The War Against The West

I’ve included several different sources for “segments” in this post. Each building upon the others. Please view the Seed War post for full context. The Seed War Between Mankind and Nephilim – Demons Walk Among Us

The Nameless War

By John Kaminski

Too few people know about the British Revolution, but there were two of them, and in both, Jews emerged upon the world stage as a political power. The first revolution in the 1640s gave us the unprecedented execution of the king, followed by the return to England of the Jews, who had been banished for 400 years. The second revolution in the 1690s gave us the Bank of England, which essentially was a Jewish production that has run the world ever since.

Next to the two Churchills, Oliver Cromwell ranks as the most evil traitor in British history. Secretly in the pay of Dutch Jews, Cromwell engineered the execution of King Charles I, which was followed by the official readmission of the Jews, who had been banished since 1290 by King Edward I for usury and drinking the blood of Christian children (a fact that judging by recent headlines appears to still be going on in Washington and other Western capitals, as is the crime of usury).

Published in 1851, the two-volume life of Charles I written by Isaac Disraeli, father of the future British prime minister, explains that the key to the revolution was concealed in religious debates.

The political revolution came cloaked in a religious disguise. This was the time of Calvin, whose name in French was Cauin which many have deciphered as Cohen. “A ground work for revolution under a cloak of religious fervor.”

(The elder Disraeli also wrote “. . . a British senate had been transformed into a company of Hebrew Rabbins.” Any resemblance to the current U.S. Congress is not coincidental. We have today a whole wing of the Christian religion, the super-evangelical Zionists, postulating that the maintenance of the state of Israel takes precedence over the veneration of the very holy man upon whom their religion was founded . . . !)

In the second revolution, “The Glorious Revolution” in the 1690s, which established the Bank of England . . .

The chief figure amongst those who deserted (King) James at that crucial juncture was John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough. It is interesting to read in the Jewish Encyclopedia that this duke for many years received not less than £6,000 a year from the Dutch Jew Solomon Medina.

(His descendant Winston, of course, was the leader who wasted all those British lives at Gallipoli and then, decades later, after having his debts paid off by a very rich Jew, he began the bombing of Germany that started World War II ON HIS VERY FIRST DAY AS PRIME MINISTER.)

The real objective of the “Glorious Revolution” was achieved a few years later in 1694, when the royal consent was given for the setting up of the “Bank of England” and the Institution of the National Debt. This charter handed over to an anonymous committee the Royal prerogative of minting; converted the basis of wealth to gold; and enabled the international money lenders to secure their loans on the taxes of the country, instead of the doubtful undertaking of some ruler or potentate which was all the security they could previously obtain.

This sweetheart deal exists today among the 13 Jewish families who share ownership of the Federal Reserve, which creates and controls America’s money supply.

From that time economic machinery was set in motion which ultimately reduced all wealth to the fictitious terms of gold which Jews control; and drained away the life blood of the land, the real wealth which was the birthright of the British peoples.

Perhaps the wily Jews’ two most powerful mechanisms were invented during England’s turbulent 17th century. The two party system frustrated the true national reaction of the people and enabled the bankers to keep control. Also, our keepers learned how to use their newly established financial power to ensure that their own men and their own policies should dominate the headlines, which has evolved today into total control of the worldwide media spectrum and totally artificial political candidates.

“The English Revolution under Charles I,” writes Isaac Disraeli, “was unlike any preceding one . . . From that time and event we contemplate in our history the phases of revolution.” There were many more to follow on similar lines, notably in France. In 1897 a further important clue to these mysterious happenings fell into Gentile hands in the shape of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In that document we read this remarkable sentence: “Remember the French Revolution, the secrets of its preparation are well known to us for it was entirely the work of our hands.”

Revolution’s fingerprint

The French Revolution was called the most startling event in the history of Europe since the fall of Rome.

Never before had a mob apparently organized a successful revolution against all other classes in the state, under high-sounding but quite nonsensical slogans, and with methods bearing not a trace of the principles enshrined in those slogans. Never before had any one section of any nation conquered all other sections; and still less swept away every feature of that national life and tradition, from King, religion, nobles, clergy, constitution, flag, calendar and place names to coinage.

The main discovery when studying all the facts of the French Revolution was that it was the work of foreigners. And what they did to France in 1789 they did to Russia in 1917. Same gang, different day.

The second British revolution reversed many of the measures instituted by Cromwell, but by then, the Jews had arrived and taken control.

By the French Revolution of 1789 the technique had been notably improved. Secret societies had been developed throughout France on a grand scale in the preceding years. The plans for liquidations of the former regime are by this time far more drastic. The judicial murder of a kindly and well intentioned King and a few nobles is replaced by mass murders in prisons and in private houses of the whole of the nobility, clergy, gentry and bourgeoisie, regardless of sex.

The Cromwellian damage and desecration of few churches by their temporary use as stables is developed into a general wrecking of Christian churches, or their conversion into public lavatories, brothels and markets; and the banning of the practice of the Christian religion and even the ringing of church bells.

The telltale sign of invasion from without is always a sudden influx of foreigners determining the fate of a nation. We see it clearly today with the ownership by Jews (who have no nationality) of practically all utilities and industries, not to mention politicians.

More suspicious still is the is the sudden appearance of strong bands of armed hooligans, who March on Paris from Lyons and Marseilles; and are recorded as being foreigners. Here we have the first formations of alien mercenary and criminal elements, forcing revolutions upon a country not their own, which were to have their finished and expanded prototype in the International Brigades, which attempted to force Marxism on Spain 150 years later.

One can’t help but think of the current Antifa mobsters, who are paid by rich Jews to destabilize the societies which they happen to infest. Erase a person’s history and you can totally change who they are.

England in the 17th century had not been dismembered and hideously remoulded on alien lines — but all familiar landmarks in 18th century France were destroyed. The splendid and historic names and titles of counties, departments, and families were scrapped, and France divided into numbered squares occupied merely by “citizens”. Even the months of the calendar were changed. The national flag of France with its lilies and its glories were banned. Instead the French received the tricolour, badge of murder and rapine.

One can’t help but notice by the time the continuing Jewish destruction of all nations reached Russia, it had accelerated into total totalitarianism.

