Dear Israel Lobby, We Give Up

[American Dream]

Alexander Baron is really worth NOT spending the valuable resources of time and attention on. I would like the thirty seconds back I spent reading his 9-11 well-poisoning Likudnik talking points.

Larry Silverstein is just a New York landlord.

That quote made my day.

Entirely predictable that you avoid the actual content of the article by making a sweeping ad hominem and/or cherrypicking one fragment of a quote which you then misrepresent.

This is a repeated pattern on your part, and not an intellectually sound way of defending Icke and/or his sort of Rothschild Theory...

I suggest you re-read what I posted as I made a distinction between Icke's views and my own, which seems to have eluded you. It appears to be a repeating pattern of yours that any post I have with a word Icke in it you end up misquoting or posting Icke reptilian cartoons! Is this a model for 'critical thinking'?

There are major important issues with the role of Rothschilds, regardless of what David Icke says about them . YOU then started talking about Icke.

To go back (again) to my post - I posed a question -
Connection a Barclays and a Rothschilds dot?


Sorry, my post was about the Rothschilds, not about David Icke - did you even read the nonsense Baron wrote on 9/11? I followed the link YOU provided. Its faux-left garbage - like Cockburn on 9-11. Going to a link that YOU provide and then being called intellectually dishonest for saying it is (not even LIHOP) rubbish??

You can get more interesting information on the Rothschilds by reading Wiki. It is actually a really good article.

BTW saying that someone is writing bollox is not always an ad hominem. I would have trusted that you saw the self-evident nature of Baron's writing WRT 9-11. GTFO

I'll repeat my comments verbatim, because you seem to be missing the point:


Entirely predictable that you avoid the actual content of the article by making a sweeping ad hominem and/or cherrypicking one fragment of a quote which you then misrepresent.

This is a repeated pattern on your part, and not an intellectually sound way of defending Icke and/or his sort of Rothschild Theory...

[Searcher08]

Alexander Baron is really worth NOT spending the valuable resources of time and attention on. I would like the thirty seconds back I spent reading his 9-11 well-poisoning Likudnik talking points.

Larry Silverstein is just a New York landlord.

That quote made my day.

Entirely predictable that you avoid the actual content of the article by making a sweeping ad hominem and/or cherrypicking one fragment of a quote which you then misrepresent.

This is a repeated pattern on your part, and not an intellectually sound way of defending Icke and/or his sort of Rothschild Theory...

Please point out the words where I am ' defending Icke and or his sort of Rotshchild Theory' - ie select a single line of my post that indicates that.
Because I sure as fuck cant find anything.

I would like to add a personal note - that I find your tone here very rude - like if we were in a bar it would be at the level of having someone throw a pint of beer in my face. OK?





I suggest you re-read what I posted as I made a distinction between Icke's views and my own, which seems to have eluded you. It appears to be a repeating pattern of yours that any post I have with a word Icke in it you end up misquoting or posting Icke reptilian cartoons! Is this a model for 'critical thinking'?

There are major important issues with the role of Rothschilds, regardless of what David Icke says about them . YOU then started talking about Icke.

To go back (again) to my post - I posed a question -
Connection a Barclays and a Rothschilds dot?


Sorry, my post was about the Rothschilds, not about David Icke - did you even read the nonsense Baron wrote on 9/11? I followed the link YOU provided. Its faux-left garbage - like Cockburn on 9-11. Going to a link that YOU provide and then being called intellectually dishonest for saying it is (not even LIHOP) rubbish??

You can get more interesting information on the Rothschilds by reading Wiki. It is actually a really good article.

BTW saying that someone is writing bollox is not always an ad hominem. I would have trusted that you saw the self-evident nature of Baron's writing WRT 9-11. GTFO

I'll repeat my comments verbatim, because you seem to be missing the point:


Entirely predictable that you avoid the actual content of the article by making a sweeping ad hominem and/or cherrypicking one fragment of a quote which you then misrepresent.

This is a repeated pattern on your part, and not an intellectually sound way of defending Icke and/or his sort of Rothschild Theory...

[Sounder]

There are major important issues with the role of Rothschilds, regardless of what David Icke says about them . YOU then started talking about Icke.

See how well that works. Hell who needs a brain, those fuckin things are getting outdated anyway.

[slimmouse]

Hey Sounder, In between the AD ad breaks as he tries to create a better world by simply ignoring/fudging any efforts to identify the cause of the disease within the tried and tested hailstorm of racist nonsense, thanks for the links, and the info.

I think, probably like yourself, its all well and good to speak of the 1% and all the rest of it,( although I actually feel ,probably like yourself that this is a more than overbloated reflection of who really pull the strings). What really matters is dealing with the spider. Until we do that, its all just pages and pages of rhetoric that will acheive nothing.

Im not married to anyones ideas of exactly who the select few are, but Im pretty damn sure they exist. All the rest is window dressing to me.

EDITED to get the posters name correct lol.

[Searcher08]

Hey Searcher, In between the AD ad breaks as he tries to create a better world by simply ignoring/fudging any efforts to identify the cause of the disease within the tried and tested hailstorm of racist nonsense, thanks for the links, and the info.

I think, probably like yourself, its all well and good to speak of the 1% and all the rest of it,( although I actually feel ,probably like yourself that this is a more than overbloated reflection of who really pull the strings). What really matters is dealing with the spider. Until we do that, its all just pages and pages of rhetoric that will acheive nothing.

Im not married to anyones ideas of exactly who the select few are, but Im pretty damn sure they exist. All the rest is window dressing to me.

slim, I find the Rothchilds a REALLY INTERESTING FAMILY. In fact I cant think of a more R.I. oriented family. Much more so than the Bushes (who are IMHO the Evil Meanies)
So for example , if it hadn't been for a Rothschild, jazz music would have been very different.
Here is the patron of Thelonious Monk, Pannonica in music dedicated to her.

[American Dream]

Please point out the words where I am ' defending Icke and or his sort of Rotshchild Theory' - ie select a single line of my post that indicates that.
Because I sure as fuck cant find anything.

I would like to add a personal note - that I find your tone here very rude - like if we were in a bar it would be at the level of having someone throw a pint of beer in my face. OK?

Here are your words:
"I think that the Rothschilds deserve a thread of their own. Their role in the international banking system seems both pivotal, yet also from what I can make out, very different than that as characterised by David Icke - ie the top of a pyramid. I don't think it works like that. However, I would far rather that some attention is paid to their role than not ."

I do get that you don't agree perfectly with Icke here but it does seem that you put far more importance on the Rothschilds than I do. I'm not convinced that they are currently central to anything all that powerful or important, other than some right wingish and/or racist conspiracy motifs, which really hurt the Cause, in my view.

As to my saying this:

Entirely predictable that you avoid the actual content of the article by making a sweeping ad hominem and/or cherrypicking one fragment of a quote which you then misrepresent.

This is a repeated pattern on your part, and not an intellectually sound way of defending Icke and/or his sort of Rothschild Theory...

It is a true expression of my opinion and it is true that I am extremely frustrated by this kind of pattern- both on your part and on slim's.

For example, if I posted something by Baron about the Rothschild's I'd like it better if you responded to what I actually posted rather than saying that his position on 9/11 seems faulty (which I might agree with to some degree).

So anyway, I will try to monitor my tone but you could also help by avoiding these sorts of ad hominems and Non sequiturs!

[AlicetheKurious]

I was going to flush this post down the toilet, after I discovered how badly this thread had been derailed. But, what the hey:

Jack, don't leave off. Surely we can discuss something from different points of view without disturbing the peace?

Just because a principle or a value has been abused doesn't mean that it should be dismissed, or that it's meaningless. On the contrary, the most cynical, exploitative and selfish people use it specifically because it is such so potent to move us, on perhaps a very deep level, and because it fulfills a very deep human need.

In fact, "love" is probably the only value that has been abused more commonly, and more destructively, than "loyalty to one's country". No doubt most wife-batterers and child abusers (even murderers) describe themselves as motivated by "love". A lot of emotionally abusive parents view themselves as "loving" and devoted to their poor children. I can't listen to a lot of "love" songs without hoping that the songwriter/singer will find good professional help. And then, there's the old cliche: "If you really loved me, like I love you, you'd..."

But despite all the terrible abuses of the idea of love, this does not change the fact that in its healthy aspects, love itself is a noble, empowering, enriching and essential drive that allows us to transcend our narrowest and smallest selves, and to bring out of us previously unsuspected strengths.

But with all the false, pathological messages being directed at us, how can we differentiate between the healthy and unhealthy forms of love?

This reminds me (yes, things occur to me as I write) of that wonderful story by Paulo Cuelho that I quoted once before here at RI:

Prologue to The Alchemist, by Paulo Cuelho:

The alchemist picked up a book that someone in the caravan had brought. Leafing through the pages, he found a story about Narcissus.

The alchemist knew the legend of Narcissus, a youth who knelt daily beside a lake to contemplate his own beauty. He was so fascinated by himself that, one morning, he fell into the lake and drowned. At the spot where he fell, a flower was born, which was called the narcissus.

But this was not how the author of the book ended the story.

He said that when Narcissus died, the goddesses of the forest appeared and found the lake, which had been fresh water, transformed into a lake of salty tears.

"Why do you weep?" the goddesses asked.

"I weep for Narcissus," the lake replied.

"Ah, it is no surprise that you weep for Narcissus," they said, "for though we always pursued him in the forest, you alone could contemplate his beauty close at hand."

"But...was Narcissus beautiful?" the lake asked.

"Who better than you to know that?" the goddesses said in wonder. "After all, it was by your banks that he knelt each day to contemplate himself!"

The lake was silent for some time. Finally, it said:

"I weep for Narcissus, but I never noticed that Narcissus was beautiful. I weep because, each time he knelt beside my banks, I could see, in the depths of his eyes, my own beauty reflected."

"What a lovely story," the alchemist thought.

I think this short parable contains the key to both the healthy form of "love" and the healthy form of "loyalty to one's country" (which is but another type of love). Like love, loyalty to one's country should never come at the expense of one's integrity or self-respect, or sense of self-worth and dignity; on the contrary, in its healthy form, it has the power to ennoble and inspire us.

No country is more of an abstraction than "America." By which I mean to repeat my point: I don't like anyone telling me what constitutes "loyalty." Because those are usually the authoritarians who mean loyalty to themselves, or loyalty to a very narrow vision of what the "country" should be. Also because, as often as not, those are the ones who are going to claim that loyalty to the US and loyalty to the colonial outpost ("the only democracy in the Middle East") are the same thing.

This is like the example above, of the "if you loved me, you'd...(usually something toxic or miserable)." They can claim whatever they like, but if one's loyalty is truly to one's country and not to those who illegitimately claim loyalty to themselves, then one will fight them, not obey them.

Like it or not, those who most readily resort to talk of "loyalty" are the most authoritarian, least tolerant and most regressive elements of our political mosaic, with an extremely specific idea of "loyalty" that would, for example, include loyalty to the military in an aggressive war, but would not make a priority of loyalty to the US Bill of Rights. (I believe you may have a problem with their counterparts in Egypt, the ones who speak of "loyalty" as they commit atrocities against the people, whom they sometimes call "anti-Egyptian" for not kow-towing to an injust state.)

It's good that you mention Egypt as an example, because it illustrates just what I mean. For 30 years, Mubarak's regime tried to conflate between loyalty to Egypt and loyalty to him. His supporters and sycophants actually referred to him as "the national symbol", and treated any opposition as treasonous to Egypt. In the last few years especially, flag-waving and other expressions of nationalist fervor were coopted by the regime. Even so, at no point was the regime able to quell dissent completely: the prisons and graves were full of those who fought them, often single-handedly. Passivity, demoralization, depression were pervasive. Books starting coming out with titles like, "Whatever Happened to the Egyptian People?" and, in a cynical twist on the nationalist slogan "Egypt is My Mother", a book came out with the title, "Egypt is My [Evil] Stepmother." It went through 17 printings and was constantly sold out. But then suddenly, defying all the 'experts' who had written the Egyptians off, the whole country rose up and overthrew him and his regime.

And all of us were astounded at the depth of love we felt for our country. The effect was noticeable all around us. We'd thought we were broken, but suddenly we felt whole and clean and stronger than we'd ever suspected we could be.

And yes, then we were betrayed by the generals, and by the Muslim Brotherhood, who chose to pursue their own narrow interests at our expense, while proclaiming the loftiest patriotic principles, of course. The generals started killing demonstrators, torturing them, putting them away in military prisons, by the thousands. But that's what evil tyrants do.

The amazing, incredible thing is that despite the heavy cost, there is no dearth of brave young people defying them in every way. If you look at the list of martyrs, you'll discover that many of them had everything to live for: medical students at the top of their class, lawyers, computer engineers, from comfortable backgrounds or making a good living, or just starting families, with so much to lose, but willing to sacrifice it -- for what? Our hero Ahmed Harara, who has become a genuine national symbol, used to be a successful young dentist; he lost one eye on January 28, 2011, the "Friday of Anger", to a police sniper.

He lost the other one on November 19, 2012, to an army sniper.



When asked if he regretted the sacrifice he's made, he answered, "My eyes are not more important than Egypt."

I'm honored to say that Ahmed Harara is not unique. The revolution has transformed Egypt into a veritable fountainhead of heroes and heroines, all motivated by a deep love for their country and a desire to transform it into one that nurtures the best in all of us. Despite the most unbearable provocations, they've kept their struggle non-violent, creative and driven by solidarity with their fellow Egyptians and all who suffer from injustice, because that's what they want Egypt to represent. These were the "invisible generation", whom nobody took into account; now they are our inspiration and our hope.

How can you dismiss such a powerful weapon in the hands of the people, just because its counterfeit is used by oppressors? Especially when, in the presence of the real thing, the counterfeit doesn't stand a chance: it is so obviously cheap, tinny and hollow.

[slimmouse]

Thanks for the wonderful post Alice. One of my favourite authors spoke recently about the abuse of the term love. The author also speaks of the vitality of digressional thinking, be that regional or national or whatever as long as no-one gets harmed. My original post was simply suggesting names as requested. Anyone with half a brain can see what happened next, and regrettably I got drawn in. One day I'll learn.

[Searcher08]

Please point out the words where I am ' defending Icke and or his sort of Rotshchild Theory' - ie select a single line of my post that indicates that.
Because I sure as fuck cant find anything.

I would like to add a personal note - that I find your tone here very rude - like if we were in a bar it would be at the level of having someone throw a pint of beer in my face. OK?

Here are your words:
"I think that the Rothschilds deserve a thread of their own. Their role in the international banking system seems both pivotal, yet also from what I can make out, very different than that as characterised by David Icke - ie the top of a pyramid. I don't think it works like that. However, I would far rather that some attention is paid to their role than not ."

I do get that you don't agree perfectly with Icke here but it does seem that you put far more importance on the Rothschilds than I do. I'm not convinced that they are currently central to anything all that powerful or important, other than some right wingish and/or racist conspiracy motifs, which really hurt the Cause, in my view.

As to my saying this:

Entirely predictable that you avoid the actual content of the article by making a sweeping ad hominem and/or cherrypicking one fragment of a quote which you then misrepresent.

This is a repeated pattern on your part, and not an intellectually sound way of defending Icke and/or his sort of Rothschild Theory...

It is a true expression of my opinion and it is true that I am extremely frustrated by this kind of pattern- both on your part and on slim's.

For example, if I posted something by Baron about the Rothschild's I'd like it better if you responded to what I actually posted rather than saying that his position on 9/11 seems faulty (which I might agree with to some degree).

So anyway, I will try to monitor my tone but you could also help by avoiding these sorts of ad hominems and Non sequiturs!

I appreciate your comments - lets work backwards.

1 Ad homenens and non sequitars
The article from Baron had a link to an article of his about 9-11. That article was poor quality Cockburn IMHO -

2 Baron's article was full of
smear (look at £55 a ticket!! ),
poor reasoning (if there was anything behind this, wouldn't he be dead now?) - the old 'if there was anything to UFOs, they would have landed already' trope.
extreme disinformation - If you look at the link re Icke he gave, his description of the Holly Grieg case is frankly disgusting to anyone with some familiarity with it. It is like the worst Catholic church dismissal of the pedophile priest issue. Why is this important? Because it provides evidence that Baron doesn't go into his subject in depth and / or takes the party line. This is not ad hominem.

3 You post loads of articles - you have often told me that just because you post something does NOT mean that you agree with it at all, it can be done with an 'this is whats out there' researcher approach. So when you post someone else thoughts, I'm engaging with those in the post as a Gestalt if you will. You have not posted YOUR thoughts on the Rothschilds in the Baron post ( would far rather have listened to you than Barron)
I pay a LOT of attention to whether a writer appears to value accuracy and present their subject(if factual) in a pretty neutral way - so for myself someone like Glenn Greenwald provides radical, challenging input that requires time for consideration. Alexander Baron does not exhibit this value based on his articles re 9-11 and Holly Greig.

4 Let's look at one paragraph
If the truth be told
whose truth is that?

, like his American counterpart Alex Jones,
This makes it sound like Jones and Icke are the same. I see them as quite different. He doesnt establish any basis for their similarity


Icke is making a comfortable living out of peddling his conspiracy literature;
What is a 'comfortable living'? What about in £?
Weasel words in this context AFAIK David lives in a three bedroom semi-detached house where he has lived for decades. The Isle of Wight isnt exactly Martha Vineyard.
Peddling conspiracy literature = more weasel words for selling books.

how else could he afford to hire Wembley Arena on October 27 this year?
Through having a revolving credit line with his bank? Through a factoring company? Through advance ticket sales?
Through putting aside loads of money from smaller venues?
Notice that he doesnt even say HOW MUCH.

6 Baron dismisses the role of Wall St in funding Hitler
This has been very carefully documented by Anthony Sutton, who also documented the history of Skull and Bones as probably coming from German Hegelian / Illuminist origins.

7 Baron ignore deep connections between Israel and the Rothschild family
The actual Knesset building was funded by and commissioned by the family. Hey, the fact that it has an pyramid with an all seeing eye just goes to show what a ubiquitous design motif it has become.

My knowledge of early zionism is from Neturei Karta - the idea of nothing much happening till Balfour seems to look on Balfour as just kind of arriving in a vacuum.
http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documen ... stions.cfm

I do get that you don't agree perfectly with Icke here
That is an unclear statement,because I do NOT agree with his hierarchical pyramid model. Adding 'perfectly' creates the misleading impression I match him closely but not exactly.

but it does seem that you put far more importance on the Rothschilds than I do.
I see them as being a crucial part of the ecosystem and people who I respect enormously like Catherine Austin Fitts have described in detail how that power is realised.

I'm not convinced that they are currently central to anything all that powerful or important,
An example - http://dunwalke.com/
Catherine Fitt's brilliant easy as website links show the links between many surprising areas - How a Wall Street bank helped spearhead making money from privatized prisons...
Another example - when Danny Casolaro was getting into murky territory with The Octopus, he was told that he would need to go to Switzerland, because that is where the 'head' was. The Bank of International Settlements is the 'Central Bank of Central Banks' and has been closely associated with the Rothschilds since it's inception. It has an extraordinary degree of opacity in it's operations. It will be around tables at the BIS in Basel that the major issues of transnational capital flows will be discussed.
Another example - the fact that the Global Chairman of Barclays recently married into the Rothschild family is proof of what a small world investment banking is.
That Barclays is at the centre of the New Scientist corporate influence study is... just one of those things!
Another example - the fact that Far Right say 'it's all their fault' - this is smoke that obscures a more complex, surprising and above all more INTERESTING reality.

other than some right wingish and/or racist conspiracy motifs, which really hurt the Cause, in my view.
I have a different perspective than that- sunshine is the best disinfectant and shining a light and creating transparency are the last things the "Eeets Da Jooz!!" brigade want.
Heck, I got more into Thelonius Monk through them.

I'll finish off now

[slimmouse]

The Holly Greig case for me is a perfect example of why Icke should not be ignored. I cant think of anyone anywhere who has devoted more time to this .

To watch AD in his contemptuous dismissal/ smearing of Icke with a thousand ready and able copy and pasted articles stinks to me.

And by the way AD this thread is about how not to offend the Israeli lobby by thinking of a term that wont offend them.

I offered a couple. They sure seem to offend you, for all the usual nonsensical "racist by association" reasons you duly employed. Rather like, its fair to say, the Israeli lobbies themselves. A term which doesnt offend ; The unreachable star for sure, certainly where the latter is concerned. But its an important question nonetheless when you have this pariah racist state creating mayhem at the expense of us all. Wouldnt you agree ?

In your defence I have to readily admit that I dont offer the reams of evidence I could and indeed should to back up my claims . Im lazy to the extreme in that respect for sure. But seriously, I have done the hard yards, and whilst I dont always get it right, I'll back my own judgement based on those yards. The evidence that searcher offers above is but the tip of the iceberg ( but thanks searcher )

Meanwhile ,How exactly is bauerite racist ? Offensive to Germans pehaps ? Anti Germanic ?

If Red Shield stooge is offensive to the stooges, then so be it. If there wasnt so much blood and suffering on their naieve hands my sympathy would probably go out to them. Perhaps it went over your head that my intention there was to suggest how the few are controlling the many through their ignorance and misplaced idealism.

People are dying and were paying for it. And I dont like it and I dont want it.

[Iamwhomiam]

I actually misread it as Israel Fisters!

I suppose Rothschild's Raiders would do or maybe with 'Zionist' stuck in between the RZR.

Rothchild is code word for Rothschild, one of those few self-defining words history's provided us with.

[American Dream]

Please point out the words where I am ' defending Icke and or his sort of Rotshchild Theory' - ie select a single line of my post that indicates that.
Because I sure as fuck cant find anything.

I would like to add a personal note - that I find your tone here very rude - like if we were in a bar it would be at the level of having someone throw a pint of beer in my face. OK?

Here are your words:
"I think that the Rothschilds deserve a thread of their own. Their role in the international banking system seems both pivotal, yet also from what I can make out, very different than that as characterised by David Icke - ie the top of a pyramid. I don't think it works like that. However, I would far rather that some attention is paid to their role than not ."

I do get that you don't agree perfectly with Icke here but it does seem that you put far more importance on the Rothschilds than I do. I'm not convinced that they are currently central to anything all that powerful or important, other than some right wingish and/or racist conspiracy motifs, which really hurt the Cause, in my view.

As to my saying this:

Entirely predictable that you avoid the actual content of the article by making a sweeping ad hominem and/or cherrypicking one fragment of a quote which you then misrepresent.

This is a repeated pattern on your part, and not an intellectually sound way of defending Icke and/or his sort of Rothschild Theory...

It is a true expression of my opinion and it is true that I am extremely frustrated by this kind of pattern- both on your part and on slim's.

For example, if I posted something by Baron about the Rothschild's I'd like it better if you responded to what I actually posted rather than saying that his position on 9/11 seems faulty (which I might agree with to some degree).

So anyway, I will try to monitor my tone but you could also help by avoiding these sorts of ad hominems and Non sequiturs!

I appreciate your comments - lets work backwards.

1 Ad homenens and non sequitars
The article from Baron had a link to an article of his about 9-11. That article was poor quality Cockburn IMHO -

2 Baron's article was full of
smear (look at £55 a ticket!! ),
poor reasoning (if there was anything behind this, wouldn't he be dead now?) - the old 'if there was anything to UFOs, they would have landed already' trope.
extreme disinformation - If you look at the link re Icke he gave, his description of the Holly Grieg case is frankly disgusting to anyone with some familiarity with it. It is like the worst Catholic church dismissal of the pedophile priest issue. Why is this important? Because it provides evidence that Baron doesn't go into his subject in depth and / or takes the party line. This is not ad hominem.

3 You post loads of articles - you have often told me that just because you post something does NOT mean that you agree with it at all, it can be done with an 'this is whats out there' researcher approach. So when you post someone else thoughts, I'm engaging with those in the post as a Gestalt if you will. You have not posted YOUR thoughts on the Rothschilds in the Baron post ( would far rather have listened to you than Barron)
I pay a LOT of attention to whether a writer appears to value accuracy and present their subject(if factual) in a pretty neutral way - so for myself someone like Glenn Greenwald provides radical, challenging input that requires time for consideration. Alexander Baron does not exhibit this value based on his articles re 9-11 and Holly Greig.

4 Let's look at one paragraph
If the truth be told
whose truth is that?

, like his American counterpart Alex Jones,
This makes it sound like Jones and Icke are the same. I see them as quite different. He doesnt establish any basis for their similarity


Icke is making a comfortable living out of peddling his conspiracy literature;
What is a 'comfortable living'? What about in £?
Weasel words in this context AFAIK David lives in a three bedroom semi-detached house where he has lived for decades. The Isle of Wight isnt exactly Martha Vineyard.
Peddling conspiracy literature = more weasel words for selling books.

how else could he afford to hire Wembley Arena on October 27 this year?
Through having a revolving credit line with his bank? Through a factoring company? Through advance ticket sales?
Through putting aside loads of money from smaller venues?
Notice that he doesnt even say HOW MUCH.

6 Baron dismisses the role of Wall St in funding Hitler
This has been very carefully documented by Anthony Sutton, who also documented the history of Skull and Bones as probably coming from German Hegelian / Illuminist origins.

7 Baron ignore deep connections between Israel and the Rothschild family
The actual Knesset building was funded by and commissioned by the family. Hey, the fact that it has an pyramid with an all seeing eye just goes to show what a ubiquitous design motif it has become.

My knowledge of early zionism is from Neturei Karta - the idea of nothing much happening till Balfour seems to look on Balfour as just kind of arriving in a vacuum.
http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documen ... stions.cfm

I do get that you don't agree perfectly with Icke here
That is an unclear statement,because I do NOT agree with his hierarchical pyramid model. Adding 'perfectly' creates the misleading impression I match him closely but not exactly.

but it does seem that you put far more importance on the Rothschilds than I do.
I see them as being a crucial part of the ecosystem and people who I respect enormously like Catherine Austin Fitts have described in detail how that power is realised.

I'm not convinced that they are currently central to anything all that powerful or important,
An example - http://dunwalke.com/
Catherine Fitt's brilliant easy as website links show the links between many surprising areas - How a Wall Street bank helped spearhead making money from privatized prisons...
Another example - when Danny Casolaro was getting into murky territory with The Octopus, he was told that he would need to go to Switzerland, because that is where the 'head' was. The Bank of International Settlements is the 'Central Bank of Central Banks' and has been closely associated with the Rothschilds since it's inception. It has an extraordinary degree of opacity in it's operations. It will be around tables at the BIS in Basel that the major issues of transnational capital flows will be discussed.
Another example - the fact that the Global Chairman of Barclays recently married into the Rothschild family is proof of what a small world investment banking is.
That Barclays is at the centre of the New Scientist corporate influence study is... just one of those things!
Another example - the fact that Far Right say 'it's all their fault' - this is smoke that obscures a more complex, surprising and above all more INTERESTING reality.

other than some right wingish and/or racist conspiracy motifs, which really hurt the Cause, in my view.
I have a different perspective than that- sunshine is the best disinfectant and shining a light and creating transparency are the last things the "Eeets Da Jooz!!" brigade want.
Heck, I got more into Thelonius Monk through them.

I'll finish off now

I don't really have the time nor energy to give as thorough of a response as I would like but here's something:

Ad homenens and non sequitars
The article from Baron had a link to an article of his about 9-11. That article was poor quality Cockburn IMHO

Yes- but I what I posted from Baron was about Rothschild Theory and closely related matters. It was not about 9/11.

Baron's article was full of
smear (look at £55 a ticket!! ),
poor reasoning (if there was anything behind this, wouldn't he be dead now?) - the old 'if there was anything to UFOs, they would have landed already' trope.
extreme disinformation - If you look at the link re Icke he gave, his description of the Holly Grieg case is frankly disgusting to anyone with some familiarity with it. It is like the worst Catholic church dismissal of the pedophile priest issue. Why is this important? Because it provides evidence that Baron doesn't go into his subject in depth and / or takes the party line. This is not ad hominem

3 You post loads of articles - you have often told me that just because you post something does NOT mean that you agree with it at all, it can be done with an 'this is whats out there' researcher approach. So when you post someone else thoughts, I'm engaging with those in the post as a Gestalt if you will. You have not posted YOUR thoughts on the Rothschilds in the Baron post ( would far rather have listened to you than Barron)
I pay a LOT of attention to whether a writer appears to value accuracy and present their subject(if factual) in a pretty neutral way - so for myself someone like Glenn Greenwald provides radical, challenging input that requires time for consideration. Alexander Baron does not exhibit this value based on his articles re 9-11 and Holly Greig..

I would have liked to hear more like this and more direct response to the issues he raised.

As to the paragraph which you dispute, phrase by phrase, let's take it as a whole:

If the truth be told, like his American counterpart Alex Jones, Icke is making a comfortable living out of peddling his conspiracy literature; how else could he afford to hire Wembley Arena on October 27 this year?

Icke and Jones both seem to be in what Wombaticus quite rightly calls the Conspiratinment Complex. Both are taking in a considerable amount of funds, from what I understand. Both mix ideas that originate in "the Right" with ideas that appeal to "the Left". Whether or not there could be another way for Icke to hire Wembley Arena he certainly does command a big money-making machine. So there's a motivation there that could distract from a selfless mission...

Baron dismisses the role of Wall St in funding Hitler
This has been very carefully documented by Anthony Sutton, who also documented the history of Skull and Bones as probably coming from German Hegelian / Illuminist origins.

There may be evidence that Russian revolutionaries received some funds from Western sources in the early days but there is no compelling evidence that Wall Street or other western, non-communist forces controlled the Soviet Union all along. If you think otherwise, then please produce the evidence.

Baron ignore deep connections between Israel and the Rothschild family
The actual Knesset building was funded by and commissioned by the family. Hey, the fact that it has an pyramid with an all seeing eye just goes to show what a ubiquitous design motif it has become.

My knowledge of early zionism is from Neturei Karta - the idea of nothing much happening till Balfour seems to look on Balfour as just kind of arriving in a vacuum.
http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documen ... stions.cfm

I would certainly not deny that the Rothschild Clan had influence in history- however making points about early zionist history is a very different thing than exposing a hidden puppet master today. I'd agree with your general point about Balfour.

I do get that you don't agree perfectly with Icke here
That is an unclear statement,because I do NOT agree with his hierarchical pyramid model. Adding 'perfectly' creates the misleading impression I match him closely but not exactly.

but it does seem that you put far more importance on the Rothschilds than I do.
I see them as being a crucial part of the ecosystem and people who I respect enormously like Catherine Austin Fitts have described in detail how that power is realised.

I'm not convinced that they are currently central to anything all that powerful or important,
An example - http://dunwalke.com/
Catherine Fitt's brilliant easy as website links show the links between many surprising areas - How a Wall Street bank helped spearhead making money from privatized prisons...
Another example - when Danny Casolaro was getting into murky territory with The Octopus, he was told that he would need to go to Switzerland, because that is where the 'head' was. The Bank of International Settlements is the 'Central Bank of Central Banks' and has been closely associated with the Rothschilds since it's inception. It has an extraordinary degree of opacity in it's operations. It will be around tables at the BIS in Basel that the major issues of transnational capital flows will be discussed.
Another example - the fact that the Global Chairman of Barclays recently married into the Rothschild family is proof of what a small world investment banking is.
That Barclays is at the centre of the New Scientist corporate influence study is... just one of those things!
Another example - the fact that Far Right say 'it's all their fault' - this is smoke that obscures a more complex, surprising and above all more INTERESTING reality

I do agree that this is a significant deviation from Icke's world view, however relative to where I stand- and especially as it regards Rothschild Theory- I think you are much, much closer to Icke's position than am I. I don't see a compelling case being made that the Rothschilds are particularly important at all- not relative to all the leaders of the financial elite, and most importantly- not relative to the importance of institutional factors as a whole in shaping current affairs.

Although I have profound disagreements with the Marxist-Leninist current on these matters I am in basic agreement with the position expressed by the Scottish Socialist Youth group:

From the 15-16th centuries onwards, the world began to be rapidly transformed by the technological and social advances that allowed European peoples to expand around the world and create colonies and empires. Explorers from European powers like Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and England began to move into Africa, the Americas and Asia. Through the slave trade and the exploitation of mines and plantations in these new colonies, European traders became rich.

Following this, the newly enriched classes began to use their money to kickstart the industrial revolution in Europe. They also grew tired of the fact that in European societies power was still held by people who were born into the aristocracy, when they were rich and felt they should also be powerful.

This led to revolutions in France and the US, and the beginning of the modern world. Over the course of the 18th-19th centuries, the pace of change increased rapidly, with huge numbers of people leaving the land and farm work to move to massive new cities and work in the factories. Traditional sources of authority and power were undermined, and many people were left confused and angered by a world that they didn’t recognise any more.

The 19th century saw the development of a mass socialist movement, as working-class people began to realise that if economic and political power was taken out of the hands of the capitalists then society could be run for the benefit of all.

But other groups, particularly middle-class people who had no attraction to the ideas of socialism, began to seek other explanations for why the world had changed and what to do about it. Many of these people felt that they didn’t have a place in modern society, but they also didn’t want to go back to medieval times. Unable to see the reality that the world had been changed by huge economic and social forces beyond the control of any individual, they came to blame what was wrong in society on some kind of small secret elite who were controlling things for their own benefit.

Racism

People talked about secret societies like the Illuminati or the Freemasons dominating politics and government from behind the scenes. Crucially, these ideas were tied into the idea, which was hugely powerful in the late 19th and early 20th century, that the world was fundamentally divided along racial lines. Many of these people believed there was a plot to undermine the power and dominance of “the white race”.

Racism is a set of ideas that takes older prejudices, and systematically makes them into a worldview. Contrary to what most folk think, it emerged specifically in the modern world, as a way of explaining and understanding what was happening as global society began to rapidly change. Most racialised views of different peoples made their victims out to be inferior, such as the claim black people are stupid and lazy for example.

But Jews had a long history in Christian thought as being thought of as demonic enemies. They were blamed for the killing of Jesus, and in the medieval world were regarded as clever and dangerous because they took part in trade and money lending. In the modern world Jews came to be understood by many people as some kind of absolutely monstrous "Other", a huge evil threat. This was of course total nonsense, but it was a useful idea for those who couldn’t face the reality of what was going on in capitalist society, and for those in power who didn’t want people to see that reality.

Anti-Semitic ideas became to be encapsulated in the idea that there was a world Jewish conspiracy, which aimed to establish a global government under their control. They would do this by their international control of banks and money, as well as control of the media and education.

These ideas came together in a book called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This was an anti-Semitic forgery put together in Russia at the turn of the 20th century, which claimed to be documents of meetings and plans of the Jewish elite to dominate the world. These documents were circulated around the world, and became particularly important after the Russian Revolution in 1917. Many, who were fooled into thinking the Protocols were real, used them as evidence that the revolution was part of the Jewish conspiracy, and that the Bolsheviks aimed to advance it. This was a huge part of why Hitler hated socialists and communists so much. But the same ideas also had massive circulation in the leading government and powerful circles of US politics, and were argued by many right wing US congressmen and other political figures.

If it has ever confused you why right-wing conspiracy nutters say they hate banks and big business, and then go on to say they hate communists and socialists who run the world, this is why. For them, communism and socialism are part of a wider conspiracy by a tiny elite to control the world. The aim of this group, they think, is to create a one world government. Whether they talk about Jews openly, or whether they restrict what they’re saying to names like “international bankers”, the origins of this idea go back to the Protocols and the mad ideas of 19th century anti-Semites.

The Protocols are a straight-up work of fiction. But the ideas they put forward have surfaced again and again. Since World War II it’s been increasingly difficult for racist groups to openly advocate anti-Semitism, because these ideas saw their ultimate expression in the slaughter of the Holocaust. Even before this, many didn’t talk openly about Jews, but instead about “international bankers”, the “secret cabal” who ran the world.

The problem with all this for socialists is obvious: financial capitalists really do hold a huge amount of power and influence over government policies, and the international ruling class does coordinate its actions secretly and conspiratorially to make sure that capitalism keeps working and that profits are maximised.

However, these things aren’t the result of a plot of a small group of evil men. The fact is that capitalism is a self-sustaining economic system with a life of its own. It doesn’t really matter who is at the top as long as somebody is. People find it hard to grasp the reality of the way our economic and social system works, because it’s complex and hard to understand. Put simply, capitalists don’t want to just get rich and sit back. They want to find ways they can invest profits to create more profits and keep the economy growing. That’s the driving force, not the evil desires of a small group of men. But it’s hard to get your head round that, and many people find it much easier to blame an identifiable group they can easily conceptualise, like Jews.

The 19th century German socialist August Bebel once said that “anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools” because it tried to understand the causes of real problems resulting from capitalism, and instead blamed them on Jews. Throughout the 20th century, many right wingers began to see the dominance of banks and financial capital as evidence of a Jewish conspiracy. For them, this was evidence of the traditional prejudice that Jews were evil, manipulative money lenders bent on power and control.

The real reason that finance has become more and more dominant is that it’s increasingly difficult for capitalists to invest their money in something that produces stuff (like a factory) and make their money back, because after 200-odd years of capitalism the world is full of factories and stuff -- so it’s harder and harder to make new products, like cars or furniture or tools say, and make a profit from it. So instead capitalists put more of their money into banks, financial investments etc. There’s no secret to it -- it’s just about making money, and what’s the best way to go about it.

other than some right wingish and/or racist conspiracy motifs, which really hurt the Cause, in my view.
I have a different perspective than that- sunshine is the best disinfectant and shining a light and creating transparency are the last things the "Eeets Da Jooz!!" brigade want.

I'd agree about the sunshine and disinfectant but probably don't agree with you about what do and don't constitute "right wingish and/or racist conspiracy motifs" and how problematic these things might be.


Anyway, that's all for now!


.

[Searcher08]

Thank you for your reply - and I think clarification / mapping out of our areas of agreement and disagreement is a really useful summary point <zooms too !>

[Stephen Morgan]

how else could he afford to hire Wembley Arena on October 27 this year?
Through having a revolving credit line with his bank? Through a factoring company? Through advance ticket sales?
Through putting aside loads of money from smaller venues?
Notice that he doesnt even say HOW MUCH.

Jon Ronson, who also did a documentary about Icke, did one about a mad Arab of some sort who hired Wembley Arena for a fundamentalist conference. After he'd had some free publicity from outraged right wing newpapers the police banned it and he got his deposit back. Given that he didn't have much money it wasn't more than a few thousand pounds, presumably with more to be paid from ticket sales.

[AlicetheKurious]

Haim Saban: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”

So, what do we call him? An Israel-onlyer? Calling him an Israel-firster implies that there's a number 2.

Anyway. I think we should start a Rothschild thread, separately from this one. I once tried to read a very thick history of the Rothschilds. It had lots of very interesting tidbits, but because it was an authorized history and mostly read like a hagiography, these tidbits were buried like little needles in a big, boring haystack. I ploughed through about half of it before I gave up.

Still, try as the author might, he failed to portray them as just another rich family dabbling in culture and the arts, etc. Though bored beyond belief, I did come away from the experience with the conviction that trying to understand global deep politics and the "way things work" without examining the Rothschilds is like trying to understand the modern Middle East without examining the role of Western imperialism.

It would be really nice if we could finally give the Rothschilds the "RI treatment".