In Thanks For The Memories, Henry Kissinger is partners with Bob Hope in 'utilising' Susan Ford. Whilst that team-up may seem absurd, it actually makes perfect sense. All one has to do is plug this into Laurel Canyon with its wider implications re the significance of the entertainment industry, and the whole thing stands to reason. Regardless, the partnership of Hope and Kissinger is clearly an unequal one.
The closest analogy I came can come at for this inequality is one based on computers - imagine Susan Ford is a laptop that Bob Hope uses to find porn. He lends the laptop to all of his buddies and they likewise go nuts looking up variations of www.everyperversionknowntoman.com. The laptop always comes back to Kissinger who, unbeknownst to everyone, is systems admin super-user. What with having installed a keystroke monitor, and otherwise having full access to each of their caches, there's nothing Kissinger doesn't know about every sordid detail of their lives. Anyone who's ever run a computer system and had super-user privileges knows precisely what this means. Privilege equals knowledge and knowledge equals power.
Kissinger, not unlike Frank Zappa of Laurel Canyon, never participates in the vices he urges upon others. In spite of the fact that he was super-user and thus free to go nuts, Kissinger never availed himself of, nor even expressed an interest in, Ford's unrivalled charms. Square this with his carefully cultivated, albeit unlikely, image as debonair lady-killer. There's something not right with that picture but I don't know what it is. Otherwise it occurs to me that far more is to be concluded from those who didn't sample Susan Ford's earthly delights, than from those who did. With Ford as 'trap' anyone who falls into her qualifies as variation of 'prey'. Significantly, only Kissinger and the Rockefeller black sheep, John D Rockefeller, choose not to avail themselves of Ford's programmed easy virtue.
And then there's the council. Ford unambiguously states that Kissinger is their number one servant. Since Ford never states precisely who is on the council it's conceivable that Kissinger might not be a servant so much as a member. Whilst it pays to turn the puzzle pieces this way and that to see if greater sense might not be made of them, in this case I dismiss the possibility of Kissinger as a council member. This would posit the council as some variety of meritocracy, frankly an absurd idea. Aristocracies do not function on meritocratic principles - an obvious contradiction in terms. Their servants, absolutely: regardless of birth, talent and loyalty will be utilised. Amongst their aristocratic selves there will be a meritocracy of sorts but only from within their own ranks. Were it any other way, blood-lines might be displaced. And then where would the aristocracy be?
So who is the council? In his foreword, the author of Project Monarch, Ron Patton, discusses Adam Weishaupt being commissioned by the Rothschilds to unite various occultic organisations under the single banner of the Illuminati. Curiously, in spite of this organisation being founded and sponsored by the Rothschilds, they never get a second mention. Ford herself never discusses the Illuminati, nor the Rothschilds, nor even utters the word 'Jewish', apart from in the most innocuous circumstances. All Jewish people in this book are only incidentally so - they are bit players, innocent bystanders, or victims. And Henry Kissinger? Astoundingly Ford's book never once connects the words 'Kissinger' and 'Jewish'. Were you to read this book not knowing that Kissinger was Jewish you'd arrive at the end of it none the wiser.
But never mind Ron Patton, who does Susan Ford say the council are? She never names names and had she done so I'd view it as a black mark against her credibility. The Council she describes wouldn't be much chop if they went about introducing themselves to the help, would they? But that aside, Ford is free to hypothesize. The Council are Freemasons, she declares. Hmm... Freemasons eh? As a fellow not given to pursuing impossible riddles, I've never bothered attempting to undo the Gordian knot of the Illuminati/Freemason connection. I understand their original purpose as a professional guild. I also understand them acting as a counterweight to the ancient centralised control of Rome (this in the time prior to Adam Weishaupt). However I find their evolution into globe-spanning rulers of everything falls apart for want of coherency. What precisely are the ties that bind? Apart from the Rothschilds as sponsors, that is?
Besides that, the book tends to be at odds with its own assertion of Masonic control. Surely Prince Philip is a thirty-three degree mason? God knows how many times I've heard it asserted that the English crown, by way of its masonic/Illuminati influence, is the global big kahuna in the new world order. Square that with Ford's own recounting of her meeting with Prince Philip, and his diffident surprise and delight at being offered her singular talents. With Ford as the nexus, between Philip and Kissinger only one of them has super-user privileges, and it ain't Phil. The logic here is unmissable - Prince Philip, however high he might be in the Freemasons, is subject to Kissinger, and Kissinger is subject to the council. Not forgetting that Kissinger is Jewish and the Freemasons' transformation into internationalist Illuminati was brought about under the auspices of the Rothschilds. Honestly, Freemasons?
