|
|
|
Obama: Catspaw of International Finance By Dr K R Bolton Now that Obama has won the Democratic nomination it becomes ever more relevant to explore the connections of his backers and advisers, as this will give an indication on the direction the USA will head should he win the presidency. To consider this as primarily a racial matter, whether in terms of white racism or conversely of liberal anti-racism, is to obscure the role of the Money Power in seeking to control the USA and hence much of the world. Obama seems to have arisen from virtually nowhere. Yet he was able to dominate the field with the assistance of bigger funding. A Reuters report carried in the Dominion Post (Obama raised $45 million, Feb. 22, 08) stated that Obama had raised just over $US36 million back in January, three times more than McCain; while Clinton had raised $US13.9 million. There is much talk of “change”, of a “new direction”. It is the type of “populist” or even mildly “left-wing” rhetoric that serves as a façade for plutocracy while championing “The People”, just as the Bolsheviks were said to be fighting for the “proletariat” while receiving plutocratic largesse. As Oswald Spengler observed early last Century, “there is no proletarian, not even a communist movement, that is not run in the interests and direction of Money”, to paraphrase from his Decline of the West. The same can be said for other movements of supposed reform, whether liberal, socialist or social democrat, in which we might include the Democrats. It will be recalled that Roosevelt promoted the New Deal under the guise of socialistic measures on behalf of the people, yet behind his administration stood plutocrats such as Bernard Baruch. The Federal Reserve Bank was inaugurated under the façade of controlling the money supply on behalf of the people, as attempted by Lincoln, and intended by the US Constitution, yet the Fed was conceived, established and run by the Warburgs, et al. Obama is in such a political tradition, Among Obama’s leading financial backers is the omnipresent George Soros. I’ve often cited Soros as one of the primary movers and shakers behind the scenes of much of the trouble in the world, designed to coalesce all nations, cultures and peoples into a universal state. He was one of the major hidden players in the destruction of the Soviet Bloc (which turned soured on the bankers since the time Stalin kicked out Trotsky), and funds the so-called “velvet revolutions”, one of the consequences being the present Russo-Georgian conflict. He is a principal financier of what might still be termed the “New Left”, or “post-New Left, funding sundry causes including narcotics liberalisation, feminism, abortion liberalisation, pretty much anything designed to undermine the traditional structures of a targeted society under the guise of “human rights” and the “open society”, the latter term being the name of his world wide network of subversive fronts. Obama’s had Soros funding since his Senate campaign in 2004. CNSNews.com reported at the time that this newcomer and comparative unknown had backing not only from the patriarch, but from four other family members, a daughter, two sons and his wife. According to the report by Robert Bluey, Soros had met Obama a few months previously in Chicago, and was seen as an emerging national leader. (Bluey, Unlike Kerry, Obama covets Soros’ support, CNSNews. Com, July 28, 2004). Obama’s advisers contain some very familiar, old faces for a supposed “man of change” Chief economic adviser is Austan Goolsbee, likely to be Secretary of the Treasury in an Obama Administration. Goolsbee is said to be a member of the crypto-Masonic Lodge 322, aka Order of the Skull and Bones, as are both presidents Bush and John Kerry for e.g. Dr Antony Sutton, Stanford research specialist traced the origins of Lodge 322 quite convincingly to the Illuminati, with such links as similarity in ritual and origins in Bavaria. (Sutton, Secret Cult of The Order, Veritas , Australia, 1986; Bolton, From Knights Templar to New World Order, Renaissance Press, New Zealand, 2006). Goolsbee is said to be an initiate from the Yale Class of 91. His membership seems to have been definitively identified by Yale News, although the article now seems to have disappeared down the Memory Hole. In foreign policy, Obama’s chief adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter Admin. Brzezinski is a protégée of the Rockefeller dynasty, founding director of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, and has served on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). His recent comparison of Putin with Hitler and Stalin accords with Soros’ position. Relations between Russia and an Obama USA are likely to become ever more strained. Considering Soros’ strategy, it could be that the USA under Obama will recede from the Bush era gung ho Yankee global hooliganism, in favour of an internationalist strategy of cultural, political and economic subversion, including increased activity in encouraging “velvet revolutions”; what amounts to a renewed ideology of “world revolution”, a ‘Plutocratic Trotskyism’. Other corporate backers of the “people’s man” include:-
