Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
What about Edward de Vere (a surname not unknown to this site) and Sir Francis Bacon, both claimed to be the secret sons of the red-headed Queen Elizabeth I?
Based upon what I have been learning on this site, at this particular moment in time, I would lean towards an Imperial writing team under Elizabeth I and her successor James I, just as there could have been one under Vespasian and his successor Titus, it certainly does not lack precedent.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
What about Edward de Vere (a surname not unknown to this site) and Sir Francis Bacon, both claimed to be the secret sons of the red-headed Queen Elizabeth I?
You would have to buy the book :) Shakespeare's Secret Messiah by Joseph Atwill. Edward de Vere, William Stanley Earl of Derby, and Mary Sidney Herbert are discussed & dismissed as authorship candidates, at pp. 75-81.

Also see Shakespeare's Dark Lady by John Hudson. Bacon's candidacy is covered at pp. 116-120.

Or, maybe I should move this to another thread? I could probably summarize the case against de Vere & Bacon's involvement, but it's pretty far off topic here...
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
This is pretty disturbing. It generally fits in well with my thesis, except for that I believe, from the actual evidence, that the cycling is purposeful and Machiavellian, not spontaneously driven.

 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Below, Chris Hedges provides his explanation for why the Deep State is now moving against Trump. This implies that they were OK with him until he and his cabal of clowns (e.g. the Three Amigos) moved against the Bidens, and in the context of also failing to properly manage the hidden empire. This is much like the claim that Les Colodny and co-author made in Silent Coup that the Deep State took down Nixon for threatening to expose the Bay of Pigs operation and the JFK assassination.

But, supposedly Trump et al. had already moved against Hillary, the DNC, and totally transfigured the Republican Party. I still say that Trump is their puppet, either a witting one or their useful idiot and scapegoat. Common to both the earlier Watergate business and today are such dirty tricksters as Roger Stone and Georgetown alum Paul Manafort. As I've discussed on this thread, the entire tableau is full of these Georgetown characters on both sides.

 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
This is pretty disturbing. It generally fits in well with my thesis, except for that I believe, from the actual evidence, that the cycling is purposeful and Machiavellian, not spontaneously driven.
I watched this, and I do certainly share your concerns, but (maybe it is because I like to think of myself as the glass half full, rather than empty type) when the last Bush was President, I remember reading articles about him like "Hail, Bush", concerning him and the neocons leading America on to a renewed Roman Empire after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Obviously, he never became President for Life, Dictator, Emperor, or whatever you want to call it, though he may well have started something in that direction leading up to our present time, but it appears America's "Manifest Destiny" became bogged down overseas (due to the Swamp?) in the intervening decade until now, so perhaps this is a phase that comes and goes in cycles. I also do not doubt that this may be the intention. as in "divide and conquer".
At any rate, I am no prophet, but the prominent mention of Oswald Spengler, who perhaps may have been one, triggered my memories of a website that I visited years ago, called "Spengler's Future", http://www.benespen.com/spenglers-future/ in which the late John J. Reilly formulated, according to the description on the homepage, "An Outline of the Next Seven Centuries of Western History, as Suggested by Comparison with the Life Cycles of Four Other Civilizations". According to his timeline on this page, we are now in the Stage of "Imperial Populism" (1992-2022). Note that Mr. Reilly created this program in August 1992, just before the election of Bill Clinton as President, and passed away on May 30, 2012, 4 and 1/2 years before Donald Trump was elected President.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
172 watching this site just a moment ago.
we have yet another link between Clinton and Trump
Roman Piso also claims that the following royal ancestry of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is true, confirming that there are major players in his theory to the present day, but I believe both of these pedigrees are bogus, myself. Another theory is that the Presidential candidate with the most royal ancestry will win the election, and Donald Trump does edge out Hillary Clinton by having a close Stuart connection, besides the mutual Plantagenet (going back to the red-headed de Veres, according to Nicholas de Vere) ancestry that they share in this concoction. https://www.infowars.com/trump-hillary-distant-cousins-say-genealogists/
Clinton, with his Rhodes Scholarship and Georgetown ties (and speculations of being an illegitimate Rockefeller).
Winthrop Rockefeller had a World War II buddy from Arkansas that he visited after the war, and this buddy was supposed to be a cousin of Clinton's mother, and the rest is history, or should I say alternate history. Actually, Clinton was born in 1946, and Rockefeller did not move to Arkansas until 1953. Even more incredibly, I have read that Clinton was the natural son of patriarch Joseph Kennedy (this story probably originated from the famous picture of teenager Clinton shaking the hand of President Kennedy), and also being a descendant of Jewish banking family founder Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who was supposed to be descended from Roman Emperor Nero! It was foretold to Rothschild that his descendant was destined to be the "Messiah", according to this story.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
They seem to come in surges. Yesterday's record was 141, and before that was 68 last week or so. I'm sure they're here just to see the photos of Mel and Ivanka. :rolleyes:
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
CNN recently ran a story "25 times Trump was soft on Russia". Caitlin Johnstone replied with a list of 25 hawkish Trump actions. She wrote:

The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or failed to say other words; “Trump has repeatedly praised Putin”, “Trump refused to say Putin is a killer”, “Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016”, “Trump made light of Russian hacking”, etc. It also includes the completely false but oft-repeated narrative that “Trump’s team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine”, as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly invalidated claim that “Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS.”
CNN’s 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an altercation from which there may be no re-emerging.
Caitlin's list:
  1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance toward Russia
  2. Arming Ukraine
  3. Bombing Syria
  4. Staging coup attempts in Venezuela
  5. Withdrawing from the INF treaty
  6. Ending the Open Skies Treaty
  7. Selling Patriot missiles to Poland
  8. Occupying Syrian oil fields
  9. Killing Russians in Syria
  10. Tanks in Estonia
  11. War ships in the Black Sea
  12. Sanctions
  13. More sanctions
  14. Still more sanctions
  15. Even more sanctions
  16. Guess what? MORE sanctions
  17. Oh hey, more sanctions
  18. Secondary sanctions
  19. Forcing Russian media to register as foreign agents
  20. Throwing out Russian diplomats
  21. Training Polish and Latvian fighters “to resist Russian aggression”
  22. Refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian Federation
  23. Sending 1,000 troops to Poland
  24. Withdrawing from the Iran deal
  25. Attacking Russian gas interests
It's a little repetitive on the "Sanctions" and "Syria" angles, but I agree that these are all substantive military or economic actions as opposed to rhetoric.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I would take issue that Trump armed the Ukrainians because Congress (Republicans and Democrats) made him do it (after he got caught trying to run out the fiscal-year allocation clock) and the same Congress made him put the sanctions on. The bombing of Syria was a dubious waste of close to $100 million that profitted somebody, and did nothing. I think he even warned the Russians, which means he also warned the Syrians by default.

The Open Skies Treaty cancellation hurts us more than Russia, as it helps destroy confidence in US alliances.

How does our withdrawing from the Iran deal hurt Russia?

But, yes, its a mixed bag.

I have talked frequently on this thread about Trump's Georgetown and Goldman Sachs mafias, and this article discusses the later West Point (class of 86) mafia that has risen inside the administration. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/17/west-point-alumni-pompeo-esper-state-department-071212

Trying to analyze Trump and Putin conventionally is about as useful as making binary distinctions between the RNC and the DNC.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
While researching about 9/11 I accidentally came across certain facts about Trump which I have put together here and which give the picture of what kind of person he is:

The day the Twin Towers fell, real estate businessman Mr Trump was speaking to radio station WWOR when he veered off to brag about his nearby 71-storey skyscraper, claiming the title of highest building in Lower Manhattan.

Shortly after the attack, Mr Trump claimed $150,000 from the government to cover “rent loss” and “repairs”. The money had originally been set aside for small businesses in the area.

“I lost hundreds of friends in 9/11.”

Mr Trump insisted he knew many of the people working in the Twin Towers, but never named a single person. The president would have had to have known about one in 10 of the victims if his claim of knowing “hundreds” of the 2,996 victim was true.

In an interview about his first 100 days in the White House with the Associated Press, Donald Trump boasted that his “ratings” on cable network shows like on Fox and CBS’s Face the Nation were higher than those for broadcasts of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The president has been consistently preoccupied with his ratings and the turnouts at his rallies. Within hours of his inauguration, he punished the National Park Service for posting pictures of his ceremony which seemed to compare his crowds with a much higher turnout for Barack Obama.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-bizarre-quotes-911-attacks-tallest-building-higher-ratings-muslims-cheering-george-w-a8530571.html

(CNN) In a speech to first responders and others impacted by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks:

"I was down there also, but I'm not considering myself a first responder," Trump said. "But I was down there. I spent a lot of time down there with you."

