In 1999, a seemingly innocuous speech occurred in Chicago that unveiled a new paradigm in world affairs that was dubbed “the Blair Doctrine”. In this speech, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair asserted that the realities of the new age of terrorism had rendered the respect for sovereign nation states irrelevant and obsolete requiring a superior doctrine compatible with the need to periodically bomb sovereign nations you don’t like. This new age of humanitarian bombings would be called “
It's a good thing Britain followed Article 2 in 1918, saddling Germany with crippling debts and all the guilt, even though Britain was probably more responsible for the war.
On the 27th of October, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt stood before a room full of Naval officers and bragged about a map, which he described as proof of Hitler’s expansionist plans for South America.
Just over a month before Pearl Harbor, FDR claimed that he had in his possession a secret document that vindicated his repeated warnings about the German threat to America’s sphere of influence and put the nail in the coffin of the isolationist camp in the US Congress.
Roosevelt’s secret map had been procured by agents of the British Security Coordination (BSC), a beachhead of UK intelligence based out of New York City, that purported to show how the Nazis intended to carve up South America among the Axis powers after the war.
Are you bashing FDR for the fault of being fooled by Churchill and MI6? Or are you saying that the USA should have not entered the war at all and the world would have been a better place if the Nazis had won WW2? Or are you saying that FDR was at fault for the British-managed creation of the CIA which occured 2 years after he died?
Darn, just the tone and reactive phrasing - "bashing?"
And then, the leading questions that have zero to do with the quote I put in here:
Man in the Castle I am not, friend.
And, sure, FDR has something to do with this creation of the CIA =
Roosevelt reacted enthusiastically and asserted that there should be the “closest possible marriage between the FBI and British Intelligence”. Stephenson returned immediately to report the good news to London and was just as quickly asked to take on the responsibility of presiding over the marriage himself. For the first time in his life, Stephenson balked.
In the meantime, the IIC had been dissolved and all special operations were transferred to a new entity called the Special Operations Executive (SOE). Together with the tectonic reshuffling of the British government that brought his friend Churchill back to power, Stephenson started to come around. Finally, the British Bulldog himself sat him down: “You must go”, Churchill ordered.
+--+
And accordingly, I am posting Silicon Icarus's most recent article, as a point of discussion, but saying, or implying that I wanted Nazi Germany to win?
Christ, I am an anti-fascist and anti-imperialist, so that sort of is sort of strange coming from you, Mr. Ehret. I cite some of your work in my journalism and in my Substack, as exemplary.
Your remarks are coming from serious misinformation. The quote that you have cited from FDR comes from exactly 2 sources: 1) William Stephenson, and his British establishment biographer and 2) the UK ambassador to the USA. I am aware that it has been so repeated that it has become like a gospel truth but like so many of these gossipy repeated lies, it is just that. Otherwise, you may not have been thinking that you were slandering FDR but you ignored the entire content of the essay and then latched onto one out-of-context item at the end and then criticized it using unexamined faulty assumptions and you didn't think about the implicit implications of your assumptions nor did you think about the ambiguities that your under-defined critique would create in the mind of anyone reading this quote which is why I asked the questions that I did in order to get you to clarify your remarks in order to zero in on your exact intention and identify what and where fallacies existed
What a fantastic read, thank you! The more I read the history of Europe, the more ignorant I realize I really am.
Thank you. 🙏🌹
It's a good thing Britain followed Article 2 in 1918, saddling Germany with crippling debts and all the guilt, even though Britain was probably more responsible for the war.
https://libertyuncensored.substack.com/p/parasite-showcase-1-henry-heinz-alfred
Parasite Showcase 1 - Henry "Heinz" Alfred Kissenger
Globalists, Plutocrats and Satanists Revealed
Thanks for this homework assignment. I know a lot of history but the 30 years war is a kind of blank for me.
you don't really believe that rabin was murdered by this 'radical zionist fanatic' do you?
Very interesting, Matthew. Thanks for all the work you've done.
Oh, that FDR?
On the 27th of October, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt stood before a room full of Naval officers and bragged about a map, which he described as proof of Hitler’s expansionist plans for South America.
Just over a month before Pearl Harbor, FDR claimed that he had in his possession a secret document that vindicated his repeated warnings about the German threat to America’s sphere of influence and put the nail in the coffin of the isolationist camp in the US Congress.
Roosevelt’s secret map had been procured by agents of the British Security Coordination (BSC), a beachhead of UK intelligence based out of New York City, that purported to show how the Nazis intended to carve up South America among the Axis powers after the war.
https://siliconicarus.org/2023/10/05/the-most-special-relationship-how-the-british-secret-service-created-the-cia/
Are you bashing FDR for the fault of being fooled by Churchill and MI6? Or are you saying that the USA should have not entered the war at all and the world would have been a better place if the Nazis had won WW2? Or are you saying that FDR was at fault for the British-managed creation of the CIA which occured 2 years after he died?
Darn, just the tone and reactive phrasing - "bashing?"
And then, the leading questions that have zero to do with the quote I put in here:
Man in the Castle I am not, friend.
And, sure, FDR has something to do with this creation of the CIA =
Roosevelt reacted enthusiastically and asserted that there should be the “closest possible marriage between the FBI and British Intelligence”. Stephenson returned immediately to report the good news to London and was just as quickly asked to take on the responsibility of presiding over the marriage himself. For the first time in his life, Stephenson balked.
In the meantime, the IIC had been dissolved and all special operations were transferred to a new entity called the Special Operations Executive (SOE). Together with the tectonic reshuffling of the British government that brought his friend Churchill back to power, Stephenson started to come around. Finally, the British Bulldog himself sat him down: “You must go”, Churchill ordered.
+--+
And accordingly, I am posting Silicon Icarus's most recent article, as a point of discussion, but saying, or implying that I wanted Nazi Germany to win?
Christ, I am an anti-fascist and anti-imperialist, so that sort of is sort of strange coming from you, Mr. Ehret. I cite some of your work in my journalism and in my Substack, as exemplary.
Ouch.
https://siliconicarus.org/2023/10/05/the-most-special-relationship-how-the-british-secret-service-created-the-cia/
Your remarks are coming from serious misinformation. The quote that you have cited from FDR comes from exactly 2 sources: 1) William Stephenson, and his British establishment biographer and 2) the UK ambassador to the USA. I am aware that it has been so repeated that it has become like a gospel truth but like so many of these gossipy repeated lies, it is just that. Otherwise, you may not have been thinking that you were slandering FDR but you ignored the entire content of the essay and then latched onto one out-of-context item at the end and then criticized it using unexamined faulty assumptions and you didn't think about the implicit implications of your assumptions nor did you think about the ambiguities that your under-defined critique would create in the mind of anyone reading this quote which is why I asked the questions that I did in order to get you to clarify your remarks in order to zero in on your exact intention and identify what and where fallacies existed