Dr Bolton is editor of Restoration Magazine Comments:3
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:05 | # While I agree that hyper-centralization of wealth is the proximate expression of the virulence we are attempting to address, a big reason I don’t put much weight on conspiracy theories is similar to the reason I don’t bother putting a lot of time into debunking the canons of Holocaustianity. There are simple, prima facie, reasons for putting one’s energies elsewhere in both cases: In the case of Holocaustianity, it is obvious that the weight given the associated events, even as claimed by their adherents, is vastly out of proportion to similar events, such as the Holodomor and such as the current race replacement going on among Euromen. Moreover the weight given the Holocaust is primarily at the behest of Jews engaging in conflicts of interest given their positions of trust and authority over key Western institutions such as media and academia. Its, prima facie, a self-serving theocracy created by Jews for the rest of us to serve. In the case of the Illuminati/Masonry/Templar/CFR/P2/Trilateralist/Davosman/Bilderberger theories, it boils down to prima facie evidence that the proponents of the theories do not take their own theories seriously. In all these theories, there are a small number (not more than 10,000) men ruling the world in some sort of conspiratorial hierarchy—men whose names and addresses are known. If the proponents of such theories took them seriously then it would entail a relatively straight-forward mission that would require a relatively small special operations team: Kill them all, perhaps with some minor and relatively acceptable collateral damage. These theories have been around long enough that you would think there would have been some attempt to take out the conspirators. 4
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:32 | # “In the case of the Illuminati/Masonry/Templar/CFR/P2/Trilateralist/Davosman/Bilderberger theories, it boils down to prima facie evidence that the proponents of the theories do not take their own theories seriously.” -James Bowery And yet “it” is there. Not being all important, it is not unimportant. Prima facie, the power elites invest time, money, and effort in sustaining “it” and recruiting new members into “it”. I think “it” is what Pierce called “The Club”. I recall, having listened to one of his recorded broadcasts on said topic, his description/characterization of Bill Clinton’s recruitment and grooming for “The Club” because “they” thought that he had “potential”. Just as Dr. Bolton described with Obama. So what is “it” and who are “they”? My suggestion: “it” is a mechanism that lubricates the interactions of and provides some coherence to the coming together of relatively individualistic, alpha-males of mostly European origin for whom this level of co-operation would not come naturally. Were there not once elaborate practices/rituals of chivalry/honor that lubricated the interactions of elite White men (first got that from Tolkien - not entirely useless)? All this is in large part facilitated and constructed by the Jews. The Jews don’t need to engage in any of this “above and beyond the call of duty” for cohesion; it just materializes in the natural sorting out of things for them: that is their group evolutionary strategy, it is not ours. If we are to be of use to them (the Jews) they need those of us who have the requisite “character” (or lack thereof - in my religious/normative opinion or at least to suit our purposes) and “potential”. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:30 | # “If we are to be of use to them” It’s the other way around. Jewish members of the power elites are dependent upon WASP members and vice versa, and together they form a separate, internationalist caste. 6
Posted by Bill on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:54 | # War with Russia is on the agenda 7
Posted by Bill on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:58 | # War with Russia is on the agenda http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/index.shtml Apologies above - trying to get to grips with links. 8
Posted by torgrim on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:41 | # “War is on the Agenda, by Paul Craig Roberts”.... Thank you Bill, I recomment reading this one. A sample, “What is wrong with Americans? “Americans no longer have a government that is for the people and by the people. They have a govenment for and by special interests and an insane ideology.” This cabal, this club, are mad. Here is a real player, one of those that support this insanity. He even wants to rebuild the Temple, and guess where….that’s right, at the Dome of the Mosque, the third most holy site in Islam… Madness! Check out Irving Moskowitz, at; 9
