Just who, exactly, are these thugs?

There are some quite bizarre things, politically, on the net and this disjointed article is one of them – specifically trying to work out whom they’re actually going in to bat for.

It’s on G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jeckyll Island and I suppose it’s to be expected that google would promote something like this to the first page of rankings as GEG was a man of the right – if you look at his bio on Wiki, it wastes no time getting down to how kooky and conspiracy theorist he is, plus being a member of the John Birch Society.

GEG it was who interviewed Yuri Bezmenov for that famous youtube about Marxism – both being totally opposed and they would have been soft on McCarthy, had it got to that topic.

The bit that raised my eyebrows was:

Well, fiction be damned. “The Creature From Jekyll Island” is amateurish at best and another total misrepresentation of the facts and events. It is very one-sided and ignores the real political manipulation of the Fed by the government for their own self-interest. It promotes the very same Marxist/socialistic beliefs from the Progressive Era that gave us the New Deal and robbed every one of their future: altering the family structure in the West forever.

Many pundits have read the book which was available online, based on the work of Eustace Mullins.  The thrust of that work, also online at one time, centred on the nature of the Fed as a series of private corporations with deep connections with the federal govt, the whole thing starting back in Jackson’s day and the Nicholas Biddle contretemps, tied up with a firm called Peabody, which later became Morgan and so it goes on.

Mullins/Griffin were very much down on the British interference in American affairs and is a major theme throughout, attacking the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which means Chatham House, main thrust being that this lot, beloved of British PMs, have wreaked havoc, internationally, for a long time now but the difficulty is getting unbiased material because innocuous sounding bodies put out reports/articles and it sometimes takes time to work out their bias:

https://www.sgtreport.com/2019/01/the-truth-about-the-royal-institute-of-international-affairs/

Mullins, by the way, was a fan of Exra Pound.

‘The truth about’ always concerns me as a ferreter/pundit as it’s generally not, or else it’s pure apologetics, one can never tell until it’s gone into.  If you go to James Corbett’s other publication, you see this:

Readers of this column will know all about the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) by now. The CFR’s influence in setting Washington’s foreign policy agenda was once derided as “conspiracy theory.” But, as is often the case, that “conspiracy theory” is now a simple truism that is openly joked about by the conspirators themselves.

From all the preceding, the bizarre labelling of Griffin as ‘Marxist’, being the diametric opposite of what he was, highlights the capacity of the writer to present the diametric opposite of the truth as the truth, something the far left DemRats do on a regular basis – you’ve seen some of Biden’s pronouncements on Trump.

Any pundit worth his salt, right wing or not, will at least pause to test those things out and I’ve been watching the Donald with not 100% blind faith until proved innocent – the notion of a narrative saying Biden is raving mad and senile I’d like to explore a little further before agreeing.  Is the Donald about to bring off a major coup, as the left rabbits on about, when they themselves are perpetrating the coup?

Go back to the ‘Triangle post‘ and it reads as if one apex is trying to pull off a coup over another apex, with the people nowhere, as in any horse race won by Eclipse.

The military, as in the MIC, may well have put Trump into power but he thereafter blotted his copybook with the top brass by his actions in bringing troops home etc.  Perhaps the Donald is his own man, a loose cannon.  The latest ‘ricin’ package seems such an amateurish ploy that certainly we, as pundits and readers, are not au fait, not inside and therefore cannot know what the real game is.

Coming over to this side of the pond, if Chatham House is just an extension of Coleman’s 300, the Round Table groups, with Rothschilds thrown in for good measure, de Beer diamonds et al, then it partly explains this bizarre behaviour of Plod:

As a reader, he says just what we’re all saying but again, any pundit worth his salt would look at Sean and wonder about that name, look at his profile and conclude that he’s OK, in that slightly belligerent way we tend to have.

That behaviour of Plod though is soooo melodramatically OTT, so decidedly bullyboy compared to how they act towards the street thug groups, that one has to ask who the hell is directing them? It has the same element of intransigent thuggery that Barnier and his Marxist unaccountables display.

I’ve an article somewhere in the vaults about why ‘Britain’ does not tell the EU where to get off and the short answer is money and the gravy train, the longer answer is that, ideologically, the ones calling Griffin Marxist, Barnier’s lot, plus the British high command, are all the same bankster mob – they are the cabal, not given to reason, not particularly intelligent, having the minds of Orcs or whoever the thuggish, interplanetary crims are in SF. They are also Templars and Masons.

Britain does not want a fuss because these people themselves started it all off decades ago, they are just as bad, if not worse, than the Bavarian lot at international interference. This is all internecine warfare and again – to hell with the people of the land, the sheeple.

Common Purpose is just another offshoot of the same crowd, as far ranging as the Black Nobility in Italy or the aristocratic creeps in The Missing Children post I keep linking to, except OoL’s down just now.

In short, we’re dealing here, as a people, with a stateless lot of Nephilim if you wish to go religious on it, the same lot who have ruled for millennia, called many names in the modern era, two names being crony capitalists and paedos or more fancifully, the Illumined.

That’s an awful lot of mud being flung around and to compound it, what must also be bleedin obvious is that these people include left and right in equal measure in terms of the visible politics, as stateless as a Peter Sutherland or Blair, an equally fanciful slur being The Damned.

Chuckles the other day called the BofE ‘crisis’ ‘funny money’ and it is – pure fiat, on a whim, the whole notion of solvency being creatively determined. There is no crisis except that manufactured by that lot up there and the Plod thuggery in that clip was a truly pathetic attempt to frighten off and beat down with a big stick.

Big stick is all bully Boris knows from schooldays. Do you remember the Darius Guppy thing about beating up a journo, highlighted on HIGNFY?  And what was an Iranian doing in the mix anyway?

If all the above is so, if my premise holds, then I myself am in some danger, no? Unless my traffic is too low to bother about. Or unless someone is intrigued.

Lastly, you see the Toby Meres type embodied in Hancock and over in the States – someone like Cheney or Rumsfeld exemplifies the type.  Osborne was one too – they can’t be removed until their damage is done, their work is done.

Post navigation

1 comment for “Just who, exactly, are these thugs?

Comments are closed.