Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the New World Order -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (123)	9/11/2003 7:31:08 PM
From: MSI	Respond to of 512

I especially like this one: 1904 Plan to take over the world by the Brits. This is better than Pinky and the Brain firebaseskull.com In 1904, British imperial strategist Halford MacKinder set forth the earliest know outline for the British military conquest of the world. The military strategists of the British Empire have long had an actual plan for the military conquest and enslavement of the entire planet, and this plan for global conquest was based on the military realities which they believed any would-be world conqueror would encounter. Their strategic plan for world conquest and the military perspective which it is based on both predate World War One, and probably existed long before that. The earliest known statement of this plan for world conquest was expressed by imperial strategist Mackinder, who outlined the central global strategic problem in 1904 in a letter to the British Royal Geographical Society. The letter was entitled “The Geographical Pivot of History.” The most pertinent part of this letter is quoted later on. The British believed that whoever seized the Eurasian interior would have the global strategic edge, and would go on to conquer the entire world. Here’s why they formed this military perspective. Britain was a naval power, and therefore, as a rule of thumb, they could apply military force with relative ease near the shores of the oceans anywhere on the globe. That was the good news. The bad news was that the further from the coast their military objective was, the harder it was to apply force to it. The invading British armies were tethered to their fleets, because their armies needed the re-supply and the firepower support of their navy. Look at a map of the world. You will see that the area furthest from any ocean is the deep interior of the Eurasian land mass. The British reasoned that if they could conquer the Eurasian interior, they would then be able to apply force from this region against the neighboring countries while the British fleet would attack as usual against their coastal regions. Thus Russia, China, India and all of Europe would be forever under British military dominance, and thereby be eliminated as competitors in the struggle for world conquest. They reasoned that the remainder of the globe was a far lesser military challenge, which could be managed with relative military ease by the British fleet, and thus easily accessible coastal regions of the remainder of the world were not the focus of their military plans as was the absolutely vital Eurasian interior. One of the agenda items of the British Empire is the culling of most of the people on the planet Earth. They also intend that the mass of the remaining population will be reduced to peasant social status, and kept in perpetual ignorance so that any revolt against their overlords will be impossible. By these means they intend to establish a global empire which will rule the world for all time without any possibility of being overthrown, either by any competing empires, which will all have been eliminated, or by the peasants, who will be held in perpetual bondage and therefore likewise unable to rise up against their British oligarch masters. The following quoted passage is from a letter written by Mackinder to the British Royal Geographical Society. The letter was entitled, “The Geographical Pivot of History.” “As we consider this rapid review of the broader currents of history, does not a certain persistence of geographical relationship become evident? Is not the pivot region of the world’s politics that vast area of Euro-Asia which is inaccessible to ships, but in antiquity lay open to the horse riding nomads, and is today about to be covered with a network of railways. There have been and are here the conditions of a mobility of military and economic power of a far-reaching and yet limited character. Russia replaces the Mogul empire. Her pressure on Finland, on Scandinavia, on Poland, on Turkey, on Persia, on India, on China replaces the centrifugal raids of the steppe-men. In the world at large she occupies the central strategically position held by Germany in Europe. In conclusion, it may be well expressly to point out that the substitution of some new control of inland area for that of Russia would not tend to reduce the geographical significance of the pivot point. Were the Chinese, for instance, organized by the Japanese, to overthrow the Russian Empire and conquer its territory, they might constitute the Yellow Peril to the world’s freedom.” This strategic plan for British world conquest was later repeated by their colonial puppet, Zbigniew Brezezinski in 1997, in his book ‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy & Its Geostrategic Imperatives.’

To: MSI who wrote (123)	9/11/2003 10:08:35 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 512

On March 17, 2003, investigative reporter Al Martin broke the story that former KGB head Yevgeny Primakov was now working for the Department of Homeland Security as a “consultant.” Martin also reported that former KGB General Alexander Karpov was likewise now gainfully employed as a “consultant’ by the Department of Homeland Security. Karpov used to be the KGB Station Chief in Washington D.C.. Primakov wasn’t always Primakov. When he was born in Kiev, USSR in 1929, his name was Pinchas Finkelstein. He parents were Khazar Jiws. Finkelstein changed his name when he was a adult. In 1991, USSR President Gorbachev appointed Finkelstein to the post of First Deputy Chairman of the USSR Committee of State Security (the KGB) and chief of the KGB’s First Directorate, which was in charge of foreign intelligence. When the KGB was divided into foreign and domestic organizations with the breakup of the Soviet Union, Finkelstein became the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service (the SVR) of Russia. On January 10, 1996, Russian President Boris Yeltsin made Finklestein his Foreign Minister. I found Al Martin's website but he want's 6.95 a month to read it. Hardly a public service. almartinraw.com The above excerpt from the link you provided shows that the "former" USSR and the US are working together. That's not a comforting thought to have a skilled "people controller" offering his expertise to the Dept of Homeland Security. I'm sure we're not going to like it.