No,this post is not about the moslems - although that's a given that they hate the infidels.
If one looks at the whole situation in our European (as an Eastern European, I am calling it as it is as opposed to the "Western" culture which enthusiastically embraced the multiculturalism virus), one comes to the following two conclusion:
1) A group of people will (usually) assimilate into a society and be swallowed into it (which is a good thing) if the percentage of these people and their numbers are not too high.
2) moslems and jews do not assimilate into any society, ever. They are always a part apart. They never assimilate and become like the people around them - their beliefs, customs, behaviours, mentality and morality always set them apart from the European world.
That was a by the by, by the way, and not onto the main post.
They hate us, they really hate us: class warfare
Reuters blog article, this is what general George Casey, who last served as the 36th Chief of Staff of the United States Army from April 10, 2007 to April 11, 2011, has said after the Fort Hood mass murder of Americans by a moslem in their midst(actual quote, this is what he said):
“Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse,” Casey said.Think on a minute on this situation.
Here we have a shocking situation of an enemy within who was shooting men, his "buddies" from five minutes ago, his "friends" for years, who was shouting "Allahu akbar!" while doing it.
The army, in any sane modern country (twas slightly different in the Middle Ages, and back) has one main function: to protect the people of the country.
To keep the citizens of their country safe.
To protect US, against THEM (whoever they happen to be, Soviets, jews, moslems, Tongans).
And here we have the number one army guy saying to the TV cameras, to the nation and to the world, that no, the American army does not aim to protect the people of this country, hell - they do not even want to protect themselves.
Multiculturalism trumps protecting the army itself, much less the citizens of America.
Tony Blair, Peter Hitchens
Former adviser to the UK's Labour Party, Andrew Neather, came out and said it:
The huge increases in migrants [in the UK - Americangoy] over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
In case the full impact does not hit you, re-read the quote from the Telegraph newspaper.As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.
Andrew Neather was a spechwriter and advisor to Tony Blair, the prime minister at the time of the UK's multiculturalist catastrophe (ongoing).
Daily Mail (yes, I know):
Andrew Neather, who worked for Mr Straw when he was Home Secretary, and as a speech writer for Mr Blair, claimed a secret Government report in 2000 called for mass immigration to change Britain's cultural make-up forever.
It also emerged that:
Mr Neather said there was a 'driving political purpose' behind Labour's decision to allow in hundreds of thousands of migrants to plug gaps in the labour market.
- Home Office Minister Barbara Roche, who pioneered the open-door policy, wanted to restore her Labour reputation after being attacked by Left-wingers for condemning begging by immigrants as 'vile'.
- Civil servant Jonathan Portes, who wrote the immigration report, was a speechwriter for Gordon Brown and is now a senior aide to Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell.
- Labour chiefs decided to brand Tory leaders William Hague and Michael Howard as racists to deter them from criticising the covert initiative.
He said the stance was foreshadowed by a report by Mr Blair's Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) think-tank, which said the nation would benefit from more migrants.
Mr Neather claimed that earlier, unpublished versions of the report made clear that one aim was to make Britain more multi-cultural for political reasons.
'I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date,' he said.And of course, the view from the enemy, the Guardian UK newspaper:
A former Labour adviser at the centre of claims that the government secretly encouraged mass immigration to turn Britain into a "truly multicultural society" and undermine the Tories today made clear "there was no such plot".
The shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, challenged ministers in the Commons today over remarks by Andrew Neather, a former speechwriter to Tony Blair and special adviser to Barbara Roche when she was immigration minister.
But Neather, now comment editor of the London Evening Standard, said an article he wrote in the aftermath of the television appearance of the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, had been twisted out of all recognition.
"There was no plot," said Neather. He pinpointed a shift in immigration policy in 2001, when he wrote a speech for Roche outlining changes to make it easier for skilled workers to come to the UK. The speech followed a sensitive report on migration from the Downing Street performance and innovation unit.
"Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when – hard as it is to imagine now – the booming economy was running up against skills shortages," Neather wrote in the Standard.
He admitted he had a sense from several discussions at the time that there was a subsidiary purpose of boosting diversity and undermining the right's opposition to multiculturalism, but Neather insisted it was not the main point at issue.
Now, lets focus on the text I bolded for you; text from multiple sources (Telegraph - right wing and Guardian - left wing newspapers and the Daily Mail rag).
