A Reply to Jerry, the Anonymous Anarchist Annoymouse

To his comment here.

I may be wrong, but it seems that you're experiencing what most of us did when we also discovered Benjamin Freedman on some kooky conspiracy site (in my case it was on Eric "Beware the Crypto-Jews" Hufschmid's) The first thing I'll say (having explored this particular series of rabbit holes pretty extensively) is that one needs to be careful, patient, and open-minded when approaching this subject. Because it strikes deep into the nerve center of some very well defended territory you can be sure that you will have to contend with all kinds of booby traps and pitfalls. Hufschmid is one of those traps.

His role is to link discussion of Zionism by association with some other shocking things and also to discuss it in the most offensive terms he can that don't cross into truly disturbing Stormfront type language. I suggest avoiding folks like Hufschmid and the charmers at Stormfront. They don't seem to contribute anything (aside from venom) that you can't find elsewhere in its more benign form.

So what to do?

Well, the first thing is to take a deep breath and consider the following without starting to panic (in a physical or existential sense):

1) The world and its history is much more complicated than we (as "the masses") are led to believe by our education and the establishment media the role of both which is to create a dominant popular consciousness that is as non-threatening as possible to elite political and economic interests, while at the same time resisting being exposed as a sham.

2) The history of the 20th century is both a culmination of all history preceding it AND the foundation for current events, i.e. history being written as we speak (as we write!)

3) Elites have always ruled over the masses, beginning with the rise of "priest classes" by promoting belief in convenient (to the elites) public myths that help them to govern by the means of false consciousness creation. These methods have evolved but remain quite useful and prevalent, and govern everything from cultural identification to political and economic groupings and movements, etc.

4) Each of us approaches life, to the extent that we engage, examine and try to understand it, from the perspective of our own false (to some extent or another) consciousness. This means that we have no choice but to accept that some of what we believe to be true is bound to be false, and that it will be far from obvious what and how much is. This in turn means we have to keep a very open mind and not be afraid to think freely about things that make us uncomfortable, since leaving our comfort zones is precisely what elite methods of mass consciousness control want to discourage. Often that means being willing to consider that one has been foolish or tricked or that one can learn something from people one has always assumed to be fools or scoundrels. Ya never know... until you do. And even then you shouldn't be so sure.

5) The history of the 20th century (that really of course began forming in the 19th century, but we're looking for the most proximate causes relevant to our current historical context) is the history of the struggle for dominance in the heyday of the industrial age. Oil was the new gold, and only military might could secure it and the other raw materials needed for industrialization on a mass scale, which itself was a prerequisite for the build-up of military strength. Money was also key, and its value and acceptance whether metal-based or fiat (as we dollar-users should well know) depends on one's posession of resources and military strength, which in turn find money to be an important pre-requisite. So it is that the great powers and aspiring great powers found themselves competing more and more fiercely for empires that would fuel their ability to compete, in what became a vicious cycle in more ways than one.

6) Great powers have a tendency to seek ways to leverage their power in order to increase it, and as such are known to cut deals with each other and with other smaller but still formidable institutions like banks and religious authorities. THAT is where it starts to get really complicated. If we were only talking about big powers fighting over colonies we would essentially be looking at an almost purely mathematical exercise. Military might can be quantified, as can territory and resources. What makes things much more difficult is that human element. Ideologies is a word we could use, but also coming to mind are intrigue, intelligence, information. I don't know why they all start with I. Maybe it's because they tend to be more suceptible to influence (there's another one) by individuals. Yikes! Needless to say the 20th century saw many efforts to seek independence from the great powers... And so it goes. Zionism is one such ideology, all the more important because it had friends in high places, in particular among that secondary seat of global power at the time, the banking system. Communism and Fascism were also responses to the establishment, or at least were purported to be on the surface, much like Zionism. Where things get really interesting is when all of these ideologies are subsumed into the scheming of the great powers, co-opted if you will by emebrs of the economic elite who thereby dealt the death blow to traidtional political powers in preparation for the so-called "new world order" that is really just global rule by the moneyed elite.

Let's leave that list at 6 for now. What I hope has been made clear is that those of us, regardless of our ideological inclinations, who more than anything want to understand how things really are, need to study carefully and with an open mind those formative events of the last century--the two world wars, which were in reality more like one big war with a pause to regroup. The world that went into them was radically different from the world that came out of them, and it is no mystery why mainstream conventional wisdom about that period in history is so dumbed down. Those who ended up as winners down to this day as a result of that upheaval are not necessarily going to want it to be known what their role had been before the chaos, during the chaos, and immediately after the chaos. I do not mean Zionists necessarily--more importantly a new order emerged among elites, many of whom were on opposite sides of the great conflict, whereby they resolved their differences and decided to work to each others' mutual benefit, a dominance that is now being challenged anew, and that required 9/11 as a desperate measure to consolidate their power at a crucial point in the world's technological development. That Zionists threw in their lot with this group, much as they did originally, has little if anything to do with Judaism. But our public myths tell us otherwise.