Do Jews Rule America?
"The British ... invented the myth that Jews control the world."
Read more »
(A Peace to End All Peace / Chronicles of the End of History)
~~
Anonymous said...
Lyndon LaRouche and his followers have a similar perspective.
Usually, his former followers have the same perspective, to some degree or another. Webster Tarpley comes to mind...
It can be argued that WWI was before Jewish, or more accurately, Zionist influence, was at it's peak.
Remember, Britain was the most powerful empire up until WWI.
Certainly, the division of the Middle East was a British design (with some French input). Zionism was not full-fledged by any means, but rather depended on British guns & ammo.
What this points to, and I've stated, here, before is that there are factions among the elite.
...So, to the website's overarching thesis: That Britain has promoted the theme that the "Jews rule the world" to act as a cover and distraction for their own "ruling the world".
It's complicated because Jewish and Zionist influence, if not outright control, goes back to Nathan Mayer von Rothschild (1777-1836), if not before...
But given the website's Japanese ethnic background, he brings a non-European perspective, to a question that has been primarily a European conundrum or question...
I'm not saying the author is correct in his overall thesis although, regarding WWI and the British division of the Middle East, there is merit.
Perhaps, Jewish, or more accurately, Zionist influence, acted through whatever influence it had on the British Empire at that time.
What it does point to is that Zionist power is not as monolithic as some would like to believe, both among Zionists, themselves, and among those who criticize Zionism and Jewish conspiracy in general...
It can be argued that WWI was before Jewish, or more accurately, Zionist influence, was at it's peak.
Remember, Britain was the most powerful empire up until WWI.
Certainly, the division of the Middle East was a British design (with some French input). Zionism was not full-fledged by any means, but rather depended on British guns & ammo.
What this points to, and I've stated, here, before is that there are factions among the elite.
...So, to the website's overarching thesis: That Britain has promoted the theme that the "Jews rule the world" to act as a cover and distraction for their own "ruling the world".
It's complicated because Jewish and Zionist influence, if not outright control, goes back to Nathan Mayer von Rothschild (1777-1836), if not before...
But given the website's Japanese ethnic background, he brings a non-European perspective, to a question that has been primarily a European conundrum or question...
I'm not saying the author is correct in his overall thesis although, regarding WWI and the British division of the Middle East, there is merit.
Perhaps, Jewish, or more accurately, Zionist influence, acted through whatever influence it had on the British Empire at that time.
What it does point to is that Zionist power is not as monolithic as some would like to believe, both among Zionists, themselves, and among those who criticize Zionism and Jewish conspiracy in general...
Anonymous said...About the website's sub-thesis, that WWI was about Britain's takeover of the Middle East, I'm not persuaded.
Too many died on the Western Front.
Certainly, the Middle East was a major side-objective.
British policy makers knew their history: War allows conquest.
Britain had been busy weakening the Ottoman Empire for over a century before WWI, but was the Western Front simply a cover for the real war aim of taking over the Middle East?
That seems a bit of a stretch in my judgment, but certainly, once war was started, a division of the Middle East towards British advantage by indirect rule was part of the program, possibly even a major objective (for oil, but also to protect their Indian colonial possession.
Remember, while oil was found in Persia before WWI, the full extent of oil in the Middle East was not known, although, the oil fields of northern Mesopotamia, specifically Mosul were known. Winston Churchill knew about the importance of oil for the Royal Navy, and, perhaps, it is not coincidence that Churchill was given, via his Lord Admiralty, charge of the campaign against the Ottomans at Gallipoli, which ended in defeat.
Not that it stopped Britain from other efforts against the Ottomans, see Lawrence of Arabia.
The author's claim that the American Revolution was a sham is his weakest allegation.
I can see why the author draws his conclusions, but, still, I thinks he overstates it.
The Western Front and defeating Germany were England's primary goals.
British policy makers knew their history: War allows conquest.
Britain had been busy weakening the Ottoman Empire for over a century before WWI, but was the Western Front simply a cover for the real war aim of taking over the Middle East?
That seems a bit of a stretch in my judgment, but certainly, once war was started, a division of the Middle East towards British advantage by indirect rule was part of the program, possibly even a major objective (for oil, but also to protect their Indian colonial possession.
Remember, while oil was found in Persia before WWI, the full extent of oil in the Middle East was not known, although, the oil fields of northern Mesopotamia, specifically Mosul were known. Winston Churchill knew about the importance of oil for the Royal Navy, and, perhaps, it is not coincidence that Churchill was given, via his Lord Admiralty, charge of the campaign against the Ottomans at Gallipoli, which ended in defeat.
Not that it stopped Britain from other efforts against the Ottomans, see Lawrence of Arabia.
The author's claim that the American Revolution was a sham is his weakest allegation.
I can see why the author draws his conclusions, but, still, I thinks he overstates it.
The Western Front and defeating Germany were England's primary goals.
However, part of Britain's reasoning for war with Germany was to knockout Germany from competition for overseas empire.
