I was going about my business today of spreading Christmas cheer, when I heard over the car radio that there was a report in The Wall Street Journal that Citigroup had been attacked by "Russian" hackers, who got away with millions of dollars - maybe billions (who knows?). An industrialist named "Blanchard" had been hit more than once. According to him, the first fraudulent transaction remonved $800,000 from his account. The Wall Street Journal account seemed to imply that the FBI was working on the case. Apparently, a bank in Lithuania was involved.
According to the radio report, spokespersons for Citigroup denied any FBI involvement in the matter. They state that all accounts were now with accurate balances. "Tempest in a teapot" seemed to be the Citigroup "take" on the matter.
The radio report then was followed with some breathless talk about cyber-crime and its portent for us all. One reporter was dumbfounded that a "Russian" gang could have done such technical work. There were implied images of large, ruddy-faced Slavs with fists like Polish hogs sitting before computer monitors working "cyber-magic." Somehow, the image and the deed didn't fit.
Permit me to venture the guess that the "Russian" gang behind this "virtual bank break-in" were allied with the "Russian" mafia. The latter were, in fact, mostly Jews. Wherever the "Russian" mafia showed up in the past in America, whether New York City, Southern California or Las Vegas, they proved to be Jewish, or mostly Jewish. Virtually all the "Russian moguls," who ripped off the U.S.S.R. as it died (not entirely unlike grave-robbers) and before a strong, coherent Republican government could be formed to preserve the nation's wealth for the people generally, were Jews.
Of the latter many also had dual citizenship, as they were citizens of the Israeli state, as well as citizens of the Russian one. Much wealth, according to some reports, was stashed in Israeli banks.
I bring up the moguls because I believe that they have more than a little in common with the "Russian" mafia. If I'm correct, then it followed that the "Russian" mafia had established bank accounts in the Israeli banks too.
From reports that have appeared in major newspapers from time to time, I can say that the "Russian" mafia in New York City had specialized in fraudulent credit card crimes and cyber-scams. It is likely that this gang has by now numerous very skillful internet operators.
One should bear in mind that several of the very largest businesses operating in the internet area are controlled by Jews. Google is one example. Facebook is another. EBay is another. Apple is another. Some have asserted the same of Microsoft. At any rate there are plenty. Parenthetically, some of these gather so much data on individuals that they are unofficial intelligence agencies. It isn't hard to establish that there is a disproportionate number of Jews operating successfully in this field of endeavor. Due to Jewish status as a minority (and persecuted one!), they have been able to achieve noticeably influential positions almost anywhere they choose to focus and do so without concerning themselves with matters such as "disparity."
Why could not "Russian" mafia, as with Jews generally, be very successful in the vast cyber-world? Those who recall the days of "acquisitions and mergers" may recall how numerous Jewish-operated financial organizations, such as KKR (principals knighted by QE II, as I recall; the British love pirates)), bought "sick" or "lethargic" companies and devoured the assets, cast aside the "bad" parts (usually composed of the bulk of the workers), and "spun off" the two parts as separate entities.
I ask you: Did the "Russian" gang not approach Citigroup in the same spirit?
I believe the Lithuanian bank probably was meant to be the medium for spinning the stolen funds into myriad, complex banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, and the like. Many of these may have been "shell" companies, which had been created and destroyed as if by gods. Certainly, some of the money would be "stashed" eventually in an Israeli bank, where it would be very difficult to identify and regain. Money accummulation is a kind of scorecard. The thrill of cracking Citigroup would be real, but ultimately it is the money that gives evidence that one has arrived. As Elizabeth Taylor learned from one of her husbands - probably Mike Todd, "Money is the best perfume."
Why was Citigroup so set on being dismissive in regard to this cyber-crime and its impact on Citigroup? Why did they deny much of the report printed in The Wall Street Journal?
One possibility is that the "Russian" mafia may have been in a position to blackmail important people associated with Citigroup. After all, these are corrupt times. It is also possible that the institution itself was imperiled somehow by information gathered by the "Russian" mafia. "Playing ball with extortion" might seem the better course to Citigroup, especially if their losses, etc., could be "palmed off" on the American John Q. Public.
There is another possibility: maybe Citigroup was a partner in the crime, planning on forcing insurance to cover losses, which losses would be shared with Citigroup in accounts which it held at Israeli banks with its "Russian" mafia partners.
Lastly, maybe it is the CIA which is the "invisible partner" with the "Russian" mafia. If this is the case, then the "discreet" approach of Citigroup would be understandable. It should be borne in mind that the Israeli Mossad and American CIA act closely. It would be difficult to imagine that the CIA does NOT have a secret bank account in the Israeli state. These funds could be used to pay for operations that Congress or the President need never know.
Remember: When you look into your computer monitor, its looking back at you. The only issue is: Who is the "peeping Tom?"
Yav Yo Tim is a man of kidney in a lily-livered world. As a Sage among shadows, many find his visibility threatening. Deal with it!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
IS AMERICA ACTUALLY "NEW RUSSIA?"
I don't know if I'm the only American who has noticed this generational phenomenon, so my comments may seem unusually stale. Nevertheless, undaunted I dare make comment on the heavy usage of the word "czar," when referencing the new appointment of someone to this agency or that commission. Is this not an odd term to have become a commonplace in American politics?
This issue has been simmering in my mind for some time. Finally, after reading about "Obama's 'Czar' earned millions from legally troubled firms" [The Washington Times, Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Frontpage], I felt to make a comment thereon. By the way, the "czar" in this case was the White House Office of Health Reform Director, Ms. Nancy-Ann DeParle. It could have referred to a plethora of men and women over the last thirty years.
The answer - or better yet, answers - is no mystery to anyone who is well-versed in contemporary politics; it is "yes and no." It is odd, based on school-book analyses of American history. It is not at all odd, if one realises that this is a signature term, which identified the incredible rise of Jewish power nearly across the board in America.
Virtually all the immigration of Jews into America during the last decades of the nineteenth century and the first thirty years of the twentieth century were Ashkenazi Jews from Poland, The Ukraine, Russia and its other "suburban" nation neighbors. The great bulk of Jews lived in those countries. This territory constituted their " 'hoods."
