[rerevisionist]

It struck me that there may be a Plan B out there for removal of the Fed. Remember that other organisation, much more important than the Fed, out there... I can't even remember what it's called. The Something Depository? Lies are endless, and it wouldn't surprise me if the paper money monopoly will be reshaped to reappear, just as the EU is modelled on the USSR and hardly anyone noticed. Maybe Ron Paul is part of the plan, which might explain his being promoted while also apparently supporting the de-interestification of currencies. And maybe sometime people will rise up and lose patience finally with Jewish liars.

[Sorensen731]

It struck me that there may be a Plan B out there for removal of the Fed. Remember that other organisation, much more important than the Fed, out there... I can't even remember what it's called. The Something Depository? Lies are endless, and it wouldn't surprise me if the paper money monopoly will be reshaped to reappear, just as the EU is modelled on the USSR and hardly anyone noticed. Maybe Ron Paul is part of the plan, which might explain his being promoted while also apparently supporting the de-interestification of currencies. And maybe sometime people will rise up and lose patience finally with Jewish liars.

BIS. Bank for International Settlements

"The mission of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is to serve central banks in their pursuit of monetary and financial stability, to foster international cooperation in those areas and to act as a bank for central banks"

http://www.bis.org/about/index.htm

You are right, US (and USRR) (political, economic and CULTURAL) Imperialism was needed and useful, but was clearly imposed, from away, temporary.
Now they will move towards more World Government, and that means a global currency, S.D.R, Americans will loose power there but the World will be tied together strongly with a common currency, that will be the excuse, common currency will fail unless common policy is applied in all countries, E.U case. They may even play with "gold" backing in the beginning, like the U.S did, but never taking it seriously.
With the Dollar they destroyed their enemies, now they will join them economically, and economic policy will imply in the end all politics, like E.U "just a coal and steel agreement...".

I watched Ron Paul for years, of course he is allowed to speak of retreating US troops back home, they are broke! They already did their duty and served the Rotschilds.
They will holocaust America to their god (holocaust means ritual sacrifice), Jews don't pay. They use, keep and suck the money and move to the next host/country.

Ron, like the famous Max Keiser talks about banks, but hides and protect their true identities. Ron is closely associated with Ludwig von Mises Institute, Alabama, they publish detailed books naming even the grandfather of the FED creators, but they naively put their public names, hiding the nationality and religion. Mises was friend with Coudenhove-Kalergi, a beast behind the E.U. In the Mises they push for anarcho-capitalism. They are jewish bitches defending massive propaganda/marketing, fast food, drugs, private mercenary firms, the absolute triumph of materialism. No nations, no race, no values, just money. Ethics for them are just commercial rules respecting each other property,

Anybody there ever thinks WHO has the gold they so much adore? Maybe the big banks as always? FED prints money they win, Gold goes up, they win too.

They are trapped inside the approved solution, the 2º best plan. The real alternative is Work backed currency, a production based currency, gold is unnecessary even between countries who exchange goods between them. It just allows an usury sucker to sneak in.

What's the point in taking out the FED? You have to take those behind it!

[rerevisionist]

H J Eysenck was a sort of British version of Jensen of the USA, and in 1971 his book Race, Intelligence and Education was published, resulting in threats against him. (The detail of these threats is hard to find; it's clear they were tacitly backed by the state, which is course applies to other issues, usually Jewish-related).

Anyway I found a comment in an Amazon review that Chomsky had said articulately that the issue isn't serious. This online text seems to be an edited version of what Chomsky wrote http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6-the-nature-of-learning/chomsky-on-iq-and-inequality/

and includes this:-

[Moreover], the question of the relation, if any, between race and intelligence has very little scientific importance (as it has no social importance, except under the assumptions of a racist society) … As to social importance, a correlation between race and mean I.Q. (were this shown to exist) entails no social consequences except in a racist society in which each individual is assigned to a racial category and dealt with not as an individual in his own right, but as a representative of this category … In a non-racist society, the category of race would be of no greater significance [than height]. The mean I.Q. of individuals of a certain racial background is irrelevant to the situation of a particular individual, who is what he is. Recognizing this perfectly obvious fact, we are left with little, if any, plausible justification for an interest in the relation between mean I.Q. and race, apart from the ‘justification’ provided by the existence of racial discrimination.

