by Zahir Ebrahim
December 31, 2010
Continuing from "The
Invisible House of Rothschild", where Baron
Rothschild was quoted proclaiming:
‘We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it
globally… We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance
business… There is no debate that Rothschild is a Jewish family… For a
family business to survive, every generation needs a leader…
has to keep the peace. Building a global firm before globalization meant a
mindset of sharing risk and responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our
family, that is perhaps an element that runs through our history.’
David de Rothschild
The first barons of banking by Rupert Wright, UAE
thenational.ae, November 6, 2008
When, in my state of perpetual confusion whereby my experiments in
independent thinking sometimes get out of hand, I have immoderately
challenged many a rebel leader on their omitting to mention the Rothschild
name in their otherwise erudite critiques of modernity, I have always come
up empty handed.
This is amply demonstrated in my responses to Salman Abu
Sitta, Antoine Raffoul, Ismail Zayid, Khalil Nakhleh, Shadi Nassar, Mustafa
Barghouti and Anna Baltzer, Jeff Gates, Jeff Blankfort, et. al.
recent challenge was yet another unsolicited letter, this time to an old
timer Western rebel of the United States of America, Mr. Jeffrey Blankfort.
He courteously replied:
‘I do not mention the Rothschilds because I have yet to see a single shred
of evidence that they control the world’s money supply, the CFR, or anything
else of such substance as to influence the way the world works. As far as I
can tell whereas once members of the Rothschild banking family ran the banks
of Western Europe, I see no evidence that they do so today…
Again, if you
have any direct evidence with unimpeachable sources that the Rothschilds are
running everything or for that matter anything behind the scenes I would
appreciate receiving it but lacking that up to now, I never mention their
name apart from Walter Rothschild being the recipient of the Balfour
- Jeffrey Blankfort replying to Zahir Ebrahim Nov. 11, 2010
(see full correspondence at the end of this article)
I was simply delighted that my new friend Jeff Blankfort had even bothered
to write back, as most brilliant chiefs, both Eastern and Western, gallantly
rising to defend the Palestinians as their own cause célèbre, simply tend to
ignore the meddlesome and the confused who don’t buy their craftsmanship.
The crazy thing is, that among the Palestinians themselves, many appear to
prefer running from Jew to Jew to solve their problems, as was observed by a
Palestinian friend of mine out of sheer frustration:
“We run from Jew to
Jew, they create the problem, and also argue the solution, they control the
full spectrum of our discourse as well as our existence.”
I promised Jeff:
“Thank you mon ami for your reply. I will
compose a thoughtful reply later…”
This Part-3 attempts to respond to Jeff Blankfort’s quest for evidence for
the trumpeting-defecating elephant in the bedroom.
As quoted above, Jeff
“direct evidence with unimpeachable sources”.
I will humbly endeavor to provide both - direct, unimpeachable.
concluding, I will even suggest that the legal standard itself for proving
criminal conspiracy is far less than what Mr. Blankfort has generously
demanded from me, for the obvious reasons that even half-smart conspirators
usually hide behind their errand boys, like the Mafioso, and don’t leave
their calling cards.
More empirically however, unlike the dumb Mafioso who
rob, extort, and kill illegally thus enabling the state policing apparatuses
to be used to juridically hang them, brilliant conspirators usually enact
legalisms and statutes, and directly employ the state’s governing apparatus
itself to mask and legalize their dastardly plunders, their war-mongerings,
their social-engineerings, and their pernicious subversions of the peoples’
democratic institutions and constitution.
Even the flag-waiving ordinary
indoctrinated American understood how that craftsmanship worked when he and
she witnessed the banksters’ bailout extortion racket in October 2008 (see
‘Why bluff Martial Law‘) and their subsequent brazen accounting of how they
spent it (watch below video).
And yet, the law of un-intended consequences, i.e., nature, still has its
ways to un-obscure the golem if one has the eyes and the will to perceive.
Let me first state the criterion for proof as Blankfort did not stipulate
any beyond “direct, unimpeachable”.