Of these most came directly from their 'hoods. Some temporarily took up residence in Mexico, Canada, and South America. Regardless of where they came from originally, they brought with them a "love-hate" relationship to the Romanov Tzars of Russia. The absolute power of a Tzar to command policies must have seemed a desirable, magical power by which to change the world. From the point of Jewry the defects of Tzarism resided in the Romanovs and the Slavic people generally. If this power was put in the hands of a visionary people - such as Jews - then mighty changes for good could be the natural result.
As the Tzars were perceived as anti-Jewish, the galling limitations placed upon them engendered hatred and thoughts of revenge. Jews are the historically most revengeful of people. Naturally, they deny such a comment as "a lie" and "anti-Semitic."
Although the Revolution brought about a plethora of Jewish-style committees and commissions, its power had a way of being concentrated into the hands of Comrade-Tzar Lenin. Later, the same thing would occur with Comrade-Tzar Stalin. They then might appoint a "sub-Tzar" to command policies in regard to this or that, such as the White River Canal Project.
In short, the word "Tzar" - or "Czar"- was very influential on the thinking of Jews as an embodiment of the absolute control they sought for themselves. It had totemic power in the minds of Jewry. With such power they could change the entire world. It had magical powers, which traced back centuries in the poor, superstitious enclaves of Jewry which were under the thumb of the Romanov Tzars. The absolute commands of the Tzars were like powers wielded by the "Wizard of Oz" (or any such fabulous person).
But as a satelite emblem of power, the appointment of a non-Jewish "Tzar" by Jews to administer a sub-fiefdoms was itself exceedingly gratifying, as it magnified the power of Jews themselves.
The Jews who migrated to America carried this idea of "absolute command" with them. As the Tzars used fear as a tool to enhance and preserve their autocratic rule, so Jews collectively began to move to punish a few so as to engender fear in many, as they pushed toward the levers of control. These were the Marxist-Zionist Jews, but, unlike the richer Jews of Germany, Holland, France and England, they did not seek financial-corporate control, as a means to favorably change policy. They favored the use of masses to effect change, aided by tactically-sound assassinations.
In America they formed communist and socialist parties and movements. One of the primary aims of Jewry at this time was to halt immigration-control legislation. This was primarily to protect the free-flow of communists and socialists. Both of these movements were heavily influenced by Jews. From V.I. Lenin down to ward leaders, Marxist Jews understood the need to keep the "underground" movement of trained cadres open and flowing. For the dream of global Tzarist power was the "I Have A Dream" of the Jews.
The Jewish sons of Russia (or a suburban nation) energetically labored to bring about "change" in America. Armand Hammer, head of Occidental Petroleum and patron of the Al Gore family, was the son of Russian Jewish immigrants. His father and another Jew founded the Communist Party in America. [Junior Gore's daughter married the grandson of Jacob Schiff] From labor union organization, to education, to newsprint, to movies, these "leftist" Jews found roads which led to premier launchpads for "New Policies." Marxism and Zionism intertwined like double helix, creating a "New Deal," a "Fair Deal," a "New Society," and identifying "New Frontiers." [The JFK Administration probably had as many Jews in top spots of government as FDR.]
One must be amazed by the "sheer brass" of the Jewish people. They came belatedly into the Promised Land, where, rich with the pelf of a hundred civilizations, they, Borg-like, began to consume America.
This process actually caught America in a pincer movement, as the incredibly rich Rothschild condominium, including Warburgs, Speyers, Sassoons, Lehmans, Schiffs, advanced Jewish interests in the area of corporate control. Therefore, Jews were able to create pressure from above and below. This dovetailed perfectly with the caballah-engendered formula: As above, so below.
Parenthetically, the Jewish immigrant, Jacob Schiff, according to his son, gave the Marxist revolutionary, Trotsky, $20 million in gold to take to Lenin and the revolutionaries in Russia. Naturally, among other things, this sort of money could be used to bribe strategically located people. [John D. Rockefeller was alleged to have given Trotsky $10 thousand in cash, which was rather extravagant for John D.] I saw on the History Channel a rendering of Lenin's funeral. To my surprise I saw that Jacob Schiff was one of the lead pall-bearers. I knew his image from other sources. There could be no doubt. However, the History Channel, getting "wind" of this discovery, may "doctor" or "lose" the video. I state all this to make a point well-known to those who have read beyond the Establishment histories on this subject: the incompatibility and animosity of Capitalism & Marxism does not exist at the top.
Toward the end of the 1930s, as I recall, a man (Leese?) made the comment that when Jews leave Russia, Communism will soon thereafter die. The concept was to this effect. Jews have been leaving Russia/U.S.S.R. for many decades. Back in the 1960s, a Time magazine article spoke about American economists (probably Jewish in their most influential levels) theorizing that the economies of America and the U.S.S.R would slowly merge. They spoke of the American economy becoming "communism with a human face."
Ordinary Americans have only a fuzzy notion of Communism to begin with. A very important Zionist in America during the first half of the twentieth century was Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise. He had been born in Poland about 1874. He came to the U.S.A. and became an advocate of Zionism and unofficial adviser to both Woodrow Wilson and FDR. He stated that "Communism is Judaism and Judaism is Communism." [Possibly he used the word "Marxism" rather than "Communism."] I bring this up because many people suppose that "Communism is dead." Is It?
If one looked at the changes effected in America since the turn of the Twentieth Century and the changes that occurred from the last days of Tzar Nicholas II from about the same period in Russia, one might argue successfully that more major changes occurred in America. Our changes were achieved without significant internal loss of blood, although there has been a great deal of it lost abroad, as America fought to procure a homeland for the Jews or fought the enemies of the Jews over such issues. This is not realized, as covering issues were carefully constructed. For example, FDR's luring Japan to attack, so America could get into the European war and "bail out" the U.K. Both Britain and the Jews were interested in engineering this event.
At this point in time every U.S. presidential administration is born, if not by Jewish siring, then at least by Jewish "nannying." All the media supported and will support these "Rahmanov" dynasties (or kindred ones). Over half the money gathered in by the Democrat Party is given by Jews. "He who pays the piper calls the tune," is an illustrative adage which makes the point of power clear to all.
Incidentally, one need not look to the Republican Party, which gets significant funding from Jewry, also, and which is the "home turf" of benighted Christians who see Jewry as the "Apple of God's Eye" and inheritor of the Abrahamic Covenant. These confused people will not even criticize Jews when they are clearly in the wrong, as they fear a curse from God. You have to suppose that Jews love this situation.