Posted by Stan on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:35 | # DECENTERING OUR ADVERSARIES We are often startled by the acceptance by our diverse white leadership of terms and labels that place our adversaries in the middle of the discourse. Our comment here is a little different from our campaign against words and phrases that demean our diverse white population in that it is gently critical of words and phrases that elevate our adversaries by placing them in the center of discourse. Middle East A well-known example is the use of “Mid-East” or “Middle East” to describe the Semites’ home countries as compared with “Southwest Asia” (a term used by the USA in its census reportage) or “the Levant” (an old-fashioned term). Obviously, to describe some territory as the middle of part of the world is to ramp up its status in world affairs. When you get right down to it, except for the widely advertised hatefulness of the Semitic cousins toward each other and toward all Christians, the Levant is literally on the wasted margins of Asia in a trash heap of history. It’s not the center of anything. PC destroyed the use of “Far East” and “Near East” as terms used to identify territories by their distance from the London-Paris axis, and we need to dump “Middle East” similarly. Elites Another example is the use of “elite” or “the elitists” to describe our adversaries. These people are not elites on any level—they are quarrelsome Semitic trash that lives and acts one notch above the Roma (Gypsy) peoples’ behaviors. So far from being elites, our adversaries are simply a cabal of tricksters, deceivers, and destroyers. We say “a cabal” to avoid saying “a conspiracy” which term has now been undermined. Preachments by the cabal of universal democracy and of a worldwide monoculture are simply ways to attack us, and are not supported in the day-to-day activities of the preachers. It’s All About Us, Not Them Anyway, we need to examine all the labels we have been accustomed to use to see which are helpful to our interests by placing our concerns in the center (like the rights theory for white liberation argumentation) and identifying our adversaries as fringe people operating as a cabal for our destruction. 10
Posted by DavidL on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:57 | # From John C Miller’s “Origins of the American Revolution”(1943): “They (Whigs) were not making war upon the principle of aristocracy and they had no more intention than had the Tories “The demand that the revolution be directed against abuses at home as well as tyranny abroad was strengthened by the efforts It really is them( Rich Aryans + their Talmudic allies) vs us. 11
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:13 | # If McCain doesn’t do something really stupid before November, I think he’ll win. If so, then my concerns about imminent EMP strikes (before the election) are correspondingly reduced. Moreover, if GT is correct, McCain liberates us by bringing down the central government through war (and there may be EMP attacks on the US during that transition). However, I’m still skeptical of McCain’s chances. Never underestimate an African “alpha” contending for control of economic rent. 12
Posted by GT on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:21 | # Young men and mothers fear the draft. Women are looking for ‘sensitive’ male candidates. McCain’s choice of Palin, a mother, tempers his pro-war and ‘neanderthal’ image. Men aren’t fooled by this. Women, by and large, are fooled. Yesterday, while in downtown Los Angeles, I overheard one large, racially mixed group of women (African, Asian, Chicano, White) speak positively of McCain and his choice of Palin. It blew me away, until I thought about it. Obama will maintain our occupation of the middle east. McCain will expand the occupation, possibly to the point of a military confrontation with Russia. Russia will not back down in the Caucasus. They will not be the first to lob nukes. What they will do is engage surrogates to take the war to us. 13
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:32 | # “They will not be the first to lob nukes. What they will do is engage surrogates to take the war to us.” - GT So, if Obama is elected the risk of nuclear war is negligible. If McCain is elected the risk of nuclear war is what? Is the risk of nuclear war an acceptable risk? 14
Posted by Bill on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:00 | # Obama - The Postmodern Coup Making of a Manchurian Candidate
15
Posted by Bill on Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:03 | # Damn! - above. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3929459/Obama-The-Postmodern-Coup-Making-of-a-Manchurian-Candidate 16
Posted by Dave Johns on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:57 | # “Obama - The Postmodern Coup Making of a Manchurian Candidate” Or maybe Hussein ZERObama is just a “special needs” candidate who will need special attention if, God forbid, he acually gets elected? 17
Posted by Dave Johns on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:10 | # When I refer to Obama as someone with “special needs,” I’m comparing him to the mentally impaired; therefore, he will require constant adult supervision. 18
Posted by silver on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:41 | # McCain’s the Jewish candidate. I think he has it sewn up. Democrats fumble again. 19
Posted by GT on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:44 | #
Negligible is your word. Considerably less than McCain is how I’d describe it.
Much greater than Obama.