The British Royal family believe that they are the "chosen ones", the real "jews", in a Biblical sense.
Thus the "other" jews, the ones that the British are "creating myths" about, are simply a smokescreen ?
British Israel: The Hidden Hand Behind the... 'The Kingdom of God on Earth' Deception (July 10, 2005)
8 comments:
I have been drinking wild turkey whiskey tonight, it is the only non-gmo whiskey available now in the United States. However in the morning I fully intend to reply to this piece after I read it more thoroughly.
The British Royal family believe that they are the "chosen ones", the real "jews", in a Biblical sense.
Thus the "other" jews, the ones that the British are "creating myths" about, are simply a smokescreen ?
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/britishisraelhiddenhand10jul05.shtml
cheers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugjYcdcP6nA
Foreign Fugitive File + Wandering Person Registry + IMDb + Al Qaeda (CIA database) >>>> go back to PROMIS and Hillary Clinton
I think by now the allegations of Abel Danger has satisfied critics. David Hawkins is a genuis graduating from Cambridge with honors and elevating himself to forensic economics.
Aangirfan, The British created the narrative...
An interesting perspective... but not unique. lyndon LaRouche and his followers have a similar perspective. Usually, his former followers have the same perspective, to some degree or another. Webster Tarpley comes to mind.
The analysis you link to deals with World War I. It can be argued that WWI was before Jewish, or more accurately, Zionist influence, was at it's peak.
Remember, Britain was the most powerful empire up until WWI.
Certainly, the division of the Middle East was a British design (with some French input). Zionism was not full-fledged by any means, but rather depended on British guns & ammo.
What this points to, and I've stated, here, before is that there are factions among the elite.
Also, different perspectives highlight different aspects of the situation.
So, to the website's overarching thesis: That Britain has promoted the theme that the "Jews rule the world" to act as a cover and distraction for their own "ruling the world".
It's complicated because Jewish and Zionist influence, if not outright control, goes back to Nathan Mayer von Rothschild (1777-1836), if not before.
In any event, one can not answer such a question in a comment section.
But given the website's Japanese ethnic background, he brings a non-European perspective, to question that has been primarily a European conundrum or question.
That alone may allow insights which are not as easily seen from a European background.
In other words, there is a certain detachment which possibly allows objectivity.
I'm not saying the author is correct in his overall thesis although, regarding WWI and the British division of the Middle East, there is merit.
Perhaps, Jewish, or more accurately, Zionist influence, acted through whatever influence it had on the British Empire at that time.
What is does point to is that Zionist power is not as monolithic as some would like to believe, both among Zionists, themselves, and among those who criticize Zionism and Jewish conspiracy in general.
Worth more thought and analysis.
About the website's sub-thesis, that WWI was about Britain's takeover of the Middle East, I'm not persuaded. Too many died on the Western Front. Certainly, the Middle East was a major side-objective.
British policy makers knew their history: War allows conquest.
Britain had been busy weakening the Ottoman Empire for over a century before WWI, but was the Western Front simply a cover for the real war aim of taking over the Middle East?
That seems a bit of a stretch in my judgment, but certainly, once war was started, a division of the Middle East towards British advantage by indirect rule was part of the program, possibly even a major objective (for oil, but also to protect their Indian colonial possession.
Remember, while oil was found in Persia before WWI, the full extent of oil in the Middle East was not known, although, the oil fields of northern Mesopotamia, specifically Mosul were known. Winston Churchill knew about the importance of oil for the Royal Navy, and, perhaps, it is not coincidence that Churchill was given, via his Lord Admiralty, charge of the campaign against the Ottomans at Gallipoli, which ended in defeat.
Not that it stopped Britain from other efforts against the Ottomans, see Lawrence of Arabia.
The author's claim that the American Revolution was a sham is his weakest allegation.
I can see why the author draws his conclusions, but, still, I thinks he overstates it.
The Western Front and defeating Germany were England's primary goals, however, part of Britain's reasoning for war with Germany was to knockout Germany from competition for overseas empire.
Britain has someone else we must recall, the two brothers gog magog. It was their lineage in the form of the Khazars that around the 7th-8h century some of them converted to Judaism. So those Jews intermingled with them and others work with them.
One only has to read the information on this site "The History of the House of Rothschild" where it states::The Rothschilds claim that they are Jewish, when in fact they are Khazars. They are from a country called Khazaria, which occupied the land locked between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea which is now predominantly occupied by Georgia. The reason the Rothschilds claim to be Jewish is that the Khazars under the instruction of the King, converted to the Jewish faith in 740 A.D., but of course that did not include converting their Asiatic Mongolian genes to the genes of the Jewish people.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm
The author ignores history of which he is certainly not knowledgable. Henry VIII and the "bank of england" comes to mind, as well as the Hudson Bay Company. The control of Britain by the Khazars is an old, old story, one the author is painfully not aware of whatsoever. Neither is he aware of the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Post a Comment