All of this rambling blog of mine is meant to suggest that there is a direct relationship between the rise of Jews in the American society and the frequent use of the word "Czar" by Presidents, such as Barack Obama, Billy Jeff Clinton, the Bushes, et al, and other politicians, as well as the media. I am further suggesting that the concept of "Czar" is not consistent with American traditions. Little wonder, then, that we have strayed so far from those sound traditions. Little wonder that our essential sovereignty has been cast aside for the dream of a global community. Today's Americans breathlessly wonder at who will be our first global "Czar." I can't say but make the reasonable postulation that s/he will have several very close Jewish "advisers."
This issue has been simmering in my mind for some time. Finally, after reading about "Obama's 'Czar' earned millions from legally troubled firms" [The Washington Times, Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Frontpage], I felt to make a comment thereon. By the way, the "czar" in this case was the White House Office of Health Reform Director, Ms. Nancy-Ann DeParle. It could have referred to a plethora of men and women over the last thirty years.
The answer - or better yet, answers - is no mystery to anyone who is well-versed in contemporary politics; it is "yes and no." It is odd, based on school-book analyses of American history. It is not at all odd, if one realises that this is a signature term, which identified the incredible rise of Jewish power nearly across the board in America.
Virtually all the immigration of Jews into America during the last decades of the nineteenth century and the first thirty years of the twentieth century were Ashkenazi Jews from Poland, The Ukraine, Russia and its other "suburban" nation neighbors. The great bulk of Jews lived in those countries. This territory constituted their " 'hoods."
Of these most came directly from their 'hoods. Some temporarily took up residence in Mexico, Canada, and South America. Regardless of where they came from originally, they brought with them a "love-hate" relationship to the Romanov Tzars of Russia. The absolute power of a Tzar to command policies must have seemed a desirable, magical power by which to change the world. From the point of Jewry the defects of Tzarism resided in the Romanovs and the Slavic people generally. If this power was put in the hands of a visionary people - such as Jews - then mighty changes for good could be the natural result.
As the Tzars were perceived as anti-Jewish, the galling limitations placed upon them engendered hatred and thoughts of revenge. Jews are the historically most revengeful of people. Naturally, they deny such a comment as "a lie" and "anti-Semitic."
Although the Revolution brought about a plethora of Jewish-style committees and commissions, its power had a way of being concentrated into the hands of Comrade-Tzar Lenin. Later, the same thing would occur with Comrade-Tzar Stalin. They then might appoint a "sub-Tzar" to command policies in regard to this or that, such as the White River Canal Project.
In short, the word "Tzar" - or "Czar"- was very influential on the thinking of Jews as an embodiment of the absolute control they sought for themselves. It had totemic power in the minds of Jewry. With such power they could change the entire world. It had magical powers, which traced back centuries in the poor, superstitious enclaves of Jewry which were under the thumb of the Romanov Tzars. The absolute commands of the Tzars were like powers wielded by the "Wizard of Oz" (or any such fabulous person).
But as a satelite emblem of power, the appointment of a non-Jewish "Tzar" by Jews to administer a sub-fiefdoms was itself exceedingly gratifying, as it magnified the power of Jews themselves.
The Jews who migrated to America carried this idea of "absolute command" with them. As the Tzars used fear as a tool to enhance and preserve their autocratic rule, so Jews collectively began to move to punish a few so as to engender fear in many, as they pushed toward the levers of control. These were the Marxist-Zionist Jews, but, unlike the richer Jews of Germany, Holland, France and England, they did not seek financial-corporate control, as a means to favorably change policy. They favored the use of masses to effect change, aided by tactically-sound assassinations.
In America they formed communist and socialist parties and movements. One of the primary aims of Jewry at this time was to halt immigration-control legislation. This was primarily to protect the free-flow of communists and socialists. Both of these movements were heavily influenced by Jews. From V.I. Lenin down to ward leaders, Marxist Jews understood the need to keep the "underground" movement of trained cadres open and flowing. For the dream of global Tzarist power was the "I Have A Dream" of the Jews.
The Jewish sons of Russia (or a suburban nation) energetically labored to bring about "change" in America. Armand Hammer, head of Occidental Petroleum and patron of the Al Gore family, was the son of Russian Jewish immigrants. His father and another Jew founded the Communist Party in America. [Junior Gore's daughter married the grandson of Jacob Schiff] From labor union organization, to education, to newsprint, to movies, these "leftist" Jews found roads which led to premier launchpads for "New Policies." Marxism and Zionism intertwined like double helix, creating a "New Deal," a "Fair Deal," a "New Society," and identifying "New Frontiers." [The JFK Administration probably had as many Jews in top spots of government as FDR.]
One must be amazed by the "sheer brass" of the Jewish people. They came belatedly into the Promised Land, where, rich with the pelf of a hundred civilizations, they, Borg-like, began to consume America.
This process actually caught America in a pincer movement, as the incredibly rich Rothschild condominium, including Warburgs, Speyers, Sassoons, Lehmans, Schiffs, advanced Jewish interests in the area of corporate control. Therefore, Jews were able to create pressure from above and below. This dovetailed perfectly with the caballah-engendered formula: As above, so below.
Parenthetically, the Jewish immigrant, Jacob Schiff, according to his son, gave the Marxist revolutionary, Trotsky, $20 million in gold to take to Lenin and the revolutionaries in Russia. Naturally, among other things, this sort of money could be used to bribe strategically located people. [John D. Rockefeller was alleged to have given Trotsky $10 thousand in cash, which was rather extravagant for John D.] I saw on the History Channel a rendering of Lenin's funeral. To my surprise I saw that Jacob Schiff was one of the lead pall-bearers. I knew his image from other sources. There could be no doubt. However, the History Channel, getting "wind" of this discovery, may "doctor" or "lose" the video. I state all this to make a point well-known to those who have read beyond the Establishment histories on this subject: the incompatibility and animosity of Capitalism & Marxism does not exist at the top.
