soros didn’t fall out of the sky one night, he is a rothschild proxy

A Soros-Made NWO Takes Shape at the UN
Wayne Madsen, Strategic Culture Foundation, May 28 2012

Major multinational corporations and the financial and NGO network of George Soros have taken effective control of a number of UN functions within the UN Secretariat and within the organization’s specialized agencies. The goal of this alliance is to re-draw the map of the world for the benefit of the global elites and the “top 1%.” The UN, which once prided itself on transparency, has now become a bureaucratic behemoth where decisions are made in closed door meetings attended by diplomats, mostly from English-speaking Western countries; corporate representatives; NGO officials tied to Soros and other entities like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations; and current and former CIA officers, some of whom act under US State Dept cover. It is a fact of life that today a number of UN agencies and elements are funded by private money. Although South Korean Ban Ki-moon is the Sec-Gen of the UN, his most important deputies represent the interests of NATO and its allies. The Under-Sec-Gen for Political Affairs is Lynn Pascoe, a former US ambassador to Indonesia and Malaysia and is thought by many UN staffers to have links to the CIA. The Under-Sec-Gen for Safety and Security is Gregory Starr, a former Director of the US State Dept’s Diplomatic Security Service who is also thought to have close links to the CIA. The Asst Sec-Gen for Strategic Planning and Policy Coordination is Robert Orr, the former Director of Global and Multilateral Affairs at the US National Security Council on which the CIA is represented. The Executive Director of the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) is Anthony Lake, a former US National Security Adviser. The Under-Sec-Gen for Peacekeeping Operations is Herve Ladsous of France who has served as French ambassador to Indonesia and China and who is a pro-NATO Atlanticist.

Perhaps nowhere is the Soros and CIA influence felt more than in the UN Development Program (UNDP), which is headed by Helen Clark, a former Prime Minister of New Zealand. However, Soros’s operatives are heavily present in every UN agency except for Peacekeeping Operations but it, too, is an ultimate target for the multi-billionaire Hungarian Jew who once cooperated with the Nazi occupation forces in wartime Hungary. Soros is very close to former UN Deputy Sec-Gen and UNDP administrator Mark Malloch Brown of Great Britain. While UN Deputy Sec-Gen, Malloch Brown, resided rent-free at Soros’s estate in Westchester County, New York. The UN’s Global Compact is a brainchild of former Sec-Gen Kofi Annan, who is now charged with easing the Assad government from power in Syria. Pushing the Global Compact, Malloch Brown, while UNDP administrator, invited multinational corporations to “use their purchasing power to help develop small and medium-sized enterprises across the developing world.” The Global Compact essentially gives multinational corporations a say in how projects in developing countries are carried out. The UN has been holding a number of closed-door meetings and seminars at which the partition of UN member states has been discussed. Most of the meetings have been held under the direction of the UN Interagency Framework for Coordination on Preventive Action (the Framework Team or FT). The FT brings together representatives from a number of alphabet soup UN offices and specialized agencies, including:

DESA – Department of Economic and Social Affairs
DPA – Department of Political Affairs
DPKO – Department of Peacekeeping Operations
DOCO – UN Development Operations Coordination Office
EOSG – Executive Office of the Secretary General
FAO – Food and Agricultural Organization
ILO – International Labor Organization
OCHA – Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OHCHR – UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
OSAPG – Office of the Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide
PBSO – Peacebuilding Support Office
UNDP – UN Development Program
UNESCO – UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
UNHABITAT – UN Center for Human Settlements
UNICEF – UN Children’s Fund
UN WOMEN – UN Entity for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment
UNHCR – UN High Commissioner for Refugees
UNEP – UN Environment Program
UNDEF – UN Democracy Fund
UNFPA – UN Population Fund
WFP – World Food Program
WHO – World Health Organization
WB – World Bank
IMF – International Monetary Fund
DPI – Department of Public Information
OSAA – Office of the Special Advisor on Africa
DDA – Department for Disarmament Affairs
UNODC – UN office on Drugs and Crime

Much of the work of the FT is carried out under the direction of a USAian, Gay Rosemblum-Kumar. She heads up the Conflict Management Capacity-Building Project and the Peacebuilding Portal. While the names of these groups appear benign, they are at the center of a global plan by Soros, his NGOs, the CIA, and the global bankers to redraw the map of the world to suit the needs of multinational corporations and the US and NATO. Many FT meetings include speeches by Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor who has encouraged international R2P (responsibility to protect) intervention in Libya, Sudan, Syria, and other countries. The FT also relies on a professional trainer in “Conversation” and “Non-violent Communications” (NVC). He has overseen “outsourcing transition,” i.e., informing employees of their lay-offs and “benefits” packages at Merrill Lynch, Charles Schwab, and Bank of New York Mellon. From advising companies on how to inform employees that their jobs are finished, the individual in question now advises the UN on how to tell entire countries that they are “finished.” The FT also advances the work of Obama’s “information czar” Cass Sunstein; his wife Samantha Power of the US National Security Council; and Gene Sharp, the Albert Einstein Institution’s developer of the “themed revolution” concept. The FT has also trained certain activists around the world, particularly in developing and other countries with pro-western governments, to use “the system” to effect change and has advised them “not to protest against their government.” The entire FT operation at the UN is bankrolled with Soros money.

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the FT’s work is aimed at dividing existing nation-states into smaller entities. At a recent FT meeting titled “Nepal in Transition,” it was clear what strategy is being employed to carry out such divisions. The division of Nepal, with the ultimate goal being the marginalization of the powerful Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), foresees “identity federalism,” the first step before actual secession of federal components. A number of Nepalese political parties and movements recently signed an agreement that would create an “identity-based” federal republic in Nepal. The UN’s chief promoter of the strategy is Ian Martin, the Special Representative of the Sec-Gen who has headed UN missions in Nepal and, most recently, in Nepal. Under the UN plan, Nepal would be transformed into a polyglot federal republic based on indigenous groups, nationalities, castes such as the Dalit, and Muslims. Martin has been involved in creating “federal” structures in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Libya. The latter has seen the eastern province of Cyrenaica, with its capital in Benghazi, proclaim its autonomy from Tripoli.