When we come to examine the Russian revolution we find that the technique is still bolder and far more drastic. On this occasion no national flag, anthem or army is permitted. After the dregs of the community have apparently accomplished the impossible (a la French Revolution), and liquidated every other class . . . they are herded into the Red Army; over them waves not a Russian flag by an Internationale red flag.

(Any resemblance to the blitherings of newly elected Congress-shill Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not coincidental.)

The same pattern blossomed in Germany.

Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organised revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to the fact. [ . . . ]

“Democracy in the West today is the forerunner Marxism, which would be inconceivable without Democracy.” “If the Jew, with the help of his Marxian creed, conquers the nations of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of the human race . . .” “Thus did I now believe,” he (Hitler) writes of the days of 1918, “that by defending myself against the Jews I am doing the Lord’s work.”

“The revolution was not made by the forces of peace and order; but by those of riot, robbery and plunder.”

______________________________________________________________

How the Jews Murdered Charles I

Most history students would probably protest that Charles I, king of England (1625-49) etc., was murdered, but they probably do not know the details of how the Jews used Cromwell to trump up charges against the sovereign, and how Dutch Jews were the power behind Cromwell.

We know that in many Reformed circles, a certain amount of reverence is accorded to Oliver Cromwell, the usurper to the English throne, if for no other reason than he led the Puritans to political victory in the kingdom. They do this despite the fact that Cromwell was a Rosicrucian Mason who was well versed in the Jewish Kabala. Any notion that Cromwell was a Christian is misplaced.

A fascinating article by Stephen Goodson traces the role of Jews in English history, including that of the following synopsis, almost all of it nefarious and corrosive to their host nation. So destructive were the Jews to English comity and prosperity that Edward I finally banished them from the kingdom in 1290, a fate they faced throughout Europe at various times and places.

During the 17th century they attempted a comeback through the agency of Oliver Cromwell, a man who used brutal force to conquer England, and whose military successes owed not to his military genius, but to his superb intelligence network which always knew the movements of Charles’ armies. This intelligence was supplied by English traitors and Jewish infiltrators.

One of the more prominent traitors was John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough and ancestor of Winston Churchill, who abandoned service to the king, in favor of a 6,000 pound annual stipend from the Jew Solomon Medina of Holland.

Prior to open hostilities, the Jew Fernandez Carvajal organized 10,000 operatives to exploit the country’s continuing religious divisions, particularly with the Sabbatean controversy which concerned itself with the question of observance of the Sabbath.

The Jews had alighted in the Netherlands during the 16th and 17th centuries, from where they financed Cromwell on the condition that he allow them back into England upon destroying the English monarch. Goodson quotes excerpts from correspondence between Cromwell and the Jew Ebenezer Pratt who promised generous funding in exchange for the aforementioned quid pro quo. The good Mason Cromwell explained that he would need time and circumstances to pull off the murder, and that he would need a way to distance himself from the actual deed – plausible deniability as the CIA likes to state it.

The letters between the two conspirators is fascinating because it shows without question that two parties were conspiring to destroy a third, evidence of which is enough to demolish the imbecilities of those who deny conspiracies, such as the Jew Cass Sunstein.

No Englishman would draw up charges against the king, so Cromwell brought in the Dutch Jew Isaac Dorislaus to do so, after which a show trial with its predetermined outcome eventuated in the King’s murder on trumped up charges in 1649.

By 1656 Cromwell made good on his promise to Pratt, but could only do so by smuggling in Jews to England as practically all of the merchant and professional classes, to say nothing of his own government, were staunchly opposed to such actions.

Following the resettlement of Jews in England, the German William of Orange led another and final invasion of England, also financed by Jews, which permanently established the Hanoverians on the British throne.

Parliament, on Williams’ watch, approved the Bank of England, using the exact same tactics which the Jewish banksters would use over 200 years later when they established the Federal Reserve. Out of 512 members of Parliament, 42 formed a “quorum” to pass the enabling legislation. Since that time England has been in permanent debt, paying a continuous tribute to the City of London banksters, significantly robbing and defrauding the country of its economic health, and perpetually plunging it into colonial wars.

A history buff may wish to read the entire article as it covers more historical ground concerning Jewish influences on England, as well as that of the Bank of England.

Reference
Stephen Goodson, The Hidden Origins of the Bank of England, The Barnes Review, September/October 2012

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Oliver Cromwell Association

Cromwell and the ‘readmission’ of the
Jews to England, 1656

Cromwell and the Jews

2006 marks the 350th anniversary of the re-admission of the Jews into England. They were expelled in 1290 in the reign of King Edward Ist. Their re-admission in 1656 under the Cromwellian Protectorate is interpreted by some as evidence of Cromwell’s toleration and compassion. This is open to challenge on several points.

Although the Jewish community at the end of the 19th century highlighted the anniversary, and linked it particularly to the mission of an Amsterdam based Rabbi, Menasseh ben Israel, there is evidence of an established Jewish community in London before 1655. Fearful of persecution they did not declare their identity, living as Spanish merchants. Whilst their commercial affairs were public their religion was private.

There was interest in Jewish matters in the leadership of the Commonwealth and Protectorate for two reasons, one pragmatic and the other doctrinal. The pragmatic reason was that based on the international trade and commercial connections of the Amsterdam Jewish community it was recognised that a strong Jewish presence in London would be advantageous. With flourishing links to the East and West Indies and to the New World Jewish traders in London could make the city to Amsterdam as a commercial centre.

The doctrinal reason was the belief amongst godly Protestants, including Cromwell, that the conversion of the Jews to Christianity was essential before Christ would return to reign on earth. 1656 was thought by some to be the actual year in which this would happen.

The key figure for the celebrants of the 250th anniversary in 1906 was that of Menasseh ben Israel. He was born in Lisbon in 1604 settled in Amsterdam and became a Rabbi. He was a polymath: author, printer, publisher, bookseller and scholar who cultivated links with the new Commonwealth regime in England. It was his belief that the Jewish Messiah would only appear when the Jewish people had spread throughout the world. Establishing communities in England would help to bring about that second coming. Menassen ben Israel published a pamphlet in 1651 appealing to Cromwell see http://cf.uba.uva.nl/en/collections/rosenthaliana/menasseh/
19f5/index.html

In September 1655 Menasseh ben Israel arrived in London with a delegation and members of his family and personally petitioned Cromwell for the readmission of the Jews. Cromwell met with him and a committee of the Council of State, and it was agreed that a conference should be convened to discuss the issues. The petition requested citizenship, freedom of worship, burial grounds, freedom to trade and the withdrawal of all laws against Jews.