One thing he was doing was getting on the phone with WWOR's Alan Marcus to talk about the attacks and their aftermath. It was in that interview that Trump said this about a property
-- 40 Wall Street -- that he owned:
"40 Wall Street actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest—and then, when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest. And now it's the tallest."

"In the immediate aftermath of the worst terrorist attacks in the history of the country, Trump talked publicly mostly about the buildings, and his buildings, and market ramifications."


Trump had been spotted at Ground Zero the previous day: "The sight of Donald Trump, every hair in place and impeccably dressed in a black suit, pressed white shirt and red tie, walking into the plaza with his cellular phone to his ear. "'No, no. The building's gone,' he says into the phone."

Trump:"Everyone who helped clear the rubble -- and I was there, and I watched, and I helped a little bit. (Sure, dressed as he was?)

He has also claimed that he helped pay for several hundred workers to help clean up the wreckage in the aftermath of 9/11. Independent fact-check sites have been unable to verify that claim.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/29/politics/donald-trump-9-11-first-responders/index.html


He reminds me of Scrooge McDuck, only interested in his money and a windbag. Unable to care for others, but hypocritically pretending he does.
 
Last edited:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Following today's public impeachment hearings, I found something important confirmed, about the role of Russia in 2016 elections. Here is witness Fiona Hill talking, former deputy assistant to the president and senior director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council. She is not supportive of a specific party and has served different presidents.

It's known that after Wikileaks dumped information about Hillary Clinton, polls about her victory dropped, while before she was given as winner. So we can really say that those leaks determined the victory of Trump. Well, those hacked documents were received by Wikileaks from Russian hackers. Assange did a very stupid thing, by publishing documents that helped elect the man who would later pursue his destruction. Assange was not trying to help Trump to be elected, he just had a bad opinion of both candidates.


starting at 2:30:00

Fiona Hill:

I—and they—thought I could help them with President Trump’s stated goal of improving relations with Russia, while still implementing policies designed to deter Russian conduct that threatens the United States, including the unprecedented and successful Russian operation to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. This relates to the second thing I want to communicate. Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country—and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves. The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.

The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart.Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined. U.S. support for Ukraine—which continues to face armed Russian aggression—has been politicized.The Russian government’s goal is to weaken our country—to diminish America’s global role and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests. President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and economic dominance. I say this not as an alarmist, but as a realist. I do not think long-term conflict with Russia is either desirable or inevitable. I continue to believe that we need to seek ways of stabilizing our relationship with Moscow even as we counter their efforts to harm us. Right now, Russia’s security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. We are running out of time to stop them. In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.

As Republicans and Democrats have agreed for decades, Ukraine is a valued partner of the United States , and it plays an important role in our national security. And as I told this Committee last month, I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine—not Russia—attacked us in 2016. These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes. President Putin and the Russian security services operate like a Super PAC. They deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our own political opposition research and false narratives. When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each another, degrade our institutions, and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy. I respect the work that this Congress does in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, including in this inquiry, and I am here to help you to the best of my ability. If the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention. But we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm.

Adam Schiff (chairman):

My colleagues took some umbrage with your opening statement, but I think the American people can be forgiven if they have the same impression listening to some of the statements of my colleagues during this hearing; that Russia didn’t intervene in our election, it was all the Ukrainians. There’s an effort to take a tweet here, and an op-ed there, and a newspaper story here, and somehow equate it with the systemic intervention that our intelligence agencies found that Russia perpetrated in 2016 through an extensive social media campaign, and a hacking and dumping operation. Indeed, the report my colleagues gave you that they produced during the investigation calls into question the accuracy of the Intelligence Committee’s finding that Russia intervened to help one side, to help Donald Trump at the expense of Hillary Clinton. No one in the Intelligence community questions that finding, nor does the FBI, nor does the Senate bipartisan Intelligence Committee report, nor does the Minority Committee report of this Committee. The house Republican report is an outlier.

But let me ask you, Dr. Hill, about your concern with that Russian narrative; that it wasn’t the Russians that engaged in interfering in our election in 2016; and of course this was given a boost when President Trump in Helsinki, in the presence of Putin, said that he questioned his own intelligence agencies. But why are the Russians pushing that narrative, that it was Ukraine? How does that serve Russian interests?