What do you think, Captain? White nationalism’s “worse is better” brigades should be supporting McCain. Instead, they support Obama. Why is that? ‘Cause Obama’s going to make the situation worse for the White man in these United States of Amerikwa and generate a ground$well of $upport for White nationali$m? Pardon me while I laugh my ass off. Obama is ‘moderated.’ White deconstruction will continue at more or less the same pace it always has – maybe a little faster, but not uncomfortably so. At best, ea$y online raciali$m will see a mode$t increase in $upport from pensioners – all of it online and not from the type of people we need. A McCain presidency, on the other hand, might force ea$y online raciali$m to put up or shut up. We can’t have that, of course. 20
Posted by GT on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:07 | # If you support Obama, don’t lie about an Obama presidency generating the type of support White nationalism needs. It won’t happen - and you know it won’t happen. Tell the truth. A McCain presidency means drafting your children/grandchildren for a major ground war in the Caucasus and increased risk of nuclear confrontation with Russia. 21
Posted by Dave Johns on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:32 | #
Scary! 22
Posted by silver on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:43 | # You’re on the road to extinction anyway, Dave. Being at the epicentre of a nuclear blast would be less painful than watching everything you love be devoured by locusts. 23
Posted by Dave Johns on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:57 | # You’re on the road to extinction anyway, Dave. Being at the epicentre of a nuclear blast would be less painful than watching everything you love be devoured by locusts. silver, I think you’ve just contributed to the corroborating evidence in the case that JWH has brought against you. 24
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:59 | # “White nationalism’s “worse is better” brigades should be supporting McCain.” - GT Wasn’t it your recommendation to support McCain for that reason? “At best, ea$y online raciali$m will see a mode$t increase in $upport from pensioners…” Well, I won’t be seeing one dime of that money myself. Plus I’m not a pensioner. Further, I don’t think that discussing issues related to WN on the internet in an intelligent manner is justly characterized as “easy online racialism.” “A McCain presidency, on the other hand, might force ea$y online raciali$m to put up or shut up. We can’t have that, of course.” - GT Sounds good to me, I won’t oppose it. It’s just that thing about a “nuclear confrontation with Russia” that gives me pause. The risk of tens of millions of Whites being incinerated doesn’t sit well with me. “If you support Obama, don’t lie about an Obama presidency generating the type of support White nationalism needs. It won’t happen - and you know it won’t happen. Tell the truth.” - GT I used to be more committed to that idea than I am presently. I’ve been “awake” for about a year now. I’m still trying to sort out all the issues. Cut me a break. Guilty of vacillation? I’ll confess it. But lying? That is not warranted. “A McCain presidency means drafting your children/grandchildren for a major ground war in the Caucasus and increased risk of nuclear confrontation with Russia.” - GT No, that would be me. If I vote for McCain and he reinstitutes the draft I’ll really be putting my money where my mouth is. 25
Posted by GT on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:59 | # Of course Obama is the cat’s-paw of international finance. Why this should matter to ea$y online raciali$ts with income derived from “international finance” is difficult for mere plebeians to see. I sympathize with Dr. Bolton, but the non-movement is entirely dependent upon international finance and is not interested in minimizing dependency. Ea$y money, ea$y faith, and ea$y online raciali$m = conservatism = controlled opposition. 26
Posted by silver on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:18 | #
Yeah, he’s really got me against the wall.
For the life of me I don’t understand this Russian fantasy. Russian-Americans, maybe. But Russian-Russians? Fellow white comrades-in-arms? A case of unrequited love if you ask me. 27
Posted by GT on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:56 | #
Not because I believe ‘worse is better,’ Captain. I don’t. What I want is for every member of White nationalism’s pro-Obama “worse is better” brigade to quit lying about their motivation for supporting the Magic Negro and walk the talk.
Good for you. You weren’t accused of receiving non-movement money.
Good for you. You weren’t accused of being a pensioner. However, your status as a non-pensioner has no bearing on the fact that the non-movement is - like Reno’s one-armed bandits and Pat Robertson - funded by 401k dividenders, social security, and disability checks.
Ea$y online raciali$m is not about intelligent discussion. Intelligent discussion was Fred’s ploy to misdirect. Ea$y online raciali$m is about urging others to assume risks that proponents avoid. And sending donation$ to $upport u$ in our important work. And the silly belief that Internet hobbyism will turn things around. Ea$y online raciali$m i$ a $ham.
The second post wasn’t addressed to you. It was addressed to ‘White nationalists’ who support Obama because “it will grow the movement” because “worse is better.” These people know who they are.
Once again, good for you. But walking the talk for McCain only has meaning if the young men concerned volunteer for military service or are drafted. —— See y’all next week. 28
Posted by Bill on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:20 | # Ron Paul: ‘There’s no difference’ between McCain and Obama 29
Posted by snax on Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:51 | # More efforts like this can only be a good thing:
30
Posted by Darren on Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:17 | # Good article by Dr. Bolton. My question, though, would be: how is McCain not a tool of international finance? Both are supported by the big financiers and bankers. Perhaps Obama is favored more than McCain, but both are clearly tools of monied interests. Highlighting one while ignoring the other implies that somehow McCain is not part of this grand scheme of global money. Really, in the modern context, “Democrat” vs. “Republican” are just two sides of the same coin. Sure, you see them disagreeing amongst themselves, and I’m sure they really do have disagreements with each other, but in the big picture, they’re just promoting slightly different ways of achieving the same ends. Soros disagrees with Wolfowitz, but they’re both out there carving up and manipulating the world to the same ends. 31
Posted by Erik Z on Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:51 | # I really hope Obama wins the presidency, I’ve been watching the polls tonight and it looks like he will. I think he will become a very good President for all races. Post a comment:
Next entry: Save our Children from State Social Engineering
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 04:26. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:35. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) |
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:05 | #
Restoration Magazine.