NWO From The Mouths of The Elite

The Tower of Basel: Secretive Plans for the Issuing of a Global Currency

By Ellen Brown
Global Research, April 18, 2009 bis1931_agm_participants

Do we really want the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) issuing our global currency?

In an April 7 article in The London Telegraph titled “The G20 Moves the World a Step Closer to a Global Currency,” Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote:

“A single clause in Point 19 of the communiqué issued by the G20 leaders amounts to revolution in the global financial order.

“We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity,’ it said. SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century.

“In effect, the G20 leaders have activated the IMF’s power to create money and begin global ‘quantitative easing’. In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.”

Indeed they will. The article is subtitled, “The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all humanity.” Which naturally raises the question, who or what will serve as this global central bank, cloaked with the power to issue the global currency and police monetary policy for all humanity? When the world’s central bankers met in Washington last September, they discussed what body might be in a position to serve in that awesome and fearful role. A former governor of the Bank of England stated:

“[T]he answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)…. The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.”1

And if that vision doesn’t alarm conspiracy theorists, it should. The BIS has been called “the most exclusive, secretive, and powerful supranational club in the world.” Founded in Basel, Switzerland, in 1930, it has been scandal-ridden from its beginnings. According to Charles Higham in his book Trading with the Enemy, by the late 1930s the BIS had assumed an openly pro-Nazi bias. This was corroborated years later in a BBC Timewatch film titled “Banking with Hitler,” broadcast in 1998.2 In 1944, the American government backed a resolution at the Bretton-Woods Conference calling for the liquidation of the BIS, following Czech accusations that it was laundering gold stolen by the Nazis from occupied Europe; but the central bankers succeeded in quietly snuffing out the American resolution.3

In Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966), Dr. Carroll Quigley revealed the key role played in global finance by the BIS behind the scenes. Dr. Quigley was Professor of History at Georgetown University, where he was President Bill Clinton’s mentor. He was also an insider, groomed by the powerful clique he called “the international bankers.” His credibility is heightened by the fact that he actually espoused their goals. He wrote:

“I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. … [I]n general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

Quigley wrote of this international banking network:

“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”

The key to their success, said Quigley, was that the international bankers would control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government. The statement echoed an often-quoted one made by the German patriarch of what would become the most powerful banking dynasty in the world. Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild famously said in 1791:

“Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.”

Mayer’s five sons were sent to the major capitals of Europe – London, Paris, Vienna, Berlin and Naples – with the mission of establishing a banking system that would be outside government control. The economic and political systems of nations would be controlled not by citizens but by bankers, for the benefit of bankers. Eventually, a privately-owned “central bank” was established in nearly every country; and this central banking system has now gained control over the economies of the world. Central banks have the authority to print money in their respective countries, and it is from these banks that governments must borrow money to pay their debts and fund their operations. The result is a global economy in which not only industry but government itself runs on “credit” (or debt) created by a banking monopoly headed by a network of private central banks; and at the top of this network is the BIS, the “central bank of central banks” in Basel.

Behind the Curtain

For many years the BIS kept a very low profile, operating behind the scenes in an abandoned hotel. It was here that decisions were reached to devalue or defend currencies, fix the price of gold, regulate offshore banking, and raise or lower short-term interest rates. In 1977, however, the BIS gave up its anonymity in exchange for more efficient headquarters. The new building has been described as “an eighteen story-high circular skyscraper that rises above the medieval city like some misplaced nuclear reactor.” It quickly became known as the “Tower of Basel.” Today the BIS has governmental immunity, pays no taxes, and has its own private police force.4 It is, as Mayer Rothschild envisioned, above the law.

The BIS is now composed of 55 member nations, but the club that meets regularly in Basel is a much smaller group; and even within it, there is a hierarchy. In a 1983 article in Harper’s Magazine called “Ruling the World of Money,” Edward Jay Epstein wrote that where the real business gets done is in “a sort of inner club made up of the half dozen or so powerful central bankers who find themselves more or less in the same monetary boat” – those from Germany, the United States, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and England. Epstein said:

“The prime value, which also seems to demarcate the inner club from the rest of the BIS members, is the firm belief that central banks should act independently of their home governments. . . . A second and closely related belief of the inner club is that politicians should not be trusted to decide the fate of the international monetary system.”

