Tuesday, October 16, 2018

764 Rusland exporteert voor 20 miljard aan voedsel. Proficiat !

Op deze video zien we president Putin en premier Medvedev op bezoek bij een 4 jaar oude appelboomgaard. 





Die is aangeplant toen de VS ons dwong om Rusland te straffen voor de MH17, waarna Rusland zei: dan kopen wij geen westerse groenten en fruit meer. 

Op dat moment ging mijn sympathie uit naar de Nederlandse boeren die plotseling een flink deel van hun afzetmarkt zagen verdwijnen. 

Ik wist heel zeker dat Rusland nooit met opzet die MH17 zou neerhalen, maar dat het voor andere partijen een godsgeschenk was, en dat de kans dat het een Valse Vlag was, heel groot is. 

Ik hoopte dat de landbouwers die flinke persoonlijke belangen hadden en goed georganiseerd zijn,  bereid zouden zijn om onze regering van repliek te dienen, om zo op zijn minst een open discussie op gang te brengen. 

Dat zou de zaak veel goed gedeaan hebben. 

Dus vroeg ik aan het blad Nieuwe Oogst of ik een gastcolumn mocht schrijven. 

Redacteur Jan van Liere liet mij een column schrijven, en vond die prima.  Hij zou zorgen dat ie geplaatst werd. 
Maar de week daarna hield de hoofdredacteur het tegen: het ontbrak aan onderbouwing. 
Ik zei: een column behoeft nooit onderbouwing. Het is een mening van de columnist.
Maar toch stuurde ik een uitgebreide onderbouwing aan de hoofdredacteur. 

Ik heb nooit meer iets van hem gehoord...

Daarna heb ik aan àlle medewerkers van dat blad de onderstaande brief gestuurd. 
Niet één van hen  heeft gereageerd, zelfs niet anoniem. 

Heel jammer voor die Nederlandse boeren, maar nu ik zie wat er in Rusland mee gedaan is, ben ik eigenlijk wel blij. 

Hieronder mijn column, en daaronder de brief aan de medewerkers. 


Amerika valt aan. Zoals altijd.

In de Oekraine is een vliegtuig neergeschoten en als gevolg daarvan gaan in Europa agrarische bedrijven failliet.  Hoe zit die vork in de steel?  ‘Ze’ geven Rusland de schuld van de ramp. Rusland is blijkbaar zonder bewijs al schuldig, want er worden sancties in gesteld.  Rusland besluit dan om geen lanbouwproducten meer kopen uit Europa.
Ik weet dat Rusland onschuldig is en dat sancties een standaard maatregel zijn van Amerika om haar tegenstanders kapot te maken.  Als de landbouw in Brussel de kant van Putin kiest  en openlijk betreurt dat Amerika de Oekraïne gebruikt om Rusland te verzwakken, dan zal Putin misschien wel wat mazen in die importverboden toestaan. Boeren moeten laten zien dat ze weten dat hier over hun rug een heel ander gevecht wordt uitgevochten: de strijd van Amerika om Rusland te destabiliseren en zo de BRIC landen de baas te blijven. Hieronder zal  ik laten zien dat de verwijten aan Rusland niet terecht zijn.

1. Het vliegtuig. De afgelopen drie weken zijn gebruikt om Rusland zwart te maken. De harde bewijzen zoals black boxes en gesprekken van de piloten worden echter niet vrijgegeven.  Alle beschuldigingen aan het adres van de Russen zijn inmiddels ontkracht. Peter van Vliet van het Forensisch team zei: De Ukraïners hebben geweldig geholpen. Bociurkiw van de OVSE zei: “Er is niet geplunderd, en alles wijst er op dat het vliegtuig door een jachtvliegtuig is  beschoten. Geen Buk.”  Op youtube zien we dat de soldaat die ‘een gouden ring steelt’,  die ring  nu juist in een doos doet en afgeeft.  Een andere soldaat die een teddybeer omhoog houdt blijkt omringd te zijn door fotografen. Na de foto’s legt hij de beer plechtig op de grond, doet zijn pet af en slaat een kruis. Hij toont dus wèl respect. De fotografen niet.   Zie: Ukrainian media stories about looting.

2.De Krim. Op de Krim wonen Russen, en die hebben zich afgescheiden van de Oekraïne. Daarna hebben ze Rusland gevraagd of ze zich kunnen aansluiten. Democratie op zijn best: een volk bepaalt wie  haar bestuurders moeten zijn. 

3. Oost Ukraïne.  Daar wonen Russen. Kiev haat hen. Oud president Timoshenko zei :” Laten we een atoombom op die Russen gooien.” Begrijpelijk  dat ze liever bij Rusland horen.
In 1961 zette Rusland raketten op Cuba. Dat was onaanvaardbaar voor Kennedy. Waarom zou Putin nu wel akkoord gaan met een Oekraïne waar Amerika  de baas is?
Kissinger, Kohl, Schmidt ,  en vele anderen staan achter Putin in deze zaak.

4. Hitler verloor 80% van zijn leger in de strijd met Rusland, en 20% (58 divisies) in de strijd tegen de geallieerden.  Zonder de Russen waren we nooit bevrijd.
 Hitler was de derde Europeaan die Rusland wilde veroveren. Stalin eiste dus in 1945 een bufferzone: de Warschau Pact landen. In 1992 mocht Duitsland herenigen op voorwaarde dat  de Nato niet zou uitbreiden. Het Westen schendt die afspraak glashard, maar Westerse raketten in de Oekraïne is echt onaanvaardbaar. Dan staat Rusland in verloren positie.  Rusland verloor 27 miljoen mensen in de strijd tegen Hitler. Het heeft recht op een bufferzone tegen het agressieve Amerika. Amerika dat  sinds 1945 al op 33 landen bommen heeft gegooid is de ware agressor. Niet Rusland.

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------




 Beste mensen,
beste medewerkers van Nieuwe Oogst en LTO,
ik ben landbouwer en ik vind dat de LTO de belangen van de boeren moet verdedigen, óók als dat niet anders kan dan op een ongebruikelijke manier.
Oók als het moed vergt om dat te doen.
Ik doe een beroep op U om nu ook daadwerkelijk, als indirect werknemer van de LTO, de boeren niet te laten barsten.  
Toon een beetje lef aub.
Wil U mij een plezier doen en deze 2 minuten video bekijken:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZBSGorpLNc  
U ziet dan dat àlle media ons hebben voorgelogen: Er zouden lijken gestolen zijn.(Net waar gebleken). Ze zouden met black boxes rommelen en niet willen afgeven ( niet waar gebleken). Een soldaat weigerde de OVSE toe te laten bij het wrak. ( Dat is wel gebeurd, maar de soldaat wachtte op toestemming.)   Er zouden allerlei mensen rond lopen. ( Dat is wel juist, maar er heerst een oorlog. Het is niet mogelijk om alles af te grendelen.)
Maar het meest boos zijn de mensen geworden over emotionele zaken:  Soldaten zouden in de spullen van de slachtoffers kijken.  Wat bleek: Ook een journalist van Sky News deed het, en een journalist van Eén Vandaag.  Ze moesten door het stof.   
Later hoorden we van de OVSE’s man Bociurkiw en van een Maleisische  waarnemer: Er was geen plundering. Alle bezittingen lagen er nog.
Het meest emotioneel is gereageerd op een foto van een soldaat die zogenaamd triomfantelijk een teddybeer omhoog hield.
En van de diefstal van een gouden ring.  Minister Timmermans gebruikte dat beeld in zijn speech voor de VN. 
Uit het filmpje blijkt dat die beide zaken óók onwaar waren.
Er zijn dus journalisten die zich laten gebruiken om een hetze tegen Rusland te creëren.
Van die hetze zijn de boeren het slachtoffer.
Ze werken een leven lang aan een bedrijf, en enkele journalisten schromen niet om het kapot te maken.
Ik zou het ook fijn vinden als U het artikel zou lezen dat ik aan de Nieuwe Oogst heb aangeboden.( Zie bijlage)
Men besloot om het niet te plaatsen.
Wat is uw mening?  Plaatsen of niet?
Hopelijk bent U wèl van mening dat de boeren recht hebben op deze informatie, en kan op die manier de redactie toch nog tot een andere mening worden bewogen.
De motivatie voor de afwijzing was vaag. 
Ik denk dat men gewoon niet  gelooft wat ik schrijf. En eigenlijk begrijp ik dat ook wel een beetje.
Leo Tolstoy schreef ooit:
"De moeilijkste onderwerpen kunnen worden uitgelegd aan de meest traag van begrip zijnde man als hij zich nog geen mening heeft gevormd over de zaak, maar het eenvoudigste voorval kan niet duidelijk worden gemaakt aan de meest intelligente man als die al  stevig ervan overtuigd is dat hij al weet, zonder een schaduw van twijfel, wat er gebeurd is."
Maar op dit filmpje zien we toch hoe we allemaal voorgelogen zijn.
De journalisten die de leugens over de soldaat en over de ring wereldwijd verbreidden werken bewust aan een hetze tegen Rusland.
Of vergis ik me tòch?  Neemt U dan de moeite om mij dat duidelijk te maken a.u.b.
Ik wens U moed.  Laat uw redactie weten wat Ù vind:  Is het de taak van Nieuwe Oogst om deze opinie te plaatsen, ja of nee?
Harder gezegd: Heeft de redactie het recht om een aantal van zijn lezers failliet te laten gaan terwijl dat kan worden voorkomen als we de waarheid als wapen gebruiken met onze Lobby in Brussel ? 
Er zijn miljoenen mensen die wèl zien wat er gebeurt, maar ze hebben geen toegang tot onze media, en ze hebben geen machtige Lobby. Ze worden genegeerd en in de Media als ‘complottisten’ voor gek versleten. Maar de boeren hebben macht in de EU. Als ze nu ook nog begrijpen dat zij een slachtoffer zijn van een agressief Amerika, en dat hun instortende afzet niet als een soort passieve verzetsdaad kan worden beschouwd om een betere wereld te verkrijgen, maar juist een boosaardiger wereld naderbij brengt, dan kunnen we iets bereiken. Dan kun je lobbyen met volle overtuiging. 
Met vr. groeten,  ******** ( geanonimiseerd)
   
  ------------------------------------------------------
In het artikel is geen ruimte om mijn beweringen te onderbouwen,
Maar in deze email kan dat natuurlijk wel.
Hieronder vindt U de onderbouwing van de beweringen in mijn opinie-stuk.
Uiteraard is het veel werk om al die video’’s te bekijken of artikelen te lezen.
Maar als het U interesseert, dan kan dat. 
Elke avond een uurtje en U hebt na 1 week een heel andere kijk op de wereld.
Mensen die ik in mijn artikel citeer:
Hoofdonderzoeker van het forensisch team, Peter van Vliet, zegt dat hij onder de indruk is van de manier waarop de Oekraïners de lichamen van de slachtoffers hebben geborgen. Ze deden een 'hell of a job', zegt hij.
Buciurkiw over het plunderen: There have been widespread reports of looting, but Mr. Bociurkiw said his monitoring group, which has now spent more time at the site than any other, had not seen any. The Malaysians said they had seen valuables in the fields untouched, he noted, including a bottle of duty-free perfume, auto parts, backpacks full of belongings, a watch and some jewelry.” http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/07/ukraine-no-interest-in-investigating-mh17.html 
Oud premier Timoshenko: “They ( russische Ukrainers) must be killed with nuclear weapons.”   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vDgdcXnY9M#t=119

Ik stel in mijn opiniestuk dat Rusland met recht een aantal landen als buffer behield tussen haarzelf en het agressieve westen. Dit idee ontleen ik aan William Blum:
One still comes across references in the mainstream media to Russian “expansionism” and “the Soviet empire”, in addition to that old favorite “the evil empire”. These terms stem largely from erstwhile Soviet control of Eastern European states. But was the creation of these satellites following World War II an act of imperialism or expansionism? Or did the decisive impetus lie elsewhere?
Within the space of less than 25 years, Western powers had invaded Russia three times – the two world wars and the “Intervention” of 1918-20 – inflicting some 40 million casualties in the two wars alone. To carry out these invasions, the West had used Eastern Europe as a highway. Should it be any cause for wonder that after World War II the Soviets wanted to close this highway down? Zie: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/09/the-russians-are-coming-the-russians-are-coming/
Over de invloed en de lafheid van de journalistiek hier een uitspraak van de Amerikaanse Paul Witteman: “If we journalists, including my self, right from the beginning had  been asking the necessary tough questions and doing our reporting, rather than be like a sort of stenographers, I do think the Iraq war could have been prevented.” Dat is zeker juist, en iemand kan ook schuldig worden bevonden door ‘verwijtbare nalatigheid.’ Ik hoop dus dat er een dag komt dat journalisten moeten boeten voor de miljoenen levens die ze vernietigd hebben door niet hun werk naar behoren te doen. Ik als teler moet aan extreme eisen voldoen voor de voedselveiligheid (BRC, IFS etc) , maar een journalist mag best leugens vertellen die er voor dienen om een oorlog te veroorzaken.  Hier een zeer goede documentaire over het bedrog in de media: “The war you don’t see”  http://tiny.cc/q0ntcx ( Hierin komt de uitspraak van Dan Rather ook voor.)