Telegraph has said that there was a plot to make Britain less British, but that the ministers at the secret, closed doors Labour party meeting were reluctant to broach the subject because they were sure it wouldn't go so well with their constituency, which is the working class people.
Labour (labor in America) means working class, the proletariat, the rubes, the losers who wake up every morning, pay their dues and taxes on time and obey the laws.
You know - the losers, the idiots - like us.
Now the Labour party had decided to import massive immigration into the country, wholesale, effectively replacing their"constituency", the people who vote for them, and firing them from their jobs, to keep the economy pumping and their rich donors happy.
Not quite hate from the elites towards their lessers, us, the proles, the proletariat, the ACTUAL labour class which keeps society alive, but lets keep stuff from the children, from the lesser beings, lets keep it hush hush, because they wouldn't understand our grand plan and "fantastic" strategy.
Daily Mail's bolded text shows the disdain and hate towards patriots (so old fashioned, I know) and people who disagreed (ever so mildly) with massive waves of immigrants from the Congo, Pakistan, India, Congo, the Maghreb, Bangladesh, Eastern Europe (including everybody's favorite tribe - not, not jews, the gypsies).
It was a chance for the paladins of "correct thinking" to "rub the Right's nose in diversity", which is also quoted by the Telegraph.
Anybody who disagreed with this insanity was set upon like a pack of wolves sets upon a deer. This resulted in the "guilty", such as Home Office Minister Barbara Roche, having to do penance and to be extra "double plus good" in the implementation of the UK's national death plan.
The Guardian, of course, spins it.
There was no plot - there was a need, an urgent need, for workers to get into Britain, because, apparently, that was a need.
Similar arguments are made even today in my beloved Yoo Ess of Ey, even with its 15% to 25% unemployment and those forced to work part time (no benefits and minimum wage for you - how's that rubbing their noses in multiculturalism!)
Because, you see, there are such jobs that Americans simply won't do - for example, in my beloved IT, Americans do not want to be programmers, consultants, designers - that is why we need hordes of H1B visa indians, more and more, because there is a shortage of people who want to work for 1/3 of what they should be paid, you see, so that instead of paying an American (racist and bigot!) IT person US$40,000 to $150,000, the powers that be can pay $US30,000 or less.
Because those $100,000 jobs are those that Americans simply just don't want to do, natch.
Same with mexicans in Construction jobs, Eastern European plumbers and babysitters.
Americans apparently don't want to work - they prefer to starve and be unable to pay for their medicines...
And now for hitchens.
Hitchens blog post one:
This article on the census was also published in the Mail on Sunday of 16th December.
The future will be another country. They will do things differently there. The Census is not just a description of the state of things on a day in 2011, it is a prophetic document telling us where we are going, whether we like it or not. I don’t.
For the last 60 years or so, we have lived in a nation that was more or less familiar to anyone who had grown up in the pre-war Britain of 1939. Even the devastation of conflict had not transformed it out of recognition.
People behaved, thought, worked, laughed and enjoyed themselves much as they had done for decades. They lived in the same sorts of families in the same kind of houses. Their children went to the same kinds of schools.
And they had grown up in a land which was still identifiably the same as their grandparents had known. And so it went back for centuries. As recently as 1949, the prices of most goods were roughly the same, and expressed in the same money, as the prices of 1649.
A short-distance time-traveller between 1912 and 2012 might be perplexed and astonished, but he would not be lost.
That period is now coming to an end. I suspect that anyone in Britain, travelling between 2012 and 2112 would be unable to believe that he was in the same place.
What is the most significant single fact in the Census? I do not think there is one. Several are shocking or disturbing, if you are not fond of change, and delightful if you are. But there are some, which taken together, prophesy a transformation to come.
Look at these – manufacturing is now only the fourth biggest employer, after supplying and selling goods and services, health and social work and education. So, in the nation that was once the ‘Workshop of the World’, we now have more teachers than industrial workers.
London is rapidly becoming a separate nation, as different from England as Scotland or Wales are, with indigenous British people now in a minority, in some areas a very small minority indeed, and incidentally with extremes of wealth and poverty not known since Edwardian times.
Then of course there are the decline in Christianity, down by four million, from 72% to 59% ; the growth in indifference to religion, with non-believers almost doubling to 14.1 million; and also of Islam, rising so fast that one British resident in 20 is now a Muslim. The Muslim population is young, and keen on large families, while the Christian population tends to be older and less likely to have children. This is very much a work in progress, far from complete. A lot of nominal Christians are no longer bothering to pretend to a faith they have never cared much about.
