Pearl Harbor Defense

In article , Denyav
writes
If you're so keen on spreading your message to the world, why don't you
tell us what he said?

Well,I thought that only Americans are not allowed to read serious books.(If
they get smarter,herding of them would become harder,you know).
But you are posting from UK ?.
You can find this book in any library.(at least in US)

It (the book) is actually the blueprint for the events that happened after 2000
and the event are going to to happen in next year.

If you read the book (published in 1997) carefully you could easily understand
that Anglos did not occupy or plan to occupy Eurasian countries because the
terrorists came from these areas,but other way around,terrorists came from
these areas because Anglos selected these areas as the playing ground for the
next round of the Great Game.

Wow.

Brzenzinki sheds also light why 9/11 was required not only for the realization
Anglo foreign policy goals but also for the solving of Anglo domestic policy
goals.

Ouote:
"Democracy is inimical to IMPERIAL mobilization" page 35

Is it? Why?

Quote:
"The attitude of American public toward the external projection of American
power has been much more ambivalent .The public supported Americas engagement
in WWII largely because of SHOCK effect of Japanase attack on Pearl Harbor."
page24

Quote:
"Moreover,as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society ,it may find
it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues ,EXCEPT in
circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived foreign threat" page235


This is the blueprint for 9/11 and the events prior after 9/11 not something
that necons (whatever or whoever they might be) did or said.


I would understand what he said if you could quote it in a
comprehensible form.

OK, the words of Rhodes in 1877:

"Why should we not form a secret society with but one object of furtherance of
the British empire and the bringing of whole uncivilized world under British
rule for the recovery of the United States for making ANGLO-SAXON RACE but
ONE EMPIRE"

Still did not understand?


No. You still don't make sense. There appear to be words missing.
Anyway, why shouldn't they have? It fitted in with the thinking of the
time.

Might the fact that the USA has English as its official language just
have something to do with its history as an English colony?
Just imagine the history of the USA if the French or Spanish had been
the major power there. Or even the Germans.

Well,I wonder in which part of Britain Latin,or at least Italien, is the
official language?

That's a poor argument. The Romans left Britannia in the 5th century,
but still left their mark on the evolution of the English language. The
British settlers and their descendants were the major factor in founding
the USA, and stayed in the country. You leave, and, unless everybody has
learnt your language in the meantime, it goes with you as far as the
majority of the population is concerned.

In history there are several great empires and all of them used different ways
to maintain their superiority.

Most of them fell. The British gave theirs away/back.

For example the main chracteristics of the famous Roman Empire were superior
military organisation AND cultural appeal.
Main chracteristics of British empire was superior military organization AND
cultural assertiveness.period.

I hope you know the difference between "appeal" and "assertiveness",becuse
thats the reason why nobody in Britain speaks italian, wheras almost everybody
in US,India etc speaks English.

No it isn't. See above. The situations can't be compared. The social and
cultural conditions were very different in the 1st to 5th century Roman
Empire and 16th-20th century India and USA. Nobody else in Europe has
Latin as their daily language either. Few people outside the clergy and
the upper classes spoke Latin, just like now.

The British Empire was acquired largely accidentally. The language does
tend to follow the colonisers/occupiers, not the other way around.

There is not much space for accidents in history,for example the creation of
Soviet Union was a road accident,but not British Empire.

Oh yes it was. History is more or less accidental where the majority of
events is concerned.

Then how do you know that you're not part of it as well?

You may never know it,I am pretty sure that neither Confederates nor Nazis ever
realized that they were indeed Anglo proxies.

Yeah, right. King George V sponsored Hitler. Get a grip, for goodness'
sake. Why did the Allies spend so much time, money and effort, lose so
many lives and endure such suffering to rid the world of him? To make
Henry Ford rich? You've been reading too many thrillers.

I said before several times,I admire Great Game playing skills.

The Great Game was specifically in 18th/19th century India. Stopping the
French, and even more so the Russians, from taking over there.

That was the first chapter of the Great Game,The Great Game or if I use
Brzezinkis words "Grand Chessboard" never ended there,First and second WWs were
only another chapters of the Great Game now we see the most recent chapter.

leading? World domination by some
undefined group of goodness-knows-what? Once "they" have the world in
their grasp, what then? Brainwashing, Big Brother (Orwell, not Endemol)?