The other significant aspect of the Council in this regard is its ultimacy. According to Ford, there is nothing above the Council, and simple reason tells us that nor could there be. In reading of her descriptions of Council: their meetings, their communications, and their extraordinary secrecy, there is no way she's describing lieutenants. These people she describes are 'it'. In the big game of Risk they're not so much players as the writers of the rules. Given that this is the case, and given that fact that wealth equals power, we can safely declare that they are the richest people in the world. In either wealth or power, were anyone to even begin to threaten them they would have to be destroyed. Forget Sam Walton, forget Warren Buffet, forget Bill Gates, and all those other people topping the 100 richest list - ain't none of them in the running. And yep, even the Rockefellers ain't in this picture. Ford categorically states that the Rockefellers are subject to the Council. The only kind of 'Rich' that could have all these bazillionaires subject to it is that variety of rich that comes with ownership of the Fed and the international Reserve system. And the IMF. And the World Bank.
Thinking about it - the old chestnut about a business being 'a licence to print money' only possesses charm when it's not literally true. When it is literally true, the appeal of endless amounts of money becomes almost silly. It's like the child's daydream of owning a chocolate factory. A child cannot conceive that an owner of such a factory might view the product with something other than a desire to spend all day eating it. And so it is with money. Possessing a licence to print money renders the idea of a Scrooge McDuck-like accumulation of wealth as superfluous to the point of idiotic. Clearly ownership of the Reserve banking system is not about being rich. Rather the exercise becomes one of the prevention of others from achieving the same. It's about power, and that driven by a combination of hubris and a hubristic sense of immortality. Or are they the same thing? Probably.
With all that aside, let's also dismiss some other red-herrings. Ford's book is rife with satanism. Her entry point into the world of the council seems to be entirely satanistic. Interestingly Ford herself views the topic with disdain. As she later states, this disdain is shared by all those higher in the power structure. Marx's phrase about religion being 'the opiate of the masses' is ordinarily used as a dismissal, and further as a reason for Communism's smashing of religions. But viewed from another angle, ie. that of opiates/drugs as being a useful means of control, it could just as easily be an argument leading, not so much to smashing, but to co-option. In fact the latter makes far more sense than the former - why fight a thing when you could put it to work for you? Thus satanism makes far more sense as the beast being whipped than it does as the whip-hand itself, if you can dig it.
Likewise, the Roman Catholic church appears in the book and yet never in any impressive fashion. All early mentions pivot on it as part of the mechanism of the ritualistic abuse that goes into creating a MPD/DID slave. Small potatoes. Later, Ford describes putting on a quasi-religious dog and pony shows to impress the Vatican heirarchy, Pope included. Okay, I think we can safely declare a rule - Anyone on the receiving end of one of Ford's shows is not in the Council.
Going sideways now, how might we view other such religions and religiously driven 'isms'? In much the same way that Karl Marx was equally dismissive of all religions, do we imagine that the banking families of the Council would somehow get all weak-kneed for Judaism? Somehow I doubt it. Beyond Judaism is Zionism and its founding of Israel. The Rothschilds display their enthusiasm for this grand effort by living elsewhere. Sure they founded Israel, with Rothschild putting his John Hancock on the Balfour Declaration, but they founded the Illuminati too. If it's sensible to view the Illuminati as a vehicle for Rothschild co-option and control, why not view Zionism and Israel in the same fashion? It makes as much sense viewed in this fashion as any other - hell, more so. Frankly I expect that the members of the Council would hold Judaism per se in the same contempt as they'd hold for all religions - a bauble for the hoi polloi. That's not to say that it doesn't possess a variety of 'favourite' status: but only that of a tribe historically given to being loyal servants. Besides, a precise demonstration of the value of the Jewish people was given during the haggling that took place during the time of the National Socialists in Germany with Jews in great numbers being entirely expendable.
Back to the red herrings, at no time does Ford mention the nationality of those on the Council, nor does it even seem to enter into the picture. In this vein, what are we to make of the following quote (vaguely attributed to the Council) that describes the reasons for bringing Clinton down, "A cornerstone will fall, and further destabilize the American people. First Nixon, now Clinton, thus the people will lose faith in their leaders and the democratic way of life. So they will want to change it and will lean toward World Order." Hmm... "the American people" eh? Strange way for an American to describe one's own. Knowing what I know of Americans, I have to admit having trouble attributing this to any American mouth.
