Movatterモバイル変換

Replies: @Ray Caruso, @anonymous, @advancedatheist, @Dany, @TREG, @anonymous, @Roland Taran, @G J T, @GoySoy, @Lagertha

Maybe I'm a dark Italian or Greek and don't appreciate me or my ancestors being thrown under the bus as "less than" whites. Southern Europeans laid the foundations for Western civilization. The classics were written by our ancestors. We invented philosophy and built the great coliseums. It wasn't the Nordics or the Irish or German barbarians.

Replies: @Bookish1, @c matt

Your perspective seems tailor-made to suit the broken ego of a white female, who is struggling to compete with Asian women for men's attention.

However, it isn't true. Marriages between white men and Asian women have risen since 1980. And, Asian men in the West have out-earned white men for decades. So money isn't a big deal at all.


Asian women really do prefer white men, for reasons including their looks, like most women. However, the catch is that these intermarriages aren't motivated by Asian female desire for white men. It's the opposite. All races of men prefer Asian women, and it is this preference that drives the intermarriages.


It has been demonstrated again and again that men tend to prefer women of East Asian and mixed-Asian appearance.

https://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/lewis-2012.png

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hongwei-Liang/publication/326561174/figure/fig1/AS:651692219572224@1532386941776/Response-patterns-in-the-Facebook-dating-app-Are-You-Interested-1-The-numbers.png


https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/672/90/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20180818_FBC544.png



The reason for this universal preference among men is biological. Asian women are the pinnacle of female beauty, whereas evolution has not cleaned up the latent "maleness" of white women.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13506285.2018.1475437

Marriages between White men and Asian women are over twice as frequent as those between White women and Asian men. Recent research has proposed that this imbalance may be explained by the finding that, on average, White men are perceived as more attractive than Asian men, and Asian women are perceived as more attractive than White women, possibly because Asian faces are perceived as more feminine than White faces. Here, we explore whether Asian faces are perceived as more feminine than White faces.
 

According to Lundström there is much focus on whiteness in Singapore. Ads for skin whitening products are common, and whiteness is the ideal. But the ideal of beauty is not a white, blond western woman.

“Western women were ranked below the Chinese in the racial hierarchy. The western whiteness is not as posh as the Singaporean, Chinese whiteness,” says Lundström.

Swedish women in the US were very preoccupied with American men, whereas the Swedish women in Singapore were not the least interested in Asian men. They focused on their Swedish husbands. Asian women, on the other hand, represented a possible rival, since Swedish men found Asian women attractive.

“The Swedish women in Singapore were almost desexualised. They felt less feminine,” says Lundström
 

Replies: @Sean, @Red Pill Angel, @Vinnyvette, @Anonymous, @Mary Marianne, @c matt

I am currently writing a book (The Historical Absence of Feminine Facial Morphology in European Art and Culture) wherein I make the case that authentic female beauty did not exist, not in the arts and likely not in reality either, until the mid-20th century. It is close to 30,000 words at the moment. Perhaps you might find my thesis interesting. As I explain in great detail, even a cursory glance at Greco-Roman statuary reveals an astonishing lack of femininity. Large noses, large chins and small lips are the quintessential features. This morphology does not possess positive valence from a rational perspective, nor is it endocrinologically feminine. People continue to be awed by it, which is inexplicable to me, though perhaps this is feigned. But I am most surprised that white nationalists, of all people, are oblivious to the brutishness of the Greco-Roman canon, which dominated European culture until the early 20th century, despite being biologically impoverished.

Anyone who wishes to know more, including Dalton, may request to contact me.

Replies: @Ian Smith, @Corvinus, @c matt

Replies: @Carroll price, @eckbach

Replies: @_dude, @AZTK21

Replies: @TrumpWon

What you say is statistically true, yet at the bottom of black crime you’ll find those most responsible for it today are the moral scum who teach at and attend places like Penn law school, whom even a child can see have little more purpose than justifying black crime against their white parents.

Someone wrote a book about the deplorable education standards at Harvard Law School, likening students to morons with a fourth-grade education in English—literally. This wasn’t meant as a little hyperbolic humor, and that was decades ago.

In this instance, just look at the infantile posters drawn by the lesbo-feminist law students at Penn in that photo above. That photo is probably representative of the student body, with seven unbathed dykes and two gay boys hanging out in the library lounge. I’m being generous when I say they are total morons totally incapable of upholding the law, for whom law serves no other purpose and incentive than emasculating their fathers and destroying America.

Replies: @Mike Conrad

Jews who name the Jewish power are admirable and part of the team.

Jews who join the Right to silence criticism of Jewish power and defend Zionism are not to be trusted.

Replies: @EL_Kabong

Replies: @Adam Birchdale

Replies: @Priss Factor

Replies: @DanFromCT

'Shlomo' McNally writes:

That’s quite a mélange of names which you’ve spewed out there. Some are blatant shysters like Chris Bollyn ....
 

The Rothschilds were not the power (singular), they were powers (plural-one of many powers).
A blatant fraud propagated by every conspiracy writer who cites this ....
 

Replies: @Patrick McNally

That's quite a mélange of names which you've spewed out there. Some are blatant shysters like Chris Bollyn, some are just decent journalists like John Pilger. But if you're going to take an interest in a topic around which people have stewed up a controversy, then one has to be ready to investigate the details. Like in this piece by Gerry Rough, he goes through some of the false citations which Griffin typically makes:

https://web.archive.org/web/19970417194057/http://www.skyenet.net/~gerryr/fbus.htm

-----
G. Edward Griffin cites the more often quoted longer version:

"Under the surface, the Rothschilds long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws. The law records show that they were the power in the old Bank of the United States." [20]

Griffin now continues, enunciating what every other conspiracy writer who cites the above says of the Rothschilds:

"The Rothschilds, therefore, were not merely investors nor just an important power. They were the power behind the Bank of the United States!" [21]

In so citing this, Griffin and Still have continued to propagate a bald-faced fraud in order to prove their absurd New World Order conspiracy theory. Here is the real truth. The citation is from Gustavus Myers’ History of the Great American Fortunes. The actual quote is as follows:

"Under the surface, the Rothschilds long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws. The law records show that they were powers in the old Bank of the United States." [22]

