Deep Politics Forum

I would also be interested in hearing some further expansion on these points. I have done some research around this subject but I feel there is a lot more to it all than I have thus far been able to glean.

I suffered a lap top failure yesterday. My main machine and it will probably be a few days before I can get back to normal - total time-consuming pain!!!

I will reply to this properly when I have time because it IS a very delicate subject. I don't want to duck the issue but neither do I want to convey any false impressions.

Replying to queries.

By "occult", I simply mean "hidden" - but manifesting mainly in the rabbinical teachings, rituals and symbolism of the Talmud. In much the same way that nation states are steered and manipulated by their "Deep State" groupings, so too is the Jewish diaspora, with those self-identifying primarily as Jews (per Gilad Atzmon's Jewish identity politics) the most receptive and useful targets. As with all such self-identifying groupings and populations in general, most are like mushrooms - kept in the dark, fed bull-shit and recruited as foot-soldiers - but those doing the manipulating are something else entirely. Before the advent of the Zionist entity the effectiveness of this steering and manipulation was dependent on diverse networks with little effective centralised control; since then it has had the Mossad and has become very effective indeed.

The problem is that, to discuss these things in any context other than 'Jews as history's eternal victims' is hamstrung by a couple of powerful and pervasive taboos which originate in the Victor's history of WWII and involve an uneasy alliance of Preparata's "Anglo-American Fraternities" and those of "Occult Judaism". It is an alliance born of the mutual need to maintain a deeply deceptive narrative. Preparata is a tour-de-force on the Anglo-American fraternities side of this post war alliance, but prudentially circumspect on the Occult Judaic side, IMHO anyway - which is what I mean by "tip-toeing around The Holocaust".

I'd be happy to go into details on a separate thread if anyone is interested. However, I must warn that it will of necessity deal with some very controversial issues. Largely manufactured controversy in my view too, but no less serious for that. Which in turn means that emotion will need to be rigorously excluded.

I would love to read more on this, Peter. I vote for a new thread.

I would certainly be interested in hearing more about this subject, or at least being pointed in the direction of some more useful books/sources.

Paul Rigby Wrote:The great weakness of Preparata's Conjuring Hitler is the extent to which it downplays the US establishment's involvement in the watercolourist's rise. The US elite were anything but the dupes and playthings of the British clubs

Fursov briefly alludes to US and British financial establishments' creation of Hitler - but not before referencing Allen Dulles' ambition to scupper the British empire via WWII, an ambition, Fursov notes, shared by the USSR (3 mins 26 sec - 3 mins 39 secs):

[video=youtube_share;-q3MLfGC63I]http://youtu.be/-q3MLfGC63I[/video]

Paul Rigby Wrote:

Paul Rigby Wrote:The great weakness of Preparata's Conjuring Hitler is the extent to which it downplays the US establishment's involvement in the watercolourist's rise. The US elite were anything but the dupes and playthings of the British clubs

Fursov briefly alludes to US and British financial establishments' creation of Hitler - but not before referencing Allen Dulles' ambition to scupper the British empire via WWII, an ambition, Fursov notes, shared by the USSR (3 mins 26 sec - 3 mins 39 secs):

I judge Fursov to be a solid indicator of current Russian establishment thinking - on both historical events and current geo-politics - but that does not mean I take him as gospel; far from it. For example, I regard his assertion that "we had an enemy that wanted not just to defeat Russia but to annihilate the Russian people in principle" (1:05) as absurd - but fully consonant with the fundamental post WWII dogma of "Hitler and Nazi Germany as evil incarnate".

I find it dispiriting indeed that Russia appears unable (or maybe that should be unwilling) to rise above that dogma to an acceptance that what really motivated Hitler in his relationship with the Soviets, was his perception that Bolshevik communism was the creation of "international Jewry", staffed and cadre'd largely by non-Russians, and had little, if anything, to do with the Russian people per se.

The problem with this de-rigeur orthodoxy is that it is held by both Russia and Anglo-US-NATO with both hurling the same hysterical 'Hitler-Nazi' epithets at each other, such that rational analysis of the underlying causes is prevented and they remain very effectively hidden.

That, in and of itself, ought to give pause to anyone with a serious wish to understand what is going on here; but of course this Post WWII orthodoxy is enforced by such overwhelmingly powerful taboos that open, honest debate becomes next to impossible - and that, it seems to me, is the precise intent behind enforcement of those taboos.

I do think that Fursov is quite correct in stating that the real history of WWII has not yet been written; but frankly, I have my doubts as to whether he is prepared for what that real history, if and when it is ever written, will show.

Does anyone find the claim that Alan Dulles wanted to destroy the British Empire credible?

Dulles always struck me a more anti-communist than anything else. His family wealth came from services rendered to th East India company. He might have assisted the Rockefellers/Harriman/IG Farben bunch to bring Hitler to power, but my guess is that their plan was to unite Europe under a fascist flag and prevent the spread of communism, rather than to curb the power of the British Empire.

R.K. Locke Wrote:Does anyone find the claim that Alan Dulles wanted to destroy the British Empire credible?

It is completely credible. The War and Peace Studies Group of the Council on Foreign Relations made the dismantling of the British Empire a key aim. One reason, I suppose why this study is still not available for public scrutiny. This study ran from 1939-45 and Dulles "led" the Armaments Group.

Shoup & MInter's Imperial Brain Trust - The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy is the key available book here, for it shows, in brief, what the War & Peace Studies Group ambitions were. The British Empire had to be dismantled in order for the new American Empire to arise.

Historically, it had been the ambition of the Rhodes-Milner Kintergarden to extend and develop the British Empire to become the global dominating force. But Rhodes eventually understood that this was not possible without the USA - and they wouldn't play that game. Instead they wanted to be the governing empire themselves. Rhodes ultimately decided that Great Britain would throw it's lot in with the USA and proceed with the original plan with Britain becoming the junior partner.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the CFR was the sister organization of Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs), itself a creation of the Rhodes "Group". The RIIA was founded in 1919 during the Paris peace conference where, co-incidentally, the Dulles brothers were both present and plied their trade.

In short, this is the New World Order.

PS, I have linked a brief synopsis of the RIIA/CFR nexus above (Chatham House) by the CorbetT Report, which is worth reading.