As is all too often the case, it is
usually the victors account of history which is recorded
and preserved. Unfortunately, the victors are not always
the good guys.
Winston Churchill and Theodor Herzl, for example, kept
hour by hour accounts of some of the world shattering events
in which they were involved. And Herzl, like Churchill, kept a
careful eye on just what things were preserved, in order to
present an untarnished image of themselves to posterity.
To
the less fortunate however, what is actually said about them,
or what actually took place, very rarely sees the light of day
or appears on the printed page. What does appear after all, is
almost always contrary to the spirit in which it was said or
done, and often completely out of its original context.
Impudent reporters outweigh the respectable ones by an
average of about 100 to 1, while the one being interviewed has
little or no editorial control over a programme’s content,
with no automatic right of reply.
Radio
and T.V. interviews are often so twisted, that even when
confronted with a monitored copy of the original, the one who
made the report will often brush it aside, pleading artistic
licence, freedom of speech and freedom of the press; even
though the answers you originally gave were to entirely
different questions.
This
is Chutzpah, and our history books are full of it, together
with the products of our press, radio, cinema, and television
industries who don’t just report the news, but invent it.
Whenever they want to invade a country, or topple
someone who has “exceeded his service function” - like Saddam
Hussein, for example, or Iran’s Mossadegh, all the goverment
of the day has to do is to leak the idea, or feed it to the
press and the Masonic network, of 7461 British Lodges, and
overnight you hear the captains of industry trotting out
statements, like I heard in 1979 from a former employer of
mine and prominent Sheffield Freemason. “Dave”, he said, “we
need 3 million unemployed”. In three other cities that same
week, I heard similar views, from three other Masons involved
in engineering.
In
1983, I was shown a report sent to an American plastics
machine manufacturer I was representing in Europe and the
Middle East by ‘Carl’, a British based American consultant,
notifying us that it would be safe for Americans to invest in
Britain, because it had been “decided” that Margaret Thatcher
would be returned for another term with a strict mandate to
“Break the Unions”.
At
that time, ‘Carl’ listed amongst his friends Nat Rothschild,
John Delorian, Colin Chapman of Lotus, Paul Hughes, Senior
Vice President of Purchasing Ford Europe, and Derek Gentle,
both of whom we met along with other senior managers on June
30th 1983, at Ford’s corporate headquarters in Brentford.
Meetings at this sort of level could be arranged by ‘Carl’
almost at the drop of a hat.
The
Ford visit was repeated at a similar sort of executive level
at Xerox, Austin-Rover, Vickers, Fiat, Peugeot, and I.C.I. The
handshakes were almost entirely masonic.
Not
long after this, I travelled up from London to Sheffield on
the same train as Arthur Scargill and Peter Heathfield. At an
appropriate moment I went and asked them if they were aware of
the plan. A week or so later, I heard Scargill making mention
of undue American influence at work in Britain (apart from Ian
McGreggor).
The
plan obviously suceeded. And Scargill’s pit closure figures
proved to be a lot more reliable than all of Thatcher’s
henchmen.
Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies, and those of her
successor, and those of his successor, be it Smith or Ashdown,
will not be able to alter the course set for us by the
international bankers.
In a
speech to an assembly in Bradford, on the 29th April 1990, to
a mixed assembly of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs and
Hindus; having drawn their attention to the fact, that since
coming to power in 1979, Mrs Thatcher had managed to more than
double our national debt, from around £84,000,000,000 to
£175,000,000,000; I made the following predictions about the
outcome of her policies and those of her chancellor John
Major:-
“Politicians are only allowed into the Palace of
Westminster on the unwritten understanding that they never
seek to hinder the flow of money and wealth to the financial
institutions in the City of London, through adverse
legislation... Mr Major’s confident prediction that the
economy was successfully on course - without humbly adding on
the other hand: Insha’Allah - providing God allows it - will
regrettably prove to be as ill-judged, and unfounded, as those
of his predecessor Nigel Lawson and many others who have found
themselves in No.11 Downing Steet with the instruction to tell
us to pick ourselves up on our own shovels
And
in a little while, they will rank alongside those of the
captain of the Titanic, who made similar predictions just
before driving “ The ship that even God couldn’t sink”
full-speed into the iceberg. This economy, along with all
those, that use our crazy fractional-reserve, debt-credit
system are heading for another crash, like the 1930s.