Did you catch the difference? The Rothschilds were not the power (singular), they were powers (plural-one of many powers). A blatant fraud propagated by every conspiracy writer who cites this, for one simple reason; it helps to prove their case that the Rothschild family is part of the conspiracy. Without it, of course, the theory’s credibility is seriously damaged. Dare you think that, so far, this ridiculous affair damages the credibility of Griffin and Still, there is still the matter of context. Let’s cite Gustavus Myers again, adding the next sentence for context:

"Under the surface, the Rothschilds long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws. The law records show that they were powers in the old Bank of the United States. August Belmont and Company were their American representatives." [23]

With the introduction of August Belmont, there is now another dimension to the quote. We now have time and place. According to Eustace Mullins, yet another conspiracy writer, August Belmont did not arrive in the United States until 1837. [24] Myers, then, is not talking about the first Bank of the United States, since its charter ran out in 1811. Myers is talking about the second Bank of the United States, chartered in 1816 and declared bankrupt after it suspended payments in 1839. In other words, Griffin and Still not only falsely cite Gustavus Myers, they assign the Rothschild quote to the wrong bank!! Ignorance is indeed bliss.
-----

Replies: @Truth Vigilante

A good place to start gaining some familiarity with Gerry Rough’s writing is in this piece
 

ANSWER: Not one among the fearless truthtellers has a positive word to say about him (or any of the other ZOG funded authors you've made mention of over the years).
 

Replies: @Patrick McNally

A good place to start gaining some familiarity with Gerry Rough's writing is in this piece:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120131220159/http://www.shoah.plus.com/801/nwo/bank.html

-----
A Bank of England Conspiracy?

©1997 by Gerry Rough

The Bank of England holds a special place in the hearts of New World Order conspiracy theorists. It is here that the central banking mechanism begins to appear in the pages of history, although in the late seventeenth century it was still not a central bank in the modern sense. Considered by many to be the virtual hub of the New World Order, the Bank has somehow managed to remain a mystery to be solved; no small temptation indeed for the faithful. With this new mechanism in place, the New World Order can now begin its final assault to enslave the planet. The central banking mechanism, you see, represents the power of the rich to control the masses. It represents one of the last steps to be put in place before the New World Order finally reveals itself as the dark beast that it is. Let's take a look at the history of the Bank of England and see if indeed there is a conspiracy that emerges.
-----

Replies: @Truth Vigilante

https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/cherry-tree-myth/

Cherry Tree Myth

Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips

Well, Pretzel, you seem hellbent on bursting the American/European Heroes Bubble by refuting every known/claimed statement ever made by any such notable of note.

I suppose you think George Washington left that dreary Cherry Tree standing?


Some Finance Guru site:

The War of 1812 would soon demonstrate the clear need for a government bank to help fund growing government expenses not covered by the nation's limited tariff revenue.
The end.

It’s funny how central banks are always lurking around wars….what would WW1 have been without the Federal Reserve, brought by Weihnachtsmann, like a thief in the nacht?

That same Guru:

Jackson came into presidency in 1829 determined to eliminate the national debt, the management of which was one of the purposes of the national bank.”Jackson had two purposes in ridding the country of debt," wrote John Steele Gordon. "The first, of course, was that he thought debt was bad in and of itself. He called it a `national curse' in his first run for the presidency in 1824. But he thought that the institutions and the people who benefited from it were a national curse as well.`My vow,' he pledged, `shall be to pay the national debt, to prevent a monied aristocracy from growing up around our administration that must bend to its views, and ultimately destroy the liberty of our country." 27 *

*John Steele Gordon, An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power, p. 125-126.


If Jacksonprobably didn’t say it, he said something similar. Thanks for your input/agitation/parade-raining, Pretzel. Happy Kwanza to you!

Replies: @Patrick McNally

Patrick 'Shlomo' McNally makes clear that there is no limit to his mendacity when he writes:

G. Edward Griffin lays out this conspiratorial version of history in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. His amateurish take on history is highly suspect, however.
Gerry Rough, in a series of well- researched essays on U.S. banking history, reveals many historical inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and even contradictions in Griffin’s book and others of its genre.
 

SUMMARY: G Edward Griffin is a man of unimpeachable integrity. When he says something, you can take it to the bank.

Contrast that with what you write Shlomo McNally, in your capacity as a sayan. When you post something in UR, one can take it to the bank that it's a falsehood.

 

Replies: @Patrick McNally

https://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-andrew-jackson-probably-never-said-that-den-of-theives-quote-2010-1

Sorry, Andrew Jackson Probably Never Said That "Den Of Thieves" Quote
John Carney Jan 27, 2010, 11:42 AM EST

Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips

Flaherty goes through a lot of those same things about events before World War I:

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty1.html

Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.

On the Georgian resort hideaway of Jekyll Island (which has some excellent golf courses, by the way), there once met a coalition of Wall Street bankers and U.S. senators. This secret 1910 meeting had a sinister purpose, the conspiracy theorists say. The bankers wanted to establish a new central bank under the direct control of New York's financial elite. Such a plan would give the Wall Street bankers near total control of the financial system and allow them to manipulate it for their personal gain.

G. Edward Griffin lays out this conspiratorial version of history in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. His amateurish take on history is highly suspect, however. Gerry Rough, in a series of well- researched essays on U.S. banking history, reveals many historical inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and even contradictions in Griffin's book and others of its genre. Instead of reproducing Rough's work here, I offer the reader a substantially more accurate view of the events leading up to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. To get a proper historical perspective, the story of begins just prior to the Civil War...

Replies: @Truth Vigilante

Patrick 'Shlomo' McNally writes:

Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.
 

https://www.rt.com/usa/ron-paul-audit-the-fed/

Senator Rand Paul has also been campaigning for the Fed to be audited. To the credit of father and son, each of them did manage to get the bill to audit the Fed passed in the House on a couple of occasions.

HOWEVER, the bill was not passed in the ZOG controlled Senate, so the Fed remains unaudited to this day.
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vio2CaMW3og

As for the other untruthful assertions you've made in comment # 603 and the one before that, there are so many falsehoods you've packed into your comments that it would take too much of my valuable time to address them all.
The UR readers can easily refute them using a little common sense.

Replies: @Avery, @Patrick McNally

By: Edward Flaherty
 

Replies: @Patrick McNally

Pretzel! Where did you find all those facts? On the Federal Reserve website?

