sexiest woman room

The true star of Susan Ford's (Brice Taylor's) Thanks For The Memories is Henry Kissinger. Was there ever a fellow more deserving of assassination than Henry Kissinger? Hmm... there's a piece in that - 'People who deserve to be assassinated, inexplicably haven't been, and what that means'. Al Qaeda? Ha! Otherwise, for anyone who's ever wondered at the Nobel Peace Prize, no need to go any further than the fact that Henry Kissinger got one. It's a sort of unfunny Swedish Monty Python I'm thinking.


In Thanks For The Memories, Henry Kissinger is partners with Bob Hope in 'utilising' Susan Ford. Whilst that team-up may seem absurd, it actually makes perfect sense. All one has to do is plug this into Laurel Canyon with its wider implications re the significance of the entertainment industry, and the whole thing stands to reason. Regardless, the partnership of Hope and Kissinger is clearly an unequal one.

The closest analogy I came can come at for this inequality is one based on computers - imagine Susan Ford is a laptop that Bob Hope uses to find porn. He lends the laptop to all of his buddies and they likewise go nuts looking up variations of www.everyperversionknowntoman.com. The laptop always comes back to Kissinger who, unbeknownst to everyone, is systems admin super-user. What with having installed a keystroke monitor, and otherwise having full access to each of their caches, there's nothing Kissinger doesn't know about every sordid detail of their lives. Anyone who's ever run a computer system and had super-user privileges knows precisely what this means. Privilege equals knowledge and knowledge equals power.


Kissinger, not unlike Frank Zappa of Laurel Canyon, never participates in the vices he urges upon others. In spite of the fact that he was super-user and thus free to go nuts, Kissinger never availed himself of, nor even expressed an interest in, Ford's unrivalled charms. Square this with his carefully cultivated, albeit unlikely, image as debonair lady-killer. There's something not right with that picture but I don't know what it is. Otherwise it occurs to me that far more is to be concluded from those who didn't sample Susan Ford's earthly delights, than from those who did. With Ford as 'trap' anyone who falls into her qualifies as variation of 'prey'. Significantly, only Kissinger and the Rockefeller black sheep, John D Rockefeller, choose not to avail themselves of Ford's programmed easy virtue.

And then there's the council. Ford unambiguously states that Kissinger is their number one servant. Since Ford never states precisely who is on the council it's conceivable that Kissinger might not be a servant so much as a member. Whilst it pays to turn the puzzle pieces this way and that to see if greater sense might not be made of them, in this case I dismiss the possibility of Kissinger as a council member. This would posit the council as some variety of meritocracy, frankly an absurd idea. Aristocracies do not function on meritocratic principles - an obvious contradiction in terms. Their servants, absolutely: regardless of birth, talent and loyalty will be utilised. Amongst their aristocratic selves there will be a meritocracy of sorts but only from within their own ranks. Were it any other way, blood-lines might be displaced. And then where would the aristocracy be?


So who is the council? In his foreword, the author of Project Monarch, Ron Patton, discusses Adam Weishaupt being commissioned by the Rothschilds to unite various occultic organisations under the single banner of the Illuminati. Curiously, in spite of this organisation being founded and sponsored by the Rothschilds, they never get a second mention. Ford herself never discusses the Illuminati, nor the Rothschilds, nor even utters the word 'Jewish', apart from in the most innocuous circumstances. All Jewish people in this book are only incidentally so - they are bit players, innocent bystanders, or victims. And Henry Kissinger? Astoundingly Ford's book never once connects the words 'Kissinger' and 'Jewish'. Were you to read this book not knowing that Kissinger was Jewish you'd arrive at the end of it none the wiser.

But never mind Ron Patton, who does Susan Ford say the council are? She never names names and had she done so I'd view it as a black mark against her credibility. The Council she describes wouldn't be much chop if they went about introducing themselves to the help, would they? But that aside, Ford is free to hypothesize. The Council are Freemasons, she declares. Hmm... Freemasons eh? As a fellow not given to pursuing impossible riddles, I've never bothered attempting to undo the Gordian knot of the Illuminati/Freemason connection. I understand their original purpose as a professional guild. I also understand them acting as a counterweight to the ancient centralised control of Rome (this in the time prior to Adam Weishaupt). However I find their evolution into globe-spanning rulers of everything falls apart for want of coherency. What precisely are the ties that bind? Apart from the Rothschilds as sponsors, that is?