Do not be surprised if, in 10 years, the gap between the number of professing Christians and the number of Muslims has grown much smaller.
The secularists, who have so enthusiastically sought to drive Christianity out of British life, may realise with a gulp of apprehension that they have only created a vacancy for Islam – a faith which is not at all troubled by Richard Dawkins.
Perhaps most significant of all is the accelerating disappearance of marriage as the normal state of life for grown-up people. For the first time, fewer than half of adults are married. This means many things – a greater number of fatherless households, a greater number of cohabiting couples, the rapid disappearance of what was once a strong social force.I know - a long read.
Since the stable married family is a fortress of private life and individuality, its retreat will mean the opposite of that - more state interference and surveillance, more conformism – and more conformists - and mass culture.
Its main effect will be on the children. Many of them will grow up outside what used to be normal, a lifelong two-parent home. They will, as a result, be different sorts of people. Already, half of Britain’s 15-year-olds do not live with their ‘birth parents’. 300,000 sets of parents split each year.
I cannot believe this is not part of the reason for the so-called ‘riots’ of 2011, in which young men brought up without male authority ran wild. These were equal-opportunity events, and their causes were home-grown, not imported. This will get much, much worse.
Again, conservatives will find this worrying and ill-omened. Liberal ‘progressives’, who have never had much time for the married family, seeing it as a sort of prison, will view it as a liberation. Edmund Leach, giving his influential Reith lectures in 1967, put it this way ‘Far from being the basis of the good society, the family with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all our discontents’.
hitchens is lamenting the Britain he remembers - White people, living their boring lives in their own country, which they have lived in since the Roman times (if not before - the elite, of course, was Norman, and now jewish led - more on that in a jiffy).
But now compare the giant political fuss over same-sex marriage with the numbers of people affected. See just what a tiny proportion of the country is involved. While the decline of conventional marriage involves many millions, there are 105,000 people in civil partnerships, one fifth of one per cent of the population, one person in 500. And that is seven years after they first became availableGood point, hitch.
So that one can assume that there is something else at play here. Issues which affect the tiniest minorites (in this case, sexual deviancy - nothing wrong with that, feel free to do whatever you want in the comfort of your own dwelling) are blown out of proportion, while the needs of the majority who work and keep the system going are ignored and lambasted.
It sounds like a plot, actually, although, there was no plot, of course, nothing was hidden, only the citizens of the UK were not informed of the then secret conclusions to the still secret meeting of top Labour bosses, "for their own good", because importing hordes of 3rd world migrants to take over their jobs (dey took our jerbs - so funny, when written by a left leaning reddit barrista making $6 an hour while paying for his $100,000 student debt).
But a plot - a conspiracy - naaaaaw!
And while at it, rubbing the noses of "the Right" was a very good side effect indeed.
Forcing all those bigots and racists to live amidst the tribal population of Pakistan and the Congo - of course, we, the liberal elite, live in gated communities, with armed guards, and our children go to private all White schools, but that is beside the point...
The point is, we, your betters, can look down on you, the racists, the bigots, the people who vote Labour - because we are the elite.
hitch proves this point in his blog post number dos:
When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible.
It wasn't because we liked immigrants, but because we didn't like Britain. We saw immigrants - from anywhere - as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.
Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people - usually in the poorest parts of Britain - who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly 'vibrant communities'.
If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.
Revolutionary students didn't come from such 'vibrant' areas (we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of London).
We might live in 'vibrant' places for a few (usually squalid) years, amid unmown lawns and overflowing dustbins.
But we did so as irresponsible, childless transients - not as homeowners, or as parents of school-age children, or as old people hoping for a bit of serenity at the ends of their lives.
When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as 'racists'.
To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as 'racist'.
hitchens, of course, was and is a jew.
Every student of history should read and learn about the jews, as they are the force which many, many times in the past have acted as agents of revolutionary changes to societies.
Wikipedia article, of course, does not actually state that hitchens is a jew - his biographical article just happens to be placed in the category of "British people of Jewish descent" at the end of the page, but nary a peep in the article itself.
Jews, in case you are not a student of history, NEVER assimilate into any society, from ancient times to the present - in Pharaoh's Egypt, in Babylonia, in Judea, in Napoleon's France, in present day Empire of the Yoo Ess of Ey.
