Monday, August 3, 2009

Power in Inverse Proportion to Publicity

The following list is an expression of my theory that power and publicity come in inverse proportion. Thus the most famous at the top have the least power. The least famous, ie. those most people have never heard of, come at the bottom and are actually the most powerful. See what you think.

Historical touchstone of evil. Says Hollywood - May we never forget. The only people to have publicly thrown out the bankers in the modern age get zero good press, and their bad press is relentless, relentless, relentless. Useful as a link to neo-nazis which exist to remind everyone how anti-Semitism never went away. According to some of the more obscure corners of the net: Nazis are possibly running the CIA via Operation Paperclip.

Muslims / the devil
I'm going to declare this a tie. Muslims couldn't get any more bad press if they tried. Whilst the TV never actually declares that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim, a nod's as good as a wink. The devil is a Hollywood favourite. I'm thinking his purpose is provide some reason for wickedness that doesn't pivot on selfishness. As we all know, selfishness (by way of amassing wealth etc.) is a very commendable thing to which we should all aspire.

Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe etc. etc.
Any story that paints this lot in a bad light is a good story, says the MSM. Not as bad as the Nazis since they haven't had a holocaust (yet). Regardless, they are a wicked crew of despotic, corrupt, torturing, deniers of human rights. The US is right to include them in their violators of human rights list every year. Ha ha ha ha ha. Honestly, that's funny isn't it?

The Vatican
I know people love to hate them but they get a ton of publicity and pretty much all of it is bad. The MSM pegs them as paedophiles at every opportunity. Or anti-Semites. Or oppressors of women. On and on, take your pick. Hollywood so frequently involves wicked clergy and hierarchy that it's hard to keep up. Certainly every devil movie involves a weak and corrupt church that is no match for him. The alternative internet goes further in terms of assassinations, banking, and the vaguest of vague talk of them somehow running things. Me, I don't buy it.

Corporations / non-paedophocracy CIA
Another tie for two very popular villains! Both get gently attacked in the news media, both make popular villains in Hollywood, both get viciously attacked on the alternative internet. MSM-only folks can agree they are probably responsible for pretty much everything, and alternative Internet types know they are. Unlike the Vatican, both of these get as much good press as bad press. Where would be without corporations? Think of all the good things they make for us. Likewise the CIA is broadly treated as honest patriots working in America's interests.

The US / the IMF and the World bank
The US in toto as some variety of coherent bad guy is a permissable target in the media, but only just. Likewise the international banking entities, but they may be discussed only as an extension of US power. Pilger does this for instance. Edgy left wing characters in Hollywood flicks may also shake their fist at the US. No problems at all on the net. Absolutely everyone will broadly agree that the US is very wicked and likewise the IMF, as long as it viewed as a US entity.

Okay we're starting to get into more extreme territory. This word is reserved for broadsheet newspaper articles (not the first ten pages) and the occasional late night news show or documentary. In tabloids, the nightly news, and Hollywood, this word will never appear. It's far more popular on the net what with the obviousness of Zionists running US foreign policy. I mean, honestly it's pretty unmissable. Being anti-Zionist will cop calls of anti-Semitism but at least it's a defensible position. Besides, there are Jewish people who oppose Zionism (but not many and those not in any useful fashion).

Illuminati / Freemasons
This is the last level permissable in the Jewish bloc-media but only in Apocryphal contexts. Besides the series of fictional books that have been around for years, it seems a movie is coming out next year. That aside, sensible journos like Pilger will never mention them. On the other hand the net is all over them. The beauty of the Iluminati / Freemasons is that one can wave them about without being accused of anti-Semitism.

Jews in general / non-paedophocracy Rothschilds et al in particular
We're into all-internet territory now. And yes, another tie. Sure enough, the media and Hollywood will never touch Jewish people as anything other than geniuses or victims, and the Rothschilds and the other families don't exist at all. In Hollywood there is no such thing as a Jewish villain. Ever. On the net, huge sites like WHR will take every anti-Jewish story you send them - drug running rabbis, holocaust denial, fake anti-Semitism, it's all good. Everything I learnt about the private ownership of the Fed etc. came from WRH.