Besides that, the book tends to be at odds with its own assertion of Masonic control. Surely Prince Philip is a thirty-three degree mason? God knows how many times I've heard it asserted that the English crown, by way of its masonic/Illuminati influence, is the global big kahuna in the new world order. Square that with Ford's own recounting of her meeting with Prince Philip, and his diffident surprise and delight at being offered her singular talents. With Ford as the nexus, between Philip and Kissinger only one of them has super-user privileges, and it ain't Phil. The logic here is unmissable - Prince Philip, however high he might be in the Freemasons, is subject to Kissinger, and Kissinger is subject to the council. Not forgetting that Kissinger is Jewish and the Freemasons' transformation into internationalist Illuminati was brought about under the auspices of the Rothschilds. Honestly, Freemasons?

The other significant aspect of the Council in this regard is its ultimacy. According to Ford, there is nothing above the Council, and simple reason tells us that nor could there be. In reading of her descriptions of Council: their meetings, their communications, and their extraordinary secrecy, there is no way she's describing lieutenants. These people she describes are 'it'. In the big game of Risk they're not so much players as the writers of the rules. Given that this is the case, and given that fact that wealth equals power, we can safely declare that they are the richest people in the world. In either wealth or power, were anyone to even begin to threaten them they would have to be destroyed. Forget Sam Walton, forget Warren Buffet, forget Bill Gates, and all those other people topping the 100 richest list - ain't none of them in the running. And yep, even the Rockefellers ain't in this picture. Ford categorically states that the Rockefellers are subject to the Council. The only kind of 'Rich' that could have all these bazillionaires subject to it is that variety of rich that comes with ownership of the Fed and the international Reserve system. And the IMF. And the World Bank.


Thinking about it - the old chestnut about a business being 'a licence to print money' only possesses charm when it's not literally true. When it is literally true, the appeal of endless amounts of money becomes almost silly. It's like the child's daydream of owning a chocolate factory. A child cannot conceive that an owner of such a factory might view the product with something other than a desire to spend all day eating it. And so it is with money. Possessing a licence to print money renders the idea of a Scrooge McDuck-like accumulation of wealth as superfluous to the point of idiotic. Clearly ownership of the Reserve banking system is not about being rich. Rather the exercise becomes one of the prevention of others from achieving the same. It's about power, and that driven by a combination of hubris and a hubristic sense of immortality. Or are they the same thing? Probably.

With all that aside, let's also dismiss some other red-herrings. Ford's book is rife with satanism. Her entry point into the world of the council seems to be entirely satanistic. Interestingly Ford herself views the topic with disdain. As she later states, this disdain is shared by all those higher in the power structure. Marx's phrase about religion being 'the opiate of the masses' is ordinarily used as a dismissal, and further as a reason for Communism's smashing of religions. But viewed from another angle, ie. that of opiates/drugs as being a useful means of control, it could just as easily be an argument leading, not so much to smashing, but to co-option. In fact the latter makes far more sense than the former - why fight a thing when you could put it to work for you? Thus satanism makes far more sense as the beast being whipped than it does as the whip-hand itself, if you can dig it.



Likewise, the Roman Catholic church appears in the book and yet never in any impressive fashion. All early mentions pivot on it as part of the mechanism of the ritualistic abuse that goes into creating a MPD/DID slave. Small potatoes. Later, Ford describes putting on a quasi-religious dog and pony shows to impress the Vatican heirarchy, Pope included. Okay, I think we can safely declare a rule - Anyone on the receiving end of one of Ford's shows is not in the Council.

Going sideways now, how might we view other such religions and religiously driven 'isms'? In much the same way that Karl Marx was equally dismissive of all religions, do we imagine that the banking families of the Council would somehow get all weak-kneed for Judaism? Somehow I doubt it. Beyond Judaism is Zionism and its founding of Israel. The Rothschilds display their enthusiasm for this grand effort by living elsewhere. Sure they founded Israel, with Rothschild putting his John Hancock on the Balfour Declaration, but they founded the Illuminati too. If it's sensible to view the Illuminati as a vehicle for Rothschild co-option and control, why not view Zionism and Israel in the same fashion? It makes as much sense viewed in this fashion as any other - hell, more so. Frankly I expect that the members of the Council would hold Judaism per se in the same contempt as they'd hold for all religions - a bauble for the hoi polloi. That's not to say that it doesn't possess a variety of 'favourite' status: but only that of a tribe historically given to being loyal servants. Besides, a precise demonstration of the value of the Jewish people was given during the haggling that took place during the time of the National Socialists in Germany with Jews in great numbers being entirely expendable.