In 1974, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision was created by the central bank Governors of the Group of Ten nations (now expanded to twenty). The BIS provides the twelve-member Secretariat for the Committee. The Committee, in turn, sets the rules for banking globally, including capital requirements and reserve controls. In a 2003 article titled “The Bank for International Settlements Calls for Global Currency,” Joan Veon wrote:

“The BIS is where all of the world’s central banks meet to analyze the global economy and determine what course of action they will take next to put more money in their pockets, since they control the amount of money in circulation and how much interest they are going to charge governments and banks for borrowing from them. . . .

“When you understand that the BIS pulls the strings of the world’s monetary system, you then understand that they have the ability to create a financial boom or bust in a country. If that country is not doing what the money lenders want, then all they have to do is sell its currency.”5

The Controversial Basel Accords

The power of the BIS to make or break economies was demonstrated in 1988, when it issued a Basel Accord raising bank capital requirements from 6% to 8%. By then, Japan had emerged as the world’s largest creditor; but Japan’s banks were less well capitalized than other major international banks. Raising the capital requirement forced them to cut back on lending, creating a recession in Japan like that suffered in the U.S. today. Property prices fell and loans went into default as the security for them shriveled up. A downward spiral followed, ending with the total bankruptcy of the banks, which had to be nationalized – although that word was not used, in order to avoid criticism.6

Among other collateral damage produced by the Basel Accords was a spate of suicides among Indian farmers unable to get loans. The BIS capital adequacy standards required loans to private borrowers to be “risk-weighted,” with the degree of risk determined by private rating agencies; and farmers and small business owners could not afford the agencies’ fees. Banks therefore assigned 100 percent risk to the loans, and then resisted extending credit to these “high-risk” borrowers because more capital was required to cover the loans. When the conscience of the nation was aroused by the Indian suicides, the government, lamenting the neglect of farmers by commercial banks, established a policy of ending the “financial exclusion” of the weak; but this step had little real effect on lending practices, due largely to the strictures imposed by the BIS from abroad.7

Similar complaints have come from Korea. An article in the December 12, 2008 Korea Times titled “BIS Calls Trigger Vicious Cycle” described how Korean entrepreneurs with good collateral cannot get operational loans from Korean banks, at a time when the economic downturn requires increased investment and easier credit:

“‘The Bank of Korea has provided more than 35 trillion won to banks since September when the global financial crisis went full throttle,’ said a Seoul analyst, who declined to be named. ‘But the effect is not seen at all with the banks keeping the liquidity in their safes. They simply don’t lend and one of the biggest reasons is to keep the BIS ratio high enough to survive,’ he said. . . .

“Chang Ha-joon, an economics professor at Cambridge University, concurs with the analyst. ‘What banks do for their own interests, or to improve the BIS ratio, is against the interests of the whole society. This is a bad idea,’ Chang said in a recent telephone interview with Korea Times.”

In a May 2002 article in The Asia Times titled “Global Economy: The BIS vs. National Banks,” economist Henry C K Liu observed that the Basel Accords have forced national banking systems “to march to the same tune, designed to serve the needs of highly sophisticated global financial markets, regardless of the developmental needs of their national economies.” He wrote:

“[N]ational banking systems are suddenly thrown into the rigid arms of the Basel Capital Accord sponsored by the Bank of International Settlement (BIS), or to face the penalty of usurious risk premium in securing international interbank loans. . . . National policies suddenly are subjected to profit incentives of private financial institutions, all members of a hierarchical system controlled and directed from the money center banks in New York. The result is to force national banking systems to privatize . . . .

“BIS regulations serve only the single purpose of strengthening the international private banking system, even at the peril of national economies. . . . The IMF and the international banks regulated by the BIS are a team: the international banks lend recklessly to borrowers in emerging economies to create a foreign currency debt crisis, the IMF arrives as a carrier of monetary virus in the name of sound monetary policy, then the international banks come as vulture investors in the name of financial rescue to acquire national banks deemed capital inadequate and insolvent by the BIS.”

Ironically, noted Liu, developing countries with their own natural resources did not actually need the foreign investment that had trapped them in debt to outsiders:

“Applying the State Theory of Money [which assumes that a sovereign nation has the power to issue its own money], any government can fund with its own currency all its domestic developmental needs to maintain full employment without inflation.”

When governments fell into the trap of accepting loans in foreign currencies, however, they became “debtor nations” subject to IMF and BIS regulation. They were forced to divert their production to exports, just to earn the foreign currency necessary to pay the interest on their loans. National banks deemed “capital inadequate” had to deal with strictures comparable to the “conditionalities” imposed by the IMF on debtor nations: “escalating capital requirement, loan writeoffs and liquidation, and restructuring through selloffs, layoffs, downsizing, cost-cutting and freeze on capital spending.” Liu wrote:

“Reversing the logic that a sound banking system should lead to full employment and developmental growth, BIS regulations demand high unemployment and developmental degradation in national economies as the fair price for a sound global private banking system.”