The
bankers know it. The bankers need it. And the bailiffs love
it."
The
outcome of Mrs Thatcher’s actions prove conclusively that she
was in fact working on a hidden agenda to eliminate any
organised local British opposition to American interests which
might hinder any military operations from their unsinkable
aircraft carrier in the Atlantic Ocean: The U.S. Great
Britain. She has also carried out her other task on behalf of
the banks, earning for herself in the process the title of “
The best bailiff’s man since Cromwell” and their usual reward
for services rendered - the sack.
With
an occult network of lodges to play with, it is easy to bring
about changes inimical to a country’s interests, and
favourable to those who lend their money to the state. The
Young Turk movement and the Bolshvik Revolution prove that all
that is needed, are pliant captains of industry and corruption
on the bridge. The rest is history - but whose version?
Let
us look at specific historical events, and the claims made by
the Jews that they were unjustly treated, punished, or
persecuted. I am not for one moment suggesting that this has
not sometimes been the case. But as the prophet’s cousin, Ali,
stated over a thousand years before Newton:
“For
every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”.
For
example, why do they say they were persecuted and unfairly
treated by Napoleon I, The Sultan, and the Tzar? In the case
of Napoleon, they say that he was an opportunist who prevented
the genuine implementation of their legally bestowed civil
rights; however, the main complaint about him was, that having
already been emancipated by him in 1791, he had no right to
make them subject to new laws. This even though it was he who
ordered them to tear off their official yellow badges of shame
in Italy, on February 15th 1798, which the Lateran Council had
ordered them to wear since 1215. They say that following this
he went on to humiliate their “Notables” with a list of
“impudent requests”.
“The
‘Pictorial History of The Jewish People’ by Nathan Ausubel
gives the following examples ” Though the Napoleonic Code had
the practical effect of helping emancipate the Jews of Europe,
the Emperor’s twelve questions appear to have been
deliberately insulting and humiliating to the ‘Notables.’ Some
of the questions were: Were Jews allowed to be polygamists?
Was it allowed for a Jewess to marry a Christian? Did French
Jews feel any obligation of loyalty to France? Did Jewish law
forbid taking usury from Jews but sanctioned it from
Christians?
Probably the most constructive question the emperor
asked was about the need of a plan for stimulating the Jews of
the Empire to take up the practice of arts and crafts, in
order that they might learn to substitute dignified callings
for the disgraceful occupations to which for generations and
centuries they had largely devoted themselves...The Grand
Sanhedrin assembled in the Hotel de Ville on February 9, 1807,
and elected Rabbi David Sinzheim as its president. It readily
confirmed the decisions of its parent body. It also issued
prohibitions against usury and introduced an innovation: civil
marriage for Jews." [Page 153]
Napoleon’s ban on usury, naturally went down like a
lead baloon with the “Notables”, namely the Rothschilds, who
were already working against him, following his conversion to
Islam in 1798. In ‘Bonaparte et l’Islam, pages 105-125,
Napoleon shows his deep knowledge and understanding of the
subject.
“Moses” he said, “has revealed the existence of God to
his nation, Jesus Christ to the Roman world, Muhammad to the
old continent... Arabia was idolatrous when, six centuries
after Jesus, Muhammad (re)introduced the worship of the God of
Abraham, of Ishmael, of Moses, and of Jesus Christ. The Arians
and some other sects had disturbed the tranquillity of the
East by agitating the question of the nature of ‘The Father
the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ Muhammad declared that there was
none but one God, who had no father, no son, and that the
trinity imported the idea of idolatry...”
“ The
Parthians, the Scythians, the Mongols, and the Tartars and the
Turks, had shown generally themselves to be enemies of science
and the arts, but this reproach cannot be fastened onto the
Arabs, no more than upon Muhammad. The first Omayad Caliph,
was a poet and he granted peace to a Rabbi, because he had
prayed for grace in four beautiful Arabic verses.”