Anglos dominate the world for centuries already,struggle is to save Anglo
dominance.

Sounds OK to me. Problem is, the Queen's a German and the PM's more or
less a Scot. Rather messes things up.
Anyway, as I already asked, what happens then? Everybody is forced to
drink tea?

I have a good idea why the signs might have been there, but I didn't see
them.

I am sure you wont see any of them in Britain,Australia or New Zeeland as all
of these countries are (still) Anglo countries,not an Anglo dominated country
like US.

There really is little to say in response to that one, except: ********!

I like having a laugh at a conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but
yours seems a bit lacking in practicality. You need more detail (apart
from one quote from Cecil Rhodes and vague prattling from Brzenzinki).
Contemplating nebulous aspirations such as world domination doesn't
really appeal if there's no substance and no obvious purpose except the
idea for its own sake.

And you still haven't told me what an "Anglo" is.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Ouote:
"Democracy is inimical to IMPERIAL mobilization" page 35

Is it? Why?

If only 20 percent of population support your imperial mobilization plans a
system in which every vote counts is not very helpful for the realization of
your plans,I guess

o. You still don't make sense. There appear to be words missing.
Anyway, why shouldn't they have? It fitted in with the thinking of the
time.

Let me give you some hints,Brzezinski is a member of extremely influental CFR,
(Council on Foreign Relations).

Does CFR really exist?
Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music
source located inside Great Britain?



The
British settlers and their descendants were the major factor in founding
the USA, and stayed in the country. You leave, and, unless everybody has
learnt your language in the meantime, it goes with you as far as the
majority of the population is concerned.

Interesting,I guess Britons,Germans,French,Greeks,Arabs etc, were much dumber
than Indians,Zambians,Jamaicans etc.

You know Romans ruled Britons,Germans and others for longer periods than
Britons ruled Indians.

But nobody speaks italian In UK,Germany,France ,Greece and Arab countries,but
almost everybody speaks English in former British colonies.

This is something to do with Roman "cultural appeal" and Anglo "Cultural
Assertiveness".

Romans were actually much more than Roman legions,they also represented
cultural highpoint of their era.

Confident cultures need not be assertive.period.

Empire and 16th-20th century India and USA. Nobody else in Europe has
Latin as their daily language either. Few people outside the clergy and
the upper classes spoke Latin, just like now.

Nobody in Europa speaks Italian either (except Italians of course)
Truth is Romans were not culturally assertive,they did not try to force any
body in empire to use their language.

Oh yes it was. History is more or less accidental where the majority of
events is concerned.

Only,if you call sexual preferences of British foreign officers that helped to
create the Empire accidental .

sake. Why did the Allies spend so much time, money and effort, lose so
many lives and endure such suffering to rid the world of him? To make
Henry Ford rich? You've been

In order to thrust Germany into a premature war,of course.

A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic stuff,would
be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win

Henry Ford rich? You've been reading too many thrillers.

Who needs thrillers,their authors cannot even imagine whats really happening in
real world.


nd you still haven't told me what an "Anglo" is.
--

Does it matter?
Since the first Homosapiens appeared in African continent?

In article , Denyav
writes
Ouote:
"Democracy is inimical to IMPERIAL mobilization" page 35

Is it? Why?

If only 20 percent of population support your imperial mobilization plans a
system in which every vote counts is not very helpful for the realization of
your plans,I guess

Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th
century France? 20th century USSR?

o. You still don't make sense. There appear to be words missing.
Anyway, why shouldn't they have? It fitted in with the thinking of the
time.

Let me give you some hints,Brzezinski is a member of extremely influental CFR,
(Council on Foreign Relations).

I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and
comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps
comprehension if it's written sensibly.

Does CFR really exist?
Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music
source located inside Great Britain?

More obscure thinking.


The
British settlers and their descendants were the major factor in founding
the USA, and stayed in the country. You leave, and, unless everybody has
learnt your language in the meantime, it goes with you as far as the
majority of the population is concerned.

Interesting,I guess Britons,Germans,French,Greeks,Arabs etc, were much dumber
than Indians,Zambians,Jamaicans etc.

No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew
up.

