The WW1 Conspiracy

“If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.” — Gutle Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife.

Understanding why the World Wars were deliberately created.

Wars have always been the catalysts of massive change in human civilization since the dawn of time. Wars force people to grasp at security, to clamor for an answer in the midst of chaos, for when we are comfortable; we are complacent, rigid, and uncompromising, real change has most often come in times of desperation — hence “Order out of chaos”, or “Ordo ab chao”, a Masonic principle and motto of the 33rd degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry. Such a term states the necessity of conflict in bringing forth order, and the interchangeability of what is “good”, and what is “evil”.

The chaos (CHAO) is the society we see around us today and it is the builders who influence the leaders to manufacture this chaos so that they can conceal their creations in darkness while they work towards the light (ORDO). Without chaos there would never be order. Without darkness, there can be no light and without light there can be no darkness. What is the “AS ABOVE”, is the “SO BELOW” of this Secret Brotherhood.

The eminent banking families of the era knew this ancient principle, and swore by it (and still do):

They had (and still have) the influence to ignite major conflicts to set the scene for their brand of politics; the politics of globalization, and that is exactly what they did by funding all sides of the world wars. This was a time far more nationalistic than now, a time of many kings, not few, the real challenge of the secret Masonic Anglo-American order was conquering them all without firing a single shot of their own.

The great wars brought Europe to its knees and did away with the old order (shattering the strength of the Ottoman Empire, British Empire, Russians, Germans, etc) in exchange for the new order: the rise of the UN, the EU, and the European nations’ financial and military dependence on the Masonic globalist bankers.

Political centralization was accelerated in the disguise of being a safeguard against another great war. Later on, the Soviet Union was funded and created as an excuse to keep these globalist political institutions in place.

The Soviets were the much needed “red terror” to unite the Western nations against — for fear is one of the most compelling emotions, a great dose of which kept European nationalism subdued and the globalist vision sustained right through to present times.

How it all began.

World War one, known as the “Great War” and, most infamously, “the war to end all wars”, was one of the bloodiest conflicts in known human history. It all began with three influential men. Among some of the wealthiest individuals in British society:

  1. William T. Stead — Major English newspaper editor who, as a pioneer of investigative journalism, became a controversial figure of the Victorian era.
  2. Reginald Brett, aka Lord Esher — an éminence grise, a friend, confidante and adviser to Victoria, Edward VII, and George V. Known as one of the primary powers behind the throne of his era.
  3. Cecil Rhodes — An enormously wealthy diamond magnate, visionary, and major Rothschild affiliate, whose exploits in South Africa and ambition to transform the African continent would earn him the nickname of “colossus”.

Cecil Rhodes, who, with the Rothschild-Rhodes company, made an extortionate amount of money exploiting South Africans in the wildly profitable mining industry, would have the finances and links to start building a network of like-minded influential people prepared to further influence the course of modern history.

Rhodes was a pioneering advocate of globalization, saying of the English, “I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. I contend that every acre added to our territory means the birth of more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence.”

Rhodes was open with his ambitions, an 1890 article entitled “Mr. Rhode’s Ideal of Anglo-Saxon Greatness” was published by the aforementioned Mr. William T. Stead, who was a key publicist for Rhodes’ ideals.

The article featured the stunning subhead; “He believed a wealthy secret society should work to secure the world’s peace, and a British-American Federation.”

“(The) Idea for the development of the English-speaking race was the foundation of ‘a society copied, as to organization, from the Jesuits’.”

“We could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons to achieve the peace of the world.”

The article quotes Rhodes as saying:

“The only thing feasible to carry out this idea, is a secret society, gradually absorbing the wealth of the world.”

Here are some videos from The Corbett Report, one of the most reputable, well-researched sources of independent media:

Rhodes wanted to make the British Empire a superpower in which all of the British-dominated countries in the empire, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony, would be represented in the British Parliament. Rhodes included American students as eligible for the Rhodes scholarships. He said that he wanted to breed an American elite of philosopher-kings who would have the United States rejoin the British Empire. As Rhodes also respected and admired the Germans and their Kaiser, he allowed German students to be included in the Rhodes scholarships. He believed that eventually the United Kingdom (including Ireland), the US, and Germany together would dominate the world and ensure perpetual peace.

After Cecil Rhodes.

Rhodes left a vast sum of money in his will after his death in 1902 to various influential confidantes, in the posthumous W. T Stead published “The Last Will and Testament” of 1902, Rhode’s reasoning was outlined:

It stated that he lamented the loss of America from the British Empire and that they should formulate a secret society with the specific aim of bringing America back into the Empire. Then he lists all the countries he needs to include in this list to have world domination, to have an English-speaking union, to have British race as the enforced culture in all countries worldwide.

He sought support, funding, plans, his agenda was in place — his funds left to those he trusted, and soon after this WW1, WW2 and so forth occurred, modern history quickly took shape.

The Round Table Group.

After Rhode’s death in 1902, this secret society revealed itself slightly, revealing itself as a force for world peace. Its modus operandi was imperialism, a secretive continuation of the open imperialism of previous centuries.

The Boer war was orchestrated to consolidate Rothschild power over the resources of South Africa.

Sir Alfred Milner, a close associate of Rhodes, was instrumental in igniting the Boer War:

“I precipitated the crisis, which was inevitable before it was too late. It is not very agreeable, and in many eyes, not a very creditable piece of business to have been largely instrumental in bringing about a war.”

When W. T. Stead initially objected to the Boer War, Rhodes told him:

“You will support Milner in any measure that he may take short of war. I make no such limitation. I support Milner absolutely without reserve. If he says peace, I say peace; if he says war, I say war. Whatever happens, I say ditto to Milner.”

Rising Germany & The Pre-WW1 Days.

German ascendance in geopolitical power in Europe threatened the Masonic hegemony and world vision, in order to crush the independence of the major European powers, with Germany’s Kaiser being the most threatening, not to mention Russia’s Tsar, it required a devastating war, that war would be WW1 and the Bolshevik revolution.

Lord Esher was a close confidante of the King, a monarch with a hands-on approach to foreign diplomacy and a disdain for the rise of German power, such a sentiment dovetailed perfectly in line with the group’s aims. With insiders in Russia and France, the Triple Entente formed, the pincer that would crush Germany and, in the chaos of war, ruin the other major European nations.

In the run up to the war, the British press released story after story framing Germans as hostiles in every regard, bringing public perception in line with the goals of the master plan.

The British helped the Japanese in the 1904-05 war against Russia, another major national competitor. Japan turned to Cecil Rhodes’ co-conspirator Lord Nathan Rothschild, who supplied them with munitions, copious funds, and denied the Russians access to the Suez canal and high-quality coal, which the British did provide to the Japanese. All this helped Japan win the war.

The Japanese fleet was even constructed in Britain, but these facts did not find their way into the Milner controlled press.

When the Russian navy accidentally fired on a British fishing ship in the north sea in 1904 the British public was outraged. The British foreign office, remarkably, tried to pin this incident on the Germans, triggering a press war between the British and the Germans.

Another aggrandizement came when there were (unsubstantiated) scares over the Germans seizing Morocco, an important trade route out of the Mediterranean, once again the media spun the story to make the Germans appear the aggressors.

The Beginning of WW1.

Eventually the elite got their way when Franz Ferdinand was shot, soon after this, the series of diplomatic and political traps were sprung, controversy engulfed the political class of Europe. Not long after this Europe was at war.

In retrospect, the machinations that led to this war are a masterclass in how power really operates in society. The military compacts that committed Britain and ultimately the world to war had nothing to do with elected parliaments or representative democracy.

When Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour resigned in 1905, deft political manipulations ensured that members of The Round Table; including Herbert Henry Asquith, Edward Grey, and Richard Haldane; three men who liberal leader Henry Campbell-Bannerman privately accused of “Milner worship”, seamlessly slid into key positions in the new liberal government, and continued the strategy of German encirclement without missing a step.

In fact, the details of Britain’s military commitments to Russia and France, and even the negotiations themselves, were deliberately kept hidden from members of Parliament, and even members of the Cabinet who were not part of the secret society. It wasn’t until November 1911, a full six years into the negotiations, that the Cabinet of Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith started to learn the details of these agreements; agreements that had been repeatedly and officially denied in the press and in Parliament.

The result of the first world war achieved the intended result; to simplify the world stage and do away with the once-powerful dynasties of old, creating a power vaccum for the new order.

Aftermath.

In the aftermath of the war, four empires disappeared: the German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian. Four dynasties, together with their ancillary aristocracies, fell as a result of the war: the Romanovs, the Hohenzollerns, the Habsburgs, and the Ottomans. Yet one major dynasty still reigned supreme, the Rothschild dynasty and its affiliated ancillaries.

Soon after, the League of Nations was formed on 28 June 1919, which eventually became the UN, following WW2, this was taken yet further as the European Union was formed with a direct reference to avoiding massive war in Europe again. The EU’s main website states “The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War.” Yet it was these massive wars that were ignited to justify such a political reformation.

The same dialectic was enacted with the “War on Terror” in recent times to justify intervention in places the world order desires to control. I see no ends to such deception so long as the eminent Western banking dynasties persist.

Advertisements

Venezuela: Economic Warfare Brings Nation To Its Knees

Featured article from Mint Press News.

Which is mightier; the pen or the sword? In the case of the recent upheaval in Venezuela, the pen is the obvious answer.

The bankers fight using the pen — the pen that signs the paperwork to impose the sanctions that incur mass starvation, dissolve order, hike prices, and bring nations to their knees — Venezuela is in the crosshairs this time.

Last year, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a determination that singled out Venezuela for failing to adhere to counternarcotics obligations. The accusation came – perhaps not so coincidentally – on the same day that Venezuela declared it would no longer participate in the U.S.’ petrodollar trade system.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro made his position clear, he had stated earlier in that month that the country would look to “free” itself from the dollar within a week’s time, following the U.S.’ sanctions against the embattled nation.

The decision is similar to that once made by former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who dropped the dollar in favor of the euro a few years prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, we all know how that ended.

International markets thus far have failed to noticeably react to the policy shift, despite the threat it presents to the petrodollar system. The system, created in the 1970s, calls for OPEC nations to sell their oil in dollars in order to create artificial demand for the U.S. currency, a fiat currency based on thin air — held together by force.

Venezuela, home to the world’s largest oil reserves, is likely to exert some effect on the demand for dollars through its new policy, though the extent of the potential damage remains unclear. What is clear is that it means enough for the U.S. to declare a financial soft war in retaliation.

Millions of Venezuelans have seen their living conditions vastly improved through the Bolivarian process which shifted the focus away from compliance to the Western Banking Cartel.

The problems plaguing the Venezuelan economy are not due to some inherent fault in socialism, but to artificially low oil prices and sabotage by forces hostile to the revolution.

Starting in 2014, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia flooded the market with cheap oil. This is not a mere business decision, but a calculated move coordinated with U.S. and Israeli foreign policy goals. Despite not just losing money, but even falling deep into debt, the Saudi monarchy continues to expand its oil production apparatus. The result has been driving the price of oil down from $110 per barrel, to $28 in the early months of this year. The goal is to weaken these opponents of Wall Street, London, and Tel Aviv, whose economies are centered around oil and natural gas exports.

Venezuela is one of those countries. Saudi efforts to drive down oil prices have drastically reduced Venezuela’s state budget and led to enormous consequences for the Venezuelan economy.

At the same time, private food processing and importing corporations launched a coordinated campaign of sabotage. This, coupled with the weakening of a vitally important state sector of the economy, has resulted in inflation and food shortages. The artificially low oil prices have left the Venezuelan state cash-starved, prompting a crisis in the funding of the social programs that were key to strengthening the United Socialist Party.

Corruption is a big problem in Venezuela and many third-world countries. This was true prior to the Bolivarian process, as well as after Hugo Chavez launched his massive economic reforms. In situations of extreme poverty, people learn to take care of each other. People who work in government are almost expected to use their position to take care of their friends and family. Corruption is a big problem under any system, but it is much easier to tolerate in conditions of greater abundance. The problem has been magnified in Venezuela due to the drop in state revenue caused by the low oil prices and sabotage from food importers.

Venezuelans told of how the privatizations mandated by the International Monetary Fund made life in Venezuela almost unlivable during the 1990s. Garbage wouldn’t be collected. Electricity would go off for weeks. Haido Ortega, a member of a local governing body in Venezuela, said: “Under previous governments we had to burn tires and go on strike just to get electricity, have the streets fixed, or get any investment.”

Chavez took office on a platform advocating a path between capitalism and socialism. He restructured the government-owned oil company so that the profits would go into the Venezuelan state, not the pockets of Wall Street corporations. With the proceeds of Venezuela’s oil exports, Chavez funded a huge apparatus of social programs.

After defeating an attempted coup against him in 2002, Chavez announced the goal of bringing Venezuela toward “21st Century Socialism.” Chavez quoted Marx and Lenin in his many TV addresses to the country, and mobilized the country around the goal of creating a prosperous, non-capitalist society.

In 1998, Venezuela had only 12 public universities, today it has 32. Cuban doctors were brought to Venezuela to provide free health care in community clinics. The government provides cooking and heating gas to low-income neighborhoods, and it’s launched a literacy campaign for uneducated adults.

During the George W. Bush administration, oil prices were the highest they had ever been. The destruction of Iraq, sanctions on Iran and Russia, strikes and turmoil in Nigeria — these events created a shortage on the international markets, driving prices up.

Big oil revenues enabled Chavez and the United Socialist Party to bring millions of Venezuelans out of poverty. Between 1995 and 2009, poverty and unemployment in Venezuela were both cut in half.

After the death of Chavez, Nicolas Maduro has continued the Bolivarian program. “Housing Missions” have been built across the country, providing low-income families in Venezuela with places to live. The Venezuelan government reports that over 1 million modern apartment buildings had been constructed by the end of 2015.

The problems currently facing Venezuela started in 2014. The already growing abundance of oil due to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, was compounded by Saudi Arabia flooding the markets with cheap oil. The result: massive price drops. Despite facing a domestic fiscal crisis, Saudi Arabia continues to expand its oil production apparatus.

The price of oil remains low, as negotiations among OPEC states are taking place in the hopes that prices can be driven back up. While American media insists the low oil prices are just the natural cycle of the market at work, it’s rather convenient for U.S. foreign policy. Russia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and the Islamic Republic of Iran all have economies centered around state-owned oil companies and oil exports, and each of these countries has suffered the sting of low oil prices.

The leftist president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, has already been deposed due to scandal surrounding Petrobras, the state-owned oil company which is experiencing economic problems due to the falling price of oil. Although much of Brazil’s oil is for domestic consumption, it has been revealed that those who deposed her coordinated with the CIA and other forces in Washington and Wall Street, utilizing the economic fallout of low oil prices to bring down the Brazilian president.

The son of President Ronald Reagan has argued that Obama intentionally drove down oil prices not just to weaken the Venezuelan economy, but also to tamper the influence of Russia and Iran, Trump has continued this foreign policy.

Writing for Townhall in 2014, Michael Reagan bragged that his father did the same thing to hurt the Soviet Union during the 1980s:

“Since selling oil was the source of the Kremlin’s wealth, my father got the Saudis to flood the market with cheap oil.

Lower oil prices devalued the ruble, causing the USSR to go bankrupt, which led to perestroika and Mikhail Gorbachev and the collapse of the Soviet Empire.”

Read more here.

 

U.S. On Iran Nukes Allegations: Another Fabrication

Recently in a presentation, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu allegedly revealed the “secret atomic archive” of the Globalist opponent and the Chinese and Russian affiliated state of Iran, a nuclear weapons programme which was allegedly ended in 2003, Netanyahu claims to cite 55,000 pages of documents and another 55,000 files on 183 CDs, outlining four ways the Iranian government was lying. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the documents proved “beyond any doubt” that Iran had not told the truth.

In response to the allegations, Tehran accuses Netanyahu of lying — with an Iranian spokesman describing Mr Netanyahu as an “infamous liar who has had nothing to offer except lies and deceits”.

To bolster Iran’s counter-claim, The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says it has “no credible” evidence Iran was working on developing a nuclear “explosive device” after 2009.

Furthermore, Iran’s President, Hassan Rouhani, has described state possession of nuclear weapons as contradictory to Iran’s “fundamental religious and ethical convictions”.

Craig Murray, a British Journalist, was censored by Facebook for criticizing Israel’s hypocrisy.

Hostility between Israel and Iran, already diametric enemies, has grown as Iran builds up its military in Syria, on Israel’s doorstep in defense of Syria’s territorial sovereignty in the wake of Israeli occupation of the Golan heights and wider U.S. occupation of Syria, occupying nearly one third of Syria’s sovereign territory.

Now, the 2015 JCPOA between Iran, the US, China, Russia, Germany, France and Britain, a deal that agreed on limiting Iranian nuclear activity in return for the lifting of crippling international economic sanctions looks as if it may be coming to an end as Trump warns the US will abandon the deal on 12 May if his concerns are not addressed.

It’s too soon to say whether this will constitute an excuse to invade Iran and spark a hot conflict — but it will likely mean resumed economic sanctions on Iran for not playing ball with U.S. & Israeli foreign policy.

The U.S. loves to posit fake disarmament deals that it always breaks, gaining an independent nation’s trust then betraying said trust, sponsoring instability in said nation, advocating regime change in said nation, and, if all else fails — a false-flag backed ground invasion. The U.S. has already tried to sponsor a false uprising in Iran.

If we just look to how Iraq under Saddam Hussein received arms and support from Washington to attack and invade Iran. This de facto agreement, encouraged the Iraqi leader to assume that collaboration between nationalist Iraq and imperial Washington reflected a shared common agenda. Subsequently Baghdad believed that they had tacit US support in a territorial dispute with Kuwait. When Saddam invaded, the US bombed, devastated, invaded, occupied and partitioned Iraq.

The attempt by Iraq to collaborate with Washington in the 1980’s against its nationalist neighbor Iran, led to the invasion, the destruction of the country, the killing of thousands of secular leaders including Saddam Hussein as well as the entire secular and scientific intelligentsia, and the transformation of Iraq into a toothless vassal state of the empire.

Other examples of Washington’s duplicity in its “deal making”.

With the elections of Donald Trump, the US rejected the agreement (‘it’s the worst deal ever’) and in compliance with the Israeli Prime Minister B. Netanyahu’s military agenda, demanded the total restoration of sanctions, the dismantling of Iran’s entire military defenses and its submission to the US, Israeli and Saudi Arabian dictates in the Middle East.

In other words, President Trump discarded the agreement in opposition to all the major countries in Europe and Asia, in favor of Israel’s demands to isolate, disarm and attack Iran and impose a puppet regime in Tehran.

“The strategic goal is disarmament in order to facilitate military and political intervention leading up to and beyond defeat, occupation, regime change; the impositions of a‘client regime’ to facilitate the pillage of economic resources and the securing of military bases, international alignment with the US empire and a military springboard for further conquests against neighbors and independent adversaries.” — Prof. James Petras

These recent allegations from Israel backed by the U.S., in light of recent Iranian military posturing following the April 7th Syria strikes seems more suited to a “back off” gesture from the Western alliance, in essence, saying “we can and will hold your feet to the fire” (by reimposing crippling sanctions) over these allegations. If they have any further, graver, implications in targeting Iran — these will unfold with time.