The Last Domino to Fall

While banks in developing nations were being penalized for falling short of the BIS capital requirements, large international banks managed to escape the rules, although they actually carried enormous risk because of their derivative exposure. The mega-banks succeeded in avoiding the Basel rules by separating the “risk” of default out from the loans and selling it off to investors, using a form of derivative known as “credit default swaps.”

However, it was not in the game plan that U.S. banks should escape the BIS net. When they managed to sidestep the first Basel Accord, a second set of rules was imposed known as Basel II. The new rules were established in 2004, but they were not levied on U.S. banks until November 2007, the month after the Dow passed 14,000 to reach its all-time high. The economy was all downhill from there. Basel II had the same effect on U.S. banks that Basel I had on Japanese banks: they have been struggling ever since to survive.8

Basel II requires banks to adjust the value of their marketable securities to the “market price” of the security, a rule called “mark to market.”9 The rule has theoretical merit, but the problem is timing: it was imposed ex post facto, after the banks already had the hard-to-market assets on their books. Lenders that had been considered sufficiently well capitalized to make new loans suddenly found they were insolvent. At least, they would have been insolvent if they had tried to sell their assets, an assumption required by the new rule. Financial analyst John Berlau complained:

“The crisis is often called a ‘market failure,’ and the term ‘mark-to-market’ seems to reinforce that. But the mark-to-market rules are profoundly anti-market and hinder the free-market function of price discovery. . . . In this case, the accounting rules fail to allow the market players to hold on to an asset if they don’t like what the market is currently fetching, an important market action that affects price discovery in areas from agriculture to antiques.”10

Imposing the mark-to-market rule on U.S. banks caused an instant credit freeze, which proceeded to take down the economies not only of the U.S. but of countries worldwide. In early April 2009, the mark-to-market rule was finally softened by the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB); but critics said the modification did not go far enough, and it was done in response to pressure from politicians and bankers, not out of any fundamental change of heart or policies by the BIS.

And that is where the conspiracy theorists come in. Why did the BIS not retract or at least modify Basel II after seeing the devastation it had caused? Why did it sit idly by as the global economy came crashing down? Was the goal to create so much economic havoc that the world would rush with relief into the waiting arms of the BIS with its privately-created global currency? The plot thickens . . . .

© Copyright Ellen Brown, Global Research, 2009

About the author:

Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are http://www.webofdebt.com and http://www.ellenbrown.com.

NOTES

1. Andrew Marshall, “The Financial New World Order: Towards a Global Currency and World Government,” Global Research (April 6, 2009).

2. Alfred Mendez, “The Network,” The World Central Bank: The Bank for International Settlements, http://copy_bilderberg.tripod.com/bis.htm.

3. “BIS – Bank of International Settlement: The Mother of All Central Banks,” hubpages.com (2009).

4. Ibid.

5. Joan Veon, “The Bank for International Settlements Calls for Global Currency,” News with Views (August 26, 2003).

6. Peter Myers, “The 1988 Basle Accord – Destroyer of Japan’s Finance System,” http://www.mailstar.net/basle.html (updated September 9, 2008).

7. Nirmal Chandra, “Is Inclusive Growth Feasible in Neoliberal India?”, networkideas.org (September 2008).

8. Bruce Wiseman, “The Financial Crisis: A look Behind the Wizard’s Curtain,” Canada Free Press (March 19, 2009).

9. See Ellen Brown, “Credit Where Credit Is Due,” webofdebt.com/articles/creditcrunch.php (January 11, 2009).

10. John Berlau, “The International Mark-to-market Contagion,” OpenMarket.org (October 10, 2008).

The url address of this article is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=13239

Zionism and the Jewish Conspiracy Pt 2 of 2

by Alan Stangalan_stang_hdr1
February 17, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

[Announcement: Did you know Alan Stang has a new radio show? Click here for details.]

So it was that on November 25th, 1940, Zionists blew up and sank the Patra, which carried Jews escaping from Nazi Europe; the predatory Zionists killed 252. In Holocaust Victims Accuse (1977), available on line, Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld says Zionists sabotaged many attempts to organize resistance, ransom and relief. They undermined an effort by Vladimir Jabotinsky to arm Jews before the war. They stopped an attempt to send food to the ghettos. Dr. Makow says the Zionist Rabbi of Sweden, Dr. Ehrenpreis, scuttled a Swedish attempt to rescue 10,000 Jews. Zionists torpedoed a similar attempt by the British parliament.