Here’s a few more:

The U.S. Approach to Central Banking
The framers of the Federal Reserve Act purposely rejected the concept of a single central bank. Instead, they provided for a central banking "system" with three salient features: (1) a central governing Board, (2) a decentralized operating structure of 12 Reserve Banks, and (3) a combination of public and private characteristics…the Federal Reserve was established to serve the public interest. [Yes, we snuck it in on December 23rd, wheneveryone was present in Congress]
There are three key entities in the Federal Reserve System… The Board of Governors, an agency of the federal government that reports to and is directly accountable to Congress, provides general guidance for the System and oversees the 12 Reserve Banks.
Within the System, certain responsibilities are shared between the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C…. While the Federal Reserve has frequent communication with executive branch and congressional officials, its decisions are made independently.
The framers of the Federal Reserve Act developed a central banking system that would broadly represent the public interest.

Best President, Ever:
Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country.When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin!You are a den of vipers and thieves.I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!”
― Andrew Jackson

He will rout them out? Does that sound familiar, Pretzel? Care to put your spin on -rout you out! Kill them all? All 6m of them?

Replies: @Patrick McNally

Patrick 'Shlomo' McNally writes:

Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.
 

https://www.rt.com/usa/ron-paul-audit-the-fed/

Senator Rand Paul has also been campaigning for the Fed to be audited. To the credit of father and son, each of them did manage to get the bill to audit the Fed passed in the House on a couple of occasions.

HOWEVER, the bill was not passed in the ZOG controlled Senate, so the Fed remains unaudited to this day.
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vio2CaMW3og

As for the other untruthful assertions you've made in comment # 603 and the one before that, there are so many falsehoods you've packed into your comments that it would take too much of my valuable time to address them all.
The UR readers can easily refute them using a little common sense.

Replies: @Avery, @Patrick McNally

> providing sourced material

Mullins doesn't really do that. Edward Flaherty wrote up a useful review of the more popular claims on this:

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

-----
By: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.

Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.

Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.

Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.

Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.

Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.

Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance?

Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

Fact: The term 'lawful money' does not refer to gold or silver coin, but to types of money which the government would permit banks to use when tabulating their reserves. These types of money included, but were not limited to, gold and silver coin.

BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.

Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.
Myth #2: The Federal Reserve Act never actually passed Congress. The Senate voted on the bill without a quorum, so the Act is null and void.
Myth# 3: The Federal Reserve Act and paper money are unconstitutional.
Myth# 4: The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank.
Myth #5: The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners.
Myth #6: The Federal Reserve has never been audited.
Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use.
Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.
Myth #9: President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power. Executive Order 11,110 proves it.
Myth #10. The Legendary Tirade of Louis T. McFadden
-----

Replies: @Been_there_done_that, @Truth Vigilante, @Tiptoethrutulips

> providing sourced material

Mullins doesn't really do that. Edward Flaherty wrote up a useful review of the more popular claims on this:

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

-----
By: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.

Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.

Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.

Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.

Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.

Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.

Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance?

Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

Fact: The term 'lawful money' does not refer to gold or silver coin, but to types of money which the government would permit banks to use when tabulating their reserves. These types of money included, but were not limited to, gold and silver coin.

BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.

Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.
Myth #2: The Federal Reserve Act never actually passed Congress. The Senate voted on the bill without a quorum, so the Act is null and void.
Myth# 3: The Federal Reserve Act and paper money are unconstitutional.
Myth# 4: The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank.
Myth #5: The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners.
Myth #6: The Federal Reserve has never been audited.
Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use.
Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.
Myth #9: President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power. Executive Order 11,110 proves it.
Myth #10. The Legendary Tirade of Louis T. McFadden
-----

Replies: @Been_there_done_that, @Truth Vigilante, @Tiptoethrutulips

> providing sourced material

Mullins doesn't really do that. Edward Flaherty wrote up a useful review of the more popular claims on this:

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

-----
By: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.

Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.

Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.

Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.

Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.

Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.

Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance?

Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

Fact: The term 'lawful money' does not refer to gold or silver coin, but to types of money which the government would permit banks to use when tabulating their reserves. These types of money included, but were not limited to, gold and silver coin.

BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.

Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.
Myth #2: The Federal Reserve Act never actually passed Congress. The Senate voted on the bill without a quorum, so the Act is null and void.
Myth# 3: The Federal Reserve Act and paper money are unconstitutional.
Myth# 4: The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank.
Myth #5: The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners.
Myth #6: The Federal Reserve has never been audited.
Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use.
Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.
Myth #9: President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power. Executive Order 11,110 proves it.
Myth #10. The Legendary Tirade of Louis T. McFadden
-----

Replies: @Been_there_done_that, @Truth Vigilante, @Tiptoethrutulips

The problem is that Mullins was a notorious fraud who just “made stuff up”
 

Replies: @Patrick McNally

You wrote:

J.P. Morgan’s personal affiliation with the House of Rothschild dated back to 1899, from which point he represented Rothschild interests in the United States
 

After studying at Göttingen and thus completing his education, J.P. Morgan went to London in August 1857 to join his father [Junius], now a partner in the merchant banking firm George Peabody & Co.
For the next fourteen years, he worked as his father's American representative in a series of affiliate banking houses, learning the trade and lifestyle of a bank partner: Duncan, Sherman & Company (1858–60), his own firm J. Pierpont Morgan & Co. (1860–64), and finally Dabney Morgan (1864–72).

The railway boom ended in 1857 and prices collapsed, leading to rumours in London that Peabody & Co. was on the verge of failure.
Some of Peabody's largest clients suspended business or failed entirely, and Duncan Sherman was unable to pay its remittances without assistance. Some of Peabody's own creditors, including rival Barings Bank, demanded immediate payment on their debts.

Peabody declined a conditional bailout from the major London houses which would have closed the firm, instead receiving an emergency line of credit of £800,000 from the Bank of England.
 

Morgan also profited in gold after specie payments were suspended in 1862; its price was largely pegged to the possibility of a Union victory.
In October 1863, he and Edward B. Ketchum transferred $1.15 million (equivalent to $20,287,000 in 2021) in gold to England, forcing a price spike and allowing both men to sell their holdings at a large profit.
Critics have long considered the deal a speculative effort to corner the American gold market and evidence of Morgan's insensitivity to the nation's financial situation, although the economic consequences were ultimately minor.
 