Over de correcte houding van Rusland met betrekking tot de  Krim en de Ukraïne:   
Prof Stephen Cohen, video: een prettig gesprek, informatief: http://rt.com/shows/big-picture/165916-cohen-iraq-ukraine-soviet/
Oud CIA man:  “And, in February 1990, his Secretary of State James Baker promised Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would move “not one inch” to the East, if Russia pulled its 24 divisions out of East Germany”.: http://tinyurl.com/ljpnpkd  
Prof. Merkel over het feit dat de aansluiting van de Krim juridisch geheel in orde was. Dus geen illegale zaak: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/die-krim-und-das-voelkerrecht-kuehle-ironie-der-geschichte-12884464.html
Aanwijzingen dat het de Kiev opstandelingen zijn die de sluipschutters betalen:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8    en  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDPJ-ucnyPU 
Aanwijzingen dat het Kiev is dat de Odessa moorden heeft georganiseerd: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZUEBIoZu0w 
Amerika beweert dat een raket het vliegtuig heeft neergehaald.  Maar er is geen enkele aanwijzing dat er een raket is gelanceerd.  Er zijn video’s van rond rijdende vrachtwagens met raketten. Er zijn video’s waar separatisten beweren dat ze een vliegtuig hebben neergehaald,  maar die zaken worden bij de vleet vervalst.  Zijn er ook gewone burgers geïnterviewd die het helse kabaal hebben gehoord van een Buk raket die wordt gelanceerd?  Nee.
Maar er zijn wel burgers die zagen dat het vliegtuig dat neer stortte, werd belaagd door een jachtvliegtuig.
En de OVSE man Burciurkiw zag duidelijk kogelgaten in de cockpit. En een piloot zegt dat alles wijst op een jachtvliegtuig. En de Russen die , zoals het hoort , al 4 dagen na de crash al hun radarbeelden pubbliek maakten, hebben op de radar gezien dat er een jachtvliegtuig naast vloog.  http://www.globalresearch.ca/support-mh17-truth-osce-monitors-identify-shrapnel-like-holes-indicating-shelling-no-firm-evidence-of-a-missile-attack/5394324
Bewijzen dat de VS en de EU de Ukraïne bewust van Rusland willen afnemen:
Minister Nuland ( VS) : We hebben 5 miljard $ geïnvesteerd om Ukraine te destabiliseren.:  ( video)    http://tiny.cc/a3x3ax    
Een korte samenvatting over de werkelijke strijd tussen Amerika en Rusland: http://www.joop.nl/opinies/detail/artikel/28101_conflict_vs_rusland_5_oorzaken/
Een Duitse analist die al in december 2012 zag aankomen dat de VS er alles aan zou gaan doen om de steeds betere samenwerking tussen Rusland en Europa (en afhankelijkheid van Russisch gas) te blokkeren door een oorlog te forceren:   http://nsnbc.me/2012/12/22/russia-e-u-meeting-in-bruxelles-risk-of-middle-east-and-european-war-increased
Ook vanaf 2012 is het Rusland –zwartmaken begonnen: 
Pussy Riot werd in de picture gezet.  Vergelijk dat eens met Megan Rice, die nòg langer de gevangenis in moest, maar géén krant haalde:  http://tiny.cc/ujiefx 
Een russisch diplomaat die dronken was en zijn kinderen sloeg was wekenlang in het nieuws.  Daaraan zie we duidelijk dat er hogere machten bezig zijn met zwartmaken: Over diplomaten komt nóóit iets in het nieuws. In geen enkel land. http://willyvandamme.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/de-nieuwe-roddel-courant/
De journalist Willy van Damme doorziet het spel al jaren en heeft een fenomenale feitenkennis. Als U iets wil weten kunt U de zoekfuntie op zijn blog gebruiken, en dankunt U lezen hoe de zaak werkelijk is of was. Probeert U bijvoorbeeld eens met : Litvinenko, de man die volgens onze media door Putin zou zijn vergiftigd. 
Russen zijn tegen homosexualiteit. Wat dat betreft lopen ze 30 jaar achter met ons. Maar er zijn honderden NGO’s  ( goede doelen organisaties, maar heel vaak werken ze voor de VS regering, soms zonder dat zelf te weten: de zogenaamde ‘unwitting assets’ of, zoals Stalin ze noemde:  nuttige idioten.) in Rusland actief die nu juist dit soort achilles-hielen van Rusland benutten om het land te destabiliseren: dus de homo’s worden geholpen om flink aan de weg te timmeren. Putin heeft toen besloten om alle reklame-achtige publiciteit over homosexualiteit uit te bannen. Natuurlijk werd dat toen benut om Putin zwart te maken.
Een voormalig hoofdbestuurder van Amnesty  International, prof. Boyle, zegt dat ook Amneswty heel waak werd misbruikt om een opponent van Amerika zwart te maken. Hij adviseert Rusland om àl die NGO’s het land uit te zetten.  Hier een korte video met Boyle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SEcZFgSnVP0#t=602
Putin heeft de NGO’s er niet uit gezet, maar eist wel dat ze aantonen wie hen financiert.
Wat gebeurt er in de wereld?
In 1915 kocht de bankier JP Morgan de ‘policy’ van de 25 grootste kranten. Die zouden voortaan de werkelijkheid beschrijven zoals hij dat wenste. We weten dit omdat congreslid Oscar Callaway het liet opnemen in de annalen van het Congres: http://ut.alternativeconservative.com/2010/01/cfr-jp-morgan-oscar-callaway/ 
Er is geen reden om aan te nemen dat de huidige kranten wel de waarheid drukken in zaken waar het oorlog of vrede betreft.
Gelukkig is er nu het internet waar minder censuur mogelijk is. Enkele goede bronnen zijn: 
In 1997 bepaalden de Neocons dat ze de wereld nog eens 100 jaar zouden controleren. Men moest een veel sterker leger krijgen.En men moest twee oorlogen tegelijk kunnen voeren. Moderne oorlogen: dus met false flags, met anderen die het werk voor je doen ( jihadisten, of fascisten) , met pre-emptive oorlogen, etc. etc.  We maken het nu al 14 jaar mee, en ze worden steeds gekker. Het is niet ondenkbaar dat ze met atoombommen gaan gooien.    Hier het PNAC rapport uit 1997: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century 
De Neocons zijn volgelingen van Leo Strauss, Ze geloven dat een democratie onzin is en dat een regering best het volk mag misleiden:  http://www.nhinet.org/ryn18-1&2.pdf
Sterke aanwijzingen dat de VS met fascisten samenwerkt, en dat Nederland zelfs 50.000 € schenkt aan mensen die 1,5 miljoen Russen willen doden:  http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.nl/2014/08/its-perfectly-simple-you-need-to-kill.html
Ook interessant:  In 1967 geeft de CIA een memorandum uit waarin het verzoekt aan bevriende journalisten om alle theoriën die anders zijn dan de officiele versie van de regering, af te doen als complot theoriën.  En er moet een sterke associatie worden gemaakt tussen complot theorie en ‘halve idioot’. Later bleek waarom de CIA dit  memorandum  1035-960  ( google 1035-960) had uitgegeven: omdat de ‘complottisten’ gelijk hadden : de CIA was betrokken bij de moord op Kennedy. http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.nl/2009/12/james-douglass-jfk-and-unspeakable.html
Amerika heeft na de oorlog 33 landen gebombardeerd: http://killinghope.org/superogue/bomb.htm
Rusland heeft Hongarije en Tsjechoslowakije met leger-macht  binnen het Warschau pact gehouden. Het heeft een communistsich regime in Afghanistan geholpen tegen de voorlopers van de Taliban.  Het heeft de agressie van Georgië gestopt in 2008. Het heeft de idiote jihadisten in Chechenie zeer hard gestopt, en Putin is nu goed bevriend met de meer gematigder moslims in Chechenië. Conclusie: Rusland heeft wel zijn leger gebruikt, maar nooit op plaatsen waar het niet haar zaak was. En altijd defensief: om te behouden wat haar toekomt. Maar onze media wordn volgeschreven door Amerikaanse beureau’s, niet door Russische.
Het verschijnsel dat mensen hun eenmaal ingenomen standpunt bijna niet meer veranderen, zoals Lev Tolstoy al opmerkte, lijkt heel sterk op wat in de psychologie bekend  staat als ‘Confirmation bias.’
Amerika maakt daarvan gebruik als het een False Flag pleegt.  ( Een valse vlag actie is als je een vliegtuig neer schiet en dan jouw opponent de schuld geeft. ‘Operation Northwood ‘ was zo’n p[lan, maar dat is destijds door Kennedy verboden, wat één van de nagels aan zijn doodskist was.)
Als de ramp  is gebeurd moet je zeer snel naar de opponent wijzen en beweren dat HIJ het gedaan heeft. Liefst met ‘bewijzen’ waar niemand aan kan twijfelen.
Bij 911 had men ‘bewijzen’. Een bekende journaliste had vanuit het vliegtuig met haar man gebeld, en gezegd dat de kapers ‘moslims waren met stanley messen’.  Iedereen kende Barbara Olsen, en was zeer getroffen.  Op dat moment wist dus iedereen voor 100% zeker dat de moslims 911 hadden gepleegd. Maar... later bleek dat het vliegtuig dermate  hoog vloog en dermate snel, dat een telefoongesprek onmogelijk was.  De onderzoekers verandereden dus hun verhaal: het gesprek was met een toestel uit de rugleuning van de steol gevoerd.  Helaas bleke  die er  nooit te hebben in gezeten. In 2007 verklaarde de FBI zelf dat het gesprek met Barbara Olsen nooit kon hebben plaats gevonden.  Hier theoloog prof D. R. Griffin daarover:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjImLL4NnwA
Maar is het dan niet een schandaal als zo’n leugen bekend wordt in de pers?  Het antwoord geeft professor Griffin:  Geen enkele van de Media heeft de nieuwe uitspraak van de FBI geplaatst.
In dit verband is het verhelderend om te lezen hoe een man als Karl Rove over de paar journalisten denkt die wèl de waarheid publiceren:
“prima dat jullie journalisten telkens de waarheid achterhalen. Maar wij gaan steeds verder met de realiteit te veranderen, en jullie komen er achteraan gesukkeld.’  En zo is het ook: Irak is vernietigd, ook al was dat op basis van leugens, het blijft vernietigd. Idem voor Libië en Syrië.  En straks voor Rusland en Iran.   En ook Europa zal enorm lijden van de wig die Amerika drijft tussen Rusland en Europa.
Hier Karl Rove:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community  De Neocons achten zich onaantastbaar, want ze controleren de Massamedia.
Algemeen filmpje over de Ukraïne: Wat U niet weet over Ukraïne:     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkfpGCAAuw&list=UUEHsSWvrGVSIA63OV3J6vhA  




Wednesday, October 10, 2018

763 Some fine Blogs and Youtubes


De opkomst van China:

Inleiding:  Jacques schreef er boeken over:
 Understanding the rise of China | Martin Jacques
( TED  talk , 24 min.)

Mearsheimer:

Why China Cannot Rise Peacefully

Mearsheimer geeft een aantal punten die ELK land wil nastreven.
( Veiligheid, welvaart, 'overleven', etc)
Daaruit concludeert hij dat de opkomst van China wel moet leiden tot problemen. ( Theucydes heeft er al over geschreven...)



Nog niet bekeken :

Are China and the US doomed to conflict? | Kevin Rudd


=========================
Economische strijd tussen VS en China:
De boosheid van de VS:

Peter Navarro - How Trump Will Win Against China on Trade

Navarro is de hoge ambtenaar die wellicht Trump's tarieven-strijd heeft veroorzaakt.  Hij heeft een 'geheim' Chinees plan ontdekt, en ziet dat er economische agressie uit spreekt. Er zijn 50 punten die China nastreeft.

