Yes. You are so correct. Here in Croatia, when I write something about Britain - how can I call this, maybe "ones empire, always empire" - this history, that facts, everything what you and others write about britain plans and influences....they throw mud at me. Here in Croatia USA and Jews are enemies No1....I don't want to say that they are not to blame, I just want to say that when someone in the media publicly tells that the Jews and the USA did this/that and they are to blame for everything .... I know it's time to look the other way. That's why I think what you wrote is more than correct. They are always hiding in their secret rooms of their societies and from there they are working on all of our heads. I also look at your web site, and this books and the way of presentation - also great. Thank you.
I was looking for some material that I could use to convince a blue-pilled relation that their MSM feed views of the world are a distortion. This article is it. Thank you....Zagonostra
Under the Ottoman Empire pre and post Suez Canal there were railroads built connecting Palestine to Egypt via the Sinai desert and the Hejaz railway connecting Damascus to Mecca (although it was stopped at Medina). So there were no technical barriers. Today I believe there are proposals to build a railway tunnel under the Suez (currently there is a swing bridge) to connect Cairo to the Red Sea coast resorts. There is a railway running down the Nile valley. Connecting further south is a geopolitical and security question - not so much a technical one. Similarly there is no technical reason that a railroad could not connect Damascus to Aden.
The reason the railways failed is due to war and security and not technical issues. No doubt finance was a major factor. The Israelis dismantled the Sinai line during the six day war. The lines in Palestine were both used and targeted during the first and second world wars by various parties.
A major reason for the Sahel conflicts in North Africa is that someone doesn’t want a railroad built from the West coast to East coast of Africa. China and Russia seem keen on the idea, the usual suspects keep starting civil wars to prevent it.
Appreciate the insight which you provide, for deeper dive, it is critical to understand the historical role of NATO-Gladio to this day in usurping the U.S.
An interesting read but the willingness to label this as all the work of 'the British', a handy euphemism for those really in control of England and later the British Empire, somewhat undermines the piece. Most British in fact are simply unaware of any of this most of which of the narrative I share.
The financial oligarchies long planned takeover of England first in 1688, later Britain was financed and controlled by people who were not British and have no allegiance to Britain, England as was.
Rothschild took control of England after Waterloo, after his 'coup' on the financial exchange and the financial oligarchy were able to do the same in the rest of Europe and have been running things ever since.
They see themselves as Jews even though they have no connection to the ancient Hebrew's but they are not British. They're links go back to old Germany and many to the ancient kingdom of Khazaria, Poland and Easter Europe.
Arguably they are the Synagogue of Satan - those who say they are Jews but are not. They were willing to sacrifice 'ordinary Jews' to facilitate their plan to get Jews to move to Israel in the 30's and 40's so a differentiation should be made between them and ordinary Jews.
This is an important part of their plan because this group see themselves as pushing the messianic ideas of Tzevi and the creation of the 3rd Temple before the coming of 'their' messiah. Its interesting that this group mostly Chabad have controlling interests in Trump, Putin and Netanyahu.
They could be the group currently pushing for war, but the point is this group are NOT British. They control Britain but to keep pushing this idea of its 'the British' is in my view somewhat disingenuous especially using this a label to avoid acknowledging their own Jewish heritage as they see it.
This group while openly operating either through RIIA, CFR, Pilgrim's or any other the groups described by Quigley always see themselves as internationalist and the financial elite have no allegiance to any country even Israel and certainly not Britain.
There does seem a strand of alt media that deliberately wants to avoid acknowledging this group but will happily label them as something else, British, Pilgrim's, Black Nobility or whatever and I don't know if that is genuine of a deliberate attempt to airbrush who this group really are?
It’s true that labeling the the current version of Babylonian oligarchs is a challenge, but we might do a journeyman’s job of cleaning out the rat’s nest by starting with The City of London and Wall Street
"It was perhaps not a mere coincidence that some of the most influential oligarchs who opposed the British plans were on board the Titanic when it collided with an iceberg."
This is where you lose your thinking audience. Supposing it wasn't mere coincidence, how do you arrange that? What if there were no icebergs in the ship's path that day? Maybe you could intentionally hit one in daylight, but the accident happened at night. You wouldn't see one in time to actually aim for it. Besides, how do you guarantee your targets don't make it off the ship, given that aristocrats had first dibs on the lifeboats? Not to mention the ship was billed as unsinkable, which while tempting fate, would have given anyone planning such an operation serious pause. This is the sort of thing an editor would cut altogether. You can see why, right?
