[Smilin' Dave]

The reason why we call them theories is because they are substantiated. A "theory" is an idea supported by or set to explain evidence. The popular example of this language is that gravitation is just a theory. The undisputable evidence is, in a naive framework, masses attract masses according to their masses.

Right... but didn't we want to deal in established fact, established chains of events? I mean these theories of yours might make sense if allowed to operate in a vacuum, but other better supported 'theories' exist which leave yours looking like a joke at best.

Or Wall Street.

For which you have no proof, while my explanation wasn’t just an isolated incident but a pattern of behaviour which can be verified by multiple independent sources. If the Nazis had the backing of ‘Wall Street’ how did they ever end up in the dire economic situation they found themselves in by July-August 1939?

This is a logical fallacy. Dismissed.

Actually it is either an insult, or a factually statement about someone endorsing a famous political forgery/fraud.

Well, we know that Hitler went to war (evidence). We just don't know why (theory.)

Actually Hitler discussed on a number of occasions why he went to war... so I’m unclear how you can say we have no idea why he went to war.

Interestingly, the book on this Warburg no longer exists.

I’m staggered a book for the 1930s was reprinted in the 1980s. Were the conspirators who suppress the truth on holiday and missed its republication? If it ‘doesn’t exist’ how are you able to quote from it?

I suppose that one can claim that poor interrogational techniques are unreliable, yet this shutting out of information leaves nothing to be discussed.

Poor interrogation techniques? This is the NKVD that extracted several high profile confessions which contained claims contradicted by events. Examples include allegations of prisoners meeting foreign agents in other countries, at times when records clearly showed they were in prison. This isn’t just poor it’s appalling, an outright falsehood. If the subject had confessed to being the dish that ran away with the spoon, would you insist of analysing that piece of information too?

The Trotsky connection is hard to find, yet one can look at the Bolshevik Revolution and its ties to Wall Street as a secondary source for Wall Street's intimacy with certain "Communist" leaders.

I see no such thing in the tract you just quoted. Perhaps you would like to clarify?

Rothschild, naturally being involved too in Russian markets, would play an intimate role in the 'revolution,' too.

Another empty supposition without evidence. The simple fact the Soviets destroyed the Russian market and refused to pay Tsarist era debts would suggest that it wasn’t in any financiers interest to assist them into power.

It's James Warburg.

Warburg’s family disagreed, and it was never definitively proven. Why would ‘Warburg’ go to the effort of using a pseudonym but then use his real surname do you think?

[QatzelOk]

Balfour Declaration was November 1917... the end of WWI was November 1918 (did you pay attention during armistice day this year?). That's a whole year afterwards.

A year sounds about the right length of time between treaty and final conclusion. It's going to take Canada another year and a half to "get out of Afghanistan." It's not like he'd get his piece of paper and, the next day, he'd "call off his boys." There were entire nation states at war. Millions dead. So you have not disproven this theory.

Likewise, the wealthy Jewish banking families of Vienna/London/Paris/ and their international connections to a kind of Jewish organized crime syndicate... these guys were (are) Europe's last real monarchs with real power. And they know it, even if you don't.

Jewish Viennese oligarchs wanted to control the entire world. Whether they actually succeeded or not depends on things they can't control like climate and human nature. Though the wealthy elites (of all organized crime flavors) have tried to control both, but tragically failed.
...



Two million Germans and ____ eurojews (some of whom may have also been German) were killed by the Allied bombing of civilians at the end of WW2?

[Smilin' Dave]

A year sounds about the right length of time between treaty and final conclusion. It's going to take Canada another year and a half to "get out of Afghanistan." It's not like he'd get his piece of paper and, the next day, he'd "call off his boys." There were entire nation states at war. Millions dead. So you have not disproven this theory.

'Calling off the boys' as an explanation makes no sense in light of events that took place in the interim year. Russia was destroyed and Italy was effectively knocked out of the war, then followed by the Kaiserschlacht. That last one very nearly knocked out the Western Allies, which I assume wouldn't have been in the best interests of the signatories of the Balfour declaration. It seems to me the 'boys' were not really administering a 'beating' until the Hundred Days Offensive, which as discussed was a year and a near defeat after the declaration. Your bankers-profit motive also doesn't explain why they pulled their punches just as they reached Germany (surely a financial killing to be made in a proper defeat) and why the subsequent peace deal did so much damage to international commerce.