Toward the end of the 1930s, as I recall, a man (Leese?) made the comment that when Jews leave Russia, Communism will soon thereafter die. The concept was to this effect. Jews have been leaving Russia/U.S.S.R. for many decades. Back in the 1960s, a Time magazine article spoke about American economists (probably Jewish in their most influential levels) theorizing that the economies of America and the U.S.S.R would slowly merge. They spoke of the American economy becoming "communism with a human face."
Ordinary Americans have only a fuzzy notion of Communism to begin with. A very important Zionist in America during the first half of the twentieth century was Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise. He had been born in Poland about 1874. He came to the U.S.A. and became an advocate of Zionism and unofficial adviser to both Woodrow Wilson and FDR. He stated that "Communism is Judaism and Judaism is Communism." [Possibly he used the word "Marxism" rather than "Communism."] I bring this up because many people suppose that "Communism is dead." Is It?
If one looked at the changes effected in America since the turn of the Twentieth Century and the changes that occurred from the last days of Tzar Nicholas II from about the same period in Russia, one might argue successfully that more major changes occurred in America. Our changes were achieved without significant internal loss of blood, although there has been a great deal of it lost abroad, as America fought to procure a homeland for the Jews or fought the enemies of the Jews over such issues. This is not realized, as covering issues were carefully constructed. For example, FDR's luring Japan to attack, so America could get into the European war and "bail out" the U.K. Both Britain and the Jews were interested in engineering this event.
At this point in time every U.S. presidential administration is born, if not by Jewish siring, then at least by Jewish "nannying." All the media supported and will support these "Rahmanov" dynasties (or kindred ones). Over half the money gathered in by the Democrat Party is given by Jews. "He who pays the piper calls the tune," is an illustrative adage which makes the point of power clear to all.
Incidentally, one need not look to the Republican Party, which gets significant funding from Jewry, also, and which is the "home turf" of benighted Christians who see Jewry as the "Apple of God's Eye" and inheritor of the Abrahamic Covenant. These confused people will not even criticize Jews when they are clearly in the wrong, as they fear a curse from God. You have to suppose that Jews love this situation.
All of this rambling blog of mine is meant to suggest that there is a direct relationship between the rise of Jews in the American society and the frequent use of the word "Czar" by Presidents, such as Barack Obama, Billy Jeff Clinton, the Bushes, et al, and other politicians, as well as the media. I am further suggesting that the concept of "Czar" is not consistent with American traditions. Little wonder, then, that we have strayed so far from those sound traditions. Little wonder that our essential sovereignty has been cast aside for the dream of a global community. Today's Americans breathlessly wonder at who will be our first global "Czar." I can't say but make the reasonable postulation that s/he will have several very close Jewish "advisers."
Saturday, November 28, 2009
ON MICROSOFT, EMAIL & WORKSPACE
I believe that something is entirely amiss when a huge computer-software company such as Microsoft cannot produce any "new" application, mini-application, or "improvement" without major inconveniences. I tried to get to one of my email locations at MS Office Live recently and - and - well, let me show you the described issue(s) which I provided MS Support:
"When I try to login to my email, using this email address, as well as sfbenterprisesllc@msn.com, I am shunted into your 'Office Live Workspace' and there is no clear route to my email. How could you be so stupid as to put forth a page ('workspace') without a clear route to NORMAL login destinations, such as email? On those occasions when I do get to my email page, you saturate the right side with ads featuring half-naked men declaring their joy at being "ripped." Is Bill Gates into soft porn? I AM NOT! Please do not consider this to be an attack on Microsoft's homophilic stance. Therefore, if certain kinds of ads are UNWANTED, why not provide your customers on the receiving end a veto over what sort of ads are 'flashed' on their individual, private computer monitors. Or does Bill Gates plan to just 'grab us by the throats' and force-feed his homosexual fantasies onto the long-suffering users of MS products?"
Why does MS push their Office Live Workspace with such desperation? And why are MS applications relentlessly incompatible with other MS products? And why do they try to punish a MS user who doesn't want to switch or upgrade to their latest glitch-filled product? An example being the latest IE8 which screws up the website you built using IE7.
The latest insult is charging customers a fee to talk with their "techies" (probably situated in India) about why your MS application isn't working correctly. This appears to be no more than the old "flack-catchers" but with the new wrinkle that you have to pay them.
Microsoft has developed its Office Live Workspace to preempt the login to its Office Live email page in favor of the "cul-de-sac" known as its Workspace. Escape however you can! Microsoft won't help.
"When I try to login to my email, using this email address, as well as sfbenterprisesllc@msn.com, I am shunted into your 'Office Live Workspace' and there is no clear route to my email. How could you be so stupid as to put forth a page ('workspace') without a clear route to NORMAL login destinations, such as email? On those occasions when I do get to my email page, you saturate the right side with ads featuring half-naked men declaring their joy at being "ripped." Is Bill Gates into soft porn? I AM NOT! Please do not consider this to be an attack on Microsoft's homophilic stance. Therefore, if certain kinds of ads are UNWANTED, why not provide your customers on the receiving end a veto over what sort of ads are 'flashed' on their individual, private computer monitors. Or does Bill Gates plan to just 'grab us by the throats' and force-feed his homosexual fantasies onto the long-suffering users of MS products?"
Why does MS push their Office Live Workspace with such desperation? And why are MS applications relentlessly incompatible with other MS products? And why do they try to punish a MS user who doesn't want to switch or upgrade to their latest glitch-filled product? An example being the latest IE8 which screws up the website you built using IE7.
The latest insult is charging customers a fee to talk with their "techies" (probably situated in India) about why your MS application isn't working correctly. This appears to be no more than the old "flack-catchers" but with the new wrinkle that you have to pay them.
Microsoft has developed its Office Live Workspace to preempt the login to its Office Live email page in favor of the "cul-de-sac" known as its Workspace. Escape however you can! Microsoft won't help.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
ANNE FRANK - AGAIN?!
While riding about fair Northern Virginia, I heard a report on the radio that a Hollywood group planned to make a new movie based on the Anne Frank "diary." The author in question is a little girl. She is seemingly a winning little girl, judged from her real words. She wrote her diary after the fashion of a little girl. She used crayons and the like. Her words were written large. As it is, it could have make her an endearing figure.