I know that the 'American Dream' is a myth but that doesn't mean it's not without power. I cannot believe that a person who grew up in the United States (in something other than a closet) would utter such a thing. Not forgetting of course that the New World Order is not a New American Order. With the century just ended being described unabashedly as 'The American Century' do we think that Americans would now come over all coy and worry that in naming the world order after themselves, other people might think they have swell heads? Ha ha ha ha, Americans have no such shortcomings. Americans are American to their bootstraps. They're Americans first and Internationalists second. I will never buy an American as having no attachment to his country, mythical or otherwise. The quote above could only come from a true Internationalist, someone who spent the vast majority of their life not living in the US. So! Let's also strike the CIA, the old money American ruling class, and any other significant US institution (that's not currently headed by a dual-citizen Israeli).
For mine, it seems all roads lead to the Rothschilds and the other twelve families. Collectively they remain the one ring to rule them all. How does the rest of it go? Oh yeah, "And in the darkness bind them". Exactly.
19 comments:
One quickie red herring --
(Explains a few others maybe.)
The Pre-Rothschild elite, the ones who launched the Crusades, felt they owned the world, of course.
BUT the rules were different depending on where you were.
Europe. N. Africa. Part of the ME. All have one set of rules.
The rest, depends.
How much proof exists of PRIOR colonial/imperial/developmental work elsewhere? A lot. All of it routinely spiked if mentioned by a non-U.
Letsee:
Welshman Barry Fell discovered ancient documents in CANADA. Approx 1800 BC. To wit: A N European king made extensive treaties with Natives in the Lake Superior area for copper and other valuta. Fell thrown out of Canada, threatened with legal action. Down south in the US, Fell finds similar. Treated as a head case, told to leave.
S. America -- Spectacular ruins discovered. Includes very DETAILED sculptures of dinosaurs clearly created from life. In short order they go missing and the whole of it declared a hoax.
Great Lakes again, Michigan -- Minoan artifacts discovered about a century ago, "studied" by the Smithstonian and declared frauds then destroyed. BUT later it develops someone had created a facsimile of the pieces -- contained a sort of Minoan writing NOT available when discovered. The language was used during Mino's most aggressive period of sea expansion.
POINT BLANK: Many centuries ago. someone got the deed to the whole wide world and thinks they can put parts in and out of production.... like Farmer John can do fields of beans and spuds one year, let the fields go fallow the next.
That's power! Goes without saying that when they pull the permission to work our continents (their bean fields) they get to exterminate/trim the humans there.
Real power!
Keep digging. I suspect that freemasonry may be the institution that links all the big bad guys.
- Aangirfan
just a passing thought:
having read most of the sue ford book, one thing did stand out. A portion of the stories seemed more fantastical than others. I would assume, that if one were to program a person, additional safeguards would be added, including the fabrication of memories so if memory recall did occur, it would include the fantasies to lower credibility/believability.
So, who knows how many of the stories are really true. However, one can also assume that most high level positions of power have a screening process for vulnerabilities and areas ripe for blackmail.
good analysis on henry k. always around, ain't he?
From Belgium
Judaism and Satanism are just control mechanisms for different layers of the cake the Council itself having put the controls in place could not give a toss about either of them. They are just tools to do a job like a spanner or a screwdriver. I agree with your analysis although many of us reached the same conclusions way back when although it is nice to have a deduction process appears to stand up. For others involved in the Council I think all you have to do is look at who turned up at Jekyll Island.
It really does all keep coming back to the Rothschilds. Or at least, it does in recent centuries. Before that ... well, knowing how obsessed they are with bloodline purity, we can assume their tribe has been around for much longer than just a few hundred years and.
I'd suggest the inner council's disdain for religion has a lot more to do with sniggering at deliberate adulterations of the truth than it does with a belief that it's all bullshit.
Anyhow, it can't be emphasized enough: it's not the Jews, it's the Rothschilds. Say 'Jews' and people are hardwired these days to shut down their critical thought process, exactly as intended, and that gives the R's (and their numerous 'Jewish' servants who are no doubt in on the joke at some level themselves) a brilliant defense mechanism.
Thanks folks, more good comments.
Frank - off to google Barry Fell! Stuff like this certainly does set the imagination on fire don't it?
Aangirfan! Lovely to have all you drop in. Folks if you aint' visiting Aangirfan regularly, you're missing out.