Some UN participants in the talks on Nepal spoke of the need to “eliminate” the Maoists in Nepal. Robert Blake, Asst Sec State for South Asian Affairs, who has been linked to the CIA, participated in the Nepal conference. Blake reportedly helped engineer the Feb 2012 coup in Maldives that drove President Mohamed Nasheed, ironically a Soros favorite, from power. The coup, which ushered into power a pro-Islamic government said to be backed by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, could set the stage for a Maldives comprised of autonomous atolls, with the US able to acquire military bases in certain southern atolls as part of its encirclement of China policy.

Sri Lanka is also a target for the identity federalism engineers. During the 2008 presidential campaign, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama received large campaign donations from front groups for the Tamil Tigers, a guerrilla force that favors an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka and which is designated as a terrorist organization by the US State Dept. As a way of thanking the Tigers for their support, the Obama administration, Soros, and the International Peace Institute of Norway (which has been called a front for NATO, Soros, and the CIA and which supported the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE] during their long civil war against the Sri Lankan government) have been pushing for a federal system in Sri Lanka that would create a Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim federation, with secession following. A number of Norwegians are quietly pushing the identity federalism solution, some of whom, particularly Professor Johan Galtung, are Soros favorites.

To augment its identity federalism initiatives, Soros NGOs are also involved in creating a number of “partition studies” programs at major universities with international relations programs. Myanmar is also a target for the identity federalists and partition specialists. The UN and Soros goal is to split Myanmar into various ethnic-based nations. Some of these nations would then provide the US with military bases from which it can engage in intelligence, insurgency, and other operations in southern China. The human rights issue in Myanmar and China has been used by Soros as a tool to gain influence in both nations. The ultimate goal of the EU / US / Japan / Australia / Canada / New Zealand / Soros alliance is the division of India, Russia, Indonesia, and China into smaller nations.


  1. Posted June 12, 2012 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Many FT meetings include speeches by Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor who has encouraged international R2P (responsibility to protect) intervention in Libya, Sudan, Syria, and other countries.

    You mean Elie Wiesel, who has conned the world, see video and you will know what I mean. (quick before it is pulled)

  2. niqnaq
    Posted June 12, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    well then, let’s put it here.

  3. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    I’ll have to take my time with that; it looks very interesting but I haven’t the energy at the moment. However, this seems a strange model of the world:

    ” The ultimate goal of EU / US / Japan / Australia / Canada / New Zealand / Soros alliance is the division of India, Russia, Indonesia, and China into smaller nations.”

    I suppose I should read the whole thing closely before I question the ‘ EU / US / Japan / Australia / Canada / New Zealand / Soros alliance’, so instead let me recommend to you an unusually evidence-based look at some of the claims made about the Rothschilds in the Summer edition of Lobster, available free (as you know) online now. ‘ The ‘Rothschild connection’: the House of
    Rothschild and the invasion of Iraq by Will Banyan’ For readers who don’t know, just google Lobster, the journal of parapolitics.
    I haven’t finished it yet, but there’s 130+ source notes so far.

    However, here, at what for me is the crux of the matter, is what feels like the Rothschild official press release; every time the story gets to this bit, this crops up in practically the same words:

    ” the Rothschild name still retains its cachet, but there is
    little evidence they have preserved anywhere near the same
    level of power. As will be detailed below, the Rothschilds
    remain very well-connected, but they have lost many of their
    previous advantages.

    …While it is rumoured the Rothschild fortune, kept in trusts
    in Switzerland, is worth £40 billion38 or even ‘trillions’,39 more
    conservative estimates suggest a lesser fortune, reflecting the
    combined impact of heavy financial losses during both world
    wars, onerous death duties in England, and the forced
    nationalisation of private banks in France in 1981.”

    I’m not personally attached to any theory about the Rothschilds, but that little paragraph doesn’t seem to me to do justice to the disappearance of a fortune on the scale universally attributed to the 19th Century Rothschilds. Do people like that really lose money on wars? Do they really lose money in bank nationalisations? Do they really have to pay much death duty?

  4. niqnaq
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    Cmon, lafayette, Lobster is a con. It’s a good con, but it’s a con. Dorril has been in bed with MI6 for years (hence his risible claim that MI6 hasn’t killed anyone since the 1950s), and Ramsay is self-censoring when it comes to Jewish power. I’ve only read half the archive, but that’s already obvious enough, which is why I tend to leave reading the other half somewhat low on my priorities list, engrossing though it is. You do find gems in both men’s work, but you have to wade through acres of waffle to get to them. For instance, Dorril’s book on MI6 has a unique passage on how MI5 and 6 created Masonic lodges as cover for post-WW2 Gladio type stay-behinds in Europe. But I suggest you skip all these people who have taboos on serious study of Jewish issues unless you understand that they are self-consoring and hence at best parts of limited hang-outs and at worst outright disinformationalists. I’m going to read Ostrovsky and Ben-Menashe on the Mossad before I make any more comments on these matters. You just have to cut through the bullshit.

  5. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    I broadly agree with that. I like him, but anyone who includes Harry’s Place in his links has questionable judgment at the least, I’d say. And his praise for Annie Machon’s book seemed bizarre to me – there’s just about nothing in that book I couldn’t have made up myself.

    But he DID boldly do a piece on the Israeli links to New Labour; and I’d be hard-pressed to think of anyone else on the British left, then or now (except George Galloway) who would dare go there.

    Nonetheless, that piece on the Rothschilds (I’ve finished it now) is a substantial bit of sleuthing for Rothschild fingerprints, and gathers together a lot of useful info.