Unfortunately, the little girl was exploited by her own family. A professional writer was hired to "polish" and "elaborate" the humble diary of Anne Frank. He used a ball-point pen to "expand" Anne Frank's diary. Ball-point pens hadn't been invented at the time Anne Frank wrote her diary. Further, the family tried to cheat the writer out of his money, and he had to go to court to get paid. He was vindicated in court, although I'm not certain that he ever received full compensation. Winning in court is one thing; collecting what you won is another.
Now, this new movie about Anne Frank might be interesting, if it focused on the exploitation of the little Jewish girl by her family and subsequently by Holocaust-pushing members of Jewry. Realistically, "truth-in-packaging" will never come out of Hollywood. Hollywood is about money, entertainment and propaganda. Due to the latter element, Hollywood would be better named "Hooeywood."
If this new Anne Frank movie comes into being, then it will be done to suit the Jewish purposes of continuation of the myth of the Holocaust, of continuation of the myth of extraordinary persecution of innocent Jews, of continuation of the myth of the "special evil" of the German people, and of offering additional support to the final solution of the German Problem - genocide through miscegenation. Hence, the "reunion of the two Germanies, the guest worker program, and the refugee/immigration program take on a strategic and evil master plan. It was such a successful plan that one sees it now as a standard policy set by elite cosmopolitans for countries from Greece to Ireland - and beyond.
Last night I watched a Netflix-provided movie called "Street Kings." It has much violence and profanity. Keenu Reeves starred as a cop given to being a "gunshooter." He is denounced by all variety of hoodlums as "white boy." This is Hollywood's typical mischief, as Mr. Reeves is clearly the fruit of miscegenation himself.
The issue here - I hasten to add - is that the various branches of European people have a right to be, and to live as, a people. Rich, Royal, Masonic and/or Jewish people don't have any more right to plot their genocide than the Nazis had the right to plot the genocide of the Jews, if they indeed did so. The latter proposition I don't believe, as there is no sound evidence that makes it credible. As stated, there are repeated statements of a hate-filled and genocidal type by elements within Jewry toward Germans and toward white people.
Having stated this, I acknowledge the given: Jews deny all [they are never censored as "deniers"]. Everyone is against them. There are vast industries operated by non-Jews, creating fraudulent documents that are alleged to be the work of Jews. These were done strictly to defame the innocent Jews. Hate-filled "Christians" and/or neo-Nazis conspire against these gentle, talented people.
Interestingly, prominent members of Jewry across modern times have hoved to this same theme of hostility toward European, or White, people. Illustrations of this have been read into the Congressional Record and have been published. People never believe these. That any people could think this way seemed too far-fetched to credit. All such alarums are dismissed as prejudiced and anti-Semitic.
In America only "terrorists" are considered to be possibly evil. Curiously, Menachim Begin once snorted: "Terrorism - we [Jews] invented it!"
The Romanov family would back up Begin's statement - were they alive.
Unfortunately, the little girl was exploited by her own family. A professional writer was hired to "polish" and "elaborate" the humble diary of Anne Frank. He used a ball-point pen to "expand" Anne Frank's diary. Ball-point pens hadn't been invented at the time Anne Frank wrote her diary. Further, the family tried to cheat the writer out of his money, and he had to go to court to get paid. He was vindicated in court, although I'm not certain that he ever received full compensation. Winning in court is one thing; collecting what you won is another.
Now, this new movie about Anne Frank might be interesting, if it focused on the exploitation of the little Jewish girl by her family and subsequently by Holocaust-pushing members of Jewry. Realistically, "truth-in-packaging" will never come out of Hollywood. Hollywood is about money, entertainment and propaganda. Due to the latter element, Hollywood would be better named "Hooeywood."
If this new Anne Frank movie comes into being, then it will be done to suit the Jewish purposes of continuation of the myth of the Holocaust, of continuation of the myth of extraordinary persecution of innocent Jews, of continuation of the myth of the "special evil" of the German people, and of offering additional support to the final solution of the German Problem - genocide through miscegenation. Hence, the "reunion of the two Germanies, the guest worker program, and the refugee/immigration program take on a strategic and evil master plan. It was such a successful plan that one sees it now as a standard policy set by elite cosmopolitans for countries from Greece to Ireland - and beyond.
Last night I watched a Netflix-provided movie called "Street Kings." It has much violence and profanity. Keenu Reeves starred as a cop given to being a "gunshooter." He is denounced by all variety of hoodlums as "white boy." This is Hollywood's typical mischief, as Mr. Reeves is clearly the fruit of miscegenation himself.
The issue here - I hasten to add - is that the various branches of European people have a right to be, and to live as, a people. Rich, Royal, Masonic and/or Jewish people don't have any more right to plot their genocide than the Nazis had the right to plot the genocide of the Jews, if they indeed did so. The latter proposition I don't believe, as there is no sound evidence that makes it credible. As stated, there are repeated statements of a hate-filled and genocidal type by elements within Jewry toward Germans and toward white people.
Having stated this, I acknowledge the given: Jews deny all [they are never censored as "deniers"]. Everyone is against them. There are vast industries operated by non-Jews, creating fraudulent documents that are alleged to be the work of Jews. These were done strictly to defame the innocent Jews. Hate-filled "Christians" and/or neo-Nazis conspire against these gentle, talented people.
Interestingly, prominent members of Jewry across modern times have hoved to this same theme of hostility toward European, or White, people. Illustrations of this have been read into the Congressional Record and have been published. People never believe these. That any people could think this way seemed too far-fetched to credit. All such alarums are dismissed as prejudiced and anti-Semitic.
In America only "terrorists" are considered to be possibly evil. Curiously, Menachim Begin once snorted: "Terrorism - we [Jews] invented it!"
The Romanov family would back up Begin's statement - were they alive.
Friday, June 26, 2009
SEPARATION OF SYNAGOGUE AND STATE
The unfortunate trend toward the union of Synagogue and State in the United States must come to an end by a public disavowal of the Jewish religious imperative Tikkum olam ("repair of the world"). It is the driving force in American foreign policy and permeates the once largely Anglo-Saxon Common Law Tradition, founded on the Bible. The Jewish Law of the Repair of the World is based on rabbinic interpretations, which placed them in the position of "molders & shapers" of the lesser breeds.
With such concepts one can easily see how Jewish influence penetrated Great Britain, eventually taking command of the now domesticated John Bull. Once the sons of Canaan and Esau had played their role of Uriah Heep successfully enough to hold most of John Bull's IOUs, then the knighthood of Boy George, David Bowie and Elton John was inevitable.
For many decades the British royalty has placed their financial eggs with the Jewish foxes to invest, and this pitiful dependency symbolized the yoked John Bull. It is only a matter of short time before the sovereign of Great Britain is from some Jewish house made a peer in the 19th Century.
All of this sort of thing may resurrect, or at least reinforce, the Merovingian drive to be proclaimed "King of Jerusalem," capital city of the World Government.
With Great Britain and Europe obviously courtiers of their sovereign, "Collective Jewry," can one expect Americans to refuse a ride on the "bandwagon?" Probably not. However, the renouncing of the union of Synagogue and State by the Democrat-Republican Central Committee would be a hopeful sign.
Since Justice Ginzburg is said to read from the Talmud daily, she would not likely vote against the lawfulness of the the conjectured union. Nor would Justice Breyer find fault in such a union. Nor would any of the Masonic justices be likely dissidents, as they believe that "lodge brothers" outside American territorial jurisdiction should be heard from before the Brotherhood of the Supreme Court "gets a grip" on the issue.
With the U.S. supreme Court lined up in favor of the union of Synagogue and State, concerned citizens might well turn to Congress. Lots of luck!
Further, count on Big Business to look favorably on this event. Why not? Many are led by people who are not Americans, or who have dual citizenships, or who graduated from Ivy League schools, such as the Great Yezhivah, Harvard University, and who are "ravening dogs" for global government. Folks, they are too big for America. The world is their oyster.
Is there any hope for John Q. Public?
Yes, civil war in the Great Synagogue as fanatical factions seize each other's throats, and, like the Gingham Dog and the Callicoe Cat of the tale, tear each other to shreds.
With such concepts one can easily see how Jewish influence penetrated Great Britain, eventually taking command of the now domesticated John Bull. Once the sons of Canaan and Esau had played their role of Uriah Heep successfully enough to hold most of John Bull's IOUs, then the knighthood of Boy George, David Bowie and Elton John was inevitable.
For many decades the British royalty has placed their financial eggs with the Jewish foxes to invest, and this pitiful dependency symbolized the yoked John Bull. It is only a matter of short time before the sovereign of Great Britain is from some Jewish house made a peer in the 19th Century.
All of this sort of thing may resurrect, or at least reinforce, the Merovingian drive to be proclaimed "King of Jerusalem," capital city of the World Government.
With Great Britain and Europe obviously courtiers of their sovereign, "Collective Jewry," can one expect Americans to refuse a ride on the "bandwagon?" Probably not. However, the renouncing of the union of Synagogue and State by the Democrat-Republican Central Committee would be a hopeful sign.
Since Justice Ginzburg is said to read from the Talmud daily, she would not likely vote against the lawfulness of the the conjectured union. Nor would Justice Breyer find fault in such a union. Nor would any of the Masonic justices be likely dissidents, as they believe that "lodge brothers" outside American territorial jurisdiction should be heard from before the Brotherhood of the Supreme Court "gets a grip" on the issue.
With the U.S. supreme Court lined up in favor of the union of Synagogue and State, concerned citizens might well turn to Congress. Lots of luck!
Further, count on Big Business to look favorably on this event. Why not? Many are led by people who are not Americans, or who have dual citizenships, or who graduated from Ivy League schools, such as the Great Yezhivah, Harvard University, and who are "ravening dogs" for global government. Folks, they are too big for America. The world is their oyster.
Is there any hope for John Q. Public?
Yes, civil war in the Great Synagogue as fanatical factions seize each other's throats, and, like the Gingham Dog and the Callicoe Cat of the tale, tear each other to shreds.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
GUNS AND ANGER
Today, as I was driving in Northern Virginia, listening to my radio, I heard that there had been a shooting at the Holocaust Museum. As the reports issued from several different people, one was immediately aware that things were sketchy. Apparently, two security guards had been shot by an intruder, who may well have had others in mind as targets. The intruder had been shot. He and a security guard were rushed to the same hospital. George Washington University Hospital. The reports indicated they both might be in critical condition. Further, the museum had been evacuated and closed to the public. A spokesperson announced that the museum would be opened again to the public on Wednesday, the 11th of June.
What is going on here? What could the motivation be?
A very singular aspect of this is that the intruding shooter was in his 80's. It is true that in eighty years one might develop some serious grudges, but this is a bit much. In listening to the reports, the identity of the man was known. He had been a "captain" of a PT-Boat during World War II. As far as I know, that probably means that he was an U.S. Navy officer fighting in the Pacific Ocean arena. He earned four medals for courage. He ended his service as a lieutenant. As far as I know, he may have know John F. Kennedy, who also served on a PT-Boat, when he served in the Pacific war zone, if, indeed, that is where he served.
Further, according to the radio news reports, this shooter had entered the grounds of the Federal Reserve facility on Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C., carrying some kind of firearm on one occasion. I cannot recall if this event was in the 70's or one of the flanking decades. It was viewed as a serious infraction. He was sentenced to prison, where he stayed as an inmate for seven years.
So, what do we know? He appears to be a warrior. He appears to be a man who will act upon a belief. He has suffered, has experienced death in wartime, and has spent a lengthy stretch in hard-time. [No one who takes a gun "after" the Federal Reserve will go to "Club Fed."] Prison wasn't likely to be an improving experience. It seems likely that whatever grudges he held against the Establishment generally and/or Jewry, particularly, could not have been ameliorated with incarceration. Why not? Was there no psychological help provided in seven years? Did not the experts perceive a man who might rightly be called a "time-bomb?" Isn't it strange how men such as this shooter are never perceived by these experts whose penal skills have undoubtedly been improved with F.B.I. "profiles" and "psychological analyses" of similar offenders?
Whether this man is married with family, I cannot say. He may be an altogether isolated individual. If the latter, he may have reached out "not wisely but too well." With no one willing, or even interested in, his "grudges" he found himself aligned with society's "costumed bizarre" elements. Unrealistic visions may have seemed more valid, where there were others to share the dream (whatever it is).