Napoleon, being a forthright and direct fellow (PC was unknown at the time), had a meeting with 111 rabbis and asked them some pointed questions - because, you see, Napoleon was FRENCH, while the jews WEREN'T. And so he wanted to make their position vis a vis his state known to him.
The questions he asked the rebbes were:
- Is it lawful for Jews to have more than one wife?
- Is divorce allowed by the Jewish religion? Is divorce valid, although pronounced not by courts of justice but by virtue of laws in contradiction to the French code?
- May a Jewess marry a Christian, or [May] a Jew [marry] a Christian woman? or does Jewish law order that the Jews should only intermarry among themselves?
- In the eyes of Jews are Frenchmen not of the Jewish religion considered as brethren or as strangers?
- What conduct does Jewish law prescribe toward Frenchmen not of the Jewish religion?
- Do the Jews born in France, and treated by the law as French citizens, acknowledge France as their country? Are they bound to defend it? Are they bound to obey the laws and follow the directions of the civil code?
- Who elects the rabbis?
- What kind of police jurisdiction do the rabbis exercise over the Jews? What judicial power do they exercise over them?
- Are the police jurisdiction of the rabbis and the forms of the election regulated by Jewish law, or are they only sanctioned by custom?
- Are there professions from which the Jews are excluded by their law?
- Does Jewish law forbid the Jews to take usury from their brethren?
- Does it forbid, or does it allow, usury in dealings with strangers?
As a ruler, he was asking the jews whether they considered themselves his subjects and s subjects to the state they were in, and as a minority which has never assimilated, ever, in history (Post reconquista and General Franco era Spanish jews stayed jews - although in secret - no assimilation there!).
Now, of course, one cannot ask such questions: How do jews view other Americans? Are jews bound to the destiny of this country? Who elects the rabbis?
The last one you will find the answer in my Bible Stories posts, of which the upcoming "Jesus' and other rebellions" will soon (hah! soonish!) be posted.
I will urge you now to use this wonderful tool, the internet, and research the answers to these questions that Napoleon asked on your own.
Or listen to what hitchens, the jew, says:
And I have spent a great deal of time in the parts of Britain where the revolutionary unintelligentsia don't go.The answers to Napoleon's questions are right there, given by hitchens.
Such people seldom, if ever, visit their own country.
Their orbits are in fashionable London zones, and holiday destinations.
They are better acquainted with the Apennines of Italy than with the Pennines of their own country.
But, unlike me, most of the Sixties generation still hold the views I used to hold and - with the recent, honourable exception of David Goodhart, the Left-wing journalist turned Think Tank boss who recognises he was wrong - they will not change.
The worst part of this is the deep, deep hypocrisy of it.
Even back in my Trotskyist days I had begun to notice that many of the migrants from Asia were in fact not our allies.
They were deeply, unshakably religious.
They were socially conservative.
Their attitudes towards girls and women were, in many cases, close to medieval.
Many of them were horribly hostile to Jews, in a way which we would have condemned fiercely if anyone else had expressed it, but which we somehow managed to forgive and forget in their case.
We have recently seen this in the distressing and embarrassing episode of Lord Ahmed's outburst against a phantom Jewish conspiracy.
No, the jews may be citizens of the UK, of America, of Iran, but they are NOT Americans, British nor Iranians.
They are a caste apart - your betters, in fact.
hitch only laments the fact of the complete and utter destruction of Britain now, after he has done his yeoman's work in said destruction, and of course he points out that the moslems are not exactly friendly to jews nor modernity.
But you see, that did not matter then and it does not matter NOW - the effect of destruction "stale", "right wing", "racist" society is THE goal. moslems, blacks, mexicans, are just unwitting tools of the trade.
The lower caste - the Whites who used to be working middle class, fighting for scraps with the third world hordes are too busy to notice those at the top, sneering at them, hating them, laughing at them, in their gated communities and their private, exclusive schools, shops, pedophile sex clubs.
And why are jews always (ALWAYS, without fail) at the forefront of any revolutionary (meaning society changing) activity?
The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: And Its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones on Amazon is one clue.
Another is my discussions with my (Polish) family, who saw jewish kids welcoming the Red Army with a clenched fist communist salute when the Soviets invaded Poland and then the (all grown up) kids getting ALL the posts in the Urzad Bezpieczenstwa (UB - communist Poland's NKVD) and unleashing the terror.
Wikipedia on the UB: a staggering 37% of the directors of the organ of the repression were jewish.
And that's the directors - if a goy was a frontperson, you can be sure that the "chosen" people were right behind.
Consider - again from the Wiki link- the squad of the UB bosses in 1944-1945.
The bolded names are jews.
- Minister of Public Security – Gen. Stanisław Radkiewicz (1944/54)
- Deputy – Gen. Mieczysław Mietkowski (b. Moshe Bobrowicki, 1944/54)
- Deputy – Col. Konrad Świetlik (1948/54)
- Deputy – Wacław Lewikowski (1949/52)
- Deputy – Gen. Roman Romkowski (b. Natan Grünspau, 1946/49)
- Deputy – Gen. Mieczysław Moczar (b. Diemko Moczar, 1948)
- Department I – Counter-intelligence – headed by col. Stefan Antosiewicz (1944-48/54)
- Department II – Operative Technology and records – headed by col. Leon (Leiba) Rubinstein (1947-49/51)
- Department III – Fighting bandits – headed by col. Józef Czaplicki (b. Izydor Kurc, 1950/53)
- Department IV – Protection of economy – headed by col. Józef Kratko
- Department V – Religious political and social organizations – headed by col. Julia Brystiger (1954)
- Department VI – Prisons – headed by col. Stanisław Pizło (1946-47/51)
- Department VII – Intelligence – headed by col. Witold (Lewin) Sieniewicz (1950/54)
- Department of Investigations – headed by col. Józef Różański (b. Josek Goldberg, 1945/47)
- Department for Training – headed by mjr. Zdzisław Szymczak (1945-48/53)
- Department of Staff – headed by col. Mikołaj Orechwa (1944/54)
- Department for Government Protection – headed by col. Faustym Grzybowski
- Department of Transport – headed by col. Czesław Radzicki
- Department of Communications – headed by col. Feliks Suczek
- Special Bureau – headed by col. Anatol Fejgin (1950/53)
- Bureau for control – deputies: Joachim Getzel (1949), Jefim Artymowicz (1952/54)
- Bureau of foreign passports – headed by lt. col. Władyslaw (Spychaj) Sobczyński
- Bureau of Budget and Finances – headed by lt./lt. col. Szymon Ela Tenenbaum
- Bureau A (Observation of suspicious element)
- Bureau B (Central archives) – headed by col. Zygmunt Okręt (b. Izrael Nachemiasz)
There are stories of the jewish communist gestapo - the UB - which are hair raising.
They run concentration camps, and of course once caught they escaped to israel (peruse the story of Salomon Morel).
Please note that while I have bolded the obvious jewish names, there were many who had polish names (that is another tactic - once in a country, typical jewish names are changed, so that a Goldenstein becomes a Mr. Gold, to blend in and to appear assimilated).
Lt. Col. Helena Wolińska-Brus (1919 – 26 November 2008), born Fajga Mindla Danielak, was a military prosecutor in Poland with the rank of lieutenant-colonel (podpułkownik), involved in Stalinist regime show trials of the 1950s. She has been implicated in the arrest and execution of many Polish anti-Nazi resistance fighters including key figures in Poland's Home Army. From 1999 to 2008, Poland sought the extradition of Wolińska from the United Kingdom to stand trial in Poland. The official charges against her were initiated by the Commission for Investigating Crimes against the Polish Nation.
Wolińska was accused of being an "accessory to a court murder," classified as a Stalinist crime and a crime of genocide, which is punishable by up to ten years in prison. Among other alleged crimes, she organised the unlawful arrest, investigation and trial of, Poland's wartime general Emil August Fieldorf, a legendary commander of the underground Polish Home Army during World War II. Emil August Fieldorf was executed on 24 February 1953 and his family were never shown the body.
Communist authorities concluded in a 1956 report already that Wolińska had violated the rule of law by her involvement in biased investigations and staged questionable trials that frequently resulted in executions.The purpose of the show in 1945-1950's Poland trials was to catch the pro Western (actually pro Freedom) partisans and politicians and to show the nation in newsreels the "enemies of the people" hanging their heads in shame and apologizing for their "crimes".
This jewish woman went beyond that apparently - as even the then communist authorities were aghast at what she was doing.
jews enthusiastically supported early communism - they, again in history - have acted as agents of revolutionary change. The goal was all, and, just like for hitchens and his trockyist, marxist friends, the methods were chosen to destroy society.
But always on top, always the bosses, always the elite, looking disdainfully at the labour, goyim, prole masses below them in society.
Then - it was as part of the NKVD, or UB, torturing and shooting people.
Now - it is as those who argue for "equality" (meaning you work and pay for people who do not have to work), for political correctness that enforces newspaper editors to substitute the words "blacks riot" to "youths wildings" or even "disaffected youth".
In a stable society, without jews, there is order, discipline, norms, forms and laws to be obeyed, explicit but especially implicit laws to follow - not because we HAVE to, but because we WANT to - because some things are right and correct, and some (being on welfare your whole life not because of disability but because of your privileged status as a minority, racial quotes in work places, universities, etc etc) are NOT.
Now, enter the infiltrating jews, the agents of change, the revolutionaries - whether followers of Levites, Cohens or jesus, be they subjects of Hammurabi, Napoleon, Stalin or Obama (just kidding on the last one).
They want a society where they make enough chaos, enough insecurity that the old edifices crumble, there is no order only disorder, new alliances are made with the groups on the bottom and then at the top, until finally, they become the top or close enough to it (Sarkozy, Helena Wolińska-Brus, Genrikh Yagoda).
Any monkey can do that
A friend, many years ago, told me a story about a company wide meeting, with all the bosses on the podium, with their quarterly profits and market strategizing speeches being given to both the live audience (of which my friend was a part of) and the worldwide contingents, listening in on their office phones.
My friend wasn't paying too much attention, sitting in the IT and engineering section ghetto (quite apart from the cool kids popular crowd of human resources young ladies and middle management section - you know, the people who do not work), but something happened.
The CEO was flabbergasted that an IT person (probably a White one!) has asked him about a raise for the IT folks. The CEO (according to my friend) became flustered, red faced, and sneeringly answered (paraphrasing):
"The real work is in high level organization and leadership - this is what makes or brakes a company! Now, computer work, all this coding - anybody could do that, any monkey could do that!".
And then went on with the rest of the meeting.
The "monkey" visibly upset my friend, because at the time he was (and he still is) Black Man (note - not a nigger).
Much better at the top, but also fine near it
It is much better at the top than at the bottom, and, once that position is reached, perks, services, and attitudes of people around you change.
Of course it is better to be rich than a poor, 8-8 working drone.
Jews, as the new kids on the block, as infiltrators, since they do not assimilate they work TOGETHER to change society so that they can be on the top, or at least as close to it as possible.
This has always happened in history, and there are many instances of this situation.
Viewing themselves as apart from the people they lived amongst, as separate yet better (the whole "chosen" angle explained in my Bible Stories posts), they positioned themselves as the overseers for the very top, the elites.
Being small in number, but very supportive of their own, it would look a bit askew if people in a given society realized that so many jews are in positions that are giving orders and directions to people who are not jews - the people whose country it is.
This is awkward, and there are specific historical lessons for jews to follow.
Comparison: Berlin and Arenda
The Arenda system
ARENDA, Polish term designating the lease of fixed assets or of prerogatives, such as land, mills, inns, breweries, distilleries, or of special rights, such as the collection of customs duties and taxes. The term was adopted with the same meaning in Hebrew and Yiddish from the 16th century (with the lessee, in particular the small-scale lessee, being called the arenda). The arenda system was widespread in the economy of *Poland-Lithuania from the late Middle Ages.
The first leases to be held by Jews were of royal revenues and functions: the mint, salt mines, customs, and tax farming. Large-scale operations of this type were conducted by the Jews *Lewko (14th century) and Volchko (15th century). The number of Jewish lessees of central and regional customs duties and of salt mines increased in the 15th century, especially in the eastern districts. Often the same persons leased both the customs and the mines. In western Poland the nobility, possessing more capital, prevented Jews from leasing royal revenues, this being a highly lucrative activity. As the power of the nobility increased during the 16th and 17th centuries, they tried to obtain a monopoly on leasing the royal prerogatives. In 1538 the Polish Sejm (Diet) prohibited the lease of royal revenues to Jews. From fear of retaliation by the nobility, the Jewish autonomous body, the *Council of Four Lands, in 1580 forbade Jews to lease the great arenda. However, none of these enactments succeeded in eliminating Jewish enterprise completely from this sphere. Even where the nobility monopolized the lease of the royal prerogatives, there remained a broad field for Jewish enterprise and capital in the lease of revenues and functions from towns and private townships. These revenues were taxes on products and services, especially flour milling, potash and pitch, fish ponds, and alcoholic beverages (both production and sale); but sometimes the lease of whole estates was involved. All these types of lease were linked with the agricultural arenda (see below). Until the middle of the 16th century, Jews were among the chief lessees of the customs in the stations in Lithuania and White Russia. Some moved there from Poland for this purpose. In 1569 the Lithuanian Sejm accorded the nobility the monopoly on leases in Lithuania, which also included Belorussia and the Ukraine. The economic consequences of this prohibition would have been disastrous for Lithuanian Jewry, which felt strong enough to defy it openly. The Va'ad Medinat Lita (Lithuanian Council) therefore twice passed a resolution supporting the lease of customs and taxes by Jews, stating: "We have openly seen the great danger deriving from the operation of customs in Gentile hands; for the customs to be in Jewish hands is a pivot on which everything (in commerce) turns, since thereby Jews may exert control" (S. Dubnow, Pinkas… Lita (1925), 29, no. 123). In Lithuania, Jews openly held concessions for the great arenda, with the exception of the mint, until late in the 17th century.
jews as overseers, with the people - in this case Poles and Lithuanians and Ukrainians - as serfs, as slaves, on their own land, in their own country.In the 16th and 17th centuries the Jews in Red Russia also occupied a not insignificant place in the lease of customs, salt mines, taxes from drinks, etc. The lessees of these large economic undertakings often contracted them out to sublessees, mainly to Jews, as well. That Jews actually operated customs stations is attested by customs registers of 1580, written in mixed Hebrew and Yiddish, even where and when the prohibition on Jewish customs leasing formally remained in force. Jewish expertise and financial ability in this field were in demand. Jews are later found as silent partners of the nominal Christian lessees, often Armenians.
So, all this gobleddygood aside, how did it work?
By leasing lands and concessions the magnate could reduce short term financial risk while obtaining a fixed income. More information on the enterprises included in arendas is provided in Section 4. The magnate was protected where potential income from the lease was underestimated and sold for too low a price by providing only short term leases. Leases often did not exceed three years and in some cases were only one year long.
When the lease expired the magnate could then obtain a higher price on the next contract or seek another arendar for the lease. It was said that some Jewish arendars paid bribes to representatives of the magnate to avoid paying a higher price for the next lease. Arendars stuck with leases that produced less than the expected income, would try to obtain discounts on the next lease. Depending on the particular magnate, a discount might be taken or the arendar was forced to continue under the same terms.
One of the functions of the Kehila/Kahal was to prevent Jews from competing with each other for arendas and thus raising the price of an arenda. A Jew failing to adhere to Kahal laws could be excommunicated from the Jewish community. These short term leases and other controls put considerable pressure on the Jewish arendar to produce sufficient income to please the magnate as well as provide the Jew with a suitable profit.And key point:
It is believed that there were no more than 10 to 20 families in each generation who were of this aristocratic magnate class. Due to generally weak central Polish government, magnates held considerable power in determining the course the country would take in civil, military, and financial matters.
The magnate held absolute authority over his latifundium. The magnate was the legislature, the judiciary, commander of his military, the governing body, and executioner when needed. The magnate was a tough one to do business with, yet Jewish arendars flourished.
The magnate owed certain obligations to his arendars; such as, providing soldiers to keep out those who would violate the arendar’s monopolies and enforcing workloads on serfs.
Because it was just good business economics, the magnate did whatever he could to protect his Jews during times of wars from without or revolts from within.
The Jews made a profit for the magnate, as well as themselves.Life was good near the top.
Dirty Little Secrets Of WWII:
- Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding WW2 was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949) quotes him as saying "Chamberlain (the British Prime Minister) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war". (The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952 p129).
- Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America he says "Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish handswhen bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike campsPresident Roosevelt has been given the power.. to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for." (Fuller, JFC: The Decisive Battles of the Western World vol 3 pp 372-374.)
- Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany 'understandable'. This was because before the advent of the Nazis, "the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jewsamong the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jewsthe leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred." (Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars, Longmans 1941, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder 1976).
- Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin 'said further that the hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis, which was what Hitler thought himself' (Taylor, AJP: The Origins of the Second World War Penguin 1965, 1987 etc p 324).
- Is all of this merely attributable to terrible 'anti-semitism'?
- The economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding, before casting judgement on the originators of these viewpoints.
- At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p24 and H NicholsonPeacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact that 'Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.' (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)).
- As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class (Koestler The God that Failed p 28), reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero.
