Guido Preparata's website

[Peter Presland]

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.

Nice synopsis David, and Thanks for the Imperial Brians Trust pdf link.

I thought the graphic on its cover page was particularly apposite. On its face simple; viz: Uncle Sam as CFR puppet. But I'm inclined to see it as somewhat more subtle and complex than that. IMO, it is still a moot point where the real power lay - and to some extent still lies. Uncle Sam is indeed a puppet - that is to say its military, media and control of global financial transactions - but of whom and what interests exactly?

At that time, bearing in mind relative global intelligence assets-in-place, capabilities, etc etc - the US was still a 'wet-behind-the-ears', though aspiring and supremely self-confident teenager with cash to burn. It needed a guiding hand and got it - in the form of the CFR, but itself manipulated into being by the scions of Chatham House and not - it seems to me - the other way around.

Le Carre's character, the traitor Bill Haydon, in 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' provides an atmospheric and likely fairly authentic sketch of how the British SIS's saw the relationship between the the US and UK states in the late 60's. In his interrogation de-brief with Smilie (Alec Guiness) he opines: "Do you know what killing western democracy George? - Greed, and constipation, moral political ascetic. I hate America very deeply; the economic repression of the masses institutionalised. Britain? - sigh.... No viability whatever in world affairs - we have become America's streetwalker..." Lots more telling stuff like that too. Le Carre is a very perceptive author. I'll get around to uploading some relevant YouTube bits if I can find time

But of course all of this is on the level of the marionettes and not the string-pullers

[David Guyatt]

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.

Nice synopsis David, and Thanks for the Imperial Brians Trust pdf link.

I thought the graphic on its cover page was particularly apposite. On its face simple; viz: Uncle Sam as CFR puppet. But I'm inclined to see it as somewhat more subtle and complex than that. IMO, it is still a moot point where the real power lay - and to some extent still lies. Uncle Sam is indeed a puppet - that is to say its military, media and control of global financial transactions - but of whom and what interests exactly?

At that time, bearing in mind relative global intelligence assets-in-place, capabilities, etc etc - the US was still a 'wet-behind-the-ears', though aspiring and supremely self-confident teenager with cash to burn. It needed a guiding hand and got it - in the form of the CFR, but itself manipulated into being by the scions of Chatham House and not - it seems to me - the other way around.

Le Carre's character, the traitor Bill Haydon, in 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' provides an atmospheric and likely fairly authentic sketch of how the British SIS's saw the relationship between the the US and UK states in the late 60's. In his interrogation de-brief with Smilie (Alec Guiness) he opines: "Do you know what killing western democracy George? - Greed, and constipation, moral political ascetic. I hate America very deeply; the economic repression of the masses institutionalised. Britain? - sigh.... No viability whatever in world affairs - we have become America's streetwalker..." Lots more telling stuff like that too. Le Carre is a very perceptive author. I'll get around to uploading some relevant YouTube bits if I can find time

But of course all of this is on the level of the marionettes and not the string-pullers

I agree entirely Peter. America's streetwalker is what we are these days. I always enjoy Le Carre btw. Great writer but so observant about human nature too, and with the droll British sense of humour and cynicism included.

My take on Rhodes was his first and enduring love was the greed based capitalists system that manifested in the British empire, and hence was the focus of his future ambition. This too, was the central focus of the USA. If this couldn't be achieved by the dwindling British empire, then the emerging American empire would have to do.

The CFR was the creature of American capitalism, but Britain formed an important part of this club, albeit on a junior level - at least once it became evident that the USA was the new and emerging world power.

For me The Brain Trust is an excellent read if one wishes to look behind the looking glass.

Did you ever post on the more sensitive subject you were considering doing (I understand the context and your concerns about such a thread)?

[David Guyatt]

Further to Mr. Locke's question above, the following is extracted from David Irving's "Churchill's War".

Twice by late 1940 contemporaries had benevolently applied the labelgangster to Mr Churchill. But in a century of gangster statesmen, he and
Roosevelt were not on the same side; they were not playing the same
game; they were not even in the same league. ëI never let my right hand
know what my left hand does,í the president told his treasury secretary as
he settled into his third term. ëI may have one policy for Europe and one
diametrically opposite for North and South America. . . And furthermore,
í he bragged, unwittingly echoing Hitler's words, I am perfectly
willing to mislead and tell untruths if it will help win the war.*


He ran rings around the British and boasted that he was better at it
than President Woodrow Wilson. He regarded Churchill as a pushover, unreliable and tight most of the time. He turned a deaf ear on all of Churchill's pleas. When the P.M. suggested he send American warships to Britain's imperial outpost at Singapore to keep the Japanese in line since he was about to reopen the Burma Road to let supplies into China he got no joy from the White House.


This is not surprising. The survival of the British empire did not figure
high on Roosevelt's priorities. I would rather, said Roosevelt in 1942,
lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russians collapse.
A few weeks later he repeated this. England was, he said, an old,
tired power and must take second place to the younger United States,
Russia and China. Later this sly statesman conceded, when there are
four people sitting in at a poker game and three of them are against the
fourth, it is a little hard on the fourth. Vice President Henry Wallace took
this as an admission that Roosevelt, Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek were
ganging up against Mr Churchill.


Franceís humiliating defeat and Britainís threatening bankruptcy gave
Roosevelt the opportunity to clean up these old empires. At Teheran in
1943 he would confide to Joseph Stalin, ëI want to do away with the word
Reich.í He added, ëIn any language.í Stalin liked that. ëNot just the word,í
he said. Roosevelt's policy was to pay out just enough to give the empire
support ñ the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man. When his treasury
secretary confirmed after visiting London in 1944 that Britain was
penniless, the cynical man in the Oval Office would prick up his ears and
snicker. ëI had no idea,í he said. I will go over there and make a couple of
talks and take over the British empire.


This inspired American statesman would pursue his subversion of the
empire throughout the war. He might lead the crusade for democracy, but
he expected the front-line nations to foot the bill. During the Munich crisis,
he had predicted to his cabinet that the United States would be enriched
by any resulting war. Sure enough, gold from the beleaguered nations
had begun to flow in payment for American war materials. The 1939
revision-of-neutrality legislation, which legalised this sale of war goods to
belligerents, and the Johnson Debt-Default Act required that such purchases
be for cash. So the great blood-letting began. Britain donated
£2,078 million of aid to her own minor allies during the war years, but the
United States extorted from her every moveable asset in return for acting
as the Arsenal of Democracy. During the war Britain would sell off
£1,118 million of foreign investments; in addition, her foreign debt would
increase by £2,595 million from 1939 to 1945. Formerly the world's
major creditor, Britain became an international pauper, and even forty
years later she had not permanently recovered.

It continues in a similar vein for several more pages. The point being that Roosevelt, being a politician, was taking credit for the War & Peace Studies Group recommendations.

[Peter Presland]

Did you ever post on the more sensitive subject you were considering doing (I understand the context and your concerns about such a thread)?

So far - I haven't David; and for reasons you are clearly aware of. I was also waiting to see if there was any more interest.

The catchall title of such a thread - actually a separate forum would probably be needed to do it justice - would be "The Jewish Question", (or similar, minus the latter-day knee-jerk Holocaust connotations). The problem is that ANY substantial, honest and open discussion of that age-old subject would, without the shadow of a doubt, get the forum branded as a "Hate site" unless it desisted. That, is a stark measure of just how much the subject needs to be discussed too.

What post-WWII western man is expected - or rather required on pain of career destruction - to agree is that, whilst for close to 2,000 years there were vexed recurring issues surrounding the relationship between the Jewish diaspora and its host countries, such issues have now been fully resolved (or no longer exist) and can therefore be raised only in the context of Jews as history's eternal victims - which of course stands as a patently absurd proposition when you summon the courage to ponder it a bit.

I have to say I am apprehensive about alienating people - hence my caution about the need for rigorous moderation. I'm also apprehensive about the time commitment that opening such a discussion with serious intent to pursue it would involve; but, since I personally judge it as central to understanding the past 150 years, I guess I'm prepared to put the required time in.

So, what do you, and others think?

[David Guyatt]

Did you ever post on the more sensitive subject you were considering doing (I understand the context and your concerns about such a thread)?

So far - I haven't David; and for reasons you are clearly aware of. I was also waiting to see if there was any more interest.

The catchall title of such a thread - actually a separate forum would probably be needed to do it justice - would be "The Jewish Question", (or similar, minus the latter-day knee-jerk Holocaust connotations). The problem is that ANY substantial, honest and open discussion of that age-old subject would, without the shadow of a doubt, get the forum branded as a "Hate site" unless it desisted. That, is a stark measure of just how much the subject needs to be discussed too.

What post-WWII western man is expected - or rather required on pain of career destruction - to agree is that, whilst for close to 2,000 years there were vexed recurring issues surrounding the relationship between the Jewish diaspora and its host countries, such issues have now been fully resolved (or no longer exist) and can therefore be raised only in the context of Jews as history's eternal victims - which of course stands as a patently absurd proposition when you summon the courage to ponder it a bit.

I have to say I am apprehensive about alienating people - hence my caution about the need for rigorous moderation. I'm also apprehensive about the time commitment that opening such a discussion with serious intent to pursue it would involve; but, since I personally judge it as central to understanding the past 150 years, I guess I'm prepared to put the required time in.

So, what do you, and others think?

I understand your hesitation and share it too. In the last analysis I think it might be best to leave it for the time being, as it would undoubtedly be incredibly divisive.

[Lauren Johnson]

Peter, David,

I for one have been very much been hoping that this topic would be opened up, and have been saddened that it has gone by the wayside. And having said that, I only have faint clues about its content. I recall there have been references to the Qaballah and elite satanic networks in the Eyes Wide Open thread.

At any rate, I think this is an important theme and hope that when the time comes, you push forward.

[Drew Phipps]

Since you asked for other's opinions, I think you should also consider the potential loss of the rational discussion that characterizes most of the discussion on this forum. If you open up a thread that invites the lunatics to bark at the moon, then they will, and the otherwise excellent reputation of this site might suffer.

That being said, perhaps there are some very narrow issues that might be addressed without opening up accusations of anti-Semitism. For instance, we criticize the CIA regularly in this forum, and yet we're not "anti-American" (Cynicism and patriotism are 2 different animals). We talk about the Russian government's increasingly overt presence in the Ukraine, and no one charges us (at least) with "wanting to wipe out Russians." Perhaps if the issues are framed narrowly enough, and the contributors careful enough, we could have a rational discussion of (for instance) the Mossad, or of certain specific other activities of the Israeli government, without the hysteria.

[Peter Presland]

Here's that Video clip I mentioned in Post #51.

It's from the 1979 Alec Guiness TV version. Interesting to note that none of that monologue appeared in the 2012 celluloid version. Too near the knuckle and a bit too accurate for comfort eh?

[David Guyatt]

Peter, David,

I for one have been very much been hoping that this topic would be opened up, and have been saddened that it has gone by the wayside. And having said that, I only have faint clues about its content. I recall there have been references to the Qaballah and elite satanic networks in the Eyes Wide Open thread.

At any rate, I think this is an important theme and hope that when the time comes, you push forward.

I don't think we're talking about the Jewish Qabalah, Lauren, which remains the foundation stone of all western occult practises - simply because it delivers access and a roadmap to the Collective Unconscious. At least once all the mumbo jumbo has been stripped away.

But I may be wrong. Peter might have this in mind too? Yet I suspect not.

[Lauren Johnson]

Peter, David,

I for one have been very much been hoping that this topic would be opened up, and have been saddened that it has gone by the wayside. And having said that, I only have faint clues about its content. I recall there have been references to the Qaballah and elite satanic networks in the Eyes Wide Open thread.

At any rate, I think this is an important theme and hope that when the time comes, you push forward.

I don't think we're talking about the Jewish Qabalah, Lauren, which remains the foundation stone of all western occult practises - simply because it delivers access and a roadmap to the Collective Unconscious. At least once all the mumbo jumbo has been stripped away.

But I may be wrong. Peter might have this in mind too? Yet I suspect not.

For clarity, we are referring to #43 in this thread where Peter said:

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 can see that I may have assumed that Peter P was referring in part to the Vigilant Citizen article on the design of the Israeli Supreme Court apparently entirely sited, designed and funded by the Rothschilds. I probably jumped to conclusions by linking your comments re: Eyes Wide Shut and elite occultism to Peter P's post.