Back to the red herrings, at no time does Ford mention the nationality of those on the Council, nor does it even seem to enter into the picture. In this vein, what are we to make of the following quote (vaguely attributed to the Council) that describes the reasons for bringing Clinton down, "A cornerstone will fall, and further destabilize the American people. First Nixon, now Clinton, thus the people will lose faith in their leaders and the democratic way of life. So they will want to change it and will lean toward World Order." Hmm... "the American people" eh? Strange way for an American to describe one's own. Knowing what I know of Americans, I have to admit having trouble attributing this to any American mouth.

I know that the 'American Dream' is a myth but that doesn't mean it's not without power. I cannot believe that a person who grew up in the United States (in something other than a closet) would utter such a thing. Not forgetting of course that the New World Order is not a New American Order. With the century just ended being described unabashedly as 'The American Century' do we think that Americans would now come over all coy and worry that in naming the world order after themselves, other people might think they have swell heads? Ha ha ha ha, Americans have no such shortcomings. Americans are American to their bootstraps. They're Americans first and Internationalists second. I will never buy an American as having no attachment to his country, mythical or otherwise. The quote above could only come from a true Internationalist, someone who spent the vast majority of their life not living in the US. So! Let's also strike the CIA, the old money American ruling class, and any other significant US institution (that's not currently headed by a dual-citizen Israeli).


For mine, it seems all roads lead to the Rothschilds and the other twelve families. Collectively they remain the one ring to rule them all. How does the rest of it go? Oh yeah, "And in the darkness bind them". Exactly.

Once upon a time in China, after the revolution had bedded down and things were going well enough, the leadership under Mao Zedong, and premier Zhou Enlai particularly, declared that China needed the participation of its intellectuals and that their criticism would help improve Chinese communism. This was called the Hundred Flowers Campaign. The title came from one of Mao's own poems: 'let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.'


Depending on who you listen to, this was either a well meaning attempt to improve communism and lend it the kind of well-rounded timelessness of confucianism and taoism, or it was a trap. Intended or no, the latter is what occurred. From its early start of 'healthy criticism' to its final orgy of demands that the communists be thrown out, it seemed that China's ancient curse of luan (乱 - chaos) wasn't far away. In China, it never is. What followed was an Anti-Rightist Campaign that saw hundreds of thousands of students, intellectuals, and bureaucrats demoted, fired, imprisoned, or killed. It seems that provided the centre holds, luan isn't really luan. Not that dead people can tell the difference, sure enough.


Mind you, the Hundred Flowers Campaign and its follow-on Anti-Rightist Campaign wasn't a patch on the Cultural Revolution. But that's a whole other story. As is the earlier Three Anti Five Anti Campaign, the later Tiananmen Square protests and crackdown, and ten years later, the Falung Gong protests and the subsequent anti-Falung Gong campaign. But each had in common the removal of anyone, or more specifically any collective, who could threaten the centre. But the Hundred Flowers is the clearest and most graphic - a hundred flowers open their petals, impressed with their own gorgeousness, all the while unaware that over by the shed the mower is being started up.

---

Speaking of China, in the first year I was there an obscure film called The Matrix was released. Has anyone heard of it? I recommend it and you can probably pick it up in any number of Beijing DVD shops. Don't pay more than 8RMB ($1.30) or else you're being ripped off. Anyway, The Matrix starred Keanan Wynn, or Christopher Reeves, or somesuch, and was made by the Wachowski brothers who astoundingly appear not to be Jewish.

I say that because The Matrix is very very Jewish. Apart from the Jewish uberman nature of the hero Neo; the slo-mo orgiastic promised land of Zion; and the constant repetition of the number six; the plot revolves around humans living lives of complete delusion with everything they understand of the world being false - the reality being that they are little more than sources of sustenance for a parasitic uber-intelligence, here represented by computers.


