Guido Preparata's website

[Lauren Johnson]

Hell has a special place for those who promote post modernism. Next to the Social Democrats. It has been the biggest bunch of wankery in academia and has distracted generations from the real issues.

Yup - the Post Modernsists deserve to be burnt at the stake, whilst the Mockingbirds chirp contentedy.....

Well, I might as well walk into the propeller. What the hell.

Calling postmodernism as wankery goes too far. Yes, getting a PhD in feminist studies with a PhD entitled: Madonna as postmodern myth: how one star's self-construction rewrites sex, gender, Hollywood, and the American dream on par with a PhD on Dostoevsky surely is the self-definition of crap. I remember learned conversations in the '60's would always be ended with the equivalent a Cheech Marin type of guy saying (imagine the voice): Hey man, you can't say that, man. That's like ... you know ... a value judgment! The logical end is that no kind of discourse could be allowed without it being relativized, and therefore, made trivial. All discourse becomes absurd except to continually point out the absurdity of continuing to communicate.

On other hand, postmodern analysis has its place. Edward Said's Orientalism and Culture and Imperialism are brilliant.

There's more to say but I'll stop with that.

[Paul Rigby]

http://youtu.be/pYnpcnlnsmA

Pity about the sound-quality, but a rare chance to hear the man.

[Paul Rigby]

The same crew fingered by Preparata reappear in a book examining the origins of the second world war's precursor. We now have the beginnings of an accurate account of the first half of the 20th century, and the contrived catastrophes which drowned it in blood:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hidden-History-S...1780576307

Splendidly-researched account of the origins of the First World War. 7 Aug 2013
Customer review by William Podmore

Gerry Docherty, a former head teacher, and Jim Macgregor, a former doctor, have written a most remarkable book about the true origins of the First World War. They write, "What this book sets out to prove is that unscrupulous men, whose roots and origins were in Britain, sought a war to crush Germany and orchestrated events in order to bring this about."

They note, "A secret society of rich and powerful men was established in London in 1891 with the long-term aim of taking control of the entire world." This was the real ruling class, led by Cecil Rhodes, Prime Minister of Cape Colony, Lord Nathaniel Rothschild, the world's richest man, Lord Esher, advisor to the monarchy, Alfred Milner, later high commissioner in South Africa, and William Stead, the top journalist of the day. Prime Ministers Lord Rosebery and Lord Salisbury, and Balfour, Grey and Asquith, the elected cover, carried out the demands of this tiny minority.

Milner, using Jan Smuts, instigated the Boer War. Milner wrote, "I precipitated the crisis ... and ... have been largely instrumental in bringing about a big war." 102,000 people were killed.

Britain's 1904 entente with France gave Morocco to France, and drew France into an alliance pointed against Germany. Britain's 1907 Convention with Russia secretly offered Russia control of the Black Sea Straits, and also drew Russia into the alliance against Germany.

The British government backed King Leopold of Belgium's annexation of the Congo. In return, Belgium agreed to secret military cooperation with Britain and France. From 1905 onwards, these three states jointly planned war against Germany.

As the authors state, "Belgium's behaviour violated the duties of a neutral state ... Professor Albert Geouffre de Lapradelle, the renowned French specialist on international law, explained: `The perpetually neutral state renounces the right to make war, and, in consequence, the right to contract alliances, even purely defensive ones, because they would drag it into a war ...'" So Belgium was not neutral. As Albert J. Nock wrote, "Belgium ... was one of four solid allies under definite agreement worked out in complete detail ..."

The authors point out, "On four separate occasions over the previous two years [1912-14], Grey and Asquith stood at the despatch box in the House of Commons and solemnly assured Parliament that Britain was entirely free from any secret obligations to any other European country. In a private letter to his ambassador in Paris, Grey noted: `there would be a row in Parliament here if I had used words which implied the possibility of a secret engagement unknown to Parliament all these years committing us to a European war ....'"

On 3 August 1914, Grey read out to the House of Commons a letter to the French, but left out its last sentence: "If these measures involved action, the plans of the General Staffs would at once be taken into consideration and the governments would then decide what effect should be given to them." The authors comment that if he had read this out, "All of Prime Minister Asquith's previous statements in Parliament denying that secret agreements tied Britain to France in the event of war with Germany would have been revealed as deliberate deceptions."

Revanchist lawyer Raymond Poincaré said, "I could discover no other reason why my generation should go on living except for the hope of recovering our lost provinces ..." He became Prime Minister of France in January 1912, then President in February 1913.

The authors write, "Poincaré's first concern was `to prevent a German movement for peace'. Under his direction, the nature of the Franco-Russian agreement changed from a defensive alliance to open support for aggressive Russian intervention in the Balkans." Poincaré extended national service from two to three years and sharply increased the size of France's army. Docherty and Macgregor observe, "By 1914, over 80 per cent of Russian debt was owed to French banks. Poincaré and his backers insisted that these loans were conditional on increases in the Russian military and a modernised railway infrastructure that would speed up mobilisation against Germany."

The Russian ambassador in Bulgaria wrote in November 1912 that a representative of The Times claimed `very many people in England are working towards accentuating the complications in Europe' to bring about the war that would cause the `destruction of the German Fleet and of German trade'. King George V reportedly told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov in September 1912, "We shall sink every single German merchant ship we shall get hold of."

Poincaré went to St Petersburg on 20-23 July 1914. France's ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paléologue, wrote in his account of the banquets held to honour Poincaré that "the Grand Duchesses Anastasia and Melitza, the respective wives of Grand Duke Nicholas and Grand Duke Peter, were ecstatic at the prospect that `War is going to break out. Nothing will be left of Austria. You will get Alsace-Lorraine back. Our armies will meet in Berlin. Germany will be annihilated.'"

The British ambassador, Sir George Buchanan, sent a telegram to the Foreign Office on 24 July, summarising the result of Poincaré's visit: "France would not only give Russia strong diplomatic support, but would, if necessary, fulfil all the obligations imposed on her by the alliance." The authors comment, "Poincaré and Sazonov had agreed the deal. When Russia went to war against Germany and Austria, France would fulfil her commitment to Russia. This telegram explicitly proved that by 24 July Sir Edward Grey knew that his world war was ordained. The document was concealed from the world for ten years."

The authors point out that, "Buchanan did not suggest that Sazonov should stop the Russian mobilisation, far from it, but urged him to keep it well hidden from German view." Paléologue recalled Buchanan telling him, "Russia is determined to go to war. We must therefore saddle Germany with the whole responsibility and initiative of the attack, as this will be the only way of winning over English public opinion to the war."

On 24 July, Russia, France and Belgium all mobilised. The first to mobilise was the aggressor. The chief of Russian general staff for mobilisation explained why - after the first mobilisation `no further diplomatic hesitation is possible'.

Alexander Isvolsky, Russia's ambassador to France, told St Petersburg on 1 August, "The French War Minister informed me, in hearty high spirits, that the Government have firmly decided on war, and begged me to endorse the hope of the French General Staff that all efforts will be directed against Germany ..." This was almost 24 hours before Germany had announced mobilisation or declared war on Russia.

Docherty and Macgregor sum up, "Germany was the last of the continental powers to take that irrevocable step [mobilisation]. How does that possibly fit with the claim that Germany started the First World War?"

[R.K. Locke]

Thanks for this, Paul. Looks like a very interesting read indeed.

[Magda Hassan]

Looks like another great read Paul. Thanks for posting. On the must have book list now.

[Peter Presland]

The same crew fingered by Preparata reappear in a book examining the origins of the second world war's precursor. We now have the beginnings of an accurate account of the first half of the 20th century, and the contrived catastrophes which drowned it in blood:

Thanks Paul - I've put it on Wikispooks too.

[David Guyatt]

Of course, the Rhodes-Milner "Kintergarden" (the Oxford Group directly connected to Yale's Skull and Bones) were the "high cabal" of which Churchill spoke, according to Fletcher Prouty in his book The Secret Team.

As Quigley wrote in his massive Tragedy & Hope, the idea of the 1st World War was to create dissent between the French and the Germans, rather than allow them to join together - which would threaten British interests. It was a divide and conquer policy.

Lord Selborne succeeded Lord Milner as head of the Rhodes Kintergarden, and was still an active player in WWII with his appointment as Churchill's Minister of Economic Warfare in 1942, thus, becoming the political boss of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) for the remainder of the war.

After WWII, Selborne became well known for the inclusion of his name in the book, Messianic Legacy, the sequel to the best selling book Holy Blood - Holy Grail -- for his involvement in the 1956 export of ancient French parchments relating to the mysterious Rennes le Chateau and Prieure de Sion stories --- which might have been, in part anyway, a sly cover for the post war laundering of WWII nazi plunder.

It was in 1955 that West Germany became a sovereign state again and joined NATO. A year earlier the first Bilderberg Conference was held Oosterbeek, Holland, under the chairmanship of a former SS officer and spy, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

The time was ripe to repatriate WWII plunder for the regeneration of a new Germany post the WWII destruction. With it came the re-emergence of a muted National Socialism as old Nazis took on important reins of power in the new Germany.

[Paul Rigby]

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:

BERLIN HEARS FORD IS BACKING HITLER

Bavarian Anti-Semetic Chief Has American's Portrait and Book in His Office.

NYT, December 20, 1922; page 2

SPENDS MONEY LAVISHLY

One German Paper Appeals to the United States Ambassador to Make Investigation.

Copyright, 1922, by The New York Times Company.

http://www.constantinereport.com/new-yor...ng-hitler/

Special Cable to The New York Times. BERLIN, Dec. 10 A rumor is current here that Henry Ford, the American automobile manufacturer, is financing Adolph Hitler's nationalist and anti-Semetic [sic] movement in Munich. Indeed, the Berlin Tageblatt has made an appeal to the American Ambassador in Berlin to investigate and interfere.

Doubtless there is some ground for suspicion that Hitler is spending foreign money, for the paper marks his admirers throughout Germany contribute toward his movement would hardly suffice to pay for such large expenditure as his personal and business establishments require. His spacious headquarters in Munich are splendidly furnished and his organization employs a host of highly paid lieutenants and officials.

Last Sunday Hitler reviewed the so-called Storming Battalion attached to his organization, numbering about 1,000 young men in brand new uniforms and all armed with revolvers and black-jacks, which, however, they carried concealed. Naturally, peaceful citizens ask who has paid for these uniforms and arms, who defrayed the heavy expenses of the six meetings Hitler held the same day in all parts of Munich and who paid for the two powerful, brand-new autos in which Hitler and his staff hurried from and to the meetings.

The wall beside his desk in Hitler's private office is decorated with a large picture of Henry Ford. In the ante-chamber there is a large table covered with books, nearly all of which are a translation of a book written and published by Henry Ford. If you ask one of Hitler's underlings for the reason of Ford's popularity in these circles he will smile knowingly but say nothing.

In Nationalist circles in Berlin, too, one often hears Ford's name mentioned by people who would seem the very last in the world with whom an American respecting the Republican Constitution would seek any association.

The New York Times correspondent is in a position to say that certain circles who make Hohenzollern propaganda their business addressed Henry Ford- whose name was given them as being that of a man likely to respond favorably for financial aid.

It must be admitted that the result was negative. Mr. Ford has not invested in the monarchist propaganda. Indeed, he has made that quite clear to those who long for Wilhelm's return. And this fact may be responsible for the pains Hitler takes at every occassion to state that he is not supporting a monarchist movement, be it for a Hohenzollern, Wittelsbach or any other princeling.

If the Munich Government tolerates his military organization, his excesses against law and order, his speeches inciting his audiences to kill Jews and Socialists, then there is only one explanation, Berlin observers say, namely, that these authorities do not take Hitler's profession of not being interested in either the Wittelsbachs or the Hohenzollerns very seriously, despite the picture that is gracing his private office.

It is wondered here whether Hitler's surprise parties to North German towns will cease now that the Berlin, Nationalist Jew baiters have set up shop for themselves under the Reventlow and von Graefe, as reported yesterday. Reventlow has already opened offices for his new Nationalist Liberty Party.

[Peter Presland]

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:

Paul,

I hadn't noticed any 'playing down' of US establishment involvement in Churchill's rise. Neglect maybe, but that's probably because it was hardly a determining factor - except in its very late stages and he is as thorough as any author I have read in his coverage of US corporate involvement with rebuilding German industry between the wars and well into WWII. Neither does he characterise the US elite as "the dupes and playthings of the British clubs", so far as I have noticed anyway. Rather he refers to the "Anglo-American fraternities" which leaves room for fairly wide interpretation but IMO is an accurate and illuminating way of describing the relationship between 'Deep-State' arbiters of both countries throughout the 20th century.

Where Preparata is guilty of 'playing down' - again IMHO - is in his treatment of specific occult Jewish interests and influences on both countries throughout the period - and especially in his tip-toeing around "The Holocaust". That's no damning criticism either because one can hardly expect to take on both the received Anglo-US official narrative of the period AND question any one of the three sacred tenets on The Holocaust, and emerge from the undertaking with your academic career intact. He's already been blackballed fairly thoroughly for the first of those sins; I doubt he would have survived both.

[Lauren Johnson]

Where Preparata is guilty of 'playing down' - again IMHO - is in his treatment of specific occult Jewish interests and influences on both countries throughout the period - and especially in his tip-toeing around "The Holocaust".

Peter, I just started to appreciate your reference to "Jewish occult interests" in the Eyes Wide Shut and 9/11 thread. And I am not sure what you mean by the tip-toeing reference. Mind expanding a bit or putting some references on these two items?