  6. niqnaq
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    I’ve read the essay you are referring to now. It’s here (pdf) if anyone else wants to read it. It uses strawman targets: Icke and Makow. There is no reason why it should not have used M C Piper’s “High Priests of War” which is a much more broadly based analysis of the pro-Iraq-war neocon networks and their backers. Like Piper’s other books it is free online. It is also worth pointing out, as your author does not, that the Rothschilds directly finance the British Royal Institute of International Affairs, i.e. Chatham House, the progenitor of the CFR, and always have done. But it is probably pointless trying to isolate Rothschild influence for the sake of it. The four interlinked dominant dynasties of the USA are Rothschild, Rockefeller, Bronfman and Murdoch. Just about any neocon, or for that matter liberal, can be shown to be sponsored and subsidised by one or another of these four.

    The question we should ask if we find the Rothschilds irrationally obsessional to illuminoid theorists and wish to dissociate ourselves from such is: who then is Soros fronting for, given that as I put it, he did not “fall out of the sky”? Soros’ first employer was Singer & Friedlander Plc, a City of London based merchant bank. His second was F M Mayer in New York. His third was Wertheim & Co. His fourth and last before going independent was Arnhold and S Bleichroeder, which is historically associated with the Rothschilds:
    As you may recall, Bleichroder was Bismarck’s banker.

  7. niqnaq
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    PS: I get the feeling the recent Bilderberg Conference at Chantilly, Virginia, decided Obama must go. The only obvious reason why is that he is insufficiently pro-Israel.

  8. niqnaq
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    PPS: I also get the feeling that no matter how much money these guys print and throw into the ring, they are running out of credibility. One fundamental Jewish weakness (or possibly, saving grace) is the involuntary tendency to be funny. This can be fatal when trying to start a world war, because it destroys your ability to get taken seriously, and it’s infectious, as when Richard Williamson told Haaretz last week:

    I’m pointing out a wide range of things that president Romney would do to show that there’s a different sheriff in town.

    When asked whether Romney had articulated a proposed US policy regarding Israel’s illegal West Bank settlements, Williamson said:

    I don’t believe he’s articulated one. It doesn’t come to mind, I’m sorry.

    That’s humorous, because it reveals that the would-be ‘most powerful man in the world’ is waiting for the Jews to tell him what his policy is.

  9. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

    I found these MC Piper books online, all free to download, except for the New Babylon, his newest, which is at least free to read online. Thanks.

    ” Until you know who has lent what to whom,you know nothing whatever of politics, you know nothing whatever of history, you know nothing of international wrangles.—Ezra Pound”

    That’s the epigraph (opening quotation) from Piper’s New Babylon. Given the magic of fractional reserve banking and compound interest, and the size of the Rothschilds’ fortune at the start of the 20C, it seems impossible that they could not actually own everything and everyone – that the entire human race in pledged to work for them to clear a debt that only gets bigger. They would have an interest in ‘playing that down’, and certainly it would be indiscreet of them to admit to profiting out of the wars, especially WWII for obvious reasons.

    Did you notice the reports of the forensic banking study that showed that all firms in the world were ultimately owned by about 140 ‘entities’ mostly in Manhattan, mostly banks. I’ve seen some quibbles about the usefulness of this ‘model’, but I think it’s at least a handy indicator of the scale of the damage that the blatant illegality of offshore banking and tax-havens do to us all – there, and the inside of the mafia bosses’ heads, is where the rest of the story is, which links those `140 entities to the names that show up in the Forbes list etc.

    Realistically, given the power these people have, the answers are just not going to be unearthed, so better to concentrate on the real problem, which is how to get money out of politics, and impose democratic, legal controls on international banking, tax havens etc…. These problems are well known. So Ezra Pound is right and wrong; there’s plenty you can figure out, without getting the full details, but we certainly need to work for a system where ‘who owes what to whom’ can’t be hidden from democratic scrutiny.

  10. niqnaq
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 4:39 am | Permalink

    You can download New Babylon from ScribD if you have an account with them and upload something. I tried to upload something quite bulky but ScribD uploads very slowly so I uploaded something small instead. Just don’t upload something under copyright.

    I saw another photo of Piper while searching and who should be prominently posed smiling at him but Michele Renouf. She is beginning to remind me of Annie Machon, somehow. They have something in common besides messy blond hair, something with a numeral five at the end of it.


  11. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    Thanks. I don’t know what I’ve got that they haven’t already got – I take it that doesn’t matter.

    You might be right about the ladies and 5. Whatever, Lady M seems a strange person.

  12. niqnaq
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 7:15 am | Permalink

    I could be wrong, I mean, I’m jaundiced. I took the most unromantic day trip to Paris with her a few years ago, to attend one of Robert Faurisson’s innumerable court appearances. I remember being practically ambushed by Special Branch plainclothes outside her flat. They popped out from behind a corner and glared at me. But she is a close friend of David Irving and she is also a pillar of some small coterie of right-wing Tory ladies. It’s all hide-and-seek, just like it was before WW2, when the Mosley party was crawling with Special Branch and everybody was reporting on everybody else and playing mind games with each other. Fuck the Tories, anyhow. I don’t necessarily agree with anybody. For example, Tarpley is a New Deal supporter, but everybody on the hard right calls it the ‘Jew Deal’, so how could you agree with both? Or again, Renouf appears regularly at the annual conferences of Mark Weber’s IHR, whereas Piper and all the Willis Carto loyalists swear Weber was sent in by the govt to torpedo the Spotlight and the Liberty Lobby. I just don’t care; right now, I will listen to anybody who is prepared to defy the ‘anti-Semitism’ chorus, and I will just ignore anything they say that is racial, because as you all know I don’t believe in races. In fact, unlike everybody else, including Tarpley, I think Marx was right about the falling rate of profit. I really am quite unique, in this respect at least. I have another angle which is extremely unusual: where Piper quotes this:

    Meyer Rothschild was a zealous believer in the Talmud and chose it alone as the guiding principle of all his actions.