You know Romans ruled Britons,Germans and others for longer periods than
Britons ruled Indians.

But nobody speaks italian In UK,Germany,France ,Greece and Arab countries,but
almost everybody speaks English in former British colonies.

This is something to do with Roman "cultural appeal" and Anglo "Cultural
Assertiveness".

Romans were actually much more than Roman legions,they also represented
cultural highpoint of their era.

Confident cultures need not be assertive.period.

The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully
ignoring the question of education.

Empire and 16th-20th century India and USA. Nobody else in Europe has
Latin as their daily language either. Few people outside the clergy and
the upper classes spoke Latin, just like now.

Nobody in Europa speaks Italian either (except Italians of course)
Truth is Romans were not culturally assertive,they did not try to force any
body in empire to use their language.

What has Italian got to do with it? The Romans didn't speak it.

Oh yes it was. History is more or less accidental where the majority of
events is concerned.

Only,if you call sexual preferences of British foreign officers that helped to
create the Empire accidental .

Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are
showing again.

sake. Why did the Allies spend so much time, money and effort, lose so
many lives and endure such suffering to rid the world of him? To make
Henry Ford rich? You've been

In order to thrust Germany into a premature war,of course.

So the British Army occupied the Saar, concluded the Anschluss, occupied
Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland?

Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies)
conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make
war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work?
Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff.

A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic stuff,would
be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win

What?

Henry Ford rich? You've been reading too many thrillers.

Who needs thrillers,their authors cannot even imagine whats really happening in
real world.

And you do know what's happening? How?


nd you still haven't told me what an "Anglo" is.
--

Does it matter?
Since the first Homosapiens appeared in African continent?

Of course it matters! You're the one who is telling us all that we're
subject to an "Anglo" conspiracy. You might do us the courtesy of
letting everyone know exactly who they're up against.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th
century France? 20th century USSR?


Whats about 21st century US?

I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and
comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps
comprehension if it's written sensibly.


As far as I know English was also Rhodes' primary language ,so there is
apparently a comprehension problem among native English speakers.
Its interesting because I am pretty sure that the individuals who use English
as second or even third language could immediately understand what Rhodes
meant.

Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music
source located inside Great Britain?

More obscure thinking.

No Sir,famous and for some dreaded CFR is nothing but the American Branch or
loudspeaker of not so famous British roundtable group.

No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew
up.

Empire educated them to be their servants,and education was not in their native
language but in English,in empires language, a perfect example of empire
building using "cultural assertiveness".

The tactic of Empire was the destruction of existing social structures and the
elimination of the elite class in colonized countries as the elites of the
colonies,as it happened in colonies in America,could form the nucleus of
resistance aganist colonial masters.

For example in India,Empire tried to terminate elite Brahmin caste all methods.
Nazis tried to imitatate british tactics in Poland,they tried to liquidate
whole Polish elite while they tried pretty hard to be friendly with the
peasants,even though polish elite was much closer to the Nazis "Superhuman"
picture than peasants.

Empires do NOT educate the people of colonized countries.Its aganist their
nature.
What you called "education" is a brainwashing program designed de-root
colonized people and to make them the obedient servants of their colonial
masters.

The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully
ignoring the question of education.

See above

Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are
showing again.

Thats a fact,life for them was very hard in puritan Britain,they could live
more freely in colonies .

Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies)
conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make
war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work?
Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff.

Great Nations and their leaderships usualy make projections and plans for 50
years or more,so if you could prevent Germans from becoming worlds dominant
power for next centuries with only six years of blood and tears,its pretty good
investment.
Typical Anglo pragmatism.

A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic
stuff,would
be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win

What?

Well if war started in late 40s ,Anglos had to deal with it.

And you do know what's happening? How?

If I lived in Anglo homeland ,I would not want to learn that.

You might do us the courtesy of
letting everyone know exactly who they're up against.
--

In spite of 1500 years of "dilution" process,they are apparently still in a
very good condition.
I wonder how good the "less diluted" Anglos are.

In article , Denyav
writes

Another reply from the selective snipmeister, I see.


Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th
century France? 20th century USSR?


Whats about 21st century US?

Answer the question.

I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and
comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps
comprehension if it's written sensibly.


