Excellent synopsis of the history of the Anglo conspiracy to rule and dominate the world by all means fair and foul (mainly foul). By naming the names and providing the details, this relatively short article is a great reference source!
wholeheartedly agree. however, it's not so much a conspiracy, as they're quite open about their goals and intentions: establishing a world government, a "...Planetary Regime..." (1977, Ehrlich/Holdren) no less!
And even better bringing them out into the light causes them to scatter like cockroaches -- but seeing how they operate will be much easier to spot and call out.
I am only halfway through this well written essay but already I can see the seeds of war in British minds that would eventually lead to WWI. This part of the essay provides the reader with enough grist to understand why the British became so alarmed by Germany's rising sea power, which in reality, had been designed to be defensive for German trade routes,not offensive. And though the German massive ship building program had been substantially reduced by 1912, the British still used its development to inflame passions regarding Germany's ambition to control all continental affairs, which in of itself has never had any documented evidence to support it beyond the conclusions raised by historians Albertini and Fischer in the 1920s...
true, suddenly they all became 'alarmed by Germany's rising sea power' which, of course also created a perfect pretext for yet more war. psychopaths will psychopath -
Bill Gates and Mark Zukerburg are famous because of the businesses they created, not because there were elected by some council... Reading your stuff, I recall the adage: "if you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS"
Or the adage which your post reminds me of-- if you don't like a position personally attack the author 😊 BTW Neither Bill nor Mark created businesses--one was placed the other stole bits (like Gates) and then got the funding from a three letter US agency.
It’s the cherry picking analysis that bothers me: comparing 17th century policies of one country to 21st century policies of another, for example. I’m quite on the left: an extreme environmentalist and critic of US foreign policy etc. but I dislike analysis that works to support something, such as capitalism or Marxism. That’s called bias. As for our tech Bros they did indeed build their companies. Perhaps they received grants as many due, but very few people manage to make Helpful companies. Not that these companies are always helpful of course.
You should take the opportunity of today's existential crisis to self reflect on some of your deeply held assumptions about the way you thought the world worked. It's a healthy exercise. As far as Bill Gates is concerned, James Corbett's analysis on this is good. Take the time to review the following documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY-vLrz9XCc
Matt, I listened intently to the first 17 minutes of the video you recommend. But neither supports any of your insinuation that Mr. Gates is an unworthy or evil person, nor does it attempt to state anything at all. It’s full of innuendo. I’m a scientist I don’t have time for people who beat around the bush. If you have something to state say it and explain precisely why the evidence supports your conclusion.
So what if Bill Gates has found a soapbox to stand on. You’re doing the same damn thing.
You might call yourself a scientist, but scientists actually look for causality and no scientist would watch 17 minutes of a 120 minute composition and then pass judgement on the thing they were watching. It's like a wheel saying "I'm a wheel but I just don't roll". It's not a wheel.
As I wrote: the videographer declined to make any point, nore explain why the information provided was evidence for a point. If they had something to say, perhaps you could write it in a sentence or two.
When authors rely on innuendo, it is generally a indication that they don’t have evidence to support a point. Clear writing requires a clear mind.
Excellent synopsis of the history of the Anglo conspiracy to rule and dominate the world by all means fair and foul (mainly foul). By naming the names and providing the details, this relatively short article is a great reference source!
wholeheartedly agree. however, it's not so much a conspiracy, as they're quite open about their goals and intentions: establishing a world government, a "...Planetary Regime..." (1977, Ehrlich/Holdren) no less!
Outstanding. Identifying these criminals is a first step to a Universal trial.
And even better bringing them out into the light causes them to scatter like cockroaches -- but seeing how they operate will be much easier to spot and call out.
There are many of them still in the shadows.
I am only halfway through this well written essay but already I can see the seeds of war in British minds that would eventually lead to WWI. This part of the essay provides the reader with enough grist to understand why the British became so alarmed by Germany's rising sea power, which in reality, had been designed to be defensive for German trade routes,not offensive. And though the German massive ship building program had been substantially reduced by 1912, the British still used its development to inflame passions regarding Germany's ambition to control all continental affairs, which in of itself has never had any documented evidence to support it beyond the conclusions raised by historians Albertini and Fischer in the 1920s...
true, suddenly they all became 'alarmed by Germany's rising sea power' which, of course also created a perfect pretext for yet more war. psychopaths will psychopath -
https://humansbefree.com/2021/09/new-world-order-mindset.html
Bill Gates and Mark Zukerburg are famous because of the businesses they created, not because there were elected by some council... Reading your stuff, I recall the adage: "if you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS"
Or the adage which your post reminds me of-- if you don't like a position personally attack the author 😊 BTW Neither Bill nor Mark created businesses--one was placed the other stole bits (like Gates) and then got the funding from a three letter US agency.
It’s the cherry picking analysis that bothers me: comparing 17th century policies of one country to 21st century policies of another, for example. I’m quite on the left: an extreme environmentalist and critic of US foreign policy etc. but I dislike analysis that works to support something, such as capitalism or Marxism. That’s called bias. As for our tech Bros they did indeed build their companies. Perhaps they received grants as many due, but very few people manage to make Helpful companies. Not that these companies are always helpful of course.
You should take the opportunity of today's existential crisis to self reflect on some of your deeply held assumptions about the way you thought the world worked. It's a healthy exercise. As far as Bill Gates is concerned, James Corbett's analysis on this is good. Take the time to review the following documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY-vLrz9XCc
Matt, I listened intently to the first 17 minutes of the video you recommend. But neither supports any of your insinuation that Mr. Gates is an unworthy or evil person, nor does it attempt to state anything at all. It’s full of innuendo. I’m a scientist I don’t have time for people who beat around the bush. If you have something to state say it and explain precisely why the evidence supports your conclusion.
So what if Bill Gates has found a soapbox to stand on. You’re doing the same damn thing.
You might call yourself a scientist, but scientists actually look for causality and no scientist would watch 17 minutes of a 120 minute composition and then pass judgement on the thing they were watching. It's like a wheel saying "I'm a wheel but I just don't roll". It's not a wheel.
As I wrote: the videographer declined to make any point, nore explain why the information provided was evidence for a point. If they had something to say, perhaps you could write it in a sentence or two.
When authors rely on innuendo, it is generally a indication that they don’t have evidence to support a point. Clear writing requires a clear mind.