The conference met several times in December 1655 but was, in the end, inconclusive. There was no formal decision to allow readmission but it was soon evident that the presence of Jews would be more openly tolerated. Cromwell permitted Jews to worship in private as they had done prior to the petitioning, and within months a synagogue and burial ground were allowed.
The significance of the mission by Menasseh ben Israel in achieving the level of toleration reached in 1656 is a continuing discussion. Similarly Cromwell’s motives for debating the issue openly may not have been the result of any desire for liberty of conscience as understood in the late 19th century or today, but it did lead to a significant advance in Anglo-Jewish relations.

For these reasons marking the 350th anniversary is appropriate, even if there may be an element of overstatement, both of Cromwell’s and Menasseh ben Israel’s roles.

For more information about this episode in Cromwellian history click here to download a .pdf file of an article by Barbara Coulton of Lancaster University (all rights reserved) Cromwell and the ‘readmission’ of the Jews to England, 1656. This article first appeared in the 2001 issue of the journal of the Cromwell Association Cromwelliana.

For more information about Menasseh Ben Israel see http://cf.uba.uva.nl/en/collections/rosenthaliana/menasseh/biography.html

________________________________________________________________________________________

The Hidden World of Benjamin Disraeli, a Made Man and Opportunist

October 13, 2018 Russ Winter
‘I feel a very unusual sensation — if it is not indigestion, I think it must be gratitude.’ — Benjamin Disraeli

Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) was a major Conservative Party Victorian-era political figure and operative who served as prime minister for most of 1868 and from 1874 to 1880. He was leader of the opposition from 1868 to 1874 and in 1881. His life and actions fit the very definition of crafty and “two-faced.”

Note: Crypto alert. Shades of Karl Marx [“Portrait of Evil: Karl Marx, a Disciple of Hell on Earth“] and other lifetime actors and made men, Disraeli’s father left Judaism after an “alleged dispute” at his synagogue. Young Benjamin became an Anglican at the age of 12. In 1823, Benjamin changed his surname from D’Israeli to Disraeli.

All of Disraeli’s grandparents and great-grandparents were Venetians with one ancestor, Benjamin, moving to England from Venice in 1748. Some, like Webster Tarpley, suggests this is part of a larger Venetian and Dutch banking takeover of the British deep state. Cecil Roth writes: “The trade of Venice was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the Jews, the wealthiest of the mercantile class.” (The History of the Jews in Venice, 1930)

Like made-man Karl Marx, the details of his early life are sketchy. But after schooling, he started as a barrister in a major law firm.

The story line then states that Benjamin had a “romantic” and literary side. He was about to publish a manuscript when, lo and behold, he turned to stock-market speculation. In 1825, at age 21 and with no money of his own, Disraeli borrowed funds to invest. He became involved with financier John Diston Powles, who was prominent among those encouraging the mining boom in Latin America. Powles asked Disraeli to write three anonymous promotions of the companies they were slogging. John Murray, another heavy investor in the boom, then published them.

By June 1825, he and his business partners had lost £7,000, the equivalent of more than £615,000 in 2017. Disraeli could not pay off the last of his debts from this debacle until 1849. We can only guess to whom he owed the money, but this status set up a condition for Disraeli to be a perfect puppet to the usual suspects.

Next, like with Marx, we learn from Disraeli’s biographer Jonathan Parry that the financial failure and personal criticism Disraeli suffered in 1825 and 1826 were probably the trigger for a serious nervous crisis affecting him over the next four years.

“He had always been moody, sensitive, and solitary by nature, but now became seriously depressed and lethargic,” reports claim.

Yet again, we really need to ask how sullen and solitary Jewish cryptos can suddenly catapult themselves to the pinnacles of power?

Indeed, Disraeli himself provided the revelation of the method on how all this worked.

In his book “Coningsby,” he warns: “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”

He goes on in the book to describe Rothshild’s profiteering. Lizard lip-licking, one might call it.

“During the Peninsular War, a cadet of the younger Branch of this family made a large fortune by military contracts and supplying the commissariat of the DIFFERENT armies. He had established a brother or a near relative in most of the principal capitals. He was Lord and Master of the Money-Market of the world, and, of course, virtually Lord and Master of everything else. There was not an adventurer in Europe with whom he was not familiar. No Minister of State had such communication with secret agents and political spies as Sidonia. He held relations with all the clever outcasts of the world. The catalogue of his acquaintances … would throw a curious light on those subterranean agencies of which the world in general knows so little … The secret history of the world was his pastime. His great pleasure was to contrast the hidden motive with the public pretext of transactions.”

Freemason Disraeli further claims in his book “Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography” from 1882:

“It was neither the 284 parliaments nor populations, nor the course of nature, nor the course of events, that overthrew the throne of Louis Philip … The throne was surprised by the secret societies, ever prepared to ravage Europe … The secret associations are always vigilant and always prepared.”

Later, Disraeli bragged and repeated the phrase from his early book: “Rothschild is the lord and master of the money markerts of the world and virtually lord and master of everything else.”

Disraeli also reiterated this point in a Parliamentary debate. He said:

“lt is useless to deny … a great part of Europe the whole of Italy and France, and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries are covered with a network of these secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads. And what are their objects? They do not attempt to conceal them. They do not want constitutional government. They do not want ameliorated institutions; they do not want provincial councils nor the recording of votes; they want … an end to ecclesiastical establishments …”

Next, despite being broke and in debt, somehow Disraeli goes on a grand tour of “Mediterranean regions” of Europe from 1830 to ’31. He became, in Parry’s words, “aware of values that seemed denied to his insular countrymen.” His journeys encouraged his “moral relativism” and his interest in “Eastern racial and religious attitudes.”

Yes, can you believe it, future PM Benjamin Disraeli was transformed from an indebted crypto-Jew into an early proto-Zionist. This was just about the time Lord Palmerston was launching his subvert of the Ottoman Empire return-to-Israel project. This project was news to the Jews of Europe. See [Race-Cult Zionism as a British Oligarchical Strategy ].