Note the sleight of hand there - '.. the mean.. is irrelevant to ... a particular individual...' which of course sidesteps the fact that individuals taken together conform to the mean - in an extreme case of immensely low or high IQ, or other measure, the relevance is more obvious.

[rerevisionist]

Chomsky on the Spanish Civil War
http://www.ditext.com/chomsky/1968.html is a piece dated 1968 entitled Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship with endnotes which amount to about 40% of the total text. It's something like an extended book review, mostly books on the subject of the so-called Spanish Civil War.

The principal topic is the formation of quite large groups of Spaniards of a more-or-less egalitarian type, and the contempt these were treated with by these authors - when they were noticed at all. Perfectly legitimate; but there are two obvious problems - one is the actual viability of these groups; could they in fact have lasted, from a purely technological point of view? Chomsky has no methodology for assessing this, something of course found in all pseudo-left groups. The other problem is the suppression of the Jewish element - 'Communist', 'Russian', 'credit' etc generally being euphemisms for Jewish activity. No author or publisher or organisation, or owner of real assets, in the notes is identified as 'Jewish' yet it's well known that there was intensive Jewish involvement - indeed some of the British anti-free speech thug groups to this day still discuss the 'Spanish Civil War'.

Chomsky's use of the word 'liberal' must have baffled British readers at the time, since these people are of course illiberal. But again this is the result of Jewish deformation of the word, in a similar fashion to the deformation of 'socialism' and 'democracy' and 'freedom' and 'rule of law'.

[rerevisionist]

What Are Iran’s Intentions? - Chomsky piece which seems completely unhelpful, not answering the question & with inbuilt assumptions for example on 'nukes' and on 'tensions flaring' and complete identification of Jews with the USA, plus irrelevancies, his usual quotations from miscellaneous people, and unsourced claims on 'international law'
(And it's written for 'the New York Times Syndicate'!)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30701.htm

What Are Iran’s Intentions? As tensions flare between Iran and the West, 120 nonaligned nations agree: the country has the right to enrich uranium.
. . . . By Noam Chomsky