Your chronology doesn't add up Qatz and neither does your logic. No amount of hand waving and conspiracy babble will hide this. This one instance really captures how empty your claims are.

[QatzelOk]

'Calling off the boys' as an explanation makes no sense in light of events that took place in the interim year.

When examining a crime, the first question is "Cui bono" and not "let's look at every detail and try to find a theme that can explain them all to us with a bad guy/good guy narrative."

World War One ended just after Lord Rothschild - a banker more powerful than most governments - got his promise that "the Jews" could colonize Palestine.

World War Two ended with "the Jews" colonizing Palestine.

It sure looks like some kind of prize that Lord Rothschild got for funding the right warmongers. Or perhaps he was the central warmonger himself. Maybe Germany was used as a ramming block against the British to force their hand.

The bombing of German cities looks like it was done to open up investment opportunities, which is the kind of cold decision-making that banks often have to resort to in crises since they can't simply "work harder" when times are lean. All they can do in these times is disaster capitalism harder.

...

Day Three: still no estimate on the deaths by Allied bombing.

[Zyx]

but other better supported 'theories' exist which leave yours looking like a joke at best.

Unfortunately, the appeal of a theory depends not on its veracity.

If the Nazis had the backing of ‘Wall Street’ how did they ever end up in the dire economic situation they found themselves in by July-August 1939?

Oh come, Wall Street backing of Nazis isn't even disputable.

I've decided to look for a government funded website covering this.

This was the best I could find:

To carry out this program, Hitler and his fiendish Nazi associates would fully utilize the ``professional'' apparatus which had been put in place, as well as the popular, British-eugenics-spawned ideology which had been increasingly dominant in Germany since Hitler seized power with the aid of powerful British-Wall Street financiers. The killing would proceed with the utmost ``cost-effectiveness'' and professionalism, in order to save funds for the Nazi state's preferred projects, and not waste them on ``ineffective'' medical treatments.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=8048

Otherwise, it's still hard to find on the internet:

CHAPTER TEN

The Myth of "Sidney Warburg"


A vital question, only partly resolved, is the extent to which Hitler's accession to power in 1933 was aided directly by Wall Street financiers. We have shown with original documentary evidence that there was indirect American participation and support through German affiliated firms, and (as for example in the case of I.T.T.) there was a knowledgeable and deliberate effort to benefit from the support of the Nazi regime. Was this indirect financing extended to direct financing?

After Hitler gained power, U.S. firms and individuals worked on behalf of Nazism and certainly profited from the Nazi state. We know from the diaries of William Dodd, the American Ambassador to Germany, that in 1933 a stream of Wall Street bankers and industrialists filed through the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, expressing their admiration for Adolf Hitler — and anxious to find ways to do business with the new totalitarian regime. For example, on September 1, 1933 Dodd recorded that Henry Mann of the National City Bank and Winthrop W. Aldrich of the Chase Bank both met with Hitler and "these bankers feel they can work with him."1 Ivy Lee, the Rockefeller public relations agent, according to Dodd "showed himself at once a capitalist and an advocate of Fascism."2

. . .

1William E. Dodd, Ambassador Dodd's Diary, op. cit., p. 31.

2Ibid., p. 74.

http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-ch10.html

I’m staggered a book for the 1930s was reprinted in the 1980s. Were the conspirators who suppress the truth on holiday and missed its republication? If it ‘doesn’t exist’ how are you able to quote from it?

A different book. See the above link.

A book with this title in Dutch by "Sidney Warburg" was indeed published in 1933, but remained on the book stalls in Holland only for a matter of days. The book was purged.4 One of three surviving original copies was translated into English. The translation was at one time deposited in the British Museum, but is now withdrawn from public circulation and is unavailable for research. Nothing is now known of the original Dutch copy upon which this English translation was based.

The second Dutch copy was owned by Chancellor Schussnigg in Austria, and nothing is known of its present whereabouts. The third Dutch copy found its way to Switzerland and was translated into German. The German translation has survived down to the present day in the Schweizerischen Sozialarchiv in Zurich, Switzerland. A certified copy of the authenticated German translation of this Swiss survivor was purchased by the author in 1971 and translated into English. It is upon this English translation of the German translation that the text in this chapter is based.