For an old, patriotic American who is coming to the end of his days, perhaps mostly alone, the news of ancient men being manacled and sent to Germany as criminals for "crimes" against humanity was too much. He saw men, who were gray, wizened and hunched, sandwiched between hulking "men in black," guarding lest he "make a break for it." He may have seen that these antique men had been accused of 36,000 infractions against humanity, while guarding inmates in a concentration camp, many of whom were Jews. He may have felt some unrealistic association with such men's fate.
How does an old warrior express himself at such times? If his vision was delusional, so were the visions of many another. American soldiers are said to be committing suicide at unprecedented rates in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that basically what this shooter was doing? His actions seem entirely consistent with those of a warrior who knew that his mission would not ever allow him to return home again.
In the Theatre of the Absurd the unreality of the shooter's vision embraced the bete noir of Jewish delusion-incarnate. Insanely, it was the innocent who suffered most. In the madness many never saw the blood.
Outside, another unreality was forming, as newspeople from around the world hastened to the Holocaust Museum and/or George Washington University Hospital to begin weeks of neverending reportage, while a massive traffic jam had formed from the mall to the 14th Street Bridge past the Pentagon, past Shirlington, past Alexandria to the "mixing bowl" of Springfield.
Nothing could easily dislodge this event from Prime Time. As with the trial of Charley Manson, horror and entertainment will surely vie for the public's understanding of this events.
What is going on here? What could the motivation be?
A very singular aspect of this is that the intruding shooter was in his 80's. It is true that in eighty years one might develop some serious grudges, but this is a bit much. In listening to the reports, the identity of the man was known. He had been a "captain" of a PT-Boat during World War II. As far as I know, that probably means that he was an U.S. Navy officer fighting in the Pacific Ocean arena. He earned four medals for courage. He ended his service as a lieutenant. As far as I know, he may have know John F. Kennedy, who also served on a PT-Boat, when he served in the Pacific war zone, if, indeed, that is where he served.
Further, according to the radio news reports, this shooter had entered the grounds of the Federal Reserve facility on Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C., carrying some kind of firearm on one occasion. I cannot recall if this event was in the 70's or one of the flanking decades. It was viewed as a serious infraction. He was sentenced to prison, where he stayed as an inmate for seven years.
So, what do we know? He appears to be a warrior. He appears to be a man who will act upon a belief. He has suffered, has experienced death in wartime, and has spent a lengthy stretch in hard-time. [No one who takes a gun "after" the Federal Reserve will go to "Club Fed."] Prison wasn't likely to be an improving experience. It seems likely that whatever grudges he held against the Establishment generally and/or Jewry, particularly, could not have been ameliorated with incarceration. Why not? Was there no psychological help provided in seven years? Did not the experts perceive a man who might rightly be called a "time-bomb?" Isn't it strange how men such as this shooter are never perceived by these experts whose penal skills have undoubtedly been improved with F.B.I. "profiles" and "psychological analyses" of similar offenders?
Whether this man is married with family, I cannot say. He may be an altogether isolated individual. If the latter, he may have reached out "not wisely but too well." With no one willing, or even interested in, his "grudges" he found himself aligned with society's "costumed bizarre" elements. Unrealistic visions may have seemed more valid, where there were others to share the dream (whatever it is).
For an old, patriotic American who is coming to the end of his days, perhaps mostly alone, the news of ancient men being manacled and sent to Germany as criminals for "crimes" against humanity was too much. He saw men, who were gray, wizened and hunched, sandwiched between hulking "men in black," guarding lest he "make a break for it." He may have seen that these antique men had been accused of 36,000 infractions against humanity, while guarding inmates in a concentration camp, many of whom were Jews. He may have felt some unrealistic association with such men's fate.
How does an old warrior express himself at such times? If his vision was delusional, so were the visions of many another. American soldiers are said to be committing suicide at unprecedented rates in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that basically what this shooter was doing? His actions seem entirely consistent with those of a warrior who knew that his mission would not ever allow him to return home again.
In the Theatre of the Absurd the unreality of the shooter's vision embraced the bete noir of Jewish delusion-incarnate. Insanely, it was the innocent who suffered most. In the madness many never saw the blood.
Outside, another unreality was forming, as newspeople from around the world hastened to the Holocaust Museum and/or George Washington University Hospital to begin weeks of neverending reportage, while a massive traffic jam had formed from the mall to the 14th Street Bridge past the Pentagon, past Shirlington, past Alexandria to the "mixing bowl" of Springfield.
Nothing could easily dislodge this event from Prime Time. As with the trial of Charley Manson, horror and entertainment will surely vie for the public's understanding of this events.
Friday, April 3, 2009
AN OPEN BLOG TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
Mr. President:
Show me the money! There is no point in your pretending to be President of all the people of the United States of America, when, in fact, you are merely the "pal" of all the big banks, investment houses, and corporations too big to fail because they are so heavily invested in a worldwide web of derivatives that they must be propped up on the collective backs of the people. Let them fail & fall. It will only cost you your financial friends, but why should you need a set of proven incompetents?
Oh, I know! You politicians have given the bankers the sole power to create money for the citizenry, so, if we are to regain a healthy level of liquidity, it is the banks that must do it. Your hands are tied by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, you say? Rubbish!
Instead of pretending to be "Lincolnesque," why don't you be Lincolnesque in fact. How? Have your Democrat Party peers pass legislation to issue two trillion dollars in "green backs" which are full, legal tender and which can be used (and must be accepted) by the citizenry for payment of all debts, whether public and private. Pay this money directly and indirectly to the citizens of the country through the Small Business Administration's issuance of interest-free, twenty year grants to America's small businesses. Pay it directly to senior citizens (62 years old or older) as a "Thank You" dividend, as they are the ones who, despite the destructive "policies" coming out of federal and state governments, kept the nation moving forward. Through the office of the Surgeon General, provide funding for the nation's ill who are unable to cope with the costs. Using the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal offices, pay it directly and indirectly to the companies and people involved in infrastructural work so broadly, deeply needed in this country. Surely, there are other sensible ways of putting those "green backs" into the hands of the people.
The recipients of these "green backs" will then put their money into the banks of their choosing. Hence, your beloved banks would, in fact, soon have the funds deposited in them. As the deposits are "on call" by the people, rather than loans to the people "on call" by the bankers, there is a good chance that the bankers won't go immediately irrational in their banking procedures. With "money in the bank" the people will lead the nation out of its present problems by the simple method of spending the new money in the many diverse and mundane ways that living in America demands. This allows money (a nation's blood) to work itself through the "body politic."