As for Masons, I'm thinking that ultimately they are beholden under the bankers. I found a chart of Masonic symbols representing each level and it seems there is a 34th and a 35th degree. Wow. What if the 34th degree were utterly loyal goyim and the 35th was Rothschild? That would work wouldn't it? Hmm... thinking about it, do we imagine that a fellow like Rothschild would commission Weishaupt to create the Illuminati and leave himself out of the loop? Not a very likely prospect. He didn't stump up the time and money so all the other kids could have fun. If you know what I mean.
For the record I freely admit being a complete know-nothing on the subject of Freemasonry. Like I said, impossible riddles etc etc.
Anon - exactly. This is mentioned a couple of times. Memories were implanted to both confuse her, and confuse her story should she remember it and recount it. Funnily enough, we're on the receiving end of similar treatment. Real events are given fantastical Hollywood treatment so that we were to discuss a given topic, whomever we're talking to can wave their hand and dismiss it with, "Oh, that's just like insert_movie_here" I will be absolutely gob-smacked if everyone here isn't nodding on account of having had that happen to them.
Hey FB - yep, what you said.
And hey Psyche, typing-jinx!
Yeah, but I ain't about to give Jewish people any kind of pat on the back. They're still possessed of a pernicious us-and-them mindset that is (for a fellow given to that continuum on the front page) as wrong as a thing can be.
a pernicious us-and-them mindset - I know quite a few so -called Christians with that mindset too - no wonder they can all play us off against each other. It is THE PROBLEM
Feel like the dunce in the class.
Unlike a lot of you capable of absorbing the big picture and its intricacies I am only able to see one frame at a time.
And due to my primary role as keeper of the hearth my time speny exploring the outer world is limited.
But as you Nobody are aware my being has been taken up by the Madeleine case. Which I follow up daily.
The amount of misinformation is absolutely astonishing. One simply does not know who to trust anymore but there has been some amazing painstaking research which should have had some closure already.
Okay where am I going.
You have a pair of doctors, unexceptional in any way, not connected to people in power, whose 3 year old daughter goes missing whilst left alone.
(A couple recently in the UK had their children removed and were sent to prison for the fact that they lived in absolute filth).
But here you have a child who goes missing, not found 2 years later, case shelved.
What the fuck.
And then you start to read the Freemason links.
And then the photos are linked of when the GPR first arrived on the scene and Kate and Gerry are on the bed with their arses in the air which is apparently a masonic distress signal and any masons around at that point would be obligated to be of assistance.
So how would it benefit the free masons to help this couple to this extent.
Well, imagine, you are losing power, people are not flocking to be masons anymore. You create a situation - a situation which is so obviously deviant and odious and then do everything to protect those seemingly behind this act.
Wow, can you see all those people with proclivities that make my skin curl watching this scenario and deciding that this was the winning side - hell you can do anything and get away with it if you sign on the dotted line, prescribe dubious drugs, start illegal wars, kill activists, musicians -
And yet at the end of the day the natural law is that power erodes.
You may prolong its reign for a time but there is an ebb and flow, a rise and fall. And at the end of the day 35th degree because zero, becomes rotting flesh, becomes karma, becomes nothing.
But for now I want to be alive to watch the ship of fools meeting themselves on a still and starry night.
From Belgium
Frank, I have heard that exact same story a couple of years ago and I tried to find back where I thought I had read it but no luck. The article even said about the Smithsonian criminally destroying artefacts which did not fit in with their chosen version of history. The name Barry Fell did not however ring any bells with me.
Annon 2:02, Yes there did seem to be inconsistencies here and there, like how she was able to remember such vivid details of things that happened when she was aged one. I suppose if they were so horrific they would be buried in one of the dungeons of the mind somewhere. I guess most things are true but there is licence in places.
N, If the Rothschild’s put the scam in place would they need to take part in it just to front it up? I can see this one both ways. Maybe shades of Eyes Wide Shut or maybe like Dear Henry, they wanted to be seen to be above such things.
a cold squally night .. inspiring for meditative musings on combating the darkness that threatens our souls .. scrawling—FORGIVE ME—in Blud: Slavic mythology, an evil-deity that causes disorientation and leads a person aimlessly around and round.
Imagine John Lennon sensed Mark Chapman behind him, about to shoot him four times in the back .. and turned, smiled, then persuaded him, he had only been kidding with his quip about being greater than Jesus, that hey, he wasn't actually being serious. I mean, c'mon, nobody can be bigger than Jesus .. can they?
No heaven. No hell—only sky. They became friends: the schizophrenic/delusional son of a U.S. Air Force staff sergeant, who would beat him and his mother, and, a peace activist who wanted to give peace a chance. It's easy if you try.
Together, they hatched a plan: to convince every soldier, in every Army, in every country, to defect simultaneously. That on the stroke of midnight they would ALL simply walk-out. Nothing to kill or die for.
It isn't hard to do .. Is it?
Henry Kissinger, whose meteoric rise to power is otherwise inexplicable, was a German refugee and student of Sir John Rawlings-Reese at SHAEF.
http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/the-u-s-needs-another-911-iran-selected/
One of the key agencies as a conduit for secret instructions from Tavistock is the Ditchley Foundation, founded in 1957. The American branch of the Ditchley Foundation is run by Cyrus Vance, former Secretary of State, and director of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Winston Lord, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
[Editor, Tim Aho's note: The wife of Winston Lord (CFR, Bilderberg, Skull & Bones), Bette Bao Lord (CFR, Bilderberg), is Chairman of the Board of Freedom House whose manipulation of the Christian Right via the Religious Persecution issue is documented in our report Freedom House: A CFR Front.]
One of the principal but little known operations of the Rockefeller Foundation has been its techniques for controlling world agriculture.
Many totalitarian regimes have found the small farmer to be their biggest stumbling block.
http://www.itszone.co.uk/discuss/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=108648
Cool,
Su, as for your hypothesizing, you're ahead of me mate. But I latched onto one line you wrote about not knowing who to trust. Whilst Ford didn't really go into it, it occurs to me that with an MPD/DID slave we're in impossibility territory in terms of trust. That they exist at all smashes the whole concord.
And then there's Baz's piece (hey Baz, nice one). And hats off to the concept, but what if Chapman was a mind-control subject? Hell, he probably was. There's no reasoning with these 'people'. Ford's story matches other MPD/DID slaves in recovery - it takes a zillion hours of regressive treatment to find your humanity again.
Would there have been anything Lennon could say to Chapman? Hmm... how about 'Wake Up!' with a snap of his fingers? Maybe if you jangle your car keys? What the hell, it's worth a try. Folks - in the unlikely prospect of being confronted with someone with a gun it couldn't hurt to snap your fingers and yell Wake Up! Mind you, unlike the movies, real assassins never seem to engage in banter first.
And so, here we are armed with the knowledge that mind control slaves exist and that it's theoretically possible that we might encounter them. And? Well, frankly, and nothing. Who wants to be paranoid? Who wants to live a life of fear? Not me. To hell with it.
Oh shit! The library is turning the lights out. Have to go. Ciao ciao.
there is a theory out there that chapman was a mind control assasin.
it was a connection with some organization that is some kind of government cover agency for mkultra
As if the "lone nut" gunman theory isn't glaringly obvious.
After all, it was a lone nut gunman that killed john kennedy, robert kennedy, martin luther king,... those dam lone gunmen, how do they do it.
hey noby*
just a line or two...
no network/system is incorruptible.
of all those mentioned and degrees of fealty and conformity of belief demanded...
Scot Rite Freemasonry is singular in its demand; anything other than the belief in a supreme being/architect/creator and one's direct, unseverable and eternal connection to it - is open to debate and personal choice.
In terms of evil personages, it's almost as if a dark veil has been placed over all of our subconcious minds, telling the reactionaries and crazies to go out and kill the peacemakers, and not the war makers.
Strange, isn't it?
I have always felt there was a grand psychology to that, something in place, or maybe an array of things in place that made barriers or suggestions . . . but I haven't been able to wrap my mind around it.
It is a world where one must be paranoid to know reality . . . and my gut says that british royalty and the old european banking powers (Rothchilds et al) are the top of the pyramid, no one above them. The zionist/jewish thing is as much of a construct and tool I would say as satanism is to these elite. Would be pretty scary if there was actually someone above them, that no one really knew of at all . . . scary, and, it would be logically sound, as well.
shrug - we search onward
Kikz! Good of you to pop in. Funnily enough I was thinking about you when I wrote this. I'll drop you a line mate. I have a question I want to ask you.
Hey Slozo, yep to all that.
Oh and Pen! Not forgetting the statistical impossibility of a lone gunman shooting a lone gunman, ha ha. And thanks for the pic on the haiku blog mate. Nice one. I've saved to desktop and now I go home to the finger counting thing.
drop away :)
yap ya soon.
34 th degree is bestowed to a deceassed mason.
Post a Comment