“Al
Mansour, Harun-al-Rashid and Al Mamun cultivated Arts and
Sciences. They were fond of literature, Chemistry, and
Mathematics; they lived with savants, caused the Greek and
Latin Authors, the Illiad, the Odyssey, Euclid, etc., to be
translated into Arabic, and founded schools and colleges for,
Medicine, Astronomy, and Moral Science. Ahmed corrected the
tables of Ptolemy; Abbas was a distinguished Mathematician;
Costa, Alicude, Thabit, and Ahmed measured one degree of
meridian from Saana to Kufa. Chemistry, Alembics, Sun-Dials,
Clocks and Numerical Signs owe their existence to Arab
invention. Nothing is more elegant than their moral tales;
their poetry is full of fervour.”
“Muhammad extolled everywhere the savants and such men
as devoted themselves to a speculative life and cultivated
letters... In the library of Cairo there were 6000 volumes on
Astronomy, and more than 100,000 on other subjects; in the
library of Cordova there were 3,000,000 volumes... Sciences
and Arts reigned under the Caliphs and made great progress,
which was brought to naught by the Mongols.”
“I
hope that the time is not far off when I shall be able to
unite all the wise and educated men of all countries and
establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the
Quran which alone are true and which alone can lead men to
happiness... Christianity preaches only servitude and
dependence...”
The
official French Newspaper of its day, Le Moniteur, carried the
accounts of his conversion to Islam in 1798, and mentions his
new Muslim name which was ‘Aly Napoleon Bonaparte’. He
commends the conversion of General Jaques Menou, who became
known as General ‘Abdullah-Jaques Menou’, who later married an
Egyptian lady, Sitti Zoubeida, who was descended from the line
of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Few people are
aware of this aspect to the Battle of Waterloo, because as we
pointed out at the beginning, the history was written by the
victors.
Unfortunately, the victors once again, were the friends
and patrons of usury, coalescing as usual around the house of
Rothschild. It should come as no surprise to learn that The
Duke of Wellington was a close friend of Nathan Rothschild,
and it was the collusion between the French and English
branches of the Rothschilds that enabled them to smuggle Gold
through France to Wellington in the Iberian Peninsular to pay
the troops fighting against France during the Peninsular war
of 1808 to 1814. Later on, when he became British Prime
Minister, Wellington took the brunt of popular outrage, and
was rightly accused of turning a blind eye to the hardship
caused by the very same Rothschilds for whom their family
members had fought and died, proving once again that gratitude
has a short shelf life.
A
William Heath Cartoon of the period shows Prime Minister
Wellington with his eyes closed playing blind man’s buff,
pretending not to notice their plight. This was particularly
galling for a people and a country which had successfully
waged war to defend these banking houses, which were now
sitting on their hands when what the people needed was help
and action, much like today.
They
say that God deals with the nations, as the nation deals with
their usurers. If it fails to control them effectively, war
and poverty eventually become their lot, because the sin is
both on the giver and the receiver of the interest. Napoleon
tried to rid Europe of usury, but failed in what was a valiant
effort.
Wellington on the other hand, sacrificed 30,000 British
and Irish lives in a battle ostensibly waged to preserve the
interests of those who had caused the problem in the first
place - the House of Rothschild. Wellington prevented the
justifiable closure of their operations in the interests of
world peace and sustainable global prosperity for all.
Once
again the Arch Bishops of European Usury, The Rothschilds, had
managed to prevent the further liberation of Jews and Gentiles
alike, by successfully preventing Napoleon’s clear Islamic
vision for Europe becoming a reality .
However, “it was not long before Napoleon fully
revealed his duplicity”, says Nathan Ausubel. [Ibid]
“He
engineered a Jewish decree through his rubber-stamp Chamber of
Deputies on March 17, 1808, which was referred to by French
Liberals at the time as ‘l’infame decret’ (the infamous
decree). It bristled with special restrictions against Jews in
all their business afairs. For example, before a Jewish
merchant or shop keeper could engage in trade he had to obtain
a licence from the local prefect. But before he could get a
licence he had to present a ”guarantee" of his moral character
from the Jewish Consistory as well as from the city
authorities. The decree also ordered the expulsion of Jews
from the Rhineland unless they consented to become farmers."