    I say that on the contrary, the Rothschilds were Sabbateans, or Frankists, which is a sort of Jewish Satanism. In this I have no supporters at all except Barry Chamish and Rabbi Marvin Antelman, neither of whom in my view has grasped that the Kahanists and religious zionists and other assorted right wingers are exactly the same thing. So again, I’m unique.

    PS: Piper talks about “the late Jack Bernstein, author of ‘The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel,’ as having been a “personal friend,” but he knows perfectly well that Jack Bernstein was an invention.

    PPS: The idea that Piper propounds at the end of Ch 2 and in Ch 3 that Ahad Ha’am was the author of the Protocols is absolutely preposterous. Ahad Ha’am was a masterly prose stylist, whereas the Protocols are written in a jarring, sloganistic style. Piper got this idea from Paquita de Shishmareff’s (“L Fry”) edition of the Protocols.

  13. Sarte
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    As long people don’t believe racial hierarchy, I am open-minded, and that is why I like about your blog, Rowan.

  14. niqnaq
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Piper is actually a religious anti-Semite, rather than a racial one. Religious anti-Semitism is much older and more widespread than racial anti-Semitism, which makes the term ‘anti-Semitism’ rather inappropriate. It should be called ‘anti-Judaism’. But I don’t share this view either, because I don’t take the Talmud as seriously as most Jews and non-Jews appear to do, and because as I said, I share the theory that the modern global Jewish financial overclass does not follow Talmudic Judaism but a more or less Satanic heresy, Sabbateanism or Frankism. A very important thing to understand about these is that they recommend deception regarding religion. Sabbatai Zevi ostensibly converted to Islam (thus giving rise to the Donmeh cult which later conquered Turkey); Jacob Frank converted to Catholic Christianity (as did a great many of the Jewish financial overclass of the time); later many ostensibly reconverted back to Judaism (as many of the Spanish marranos had done), but the theory is that this was only for appearance and that secretly they continued to be Frankists, i.e. Satanists. And this is not necessarily a bad thing: perhaps Satanism is the only viable religion for modernity.

    PS: Piper rejects the idea that any Jewish financial entity deliberately funded Hitler, as claimed by Anthony Sutton. This perhaps connects with Piper’s belief that the modern Jewish financial overclass is conventionally Talmudic-Judaist in religion; if that were true, it would pass comprehension for it to finance Hitler. But if as I claim it is Frankist/Satanist, then it becomes plausible.

  15. niqnaq
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Does not their golden calf stand in threatening posture, stretching forth his black wings of shame, the one, usury, the other—white slavery? Terrible indeed! Will there be enough clear water in the Euphrates to wash out the blood stains from their pitiless and greed-crazy hands? Can the rust be taken off their soul by some regenerating strength. . . .

    – Stephanie Laudyn, “A World Problem”, 1920

  16. niqnaq
    Posted June 20, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Typical Lobster put-down:

    The Bilderberg Group and the project of European unification
    Mike Peters, Lobster #32, Dec 1996.

    It is ironic that while the initial research which discovered the existence of the Bilderberg network and explored its ramifications within the power structure of Atlantic capitalism came entirely from Marxist and left-inclined scholars in the USA, the whole subject has now been virtually taken over by the US far right as the centre piece of its own bizarre world-view. These writers of the far right (Anthony Sutton, Lyndon La Rouche, Spotlight and the Liberty Lobby etc.) have added virtually nothing to our understanding or knowledge of the phenomenon, and accordingly, are not referenced in the bibliography below. They have, however, contaminated the topic with their confusion. Since around the mid-1980s, the American Left has dropped the whole issue like a hot potato.

    In his ‘bibliography’ this person manages to recommend ‘Chip’ Berlet’s “Right Woos Left,” Political Research Associates, Oct 1992. As usual, everything is left vs right, where the reality is more probably Israel vs USA, with each nation using both of its own left and right wings to outflank or subvert the other. And everything we read in Lobster is just Israel trying to outflank the USA via its left wing and those foreign left wings controlled by it, whether nominally ‘Jewish’ or just ‘Left’. As you say, “he DID boldly do a piece on the Israeli links to New Labour; and I’d be hard-pressed to think of anyone else on the British left, then or now (except George Galloway) who would dare go there.” They might run an exposure of Mossad collaborating with right-wing elements in the UK or US intelligence scene, but this would be because they are being egged on by the pro-Zionist Jewish ‘Left’ to do so. The idea that blanket anti-Zionism is a form of ‘anti-Semitism’ is certainly one that Lobster would support. Again, they keep moaning about how Larouche is ‘anti-Semitic’, but the hard fact is that EIR produced the only comprehensive exposure of the ADL ever: “The Ugly Truth About the ADL” (1992). Ramsay rather contradicts the above in Notes On Contamination (Lobster #33):

    I would not publish in The Spotlight, but on the other hand The Spotlight have been one of the few magazines to publish information on the transnational power elite organisations such as Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission in the last decade. Should I not read the information put out by The Spotlight because the magazine’s politics are repellent? Surely not. But what would you bet that the fact I refer to a Spotlight publication about the Bilderbergers later in this piece, is used against me in the future, perhaps by Searchlight as evidence of Lobster moving to the far right, the line they have been putting out among the British Left in the last year, to try and contaminate me. In the US the only magazine I know of which is still seriously pursuing the Bilderbergers is the far-right The Spotlight. Searchlight [seek] control of the anti-fascist agenda. Why the control of this agenda is important enough for Searchlight to go to the lengths they do, is a mystery to me.

