http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/29-Jan-2008.html
______________________
Eric Phelps on IsraelNationalRadio with Tamar Yonah
The Vatican, the Jews & Israel
29 January 2008
Does old hatred still emanate from the Vatican towards the Jews and Israel? History has been witness to the Crusades, the Inquisition, Nazi collaboration, and attempts to take ownership in Jerusalem. What could be next? Eric Jon Phelps, author of "Vatican Assassins" talks about the Jesuits, the White Pope, the Black Pope, and what the Vatican agenda might be re: Israel and Jerusalem. A very interesting and controversial show.
16.1MB
MP3
The Vatican, the Jews & Israel
29 January 2008
Does old hatred still emanate from the Vatican towards the Jews and Israel? History has been witness to the Crusades, the Inquisition, Nazi collaboration, and attempts to take ownership in Jerusalem. What could be next? Eric Jon Phelps, author of "Vatican Assassins" talks about the Jesuits, the White Pope, the Black Pope, and what the Vatican agenda might be re: Israel and Jerusalem. A very interesting and controversial show.
16.1MB
MP3
____________
British PM Wants to Build a "New World Order"
Ann Shibler
Tuesday January 29, 2008
http://www.jbs.org/node/6967
Gordon Brown wants to shake things up in the UN Security Council in order to create a "new world order" and "global society."
Follow this link to the original source: "Brown's secret talks on 'new world order'"
During a two-day trip to India (with another two days in China), British Prime Minister Gordon Brown revealed his agenda for altering the UN’s power structure. Twice he underscored India’s bid for a permanent place on what he proposes to be an expanded UN Security Council, thereby assuring “India’s rightful place” in a new world order.
More must be done, Brown said, "to make our global institutions more representative." And, "I support changes to the IMF, World Bank, and the G8 that reflect the rise of India and Asia," he continued. Citing India’s explosive economic growth — due in large part to bad U.S. foreign trade policies — he said, "dramatic and seismic shifts in economy, culture and communication are coming to revolutionise the global distribution of wealth, status, power and influence and creating the world anew."
According to the New Zealand Herald, "Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a ‘new world order’ and ‘global society’." He is proposing that the UN Security Council’s original five countries be augmented with the addition of India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and one or two African nations not yet specified. His proposal, reportedly under intense discussion with leaders from both India and China, would not include veto power for the newly added countries — at least initially.
Under the pretext of promoting peace and stability he also unveiled a plan for the UN to spend £100 million ($257 million) a year on setting up a "rapid reaction force" to stop "failed states" sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. "There is limited value in military action to end fighting if law and order does not follow," he said when justifying his plan. "So we must do more to ensure rapid reconstruction on the ground once conflicts are over and combine traditional humanitarian aid and peace-keeping with stabilisation, recovery and development."
While that sounds good, it is important to have a clear-eyed view of the UN. Since its inception, the world has not been a peaceful place. Yet, the organization’s founders and its subsequent supporters have maintained that the purpose of the world body is to eliminate war and promote peace. At this it has manifestly failed. Yet people like the British prime minister suggest that the solution is to give the organization more power and control. Decades of experience, however, strongly suggest the opposite course of action: A peaceful world would be one without the UN.
Ann Shibler
Tuesday January 29, 2008
http://www.jbs.org/node/6967
Gordon Brown wants to shake things up in the UN Security Council in order to create a "new world order" and "global society."
Follow this link to the original source: "Brown's secret talks on 'new world order'"
During a two-day trip to India (with another two days in China), British Prime Minister Gordon Brown revealed his agenda for altering the UN’s power structure. Twice he underscored India’s bid for a permanent place on what he proposes to be an expanded UN Security Council, thereby assuring “India’s rightful place” in a new world order.
More must be done, Brown said, "to make our global institutions more representative." And, "I support changes to the IMF, World Bank, and the G8 that reflect the rise of India and Asia," he continued. Citing India’s explosive economic growth — due in large part to bad U.S. foreign trade policies — he said, "dramatic and seismic shifts in economy, culture and communication are coming to revolutionise the global distribution of wealth, status, power and influence and creating the world anew."