“Napoleon”, says Ausubel, “was more concerned with
‘using’ Jews to his own ends than with freeing them. By
imperial decree on March 17, 1808, he ordered the institution
of the ‘Consistoire’ (Consistory for Jewish Affairs). There
was to be a central consistory for the whole empire... Each
consistory was to be run by two Rabbis and two laymen...The
idea behind the consistory was a practical one: to keep the
Jews in line with his purpose and to let it serve as an agency
for supplying the army with Jewish recruits.” [ibid]
In
answer to the above charges, Napoleon had this to say on April
30, 1806, in speeches before the Council of
State:
“ The
Jews provided troops for my campaign in Poland, but they ought
to reimburse me: I soon found that they are no good for
anything but selling old clothes...”
“One
cannot improve the character of the Jews by arguments. For
them must be established special exclusive laws.” [The Secret
World Government, page 87]
“Legislation must be put into effect everywhere that
the general well being is in danger. The government cannot
look with indifference on the way a despicable nation takes
possession of all the provinces of France.
The
Jews have to be treated as a special people. They are a State
within a state...
The
Jews are the master robbers of the modern age; they are the
carrion birds of humanity...
They
must be treated with political justice, not with civil
justice. They are surely not real citizens.
The
Jews have practiced usury since the time of Moses [Corah], and
oppressed the other peoples. Meanwhile, the Christians were
only rarely usurers, falling into disgrace when they did so.
We
ought to ban the Jews from commerce, because they abuse it.
The evils of the Jews do not stem from individuals but from
the fundamental nature of this people." [From Napoleon’s
‘Reflections’ and from speeches before the Council of State,
April 30 and May 7, 1806; quoted in Antizion, page 13-14]
All
Napoleon ever tried to do was to get the Jews to uphold their
own Covenant of the Ten Commandments. He said: “I was
compelled to proclaim laws against them for their usury, and
the peasants of Elace have rendered me their thanks.” [The
Jews, page 11]
The
Holy Qur’an has the last say in the matter: “Because of the
wrong doings of the Jews, We forbade them good things which
before (their misbehaviour) were lawful unto them. And because
of their incesant hindering from God’s ways. And of their
taking Usury when they were forbidden it, and of their
devouring of people’s wealth by false pretences, We have
prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom."
[Surah 4, An-Nisa’ (The Women), verses 160-161]
In
her ‘Secret Societies and Subversive Movements’ Nesta H.
Webster informs us of Napoleon’s attempt to extinguish Satanic
Illuminism.
She
says:- “When in ‘World Revolution’ I asserted that during the
period that Napoleon held the reins of power the devastating
fire of Illuminism was temporarily extinguished, I wrote
without knowledge of some important documents which prove that
Illuminism continued without break from the date of its
foundation all through the period of Empire. So far, then,
from overstating the case by saying that Illuminism did not
cease in 1786, I understated it by suggesting that it ceased
even for a brief interval. The documents in which this
evidence is to be found are referred to by Lombard de Langres,
who writing in 1820, observes that the Jacobins were (only)
invisible from the 18th Brumaire until 1813, and goes on to
say:-
‘Here
the sect disappears; we find to guide us during this period
only uncertain notions, scattered fragments; the plots of
Illuminism lie buried in boxes of the Imperial
police.’"
[Like the papers ignored by the Warren Commision
investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy]
“But”, she says, “ The contents of these boxes no
longer lie buried; transported to the ‘Archives Nationales’,
the documents in which the intrigues of Illuminism are laid
bare, have at last been given to the public. Here there can be
no question of imaginative Abbes, Scotch professors, or
American divines conjouring up a bogey to alarm the world;
these dry official reports prepared for the vigilant eye of
the Emperor (Napoleon), never intended and never used for
publication, relate calmly and dispassionately what the
writers have themselves heard and observed concerning the
danger that Illuminism presents to all forms of settled
government.”