Replies: @Patrick McNally

Replies: @Anon, @Truth Vigilante, @mulga mumblebrain

Go back to to your ghetto housing in South Side Chicago. The entire ‘narrative’ that Fentanyl Floyd was killed at the hands of Derek Chauvin has been overturned by the evidence that has recently come out which said that asphyxiation played no role in his death. That big goon had enough Fentanyl in his system to kill a horse! All the medical assistance, liberal pampering, and crocodile tears wouldn’t have saved that criminal.

Many of us even knew at Chauvin’s trial that the evidence was incredibly weak. The jury, however, knew they had to arrive at a guilty verdict. And so it happened as many predicted.

Thus, the worthless bottom feeder criminal known as George Floyd did indeed die a “career criminal” - that is, when he wasn’t doing porn movies.

Replies: @mulga mumblebrain

Russia has been living with neighbors that she used to control, some of which share DIRECT borders with her, and which have joined NATO, for years now.
 

Replies: @24th Alabama

You do have a talent for understated humor and I trust that you will allow me to join your throng of fans. I laughed so hard I may have perforated my colon when you said that the U.S. would become “very alarmed” if Canada or Mexico joined an alliance with Russia or China. No Great Power allows a hostile force to take over a neighbor. Putin warned NATO for 20 years that moving into Ukraine would be considered an existential threat, and intolerable. Response time to a nuclear attack continues to grow shorter because of increased missile speed, now hypersonic for some. The consequences of subverting the MAD doctrine are horrible, and we can agree on that.
 

To join NATO, countries must first be offered a membership action plan, which includes a formal invitation and a tailored road map for future membership.To obtain such a plan, prospective members must first peacefully resolve outstanding international, ethnic and territorial disputes. The problem this poses is obvious: Putin can sabotage a state’s NATO bid by starting a conflict.

He’s done it before. In 2004, new Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili made accession to NATO a priority. Four years later at a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, President George W. Bush pushed for a membership action plan to be offered to Georgia. However, separatist movements in the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions served as a roadblock. Other NATO members, including France and Germany, were reluctant to extend a membership action plan under these conditions.

Seeing an opportunity, Russia invaded in August 2008. (In 2011, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev boasted that Georgia would have already become a NATO member had Russia chosen not to attack.) Putin may have invaded the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, grabbing it from Ukraine, for similar reasons. By now, using force to thwart NATO bids is a standard play for Russia.
 

Replies: @Truth Vigilante, @Iris, @24th Alabama

You do have a talent for understated humor and I trust that you will allow me to join your throng of fans. I laughed so hard I may have perforated my colon when you said that the U.S. would become “very alarmed” if Canada or Mexico joined an alliance with Russia or China. No Great Power allows a hostile force to take over a neighbor. Putin warned NATO for 20 years that moving into Ukraine would be considered an existential threat, and intolerable. Response time to a nuclear attack continues to grow shorter because of increased missile speed, now hypersonic for some. The consequences of subverting the MAD doctrine are horrible, and we can agree on that.
 

To join NATO, countries must first be offered a membership action plan, which includes a formal invitation and a tailored road map for future membership.To obtain such a plan, prospective members must first peacefully resolve outstanding international, ethnic and territorial disputes. The problem this poses is obvious: Putin can sabotage a state’s NATO bid by starting a conflict.

He’s done it before. In 2004, new Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili made accession to NATO a priority. Four years later at a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, President George W. Bush pushed for a membership action plan to be offered to Georgia. However, separatist movements in the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions served as a roadblock. Other NATO members, including France and Germany, were reluctant to extend a membership action plan under these conditions.

Seeing an opportunity, Russia invaded in August 2008. (In 2011, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev boasted that Georgia would have already become a NATO member had Russia chosen not to attack.) Putin may have invaded the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, grabbing it from Ukraine, for similar reasons. By now, using force to thwart NATO bids is a standard play for Russia.
 

Replies: @Truth Vigilante, @Iris, @24th Alabama

You do have a talent for understated humor and I trust that you will allow me to join your throng of fans. I laughed so hard I may have perforated my colon when you said that the U.S. would become “very alarmed” if Canada or Mexico joined an alliance with Russia or China. No Great Power allows a hostile force to take over a neighbor. Putin warned NATO for 20 years that moving into Ukraine would be considered an existential threat, and intolerable. Response time to a nuclear attack continues to grow shorter because of increased missile speed, now hypersonic for some. The consequences of subverting the MAD doctrine are horrible, and we can agree on that.
 

To join NATO, countries must first be offered a membership action plan, which includes a formal invitation and a tailored road map for future membership.To obtain such a plan, prospective members must first peacefully resolve outstanding international, ethnic and territorial disputes. The problem this poses is obvious: Putin can sabotage a state’s NATO bid by starting a conflict.

He’s done it before. In 2004, new Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili made accession to NATO a priority. Four years later at a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, President George W. Bush pushed for a membership action plan to be offered to Georgia. However, separatist movements in the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions served as a roadblock. Other NATO members, including France and Germany, were reluctant to extend a membership action plan under these conditions.

Seeing an opportunity, Russia invaded in August 2008. (In 2011, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev boasted that Georgia would have already become a NATO member had Russia chosen not to attack.) Putin may have invaded the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, grabbing it from Ukraine, for similar reasons. By now, using force to thwart NATO bids is a standard play for Russia.
 

Replies: @Truth Vigilante, @Iris, @24th Alabama

In fact, some high ranking officers in the Russian nationalist camp actually doubted invading Ukraine would be in Russia's best interests.
in the book 'Russo-Ukrainian War' by Serhii Plokhy, one reads:

But there were also those in the Russian nationalist camp who did not believe that the war between the Russians and Ukrainians was a good idea.The head of the All-Russian Officer Assembly, Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, published an open letter to Putin opposing the war on the grounds of Russian national interest and Slavic unity.

“The use of military force against Ukraine will, in the first place, put into question the existence of Russia itself as a state,” wrote Ivashov. “Secondly, it will make Russians and Ukrainians mortal enemies forever. Thirdly, thousands (tens of thousands) of healthy young men will perish on both sides, and that will unquestionably affect the future demographic situation in our countries, which are dying out.”35

 

 

 

Replies: @24th Alabama

You do have a talent for understated humor and I trust that you will allow me to join your throng of fans. I laughed so hard I may have perforated my colon when you said that the U.S. would become "very alarmed" if Canada or Mexico joined an alliance with Russia or China.

No Great Power allows a hostile force to take over a neighbor. Putin warned NATO for 20 years that moving into Ukraine would be considered an existential threat, and intolerable. Response time to a nuclear attack continues to grow shorter because of increased missile speed, now hypersonic for some. The consequences of subverting the MAD doctrine are horrible, and we can agree on that.

The Neocons, Ziocons and Merchants of Death decided to sacrifice the Ukrainians in an unwinnable War in order to weaken Christian Russia, an act of Jewish revenge against the Slavs.

NATO also was able to get rid of obsolete weapons and obtain more money for research and manufacturing of new weapons. The MIC Beast must be fed so it may disgorge its blood money back to members of Congress in an endless cycle of corruption

Your valiant effort to not convince me of anything has been a success.

Replies: @L.K, @L.K

You do have a talent for understated humor and I trust that you will allow me to join your throng of fans. I laughed so hard I may have perforated my colon when you said that the U.S. would become "very alarmed" if Canada or Mexico joined an alliance with Russia or China.

No Great Power allows a hostile force to take over a neighbor. Putin warned NATO for 20 years that moving into Ukraine would be considered an existential threat, and intolerable. Response time to a nuclear attack continues to grow shorter because of increased missile speed, now hypersonic for some. The consequences of subverting the MAD doctrine are horrible, and we can agree on that.

The Neocons, Ziocons and Merchants of Death decided to sacrifice the Ukrainians in an unwinnable War in order to weaken Christian Russia, an act of Jewish revenge against the Slavs.

NATO also was able to get rid of obsolete weapons and obtain more money for research and manufacturing of new weapons. The MIC Beast must be fed so it may disgorge its blood money back to members of Congress in an endless cycle of corruption

Your valiant effort to not convince me of anything has been a success.

Replies: @L.K, @L.K

Just for the record, as I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

If the shoe was on the other foot, with China or Russia extending a military alliance led by them to Canada or Mexico, would the US become very alarmed? Obviously.
From a US imperial perspective, NATO expansion eastwards was certainly not necessary and provocative. From the perspective of the those European countries which had experienced first hand Russian imperialism, you know, as in Russia built the third largest Empire in history, they truly fear Russia and it makes perfect sense for them to desire joining NATO.

Another factor beyond the security architecture is Russia's jealously of any country butting into their so called near abroad, made up of nations that became independent after the internal collapse of the Soviet Union. This includes increasing Chinese influence over the Stans.

But practically though, from a security viewpoint, Russia does not face any real threat from the US/NATO in terms of a conventional attack. The US would not ever attempt such a move.
The potential risk for Russia is if the Americans were to place nuclear tipped missiles in these Central/Eastern European countries, making the US get an advantage in some sort of end of the world scenario contemplating a nuclear first strike.
Russian military and political leadership must necessarily consider such a scenario. That said, the notion of Ukraine becoming a launch pad for the US is far-fetched, since the only NATO countries housing US nukes today are Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, i.e, none of the countries that joined NATO after the Cold War have them. In fact, during the ongoing war in Ukraine, the US administration has been reluctant to provide even heavier/longer ranged weapon systems and munitions to Ukraine, and done so piecemeal, diminishing the impact. A constant fear is that such conventional weapons could be used to hit inside Russia and escalate the situation.

Bottom line; Russia was NOT facing an immediate existential threat at all, not in the real sense. For instance, when Germany attacked the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, the threat Germany was facing was real and immediate, as German intel had picked up on the enourmous Soviet military buildup in its rear, as Germany struggled with a war it had failed to finish with the British, knowing the Americans were just wating in the wings. What the Germans did was indeed a preemptive strike, what the Russians have done in Ukraine does not qualify as such. It was a choice.

Replies: @24th Alabama, @Truth Vigilante

The problem is that Mullins was a notorious fraud who just “made stuff up”

Citation?
 

One example of where Mullins appears to just make stuff up is his essay on the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh’s son. Mullins claims it was a Jewish ritual murder. The target makes sense. The timing was right. But he gives no evidence.
 

How could that be true when the kidnapping took place on March 1, 1932? This was 11 months before Hitler took power and more than a year before the much-dramatized statement of Samuel Untermeyer to the effect of “Judea Declares on Germany!” Mullins was projecting backwards in time. If the kidnapping had happened in 1940 then this would make more sense.
 

From what I’ve heard, Mullins had a terrible reputation within the ultra-rightwing anti-semitic conspiracy-community for just making stuff up. Perhaps he was a lot like Larry Romanoff, whose articles I publish on this website. Romanoff also just makes stuff up.

I take a tremendous amount of time and effort to try to get the facts correct in my own articles and I’ll admit that writers who “just make stuff up” greatly irritate me.

However, I’ll also admit that the articles I write would be much more “exciting” if I just made up important facts as I went along
 

Replies: @Been_there_done_that, @Brosi

The problem is that Mullins was a notorious fraud who just “made stuff up”

Citation?
 

One example of where Mullins appears to just make stuff up is his essay on the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh’s son. Mullins claims it was a Jewish ritual murder. The target makes sense. The timing was right. But he gives no evidence.
 

How could that be true when the kidnapping took place on March 1, 1932? This was 11 months before Hitler took power and more than a year before the much-dramatized statement of Samuel Untermeyer to the effect of “Judea Declares on Germany!” Mullins was projecting backwards in time. If the kidnapping had happened in 1940 then this would make more sense.
 

From what I’ve heard, Mullins had a terrible reputation within the ultra-rightwing anti-semitic conspiracy-community for just making stuff up. Perhaps he was a lot like Larry Romanoff, whose articles I publish on this website. Romanoff also just makes stuff up.

I take a tremendous amount of time and effort to try to get the facts correct in my own articles and I’ll admit that writers who “just make stuff up” greatly irritate me.

However, I’ll also admit that the articles I write would be much more “exciting” if I just made up important facts as I went along
 

Replies: @Been_there_done_that, @Brosi

For instance, based on the history of their establishment, such names as Morgan, Peabody, Brown, Harriman, were intertwined with the London-based Rothschild interests, as described in a revealing book by Mullins.
 

Replies: @Brosi

During the WWI era, Jews had relatively limited control over the American media, and Zionist Jews virtually none at all.

That seems reasonable. But the question is, when exactly in the interwar period did that turning point happen? From what I’ve read by the time WWII had started their influence was already very strong.
 

Replies: @Wokechoke

Extermination now, is what the Jews teach their children.
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2023/11/21/israeli-state-tv-video-shows-children-singing-about-gaza

And when they are done, make no mistake, they will be coming for you.
because Jews believe that non-Jews are subhuman.

This conflict did not start in 2023. It started in 1948.

There is no "war" in Gaza. Only slaughter.

Replies: @mulga mumblebrain

Just for the record, as I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

If the shoe was on the other foot, with China or Russia extending a military alliance led by them to Canada or Mexico, would the US become very alarmed? Obviously.
From a US imperial perspective, NATO expansion eastwards was certainly not necessary and provocative. From the perspective of the those European countries which had experienced first hand Russian imperialism, you know, as in Russia built the third largest Empire in history, they truly fear Russia and it makes perfect sense for them to desire joining NATO.

Another factor beyond the security architecture is Russia's jealously of any country butting into their so called near abroad, made up of nations that became independent after the internal collapse of the Soviet Union. This includes increasing Chinese influence over the Stans.

But practically though, from a security viewpoint, Russia does not face any real threat from the US/NATO in terms of a conventional attack. The US would not ever attempt such a move.
The potential risk for Russia is if the Americans were to place nuclear tipped missiles in these Central/Eastern European countries, making the US get an advantage in some sort of end of the world scenario contemplating a nuclear first strike.
Russian military and political leadership must necessarily consider such a scenario. That said, the notion of Ukraine becoming a launch pad for the US is far-fetched, since the only NATO countries housing US nukes today are Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, i.e, none of the countries that joined NATO after the Cold War have them. In fact, during the ongoing war in Ukraine, the US administration has been reluctant to provide even heavier/longer ranged weapon systems and munitions to Ukraine, and done so piecemeal, diminishing the impact. A constant fear is that such conventional weapons could be used to hit inside Russia and escalate the situation.

Bottom line; Russia was NOT facing an immediate existential threat at all, not in the real sense. For instance, when Germany attacked the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, the threat Germany was facing was real and immediate, as German intel had picked up on the enourmous Soviet military buildup in its rear, as Germany struggled with a war it had failed to finish with the British, knowing the Americans were just wating in the wings. What the Germans did was indeed a preemptive strike, what the Russians have done in Ukraine does not qualify as such. It was a choice.

Replies: @24th Alabama, @Truth Vigilante

The Hamas soldiers are patriots and are determined to free their people.
Nathan Hale's British executioners praised his bravery and resolve, and
we should be no less generous in our admiration for the courage of the
Hamas warriors.

The Jewish propaganda machine is blaming Hamas for Israeli war crimes,
which is what we would expect, but only a complete fool would believe such
misleading nonsense.

Replies: @turtle

Following your strange logic to its conclusion, Russia should not be threatened
by an American satellite on its border, and the U.S. would tolerate Canada
becoming a base for Russian missiles.

The above argument makes sense because you are anti-Zionist,
or more likely just shafted in the head.

Replies: @L.K

LOL, reacting like a self-centred prima donna drama queen is so typical of narcissistic Khazars; thanks for the confirmation. It does nothing to enhance your intellectual credibility either.

But let's talk about the topics of general interest, instead of talking about you, you and again you:

1) First, the Ukraine.
A few months back, you, alongside your supporter posting under "Twinkie", discarded MacGregor because, as you repeat, he "failed miserably in his ridiculous predictions". His forecast under discussion was essentially the KIA ratio between Ukrainians and Russian, a figure that MacGregor I think believed to be in the order of 1 to 7 in favour of Russia.

Well, what isreallyridiculous is that those, like you, who got 95% of their Ukraine forecast wrong, dare to criticise those like MacGregor who on the contrary got his right at 95%.

The most important thing MacGregor got wrong was the winter weather; ha-ha-ha. As if anybody could have known...
But more importantly, he was strong and decisive enough to state at a very early stage of the Ukraine senseless massacre that a 40-million strong country stood very little chances against a 147-million one, which also quickly turned up to be the major military industry powerhouse the West wasn't anymore.

MacGregor had all the important points right: Russia's long preparation, her seemingly infinite industrial power, and her unsurpassed mastery of modern combined armed techniques.

The Ukraine and its third army are destroyed; there will be no other "counter-offensive". The only question is how long before western Ukraine collapses under her own dead weight, which is what Putin-the- Judoka is patiently waiting for. Ukraine is ruined; the EU cannot economically pick her up, as she is herself on her way down to economic Armageddon, too.

MacGregor should be praised for having stated the obvious truth about Ukraine: she should have made the decision to save herself, instead of being instrumentalised, used as a proxy kamikaze batting ram by the US to attack Russia. Any ethical person would understand that, why don't you? Because your real wish is the destruction of Russia, while pretending to care about the Ukraine?

2) Second, Israel.
Your claimed support to the Palestinians, coupled with a strong opposition to Russia, is a fascinating combination. Fascinating for the retards who don't see the contradiction, that is.

In which imaginary world can Palestine survive and thrive, if noother superpower can oppose its might to that of Israel and America? Maybe this is possible in the obfuscation and smokescreen fantasy world set up by the Israeli "ant-Zionists", but it is not possible in the real world.

To survive and be respected, smaller nations need a balance of power to exist between mightier superpowers; any affirmation of the contrary is Talmudic pilpul.

3) Finally, commenting etiquette.
You were the first to violently insult me, to my extrem surprise, completely out of the blue, and you continued today.
Since I have had exactlyZERO interactions with you in the past, it was logical to conclude that your seemingly irrational hatred had an obscure rational cause, and that any such interaction would have occurred while you were using a sock puppet.
So don't call me a liar just because YOU are poor at keeping tabs on people you insult, and forget which pseudonymic handle you used to abuse them

Replies: @L.K

Why doesn’t Hamas unconditionally surrender and save their people?

Replies: @Blanc de Chine, @Rurik, @Truth Vigilante, @Wokechoke, @Antediluvian Doomer, @Kali, @Badger Down, @Bro43rd, @24th Alabama

On a much more superficial note, but relevant to government control of the media, Miljenko Matijevic, recorded the song,We All Die Young, for the soundtrack ofRockstar.

He said, in an interview, the song was set to be released as a single, in late September, 2001, but President Bush issued an order, after 911, to radio/publishing against certaintrigger words, such as dying, in content, so it was canned. The song was about a metaphorical death, but I remember being surprised that the governmentwould do such a thing…..I also once thought Bill Clinton wouldn’t lie outright, because he was The President of The United States of America!

I was a silly girl once; I thought most men in authority were more like my father/grandfather.

Replies: @24th Alabama

Good Q. Watching this video of the brave speech of Jordanian King Hussein at the recent Cairo Summit will tell you all you need to know. Look at the Arab leaders in the background. Can you imagine a more clueless and corrupt bunch of paid for and bought ZOG whores?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mGz7McMCTo

Queen Rania of Jordan (herself a Palestinian) does a magnificent job fending off the rude and insulting Qs of Zionist whorepologist Christine Amanpour of CNN:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlOdM-qPCUI

Replies: @Wokechoke, @Malla, @NK

In your quote from “America’s Greatest Blunder” by Burton Yale Pines, writing about who was responsible for the U.S. entry into WWI:

[Charles] Beard found the American public, focused on the desire to export its products, bearing ultimate responsibility.
 

Replies: @Truth Vigilante, @Mark Hunter, @Tiptoethrutulips

Replies: @Sir Launcelot Canning, @Mao ZeDong, @Poupon Marx

Zionism is Racism
Free Palestine
Communist Revolutionary Group
 

while Europe outwardly appeared to be slowly moving towards an improving future on the path which for eighteen centuries had served it well, in the Talmudic areas of Russia Zionism joined Communism as the second of the two forces which were to intercept that process.

Communism was designed to subvert the masses; it was the “great popular movement”...by means of which “the secret societies” were to work in unison for the disruption of Europe.Zionism set out to subvert rulers at the top. Neither force could have moved forward without the other, for rulers of unimpaired authority would have checked the revolution as it had been checked in 1848.

Zionism was essentially the rejoinder of the Talmudic centre in Russia to the emancipation of Jews in the West. It was the intimation that they must not involve themselves in mankind but must remain apart.
 

Replies: @Trinity, @Z-man, @Poupon Marx, @Poupon Marx

In your quote from “America’s Greatest Blunder” by Burton Yale Pines, writing about who was responsible for the U.S. entry into WWI:

[Charles] Beard found the American public, focused on the desire to export its products, bearing ultimate responsibility.
 

Replies: @Truth Vigilante, @Mark Hunter, @Tiptoethrutulips

In your quote from “America’s Greatest Blunder” by Burton Yale Pines, writing about who was responsible for the U.S. entry into WWI:

[Charles] Beard found the American public, focused on the desire to export its products, bearing ultimate responsibility.
 

Replies: @Truth Vigilante, @Mark Hunter, @Tiptoethrutulips

I used to have more faith in the notion that the Zionists had been the ones mostly responsible for dragging the US into the Great War. No longer is this the case. Just the other day I was reading a book, I think it might have been volume I of Alan Hart's excellent Zionism trilogy... anyways, the early Zionists often exaggerated their influence to get traction for their project. For instance; they would approach the Ottoman Turkish government with promises of getting their foreign debt written off and other stuff, which they actually could not do. The Turks listened but were not convinced.
As for the US' s entry into the war, it seems to have been mostly due to the efforts of the British lobby and of America's own economic interests.
In the book 'Nothing Less Than War: A New History of America's Entry into World War I', the US professor/historian, Justus Doenecke, writes:

In 1936 historian Charles A. Beard wrote The Devil Theory of War, based on a series of articles he had written for the New Republic. The Columbia historian, prowar in 1917, showed himself fiercely anti-interventionist two decades later.He aptly argued that only radical changes in America’s economic system, centering on the necessity of absorbing industrial and agricultural surpluses at home, could have served as an alternative policy. Rather than blame bankers, “politicians,” and munitions-makers, as many opinion leaders of his time were doing, Beard found the American public, focused on the desire to export its products, bearing ultimate responsibility.1 He titled one chapter “War Is Our Own Work.”
 

Yet mediation’s failure, the exposure of German spies and the fall of Russian Tsardom, even all together, would not have propelled America into war in spring 1917. Of much greater, determining weight were three other factors:
*The first was the mounting economic dependence of a now prospering America on sales to Britain, France and Russia. The war was spiking American exports, which soared from $691 million in 1913 to $4.333 billion for the twelve months ending June 1916, the vast bulk of this heading for Allied ports. Simply put, many influential Americans were concluding that the nation’s economy could not survive an Allied defeat or even setback.
* A second was the so-called “Preparedness Movement,” launched right after the war began. Mainly an ad hoc, volunteer affair, it sought to bolster the nation’s anemic military by training citizens to fight and by increasing defense spending—just in case America found itself at war. As preparedness advocates stumped the country and paraded in cities pleading for readiness and a bigger army and navy, indirectly they were making the case for and winning converts to the necessity of America joining the war.
* Last, and the most significant factor in the immediate sense, was Germany’s expansion of submarine warfare. [...]
 

Replies: @Tiptoethrutulips, @Been_there_done_that, @Iris, @Mark Hunter

I have to admit that it is funny and, at the same time, a bit creepy to notice how I live rent-free in your corrupt little brain.
You are one of the most intellectually dishonest people posting regularly at Unz.
You have ridiculously accused me of being an Israeli and a Zionist, merely for not being a Russian bootlicker & propagandist such as yourself and daring to condemn Russia's violation of international law as it invaded Ukraine again in early 22. In fact, when Russia first invaded Ukraine and illegally annexed Crimea, I myself tried to justify what the Russians had done right here at Unz. There is a record of that, you know, stupid? But I realized I was in error, since one cannot support international law, as I do, selectively, as you do, and not be a hypocrite. So I reassessed my position. Since I am on record, here at Unz and elsewhere, denouncing Israel's crimes, including taking foreign land by force, be it Palestinian, Lebanese, or Syrian, or US criminal invasions and proxy wars, I cannot condone what Russia has done.

You have lied about me many times because you wish to character-assassinate me, counting on the fact that most people won't check the record of my posts here at Unz. I started before you did, if memory serves, posting predominantly under Giraldi's pieces. In the last few years, life, time constraints and a decision to waste less of whatever free time I get have made me comment only very rarely.
From the record of my posts, folks would learn that this 'Khazar' here is:
- of mixed German and Italian ethnicity.
-100% against Zionism and Israel, which I have stated should not have been created at all.
- fully supportive of the Palestinian people, including their rights to armed resistance.
I am also a fan of Lebanese Hezbollah and its Secretary General, at this point, he is perhaps the only politician I hold in high regard.
- highly critical of Jewish power in general.
- a harsh critic of the so-called Jewish holocaust story, which I have denounced many times as being largely atrocity propaganda concocted by the Allies and the Jews. In fact, I'm a harsh critic of both World War 'histories' more broadly; in both cases, one gets a lot more biased propaganda than scientific history.
- a critic of the official 9/11 story, but more importantly, of how the many Zionist footprints at the crime scene have been almost entirely ignored. Of course, that does not mean I'm going along with your ridiculous 'nuclear bombs destroyed the WTC buildings', since this is just disinfo to make 9/11 skeptics look like a bunch of cranks, which pisses you off further.

But what about your “insightful” claims from a few months ago about Ukraine winning and Russia losing the war?
 

Replies: @Wokechoke, @mulga mumblebrain, @Truth Vigilante, @24th Alabama, @Iris

I have to admit that it is funny and, at the same time, a bit creepy to notice how I live rent-free in your corrupt little brain.
You are one of the most intellectually dishonest people posting regularly at Unz.
You have ridiculously accused me of being an Israeli and a Zionist, merely for not being a Russian bootlicker & propagandist such as yourself and daring to condemn Russia's violation of international law as it invaded Ukraine again in early 22. In fact, when Russia first invaded Ukraine and illegally annexed Crimea, I myself tried to justify what the Russians had done right here at Unz. There is a record of that, you know, stupid? But I realized I was in error, since one cannot support international law, as I do, selectively, as you do, and not be a hypocrite. So I reassessed my position. Since I am on record, here at Unz and elsewhere, denouncing Israel's crimes, including taking foreign land by force, be it Palestinian, Lebanese, or Syrian, or US criminal invasions and proxy wars, I cannot condone what Russia has done.

You have lied about me many times because you wish to character-assassinate me, counting on the fact that most people won't check the record of my posts here at Unz. I started before you did, if memory serves, posting predominantly under Giraldi's pieces. In the last few years, life, time constraints and a decision to waste less of whatever free time I get have made me comment only very rarely.
From the record of my posts, folks would learn that this 'Khazar' here is:
- of mixed German and Italian ethnicity.
-100% against Zionism and Israel, which I have stated should not have been created at all.
- fully supportive of the Palestinian people, including their rights to armed resistance.
I am also a fan of Lebanese Hezbollah and its Secretary General, at this point, he is perhaps the only politician I hold in high regard.
- highly critical of Jewish power in general.
- a harsh critic of the so-called Jewish holocaust story, which I have denounced many times as being largely atrocity propaganda concocted by the Allies and the Jews. In fact, I'm a harsh critic of both World War 'histories' more broadly; in both cases, one gets a lot more biased propaganda than scientific history.
- a critic of the official 9/11 story, but more importantly, of how the many Zionist footprints at the crime scene have been almost entirely ignored. Of course, that does not mean I'm going along with your ridiculous 'nuclear bombs destroyed the WTC buildings', since this is just disinfo to make 9/11 skeptics look like a bunch of cranks, which pisses you off further.

But what about your “insightful” claims from a few months ago about Ukraine winning and Russia losing the war?
 

Replies: @Wokechoke, @mulga mumblebrain, @Truth Vigilante, @24th Alabama, @Iris

OK a lot of what you say there is credible, but the bottom line of Jewish newspapers somehow misleading at least the educated public in St. Petersburg etc. doesn't make sense. The complete and honest truth (with no exaggeration at all) of the humiliating catastrophes in the war with Japan was quite disastrous enough as it was.

Replies: @Suetonious

I have to admit that it is funny and, at the same time, a bit creepy to notice how I live rent-free in your corrupt little brain.
You are one of the most intellectually dishonest people posting regularly at Unz.
You have ridiculously accused me of being an Israeli and a Zionist, merely for not being a Russian bootlicker & propagandist such as yourself and daring to condemn Russia's violation of international law as it invaded Ukraine again in early 22. In fact, when Russia first invaded Ukraine and illegally annexed Crimea, I myself tried to justify what the Russians had done right here at Unz. There is a record of that, you know, stupid? But I realized I was in error, since one cannot support international law, as I do, selectively, as you do, and not be a hypocrite. So I reassessed my position. Since I am on record, here at Unz and elsewhere, denouncing Israel's crimes, including taking foreign land by force, be it Palestinian, Lebanese, or Syrian, or US criminal invasions and proxy wars, I cannot condone what Russia has done.

You have lied about me many times because you wish to character-assassinate me, counting on the fact that most people won't check the record of my posts here at Unz. I started before you did, if memory serves, posting predominantly under Giraldi's pieces. In the last few years, life, time constraints and a decision to waste less of whatever free time I get have made me comment only very rarely.
From the record of my posts, folks would learn that this 'Khazar' here is:
- of mixed German and Italian ethnicity.
-100% against Zionism and Israel, which I have stated should not have been created at all.
- fully supportive of the Palestinian people, including their rights to armed resistance.
I am also a fan of Lebanese Hezbollah and its Secretary General, at this point, he is perhaps the only politician I hold in high regard.
- highly critical of Jewish power in general.
- a harsh critic of the so-called Jewish holocaust story, which I have denounced many times as being largely atrocity propaganda concocted by the Allies and the Jews. In fact, I'm a harsh critic of both World War 'histories' more broadly; in both cases, one gets a lot more biased propaganda than scientific history.
- a critic of the official 9/11 story, but more importantly, of how the many Zionist footprints at the crime scene have been almost entirely ignored. Of course, that does not mean I'm going along with your ridiculous 'nuclear bombs destroyed the WTC buildings', since this is just disinfo to make 9/11 skeptics look like a bunch of cranks, which pisses you off further.