According to the New Zealand Herald, "Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a ‘new world order’ and ‘global society’." He is proposing that the UN Security Council’s original five countries be augmented with the addition of India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and one or two African nations not yet specified. His proposal, reportedly under intense discussion with leaders from both India and China, would not include veto power for the newly added countries — at least initially.
Under the pretext of promoting peace and stability he also unveiled a plan for the UN to spend £100 million ($257 million) a year on setting up a "rapid reaction force" to stop "failed states" sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. "There is limited value in military action to end fighting if law and order does not follow," he said when justifying his plan. "So we must do more to ensure rapid reconstruction on the ground once conflicts are over and combine traditional humanitarian aid and peace-keeping with stabilisation, recovery and development."
While that sounds good, it is important to have a clear-eyed view of the UN. Since its inception, the world has not been a peaceful place. Yet, the organization’s founders and its subsequent supporters have maintained that the purpose of the world body is to eliminate war and promote peace. At this it has manifestly failed. Yet people like the British prime minister suggest that the solution is to give the organization more power and control. Decades of experience, however, strongly suggest the opposite course of action: A peaceful world would be one without the UN.
______________
All this things are taken from the book "Der erste Weltkrieg" by Janusz Piekalkiewicz, so i would consider them "official History":
In 1903 the "Cunard Steamship Company" made an agreement with british admirality to build two Passenger-Ships for the purpose of warfare.
Both Ships were financed by the Admirality, in exchange the Cunard Line promised to put them under Royal Navy Command in case of a war.
The vessel was designed by Leonard Peskett.
It was 239 meters long, 26.8 meters wide and 11 meters deep. 30400 BRT.
Doing 25 knots it was the fastest vessel of its time, crossing the atlantic in four and a half days, therefore it earned the "blue ribbon".
It was named "Lusitania" after the roman name for portugal.
In February 1913, first lord of admirality Winston Churchill reminded the Cunard Line of its duties, because "the war against germany will break out until september 1914".
On May 12th 1913 the ship is taken to the docks of Liverpool, to be reinforced with armor, two storages for ammunition were added, as well with 12 disguised 15-cm guns.
September 17th 1914, the Lusitania is added to the Navy´s register as "armed merchantman". Its mission is to deliver ammunitions from the United States to Britian, running on a secret course, defined by the Admirality.
Passengers were transported for reasons of disguise, as well as U.S. customs were tricked about the ships freight.
February the 4th 1915, Germany announces its U-Boat war and warns people of neutral countries to board ships of the Entente.
30.4.1915, the Lusitania is in New York, loading about 10.5 tons of ammunition and 1257 passengers, amongst them 218 U.S. citizens.
The german Embassy announces, in the 50 biggest newspapers of the United States, that the sea surrounding Britian is considered War-Territory and that british ships will be sunk, travellers are going on their own risk.
1st of May 1915 the vessel leaves New York.
On May the 5th, the "Juno", a cruiser destined to protect the "Lusitania" is called back, because of the presence of german U-Boats.
Room40 had cracked german navy code and therefore was aware of the positions of the german boats.
May 7th, the Lusitania is redirected from Liverpool to Queenstown, directly in front of the torpedo tubes of U20.
The Uboat would have never been able to hunt down the ship by itself, due lack of speed.
Lord Mersey, who investigated the case, laid down his job afterwards.
Records of the Naval Intellegence Office regarding the Lusitania and its freight, are still "Top Secret".
Hope i didn´t make too many mistakes in translating, so that its understandable.
In 1903 the "Cunard Steamship Company" made an agreement with british admirality to build two Passenger-Ships for the purpose of warfare.
Both Ships were financed by the Admirality, in exchange the Cunard Line promised to put them under Royal Navy Command in case of a war.
The vessel was designed by Leonard Peskett.
It was 239 meters long, 26.8 meters wide and 11 meters deep. 30400 BRT.
Doing 25 knots it was the fastest vessel of its time, crossing the atlantic in four and a half days, therefore it earned the "blue ribbon".
It was named "Lusitania" after the roman name for portugal.