Disraeli wrote two novels in the aftermath of the tour. In one, “The Wondrous Tale of Alroy,” he goes head on into the future issues of dual nationalities by portraying the problems of a medieval Jew in deciding between a small, exclusively Jewish state and a large empire embracing all. Ultimately, the book was about a Jewish Prince of the Captivity, conquering the Muslims and establishing a Jewish Empire over them. Yes, Ben, nice touch. Tell us how you really feel.

Next, he enjoyed a stint as a propagandist and excelled in drama-queen attention-seeking shit storms. In 1837, he was elected to Parliament as a Tory. During the next decade, he was a protectionist and fought against the repeal of Corn Law, which promised relief with cheaper food stuffs during the Great Famine (1846-1848). He supported the Crimean War against Russia.

Disraeli, as a true British imperialist, supported a “reform” movement of Islam, known as the Salafi. This was controlled opposition to serve British and bankster interests, such as the Suez Canal.

When Lord Palmerston tried to do away with the dual control represented by the East India Company and the government and bring India under the crown, Disraeli opposed him. Soon after this, when his own party came into power, he himself proposed a bill to the effect that Queen Victoria should become Empress of India. This has since been described as “presenting the British Nation with India!” In this manner, he wormed his way into the good graces of Victoria and worked her like a charm.

Most of his career could be characterized as actively supporting British imperial and bankster interests. The rest of his politics was fairly standard opportunism, changing factions, although using the Janus Principle, postured as lending a hand to working people.

According to Rothshild archives, in 1875, the London banking house of N.M. Rothschild & Sons advanced the prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, acting for the British government, £4 million to purchase Suez Canal shares. Disraeli was a close personal friend of Lionel de Rothschild and, “according to legend”, this was transacted on a gentleman’s agreement, with no documentation, a technically unsecured loan for a sum of over £550 million today.

The funds were repaid within five months; however, Disraeli was accused by William Gladstone of undermining Britain’s constitutional system, due to his lack of reference or consent from Parliament when purchasing the shares with funding from Rothschild.

Whether this was a sound geopolitical investment is open to debate. Financially, it probably was. But it also opened the way and set a precedent for extra-governmental, private, backdoor deals between international bankers and their allies in government. It also paved the way to constant British intrigue and imperialism in the Muslim Middle East.

Always struggling with debt and knowing which side would butter his toast, his friend and political ally Lionel de Rothschild proved to be a generous benefactor, giving him around £1 million. Corruption much? It’s not just about the Suez loan itself. Bankster houses know exactly how to parlay and front-run this inside information into derivative deals.

And we learn from the Jewish Historical Society [Jewish Historical Studies, Vol. 29, page 236] that fellow tribeman Disraeli befriended the Rothschild clan right at the beginning of his political career in 1838. We suggest that the Rothshild’s Disraeli project was kick started before his 1830 Grand Tour.

Although hailed as a great statesman, Disraeli simply supercharged the tradition of politics ever since — of men utterly insincere in action, having no motives beyond personal advancement and serving as agents to their lord and masters.

A contemporary, T.P. O’Connor, in “The Life of Lord Beaconsfield,”said of Disraeli’s actions:

“That whole character is complete in its selfishness, the whole career is uniform in its dishonesty. Throughout his whole life I do not find even on a single occasion, a generous emotion, one self‑sacrificing act, a moment of sincere conviction except that of the almighty perfection of himself. I find him uniform in all his dealings with his fellow man, and behind every word he utters I can only see the ever‑vigilant custodian of his own interest. There is, throughout the same selfishness, calm, patient, unhasting, unresting. Such a man the myriads of this mighty Empire accept as chief ruler; for such a man, millions of pure hearts beat with genuine emotion; to such a man is given to sway, by his single will, your fortunes and mine, and even those of countless generations to come. Which shall a near posterity most wonder at, the audacity of the impostor, or the blindness of the dupe? The immensity of the worship or the pettiness of the idol?”

________________________________________________________________________________________________

The “Jewish” Conspiracy is British Imperialism

The Masonic Jewish owners of the central banks are behind all imperialism, including the colonization of humanity. The “New World Order” is an extension of British and American imperialism which are proxies for Masonic Jewish mercantilism.

Updated from May 30, 2004

by Henry Makow.Ph.D

Conspiracy theorists believe modern history reflects a long-term conspiracy by an international financial elite to enslave humanity.

Like blind men examining an elephant, we attribute this conspiracy to Jews, Illuminati, Vatican, Jesuits, Freemasons, Black Nobility, and Bildersbergs etc.

The real villains are at the heart of our economic and cultural life. They are the dynastic families who own the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and all central banks and associated cartels. They also control the World Bank and IMF and most of the world’s Intelligence agencies. Their identity is secret but Rothschild is certainly one of them. The Bank of England was “nationalized” in 1946 but the power to create money remained in the same hands.

England is in fact a financial oligarchy run by the “Crown” which refers to the “City of London” not the Queen. The City of London is run by the Bank of England, a private corporation. The square-mile-large City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London. As the “Vatican of the financial world,” the City is not subject to British law.

On the contrary, the bankers dictate to the British Parliament. In 1886, Andrew Carnegie wrote that, “six or seven men can plunge the nation into war without consulting Parliament at all.” Vincent Vickers, a director of the Bank of England from 1910-1919 blamed the City for the wars of the world. (“Economic Tribulation” (1940) cited in Knuth, The Empire of the City, 1943, p 60)

The British Empire was an extension of bankers’ financial interests. Indeed, all the non-white colonies (India, Hong Kong, Gibraltar) were “Crown Colonies.” They belonged to the City and were not subject to British law although Englishmen were expected to conquer and pay for them.

The Bank of England assumed control of the U.S. during the T.R. Roosevelt administration (1901-1909) when its agent J.P. Morgan took over 25% of American business. (Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 1964)

According to the “American Almanac,” the bankers are part of a network called the “Club of the Isles” which is an informal association of predominantly European-based royal households including the Queen. The Club of the Isles commands an estimated $10 trillion in assets. It lords over such corporate giants as Royal Dutch Shell, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, and Anglo American DeBeers. It dominates the world supply of petroleum, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials; and deploys these assets at the disposal of its geopolitical agenda.