Waarom die boosheid ongegrond is:

Yukon Huang: Debunking Myths About China's Economy

Huang geeft een hele reeks met veronderstellingen over China die onjuist zijn. 
Van een IPad blijft ca 20 $ in China, en 400 $ in toeleverende landen rondom China. ( als ik het me goed herinner)

==================
Core bussiness van dit blog: Ken O'Keefe zegt het beter dan wie ook: 



Monday, October 08, 2018

762 De Joodse hand in de twee wereldoorlogen.

 Ik heb onderstaand artikel nog niet gelezen, maar wil het toch bewaren op dit blog.
Je weet maar nooit wat  er met Ron UNZ's blog zal gebeuren. ( Ik las het tot de foto van Trotsky)



The Jewish Hand in the World Wars, Part 1
 RSS  


shutterstock_785840617


In 2006, an inebriated Mel Gibson allegedly said this: “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” There followed the predicable storm of anti-anti-Semitism, ad hominem attacks, and various other slanders against Gibson’s character. But virtually no one asked the question: Is he right? Or rather this: To what degree could he be right?
Clearly Jews can’t be responsible for all the world’s wars, but might they have had a hand in many wars—at least amongst those countries in which they lived or interacted? Given their undeniable influence in those nations where they exceed even a fraction of a percent of the population, Jews must be responsible, to some degree, for at least some of what government does, both good and bad. Jews are often praised as brilliant managers, economists, and strategists, and have been granted seemingly endless awards and honors. But those given credit for their successes must also receive blame for their failures. And there are few greater failures in the lives of nations than war.
To begin to evaluate Gibson’s charge, I will look at the role Jews played in the two major wars of world history, World Wars I and II. But first I need to recap some relevant history in order to better understand the context of Jewish policy and actions during those calamitous events.
Historical Context
Have Jews played a disproportionate role in war and social conflict—a role typically not of peacemakers and reconcilers, but of instigators and profiteers? Let us very briefly review some historical evidence to answer this charge; it provides relevant insight into Jewish influences during both world wars.
As far back as the Book of Genesis, we find stories such as that of Joseph, son of Jacob, sold into slavery in Egypt. Joseph earns the favor of the Pharaoh and is elevated to a position of power. When a famine strikes, Joseph develops and implements a brutal policy of exploitation, leading Egyptian farmers to sell their land, animals, and ultimately themselves in exchange for food. Joseph himself survives unscathed, living out his days in “the land of Goshen,” with a life of luxury and ease—evidently as repayment for a job well done.[1]
Over time, Jews continued to build a reputation as rabble-rousers and exploiters. In 41 AD, Roman Emperor Claudius issued his Third Edict, condemning the Jews of Alexandria for abuse of privilege and sowing discord; he charged them with “fomenting a general plague which infests the whole world.” Eight years later he expelled them from Rome. As a result, the Jews revolted in Jerusalem in the years 66-70, and again in 115 and 132. Of that final uprising, Cassius Dio made the following observation—the first clear indication of Jews causing a major war:
Jews everywhere were showing signs of hostility to the Romans, partly by secret and partly overt acts… [M]any other nations, too, were joining them through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth, one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter.[2]
Thus it was not without reason that notable Romans denounced the Jews—among these Seneca (“an accursed race”), Quintilian (“a race which is a curse to others”), and Tacitus (a “disease,” a “pernicious superstition,” and “the basest of peoples”).[3]Prominent German historian Theodor Mommsen reaffirmed this view, noting that the Jews of Rome were indeed agents of social disruption and decay: “Also in the ancient world, Judaism was an effective ferment of cosmopolitanism and of national decomposition.”[4]
Throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, their negative reputation persisted. John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther all condemned Jewish usury—a lending practice often trading on distress, and a frequent cause of social unrest. In the 1770s, Baron d’Holbach declared that “the Jewish people distinguished themselves only by massacres, unjust wars, cruelties, usurpations, and infamies.” He added that they “lived continually in the midst of calamities, and were, more than all other nations, the sport of frightful revolutions.”[5] Voltaire was struck by the danger posed to humanity by the Hebrew tribe; “I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.”[6]Kant called them a “nation of deceivers,” and Hegel remarked that “the only act Moses reserved for the Israelites was…to borrow with deceit and repay confidence with theft.”[7]
Thus both empirical evidence and learned opinion suggest that Jews have, for centuries, had a hand in war, social strife, and economic distress, and have managed to profit thereby.[8] Being a small and formally disempowered minority everywhere, it is striking that they should merit even a mention in such events—or if they did, it should have been as the exploited, and not the exploiters. And yet they seem to have demonstrated a consistent ability to turn social unrest to their advantage. Thus it is not an unreasonable claim that they might even instigate such unrest, anticipating that they could achieve desired ends.
Jewish Advance in America and Elsewhere
The long history of Jewish involvement in social conflict has a direct bearing on both world wars. Consider their progressive influence in American government. Beginning in the mid-1800s, we find a number of important milestones. In 1845, the first Jews were elected to both houses of Congress: Lewis Levin (Pa.) to the House and David Yulee (Fla.) to the Senate. By 1887 they had their first elected governor, Washington Bartlett in California. And in 1889, Solomon Hirsch became the first Jewish minister, nominated by President Harrison as ambassador to the Ottoman Empire—which at that time controlled Palestine.
Overseas, trouble was brewing for the Jews in Russia. A gang of anarchists, one or two of whom were Jewish, succeeded in killing Czar Alexander II in 1881. This unleashed a multi-decade series of periodic pogroms, most minor but some killing multiple hundreds of Jews. Further difficulties for them came with the so-called May Laws of 1882, which placed restrictions on Jewish business practice and areas of residency within the “Pale of Settlement” in the western portion of the Russian empire.[9] Many Jews fled the Pale; of those heading west, Germany was their first stop.[10]
Even prior to the 1880s, Jewish influence in Germany was considerable. In the 1840s, both Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx wrote influential essays on Die Judenfrage (The Jewish Question). In 1850, composer Richard Wagner complained that Germans found themselves “in the position of fighting for emancipation from the Jews. The Jew is, in fact…more than emancipated. He rules…”[11] By 1878, Wagner declared that Jewish control of German newspapers was nearly total. A year later Wilhelm Marr decried “the victory of Jewry over Germandom”; he believed it self-evident that “without striking a blow…Jewry today has become the socio-political dictator of Germany.”[12]
The facts support these views. And with the influx of Russian and Polish Jews in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the situation got demonstrably worse. Sarah Gordon (1984: 10-14) cites the following impressive statistics:
Before the First World War, for example, Jews occupied 13 percent of the directorships of joint-stock corporations and 24 percent of the supervisory positions within these corporations. … [D]uring 1904 they comprised 27 percent of all lawyers, 10 percent of all apprenticed lawyers, 5 percent of court clerks, 4 percent of magistrates, and up to 30 percent of all higher ranks of the judiciary. … Jews were [also] overrepresented among university professors and students between 1870 and 1933. For example, in 1909-1910…almost 12 percent of instructors at German universities were Jewish… [I]n 1905-1906 Jewish students comprised 25 percent of the law and medical students… The percentage of Jewish doctors was also quite high, especially in large cities, where they sometimes were a majority. … [I]n Berlin around 1890, 25 percent of all children attending grammar school were Jewish…
For all this, Jews never exceeded 2% of the German population. The public accepted the foreigners with a remarkable degree of tolerance, and more or less allowed them to dominate certain sectors of German society. There were no legal constraints, and violent attacks were rare. But the Germans would come to regret such liberal policies.
The other important factor at that time was the emergence of Zionism. Formally established by Theodor Herzl in 1897, its basic principles were laid out in his book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State). He argued that the Jews would never be free from persecution as long as they were foreigners everywhere, and thus they needed their own state. A number of locations were discussed, but by the time of the first meeting of the World Zionist Organization in 1897, the movement had settled on Palestine. This, however, was problematic because the region at that time was under control of the Ottoman Empire, and was populated primarily by Muslim and Christian Arabs. Somehow, the Zionist Jews would have to wrest control of Palestine away from the Ottoman Turks and then drive out the Arabs. It was a seemingly impossible task.
They immediately understood that this could only be done by force. It would take a condition of global distress—something approaching a world war—in order for the Zionists to manipulate things to their advantage. Their guiding principle of ‘profit through distress’ could work here, but it would require both internal and external pressure. In states where the Jews had significant population but little official power, they would foment unrest from within. In states where they had influence, they would use the power of their accumulated wealth to dictate national policy. And in states where they had neither population nor influence, they would apply external pressure to secure support for their purposes.
That the Zionists seriously contemplated this two-pronged, internal/external strategy is no mere speculation; we have the word of Herzl himself. He wrote:
When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse. (1896/1967: 26)
In fact, Herzl apparently predicted the outbreak of global war. One of the original Zionists, Litman Rosenthal, wrote in his diary of 15 December 1914 his recollection of a conversation with Herzl from 1897. Herzl allegedly said,
It may be that Turkey will refuse or be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now the question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. A European war is imminent… The great European war must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the Peace Conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time. We will assuredly be called to this great conference of the nations and we must prove to them the urgent importance of a Zionist solution to the Jewish Question.
This was Herzl’s so-called “great war prophecy.” Now, he does not say that the Zionists will cause this war, only that they will “be ready” when it comes, and “will seek other means” than diplomacy to accomplish their end. A striking prediction, if true.[13]
In any case, there was clearly a larger plan at work here. The Jews would pursue a policy of revolution in states like Russia in order to bring down hated governments. To the degree possible, they would seek to undermine the Ottoman Turks as well. And in Germany, the UK, and America, they would use “the terrible power of the purse” to dictate an aggressive war-policy in order to realign the global power structure to their favor. This would have a triple benefit: curtailing rampant anti-Semitism; enhancing Jewish wealth; and ultimately establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, one that could serve as the global center of world Jewry. Revolution and war thus became a top priority.[14]
Turkey was in fact an early success for the movement. The Sultan’s system of autocratic rule generated some dissatisfaction, and a group of Turkish Jews exploited this to their advantage—resulting in the Turkish Revolution of 1908. As Stein explains,
the revolution had been organized from Salonica [present-day Thessaloniki], where the Jews, together with the crypto-Jews known as Dönmeh, formed a majority of the population. Salonica Jews and the Dönmeh had taken an important part in the events associated with the revolution and had provided the Committee of Union and Progress with several of its ablest members. (1961: 35)[15]
This group of revolutionaries, today known as the Young Turks, was able to overthrow the Sultan and exert substantial influence on the succeeding ruler. But in the end they were unable to steer the declining empire in a pro-Zionist direction.
Back in the USA, Jewish population was rising even faster than in Germany. In 1880 it had roughly 250,000 Jews (0.5%), but by 1900—just 20 years later—the figure was around 1.5 million (1.9%). A census of 1918 showed this number increasing to an astonishing figure of 3 million (2.9%). Their political influence grew commensurately.
For present purposes, significant American influence began with the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. He was shot by a Polish radical named Leon Czolgosz, who had been heavily influenced by two Jewish anarchists, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. The presidency immediately fell to the vice president, Theodore Roosevelt—who, at age 42, was (and remains) the youngest president in history. His role as an army colonel in the 1898 victory in Cuba over the Spaniards had led to widespread publicity, and with the backing of the Jewish community, he won the New York governorship later that same year. Thus he was well situated to earn the vice presidential nomination in 1900.
A question of interest: Was Roosevelt Jewish? I will examine this issue in detail later with respect to FDR (as to whom there is more to say), but in brief, there is considerable circumstantial evidence that all of the Roosevelts were, at least in part, Jewish. In Theodore’s case, the only explicit indication is a claim by former Michigan governor Chase Osborn. In a letter dated 21 March 1935, Osborn said, “President [Franklin] Roosevelt knows well enough that his ancestors were Jewish. I heard Theodore Roosevelt state twice that his ancestors were Jewish.”[16] But Osborn offers no specifics, and I am not aware of any further claims regarding Theodore himself.
However, there are two other relevant items regarding his Jewish connections. Having acceded to the office in 1901, he subsequently won the 1904 election. In late 1906 he appointed the first Jew to the presidential cabinet: Oscar Straus, a wealthy New York lawyer and former ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. As Secretary of Labor and Commerce, Straus was in charge of the Bureau of Immigration—at the critical time of accelerating Jewish immigration. We can be sure that his office was particularly amenable to incoming Jews.
The second event occurred in 1912. Roosevelt had declined to run again in 1908, preferring to nominate his Secretary of War, William Taft—who proceeded to win handily. Taft, however, disappointed many Republicans, and there was a call to bring Roosevelt back. But the party would not oust a sitting president, and so Roosevelt decided to run on a third-party ticket. Hence the peculiar status of the 1912 election: it featured Taft running for reelection, Roosevelt running as a third-party candidate, and Woodrow Wilson running as a first-term Democrat. As the history books like to say, we had a former president and a sitting president running against a future president. Wilson, as we know, would win this race, and go on to serve two consecutive terms—covering the lead-up, duration, and aftermath of World War I.

Jewish banker Paul Warburg (1868-1932) at the 1st Pan-American Financial Conference, Washington D.C., May, 1915. By Harris & Ewing [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Jewish banker Paul Warburg (1868-1932) at the 1st Pan-American Financial Conference, Washington D.C., May, 1915. By Harris & Ewing [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
But less well known is this fact: For perhaps the first time in US history, all three major candidates had substantial Jewish financial backing. Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independentreported on a 1914 Congressional testimony by Paul Warburg, best known as the Jewish “father of the Federal Reserve.” Warburg was the prototypical Jewish banker, long-time partner at Kuhn, Loeb, and Co., and later head of Wells Fargo in New York. At some point during Taft’s presidency, Warburg decided to get financially involved in politics. By the time of the 1912 election, he and his partners at Kuhn, Loeb were funding all three candidates. Warburg’s testimony, before Senator Joseph Bristow (R-Kan.), is revealing:
JB: “It has been variously reported in the newspapers that you and your partners directly and indirectly contributed very largely to Mr. Wilson’s campaign funds.” PW: “Well, my partners—there is a very peculiar condition—no; I do not think any one of them contributed largely at all; there may have been moderate contributions. My brother, for instance, contributed to Mr. Taft’s campaign.” …
JB: “I understood you to say that you contributed to Mr. Wilson’s campaign.” PW: “No; my letter says that I offered to contribute; but it was too late. I came back to this country only a few days before the campaign closed.” JB: “So that you did not make any contribution?” PW: “I did not make any contribution; no.” JB: “Did any members of your firm make contributions to Mr. Wilson’s campaign?” PW: “I think that is a matter of record. Mr. [Jacob] Schiff contributed. I would not otherwise discuss the contributions of my partners, if it was not a matter of record. I think Mr. Schiff was the only one who contributed in our firm.” JB: “And you stated that your brother had contributed to Mr. Taft’s campaign, as I understand it?” PW: “I did. But again, I do not want to go into a discussion of my partners’ affairs, and I shall stick to that pretty strictly, or we will never get through.” JB: “I understood you also to say that no members of your firm contributed to Mr. Roosevelt’s campaign.” PW: “I did not say that.” JB: “Oh! Did any members of the firm do that?” PW: “My answer would please you probably; but I shall not answer that, but will repeat that I will not discuss my partners’ affairs.” JB: “Yes. I understood you to say Saturday that you were a Republican, but when Mr. Roosevelt became a candidate, you then became a sympathizer with Mr. Wilson and supported him?” PW: “Yes.” JB: “While your brother was supporting Mr. Taft?” PW: “Yes.” JB: “And I was interested to know whether any member of your firm supported Mr. Roosevelt.” PW: “It is a matter of record that there are.” JB: “That there are some of them who did?” PW: “Oh, yes.”[17]
In sum: some unknown members of Kuhn, Loeb donated to Roosevelt; Paul’s brother (Felix) gave to Taft; and Schiff donated to Wilson. Cleverly, Paul Warburg himself admitted to no funding, but we can hardly take him at his word here. In any case, there was a Jewish hand in all three contestants, and the Jews were guaranteed influence with the winner, no matter the outcome. We don’t know the extent of this influence, nor how long it had gone on. To date I have not uncovered evidence of Jewish involvement with Roosevelt’s 1904 election, although his appointment of Straus to the cabinet is typical of the kind of political patronage that follows financial support. And the same with Taft: We don’t know the degree of Jewish support for his initial run in 1908, but support in 1912 suggests that they were reasonably satisfied with his performance.
But Taft turned out to be a mixed bag for the Jews. On the one hand, Jewish immigration continued apace. And he did appoint Oscar Straus to the ambassadorship to the Ottoman Empire . However, he was less inclined to act on the international stage than the Jews had wished. Of particular concern was the growing problem in Russia, and steady reports of Jewish pogroms. For example, there was the “Kishinev massacre” of April 1903; the New York Times reported that “Jews were slaughtered like sheep. The dead number 120… The scenes of horror attending this massacre are beyond description. Babes were literally torn to pieces by the frenzied and blood-thirsty mob” (April 28; p. 6). A slight exaggeration—the actual death toll was 47. A second attack in Kishinev in 1905 left 19 dead; regrettable, but hardly a catastrophe. In early 1910 the NYT ran an article, “Russian Jews in Sad Plight.” Their source said, “The condition of Russian [Jews] is worse today than at any time since the barbarous massacres and pogroms of 1905 and 1906.”[18] Then on 18 September 1911, the Russian Prime Minister, Pyotr Stolypin, was shot and killed—by a Jewish assassin, Mordekhai Gershkovich, aka Dmitri Bogrov. (The reader will recall Herzl’s demand for revolutionary action.) This of course brought even harsher recriminations.
But the last straw, for the American Zionists, was the restriction on American Jews from entering into Russia. There had been obstacles in place since the turn of the century, but they became much more stringent during Taft’s presidency. The Zionists wanted the US government to take action, but this was forestalled by a long-standing treaty of 1832, one that guaranteed “reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation” and allowed mutual freedom of entry of citizens on both sides. The Zionists thus took it upon themselves to initiate the abrogation of this treaty as a means of putting external pressure on the Czarist regime. And, despite the wishes of President Taft and the best interests of America at large, they succeeded. This whole incident, thoroughly documented by Cohen (1963), is an astounding and watershed event in Jewish influence. As she says,
Credit for this act belongs to a small group which had campaigned publicly during 1911 for the abrogation of the treaty. How a mere handful of men succeeded in arousing American public opinion on a relatively obscure issue to a near “wave of hysteria,” how they forced the hand of an antagonistic administration, and what principal aim lay behind their fight for abrogation constitute an absorbing story of pressure politics. (p. 3)
The “mere handful of men” consisted primarily of Jewish lawyer Louis Marshall, the banker Jacob Schiff, and their colleagues at the American Jewish Committee—the ‘AIPAC’ of its day, and still a potent force a century later. They had raised the topic of abrogation as early as 1908, but it did not become a top priority until early 1910. They then approached Taft, knowing that he was preparing to run for reelection the following year. As Cohen (p. 9) says, “The quid pro quo was obvious; the Jewish leaders would try to deliver the Jewish vote to Taft.” But he was unsympathetic. Taft knew that, for several reasons, it was not in America’s favor: Our commercial interests, our Far East foreign policy, Russian good will, and our international integrity would all be harmed by abrogation. But the Jews were pressing; in February 1910 they met with Taft, to “give him one last chance” to support their cause. When he again declined, they decided to go around the president, to Congress and to the American people. They knew how to work Congress. As Cohen (p. 13) explains, “the pattern of Jewish petitions to the government…was generally that of secret diplomacy. Wealthy or politically prominent individuals asked favors…but always in the form of discreet pressure and behind-the-scenes bargaining.” But mounting a public campaign was something new.
In January 1911, Marshall “officially opened the public campaign for abrogation.” He immediately appealed not to Jewish interest—though that was the sole motive—but rather to allegedly American interests. “It is not the Jew who is insulted; it is the American people,” he said. As Shogan (2010: 22) puts it, “a key to the [Jewish] strategy was to frame its demand as a plea to protect American interests in general, not just the rights of Jews.” The AJC then embarked on a massive propaganda effort. They enlisted Jewish support in the media; Samuel Strauss and Adolph Ochs (of the New York Times) helped coordinate a series of articles and op-eds in several major cities. They made the case “in popular emotional terms,” organized petitions and letter-writing programs, and held dedicated, pro-abrogation rallies—one of which included such luminaries as William Hearst and future president Woodrow Wilson.[19] Everything was designed to put maximum pressure on Congress to act.
All the while, Taft remained firm in his opposition. In a private letter he wrote, “I am the President of the whole United States, and the vote of the Jews, important as it is, cannot frighten me in this matter” (Cohen, p. 21). Secretary of State Philander Knox, and Ambassador to Russia William Rockhill, both strongly supported him. Rockhill was particularly galled; expressing his thoughts, Cohen asks, “were national interests to be subservient to a small group of individuals?” After all, the actual harm was near microscopic: “Only 28 American Jews resided in Russia, and the State Dept knew of only four cases in five years where American Jews were denied admission” (p. 16). And yet this “small group of men” was turning the tide in their favor.
By November of 1911, just 11 months after launching their public campaign, the AJC was confident of victory. Schiff was able to predict easy passage for the resolution. That same month an “unofficial delegation” of Jews met with Taft regarding his pending annual message, and they convinced him that Congressional action was inevitable, and veto-proof. Taft relented, agreeing to sign the resolution when it reached his desk. Wanting no further delay, the AJC pressed for a vote before the end of year. On December 13 the House approved the measure—by the astounding tally of 301 to 1. A slightly modified version came up for Senate vote on December 19, which was passed unanimously. A reconciled bill was approved the next day, and Taft signed it. So it came to be that, on 20 December 1911, the US government sold its soul to the Jewish Lobby.
The importance of this event can scarcely be overestimated. The interests of “a mere handful of men,” acting on behalf of a small American minority, were able to dictate governmental foreign policy, against the express wishes of the president and his staff, and contrary to the larger interests of the nation.
The Russians, incidentally, were stunned at this decision. They knew of the Jewish hand behind it, but could hardly believe that it had the power to carry through on its threat. The NYT again gives a useful report:
In parliamentary circles here [in Russia] the prevailing comment is characterized by astonishment that the American government has responded so readily to the Jewish outcry. The opinion is expressed by members of the Duma that in all probability the Jews will now attempt to force matters further. (20 Dec 1911; p. 2)
Indeed—the Jewish-led Bolshevik revolution was just six years away.
Such was the state of things in America and globally at that time. International Jewry had sufficient wealth and influence to steer events at the highest levels, and American Jews (Zionist and otherwise) had come to permeate the government—and American culture generally. The situation so impressed German economist Werner Sombart that in 1911 he made this observation: “For what we call Americanism is nothing else than the Jewish spirit distilled.”[20]From the perspective of a century later, this would seem truer than ever.
Wilson and the “Great War”
All this, then, serves as the context and backdrop for the emergence of Woodrow Wilson, beginning with the election of 1912. If Franklin Roosevelt was “the first great hero of American Jews,”[21] then Wilson was the first great understudy. As Henry Ford saw it, “Mr. Wilson, while President, was very close to the Jews. His administration, as everyone knows, was predominantly Jewish.”[22] Wilson seems to have been the first president to have the full backing of the Jewish Lobby, including multiple major financial donors. And he was the first to fully reward their support.
It’s worthwhile summarizing the main figures in the Jewish power structure, as of 1912. Herzl died young in 1904, so he was out of the picture. But a “mere handful” of others came to dominate the movement, and the American scene:
  • Oscar Straus (age 62), German-born, first Jewish cabinet member under T. Roosevelt, and later ambassador to the Ottoman Empire under Taft.
  • Jacob Schiff (65), head of the Kuhn, Loeb banking firm.
  • Louis Marshall (56), borderline Zionist, founder of the AJC.
  • The Warburg brothersPaul (44) and Felix (41), German-born bankers. A third brother, Max, stayed in Germany (until 1938).
  • Henry Morgenthau, Sr. (56), German-born lawyer, father of the even more influential Henry, Jr.
  • Louis Brandeis (56), lawyer, strongly Zionist.
  • Samuel Untermyer (54), lawyer.
  • Bernard Baruch (42), Wall Street financier.
  • Stephen Wise (40), Austrian-born rabbi and fervent Zionist.
  • Richard Gottheil (50), British-born rabbi and Zionist.
These, to emphasize, were all Americans. On the European side there was a different structure, one centered on such figures as Chaim Weizmann and Herbert Samuel in Britain, and Max Nordau in France.
Let me begin with financial backing—which of course has long been the trump card of Jewry. Many of the above individuals were prime supporters of Wilson. Cooper (2009: 172) remarks that his “big contributors” included the likes of “Henry Morgenthau, Jacob Schiff, and Samuel Untermyer, as well as a newcomer to their ranks, Bernard Baruch.” Such assistance continued throughout Wilson’s tenure; for his 1916 reelection bid, “financiers such as Henry Morgenthau and Bernard Baruch gave generously” (ibid: 350). As we saw, Schiff’s support was admitted by Warburg in his congressional testimony.
Warburg himself was very evasive, allowing only that his “sympathies went with Mr. Wilson.” Yet we can hardly believe that no money followed. Warburg’s most profound impact was his leading role in the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the year Wilson took office. Seligman (1914: 387) remarks that “it may be stated without fear of contradiction that in its fundamental features the Federal Reserve is the work of Mr. Warburg more than of any other man in the country.” Its basic principles, he said, “were the creation of Mr. Warburg and of Mr. Warburg alone.” In due recognition, Wilson appointed him to the Fed’s first Board of Governors in August 1914.
Morgenthau’s influence began in 1911, when Wilson was still governor of New Jersey. Balakian (2003: 220) notes that it was at this time that the two “bonded,” and that “Morgenthau offered Wilson his ‘unreserved moral and financial support’.” In the run-up to the 1912 Democratic convention, “Morgenthau was giving $5,000 a month to the campaign, and continued to give generously throughout the fall” (ibid.: 221). In fact, says Balakian, only a few of his wealthy Princeton classmates gave more. Ward (1989: 252) confirms this, noting that Morgenthau “had been an important backer of Woodrow Wilson in 1912.” Morgenthau duly received his reward: ambassadorship to Ottoman Turkey, again overseeing Palestine.
Of special importance was Wilson’s association with Louis Brandeis. The two first met back in 1910; Shogan (2010: 64) describes Brandeis’s “friendship with Woodrow Wilson,” noting that he had “worked mightily” for him in the 1912 campaign. In a telling statement, Wilson wrote to his friend after the election, “You were yourself a great part of the victory.”[23] Brandeis would be rewarded by a successful nomination to the Supreme Court in June 1916—the first Jew on the court. He would serve a full 23 years, well beyond Wilson’s lifetime, and, despite his formal ‘neutrality’ as a justice, would play a vital role in both world wars.
But perhaps the most significant of all was Bernard Baruch. A millionaire before he was 30, Baruch catapulted out of nowhere, under obscure conditions, to become a leading influence in the Wilson administration. Already in 1915, in the early years of the European war, he was convinced that America would be involved. In Congressional testimony of February 1920, Baruch stated that, in 1915, he “had been very much disturbed by the unprepared condition of this country.” “I had been thinking about it very seriously, and I thought we would be drawn into the war. … I thought a war was coming long before it did.” Through some still-mysterious process, Baruch was named to the Council of National Defense in early 1916. He then came to control a particular subcommittee, the War Industries Board (WIB), which had extraordinary wartime powers. Baruch single-handedly ran it throughout the war years. His testimony before Sen. Albert Jefferis (R-Neb.) summarizes his role:
AJ: “In what lines did this board of 10 have the powers that you mention? BB: “We had the power of priority, which was the greatest power in the war.” AJ: “In other words, you determined what everybody could have?” BB: “Exactly; there is no question about that. I assumed that responsibility, sir, and that final determination rested within me.” AJ: “What?” BB: “That final determination, as the President said, rested within me; the determination of whether the Army or Navy should have it rested with me; the determination of whether the Railroad Administration could have it, or the Allies, or whether General Allenby should have locomotives, or whether they should be used in Russia, or used in France.” AJ: “You had considerable power?” BB: “Indeed I did, sir.” …
AJ: “And all those different lines, really, ultimately, centered in you, so far as power was concerned?” BB: “Yes, sir, it did. I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true.”[24]
An astonishing fact: a young, unelected Jew with no political experience becomes, in time of crisis, the most powerful man in the US government, after the president himself. And yet all this was just a rehearsal. Baruch would play a similar role in the Second World War under FDR, in his Office of War Mobilization. He was also a friend and confidant of Winston Churchill. No doubt “Barney” Baruch had lots of advice for all parties involved.
World War I began in earnest in August of 1914, when the German army crossed into officially neutral Belgium on its way to France. A series of alliances and treaties triggered a chain reaction in which 10 nations entered the war by the end of that year. Ultimately another 18 would be engaged—though in the case of the US, it would be nearly two and half years later. It’s difficult today, with our present eagerness to engage in warfare around the world, to understand the degree to which Americans then were so strongly anti-interventionist. Neither the public nor the government had any real inclination to get involved in a European war. Publicly, at least, Wilson himself was a pacifist and an isolationist. In a speech of 19 August 1914, just after the outbreak of war, he proclaimed that “every man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neutrality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness and friendliness to all concerned.” We have a duty to be “the one great nation at peace,” and thus “we must be impartial in thought as well as in action.”[25]
And yet, American governmental policy did not fully adhere to these lofty words. Under international law, the United States, as a neutral party, had the right to conduct commerce with all sides. But of course both Britain and Germany sought to restrict trade with the other. A British naval blockade interrupted or seized a substantial portion of our intended shipments to Germany, reducing trade by more than 90%. And yet Wilson hardly objected. On the other hand, when German submarines attacked or threatened our shipments to England, he reacted in the strongest manner. The end result was a near quadrupling of trade with the Allies between 1914 and 1916. In practical terms, we were supporting the Allied war effort, even as we remained officially neutral. Wilson’s government—if not he himself—was decidedly biased against the Germans. Not coincidentally, Wilson’s Jewish advisors were, to a man, anti-German.
By the time of the 1916 election, war was churning throughout Europe. Still, Wilson promised to remain unengaged; he ran and won on the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” The American people too had little appetite for armed conflict; as Cooper (2009: 381) writes, “Clearly, the president was not feeling a push for war from Congress or the public.” But like so many campaign promises, this one would be discarded soon afterward—in fact, barely one month after his second inauguration.
So: Why did he do it? Why did Wilson change his mind and, on 2 April 1917, issue his famous call to Congress to declare war on Germany? His official answer: German submarines were relentlessly targeting US military, passenger, and cargo ships, and thus we simply had no choice. But this explanation does not withstand scrutiny. Early in the war the Germans were sinking a number of ships that were trafficking with the Allies, but in September 1915, after urgent demands from Wilson, they suspended submarine attacks. This suspension held for an exceptionally long time—through February 1917. And all throughout that time, we, and other “neutral” nations, were trading with Germany’s enemies, supplying them with material goods, and assisting in a naval blockade. Thus it is unsurprising that the Germans eventually resumed their attacks, on all ships in the war zone.
In his famous speech to Congress, Wilson said of the lifting of the suspension, “the Imperial German Government…put aside all restraints of law or of humanity, and uses its submarines to sink every vessel [in the war zone].” Sparing no hyperbole, he added, “The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind. It is a war against all nations.”
But what are the facts? Specifically, how big a threat did Germany pose to the US? In reality, it was not much of a threat at all. From the time of the outbreak of war (August 1914) until Wilson’s declaration in April 1917, a total of three small military ships were lost—one submarine in 1915, one armored cruiser in 1916, and one protected cruiser in early 1917. Additionally, a total of 12 American merchant steamers (freight ships) were sunk in the same period, but with the loss of only 38 individual lives.[26] So the US had lost a grand total of 15 ships to that point. Putting this in perspective: Over the course of the entire war, German U-boats sank roughly 6,600 ships in total. Hence the threat to the US was all but inconsequential. Clearly Wilson was thinking in internationalist terms, and someone or something convinced him that realigning the global order was more important than American public opinion; thus his famous and much-derided phrase: “The world must be made safe for democracy.” Yes—but whose democracy?
A few powerful voices opposed Wilson, including Senators Robert La Follette (R-Wisc.) and George Norris (R-Neb.). Both spoke on April 4, just two days after Wilson’s plea for war. La Follette was outraged at the unilateral action taken by the Wilson administration. In a scathing speech, he said:
I am speaking of a profession of democracy that is linked in action with the most brutal and domineering use of autocratic power. Are the people of this country being so well-represented in this war movement that we need to go abroad to give other people control of their governments? Will the President and the supporters of this war bill submit it to a vote of the people before the declaration of war goes into effect? … Who has registered the knowledge or approval of the American people of the course this Congress is called upon to take in declaring war upon Germany? Submit the question to the people, you who support it. You who support it dare not do it, for you know that by a vote of more than ten to one the American people as a body would register their declaration against it.[27]
Norris had some ideas about the driving forces behind the call to war. He believed that many Americans had been “misled as to the real history and the true facts, by the almost unanimous demand of the great combination of wealth that has a direct financial interest in our participation in the war.”[28] Wall Street bankers loaned millions to the Allies, and naturally wanted it repaid. And then there were the profits to be made from military hardware and ammunition. These same forces also held sway in the media:
 [A] large number of the great newspapers and news agencies of the country have been controlled and enlisted in the greatest propaganda that the world has ever known, to manufacture sentiment in favor of war. … [And now] Congress, urged by the President and backed by the artificial sentiment, is about to declare war and engulf our country in the greatest holocaust that the world has ever known…
Indeed—every war is a ‘holocaust.’ Norris then encapsulated his view with a most striking line: “We are going into war upon the command of gold.” And everyone knew who held the gold.
Norris and La Follette both realized they had no chance to change the outcome. Any force that could compel abrogation of the Russian treaty and monopolize a presidential election could manufacture Congressional consent for war. Later that same day, the Senate confirmed it, by a vote of 82 to 6. Two days thereafter, the House concurred, 373 to 50. And so we were at war. American troops would be on the ground in Europe within three months.
Balfour
Political power is a strange thing; it is one of those rare cases where appearance is reality. If you say you have power, and others say you have power, and if all parties act as if you have power—then you have power. Such is the case with the Jewish Lobby. Simply because, at that time, they had no army, had internal disagreements, and in no country exceeded one or two percent of the population, we cannot conclude that they were mere helpless pawns, manipulated at will by the great powers. And yet today, modern commentators continue to refer to the ‘illusory’ or ‘misperceived’ power of the Jews at that time.[29] This can now be exposed as a weak attempt to whitewash the Jewish power play. When a small minority can dictate foreign policy, promote global war, and steer the outcome in their favor, then they have substantial power—no matter what anyone says. It was true in 1911; it was true in the 1912 election; and it would be clearly demonstrated once again in the case of the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
To recap: During Wilson’s first term, Jewish Americans achieved major political gains. Paul Warburg’s Federal Reserve Act was passed, and he was named to the Board. Henry Morgenthau, Sr. was nominated ambassador to Turkey, watching over Palestine. Brandeis was named to the Supreme Court. And Baruch became the second most powerful man in the land.
Jews also made important strides elsewhere in America during those four years. Two more Jewish governors were elected—Alexander in Idaho, and Bamburger in Utah. The motion-picture business witnessed the beginning of Jewish domination, with Universal Pictures (Carl Laemmle), Paramount (Zukor, Lasky, Frohmans, and Goldwyn), Fox Films (William Fox), and the early formation of “Warner” Bros. Pictures—in reality, the four Wonskolaser brothers: Hirsz, Aaron, Szmul, and Itzhak.[30] This development would prove useful for wartime propaganda. And the Jewish population grew by some 500,000 people.
1917 was the first year of Wilson’s second term. The European war was into its third year, and looking increasingly like a stalemate. With the German resumption of U-boat attacks on shipping to the UK and the American declaration, a true world war was in hand. And it was also a time of revolution in Russia. In fact, two revolutions: the worker’s uprising in February that overthrew Czar Nicholas II, and the Bolshevik revolution in October that put the Jewish revolutionaries in power.

Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) born Lev Davidovich Bronstein was a Marxist revolutionary and the founder and first leader of the Red Army. By Isaac McBride (Barbarous Soviet Russia) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) born Lev Davidovich Bronstein was a Marxist revolutionary and the founder and first leader of the Red Army. By Isaac McBride (Barbarous Soviet Russia) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
The role of Jews in the Russian revolution(s) is a complicated and interesting story. There isn’t space here to elaborate, but in brief, the communist movement had a heavy Jewish hand from its inception. Marx, of course, was a German Jew, and his writings inspired an 18-year-old Vladimir Lenin in 1888. Lenin was himself one-quarter Jewish (maternal grandfather: Alexandr Blank). In 1898, Lenin formed a revolutionary group, the Russian Social Democratic Worker’s Party (RSDWP), which was the early precursor to the Soviet Communist Party. Four years later, Lenin was joined by a full-blooded Jew, Leon Trotsky—born Lev Bronstein. Internal dissension led to a schism in 1903, at which time the RSDWP split into Bolshevik (‘majority’) and Menshevik (‘minority’) factions. Both factions were disproportionately Jewish. In addition to Lenin and Trotsky, leading Bolshevik Jews included Grigory Zinoviev, Yakov Sverdlov, Lev Kamenev (aka Rozenfeld), Karl Radek, Leonid Krassin, Alexander Litvinov, and Lazar Kaganovich. Ben-Sasson (1976: 943) observes that these men, and “others of Jewish origin…were prominent among the leaders of the Russian Bolshevik revolution.” This was public knowledge, even at the time. As the London Times reported in 1919,
One of the most curious features of the Bolshevist movement is the high percentage of non-Russian elements amongst its leaders. Of the 20 or 30 leaders who provide the central machinery of the Bolshevist movement, not less than 75 percent are Jews. … [T]he Jews provide the executive officers. (March 29, p. 10)
The article proceeds to list Trotsky and some 17 other individuals by name. Levin (1988: 13) notes that, at the 1907 RSDWP Congress, there were nearly 100 Jewish delegates, comprising about one third of the total. About 20% of the Mensheviks were Jews, but by 1917 they comprised eight of 17 (47%) of its Central Committee members.[31]
Thus it was that, in the years leading up to the 1917 revolutions, Jews were working internally and externally to overthrow the Czar. Stein (1961: 98) quotes a Zionist memo of 1914, promoting “relations with the Jews in Eastern Europe and in America, so as to contribute to the overthrow of Czarist Russia and to secure the national autonomy of the Jews.” Temperley (1924: 173) noted that, “by 1917, [Russian Jews] had done much in preparation for that general disintegration of Russian national life, later recognized as the revolution.” Ziff (1938: 56) stated the common view of the time that “Jewish influence in Russia was supposed to be considerable. Jews were playing a prominent part in the revolution…”
Surprisingly, even Winston Churchill acknowledged this fact. In 1920 he wrote an infamous essay explaining the difference between the “good” (Zionist) Jews and the “bad” Bolsheviks. This dichotomy, which was nothing less than a “struggle for the soul of the Jewish people,” made it appear almost “as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people” (1920/2002: 24). The Zionists were “national” Jews who sought only a homeland for their beleaguered people. The evil “international Jews,” the Bolsheviks, sought revolution, chaos, and even world domination. It was, said Churchill, a “sinister conspiracy.” He continued:
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. … It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. (p. 25)
“There is no need to exaggerate” the Jewish role in the Russian revolution; “It is certainly a very great one. … [T]he majority of the leading figures are Jews.” In the Soviet institutions, “the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing.” But perhaps the worst aspect was the dominant role of Judeo-terrorism. Churchill was clear and explicit:
 [T]he prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. … [T]he part played by the [Jews] in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. (p. 26)
By this time, Churchill had been working on behalf of Zionist Jews for some 15 years. He had long counted on Jewish political support, and was rumored to be in the pay of wealthy Zionists.[32]
The Russian revolutions were significant, but the premier event of 1917 was surely the Balfour Declaration of November 2. This short letter from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild was remarkable: it promised to a “mere handful” of British subjects (and indirectly their coreligionists worldwide) a land that the United Kingdom did not possess, and that was part of some other empire. It is enlightening to examine the orthodox account of this event. According to the standard view, it was at this time that Britain was not only mired in the war on the Continent, but also that “British forces were fighting to win Palestine from the Ottoman Empire.”[33] The Brits wanted it “because of its location near the Suez Canal.” (In fact, of course, Palestine is more than 200 km from the Canal, separated by the whole of the Sinai Peninsula.) “The British believed the Balfour Declaration would help gain support of this goal from Jewish leaders in the UK, the United States, and other countries.”
So, here are a few relevant questions: Was control of the Canal really the primary objective? Or did the British think that the Jews would help them in their broader war aims? The Jews?—a beleaguered minority everywhere, with no nation, no army, no “real power”? Could they really help the British Empire? And did they in fact help them? And if so, how?
Nothing in the documentation of the time suggests that the canal was anything more than an incidental concern. But there was clearly a larger goal—to enlist the aid of Jews everywhere, in order to help Britain win the war. Schneer (2010: 152) notes that, beginning in early 1916, the British sought to “explore seriously some kind of arrangement with ‘world Jewry’ or ‘Great Jewry’.” A diplomatic communiqué of March 13 is explicit:
 [T]he most influential part of Jewry in all the countries would very much appreciate an offer of agreement concerning Palestine… [I]t is clear that by utilizing the Zionist idea, important political results can be achieved. Among them will be the conversion, in favour of the Allies, of Jewish elements in the Orient, in the United States, and in other places… The only purpose of [His Majesty’s] Government is to find some arrangement…which might facilitate the conclusion of an agreement ensuring the Jewish support. (in Ziff 1938: 56)
Later that year, an advisor to the British government, James Malcolm, pressed this very point: that, by promising Palestine to the Zionists, they would use their influence around the world—and especially in America—to help bring about overall victory. On the face of it, this was a preposterous suggestion: that the downtrodden Jewish minority, and in particular the even smaller minority of Zionist Jews, could do anything to alter events in a world war.
And yet that quickly became the official view of the British government—particularly so when David Lloyd George became prime minister in December 1916. Lloyd George was, from the Zionist perspective, a nearly ideal leader. He had been working with them since 1903.[34] He strongly believed in their near-mythic influence. And he was a devout Christian Zionist, making him an ideological compatriot. Immediately upon assuming office, Lloyd George directed his staff—in particular, Mark Sykes and Lord Arthur Balfour—to negotiate Jewish support. MacMillan explains:
From [early] 1917, with Lloyd George’s encouragement, Sykes met privately with Weizmann and other Zionists. The final, and perhaps most important, factor in swinging British support behind the Zionists was to make propaganda among Jews, particularly in the United States, which had not yet come into the war, and in Russia… (2003: 416; my italics)
And as if the stalled war wasn’t motivation enough, rumors were soon flying that the Zionists were also soliciting German support; the Jews, it seems, were willing to sell their services to the highest bidder.[35] When these rumors reached London, “the British government moved with speed” (ibid). And with speed they did. With Brandeis’s input, a first draft of the brief statement was completed in July. A second draft appeared in mid-October, and by the end of that month Balfour was ready to make public his Government’s stance: “from a purely diplomatic and political point of view, it was desirable that some declaration favourable to the aspirations of the Jewish nationalists should now be made. … If we could make a declaration favourable to such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America.”[36] Three days later, they did.
But most striking was the implication that the “mere handful” of Zionist Jews in England could actually be a decisive factor in bringing a reluctant US into the global war. If successful, this would dramatically swing the military balance of power. And via Wilson’s Jewish advisors—most notably Baruch and Brandeis—they had the ear of the president. But could they do it?
Unquestionably, the Brits thought they could—and that they did. This is such an astonishing manifestation of Jewish power that it is worth reviewing the opinions of several commentators. Speaking after the war, on 4 July 1922, Churchill argued for full implementation of the famous Declaration:
Pledges and promises were made during the War… They were made because it was considered they would be of value to us in our struggle to win the War. It was considered that the support which the Jews could give us all over the world, and particularly in the United States, and also in Russia, would be a definite palpable advantage. (in Gilbert 2007: 78-79)
In his monumental six-volume study of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, British historian Howard Temperley (1924) made this observation:
It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente [Allies]. It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry in the same way, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. It was believed, further, that it would greatly influence American opinion in favour of the Allies. Such were the chief considerations which, during the later part of 1916 and the next ten months of 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry. (1924, vol. 6: 173)
We must bear in mind that the Declaration was issued seven months after US entry into the war. But Temperley is unequivocal: the deal was concluded “during the later part of 1916,” well before Wilson’s decision to go to war. Apparently the deal was this: bring the US into the war, and we will promise you your Jewish homeland. Such was the “contract with Jewry.”
Sensing the importance, Temperley reiterates the point, to drive it home: “That it is in purpose a definite contract with Jewry is beyond question. … In spirit it is a pledge that, in return for services to be rendered by Jewry, the British Government would ‘use their best endeavours’ to secure… Palestine.” And in fact, it was a good deal all around. “The Declaration certainly rallied world Jewry, as a whole, to the side of the Entente… [T]he services of Jewry were not expected in vain, and were…well worth the price which had to be paid” (p. 174). Britain’s price was low: a spit of land far from the home country. True, there would be Arab resistance, but the Brits were used to that. A much higher price would be paid by Germany and the Central Powers, and by America—who would expend hundreds of millions of dollars, and suffer 116,000 war dead.
A Zionist insider, Samuel Landman, wrote a detailed and explicit account of these events in 1936. After noting some preliminary attempts in 1916, he remarks on the significance of Malcolm’s involvement. Malcolm knew that Wilson “always attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of a very prominent Zionist, Mr. Justice Brandeis…” (p. 4). Malcolm was able to convince Sykes and French ambassador Georges Picot that
the best and perhaps the only way…to induce the American President to come into the war was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of the Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo basis.
Granted, Landman was not an unbiased observer, and had good reason to exaggerate Zionist influence. But that was not the case with the British Royal Palestine Commission, which issued a report in 1937. At the critical stage of the war, “it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause. In particular, Jewish sympathy would confirm the support of American Jewry…” (p. 23). The report then quotes Lloyd George:
The Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to…a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.
Two years after this report, in 1939, the British contemplated starting a war with Germany. Churchill wrote a memo for his War Cabinet, reminding them that
it was not for light or sentimental reasons that Lord Balfour and the Government of 1917 made the promises to the Zionists which have been the cause of so much subsequent discussion. The influence of American Jewry was rated then as a factor of the highest importance, and we did not feel ourselves in such a strong position as to be able to treat it with indifference. (in Gilbert 2007: 165)
The implication, of course, was that the British might once again need Jewish help to defeat the Germans. Having been goaded into war in 1939 by Roosevelt and his Jewish advisors,[37] the British were becoming desperate once again to draw in the Americans. As David Irving reports, it was in late 1941 that Weizmann and his fellow British Zionists began “promising to use their influence in Washington to bring the United States into the war” (2001: 73). Irving quotes from an amazingly blunt letter from Weizmann to Churchill, promising to do again in this war what they did in the last:
There is only one big ethnic group [in America] which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of ‘all-out aid’ for her: the five million Jews. From [Treasury] Secretary Morgenthau [Henry, Jr.], Governor [Herbert] Lehman, Justice Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or trader… It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favour of Great Britain. They are keen to do it—and may do it—again. (p. 77)
So here we have Weizmann explicitly naming the influential Jews with the power to bring Roosevelt and the United States into a war in which it, once again, had no compelling interest. The letter was dated September 10, 1941. Churchill did not have to wait long. Within 90 days, America would be at war.
Sources
  • Balakian, P. 2003. The Burning Tigris. Harper Collins.
  • Ben-Sasson, H. 1976. A History of the Jewish People. Harvard University Press.
  • Chalberg, J. (ed.) 1995. Isolationism. Greenhaven Press.
  • Churchill, W. 1920/2002. “Zionism versus Bolshevism.” In L. Brenner (ed.), 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis. Barricade Books.
  • Cohen, N. 1963. “The abrogation of the Russo-American treaty of 1832.” Jewish Social Studies, 25(1).
  • Cooper, J. 1983. The Warrior and the Priest. Belknap.
  • Cooper, J. 2009. Woodrow Wilson. Knopf.
  • Dalton, T. 2011a. “Eternal strangers: Anti-Jewish musings throughout history” (part 1). The Occidental Quarterly, 11(2) http://toqonline.com/archives/v11n2/TOQv11n2Dalton.pdf.
  • Dalton, T. 2011b. “Eternal strangers: Anti-Jewish musings throughout history” (part 2). The Occidental Quarterly, 11(3).
  • Dalton, T. 2011c. “Eternal strangers: Anti-Jewish musings throughout history” (part 3). The Occidental Quarterly, 11(4).
  • Dalton, T. 2012. “Anglo-American perspectives on anti-Semitism.” The Occidental Quarterly, 12(3).
  • d’Holbach, P. 1770/1813. Ecce Homo! or a Critical Inquiry in the History of Jesus Christ. D. I. Eaton.
  • Gilbert, M. 2007. Churchill and the Jews. Holt.
  • Gordon, S. 1984. Hitler, Jews, and the “Jewish Question”. Princeton University Press.
  • Hegel, G. 1975. Early Theological Writings. (T. Knox, trans.). University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Hertzberg, A. 1968. The French Enlightenment and the Jews. Columbia University Press.
  • Herzl, T. 1896/1967. The Jewish State. Pordes.
  • Hodgson, G. 2006. Woodrow Wilson’s Right Hand. Yale University Press.
  • Ingrams, D. (ed.) 1972. Palestine Papers: 1917-1922. G. Braziller.
  • Irving, D. 2001. Churchill’s War (vol. 2). Focal Point.
  • Kant, I. 1798/1979. Conflict of the Faculties. (M. Gregor, trans.). Abaris.
  • Landman, S. 1936. Great Britain, the Jews, and Palestine. New Zionist Press.
  • Levin, N. 1988. The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917. NYU Press.
  • Levy, R. 1991. Anti-Semitism in the Modern World. D. C. Heath.
  • Liebreich, F. 2005. Britain’s Naval and Political Reaction to the Illegal Immigration of Jews to Palestine, 1945-1948. Routledge.
  • Lloyd George, D. 1939. Memoirs of the Peace Conference (vol. 2). Yale University Press.
  • MacMillan, M. 2003. Paris 1919. Random House.
  • Makovsky, M. 2007. Churchill’s Promised Land. Yale University Press.
  • Mommsen, T. 1854/1957. History of Rome (vol. 4). Free Press.
  • Rather, L. 1990. Reading Wagner. Louisiana State University Press.
  • Schneer, J. 2010. The Balfour Declaration. Random House.
  • Seligman, E. 1914. “Introduction.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York, 4(4).
  • Shogan, R. 2010. Prelude to Catastrophe. Ivan Dee.
  • Slomovitz, P. 1981. Purely Commentary. Wayne State University Press.
  • Sombart, W. 1911/1982. The Jews and Modern Capitalism. Transaction.
  • Stein, L. 1961. The Balfour Declaration. Valentine, Mitchell.
  • Stern, M. 1974. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (vol. 1). Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
  • Temperley, H. 1924. History of the Peace Conference of Paris (vol. 6). Hodder and Stoughton.
  • Ward, G. 1989. A First Class Temperament. Harper.
  • Weber, M. 1983. “President Roosevelt’s campaign to incite war in Europe: The secret Polish documents.” Journal of Historical Review, 4.
  • Ziff, W. 1938. The Rape of Palestine. Longmans, Green.
Notes
[1] It is clear that Joseph was Jewish: His father, Jacob, was renamed by God as “Israel” (Gen 35:10), and Joseph himself is repeatedly referred to as a “Hebrew” (e.g. Gen 39:14, 41:12).
[2] Roman History, 69.13.
[3] For Seneca’s and Quintilian’s comments, see Stern (1974), pages 431 and 513. For Tacitus, see his Annals (XV, 44), and Histories (5.8).
[4] History of Rome, vol. 4, p. 643.
[5] Ecce Homo! (1770/1813: 26, 28)
[6] Cited in Hertzberg (1968: 300).
[7] For Kant, see his Conflict of the Faculties (1798/1979: 101). Hegel’s quotation is from his Early Theological Writings (1975: 190).
[8] This is just a fraction of the negative observations of Jews over the centuries. For a more complete study, see my series Dalton (2011a, 2011b, 2011c, and 2012).
[9] A large area, comprising much of present-day Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Belarus.
[10] In 1891 the New York Times ran the headline: “Russia’s Fierce Assault: Europe amazed at her treatment of Jews.” As the article explained, “Berlin…is overwhelmed by the advance wave of the flying Jews, driven on a day’s notice from their homes and swarming westward…” (May 31; p. 1).
[11] Cited in Rather (1990: 163).
[12] Cited in Levy (1991: 83-84).
[13] There are a few problems, however. First, the diary is dated some five months after the war actually started; it’s easy to recall a prediction after the fact. Second, Rosenthal’s book My Siberian Diary is nowhere to be found. The entry is recounted in an obscure periodical, The Jewish Era, dated January 1919 (p. 128); this was not only after the war was over, but after the Peace Conference had already begun.
[14] This was true of both Zionist and non-Zionist Jews. It’s worth noting that Zionism was a minority view among American Jews, at least for the first two decades of its existence. Many Jews, being ‘internationalists,’ did not feel the need for a Jewish homeland. And many realized that, should this come to pass, they would be charged with dual loyalty. But with the Zionists’ relentless pressure and record of success, they became the dominant view.
[15] For a contemporaneous account, see the London Times, 11 July 1911, p. 5.
[16] Cited in Slomovitz (1981: 6-7).
[17] Cited in Dearborn Independent (25 June 1921).
[18] April 11, p. 18. The same article goes on to decry “the systematic, relentless quiet grinding down of a people of more than 6,000,000 souls.” This figure surely strikes a chord—but that’s another story.
[19] Indeed—a “special effort” was made to get the support of Wilson, “whose influence was rising within the Democratic ranks” (p. 32).
[20] The Jews and Modern Capitalism (1911/1982), p. 44.
[21] Shogan (2010: xi).
[22] Dearborn Independent, 11 June 1921. The entire ‘international Jew’ series ran without a byline, and so for the sake of convenience I attribute them to Ford—even though it is virtually certain that he did not write the pieces himself.
[23] Cooper (1983: 194).
[24] War Expenditures: Parts 1 to 13. US Government Printing Office (1921: 1814, 1816).
[25] Cited in Chalberg (1995: 46-47).
[26] Other Americans died on foreign-flagged ships—most notoriously, 128 on the Lusitania. But this still pales in comparison to the thousands who would die in a war.
[27] Online at: www.historymatters.gmu.edu. I am not aware of any polling data supporting his claim that 90% of Americans were opposed to entering the war, but it seems to have been a reasonable estimate.
[28] Cited in Chalberg (1995: 71-73).
[29] Schneer (2010: 153) is typical: there was “no such thing” as a powerful Jewish force in world affairs. Any thoughts to the contrary are “based upon a misconception.” Hodgson (2006: 154-155) is another example: “the influence of Zionism [was] considerably exaggerated” by the British government, who believed the international Jews to be “more influential and more Zionist than in fact they were.”
[30] Jews had nearly a total monopoly on the film business. The only significant non-Jewish movie mogul was Darryl Zanuck, who was a studio head at 20th Century Fox for many years.
[31] Among the leading figures, Ben-Sasson (p. 944) mentions Julius Martov, Fyodor Dan, and Raphael Abramowitz.
[32] Churchill’s close connection to British Jews dated back at least to 1904. Gilbert (2007: 9) explains that “this was the first but not the last time that Churchill was to be accused by his political opponents…of being in the pocket, and even in the pay, of wealthy Jews.” Makovsky (2007) describes Churchill’s father’s longtime association with “Jewish financial titans,” and notes that Churchill himself “came to count many of [his father’s] wealthy Jewish friends as his own” (p. 46).
[33] Encyclopedias are usually good sources for conventional views. Quotations here come from the World Book, 2003 edition, entry on ‘Balfour Declaration.’
[34] See Stein (1961: 28).
[35] See Lloyd George (1939: 725), Ziff (1938: 55), Stein (1961: 528), and Liebreich (2005: 12).
[36] Minutes of the War Cabinet for October 31; see Ingrams (1972: 16).
[37] As I will explain in Part II, there is ample evidence that this was true. For a review of some of the relevant sources, see Weber (1983). In brief, it seems that Roosevelt wanted England and France to do the early ‘dirty work’ of the war, and then the US would intervene as needed to conclude the issue.

(Republished from Inconvenient History by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History • Tags: JewsWorld War I 
Of Related Interest

RED JEWS
Defending the Bolsheviks and Soviet Communism
Hide 67 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments? 
  1. Thomm says:
    It is amazing how obsessed WN wiggers are with Jews (even though Jews are white).
    WN obsession with claiming that Jews are conspiring against them is identical to black whining about whites, except at least whites are more numerous than blacks and once did enslave blacks. By contrast, White Trashionalists whining about Jews are just broadcasting their own inferiority through this very admission.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  2. Wally says:
    - The alleged number of Jews is complete nonsense. There are many, many more then they let on.
    Most Jews are not ‘religious’ so they do not say they are Jews in census questions about religion. They consider themselves Jews nonetheless. They want you to think they are so few & helpless victims when in fact they create massive resentment towards themselves by their owns actions.
    - The US Census is prohibited from counting ‘Jews’ and all US federal, state and local are similarly disallowed from ‘noticing’ Jewish formation and over representation.
    According to Jewish law Jews are to avoid being counted.
    “To actually count Jews directly is forbidden (Talmud, Yoma 22b), as the prophet says: “And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which shall neither be measured nor counted.”
    ‘Why is it forbidden to count Jews?’
    “This opening verse of our Biblical portion teaches that it is forbidden to take a number count of the Israelites, a census activity which Jewish organizations are constantly involved in doing. This prohibition is reinforced by the prophet Hosea (chapter 2), when he declares: “The number of the children of Israel shall be as the sands of the sea, which cannot be numbered and cannot be counted…” And historically even King David learned the bitter lesson of the power of this command, when- against the will of his Chief Commander Joab – he ordered a census, and the Israelites suffered a plague (II Samuel, 24).”
    - “This prohibition is reinforced by the prophet Hosea (chapter 2), when he declares: “The number of the children of Israel shall be as the sands of the sea, which cannot be numbered and cannot be counted…”
    - “I have seen all the (Jewish?) works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind. That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is wanting cannot be numbered….” Book of Ecclesiaste
    “We reached the [Balfour] Declaration not by miracles, but through persistent propaganda, through unceasing demonstration of the life force of our people. We told the responsible authorities: We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not. You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world.”
    - World Zionist leader [1st President of Israël] Chaim Weizmann, speech in Jerusalem, December 1919.
    • Agree: Z-man
    • Replies: @CoryCalculus007
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  3. Alfred says:
    The story of the Jews having been in Egypt and having escaped in their “Exodus” is a total fabrication.
    There is absolutely no archaeological evidence of the Jews having been in Egypt during that period in any numbers. The Egyptians were excellent at recording their history. Furthermore, Palestine was drought afflicted during that period so there it was certainly not a land of “milk and honey.” The Jews of Israel and the British before them have searched for over 100 years for any evidence whatsoever that corresponds to the Old Testament – with no success. In fact, 2 years ago they discovered and Ancient Egyptian brewery in the centre of Tel Aviv that predated the alleged “Exodus.” The Egyptians abandoned that area as it reverted to desert. Yes, climate change does happen – and it has nothing to do with humans.
    “Ancient Egyptian brewery found in downtown Tel Aviv
    Potsherds used for producing beer discovered at site believed to be northernmost Egyptian settlement in Early Bronze Age, 5,000 years ago”
    Places like “Jericho” never had walled fortifications. In fact, there were not such things anywhere until one goes into today’s Lebanon – and they were build by the crusaders centuries later.
    One the other hand, there is ample evidence that the Jews were in what is today called Yemen and Hejaz (Western Saudi Arabia). The fact that the Saudis have destroyed as much geological evidence as is possible is ample proof that they don’t want the Jews to claim their country as well.
    “Egypt knew no Pharaohs nor Israelites”
    Oh. What’s the use. Everyone prefers the Hollywood version!
    • Replies: @Jeffery Cohen
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  4. Emblematic says:
    There is section of text which is clearly the words of Dalton that is mistakenly included in a box that is supposed to be quoting from a newspaper article. There are also some sections of text that are repeated or are in the wrong place.
    [Fixed]
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  5. niteranger says:
    The Jews did not invent usury ( I believe the Romans did) however, no group has ever controlled and destroyed more worlds than they have with this game of debt. They have made usury into an art form with many variations including compound interest and other esoteric scams that the average man does not understand. The Jews control the economic pathways of the world and know the weaknesses of mankind –money and greed. Using this simple formula and the politician’s lust for power they control everything. They use the same game plan in just about every country, village, or province and when caught or exposed claim they are victims of antisemitism, racism, or hate. Wars are a way to make money and to damage the world so the Jews can control more. The Jews have come out stronger and richer after every war. They are the financiers of death because their religion is a blood cult and they are the “chosen people.” The rest of mankind are their slaves and they have mastered the psychological manipulation of our deepest fears.
    Could you imagine in your wildest dreams how great society and civilization might have been without their continued control and destruction of mankind?
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  6. Franz says:
    Jews never exceeded 2% of the German population. The public accepted the foreigners with a remarkable degree of tolerance, and more or less allowed them to dominate certain sectors of German society.
    As Egyptians had before and the USA after.
    No amount of denial can alter the fact loads of people know all this, have known it on the net since at least the Jewish Tribal Review put tons of pertinent information online years ago.
    The excuse is probably as old as David’s double-dealing in Egypt: Be like Mel and open your mouth and you’re finished. The Nile Valley surely had a term for “politically correct” but it’s not gonna be in no stinkin history book.
    This century’s version of the destruction of the Ottoman Empire is going to be vastly more dangerous than 1914. Russia now is not Turkey then. Turkey’s lots different too.
    The one necessary and sufficient condition to ending this situation is for enough people to see the Hebrew Scriptures as political tracts and nothing else. From Yahweh to Zion by Laurent Guyénot is an excellent eye-opener.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  7. Mastodon says:
    thankyou.
    evil exists
    peace
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  8. I’ve never found any evidence that jews caused WWI.
    Great Britain caused WWI.
    However, there of course exists the possibility that behind the scenes jews did contribute, but again, nothing I ever read suggests this.
    Jews greatly contributed to anti German feelings in the USA during WWI:
    Henry Morgenthau, ‘Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, New York, 1918
    Heath W. Lowry, ‘The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, Istanbul 1990
    The lies of Henry Morgenthau were enough for the Versailles conference to blame Germany for the whole first world war.
    At the time Versailles was seen as a jewish conference.
    David Sinclair, ‘Hall of Mirrors’, London, 2001
    Thomas Fleming, ‘The Illusion of Victory, America in WW I’, New York 2003
    As to WWII, no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Bernard Baruch brought Franklin Roosevelt into politics in order to wage war, for controlling the whole world.
    Even in 1946, when failure was evident, Baruch pleaded for a world government.
    Bernard M. Baruch, ‘Die Jahre des Dienens’, München 1962 (The public years, New York, 1960)
    Bernard M. Baruch, Gute 88 Jahre, Autobiographie, München 1963 (New York)
    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946
    • Replies: @j2@Wally@Curmudgeon
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  9. Art says:
    The true hand book of the Jews is the Talmud — it shows total disrespect for Gentiles.
    The Talmud makes Hitler’s Mein Kompf look like a prayer book.
    Think Peace — Art
    • Agree: Jett Rucker
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  10. Pat Kittle says:
    @Thomm
    Of course (((someone like you))) knows many Jews self-identify as a separate race.
    “Israel Official Talks Master Race”:
    — ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8icC2BA_O8 )
    The goyim know.
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  11. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art
    Jewsus, the original Anti-Fa, showed disrespect for Gentiles too, and denounced their Roman/Fascist White Patriarchy. See Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25 for Jewish anti-Gentile propaganda.
    So it wasn’t just “Talmud” Jews. It was your Jewish Rabbi “savior.”
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  12. Anonymous[418] • Disclaimer says:
    The public accepted the foreigners with a remarkable degree of tolerance
    Because fantasy afterlife narrative.
    We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.” John 4:22
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  13. Santoculto says:
    White tra$$hes ”are’ angels, always too naive to be evil by themselves…
    Acquired hyperreactive unrightism made whites [as well anyone], on very avg, terminally incapable to reach rational levels. A long history of successive absurdisms/stupidities at higher levels of expressivity.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  14. j2 says:
    @jilles dykstra
    “I’ve never found any evidence that jews caused WWI.
    Great Britain caused WWI.
    However, there of course exists the possibility that behind the scenes jews did contribute, but again, nothing I ever read suggests this.”
    There is some evidence that Freemasons caused WWI and also Masons handed power to Bolsheviks in the October revolution. You have to figure out what was the connection with Freemasons, with a clear Zionistic program as shown by Mordecai Noah and others, and Jews. You may find it was not the Jews as an ethnic group, it was a small group of Jews and Masons. Before WWI the UK believed that as a sea power it could crush Germany through a siege. The potential war was seen to be between Germany and France and the UK would support France so that Germany would not win, for balancing forces in the continent. The UK had nothing to gain from the war, so the WWI was most probably not started by the UK, but there were forces inside the UK that wanted the war. These forces were Masonic and they had an economically powerful Jewish component.
    • Replies: @Ger
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  15. “Consider their progressive influence in American government. Beginning in the mid-1800s, we find a number of important milestones. In 1845, the first Jews were elected to both houses of Congress: Lewis Levin (Pa.) to the House and David Yulee (Fla.) to the Senate. By 1887 they had their first elected governor, Washington Bartlett in California. And in 1889, Solomon Hirsch became the first Jewish minister, nominated by President Harrison as ambassador to the Ottoman Empire—which at that time controlled Palestine.”
    The above list has a rather significant and fascinating omission:
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  16. GB had perfectly imperialist reasons to cause WWI, to destroy Germany, the economic competitor they were unable to compeat with.
    The obligation to have the words Made In Germany had the opposite effect, more German products were bought, they were simply better.
    Then there was the Berlin Baghdad railway, to be extended to Basra.
    GB feared losing control in the ME, over oil, Lawrence spied near Mosul on the railway preparation, and feared smuggling from Basra to India of German products.
    Germany getting control over the Straits was another fear.
    Then there was zionism, it began under German protection, the Kaiser visited Jerusalem, 1890, from memory.
    Losing Palestine was another fear.
    Oil was important, in 1916 the first British mammoth battleship, the type called Dreadnought, was launched, it had oil fired turbines.
    Thus Balfour already said in 1907 to the USA ambassador ‘that war was maybe the cheapest way to maintain the British standard of living’.
    Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., ‘Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism’, 1923, 1924, New York
    Patrick J. Buchanan, ‘Churchill, Hitler and “The unnecessary war”, How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world’, New York, 2008, Balfour, US ambassador Henry White, 1907, page 48/ 49
    S.Fischer-Fabian, ´Herrliche Zeiten, Die Deutschen und ihr Kaiserreich’, Wien 2006
    Trans ‘Marvellous times, the Germans and their emperor state’.
    • Replies: @Anon
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  17. Ger says:
    @j2
    ‘ Jews do not cause war’. But, it is very profitable to finance them and benefit from the spoils. The Unauthorized Biography of the Bush Family very well documents the world Jew banking system on the loot to be made. Most noteworthy are the Jews currently in US Congress (there are tons of them) pushing for war on many fronts and bankrupting the country to pour trillions into the pockets of the MICC, financed by Wall Street Jewish banks, etal,
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  18. @Alfred
    One the other hand, there is ample evidence that the Jews were in what is today called Yemen and Hejaz (Western Saudi Arabia). The fact that the Saudis have destroyed as much geological evidence as is possible is ample proof that they don’t want the Jews to claim their country as well.
    It is true that original Jews and Christians were Arabs, and yes those Jews mostly lived in Yemen and Hejaz . But the destruction of the Islamic Archeology is due to Wahhabi sick mind!
    • Replies: @anon
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  19. @Thomm
    Thomm is a Hindu Indian alien living in a corrugated tin shack in Sheboygan, WI. He shares a Windows 95 laptop with the other 30 inhabitants of the dirt floored structure, that is powered by a cable spliced into a nearby overhead power line. They crap into gas station quickie mart bags and throw them over the dilapidated fence that separates their shack from an auto salvage yard. He learned everything he thinks he knows about America from old MTV interviews of Vanilla Ice and Marky Mark. 1994 is a very special year for him.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  20. DESERT FOX says:
    The key to the jewish/Zionist control is their control of the money supply and via their control of every central bank in the world, as Nathan Rothschild said , I care not what puppet is put upon the throne of England , the man who controls the money supply controls the British empire and I control the money supply.
