RSS
The last article described the ascendancy of the Rothschilds and the Anglo-Jewish elite, their intercession efforts for Jews worldwide, their support for the Ottoman Empire and condemnation of Russia, and the profligacy of their friend Edward VII. Here we will examine the relationship between debt, warmongering and Judeophilia exhibited by three politicians of consequence, Disraeli, Randolph Churchill and Winston Churchill, whose collective legacy was to establish ‘one nation’ thinking as the default mode of the Conservative Party.
‘One nation’ was Disraeli’s phrase. ‘Tory democracy’ was Lord Randolph’s, and it referred to the co-optation of social democracy into the Tory scheme: maintaining formal property rights but implementing regulations and welfare measures, to win the support of the ‘low’ for the ‘high’ against the ‘middle’ to maintain the hierarchy. The free market, which largely obtained in Britain in the 19th century, is fertile for driven upcomers and threatening to those of hereditary wealth and status, and the latter react by enticing a section of the poor to support them, usually by claiming to alleviate their destitution while casting a mirage of patriotism. The cost is seen as worthwhile, as power is more important than money; the producing of money can anyway be assigned mostly to the unborn. Noblesse oblige has always served as a pretext for the conservation of power.
It is illuminating to contrast Disraeli and the Churchills with their opposites in these matters: Gladstone, the 15th Earl of Derby, and Neville Chamberlain. Disraeli, made Earl of Beaconsfield in 1876, tried to have Britain enter the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 on the Turkish side. Lord Derby, the Foreign Secretary, steadfastly objected on grounds that included the effect on British state finances, which Disraeli appears to have disregarded. As John Charmley says, “Derby thought that Disraeli’s acuteness in seeing ‘what is most convenient for the moment’ was combined with ‘apparent indifference to what is to come of it in the long run.’ … The idea that he might compromise the ‘future of the country by reckless finance’ was, like ‘distant results of any kind’, foreign to Disraeli’s way of thinking.â€[5]Splendid Isolation? Britain, the Balance of Power and the Origins of the First World War, John Charmley, chapter 6. Disraeli, like Edward VII and the Churchills, was a beneficiary of Rothschild favours from a young age, the point being not that that family swayed him, but that a habitual borrower is unsuitable to be an executive of anything that has a budget.
Allying against the middle classes applied in foreign policy, not only ‘social’ matters. “From the days of his early political novels through to the Reform Act triumph of 1867, Disraeli had liked to make rhetorical play with the notion of an alliance between the upper classes and the lower orders, and he did so now in late June [1877], pointing out to his colleagues that they ‘were united against Russia’. Derby’s contending view, that the ‘middle classes would always be against a war’, was dismissed by Disraeli with the comment that ‘fortunately the middle classes did not now govern’. … Derby recalled ‘many instances in which the majority of our class wished to interfere in European quarrels but no instance in which the nation agreed with them’. He did not ‘believe the majority of the public wants war with Russia, so long as it is honourably possible to keep out of one’. Here, side by side, were the old Tory tradition and the lineaments of what would supplant it. Disraeli was a ‘social imperialist’ long before anyone had invented the phrase.â€[6]Splendid Isolation, Charmley, chapter 3. In chapter 11 Charmley defines ‘social imperialism’ as “an attempt to distract the electorate from trouble at home by a bold imperial policyâ€. Charmley adds that “As one contemporary commentator noted, ‘Disraeli-Toryism’… represented an ‘alliance between “societyâ€, the music-halls and Lord Beaconsfield’.â€[7]ibid., chapter 9
(Splendid Isolation, Charmley, chapter 3. In chapter 11 Charmley defines ‘social imperialism’ as “an attempt to distract the electorate from trouble at home by a bold imperial policyâ€.) ‘Jingoism’ comes from a song promoted in music halls in support of Disraeli and the Ottomans.
Disraeli was excited at the prospect of war. After he gained the upper hand in the Cabinet, “Derby found Disraeli ‘excited and inclined to swagger’, when he saw him on 11 February [1878]; he was ‘saying war was unavoidable’ and that although it would last ‘three years it would be a glorious and successful war for England’. Derby was ‘disgusted with his reckless way of talking, and evident enjoyment of an exciting episode in history, with which his name was to be joined’; this was the antithesis of Conservative statesmanship.â€[8]ibid., chapter 8
(Splendid Isolation, Charmley, chapter 3. In chapter 11 Charmley defines ‘social imperialism’ as “an attempt to distract the electorate from trouble at home by a bold imperial policyâ€.) This is strikingly reminiscent of Winston Churchill. When war with Germany nearly came in the summer of 1911, Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary, was impressed that while most ministers were away from Westminster, Churchill, “…not tied to London by official work, kept me company for love of the crisis. … his high-mettled spirit was exhilarated by the air of crisis and high events.â€[9]Asquith – Portrait of a Man and an Era, Roy Jenkins, chapter 16 According to Roy Jenkins, in 1914, “Amid the gathering storm, Churchill was a consistent force for intervention and ultimately for war.â€[10]Churchill, Jenkins, p239 So was Lloyd George. “At 11 pm, August 4, as the ultimatum expired and the moment came when Britain was at war, a tearful Margot Asquith left her husband to go to bed, and as she began to ascend the stairs, ‘I saw Winston Churchill with a happy face striding towards the double doors of the Cabinet room.’â€[11]Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, Patrick Buchanan, chapter 2, quoting Asquith, Jenkins, chapter entitled “The Plunge to War – 1914†Churchill dreaded the thought of any end to the fighting. “On September 14, [Herbert] Asquith wrote to Venetia Stanley, ‘I am almost inclined to shiver, when I hear Winston say that the last thing he would pray for is Peace.’â€[12]Unnecessary War, Buchanan, chapter 2 His exultation did not abate after the first battle of Ypres, when he told Asquith’s daughter Violet “I think a curse should rest on me because I am so happy. I know this war is smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment and yet — I cannot help it — I enjoy every second.â€[13]ibid., chapter 2
(Unnecessary War, Buchanan, chapter 2) In January 1915: “Churchill, according to Margot Asquith’s diary account, waxed ecstatic about the war and his historic role in it: ‘My God! This is living History. Everything we are doing and saying is thrilling — it will be read by a thousand generations, think of that! Why I would not be out of this glorious delicious war for anything the world could give me (eyes glowing but with a slight anxiety lest the word “delicious†should jar on me).’â€[14]ibid. chapter 2
(Unnecessary War, Buchanan, chapter 2)
Winston was a continuation of his father in this and other ways. Lord Randolph had, according to Edward Hamilton, “excessive intimacy†with the Rothschilds, especially Nathaniel. Reginald Brett, a friend of both, said that “Churchill and Natty Rothschild seem to conduct the business of the Empire in great measure together, in consultation with [Joseph] Chamberlain.†Niall Ferguson says that the wife of the Prime Minister, Lady Salisbury, spoke out “against Randolph who communicated everything to Natty Rothschild†and “hint[ed] that people did not give great financial houses political news for nothingâ€. He continues, “The evidence of an excessively close relationship seems compelling, especially in view of the precariousness of Churchill’s personal finances. As is now well known — though his earlier biographers suppressed the fact — he died owing the London house ‘the astonishing sum of £66,902’â€.[15]The House of Rothschild – The World’s Banker – 1849-1998 (volume 2), Niall Ferguson, p332 Ferguson minimises the accusation that Randolph’s annexation of Burma to India, with attendant financing opportunities, was a reward for Rothschild favours, but whoever gained, the taxpayers of India incurred the cost of the British forces sent to repel guerillas for the subsequent decade. According to R.F. Foster, the public were led to believe the cost would be one tenth of the actual amount.[16]Lord Randolph Churchill : a Political Life, R. F. Foster, p209 Ferguson is generous in saying that
“…it seems right to regard Natty’s bankrolling of Churchill after 1886 as primarily an act of friendship as syphilis inexorably took its toll; for politically and financially he was now more a liability than an asset. … It was less calculation than kindness to the increasingly pathetic Churchill which prompted the Rothschilds to take an interest in the career of his ambitious son, though no doubt they were gratified when young Winston opposed the Aliens Bill in 1904 as Liberal MP for Manchester.â€[17]House of Rothschild, volume 2, Ferguson, p333
No doubt they were, as,
“…when the idea of restrictions on immigration surfaced for the first time in the 1880s, the Rothschilds and their circle were disconcerted. As N. S. Joseph, the architect of Rothschild Buildings put it, ‘The letters which spell exclusion are not very different from those which compose expulsion.’ … When… the immigration question was referred to a Royal Commission… Natty made no secret of his opposition to ‘exclusion.’ … Natty dissented from the majority on the Commission, whose report called for ‘undesirable’ immigrants — including criminals, the mentally handicapped, people with contagious diseases and anyone ‘of notoriously bad character’ — to be barred from entry or expelled. In his minority report, Natty argued forcibly that such legislation ‘would certainly affect deserving and hard-working men, whose impecunious position on their arrival would be no criterion of their incapacity to attain independence.’†Implicitly the argument was that every criminal, beggar and invalid (and everyone else) should be free to move to Britain else the richest family in the world feared being expelled (by a government composed of their dinner guests). Nathaniel’s son Walter informed Britain that it “should be the refuge for the oppressed and unjustly ill-treated people of other nations so long as they were decent and hard-working.†A similar bill was passed in 1905, and Nathaniel cursed it as “‘a loathsome system of police interference and espionage, of passports and arbitrary power.’ … Nevertheless, he opposed petitioning for its repeal … on the ground that a renewed debate might lead to a tightening of the rules; instead he pinned his hopes on persuading governments to apply it leniently.â€
Ferguson gratuitously adds that “if nothing else, the passage of the Aliens Act in 1905 gave the lie to Arnold White’s claim that ‘the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of England alter their policy … at the frown of the Rothschilds.’â€[18]House of Rothschild, volume 2, Ferguson, p277-8. Perhaps so, but the Rothschilds appear to have had their way regardless of the Act.
Ferguson attributes the Rothschilds’ support for the Churchills “less [to] kindness than calculationâ€, but it is both kind and provident for rich people to cultivate young politicians, with or without particular requests in mind. Disraeli, Randolph and Winston were all supported by and lived in the ambit of the Rothschilds and Jewish magnates in general, the same set who were so benevolent to the extravagant Edward VII. As Martin Gilbert says, “After Lord Randolph Churchill’s death in 1895, shortly after [Winston] Churchill’s twentieth birthday, his father’s Jewish friends continued their friendship with the son. Lord Rothschild, Sir Ernest Cassel and Baron de Hirsch frequently invited him to their houses.â€[19]Churchill and the Jews, Martin Gilbert, chapter 1. Gilbert also mentions that “The Baron’s adopted son, Maurice, known as ‘Tootie’, later Baron de Forest†was also a friend of Churchill. de Forest later employed William Ewer as a secretary. Ewer became a communist in the 1910s and an agent of the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik coup. He also became friends with (the younger) Lionel de Rothschild and Philip Sassoon, both closer to his age. Even considering the older men’s acts of real charity, including large donations to medical causes and Cassel’s support for the British Red Cross in the First World War, their generosity to particular individuals is remarkable. Lord Randolph looked on Cassel as a man to ask for favours, and after Randolph’s death Cassel employed Winston’s brother Jack. He paid huge sums for furnishings in at least two of Winston’s residences and often gave him smaller sums for other purposes.[20]Great Contemporaries: Sir Ernest Cassel: “A Few More Years of Sunshineâ€, Fred Glueckstein – https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/great-contemp...shine/ Just as Rothschild, Hirsch and Cassel helped manage Edward’s finances, Cassel did the same for Churchill. Nous was perhaps more valuable than munificence. “Cassel’s help to Churchill was continuous,†according to Gilbert, and was crucial at several vulnerable moments, as in late 1915 when Churchill, already heavily in debt, lost his main source of income. Cassel immediately provided enough money for Churchill’s crisis to pass and promised him, in Churchill’s words, “unlimited creditâ€.[21]No More Champagne – Churchill and his Money, David Lough, chapter 8
We find evidence of continuous assistance but no quid pro quo as such.[22]This is the subject of much of No More Champagne. On grand matters, at least earlier in his life, Churchill and the Jewish elite could be at variance. In contrast with his enthusiasm, the Rothschilds do not appear to have welcomed war with Germany (especially in alliance with Russia) or benefited from it overall. Instead of a transactional relationship, I surmise that warmongering politicians, who tend to be reckless about state finances, often treat their own finances the same way, and rich men like Cassel appear to them as an answer to prayer. In that way, war, debt and Judeophilia go together. I suspect that not being asked for anything in return was deeply impressive to men like the Churchills and fostered a gratitude which the beneficiaries sought opportunities to show in their actions. Borrowing can engender obsequiousness. There is also tradition: Churchill’s ancestor’s famous campaigns in the War of the Spanish Succession were financed very profitably by Solomon de Medina; thus did the family gain its high status.[23]Entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia – http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10547-me...on-de. De Medina was also employed for his information network, just as the Rothschilds would be later. For them and other aristocrats, and for monarchs in many times and places, borrowing from ‘the Jews’ was a habitual resort in funding war or luxury. Winston Churchill, no matter how many times he became dangerously indebted, appears to have treated the employment of valets and chauffeurs as indispensable, and his household, typically paying dozens of staff at once, consumed enormous amounts of wine, spirits and cigars even when he was insecure.[24]No More Champagne, Lough. Paying bills (late) for wine, spirits and cigars is a continuous theme. It would be a surprise if such a man was unpliant to those who enabled him to live on his high plateau of indulgence. Churchill was aware that he reciprocated by being a friend to them in politics, and wrote to Cassel’s granddaughter Edwina after his friend’s death: “The last talk we had — about six weeks ago — he told me that he hoped he would live to see me at the head of affairs. I could see how great his interest was in my doings and fortunes.â€[25]Great Contemporaries, Glueckstein
To Jews who feared hostility from native populations, such relationships could bring security. Likewise, those who encounter exclusivity can identify gateways through it by observing who tends to fail to support themselves. These were probably the main attraction of Edward for Cassel, who according to Davenport-Hines “sought royal favour as compensation for prevalent anti-Semitismâ€.[26]Edward VII – The Cosmopolitan King, Richard Davenport-Hines, chapter 3 The same measures that grant security tend also to grant power.
Churchill was a friend to Jewry more broadly, not only rich men like Cassel. By Churchill’s stance on the Aliens Bill of 1904, Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe were making their presence known in politics; Britain began to experience the impact of refugees. Churchill started as a Tory MP in Oldham but rebelled in favour of the Liberals in Parliament, and his constituency party withdrew support from him in December 1903. Liberals in Manchester North-West invited him in early 1904 to stand there at the next election. As Martin Gilbert describes,
“One of Churchill’s principal supporters in the Manchester Liberal Party was Nathan Laski, a forty-one-year-old Manchester merchant, President of the Old Hebrew Congregation of Manchester, and Chairman of the Manchester Jewish Hospital, who enlisted Churchill’s support, as a matter of urgency for the Jews, in seeking to prevent the passage of the Aliens Bill through Parliament.â€[27]Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2
Alas, Gilbert does not give details of how Churchill was enlisted, but he was clearly devoted to the cause. Gilbert continues: “In May 1904, Nathan Laski sent Churchill a dossier of papers relating to the Aliens Bill, which included official government immigration statistics. Churchill prepared a detailed criticism of the Bill, which he sent both to Laski and as an open letter to the newspapers.â€
The Guardian and Times published it, among others. Churchill referred to Laski’s figures in his letter: “What has surprised me most… is how few aliens there are in Great Britain. To judge by the talk there has been, one would have imagined we were being overrun by the swarming invasion and ‘ousted’ from our islandâ€. Churchill remarked that the official rate was “only 7,000†immigrants per year and that “Germany has twice as large and France four times as large a proportion of foreigners as we have.†Therefore, “It does not appear… that there can be urgent or sufficient reasons, racial or social, for departing from the old tolerant and generous practice of free entry and asylum to which this country has so long adhered and from which it has so often greatly gained.â€[28]Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2
Churchill also raised the prospect of “an intolerant or anti-Semitic Home Secretary†and criticised the fact that the bill would require police and customs officials to be “the judges of characters and credentials.†He was concerned with the effect on the “simple immigrant, the political refugee, the helpless and the poor†who would not have “the smallest right of appeal to the broad justice of the English courtsâ€.[29]Churchill – a Life, Gilbert, p165 He said that the bill served “to gratify a small but noisy section of [the government’s] own supporters and to purchase a little popularity in the constituencies by dealing harshly with a number of unfortunate aliens who have no votes… It is expected to appeal to insular prejudice against foreigners, to racial prejudice against Jews, and to labour prejudice against competition.†Churchill then referred to the bill as “a measure which, without any proved necessity, smirches those ancient traditions of freedom and hospitality for which Britain has been so long renowned.’â€[30]Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2 Put in newer terms, Britain was a nation of immigrants, built by diversity and defined by tolerance, and should #standtogether against those who would whip up fears of being swamped and spread anti-Semitic replacement theories.
Churchill, in his own words, “ratted†from the Tories to the Liberals on the same day his letter to Laski was published.[31]https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/re-rat/ Churchill’s secretary, John Colville, quoted Churchill as saying “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-ratâ€, referring to his having started as a Tory, “ratted†to the Liberals in 1904 and then “re-ratted†to the Tories in 1924. A week later, he spoke against the Bill in the Commons, but it passed its first stage, and went to committee for review, wherein Churchill and his comrades effectively filibustered, challenging every word. As Gilbert says, “by the seventh day of the committee’s deliberations, only three lines of a single clause had been discussed. A further ten clauses and 233 lines remained to be examined. Anxious to avoid the continuation of such thorough scrutiny, the government abandoned the Bill. Churchill had supported the Jews, and prevailed.â€[32]Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2. Gilbert also says that “Nathan Laski wrote to thank Churchill ‘for the splendid victory you have won for freedom & religious tolerance’.†Churchill – A Life, Martin Gilbert, p167
The Liberals formed a minority government in December 1905 and passed their own, less restrictive bill into law; Churchill was unable to stop it. While Lord Rothschild argued for “persuading governments to apply it lenientlyâ€, other Jewish activists were squarely for repeal. An editorial in the Jewish Chronicle proclaimed criminal intent: “On our part the Act should be fought … as the laws against free speech were eluded. … Let not anyone be afraid of the epithet ‘evading the law’.â€[33]The Jewish Chronicle and Anglo-Jewry, 1841-1991, David Cesarani, p100 Churchill showed a modicum of independence from Rothschild by siding with the repealers in a letter to the Home Secretary, Herbert Gladstone. Though he had already publicly attacked the idea of restriction on principle anyway, he found every possible fault in the detail too, and summarised the Act as “useless and vexatiousâ€.[34]Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2 Nathan Laski’s gratitude notwithstanding, his constituents voted him out in 1908; as a rising star of the party, he was offered a safe seat in Dundee.
Five days after his party formed the new government in 1905, Churchill spoke at a rally in Manchester prompted by the Kishinev riots that had occurred six weeks before (and in April 1903). The Chronicle approvingly reported his extensive use of pathos and said that he spoke of these ‘pogroms’ as “not spontaneous but rather in the nature of a deliberate planâ€, a canard levelled at the Russian administration since the 1881 riots in the Pale of Settlement and contradicted by all archival evidence.[35]Jewish Chronicle, 15 December 1905, quoted in Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2. Regarding archival evidence, see my article Great Variance His father had spoken at a similar event in 1881. There appears to be no record of either man saying a word about the thousands of Bulgarian civilians killed by Ottoman forces in 1876 or the same regime’s sequence of enormous massacres of Armenians in the decade preceding the rally in Manchester; this was not only because those nations had not colonised Cheetham. Disraeli had mocked the true reports of the crimes in Bulgaria. As Michael Makovsky says, “Lord Randolph Churchill … considered himself a protégé of Disraeli. … Young Winston imbibed Lord Randolph’s devotion to Disraeli and philo-Semitism.†The father and the son both imitated Disraeli in piously intoning, through their lives, a blasphemous threat dressed as a proverb: “The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.â€[36]The Road to Zion, Michael Makovsky – https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hou...-zion/ Under the Ottomans, Jews had prospered with little disturbance; perhaps the Christians could bear subjugation more demurely. At the Manchester rally, condemning the Ottomans’ arch-enemy, Churchill spoke alongside his friend Chaim Weizmann, who came from the Russian Empire and was a leader of the world Zionist movement. Churchill sent a message to the annual conference of the English Zionist Federation in January 1908, based on a draft by Moses Gaster, a friend of Nathan Laski. Churchill declared “I am in full sympathy with the historical traditional aspirations of the Jews. The restoration to them of a centre of true racial and political integrity would be a tremendous event in the history of the world.â€[37]Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2. Churchill, as Home Secretary, made him a British citizen in 1910. Weizmann also worked under him during the First World War when Churchill was Minister of Munitions. Weizmann relinquished his blue passport when he became the first President of Israel in 1948.
Churchill wore openly his intent to deny to Britons what he was determined to provide for “the Jewsâ€. Jews must have their own homeland, and anywhere else they chose to live should be treated as their land too. As David Cesarani relates, “During 1902 and 1903, there were disturbances in South Wales at Dowlais and Pontypridd during which Jews were physically assaulted. At Limerick, in Southern Ireland, a local priest incited his congregation to mount a crippling boycott of Jewish traders.â€[38]Jewish Chronicle, Cesarani, p98 [but see here for Andrew Joyce’s take.]Later, “During the years before the First World War, anti-Jewish feeling in Britain intensified appreciably. The most dramatic eruption occurred in August 1911, in the valleys of South Wales. For three days the small, isolated Jewish communities suffered intermittent rioting and vandalism.â€[39]Jewish Chronicle, Cesarani, p110 According to Gilbert,
“In the days after the attacks, Churchill ensured that as many as possible of the participants in the riots were arrested, brought before the courts, and sentenced to up to three months’ hard labour. After the passing of the sentences, local populations called mass meetings and decided to collect signatures for a petition protesting against them. A deputation presented this petition to the Home Secretary, but Churchill replied, as the record of the meeting noted, that after having given the evidence ‘his careful and serious consideration, he cannot interfere with the decision of the local justices.’â€
As with the riots in the Russian Empire, most historians seem to neglect attempting to explain the violence. Gilbert shows no curiosity, only satisfaction: “From his position of authority, Churchill had acted without hesitation to stamp on violence in Britain.â€[40]Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2
Given the example set by Churchill, it is small wonder that the party of which he is the icon is now importing thousands of people per day from all over the world. The Chronicle’s call for immigrants and their helpers to evade the law is now fulfilled by organised criminal networks operating brazenly. Everyone who objects is likened to a fascist and an anti-Semite, upon which their targeting by state surveillance and repression is deemed legitimate. ‘Tory democrats’ only ever regarded working class support as a means of preventing a new ruling class supplanting their own, and in that endeavour they find social democrats congenial; their shared fear is of genuine conservatives and patriots. For Churchill, there was only ever ‘one nation’ that mattered: Israel, first as a global ‘nation’ working across many countries, and after 1948 as a nation-state. He committed his life to his own pleasure and to Jewish power, hence his exaltation by its champions. Martin Gilbert, as a Zionist Jew, was a fitting choice as his official biographer.
Gilbert relates Churchill’s advocacy for replacing Arabs with Jews as the majority in Palestine at the Peel Commission in 1936:
“Returning to the British conquest of Palestine in the First World War, [Horace] Rumbold remarked: ‘You conquer a nation and you have given certain pledges the result of which has been that the indigenous population is subject to the invasion of a foreign race.’ Churchill did not accept that the Jews were a ‘foreign race’. ‘Not at all,’ he said. It was the Arabs who had been the outsiders, the conquerors. ‘In the time of Christ,’ Churchill pointed out, ‘the population of Palestine was much greater, when it was a Roman province.’ That was when Palestine was a Jewish province of Rome. ‘When the Mohammedan upset occurred in world history,’ Churchill continued, ‘and the great hordes of Islam swept over these places they broke it all up, smashed it all up. You have seen the terraces on the hills which used to be cultivated, which under Arab rule have remained a desert. … It is a lower manifestation, the Arab.’â€
Professor Reginald Coupland “complained that the Jewish Agency … had its representatives in London ‘and they can speak to the Colonial Office and the Arabs feel on their side they are rather left in the cold. They have not the great engine the Jews have.’ Churchill replied brusquely, not hiding his preference: ‘It is a question of which civilisation you prefer.’â€
Referring to the Balfour Declaration, “Sir Horace Rumbold then asked Churchill, ‘When do you consider the Jewish Home to be established? You have no ideas of numbers? When would you say we have implemented our undertaking and the Jewish National Home is established? At what point?’ Churchill’s answer was unequivocal. Britain’s undertaking would be implemented ‘when it was quite clear the Jewish preponderance in Palestine was very marked, decisive, and when we were satisfied that we had no further duties to discharge to the Arab population, the Arab minority.’â€
Churchill rejected the idea that Palestinian Arabs had good reason to complain about the rapid Jewish immigration into Palestine, and “allowed himself to be drawn into a more contentious discussion. ‘I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger,’ he told the commissioners, ‘even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.’â€[41]Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 10
Britain is undergoing a disaster comparable to that endured by the “lower manifestation†in Palestine. The Christians there are spat upon in their own land by some of the “higher grade raceâ€, and, just as the Palestinians have found, the ascent of that “race†in our land is coeval with our decline. A glance at a few of those close to Churchill at the time of the Aliens Act is illustrative: Jacob Gaster, son of the senior Zionist Moses Gaster, was a lifelong communist. His sister Phina married Neville Laski, a judge, a senior figure in the Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Association, and the son of Nathan. Neville’s brother Harold was a Marxist, a Zionist, a BBC broadcaster, and a supporter of Stalin and the Frankfurt School before he became Chairman of the Labour Party, which then completed the welfare state Churchill and Lloyd George had begun.
We have spoken here only of the earlier part of Winston Churchill’s career. Our theme of the confluence of war, debt, socialism and Judeophilia will be continued in the next article.
Notes
[1] Speaking at the Royal Albert Hall on 21st December 1905, quoted in The Times the following day.
[2] Churchill: a Life, Martin Gilbert, p193-4
[3] Churchill and Lloyd George appear to have imitated much of the ‘Progressive Era’ in the USA. See The Progressive Era by Murray Rothbard.
[4] Socialist advances usually accompany wars; ‘one nation’ Tories prevent the more Derbyish types reversing those advances.
[5] Splendid Isolation? Britain, the Balance of Power and the Origins of the First World War, John Charmley, chapter 6.
[6] Splendid Isolation, Charmley, chapter 3. In chapter 11 Charmley defines ‘social imperialism’ as “an attempt to distract the electorate from trouble at home by a bold imperial policyâ€.
[7] ibid., chapter 9
[8] ibid., chapter 8
[9] Asquith – Portrait of a Man and an Era, Roy Jenkins, chapter 16
[10] Churchill, Jenkins, p239
[11] Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, Patrick Buchanan, chapter 2, quoting Asquith, Jenkins, chapter entitled “The Plunge to War – 1914â€
[12] Unnecessary War, Buchanan, chapter 2
[13] ibid., chapter 2
[14] ibid. chapter 2
[15] The House of Rothschild – The World’s Banker – 1849-1998 (volume 2), Niall Ferguson, p332
[16] Lord Randolph Churchill : a Political Life, R. F. Foster, p209
[17] House of Rothschild, volume 2, Ferguson, p333
[18] House of Rothschild, volume 2, Ferguson, p277-8.
[19] Churchill and the Jews, Martin Gilbert, chapter 1. Gilbert also mentions that “The Baron’s adopted son, Maurice, known as ‘Tootie’, later Baron de Forest†was also a friend of Churchill. de Forest later employed William Ewer as a secretary. Ewer became a communist in the 1910s and an agent of the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik coup.
[20] Great Contemporaries: Sir Ernest Cassel: “A Few More Years of Sunshineâ€, Fred Glueckstein – https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/great-contemporaries-sir-ernest-cassel-a-few-more-years-of-sunshine/
[21] No More Champagne – Churchill and his Money, David Lough, chapter 8
[22] This is the subject of much of No More Champagne.
[23] Entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia – http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10547-medina-sir-solomon-de. De Medina was also employed for his information network, just as the Rothschilds would be later.
[24] No More Champagne, Lough. Paying bills (late) for wine, spirits and cigars is a continuous theme.
[25] Great Contemporaries, Glueckstein
[26] Edward VII – The Cosmopolitan King, Richard Davenport-Hines, chapter 3
[27] Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2
[28] Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2
[29] Churchill – a Life, Gilbert, p165
[30] Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2
[31] https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/re-rat/ Churchill’s secretary, John Colville, quoted Churchill as saying “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-ratâ€, referring to his having started as a Tory, “ratted†to the Liberals in 1904 and then “re-ratted†to the Tories in 1924.
[32] Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2. Gilbert also says that “Nathan Laski wrote to thank Churchill ‘for the splendid victory you have won for freedom & religious tolerance’.†Churchill – A Life, Martin Gilbert, p167
[33] The Jewish Chronicle and Anglo-Jewry, 1841-1991, David Cesarani, p100
[34] Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2
[35] Jewish Chronicle, 15 December 1905, quoted in Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2. Regarding archival evidence, see my article Great Variance
[36] The Road to Zion, Michael Makovsky – https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-191/the-road-to-zion/
[37] Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2. Churchill, as Home Secretary, made him a British citizen in 1910. Weizmann also worked under him during the First World War when Churchill was Minister of Munitions. Weizmann relinquished his blue passport when he became the first President of Israel in 1948.
[38] Jewish Chronicle, Cesarani, p98
[39] Jewish Chronicle, Cesarani, p110
[40] Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 2
[41] Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert, chapter 10
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
This is an interesting article, along with others at the author’s substack . One-hundred-fifty years ago in Britain, some of the same debates were going on as in modern America.
Jews and their supporters resisted reforms that would limit the number of immigrants allowed in the UK. To them, reducing the number of immigrants was just a step away from expulsion of the Jews.
There were also allegations that Judaic interests dictated British foreign policy, leading to a situation where the desires of the indigenous population were ignored and foreign policy was often to their detriment. For instance, large numbers of Christians were killed by the Ottoman Turks, but outrage was reserved for the relatively few Jews who suffered under the Russian tsar. This led to a view of Russia as an adversary and the Turks as an ally, in spite of what may have been in the national interest.
Moreover, politicians would switch party affiliation, as one might change clothes, based on which party was amenable to the narrow interests of the Jews. America would do well to learn from the past
globalist Nial Ferguson’s Rothschild bio, though a good read in matters of detail, is overall the Official Version, that is, a whitewash…written, indeed, with the cooperation of the Rothschild clan. Egon Corti’s 2-volume study (1927, 1928) – Rise of the House of Rothschild + Reign of the House of Rothschild – is much more objective, though only covering Rothschild machinations thru 1871. Best one-volume essay I know of is George Armstrong’s Rothschild Money Trust (1940). Since WW2, of course, no mainstream publisher would dare touch anything remotely objective or critical.
as to Zionist-tool Churchill, in addition to living high on Rothschild and Cassel Jew-money, he also had palms greased by Bernard Baruch, and various South African Jew gold/diamond magnates, e.g. De Beers, Oppenheim, et al.
Thank you for this history lesson about our fatherland. The Anglo-Zionist Empire is truly a great evil.
You should also talk about Freemasonry and its effects and the membership of the Royal family and the British Aristocracy. Masonry is built upon the values and teachings of Jewish Messianism.
General Cornwallis, Mason (1791)
George Washington, Mason said:
Voegelin, Eric (1975) From Enlightenment to Revolution. Ed. by John H. Hollowell. Duke University Press: Durham, NC. citing
Gouhler. Pgs 181-182
General Ludendorff rightly labels the Masons as “pseudo-Jews”. WE have more problems that we know what to do with. The Anglo-Saxon is truly exterminating himself. (a line out of the movie It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World.)
I await the further installments of your study.
It seems to me that, overall, the Anglo-Saxon did it to himself. Once he left The Church–the Anglo-Saxon then adopted all sorts of garbage. Masonry is a Gnostic movement, sect. Then, one haves the Hermetic Tradition that had a huge influence in English society. Madame Francis Yates outed this phenomena in the West.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Yates
M. Yates works:
Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (1964)
The Art of Memory (1966)
The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (1972)
Shakespeare’s Last Plays: A New Approach (1975)
The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age (1979)
Lull and Bruno (1982) Collected Essays I
Renaissance and Reform : The Italian Contribution (1983) Collected Essays II
Ideas and Ideals in the North European Renaissance (1984) Collected Essays III
When I was a kid, my Anglo-Saxon grandfather tried to get me interested in Rosicrucianism. Masonry, Rosicrucianism are both part of this Hermetic Tradition. Hermeticism had huge effect also outside of these movements.
This Hermeticism is also responsible for the dissolution of the Anglo-Saxons.
A famous British historian declared that Winston Churchill was a drunken narcissist who destroyed the British empire.
Video Link
The default position being that Britain (and America) must always be configured for the benefit of non-citizens, even (or especially) when such arrangement damages the rights of citizens.
We’ve been propagandized so thoroughly on this matter that most of us never even think to question the premises.
So what if it may well benefit foreigners to come here and instantly profit from what we and our families have worked for centuries to create and maintain? Why should their interests take precedence over ours?
Winston Churchill, more than any other individual, was responsible for both World Wars and the resulting destruction of Western civilization. The multi culti nightmare now being endured by the peoples of Western Europe is a direct result of the actions of Churchill and several other members of the British elite, most of whom were deeply in debt to Jewish bankers.
A major historical revision is necessary.
A retelling of 19th century and 20th century by addressing Jewish Power as one of the great powers around the world.
When we read history, and we learn of the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, the Ottomans, Japan, Italy, and etc.
There is discussion of Jews but not a concentrated and coordinated force in its own right.
So, Jews of France are simply dealt as part of France, Jews of Britain are treated as part of Britain, American Jews are seen as part of the US.
In fact, the Jewish Diaspora was far more extensive and networked than any other. Even though Jews didn’t have a nation of their own, they had significant influence in many nations and manipulated them to serve the power of World Jewry. Notice how Polish Jews upon coming to the US were simply Jews and not Polish. Polishness was a clothes they wore in Poland, not the blood in their veins.
This is the Dark Matter of modern history. It exerted so much influence but isn’t talked about as a singular power. It remains invisible as a power. (Jews, when mentioned, are usually depicted as victims of this or victims of that. Victims of every nation but never manipulators of many nations.)
It’s no wonder so much of modern history is misinterpreted and misunderstood. For example, anyone who thinks the Russian Revolution was simply a RUSSIAN revolution simply will not understand what really happened. Not only did Jews play a big role but Jews outside Russia shaped events to aid and abet the Jews in Russia.
And of course, Zionism makes no sense without addressing the power of Jews in especially UK and US. Even in Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. Jews alone in Palestine couldn’t have built Zion without the mighty power of Jews worldwide.
And in WWII, Jews were not only one of the great victim groups but one of the triumphant victors with considerable power in US, USSR, and UK.
Yuri Slezkine suggested as much in THE JEWISH CENTURY, but a far more detailed and in-depth account needs to be told.
I hate to break the news to you but the American and French Revolutions ENDED Western Civilization. Hegel, a Kabbalist, ended Western Culture!
Modern Republicanism ended Western Civ; Thomas Paine and others said so!
Classical definition of a republic 5th Rev.
https://www.academia.edu/5280564/
Hegel the Kabbalist (pages 58-68; 70)
Part I The Case of the Barefoot Socrates: Academic Myth-Making and the Jewish Transformation of the West
https://www.academia.edu/7574633/
Western Civ and Culture was replaced by Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism. Prof. Eric Voegelin stated that “All modernity is Gnostic”. Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism is Gnosticism. The Kabbala and the Hermetic Tradition gnostisized the European peoples. Protestantism, Masonry, Communism, Fascism are all Gnostic movements. Winston Churchill, like all our other leaders, have been Gnostics which is nihilism. Suicide, Autogenocide is the name of the game now.
That sounds exactly like what Ben Gurion said in the 60s, about how the creation of Israel was the first step to a world government headquartered in a Supreme Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, but with the US swapped in for Israel. A remarkable example of how Christians have been LARPing as Jews for centuries.
“Everything I don’t like is Gnosticism.”
Don’t look at the Jews, blame some antique sect. You know, the ones who called YHVH “the Exterminator.”
Pay no attention to those antique anti-Semites! Cling to the True Church, the one that incorporates the Hebrew scriptures and worships the Hebrew god.
Funny how it works out like that.
“Winston Churchill, more than any other individual, was responsible for both World Wars and the resulting destruction of Western civilization.” – Eireannach I think my book How Britain Initiated both World Wars agrees with this.
Go to the end of the article, find the ‘permission’ statement, and click on the link for the source site. They have another 10,000 or so words in the other two parts of this.
As commenter Suetonius said, the writer also has a ‘sub-stack’ account,
I watched a fascinating debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert Price.
Bart was very pointed about nothing in the gospels being true, denying that Jesus was divine. Robert too said the miraculous gospel story was bullshit but Bart became angry at the suggestion that Jesus didn’t exist in the first place. Robert pointed out, what’s the point of a prosaic Jesus or one Jesus plainly so ordinary that his biography couldn’t have possibly triggered a devoted successful following?
The historical Jesus, is he necessary to the Jews while the miraculous version is anathema? Discuss.
Hitler’s invasion of Poland can’t be understood without reference to the extensive power of Likud in Warsaw during the 1930s.
This is an article that should be read and re-read, many times, by everyone who still thinks that if we just tuned back to the clock to grand 19th century British Empire, when Brit WASPs ruled the only empire upon which the sun never set, we would be rid of our problems.
But the fact is that no later than the dawn of Victorianism, always since taught as the apex of Brit WASP power and glory, Jews controlled thew British Empire.
You cannot separate WASP empire from Jews, specifically rich and very powerful Jews. You cannot soiled the Jewish problem without also solving the WASP problem.
Heretics.
If you are not yourself one of the many Jews who play this game in every decade, every year, you need to learn that all heresy from historic Christianity leads inexorably to a rise in Jewish power. Anglo-Protestantism is the SUPREME example of that.
Everything that is not about building and strengthening Christendom is about allowing Jews to build the anti-Christendom in conjunction with Heretics and pagans. There is no neutral, no middle way, no third path.
Yes, if Churchill hadn’t invaded the Rhineland, annexed Austria, invaded Czechoslovakia, and threatened Poland, there would have been no WWII.
As for WWI, his remarkable ability to hypnotise Kaiser Bill so that the poor lad built a navy for the express purpose of attacking Britain, his secret persuasion the German General Staff to invade Belgium, and his achievement of using telekinesis to have the German Empire move against Russia – these were the undoubted causes of WWI.
Unfortunately, the ancient gnostics are grossly perverted by modern interpretation – a pre-Nag Hammadi bias that there was “hidden knowledge reserved for the few,” those few being racist, libertine secret societies of Blavatsky and Crowley who sought to de-personalize their followers and bond them.
You correctly point out that these gnostics were exposing the Jew and the Church as worshipers of both a jealous tribal god and its creation, the crude material world, as well as being slaves to their earthly desires. Thankfully, the Nag Hammadi texts and other fragments have survived!
Natty paid up £66,902 and must have gained 1000%, nay 10,000% from his investment into Churchill via the milking of the Indian Subcontinent. And even today, Natty’s descendants are in the forefront of inviting the “‘undesirable’ immigrants — including criminals, the mentally handicapped, people with contagious diseases and anyone ‘of notoriously bad character’” into the West. Karma is a real bitch… try not to fuck with it even now lest it bites you real hard in the arse.
The Reformation freed the Anglo-Saxon, as it freed the Continental Saxon and other Germanic tribes, to re-paganize. And Jews being central to all Reformation thought (just focus on Luther’s focus on Scripture and how Scripture must start with the Old Testament as defined by Jews, not as defined by Christians for more than 1000 years), Anglo-Saxons repaganizing meant that Jews would soon own the new thing. IUN deed, Oliver Cromwell, Archetypal WASP himself, began the process of England being sold to Jewish financiers.
WASP empire is Anglo-Zionist Empire and always has been Anglo-Zionist and always will be Anglo-Zionist.
“Everything I don’t like is Gnosticism” is NOT my opinion. Prof. Eric Voegelin who has to be considered the MOST CONSEQUENTIAL scholar of the last 500 years, came to the realization that ALL of Modernity is Gnostic. It matches also Yuri Slezkine’s statement that “The Modern Age is the Jewish Age”. Two witnesses.
What is Gnosticism—One glaring fact: Anti-Hierarchicalism IS Gnosticism! The Hatred of Nature!!! Both the American and French Revolutions were fundamentally Anti-Hierarchical, Thus Gnostic!
What is Gnosticism.
The Gnostic is bothered, irritated AT Nature. Does not want to humble himself to Nature–the Gnostic is Above Nature!
Gnosticism is (a) Alienation, the feeling of alienation; (b) the Hatred of Nature (Hatred of Hierarchy, Hatred of Particularity); (c) “immanentizing the eschaton†(utopian thinking; New Man ideology, rebuilding the Garden of Eden); (d) the conception of a Bad Evil God and a Good God (Zorastrianism); (e) Nature is Evil; (f) Gnostics hold a superiority complex (they are elite; the rest are peons); they of course have “secret knowledge†that you can’t have; (g) syncretism (Hegel; throwing all things together; no distinctions are made); (h) Hatred of History; (i) Hatred of Tradition; (j) one saves himself thru his own effort; (k) individualism. Gnosticism is basically anti-nomianism or anarchism. The grouping of Leftism is Gnosticism. All leftists (Liberals) are Gnostics! “Left†is only a modern term for the Gnostic phenomena–the Jacobins, Girondians were Gnostics! Anybody for democracy is a Gnostic! All the points made above can be seen in the Left and in Liberals including Many Republicans!
All of Modernity is Gnostic. That is why the True Right, the French Catholic Monarchists, and other Trad Catholic Monarchists, are the ONLY non-gnostic people and we hate all things of modernity–because we are NOT Gnostic. 99% of all of America are Gnostics–The modern Roman Catholic Church today with every other Prot church is Gnostic (q.v. Philip Lee Against the Protestant Gnostics. All of American Protestantism is Gnostic).
The person who did the most to destroy the British Empire was Churchill. Churchill also supported Jews like Samuel Montagu, a kike masquerading as an Englishman who destroyed the British Empire in India. In his Montagu-Clemsford report he blatantly writes that the Government will itself create disturbances among the placid masses of India for nationalism.
In the 1920’s , the Maharajah (King) of Kashmir in Northern India asked Sir Arthur Lothian, “why the British government was establishing a ‘Yehudi ka Raj’ (Rule of the Jews) in India?â€. The Viceroy of India then , Lord Reading, was a Jew, the Secretary of State of India at that period, Mr. Edwin Montague, was a Jew, the High Commissioner, Sir William Meyer, was a Jew.
When the Jewish Edwin Montague was selected to be the Secretary of State of British India, Harry Mcloed Fraser in his book Truth (1921), said that Montague had created anarchy all over the Indian subcontinent to organise Asia’s mute millions into a human avalanche to overwhelm Western Civilisation. Jews, Fraser maintained, were seeking to discredit and and weaken the British connection with India under the guise of forwarding Indian Nationalism, merely in order to make Jewish control and dominion more complete. He further added that ‘The British Raj has for a good many years, become less and less British and more a Jew Raj’, and concluded that Indian Swaraj (self government) ‘merely means Jewish Raj’
AND GUESS WHAT? During the reign of Montague we see the Montague Clemsford reforms, where in an official document, Edwin Montague lamented that 95% of Indian masses were happy with British Raj govt of India but the British Raj government will itself create Indian Nationalism!!! It is during his tenure that we see a huge rise in anti British mass movements.
At the same time Disraeli was the one who insisted that Queen Victoria become the Queen Empress of India.
The Jews at once favoured colonial expansion and then later sent their agents to instigate the colonised against the Europeans. This way all blame can be put of Whitey and the Jewish connection can be hidden, they can walk scot free. The using the guise of Post colonialism studies further White guilt and Mass migration and Kalergi plan. Once their financial systems were spread around the world, once we get the World Bank and IMF, there is no need for these colonial Empires and they can be dissolved. Indeed these Empires with their honest gentlemen European/Japanese colonial officers now suddenly become liabilities. So replace them with corrupt brown black elites and let the business go on.
Revilo Oliver does write about Edwin Montagu thus
“In 1949, Great Britain had already begun to destroy herself, and although some mental and moral deficiency in the English must be regarded as the primary cause, it could be argued that the fatal folly was a consequence of the initial blunder that was made when D’Israeli was injected into the British peerage. A Jew named Samuel, who showed his contempt for the English by assuming the illustrious Norman name of Montagu, so enriched himself by his depredations in banking and international finance that his friend, Kind Edward VII, ennobled him with the good Anglo-Saxon name of Baron Swaythling. (Si quid sentiunt Manes, the ghost of the first King Edward, who had tried to run the Jews out of England in 1290, must have gibbered in fury at the act of his namesake.) The “British†Baron’s son became Secretary of State for India in 1917 and worked, sometimes slyly, sometimes almost openly, to undermine British rule in India and to arouse among the natives discontent that could be used as a pretext for further sabotage of the Empire. In collaboration with Viscount Chelmsford, who was closely tied by marriage to the Goldmans and may have had Jewish genes himself, and who became Viceroy of India in 1916, “Montagu†prepared in the name of the King’s government an official and astounding report on India–astounding because its authors were not attainted for high treason. The crucial section of the long and rambling document is cited by General Hilton in his Imperial Obituary. The report bewailed the deplorable fact that 95% of all the peoples of India were happily content under British rule and hoped for its continuance. It was therefore England’s duty, the titled saboteurs said, to “bring about the most radical revolution†in India to enable the 5% of malcontents to terrorize and suppress the “pathetically contented†95% and thus prepare India for “nationhood,†i.e., for perpetual rioting, the venomous racial animosities that always accompany multi-racial societies that are not under foreign rule, large-scale massacres, savage atrocities, and contemptuous hatred of white men.
The work of dismembering the British Empire was carried on by a Jew residing in England, Rufus Isaacs, who was rewarded for his involvement in the malodorous Marconi scandal (18) by being successively created Baron, Viscount Earl, and finally Marquess of Reading, Lord Chief Justice (!) of England, and Viceroy of India, where he made a feint of maintaining British rule while sapping its foundations. (19) His fellow tribesmen ran interference for him in England by a standard ploy, using their increasing control of the English press to publicize shrill protests that he was “brutally†failing to truckle sufficiently to the “aspirations†of babbling babes, whose minds had been stuffed with “democratic†verbiage in British schools. And so, in 1947, the British ignominiously retreated from their largest colonial possession, and the Hindus and Moslems promptly began to massacre each other on a scale that brought joy to the hearts of the apostles of “self-determination.†And the “Republic of India†and Pakistan were created as enemies of our race and civilization.
(18. A typical financial operation carried out by artfully depressing the value of Marconi stock in both England and the United States to induce its owners to sell for a fraction of its worth and then artfully inflating its value to sell it to the public for more than it was worth. It involved the bribery of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an unprincipled opportunist named Lloyd George, by the common device of “selling†him at depressed prices stock for which he would not be expected to pay until it greatly increased in value (it soared suddenly to twelve times its former price). English newspapers that were still in English hands sometimes caricatured Lloyd George as a little boy traveling under the escort of his two Jewish tutors, Isaacs and Samuel.)
(19. See the inadvertent admissions in the laudatory biography by H. Montgomery Hyde, Lord Reading (London, 1967), Chapter 8. For example, he censured and forced the resignation of General Dyer for having restored order in Amritsar after a mob killed five Englishmen, beat an Englishwoman almost to death, looted banks, and otherwise exhibited their idealistic aspiration. The fact that General Dyer had been publicly thanked by the decent Sikhs, who bestowed on him the highest honor in their power, merely proved the need for the “radical revolution†that would teach them “nationhood†and perpetual violence. Another trick was a loud campaign to end “racial discrimination,†an infallible means of stirring up trouble and inciting other races to hate ours.)
Yockey certainly understood that the “successful Indian Mutiny in 1947,†as he called it in the Proclamation, was a consequence of the First World War, which was itself suicidal and an effect of the “Culture-disease†spread by the Jews, but he does not remark on the curious circumstance that the British retreat from India had been conducted, not by Englishmen, but by aliens with British titles. He comments on the fatal decadence of the British aristocracy and upper class, (20) which he attributed correctly to a spiritual decay, but, perhaps in keeping with the racial theory we noticed above, he does not ask the drastic and fearful question, How British are the British? It is a crucial question that admits of no precise answer, and discussion of it would require an inordinately long excursus.â€
Queen Victoria was known as the grandmother of Europe, due to the dispersion of her children throughout European royal houses. An oft-repeated rumor claims that the Rothschild family had purchased the breeding rights with the queen. Her husband was Prince Albert, and there is a male piercing bearing the same name. This piercing refers to a navel ring and a ring through the tip of the male member, connected by a chain to prevent copulation. So it wasn’t just the British Empire that the Jews controlled, but Rothschild heirs were also placed throughout Europe
Read The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson.
It is out in the open for decades, even centuries. “White” Europeans have been fed a constant IV drip of a narcotic and other hypnotics called Christianity, the same as sleeping medication, anti-depressants, a mood elevators. Truly the curse of the West. If the Reader here is perceptive, he might ask, “Uh, how come the Russian Orthodox didn’t fall for this scam and brushes it off like dandruff”?
But most of you are not perceptive and see only what others determine is range and field of cognition and perception. Regardless of intelligence level, most people find it calming to drive in circles and con themselves that they are advancing.
Video Link
Have you ever heard of this person? Wake the fuck up!
Going on right NOW: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/matt-gaetz-blasts-house-antisemitism-legislation-ridiculous-hate-speech-bill
Also here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/matt-gaetz-had-weirdest-reason-ever-to-vote-against-antisemitism-bill/ar-AA1o0hNT
We really need to have a serious high-level debate about the supposed threat posed by so-called “antisemitism.” I think Organized Jewry is behind all the furor going on right now, which is allowing legislation like this (always rejected before now) to be passed without proper (if even any) debate in the US Congress. Are we unable to learn how they do things??!! Why are we being distracted by articles dealing with history when the current scene is crying out for attention? THIS is what we should be protesting, and explaining why. Not bc of the bible crucifixion story either bc that’s a trap too. Need to find Gaetz’ actual words in the Congressional Record.
In order to identify our enemy, we need to match our knowledge of him and his predilections, but most of all – the evidence of those from history. This analysis by the author certainly confirms what DaLimbraw Library has accumulated from a variety of sources over 8 plus years, but most importantly connects the Biblical history as well.
Since the term Jew is so often used indiscriminately as to lose its meaning, I have instead simply called it DaSynagogue of Satan (DSOS) – as both Jesus and his apostle did. It all adds up – from Genesis to Revelation – so bear with me.
We can begin here – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2023/05/who-are-daservants-of-satan-does-it.html?m=0 – just as we read in the analysis by horus, DSOS needs willing accomplices from outside DSOS to carry on its evil deeds – thus the servants of Satan are often active churchians pretending to be Christians.
Fools lots of folks – as it did me for decades.
I read it long ago. He has nothing to say about the Kaiser’s lunatic scheme to build a fleet to sink the Royal Navy in the North Sea. In other words he doesn’t point out that the Kaiser quite needlessly made a potential enemy of Britain.
Nor do I remember his pointing out that the Kaiser abandoned Bismarck’s “Reinsurance Treaty” with Russia, thus needlessly making Russia a potentially active enemy of the German Empire.
BS. Christianity is a Greek/European religion. Jesus said Himself to his kinsmen, “The Faith WILL BE TAKEN AWAY from you and given to another nation”. Jesus repeats this teaching in the Parable of the New Wine Skins. The New Wine Skin, called Christianity, is Hellenism. The Trinity is a Greek concept. That Jesus is both God and Man is Greek. And then, II Peter 1:5 “Supplement The Faith with Arete”. Arete is Greek civilization. Not my opinion, Prof Jeffrey Dell Ehrlich Plato’s Gift to Christianity, The Gentile Preparation for and the Making of the Christian Faith. Also the lessons of Archimandrite Boniface Luykx. Two Witnesses. Plato is the intellectual founder of Christianity; he laid down the foundations which ultimately comes from the Spartans.
Totally granted that today, the Catholic Church is FULLY converged with Marxism! “Modern Roman Catholicism is nothing more than Marxism with a cross”. Grant you that truth. The RC Church is fully converged and cucked. I’m the last remaining true Catholic. I do not have a drop of Gnosticism in me; I hold no error or Cultural Marxism.
It is ONLY the Roman Catholic Church that has preserved the teaching of Arete (virtue). Even though all of its defintions are wrong, I was able to correct them and the True Catholic Church proclaims the Truth:
That’s not Jewish But Greek–and ALL Truth belongs to the Catholic Church. If everybody followed II Peter 1:5–we would be in a much better place. SIMPS in the Catholic Church have been larping for the Jews–not True Catholics.
Amen!
The Brit WASPs had knighted JEWS long before then. And back to the 17th century they had allowed Jewish financiers to invest inn their commonwealth – so Jewish bankers began owning key parts of the empire even before William of Orange, and before the creation of the 2 Freemasonic lodges..
Jews and Brit WASP empire go back together to Oliver Cromwell. WASP empire necessarily is Zionist empire.
This brilliant article tells us what went on many years in the past. I guess that many years in the future we will be able to read how the people below were financed by kind Jews during their rise to power.
Overseeing, operating, maintaining, repairing, and overhauling large marine power plants and the entire physical plant of very large ocean liners, required me to think in various accelerated and intensive ways. Future planning, connecting history and past performance to the present, and vectoring that to future, various successful approaches and undertakings and their practicality and usefulness, and most importantly assuring that the ship is always in service, performing its mission and achieving its predetermined goals. Anything less than a perfect record and the Chief Engineer’s job is on the chopping block. Why? Because millions of dollars are riding on electrical power for refrigerated containers, propulsion of moving the ship, and operation of all auxiliary systems. Who would ever want a job that is so demanding, has so much pressure to perform, removes you to a small piece of real estate in the middle of the ocean, and where the work-physically and psychologically-is challenging; overall, it is a daily battle against physical failure, intrinsically, and extrinsically (vibration, swaying movements, temperature (average ambient temperature 114 deg. F).
My point in relaying this great information to you, is to encourage the Western reader to get out of intrinsic limitations of evaluation and thinking. The World is so vast and multiplex that parallels, analogues, and comparisons are everywhere extant and extrinsic to the issue.
So outside of Western Christianity, why are Western Indo-European so susceptible to the various. Jewish diseases and maladies of distemper and handicapping debilitation? Well, a start would be analyzing the process by which a population interns information, sorting it, applying cognition and some kind of logic, albeit one from a limited set of concepts, precedents, etc., and bordered tightly (so as to not get “off subject”, or bringing in something “unrelated”). If the Gentile could be reduce his cognitive number of elements of relevance to a fewer number, he might be able to understand and begin to see the photo developing in the silver nitrate solution or polaroid film. The analogy that-to mention one by extemporaneous effort-is to consider Jews to be weeds in a garden. They certainly do no fit, regardless of the category of worth and value one assigns. They are parasitic, using resources such as water and nutrients, shunted away from the desired plantings. Unnerstand, Vern? This singular, constant, and unambiguous symbol and representation would have been magnifier and focuser of thought and value conception that would be perpetual and a reference point against counter contention.
This is similar to mathematics. And equation can be composed of a large number of components. However, it can be reduced and resolved into simpler and fewer components by resolution and solving (in the case of unknown quantitative symbols. Here is an example:
x2+3+2�2−4x+7=(1+2)x2−4x+(3+7)=3�2−4x+10.
So, you see, expressing the original statement over and over gets tiresome, bores people, and given the short attention span of the Modern Man, increases the probability of the stone skipping over the pond instead of sinking in. Just look at the windy, bloated, marginal comments in this section alone. Composed of cream-perhaps-but whipped up to 97% air fluff. Chiffon-a word very appropriately from the French.
An other deficiency of Western Man is his reduction and inadequate possession of mysticism, intuition, and the Eternal World of Consciousness-which does not have sensory derived form.
Jul 1, 2017 Jacob Rothschild Speaks: My Family Created Israel
Jacob Rothschild discusses his family’s role in the creation of national Israel.
Video Link
Thank you.
This book explains the two Boer Wars and the lead up to WW1. The Jews were deeply involved as was Churchill. Lloyd George was blackmailed by the Jews to go along.
When was Metzitzah b’peh the Jews practice, begun?
Winston Churchill, like his father, always lived beyond his means. The British aristocracy got gulled early on and thought of the Jews as friends and business partners.
The Hundred Years of Humiliation of the Chinese by the English, Europeans, American and Parsi Indians pushing opium to China has not been forgotten by the Chinese.
The fortunes made then are still extant today. HSBC is just one entity and there are many many more.
Good heavens, do you even know what Gnosticism was? The Gnostics were utterly opposed to the Old Testament and regarded Yahweh as Satan. Furthermore, Gnosticism has nothing to do with Masonism; its beliefs were very close to the Hindu Vedanta. The term Gnostic has now become simply a term of abuse hurled by orthodox Christians against anyone with a working brain.
Currently it is a tough choice for civilized people, which you prefer:
– A civilization that respects the lives of children and their rights,
EITHER
-A civilization that allows children to be murdered to steal their rights.
Until this moment, humanity had never considered something similar, but that will define whether we are beasts or true Christians and human beings.
And I say Christians, because Jesus bequeaths us: “The second great commandment is love of neighbor.â€
The younger Churchill was the same as the older. He loved pink champagne for breakfast and when he went into hock, he was rescued by the Jews.
During the second world war, this evil fat bastard (Churchill) initiated the bombing of German civilians.
Hitler initiated the bombing of civilians only after that.
The Anglos (UK) are not really free and the Americans too are slaves of Zion.
The West is one disgraceful country after another. Run by remote control from the City of London and Vienna, the infantile is so patent that I am revolted to the degree of renouncing any possible redemption for this sewer.
Any Swill out there? Please explain how a country with a culture and history of independence and neutrality sunk to this level of filth and stupidity.
Swiss city cancels Russian opera star’s concert
Anna Netrebko was set to perform in Lucerne before local authorities scrapped the show over her alleged ties to Putin
https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/596895-switzerland-cancels-russian-opera-singer/
Get a gun, Carolyn. A 12 gauge semi-automatic. And ear plugs.
The old(odd) testament(story) was defined by Yaweh; boy was that one f’d up dude. The chosenites cling to the Odd Story like shyte to a bulls arse.
The recent depreciation of the yen has also created a new phenomenon. An increasing number of young Japanese are taking advantage of the “working holiday†program, which allows students to study in countries such as Australia and Canada while working in restaurants and other businesses.
This is because wages are low when they work part-time in Japan, and they can earn more in yen after returning to Japan if they work in foreign countries and receive their wages in foreign currencies.
In addition to the restaurant industry, many industries in Japan, including tourism and construction, are suffering from labor shortages. Many industries rely on foreign workers, but the weak yen reduces the amount of wages after conversion into the home countries’ currency.
Some say the appeal of working in Japan has diminished, making it more difficult to lure foreign workers to Japan. The yen’s depreciation may accelerate the labor shortage.
The Churchills were impossibly immoral scum, partying and living the high life during wars tearing Europe apart. According to Erik Larson’s Splendid and the Vile, p. 34, “It was to Bonham Carter that Clementine, soon after being wed, revealed Churchill’s peculiar taste in underclothes: pale pink and made of silk.†Winnie’s “peculiarities†go downhill from there.
The German races have a Romanticism streak in them. This racial proclivity made them susceptible to the Utopian ideology of Jewish Messianism.
Carved on the walls of the Doric Greek Temple of Delphi was this pertinent theorem “Know Thyself”. The Germans as a race are very susceptible to Utopian thinking. That is why they fall for the Jewish Schtick.
Hitler initiated the bombing of civilians only after that.
I suppose you don’t count Spaniards and Poles as proper humans, then?
Thanks for this excellent article/series, Morgan Jones.
And to (most of) the Commentariat for valuable additions.
Here’s an addition which hopefully some will find valuable.
An autobiography of Englishman Arnold Spencer Leese, a Veterinary Surgeon, who opposed the destructive power that continues even today to ravage the world.
We should not forget quiet “Out Of Step” heroes like this man.
https://balderexlibris.com/index.php?post/2012/02/23/Leese-Arnold-Out-of-Step-Events-in-the-Two-Lives-of-an-Anti-Jewish-Camel-Doctor
A comment oblivious to the worldwide fuckery of the Brutish Clown and the City of Dragons. The English should take down Chatham House and the pedophiles of the Kindergarden.
The English who bow to a man’s will, protest too much Christ’s teachings of bowing only to God’s will and to keep a close leash on one’s will.
Yup, the WASP problem. The Anglo-Saxon problem as Putin has said repeatedly. The Brits have dined out on “don’t look at us look at the Jews” for over 100 years and they’re still doing it as we see in this thread. Then they torpedo their own argument by expressing pride in their “Empire” which also involved Jewish money–but according to their shapeshifting logic, the Empire was awesome but the problems it brought were bad, but only the Jews can be blamed for that. This logic tree resembles something a homeless crack addict might diagram on a greasy discarded napkin. The bottom line is the British nation caused most if not all of the misery of the 20th century and they’re off to a bang-up start to the 21st, as the Russians have noted.
The Churchill family is an extreme example, but the problem was endemic to the British gentry (landed aristocracy). The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw the rise of the nouveau riche, a new class of people grown rich from trading in the Far East. Yet it was considered dishonorable for gentlemen to act as merchants, although joint stock ownership offered them investment opportunities. The expectation was for them to generate value from their land, but this income fell short of keeping up with the spending of the merchants. Through this process, many of the great British families, like Churchill, lost their ancestral lands and became indebted to the Jews
This is, I think, an unintentional play on words, since “hock” can refer to white wine from the Rhine valley.
To have gone from rosé champagne at breakfast to hock (unless it were an expensive Trockenbeerenauslese) would have been a decided step down.
And yet Winston did not even resemble his father. He was nearly the spitting image of his (Jewish) mother’s former fiancee, a Jewish banker.
He used to become so inebriated as to regularly soil his lingerie, apparently. A ‘Churchillian’ characteristic I can well imagine Boris Johnson sharing.
Oh bravo, dear boy! How delicious. Where did you school? Are you published?
One thing for sure, nothing has changed.
Back then in the 30s and 40s, the US turned a blind eye to the plight of the Jews killed by Germans.
Today, the US turns a blind eye to the Palestinians(and Syrians and the rest) killed by Jews.
Different peoples but same logic.
A read an article on Lew Rockwell.com thta a CPAC Hungary, Austrian MEP Harald Vilimsky has warned that ‘Europe risks becoming a second sand-nigger Arabia or nigger Africa’ and that governments are importing sand-nigger and nigger invaders who create security problems then offering ‘solutions’ that only punish European populations. Now who do you think is behind this? We know the answer. The envy hating jews who hate European Culture and Civilization with a blooding passion and want to see it destroyed. As Leroy-Beaulieu said in 1903, ‘Austria-Hungary remains the cornerstone of Europe.’ The jew and the English wasp knew this and that is why they tried to destroy Austria and Hungary. Now the jew feels strong again after the Germans tried unsuccessfully to deal with them and once again he’s making his asiatic move to destroy the Christian West by demographic warfare like that filthy jew bitch Barbara Lerner who said the ‘European countries will no longing be homogeneous.’ That is an open declaration of racial total war. A war of extermination. These fuck’in zionists have to be dealt with once and for all. Also like I’ve said before what is it with these fuck’in jews and their rabid-manical-fanatical-fetish for the European races and also the shit arabs and now niggers? Are these aliens that lame that they need to forcibly attach themselves to the Western races because they know that they would not amount to shit if they lived with their own kind? I already know the answer to that question. By the way these jews wouldn’t be magnates or amount to shit if they weren’t allowed to live in European Civilization.
Churchill was the consistent fanatical warmonger of the ‘Zionist-Anglo-American Establishment’ (people forget easily that he was half-American).
Margot Asquith’s account in 1915 that he ”waxed ecstatic about the war and his historic role in it” would be matched by the account of Princess Marthe Bibesco in March 1939, in her sickeningly sycophantic book ”Sir Winston Churchill. Master of courage”:
”That night, in the brilliantly illuminated Covent Garden Opera House, catastrophe was in the air. Winston Churchill came to talk to us in the interval, as Leonie [Leonie Leslie, the sister of Jennie Jerome, Churchill’s mother] had promised. His bulldog neck bulged out of the gold-embroidered collar of his Privy Councillor’s uniform. Flaunting his military orders, pinned over his heart, Winston pushed his way through the dense crowd to come and sit between Leonie and myself for a few moments. I would not say that he looked worried. On the contrary, he looked like an antidote to other people’s worries. His face, pale in his youth, now pale pink, had become with time as round as a pearl; his hair, once red, was now nothing but a light down, like that on the head of a newborn baby; his high-domed forehead, the shape of the world map in the form of a globe, lit from within by his luminous thoughts, seemed to be meditating about the approaching end of our present world, not manifesting any great regret. Everything about him was prodigiously different from other men. This is what made everybody recognize. hi at once, even in this orgy of men in uniform, all dressed as decoratively and conspicuously as he was. The crowd opened to let him pass, as if he alone, the actor, enjoyed some mysterious priority. He came toward us, rolling a little, like a sailor or a young child, as if carried along by an invisible swell, his back rounded, braced to meet a breaking wave, a broadside, a shower of bullets or a stream of stars. He sat down for a moment and embarked without any preamble on the subject uppermost in his mind: “We shall have war. . . , The British Empire will go bang . . . and I … and I … well, I feel twenty years younger! . He shook himself cheerfully, like a dog who has just come out of the water, and returned to his seat as the curtain rose”.
First is to eliminate the jew banking cabal starting 1st in America by destroying the Federal Reserve Bank which like I’ve said before on this site it wasn’t Federal, it didn’t have any Reserves, it is an organized criminal syndicate! Also these curs will use intimidation and murder with impunity to keep their alien selves in power in Western Culture. Plus they are always plotting and scheming for their next illegal criminal financial gain. Plus they think they are going to own all the property in Europe and America! Places that their asses had nothing to do with founding. And I don’t give a flying fuck what the hell they were doing in Palestine or Babylon 2500 years ago. That doesn’t mean crap to me.
Tavistock was working even before it was officially founded. Their best student was Hitler, who spent a year in training in 1912. Churchill was also attended their training. His mother’s father was the director of Rothschild’s daughter company who had a luxurious house on Fifth Avenue where there was a cologne fountain in the lobby. He sent his two daughters to England to marry as best they could. Churchill’s mother fell in love with King Edward and was married to Randolph Churchill.
She cheated on him with the king Edward while her husband also chased whores and got infected. The king sent him to be a governor in Ireland. Churchill ‘s mother boasted that she had slept with 260 men. The future Serbian king Milan, who studied in Paris, slept with both, her and her sister. He sent letters to her sister inviting her to marry him.
Churchill was a correspondent from Africa on the Boer Wars, but he was never there and reported from Rhodesia where he was with his lover because he was homosexual. Made up that he was kidnapped by the Boers and escaped from captivity and returned to England a great hero. Churchill proposed to establish the first concentration camps in South Africa where English committed a genocide because gold was found on the territory of the Boers.
It is a public secret that Churchill was the love child of the future king of Serbia while he was studying in Paris and a woman from the English Royal Palace.
Both Churchill and Hitler were homosexuals.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3101024/Was-Winston-Churchill-lovechild-King-Serbia-Book-makes-extraordinary-claims-British-hero-s-mother-secret-relationship-Balkan-prince.html
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy concerning Churchill’s broadcasting of a fake pogrom in the Pale while ignoring the real genocides being committed by the ottoman turks . These turks are the khazarians cousins and the ottoman empire was the birthplace and ascension of Sabbathai Zevi as the anti Christ(literally do everything opposite of what god had commanded in the law). Zevi in turn., discipled Jacob Frank who in turn converted the Rotschilds in Frankfurt and whose son went on to take control of the British empire (with control of money and credit of course). A growing number of Armenians and others are becoming enlightened as to the fact that the young turks were comprised primarily of said donmeh crytpo jews and the Armenian Genocide was their design to eliminate the industrious and merchant class of Christians in the ottoman empire so the path could be cleared to establish the criminal khazarian rotschild state of Israel; a safe refuge for every crime committing jew around the planet. thanks to Christopher Jon Bjerkes for his work revealing the enormous extent of the jew s’ role in the genocide. http://www.cjbbooks.com Indeed this is likely the main reason why to this day the jew will not acknowledge the Armenian genocide (nor the Gaza genocide) while wailing endlessly about an inflated number of deaths caused by impossible chemistry and physics of bug delicers and flesh cremation. I still can write this comment as the US Senate has not yet ratified the don’t ever criticize a jew bill that the blackmailed/bought house members just passed.
King Milan got his deserve for fathering a monster.
It is true that he was an impaler, too, but according to Winnie’s mom that probability was only 0.4% (1 out of 260), although that probability can be increased if her activity is investigated over a certain period.
Personally, I think the probability is 0% because, firstly – you can’t see any Dinaric trace in his pooftish appearance; secondly, she was a great hedonist, I’m sure she would prefer double pleasure (visual and bodily) instead of just single (and boring) one (you know the one when after the first wedding night the English lord addresses his wife – Lady, I hope you’re pregnant, so that we don’t have to repeat those ridiculous movements again).
99Ironduke is an ex-British Army dude who has a great podcast online on youtube. Highly recommended. He is not a big fan of Churchill and he is not a National Socialist in any form. He shows how nearly every decision taken by the incompetent Churchill doomed Britain and it’s empire.
Video Link
British policy 1914-41, Winston Churchill and the Washington Naval Treaty
One of the worst decision in British history, discontinuing the Anglo-Japanese naval treaty to appease Washington.
Video Link
British policy 1914-41 and Winston Churchill part 2 featuring Horus
The above is part 2, there are parts, 3 & 4. Do check them out.
They are too digital, either super practical and materialistic, and then on the far side of the spectrum, hyper drive imaginations of incantations and symbols of heroic mythology. Hence the Crumble Crust Man, Adolf Hitler.
I wrote several comments on the giant artist and philosopher, Richard Wagner (and Schopenhauer) on the influence of Buddhism, which was profound for both men. Wagner rewrote some of his operas and started the last with Buddhism themes and ideas. He died before it was finished.
When you experience Wagner’s art, his ideas, philosophy, and thoughts, you will realize that this creative genius was a rarity. Unfortunately, his influence on the German masses was missed by those who only used his themes for vulgarity and violence.
Today’s Germans are just empty bots who have no ideas of their own or certainly no appreciation of Wagner and what he represented.
phrase. If someone is in hock, they are in debt.
It should be nobody’s business how many ships a country chooses to build. The British had such a large navy that Germany certainly could not compete with that, regardless of how many ships she chose to build.
The British were the self-declared enemy of Germany. Why??? Because German inventiveness and productivity was taking a large slice away from British foreign trade. This was already before WWI, and when a British politician complained about this to an American diplomat the latter admonished the former to work better and harder! The Britisher’s reply was that this would lower the British standard of living and, that a war with Germany would be cheaper to eliminate the competition.
IIRC I read this in the book The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson.
In the 1930’s the NSDAP government in Germany initiated government to government trade with foreign countries, thus affecting the profitability of international bankers and their undue influence this trade. Since these bankers were very largely concentrated in London and New York, these bankers influenced their governments to initiate a war with Germany. All this occurred as early as 1935, with Churchill and Roosevelt conspiring for war against Germany.
I have since learned that Roosevelt was much more devious than simply a war with Germany. apparently this worthy’s plan was to bankrupt Britain and acquire her foreign markets. The stupid war mongering Brits of course fell for this hook, line, and sinker.
In summary, here we had Germany minding its own business, concentrating on its inherent intelligence to make better products for the international marketplace, and, without threats or war, removed impediments to its international trade.
And Britain and USA took offence because its governments were beholden to the international bankers. It would have been cheaper and better to simply hang all these war mongers.
You left out the Dutch city of Rotterdam, silly you.
Never mind that German bombing was in support of Wehrmacht movements and NOT the wholesale bombing of civilians as was practised by the British and Americans.
Germans executed convicted criminals for sabotage and treason.
If you believe otherwise please furnish verified authentic reproducible evidence, Thanks.
Of course. That’s why I wrote that the play on words was unintentional.
It rather ruins the joke to have to explain it to somebody.
What rubbish. You believe Satanyahoo!!!????
This video only shows, whatever the West or any goys do for Jews, Jews will always look at Goys as enemies or potential enemies.
The USA and UK did sooo much for Jew. The British sacrificed their Empire, the largest Empire in human history, carefully built by the bravery and genius of many Britons. But after WW2, how did jews repay the Anglo-American goys for helping them. Cultural Marxism, destroying traditional Anglo-American culture, spreading promiscuity, drugs, feminism, they were researching the “authoritarian personality” in the Anglo-American goys to prevent an Anglo-American Hitler or Mussolini.
Not in the Spanish case, surely?
That may be what you wish a Prince Albert was, but that’s not what it is. The actual Prince would of course have used the heterosexual version; what they do in your demimonde is none of my affair.
#36 Poupon Marx:
A *** or not understanding what “average” means? Doesn’t matter, anyway let the mob decide. Ima call you Querelle after Brad Davis (Midnight Express)’s character in Fassbinder’s film of the same name. He too was shirtless most of the time. Whoa, I love that song. I hit it out of the park on karaoke night at the VFW. Chelsea didn’t tell me you’re a vet. Yeah, Navy. Submarine Corps. Ohh… Six-month tours under the polar icecap. Nothing to do but lift weights, shoot the bull… …and enjoy the company of other men. Six months with just men? Not just men. Young men. Hard men. And the hardest of them all was Edward Boynton, Seaman Third Class. And my best pal. 1966. We were in the Philippines for a week of R&R… …and we bought matching shirts. I remember one night, it was real hot and humid. I can still see the wet silk clinging to his magnificent body.
And the swaying! The constant swaying!
Dude! Really dude. Dude.
This is a persistent internet rumor. What the commenter may or may not wish is not relevant
Right string, wrong yo-yo. My career was in the Merchant Marine. That is ocean liners and deep water civilian ships that require crews that are analogous to special forces compared to “grunts, Navy sailors, and other semi-robots who live with their self hate.
We are like paratroopers, while Navy are “Leg Mo**er F*ckers.
What if I told you the standard on ocean liners is no more that 30 F above ambient air temperature? Which way will you sway? Everyone knows what’s long, hard, and full of seamen, but what’s long, grey, and sticky? No not you, Silly! A stick.
‘The Hundred Years of Humiliation of the Chinese by the English … ‘
The British, not the English; we are blamed far too often for crimes committed by the British, too often at the instigation of Scotch intriguers. As I understand it, the Hong Kong and Shanghai bank, which was a prime mover in the opium trade and made a great deal of money from it, was founded by Scots, who are always content to allow the English to be blamed for the atrocities they commit.
Read a few memoirs of those who were alive at the time and you’ll often see the Scotch described in unflattering terms as the instigators of a good deal of imperial mischief. Don’t keep blaming the English for the crimes of other Britons.
‘We really need to have a serious high-level debate about the supposed threat posed by so-called “antisemitism.†‘
Anti-semitism; always include the hyphen (and use a lower case s), which changes the meaning of the term considerably, which is why it is now generally omitted. Put it back and deny them that particular stick to beat us with.
Morgan Jones envelops a long stretch of text in ‘blockquote’, but the following sentence is inside the marked block but is not from Ferguson’s book (I presume it was written by Jones):
Ferguson quotes Rothschild in that respect as saying (to Arnold White):