I intend to demonstrate that an
omnipotent power exists, that such a power visibly existed not too long ago
using unimpeachable sources, and since there is no evidence of such a power
suddenly eviscerating, that by the sheer force of logic, it must still exist
even if occulted from mainstream Americans today. And I will top that off
with the confirmation of its own existence by the omnipotent power itself.
invite the readers to pretend that they are a jury member, and reach their
own verdict whether the following can be sufficiently deemed “direct
evidence” from “unimpeachable sources” to satisfy the request of Jeffrey Blankfort and all those like him who choose to willfully remain innocent of
knowledge of the most glaring, trumpeting, shitting, elephant in the bridal
First, the unimpeachable source: Nuremberg Military Tribunal and its
official Record. I don’t think there can be anything more unimpeachable a
source than that, do you?
Let’s first see what transpired at Nuremberg in the score-settling with
victor’s justice in the aftermath of Word War II with respect to the Nazi
banker most instrumental in financing the Nazi war machine, Hjalmar Schact.
While 21 Nazi chiefs were hanged (watch below
video 1) by Robert H. Jackson, the chief
prosecuting counsel for the United States (watch below video 2), the banker whom the chief
counsel as the official representative of the United States government to
the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, most wanted to hang, was set free due to
the intervention from the Bank of England governor Sir Montagu Norman!
Say what? Bank of England is so powerful that it prevailed upon their own
military Allies at Nuremberg to let go of the principal enemy who financed
the destruction of entire Europe and of the British Empire itself - with
agreement from all the Allied military high command and their governments
(with only Russia dissenting)?
No, you did not read that in history books
did you, nor did you hear
Noam Chomsky talk about
the inconvenient case of Hjalmar Schact even when he waxes eloquence about victor’s justice at
Nuremberg by highlighting the case of Admiral Karl Dönitz, and evidently,
nor did you hear Mr. Jeffrey Blankfort bring it up in all his dissenting
critique of Noam Chomsky.
I get really confused when I encounter such blind-sighted omissions
regarding the King of the Jews among the moral Jews who become
dissent-chiefs for the dumb goy, and book-end their own dissent so
wonderfully while still giving the illusion of vigorous debate.
explains this Machiavellian construction rather elegantly even as he
implements it himself with involuntary help from his own antagonist, Jeff Blankfort, and the goyim cheer for their favorite horse - don’t matter which
horse wins, the real winners are those who benefit from the calculated
omissions, the race course owners:
‘This “debate” is a typical illustration of a primary principle of
sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is
publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed - or else. What you actually believe
is your own business and of far less concern.
In societies where the state
has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply
presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed
by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy.
The cruder of the two systems leads,
naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an
impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to
instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself,
like the air we breathe.’
‘Democratic societies use a different method: they don’t articulate the
party line. That’s a mistake. What they do is presuppose it, then encourage
vigorous debate within the framework of the party line. This serves two
purposes. For one thing it gives the impression of a free and open society
because, after all, we have lively debate. It also instills a propaganda
line that becomes something you presuppose, like the air you breathe.’
‘The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives
people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the
presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the
range of the debate.’
- Noam Chomsky -
We Own The World
At this point, before I go any further, please permit me to dust out the
following observation of novelist Aldous Huxley in the
Brave New World to
illustrate why I consider artful omissions, as counter-intuitive as it might
appear to the profoundly innocent of knowledge, to be a most powerful
‘The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing
something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater,
from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.
By simply not
mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls and “iron
curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local
political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have
influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the
most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals.’
- Aldous Huxley
Preface (circa 1946) to Brave New World, 1931
I have to wonder about my sanity sometimes - why don’t I get it when
brilliant chiefs inexplicably dabble in their own thought control, in their
Why do I persist in experimenting with independent thinking? Just accept the
pious statements of the Jewish chiefs that there is not a shred of evidence
of the existence of the King of the Jews controlling the state of affairs in
the world today, lest I be labeled a ‘kook’, a ‘denier of established
truths’, and carted away to some re-education camp for my own, as well as
‘Denier’ I have already been anointed by none other than a
recovering Jew, a reformed Zionist, Christian friend of mine, Israel Shamir!