Interesting. Credible too I would say, especially the part where Morgan bails. Still it doesn't amount to a conspiracy to off some bankers so much as depraved indifference on the part of Morgan & White Star. Fairly common corporate behaviour I would say, both then and now.
What I would add to this narrative is that correlation isn't always causation. The fire and collision could be two separate incidents. The type of steel manufactured in those days became brittle in cold water, so that too was a factor. How hot would the fire have to be to weaken the steel, as opposed to protecting it from the cold water? Ironically that might have been the toughest part of the ship due to the fire, but the impact was too much for it anyway. I guess someone will eventually figure it out, but in the meantime you have this conspiracy theory surrounding the event which is absurd on its face. There's just too many moving parts and too many escape hatches for it be credible, and repeating it just works against you if credibility is your aim.
"Still, there are no railroads connecting Africa to Eurasia or North America to South America."
Sand. There's too much of it in North Africa. Machinery doesn't stand up to it very well, plus you'd constantly have to remove it from the tracks and sand is too heavy to plow. Besides, what would you move that can't be done more economically by ship? You just run the tracks to a sea port, like they do in Mauritania.
As for N to S America, you'd have to cross the Darien Gap, and good luck building a railroad through that mess. There isn't even a road and those are much cheaper to build. What would be the point anyway since both continents have extensive coastlines and ports, and once the Panama Canal was built there was no practical reason at all to build a railway.
Before assigning a political motive to something always look first at the underlying material conditions. In this case moving freight by sea is the cheapest form of transportation over long distances while railroads are much more expensive, which is why you don't see them competing with ships. Railroads are practical inland far from waterways. If you're near a waterway, you build a railway to it, not in parallel with it.
Probably the best and most accurate summary of twentieth-century history I have ever read. Bravo!!
Nailed it Peter. Long nights and days on that one. Well done.🌀
Yes. You are so correct. Here in Croatia, when I write something about Britain - how can I call this, maybe "ones empire, always empire" - this history, that facts, everything what you and others write about britain plans and influences....they throw mud at me. Here in Croatia USA and Jews are enemies No1....I don't want to say that they are not to blame, I just want to say that when someone in the media publicly tells that the Jews and the USA did this/that and they are to blame for everything .... I know it's time to look the other way. That's why I think what you wrote is more than correct. They are always hiding in their secret rooms of their societies and from there they are working on all of our heads. I also look at your web site, and this books and the way of presentation - also great. Thank you.
I was looking for some material that I could use to convince a blue-pilled relation that their MSM feed views of the world are a distortion. This article is it. Thank you....Zagonostra
Lauren Southern may be open to this.. .. .!*÷*!. ..
But Benny Johnson and Tim Pool are closed books.
Best they read your letter now.. won't be allowed in the prison library.
Under the Ottoman Empire pre and post Suez Canal there were railroads built connecting Palestine to Egypt via the Sinai desert and the Hejaz railway connecting Damascus to Mecca (although it was stopped at Medina). So there were no technical barriers. Today I believe there are proposals to build a railway tunnel under the Suez (currently there is a swing bridge) to connect Cairo to the Red Sea coast resorts. There is a railway running down the Nile valley. Connecting further south is a geopolitical and security question - not so much a technical one. Similarly there is no technical reason that a railroad could not connect Damascus to Aden.
The reason the railways failed is due to war and security and not technical issues. No doubt finance was a major factor. The Israelis dismantled the Sinai line during the six day war. The lines in Palestine were both used and targeted during the first and second world wars by various parties.
A major reason for the Sahel conflicts in North Africa is that someone doesn’t want a railroad built from the West coast to East coast of Africa. China and Russia seem keen on the idea, the usual suspects keep starting civil wars to prevent it.
Correct. "geopolitical and security question" is all manufactured
Appreciate the insight which you provide, for deeper dive, it is critical to understand the historical role of NATO-Gladio to this day in usurping the U.S.
https://open.substack.com/pub/cynthiachung/p/operation-gladio-how-nato-conducted?r=9h8kf&utm_medium=ios
An interesting read but the willingness to label this as all the work of 'the British', a handy euphemism for those really in control of England and later the British Empire, somewhat undermines the piece. Most British in fact are simply unaware of any of this most of which of the narrative I share.
