisher will easily accept manuscripts reflecting such arguments.”

This explains why RP fans seem to cater to the speculator class and students, who tend toward the left:

“The Washington Post reports today that Manilow, while impressed by Paul, “loves the president” and plans on pulling the lever for his reelection in 2012.

Paul’s supporters have often wondered why his support seems so strong in the general public discourse but does not translate into support in scientific Republican polls (with Harris Interactive results aside, for reasons I outline in that post).

The answer can be found in Manilow’s flip flop—many of Paul’s most ardent supporters are not Republican primary voters. Often, his supporters are independent, libertarian or soft Democrats that plan to reregister Republican in order to vote for Paul in closed primaries – those voters are not registered in polls of registered Republicans.”

My Comment:

Here we see another illustration of the danger of mass action, whether political or promotional in its aim. It dilutes its message and ends up appealing to people whose aims and interests are perhaps far from yours.

But this no longer matters, because the idea is to be all things to all people. Thus, mass action means you necessarily appeal to the common denominator, omitting some things from your agenda, and elevating others. You begin to adopt slogans, you begin to resist thought too deep for popular approval. You demonize  all foes, all critics, and eventually criticism itself.

Unfortunately, those are just the problems with politics itself.  To become what you fight in order to fight better is absurdity at its very core.

Not that absurd things might not be able to prevail in the short-term.  But such logical and moral contradictions have a knack of ripening into poison.

That has been my own personal experience.  A compromise that seemed a reasonable trade off in the beginning,  reveals itself  soon enough to be a tectonic movement in the moral foundation on which I thought I stood.

For, while I have always tried to follow my own conscience, and while it has been far stricter in certain areas than any demands made by convention or religion, that “in certain things” betrays a crucial problem.

What our perception and intuition sees as the moral imperative of the moment frequently turns out not to be. Some other area of our lives, one we thought we had mastered, or one in which we felt so secure that, like a left-handed Tantrist, we thought we could use “beyond good and evil”, turns out to have resisted our command after all.

One imprudent association leads to another. One compromise makes the next look easier.  Pretty soon, we begin to detest our critics and imagine them motivated by envy or malice or self-hatred, because their vision of our projects does not match the grandiosity of our own.

Especially is this true of those who have fought long, lonely battles, far from center-stage and invariably with the malodorous slanders of frauds and fools ringing in their ear, as RP has.

We feel for him and for his long-term supporters.

We know what it is like to see honest motives disparaged by those who would not recognize truth if it descended, thousand-eyed and many-winged, with a fiery coal at its lips.  In our small way, we know what it is like to have to fight and refight the same intellectual battles over and over, because those who wield the badge of authority also write the official histories. We know what it is like to see something you love – whether your country, your history, or even your own words – turned into its opposite by slippery-tongued opportunists.

But even so, reason, not feeling, must be our guide, because it is feeling, not reason, that is the culprit. It is feeling that drives the masses to demand more and more from their masters and it is feeling that traps them in the vicious cycle of consumption and debt.

Our masters, on the other hand, operate with cold reasoning, moving us like pawns on their chessboard precisely because they stay detached from the panics and deliriums of the moment.

Mass man feels, and his feelings shift with the moment. His masters think, however soullessly, and their thinking builds a vision over centuries that stretches far into the future, into eternity.

Those who seek to undo such far-reaching plans would do well to harness their feelings to their mind and tune their eyes farther than the familiar horizons of national politics.