Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Jeff Gates



  1. Just one point to make that should open everyone up to a plethora of points....'why is it when the richest people in the world are mentioned someone other than Rothschild is mentioned? Are we supposed to believe for a second, no a nano second that some Mexican is actually the richest person on earth and its those Chinese billionaires we have to watch out for?
    Are we really to be taken as such fools?

  2. Something seriously troubles me about Gates, his titillating tidbits and his scattershot narrative which had a little something for everyone-- and a Noam Chomsky endorsement to boot!

    Do you think the MIT countercultural icon became "breathless" puzzling if he might himself be an "asset" as Gates claims he had once come to realize himself to having been? [Or was it the 80 pages of footnotes?]

    Dr. Fetzer, you could not have sounded more brilliant, and Gates certainly had a glib manner to hold my attention.

    Trying to learn more about Gates, I noticed he shares with Jesse Ventura the distinction of being censored by the Huffington Post Jeffrey Blankfort's comments and Gates' responses were left intact. Curious. Dead End links to the original Huffblog at's archives were not much help.

    So down a new rabbit hole we go.

    Nico Haupt, a human cipher, commenting on the death of Gerard Holmgren was in contrast more enlightening-- and I think more trustworthy.

    I plan to take a look at Gate's book, but have a poor taste in my mouth. "Something stinks in Denmark" here, and I don't think it is Ashkenazim.

  3. I totally agree. It's not the Rockefellers, etc. I suggest the Vatican/Queen of England holdings have to be top, however, unless the Rothschilds are more powerful than the Queen, which is possible. Perhaps the Rothschilds are "it". But they seem to be fronts for others -- not necessarily the Queen. Of course, at that point it's murky; but the research on Rothschilds leads both to the idea a) that they were fronts from the start (parachuted in for interests bigger than themselves, though they may have taken over from there in many ways) and b) to the idea that they were part of some original line or peudo-original line from the ancient cults. No idea which is true, but I do doubt that they "run" everything. Possible, but then, where the heck did they come from? Sure, people can rise to the top in a coup fashion, but wherever their family was really from, it can't have been the top top, and can't be now, in my opinion.