“The
author of the most detailed report is one Francois Charles de
Berckeim, special commissioner of police at Mayence towards
the end of the Empire, who as a Freemason is naturally not
disposed to prejudice against secret societies. In October
1810 he writes, however, that his attention has been drawn to
the Illuminati by a pamphlet which has just fallen into his
hands, namely ‘Essai sur la des Illumines’ which, like many
contemporaries, he attributes originally to Mirabeau. He then
goes on to ask whether the sect still exists, and if so
whether it is indeed:- ”an association of frightful
scoundrels, who aim, as Mirabeau assures us, at the overthrow
of all law and all morality, at replacing virtue by crime in
every act of life." (Archives Nationales F 6563, No.2449,
Serie 2, No 49.)"
“Further, he asks whether both sects of Illumines have
now combined in(to) one, and what are their present projects.
Conversations with other Freemasons further increase
Berckheim’s anxiety on the subject; one of the best informed
on the subject observes to him:- ‘I know a great deal, enough
at any rate to be convinced that the ‘Illumines’ have vowed
the overthrow of Monarchic governments and of all authority on
the same basis.’
Berckheim thereupon sets out to make enquiries, with
the result that he is able to state that the ‘Illumines’ have
initiates all over Europe, that they have spared no efforts to
introduce their principles into the (masonic) lodges, and ‘to
spread a doctrine’ subversive of all settled government ...
under the pretext of the regeneration of social morality and
the amelioration of the lot and condition of men by means of
laws founded on principles and sentiments unknown hitherto and
contained only in the heads of the leaders." [Their oral
Talmudic laws]
“’Illuminism’, he declares, ‘is becoming a great and
formidable power, and I fear, in my conscience, that kings and
peoples will have much to suffer from it unless foresight and
prudence break its frightful mechanisms (ses affreux
ressorts).’”
From
information in the same archive F6563, two years later, on
January 16th, 1813, Mrs Webster informs us that Francois
Berckheim writes again to the Police Minister:-
“Monseigneur, they write to me from Heidelberg ... that
a great number of initiates into the mysteries of Illuminism
are to be found there. These gentlemen wear as sign of
recognition a gold ring on the third finger of the left hand.
On the back of this ring there is a little rose ... by
pressing this with the point of a pin one touches a spring, by
this means the two gold circles are detatched. (Inscribed) on
the inside of the first of these circles is the device: ‘Be
German as you ought to be’, on the inside of the second of
these circles are engraved the words ‘Pro Patria.’”
Mrs
Webster adds: “Subversive as the ideas of the Illuminati might
be, they were therefore not subversive of German Patriotism.
We shall find this apparent paradox running all through
Illuminist movements to the present day.” [1924] [Secret
Societies and Subversive Movements, page 259]
In
‘The War of Anti-Christ with the Church and Christian
Civilization’ (1885), page 30, in a reference to Adam
Weishaupt, the founder of latter day Illuminism, Monsignor
Dillon states:-
“Had
Weishaupt not lived, Masonry might have ceased to be a power
after the reaction consequent on the French Revolution. He
gave it a form and character which caused it to outlive that
reaction, to energize [Through Lucifer ” The Seething Energy
on the Block"] to the present day, and which will cause it to
advance until its final conflict with Christianity must
determine whether Christ or Satan shall reign on this earth to
the end."
Berckheim drew up his great report on the secret
societies of Germany in 1814, which, Mrs Webster says, are of
considerable importance. His testimony, she says, gains
greater weight from the vagueness he displays on the origins
of Illuminism, and the role it played before the French
Revolution, particularly in the absence of any reference to
Robison and Barruel. [Points for the benefit of Professor
Norman Cohn, author of ‘Warrant for Genocide’]
She
states: “ The oldest and most dangerous association is that
which is generally known under the denomination of the
‘Illumines’ and of which the foundation goes back towards the
middle of the last century. Bavaria was its cradle... The
Bavarian Government recognized the necessity of employing
methods of repression and even of driving away several of the
principle secretaries. But it could not eradicate the germ of
the evil. The ‘Illumines’ who remained in Bavaria, obliged to
wrap themselves in darkness so as to escape the eye of
authority, became only the more formidable, the rigorous
measures of which they were the object, adorned by the title
of ‘persecution’, gained them new proselytes, whilst the
banished members went to carry the principles of the
Association into other States...”