But this is merely one layer of truth. Beneath it is another. Appallingly (for Zionists), Zion is merely a throwaway vehicle intended only to nurture each successive uberman. Millennia after millennia, Zion is repeatedly destroyed, as is the uberman du jour - all of this so that the godhead computer rulers of the world may more nearly perfect the nature of the delusion that holds the humans in their thrall.

Astoundingly, at the end of the film Neo does not defeat the godhead. Rather he earns their thanks and reverence by being a loyal servant who sacrifices himself to ensure their survival by killing the mutual enemy 'Smith'. In defiance of whatever sense of realpolitik computers might possess, and not forgetting the endlessly repeated historical precedent of killing without mercy, the godhead keeps its end of the bargain and does not rid itself of the threat of Neo, and nor does it wipe out Zion.


Otherwise, looked at objectively, Smith was potentially a good guy, an ally worth having. He was the only means by which the godhead could have been destroyed. But never mind, he's killed, the pitiful human slaves are left to live lives of delusion in their goop-filled coffins, and Zion is free to rescue the odd individual here and there and otherwise carry on with their ecstasy-fueled rave parties. And Neo? He is embraced in the loving arms of the godhead and ends the film on a bier like some warrior on his way to Valhalla.

Forgetting the come from nowhere 'happy' ending for a moment, as well as the initial red-pill arrival at not-quite-the-truth, the actual time-and-time-again reality of the Matrix's world is that each given period of enlightenment, climaxing with the arrival of 'The One', is merely this millennia's variant of the hundred flowers campaign.

---

And so! Here we are! We took the red pill, and by way of the internet, we woke up to the truth of the world and the veil of delusion that's kept us in thrall all these years. Let's not be distracted by the fact that the internet was initially set up by the military - just like Al Qaeda was set up by the CIA, American nazis by various Jews, communism by the bankers etc. etc. Let's also think little of the prediction by that most loyal servant to the bankers, Rupert Murdoch, that the internet will all be over soon. To hell with that! We've woken up to what's going on. We've read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for chrissakes!


But wasn't the Protocols a best seller in Russia just before the Tsar was thrown down and the Bolsheviks began their seventy year reign of terror? Far more people were familiar with it then than are familiar with it now and yet it seemed to make no difference whatsoever. Indeed here we are, one hundred years later, and everyone is convinced that it's a 'forgery'.

That aside, how many times have the lords of usury been thrown out of each given country exactly? Edward Longshanks (the villain of Hollywood's Braveheart) threw the goldsmiths out of England in 1290 and yet in 1654 all-round good guy (unless you're Irish) Oliver Cromwell readmitted them. Dig it - in the time of Shakespeare there were no Jews in England. Or to put it another way, in the time of no Jews in England there was Shakespeare. I wonder if The Stranglers got the irony of singing 'whatever happened to all the Shakespearoes' whilst surrounded by strippers? Probably not.


Sure enough today the City of London rules, and all those hard-done-by Jewish oligarchs hounded out of Russia by the villainous Putin (and otherwise known as the 'Russian' mafia) are all welcome to come on down and buy half of Mayfair (and a famous football team while they're at it). Did you know that the City of London is its own jurisdiction, with its own police force, and is otherwise not subject to the mayor of London, or parliament, or anyone at all? The Vatican eat your heart out.

But we're on to them! Or should I say, we're blooming well onto them? With the internet as our spring time, we have burst forth from our cold dark earth of ignorance and now turn our faces to the sun of truth. Here now in this time, the like of which the world has never seen, we glory in our pursuit of knowledge and open discussion. We are the hundred flowers.

---

Yeah, yeah, what a cynical party-pooper I am. Here we are grasping the hard-fought-for truth and I'm asserting a truth above this that says it's a big con, that it's merely a trick by the world's greatest liars to strengthen their position, and that ultimately we're all fucked.

Ha! Not so fast! Here's one small truth - um, I've run out of space and shall have to continue in the next piece. Another (and less self-referential one) is that the world is very great, far greater than the people who imagine that they are in control of it. Coming up next - Stephen Chow, chaos theory, cocks and cunts, and, um, the Buddha possibly. Mind you, if it's somewhat different I'll come back here and edit the preceding sentence to make myself look clever. God forbid I should ever be wrong. Ha!