Barry Chamish is an Israeli author you must read if you really want to understand Zionism. In Save Israel! (Modiin, Modiin House, Israel), he writes (p. 350): “. . . Chaim Weizmann knew the results of the Holocaust ahead of time and deliberately allowed the slaughter to take place. He . . . turned Jewish leaders into mass murderers . . . . He was sending official proclamations to Jewish leaders worldwide, not to try and save their co-religionists in Europe . . . .”

Weizmann was the first president of Israel. Here is an example of his perfidy: “Nearing the end of the war, Eichmann cut a deal with a rabbi named Yoel Brand. He would save all the remaining Jews of Hungary in exchange for 700 trucks. Brand traveled to Aleppo, Syria to meet Jewish Agency deputy head Moshe Sharett to raise funds for the trucks. There, he was quickly arrested by the British. This doomed the Jews of Hungary. The order for the arrest must have come from Sharett and his superior, Chaim Weizmann.”

Finally, in Shabtai Tzvi, Labor Zionism and the Holocaust, published also by Modiin, Barry Chamish writes (p. 232) that, about a year before he became Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon said that had Jabotinsky been head of the Jewish Agency instead of Ben-Gurion, millions of Jews would have been saved from the Holocaust.

Chamish says Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal’s job was in fact to cover up the Holocaust. “. . . In 60 years, with thousands of Nazis who murdered her citizens to choose from, exactly two were tried and one was released on a technicality. The other one, Adolph Eichmann, was hunted down because he knew too much about the Jewish Agency’s complicity in the murder of 800,000 Hungarian Jews.” (P. 227-228)

For the record, all the authorities I have quoted are Jews. There are many others I have not quoted. You should also read movie writer Ben Hecht’s Perfidy, which is available on line. And you certainly should read the two-volume To Eliminate the Opiate, by Rabbi Marvin Antelman, who proves how the world conspiracy has infiltrated Judaism to destroy it. You may not agree with everything these authors say – I do not – but they offer a wealth of information and understanding you will not find anywhere else.

Another book you should read is The Controversy of Zion (Durban, Dolphin Press, 1978), by Douglas Reed, not a Jew, which offers the literally breathtaking confessions of this country’s preeminent, predatory Zionists. During the 1930s, the thing they feared far more than bacon and the Devil was the possibility that Hitler and the Jews of Germany could come to agreement, which would have sandbagged Zionism.

Top Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wise expressed his fears to his colleagues as follows: “. . . that our Jewish brothers in Germany might feel moved or compelled to accept a peace agreement or pact that might mean some slight amelioration or mitigation of their wrongs . . . that the Nazi regime might decide to prevent some of the evil consequences of its regime by such palliative treatment of the Jews as would disarm worldwide Jewish protest.” (Reed, p. 321)

“. . . We will survive Nazism unless we commit the inexpiable sin of bartering or trafficking with it in order to save some Jewish victims,” said Rabbi Wise. “We reject out of hand with scorn and contempt any and every proposal which would ensure the security of some Jews through the shame of all Jews.” (Ibid.)

While these life and death matters were concluded in Europe, Rabbi Wise was safe in New York. He was a Communist, of course (Chamish, Save Israel, p. 367). There, Rabbi Antelman cites Helen Lawrenson, who, in her own book, Stranger At the Party (New York: Random House, 1975), relates that Wise diddled her in his office on his conference table. Miss Lawrenson wasn’t kosher, but the rabbi made the matter right by quoting a verse from Psalms while he diddled.

Douglas Reed also quotes leading Zionist Louis Brandeis, another advocate for Jewish martyrdom: “Any arrangement which results in making a market abroad for German goods strengthens Hitler . . . . To thus relieve Hitler’s economic distress in order to save by emigration some of Germany’s Jews would be . . . deplorable statesmanship.” (Ibid.) So these are monsters worse than Hitler – worse than Hitler – because they will betray their own in behalf of their idea. And the political progeny of these plotters rule Israel today.

What does all of this tell you? It tells me, again, that Zionism is the farthest thing from a monolithic force. Like most things political, it has factions. One faction is relatively harmless. Had it been left alone, there would probably be peace today in the Middle East. The other is run by the political descendants of the monsters who engineered the Bolshevik coup and ran the Soviet Union’s orchestrated terror. Barry Chamish says the “labor” Zionists presently are victimizing both Israel and the Arabs.

The predatory Red Zionists are certainly an element of the same conspiracy for world government that includes the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers, etc. So, talking about “the” Zionists is meaningless. Barry Chamish and many others are Zionists of an utterly different stripe. Were they running Israel it would be the opposite of the lead albatross it has become. Believe it or not, much goes wrong that “the” Zionists have nothing to do with.

In like fashion, there is “the Jewish Conspiracy.” It is hard to know for sure what “the Jewish Conspiracy” is, because there is no formal definition. It appears to include Zionism and to mean that “the” Jews run the world (this country, at least). The theory says that whatever goes wrong is the work of “the Jews,” and that whoever does it is a Jew, however kosher his name. Advocates of the theory now send me messages reporting that Emperor Barry Also Known As is a Jew.

Along these lines, someone sent me a message headed, “Correction,” concerning an earlier piece I wrote. The entire message says: “Alan, Ignatiev is a Jew. He is not White.” Ethiopian Jews certainly are not white; but this “correction” says that Ignatiev, who is as white as Hitler, is not. Does this mean no Jews are white? Does it mean Ignatiev is not white because he is a Jew? Again, mishmash.

There are certainly many Jews in the Conspiracy for world government. That conspiracy includes people of every kind. Would it not be even more surprising were no Jews involved? There are many more “Christians” in the conspiracy, no doubt because there are many more Christians. Does that make it a Christian conspiracy? How does the “Jewish Conspiracy” explain the Bushes, the Clintons, Castro, Mao, Alger Hiss, Dean Acheson, the Dulles brothers, J.P. Morgan, David Rockefeller, George C. Marshall, et cetera and so on? I believe these are good questions.

Indeed, to be a Christian, you must believe certain things. If you don’t, you are not a Christian. If you are a Christian, you believe that Jesus died, was resurrected and is God. If you don’t believe that, you are not a Christian and your fruit will reveal that. The conspirators who come from Christian backgrounds and have Christian names do not believe those things; they could not be conspirators if they did. So they are not Christians. Because they are not Christians, they commit horrific crimes; their fruit is rotten. Why does this same reasoning not apply to Jews? Another good question the “Jewish Conspiracy” does not explain.

Staunch advocates of the “Jewish conspiracy” theory argue that today’s Jews are not really Jews, not really physical children of Israel, because after millennia of intermarriage starting even before womanizer Solomon – which, remember, was a routine practice of the children that evoked the Lord’s fury – the elusive DNA that made a real Jew has utterly dissolved.

If there are no real Jews extant today, who are the people in the “Jewish conspiracy?” Either today’s Jews are Jews or they are not, which would mean there could be no “Jewish conspiracy.” Can you have it both ways? Again, if today’s Jews are Jews not because of DNA but because of belief, wouldn’t the same disqualifications apply to the ones in the conspiracy for world government that apply to the Christians?

Were the Jews buried in Arlington National Cemetery part of the “Jewish Conspiracy?” What about Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), which has done an enormous amount to protect the Second Amendment? I strongly suspect that Aaron Zelman, who runs it, is a Jew. What about Admiral Hyman Rickover, father of the nuclear navy, the longest serving officer in U.S. Navy history (63 years)? How do all these folks fit into the “Jewish Conspiracy?” We need an answer before we can entertain it as a working hypothesis.

If “the” Jews have so much power here why is it that, again and again, Washington has restrained Tel Aviv; prevented it from finishing its enemies off? Why for instance did Reagan save Arafat, the pederast Soviet factotum, from the Israelis? And on and on. Why is it so hard to understand that Jews, like every other people on the planet, have a variety of views? Why is the present government of Israel collaborating with the Marxist Council on Foreign Relations to dismantle and destroy it? I may not have answers, but these are all good questions.

The monsters who perpetrate all this, whatever their race, nationality, ethnicity or religious origin, hate God. God says: “But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.” (Proverbs, 8:36) The conspiracy for world government loves death.

Again, the lesson I draw from all this is that the only sensible American policy is to stay as far away from it as possible and still stand on the planet. Prosecute to the maximum all foreign spies; forbid anyone with dual citizenship to take a government job. Be sympathetic to other nations but stay out of their problems. Stop “foreign aid.” Strictly mind our own business. Act as an example others may follow if they wish to enjoy our blessings. Be friendly to all, trade privately with all, be mild and agreeable, but make sure they understand that if they mess with us – if they won’t let us mind our own business – they will wake up dead in a smoking hole in the ground and a man with a high and tight haircut, wearing an Eagle, Globe & Anchor, the best of the best, will be standing at the hole.

[Announcement: Alan Stang’s radio show, The Sting of Stang, airs from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Central, M-F, via Republic Broadcasting Network. Call him on the air at (800) 313-9443. To listen, go to republicbroadcasting.org and click on Listen Live. If you can’t listen at that time, do so via the archives, which are free. I’ll be talking about the various manifestations of the conspiracy for world government, its tactics, such as the illegal alien invasion, its purposes and its players, from Jorge W. Boosh on down.]

© 2009 Alan Stang – All Rights Reserved

Zionism and the Jewish Conspiracy Pt 1 of 2

by Alan Stangalan_stang_hdr
February 17, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

[Announcement: Did you know Alan Stang has a new radio show? Click here for details.]

A curious development is showing up in my email and in the calls to my daily talk show. Again and again messages and callers assert that whatever is wrong in the nation and the world is the work of “Zionism” or “Zionists.” From acne to bankruptcy to divorce, unemployment and zits, that is the cause. The term is used to mean so much one wonders whether the user himself is sure what it means. Whatever, in these usages, the nation of Israel – which until recently was generally considered an American ally – stands condemned.

At the same time, the Mohammedans, some of whom our military is fighting right now, indeed, the first enemy our new nation fought on the shores of Tripoli, the Mohammedans who from the moment they burst forth from the Arabian peninsula have been trying to conquer the West and now are closer than ever to success, these same Mohammedans emerge in this new scenario as the good guys, the victims of the aforesaid Zionism.

They are the good guys despite their practice of “honor killing” their own women, a practice they have brought to our country. They beheaded Danny Pearl of the Wall Street Journal and many others, but they are the good guys. They are the good guys despite their possible implication in the widespread arson in Australia that has killed more than 150 people so far. If you write something they don’t like, like Salman Rushdie, they urge adherents to kill you; they riot, they love intimidation. But they are still the good guys. They have emasculated the United Kingdom. And on and on. What is happening?

The answer is that all these things are symptoms of an admittedly brilliant scenario the conspiracy for world government has devised to implement its century-old goal; versions of both Zionism and Islam are elements of the plan. The conspirators now are flooding the patriot community with the appropriate propaganda for the purpose. A good place to begin our analysis is the utterly phony “Soviet collapse.”

How do we know the Soviets collapsed? We “know” it because they said so. During the “cold war,” we didn’t believe anything they said; now we believe everything. Soon after the “collapse,” the U.S. government installed the last Soviet dictator, Mike Garbageoff (former KGB boss) at the Presidio, the U.S. Army base in San Francisco, where he ran a tax-exempt foundation created for the purpose before the “collapse.” Mike became one of the world’s leading “ecologists.”

What are the main hallmarks of a Socialist dictatorship’s collapse? They are present in the collapse of National Socialist Germany. First, concentration camp inmates are freed. That happened in Nazi Germany, but not in Socialist Russia. The gulag there remains intact. Next, the huge Socialist military is dismantled. Yes in Nazi Germany; no in Socialist Russia, where the military is always being modernized. Finally, different people are running the show. Yes, in Germany, where anti-Nazis took over. No, in Socialist Russia, where the same people, with different titles, continue.

The West, preeminently the United States, created Communism and saved it from collapse more than once. Had Washington never intervened, the Soviet Union would never have existed. Communism would be forgotten, a footnote in a dusty text book. Here is a challenge: name for me one country that became Communist without U.S. intervention. Go down the list; China, Cuba, Southeast Asia, etc. Difficult, right? Probably impossible.

Washington, et. al., created Communism and when it was no longer useful as one arm of the Hegelian dialectic, Washington “collapsed” it. Washington retired Communism and introduced Islam. Mohammedanism is an even better conspiracy tool than Communism because the conspiracy did not need to create it. There is much compatibility. Both the conspiracy for world government and Mohammedanism are totalitarian; both are Socialist. The conspiracy is a rape, robbery and revolution racket. So is Islam. All of the Middle East is Christian territory the Muslims illegally occupy.

Remember as always that there are millions of nice people in Islam as there were in Socialist Germany and Russia. They do not bomb. They do not behead. They go to work or business every day and go home to their families. You know some of them. Yes, they are there, they are nice and they are irrelevant, just as your Uncle Elmer and Aunt Min are irrelevant, vis-à-vis Washington. Nice as they are, when the falafel hits the fan, most Muslims everywhere will do as they are told, will follow their leaders, just as most nice, irrelevant people here – your Uncle Elmer and Aunt Min, who never wanted to know and thought you were addled – will get on the bus. They do not run the show.

Probably the biggest conspiratorial advantage Islam offers is its status as a “religion.” Indeed, Republicrud moron Jorge W. Boosh repeatedly called it a “religion of peace,” which would have surprised Charles Martel and his French knights at the battle of Tours in 732, Don John of Austria at Lepanto in 1571 and King John Sobieski and his Polish hussars at the gates of Vienna in 1683.

As a religion, predatory Islam can infiltrate, permeate and subvert much more easily than atheist Communism ever could. It is tax-exempt and protected by the Constitution it is committed to destroy. Today, Christianity can’t get anywhere near Communist government school grounds – the Anti-American Communist Liars Union (ACLU) would go to court – but those schools teach Mohammedanism. The District of Criminals has made such infiltration feasible by squelching possibly huge oil production here so that we “need” to buy it from fleabag Mohammedan countries and make them filthy rich. Saudi Arabia, for one, is spending liberally to finance its cult in this country.

Where does Zionism fit in? There appear to be at least two main species of Zionism. One wants nothing more than a political home for the Jews. The other includes innumerable Socialists and Communists. Like today’s Islam, it is another dialectical arm in the conspiracy for world government. Because it is predatory and Communist, it has almost completely succeeded in crowding out traditional Zionism, creating the spurious imposture that it alone speaks for the movement.

So well has it done this, that I myself was barely aware of the divisions among Zionists. I had thought Zionism was one monolithic, uniform thing. No, like every other political movement, it has factions. One would do us no harm. The one that concerns us here is a major threat.

Most Zionists by far are not Jews. They are Christians who support a Jewish nation because of what they were told in church. Some Zionists are Jews. Other Jews, thousands of them, oppose Zionism as the work of Satan. Still others oppose it because they are loyal to the nations where they live.

Indeed, I was enormously surprised to learn that, at the beginning of the previous century, most American Jews were fervently opposed to Zionism; they considered it an anti-American extrusion from Russia. From the beginning, all these Jews have fought Zionism. So Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing. Indeed, please name for me by far the biggest victim of predatory Zionism. Which people has predatory Zionism victimized most?

The surprising (to me) answer is: the Jews. What? Yes, the Jews. Predatory Zionism has killed almost as many Jews as Hitler. Indeed, predatory Zionism collaborated with Hitler. It is not an exaggeration to say that had predatory Zionism never intervened, there would have been no “Holocaust”; the Jews of Europe would have emigrated. The millions the Nazis killed and their children would be alive today.

Swindler, traitor, mass murderer Franklin Roosevelt needed a horrific reason to propel our peace-minded people into World War II and arranged Pearl Harbor for the purpose. In like fashion, predatory Zionism needed an equally horrific reason to inspire panicky Jews to stampede to the Middle East; they needed such a reason to inspire a wave of sympathy that would make the movement possible.

By the way, long before this, the British offered Uganda to early Zionist leader Theodore Herzl for a national Jewish home; conspirators who soon seized control of Zionism cut him out of the debate, despite the fact that Jews already in then Palestine almost unanimously applauded the Uganda proposal. Had no one intervened, Israel could be there today. Herzl died at age forty four.

So, predatory Zionists did facilitate the evacuation from Hitler Europe of their own (Jews at the top of society), but again and again they sabotaged efforts to evacuate ordinary Jews. Those Jews wound up in Mengele’s crematoria. Predatory Zionists killed them. They did not just turn a blind eye. Many sources prove this, but predatory Zionists by now exercise sufficient control to squelch them.

For instance, browse through Dr. Henry Makow’s new book, Illuminati: The Cult That Hijacked the World (Winnipeg, Silas Green, 2008). By the way, Dr. Henry is a Jew. All his grandparents were killed by the Nazis. His parents survived only by pretending not to be Jewish. Dr. Henry has lived in Israel and used to be a Zionist. Is he credible yet?

He writes that in 1925 Germany’s 500,000 Jews were either overwhelmingly indifferent or actively hostile to Zionism. They wanted to assimilate and opposed anti-Semitism. But the predatory Zionists welcomed Nazi anti-Semitism. Both Zionists and Nazis agreed Jews should not be in Germany. They collaborated. Zionists did not protest Nazi persecution; for instance, when the Nazis fired two thousand Jews from the universities they uttered not a peep.

Dr. Makow writes (p. 145): “. . . Adolph Eichmann set up agricultural training camps in Austria to prepare young Jews for Kibbutz life. He visited Palestine and conferred with Zionist leaders who confessed their true expansionist goals. There was even talk of a strategic alliance between Nazi Germany and Jewish Palestine. His report is in Himmler’s Archives.”

That’s right! Adolph Eichmann was a Zionist. Didn’t you know? He was persecuted as a child because he looked Jewish. He associated with Jews. As a Gestapo officer, he learned Hebrew, visited Palestine and worked closely with Zionists preparing Jews for emigration. These are just a few examples of such connections.

Now, why did the Holocaust happen? Again, it happened, and could only have happened, because the predatory Red “Labor” Zionists collaborated with the Nazis to inflict it. Hannah Arendt was a Jewish philosopher. Our Communist media and academia have bedecked her with enormous credibility.

In Eichmann in Jerusalem (New York: Penguin Books, 1977), she writes: “In Amsterdam as in Warsaw, in Berlin as in Budapest, Jewish officials could be trusted to . . . supply police forces to help seize Jews and get them on trains, until, as a last gesture, they handed over the assets of the Jewish community in good order for final confiscation. . . .” (P. 117) Without that intervention, she says (p. 125), far fewer victims would have died. Why did they do it?

World Zionist Organization official Nathan Schwalb explained in 1942 why the Zionists refused to pay Berlin a mere $2 million to save all the Jews in Europe: “. . . [A]ll the Allied nations are spilling much of their blood, and if we do not sacrifice any blood, by what right shall we merit coming before the bargaining table when they divide nations and lands at the war’s end? . . . for only with blood shall we get the land.” (Makow, p. 148) Top Zionist celebrities do not deny this. In 1958, former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett said at a memorial: “Sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the few in order to save the many.” This worked out to mean kill many Jews to save a few.

[Announcement: Alan Stang’s radio show, The Sting of Stang, airs from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Central, M-F, via Republic Broadcasting Network. Call him on the air at (800) 313-9443. To listen, go to republicbroadcasting.org and click on Listen Live. If you can’t listen at that time, do so via the archives, which are free. I’ll be talking about the various manifestations of the conspiracy for world government, its tactics, such as the illegal alien invasion, its purposes and its players, from Jorge W. Boosh on down.]

© 2009 Alan Stang – All Rights Reserved

Media Consolidation and the March Towards a World Government

Write What You’re Told  Bush appointee Kevin Martin, head of the FCC, is “proposing to do away with media ownership rules that bar companies from owning both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. In 2003, Kevin Martin voted with the then-FCC chairman to lift the same media ownership rules but the effort was overturned by the landmark Prometheus v. FCC decision” (Democracy Now, 2007). 

“Previous to his FCC job, Kevin Martin served on the Bush-Cheney transition team and was general council for Bush’s 2000 Presidential campaign. His wife, Cathie Martin is a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney – and works in the White House as a special assistant to the President for economic policy” (Democracy Now, 2005). Considering that Mr. Martin has such close ties with the Bush administration, one cannot help but wonder if this is just another attempt by Bush and Company to limit the public’s access to information, as well as reward large media corporations for their cooperation in keeping information from the public.

This type of information manipulation is not new. David Rockefeller expressed his appreciation for members of the mass media in their efforts to help him in his march towards a world government in 1991:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries. (David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991)

What we need is a diversity of information from media outlets that are not controlled by special interests, and not a monopoly of a few large corporations whose interests lie in reporting only government approved propaganda. A report done by the Media Information Center in 2004, “shows that only 5 huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric’s NBC is a close sixth.” The following chart shows the startling decrease in the “number of corporations that control a majority of U.S. media” from 1983 to 2004.

 

Media Reform Information Center, 2007 

Media Reform Information Center, 2007 

 

Kevin Martin’s proposal would not only increase multi-national corporate control over what is seen and heard, but also contribute to the stifling of alternate opinion and free speech, which is so important to a viable democracy. Tell the FCC that you will not put up with further limitations of your right to information from diversified sources. Act now, before it is too late.

 

 

Copyright 2007, Barbara H. Peterson

 

 

References:

 

David Rockefeller. (1991). Retrieved from http://www.fdrs.org/perception_of_freedom.html

 

Democracy Now. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/22/1415254

 

Democracy Now. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/17/1442219

 

Media Reform Information Center. (2007). Retrieved from

http://www.corporations.org/media/

 

%d bloggers like this: