Political Crossfire Forums

[Luap]

This being the conspiracy forum and all, I wanted to see what everyone thought about this topic. You know, the Rothschilds, the Morgans, the Warburgs, etc. How much power do you think they have over world affairs? Do they engineer depressions and manipulate the bankruptcies of nations? Do they essentially run most governments? Do they envision a worldwide totalitarian socialist government, or are they just greedy, manipulative bankers looking for a profit, or are they sincerely dedicated to public service?

All these questions, of course, are just meant to stir up thought and provoke discussion on the different aspects of the conspiracy theory. I subscribe to certain parts of the theory, but others I'm skeptical toward; for example, I doubt that the top families can thoroughly control government policies and ambitions, they just don't appear to have the manpower or influence necessary. I do believe that they are very adept at steering many political and national events, though, and that they have a firm grip on most media outlets.

Anyway, express your views and doubts, criticize mine, etc. etc.

[rytis]

Luap wrote: This being the conspiracy forum and all, I wanted to see what everyone thought about this topic. You know, the Rothschilds, the Morgans, the Warburgs, etc. How much power do you think they have over world affairs? Do they engineer depressions and manipulate the bankruptcies of nations? Do they essentially run most governments? Do they envision a worldwide totalitarian socialist government, or are they just greedy, manipulative bankers looking for a profit, or are they sincerely dedicated to public service?

All these questions, of course, are just meant to stir up thought and provoke discussion on the different aspects of the conspiracy theory. I subscribe to certain parts of the theory, but others I'm skeptical toward; for example, I doubt that the top families can thoroughly control government policies and ambitions, they just don't appear to have the manpower or influence necessary. I do believe that they are very adept at steering many political and national events, though, and that they have a firm grip on most media outlets.

Anyway, express your views and doubts, criticize mine, etc. etc.
i think they completely control and they occasionally stir up wars to make sure they stay in control, because i believe if they would lose control they would have to go into hiding, which would not be anywhere near as comfortable to live, if one world honest government would arise, they would lose it all and have no place to hide. they would be fed to rats on public display

[Luap]

Any examples of how they "completely control?" I just don't believe it is possible. They can exert a lot of influence with their wealth and financial power, but I don't see how they can control the actions of all the significant members of a government. It doesn't seem to be in their interest to dictate every action of every statesman; as long as they know an official has their interests in mind, I would believe they are content. When an official does not mold to their interests, they have other allies, such as members of intelligence agencies and the media, that can discredit or kill such a person.

Also, I believe they agitate wars not simply to stay in power; war is a very profitable business: it destabilizes massive regions, requires arms and fortifications, and generally leads to countries acquiring loans from, guess who, the international bankers. Their loans are predatory, though, and are aimed at putting a nation in debt and maintaining that debt. For example, the United States of America, or the Third World.

As for one world government, I see that as their final goal. One world government is the biggest government can get, and that is what they want - complete control. They don't have that right now, IMO. It seems to me that they are trying to create such a political atmosphere, though, through the World Bank, the IMF, and the UN. It is rather unsettling to think that the United States was once much like the UN - a group of political entities bound together in treaty, but not under a greater authority. Civil war, however, brought about a strengthened federal government that has been subjugating the states ever since.

I would bet that when WWIII comes, which I truly believe it will when the international bankers are ready, the UN will emerge as the most powerful political organization the world has ever seen; and, of course, it will use its authority over the damaged nations "to protect them from hurting themselves."

[psholtz]

Luap wrote: I would bet that when WWIII comes, which I truly believe it will when the international bankers are ready, the UN will emerge as the most powerful political organization the world has ever seen; and, of course, it will use its authority over the damaged nations "to protect them from hurting themselves."
The UN already is extremely powerful...

It already runs most of the US..

[Luap]

The UN does have a decent amount of power, but it is not yet a transnational body that has authority over the collective nation-states. Right now it appears that the American Empire is the tool for opening all markets to the influence of international finance; until the stage is set, the UN will "officially" remain just an organization of autonomous nations. If the UN is run by the financiers behind much of the world's central banking, then I don't doubt that the UN, in turn, wields more power over our government than we the people do.

[psholtz]

Luap wrote: The UN does have a decent amount of power, but it is not yet a transnational body that has authority over the collective nation-states. Right now it appears that the American Empire is the tool for opening all markets to the influence of international finance; until the stage is set, the UN will "officially" remain just an organization of autonomous nations. If the UN is run by the financiers behind much of the world's central banking, then I don't doubt that the UN, in turn, wields more power over our government than we the people do.
The UN is run by the same financiers who run the US (and most other relevant institutions in the world), and it does exert a great deal of power and control over the US, even today.

That power is growing, as well...

[Luap]

Instead of trailing off with an ellipsis in seemingly all of your posts, could you point me in the direction of some credible evidence?

Right now I'm reading The Secrets of the Federal Reserve by that super-anti-semite Mullins. I'm in chapter 8 or 9, I believe, and I have not encountered a single anti-semitic phrase - all I've seen is credible documentation, with perhaps a few too many far-fetched conclusions based on that documentation. Such is the way of most "research," though; I've read transcripts of interviews with him, and read other articles about him, and he seems to be a believable and reasonable guy. Some of his conclusions, although not clearly supported by the offered evidence, do logically follow; he paints a coherent picture of international financing being a driving force behind world events and political and economic machinations.

[psholtz]

Luap wrote: Instead of trailing off with an ellipsis in seemingly all of your posts, could you point me in the direction of some credible evidence?
No, I cannot.

If you desire freedom, you must fight for and earn it yourself. Nobody else is going to do it for you, least of all me.

Quote: Right now I'm reading The Secrets of the Federal Reserve by that super-anti-semite Mullins. I'm in chapter 8 or 9, I believe, and I have not encountered a single anti-semitic phrase - all I've seen is credible documentation, with perhaps a few too many far-fetched conclusions based on that documentation.
Then why do you call him an anti-Semite?

[Luap]

Quote: If you desire freedom, you must fight for and earn it yourself. Nobody else is going to do it for you, least of all me.

This is like going to a judge, accusing someone a crime, and then telling the judge to find the evidence himself if he truly wants justice. You are making a claim - it is your responsibility to supply the burden of proof.

Quote: Then why do you call him an anti-Semite?

I was saying it with tongue-in-cheek. I've seen the book discredited as "anti-Semitic trash;" it has been the only book burned in West Germany since the end of the Third Reich. However, I've seen no anti-semitism in its pages, this only seems to be a rumor floated around to smear Mullins.

[psholtz]

Luap wrote: Quote: If you desire freedom, you must fight for and earn it yourself. Nobody else is going to do it for you, least of all me.

This is like going to a judge, accusing someone a crime, and then telling the judge to find the evidence himself if he truly wants justice. You are making a claim - it is your responsibility to supply the burden of proof.
I have 15,000+ posts on this site, almost all of which provide the "burden of proof" you are asking for.

You have about 35.

You might try either sticking around a bit longer, or else reading through some of my post history if you're that interested. In either case, you've asked nothing of substance, and you shall receive nothing of substance in return.

Quote: Quote: Then why do you call him an anti-Semite?

I was saying it with tongue-in-cheek. I've seen the book discredited as "anti-Semitic trash;" it has been the only book burned in West Germany since the end of the Third Reich. However, I've seen no anti-semitism in its pages, this only seems to be a rumor floated around to smear Mullins.
When Secrets of the Fed was written, it may have been the only book banned in West Germany. Today I think there are many others books that are banned by the German government, usually those dealing w/ Holocaust revisionism.. Europe in general does not enjoy the same "free speech" rights that Americans have long enjoyed .. although even here in America, these "free speech" rights are rapidly dwindling.

[Norrin Radd]

Luap wrote: Instead of trailing off with an ellipsis in seemingly all of your posts, could you point me in the direction of some credible evidence?

Right now I'm reading The Secrets of the Federal Reserve by that super-anti-semite Mullins. I'm in chapter 8 or 9, I believe, and I have not encountered a single anti-semitic phrase - all I've seen is credible documentation, with perhaps a few too many far-fetched conclusions based on that documentation. Such is the way of most "research," though; I've read transcripts of interviews with him, and read other articles about him, and he seems to be a believable and reasonable guy. Some of his conclusions, although not clearly supported by the offered evidence, do logically follow; he paints a coherent picture of international financing being a driving force behind world events and political and economic machinations.

I suggest doing some reading on the creation of the CFR, Col. House, the creation of the Trilateral Commission, some reading on the Roundtable groups, as well as some background reading on the Reece Comittee, reading the book "Foundations: Their Power and Influence" by Rene Wormser and most importantly, Norman Dodd's interview and his testimony.

Norman Dodd testimony

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/regionalism/dodd.htm

Norman Dodd interview

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm

There is much more, but if you research all that I have mentioned, that research should lead you to all the information you need.

[Luap]

Quote: I have 15,000+ posts on this site, almost all of which provide the "burden of proof" you are asking for.

You have about 35.

You might try either sticking around a bit longer, or else reading through some of my post history if you're that interested. In either case, you've asked nothing of substance, and you shall receive nothing of substance in return.

I don’t think that more posts necessarily means your statements are automatically validated – 15000+ is a helluva lot though. I guess you could argue that since you’ve presented the evidence elsewhere, it’s my responsibility to dig it up, but that argument would really just revolve around my laziness vs your laziness (admittedly, my laziness is probably greater). As for asking nothing of substance, do you mean that I didn’t explicitly ask for sources in my first post? I guess I took that as granted, my apologies (no sarcasm here).

Quote: When Secrets of the Fed was written, it may have been the only book banned in West Germany. Today I think there are many others books that are banned by the German government, usually those dealing w/ Holocaust revisionism.. Europe in general does not enjoy the same "free speech" rights that Americans have long enjoyed .. although even here in America, these "free speech" rights are rapidly dwindling.

I had said it was the only book burned, not just banned; that is just a statement from Mullins in an interview, though, I don’t know how truthful it is. Anyway, I agree with you assessment of America’s free speech dilemma. While I’m skeptical about any meaningful reform in the modern world’s governments, free speech is one of the only real tools that would enable reform. Besides the barrel of a gun, that is.

Quote: I suggest doing some reading on the creation of the CFR, Col. House, the creation of the Trilateral Commission, some reading on the Roundtable groups, as well as some background reading on the Reece Comittee, reading the book "Foundations: Their Power and Influence" by Rene Wormser and most importantly, Norman Dodd's interview and his testimony.

Norman Dodd testimony

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/regionalism/dodd.htm

Norman Dodd interview

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm

There is much more, but if you research all that I have mentioned, that research should lead you to all the information you need.

Thanks for the references. Col. House was mentioned often in Mullin’s book, and thus far I’ve seen a few points about the Roundtable groups; I’ll look into everything you’ve supplied.

Here’s an article some of you guys might be interested in, if you haven’t read it yet. It involved the formation of a transnational class comprising international bankers and financiers and the transnational corporate elites; it goes into great lengths about neoliberal globalization, Third Way politics, etc. I haven’t read it in a while, but its very informative on the creation of our seemingly inevitable one-world-government. Here ya go:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8908/transnational.html

[Norrin Radd]

Luap wrote:

Thanks for the references. Col. House was mentioned often in Mullin’s book, and thus far I’ve seen a few points about the Roundtable groups; I’ll look into everything you’ve supplied.

Here’s an article some of you guys might be interested in, if you haven’t read it yet. It involved the formation of a transnational class comprising international bankers and financiers and the transnational corporate elites; it goes into great lengths about neoliberal globalization, Third Way politics, etc. I haven’t read it in a while, but its very informative on the creation of our seemingly inevitable one-world-government. Here ya go:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8908/transnational.html

That article looks very interesting. I saved it and will read it later, but I am already pretty well aware of the transantional corporations and their power.

Have you ever read up on the US coprorations which helped build up NAZI Germany?

There was a lot of dirty s**t going on. Without the help of US oil companies and their process for making fuel from coal, Hitler never would have been able to wage war in the blitzkrieg fashion that he did.

A very well written piece on this can be found below........

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Elkhorn2.html

There is much more to this also, but I don't want to paste a ton of links, after all, it is in the searching itself that one uncovers the truth.

[Luap]

It's a very good article, and is presented as an academic study more so than an investigative article. The essence of the piece involves the transformation or evolution of the international ruling class into a transnational ruling class in the past few decades. There is plenty of evidence given of this transnationalization, of the means of attaining it (neoliberal globalization), and of the force behind it (the modern ruling class).

Yeah I've read about the history of Hitler's rise from various sources, but not many of them were very well documented so I didn't absorb the information that much. However, I have read that Hitler would have never even gotten into power if he hadn't been financed by the Warburgs, or the Shroeders, I believe.

[Chymical]

makes you want to pke in your pancakes isn't it?

Pancakes...

:)

[Norrin Radd]

Luap wrote: It's a very good article, and is presented as an academic study more so than an investigative article. The essence of the piece involves the transformation or evolution of the international ruling class into a transnational ruling class in the past few decades. There is plenty of evidence given of this transnationalization, of the means of attaining it (neoliberal globalization), and of the force behind it (the modern ruling class).

Yeah I've read about the history of Hitler's rise from various sources, but not many of them were very well documented so I didn't absorb the information that much. However, I have read that Hitler would have never even gotten into power if he hadn't been financed by the Warburgs, or the Shroeders, I believe.

I am talking more about the help that NAZI Gemrany got from US corporations AFTER Hitler's rise to power. The US ambassador to Gemrany worte FDR's advisor Col. House in 1937 asking him why there were over 100 US corporations helping in NAZI Germany's war buildup.

Prescott Bush was even involved in trading with the enemy, yet most Americans are not interested, simply because they are too lazy to get off their asses and do some simple research.

If Americans actually cared even a tiny bit about the truth, this information would be common knowledge, yet I would bet less than 1% of Americans can tell me who Wm. E. Dodd was, or what US corporations helped NAZI Germany in their war buildup.

[Norrin Radd]

Luap wrote: It's a very good article, and is presented as an academic study more so than an investigative article. The essence of the piece involves the transformation or evolution of the international ruling class into a transnational ruling class in the past few decades. There is plenty of evidence given of this transnationalization, of the means of attaining it (neoliberal globalization), and of the force behind it (the modern ruling class).

Yeah I've read about the history of Hitler's rise from various sources, but not many of them were very well documented so I didn't absorb the information that much. However, I have read that Hitler would have never even gotten into power if he hadn't been financed by the Warburgs, or the Shroeders, I believe.

Did you read the two pieces from Norman Dodd yet?

If yes, what do you think?

[Luap]

Sorry for the long delay. Yes, I have read them, and they were both very informative (and at the same time, clashing with my own ideas of the world). In fact, I've spent a lot of time thinking about how some of members of that cartel of wealth seemed to have "switched sides" from Communism to Friedman's neoliberalism. I just finished writing a piece about it that I'll be posting on this forum.

[Norrin Radd]

Luap wrote: Sorry for the long delay. Yes, I have read them, and they were both very informative (and at the same time, clashing with my own ideas of the world). In fact, I've spent a lot of time thinking about how some of members of that cartel of wealth seemed to have "switched sides" from Communism to Friedman's neoliberalism. I just finished writing a piece about it that I'll be posting on this forum.

In my opinion, the two pieces from Dodd and the book written by Wormser, show that our government has been partially controlled for decades. The control is especially obvious for our state department and our foreign policy.

I always found it interesting how the EVIL RUSSIA who was the reason we needed a bazillion nuclear weapons, almost overnight became our friend and we even have a joint space station with them.

How is this possible that such an evil nation could become our trusted friend alamost overnight?

The answer is they were never as evil as we were led to believe and it was all a scam to institute certain policies.

[Luap]

That's an interesting idea - my immediate reaction was to think, "Nahhh, impossible," simply because the idea of the Cold War has been entirely characterized by socialism versus capitalism, USA versus USSR. But the idea is worthy thinking about. Still, there were so many conflicts of interest during that period, it seems unlikely that the two superpowers shared a common goal beneath it all. What about the wars in Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan? There were certainly some people - the neoconservatives - that wanted to see the USSR dead. In fact, the neoconservatives and the State Department seem have a lot of conflicting interests.

Also, it hard to tell if Russia is really on such buddy-buddy terms with us, wouldn't you agree? What actions do you percieve as showing this? We can't go by "official diplomacy" because that is just a show put on by the powers for us, the people. One example is Iran's nuclear barking - the State Department says this is a very important matter for global security, but the State Dept. and its affiliated international oil companies (IOCs) certainly don't mind it when Iran's bold statements cause the price of oil to rise.

I made a post, Norrin, titled "Neoliberalism: The New Communism?" and I would like some of your input, if you have the time.