As far as I know English was also Rhodes' primary language ,so there is
apparently a comprehension problem among native English speakers.
Its interesting because I am pretty sure that the individuals who use English
as second or even third language could immediately understand what Rhodes
meant.

It's not interesting. The quote you provided was incomplete,
ungrammatical and incomprehensible. You obviously don't understand what
"Incomprehensible" means. Write it again exactly the way Rhodes said it
and we might get somewhere.

Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music
source located inside Great Britain?

More obscure thinking.

No Sir,famous and for some dreaded CFR is nothing but the American Branch or
loudspeaker of not so famous British roundtable group.

What?

No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew
up.

Empire educated them to be their servants,and education was not in their native
language but in English,in empires language, a perfect example of empire
building using "cultural assertiveness".

What's wrong with that method? Most people had no education at all
before that. India had, and still has, so many languages that a common
tongue was needed to unify the country.

The tactic of Empire was the destruction of existing social structures and the
elimination of the elite class in colonized countries as the elites of the
colonies,as it happened in colonies in America,could form the nucleus of
resistance aganist colonial masters.

Existing social structures in India were repressive and exploitative.
Foe all its faults, the British ||Empire did improve the lot of the
people there.

For example in India,Empire tried to terminate elite Brahmin caste all methods.

Untrue.

Nazis tried to imitatate british tactics in Poland,they tried to liquidate
whole Polish elite while they tried pretty hard to be friendly with the
peasants,even though polish elite was much closer to the Nazis "Superhuman"
picture than peasants.

Hardly a valid comparison.

Empires do NOT educate the people of colonized countries.Its aganist their
nature.

Soerry to disappoint you, but look at the number of people around the
world who received an education courtesy of Pax Britannica.

What you called "education" is a brainwashing program designed de-root
colonized people and to make them the obedient servants of their colonial
masters.

Rubbish.

The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully
ignoring the question of education.

See above

Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are
showing again.

Thats a fact,life for them was very hard in puritan Britain,they could live
more freely in colonies .

So the only reason people gave up their lives in their homeland was to
exercise their perversions overseas? Great reasoning, and untrue.
Victorian Britain was not at all puritan behind closed doors.

Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies)
conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make
war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work?
Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff.

Great Nations and their leaderships usualy make projections and plans for 50
years or more,so if you could prevent Germans from becoming worlds dominant
power for next centuries with only six years of blood and tears,its pretty good
investment.
Typical Anglo pragmatism.

But you said that the Nazis were set up by tne future Allies in the
first place.

A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic
stuff,would
be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win

What?

Well if war started in late 40s ,Anglos had to deal with it.

Then why didn't the war start in 1938 at the time of the Munich
Agreement?

And you do know what's happening? How?

If I lived in Anglo homeland ,I would not want to learn that.

What?

You might do us the courtesy of
letting everyone know exactly who they're up against.
--

In spite of 1500 years of "dilution" process,they are apparently still in a
very good condition.
I wonder how good the "less diluted" Anglos are.

But WHO ARE THEY???

Despite my attempts at finding out what is behind your bigotry and
hatred of these "Anglos" and their alleged world domination, you still
refuse to justify your ravings or to tell us what the purpose of this
conspiracy is.

I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you.

You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Peter Twydell wrote:

In article , Denyav
writes

snip

I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you.

You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

Took you long enough -- I was beginning to worry about you. Now killfile him like
the rest of us, and you'll only see his ravings when some other misguided soul
attempts to have a coherent argument with him.

Guy

In article , Guy Alcala
writes
Peter Twydell wrote:

In article , Denyav
writes

snip

I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you.

You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

Took you long enough -- I was beginning to worry about you. Now
killfile him like
the rest of us, and you'll only see his ravings when some other misguided soul
attempts to have a coherent argument with him.

Guy

There are two aspects to Denya and his ravings. One is that he's like
the mosquito you hear in the middle of the night and can't swat because
it's too elusive. The other is accepting the challenge of getting him to
justify himself. Not very successfully this time, unfortunately, but it
did confirm his irrationality. I only did it as a bit of light relief
after several hard days of pretty mind-boggling work when I needed to
relieve the stress. I promise I won't do it again. Well, not until the
next time anyway.

Over on the rec.sport.rugby.union newsgroup (devoted to one of the two
greatest sports on the planet), there is the RSRU Shield, a virtual
competition between national teams. The first holder was South Africa,
who were awarded the Shield after their World Cup win in 1995. The
Shield
changes hands every time the holder loses a Test match. Funnily enough,
South Africa holds it at the moment, having beaten Australia recently.
What's he on about, you ask. Well, it struck me that perhaps we could
award a similar trophy, to be awarded to the most outrageous loon
(lune?) who posts to the NG. Past holders would have included Venik,
Kurt Plummer and good ole John Tarver. The current holder would have to
be Denyav. The poster of a subsequent outrageously loony posting would
be awarded the trophy until the next one.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Answer the question.


Less than 20% is the percentage of Anglo-Americans in US acc.to census figures

It's not interesting. The quote you provided was incomplete,
ungrammatical and incomprehensible. You obviously don't understand what
"Incomprehensible" means. Write it again exactly the way Rhodes said

I dont know if you like it but:

The quote was taken from John Flints book "Cecil Rhodes" published in 1976.
If you want to see full version of Rhodes' 1876 "Confession of Faith" you
better check out this book.
The Author has published the both versions of Rhodes' "will" ,one written by
himself in his own handwriting,other written by his clerk .
If you read the book we might get somewhere possibly.

No Sir,famous and for some dreaded CFR is nothing but the American Branch
or
loudspeaker of not so famous British roundtable group.

What?

Well,for more information I strongly recommend you to read Bill Clintons
mentor Carroll Quigley's book "The Anglo-American establisment"

Highly Secretive "Round Table Group" is behind of the current events in the
world,and our famous CFR is nothing but a loudspeaker for this secretive group.

What's wrong with that method? Most people had no education at all
before that. India had, and still has, so many languages that a common
tongue was needed to unify the country.

If I remember correctly the motto of the Empire was "Divide and Rule" not
"Unite and Rule"
So,the reason behind the introduction of English in colonies must be anything
BUT unification.

Existing social structures in India were repressive and exploitative.
Foe all its faults, the British ||Empire did improve the lot of the
people there.

Sounds like you are describing existing social structures in Britain at that
time.For example in India,Empire tried to terminate elite Brahmin caste all
methods.

Untrue.



Unfortunately true,Empire did everything imaginable to eliminate Brahmins,which
were Indias best educated elite and tried to replace them with a new
"nomenclature" educated in British founded schools and with "Gazzetta
Officers".

pretty hard to be friendly with the
peasants,even though polish elite was much closer to the Nazis "Superhuman"
picture than peasants.

Hardly a valid comparison.

Why? .Replace Brits with Germans and Brahmins with Polish then you have exactly
the same picture.

Soerry to disappoint you, but look at the number of people around the
world who received an education courtesy of Pax Britannica.

I wonder why there is not even one former British colony among G-7 or 8
countries whereas countries that were not fortunate enough to receive an
education courtesy of Pax Britannia,for example Japan,are among the most
developed,even though some former colonies were more developed than Japan
before they received education courtesy of Pax Brittannia?

I also wonder why many of worlds current hot spots,if not all, are the
countries that were fortunane enough to receive an education courtesy of Pax
Britannia?

Any explanations greatly appreciated.

What you called "education" is a brainwashing program designed de-root
colonized people and to make them the obedient servants of their colonial
masters.

Rubbish.
That was the way the Anglo empire (and others) work.

So the only reason people gave up their lives in their homeland was to
exercise their perversions overseas? Great reasoning, and untrue.
Victorian Britain was not at all puritan behind closed doors.

Surely it was not only reason but one of the reasons

..But you said that the Nazis were set up by tne future Allies in the
first place.

You possibly could not find anybody with less IQ than Nazis in Germany at that
time.


Then why didn't the war start in 1938 at the time of the Munich
Agreement?

This date was too early,even Idiots like Nazi management could see it.

And you do know what's happening? How?

If I lived in Anglo homeland ,I would not want to learn that.

What?

Why Sir David (David King) got involved in a nasty discussion with George W. ?,

What about could possibly our Prez without stellar IQ number discuss with
Britains top "official" scientists?.

Why the discussion turned nasty and Mr.Blair got a complain about that?