Limited paedophocracy
Not to be confused with amateur paedophilia which is trotted out for public consumption quite frequently. The paedophocracy as an organised satanistic structure comprising the CIA, European aristocracy, and most tiers of most government is utterly absent in the media and the vast majority of the net also. Mike Rivero at WRH won't touch it except for occasional mentions of the impossible to ignore (and 20 year old) Franklin scandal. Besides that he frequently, and apropos nothing, beats the disinfo drum re McMartin. The tiny number of people who will discuss the paedophocracy such as Dave McGowan (who coined the term no less), and Jeff Wells, view it as an extension of US power a la the IMF and World Bank. Best not to pay too much attention to Europe being an equal partner. America rules Europe it seems.

The paedophocracy as control structure under the bankers.
Is this just me? Surely not. Perhaps I should get out more. Weirdly enough Susan Ford's book Thanks For The Memories, in discussing the Council who otherwise run the whole show, painted as precise a picture of the twelve families as we're ever going to get and then went on to say that they were probably all freemasons. I don't think so. For mine a paedophocracy under the Banking families, rather than opposed to it, makes sense of things that otherwise don't make sense and is as close as we're going to get to a unified field theory explaining why the world is so fucked.

Did I miss anyone?


Further, the answer to why Zionist disinfo is discussed and Paedophocracy disinfo isn't becomes apparent with the list.


Anonymous said...

You forgot Sudan in the list of countries we love to hate. There was the tasty morsel a while back about Mia Farrow wanting to contract Blackwater to do what the UN, AU, US et al. wouldn't (humanitarian style murder). To be fair, I feel like Darfur has been toned down now that the left doesn't need to be distracted from Iraq... Not a bad conspiracy pecking order, tho...

kikz said...

'Thus the most famous at the top have the least power. The least famous, ie. most people have never heard of them...'

yup. think indonesian 'shadow puppetshow'

archetypes are wellknown; shown in reflected light thru scrim, w/puppeteers unseen.

or kibuki w/onstage puppeteers in black.

Anonymous said...

From Belgium

Well some of those things you assumed I knew about, I didn’t so I am not the nice non pushy smart ass I considered myself to be :-)

Did you miss anybody out? Most countries have been good and bad at one time, like most of Africa for instance. But good and bad are relative terms depending on who you talk to. South Africa was regarded as bad when it was the high priest of fascism, except for the government and the people doing business there of course, but now these people haven’t got a choice any more SA is universally regarded as good. Bolivia was good until it stuck finger up at Rummy’s Bechtel and now it is bad. Cuba of course especially since it rumbled the CIA. Chile was bad until the CIA wasn’t rumbled and they put in that nice General Pinochet who didn’t even give the illusion of being democratic. There was Sukarno / Suharto as you mentioned and Kim ll Yung; the list goes on but I am only being nit picking, it doesn’t detract from your point.

As you sometimes say, I am going to make a sideways digression here. The Western world regards democracy as so good it is beating those it regards as non democratic into submission or at least trying to. Unless like Hamas it is regarded as a terrorist democracy in which case it doesn’t count. Notwithstanding that, year on year Wall Street does increasing proportions of trade with dictatorships since these can guarantee low prices; a compliant work force; firm deadlines; deals and tax breaks that don’t have to be agreed by a Congress etc; even though there are increasing numbers of democracies to choose from. So we can conclude that good and bad are the same word spoken with a forked tongue.

The only example that springs to mind where the upper echelons were taken on by Hollywood was Eyes Wide Shut which starred that guy with the eternal boyish good looks, whatever his name was but since it did not involve child sex and he got the girl in the end, that made it OK.

I sure can’t fault your list. The Rothschild’s are certainly the most mentioned; perhaps it was just hubris in the early days. These, together with their American whippersnapper cousins the Rockefeller’s but who are the others? I am willing to wager that without looking it up, readers can name more of the Magnificent Seven than any seven of the twelve families apart from the two mentioned above. Ok, you can have the two mentioned above. Are the Rothschild’s top dogs? They are the most well known so does that exclude them? Probably not. And here is a thought, if anybody did whack a Rothschild, how would we get to know about it?