Fiona Hill:

The Russians’ interests, frankly, to de-legitimized our entire Presidency.
So I want an issue that I do want to raise, and I think that this would resonate with our colleagues on the Committee from the Republican party, is that the goal of the Russians was really to put whoever became the President by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale under a cloud. So if Secretary, former First Lady, former Senator Clinton, had been elected as President, as indeed many expected in the run up to the election in 2016, she, too would have had major questions about her legitimacy. And I think that what we’re seeing here as a result of all of these narratives is this is exactly what the Russian government was hoping for. If they seed misinformation, they seed doubt. They have everybody questioning the legitimacy of a Presidential candidate, be it President Trump or potentially a President Clinton; that they would pit one side of our electorate against the other; that they would pit one party against the other.

And that’s why I wanted to make such a strong point at the very beginning, because there was certainly individuals in many other countries who had harsh words for both of the candidates; who had harsh words for many of the candidates during the primaries. We had a lot of people who were running for President on the Republican side. There were many people who are trying themselves to game the outcome. As you know, in the United Kingdom, the bookies take bets. You can go to Logbrooks or William Hill and lay a bet on who you think is going to be the candidate. So the Russian government were trying to land their own bets, but what they wanted to do was give a spread. They wanted to make sure that whoever they had bet on or whoever they’d tried to tip the scales, would also experience some discomfort; that they were beholden to them in some way; that they would create just the kind of chaos that we have seen in our politics. So I just want to again emphasize that we need to be very careful as we discuss all of these issues, not to give them more fodder that they can use against us in 2020.

Adam Schiff:


And I quite agree. There’s an additional benefit, and I think you’re absolutely right, the Russians are equal opportunity meddlers. They will not only help one side, but they’ll also just seek to sow discord in the United States along ethnic lines, religious lines, geographic lines. But there’s also a benefit now, isn’t there, for Russia to put the blame on Ukraine; to cast doubt on whether they intervened at all in our election and blame it on a U.S. ally as a way of driving a wedge between the U.S. and Ukraine? Isn’t that true?

Fiona Hill:

Well, that’s absolutely the case, and in fact you just made the point about U.S. allies. The Russians like to put a lot of blame on U.S. allies for incidents that they (the Russians) have perpetrated. We saw that recently with the United Kingdom in the Russian secret services attack on a former spy, Mr. Scripholland, his daughter in Salisbury in England. Well, you may recall that the Russians actually accused the British government of perpetrating this themselves. So this falls into a long pattern of deflection, and of the Russian government trying to pin the blame on someone else. And as my colleague, Mr. Holmes, here has laid out, the Russians have a particular vested interest in putting Ukraine and Ukrainians and Ukrainian leaders in a very bad light.

All of the issues that we started to discuss today, and that you on the Committee have been deeply involved in, began with Russia’s illegal annexation of the peninsula of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014; in response in 2015, and all of the different acts of aggression that Russia’s engaged in since starting a war in the Donbas; shooting down Russian operatives, a plane MH-17 over the Donbas at a later period.
There is a great deal of hostility and malign intent towards the Ukraine, and it suits the Russian government very much if we are also looking at Ukraine as somehow a perpetrator of malign acts against us.

Full transcript of day 5 impeachment public hearings:
https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment-hearing-day-5-transcript-fiona-hill-and-david-holmes-testimony

To help understand why I believe it to be reasonably true, I don't believe anymore that 9/11 was an inside job (even though I am still open to the contrary if something else comes up). It's hard for people who believe that the enemy is inside accept a narrative that the enemy to look at is outside. I know that very well, after having been a convinced conspiracy theorist for 18 years, starting exactly with 9/11. If I were still convinced of that, I would consider the narrative that the Russians are our enemy just fake propaganda to cover internal wrong deeds or sell weapons. I used to believe that terrorism was just a mighty fake excuse to justify internal restrictions. I have been investigating that deeply and throughly and I don't believe that anymore. What is more likely is that intelligence services took advantage of the extended powers they were given to counter terrorisms to spy into citizens for other reasons, like Edward Snowden reported with his leaked documents.

I do not consider the US a champion of goodness abroad: Russia might be doing to the US just what the US has been doing to other countries and Russia itself. But since I belong to a country that falls in the interest area of both US and Russia, I still prefer to fall under the US influence than Russia's one.

I also wonder who spread the idea that the dollar and euro are about to collapse, as if it was an inevitable fact. Is there somebody hoping that to happen? And has prepared an alternative currency to become the worldwide currency to replace the dollar? Talking about the BRICs propaganda, that is the group of emerging countries to which Russia belongs, to have its currency replace the dollar?
 
Last edited:
Top