. . .



Second, we have already identified I.G. Farben as a key financier and backer of Hitler. We have provided photographic evidence (page 64) of the bank transfer slip for 400,000 marks from I.G. Farben to Hitler's "Nationale Treuhand" political slush fund account administered by Rudolf Hess. Now it is probable, almost certain, that "Sidney Warburg" did not exist. On the other hand, it is a matter of public record that the Warburgs were closely connected with I.G. Farben in Germany and the United States. In Germany Max Warburg was a director of I.G. Farben and in the United States brother Paul Warburg (father of James Paul Warburg) was a director of American I.G. Farben. In brief, we have incontrovertible evidence that some Warburgs, including the father of James Paul, the denouncer of the "Sidney Warburg" book, were directors of I.G. Farben. And I.G. Farben is known to have financed Hitler. "Sidney Warburg" was a myth, but I.G. Farben directors Max Warburg and Paul Warburg were not myths. This is reason enough to push further.

. . .



The first section of the book is entitled simply "1929." It relates that in 1929 Wall Street had enormous credits outstanding in Germany and Austria, and that these claims had, for the most part, been frozen. While France was economically weak and feared Germany, France was also getting the "lion's share" of reparations funds which were actually financed from the United States. In June 1929, a meeting took place between the members of the Federal Reserve Bank and leading American bankers to decide what to do about France, and particularly to cheek her call on German reparations. This meeting was attended (according to the "Warburg" book) by the directors of Guaranty Trust Company, the "Presidents" of the Federal Reserve Banks, in addition to five independent bankers, "young Rockefeller," and Glean from Royal Dutch Shell. Carter and Rockefeller according to the text "dominated the proceedings. The others listened and nodded their heads."

The general consensus at the bankers' meeting was that the only way to free Germany from French financial clutches was by revolution, either Communist or German Nationalist. At an earlier meeting it had previously been agreed to contact Hitler to "try to find out if he were amenable to American financial support." Now Rockefeller reportedly had more recently seen a German-American leaflet about the Hitler national socialist movement and the purpose of this second meeting was to determine if "Sidney Warburg" was prepared to go to Germany as a courier to make personal contact with Hitler.

In return for proferred financial support, Hitler would be expected to conduct an "aggressive foreign policy and stir up the idea of revenge against France." This policy, it was anticipated, would result in a French appeal to the United States and England for assistance in "international questions involving the eventual German aggression." Hitler was not to know about the purpose of Wall Street's assistance. It would be left "to his reason and resourcefulness to discover the motives behind the proposal." "Warburg" accepted the proposed mission and left New York for Cherbourg on the Ile de France, "with a diplomatic passport and letters of recommendation from Carter, Tommy Walker, Rockefeller, Glean and Herbert Hoover."

. . .

Ok, it wasn't completely suppressed.

Either way, this doesn't look like a bad theory at all.

For instance, it explains that money doesn't come from thin air. Hitler managed to steal from the people, but only after he was wealthy enough. Where is this wealth from? Daddy?

If the subject had confessed to being the dish that ran away with the spoon, would you insist of analysing that piece of information too?

Honestly, yes.

I see no such thing in the tract you just quoted. Perhaps you would like to clarify?

Fair enough. Some friend emailed me quotations from a book a while back.

The book had an intersting take on Communism. I never read it, nor did I plan to, but the friend seemed to have enjoyed it.

She didn't send me much but here's some of it:

Russian Revolution
-The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was in reality a coup, financed by Wall Street. Revolutionaries in Russia were recruited by Jacob Schiff, head of Kuhn, Loeb & Company of New York. These revolutionaries were trained in New York to distribute propaganda, which Schiff paid for, to indoctrinate Russian dissidents into rebellion against their own government. (119-120)
-The Russian Revolution of 1917 came not at the end of a period of stagnation of decay, but rather after a period of more than a half century of the most rapid and comprehensive economic progress, and with this came the development of the middle class… The Russian Revolution of 1917 was in truth a revolution instigated by American and European oil interests to wrest control of the Russian oil fiends from the Rothschild-Nobel combination. (120)
-Lenin explained his rationale for accepting Wall Street’s terms: “The capitalists of the world and their governments, in pursuit of conquest of the Soviet market, will close their eyes to the indicated higher reality and thus will turn into deaf, mute, blind men. They will extend credits, which will strengthen for us the Communist Party in their countries; and giving us the materials and technology we lack, they will restore our military industry, indispensable for our future victorious attack on our suppliers. In other words, they will labor for the preparation of their own suicide.” (123)