    Well, it shouldn’t be a mystery to Ramsay, goddamit, it’s obvious: Searchlight are part of a Jewish global thought control mechanism. But so is Lobster. The axiomatic basis of this wing of the Jewish thought control mechanism is that it is the norm rather than the exception for Jews to be leftists, and this is why the right wing hate them so. The axiomatic basis of the other wing is the converse of this. Both wings castigate their opponents, whether Jewish or not, as ‘anti-Semites’. Gentiles are advised not to get into playing this game unless one or the other Jewish team will vouch that they are not ‘anti-Semites’ too. Thus, whatever your political preferences, you need a certificate of kashrut from a Jewish team.

  17. niqnaq
    Posted June 20, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    I thought it would be interesting to see how Lobster felt about Victor Rothschild, so I loaded the disc and ran a search. This is basically what I got: a well-bred and oblique conclusion that although Victor Rothschild doubtless had some secrets, only vulgar anti-Semites would actually accuse him of anything.

    Rothschild, the right, the far-right and the Fifth Man
    Morris Riley and Stephen Dorril, Lobster #16, Jun 1988

    We understand that Lord Rothschild was badly shaken last year by the many innuendoes linking him to the Cambridge spy ring of the 1930s. A typical example was Anthony Glees’ book on ‘British intelligence and Communist Subversion’: “Rothschild was remarkably intimate with people subsequently proven to be secret Communists, and Blunt was a major Communist mole.” Kenneth de Courcy expressed fears that Roger Hollis was the ‘Fifth Man’ and that Rothschild was the first. With Rothschild born in 1910, de Courcy’s belief that he had begun recruiting this network of Soviet agents before Hitler’s rise to power, means that, according to de Courcy, Rothschild was doing this just out of his teens! Muggeridge’s reference to Rothschild and Philby advocating handing over Ultra material direct to the Russians and the fact that the Soviet defector Anatoly Golitsyn had named Rothschild and his wife Tessa as war-time spies must have been music to de Courcy’s ear. This far-right smear against Rothschild is as legitimate, i.e. is no less ill-founded, than the Pincher/Wright theory about Hollis with which it is now intimately intertwined. LaRouche’s EIR has been running quite a lot on Rothschild recently, all part of a view of the British Establishment in league with the Bolsheviks and Communist imperialism. The articles are interesting because the obvious hard research produces such meagre results. G K Chesterton (actually, A K Chesterton – RB)’s 1972 book, The New Unhappy Lords, which has had a considerable influence in far-right and anti-Semitic circles, mentions that Burgess and Rothschild had shared a flat together. This is an early example of the attempt to link Rothschild to the Cambridge Comintern.

    The far-right has another theory to use against Rothschild. It also has some interesting, though false, evidence to back it up. This revolves around ‘evidence’ provided by Dr Kitty Little, a well-known figure on the extreme right, anti-communist, pro-South Africa fringe. Little has recently alleged that in 1941 an MI5 officer, Brian Grimston, read the security file on Klaus Fuchs and concluded that under no circumstances should Fuchs, who had been invited to work on the making of the atomic bomb, be allowed access to secret information. The file, she alleges, was intercepted by Rothschild who altered the recommendation and gave Fuchs security clearance. She further alleges: “Early in the war Wing Commander Arnold, then head of a section in MI5, had reason to think that Rothschild was not to be trusted. He took steps to have the most sensitive material kept from him, but found Rothschild’s backers too powerful to do more than that. Later when Sir Roger Hollis was Director-General, he asked Wing Commander Arnold for a detailed report of events from that era.” To protect himself, Little alleges, Rothschild (with Philby!) launched the anti-Hollis smears. Although this clearly belongs to the area of myth there are enough elements of truth in it to make it interesting. Besides which, Little has been peddling this tale for many years, and certainly before any of the serious books on Fuchs and the Atom Spies in which it finds echoes. The Fuchs file is at the centre of a debate between two wings of the right: one thinks Rothschild was the villain of the piece, the other points the finger at Hollis. It also shows that there is more to be revealed about Rothschild and that the untangling of the Hollis smear entails the decoding of much of the post-war history of Britain’s right-wing. And the place to begin that task is the MI5/Wilson plots.

    One Boggis-Rolfe or two?
    John Burnes, Lobster #38, Winter 1999

    Morris Riley convincingly argues that Rothschild almost certainly lied about his degree of acquaintance with Philby, both at Cambridge and after. But so did many others. However, as Riley himself has argued in the past, would Rothschild have really been in charge of the recruitment of the most successful spy ring in modern times before he was twenty years old? Would Rothschild have continued working for the KGB after the Soviets became anti-Israeli in 1948? It’s possible that with an IQ of 184, the second highest ever recorded by the US Army, Rothschild did guess what his Cambridge friends were up to during the war, and also that he sympathized with their aims, later attempting to cover his tracks during the Cold War. In the absence of a smoking gun, the case against Rothschild is still unproven. The most concerted effort to date to implicate him, that by Roland Perry in The Fifth Man, contained little evidence, depending mainly on the uncorroborated evidence of three anonymous ex-KGB colonels – two-a-penny in the last decade. Morris Riley is not an anti-semite. But many in the anti-Rothschild camp were and are. Rothschild is seen on the right as the seducer of English innocence, the original serpent in a thirties Eden. This notion (not, I repeat, held by Riley himself) is still given houseroom by some right wing revisionist historians. After all, the twentieth century cannot be the story of the eclipse of UK capital at the hands of US capital, can it? Someone had to steal the British Empire, didn’t they? Round up the usual suspects.

    Finally in #37 we have a mention of “speculation about the allegiance of Lord Rothschild which has been floating around in certain sections of the British Right for about 45 years since the late and unlamented Kenneth de Courcy first alleged that Rothschild was a Soviet agent.”

