*From:* Sean McBride <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* Vigilius Haufniensis <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 02, 2007 8:30 AM
*Subject:* More Lies?
Are you accusing me of receiving a $100,000 grant from the Ford
Foundation? If you are, you are mindlessly repeating lies that
are originating from Kris Millegan and Bob Dodds. I have
received money from no one to pursue my own research -- I am
completely independent. And it is insulting in the extreme for
you to suggest otherwise.
Why should I engage in a discussion on my own list with someone
who is circulating malicious lies about me?
Perhaps you haven't noticed: you are the only remaining member
from the former cia-drugs community who is still loyal to
Millegan and Dodds, and who hasn't deserted their group. What
broke cia-drugs was Millegan's paranoid and false accusations
against at least five members of the list. You are one of the
few people on the list who hasn't been able to figure out what's
going on.
If you want me to post this, rewrite it with the malicious
personal attack removed, and I will answer your points about the
Rothschilds.
*/Yahoo! Groups Notification <political-research-
accept-ZtYjXX0uU XdzA9qyDQYbR3A@ yahoogroups. com
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>/* wrote:
Hello,
A message has been sent to the political-research group from
thehatefulnerd@ comcast.net <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The message summary:
------------ --------
FROM: thehatefulnerd@ comcast.net
DATE: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 01:19:44 -0500
SUBJECT: Re: [political-research ] An Unanswered Question to
Vigilius Haufniensis
Do you realize that there is a major lack of specificity and
facts in your statements on this subject? I suggest you
research and master these areas first before trying to
comment on them in any kind of authoritative way.
VMANN: soon as i get a $100,000.00 grant from the ford
foundation, ill get right on that. in the meantime, i think
you've been arguing my case very well.
I once posted an article pointing to a Rothschild connection
------------ --------
To: <political-research@ yahoogroups. com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 01:19:44 -0500
From: "Vigilius Haufniensis" <thehatefulnerd@ comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [political-research ] An Unanswered Question to
Vigilius Haufniensis
Do you realize that there is a major lack of specificity and
facts in your statements on this subject? I suggest you
research and master these areas first before trying to
comment on them in any kind of authoritative way.
VMANN: soon as i get a $100,000.00 grant from the ford
foundation, ill get right on that. in the meantime, i think
you've been arguing my case very well.
I once posted an article pointing to a Rothschild connection
to Mikhail Khodorkovsky -- but MK is only one billionaire out
of hundreds on the planet.
In addition to the Simon Schama book I just mentioned, you
should also read Niall Ferguson's two fairly recent major
volumes on the Rothschilds:
Niall Ferguson; 1999; The House of Rothschild: Volume 1:
Money's Prophets: 1798-1848; Penguin
Niall Ferguson; 2000; The House of Rothschild: Volume 2:
The World's Banker: 1849-1999; Penguin
VMANN: yeah, and the jp morgan thing is well known.
Are the Rothschilds the dominant family within the global
neoconservative billionaire network? I don't know. I
haven't seen anyone prove that case yet with solid research.
It smells like a cheesy conspiracy theory, not something
factual. Certainly you haven't come close to making the
case. But it is a fact that all neoconservative billionaires
are singlemindedly preoccupied with the interests of Israel,
and that they exert enormous power over the American
political system and the American mainstream media. They
have been the main drivers behind the Iraq War and the
campaign to attack Iran.
VMANN: part of what makes these billionaires effective is
their secrecy. however, we can see the lines of force. the
rothschilds are very pro-israel. as are the
neoconservatives. here we have two examples of "oligarchs"
who were later revealed to be lackeys for the rothschilds.
by inference, it is logical to conclude that others are as well.
of course, the real question at hand is whether the upper
level of control is in the hands of "irrational cultists."
this appears to be one of your presupposed axioms. so we can
both agree that the neocons are "irrational cultists." i
suggested that irrational types are very easily manipulated,
in this case being manipulated to cause war in iraq and now
iran, as support of the US dollar as world reserve currency.
you then argue my case for me by admitting that the
rothschilds are very pro-israel and would in fact, be likely
to support the pro-israel cause. i show two examples of
supposed oligarchical types who in fact turned out to be
merely "holding" wealth for the rothschilds.
so are you going to stay with your thesis that the
"irrational cultists" are at the "top of the pyramid," or are
you going to continue with my thesis, that they are being
manipulated or used by forces "higher up?"
it seems to me that the so-called "trilateralist" types are
also beholden to the rothschilds. have scowcroft,
brzezinksi, colin powell or bush sr ever spoken out on or
moved against the federal reserve? or have they rather in
fact worked to serve and promote its interests?
frankly i think tarpley makes a better case for the
"breakdown in the oligarchy" theory than you do.
vigilius haufniensis