Finances
-The so-called Marshall Plan expanded debt slavery through Europe, under the guise of post war reconstruction, development, and investment. The NSC-68 gave the role of world policeman to the US for the purpose of halting the spread of Communism. This allowed broad expansion of the military industrial complex, and the largest military establishment in peacetime history. The National Security-related budget has skyrocketed from $22 billion in 1950 to over $400 billion in 2004, despite there being no more threat from the Soviet Union. (129-130)
-Just over 1% of the population control approximately 50% of the entire country’s personal wealth, where the richest 20% earn 48.5% of the income and the poorest 20% merely 5.2%, where, since 1980, real income for the bottom fifth of families fell by $800 while for the top fifth, it rose by $56,800. (136)
-Rep. Louis McFadden, from the floor of Congress, warned that America was helping to bring Hitler to power eight years before Hitler invaded Poland: “The international bankers have subsidized the present government of Germany and have also supplied every dollar of the money Hitler has used”. Most of the largest US corporations were knowingly invested in war industries that were supplying the Nazis. (141-143)
-Every nation involved in WWII greatly multiplied their debt. The US debt exploded from 43 billion in 1940 to almost 260 billion by 1950. Between 1940 and 1950, the Japanese debt increased by 1350%. The French debt increased by 583% and the Canadian debt increased by 417%. (145)

Anti-America
-Organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group , by merely shifting the weight of their enormous influences, can sometimes dangerously compromise the will of the people, the will of Congress, and the Constitution of the US. The havoc they sometimes inherently create around the world has been the prime cause of growing international anti-American sentiment. In a “Time/Europe” poll, 84% of over 300,000 Europeans believe that the US is the greatest threat to world peace. (134)

"The book is called Thieves in the Temple: America Under the Federal Reserve System by Andre Michael Eggelletion."

Warburg’s family disagreed, and it was never definitively proven. Why would ‘Warburg’ go to the effort of using a pseudonym but then use his real surname do you think?

It seems that it wasn't the Warburg, who knows? It's not really important whether the author is identified or not, right?

I mean, we, people who aren't you on POFO, don't know your identity yet it doesn't mean that everything that you write is wrong, right?

[Smilin' Dave]

@Zyx

Unfortunately, the appeal of a theory depends not on its veracity.

As I have already explained to you, my version of events is substantiated by multiple sources and even represents a pattern of behaviour. It isn't 'popular' because it is palatable, it's because it's factually supported.

I've decided to look for a government funded website covering this.

This was the best I could find:

The speech presented on that website is by someone linked to Lyndon LaRouche, a famous anti-semite who runs was amounts to a modernised Nazi party. The material is not legitimate. You either didn't read it or had no idea what you were dealing with.

After Hitler gained power, U.S. firms and individuals worked on behalf of Nazism and certainly profited from the Nazi state. We know from the diaries of William Dodd, the American Ambassador to Germany, that in 1933 a stream of Wall Street bankers and industrialists filed through the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, expressing their admiration for Adolf Hitler — and anxious to find ways to do business with the new totalitarian regime. For example, on September 1, 1933 Dodd recorded that Henry Mann of the National City Bank and Winthrop W. Aldrich of the Chase Bank both met with Hitler and "these bankers feel they can work with him."1 Ivy Lee, the Rockefeller public relations agent, according to Dodd "showed himself at once a capitalist and an advocate of Fascism."2

So did they end up doing business?

Hitler managed to steal from the people, but only after he was wealthy enough. Where is this wealth from? Daddy?

Short term loans called MEFO bills?

Honestly, yes.

Then no source is too delusional for you. The walrus really was Paul by the way.

I mean, we, people who aren't you on POFO, don't know your identity yet it doesn't mean that everything that you write is wrong, right?