  18. niqnaq
    Posted June 20, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    On the ‘Sources’ page of Lobster #34, we find:

    I’ve been receiving copies of Taking Aim, the Militiaman’s Newsletter. In this case they are the Militias of Montana fronted by John Trochmann. It’s the standard agenda: UN-phobia, IRS-phobia, internment camps, Clinton’s ‘Reich’, gun control and so on. Such little nuggets of interest that exist are buried under hysteria and constitutional fundamentalism. However, of signs of racism and anti-semitism there are none in the few issues I have skimmed.

    Anyone who claims to be able to judge political movements on the basis of the presence or absence of ‘racism and anti-semitism’ in their publications is bolloxing you, since ‘anti-semitism’ has no determinate relationship to ‘racism’ at all. The fundamental reason is that Ramsay is living in a fictitious ‘left-wing’ past, as viz this quotation from D H Snell, secretary of a branch of the Amalgamated Society Of Woodworkers, speaking in 1947 of the post-WW2 Mosleyites, found in an article by one Dave Renton in Lobster #35:

    Freedom for these thugs means the gas chambers and concentration camps; also the destruction of the trade unions and working class organisations.

    This is left-wing ersatz history, and it teaches a delusory lesson about an imaginary relationship between ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘working-class rights.’ The only sane position to take is that any political party or ‘movement’ that encourages race riots is an artificial construct sponsored by the security services, intended to provide pretexts for security clampdowns on the general public. There is no such thing as a ‘genuine’, ‘popular’ race-riot-sponsoring political party, they’re all bogus and always have been. Not only that; it is misleading, because the CP did not support counter-demos against Mosley in the post-WW2 period. One member of the (Jewish) 43 Group says:

    The only people who were there to stand with us and fight the fascists and the police were Common Wealth, the ILP, the Anarchists and the Trots.

    But nevertheless, Lobster can be fun. Where else would you find headlines like “The Oyston Tapes: A seamy saga of smears, death and vendetta. Or how two Tory MPs, a fish and chip shop owner, and a Blackpool wheeler dealer with a secret grudge tried to ruin a socialist millionaire.”

  19. niqnaq
    Posted June 20, 2012 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Yet another example of Ramsay’s determination to control thought. This is the conclusion of his review of Peter Moon’s “Black Sun: Montauk’s Nazi-Tibetan Connection,” from Lobster #35:

    In chapter 6 Moon bemoans the belittling since 1945 of the shared heritage of the Aryan and Celtic people. In chapter 10 he introduces one Jan Van Helsing who has “special connections to secret societies in Germany some of which actually helped Hitler into power.” It turns out that Helsing has been banned from publication in Germany for saying that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is worthy of being taken seriously and is used by the Illuminati to control world politics. Later we learn that Himmler was greatly misunderstood and didn’t really want the Holocaust; that ‘war reparations’ are still being paid to Israel; that Jews really worship Satan; that the current Pope was once a salesman for Zyklon B gas; and that Himmler’s views on the medical profession and lawyers (“the very same ones we suffer from today in modern America”) are entirely understandable. This book is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that; and I question the judgement of Counter Productions in making it available. Avoid.

    “Dangerous nonsense,” you see — it might give the lower orders, who are incapable of analytical thought, wrong ideas. Ramsay thinks in the usual left-Jewish ‘anti-racist’ way, that the general public is full of latent Nazis, who only need the spark of ‘dangerous ideas’ to set them alight. This is a sort of secular equivalent of the medieval theory that the peasant masses are prone to the temptations of demons, and have to be watched carefully to make sure Satan doesn’t get a toe-hold among them. Modern Jewish thought is a secular religion with a secular version of ‘good and evil’ but the unchanged sociological moral: that the masses are prone to waves of elemental evil, and that a sophisticated theory of ‘good and evil’ would be a dangerous influence on them. They must be firmly taught what is right and what is wrong, and the sophisticated secular priesthood, who may know things are much more complex, should keep their doubts to themselves.

  20. niqnaq
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    In #36 Ramsay describes someone called Jonathan Moyle who got murdered doing rather amateur work for MI6 as “young, dumb and full of cum.” I don’t know if this means Ramsay is gay, or just trying to be trendy. Elsewhere he says he got parted with Lobster founder/collaborator Stephen Dorril because the latter was undergoing “the male menopause.”

  21. niqnaq
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Yet another gem, this from #37 (which also contains some very rude remarks about pre-WW2 ‘appeasement’ and its advocates):

    Harlan Girard, the American who turned me onto the electro-magnetic weaponry and mind control fields, and who has continued to to organise and proselytize on these issues ever since, was the subject of an interview published in the American magazine The Spotlight, Apr 6 1998. Anyone who doubts the anti-semitic nature of The Spotlight should consult this issue. It is full of anti-Jewish stories which reach some kind of peak on p 12, which carries a story, ‘Sex slaves Imported to Israel’, illustrated by a cartoon of ‘white girls’ being auctioned by Jews, which would not have been out of place in Nazi Germany. Like others before him, Girard talks to The Spotlight because no-one else is interested in what he has to say.

  22. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Very interesting all that. I remember the piece on Victor Rothschild and the Cambridge spies. I don’t know anything about it, so I can’t comment.

    I think Ramsay’s apparent philo-semitism is just a reflex self-protection against the endless hysterical flak from all the jew-firster agents embedded in our political world. But sometimes, like here –

    ” Searchlight [seek] control of the anti-fascist agenda. Why the control of this agenda is important enough for Searchlight to go to the lengths they do, is a mystery to me. ”

    – I have to wonder if he’s really an ostrich with his head well buried (as regards this anyway), or if this is an oblique hint at the real problem, as close as he feels comfortable with. But then again, his milieu is the Old Labour left, and I’ve noticed generally that they feel very uncomfortable with having to take a postion on Palestine, because they have come to define left and right in terms of pro or anti jew, often framed within their own personal heroic legend of ‘battling the nazis’ on the streets of Britain ( like Cable Street); and the whole milieu is thick with crypto-zionist agents who will bite their head off if they ever stray from polishing their medals… well, they’re better than New Labour, anyway.