Gabriel said...

Great posts. What about the weirder stuff involving aliens/lizards? I think it's probably thrown in to make the whole community look like nuts. We can expect a movie about that too eventually...

nobody said...

I should apologise for these pieces. The whole thing was a bit of a rush. I rushed them at home and then I rushed them at the library and then the library shut and I hadn't even finished posting them. All very helter skelter.

As is, I read it again and really it should have been in three parts: two disinfos compared; to factions allegedly at odds with each other and what that would look like if they were: and making sense of it all by way of a list. As it stands it meanders without describing any useful line going from A to B. Too late now anyway.

As for this country, that country, it's all much of a muchness. Frankly I don't think that there's a single foreign country that threatens another apart from Israel and the US. Unsurprisingly these two countries are the ones keenest to tell us whom we should hate.

Hey FB, the Magnificent Seven? Jesus Christ! The Seven Samurai on the other hand... um, six. The twelve families... um, Rothschilds, Warburgs, Schiffs... um is Goldman Sax one or two? Lehman? Okay so I'm floundering.

Lizards and Aliens. Quite right. I'm thinking they'd come just after Hitler/the devil. This being due to the fact that neither Hitler or the devil has any power to harm anyone at all, but lizards (particularly of the large toothy crocodilian variety) can be very nasty. Thanks for that.

Anonymous said...

From Belgium

I went through the whole Stevie Bluebell diatribe today (at least it was that on his part) when I came across this from Su:

And add into that equation that Tony Blair has converted (to Catholicism) and being spending one on one time with his wholiness and that George Bush was invited into the most sacred parts of the Vatican and I think it becomes so fucking abundantly clear that it is this that rules, controls, and exploits the world.

It is only a rumour at the moment but that may be about to change:

Fake Faith and Epic Crimes by John Pilger:

James said...

Re Seven Samuria-
I'd put forward Lazard, Schroeder and Worms

nobody said...

Aargh, the library link is eating my comments! I type again -

Hey FB, as for Catholics I had a spray on this in the comments of the preceding thing.

Otherwise I wonder if Blair being taken into the bosom of the Vatican isn't him getting some variety of paedophocracy frequent flyer gold badge. One way or another Blair had links. Aangirfan has done a fine job joining the dots.

Anonymous said...

From Belgium

James, thanks that’s making the list a bit more respectable length, I got the Warburghs and the Shrifs and the Rothschild’s of course. I don’t know if the Rockerfellers are part of he twelve or not but it only reinforces Mr N’s point of how difficult it is to even find basic information. Anybody else want to pile in?

Mr N, in brevity I left the substance of the comment for the link so if you didn’t put it up then I have surely confused you. The point was that the little guys are using international law to go after the Blairs’ and the Rummys’ of this world. I know of a story where someone walked into a police station in France and said “Rumsfeld is staying in this particular hotel, he is there now and I want him arrested and charged with war crimes”. Under French law the police have to go and pick him up and obviously there was a tip off because halfway through his breakfast, so the story goes, he was bundled into a fast car and quickly got over the border. Apparently the same thing happened in Germany and now he doesn’t travel any more. Maybe he will never be caught but it is good to know that the man in the street can rattle the cages of the big guys.

Going back to Stevie Bluebell, I do appreciate that you were going through a learning process and even at the time it was happening you didn’t even realise it. A few things occurred to me in bed last night before I went to sleep and I thought “Stuff it I am not getting up now to start typing.” In only concentrating on the McMartin case and turning the existence of the pediophocracy on whether the tunnels were found or not he was in fact attempting a step which is not allowed in Aristotelian logic ie going from the particular to the universal. For example we could say that ‘All cows eat grass’ but it does not follow that all animals which eat grass are cows. What he was trying to argue was that if it could be shown that McMartin was a false claim then the pediophocracy did not exist either. Sorry Stevie Bluebell but you can’t have that one.