- According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):
- 'It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities.. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions. The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one percent of the population.
- The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.. Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the 'Aryans' who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed and lavishly displayed by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle."
- Goodness gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed?
- Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question") essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, 'Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.' But she adds 'Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service.. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses.. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their "race".. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..' etc etc.
- Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing. 'Ullstein's was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper.. Apart from these, Ullstein's published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein - they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.' (The God that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31).
- Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called Germany Puts the Clock Back (published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes 'In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.. A telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the state.. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.'
- Mowrer says 'No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed.. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood..' (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds 'Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts) were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews.. among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.' (pp. 144-5).
- Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: 'I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word "Jew", in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it. Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.' (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed's bookDisgrace Abounding of the following year he notes 'In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers.. The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it.. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish' (pp238-9).
- The Jewish writer Edwin Black notes 'For example, in Berlin alone, about 75% of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.' (Black,The Transfer Agreement (1984) p58.
- To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on Germany on August 6 1933. (Edwin Black The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984) pp272-277) According to Black, 'The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer.' (p 369). This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations. The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline Judea Declares War on Germany. The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel (Hannah ArendtEichmann in Jerusalem p 7).
- Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia's population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):
- 'It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx.. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.
- 'To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews.. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.' Other authors agree with this:
- "There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1.. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.. It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists.. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation." (Sarah Gordon Hitler, Germans and the 'Jewish Question' Princeton University Press (1984) p 23).
- "The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in 'nice society', and 'nice society' included the universities." (Martin Bernal, Black Athenavol. 1 pp. 367, 387).
- "The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler's) anti-Semitic beliefs." (J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).
Same modus operandi - chaos and destabilization is good for the very effective, very tightly knit, supporting each other, SMART and motivated minority to profit. And since the world view is always us versus them, god's chosen people versus the goyim, the cattle, there are very few morals, hangups or pondering on the good versus evil - rather, "Is it good for the jews" is the question.
Have you read the article carefully?
All sourced, eye witness accounts living there.
What has struck me most was this:
They [the jews - Americangoy] did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.
And more of Sir Arthur:
The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.
Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the 'Aryans' who exercised racial discrimination.
It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed and lavishly displayed by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe.The jews overreached themselves in Berlin and Germany pre hitler, in the 1920's and 1930's.
They became noticeable as a minority which acted together, for the betterment of themselves at the expense of people whose land it was (in this case, the Germans).
How successful were they?
Princeton University Press, Sarah Gordon's "Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question"
'Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.' But she adds 'Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service.
They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses..
Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their "race".
At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..'Very.
Infuriatingly so to the ordinary Germans, who were forced to burn their worthless paper money to keep warm and resort to bartering and cowtowing in a jewish owned bank to people who sneered at them.
Hence why hitler and his anti-jewish policies were widely popular.
And before anyone here makes a claim "Well, old chap, it was free market, jews were better at it than the lazy, pathetic germans", please keep in mind that this is Germans we are talking about, with their ordnung and hard work ethic and no bullshit speaking from employees to the bosses.
Where society organized itself for its betterment, factory unions work with managers and owners toward common goal.
Germans, who are the Europe's producers, exporters, even in the era of cheap Chinese products biblical flooding of the world.
Talk to any European, but lazy and "not good at business" is not something you will hear from them - whether they like them or not.
And these people were infiltrated and made slaves in their own country - a remarkable achievement.
I was going to write the final section, comparing America to 1920's Germany and the then pinnacle of judaic power of a country, but you have eyes, you have the internet, you are not stupid...
The only difference is, the biggest lesson learned by jews - after destabilizing a society and getting close to or to the top, steps must be taken to KEEP a society unstable, in flux, with norms, laws, mores, ethics are changing, all in flux, all in chaos - otherwise, like the Germans, people would start to notice certain patterns, and start to see the forest and not just the individual trees...
And so, multiculturalism - many races, many peoples, scrambling for scraps at the bottom, while all discussion about this state of affairs is forbidden in the official media and in your workplace, union shop...
When did America die?
When NAFTA passed?
When New Deal passed and Rossevelt conspired to get America into the war?
Perhaps it is now, the last gasp, as the unions who supposedly represent their members gave their full support to mexican amnesty...
Or perhaps it was a plot from the very beginning - after all, it was Freemasons who wrote "all men are created equal", and who organized the proles, the rubes to fight for THEIR lower taxes from English Crown...