“The
doctrine of Illuminism is subversive of every kind of
monarchy; unlimited liberty, absolute levelling down, such is
the fundamental dogma of the sect; to break the ties that bind
the Sovereign to the citizen of a state...”
“Berckheim continues: ‘It would be a mistake if one
confounded Illuminism with Freemasonry. These two
associations, inspite of the points of resemblance in the
[baseless] mystery with which they surround themselves, in the
tests that precede initiation, and in other matters of form,
are absolutely distinct and have no kind of connexion with
each other. [Berckheim, remember, was a Freemason] The lodges
of the Scottish Rite, it is true, number a few ‘Illumines’
amongst the Masons of the higher degrees, but these adepts are
very careful not to be known as such to their brothers in
Masonry or to manifest ideas that would betray their secret...
It is
above all in the Universities that Illuminism has always found
and always will find numerous recruits. Those professors who
belong to the Association set out from the first to study the
character of their pupils. If a student gives evidence of a
vigorous mind, an ardent imagination, the secretaries at once
get hold of him, they sound in his ears the words Despotism,
Tyranny, Rights of the People, etc, etc. before he can even
attach any meaning to these words, as he advances in age,
reading chosen for him, conversations skilfully arranged,
develop the germs deposited in his youthful brain; soon his
imagination ferments, history, traditions of fabulous times,
all are made use of to carry his exaltation to the highest
point, and before even he has been told of a secret
Association, to contribute to the fall of a sovereign appears
to his eyes the noblest and most meritorious act... [Prince
Charles beware]
At
last, when he has been completely captivated, when several
years of testing guarantee to the society’s inviolable secrecy
and absolute devotion, it is made known to him that millions
of individuals distributed in all States of Europe share his
sentiments and his hopes, that a secret link binds firmly all
scattered members of this immense family, and that the reforms
he desires so ardently must sooner or later come about.
This
propaganda is rendered the easier by the existing associations
of students who meet together for the study of literature, for
fencing, gaming, or even debauchery. The Illumines insinuate
themselves into all these circles and turn them into hot-beds
for the propagation of their principles.’ (Archives Nationales
F6563)
Berckheim proceeds to demonstrate that some writers on
Illuminism had been wrong, at least up until the time of his
writing in 1814, in equating the organisation as simply Murder
Incorporated, specialising in regicide, having at that point
only the assassination of King Gustavus the III to its credit.
He claims that these writers were more interested in seeking
an effect than reporting the truth, and says: ‘The sect would
be much less formidable if this were its doctrine. On the one
hand, because it would inspire in most of the Illumines a
feeling of horror which would triumph even over the fear of
vengence.
And
on the other hand, because plots and conspiracies always leave
some traces which guide the authorities to the footsteps of
the prime instigators [as they did for District Attorney Jim
Garrison, enabling him to put on trial C.I.A. agent Clay Shaw
for organising the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy]; and besides, it is the nature of things that out of
twenty plots directed against sovereigns, nineteen come to
light before they have reached the point of maturity necessary
to their execution...
The
‘Illumines’ line of march is more prudent, more skillful, and
consequently, more dangerous; instead of revolting the
imagination by ideas of regicide, they affect the most
generous sentiments: declamations on the unhappy state of the
people, on the selfishness of courtiers, on measures of
administration, on all acts of authority that may offer a
pretext to declamations as a contrast to the seductive
pictures of the felicity that awaits the nations under the
system they (themselves) wish to establish, such is their
manner of procedure, particularly in private. More circumspect
in their writings, they usually disguise the poison they dare
not proffer openly, under obscure metaphysics or more or less
ingenious allegories. Often indeed texts from Holy Writ serve
as an envelope and vehicle for these baneful insinuations...’
“ [Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, page 260-264]
Any
organisation or individual wishing to reprint or copy the contents
of this website may do so as long as the information is kept in its
original form, names of all authors and sources are kept intact and
is used for non-malicious purposes. An acknowledgement and link to
this website would be HIGHLY appreciated.