. . . . March 03, 2012 "Information Clearing House" --- The January/February issue of Foreign Affairs featured the article “Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option,” by Matthew Kroenig, along with commentary about other ways to contain the Iranian threat.
. . . . The media resound with warnings about a likely Israeli attack on Iran while the U.S. hesitates, keeping open the option of aggression—thus again routinely violating the U.N. Charter, the foundation of international law.
. . . . As tensions escalate, eerie echoes of the run-up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are in the air. Feverish U.S. primary campaign rhetoric adds to the drumbeat.
. . . . Concerns about “the imminent threat” of Iran are often attributed to the “international community”—code language for U.S. allies. The people of the world, however, tend to see matters rather differently.
. . . . The nonaligned countries, a movement with 120 member nations, has vigorously supported Iran’s right to enrich uranium—an opinion shared by the majority of Americans (as surveyed by WorldPublicOpinion.org) before the massive propaganda onslaught of the past two years.
. . . . China and Russia oppose U.S. policy on Iran, as does India, which announced that it would disregard U.S. sanctions and increase trade with Iran. Turkey has followed a similar course.
. . . . Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. In the Arab world, Iran is disliked but seen as a threat only by a very small minority. Rather, Israel and the U.S. are regarded as the pre-eminent threat. A majority think that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons: In Egypt on the eve of the Arab Spring, 90 percent held this opinion, according to Brookings Institution/Zogby International polls.
. . . . Western commentary has made much of how the Arab dictators allegedly support the U.S. position on Iran, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the population opposes it—a stance too revealing to require comment.
. . . . Concerns about Israel’s nuclear arsenal have long been expressed by some observers in the United States as well. Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command, described Israel’s nuclear weapons as “dangerous in the extreme.” In a U.S. Army journal, Lt. Col. Warner Farr wrote that one “purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their `use’ on the United States”—presumably to ensure consistent U.S. support for Israeli policies.
. . . . A prime concern right now is that Israel will seek to provoke some Iranian action that will incite a U.S. attack.
. . . . One of Israel’s leading strategic analysts, Zeev Maoz, in “Defending the Holy Land,” his comprehensive analysis of Israeli security and foreign policy, concludes that “the balance sheet of Israel’s nuclear policy is decidedly negative”—harmful to the state’s security. He urges instead that Israel should seek a regional agreement to ban weapons of mass destruction: a WMD-free zone, called for by a 1974 U.N. General Assembly resolution.
. . . . Meanwhile, the West’s sanctions on Iran are having their usual effect, causing shortages of basic food supplies—not for the ruling clerics but for the population. Small wonder that the sanctions are condemned by Iran’s courageous opposition.
. . . . The sanctions against Iran may have the same effect as their predecessors against Iraq, which were condemned as “genocidal” by the respected U.N. diplomats who administered them before finally resigning in protest.
. . . . The Iraq sanctions devastated the population and strengthened Saddam Hussein, probably saving him from the fate of a rogues’ gallery of other tyrants supported by the U.S.-U.K.—tyrants who prospered virtually to the day when various internal revolts overthrew them.
. . . . There is little credible discussion of just what constitutes the Iranian threat, though we do have an authoritative answer, provided by U.S. military and intelligence. Their presentations to Congress make it clear that Iran doesn’t pose a military threat.
. . . . Iran has very limited capacity to deploy force, and its strategic doctrine is defensive, designed to deter invasion long enough for diplomacy to take effect. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons (which is still undetermined), that would be part of its deterrent strategy.
. . . . The understanding of serious Israeli and U.S. analysts is expressed clearly by 30-year CIA veteran Bruce Riedel, who said in January, “If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons” as a deterrent.
. . . . An additional charge the West levels against Iran is that it is seeking to expand its influence in neighboring countries attacked and occupied by the U.S. and Britain, and is supporting resistance to the U.S.-backed Israeli aggression in Lebanon and illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Like its deterrence of possible violence by Western countries, Iran’s actions are said to be intolerable threats to “global order.”
. . . . Global opinion agrees with Maoz. Support is overwhelming for a WMDFZ in the Middle East; this zone would include Iran, Israel and preferably the other two nuclear powers that have refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: India and Pakistan, who, along with Israel, developed their programs with U.S. aid.
. . . . Support for this policy at the NPT Review Conference in May 2010 was so strong that Washington was forced to agree formally, but with conditions: The zone could not take effect until a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors was in place; Israel’s nuclear weapons programs must be exempted from international inspection; and no country (meaning the U.S.) must be obliged to provide information about “Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel.”
. . . . The 2010 conference called for a session in May 2012 to move toward establishing a WMDFZ in the Middle East.
. . . . With all the furor about Iran, however, there is scant attention to that option, which would be the most constructive way of dealing with the nuclear threats in the region: for the “international community,” the threat that Iran might gain nuclear capability; for most of the world, the threat posed by the only state in the region with nuclear weapons and a long record of aggression, and its superpower patron.
. . . . One can find no mention at all of the fact that the U.S. and Britain have a unique responsibility to dedicate their efforts to this goal. In seeking to provide a thin legal cover for their invasion of Iraq, they invoked U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which they claimed Iraq was violating by developing WMD.
. . . . We may ignore the claim, but not the fact that the resolution explicitly commits signers to establishing a WMDFZ in the Middle East.

... © 2012 The New York Times Syndicate