Which is why it is so important that my claims be substantiated by credible sources. If I said to you I knew Hitler personally and he denied the whole thing, would you believe that? Based on your treatment of testimony extracted by the NKVD through torture, I assume you would.

@Qatz

When examining a crime, the first question is "Cui bono" and not "let's look at every detail and try to find a theme that can explain them all to us with a bad guy/good guy narrative."

This whole thread is nothing more than your pathetic attempt to swap the positions of good guys and bad without any substantive reason to it, so I would be careful with accusations like that.

World War One ended just after Lord Rothschild - a banker more powerful than most governments - got his promise that "the Jews" could colonize Palestine.

A whole year later actually, not exactly just in time.

Did I mention that WWI didn’t even start with the Ottomans, and thus the lands of Palestine, involved in the war? The war kicked off in late July 1914 but had been brewing in June. The Ottomans signed an agreement in August 1914 with the Germans in secret (perhaps psychic Jews knew about it anyway?), and the Ottomans didn’t even fire a shot till the end of October that year.

How/why on earth did those sneaky financiers start a war without the prize necessarily being up for grabs in the first place? Sounds like another dubious conclusion if you really look at profit motive. How about the fact that the Entente didn’t implement the Balfour Declaration after WWI, and in fact divided up the area amongst themselves (let’s not forget having earlier promised it to the Arabs)? For all their power it seems the financiers didn’t get what they supposedly wanted, and were powerless to act.

How dare I mess up your tidy us vs. them narrative by suggesting some of the major players were independent?!

World War Two ended with "the Jews" colonizing Palestine.

This is even more ridiculous. It was actually two years later, and the “the Jews” (are the quote marks to tell us that they were really Italians in disguise?... I think I read that on the internet so it must be true!) had to fight the British, including the famous bombing of the King David Hotel, in order to achieve it.

Far from a good/bad narrative, I present you with shades of gray. But if I suggest your favoured villain wasn’t responsible, you won’t have a bar of it apparently.

The bombing of German cities looks like it was done to open up investment opportunities

Like in Dresden! Wait a minute... Dresden ended up in Soviet hands after the war. Whoops.

Day Three: still no estimate on the deaths by Allied bombing.

It’s certainly an interesting question, but I’m guessing accurate stats on that would take a real research project to uncover. I hope you are not making the mistake of scholars past to assume that if you don’t know about something it simply didn’t happen?

[QatzelOk]

one year later

two years later!

Real-life history doesn't follow a Hollywood timeline. Things can take up to a few years to plan and execute.

You are using very small delays between great historical events to "disprove" any link between them.

This is the methodology of the TV viewer, not the historian.

[Zyx]

As I have already explained to you, my version of events is substantiated by multiple sources and even represents a pattern of behaviour. It isn't 'popular' because it is palatable, it's because it's factually supported.

You've never told me "your version," merely that it was better. I could take your word for it, I suppose, but I'd like if you were to enlighten me on this 'better version.'

The speech presented on that website is by someone linked to Lyndon LaRouche, a famous anti-semite who runs was amounts to a modernised Nazi party. The material is not legitimate.

Another logical fallacy.

What one needs is contradictory evidence before one dismisses something verifiable.

Otherwise, dismissing something due to the source is illogical.

I believe that it's known as the 'genetic fallacy.'

So did they end up doing business?

It's irrelevant, but I'd say of course. I may as well look into it.

It's hard to find.

I searched .gov, but naturally it wouldn't be found.

I tried .edu and found these links.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhetoric_and_public_affairs/v011/11.2.zietsma.html

Good neighbor discourse emphasizing nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other nations also framed the early U.S. approach to Nazi Germany. In 1933, amid emerging German rearmament and increasing anti-Semitism, U.S. Ambassador to Germany William Dodd argued that "a people has a right to govern itself" even when "cruelties and injustices are done."50 Americans must "be thankful most of all" for the progress "toward a world in which . . . every country will respect its neighbor's points of view as well as its just rights," U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Josephus Daniels pronounced.51 Roosevelt, meanwhile, responded to inquiries concerning German persecution of Jews with vague orders to the State Department to "take every step that one Government can take in a situation where another Government is dealing with a domestic problem of its own," implicitly very little.52 While by 1933 the United States knew much about the persecution of the Jews, many Americans reflexively avoided public denunciations of German policy.53

Clearly not entirely damning but suggestive.