The financial oligarchies long planned takeover of England first in 1688, later Britain was financed and controlled by people who were not British and have no allegiance to Britain, England as was.
Rothschild took control of England after Waterloo, after his 'coup' on the financial exchange and the financial oligarchy were able to do the same in the rest of Europe and have been running things ever since.
They see themselves as Jews even though they have no connection to the ancient Hebrew's but they are not British. They're links go back to old Germany and many to the ancient kingdom of Khazaria, Poland and Easter Europe.
Arguably they are the Synagogue of Satan - those who say they are Jews but are not. They were willing to sacrifice 'ordinary Jews' to facilitate their plan to get Jews to move to Israel in the 30's and 40's so a differentiation should be made between them and ordinary Jews.
This is an important part of their plan because this group see themselves as pushing the messianic ideas of Tzevi and the creation of the 3rd Temple before the coming of 'their' messiah. Its interesting that this group mostly Chabad have controlling interests in Trump, Putin and Netanyahu.
They could be the group currently pushing for war, but the point is this group are NOT British. They control Britain but to keep pushing this idea of its 'the British' is in my view somewhat disingenuous especially using this a label to avoid acknowledging their own Jewish heritage as they see it.
This group while openly operating either through RIIA, CFR, Pilgrim's or any other the groups described by Quigley always see themselves as internationalist and the financial elite have no allegiance to any country even Israel and certainly not Britain.
There does seem a strand of alt media that deliberately wants to avoid acknowledging this group but will happily label them as something else, British, Pilgrim's, Black Nobility or whatever and I don't know if that is genuine of a deliberate attempt to airbrush who this group really are?
It’s true that labeling the the current version of Babylonian oligarchs is a challenge, but we might do a journeyman’s job of cleaning out the rat’s nest by starting with The City of London and Wall Street
'cleaning out the rat’s nest ... The City of London and Wall Street' - on that I fully agree.
"It was perhaps not a mere coincidence that some of the most influential oligarchs who opposed the British plans were on board the Titanic when it collided with an iceberg."
This is where you lose your thinking audience. Supposing it wasn't mere coincidence, how do you arrange that? What if there were no icebergs in the ship's path that day? Maybe you could intentionally hit one in daylight, but the accident happened at night. You wouldn't see one in time to actually aim for it. Besides, how do you guarantee your targets don't make it off the ship, given that aristocrats had first dibs on the lifeboats? Not to mention the ship was billed as unsinkable, which while tempting fate, would have given anyone planning such an operation serious pause. This is the sort of thing an editor would cut altogether. You can see why, right?
Maybe the iceberg version of events is, er, less than accurate, eg,:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rms-titanic-evidence-fire-senan-molony-belfast-new-york-southampton-sink-april-1912-a7504236.html
Interesting. Credible too I would say, especially the part where Morgan bails. Still it doesn't amount to a conspiracy to off some bankers so much as depraved indifference on the part of Morgan & White Star. Fairly common corporate behaviour I would say, both then and now.
What I would add to this narrative is that correlation isn't always causation. The fire and collision could be two separate incidents. The type of steel manufactured in those days became brittle in cold water, so that too was a factor. How hot would the fire have to be to weaken the steel, as opposed to protecting it from the cold water? Ironically that might have been the toughest part of the ship due to the fire, but the impact was too much for it anyway. I guess someone will eventually figure it out, but in the meantime you have this conspiracy theory surrounding the event which is absurd on its face. There's just too many moving parts and too many escape hatches for it be credible, and repeating it just works against you if credibility is your aim.
"Still, there are no railroads connecting Africa to Eurasia or North America to South America."
Sand. There's too much of it in North Africa. Machinery doesn't stand up to it very well, plus you'd constantly have to remove it from the tracks and sand is too heavy to plow. Besides, what would you move that can't be done more economically by ship? You just run the tracks to a sea port, like they do in Mauritania.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD1WeEjFLD8
As for N to S America, you'd have to cross the Darien Gap, and good luck building a railroad through that mess. There isn't even a road and those are much cheaper to build. What would be the point anyway since both continents have extensive coastlines and ports, and once the Panama Canal was built there was no practical reason at all to build a railway.
Before assigning a political motive to something always look first at the underlying material conditions. In this case moving freight by sea is the cheapest form of transportation over long distances while railroads are much more expensive, which is why you don't see them competing with ships. Railroads are practical inland far from waterways. If you're near a waterway, you build a railway to it, not in parallel with it.