Historian Jeffrey Steinberg could be referring to the West in general when he writes, “England, Scotland, Wales, and, especially, Northern Ireland, are today little more than slave plantations and social engineering laboratories, serving the needs of …the City of London…”

These families constitute a financier oligarchy; they are the power behind the Windsor throne. They view themselves as the heirs to the Venetian oligarchy, which infiltrated and subverted England from the period 1509-1715, and established a new, more virulent, Anglo-Dutch-Swiss strain of the oligarchic system of imperial Babylon, Persia, Rome, and Byzantium….

The City of London dominates the world’s speculative markets. A tightly interlocking group of corporations, involved in raw materials extraction, finance, insurance, transportation, and food production, controls the lion’s share of the world market, and exerts virtual “choke point” control over world industry.”

JEWISH ENGLAND

Steinberg belongs to a group of historians associated with economist Lyndon Larouche. They have traced this scourge to the migration of the Venetian mercantile oligarchy to England more than 300 years ago.

Although the Larouche historians do not say so, it appears that many members of this oligarchy were Jews. Cecil Roth writes: “The trade of Venice was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the Jews, the wealthiest of the mercantile class.” (The History of the Jews in Venice, 1930)

As William Guy Carr points out in Pawns in the Game, both Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange were funded by Jewish bankers. The English Revolution (1649) was the first in a series of revolutions designed to give them world hegemony. The establishment of the Bank of England by William in 1694 was the next crucial step. Behind the facade, England has been a “Jewish” state for over 300 years. (pp.20-24)

The Jewish banking families made it a practice to marry their female offspring to spendthrift European aristocrats. In Jewish law, the mixed offspring of a Jewish mother is Jewish. (The male heirs marry Jews although the Victor and Jacob Rothschild are exceptions .) For example, in 1878 Hannah Rothschild married Lord Rosebery. who later became Prime Minister. In 1922 Louis Mountbatten, the uncle of Prince Philip and cousin of the Queen married the granddaughter of Jewish banker Ernest Cassel, one of the wealthiest men in the world. Winston Churchill’s mother, Jenny (Jacobson) Jerome, was Jewish. By the beginning of the 1900s, there were very few English aristocrat families left that hadn’t intermarried with Jews. It was said that, when they visited the Continent, Europeans were surprised to see Jewish looking persons with English titles and accents.

According to L.G. Pine, the Editor of Burke’s Peerage , Jews “have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual. So closely linked are the Jews and the lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also.” (Tales of the British Aristocracy1957, p.219.)

If they aren’t Jewish by intermarriage, many European aristocrats consider themselves descendants of Biblical Hebrews. The Hapsburgs are related by marriage to the Merovingians who claim to be descendants of the Tribe of Benjamin.

BRITISH ISRAEL

In addition, many aristocrats belong to the “British Israel” Movement that believes the British sovereign is the head of the Anglo Saxon “Lost Tribes” of Israel and that the Apocalypse will see the full reconstitution of the British Empire.

According to Barbara Aho, Rosicrucians and Freemasons, who believe in British Israelism, have a plan to place one of their bloodline on the throne of the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. This positioning of a false messiah whom the world will worship as Christ has been carefully planned and executed over many centuries.

According to Barry Chamish, “there would be no modern state of Israel without British Freemasonry. In the 1860s, the British-Israelite movement was initiated from within Freemasonry. Its goal was to establish a Jewish-Masonic state in the Turkish province of Palestine…Initially, British Jewish Masonic families like the Rothschilds and Montefiores provided the capital to build the infrastructure for the anticipated wave of immigration. However, luring the Jews to Israel was proving difficult. They, simply, liked European life too much to abandon it. So Europe was to be turned into a nightmare for the Jews.”

______________________________________________________________

___________________and then there were the Diggers and the Levellers________________________

A history of the radical movements the Diggers and the Levellers which sprung up around the English Civil War.

The political and social upheaval that resulted from the English Civil War in the seventeenth century [effectively two conflicts between 1642 -1646 and 1647/48] led to the development of a set of radical ideas centred around movements known as ‘Diggers’ and ‘Levellers’

The Diggers [or ‘True Levellers’] were led by William Everard who had served in the New Model Army. As the name implies, the diggers aimed to use the earth to reclaim the freedom that they felt had been lost partly through the Norman Conquest; by seizing the land and owning it ‘in common’ they would challenge what they considered to be the slavery of property. They were opposed to the use of force and believed that they could create a classless society simply through seizing land and holding it in the ‘common good’.

To this end, a small group [initially 12, though rising to 50] settled on common land first at St George’s Hill and later in Cobham, Surrey and grew corn and other crops. This small group defied the landlords, the Army and the law for over a year. In addition to this, groups travelled through England attempting to rally supporters. In this they had some successes in Kent and Northamptonshire. Their main propagandist was Gerard Winstanley who produced the clearest statement of Digger ideas in ‘The Law of Freedom in a Platform’ published in 1652. This was a defence and exposition of the notion of a classless society based in secularism and radical democracy

The relatively small group of followers of Digger ideas was never particularly influential and was quite easily suppressed by Cromwell and Fairfax.

The most significant of these movements were The Levellers whose revolutionary ideas resonated throughout the succeeding centuries, mostly notably in the demands of the Chartists in the nineteenth century.
The Levellers’ ideas found most support in the ranks of the ’New Model Army’, formed by Oliver Cromwell in 1645 and were largely responsible for the defeat of the Royalist forces led by Charles I, particularly in the decisive Battle of Naseby in June 1645.

By the end of the first civil war in 1646 Leveller ideas were particularly influential and culminated in the Putney Debates where ordinary soldiers debated revolutionary ideas with their generals; it was at this series of meetings that Leveller Colonel Thomas Rainborough argued the case for universal suffrage:

“I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he, and therefore truly, sir, I think it is clear to every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government.”

Unfortunately, this outbreak of democracy within the ranks of the army was relatively short-lived; the outbreak of the second civil war in 1647 allowed the generals to reassert their authority and Leveller influence began to wane. An attempted mutiny by Leveller soldiers was brutally suppressed in Burford, Oxfordshire in 1649; leaders were executed by Cromwell’s soldiers and others were tried for high treason.

Why this brutal suppression? What did the generals find so threatening about the Levellers?

Who were the Levellers?

The Levellers were a relatively loose alliance of radicals and freethinkers who came to prominence during the period of instability that characterised the English Civil War of 1642 – 1649. The most prominent Levellers were John Lilburne, Richard Overton, William Walwyn, John Wildman, Edward Sexby and Colonel Thomas Rainborough.

What bound these people together was the general belief that all men were equal; since this was the case, then a government could only have legitimacy if it was elected by the people. The Leveller demands were for a secular republic, abolition of the House of Lords, equality before the law, the right to vote for all, free trade, the abolition of censorship, freedom of speech and the absolute right for people to worship whatever religion [or none] that they chose. This programme was published as ‘The Agreement of the People’.

These ideas came out of the social classes from which the Levellers originated; they were mainly skilled workers and peasants and the ‘petty bourgeoisie’. Since many of them had fought in Cromwell’s New Model Army they were used to discussion, argument and the free dissemination of ideas; it was this intelligent debate allied to the need for discipline that had led to the defeat of the Royalists and the victory of the republic.

The Levellers were essentially radical idealists; their demands could be seen as a form of early socialism [they were pretty much the same as the demands of the Chartists some two hundred years later], but they had little or no understanding of the workings of a capitalist economy. It is unfair, though, to expect this of them since capitalism as an organised form of social production would only assert itself much later in the development of Britain as an industrial nation.

Indeed, it is important to note that their views on the social order were not particularly progressive; these were rooted in the notion that prior to 1066 and the Norman Conquest a democratic society had existed in Anglo-Saxon times where the land was held in common by the people [perhaps this is in line with Karl Marx’s idea of the concept of ‘primitive communism’; that is, the form of social organisation that existed in pre-industrial society].

The victory of William the Conqueror in 1066 had enabled him to impose a form of foreign [that is, Norman] domination on the people. [1] This enabled him to reward his followers with huge swathes of land seized from the formerly ‘free men’ of England. This was particularly so in the North of England where opposition was brutally suppressed.

The Levellers argued that since God had created all men as equals, the land belonged to all the people as a right. Their programme was, then, essentially an attempt to restore the situation that they believed had existed previous to the Norman Conquest; they wanted to establish a ‘commonwealth’ in which the common people would be in control of their own destiny without the intervention of a King, a House of Lords and other potential oppressors.

The Agreement of the People was drawn up by a committee of Levellers including John Lilburne which was to have been discussed at a meeting of the commonwealth armies at Newmarket in June 1647. In brief this is what they asked for:

· Power to be vested in the people
· One year Parliaments, elected by equal numbers of voters per seat. The right to vote for all men who worked independently for their living and all those who had fought for the Parliamentary cause
· Recall of any or all of their MPs by their electors at any time
· Abolition of the House of Lords
· Democratic election of army officers
· Complete religious toleration and the abolition of tithes and tolls
· Justices to be elected; law courts to be local and proceedings to be in English [not French!]
· Redistribution of seized land to the common people

“[T]here had never been anything like such a spontaneous outbreak of democracy in any English or Continental Army before this year of 1647, nor was there anything like it thereafter till Workers’ and Soldiers’ Councils met in 1917 in Russia” [2]

It is hardly surprising, given this programme of demands, that the rich and powerful felt threatened by the Levellers. This is particularly so, given that some of the Leveller demands, almost 400 years on, have still not been met! Since Leveller demands went so much further than Cromwell and other republican leaders could even begin to meet, then they had to be crushed.

The outbreak of the second civil war gave them the opportunity to do this and so the movement which would have surely rid the people of the parasitical classes once and for all was brutally put down.

The final victory of the Parliamentary forces later in 1648 not only led to the execution of the King, but also the suppression of Leveller ideas for a time.

Leveller ideas, though, posed a real challenge to the power and authority of Cromwell particularly with their attitude to the situation in Ireland. The New Model Army had been set up to defend Parliament at home, not to act as a mercenary force which would advance the imperialist ambitions of the English ruling class. The Catholics in Ireland, it was argued, had a claim to freedom and equality which was just as valid as that which the Levellers were arguing for at home.

In ‘The English Soldier’s Standard’, it was argued that military intervention in Ireland would only mean that the Irish would become a subject people exploited by precisely those who the Levellers were struggling to overcome in England. The point was that influential levellers were implacably opposed to the reconquest of Ireland.

When significant elements of the New Model Army refused to embark for Ireland it was obvious that a crucial point had been reached. Radical elements had to be crushed in order for Cromwell to assert his authority. This was achieved at Burford in Oxfordshire where Fairfax and Cromwell surprised the Levellers and defeated them [albeit it with only a handful of casualties]. From this time [May 1649] the New Model Army was completely in the control of Cromwell.

This does not mean, though, that Leveller ideas were totally eradicated. On May Day 1649, the third and final version of the ‘Agreement of the People’ was published. This is the last collective statement of the Leveller leaders and is their most complete political programme. Its preface stated:

“Peace and freedom is our design; by war we were never gainers, nor ever wish to be.”

In this version of the Agreement, there is a restatement of essential Leveller ideas, though there is a divergence between them and the aims of the Diggers to eradicate the ownership of private property. In all other respects, the programme is not dissimilar to earlier versions; the emphasis is still on universal [male] suffrage, accountable government, religious toleration, civil rights, and so on.

Leveller ideas mainly appealed to the dispossessed in society; that is, those who were most threatened by what the Levellers were proposing were unlikely to be persuaded by appeals to the ‘common good’. Since the Levellers were unable to mobilise their followers to any great degree and, given their defeat at Burford, they lacked the ability to challenge the army or government, it is almost inevitable that they were unable to pose any future threat to the ruling class or [restored] Monarchy.

Nevertheless, this is not to say that Leveller ideas are irrelevant or were consigned to the ‘dustbin of history’. Both the Levellers and Diggers are of crucial importance to the development of working class history since they stand in the proud tradition of English radicalism and challenge to the ruling orthodoxy.

Like the Tolpuddle Martyrs and the Chartists of a later period, the Diggers and Levellers posed a serious threat to the ruling class; their direct appeals to the poor and dispossessed resonate throughout the centuries – whilst the language and mode of expression may have changed, the essential demands of these radicals remain as vibrant and necessary today as they were when they were first put.

