Confessions of An ‘Economic Hitman’, and Other Animations

Excellent animations, I rlly liked them and I’m thinking now on people that would appreciate it.

Greetings from Chile

All very well but what is far more critical to consider is the long standing role of (mostly CIA trained) terrorist groups and narcotics traffickers, played like chess pieces and far more effective in US geostrategy than any predatory loan.

Sorry, I don’t mean to detract from the work. The animations are certainly very good.

@Zainil:

Hmmm…

===>
On 29 October Edmond de Rothschild dies in Geneva. Interestingly on the exact same day Anton Szandor LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan also dies, who in his book, “Satan Speaks,” he states in relation to The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion,

“The first time I read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, my instinctive reaction was, So what’s wrong with THAT? Isn’t that the way any master plan should work? Doesn’t the public deserve – nay, demand – such despotism?”
<===

I think there also is a JOHO video for that…:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btKIxyrMp2M

True Oyvind

This type of stuff does not sit well with me either.

@ Leigh- No offence Leigh, but by your comment, you have not read the link. It is not some monetary loan or the small scale scandals of one person (@ Oyvind).. it is much greater than that. Please read it. I would like to hear your feedback.

Oyvind and pj, it is good that it does not sit well with you. You have a conscience! I know there is nothing we can do. Nothing, but be opened eyed.
‘Do not conform to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.’
(This scripture means a whole lot more than what it can mean here, but it felt appropriate.)

Keryn,

This is important. So I have to say a few words here to put things into perspective.

“iamthewitness.com” is an anonymously registered domain which hosts all sorts of material that makes zionism appear in a bad light. Now, for every -ism, there is quite valid criticism, so that in itself may not be an issue. The big problem, however, is that this site just hosts a potpourri (but with a rather funny fragrance) of weird material, quite a lot of it evidently fake, quite a lot of it about producing hate.

Yes, the death of Rachel Corrie – for example – is an issue more people should know about. I agree with that. But look at what else this site hosts. In particular, let us take a look at “The Protocols”. Let me just at random pick out chapter 12:

https://iamthewitness.com/Protocols-in-Modern-English.htm#protocol12

Also, let us take a look at something that may seem quite unrelated at first – the English translation of an 1864 French satirical book by Maurice Joly: “Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu – or – the Politics of Machiavelli in the 19th Century, by a Contemporary”. Specifically, let us take a look at chapter 12 there:

https://www.notbored.org/dialogue-in-hell.html

(Twelfth Dialogue: The Press)
===
Machiavelli: (…)
It is in the following categories of newspapers that the most powerful levers of my power would be found. Here the official or unofficial tone would be completely lost — in appearance, of course — because the newspapers of which I speak would all be attached by the same chain to my government: a visible chain for some; an invisible one to others. I would not undertake to tell you what would be their number, because I would assign a dedicated organ to each opinion, in each party; I would have an aristocratic organ in the aristocratic party, a republican organ in the republican party, a revolutionary organ in the revolutionary party, an anarchist organ — if need be — in the anarchist party. Like the God Vishnu, my press would have a hundred arms and these arms would place their hands upon all the nuances of opinion throughout the entire country. One would be of my party without knowing it. Those who believe they speak their language would [actually] be speaking mine; those who believe they were acting in their party would be acting in mine; those who believe they were marching under their flag would be marching under mine.
===

Now, the “Protocols” – protocol 12, “Control of the Media”

===
12. Our newspapers will be of all possible complexions – aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical – for only as long, of course, as the constitution exists… Like the Indian idol “Vishnu” they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required.

When an emotive issue arises, these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims; for an excited person loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will actually be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us.

In the vain belief that they are following the ideology of their party they will, in fact, be following the flag that we have hang out for them.
===

aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, anarchist – even the order and selection, and the strange reference to Vishnu are the same. Now if that’s not a clear indication of plagiarism then I don’t know. But look deeper yourself and study both documents closer – you will find far more evidence that the “Protocols” are just a plagiarized variant of political satire which was not at all about jews or zionism, re-dressed a bit so that this material can serve as anti-jewish hate propaganda, and seasoned with small bits of material from other similar sources.

Now, I won’t say that there isn’t the odd jewish media mogul who uses his power to silence anti-jewish remarks. After all, people are just people, and such things happen just as well as we see the odd University president using his political connections to get some regulations changed that would have made his daughter repeat a year at school, etc. And yes, it is well known and well documented that e.g. the Axel Springer Press in Germany has it as a clause in their journalist employment contracts that their staff must be pro-israel in their reports(*). But please, please, let’s use a little bit of common sense when evaluating the validity and credibility of sources.

In particular in these times – and the time we are heading into – what we need most of all is good judgment, for this is the basis of good decisions. And in the future, bad decisions will have much more dramatic consequences than they do today. There are so many strange guys around proposing very strange ideas, and by and large, people have not been shown how to use reliable compasses to learn what they better should not believe in and what might actually be sound. For example, I’ve come to the conclusion that taking, say, Mike Ruppert too serious would be a mistake, given that he e.g. demonstrated very poor judgment with the gulf oil spill issue. It’s not that he wouldn’t occasionally have a few useful ideas, but by and large, he has just as little a clue as pretty much everybody else. Another guy who demonstrably has very little clue about how things work is Alex Jones, by the way. Do a bit of research on the Mims-Pianka case and his reporting of the issue.

(*) https://web.archive.org/web/20080712230551/https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060507-2.html –
“Q BILD has 12 million readers. It’s the largest newspaper in Germany. And there’s one thing which is really special about our newspaper — every German who wants to work for the newspaper, he has to sign in his working contrasts some beliefs — and there’s the belief you have to be for reunification, you have to be against totalitarianism from riots on the right side and the left side, and you have to be for the peace and for the understanding with Israel, and, since September 11th, we have a new belief — you have to be for partnership with America. Otherwise, you can’t work for us, you can’t come — you have to sign it in your contract.” – now, an interview hosted on whitehouse.gov is a different kind of source, isn’t it?

Keryn,

it’s all about “what sources can be trusted”.

ad the interview – hearing it from the horse’s mouth, in this case the editor-in-chief of a major newspaper, reported by the place where the interview happened, that this news outlet has a strong pro-israel political agenda, makes a clear case, I would say. Likewise, if David Rockefeller writes in his autobiography:

===
For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
===

that is also quite an interesting statement. Note that here again, the man himself is the source. By and large, you will find that (a) people with a big agenda usually are very open about the way they see the world (like Rockefeller), and (b) the most effective “conspiracies” are always those whose members do not recognize the “conspiracy” as such. A group of friends who occasionally meet at the golf course – that kind of thing. But a secret Jewish conspiracy for world government – as the source you brought up claims to clearly see? Well, if it existed, wouldn’t that immediately raise the question which Jews were permitted to know about its existence and which weren’t? You perhaps wouldn’t want Uri Avnery to know about it, say. I’d even claim that sensitive knowledge about “a plan for world domination” if some such thing ever existed necessarily would have to be confined to small groups. But how then could it possibly be “the conspiracy of one nation against all others” – as claimed by antisemitists like those running the website you mentioned?

Concerning the “dialogue in hell”, I don’t remember exactly why it was written, but I think the author was just extremely pissed off by the politics of Napoleon III, and exaggerated things a bit hoping he would open some people’s eyes. Well, of course, when it comes to “political novels” that describe an extremely unpleasant world, there certainly is the problem that some politicians regard them as how-to manuals. George Orwell’s “1984” was forbidden literature in the German Democratic Republic, but the head of the secret state police – Mielke – liked it so much he ensured his office had the same room number as the torture chamber in “1984” (even though it would have been on the wrong floor for that).

Two general comments about such conspiracy theories: (a) most of them run counter to a very fundamental rule: you have to know when you are on the wrong track with your ideas. Alas, most conspiracy theories, when confronted with a problem of lacking evidence, just regard this as “proof that the conspiracy runs much deeper than expected”. So, when you hear people talking about how the world works, pay very close attention to whether they correct their ideas if evidence shows they are wrong. None of those waving around the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” do. Neither does e.g. Alex Jones. (b) There is a very healthy functional approach to any ideas about conspiracies: Everything works in both ways – so if you get the idea someone tries to pull some strings behind the scenes to get you moving – just pull on the same strings and see who’s drawn into the light from behind the curtains.