Right at the beginning when he was attempting to strike an empathy he said, without admitting anything, I might add, “Adding that to the other more credible stories tends to weaken the whole pedophocracy allegation - for me, at least.” You should have chased him at that point on what these more credible stories might be. That would have put him on the back foot and made it more difficult to go back to McMartin. Then you would have been on the high ground to chase him over what these more credible cases might reveal, thus weakening his own stand.

Finally, even though he called you a twat, he did not deny at any time that he was a paedophile.

Von Curtis said...

Iraqi film

For those of you - whose souls are not deadened out or numbed out with denial, justifications, rationalizations, apathy, indifference, spite, or greed...

The death cult wants to get rid of proud independent people.

They never will.

nobody said...

Sorry FB, that makes things clearer. Yes, every now and then (not often) there are good news days. And they usually comprise variations of stories like that.

As for StevieB, exactly. And it's neatly summed in the concept of the 'strawman' argument. Funnily enough all that stuff I cut and paste into the blog here carried on at xymphora's for a while. I didn't bother putting it all in. It was long enough as was. But in that extended exchange, curiously StevieB accused me of putting up a strawman without citing what the strawman was. I took that apart too. Eventually it all got too weird with us typing in real time (4pm here, 2am there) and having one of those idiotic double conversations. He's a Canadian by the way, in Toronto.

As for getting up and typing, do you know how often I have dreams that consist of writing for this blog? It's weird. Why can't I have interesting dreams? My dreams are all of the mundane.

nobody said...

Oh, and the anon who mentioned Sudan! Just this week a 250 member Fed task force busted a HUGE Sudanese terror ring. They were going to attack Singleton army base it seems. Apparently Murdoch's Oz is in trouble for putting the story all over the front page before the Feds had actually busted them. Ha ha ha ha ha. Obviously the whole thing ran on the twin strands of the actual bust and the story that was to be told about it. With the latter being waaay more important than the former. Sure enough Bukkake Rudd put up his boofy head to discuss the whole affair as if it was a done deal. And God forbid anyone should mention that every other bullshit bust by the Feds has so far ended up with them embarassingly spattered in shit, with charges dismissed or otherwise reduced to variations of parking tickets. And this will go the same way too.

Honestly! A Sudanese terror attack on Singleton army base! They're really fucking desperate aren't they?

slozo said...

Your list of who's who for the Fed right here:

As you can see, it gets long, and complicated. But the controlling families are all listed there.

Too busy these days, would like to say more, but I am listening to A View From Space, broadcast every Sat night (I downloaded this one) from am640 in Toronto. Give it a listen some time, this guy Gary Bell is really something.

Anonymous said...

In the feudal system, you have scores and scores of top families who control wealth and power by using terror; and by using religion; and bribery; and seduction. The bankers may look important, but they are nothing without the support of the generals; and the generals need the bankers and merchants. The barons, bishops, knights, merchants and bankers are usually in alliance; but sometimes the various top families fall out with each other and lots of dirt gets thrown around. Sometimes the King gets most of the publicity, but some bishop or banker may be highly influential behind the scenes; but I don't think the public is ever totally unaware of the power of people like Cardinal Wolsey or Cardinal de Richelieu or Henry Kissinger. Today, I don't think any one group is all powerful. Certain child abusing freemasons or certain top Jewish bankers may exercise a lot of influence in certain areas but they are not all powerful. What we have is shifting alliances of various factions. - Aangirfan

nobody said...

Aangirfan! Nice of you to pop in mate. I have to fly since the battery's nearly dead, but otherwise, 'yes'.

I really should stop posting two things in the same day because the conversation in the comments gets split across the two pieces. Thinks: perhaps if I direct people to the comments in the last piece.

Anyway... the consensus arrived at in the preceding piece was that from here on in I'll probably just call them the death cult and be done with it.

Otherwise Aangirfan, don't you and all those schoolgirl chums ever tire? God knows how you keep the pace up. You're not all on methamphetamines are you? Anyway good work, I'm enjoying every bit of it. Folks, I do hope you're keeping up with Aangirfan's efforts. 'As used and recommended by nobody!

Ha ha ha ha, I'll never of that gag. Um, the link is on the front page.