Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Joshua Blakeney

Zionism and Terrorism


  1. Absolutely phenomenal show! So glad to hear everyone's on board with the fact Israel was behind 9/11!

  2. Guest was interesting, knowledgeable and articulate. He did shed much more light on the "Zionist" connection to 9-11.
    I also just watched an excellent 2-hour documentary --"9/11: Missing Links" that explained much. That documentary was only slightly flawed when at the end of it it mentioned "thermite" being found that proved the "controlled demolition" at the WTC 7. I heard that Dr. Niels Harrit stated clearly recently at the Toronto Hearings that “9-11 was an inside job.” Quite amazing since I thought that idea was sufficiently suppressed by Dr. Jones’ group. (Dr. Jones was a “no show” at the T.Hearings and I think Kevin Ryan had to take over his speech slot.) The main and only strong evidence we have had regarding WTC 7 being a “controlled demolition” we have had since shortly after 9-11 in the form of a video of the building going down. Thermite and its iterations was introduced in and played out from 2005 as a new focal point and distraction, but most researchers were mainly and much earlier convinced about WTC7 from the time of that first video. (That video, which is now a part of almost every 9-11 truth video, was taken by a local person I know who took it from his hotel room in NYC.)
    I was disappointed that Mr. Blankeney stated that he was a socialist. I believe the cabal of the last century or so who have perpetrated a long succession of false flag terrorist events (in the USA and all over the world) has as their goal a globalistsocialist government that will be a synthesis of Western capitalism and Eastern communism. It will be an authoritarian totalitarian death and slavery system ruled over by the global elites, who have used socialism as one of its main tools. The USA is well on the road to socialism and economic meltdown and revolutions will be fomented seasoned with a few more 9-11s no doubt. Same song, second verse.

  3. It concerns me that anyone would think Israel was almost singularly "behind" the attacks just because we have lots of Israel apologists and Mossad agents doing parts of it. Mi5 & Mi6 planes were the ONLY flights allowed in during the no-flight period, and Saudi royal money directly financed some of the hijacker men, particularly note that they have old and current dependence on Britain as well as the US, as does ISRAEL and the traitors of the US. I submit that perps of all countries involved, were a) knowingly helping the CITY OF LONDON as sympathizers, and b) unknowingly helping the CITY OF LONDON while *thinking* they were only colluding for their own interests or helping Washington.

    Zionism isn't only the Jewish-Israel ideal; it is a co-concept with Sionism, old right-to-rule, lost tribe ideals, found in Britain and France in secret societies and to some degree also found openly in ordinary early mediaeval history.

    These ideas (Zionism and Sionism) are far older than modern Zionism, and are apocalyptic in a particular sense of "apocalyptic": a person can mean a "final takeover" for a spiritual race or bloodline. This is a Nazi-like, semi-mystical-mythic ideal. It has a crazy appeal for the people who glory in these ideas. It doesn't mean "apocalypse" as end of the world as a literal place. It means "new world" of social relations and geopolitics, organized with some pre-ordained spiritual form. These groups (top Zionist Jews and top Sionist Brits) then help each other: they think Israel is the key to the region and (they think) the "centre of the world" spiritually to control by.

    It was also the reason for the Crusades: take over the "HOLY" land to control the spiritual unseen future of the world. These ideas are fanatic nonsense, but they do play on the idea that unseen energy flows on the earth (ley lines and vortices of electromagnetism concentrated at certain places would be the kind of example these people would use).

    So anyway, the City of London still "controls" Israel and the traitors of the US.

    (This British sympathizer quality in the US goes all the way back to Aaron Burr, the imperialist: even though he thought of himself as a nationalist imperialist, as Hitler would later, he thought the US would be ON PAR with Britain, i.e., share the world empire; as a pro-imperialist, however, he aligned himself with Britain as partner. (For, in fact it helps one empire if another empire exists, in that two empires can suppress nation-states together, as the collective Imperial collusion in NATO is doing now to Libya.)

    So I think the ultimate culpability for 9/11 as non-hijacker conspiracy, is traitorous US and Israeli and Saudi and British elements, but all of them ultimately benefitting the City of London within Britain, even when they didn't think they were; some of them would have done so consciously, i.e., are Anglophiles in the sick sense.

    Note that: All of this is different than those who think Zionism (Jewish-Israel version) is just helping or protecting Jews of Europe from more genocidal Holocausts. Those people are thinking they're just doing good. But they, too, were partly responsible; yet they wouldn't know of the existence of Sionism and weren't aware of 9/11 benefits to the City of London.

  4. It also concerns me that Jeannon is still confusing "socialist" with socialist-fascist. The term socialist, as used by average people, is that they are for national programmatic thinking and planning which includes some place for curbing the worst corporatist practices and provides platforms of physical and social betterment for the nation (education, health care, pension support, canal planning, etc.). This is the opposite of saying the market alone will chaotically determine all goods and will be always good for the nation.

    Yet it does not mean there is no real partnership between the two ideals; corporations do contribute ideas and manpower and so on; but there are public projects which also are done primarily by government, at a cheaper rate than for-profit companies would. All combinations of these ideas are part of social democracy, but doing only "public-private partnerships" is a sellout which Mussolini preferred: he gave "the market" the real economic rulership, while he tyrannized legitimate government national purposes. He gave BOTH a bad name in the end.

    That is what you mean by "Socialism" but this speaker meant the former.

  5. And by "national programmatic thinking and planning" I meant not "programmed thought" but rather thinking which CONSIDERS public programs instead of dismissing the option.

  6. Clare I think your analysis of a supercomplex confluence of forces in correct. Your explanation of socialism is accurate too, Americans need to realize the difference between it and communism.