So why, after concluding that the plot did indeed exist was no one prosecuted? Why were principals of the plot never even required to testify? It's hard to say at this far remove. Certainly it wasn't because the individuals behind the coup attempt abandoned all hope of future success, as this letter, dated 1936, from William Dodd, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, to President Roosevelt makes <http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/53-index.html>clear:

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions."

Perhaps the naming of prominent Democrats, such as Al Smith and former Democratic Party Chairman Raskob, as members of the plot convinced the Roosevelt administration, not anxious to reveal dissent within its own ranks, to suppress the Committee report. Perhaps MacGuire's untimely death from pneumonia shortly after he testified led the Department of Justice to back away from any investigation. Or perhaps the wealth and influence of the plotters themselves was simply too great. What is abundantly clear, however, is that the Committee report was <http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-fdr-ch10.html>suppressed.

Suppression by the [Committee] took the form of deleting extensive excerpts relating to Wall Street financiers including Guaranty Trust director Grayson Murphy, J.P. Morgan, the Du Pont interests, Remington Arms, and others allegedly involved in the plot attempt. Even today, in 1975, a full transcript of the hearings cannot be traced.

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w11/msg00000.htm

I'm sure that commercial websites will tell me anything, so I stopped at .edu.

The references are .org and such, but that's not the matter. There's no contradictory evidence.

Short term loans called MEFO bills?

It appears to be a virtual supply.

http://www.arpejournal.com/ARPEvolume1number1/Preparata.pdf

It's arguably possible, but it also seems like a ridiculous application of the Thomas Theorem.

I suppose that one can believe this.

Then no source is too delusional for you. The walrus really was Paul by the way.

You asked if I'd 'analyze' it. To not analyze it is to argue through conclusions, an improper means of arguing.

"You're wrong because you arrive at the wrong step."

Based on your treatment of testimony extracted by the NKVD through torture, I assume you would.

In the example of contradictory information, it'd be harder to choose a side.

Either way, funding from Wall Street is established.

Yours is an unrealistic world that claims that world events are extraordinarily local. That's senseless.

Of course international banks did international banking, yesterday.

[Smilin' Dave]

@Qatz

Real-life history doesn't follow a Hollywood timeline. Things can take up to a few years to plan and execute.

You are using very small delays between great historical events to "disprove" any link between them.

This is the methodology of the TV viewer, not the historian.

You have completely ignored the rest of the post, which demonstrates that no such 'planning' has taken place. Indeed what a look at the chronology shows is that your claims don't add up. Palestine was not up for grabs right from the start of WWI, invalidating the idea that Jews somehow started it for that reason. The war didn't end soon after the Balfour Declaration as you claim, and as I have pointed out, WWI didn't end with its implementation. WWII didn't end with the formation of Israel either, that in fact took an conflict and the first Arab-Israeli War. The timeline does not fit your version of events, the evidence doesn't fit your alleged motive. Your claim is completely hollow. Even your attempts to drag in mediaspeak/post-modernism have tended to reflect more your methods/outlook than mine.

It's only your complete arrogance (post modern ubermensch?) that prevents you from feeling as foolish as you look right now.

@Zyx

What one needs is contradictory evidence before one dismisses something verifiable.

How about you verify your sources before posting them? You claimed this was a government source, when Lyndon LaRouche and co. are not in any way part of the US government.

Continuing an argument where you can post any old rubbish and insist it be treated as gold while dismissing anything I say out of hand isn't worth a single moment more of my time.

[QatzelOk]

It's only your complete arrogance (post modern ubermensch?) that prevents you from feeling as foolish as you look right now.

Soundtracks often tell the audience how to feel during the movies they learn from.

So if arrogance can help defend someone against these manufactured "feelings," then the common good needs more arrogance.

You seem to be suggesting that - if there were a link between the machinations of wealthy banking cliques (who were scared of being put out to pasture, like the Fed is right now), and both of those socialism-destroying wars - that the cause-effect links would be there for all to see. As if Lord Rothschild would have gotten a giant cardboard Balfour Declaration on television, and then yelled out "That war is over!"

I imagine there was some effort to hide this link, and that wars take longer than 23 minutes (plus commercials) to end.