PrisonPlanet Forum
July 27, 2014, 10:13:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Soros funds infiltration of 9/11 truth, “independent” journalism  (Read 13245 times)
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« on: January 19, 2009, 03:05:34 PM »

George Soros and America's Coming Election Crisis (Part 1)
RichardPoe.com ^ | July 16, 2004 | Richard Poe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1173004/posts
Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 8:55:38 PM by Richard Poe
Edited on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:45:11 PM by Jim Robinson. [history]

George Soros and America's Coming Election Crisis

(A Three-Part Series)

 Part 1: Velvet Revolution, USA
By Richard Poe



IF YOU ENJOYED the election crisis of 2000, you’re going to love what Democrat leaders are cooking up for November.

"This is not a normal election," Democrat mega-donor George Soros told the Associated Press on June 10. "These are not normal times." Indeed they are not. And Mr. Soros himself bears much of the blame. (1)

"George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party," charges Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson. (2) Some might dismiss Miss Iverson's comment as hyberbole. However, Soros' massive soft-money contributions have indisputably given him power over Democrat strategy.

The billionaire currency trader now busies himself instructing Democrats in a new and dangerous style of political brinkmanship -- new to Americans, at least. Soros' relish for Byzantine intrigue and reckless power grabs may strike some Americans as novel. However, it follows a long -- if not exactly honored -- tradition endemic to the blood-drenched soil of Central Europe whence Mr. Soros springs.


The clenched fist of Otpor ("Resistance"), a network of some 70,000 militant youth whom Soros paid to oust Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic
 
Soros' leadership has manifested itself in ways both subtle and striking, both direct and indirect, as Democrat tactics devolve ever deeper into a fever swamp of slander, sedition, violence and crude propaganda.

Consider, for example, a recent proposal by Congressional Democrats to bring in UN monitors to police our upcoming election.

"We are deeply concerned that the right of U.S. citizens to vote in free and fair elections is again in jeopardy," wrote Democrat Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas in a July 1 letter to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Indiana Republican Steve Buyer barely managed to short-circuit Johnson's proposal last Thursday by cutting off her cash flow. Buyer added an amendment to a pending foreign aid bill, blocking any U.S. official from using the designated funds for UN election monitors.

Buyer's move infuriated Rep. Corinne Brown (D-Fla.). She charged that Republicans "stole the election" in 2000, telling Buyer, "I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure it doesn't happen again." (3)

When the Buyer Amendment came up for a vote, House Democrats voted overwhelmingly -- by a ratio of 5 to 1 -- to keep the door open for UN election monitors. An astonishing 161 representatives -- all Democrats -- voted against Buyer's proposal. The measure passed by a slim 243-161. Only 33 Democrats broke with their party to support Buyer's amendment. (4)

Never before have U.S. lawmakers sought so openly, and in such great numbers, to allow foreign intervention in a U.S. election.

Equally exotic, from an American standpoint, are the antics of a group called "National People's Action" (NPA) -- whom syndicated pundit Michelle Malkin describes as a taxpayer-funded "left-wing goon squad."

NPA provides muscle for Democrat dirty work. In exchange, it receives public funding from a host of government agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Of this multiracial, Chicago-based "neighborhood advocacy" network, Malkin writes:

"The group engages in what it calls `direct action' -- publicizing the home addresses of business and government leaders it wants to shake down and then busing in protesters and schoolchildren (using public school buses) to invade the private property of their victims and intimidate their families." (5)
In March, about 800 NPA thugs surrounded the Washington home of Bush strategist Karl Rove, demanding rights for illegal aliens. They knocked on Rove's door, pounded on his windows and chanted angrily in Spanish and English, driving Rove's children to tears. The mob dispersed only after Rove agreed to parley with its leaders. (6)

In the age of Soros, mainstream Democrats have embraced NPA's thuggish tactics. The group's sudden emergence as a force in U.S. politics calls to mind the elevation of similar groups overseas, where Soros often bankrolls street radicals with a zest for physical confrontation. Readers should note that NPA receives funding from the Tides Foundation -- an institution to which Soros contributes generously (more than $13 million between 1997 and 2003). (7)
 

The Human Rights Racket

Born in Hungary in 1930, Soros came of age under Nazi and Soviet occupation. He built his fortune wheeling and dealing in lawless nations, where money buys pliant rulers and topples disobedient ones with equal facility. In his writings and interviews, Soros boasts openly of subverting governments in Croatia, Slovakia, Yugoslavia and the Republic of Georgia. (8) Now, like a big-game hunter facing retirement, the 73-year-old Soros seeks the ultimate trophy to crown his mantel – the head of George W. Bush on a pike.

"America under Bush is a danger to the world," Soros told the Washington Post in a November 11, 2003 interview. Ousting Bush, said Soros, "is the central focus of my life... a matter of life and death." (9)

Soros had earlier told the Post, "I believe deeply in the values of an open society. For the past 15 years I have focused my energies on fighting for these values abroad. Now I am doing it in the United States." (10)

Experienced Soros watchers have learned to greet such sermons with a cynical yawn. As British journalist Neil Clark notes in the leftwing journal New Statesman:

"[S ]oros deems a society `open' not if it respects human rights and basic freedoms, but if it is `open' for him and his associates to make money. And, indeed, Soros has made money in every country he has helped to prise `open.' In Kosovo, for example, he has invested $50m in an attempt to gain control of the Trepca mine complex, where there are vast reserves of gold, silver, lead and other minerals estimated to be worth in the region of $5bn. He thus copied a pattern he has deployed to great effect over the whole of eastern Europe: of advocating `shock therapy' and `economic reform,' then swooping in with his associates to buy valuable state assets at knockdown prices." (11)
In my article, "George Soros' Coup" in the May 2004 issue of NewsMax Magazine, I noted that Soros has good reason, at this time, to believe that a Democrat regime might prove more "open" to his way of doing business than would George W. Bush. But that is another issue. Whatever Soros really means by the term "open society," Americans would be well-advised to familiarize themselves with the dangerous lengths to which he has often gone to establish it.


Velvet Revolution

Everyone knows that Soros has poured millions into Democrat coffers this election season. Yet there is more to Soros' strategy than mere largesse.

Soros helped bankroll the 1989 coup d'etat that catapulted dissident playwright Vaclav Havel to the presidency of the Czech Republic. The relatively bloodless uprising acquired the nickname "Velvet Revolution." To this day, people throughout the former Soviet bloc use the term "velvet revolution" to denote Soros-sponsored coups. (12)

Defenders of Soros paint his velvet putsches as benevolent, arguing that Soros has freed millions from tin-pot despots such as Slobodan Milosevic. Maybe so. But President Bush is no Milosevic, and the USA no Yugoslavia. Mr. Soros’ brand of help is neither welcome nor appropriate here.

How exactly does one perpetrate a velvet revolution anyway? The seven-step strategy Soros used against Milosevic provides an instructive blueprint.


Step 1: Form a Shadow Government

Since 1991, Soros contributed over $100 million to Yugoslavia’s anti-Milosevic movement, including to the militant youth group Otpor ("Resistance"). (13) Otpor grew quickly to 70,000 members, assuming leadership of the Serbian resistance. (14)


Step 2: Control the Air Waves

Soros bankrolled opposition media in Serbia, such as the ANEM radio network and its flagship station Radio B92. (15)


Step 3: Bleed the State Dry

Economic sanctions and civil war destroyed the Yugoslav state. Soros helped exacerbate both.  The Soros-funded Human Rights Watch demonized Milosevic through wildly exaggerated reports of Serb atrocities. These charges led to economic sanctions and NATO intervention on behalf of separatist rebels. (16)

A prominent hawk on Yugoslavia, Soros pressured Bill Clinton, as early as 1993, to escalate the war by lifting an arms embargo against Bosnian separatists. (17)

Emboldened by U.S. support, separatist rebels launched "ethnic cleansing" campaigns against Serb civilians living in the territories they claimed. The bloodiest such action was Operation Storm, an August 1995 offensive by Croatian forces, in which as many as 300,000 Serbs were driven from Krajina, and an unknown number of Serb civilians slaughtered. (18)

The blood was not dry in Krajina before Soros and his fellow hawks confronted Congress in December 1995 with a petition, signed by 40 prominent policy makers, urging massive U.S. intervention in the Balkans -- not to protect Serbs from further atrocities, but to escalate the war by intensifying support for separatist rebels.

During this period, Bill Clinton allowed Osama bin Laden to bring in mujahedeen volunteers from Islamic countries to terrorize the Serbs. These mujahedeen tortured and slaughtered Christian captives with appalling savagery. Many stayed in the Balkans, building a network of terror cells which remain active to this day. (19)


Step 4: Sow Unrest

By September 2000, Yugoslavia lay in ruins, its people disheartened by ten years of war, economic sanctions and NATO bombing. Soros-sponsored media blamed every new catastrophe on Milosevic.


Step 5: Provoke an Election Crisis

Yugoslavia’s velvet revolution began on election day, September 26, 2000. Candidate Vojislav Kostunovic won 48.9 percent of the vote to Milosevic’s 38.6 percent. However, Yugoslav law requires a 50-percent plurality to win. A run-off election was duly scheduled for October 8, but Kostunovic refused to participate, citing exit polls that contradicted the official results. (20)

In fact, both sides had engaged in ballot-stuffing, according to the respected British intelligence bulletin Jane’s Sentinel. (21) Nevertheless, Soros-sponsored media noticed only Milosevic’s vote-rigging and screamed for his resignation. Kostunovic demanded that Milosevic step down. (22)


Step 6: Take the Streets

Otpor activists give lip service to a Gandhi-esque code of non-violence. Yet, when they staged their coup on October 5, 2000, many relied not on Kumbaya sing-alongs, but on fists, boots, guns and Molotov cocktails. (23)

On October 5, velvet revolutionaries rioted in Belgrade, setting fire to the Federal Parliament Building and the headquarters of the state television network RTS. (24) Janes’ Sentinel reports that Otpor units armed with AK-47s, mortars and shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons set up road-blocks around Belgrade. (25)


Step 7: Outlast Your Opponent

Otpor’s aggressive tactics and unshakable persistence convinced Milosevic that a long and bloody struggle lay ahead. Rather than risk civil war or NATO intervention, Milosevic stepped down.

The deposed president was arrested and packed off to Holland for trial. Many readers will be surprised to learn that, after three years of deliberations, the International Criminal Court in The Hague has yet to produce conclusive evidence that Milosevic committed war crimes. (26)

Neil Clark notes that the case against Milosevic relies largely on dubious allegations ginned up by the Soros-funded Human Rights Watch. (27) Scandalously, the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia (ICTY) is itself awash in Soros money. Writing in the leftwing journal The New Statesman, Clark reports that the Tribunal – which complained in 1994 that it lacked sufficient funds to prosecute Balkan war crimes – now thrives on contributions from George Soros, Time-Warner and Disney, among others. (28)

That’s right. Time-Warner and Disney. Who’d have thought it?

 

October Surprise

In view of the catastrophes Mr. Soros has inflicted on so many foreign lands, his sudden rise to prominence in U.S. politics deserves closer inspection. Bellicose charges of vote-rigging and calls for UN intervention such as we have heard lately from high-ranking Democrats fall strangely on American ears. Yet, for George Soros, such overheated rhetoric constitutes business as usual.

The Democrat strategy taking shape in America this year strongly resembles a "velvet revolution" in the making. Every piece of the puzzle has fallen into place. Only the exact time and nature of the final provocation -- the signal for action -- remains unknown.

Curiously, Hillary Clinton told the New York Post’s Cindy Adams on March 30 that an October Surprise would likely decide the 2004 election. "It will be outside forces – something unforeseen that suddenly happens – that tilts the election one way or the other," she predicted, with an odd note of certainty. (29)

Was Hillary just guessing? Or does she know something we don’t?

In the remaining installments of this three-part series, we will examine further evidence that Velvet Revolution may be brewing among the Party of the Left.

Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2009, 05:19:39 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Revolution

The Rose Revolution and the Rise of Saakashvilli

Funding from Soros-related organizationsA significant source of funding for the Rose Revolution was the network of foundations and NGOs associated with American billionaire financier George Soros. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies reports the case of a former Georgian parliamentarian who alleges that in the three months prior to the Rose Revolution, "Soros spent $42 million ramping-up for the overthrow of Shevardnadze."[1] Speaking in Tblisi in June of 2005, Soros said, "I'm very pleased and proud of the work of the foundation in preparing Georgian society for what became a Rose Revolution, but the role of the foundation and my personal has been greatly exaggerated."[2]

Among the personalities who worked for Soros' organizations who later assumed positions in the Georgian government are:

Alexander Lomaia, Secretary of the Georgian Security Council and former Minister of Education and Science, is a former Executive Director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation (Soros Foundation,) overseeing a staff of 50 and a budget of $2,500,000.[3]
David Darchiashvili, presently the chairman of the Committee for Eurointegration in the Georgian parliament, is also a former Executive Director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation.[4]
Former Georgian Foreign Minister Salomé Zourabichvili wrote:

These institutions were the cradle of democratization, notably the Soros Foundation … all the NGO’s which gravitate around the Soros Foundation undeniably carried the revolution. However, one cannot end one’s analysis with the revolution and one clearly sees that, afterwards, the Soros Foundation and the NGOs were integrated into power.

– Salomé Zourabichvili, Herodote (magazine of the French Institute for Geopolitics, April, 2008
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2009, 05:21:46 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine

Activists in each of these movements were funded and trained in tactics of political organization and nonviolent resistance by a coalition of Western pollsters and professional consultants funded by a range of Western government and non-government agencies. According to The Guardian, these include the U.S. State Department and USAID along with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, the Bilderberg Group, the NGO Freedom House and George Soros's Open Society Institute. The National Endowment for Democracy, a foundation supported by the U.S. government, has supported non-governmental democracy-building efforts in Ukraine since 1988.[15] Writings on nonviolent struggle by Gene Sharp formed the strategic basis of the student campaigns.
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2009, 05:24:49 PM »

http://allafrica.com/stories/200901121777.html

That is the tragedy attendant to confronting anything that has been created by America and Britain to further their own interests in any part of the world.

The financial might of names like Rothschilds and Soros are today backed by the military might of the Pentagon to create a monster in the midst of the Middle East with the capability of, ironically, unleashing horrors that Hitler would have been proud of.


The Middle East is paying the price of failing to organise themselves properly and ensuring that the West never had a say in how the Jewish homeland should be created.

Any region or nation in modern history that has allowed the West's Trojan horses to get as much as a foothold in its territory has suffered Armageddon-like consequences.

And Zimbabwe is no exception.

Today, Zimbabwe is battling to somehow find a way around an Israel-like creation called Morgan Tsvangirai.
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2009, 05:26:50 PM »

http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/8993.html?task=view

From Article Barack Obama The Naked Emperor , Pakistan Daily


Then there is the Jewish financier, George Soros, the multi-billionaire associate of Brzezinski and closely involved with the funding and marketing of Obama. Soros is a former board member of the Illuminati's Council on Foreign Relations and funds the European Council on Foreign Relations. In short, he is a major insider.

You can certainly see the Soros/Brzezinski techniques in the Obama 'revolution' in the United States. It was the complex and secretive network of Soros foundations and organisations, connected to the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel, that trained and funded students in the Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere in the art of mass protest and overthrowing governments.

These manufactured protests were sold to the world as 'peoples' revolutions', but it just so happened that when they were over and the old regime was removed the new leaders were those waiting in the wings all along - the puppets of Soros, Brzezinski and their associated networks.



Obama is just more of the same, a big smile with strings attached, and controlled completely by the Illuminati networks that chose him, trained him, sold him and provided his record funding. It was they who kept his many skeletons under wraps, like the gay sex and crack cocaine allegations of Larry Sinclair, and they will continue to do so as long as he jumps to their bidding.
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2009, 05:33:44 PM »

?? Source??

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/secretsoc_20century/secretsoc_20century10.htm#CHAPTER 56


CHAPTER 56
GEORGE SOROS AND THE ROTHSCHILD CONNECTION
Who was George Soros?


[H: Better yet: Who IS this man? Meet one of the most prominent of the players in your downfall. He very much ‘was’ but he also IS and did, in fact wreck the economy of Southeast Asia in very short order. He is a top player in such as Bilderbergers and all the other controlling groups while doing nothing “illegal”. But then no one can do anything illegal if you and your colleagues make the laws.]


The now sixty-four year old Hungarian with a U.S. passport is a superstar amidst the great speculators. When the last Forbes list of the best-paid managers and financiers was published, Soros was in the lead by a huge margin. In the last year he earned 550 million US$, twenty times as much as the Disney boss. When Soros opens the hunt, the international money markets get moving and the reserve banks start worrying.

 

In September 1993 he succeeded over the Bank of England. He was certain that the bank would have to take the pound that came under pressure out of the European exchange mechanism and devalue it. He gambled ten billion US$ - with success. He made one billion US$ which the British taxpayers now have to come up with. He himself openly likes to be knows as the man who wants to influence the big money markets of the world.

 

This is a very unusual stance for an investor to take, who should rather be interested in using situations unobservedly that the competitors have not yet discovered. In March 1993 Soros’ activities became known when he predicted a rise in the price of gold. It is assumed – since this started a buying spree in precious metals – that this drove the price up 20% over the highest price since the Gulf War.

 

In the beginning of June 1993 he wrote an open letter to the business editor of the London Times, Anatole Kaletsky, announcing that he intended to urge the money markets to sell large amount of German government bonds in favor of French stocks. Which means: Down with the German mark and attack on the Bundesbank! In several newspapers across the world Soros is praised as a kind of Robin Hood of the Computer Age since by speculation he takes from the rich nations in grand style to hand out to Eastern Europe and Russia via several Soros Foundations, to prepare the way for “democracy” in those “poor” countries that had been bled dry by Communism.


Who then is Soros? The official story says that he was born in 1930 to Jewish parents and as a teenager had been chased from Budapest by the Nazis. He enrolled at the London School of Economics and in the mid-50’s came to the U.S. There he was magically drawn to Wall Street, but his career until 1969 was rather unspectacular. Then with a partner he took over an investment fund. He sold stocks he didn’t own as futures, hoping that their price would fall nearer the qualifying date and that he could acquire them at a price lower than his selling price.


From this fund, the Quantum Group evolved, a family of investment funds operating for the Dutch West Indies. Quantum is one of the most impressive “investment machines” in the world. In eight of the last twenty-four years it made an “official” profit of over 50%, in two of those years even over 100%. In the meantime Soros handed business over to a group of managers and limits himself to designing the “great campaigns”. He put down his principles in the book The Alchemy of Finance, where he says what “financial speculators this is more important than real economic facts”.


But this is but the picture the media – and we know who owns them – paint of him. Who is he in reality?


William Engdahl knows this to say about him:

“Soros speculates on the world’s financial markets via his secret off-shore company Quantum Fund NV, a private Investment fund that handles a portfolio of four to seven billion US$ for several “clients”. The Quantum Fund is registered in the tax haven of the Netherlands Antilles in the Caribbean. In order to evade control of his financial activities by the U.S. administration not a single U.S. citizen sits on the board of Quantum. Its directors are a curious mixture of Swiss and Italian financiers.

“Soros has been identified as a front man of the Anglo-French Rothschild banking group. Understandably neither he nor the Rothschilds want this important fact to be public, so the tight links to his friends in the London ‘City’, in the British foreign ministry, in the state of Israel and to his mighty friends in the American Establishment would stay concealed.”
Among the members of the board of the Quantum Fund is one Richard Katz. He is at the same time head of the Rothschilds Italia S.p.A. in Milan and is also on the board of the commercial bank N.M. Rothschild & Sons in London. Another member of the board is Nils O. Taube.

 

He is a partner in the London investment group St. James’ Place Capital which counts Lord Rothschild among its main partners. A frequent partner of Soros in several of his speculations – especially in the driving up of the gold quotation – is Sir James Goldsmith, a relative of the Rothschild dynasty. On the board of Quantum we also find the heads of some highly “discreet” Swiss private banks (who help the syndicated of organized crime – weapons and drugs – to launder their money).

 

Then there is Edgar D. de Piccioto, head of the Geneva private bank CBI-TDB Union Bancaire Privee, a main player on the gold and investment markets, Isidoro Albertini, head of the Milan stockbroking company Albertini & Co., Beat Notz of the private bank Banque Worms at Geneva, Albertl Foglia, head of the Banca del Ceresio at Lugano.

 

In the course of the recent political corruption scandals in Italy it was found that several Italian politicians kept their money at the Banca del Ceresio. Apparently Soros had more than just insider knowledge about the weak points in Italian politics when he attacked the lira in September 1994.


William Engdahl explains:

“Soros’ connection to the ultra-secret international finance circles of the Rothschilds is not just an ordinary or accidental banking connection. The extraordinary success Soros has on the high-risk financial markets cannot simply be explained with “gambler’s luck”.

Soros has access to information channels, both government and private.


Ever since the Second World War the Rothschild family tried to disseminate an aura of insignificance about themselves. But behind this [is] one of the mightiest and most obscure financial groups of the world. The Rothschilds spend a lot of money to cultivate a picture of a wealthy aristocratic family leading a quiet life where one loves French wines and another engages in charitable trusts.


To experts on the “City” N.M Rothschild & Sons is most influential in the faction of the British secret service establishment closely linked with the neo-liberal Thatcher wing of the Tory party. In the 80s N.M Rothschild & Sons made several billion US$ from the privatization of British state-owned industries they conducted for Mrs. Thatcher. The Rothschild bank is also at the center of world gold trade: In this bank the gold price is fixed twice a day by the five most influential gold trading banks.
But N.M Rothschild & Sons is also entangled in some very dirty secret service operations dealing with drugs vs. arms.

 

Because of its good relations to the highest places in the British secret services, the Rothschilds succeeded in preventing that their complicity with one of the worse illegal secret service networks, the BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International) was never mentioned. In reality the Rothschild bank belonged to the inner circle of these international money laundering banks of the CIA and MI6 that financed in the 70s and 80s CIA projects like the Contras in Nicaragua.


[H: Please a brief interruption on the topic of BCCI and GEORGE BUSH, Russell Herman, V.K. Durham, et al.: One day Mr. George Bush needed a Herman signature on a document which would also include that of V.K. Durham. He called and reached V.K. who asked “What the Hell” did he want?

 

In the conversation the names got a bit worse and finally the question was asked as to where Mr. Bush was at the time. He said he was sitting at his desk in “MY BANK – BCCI”. This was strange since is being President it was hardly “kosher” to have a bank, etc. The signatures were not forthcoming and that shortened Mr. Herman’s life-span by quite a bit.


I will also note that we personally wrote to Mr. George Soros within the past three years when Mr. Soros was weeping and wailing about the damage having been done to Southeastern Asia through his antics, and thus and so. We offered to share with him in exchange for participating in bringing back stability to the area. Son-of-a-gun, you know what? He declined! JUST AS HAS MR. BUSH, ET AL.


Gee whiz, and they want to help so much – they say. At the present time George W. Bush Jr. and Secretary of State (U.S. of course) Colin Powell addressed the Council of the Americas – the group of financiers and corporate Elite behind the drive to expand NAFTA into a continental trading bloc. This is being well orchestrated by Bilderbergers such as David Rockefeller with the string-pulling. My goodness, readers, there is so much to share and so little time, I think the saying goes.]
 

William Engdahl: “Was stecky hinter den Wahrungskriegen des George Soros? (What is behind the currency wars of George Soros?). EIRNA-Studie “Derivate – Die finanzielle Wasserstoffbombe der 90er Jahre” (Derivatives – The Financial Hydrogen Bomb of the 90s).

 

[H: Oh, by the way, the whole intent of this large American bloc which will eat up everyone in reach is to place everything under the “dollar”. You know that “dollar” which had NO VALUE, NO BACKING AND NO OPPOSITION!]


The influential chairman of the banking commission in the U.S. House of Representatives, Henry Gonzales, chided the Bush and Reagan administrations for refusing to prosecute the BCCI. In addition, the Department of Justice repeatedly declined to co-operate in the Congressional investigations into the BCCI scandal and the closely linked scandal of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL). This bank had made billions of dollars from loans that Bush had granted the Iraqi government shortly before the Gulf War.

 

[H: CHOKE, CHOKE, CHOKE – AND FROM WHERE DID BUSH GET THE FUNDS? WOW, COULD IT BE: BONUS 3392-181? As a matter of fact, Bush and Saddam had at least one JOINT ACCOUNT with around $250 billion in its little account. When will you wake up, chelas?]

 

Gonzales said that the Bush administration had had a Department of Justice which he thought “the most corrupt, most unbelievably corrupt Department of Justice that I have ever experienced during my 32 years in Congress”.

 

[H: And, yes, indeed, we did try to get Mr. Gonzales involved – but we suppose he chose to simply stay alive a bit longer.]


After the BCCI had been openly accused in the media for transgression of several laws, the New York prosecuting attorney Henry Morgenthau announced official charges against the BCCI. Morgenthau accused the BCCI of “the biggest banking fraud of the financial world.


"The BCCI during it’s nineteen year history operated as a corrupt criminal organization.” One of the directors of the BCCI, the Saudi Arabian Sheikh Kamal Adham, had been the head of the Saudi secret service during the time Bush headed the CIA.
 

[H: I don’t want you to go away under the perspective that we somehow got no cooperation. WE DID! Our people found out how to deal with the Big Boys and even work out agreements – which we certainly followed to the letter of the instructions. Mostly in exchange for not naming the advisors. Among those contacts were some very high-level players who asked to not be identified. I don’t mean just “little boys”; I mean players on an international level of the big loop.]


Not a single Western newspaper has so far uncovered the fact that the Rothschild group linked with George Soros was at the hub of the vast illegal network of the BCCI. The key person in these activities was Dr. Alfred Hartmann, the managing director of the Swiss branch of the BCCI (Banque de Commerce et de Placement SA), head of the Zurich Rothschild Bank AG and the member of the board of N.M Rothschild & Sons in London.

 

He was also on the board of the Swiss branch of the Italian BNL and was vice-chairman of the N.Y. Inter Maritime Bank in Geneva. A friendly former secret service man who had worked on the Soros case disclosed that in September 1993 Soros had amassed – together with a mighty group of “silent partners” – a fortune in excess of 10 billion dollars to use as a lever to unhinge the European currencies.

 

AMONG THE PARTNERS APPARENTLY WERE THE LITTLE KNOWN METAL AND OIL DEALER MARC RICH [H: Now where have we heard about Mr. Rich lately, attached to Mr. Billy Clinton possibly?] AND THE ISRAELI ARMS DEALER SHAUL EISENBERG.

 

For decades Eisenberg had been working for the Israeli secret service and has important arms deals in all of Asia and in the near East. A third partner of Soros is Rafi Eytan who before was the Mossad connection to the British secret service in London.


Basically George Soros is another tool for economic and political warfare in the hands of the Rothschilds. He is among those circles who three years ago started a malicious “Fourth Reich” campaign against the reunited Germany; Soros is very anti-German. In his 1991 autobiography Underwriting Democracy Soros warned of the danger that a reunited Germany could disturb the (power) balance in Europe. It is easy to see how the situation that existed between the wars could come up again. A reunited Germany becomes the strongest economic power and develops Eastern Europe as its habitat…”a terrible witches’ brew”.


His U.S. contacts put Soros very close to the financial and secret service circles around George Bush. His most important deposit bank and the main lender during attack on the European monetary system in September 1993 was CITICORP, America’s largest bank. Soros called upon the international investors to unhinge the Deutsche Mark. When in late 1989 a reunification became probable, a high-ranking Citicorp manager said:

“German unity will be catastrophic for our interests. We have to take action to ensure a decline of the Deutsche Mark by about 30% so that Germany will not be able to build up Eastern Germany to become the economic factor with a new Europe.”

According to his associates Soros has “an incredible ego”. He described how during the war in occupied Hungary he could not have survived as Jew, so he had taken on a second identity. What he did no say, however, was that he let a man shield him from persecution who did wealthy Jews out of their possessions, and that Soros lent him a hand. This is how he “survived” the war. Leaving Budapest only two years after it had ended. Although he himself and the Jewish-owned media are quick in attacking all his opponents, especially in Eastern Europe, as anti-Semitic, his Jewishness is based on parts of the Talmud rather than on his links with Jewish religion or the Jewish people.

 

Outwardly, Soros supports a whole spate of social activities, like “peace concerts” with Joan Baez, stipends in Oxford for young Eastern Europeans, etc.


But reality presents a different picture. Soros is personally responsible for the chaos the “shock therapy” caused in Eastern Europe after 1989. He foisted ludicrous draconian measures upon the weak governments there, which enabled him to buy up resources in wide parts of Eastern Europe and [at] rock bottom prices.


Take Poland as an example:

At the end of 1989, Soros organized a secret meeting between the Communist regime of Rakowski with the leaders of the then illegal opposition union organization Solidarnosc. The plan he presented to both sides was as follows:


The Communists should let the opposition Solidarnosc take over the government to win the confidence of the people.


Then the state should deliberately drive its own state industries and agricultural businesses to ruin by applying astronomical interest rates, by withholding the necessary state loans and by lumbering the companies with debt they could never repay.


Then Soros would get his rich international business friends to come to Poland and buy up the now privatized state companies.

The most recent example is the huge steel company Huta Warsawa which today, so steel experts say, would cost about 3 to 4 billion US$ to build if it was built by Western companies. A few months ago the Polish government agreed to take over the “debts” of Huta Warsawa and to sell the company now free of debt for 30 million US$ to the Milan company Lucchini. [H: That’s the way it works, chelas.]


To instigate his plan Soros used a young friend, the Polish-Jewish economic advisor Jeffrey Sachs who however could not begin his advisory work in Poland because so far he could only show advisory work he did in Bolivia. So Soros set up another one of his many foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation which then in turn was the official client for the advisory work of Sacks in Poland (1989/90).


In Soros’ own words he has worked or still works with the main advisor of Lech Walesa, Bronislaw Geremek, with General Jaruzelski, Professor Trxeciakowski, a secret advisor to the new Polish minister for finance and economy Leszec Balcerowicz, and with the latter himself. Soros admits that he had known that his economic “shock therapy” in Poland would lead to severe unemployment, to the closing of factories and to social tensions. That is why he insisted that Solidarnosc take over the government.

 

Through his foundation he could approach the most important opinion makers in the media, like Adam Michnik, and his collaboration with the U.S. embassy in Warsaw enable him to censor the media which proceeded one-sidedly to support his “shock therapy” and opposed any criticism. What do you say now? Isn’t that the old Talmud-Illuminati strategy?


Russia and the CIS states:

Soros led a delegation to Russia, where he had been collaborating with Raissa Gorbachev since the 80s, to set up a further Soros foundation, The Cultural Initiative Foundation. This is a further vehicle for him and his Western cronies to enter the highest political echelons tax-free and proceed to “buy” the most important political and economic personalities of the country.

After a failed attempt with Gorbachev 1988 to 1991 he changed over to the circles around Yeltsin. And again it was Soros who introduced his “shock therapy” aided and abetted by his friend Jeffrey Sachs.


From January 2, 1992 onwards Sachs’ “shock therapy” brought an unprecedented chaos and a foreseeable hyper-inflation to Russia which was followed by the best scientific research institutes fleeing to the West. Under the Soros plan Igor Gajdar and the Yeltsin government shortened subsidies to industry and agriculture drastically, despite all of economy being a state economy. The goal announced was a deficit-free budget within three months. There were no more loans for industry; the companies accrued astronomical debts and the ruble inflation went out of control.


Soros and his friends immediately profited from the situation.

 

MARC RICH, THE WORLD’S LARGEST ALUMINUM DEALER, STARTED TO BUY UP A LOT OF RUSSIAN ALUMINUM AT INCREDIBLY LOW PRICES WITH WHICH IN 1993 HE PROCEEDED TO FLOOD THE MARKET IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES AND THUS CAUSED THE PRICE FOR ALUMINUM TO PLUMMET BY 30%.

 

This is just one example of the Soros exploitation.


[H: How many of you STILL think Bill Clinton just accidentally pardoned poor old suffering Marc Rich?]


Hungary:

When Istvan Csurka, parliamentarian of the national-socialist opposition tried to protest the destruction of the Hungarian economy by the strategies of Soros and his friends, he was branded an “anti-Semite” and in June was excluded from the governing Democratic Forum.

Yugoslavia:

At the beginning of 1990, Soros – in cooperation with the IMF – in what was then still Yugoslavia put down the gauntlet for what then escalated into a war. Soros is also a friend of then deputy secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger, the former ambassador to Belgrade and patron of Slobodan Milosevic. Eagleburger was formerly chairman of Kissinger Associates on whose board Lord Carrington (Committee of 300) also sits. The latter’s mediations have directly fuelled the Serbian aggression against the Croats and the Bosnians. Today Soros has foundations in Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia and a Yugoslav Soros Foundation in Belgrade/Serbia. In Croatia he uses funds from his foundation to hire influential journalists of to discredit opponents of his “shock therapy” as anit-Semites or neo-Nazis. (From the EIRNA study “Derivatives”)

You see how helpful it was for the Jewry to have introduced the term “anti-Semitism”?

 

Back to Contents

 

Back to The Rothschilds


 


CHAPTER 57
L. RON HUBBARD AND THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY


Another personality with an interesting background is now deceased L. RON HUBBARD, the founder of the Scientology church. Since this book here is dealing with background knowledge, perhaps we should look at the background of L.Ron Hubbard whose organization is really victimized in public.


In the early days of MK ULTRA, the consciousness control program in the U.S, the former naval officer Hubbard had researched the mechanism of human thinking, knowing about what secretly went on in the Navy. After refusing to comply with government research and to join the control psychiatrists, he published the book DIANETICS – the Modern Science of Mental Health.

 

The book proclaimed mental freedom and integrity as the birth right of humanity. The book made the bestseller lists and Hubbard’s “auditing techniques” were described as very successful. Some of the processes that Hubbard offered to reach mental freedom were secretly used by the government to try and enslave the people. Other techniques described by Hubbard were indeed antidotes to the MK ULTRA methods of consciousness control.


The U.S. government then started a devilish slander campaign against Hubbard that was led by the section for mental control at the CIA. The still young author had – probably inadvertently – revealed the key of one of the best-kept secrets of the cold war. His office was broken into and a protocol was stolen that described the mind control techniques now know as PSYCHOTRONICS.

 

Hubbard and his colleagues were physically attacked and only narrowly escaped a kidnap attempt. But the enormous influence by the Scientology churches shows that Hubbard was not just an innocent victim. And L. Ron surely knew a thing or two about some important events of this world because he not only spent his “magician years” in Aleister Crowley’s Thelema Church in California, but he had also risen to the 33rd degree in the Scottish Rite Masonry (perhaps even to the Illuminati degrees).

 

But let’s get to the “real” stuff now. What I just told you so far can be found in other books, too.


So now I will tell you something about L. Ron Hubbard and his Church of Scientology which you won’t find in any other book on this planet.


The so-called “auditing” techniques of Hubbard are a very handy way to regress somebody into his past as well as into his past lives. So Hubbard was very busily regressing thousands and thousands of people further and further back into their past lives, and he discovered the same strange incident in all of his clients.

 

This happened absolutely independently from all the other sources I mentioned so far. He discovered information stored in every client’s subconscious and came up with the exact same story on every client. In the constellation Pegasus there is a solar system called MARCAB, a sun surrounded by seven planets.

 

But the sun is going to die. So the humanoid Marcabians who, in our terms would be “evil” in nature, looked about for another planet to move to. Well, having good taste, they finally decided to take the planet Earth. But there were people on this planet who were in the way for them to settle down here with all their people. But on the other hand these people could be used as slaves, freeing the Marcabians from having to work.

 

So they made up a plan and contacted one race down her, with whom they made a deal that, if they would help them to undermine every nation and take them over silently, they would make them the ruling people of Earth. Well guess which people the Marcabian made the deal with?


BINGO! – the Hebrews!


L. Ron Hubbard found out what the Sumerian records, the Gilgamesh epic, the Christian Bible and other books describe as well, that Marcabian “God-like” beings came down from heaven with flying saucers. The ancient people not knowing about machines, described them as something they could relate to: a flying cloud or a “flying wheel that came from heaven” with noise and steam, or the “eye of God" (surely it must be an accident that the eye on the Illuminati sign on the one-dollar bill has the shape of a saucer?). Hubbard found out who EL SHADDAI was and still is – the extraterrestrial race that made the original deal with the Hebrews.


And from then on this was taught in the Scientology Church, from the grade OT3 in the hierarchy upwards. You thing this is nonsense? Then read the following sentences carefully! If this was nonsensical, nothing more would have happened besides some ridiculing or sneering. But you will always recognize by the severity something is treated with whether it is in somebody’s way.


Of course the Khazar-Jewish Illuminati and the “Hebrew Blood Alliance” (the descendants of those Hebrews who had made the deal with the Marcabians, another Secret Lodge) soon found out about Hubbard’s discovery, but his organization was already too powerful to fight. So the ruling Khazar-Illuminati started, as the Marcabians told them to (already in the Old Testament), undermining and infiltrating the organization and taking it over. So guess what happened!


In 1981 the complete Church of Scientology in every nation on the planet had been bought by the biggest WHISKEY producer on Earth, the Canadian Jew Bronfman. Now you will understand why the most important people in Scientology as well as all the original founders had left the Church at that time. Because since then the Church of Scientology is a Khazar-Jewish Illuminati organization. Surprised?


I got this information from the founder of Scientology in Germany, as well as from people in the U.S. who worked with Hubbard until he died. (These people do not wish to be named, as they have a difficult life already.)


Does all this make sense?

[H: Whether or not THAT makes sense is possibly beside the point.

 

IT IS, HOWEVER, THE REASON THAT PEOPLE (AGENTS IF YOU WILL) FROM THAT SOURCE TOOK OVER A.S.S.K. AND TRIED TO INFILTRATE INTO THE GEORGE GREEN “GROUP” WHICH WAS NOT EVEN A GROUP. THEY TRIED TO GET AT “US” AT EVERY TURN BUT NOT HAVING A GROUP TO WHICH TO ATTACH, IT FELL THROUGH THE TRAP – ALTHOUGH THE MINUTE OUR “RECEIVER-SPEAKER” WAS OUT OF SIGHT – THE TAKEOVER TOOK PLACE. NOW “THAT” IS INTERESTING, ISN’T IT? THIS, WHILE EVEN THE VICTIMS (TARGETS) HAVE NOT THE VAGUEST IDEA THEY ARE TRAPPED AND UTILIZED!

 

The manipulators are shrewd and you who get lost in your own ego-trappings are EASY PREY. The lies give away the culprits but the blind keep on their blindfolds to suit their own “rather believe” – and the wheels spin until they fall apart.] [H: The next chapter will be a bit tedious but is extremely valuable. I will again urge you to make sure to get copies of Dr. John Coleman’s book regarding the Committee of 300 where you will find extremely shocking and interesting reading.

 

The book itself has a fascinating birthing which we will enjoy discussing at some other time.

 

YES, INDEED, I, HATONN, SAW TO ITS BIRTHING AND PUBLICATION. EVERY WORK OF “JOHN COLEMAN” IS VALUABLE TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU WHO WOULD BE INFORMED ABOUT YOUR OWN CIRCUMSTANCES. AS YOU READ ALONG YOU WILL NOTE THAT THESE LISTS ARE NEITHER FULL NOW CURRENT. I RECOMMEND ANOTHER BOOK, BY GALEN ROSS, WHICH IS FAR MORE CURRENT AND UPDATED LISTING OF SUCH AS THE CFR, ETC. I DON’T BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT IT COVERS THE COMMITTEE OF 300.]

 

Back to Contents


 


CHAPTER 58
A LIST OF THE MAIN KNOWN ORGANIZATIONS OF THE ILLUMINATI


JOHN TODD, himself a former member of the Council of Thirteen describes the pyramid as follows:

“The seal was created on behalf of the Rothschild family (from Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged we learn it had been Philip Rothschild). It is a Satanic organization and the Rothschilds are it head. In this organization one can encounter Freemasons, Communists and members of other groups. This organization is very widespread. It concerns finance and politics and their aim to create a unified world government. This organization will do everything necessary to have this world government come to pass and it includes in its calculations a Third World War. It calls itself Illuminati. The word means ‘Carriers of Light’.

From: Helmut Finkenstadt: Ein Generation im Banne Satans

(A Generation Under the Spell of Satan)

Todd as well as Coralf (Maitreya, the Coming World Teacher) name the degrees as follows:

The All-Seeing Eye
“The eye is the eye of Lucifer. He is the leading spirit, the inner guidance.

 

The RT
“This is the Rothschild family, the Rothschild Tribunal. They are seen by the Illuminati as Gods in human form and their word is law.” (It is said that they have direct contact to Lucifer; who knows?

 

The Council of Thirteen
“ The Great Druid Council – the thirteen great druids form the private priesthood of the Rothschilds.
 

The Council of Thirty-Three
“Here are the highest-ranking Freemason of the politic, economic and church world. They are the elite from the ‘Committee of 300’.” (So say Todd and Coralf).
 


THE COMMITTEE OF 300


This was founded in 1729 by the Black Nobility through the BEIC (British East India Company), to deal with international banking and trade problems and to support the opium trade. It is run by the British Crown. It comprises the entire world banking system plus the most important representatives of Western nations. Through the Committee of 300 all banks are linked to Rothschild. All the organizations following in these pages have been “made” by the Committee of 300.


Dr. John Coleman published in his book Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Committee of 300, 290 organizations, 125 banks and 341 names of former and present members of the committee, of which I will list here but a few:

Balfour, Arthur

Brandt, Willy

Bulwer-Lytton, Edward (Author of The Coming Race)

Bundy, McGeorge

Bush, George [H.W.]

Carrington, Lord

Chamberlain, Huston Stewart

Constanti, House of Orange

Delano, Family, Frederic Delano (was on the Federal Reserve board)

Drake, Sir Francis

Du Pont, Family

Forbes, John M.

Frederik IX, King of Denmark

George, Lloyd

Grey, Sir Edward

Haig, Sir Douglas

Harriman, Averill

Hohenzollern, House of

House, Colonel Edward Mandell

Inchcape, Lord

Kissinger, Henry

Lever, Sir Harold

Lippmann, Walter

Lockhart, Bruce

Loudon, Sir John

Mazzini, Giuseppe

Mellon, Andrew

Milner, Lord Alfred

Mitterand, Francois

Morgan, J.P.

Norman, Montague

Oppenheimer, Sir Harry

Palme, Olof

Princess Beatrix

Queen Elisabeth II

Queen Juliana

Rainier, Prince

Retinger, Joseph

Rhodes, Cecil

Rockefeller, David

Rothmere, Lord

Rothschild, Baron Edmond de

Shultz, George

Spellman, Cardinal

Thyssen-Bornemisza, Baron Han Heinrich

Vanderbilt, Family

Von Finck, Baron August

Von Habsburg, Otto

Von Thurn und Taxis, Max

Warburg, S.G.

Warren, Earl

Young, Owen

(So far, from Dr. Coleman)


The other lodges by the Bavarian Illuminati have already been mentioned in the text.

[H: Just as one aside mention: Note Earl Warren being on this exclusive list. It was the Warren Commission which made the unique and impossible conclusions about John Kennedy’s assassination and killer. Aren’t you yet a BIT NERVOUS?]
 

Today’s most successful background organizations: The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

 

This was established in 1921 by the Round Table group and is also known as the Establishment, the Invisible Government, or the Rockefeller Ministry for Foreign Relations. This semi-secret organization is today one of the most influential societies in the U.S. and its members are without exception U.S. citizens. Today the CFR exercises a tight control over the nations of the western world, be it directly through links to similar organizations or through institutions like the World Bank in which it holds the chair.

 

Since the foundation of the CFR all U.S. presidents except Ronald Reagan had been members before their election. Reagan’s vice-president though, George Bush, was a member. In 1977 Bush was even director of the CFR. The CFR is controlled by the Rockefeller syndicate and realizes the latter’s goal, the One World Government.


[H: It is not an accident that Reagan was “left out of” everything possible. He was a figurehead while Bush, et al., ran the nation and set up the New World Order. Reagan was instrumental in the plan being worked out with F. Marcos of the Philippines and the securing of gold and currency around the globe – but BOTH were betrayed when the plan was set and ready to move. This is also WHY Reagan was pronounced to have Alzheimer’s disease, for he didn’t really ever KNOW much and couldn’t, therefore, “remember” – but he could spill the beans about what he DID NOT KNOW. There is no mercy among the Satanists, readers.]


The innermost circle of the CFR: Order of Skull & Bones.

 


Skull & Bones


Its members call it “The Order” for short, to some it has been known for more than 150 years as Local 322 of a German secret society. Others call it Brotherhood of Death. The secret order of Skull & Bones was introduced to Yale University in1833 by William Huntington Russel and Alfonso Taft. Russel had brought it to Yale from his student days in Germany in 1833. In 1856 the order was incorporated into the Russel Trust.


Among other things the order forms the inner circle, the elite, of the CFR. The inner circle of the Skull & Bones in turn is the Jason Society.


Skull & Bones has been dominated since 1833 by the following family empires:

Rockefeller (Standard Oil)

Harriman (Railroad)

Weyerhauser (Timber)

Sloane (Retail Trade)

Pillsbury (Flour Mills)

Davison (J.P. Morgan)

Payne (Standard Oil)

And from Massachusetts:

Gilman (1638,Hingham)

Wadsworth (1632, Newtown)

Taft (1679, Braintree)

Stimson (1631, Watertown)

Perkins (1631, Boston)

Whitney (1635, Watertown)

Phelbs (1630, Dorchester)

Bundy (1635, Boston)

Lord (1635, Cambridge)

 

From: Skull & Bones and The Two Faces of George Bush by Anthony C. Sutton.

The entanglements of the Order of Skull & Bones have been mentioned throughout the book.


The order is also linked with Lord Milner’s group, The Round Table, since the CFR was founded by it.

 


The Round Table


Cecil Rhodes as a member of the Committee of 300 founded The Round Table in England on February 5, 1891. Among the founding members were Stead, Lord Esher, Lord Alfred Milner, Lord Rothschild, Lord Arthur Balfour. The structure of the group was – like Hitler’s SS – copied from the Society of Jesus, the Jesuit Order.


The main objective of this group was the spreading of the British Empire across the world with English as the world language. Rhodes strove – as far as I know – really for a positive world government for the good of humanity, but the group was later infiltrated by Illuminati agents. Via the Rothschilds, the Round Table is linked with the Zionists, in the U.S. also with the Schiff, Warburg, Guggenheim, Rockefeller and Carnegie families.

 

Later, Lord Milner took over as the head of this group out of which came – as already mentioned – the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) and the CFR. Lord Milner is also a leading member of the Committee of 300. The Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), also spawned by the Round Table, employed Robert Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein who later developed the first atom bomb on behalf of the IAS.


The German branch of the RIIA and the CFR is the Deutsche Gesellshaft for Auswartige Politik (DGAP – German Society for Foreign Policy). It was founded on March 29, 1955, as an independent and non-party association. The members discuss the problems of international politics and economics, especially of Europe.

 

Its influence on Germany is perhaps not as strong as that of the CFR on the U.S. but the names of the most important members speak for themselves:

(List of 1981)

Apel, Hans

Amerongen, Otto Wolff von

Bangermann, Martin

Birrenbach, Kurt, President

Dohnanyi, Klaus von

Genscher, Hans-Dietrich

Kaiser, Karl

Merkle, Hans L.

Rosenthal, Philip

Schmidt, Helmut

Stoltenberg, Gerhard

Wagner, Wolfgang (Publisher of the Europa-Archiv.)

Weizacker, Richard von

Wischnewski, Hans-Jurgen

And others
 

(List of 1992):

 

Amerongen, Otto Wolff von

Dohnanyi, Klaus von

Engholm, Bjorn

Kaiser, Karl

Lambsdorff, Otto Graf

Merkle, Hans L

Ruhe, Volke

Schmidt, Helmut

Sussmuth, Rita

Stolpe, Manfred

Wagner, Wolfgang Waigel, Theo…and others

(taken from the lists of 1981 and 1992 of the DGAP e.V., Bonn. The complete membership list can also be found in Gary Allen: The Rockefeller File.)

It is interesting to observe that representatives of the different parties sit here at the same table to discuss things in secret, only to confront each other the very next day with the severest accusation. No comment necessary!

 


The Bilderbergers


This secret organization was started in May 1954 at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Holland, by the Committee of 300 through Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. The Bilderbergers are a group of around 120 persons from the high finance circles of Western Europe, the U.S. and Canada. Their main objectives – as formulated by Prince Bernhard himself – are a world government by the year 2000 and a global army through the UN. The group is also called the “invisible world government”.


An advisory group composed of the management committee (24 Europeans and 15 Americans) decides who will be invited to the meetings. Johannes Rothkranz writes that only persons who have proven their unwavering loyalty to the Rockefeller-Rothschild intrigue are ever invited. But not all present are initiates; they may just be representing interest groups or other personalities.


Some of the more important INTERNATIONAL representatives are or were:

Agnelli, Giovanni - Fiat boss

Brzezinski, Zbigniew - Chairman of the Trilateral Commission and most important Rockefeller agent.

Bush, George - Former CIA Chief, Former CFR Chief, Former U.S. President, Committee of 300

Carrington, Lord (GB) - Committee of 300, Kissinger Associates, former NATO Chairman.

Dulles, Allen - Former CIA Chief

Clinton, Bill - U.S. President, CFR, Tilateral Commission

Ford, Henry II

Gonzalers, Felipe - Secretary General of the Spanish Socialist Party and later Prime Minister.

Jankowitsch, Perter (A)

Kennedy, David

Kissinger, Henry - Also member of Italian P2 Lodge.

Luns, Joseph -Former NATO Secretary General

Lord Roll of Ipsen -Former president of the S.G. Warburg Group

McNamara, Robert –World Bank

Martens, Wilfried (B)

Palme, Olof -Also member of the Committee of 300

Reuther, Walter P.

Rockefeller, David

Rockefeller, John D.

Rockefeller, Nelson

Rothschild, Baron Edmund de

Tindemanns, Jan -Former Prime Minister of Belgium

Warburg, Eric D.

Warburg, Siegmund

Worner, Manfred - NATO

GERMAN MEMBERS
(all were attending at least once):

Abs, Hermann -Deustche Bank

Bahr, Egon

Barzel, Rainer

Becker, Kurt -Kolner Stadtanzeiger

Beitz, Berthold -Krupp Company

Berg, Fritz - BDI President

Bertram, Christoph

Biedenkopf, Kurt

Birrenback, Kurt - DGAP

Boden, Hans C.

Brandt, Willy

Brauer, Max

Bruel, Birgit -Treuhand

Brautigam, Hans-Otto

Carstens, Carl

Dahrendorf, Ralf

Dethleffsen, Erich

Dieter, Werner H. –Mannesmann AG

Dohnanyi, Klaus von

Eckard, Feliz von

Emminger, Ottmar -Bundesbank

Engholm, Bjorn

Erhard, Ludwig

Erler, Fritz

Falkenheim, Ernst

Geyer, Gerhard

Gross, Herbert

Hallstein, Walter

Herwarth von Bittenfeld, H.H.

Herrhausen, Alfred -Deutsche Bank

Heyn, Rolf

Kaiser, Karl

Kastrup, Dieter

Kiep, Walter Leisler

Kiesinger, Kurt-Georg

Kohl, Helmut

Kopper, Hilmar -Deutsche Bank

Krapf, Franz -Diplomat

Kuhlmann-Stumm, Knut von

Lambsdorff, Otto Graf

Leverkuhn, Paul

Lowenthal, Richard

Majonica, Ernst

Mehnert, Klaus

Menne, Alexander

Merkle, Hans

Merts, Alois -Minister (Foreign Department)

Mommer, Karl

Muller, Rudolf

Muller-Armack, Alfred

Pohl, Karl-Otto -Former president of the Bundesbank

Ponto, Jurgen -Dresdner Bank

Reitzle, Wolfgang -BMW AG

Rosenberg, Ludwig

Ruhe, Volker

Ruge, Friedrich

Ruhnau, Heinz -Lufthansa

Scheel, Walter

Schiller, Karl

Schmidt, Carlo

Schmidt, Helmut

Schneider, Ernst Georg

Schroder, Gerhard

Sohl, Hans-Gunther -Thyssen

Sommer, Theo -Die Zeit

Speidel, Hans -NATO-Militar

Springer, Axel

Sternberger, Dolf -Professor for Politics

Stoltenberg, Gerhard

Straub, Franz Joseph

Teufel, Erwin

Troeger, Heinrich -Bundesbank

Westrick, Ludger

Wieczorek, Norbert

Wischnewski, Hans-Jurgen

Wolff von Amerongen, Otto

And many more…

Note: I composed this list of names from the lists by several authors, mainly foreign, without further research.


Spotlight:

Bilderberger Report September 1991

F. William Engdahl: Mit der Olwaffe zur Weltmacht

Plitisches Lexikon, C.O.D.E. 1/1 and C.O.D.E. 9/1992

Stan Deyo: The Cosmic Conspiracy

Diagnosen No. 8, August 1985


The Trilateral Commission

This secret organization was founded in June 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski for the Committee of 300 and set to work because the established organizations like the UN were going too slow in establishing a One World Government.

 

The Big Boys wanted action. This elitist organization aims at pooling the top heads of the industrial and commercial giants, i.e., of the trilateral nations – the U.S., Japan and Western Europe – and thus at forcing the New World Order.

 

It offers the elite coming from the different branches of Freemasonry world-wide meeting opportunities for secret co-operation and it is meant to give the Bilderbergers a broader political basis. Most European members had long standing contracts with the Rockefellers. The organization has about 200, unlike the Bilderbergers, permanent members.


The Trilateral Commission controls through the CFR members the whole U.S. economy, politics, military, oil, energy and media lobbies. Members are company chairmen, bankers, publishers, politicians, union leaders, presidents of foundations and newspaper columnists.

 

THE MOST IMPORTANT:

Brzezinski, Zbigniew -U.S. Security Advisor to President

Bush, George -Former U.S President, former CIA Chief, former CFR Chief

Clinton, Bill -Bilderberger, CFR, U.S. President

Kissinger, Henry -Former U.S. Secretary of State

McNamara, Robert -World Bank

Rockefeller, David -Chase Manhattan Bank, EXXON

Rockefeller, John D.

Rothschild, Edmund de -Royal Dutch, Shell

THE MOST IMPORTANT GERMAN MEMBERS:

Amerongen, Otto Wolff von -President of the Otto Wolff AG

Biedenkopf, Kurt -Member of the Bundestag

Birrenbach, Kurt -DGAP President, member of the Bilderbergers

Ehmke, Horse -Member of the Bundestag

Hartwig, Hans -Chairman of the Bundesverbandes deutscher GroB-und AuBenhandel

Hoffman, Diether -Formerly Neue Heimat, Hamburg

Huber, Ludwig -Bayerische Landesbank und Girozentrale Munchen

Janott, Horst -Direktor der Munchener Ruckversicherung

Kaiser, Karl -Lieter des Forshungsinstitus der DGAP

Kloten, Norbert -Prasident der Landeszentralbank Baden-Wurttemberg

Kristoffersen, Erwin -Leiter der Int. Abteilung des DGB

Lambsdorff, Otto Graf - former Bundeswirtshaftsminister

Leisler-Kiep, Walter -former kassenwart der CDU

Maull, Hans - Redakteur beim Bayerischen Rundfunk

Munchmeyer, Alwin -Father of Birgit Breuel

Neumann, Friedrich -Vorsitzender des Arbeitgeberverbandes NRW

Porzner - Member of the Bundestag, former Staatssedretar

Richter, Klaus -Direktor der Optischen Werke G. Rodenstock

Ruhe, Volder -Member of the Bundestag, Verteidigungsminister

Sohl, Hans Gunther -Aufsichtsratvorsitzender der Thyssen AG

Sommer, Theo -Chefredakteur de Die Zeit

Schmidt, Helmut -Former Bundeskanzler

Schmitz, Ronaldo - Aufsichtsratmitglied der BASE AG

Schroder, Gerhard -Former Bundestagsmitglied

Vetter, Heinz-Oskar -Former Vorsitzender des DGB

Zahn, Joachim -Former Aufsichtstratvorsitzender der Daimler-Banz AG Members who have an official leave of absence as long as they hold a government job

Narjes, Karl-Heinz -Vice-president of EU Commission

Stoltenberg, Gerhard -Bundesfinanzminister

(from: Vertrauliche Mitteilungen No. 2628/2 of July 3, 1986)
 

Club of Rome


The Club of Rome which I have not mentioned yet is, according to Ovin Demaris (Dirty Business), a group of international members of the “establishment” from around 25 countries (about 50 people). It was founded by the Rockefeller clan (on their private estate at Bellago, Italy) and is financed by them.


The main objective is once more a world government by the elite. The Club of Rome has also worked out a world religion and had the mistaken belief in an energy crisis and an overpopulation of the Earth spread by the media. According to William Cooper they apparently also developed the AIDS virus (naturally with an antidote) and spread it among the people in order to start the great racial cleansing program for the world government. (More facts and names about AIDS can be found in William Cooper’s book Behold A Pale Horse) and Dr. John Coleman’s publications.

 

[H: You will be able to get it ALL if you just get the Phoenix Journals.]

 


The United Nations


At the Freemason Congress in Paris, June 28-30, 1917, the guidelines for the League of Nations were accepted and approved. This was the beginning of the League of Nations established in Geneva in 1919.


In 1945, in San Francisco, the United Nations Organization emerged from this. It is an institution fashioned by the Illuminati, the biggest Masonic lodge in the world, in which all nations of the world shall unite. Ironically, yet as stated in the rules of Machiavellianism, item 4, summarized in the preface, the people of all the nations of the UN now ask this institution to solve their problems and to intervene in their wars to end them, although the men behind that very institution have themselves instigated all the wars of the last two centuries.


In public the UN appears as a good friend to all and sundry who “will take care of the affair”. At least forty-seven CFR members were among the American founding delegates, including David Rockefeller. The UN emblem is a clearly Masonic symbol and I will compare it here to the American Masonic Great Seal.


The globe of the UN and the circular form of the Great Seal with the inscriptions ANNUIT COEPTIS (He – God – has favored our undertakings) above and Novus Ordo Seclorum (New Order of the Ages) below the pyramid show the objectives of the world rule. The 33 degree fields of the UN globe and the 33 stones of the pyramid represent the 33 degrees of the Scottish Rite Masonry.


The Ears of corn with 13 grains each to both sides of the globe, the 13 steps of the pyramid and the 13 letters in ANNUIT COEPTIS symbolize the 13 grades of the Illuminati hierarchy and refer to the Jewish lucky number 13. The number 13 is the most important number in Freemasonry and has several meanings. Jesus had 12 disciples and was Himself the thirteenth.

 

In the cabala, in numerology and with the 13th Tarot card, “Death”; the 13 means transformation, alchemy, rebirth, the Phoenix rising from the ashes, knowledge of the secrets and thence the ability of materialization and dematerialization, the ability to create from the ether (as Jesus, Buddha, Hermes Trismegistos, Saint Germain and many others did, e.g. making bread out of “nothing” (the ether), the so-called Philosopher’s Stone).

 

On the obverse side of the Great Seal we find the Phoenix (changed in 1841 to the American bald eagle) symbolizing the 13, the transformation. He has 13 feathers in each wing, 13 arrows in the right talon, and olive branch with 13 leaves in the left. His beak holds a scroll with the inscription E PLURIBUS UNUM (Out of many, one) has 13 letters, surmounted by 13 stars arranged in the shape of a star of David. On the breast is a shield with 13 stripes representing the original 13 States under Congress.


Remarks:

The German Dea petrol stations of the RWE (Rhenish-Westphalian Power Co.) are represented by an upside-down pyramid with 13 stripes. In the U.S. there is a petrol company “76”. 7 plus 6 equals 13. There are hundreds of examples, just look at company logos, products, TV advertisement, State seals and flags, etc.

The same goes for one of the largest Masonic companies in the U.S., Proctor & Gamble. The name has 13 letters and the company logo is one of the oldest Masonic symbols: a bearded man in a circle with 13 stars before him. Perhaps it is of interest to note here that in the Wisconsin Report, the chairman of Proctor & Gamble said [in] 1984 on TV:

“ I made a pact with Satan! In exchange for commercial success I have signed away my soul to him…”

(More information about the meaning of these and other symbols can be found in Gary Allen: None Dare Call It Conspiracy and in Masonic literature.)


These are some of the most important organizations in finance, commerce and politics who aim for a One World Government.


One group of immense importance we have not considered yet is the Rockefeller Empire. But Gary Allen in his two books has dealt with them at length, and it is following the same objectives.


The Rockefeller empire is the main financing force behind the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Club of Rome.
You will probably have noticed that you read the same names over and over again. It would be interesting to have a list of names of the “council of 13” or the “council of 33”. But we know their goal and how they plan to reach it which is more important and should in my view suffice.


In Finkenstadt’s: Eine Generation im Banne Stans John Todd goes on:

“If you ask the head of a coven who is the world’s mightiest witch, he will say: Ruth Carter Stapleton, the sister of former president Jimmy Carter. I don’t know whether Jimmy Carter is a Freemason. Normally, if you want to be a politician in the U.S., you have to be a Mason, because this is the way to enter the political circles. Since Wilson, president during the First World War, there was not one president who did not belong to the Illuminati, except Eisenhower, and he was controlled by them.

 

There are about 5,000 people in the world who have a deeper insight about the Illuminati. Millions of people work for these few. The situation with the Freemasons is similar. Only those in the 33rd degree of the Scottish Rite had also the knowledge. The others simply don’t have it. They own every large petrol company in the world. All the large mail order firms and 90% of the large department stores.

 

All computer cash registers in the U.S. are linked to a huge computer in Dallas, Texas, called “The Beast”. This in turn is linked to two computers in Brussels and Amsterdam that are also called “The Beast”.


Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2009, 05:46:10 PM »

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_rothschild06.htm

(Cool Soros is one of principal investors in Carlyle Group, a defense contractor
George Soros

NS Profile
Neil Clark / New Statesman 2jun03

The billionaire trader has become eastern Europe's uncrowned king and the prophet of "the open society". But open to what? George Soros profiled by Neil Clark

George Soros is angry. In common with 90 per cent of the world's population, the Man Who Broke the Bank of England has had enough of President Bush and his foreign policy. In a recent article in the Financial Times, Soros condemned the Bush administration's policies on Iraq as "fundamentally wrong" - based as they were on a "false ideology that US might gave it the right to impose its will on the world".

Wow! Has one of the world's richest men - the archetypal amoral capitalist who made billions out of the Far Eastern currency crash of 1997 and who last year was fined $2m for insider trading by a court in France - seen the light in his old age? (He is 72.) Should we pop the champagne corks and toast his conversion?

Not before asking what really motivates him. Soros likes to portray himself as an outsider, an independent-minded Hungarian émigré and philosopher-pundit who stands detached from the US military-industrial complex. But take a look at the board members of the NGOs he organizes and finances.

 

At Human Rights Watch, for example, there is Morton Abramowitz, US assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research from 1985-89, and now a fellow at the interventionist Council on Foreign Relations; ex-ambassador Warren Zimmerman (whose spell in Yugoslavia coincided with the break-up of that country); and Paul Goble, director of communications at the CIA-created Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (which Soros also funds).

 

Soros's International Crisis Group boasts such "independent" luminaries as the former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Richard Allen, as well as General Wesley Clark, once Nato supreme allied commander for Europe. The group's vice-chairman is the former congressman Stephen Solarz

Take a look also at Soros's business partners. At the Carlyle Group, where he has invested more than $100m, they include the former secretary of state James Baker and the erstwhile defense secretary Frank Carlucci, George Bush Sr and, until recently, the estranged relatives of Osama Bin Laden. Carlyle, one of the world's largest private equity funds, makes most of its money from its work as a defense contractor.
Soros may not, as some have suggested, be a fully paid-up CIA agent. But that his companies and NGOs are closely wrapped up in US expansionism cannot seriously be doubted.

So why is he so upset with Bush? The answer is simple. Soros is angry not with Bush's aims - of extending Pax Americana and making the world safe for global capitalists like himself - but with the crass and blundering way Bush is going about it. By making US ambitions so clear, the Bush gang has committed the cardinal sin of giving the game away. For years, Soros and his NGOs have gone about their work extending the boundaries of the "free world" so skillfully that hardly anyone noticed. Now a Texan redneck and a gang of overzealous neo-cons have blown it.

As a cultivated and educated man (a degree in philosophy from the London School of Economics, honorary degrees from the Universities of Oxford, Yale, Bologna and Budapest), Soros knows too well that empires perish when they overstep the mark and provoke the formation of counter-alliances.

 

He understands that the Clintonian approach of multilateralism - whereby the US cajoles or bribes but never does anything so crude as to threaten - is the only one that will allow the empire to endure. Bush's policies have led to a divided Europe, Nato in disarray, the genesis of a new Franco-German-Russian alliance and the first meaningful steps towards Arab unity since Nasser.

Soros knows a better way - armed with a few billion dollars, a handful of NGOs and a nod and a wink from the US State Department, it is perfectly possible to topple foreign governments that are bad for business, seize a country's assets, and even to get thanked for your benevolence afterwards. Soros has done it.

The conventional view, shared by many on the left, is that socialism collapsed in eastern Europe because of its systemic weaknesses and the political elite's failure to build popular support. That may be partly true, but Soros's role was crucial. From 1979, he distributed $3m a year to dissidents including Poland's Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union.

 

In 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary and pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements and independent media. Ostensibly aimed at building up a "civil society", these initiatives were designed to weaken the existing political structures and pave the way for eastern Europe's eventual colonization by global capital. Soros now claims, with characteristic immodesty, that he was responsible for the "Americanization" of eastern Europe.

The Yugoslavs remained stubbornly resistant and repeatedly returned Slobodan Milosevic's unreformed Socialist Party to government. Soros was equal to the challenge. From 1991, his Open Society Institute channelled more than $100m to the coffers of the anti-Milosevic opposition, funding political parties, publishing houses and "independent" media such as Radio B92, the plucky little student radio station of western mythology which was in reality bankrolled by one of the world's richest men on behalf of the world's most powerful nation.

 

With Slobo finally toppled in 2000 in a coup d'etat financed, planned and executed in Washington, all that was left was to cart the ex- Yugoslav leader to the Hague tribunal, co-financed by Soros along with those other custodians of human rights, Time Warner Corporation and Disney. He faced charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, based in the main on the largely anecdotal evidence of (you've guessed it) Human Rights Watch.

Soros stresses his belief in the "open society" propounded by the philosopher Karl Popper, who taught him at the LSE in the early 1950s. Soros's definition of an "open society" - "an imperfect society that holds itself open to improvement" - sounds reasonable enough; few lovers of genuine liberty would take issue with its central tenet that "the open society is a more sophisticated form of social organization than a totalitarian one". But Soros's "open societies" don't tend to be all that open in practice.

Since the fall of Milosevic, Serbia, under the auspices of Soros-backed "reformers", has become less, not more, free. The recently lifted state of emergency saw more than 4,000 people arrested, many of them without charge, political parties threatened with bans, and critical newspapers closed down. It was condemned by the UN Commission on Human Rights and the British Helsinki Group.

 

But there was not a murmur from the Open Society Institute or from Soros himself. In fairness, Soros has been far more critical of his former protégée Leonid Kuchma, president of the Ukraine, a country described by the former intelligence officer Mykola Melnychenko as "one big protection racket", and now possibly the most repressive police state in Europe.

But generally the sad conclusion is that for all his liberal quoting of Popper, Soros deems a society "open" not if it respects human rights and basic freedoms, but if it is "open" for him and his associates to make money. And, indeed, Soros has made money in every country he has helped to prise "open". In Kosovo, for example, he has invested $50m in an attempt to gain control of the Trepca mine complex, where there are vast reserves of gold, silver, lead and other minerals estimated to be worth in the region of $5bn.

 

He thus copied a pattern he has deployed to great effect over the whole of eastern Europe: of advocating "shock therapy" and "economic reform", then swooping in with his associates to buy valuable state assets at knock-down prices.

More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Soros is the uncrowned king of eastern Europe. His Central European University, with campuses in Budapest, Warsaw and Prague and exchange programmes in the US, unashamedly propagates the ethos of neoliberal capitalism and clones the next pro-American generation of political leaders in the region. With his financial stranglehold over political parties, business, educational institutions and the arts, criticism of Soros in mainstream eastern European media is hard to find. Hagiography is not.

 

The Budapest Sun reported in February how he had been made an honorary citizen of Budapest by the mayor, Gabor Demszky.

"Few people have done to Budapest what George Soros has," gushed Demszky, saying that the billionaire had contributed to "structural and mental changes in the capital city and Hungary itself".

The mayor failed to add that Soros is also a benefactor of Demszky's own party, the Free Democrats, which, governing with "reform" communists, has pursued the c

The Soros strategy for extending Pax Americana differs from the Bush model, particularly in its subtlety. But it is just as ambitious and just as deadly. Left-liberals, admiring his support for some of their favourite issues such as gay rights and the legalization of soft drugs, let him off lightly.

Asked about the havoc his currency speculation caused to Far Eastern economies in the crash of 1997, Soros replied:

"As a market participant, I don't need to be concerned with the consequences of my actions."

Strange words from a man who likes to be regarded as the saviour of civil society and who rails in print against "market fundamentalism".

source: http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@lists.panix.com/msg45266.html  3jun03

 

Back to Contents

 

Back to The Carlyle Group


 

 


(9) Soros gave $ to Solidarity, Charter 77, Sakharov, & the anti-Milosevic opposition
George Soros: - The billionaire trader has become eastern Europe's uncrowned king and the prophet of "the open society". But open to what?
by Neil Clark

New Statesman, June 2, 2003
A review by Karen Talbot
Centre for Research on Globalisation 4jul03
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TAL307A.html

 3jul03 


George Soros, is known as a Hungarian emigrate philanthropist, a proponent of human rights and the "open society," and, just incidentally, a financier - one of the richest men in the world. Soros recently criticized George W. Bush saying in an article in the Financial Times of London that his administration's Iraq policies were "fundamentally wrong" and that they are premised on the "false ideology that U.S. might gave it the right to impose its will on the world."

 

Many of us in the peace movement would say: "he got that right!" We might be inclined to praise him and to believe that this confirms that he really is a "do-gooder" - an image, by the way, that he carefully cultivates, especially through various NGOs. In fact numerous non-profit organizations have received funds from his foundation because they have bought into that perception.

But let's take a closer look to see what is motivating Soros. Neil Clark, writing in an incisive article the New Statesman (June 2, 2003), points out that Soros "made billions out of the Eastern currency crash of 1997," and that he was fined last year "for insider trading by a court in France." In fact currency speculation is his modus operandi and if this contradicts his pronouncements against "market fundamentalism" and in favor of "civil society," well, so be it.

 

In fact, Clark reported that when queried about the turmoil his speculation caused to Far Eastern economies in 1997, Soros replied:

"As a market participant, I don't need to be concerned with the consequences of my actions."

But all of this is just the tip of the iceberg. What of the NGOs Soros established and finances? Who are the other leaders of these groups? Clark informs us that at Human Rights Watch, for example, there is Morton Abramowitz, U.S. assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research from 1985-1989 and now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; Warren Zimmerman former ambassador "whose spell in Yugoslavia coincided with the break up of that country"; and Paul Goble, director of communications "at the CIA-created Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (which Soros also funds)."

According to Clark, Soros' International Crisis Group "boasts such 'independent' luminaries as the former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinki and Richard Allen, as well as General Wesley Clark, once NATO supreme allied commander for Europe.

 

The group's vice-chairman is the former congressman Stephen Solarz, once described as 'the Israel lobby's chief legislative tactician on Capitol Hill' and a signatory, along with the likes of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, to a notorious letter to President Clinton in 1998 calling for a 'comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime'."

So much for Soros' opposition to Bush's Iraq policies.

There's more! Who are Soros's business partners at the Carlyle Group---one of the world's largest private equity funds, which makes most of this profit from defense contracts? They include the former secretary of state James Baker and Frank Carlucci, former defense secretary, George Bush, Sr, and "until recently, the estranged relatives of Osama Bin Laden." Soros has invested more than $100 million in Carlyle, Clark tells us.

He also points out that,

"Soros may not, as sometimes suggested, be a fully paid-up CIA agent. But that his corporations and NGOS are closely wrapped up in U.S. expansionism cannot seriously be doubted."

This brings us back to the question; "why has Soros lambasted Bush?" The answer lies in understanding that, more than ever, within the Wall Street power elite there may be differences in tactics but seldom are there significant differences in the end goal---opening the way for the maximization of corporate profits everywhere around the world. Today, there is basically a oneness of purpose in promoting U.S. imperial dominance, and in the process, attempting to solve a deepening global economic crisis by controlling diminishing petroleum and energy resources.

How does this play out where Soros is concerned?

 

As Clark points out,

"Soros is angry not at Bush's aims---of expanding Pax Americana and making the world safe for global capitalists like himself - but with the crass and blundering way Bush is going about it. By making U.S. ambitions so clear, the Bush gang has committed the cardinal sin of giving the game away. For years, Soros and his NGOs have gone about their work extending the boundaries of the 'free world' so skillfully that hardly anyone noticed. Now a Texan redneck and a gang of overzealous neo-cons have blown it"

Soros' way is to use a few billion dollars, some NGOs and a "nod and wink from the U.S. State department" to bring down foreign governments that are "bad for business" to seize a nation's assets, and even get thanked for your 'benevolence,' according to Clark. This method has worked for Soros and his cohorts.

Take the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example.

 

Clark points out that "Soros' role was crucial:

"From 1979, he distributed $3 million a year to dissidents including Poland's solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union. In 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary and pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements and independent media.

 

Ostensibly aimed at building up a 'civil society", these initiatives were designed to weaken the existing political structures and pave the way for eastern Europe's eventual exploitation by global capital. Soros now claims with characteristic immodesty, that he was responsible for the "Americanization" of eastern Europe."

More recently, there is the case of Yugoslavia. As Clark puts it:

"The Yugoslavs remained stubbornly resistant and repeatedly returned Slobodan Milosevic's reformed Socialist Party to government. Soros was equal to the challenge. From 1991, his Open Society Institute channeled more than $100 million to the coffers of the anti-Milosevic opposition, funding political parties, publishing houses and "independent" media such as Radio B92, the plucky little student radio station of western mythology, which was in reality bankrolled b one of the world's richest men on behalf of the world's most powerful nation.

 

With Slobo finally toppled in 2000 in a coup d'etat financed, planned and executed in Washington all that was left was to cart the ex Yugoslav leader to the Hague tribunal, co-financed by Soros along with other custodians of human rights, Time Warner Corporation and Disney. He faced charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, based in the main on the largely anecdotal evidence of (you guessed it) Human Rights Watch."

Clark points out that,

"since the fall of Milosevic, Serbia, under the auspices of Soros- backed "reformers", has become less, not more, free. The recently lifted state of emergency saw more than 4,000 people arrested, many of them without charge, political parties threatened with bans, and critical newspapers closed down"

This has been so blatant that it was condemned by the UN Commission on Human Rights and the British Helsinki Group

"Soros has made money in every country he has helped to prise 'open'. In Kosovo, for example, he has invested $50 million in an attempt to gain control of the Trepca mine complex, where there are vast reserves of gold, silver, lead and other minerals estimated to be worth in the region of $5 billion. He thus copied a pattern he has deployed to great effect over the whole of eastern Europe of advocating 'shocking therapy' and 'economic reform', then swooping in with his associate to buy valuable state assets at knock-down prices," according to Clark.*

In Hungary, Soros is the benefactor of the Free Democrats party,

"which has pursued the classic Soros agenda of privatization and economic liberalization---leading to a widening gap between rich and poor," says Clark.


"The Soros strategy for extending Pax Americana differs from the Bush model, particularly in its subtlety. But it is just as ambitious and just as deadly," Clark concludes.

Of course, in the case of Yugoslavia, ultimately the Soros approach was not enough so the overwhelming might of the U.S. military was brought into play.*

For background information on the former Yugoslavia, see "The Real Reasons for the War in Yugoslavia: Backing up Globalization with Military Might," by Karen Talbot.
 

Back to Contents



 


(10) Soros link to Khodorkovsky's Open Russia Foundation

(10.1) Putin warns Russia's business elite
The Age, Melbourne, November 8 2003
by Ron Popeski

Rome
President Vladimir Putin, grilled by Western leaders over a legal assault on Russia's top oil firm, has issued a blunt warning to his country's business elite.

Speaking after a Russia-European Union summit, Mr Putin said authorities were watching all those who came into billions of dollars in the chaotic privatizations of the 1990s.

EU officials said Mr Putin had assured them Russian law had been upheld in the arrest of Yukos head Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the freezing by prosecutors of a large stake in the oil giant.

Mr Khodorkovsky, Russia's richest man, is in jail facing charges of fraud and tax evasion.

Critics see the arrest as a Kremlin attempt to punish the billionaire for funding political opposition before parliamentary and presidential elections this year and next.

Mr Putin, standing alongside the summit's host, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and other top EU officials, said:

"Our aim is not to go after specific individuals but to establish order in our country. And we will do so in a consistent and tough fashion without regard to whatever attempts these people may make to defend themselves or even resort to blackmail."

Mr Khodorkovsky's arrest has raised fears that Russian justice could call to account other "oligarchs" who acquired state industries in 1990s sell-offs.

Mr Putin said authorities were monitoring the "oligarchs".

"People earned billions, I repeat billions, of dollars in the space of five to six years. This would not have been possible in any West European country," he said.

Mr Putin said those reaping fortunes,

"will spend tens, hundreds of millions to safeguard their billions. We know how the money is being spent - on lawyers, PR agencies, politicians." ...

Mr Khodorkovsky was plucked from an aircraft by security forces on October 25.

- Reuters

(10.2) Moscow 'thugs' raid Soros office
The Age, Melbourne, November 8 2003
by Kim Murphy

Moscow
The Moscow offices of the Soros Foundation were raided early yesterday by dozens of men in camouflage gear and wielding stun guns. They hauled away documents and computer data covering 15 years.

The seizure followed public support by US financier George Soros for jailed Russian billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

The operation, which began just after midnight, was carried out by private security forces ostensibly hired by a businessman with whom the foundation had been having a legal dispute.

But Soros Foundation officials said they could not rule out a connection to the Yukos Oil case, in which Moscow offices have been raided in recent months by authorities seeking evidence against the oil tycoon.

"I cannot rule out that it is some kind of revenge on the part of some agencies who resort to the use of bandits and thugs for Mr Soros's position and his attitude toward Mr Khodorkovsky," said Yekaterina Geniyeva, director of the Open Society Institute-Soros Foundation in Russia.

Mr Khodorkovsky, Russia's richest oligarch, is under arrest, charged with tax evasion, forgery and fraud in a case that has erupted into the most serious crisis of President Vladimir Putin's administration.

The New York-based Soros Foundation has spent more than $US1 billion ($A1.4 billion) on charitable projects in Russia in the past 15 years. Mr Khodorkovsky had based his own charitable organization, the Open Russia Foundation, on Mr Soros's institute, and had close links to the US foundation's work in supporting libraries, internet education, community development and the promotion of civil society.

Mr Soros spoke out this week against the arrest, saying:

"The crackdown by Mr Putin sends an unmistakable message that independence of action will not be tolerated."

Pressure from the West against a trend toward "state capitalism" could result in "Russia being forced out" of the Group of 8 industrialized nations, he said.

- Los Angeles Times

Back to Contents



 


(11) Soros says there "an Orwellian Truth Machine" in the US

(11.1) George Soros says that there "an Orwellian Truth Machine" in the United States
Mar 03 04 © 2004 Commonwealth Club of California
GEORGE SOROS
War, the Press & U.S. Power: Diplomacy and Conflict in the Post-9/11 World

George Soros, Orville Schell

The audio of Orville Schell's conversation with George Soros is available in RealAudio format. http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/04/04-03soros-audio.html.

Soros, in the following interview with Charlie Rose, seems to identify with Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is mentioned by Rose, then, a little further on, Soros uses a Chomsky-like expression, "manufacture truth". Chomsky wrote a book named The Manufacture of Consent.
 
(11.2) Soros likens Bush to Hitler; yet the "Orwellian Truth Machine" is the Jewish-owned or managed media, a fact which neither Soros nor Chomsky ever mention. Further, Bush does the bidding of the Zionists.

CFR Publications: The Bubble of American Supremacy

... Speaker: George Soros, chairman, Soros Fund Management; author, "The Bubble of American Supremacy: Correcting the Misuse of American Power" Moderator: Charlie Rose, executive producer and host, "The Charlie Rose Show"

Council on Foreign Relations

New York, New York

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

... ROSE: But there was a lot of debate about it, a lot of--I had a lot of people like you on my program who were fiercely opposed to the war--I mean, everybody from you over to [Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor] Noam Chomsky.

SOROS: Yeah, but when you followed the war reporting in Iraq on Fox Television and Sky News in England--

ROSE: Both owned by the same person.

SOROS: -- and how different their coverage was--it really quite remarkable. So actually this -- I mean, there is an Orwellian truth machine operating now, and I find it perplexing that when [George] Orwell in "1984" described the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Truth controlled all the media, and this was based on the experience in Nazi Germany and communist Soviet Union. So it's not the same situation. It's not comparable. But there is still this ability to manufacture truth. And I find it puzzling, and don't have the answer to it.

ROSE: That's in fact how you got in trouble, because some people said that you were trying to compare the Bush administration to Hitler when you made that point.

SOROS: That's correct, yes. But of course that's exactly the differences that we do have, that democracy and pluralistic media. And yet it's possible to manufacture truth.

Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,099



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2009, 06:08:25 PM »

WTF?

Soroos is a total scumbucket!
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
JeffnDenmark
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2009, 05:55:42 AM »

Hi Everyone,
I have been an infowarrior blogging on www.Drudge.com for about 3 years, and just in the past 6 or 7 months the trolls have really come out of the wood work to viciously attack me.
 If any of you infowarriors have the time would you please show up at www.drudge.com make an account and start throwing some info bombs at these people. I have made a break through, but the trolls try and intimidate people that start agreeing with me, and scare people away.
 Please help!
 Thanks,
JeffnDenmark
aalborgsmith@hotmail.com
Logged
Morpheus249
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2009, 09:28:09 PM »

Step 3: Bleed the State Dry

Economic sanctions and civil war destroyed the Yugoslav state. Soros helped exacerbate both.  The Soros-funded Human Rights Watch demonized Milosevic through wildly exaggerated reports of Serb atrocities. These charges led to economic sanctions and NATO intervention on behalf of separatist rebels. (16)

A prominent hawk on Yugoslavia, Soros pressured Bill Clinton, as early as 1993, to escalate the war by lifting an arms embargo against Bosnian separatists. (17)

Emboldened by U.S. support, separatist rebels launched "ethnic cleansing" campaigns against Serb civilians living in the territories they claimed. The bloodiest such action was Operation Storm, an August 1995 offensive by Croatian forces, in which as many as 300,000 Serbs were driven from Krajina, and an unknown number of Serb civilians slaughtered. (18)

The blood was not dry in Krajina before Soros and his fellow hawks confronted Congress in December 1995 with a petition, signed by 40 prominent policy makers, urging massive U.S. intervention in the Balkans -- not to protect Serbs from further atrocities, but to escalate the war by intensifying support for separatist rebels.

During this period, Bill Clinton allowed Osama bin Laden to bring in mujahedeen volunteers from Islamic countries to terrorize the Serbs. These mujahedeen tortured and slaughtered Christian captives with appalling savagery. Many stayed in the Balkans, building a network of terror cells which remain active to this day. (19)




i must put a light on this part. this part is a bloody lie...there is so much lies in this part, that insults all the dead and living in the states of ex YU that have been in that war.
First of all no 1 funded croats or bosnians, or any other nation in ex YU which wanted to separate.
Yugoslavia was a masonic entity, led by a known mason Tito (that's a fact, u can find it on the net)
US, UK, and other nwo governments, first helped the Serbs and Milosevic to achieve the goal named Great Serbia. all states in ex YU had a constitutional right to separate. As for most states that was a long unfullfilled dream, to have an independent republic. in croatia war started by rebel serbs with the help of JNA (Yugoslavian National Army, cuz it was under control from Belgrade, under control from Milosevic). they choped down the trees and blocked roads and railways, and proclaimed the republic of Krajina, on the legitimate territory of Croatia... they exiled all Croats from that parts, done numerous atrocities in the name of Great Serbia.
as the nwo government didn't want to see the fall of yugoslavia, cuz it was their creation after the ww2, they lifted embargoes on every1 except the serbs. as they hoped croats would fall in number of weeks or months, under JNA and rebel serbs. (have in mind that JNA was then 4th army in strength in europe). they wanted to show their power, and bombed to the ground a town named Vukovar, which was under siege for 3 months, with power ratio of 1:15 in the favor of JNA (speaking of manpower), and armory ratio of 1:600 in the favor of JNA, check the facts on the net if u don't belive...
as croats didn't fall, and by time got hold on the weapons by smuggling form europe and other countries, the nwo government, changed the side, but still wanted to control the situation... in the end they stopped croats from entering into bosnia (as in the meanwhile, there some teritory pretensions for Herzegovina, which was mostly populated with croats, in bosnia). 
operation storm was legitimate operation in freeing croatian soil, it was not the bloodiest
(700 soldiers and 677 civilians killed, 5,000 POW, 90,000 refugees (Croatian sources)
(2) 742 soldiers killed,
at least 1,196 civilians killed, 250,000 refugees (Serbian sources)
200,000 refugees (UN) )
and for a large scale operation (33% of croatia's teritory was freed) in military terminology casualties were small.
during the war around 9000 croatian civilians were killed by JNA and rebel serbs.
there were atrocities done by individuals, after the operation, and majority of them are prosecuted...
also have in mind that almost all serbs fled Krajina, before the operation started, cuz those were the orders from Belgrade, and JNA, and in fear of revenge for starting a war. there r even videos on youtube of training of evacuation by JNA long before Operation Storm even started.
but the fall od yugoslavia is very complex, and has roots even before ww1.

as for soros, he's a scumbag that even now days tries to destroy national sobriety in croatia, and in all ex YU countries through the media. as for the nwo, they learned where they made mistakes in creation of yugoslavia, and r correcting them in super yugoslavia named EU.

as for osama mentioned in the text, that is true, there were mujahedeen in bosina from all parts of the world.
Logged
Amd304912
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,634


Ietsism (Dutch “ietsisme” - "Somethingism")


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2009, 09:31:22 PM »

WTF?

Soroos is a total scumbucket!

and he is the protoje.

hes the new effigy brought to us by the effigys at ceoinc
Logged

faith basers make me as sick as free basers Surah 75 سورة القيامة - محمد [ http://powerofthadolla.freeforums.org/ ] An Almond for a Parrot
€∀§M_ ³ حتى الآلهة الحمار الاحتفاظ زنجي الخراء تمشيا   أنت كافر نكاح تفرز من الشيطان الاكبر يا  ح
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2009, 09:26:09 PM »

Goodbye Malkin, O'Reilly , Hannity......The Neocons have been bashed into oblivion and the other leg of Empire has emerged. A list of people whom are Left wing Gatekeepers or left wing traitors that are now our enemies in order of severity. (Excluding the Rothschild's and Rockefellers because they are behind both parties). I am also excluding Hillary Clinton because she is not a Neo-liberal, infact she is more like a NeoCon. I am also excluding Keith Olbermann because he has already bashed Obama and i really believe he has a consciounse.

Top 10 Neo-Liberal Political Traitors:
1. George Soros (Anti Russian Political Hitman, Drug Cartel Kingpin)
2. Felix Rohatyn (British Pelosi/Frank/Obama Banker/Financier)
3. Zbiginiew Brzezinski (Soros Tactician, British Style Imperialist)
4. Nancy Pelosi (Biggest Traitor in the United States GOV)
5. Barney Frank (Second Biggest Traitor in US GOV)

6. Barack Obama, Joe Biden , Susan Rice , Paul Volcker , Bob Gates, Tim Geithner , Rham Emanuel (The whole private economic advisory board to Obama). - (No explanation needed)

7. Chris Dodd   (Idiot)
8. Harry Reid    (Idiot)
9. John McCain ( I consider him a Neo-Liberal)
10. Al Gore (Normally he would be up further but he declined at position in the Obama Admin, Thankfully)

MEDIA GATEKEEPERS in order of most dangerous to least:
1. ( I hate to say this) Rachel Maddow - She has the most Left wing leverage of any anchor and has done a complete 180 since the day Obama was elected. Due to her prior credibility she is #1 most dangerous Gatekeeper IMO.

2. Bill Maher - Major Gatekeeper, Enviro-Fascist.

3. Chris Matthews (always dangerous)

4. The Entire NY TIMES (Will cover Obama till the world ends)

5. Ariana Huffington and her idiotically biased news

FEEL FREE TO ADD TO THE LIST.
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Neco
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,490


Welcome to the 4th Reich


« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2009, 09:38:06 PM »

That's a good point.  I have always been a conservative and actually never realized it but was more like a neocon for a number of years.  The globalists hijacked and perverted conservative values, turning them into National Socialism but I have never really considered it from the side of a well meaning liberal.  There are undergoing the exact same thing (well it has been going on for a long time but this is their first taste of true power in 8 years).  They are all now die hard Marxists. 

God help us and this country. 
Logged

"Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen: the enunciation of truth." ~V

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." ~Patrick Henry

Neco Illuminati
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2009, 09:44:15 PM »

That's a good point.  I have always been a conservative and actually never realized it but was more like a neocon for a number of years.  The globalists hijacked and perverted conservative values, turning them into National Socialism but I have never really considered it from the side of a well meaning liberal.  There are undergoing the exact same thing (well it has been going on for a long time but this is their first taste of true power in 8 years).  They are all now die hard Marxists. 

God help us and this country. 
Back in the old days it would have been Thomas Jefferson Republican (Conservative) Policies VS. Lincoln/Hamiltonian Policies (Federalist/Liberal) - two somewhat legitamate sets of ideals , Both Anti-Imperialistic.

Everything has been re-written. Presidents have been lied about, massive disinfo on the net about a select group of Presidents/leaders in US history that used a certain type of economic policy.

We've been infested by the very Empire we fought for 150 years and they have re-written US History, and that goes for alot of info on the NET too.
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Neco
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,490


Welcome to the 4th Reich


« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2009, 09:49:55 PM »

I hear you.  They have lied about so many things for so long, it is hard to get the real facts straight. 

For instance, it is a FACT that Germany enriched enough Uranium for several bombs during the war and when they surrendered in April, 1945, the U.S. govt. shipped it over to los Alamos along with the blasting caps they needed for the bombs. 

We dropped mostly German made bombs on the Japanese (some speculate at least one of these was actually a German A-Bomb and that they used them at least twice against the Russians) but I digress... 

We dropped German made A-Bombs on the Japanese and no one knows. 

Didn't mean to divert the main purpose of the thread but there are just so many examples of their lies that are now taken for absolute truth by the people of this country. 
Logged

"Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen: the enunciation of truth." ~V

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." ~Patrick Henry

Neco Illuminati
Waterboy2go
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


Why so socialist?


« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2009, 09:51:50 PM »

No Keith Olbermann?
Logged

"People should not fear their government, the governments should fear their people."
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2009, 10:08:33 PM »

No Keith Olbermann?
No not yet - he's censored by NBC alot and imo he means well.
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2009, 04:35:43 PM »

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4391.shtml

Soros funds infiltration of 9/11 truth, election protection, and “independent” journalism
By Wayne Madsen
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Feb 20, 2009, 00:28


(WMR) -- WMR has learned from well-placed sources that international hedge fund mogul and financier of “progressive” causes George Soros has been, for a number of years, infiltrating 9/11 “truth” organizations, groups advocating election reform, and so-called “independent journalism” enterprises in order to hijack agendas and, eventually, cause the groups to collapse from within or be absorbed into larger organizations servile to Soros and his agenda.

By far, the largest group Soros and his allies has infiltrated and taken over is the Democratic Party of the United States. It now totally adheres to a corporatist line and has purged from its leadership Dr. Howard Dean and replaced him with Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, a Democratic Leadership Council adherent. The Soros faction and its allies has also seen to it that Bill Richardson, Caroline Kennedy, and others who represent the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” have been shut out of the Obama administration.

In many ways, Soros’ operation is strikingly similar to the FBI’s former Counter-Intelligence Program, also known as COINTELPRO. There is also ample evidence that Soros’ program is linked to Israeli intelligence operations in the United States and that some presidential campaigns in 2008 were infiltrated by the joint operation, including those of Democratic candidate and former Senator Mike Gravel, and Republican candidate Ron Paul.

Soros’ operations, according to our sources, involve his Open Society Institute, as well as Soros Fund Management LLC, in which his son, Jonathan Soros, plays a leading role.

For Soros, his political operations in America are much the same as they are in places like Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Romania, and other countries: divide, confuse the political sides, and conquer.

The modus operandi is that Soros operatives either help establish “progressive” organizations or join them after they are established with a new infusion of a modest to substantial funding. The agenda of the organization is then altered to make it look either like a far-out “conspiracy” association or the infiltrators of the organization create internecine battles between factions or tamp down its fervor. In some cases, the organizations ultimately cease to exist or are combined with other Soros-controlled or influenced organizations.

In the case of alternative journalism operations, Soros’ operatives launch attacks, some of them highly personal, against bona fide independent journalists and question their sources and investigations. WMR has been a primary target for such operations, according to sources familiar with Soros’ tactics.

Soros’ agents of disinformation and influence have moved in to “manage” the stories about jailed Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, the 2004 vote fraud in Ohio, the Turkish and Israeli intelligence penetration of the highest echelons of the U.S. government, the presence of Israeli spies among the accused 9/11 hijackers in the months prior to the terrorist attacks in 2001, and Russian-Israeli “Kosher Nostra” criminal activity from London to Kyiv and New York to Moscow.

Overall, Soros’ operations are primarily focused on controlling the left through the use of censors and online gatekeepers in the media operations he funds. Recipients of Soros’ money are found running web sites, some of them well known; hosting TV and radio programs; and writing regularly for major periodicals.

Soros has ingratiated himself to many on the Left but that was his goal. However, there are a number of progressives who are wise to Soros’ operations and will continue to expose them regardless of how many more billions he amasses from shorting stocks, speculating on national currencies, and destroying jobs.

With the palindrome SOROS -- if you replace the “S’s” with $ -- as in $oro$, you will be left with “oro,” the Italian and Spanish word for “gold.” It sums up Mr. Soros nicely, if that is his real name, and not “Goldfinger.”
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2009, 07:49:07 PM »

and he is the protoje.

hes the new effigy brought to us by the effigys at ceoinc
Actually he is not new, nor an "effigy" - he is a major player and owns part of the ICC Court that just indicted Al-Bashir of Sudan, and just started a Civil War in Sudan because a Darfur rebel group has promised to capture Al-Bashir for the ICC warrant.

I am not sure why you constantly insist he is a puppet, or a protege or whatever...

SO WHO RUNS THE ICC?:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1139&l=1

Crisis Group's Board
Lord (Christopher) Patten
Co-Chair, Crisis Group
Former European Commissioner for External Relations, Governor of Hong Kong and  UK Cabinet Minister
Chancellor of Oxford and Newcastle Universities

Thomas R Pickering
Co-Chair, Crisis Group
Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Russia, India, Israel, Jordan, El Salvador and Nigeria
Vice Chairman of Hills & Company

Gareth Evans
President & CEO
Former Foreign Minister of Australia
 

Executive Committee
Morton Abramowitz
Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Turkey

Emma Bonino*
Former Minister of International Trade and European Affairs of Italy and European Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid

Cheryl Carolus
Former South African High Commissioner to the UK and Secretary-General of the ANC

Maria Livanos Cattaui
Member of the Board of Directors, Petroplus Holding AG, Switzerland; former Secretary-General, International Chamber of Commerce

Yoichi Funabashi
Editor-in-Chief & Columnist, The Asahi Shimbun, Japan

Frank Giustra
Chairman, Endeavour Financial, Canada

Stephen Solarz
Former U.S. Congressman


George Soros
Chairman, Open Society Institute


Pär Stenbäck
Former Foreign Minister of Finland

*Vice Chai
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,099



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2009, 08:42:12 AM »

I guess George Soros does not like The Obama Deception judging by the smear campaign instigated by many of his personally funded "grass roots" alternative media outlets.

THE OBAMA DECEPTION



http://prisonplanet.tv/obama_deception.php

http://supremeoverlord.trideltatech.net/pub/TOD2.torrent
http://www.mininova.org/tracker/13321
http://www.mininova.org/tor/2368485
http://www.mininova.org/tor/2368504
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4764793/Alex_Jones_-_Obama_Deception
http://truthactionottawa.com/main/?page_id=312
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrpRocaEfQE&feature=channel_page (in 12 parts)
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/ChangeDaChannel (Upload to you in 2 parts)
http://www.tubeshine.com/share.php?v=brpyx0mnsvz7j9d8c12t
http://www.justin.tv/dwaspellman - Continuous Loop!
http://truthactionottawa.com/main/?page_id=312 - Full stream
Google Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6223232123104914517
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=441320645893216983
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7535755025025800195
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1425814592901592590
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=686753162565877481
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5046586043018758708
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=240709930864575673
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=397026172078506785

The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people. The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order.

He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery. We have reached a critical juncture in the New World Order's plans. and only by exposing the con can we help to save freedom in America.

The Obama Deception is not about Left or Right: it's about a One World Government. The international banks plan to loot the people of the United States and turn them into slaves on a Global Plantation.

Covered in this film: who Obama works for, what lies he has told, and his real agenda, and how his initial appointments and actions prove he serves the corporate oligarchs, not the American people. If you want to know the facts and cut through all the hype, this is the film for you.

• Obama is continuing the process of transforming America into something that resembles Nazi Germany, with forced National Service, domestic civilian spies, warrantless wiretaps, the destruction of the Second Amendment, FEMA camps and Martial Law.

• Obama's handlers are openly announcing the creation of a new Bank of the World that will dominate every nation on earth through carbon taxes and military force. International bankers purposefully engineered the worldwide financial meltdown to bankrupt the nations of the planet and bring in World Government.

• Obama plans to loot the middle class, destroy pensions and federalize the states so that the population is completely dependent on the Central Government.

• The Elite are using Obama to pacify the public so they can usher in the North American Union by stealth, launch a new Cold War and continue the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.    

The information contained in this film is vital to the future of the Republic and to freedom worldwide. President Barack Obama is only the tool of a larger agenda. Until all are made aware, humanity will remain captive to the masters of the New World Order.

Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
David Rothscum
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,683


« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2009, 09:11:21 AM »

http://allafrica.com/stories/200901121777.html

That is the tragedy attendant to confronting anything that has been created by America and Britain to further their own interests in any part of the world.

The financial might of names like Rothschilds and Soros are today backed by the military might of the Pentagon to create a monster in the midst of the Middle East with the capability of, ironically, unleashing horrors that Hitler would have been proud of.


The Middle East is paying the price of failing to organise themselves properly and ensuring that the West never had a say in how the Jewish homeland should be created.

Any region or nation in modern history that has allowed the West's Trojan horses to get as much as a foothold in its territory has suffered Armageddon-like consequences.

And Zimbabwe is no exception.

Today, Zimbabwe is battling to somehow find a way around an Israel-like creation called Morgan Tsvangirai.

http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/8993.html?task=view

From Article Barack Obama The Naked Emperor , Pakistan Daily


Then there is the Jewish financier, George Soros, the multi-billionaire associate of Brzezinski and closely involved with the funding and marketing of Obama. Soros is a former board member of the Illuminati's Council on Foreign Relations and funds the European Council on Foreign Relations. In short, he is a major insider.

You can certainly see the Soros/Brzezinski techniques in the Obama 'revolution' in the United States. It was the complex and secretive network of Soros foundations and organisations, connected to the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel, that trained and funded students in the Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere in the art of mass protest and overthrowing governments.

These manufactured protests were sold to the world as 'peoples' revolutions', but it just so happened that when they were over and the old regime was removed the new leaders were those waiting in the wings all along - the puppets of Soros, Brzezinski and their associated networks.



Obama is just more of the same, a big smile with strings attached, and controlled completely by the Illuminati networks that chose him, trained him, sold him and provided his record funding. It was they who kept his many skeletons under wraps, like the gay sex and crack cocaine allegations of Larry Sinclair, and they will continue to do so as long as he jumps to their bidding.
See, I've been saying this for years now. What pseudo-intellectual neoliberals in the 1st world call conspiracy theories is mainstream political opinion in the countries that lie in the frontlines of these psychopath's war against humanity. The whole world can see what's going on except for dumb pseudo-intellectual neoliberal fake leftists who wait for Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore to tell them what you can talk about and what you can't. I dispise them more than the dumb neocons since the fake right wing don't know any better in most cases, but it's intellectual cowardice in the case of these fake leftists. They'll side with that mass murderer Obama over Ralph Nader when Nader asks the question whether Obama will be an Uncle Sam for the People or an Uncle Tom for the big corporations, thinking that's racist. Hey here's a question for you: How about paying companies to turn food into fuel or starving Zimbabwe to death because they side with the Chinese, isn't that racist? How about calling people kooks for saying what the whole frigging non-fluoridated part of the planet that isn't entertained to death and taught how to think by the TV knows as fact, isn't that racist?
Logged
Revolt426
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,190



« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2009, 07:36:51 PM »

That is true, but do not forget the United States has been highjacked by British assets, and George Soros, Zbiginiew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger are indeed British Assets.

As for #1 Soros: His Partner , Friend and Handler is Lord Mark Malloch Brown, they have quite an interesting history together, most recently responsible for the arrest warrent via the ICC of Al-Bashir of Sudan

As for #2 and #3, Kissinger and Brzezinski, in numerous speeches Henry Kissinger admitted he was completely under British "Special Relationship" Control.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2901_kissinger.html

Kissinger's Public Confession as
an Agent of British Influence


The following is the prepared text of Henry Kissinger's May 10, 1982 speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in commemoration of the Bicentenary of the Office of the Foreign Secretary. The speech was entitled, "Reflections on a Partnership: British and American Attitudes To Postwar Foreign Policy."

Introduction
Michael Howard, in his earlier lecture in this series, confirmed what I suspected: that the United States deserves some of the credit for Britain's decision to create a Foreign Office in the first place. The Foreign Office was founded only a few months after the battle of Yorktown. The "politicians" of the time having just mislaid America, the need was evidently felt for some more professional machinery to run Britain's newly expanded sphere of "foreign" affairs.

Since then, Britain and America have never ceased to play important roles in each other's history. On the whole it has been a productive and creative relationship, perhaps one of the most durable in the history of nations. In the last 200 years, we have approached each other sometimes warily, and dealt with foreign affairs often from different perspectives. Still, on balance the relationship has been of considerable benefit to world peace. This has been true particularly of the period since the Second World War.

All accounts of the Anglo-American alliance during the Second World War and in the early postwar period draw attention to the significant differences in philosophy between Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill reflecting our different national histories. America, which had never experienced a foreign threat to her survival, considered wars an historical aberration caused by evil men or institutions; we were preoccupied with victory defined as the unconditional surrender of the Axis. Britain had seen aggression take too many forms to risk so personal a view of history; she had her eyes on the postwar world and sought to gear wartime strategy toward forestalling Soviet domination of Central Europe. Many American leaders condemned Churchill as needlessly obsessed with power politics, too rigidly anti-Soviet, too colonialist in his attitude to what is now called the Third World, and too little interested in building the fundamentally new international order toward which American idealism has always tended. The British undoubtedly saw the Americans as naive, moralistic, and evading responsibility for helping secure the global equilibrium. The dispute was resolved according to American preferences—in my view, to the detriment of postwar security.

Fortunately, Britain had a decisive influence over America's rapid awakening to maturity in the years following. In the 1940s and '50s our two countries responded together to the geopolitical challenge of the Soviet Union and took the lead in creating the structures of Western cooperation for the postwar era which brought a generation of security and prosperity.

In the process a rather ironic reversal of positions took place. Today it is the United States that is accused of being obsessed with the balance of power, and it is our European allies who are charged by us with moralistic escapism.

I believe that the extraordinary partnerhsip among the democracies will overcome the occasional squabbles that form the headlines of the day and, even more important, meet the objective new challenges that our countries face.

Philosophies Of Foreign Policy
The disputes between Britain and America during the Second World War and after were, of course, not an accident. British policy drew upon two centuries of experience with the European balance of power, America on two centuries of rejecting it.

Where America had always imagined itself isolated from world affairs, Britain for centuries was keenly alert to the potential danger that any country's domination of the European continent—whatever its domestic structure or method of dominance—placed British survival at risk. Where Americans have tended to believe that wars were caused by the moral failure of leaders, the British view is that aggression has thrived on opportunity as much as on moral propensity, and must be restrained by some kind of balance of power. Where Americans treated diplomacy as episodic—a series of isolated problems to be solved on their merits—the British have always understood it as an organic historical process requiring constant manipulation to keep it moving in the right direction.

Britain has rarely proclaimed moral absolutes or rested her faith in the ultimate efficacy of technology, despite her achievements in this field. Philosophically, she remains Hobbesian: She expects the worst and is rarely disappointed. In moral matters Britain has traditionally practiced a convenient form of ethical egoism, believing that what was good for Britain was best for the rest. This requires a certain historical self-confidence, not to say nerve, to carry it off. But she has always practiced it with an innate moderation and civilized humaneness such that her presumption was frequently justified. In the Nineteenth Century, British policy was a—perhaps the—principal factor in a European system that kept the peace for 99 years without a major war.

American foreign policy is the product of a very different tradition. The Founding Fathers, to be sure, were sophisticated men who understood the European balance of power and skillfully manipulated it to win independence. But for a century and more after that, America, comfortably protected by two oceans—which in turn were secured by the Royal Navy—developed the idiosyncratic notion that a fortunate accident was a natural state of affairs, that our involvement in world politics was purely a matter of choice. Where [President John Quincy Adams' Secretary of State] George Canning viewed the Monroe Doctrine in terms of the world equilibrium, "call[ing] the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old," Americans imagined the entire Western Hemisphere a special case, safely insulated from the rest of the world. We had created a nation consciously dedicated to "self-evident" truths, and it was taken for granted in most American public discourse that our participation (or non-participation) in the world could be guided exclusively by moral precepts. That geography gave us this luxury was only evidence of God's blessing upon us; we owed Him that quid pro quo. The competitive, sometimes cynical, and always relativistic style of European power politics was viewed in America as an unsavory example of what to avoid and as further evidence of our moral superiority.

In American discussion of foreign policy, even through much of the Twentieth Century, the phrase "balance of power" was hardly ever written or spoken without a pejorative adjective in front of it—the "outmoded" balance of power, the "discredited" balance of power. When Woodrow Wilson took America into the First World War, it was in the expectation that under American influence the postwar settlement would be governed by a "new and more wholesome diplomacy" transcending the wheeling and dealing, secrecy, and undemocratic practices that were thought to have produced the Great War. Franklin Roosevelt, on his return from the Crimean Conference in 1945, told the Congress of his hope that the postwar era would "spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries—and have failed." Both Wilson and Roosevelt put their faith in a universal organization of collective security in which the peace-loving nations would combine to deter, or combat, the aggressors. It was assumed that all nations would come to the same conclusions regarding what constituted aggression and be equally willing to resist it, no matter where it occurred, regardless of how far from their borders, irrespective of the national interest involved.

In the American view, nations were either inherently peaceful or inherently warlike. Hence, after World War II the "peace-loving" U.S., Britain, and U.S.S.R. had together to police the world against Germany and Japan even though the former enemies had been rendered impotent by unconditional surrender. If there were doubts about the peace-loving virtue of our wartime allies, they seemed to many American leaders to apply as much to Britain as to the U.S.S.R.: Roosevelt toyed with the idea of non-alignment between a balance-of-power-oriented colonialist Britain and an ideologically obstreperous Soviet Union. Even Truman took care not to meet with Churchill in advance of the Potsdam Conference; he did not want to appear to be "lining up" with Britain against the U.S.S.R. The secret dream of American leaders, if great power conflict proved unavoidable, was to arrogate to themselves the role to which the non-aligned later aspired: that of moral arbiter, hurling condescending judgments down at all those engaged in the dirty game of international diplomacy.

As late as 1949, the Department of State submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a memorandum that strove mightily to distinguish the new North Atlantic Treaty from traditional military alliances and above all from any relationship to the very balance of power it was supposed to establish. The Treaty, the memorandum said, "is directed against no one; it is directed solely against aggression. It seeks not to influence any shifting `balance of power' but to strengthen the `balance of principle.' "

American attitudes until quite literally the recent decade have embodied a faith that historical experience can be transcended, that problems can be solved permanently, that harmony can be the natural state of mankind. Thus our diplomacy has often stressed the concepts of international law, with its procedures of arbitration and peaceful settlement, as if all political disputes were legal issues, on the premise that reasonable men and women could always find agreement on some equitable basis. Theodore Roosevelt won a Nobel Peace Prize for helping mediate the Russo-Japanese War in 1905; thus Alexander Haig's recent efforts on the Falklands have a long tradition behind them. There is also a perennial American assumption that economic well-being automatically ensures political stability, a belief which has animated American policies from Herbert Hoover's relief efforts after World War I to the Marshall Plan to the recent Caribbean initiative—never mind that, in many parts of the world, the timeframes for economic progress and the achievement of political stability may be seriously out of phase. In our participation in the two world wars of this century, and afterward, our bursts of energy were coupled with the conviction that our exertions had a terminal date, after which the natural harmony among nations would be either restored or instituted.

Disillusionment was inevitable. America fluctuated between moral crusading and frustrated isolationism, between overextension and escapism, between extremes of intransigence and conciliation. But history was kind to us. For a long time it spared us from the need to face up to fundamental choices. Not being called upon to help preserve the equilibrium—a service rendered gratis by Great Britain—we could avoid the responsibility of permanent involvement in world politics, of unending exertion with no final answers or ultimate resolution.

Even when the United States finally entered the world stage of permanent peacetime deplomacy after 1945 [After FDR DIED], it did so under conditions that seemed to confirm our historical expectations. For several decades we had the overwhelming resources to give effect to our prescriptions, and thus conducted foreign policy by analogy to the great formative experiences of the 1930s and '40s: The New Deal translated into the Marshall Plan; resistance to Nazi aggression translated into the Korean "police action" and the policy of "containment." We tended to attribute our dominance in the Western Alliance to the virtue of our motives rather than to the preponderance of our power. In fact, the United States enjoyed nearly half the world's Gross National Product and an atomic monopoly; our NATO allies, given their dependence, conducted themselves less as sovereign nations than as lobbyists in Washington decision-making.

It was therefore a rude awakening when in the 1960s and '70s the United States became conscious of the limits of even its resources. Now with a little over a fifth of the world's GNP, America was powerful but no longer dominant. Vietnam was the trauma and the catharsis but the recognition was bound to come in any event. Starting in the '70s, for the first time, the United States has had to conduct a foreign policy in the sense with which Europeans have always been familiar: as one country among many, unable either to dominate the world or escape from it, with the necessity of accommodation, maneuver, a sensitivity to marginal shifts in the balance of power, an awareness of continuity and of the interconnections between events.

Our perennial domestic debates reflect the pain, and incompleteness, of that adjustment. The American Right still yearns for ideological victory without geopolitical effort; the American Left still dreams of reforming the world through the exercise of goodwill unsullied by power. We are edging towards a synthesis but it will be a slow, painful, perhaps bitter process.

The Nature Of the Special Relationship
That two countries with such divergent traditions could form a durable partnership is remarkable in itself. The periods of the close Anglo-American "special relationship," the object of such nostalgia today, were also times of occasional mutual exasperation.

For quite a while we stressed different aspects of our histories; in more senses that one, we lived in different time zones. It was only some while after the settlement of the Alabama affair just over a century ago that American and British interests began to run parallel. The need for intimacy seemed to be greater on this side of the Atlantic (that is, in Britain), and Britain began to avoid alliances that could entangle her against the United States—including a tantalizing offer from Germany around the turn of the century. American memories were longer: The First World War was a temporary exertion, after which we withdrew into isolationism; during the '20s the U.S. Navy Department still maintained a "Red Plan" to deal with the contingency of conflict with the British fleet.

It was not until the war with Hitler that the gap closed permanently. In the immediate postwar period we were held together by strategic circumstances which imposed the same necessities, whatever the different philosophical premises. American resources and organization and technological genius, and British experience and understanding of the European balance of power, were both needed to resist the sudden threat from the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan and North Atlantic Treaty, while formally American initiatives, were inconceivable without British advice and British efforts to organize a rapid and effective European response. Ernest Bevin, as Professor Howard pointed out in the first lecture, was the indispensable architect of the European response as well as the staunch helmsman of Britain's journey from power to influence.

Even then, Anglo-American difficulties persisted occasionally. The anguished disagreements over immigration into Palestine; the misunderstandings over atomic cooperation; competition over Iranian oil; the abrupt, unilateral ending of Lend-Lease; and the race to demobilize were only some of the items in a stream of irritants. More serious policy differences were to follow in the '50s, causing Anthony Eden to reflect on the "tough reality of Anglo-American relations." Even when the politics were parallel, the personalities were often divergent. Eden and Dean Acheson were friends as well as colleagues; the same could not be said for Eden and John Foster Dulles. Misunderstandings and conflicts of interest continued through European integration, the rearmament of Germany, and Indochina, right up to the tragic climax of Suez—to which I will return in a few moments.

That these irritations never shook the underlying unity was due to statesmanship on both sides. One factor was a brilliant British adjustment to new circumstances. To the outside world it may have seemed that Britain clung far too long to the illusion of Empire; in her relations with Washington, she proved that an old country was beyond self-deception on fundamentals. Bevin, the unlikely originator of this revolution in British diplomacy, shrewdly calculated that Britain was not powerful enough to influence American policy by conventional methods of pressure or balancing of risks. But by discreet advice, the wisdom of experience, and the presupposition of common aims, she could make herself indispensable, so that American leaders no longer thought of consultations with London as a special favor but as an inherent component of our own decision-making. The wartime habit of intimate, informal collaboration thus became a permanent practice, obviously because it was valuable to both sides.

The ease and informality of the Anglo-American partnership has been a source of wonder—and no little resentment—to third countries. Our postwar diplomatic history is littered with Anglo-American "arrangements" and "understandings," sometimes on crucial issues, never put into formal documents. The stationing of B-29 atomic bombers in Britain in 1948 was agreed between political and service leaders but not committed to writing. Less happily, only general principles were recorded when Churchill and Roosevelt agreed in 1942 to cooperate in producing the atomic bomb. After Roosevelt died, Clement Attlee reflected with admirable restraint: "We were allies and friends. It didn't seem necessary to tie everything up."

The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never before practiced between sovereign nations. In my period in office, the British played a seminal part in certain American bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union—indeed, they helped draft the key document. In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department—a practice which, with all affection for things British, I would not recommend be made permanent. But it was symptomatic.

For a brief moment in the early 1970s, Britain seemed to decide to put an end to the special relationship in order to prove itself a "good European" in the year that it entered the European Community. The attempt was short-lived. By 1976, James Callaghan and Anthony Crosland had restored the traditional close relationship—without resurrecting the label—and it was enormously valuable, indeed indispensable, in the Southern Africa negotiations that began in that year. In my negotiations over Rhodesia I worked from a British draft with British spelling even when I did not fully grasp the distinction between a working paper and a Cabinet-approved document. The practice of collaboration thrives to our day, with occasional ups and downs but even in the recent Falkland crisis, an inevitable return to the main theme of the relationship.

Clearly, British membership in Europe has added a new dimension. But the solution, in my view, is not to sacrifice the special intimacy of the Anglo-American connection on the altar of the European idea, but rather to replicate it on a wider plane of America's relations with all its European allies, whether bilaterally or with a politically cohesive European Community—that is for Europe to decide. The special frankness and trust that may have been originally resorted to as compensation for a disparity of power may now be even more essential in the partnership of equals that must characterize the future relations between America and Europe.

Britain, America, and Europe
In fact, Europe has been a traumatic issue for both Britain and the United States.

Americans often forget that Britain, too, has been a reluctant internationalist, at least as far as Europe was concerned. Tradition pulled Britain across distant oceans. The glory of foreign policy was identified with Empire and Commonwealth, its problems and perils with the continent of Europe. It was Czechoslovakia—in the heart of Europe—which Chamberlain described as a small faraway country of which Britons knew little—after a century and a half of fighting on the borders of India.

In Britain, reluctance to enter Europe was always bipartisan, and somewhat mystical. Eden once said that Britain knew "in her bones" that she could not join it; and Hugh Gaitskell spoke of the impossibility of throwing off 1,000 years of history. But there were more substantial reasons: worries about sovereignty—which on the Left was combined with concern for the unfettered development of socialist planning; an instinctive disinclination to deal with continentals on an equal footing; trade ties with the Commonwealth; and the special relationship. Even Churchill, despite his intimations of the future, remained as ambivalent in government as he had been prescient in opposition when he had called as early as 1947 for a United States of Europe. In office, he never quite found the balance among his three concentric circles—the Commonwealth, Europe, and the English-speaking peoples.

Only after Suez did the risks of isolation become obvious, as well as the opportunity that the emerging Europe offered for exercising in a different but equally effective form Britain's traditional role of guardian of continental equilibrium. If the economic benefits were ambiguous, the political necessities were not: Only as one of the leaders of Europe could Britain continue to play a major role on the world scene.

By entering the European Community, Britain did not abandon her instinct for equilibrium. But for the first time in peacetime she threw herself into the scales. As I have already noted, she did so with the fervor of a frustrated convert who had been kept waiting for a decade at the doors of destiny.

If Britain has had a difficult adjustment to make in its relationship to Europe, so has the United States.

After the war, American leaders applied a heavy dose of our usual missionary zeal and the full rigor of our "problem-solving" energy to the task of promoting European integration. Federalism, of course, was a hallowed American principle. Shortly after the Philadelphia Convention, Benjamin Franklin was urging on the French the attractions of a federal Europe. A similar evangelism, in a more practical form, shone through the Marshall Plan. Even Acheson, not usually seen as a moralist, was carried away by the European idea; he recalled listening to Robert Schuman outlining his plan for a European Coal and Steel Community: "As he talked, we caught his enthusiasm and the breadth of his thought," Acheson wrote, "the rebirth of Europe, which, as an entity, had been in eclipse since the Reformation."

Despite the idealism of our commitment, tensions between America and a unified Europe were inherent in the logic of what we were so enthusiastically endorsing. We had grown accustomed to the devastated, temporarily impotent Europe of the postwar period; we forgot the Europe that had launched the industrial revolution, that had invented the concept of national sovereignty, and that had operated a complex balance of power for three centuries. A Europe reasserting its personality was bound to seek to redress the balance of influence with the United States; Charles de Gaulle in this respect differed largely in method from Jean Monnet, who never disguised his hopes for a more powerful and effective European voice.

Thus, later American disillusionments were inherent in our goals. It was naive for Americans to take for granted that a federal Europe would be more like us, that a united Europe would automatically help carry our burdens, and that it would continue to follow American global prescriptions as it had in the early postwar years of European recovery—and dependency. That cannot be so.

Yet even if some of our more unhistorical expectations were disappointed, our original judgment was correct: European unity, strength, and self-confidence are essential for the future of the West. It is beyond the psychological resources of the United States—not only the physical—to be the sole or even the principal center of initiative and responsibility in the non-Communist world. (This is one reason why I always favored the independent British and French nuclear deterrents.) American support for European unification was therefore an expression of self-interest even if it paraded under the banner of altruism; it was to our advantage even if we paid occasionally in the coin of clashing perspectives—provided we found a way toward creative unity on fundamentals.

Britain, Europe, The United States, AnddThe Soviet Union
The central foreign policy problem that Britain, America, and Europe have had to confront together since 1945 is, of course, the Soviet Union. And the need for creative unity among us as we do so has not ended.

One thing that is clear from the historical record is that neither side of the Atlantic has had a monopoly of special insight into this problem. As soon as the war had ended, both Britain and America fell over each other in the rush to demobilize. All American troops were due to leave Europe by 1947. After a visit to Moscow in May 1945, Harry Hopkins told President Truman that he saw no major sources of conflict between America and Russia on the horizon.

After Churchill left office, British policy for a brief period ironically fell prey to some of the same illusions that had bedeviled American leaders. The Labour government at first hoped that "Left could speak unto Left." The brief moment of nostalgia reflected the hope that Britain would stand neither for the unbridled capitalism of the United States nor for Soviet Communism. A resolution calling for the "progressive unity" between the British Labour and Communist parties was only narrowly defeated. There is not much doubt, in fact, that once the U.S. was committed after the Greek-Turkish aid program in 1947, some in Britain were tempted—as Roosevelt and Truman a few years earlier—by the idea of enhancing British influence by remaining aloof not just from Europe but from the emerging superpower confrontation, adding to her traditional role as manipulator of the balance in Europe that of intermediary between East and West. This attitude has reappeared in some circles in Europe today.

No amount of revisionist distortion can change the fact that it was the Kremlin which turned Anglo-American hopes into mirages. There is today in some circles a curious assumption of diabolic Soviet cleverness and foresight. Yet in those years, Stalin's conduct of relations with his former allies made him the chief architect of NATO. A few more fleeting smiles on the wooden features of Mr. Molotov, and a modicum of self-restraint and diplomatic delicacy, would have done much to prise apart the young and still brittle Atlantic cooperation: and all the boys might have been home, as planned, by 1947.

The Soviets did not manage this degree of subtlety. Instead, Moscow went out of its way to estrange and alienate, where it could have softened through a little courtship, however heavy-handed. The Russians declined Britain's invitation to send a Soviet contingent to a victory parade, and Stalin side-stepped an offer from Attlee to renew the wartime alliance. Every door that Ernest Bevin, mindful of the influential left wing of his party, was careful to keep open was resoundingly slammed and loudly bolted. As was soon to be shown in the persecution of social democrats in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union countenanced only one form of "socialism" and fought other, democratic versions even more bitterly than capitalists. The outright Soviet rejection of the Marshall Plan was an egregious blunder; a mild expression of interest, however disingenuous, could have caused untold disruption and delay in the Western camp. Acceptance would have changed the face of postwar politics.

It was one of those moments when America's activism and idealism brought out the best in her. The '40s were years of imaginative men and bold measures on both sides of the Atlantic: The Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, the Berlin airlift, the Brussels treaty, and finally NATO, were inspired and creative initiatives. And in the years following, the United States and its allies stood fast against Soviet pressures and blackmail in crises over Korea, Berlin, and missiles in Cuba.

But we in America had only begun to scratch the surface of the long-term problem of U.S.-Soviet relations in the nuclear age, which would soon produce more ambiguous challenges. The problem was, at bottom, conceptual. Americans were uncomfortable with the notion of a Cold War. They tended to treat war and peace as two distinct phases of policy. Total victory was the only legitimate goal for war; conciliation the appropriate method for peace. In this sense the postwar period fulfilled neither of America's conceptual expectations. If in wartime we lacked a sense of political strategy, in peacetime we had difficulty forming an understanding of the permanent relation between power and diplomacy. The policy of containment, and its variant called "negotiation from strength," was based on the experience with the anti-Hitler coalition. It focused on the buildup of military strength towards some hypothetical day of greater parity; it aimed at eventual negotiation of some kind with the Soviet Union but offered no clue as to either its timing or its content, nor even a clear definition of the nature of the relevant military strength. George Kennan's famous "X" article in Foreign Affairs in 1947 looked vaguely to the eventual "mellowing" of the Soviet system; Dean Acheson spoke of building "situations of strength" which, somewhere down the road, would induce the Kremlin "to recognize the facts. . . ." But how precisely this negotiation would emerge or to what end it would be conducted was left vague.

The flaw in containment was not only, as the cliché has it today, that it was overly preoccupied with military counterforce but that it misunderstood that the West in the immediate postwar period was precisely at the apex of its relative strength. Containment thus deferred the moment for a diplomatic encounter with the Soviet Union to a later time by which Soviet power could only have grown. In 1945 the United States had an atomic monopoly and the Soviet Union was devastated by 20 million casualties. Our policy paradoxically gave the Kremlin time to consolidate its conquests and to redress the nuclear imbalance. The West's military and diplomatic position relative to the U.S.S.R. was never more favorable than at the very beginning the containment policy in the late '40s. That was the time to attempt a serious discussion on the future of Europe and a peaceful world.

As so often, Winston Churchill understood it best. In a much-neglected speech at Llandudno in October 1948, out of office, he said:

"The question is asked: What will happen when they get the atomic bomb themselves and have accumulated a large store? You can judge yourselves what will happen then by what is happening now. If these things are done in the green wood, what will be done in the dry? If they can continue month after month disturbing and tormenting the world, trusting to our Christian and altruistic inhibitions against using this strange new power against them, what will they do when they themselves have huge quantities of atomic bombs? . . . No one in his senses can believe that we have a limitless period of time before us. We ought to bring matters to a head and make a final settlement. We ought not to go jogging along improvident, incompetent, waiting for something to turn up, by which I mean waiting for something bad for us to turn up. The Western Nations will be far more likely to reach a lasting settlement, without bloodshed, if they formulate their just demands while they have the atomic power and before the Russian Communists have got it too."

So the postwar world came into being. A precarious peace was maintained, based on a nuclear equilibrium, with occasional negotiations to ease tensions temporarily, but ultimately dependent on a balance of terror. The problem of maintaining security took on an unprecedented new dimension. Technology was soon to make the United States directly vulnerable to attack; the Atlantic Alliance increasingly based its defense strategy on reliance on weapons of mass destruction that posed risks more and more difficult to reconcile with the objectives being defended.

In the nuclear age, peace became a moral imperative. And it imposed a new dilemma: The desire for peace is the mark of all civilized men and women. Yet the democracies' desire for peace, if divorced from a commitment to defend freedom, could turn into a weapon of blackmail in the hands of the most ruthless; if the desire to avoid nuclear war turns into undifferentiated hysteria, nuclear blackmail may well be encouraged. The problem of the relationship of power to peace, the balance between ends and means, has been evaded for a generation by an abdication to technology. But history tolerates no evasions. To develop a strategy that relates ends to means, to build military forces that avoid the choice between Armageddon and surrender, is a preeminent moral as well as political problem for our period. Of at least equal importance is to develop an Allied consensus behind proposals of arms control based on analysis not panic and freed of either the conquest for confrontation or the tendency towards abdication.

Third World Perspectives:
What Is The Limit Of Inter-Allied Conflict?
In a period of nuclear stalemate, ironically, conflict became more likely at the level of local, non-nuclear crisis. In the age of decolonization, many of these clashes were bound to occur in the Third World. This was another area in which, in the immediate postwar period, American and European attitudes diverged sharply.

Americans from Franklin Roosevelt onward believed that the United States, with its "revolutionary" heritage, was the natural ally of peoples struggling against colonialism; we could win the allegiance of these new nations by opposing and occasionally undermining our European allies in the areas of their colonial dominance. Churchill, of course, resisted these American pressures, as did the French and some other European powers for a longer period than did Britain.

As Europe decolonized, partly under American pressure, there began a reversal of roles, the march by each side towards the philosophical positions vacated by the other—to an America focused on international security and Europe affirming general moral precepts of conduct. On Third World issues especially, many in Europe have ended up adopting the attitude embodied in Roosevelt's anti-colonialism and Eisenhower's conduct over Suez. Now Europe would seek to identify with Third World aspirations, economic and political, intensifying its efforts at conciliation the more insistent, peremptory, and radical that Third World demands become. At the same time, the United States, at least in some administrations, has come to a perception closer to Eden's: that appeasement of radical challenges only multiplies radical challenges.

Different perceptions of national interest were involved as well. Thus in the India-Pakistan war of 1971 Britain did not share our sense of concern for the country which had opened the first tenuous links to China; the historic nostalgia for India was too strong. So too in the early stages of the Falkland crisis America hesitated between its Atlantic and its Western Hemisphere vocations. But neither of these disagreements did any lasting damage. In the end we came together; the old friendship prevailed over other considerations.

The lesson I draw is that in the Third World we may occasionally operate from different perspectives. But we must take care not to let these differences reach a point where they undermine the basic self-confidence and sense of mission of the other party, lest we threaten prospects for progress and stability transcending the immediate issue.

In this context the experience of Suez is instructive. Our prolonged and never-reconciled clash had lasting consequences not only for the Middle East and the Third World but also for the long-term evolution of Western policies.

The details of that disaster are not relevant to my immediate purpose. The British-French expedition against the Suez Canal was clearly misconceived. The fact remains that Eden had got hold of what was intellectually the right problem, while the American reaction, among other things, begged some crucial questions: to what extent our "revolutionary" historical analogy was relevant; to what extent it was wise to humiliate one's closest ally; and what would be the long-term consequence of such a course.

Britain and France, in my view, were acting on a strategic analysis which may have been traditional and even self-serving but was far from frivolous. Nasser was the first Third World leader to accept Soviet arms and to play the radical, pro-Soviet game in an attempt to blackmail the West. Eden's perception was that a dangerous precedent was being set: can there be any dispute of this today? Had Nasser's course been shown a failure, a quite different pattern of international relations would have developed, at least for a decade or more. As it turned out, Nasser's policy was vindicated; revolutions spread in the Middle East in the following years, and he has countless imitators today around the world relying on Soviet arms to increase their influence and to destabilize their neighbors.

Even more important, our humiliation of Britain and France over Suez was a shattering blow to these countries' role as world powers. It accelerated their shedding of international responsibilities, some of the consequences of which we saw in succeeding decades when reality forced us to step into their shoes—in the Persian Gulf, to take one notable example. Suez thus added enormously to America's burdens—and simultaneously fueled a European resentment at America's global role which continues to this day.

It is clear that a world of progress and peace requires that more than 100 new and developing nations be made part of the international system; no international order can survive unless they feel a stake in it. It is incontestable that many conflicts in the developing world arise from legitimate social, economic, or political grievances; this, however, does not exclude the possibility that these can be exploited by extremists and turned against the long-term security interests of the West. The democracies, whatever their shifting positions, have failed to relate their philosophical and moral convictions to a coherent analysis of the nature of revolution and an understanding of how best to foster moderation. Above all, disputes among the democracies over this problem should not be permitted to turn into a kind of guerrilla warfare between allies. Whatever the merit of the individual issue, the price will be a weakening of the West's overall psychological readiness to maintain the global balance.

The strategic position or self-confidence of a close ally on a matter it considers of vital concern must not be undermined. It is a principle of no little contemporary relevance. In this sense the Falkland crisis in the end will strengthen Western cohesion.

Suez, by weakening Europe's sense of its own importance as a world power, accelerated the trend of Europe's seeking refuge in the role of "mediator" between the United States and the Soviet Union. The role that some American leaders naively saw the United States as playing between Churchill and Stalin, in the end too many Europeans seek to adopt between Washington and Moscow.

It is not a new phenomenon. It began, at least where Britain was involved, as wise advice to us that negotiation could be an element of strategy. This is a lesson of which Americans often need to be reminded. It has its antecedents in Attlee's flight to Washington for reassurance when Truman seemed to hint at using nuclear weapons in Korea; in Eden's efforts at various Geneva conferences to sponsor a dialogue in the era of Dulles's moralism; in Macmillan's appearance in an astrakhan hat in Moscow in 1959; in the strenuous Western European importunings of the Nixon Administration in 1969 to join Europe in the pursuit of détente. But carried too far, it runs the risk of abdicating any share of responsibility for a cohesive Western strategy toward the U.S.S.R., or toward anti-Western radicalism in the Third World.

And thus we see the ironic shift of positions reflected in some of our contemporary debates. The deprecation of the importance of power, the abstract faith in goodwill, the belief in the pacific efficacy of economic relations, the evasion of the necessities of defense and security, the attempt to escape from the sordid details of maintaining the global balance of power, the presumption of superior morality—these features once characteristic of America now seem to be more common in Europe. Where the United States has never quite abandoned its earlier moralism or fully developed a concept of equilibrium as Europe had once maintained, many in Europe paradoxically seem to have adopted some of the illusions that Americans clung to in years of isolation from responsibility.

The unity of the industrial democracies remains crucial to the survival of democratic values and of the global equilibrium. We must at last answer the perennial questions of all alliances: How much unity do we need? How much diversity can we stand? An insistence on unanimity can be a prescription for paralysis. But if every ally acts as it pleases, what is the meaning of alliance? There is no more important task before the Alliance than to deal with these problems concretely, seriously, and above all immediately.

The Contemporary Debate
Let me make a few general points, therefore, about the contemporary debates between America and Europe.

l do not claim that the United States is always correct in its perceptions. But Europeans ought to take care not to generate such frustrations in America that either an embittered nationalism, or unilateralism, or a retreat from world affairs could result.

l fully acknowledge that the United States by its actions has sometimes stimulated or intensified the feelings in Europe that Europe had to strive to maintain its own interests, its own policies, its own identity. Indeed, as l said, naive American expectations that a rejuvenated Europe would follow our lead are partly responsible for the sometimes petulant reaction to Europe's assertions of its own role. In recent times the United States may have appeared unintentionally callous toward the danger of nuclear war or insufficiently alert toward the opportunities for peace. But the United States has nevertheless been more nearly correct than its critics in warning that those who seek peace not backed by strength will sooner or later find the terms of peace dictated to them; that peace to be meaningful must be just; that nations live in history, not utopia, and thus must approach their goals in stages. To ask for perfection as a precondition of action is self-indulgence, and in the end an abdication.

Observers, including myself, have been sounding the alarm for decades about this or that "crisis" in the Western Alliance. But today's, l am afraid, is more genuinely, objectively, serious than ever. It comes after decades of a relentless Soviet military buildup, when the West, for a decade, is edging in some areas toward a dangerous dependency on economic ties with the East; while in Poland the Soviet Union enforces the unity of its empire, its clients press on to undermine the security interests of the West from Southeast Asia to the Middle East to Africa to Central America. Not all our difficulties are caused by the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union has shown little restraint in exploiting them, and their solution—whatever their cause—has been impeded by the lack of a unified Western response.

One of Britain's contributions to the Western Alliance has been to supply a needed global perspective: the knowledge, from centuries of experience in Europe, that peace requires some clear-eyed notion of equilibrium and a willingness to maintain it; the insight, from centuries of world leadership, that Europe's security cannot be isolated from the broader context of the global balance; the awareness, from heroic exertions in this century, that those who cherish the values of Western civilization must be willing to defend them. In the Falkland crisis, Britain is reminding us all that certain basic principles such as honor, justice, and patriotism remain valid and must be sustained by more than words.

The issue before the allies now is not to assess blame but to face our future. An alliance at odds over central issues of East-West diplomacy, economic policy, the Middle East, Central America, Africa, and relations with the Third world is in serious, and obvious, difficulty. Indeed it cannot be called an alliance if it agrees on no significant issue. Sooner or later such divisions must affect the field of security. For too long, all of us in the community of free nations have put off the uncomfortable questions; our evasions are now coming home to roost.

Thirty-five years ago after the war, the democracies for a time overestimated the immediate dangers and underestimated their own capabilities; yet in the end they came up with a creative and effective response. Today too, we may be underrating our own capacities and confusing long- and short-term dangers.

The strange aspect is that the disarray is taking place at the precise moment that the bankruptcy of the system that denies the human spirit seems to become clear beyond doubt. The Communist world has fundamental systemic problems and has not shown any ability to solve them except by recurrent brute force, which only delays the day of reckoning. In the 65-year history of the Soviet state, it has never managed a legitimate, regular succession of its political leadership; the country faces the demographic timebomb of its growing non-Russian population, soon to be a majority. The system has failed to deal seriously with the desire for political participation of its intellectual and managerial elite. Or else it has sought to preempt their political aspirations by turning the ruling group into a careerist "new class" bound to produce stagnation if not corruption. Its ideology is a discredited failure, without legitimacy, leaving the Communist Party a smug privileged elite with no function in the society except its own self-perpetuation, struggling to deal with bottlenecks and crises which its own rigidity has caused. It is an historic joke that the ultimate crisis in every Communist state, latent if not evident, is over the role of the Communist Party.

Soviet economic performance is a disaster. It seems impossible to run a modern economy by a system of total planning, yet it seems impossible to maintain a Communist state without a system of total planning. How ironic that the West is tearing itself apart over how best to coordinate Western financial, technological, and agricultural aid to a so-called "superpower" incapable of sustaining a modern economy.

In short, if Moscow is prevented by a coordinated Western policy from deflecting its internal tensions into international crises, it is likely to find only disillusionment in the boast that history is on its side.

It is the Communist world, not the West, that faces a profound systemic crisis. Ours are problems of coordination and policy, theirs are of structure. And therefore it is not beyond the realm of hope that a coherent, unified Western policy could at long last bring into view the prospect of a negotiated global settlement that Churchill foresaw at Llandudno.

The solutions to the West's problems are, to a significant degree, in our own hands.

One problem is that the democracies have no forum for addressing the future in a concrete way, let alone harmonizing disagreements or implementing common policies. As my friend Christopher Soames has recently emphasized, the Atlantic Alliance has no institutional machinery for addressing economic or Third World issues, or any long-term political strategy; the European Community, while eminently successful in its political coordination, has no mechanism as yet for formulating a coherent European view on matters of defense. The economic summits of Western and Japanese leaders, begun in the mid-'70s, are an attempt to surmount this procedural impasse, but they can do little more than call key leaders' attention to key problems in an informal, unsystematic way. Procedures do not solve substantive problems. Nevertheless, creating an appropriate forum for broader and deeper consultation would be an important first step.

America has learned much in the postwar period, perhaps most of all from Britain. In the last decade we have also learned something of our limits, and in the new Administration we have shaken off the trauma of perhaps excessive preoccupation with our limits. An America that has recovered its vitality and its faith in the future is as much in the interests of the West as a Europe shaping its identity.

Both Britain and America have learned that whatever their histories, their futures are part of the common destiny of freedom. Experience has taught that moral idealism and geopolitical insight are not alternatives but complementary; our civilization may not survive unless we possess both in full measure. Britain and America, which have contributed so much to the free world's unity and strength, have another opportunity now, together with our allies, to show that the democratic nations are the masters of their destiny.

Thank you.
Logged

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!