In February 1913, first lord of admirality Winston Churchill reminded the Cunard Line of its duties, because "the war against germany will break out until september 1914".
On May 12th 1913 the ship is taken to the docks of Liverpool, to be reinforced with armor, two storages for ammunition were added, as well with 12 disguised 15-cm guns.
September 17th 1914, the Lusitania is added to the Navy´s register as "armed merchantman". Its mission is to deliver ammunitions from the United States to Britian, running on a secret course, defined by the Admirality.
Passengers were transported for reasons of disguise, as well as U.S. customs were tricked about the ships freight.
February the 4th 1915, Germany announces its U-Boat war and warns people of neutral countries to board ships of the Entente.
30.4.1915, the Lusitania is in New York, loading about 10.5 tons of ammunition and 1257 passengers, amongst them 218 U.S. citizens.
The german Embassy announces, in the 50 biggest newspapers of the United States, that the sea surrounding Britian is considered War-Territory and that british ships will be sunk, travellers are going on their own risk.
1st of May 1915 the vessel leaves New York.
On May the 5th, the "Juno", a cruiser destined to protect the "Lusitania" is called back, because of the presence of german U-Boats.
Room40 had cracked german navy code and therefore was aware of the positions of the german boats.
May 7th, the Lusitania is redirected from Liverpool to Queenstown, directly in front of the torpedo tubes of U20.
The Uboat would have never been able to hunt down the ship by itself, due lack of speed.
Lord Mersey, who investigated the case, laid down his job afterwards.
Records of the Naval Intellegence Office regarding the Lusitania and its freight, are still "Top Secret".
Hope i didn´t make too many mistakes in translating, so that its understandable.
-grandw
______________
Dear Eric,
If possible I would like to add something regarding this Barry Chamish controversy. I was the one in error when trying to remember what Barry Chamish had stated in regards to Christians witnessing in Israel. It was a stupid error on my part. I should have looked at it again before I sent it to you. I don't want to see you take the heat for my mistake and laziness. What I misstated or misquoted Chamish on was something from his official youtube account that he linked to from his main website. The bold face is how and why i remembered it incorrectly.
THOMAS RICHARDS
If possible I would like to add something regarding this Barry Chamish controversy. I was the one in error when trying to remember what Barry Chamish had stated in regards to Christians witnessing in Israel. It was a stupid error on my part. I should have looked at it again before I sent it to you. I don't want to see you take the heat for my mistake and laziness. What I misstated or misquoted Chamish on was something from his official youtube account that he linked to from his main website. The bold face is how and why i remembered it incorrectly.
THOMAS RICHARDS
Note by Me: I apologized to Richards if these comments hurt him. I don't try to intentionally hurt him in any way.
By Timothy
I'm glad you did what was important to you and highlighted those parts. Good job. Interesting that you didn't include the rest of the text with it which included Barry Chamish's statements in there which Phelps said could have been misunderstood that Chamish does want Christians killed. Being that I know you get Eric Phelps letters and will cut it up to make people look bad I will no longer send personal messages like this to Eric without telling him to keep what i tell private. You remind me of some kind of government spy.
ReplyDeleteI always show both sides for people to access on this issue. Also, you being sarcastic doesn't intimidate me. I don't act as a government spy since on many Forums I don't mention try to demonize you at all. Nice cheap shot, but it doesn't work on me. It's ironic that you took the time to come here, because if you look at my Blog I do show your point of view on this issue and others. I apologize if I fail to show other and more information about Chamish from your point of view. I really do. For now on, I will show both sides of this issue and let people make a valued judgement. Also, it's part of my right of free speech to show information about many issues including Eric Jon Phelps and others. I'm not your enemy here. I have nothing but respect for you. Yet, these sacractic games have got to stop. I've moved on. It's apparent you haven't. This is my blog so you know I will respond.
ReplyDeleteBy Timothy
I also apologize if I show misunderstood statements about the Chamish issue.
ReplyDeleteBy Timothy
Also, I don't try to make people look bad which is one out of many misconceptions you have about me.
ReplyDeleteBy Timothy