Some 450 years after the Diggers established their commune at Cobham, we still need to establish the common ownership of property and the development of society based on need, rather than profit. The words of Winstanley echo throughout the centuries:

“When men take to buying and selling the land, saying ’This is mine’, they restrain other fellow creatures from seeking nourishment from mother earth…..so that he that had no land was to work for those, for small wages, that called the land theirs; and thereby some are lifted up into the chair of tyranny and others trod under the footstool of misery, as if the earth were made for a few and not for all men.”

Our task must to be rescue the words of the Diggers and Levellers from obscurity and to locate them quite firmly in the context of working-class history and struggle; to seek inspiration from their words and actions; to ensure that all of these disparate voices are united under the common theme of working class resistance to poverty and oppression

_______________________________________________________________________–

BENJAMIN DISRAELI: FATHER OF THE WORLD WARS

By Mike King – Tomato Bubble

There is a wealth of deep wisdom to be learned from the child-like allegorical tales from Aesop’s Fables. For centuries, stories such as The Boy Who Cried Wolf, The Tortoise and the Hare, and The Ant and the Grasshopper had been staples of western elementary school education. But because these classic mini-stories taught critical thinking, instilled virtues and imparted important life lessons, the thought-provoking tales have, for the most part, long since been banished down the Orwellian memory hole of “modern education” — since replaced by new classics like Barney the faggot dinosaur and Heather Has Two Mommies. And today’s college kids wouldn’t know their Aesop from their A-holes. What a gosh-darn shame.

For today’s lesson in real history, let us first review Aesop’s Fable of The Lion and the Three Bulls. Understand this simple little tale, and you’ll know more about World Wars I and II than 99% of those diploma-decorated dorks who write the “official” history.

The Lion and the Three Bulls

Three bulls for a long time pastured together. A Lion lay in ambush in the hope of making them his prey, but was afraid to attack them whilst they kept together. Having at last by guileful speeches succeeded in separating them, he attacked them without fear, as they fed alone, and feasted on them one by one at his own leisure.

http://fablesofaesop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/i068_th_three_bulls_lion.jpg http://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1219179559p5/12452.jpg

Rothschild’s Great Britain is the lion. The three bulls are Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary.

THE THREE BULLS UNITE

Out of the Franco-Prussian war, imposed upon Prussia and her 30 smaller German allies by Napoleon III of France, a united Germany is born in 1871. Kaiser Wilhelm I is the big boss, but his Chancellor, the legendary Otto von Bismarck, is the political architect.

http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/issue/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/bismarck.jpg

The ‘Iron Chancellor’ realizes early on that the greatest external threat to Germany is the Rothschild-influenced British and French imperialists; while the greatest internal threat are the Red revolutionaries (Communists / Anarchists). Wise Bismarck also understands that the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the great Empire of Russia are targets of these same external and internal forces as well. Indeed, Bismarck, Tsar Alexander of Russia, and Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria have all survived assassination attempts by this time.

In 1873, to check the evil Anglo-Franco-Judeo empire of the West, Bismarck’s brilliant diplomacy brings the three empires into a defensive alliance – The League of the Three Emperors. The negotiated agreement unites the monarchs of Austria-Hungary (Emperor Franz Joseph), Russia (Tsar Alexander II), and Germany (Kaiser Wilhelm I) into a mighty defensive front. The League has three main purposes:

1- to serve as a mutual defense against the growing Red movements which have been terrorizing Europe since 1848

2- to avoid war among themselves, relying on diplomacy to resolve any future differences

3- to oppose the expansion of French or British power into Central and Eastern Europe

The military and financial power of the three empires forms a Central-Eastern European power base that the Rothschilds and their Franco-Anglo ‘hit-men’ will never be able to subdue. There can be no New World Order until this mighty defensive coalition is somehow broken up and smashed.

http://rs195.pbsrc.com/albums/z278/aquirahwindsor/the%20royal%20org/CrownedPrincessRoyalofDenmark006.jpg~c200

THE RUSSO-TURKISH WAR

There are two main causes of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 war. First, Russia desires to reclaim vital Black Sea territory lost in Rothschild’s Crimean War of 20 years earlier, fought against Britain, France & Turkey. The other objective is to liberate the Orthodox Christian Slavic populations of the Balkan states, currently under Muslim Turkish rule. Russia’s Orthodox Christian and Slavic allies, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, and Bulgaria, all fight with Russia.

Russia dominates the fighting and advances towards Turkey’s Capital (Constantinople). Dismayed that Russia may one day capture Palestine from the beaten Turkish Empire, Rothschild Britain’s Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli pressures Russia to accept a truce offered by Turkey; sending ships to the area to intimidate Russia and force a peace conference in Berlin, Germany.

The Russians and their Slavic Allies actually won the war.

THE BRITISH-JEWISH LION PLOTS

Just days before the important international conference is due to take place in Berlin, two assassination attempts are made against German Emperor Wilhelm I. On May 11, 1878, a Red named Emil Max Hodel fires shots at the Emperor and his daughter as they travel in their carriage. Hodel is captured and then executed in August.

Three weeks later, another Red named Karl Nobiling fires a shot gun at the Emperor. The 82-year old Kaiser is wounded, but survives. Nobiling then shoots himself and dies three months later. The New World Order’s war against The League of the Three Emperors is really starting to heat up.

Rothschild-owned Disraeli dominates the Berlin conference, which had been called into session to settle the Russo-Turkish war. Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, Italy, and Turkey attend the Congress of Berlin. The Ottoman Turks still control the “The Holy Land”, but Britain Rothschild masters wish to ultimately take over Palestine. Russia is committed to the protection of Orthodox Christians throughout southern Europe and the Ottoman Empire.

Just before the Congress of Berlin opens, Disraeli concludes a secret deal with Turkey against Russia, whereby Britain is allowed to occupy the strategic island of Cyprus. This gives Disraeli an advantage during the Congress and leads him to issue threats of war if Russia does not comply with the requests of the Turks (who lost the war!).