  23. niqnaq
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Glad you read all these running notes. I don’t often do such intensive examinations of anything, but when I do it’s usually with you mainly in mind.

  24. niqnaq
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Here’s yet another piece of obtuseness, in an article by Scott Newton in #39:

    So Harry Dexter White, father of the International Monetary Fund, seems to have been a Soviet agent after all. We must remember that during the FDR era there was no real inconsistency between supporting the New Deal reforms and taking a friendly line to the Communists. Under Earl Browder the American Communist Party backed the New Deal. Historically, it makes sense for committed New Dealers to have wanted this US version of a Popular Front to continue even when all the signs were pointing in another direction. It was a sentiment which was strengthened by war against the common enemy of the USA and the USSR, Nazi Germany. Here was a country which many believed to be characterised by a malignant and evil form of capitalism in which cartels and big business had too much power. Whether or not industrialists had helped Hitler into office they had become one of the props to his regime. So given that the pacification of Germany was central to international security after the war it was not implausible to argue that expropriating the capitalists, forcibly deindustrialising large swathes of the country, and creating an economy based on agricultural production, were sensible means to this end. Harry Dexter White worked for this policy which was later seen as a Communist plan to create a power vacuum in central Europe opening the continent to Soviet domination. Yet in 1944 you did not have to be a follower of Stalin to believe in the desirability of pastoralising Germany and I am not aware that anyone has ever seriously suggested that Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary who gave his name to the plan which suggested precisely this line of action, was a Communist agent.

    There’s a learned psychological incapacity here to grasp the idea of Jewish agents in different governments pursuing Jewish goals.

  25. niqnaq
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    Right meets Left (extract), Ramsay, Lobster #39

    I value Nick Cohen’s writing. When I suggested Cohen look at the Henderson story I knew it was one he would find of initial interest. Henderson was smeared as a racist by the media and then smeared again, this time as a stalker. It is clear that between Cohen’s initial enthusiasm for the story and his decision not to write it, one of the intervening variables was information about a magazine called Right Now. Cohen discovered, via Searchlight, that the editor of Right Now, Derek Turner, had been in the National Front; and Henderson had written for Right Now. When Cohen rang me about Henderson, before he had talked to him, the first thing he said was, ‘Is Henderson kosher?’ For most left journalists, a connection, even at one remove, with someone who had once been a member of the National Front, is not kosher. I have tried without success to interest Nick Cohen in the Searchlight saga and its extraordinary position as the media’s sole reference point with regard to the British right. Searchlight’s assertion that Derek Turner was in the NF turned out to be untrue, or at any rate denied by Turner. While the Henderson-Cohen encounter was taking place, quoting Searchlight, the Guardian had named Turner as a former member of the NF. But on Mar 4 under Corrections and Clarifications, the Guardian printed the following: “Derek Turner, the editor of the rightwing magazine Right Now! says that he is not and never has been a member of the National Front.”

    The mutual ignorance and antipathy of the British right and left has serious consequences. Sections of the right and left agree on a number of issues. They are opposed to US dominance of the world, opposed to globalisation and opposed to the UK’s membership of the EU. But because left and right are reluctant to be associated with each other, the anti-EU, anti-federalism case, for example, is almost always portrayed as a marginal (right) ‘extremist’ position; and opposition to corporate control and globalisation is almost always portrayed as a marginal (left) ‘extremist’ position. That left/right agreement is illustrated by the 1980 Holly Sklar book, Trilateralism. This is still the best single volume of the elite management groups, chiefly the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg. In 1980 that was a left issue: Jimmy Carter had been in the Trilateral Commission and what was then a section of the American New Left became interested in these groups. Sklar’s book is still available, but these days I am told it is bought almost exclusively by the American right trying to understand the so-called New World Order.

    But in the same volume, in a review of Kevin Coogan’s book on F P Yockey:

    For those who have indulged in the recent rather worrying fascination of denying that the left had any in part to the evolution of fascist thought (let alone arming its military machine), Coogan warns that they could be condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. ‘The left has today so deteriorated,’ he states, ‘that it may well lack the capacity for understanding, much less fighting, new forms of fascism that incorporate “leftist” rhetoric and ideas.’ Quite. If Willis Carto and the fascist fraternity who cherish his memory have misunderstood Yockey’s ideas and the implications of their many guises, it is important that we do not.

    Ramsay simply assumes that because he’s a ‘leftist’ he has access to a superior level of comprehension of modern history to that possessed by the likes of Willis Carto. But he nowhere proves that this is the case, far from it. He demonstrates a learned inability to recognise that there could be such a thing as a Jewish national interest much older, wider and subtler than just ‘Zionism’. This is just as bad as failing to comprehend the falling rate of profit (which ‘Leftists’ are in any case almost as guilty of as ‘Rightists’). Talking of which, are you aware of the work of Peter Myers?

  26. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Pete Myers’ name seems familiar, but that site gives me a headache straight away.

  27. niqnaq
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    It’s got extensive excerpts from hard to find books such as those of Victor Ostrovsky and Ari Ben-Menashe. It has an internal search engine, too, so if you put in e.g. “Rothschild” you will get various goodies. Here’s another lobster snippet:

    SISies, John Burnes, Lobster #40 (extract)

    … Guy de Rothschild lent A J Ayer the family mansion on the Avenue Foch, the one in which Victor Rothshild, Guy’s cousin, had recently suggested to Malcolm Muggeridge and Kim Philby that the allies share all intelligence with the Soviets. This now semi-legendary story, which came from Muggeridge, should perhaps be treated with caution.

  28. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    That Holly Sklar book on Trilateralism can be picked up at a reasonable price – £2.09 second hand on Amzn UK at the mo. It’s worth having; though I’ve had it for years without really getting down to it. But it’s a serious work – a collection of academic studies and essays edited by Sklar who is a leftist ( wrote a lot on the Reagan junta’s excesses in Central America) and a scrupulous academic.