Yes, I know I have accumulated some lovely friends in my few journeys into
the unknown world of independent thinking! I now try my best to stay away
from such confusions, and I believe this is one of my last few times as my
new year’s resolution!
Before we jump too far ahead as I briefly did in the preceding passages to
give a taste of the acerbic logic about to develop, let’s study this
shockingly revealing fact of Hjalmar Schact which is so uncontrovertibly
recorded in the pages of victor’s justice at Nuremberg, and the
circumstances surrounding this fact.
The following is excerpted from David
Irving’s Nuremberg, the Last Battle (PDF). It appears in my document
“Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat?” as footnote  and  and is
reproduced below along with the passage being footnoted:
Nuremberg - The Last Battle
‘Yes, confessionals after
fait accompli, is a characteristically
“cleansing” Christian tradition. Somehow, it only seems to work for those in
absolute power, never for the common man. “You’re right, we did it. We’re
very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again” [Ben Bernanke to Milton
Friedman] doesn’t seem to be part of the ordinary judicial system where the
common man is made accountable for stealing bread.
But it is part of the
Nuremberg Military Tribunals which let Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, the former
governor of the Reich Bank  - the bankster who orchestrated the
financing for Hitler and enabled his war machine with funding from Wall
Street  and the City of London financiers - go scot-free!
Whence such awesome power to even let a fascist banker who caused the
destruction of all of Europe - as per the Nuremberg established principle of
“all the evil which follows” - become a prominent and influential member of
the financial community once again in post-war Germany “as though there had
never been a blemish on his character”? ‘
Footnote  Dr. Hjalmar Schacht (Reich minister of economics until 1937,
Reichsbank president until 1939). David Irving, Nuremberg, The Last Battle,
1996, page 160.
Footnote  Antony C. Sutton,
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler,
Footnote  David Irving, Nuremberg, The Last Battle, 1996, page 402: “As
he was released from his [Nuremberg] cell, German police stepped forward and
arrested him. A German court sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment as a
major offender under the denazification laws enacted by the Control Council
in Berlin. He served two years in solitary confinement, and was eventually
released in 1948. The world of banking absorbed him again as though there
had never been a blemish on his character.”
“[Jackson] regarded the former president of the Reichsbank as the most
contemptible of all the defendants. He had provided the finance for the
spectacular rise and rearmament of Hitler’s Germany. More than any other,
this man’s financial genius had paved the way for the violation of the
Versailles Treaty.” (page 157)
“Ambitious and arrogant, Schacht [Highest IQ 143, page 292] had walled
himself in behind a belief in his own righteousness. He seethed with rage at
being imprisoned with Hitler’s henchmen. He admitted to having violated the
Versailles Treaty, but countered that since the Allies were in collusion
against Germany this was no crime... He admitted rebuilding Germany’s
run-down economy, but not for the purpose of waging war; Hitler had
dismissed him as soon as he balked at the aggressive planning that began.”
“Hjalmar Schacht - ‘after Göring the toughest of them.’ He [Jackson] had
always regarded Schacht as one of the most despicable defendants. The
banker’s arrogant attitude since the trial had begun only vexed him all the
more.” (page 327)
“Even more irritating for Jackson was that Schacht was overheard in the
cells confidently predicting that he would be acquitted. Irritating rumors
circulated that the prosecution of Schacht was not in earnest.
Letter-writers taunted Jackson that he would never succeed in convicting a
big banker - whether friend or foe, they were the new Untouchables.
became aware that the Nazi banker did indeed have friends in the most
unlikely places and influence everywhere. One day one of his team, the
eminent New York international lawyer Ralph Albrecht, reported to him that
the British assistant prosecutor Colonel Harry J. Phillimore - later a lord
justice of appeal in London* - had accosted him in the hall outside the
courtroom and urged the Americans to relax their remorseless pressure on the
When Albrecht, perplexed, asked ‘Why?’, Phillimore uneasily
explained that certain representations had been made by Sir Montagu Norman,
governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944.
‘It would be most
unfortunate,’ murmured the British colonel, ‘if anything were to happen to
In fact Schacht had been an informer of Sir Montagu, secretly
apprising him of the political and financial decisions taken at the highest
level in Berlin for sixteen years before the war.” (page 328)
“There is in the records of His Majesty’s treasury in the British archives
an illuminating file on the efforts made by Sir Montagu Norman to get
Schacht released.” (page 329)
“He [Jackson] regarded the case against the banker as a test of the good
faith of the entire prosecution. As he had said in a secret meeting of all
the chief prosecutors in April, of which there is a shorthand record in his
‘If the court, for instance, holds that we have no case against
Schacht, then it seems clear that we can have no case against any
industrialist, as the case against him is stronger than the others.’ …
[Jackson] privately recorded later,
‘I would at least stand out forthrightly
in demanding his conviction, convicting him if I could.’
He harried the
banker mercilessly in the witness box, addressed him as ‘Schacht,’ tout
court, confronting him with the evidence of his participation in Hitler’s
aggressive planning until eventually the defendant had to admit that he had
been untruthful about his dealings with the Führer.
Jackson showed the
Tribunal newsreel film of Hitler’s triumphant return to Berlin in July 1940
after the defeat of France - long after Schacht would have had them believe
he had fallen into disfavor. There was Schacht, in Prince-Albert morning
coat and top hat, the only civilian among the generals waiting on the
station platform to pump the Führer’s hand - indeed with two hands he caught
hold of the Führer’s, stepped out of line, and followed him ‘in almost
lickspittle fashion,’ as Jackson remarked later.
And this was the Nazi
gentleman for whom the British lawyer Phillimore and banker Sir Montagu
Norman were interceding. All the more acute was Jackson’s fury when the
Tribunal - with only the Russian judge publicly dissenting - acquitted
Biddle, who read out this part of the judgment, claimed some
months later that he had also wanted to convict, but the British had
insisted on an acquittal and had left him no choice.”
Also see page 392 of "Nuremberg
- The Last Battle".
Let’s also recall from my article “Of Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road
to World Order” what Professor Carroll Quigley had stated about
Norman, and all the other governors of world’s private central banks:
‘The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less
than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to
dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world
as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the
central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived
at in frequent meetings and conferences.
The apex of the systems was to be
the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank
owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves
Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu
Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal
Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the
Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control
Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of
economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians
by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.’
Hope, 1966, Chapter 20, page 324)
‘It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks
were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather,
they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of
their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of
throwing them down.
The substantive financial powers of the world were in
the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or
“merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own
unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international
cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful,
and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks.
dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of
credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the
Hope, 1966, Chapter 20, page 326)
Is it too rude to ask - that if Montagu Norman is merely among the,
“technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own
...then who is the dominant investment banker of England who has in
fact controlled the Bank of England and the City at least since Waterloo?
Rothschild N. M. and
This is what they confirm of themselves today on their own
Rothschild has been at the centre of the world’s financial markets for over
200 years. Today, it provides Investment Banking, Corporate Banking and
Private Banking & Trust services to governments, corporations and
Baron David de Rothschild has already been quoted in
the beginning of this article, proclaiming:
‘We provide advice on both sides
of the balance sheet, and we do it globally… We have had 250 years or so
of family involvement in the finance business’
But here we shall just stick with Nuremberg for the moment.
Sir Montagu Norman, at the behest of the owners of the Bank of England, set
one of their own criminal banksters free from the clutches of the hangman’s
Those owners, both commonsense and force of logic suggests, commanded
at least that much power which could trivially prevail upon all of the
Military Tribunal members, except Russia who voted against it.
lost 300,000 soldiers in that ‘just war’ against the axis powers, the United
Kingdom had lots its empire along with its jewel in the crown, and Europe
lay decimated, 6 million Jews exterminated - we won’t quibble with the
holocaust industry here - 20 million Russians butchered, and sum-total of 50
million human beings, mostly Christians, and most of them German civilians
under the unspeakable fire-bombings of civilian cities by the Allies, lost
their lives in the name of fighting the aggression initiated by the Nazis
which was even termed,
“…the supreme international crime differing only from
other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of
Just watch the video of the closing speech of Robert Jackson condemning the
Nazis (cited earlier).
It was a superlative public relations Tribunals,
because, it was utmost important for the United States of America, the
emerging superpower from the ashes of World War II, to pontificate to the
entire world its moral and military supremacy, and condemn the abhorrence of
aggression of the Nazis as it was itself entering a new Cold War with the
Nuremberg was entirely about public relations.
And the United
States judges at Nuremberg wanted to make an outstanding example of the Nazi
war machine and its bankster to demonstrate their own moral high grounds.
Despite all of these empirical motivations, those who controlled the Bank of
England, call it Foundation-X for the lack of a better handle to refer to
this non-existent power which none can see, could spring one of their own
from the sure jaws of death?
This incontrovertible fact and its significance indicates the existence of a
power which is superior to the combined power of the victorious allies of
World War II.
So, the evidence of Hjalmar Schact being set-free unequivocally demonstrates
at least the existence of an elusive omnipotent power in 1946.
And we already know that this immense power also existed in 1917, when the
Balfour Declaration was issued in its name.
The Balfour Declaration November 2nd 1917
The first-cause of Palestinian
genocide in the Land of Canaan
Where did that amazing power, which was confirmed to exist in 1917 when it
prevailed upon the British empire to grant the Zionists another’s land, and
again in 1946 when it prevailed upon the British and American empires to
grant amnesty to their own arch enemy that had seen tens of millions of
Christians dead, so suddenly vanish in the mere 60 years since?
Did the earth swallow it, did the sky absorb it, or was there an earthquake
which sunk it?
What happened to it?
In my experiments in confusion, I valiantly searched for such a catastrophic
event which could have silently vanquished that Foundation-X which had
existed only 60 years earlier.
I am sorry to report here that there is no known documentation existing on
planet earth in the annals of public archives which records any such
cataclysmic event where that elusive power could have disappeared. If one
exists in secret classified archives, like aliens abducting them off the
face of the planet, I do not possess such powers to access those classified
documents, let alone unlock them of their public relations baggage.
just wait for
WikiLeaks to let us know if such is ever discovered to be the
In the meantime, back here on earth outside the Plato’s cave, by the sheer
force of inevitable logic, I must rationally conclude that such a power,
Foundation-X, still exists right here on earth.
And, since I have also not
found, despite vigorous search in libraries and on the web, any evidence
that the Foundation-X ownership surreptitiously changed hands except from
generation to generation within the same DNA cesspool, and as admitted by
the scions now wielding the baton themselves, then, whomsoever were the
owners of Foundation-X in 1946, and in 1917, are still the owners today.
Casa de Rothschild!
Let me know if this sufficiently constitutes Jeff Blankfort’s requirement
“if you have any direct evidence with unimpeachable sources
that the Rothschilds are running everything”.
Now let me briefly examine the legal requirement for evidence in the United
States. The following definition is excerpted from my Editorial:
Call it Conspiracy! Are you among them?
April 19, 2009:
“in law, agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal
or otherwise unlawful act. At common law, the crime of conspiracy was
committed with the making of the agreement, but present-day statutes require
an overt step by a conspirator to further the conspiracy. Other
controversial aspects of conspiracy laws include the modification of the
rules of evidence and the potential for a dragnet.
A statement of a
conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against all
conspirators, even if the statement includes damaging references to another
conspirator, and often even if it violates the rules against hearsay
evidence. The conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence.
conspirator is guilty of any substantive crime committed by any other
conspirator in furtherance of the enterprise. It is a federal crime to
conspire to commit any activity prohibited by federal statute, whether or
not Congress imposed criminal sanctions on the activity itself.”
Permit me to highlight the core legal standard in that passage with
The conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence.
Any conspirator is guilty of any substantive crime committed by any other
conspirator in furtherance of the enterprise.
A statement of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is
admissible against all conspirators, even if the statement includes damaging
references to another conspirator, and often even if it violates the rules
against hearsay evidence.
The entire gang of banksters despite their web of control can
be roped in even if one conspirator can be indicted. I have just
demonstrated the corrupting power of the bankster fraternity, and shown that
the Casa de Rothschild exists today because it existed in 1917 and 1946 by
the evidence of Balfour Declaration and Nuremberg Military Tribunals,
This fraternity has such immense powers that it can legally
enact Federal Statutes, like the Federal Reserve System of the United
States, by having the American Congress enact their preferences into law.
When such an extortion happens, the above artfully defined definitions of
conspiracy become irrelevant.
The law of the sovereign becomes the ultimate
arbiter of what is crime and what is virtue, as aptly demonstrated by Saint
Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century:
“When the King asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate
defiantly replied: ‘the same as you do when you infest the whole world; but
because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber, and because you do
it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.’” (The City of God against the
Pagans, Page 148).
This modus operandi, of theft of public’s wealth by legalism enactment by
the sovereign, appears to be right out of
Protocol 1, items 3 through 5 which lend an empirical definition to the term “legal”
when applied to control the masses:
It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the
good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by
violence and terrorization, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims
at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and
rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of
all for the sake of securing their own welfare.
What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has
served for their guidance hitherto?
In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to
brutal and blind force; after words - to Law, which is the same force, only
disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in
Based on the insight gained from item 5) above, if you can enact Federal
Statutes and laws to protect your graft by wielding the hidden might of your
force, then, there is no “conspiracy” in the legal terms because you did not
violate any Federal Statutes!
Isn’t that just marvelous?
So, the House of Rothschilds, using their hired front men and political
errand boys, backed by their interlocking interests in all the world’s
central banks, have protected themselves from that definition of Conspiracy
by shrewdly employing the uber-Machiavellian Protocols!
But have they protected themselves from RICO?
See my editorial which contains an extended excerpt of laws from the late
Eustace Mullins’ 1985 book
The World Order, which could have potentially been
used in earlier times.
I now believe that the accelerated pace towards world government today under
the complete co-option of all organs of state worldwide, makes the bankster
fraternity almost immune by way of any legal recourse in the entire Western
They might occasionally sacrifice a red herring errand boy here
and there at the altar of reform to keep the plebeians happy, if it ever
came to that! These are the ultimate UNTOUCHABLES!
I hope that between Part-2 and Part-3 of this series of my goyish attempts
at independent thinking, there is sufficient grounds for courageous moral
Jews like Mr. Jeffrey Blankfort to finally perceive their own brethren - the
King of the Jews - who have bestowed upon Zionistan its creation. Its ethos.
Its “iron wall” that none can breach.
Their full spectrum interlocking
control of the world’s private central banks continually enables them to
implement their own two centuries old familial boast “give me control of a
nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws” with such brazen
impunity that it is almost always accompanied by the thunderous applause of
European and American goy statesmen and law makers.
The King of the Jews
have inflicted upon the entire Jewish peoples a calumny that the Jews shall
not be able to outlive even if they exist for another 3000 years!
Genesis to Genocide in Palestine - The Golem Is Not Jewish!
sentiment barely captures it:
‘If fair punishments are ever to be awarded for their crimes against
humanity for just the past 100 years in any Just court of law, Adolph
Eichmann would have to be retroactively let go by resurrecting his soul from
his grave with high honors and awarded multiple peace prizes plus
compensation, in order to administer hanging and extraction of restitution
as the graduated scale of ultimate punishment for the ultimate prime-movers
of all wars and pestilence before which their errand boys’ and patsies’
crimes against humanity pale in comparison.’
All persons of any faith (or no faith) not entirely consumed by depravity,
apathy, Faustian pacts, and if I might be so bold as to emphatically add,
pious hypocrisy, should have no qualms calling a spade a spade.
prevents one from doing so, is suggested in my pamphlet:
How To Return to
Palestine This Day Forward.
What can one do about it today?
Practicably nothing, as suggested in:
“Of Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road
to World Order”.
But I pray that I am mistaken - that Machiavellian political science and
infinitely deep pockets of the oligarchy exuded through tax exempt
foundations, private central banks, income tax, and national debt, can
straightforwardly be trumped by copious narratives of dissent chiefs and
plebeians’ abundant prayers!