Another dirty pre-conference dirty deal is struck between the divisive Disraeli and Russia’s ally, Austria-Hungary. Slavic Orthodox Christians, including the Serbian population of the Kingdom of Bosnia & Herzegovina, are to be put under Austria-Hungary’s jurisdiction, not Serbia’s. Russia and its Slavic allies of Bulgaria and Serbia had won the war against Turkey, but now many of the Slavs are to be transferred from Turkish rule to Austro-Hungarian occupation and then, in 1908, actual annexation into the empiree. How very “nice” of Disraeli to award new territory to Austria-Hungary; and how foolish of Austria-Hungary to accept his “Bosnian Horse!”

THE THREE BULLS ARE SEPARATED

Chancellor Bismarck tries to keep the Disraeli-engineered controversies from breaking up the League of the Three Emperors, but the humiliation of Russia at the hands of Britain, Turkey, and Austria-Hungary is too much for it to bear. Russia pulls out of the League. Instead of being allied with Germany (who Disraeli also wants to isolate), Russia is now cut off from her, and placed in a position where it can be played off against Germany’s ally, Austria-Hungary – a classic divide & conquer scheme. Upon his return to England, the evil Disraeli boasts to Queen Victoria of how he killed the League of the Three Emperors.

Austria-Hungary and Turkey were the winners at Disraeli’s Congress of Berlin. Serbia and Russia were the losers.

Disraeli and the Art of Victorian Politics / Page 182

Disraeli: “Our great object was to break up and permanently prevent the alliance of the three Empires and I maintain there never was a general diplomatic result more completely effected.” (here)

BISMARCK MENDS FENCES WITH RUSSIA

The split between Austria-Hungary and Russia is irreparable, but the sly Bismarck figures out a way to mitigate the damage. In 1887, a secret agreement known as “The Reinsurance Treaty” once again binds Germany and Russia to a non-aggression pact, sort of like a “two emperors” league. All the while, Germany remains committed to the defense of its Germanic brother Austrians. The treaty is void if Russia and Austria-Hungary go to war.

In 1890, perhaps under the influence of court intriguers, Kaiser Wilhelm II against Bismarck’s advice, politely turns down Russian attempts to renew the Reinsurance Treaty. The young Kaiser clashes with Bismarck and eventually fires him. Although Wilhelm II maintains good relations with Russia, he has left Russia isolated and easy pickings for the New World Order.

https://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/Photos/Russia/NicholasKaiser.jpg

The Tsar & the Kaiser. After the Reinsurance Treaty lapsed, the two new cousin Emperors (bulls) remained friendly, but were no longer bound in writing. (*Alexander II was Russian Emperor when Treaty lapsed)

RUSSIA TAKES THE BAIT

In 1892, France makes an opening to Russia. The two nations form the Franco-Russian Alliance. Russian literary legend Leo Tolstoy condemns this arrangement as a trick to one day draw Russia into a future French war, presumably against Germany. Tolstoy, condemning the alliance as “a league of war,” sarcastically describes the French as:

“people who, without reason, suddenly professed such spontaneous and exceptional love for Russia.”

As he neared his death in 1897, Bismarck tried to warn the young emperor Wilhelm II of what he saw in Germany’s future:

“… the crash will come twenty years after my departure if things go on like this.” …..”One day, the great European War will come out of some damn foolish thing in the Balkans.”

https://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/bismark_death.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Count_Tolstoy,_with_hat.jpg

1. Bismarck is dead. The great statesman and peacemaker foresaw the evil plot against Germany (and Russia). 2. The Russian novelist Tolstoy saw it coming as well.

In 1907, the trap is expanded to include Great Britain. Russia wants to reconquer Turkish Constantinople (Istanbul) for Christianity; and France & Britain want to take down Germany. The Alliance is known as The Triple Entente. War with one means war with all — and it’s coming!

The Franco-Russian alliance encircles Germany and Austria-Hungary. Britain joined the alliance in 1907.

THE TRAP IS SPRUNG

In 1914, when a gang of Serbian agents / separatists in Bosnia (part of Austria-Hungary because of Disraeli!) murder Arch Duke Francis Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sofie, the Zionist press of Vienna fans the flames of war. Accusations are leveled against Serbia. The danger of the situation is that Serbia is under the protection of Russia; while Austria-Hungary is under the protection of Germany. Disraeli’s destruction of the old League of the Three Emperors, instigated by his controversial redrawing of south eastern Europe’s borders, has now yielded its rotten fruit.

Third cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas of Russia exchange a series of passionate telegrams in which the Kaiser assures the Tsar of his attempts to mediate and hold back Austria-Hungary from attacking Serbia; and the Tsar thanking him for trying to keep the peace. The “Nicky-Willy” telegrams clearly reveal how both Emperors wanted desperately to avoid the coming bloodbath, but were caught up in something beyond their control.

When Austria-Hungary, against German wishes, makes its move on Serbia; the Russians begin advancing towards Austria-Hungary as their French “allies” also mobilize while the trouble-making British begin to stir. Facing the threat of encirclement from east and west, Germany is left with no choice but to defend its Austrian ally and strike in both directions. World War I is on.

The Great War was only triggered by the assassination. The real engineer of the disaster was Rothschild agent, Benjamin Disraeli, who died in 1881.
THE THREE BULLS ARE DESTROYED

In 1917, the disaster of World War I triggers an internal Red uprising in Russia. The Tsar is overthrown and his entire family is murdered by the western-financed genocidal Communists.

Germany and Austria-Hungary will surrender in 1918. Their territories are chopped up and doled out to new or existing states, and their governments are replaced with western puppets. Having been skillfully turned against each other by both external and internal intrigue of the highest level, the three empires are no more. The Emperors should have read Aesop, and they should have listened to Bismarck!

The injustice imposed by the Allied rape of Germany (Treaty of Versailles) will eventually lead to what is essentially ‘Part 2’ of the same war, just 20 years later. Regular readers of TomatoBubble.com know all about that horror story. But as the late Paul Harvey used to say — now you know, the rest of the story.

Related image https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/52/51/94/5251944344f31f9c0e6875b09c7d3f35.jpg
BYE BYE THREE EMPERORS!

1- Russia’s Tsar and family are murdered // 2- Germany’s Kaiser flees for his life to Holland // 3- Austria’s Emperor is exiled to Portugal

The War Against The West

The Nameless War

Revolution’s fingerprint

How the Jews Murdered Charles I

Join Our Newsletter

Where we collect forbidden answers, which beg dangerous questions.