In short, Mr. President, fund the small businesses and the people (as noted above) of America and get out of the way. Go play "b-ball" because your problems will be over domestically, and you can relax. As for the failing big banks, America is used to disaster from hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, floods, and worse; they can handle the demise of Citicorp. Can your European pals? Can you?
Show me the money! There is no point in your pretending to be President of all the people of the United States of America, when, in fact, you are merely the "pal" of all the big banks, investment houses, and corporations too big to fail because they are so heavily invested in a worldwide web of derivatives that they must be propped up on the collective backs of the people. Let them fail & fall. It will only cost you your financial friends, but why should you need a set of proven incompetents?
Oh, I know! You politicians have given the bankers the sole power to create money for the citizenry, so, if we are to regain a healthy level of liquidity, it is the banks that must do it. Your hands are tied by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, you say? Rubbish!
Instead of pretending to be "Lincolnesque," why don't you be Lincolnesque in fact. How? Have your Democrat Party peers pass legislation to issue two trillion dollars in "green backs" which are full, legal tender and which can be used (and must be accepted) by the citizenry for payment of all debts, whether public and private. Pay this money directly and indirectly to the citizens of the country through the Small Business Administration's issuance of interest-free, twenty year grants to America's small businesses. Pay it directly to senior citizens (62 years old or older) as a "Thank You" dividend, as they are the ones who, despite the destructive "policies" coming out of federal and state governments, kept the nation moving forward. Through the office of the Surgeon General, provide funding for the nation's ill who are unable to cope with the costs. Using the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal offices, pay it directly and indirectly to the companies and people involved in infrastructural work so broadly, deeply needed in this country. Surely, there are other sensible ways of putting those "green backs" into the hands of the people.
The recipients of these "green backs" will then put their money into the banks of their choosing. Hence, your beloved banks would, in fact, soon have the funds deposited in them. As the deposits are "on call" by the people, rather than loans to the people "on call" by the bankers, there is a good chance that the bankers won't go immediately irrational in their banking procedures. With "money in the bank" the people will lead the nation out of its present problems by the simple method of spending the new money in the many diverse and mundane ways that living in America demands. This allows money (a nation's blood) to work itself through the "body politic."
In short, Mr. President, fund the small businesses and the people (as noted above) of America and get out of the way. Go play "b-ball" because your problems will be over domestically, and you can relax. As for the failing big banks, America is used to disaster from hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, floods, and worse; they can handle the demise of Citicorp. Can your European pals? Can you?
Monday, March 23, 2009
TOXIC ASSET???
Recently, the Obama Administration's Secretary of the Treasury spoke of the urgent need to remove toxic assets from the ledgers of our most important banks. One reason to do this, stated Treasury Secretary Geithner, is to "encourage" them to lend money again. Why is it important to have them lend again? Because the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 removes the money creation process from the amateurs at the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of the Mint and places it with the professional "money men" in the American private banking system.
The passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 put the nation into the Era of the Moderns. Our money system would be scientifically managed. No longer would Americans be hostage to "boom-or-bust" cycles. About five depressions (1920, 1930, 1980, 1992, and 2008) and several recessions later, Americans wonder if there may be something wrong with the concept of "scientifically managed money." Maybe, a few wonder, it would be better to go back to the original concept in the U.S. Constitution of the federal government printing the nation's money free of interest burden, which interest burden the present system embraces. The needful money could easily be injected through a series of regional federal banks located in each state, from which necessary funds could be drawn to build and repair infrastructure, build and repair dams, build and repair alternate energy facilities, build and repair railroads, waterways and everything which is infrastructural, para-infrastructural, or useful and needful. The federal government could lead the way in paying a truly fair wage to its workers, based on the requirements to live decently for one day. This would not include ugly Republican concepts such as tomato ketchup soup. It is not inflationary to pay to build assets for the nation, such as bridges and dams. It is not inflationary to pay laborers a decent wage. It is not inflationary to invest in our elderly people's welfare by paying a decent social security payment. In the last case the payment should be based on what is needed to live decently, not on what the individual paid into the system.
On the other hand paying "gamblers" a trillion dollars to replace the roll of dough they just "blew" by a combination of greed and foolishness cannot be justified. Instead, give that trillion directly to the American people and then tell them to deposit thier money in the bank of their choice. Let the people choose who wins or loses, not pals of the banking speculators, such as Geithner.
How could an asset be toxic? Behold deceitful terminology at work in the Obama administration.
Will Barack Obama follow Abraham Lincoln or Paul Warburg and that crowd? Where do you think the bankers are placing their bets?
The passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 put the nation into the Era of the Moderns. Our money system would be scientifically managed. No longer would Americans be hostage to "boom-or-bust" cycles. About five depressions (1920, 1930, 1980, 1992, and 2008) and several recessions later, Americans wonder if there may be something wrong with the concept of "scientifically managed money." Maybe, a few wonder, it would be better to go back to the original concept in the U.S. Constitution of the federal government printing the nation's money free of interest burden, which interest burden the present system embraces. The needful money could easily be injected through a series of regional federal banks located in each state, from which necessary funds could be drawn to build and repair infrastructure, build and repair dams, build and repair alternate energy facilities, build and repair railroads, waterways and everything which is infrastructural, para-infrastructural, or useful and needful. The federal government could lead the way in paying a truly fair wage to its workers, based on the requirements to live decently for one day. This would not include ugly Republican concepts such as tomato ketchup soup. It is not inflationary to pay to build assets for the nation, such as bridges and dams. It is not inflationary to pay laborers a decent wage. It is not inflationary to invest in our elderly people's welfare by paying a decent social security payment. In the last case the payment should be based on what is needed to live decently, not on what the individual paid into the system.
On the other hand paying "gamblers" a trillion dollars to replace the roll of dough they just "blew" by a combination of greed and foolishness cannot be justified. Instead, give that trillion directly to the American people and then tell them to deposit thier money in the bank of their choice. Let the people choose who wins or loses, not pals of the banking speculators, such as Geithner.
How could an asset be toxic? Behold deceitful terminology at work in the Obama administration.
Will Barack Obama follow Abraham Lincoln or Paul Warburg and that crowd? Where do you think the bankers are placing their bets?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)