  29. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    There’s an essay in the Sklar book which I recently saw described as the benchmark piece on the Bilderberg group – can’t remember who it was said it, and I can’t remember which essay – the one on the Bilderbergs I suppose.

  30. niqnaq
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Two absurdly judeocentric judgments, both from Lobster #40. Renton, recommended below, we have encountered previously in another set of up-and-at-’em type statements about the anti-Mosley days, Non-British readers should be aware that ‘smashing Mosley’s fascists’ is about the only thing the so-called British Left has to be proud of, and its Jewish members never cease chanting the praises of this mythic achievement. Renton, it appears, is (or was) a member of the Trotskyite SWP:

    The politics the BUF propagated in the East End of London were the politics of the anti-Semitic pogrom. Far from being a flawed, but constructive statesman, Mosley was a failed pogromist. The Left defeated him on his chosen ground. Considerable effort has been put into disguising this. Particularly deserving of mention recent publications in this field are Tony Kushner and Nadia Valman’s Remembering Cable Street; Dave Renton’s Fascism, Anti Fascism and Britain in the 1940s; Richard Griffiths’ Patriotism Perverted; Trevor Grundy’s Memoir of a Fascist Childhood; and John Hope’s excellent article, ‘Blackshirts, Knuckle Dusters and Lawyers’ that appeared in the Spring 2000 issue of the Labour History Review.


    There is a strong prima facie case for making Wittgenstein a key figure both in creating Hitler’s anti-semitism and, through the work done by his student Alan Turing at Bletchley Park, in defeating it.

    Ramsay’s problem is that his preferred economic policy, no matter how hard he tries to associate it with Harold Wilson or John Maynard Keynes, is far closer to fascism than it is to Marxism, and hence is ‘contaminated’ in his own terms, so he has to perpetually over-compensate by offering gestures of coffee table Judeophilia. Jews, whether left, right or centre, are and always have been hostile to other nations’ economic nationalism, because their own global vision does not permit and never has permitted any nation except theirs to remain outside their various versions of globalisation, but to face this fact would be ‘anti-Semitic’.

  31. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    ” Ramsay’s problem is that his preferred economic policy, no matter how hard he tries to associate it with Harold Wilson or John Maynard Keynes, is far closer to fascism than it is to Marxism, and hence is ‘contaminated’ in his own terms, so he has to perpetually over-compensate by offering gestures of coffee table Judeophilia.”

    I can’t see that at all. How are Ramsay’s views close to fascism? Because they’re a sort of national socialism? Like the Communist Party’s ‘British Road to Socialism’, or the Socialist Party’s ‘Commanding Heights’, or Michael Foot’s electoral platform?

    ” Jews, whether left, right or centre, are and always have been hostile to other nations’ economic nationalism..”

    I could see that a case could be made for that, but it’s not just jews. I remember your model of the locus of the international capitalist class moving from Spain to London to Manhattan – wherever they are, everywhere else must be open to them.

    As all the ‘good’ writers emphasise, the ‘real enemy’ in the war of terror is economic nationalism, independence, any country that wishes to use its resources to benefit its people rather than international investors, or even is just reticent about giving the international investors the first bite or whatever.

    But that isn’t necessarily a jewish thing. Obviously it’s the logical imperative of business, capital accumulation, call it what you will.

    But since the dominant capitalist faction is jewish, yes, sometimes a distinct jewish interest will show. However, all these vicious jews and their sidekicks in the ‘labour movement’, screaming ‘nazi’ every time anyone mentions immigration controls… I feel they’re security state agents, pursuing the war against organised labour, and constantly working to ensure that there is nothing solid to the left of labour, no genuine workers’ party.

    And yes, these Renton pieces were pretty typical – the main charge against Mosley is that he was a potential ‘pogromist’ i.e. the main problem with him is he was against jews.

  32. niqnaq
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    The economic strategy that Ramsay etc favour is essentially the same as the official fascist economic strategy: revive productive industry, if necessary by ring-fencing the national economy to insulate it from global capital flight. You may of course argue that although this is what facist economic strategy proposed, it is not what it delivered, because it was secretly sold out to the bankers it claimed to be defending against.

  33. niqnaq
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    A short way with Larouchists (Dorril this time, from way back in Lobster #2):

    PERMINDEX: The International Trade in Disinformation (extract)
    The biscuit is taken by the US Labour Party who seem to have survived the last decade peddling absolute garbage about Permindex, the conspiracy not only including the Kennedy assassination, but also the domination of the West by the British(!), supplemented by a disgusting dose of anti-Semitism: “Dope Inc” by Jeffrey Steinberg and David Goldman (NY 1981)

  34. Posted June 22, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    …insulate it from global capital flight. This is what Mahathir did and it saved Malaysia. He kicked Soros’s ass out.

  35. niqnaq
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Glad you’re following this thread too, helvena. I had you as well as lafayette in mind, because Lobster is a good place to explore the whole interface between Jewish issues and ‘left/right’ issues.

  36. Posted June 22, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    The problem I have with understand all of this is that it seems that to understand the subtle spin you first have to be very well versed in what is the Left’s real position, what is the right’s real position, what is real Fascism, Republicanism, Democracy etc. And as we know these positions change over time. Once Goldwyn Smith was considered Liberal. Who has time for all of this let alone the capacity to understand??? This is why the average person is lost and in frustration sticks his head in the sand.

  37. niqnaq
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    I know. It’s terribly time consuming if you rely on free online sources alone, and terribly expensive if you buy printed ones. But this thread has given me an opportunity to offer a whole series of core samples of British pseudo-leftism, which isn’t based on anything derived from Marx, but is based on wishful thinking, patrician sentimentality about ‘the working class’ and judeophilia. (admittedly British, but that just makes the psychology of it more obvious than the US version).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: