Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / General Topics / December 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

British revolution, French revolution, Russian revolution all part of an ongoing jewish-zionist war against Christian civilization

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
YTR - 03 Nov 2007 12:12 GMT
Archibald Maule Ramsay, 'The Nameless War'.

Archibald Maule Ramsay wrote the true history of events leading up to
the Second World War. For this he was imprisoned for several years.
Read his book The Nameless War to learn more.

Read his short 120 page book, The Nameless War.
http://iamthewitness.com/books/Archibald.Maule.Ramsay/The.Nameless.War/00.Introd
uction.htm


Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay was educated at Eton and the Royal
Military College, Sandhurst, and served with the 2nd Battalion
Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded
in 1916 - thereafter at Regimental H.Q. and the War Office and the
British War Mission in Paris until the end of the war.

>From 1920 he became a Member of H.M. Scottish Bodyguard. In 1931 he
was elected a Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire.

Arrested under Regulation 18b on the 23rd May, 1940, he was detained,
without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th
September, 1944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the
House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament
in 1945.
THE NAMELESS WAR

Here is the story that people have said would never be written in our
time - the true history of events leading up to the Second World War,
told by one who enjoyed the friendship and confidence of Mr. Neville
Chamberlain during the critical months between Munich and September,
1939.

There has long been an unofficial ban on books dealing with what
Captain Ramsay calls "The Nameless War", the conflict which has been
waged from behind the political scene for centuries, which is still
being waged and of which very few are aware.

The publishers of "The Nameless War" believe this latest exposure will
do more than any previous attempt to break the conspiracy of silence.

The present work, with much additional evidence and a fuller
historical background, is the outcome of the personal experiences of a
public figure who in the course of duty has discovered at first-hand
the existence of a centuries old conspiracy against Britain, Europe,
and the whole of Christendom.

"The Nameless War" reveals an unsuspected link between all the major
revolutions in Europe - from King Charles I's time to the abortive
attempt against Spain in 1936. One source of inspiration, design and
supply is shown to be common to all of them. These revolutions and the
World War of 1939 are seen to be integral parts of one and the same
master plan.

After a brief review of the forces behind the declaration of war and
the world wide arrests of many who endeavoured to oppose them, the
author describes the anatomy of the Revolutionary International
machine - the machine which today continues the plan for supranational
world power, the age-old Messianic dream of International Jewry.

It is the author's belief that the machine would break down without
the support of its unwilling Jews and unsuspecting Gentiles and he
puts forward suggestions for detaching these elements.

Christians say . . .

   "Captain Ramsay, a Christian gentleman of unflagging courage,
believed that the war with Germany was not conceived in the interests
of Britain and could lead only to the extension of Communist and
Jewish power. Because he warned his fellow countrymen of the forces at
work, he was put in prison without trial for four and a half years,
for 'reasons' so preposterous that those who framed them dared not
submit them to a court of law."  Truth

   "For years Captain Ramsay had been a member of the British
Parliament. His book is an analysis of the Jewish-Zionist war against
Christian civilization."   The Cross and the Flag

Jews say . . .

   "There is no limit to the depths of human depravity, Captain Maule
Ramsay . . . seems to have made a very determined attempt to plumb
those depths."  The Jewish Chronicle

   "The publication of such a book, at this time, underlines the
urgent need for the law to be reformed so as to make it a crime to
preach racial hatred or publish libels on groups in the community."
The Daily Worker

Copyright 1952; First Edition October 1952;
Second Popular Edition 1956;
Third Popular Edition 1956;
Fourth Popular Edition 1962;

Made and Printed in Great Britain by The B.P.S. Printing Co.
and Published by the Britons Publishing Company
111a Westbourne Grove, London, W.2

CONTENTS

  1. The British Revolution - http://tinyurl.com/2m3trm
  2. The French Revolution - http://tinyurl.com/2qagh2
  3. The Russian Revolution - http://tinyurl.com/3bx23m
  4. Development of Revolutionary Technique - http://tinyurl.com/3yt5dm
  5. Germany Bells The Cat - http://tinyurl.com/382dzt
  6. 1933: Jewry Declares War - http://tinyurl.com/3xzd34
  7. "Phoney War" Ended by Civilian Bombing - http://tinyurl.com/35sfca
  8. Dunkirk and After - http://tinyurl.com/2nredq
  9. The Shape of Things to Come - http://tinyurl.com/3xb3cc
 10. President Roosevelt's Role - http://tinyurl.com/3av7uo
 11. Regulation 18b - http://tinyurl.com/3y798d
 12. Who Dares? - http://tinyurl.com/2lrpuw
 13. Epilogue - http://tinyurl.com/2jkrod

(There are now only five nations on the world left without a
Rothschild owned central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and
Libya.)

PROLOGUE

    Edward I banished the Jews from England for many grave offences
endangering the welfare of his realm and lieges, which were to a great
extent indicated in the Statutes of Jewry*, enacted by his Parliament
in 1290, the Commons playing a prominent part.

* See Appendix 2 (Appendices follow the last chapter)

    The King of France very shortly followed suit, as did other
Rulers in Christian Europe. So grave did the situation for the Jews in
Europe become, that an urgent appeal for help and advice was addressed
by them to the Sanhedrin, then located at Constantinople.

    This appeal was sent over the signature of Chemor, Rabbi of Arles
in Provence, on the 13th January, 1489. The reply came in November,
1489, which was issued over the signature of V.S.S. V.F.F. Prince of
the Jews.

    It advised the Jews of Europe to adopt the tactics of the Trojan
Horse; to make their sons Christian priests, lawyers, doctors, etc.,
and work to destroy the Christian structure from within.

    The first notable repercussion to this advice occurred in Spain
in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella. Many Jews were by then
enrolled as Christians, but remaining secretly Jews were working to
destroy the Christian church in Spain.

    So grave became the menace finally, that the Inquisition was
instituted in an endeavour to cleanse the country from these
conspirators. Once again the Jews were compelled to commence an exodus
from yet another country, whose hospitality they had abused.

    Trekking eastwards, these Jews joined other Jewish communities in
western Europe; considerable numbers flowed on to Holland and
Switzerland.

    From now on these two countries were to become active centres of
Jewish intrigue. Jewry, however, has always needed a powerful
seafaring nation to which to attach itself.

    Great Britain, newly united under James I, was a rising naval
power, which was already beginning to sway the four corners of the
discovered world. Here also there existed a wonderful field for
disruptive criticism; for although it was a Christian kingdom, yet it
was one most sharply divided as between Protestant and Catholic.

    A campaign for exploiting this division and fanning hatreds
between the Christian communities was soon in process of organization.
How well the Jews succeeded in this campaign in Britain may be judged
from the fact that one of the earliest acts of their creature and
hireling Oliver Cromwell - after executing the King according to plan
- was to allow the Jews free access to England once more.
Robert Cohen - 03 Nov 2007 16:38 GMT
> Archibald Maule Ramsay, 'The Nameless War'.
>
[quoted text clipped - 165 lines]
> hireling Oliver Cromwell - after executing the King according to plan
> - was to allow the Jews free access to England once more.

A small clue for today's usually leftist-liberal anti-zionist scoffers
(Jew and non-Jew) why an early 20th century European journalist
Theodore Herzl, a non-religious ethnic Jew, founded what's generally
now called "modern zionism."

These contortions of reality  are (imho)  unhappily part & parcel of
traditional "folk wisdom" culture perhaps originally eminating from
NEW TESTAMNENT doctrine.

The Christian religion was founded by anti-establishment types, and
these politico-religio reformers-activists except for Alexander were
all apparetly Jews.

1900 years later, after the dark ages, feudalism, the middle ages, the
renaissance, the reformation, the begining of the industrial
revolution:

Herzl saw the infamous Colonel Alfred Dreyfus court martial (for
spying for Germany) case in then relatively progressive-tolerant-
liberalistic France as indicative of even the most secularized of Jews
ultimate alien (l'estranger) status in the gentile world.

Nevermind, Marcel Proust, whose parents were a Jew and a Caholic.

A folk culture(s) is from whence/where everybody, including academics,
is originally basically primarily imprinted-enculturated.

I had not previously seen that backhand compliment about the Jews also
as responsible for the "British Revolution," but ...uh...the
subversive Magna Carta aka great card or menu from the delicatessan in
London's merchant place where the elders of zion plotted to take power
from the divine right monarchy,

Now, if true, wouldn't that be something for the Jews as the actual
inspirers-founders  of  the model government of  western and world
civilizations.
Robert Cohen - 03 Nov 2007 18:15 GMT
> > Archibald Maule Ramsay, 'The Nameless War'.
>
[quoted text clipped - 204 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oops, his "British Revolution" is about the Jews apparent underhanded
control of  Oliver Cromwell.

I shan't read the guy's links to an alternate history, as such wiil
raise blood pressure, though I discourage others from being as stupid
to critique contrived crape that this schnook didn't even read.

The usual way to deal with this stuff is to concede/agree where there
is conventional consensus, and to try to take apart what is being
claimed as cover-up, I suppose.

Anyhow: please have at it, because imho it's important to acknowlege
(& always to question) established truths and to outright refute  (or
at least question harshly) apparent malicious slanders and innuendo.
Robert Cohen - 04 Nov 2007 02:03 GMT
> > > Archibald Maule Ramsay, 'The Nameless War'.
>
[quoted text clipped - 206 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: France's Revolution finance/encouraged by the Jews

One thing about Voltaire: he really luvs the stubborn Jews....not.

As for the Rothschild's etal: I have not yet read the WIIKIPEDIA take;
though I betcha w/o  looking at the usuallly  informative articles
that the rich investment bankers were backing/funding opposing
polticians & causes, just as they seem to do  contemporaneously--for
instance, Soros vs Mellon now.

Such reality should not be shocking news.

I suppose similar for the U.S.'s infamous "robber barons."

"Money is the mother's milk of politics," as Boss Tweed, Tip O'Neil,
etal
may candidly affirm.

Hmm: Why do Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, Senior, seem to often agree
with Democrats instead of Republicans about taxing ?

Perhaps, because very rich human beings are after all sometimes
divergent thinking mortal humans too.
David Morgan (MAMS) - 04 Nov 2007 03:20 GMT
"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in

> As for the Rothschild's etal: I have not yet read the WIIKIPEDIA take;

The public would be better off banning WikiPedia.  Any publicly editable
data base is not to be trusted.

   "Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be the same thing as an encyclopedia: it’s
   an experiment to see if accuracy can be arrived at through consensus."

... And it isn't working very well.
http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/Section_I.html

Because of the massive number of lawsuits against Wikipedia, an enormous
number of pages have been forced to carry the heading, "This page is currently
under dispute over it's content accuracy".  "This Article or section may require
cleanup", and other disclaimers.  It's becoming a real sore on every teacher's
a.s in the country for a few years now - that being a publicly editable database,
Wikipedia is subject to containing completely falsified or highly biased and/or
misleading information.

http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring06/wws528f/?p=68

The problem is so blatant, that various Wikipedia foreign sites are being shut
down by the respective governments to prevent the imparting of fraudulent
information to the public.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060119-6013.html

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedianewsisraelcensorship48480706.html

The big problem, is that students (and other inquisitive minds) are also
generally too lazy to find a library or other printed reference materials as
sources, so they sit behind their computers and take the easy way out...
believing that what they read in 'the 'pedia' is the truth.  In the US, a great
number of teachers are currently refusing to accept Wiki as a reference
on research papers.  It's a known issue that it contains false information
as a result of being publicly editable.

It's so easy to commit fraud on Wikipedia, that it's often the brunt of
practical jokes...
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=infotech&sc=&id=16057&pg=2
<same story> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/roush/posts.aspx?id=15974

Wkipedia proponents like to use the total number of "errors" or average
"accuracy" in relation to other sources like Britannica... but they aren't
staying aligned with the truth by admitting that we aren't talking about
spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors here... we're talking about
complete fraud.

http://emacsmood.livejournal.com/101766.html

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051212.html

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/print/brandt01212006/
Saturday, January 21, 2006

    "There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic
   problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia
   Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia,
   consider themselves responsible for the content. If you don’t believe
   me, then carefully read Wikipedia’s disclaimer."
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

Want a sample of this crappola that people could actually, though
unintentionally, buy into without checking other sources?

June 02, 2006   http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/BUSINESS/606020422/1
003/rss03


   " Popular Wikipedia entries, such as on President Bush, are
   continually vandalized. An entry on Wikipedia founder Jimmy
   Wales once was falsified with a reference that had him being
   shot dead.

   In 2005, oil giant ExxonMobil's entry was altered by a disgruntled
   Internet user who changed the corporate slogan to "Robbing you
   blind" and the name of the company chairman to "J.R. Ewing."

This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
responsibility for it's accuracy.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
Almond - 04 Nov 2007 03:36 GMT
>"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in
>
>> As for the Rothschild's etal: I have not yet read the WIIKIPEDIA take;
>
>The public would be better off banning WikiPedia.  Any publicly editable
>data base is not to be trusted.

>    "Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be the same thing as an encyclopedia: it’s
>    an experiment to see if accuracy can be arrived at through consensus."

>.... And it isn't working very well.
>http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/Section_I.html

>Because of the massive number of lawsuits against Wikipedia, an enormous
>number of pages have been forced to carry the heading, "This page is currently
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Wikipedia is subject to containing completely falsified or highly biased and/or
>misleading information.

Correct. And you can not find some of the most outstanding material
by the people of highest caliber unless it aligns with this NWO
agenda.

Wikipedia is a global project to collect massive amounts of information
on individuals and their views so that they could be "taken care of"
need be.

>http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring06/wws528f/?p=68
>The problem is so blatant, that various Wikipedia foreign sites are being shut
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=infotech&sc=&id=16057&pg=2
><same story> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/roush/posts.aspx?id=15974

>Wkipedia proponents like to use the total number of "errors" or average
>"accuracy" in relation to other sources like Britannica... but they aren't
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp

>http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/print/brandt01212006/
>Saturday, January 21, 2006
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>    me, then carefully read Wikipedia’s disclaimer."
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

>Want a sample of this crappola that people could actually, though
>unintentionally, buy into without checking other sources?
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
>responsibility for it's accuracy.

>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp

It isn't a source of anything. I visited it for a couple of time
and simply could not believe my eyes. Looks like some propaganda
machine of global proportions.

Utterly useless.

Signature

The most powerful Usenet tool you have ever heard of.
NewsMaestro v. 4.0.6 - Dictionary Update/Expert Mode has been released.

* Significant improvement in symbol substitution mechanism
 for verb tense and plurals.
* Expert mode.
* Miscellaneous improvements and bug fixes.
* Templates generator improvements.
* Multi-job support.

Note: In some previous releases some class files were missing.
As a result, the program would not run.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

Web page:
http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/

Download page:
http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/Download_Information.htm

Send any feedback, ideas, suggestions, test results to
newsmaestroinfo \at/ mail.ru.

Your personal info will not be released and your privacy
will be honored.

Robert Cohen - 04 Nov 2007 03:54 GMT
> >"Robert Cohen" <robtco...@msn.com> wrote in
>
[quoted text clipped - 119 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

After we're too old or dead, i hereaby predict & hope Wikipedia, as
constantly corrected/reformed/revised,  will be flourishing, and
despite lawsuits and  f-ups.

Competitors and copycats with better mice catchers are welcome,
available space is seemingly infinite.
David Morgan (MAMS) - 04 Nov 2007 04:06 GMT
"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in message

> Competitors and copycats with better mice catchers are welcome,
> available space is seemingly infinite.

Encyclopædia Britannica will do quite nicely, and shelf space
hasn't reached a premium quite yet.    ;-)

http://www.britannica.com/    Of course, on-line, you have to
sign up and log in, so they can see what you're searching for
as well.
Robert Cohen - 04 Nov 2007 04:40 GMT
On Nov 4, 12:06 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm>
wrote:
> "Robert Cohen" <robtco...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > Competitors and copycats with better mice catchers are welcome,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> sign up and log in, so they can see what you're searching for
> as well.

They do not get a fee nor a prospect they can call-on from free
registration?

If so, then I'll be trying 'em too.

Hope it's written more in 6th grade newspaper level lingo, rather than
the expected esoteric boring academic language that is a turn-off
particularly to my 50-60-70 percentile mind.

The articles in hard copy BRITTANICA were usually credited-signed,
which is seemingly preferable to anonimity, and thus implies
professional responsibility.

So, Hooray for us and to them adapting.

I can't mind ads should they hawk 'em, so long as the damne ads do not
interfere/influence content.
Robert Cohen - 04 Nov 2007 04:57 GMT
> On Nov 4, 12:06 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> I can't mind ads should they hawk 'em, so long as the damne ads do not
> interfere/influence content.

They get $70 a year after a free trial.

I've subscribed to fee services: here's for instances two:

THE NEW YORK TIMES and SLATE which are both now free.

Do you think fee-based BRITANNICA  will stay afloat and triumph in
superiority over freebie WIKI ?

Here in the shittey real world, "free" has its inevitable way of
getting beaucoup subscribers, despite the usual annoying ads.

If I can't even yet motivate myself to subscribe to britannica, then i
have doubts about Brittanica's survival and influence.

Sorry and unfortunately true confession, c'est la vie.
David Morgan (MAMS) - 04 Nov 2007 05:15 GMT
"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in

> They get $70 a year after a free trial.

Holy fecal matter !!!    I had no idea that this would be a 'fee' service.

http://www.reference.com/  is free, and they have a small but modest
data base... (which may also be subject to spontaneous alteration, I
can't tell yet).

> Do you think fee-based BRITANNICA  will stay afloat and triumph in
> superiority over freebie WIKI ?

Advertisers will keep it afloat, even if the subscribers fail.  But that's
a rather healthy sum of money by my standards.  Google gets me
free access to foreign sources... more reading and more deciding,
but more information is better, IMHO.

> If I can't even yet motivate myself to subscribe to britannica,
> then i have doubts about Brittanica's survival and influence.

It's not just a matter of 'motivation' for me... it's the bank account.
David Morgan (MAMS) - 04 Nov 2007 05:05 GMT
"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in message...

> They do not get a fee nor a prospect they can call-on from free
> registration?

Their advertisers get to plant malicious cookies in your browser cache.
Be sure to empty your temp files and delete cookies when you leave
the site (as with most sites these days).  They just love to phone
home and order mal-ware or report on your goings when you boot
up the next time.

> Hope it's written more in 6th grade newspaper level lingo, rather than
> the expected esoteric boring academic language that is a turn-off
> particularly to my 50-60-70 percentile mind.

Hey.... my grades weren't that good either... but the IQ seems to
float slightly above the grade point.   ;-)

> So, Hooray for us and to them adapting.

We have to resolve ourselves to the ungracious truth...  If it's on line,
it can be tampered with, or it can tamper with us.

> I can't mind ads should they hawk 'em, so long as the damne
> ads do not interfere/influence content.

You mean if I buy an ad, I can get my product reviewed ?!?!?!

Cheers,
David Morgan (MAMS) - 04 Nov 2007 04:02 GMT
"Almond" <almond@brothers.orgy> wrote in message...

> "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

> >This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
> >responsibility for it's accuracy.
> >
> >http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp

> It isn't a source of anything. I visited it for a couple of time
> and simply could not believe my eyes. Looks like some propaganda
> machine of global proportions.

It is when it comes to "sensitive" subject matter... like 9/11, global
warming, the phony War On Terror, the Zionist issue, etc., etc..

> Utterly useless.

You can find information... the problem is, you have to both 'source'
it and triple check it.
David Morgan (MAMS) - 04 Nov 2007 03:22 GMT
"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in

> As for the Rothschild's etal: I have not yet read the WIIKIPEDIA take;

Wiki-surfing is not research, children. For more on Wikipedia, see Daniel
Brandt's Wikipedia-watch at http://www.wikipedia-watch.org

See also, among numerous other stories in NY Transfer's archive:

"Wikipedia and Negotiable Reality" - Mar 18, 2006
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20060313/033810.html

"Congress Caught Making False Entries in Wikipedia" - Jan 31, 2006
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20060130/031451.html

"Science Journal Says Wikipedia Is 'Fairly' Accurate" - Dec 15, 2005
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20051212/028561.html

"Cuba and Crappy Wikipedia," - May 5, 2006
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20060501/037264.html

The Sunday Times (London)  June 25, 2006
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19510-2241865,00.html

Talking point:  Wikipedia may be fallible, but we'd be crazy to stop consulting it.

Wise words to gullible students

by Robbie Hudson

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia anyone can edit. It contains
more than 4m entries, and you could add another one right now. Last
week, speaking at a conference in Pennsylvania, the site's
co-founder, Jimmy Wales, said he receives 10 e-mails a week from
college students complaining: "Please help me. I got an F on my
paper because I cited Wikipedia." His disarming response was: "For
God's sake, don't cite the encyclopedia."

This is the latest in a slew of stories about the website's
reliability, with fans and detractors baying at each other. Why
can't people get a grip?

I want to have no sympathy for these students, because anyone
quoting a website written by the public has no place in further
education, but some blame lies with Wales. The site's lofty
guidelines for contributors talk about neutrality and
fact-checking. Wikipedia has been puffed by respected journals such
as Nature, which, late in 2005, ran an irresponsible feature
implying that Wikipedia was nearly as reliable on scientific
matters as Encyclopaedia Britannica. Journalists leapt on this
because it was a great story.

Britannica's extensive rebuttal skewered the "careless" way Nature
had assembled its evidence - sending out partial entries, claiming
differences of opinion were errors, quoting from Britannica
publications other than the full encyclopedia - yet the rebuttal
prompted nowhere near the coverage of the original claim.

The Nature article came at a good time for Wikipedia, which was
under siege over a libellous fake biography that sat on the site
for four months last year before being discovered. John
Seigenthaler was Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant in the
early 1960s; the biography falsely claimed that he was thought to
be involved in both Kennedy assassinations. The libel, posted as a
prank, was not verified by the site's editors.

It is obvious that anyone can post anonymous defamation on the web.
Wikipedia gives them a forum within which they might be believed.
John Seigenthaler's case created a storm because Wikipedia calls
itself an encyclopedia, and ranks high in Google searches. This
gives it, says Daniel Brandt, a long-time critic who runs
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org, "a massive, unearned influence on
what passes for reliable information".

Seigenthaler said that "while Wikipedia may provide a great deal of
factual information, it also is a flawed and irresponsible research
tool". He also quoted a high-school teacher who told him:
"Wikipedia is intellectual democracy. My students love it. They can
contribute articles and it can give them quick facts."

As well as all the mistakes and pranks and frequent vandalism,
there have been well-publicised cases of politicians editing and
bowdlerising their entries. Well, durrr! Of course they do. I don't
want to vote for a politician too dim to be able to maintain a
flattering biography. Screaming about these "abuses" of Wikipedia
generates headlines, but it's shooting a whale in a barrel.

Wikipedia is a generally accurate first port of call for
information. It's especially good on tech subjects and pop culture,
and it's decent on most other topics. We'd be mad to trust it as a
definitive resource, but its unreliability is the price it pays for
grand ideals, which bring the benefit of a range and immediacy no
other enyclopedia can match.

The world is full of people who uncritically believe what they
read. I recently sat next to someone in a cinema who claimed that
The Da Vinci Code movie received bad reviews because "the Catholic
church controls the media". Online, fact and fiction look the same,
especially on a site such as Wikipedia, which has become an Aunt
Sally in the debate over dumbing down. This problem lies not with
Wikipedia, but our society's criminal lack of media literacy. We
are failing our children if they are so ignorant that they take
Wikipedia on trust.

                               *
Dr. Barry Worthington - 28 Nov 2007 19:08 GMT
> Archibald Maule Ramsay, 'The Nameless War'.
>
> Archibald Maule Ramsay wrote the true history of events leading up to
> the Second World War. For this he was imprisoned for several years.

He was imprisoned /detained under emergency powers in 1940 as a
suspected 'fifth columnist'. He was seen as a potential traitor. So
don't lie!

> Read his book The Nameless War to learn more.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th
> September, 1944.

He was lucky that Britain was still a democracy. Quite a few British
people thought that he should have been shot!

>On the following morning he resumed his seat in the
> House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Chamberlain during the critical months between Munich and September,
> 1939.

Well, that was one of several mistakes on Chamberlain's part....

> There has long been an unofficial ban on books dealing with what
> Captain Ramsay calls "The Nameless War", the conflict which has been
> waged from behind the political scene for centuries, which is still
> being waged and of which very few are aware.

What unofficial ban? If Irving's crap can be published, so can
his.....assuming that anyone is remotely interested....

> The publishers of "The Nameless War" believe this latest exposure will
> do more than any previous attempt to break the conspiracy of silence.

(Yawn...)

> The present work, with much additional evidence and a fuller
> historical background, is the outcome of the personal experiences of a
> public figure who in the course of duty has discovered at first-hand
> the existence of a centuries old conspiracy against Britain, Europe,
> and the whole of Christendom.

Oh, bloody well get on with it!

> "The Nameless War" reveals an unsuspected link between all the major
> revolutions in Europe - from King Charles I's time to the abortive
> attempt against Spain in 1936. One source of inspiration, design and
> supply is shown to be common to all of them. These revolutions and the
> World War of 1939 are seen to be integral parts of one and the same
> master plan.

Hmmm.....it reveals that the author is a nutter...

> After a brief review of the forces behind the declaration of war and
> the world wide arrests of many who endeavoured to oppose them, the
> author describes the anatomy of the Revolutionary International
> machine - the machine which today continues the plan for supranational
> world power, the age-old Messianic dream of International Jewry.

Well, these jews are taking a hell of a long time to get
anywhere....perhaps they are lousy planners.....

> It is the author's belief that the machine would break down without
> the support of its unwilling Jews and unsuspecting Gentiles and he
> puts forward suggestions for detaching these elements.
>
> Christians say . . .

Anonymously?

>     "Captain Ramsay, a Christian gentleman of unflagging courage,
> believed that the war with Germany was not conceived in the interests
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> for 'reasons' so preposterous that those who framed them dared not
> submit them to a court of law."  Truth

Well, a kinky right wing clerical fascist might say that.....

>     "For years Captain Ramsay had been a member of the British
> Parliament. His book is an analysis of the Jewish-Zionist war against
> Christian civilization."   The Cross and the Flag

Yes.....hundreds of nutters can't be wrong, folks!

> Jews say . . .
>
>     "There is no limit to the depths of human depravity, Captain Maule
> Ramsay . . . seems to have made a very determined attempt to plumb
> those depths."  The Jewish Chronicle

Indeed.

>     "The publication of such a book, at this time, underlines the
> urgent need for the law to be reformed so as to make it a crime to
> preach racial hatred or publish libels on groups in the community."
> The Daily Worker

Hardly surprising....

> Copyright 1952; First Edition October 1952;
> Second Popular Edition 1956;
> Third Popular Edition 1956;
> Fourth Popular Edition 1962;

That's some conspiracy of silence!

> Made and Printed in Great Britain by The B.P.S. Printing Co.
> and Published by the Britons Publishing Company
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> Horse; to make their sons Christian priests, lawyers, doctors, etc.,
> and work to destroy the Christian structure from within.

Or perhaps to just hide!

>      The first notable repercussion to this advice occurred in Spain
> in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella. Many Jews were by then
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> hireling Oliver Cromwell - after executing the King according to plan
> - was to allow the Jews free access to England once more.

Which is a load of boll*cks! The embassy of Mannaseh Ben Israel arose
from religious motives. It had nothing to do with politics.

Dr. Barry Worthington
allan connochie - 31 Dec 2007 03:34 GMT
> Archibald Maule Ramsay, 'The Nameless War'.
>     Great Britain, newly united under James I, was a rising naval
> power, which was already beginning to sway the four corners of the
> discovered world.

Great Britain didn't come into existence until over a century after James VI
of Scotland succeeded to the English throne as James I. He liked to style
himself King of Great Britain but it didn't make it a reality. The 1603
Union of Crowns was a personal union only. That is two seperate countries
shared the same monarch just as modern Canada, Australia and the UK etc
share a monarch. The Union of 1707 dissolved the Scottish and English
kingdoms and created a new entity called Great Britain.

Allan
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.