    Here in the U.S. the Zionists got their privately owned Fed through congress on December 23, 1913 and so at that point under an unconstitutional act signed by Wilson America was sold out to the Zionist bankers and the war agenda was set in motion to further the profits of the Zionist bankers and the Zionist NWO.
    Earlier the Zionists got their IRS passed in October 1913 and so with the passage of their FED and IRS they had the means to start wars and get the American people to pay for them while the Zionist FED ran America into trillions in debt and taxed the people to the hilt to pay for the debts that the Zionist war party caused and the wars that resulted caused millions of deaths in the Zionist caused wars.
    The Zionist caused wars started with WWI here in America and ran down through the Mideast and these last wars were perpetrated by the Israeli and Zionist deep state attack on the WTC to provide the excuse to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, and so for over 100 years the Zionists have kept America at war for the profit of the Zionist bankers and the Zionist goal of a NEW WORLD ORDER.
    Zionists are going to be the destruction of America , just as every parasite eventually destroys its host.
    • Agree: T. Weed
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  21. Jake says:
    Every tree produces after its kind. Some trees only reveal what they are truly and fully after much long growth.
    Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy. WASP culture is its first fruit, or rather the first manifestation of its principal fruit. The rest was coming in its own time unless WASP culture were overturned and the Judaizing stain of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism bleached clean, repudiated with much penance.
    WASP culture conquered the world, and not until the 20th century was it clear that it all was done for the Jews. When the time was right, Jews would be revealed as thoroughly controlling the WASP Empire, which truly is the Anglo-Zionist Empire.
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  22. This is a manifestation of a peculiarly American mindset, which seems very odd (and irrational!) to my European mind, namely, that if you take the prevailing discourse on any subject and simply negate it, you are somehow showing clear-sightedness, perspicacity, independent thinking etc.. It fact, it is quite the contrary. It is the wholly irrational belief that the established discourse is always and automatically wrong and, even more irrationally, that that means that the opposite of the established discourse must automatically be right.
    The article is much too long-winded to be gone into in detail but the author doesn’t prove his case, in regard to either war. He uses uses a mixture of untruths, half-truths, plausible-sounding non sequiturs and juxtaposition of facts to create the impression of a reasoned argument. I’m reminded of a piece of doggerel we were taught in school to illustrate this practice: God is love, love is blind, Ray Charles is blind, therefore, Ray Charles is God!
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  23. Jeff Stryker says:
    @Pat Kittle
    SOME MASTER RACE
    Jews are apparently a mongrel group of Levant people who intermarried with Italians and converted an entire tribe of Turkic people who then moved North and intermarried some with Slavs.
    That is a dog’s breakfast at the kitchen sink.
    Lots of races think they are the master race for no credible or empirical reason.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  24. Jeff Stryker says:
    @Thomm
    In my opinion White Trashnationalists really screw themselves by having kids at a young age and getting into drugs/trouble at a young age.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  25. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    Well some were wiggers,Voltaire,Kant and Benjamin Franklin wore a wigs at times,Washington surely and Jefferson as well perhaps. But Nietzsche, Wagner,Churchill,Ford, were not wiggers.Nor are all the Jewish anti semites many of them also great intellects of notable achievement. The fact that some lower class whites are not in thrall to the propaganda machine enough to adopt the status symbol of anti racism, doesnt mean races dont exist or that their existence is expressed in their various traits, traits that have been noted for thousands of years by the the jews themselves and those who have observed them.I would suggest you deal with the reality that is organized jewish diaspora, that reality is impossible to hide at this point we are again at that eternal return of jewish overreach and exposure of their treachery to their generous hosts.Your propaganda tactics of status signalling is collapsing under the weight of the evidence, not only liberal jews like Unz but paleo con jews and alt right jews are breaking ranks and making confession contrition and reparations, this is the only proper response and the only one that will avoid the usual response.
    BTW
    The claim that whites recognizing the reality and skill of jewish treachery as a first step to countering an assault on their nations, is akin to blacks being pwnd by jews to believe whites generous paternalism of blacks is instead oppression, is a bit cleverer than than the class ploy. However while it appeals to certain neoreactionary cuck2.0 its also given birth to direction splitting into WN/altright and the relegating of a promising variant ot obscurity because they esentiallu cucked on the implications of reaction and the JQ.So thank you for helping with the cuck purge from the emerging right.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  26. Jeff Stryker says:
    WHITE TRASHNATIONALIST MANIFESTO
    1. Must have working poor parents but better if broken home or out-of-wedlock birth.
    2 No actual ethnic identity. Northern urban whites have their hyphenated heritage. But W.T. don’t.
    3. Attend rough public high schools-pummeled by Non-Asian minorities.
    4. Eschew college.
    5. Get into drugs young. You must be smoking pot by 14.
    6. Hypersexualized from molestation.
    7. Have not traveled or lived in other countries. Completely unworldly.
    8. Must reproduce young. Should have at least one kid by 22.
    9. Should either be divorced or out-of-wedlock birth.
    10. Must be heavy drinker and wrack up a series of minor charges.
    • Replies: @Jeffery Cohen@Wally@Art
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  27. prefer anon says:
    I’ve learned quite a lot from this article and from some commenters. Therefore I’ll leave blaming Jew for World Wars to the experts. However, one can hardly be blamed for thinking the annihilation of a few of Israels main antagonists, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
    That three Jews sit on SCOTUS, clearly over represented according to their population count among Americans, and that Jews, duel passport holders (Israel & USA) and Israelis are deeply entrenched and, some say, (Netenyahu for one) in control of USA, its clear the United States does not really belong to the American people.
    While Israelis spy on us, interfere in our electoral process, sabotage elections of politicians who do not support the idiotic – Israel’s right to exist statement, attack us without even a whisper of response from Presidents and Admirals such as what happened when they attacked the USS Liberty, and in the opinion of any, played a great big hand in the so-called attacks on the Twin Towers, the evidence points to Jews and Israelis and the most destructive, corrupt, deceitful and cruelest (Gaza?) people on the planet.
    According to Harpers Index, Jews were expelled from the settlements in what is now Brazil in 1538. I suppose, but I don’t know, that by now the terrorist organization, AIPAC, has had that tidbit scrubbed from the magazine. In any case, why were they expelled? Probably for the same reasons we are discussing them today.
    In the 1970′s tv documentaries about the Nazi concentration camps, the estimated numbers of Jews killed was not even 1 million. A decade or so later, 3 million. Today, 6 million. Most Americans are deceived into believing that WWll was foremost about Jews.
    I can’t wait until we start seeing movies about the depressed and emotionally messed up grandchildren of camp survivors crying about how horrible it was for them to listen to the stories about Nazi’s and concentration camps. The Holocaust industry is due to come out with yet another fantasy like It’s a Beautiful Life.
    I now watch movies carefully and listen for the reference of Israel and Jews. In movies such as the cowboy flick with Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson, they masterfully weave in a reference to Jews. In Oh Brother Where Art Thou, C. Phillip Hofmann runs through the brushes praising “The Israelites” several times, happys as he was to unload a big turd. I like that one most because it the most appropriate thought and action when thinking about Israelis.
    • Replies: @CoryCalculus007
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  28. I miss PrissFactor.
    • Replies: @Wade
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  29. Agent76 says:
    Apr 6, 2017 Woodrow Wilson
    The Great War For President Woodrow Wilson, the Great War was a crusade “to make the world safe for democracy” — a chance to transform the international order in America’s image. “No one had articulated a kind of vision of America as a global citizen,” says filmmaker Stephen Ives. But at the close of the war, Wilson’s arrogance and inflexibility ultimately undermined his own lofty goals.
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  30. @Jeff Stryker
    WHITE TRASHNATIONALIST MANIFESTO
    You Hasbara Troll, trying to hijack the thread!
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  31. @Wally
    If Jews are over-represented, it’s because the Ashkenazim have the highest average IQ in the world.* This means their bell-shaped IQ curve is shifted to the right of that of the average person’s — meaning that there are disproportionally more Jews at the far right (super-smart) end of the curve. Essentially, they are highly over-represented at the high-end, so it’s only natural that they should be over-represented in various fields of endeavor. Furthermore– oh, wait…. Hold on, haters, I have to get my phone — my Zionist masters are calling from Israel.
    * They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the advantage is slightly less, only half a standard deviation Lynn (2004). This fact has social significance because IQ (as measured by IQ tests) is the best predictor we have of success in academic subjects and most jobs.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  32. Wally says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Jilles Dykstra blunders again by citing books he has never read. LOL
    How do I know? I have previously asked for specific references, pages, quotes, etc. The results: nada.
    • Replies: @Jeffery Cohen@Anon
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  33. Wally says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    You’re confused:
    In every instance where blacks & browns are in great numbers, and / or control the governments of cities, counties, regions, states, countries, & continents we see:
    massive murder rates
    massive crime in general
    degraded property
    massive disease, especially STDs
    massive drug & alcohol abuse
    general filth, squalor
    massive birthrates
    inability / unwillingness to support their own children
    massive youth pregnancies rates
    massive school dropout rates
    incredibly low IQs & test scores
    violence as a way of life
    fathers nowhere to be found
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  34. @prefer anon
    Name one 1970s documentary that said “not even 1 million.” I dare you.
    In the 1970′s tv documentaries about the Nazi concentration camps, the estimated numbers of Jews killed was not even 1 million. A decade or so later, 3 million. Today, 6 million. Most Americans are deceived into believing that WWll was foremost about Jews.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  35. Z-man says:
    The alleged number of Jews is complete nonsense. There are many, many more then they let on.
    Most Jews are not ‘religious’ so they do not say they are Jews in census questions about religion. They consider themselves Jews nonetheless. They want you to think they are so few & helpless victims when in fact they create massive resentment towards themselves by their owns actions.
    Interesting, I had a conversation with a co worker, many moons ago, who was telling me of an argument he was having with his rich liberal mother about just that who thought that the poor Jews were so small in population. He kept telling her that there are a lot more of them than you think. I argued that it’s their disproportionate power that makes them look more numerous. (Wry grin)
    - The US Census is prohibited from counting ‘Jews’ and all US federal, state and local are similarly disallowed from ‘noticing’ Jewish formation and over representation.
    Yes, good reminder. They should be labeled and tagged.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  36. Curmudgeon says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Thew Jews have controlled Britain since the traitorous Cromwell accepted his 11 pieces of silver.
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  37. @Thomm
    “White Trashionalists whining about Jews are just broadcasting their own inferiority through this very admission.”
    What a very Jewish thing to say.
    • Agree: Jeffery Cohen
    • Replies: @Thomm
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  38. @Wally
    Jilles Dykstra blunders again by citing books he has never read. LOL
    Greetings Wally, he is proven Hasbara Troll like Jeff Stryker.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  39. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    That’s what the English did from about 1100 on. It’s history is that of constant invasions of the continent and meddling. Ally with Spain against France France against the Hapsburgs Pope against France Hapsburgs against France. Foment all sorts of revolutions and separatist organizations in every country.
    Now that Brexit is going to happen I’m sure GB will be back to its old tricks by 2025.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  40. I now read the whole article, a few remarks:
    - the Roosevelt name is a Dutch name, however, these Roosevelts descended from Portuguese jews who fled when christians took over the peninsula. They first lived in western France, somewhere near or in Le Havre, under a still Portuguese name. Jews took with them their worldwide business contacts
    - Bernard Baruch already in 1928 or 1929 prevented his friend Churchill from leaving politics, ‘because he saw great things for Churchill in the future’. These great things materialised, the end of the British empire.
    See his autobiographies I already mentioned.
    - Baruch, nowhere as far as I know proved beyond doubt, took over FDR’s investments in Warm Springs, where Bernard Baruch’s father was the chief medical doctor. As we know FDR died there, that he was hastily cremated is less known.
    Robert E. Sherwood, ‘Roosevelt und Hopkins’, 1950, Hamburg (Roosevelt and Hopkins, New York, 1948
    - Henry Ford after WWI called Baruch the economic dictator of the USA. Morgenthau sr had financed Wilson’s election, one might see a connection.
    Morgenthau’s hatred of Germany I’d say equals Baruch’s hatred.
    As to Germany’s problems with jews, they existed.
    Two great books on this, both written by jews:
    Fritz Stern, ‘Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire’, New York, 1977.
    Ismar Schorsch, ‘Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 – 1914′, New York 1972
    Similar problems in Hungary
    ‘Christianity and the Holocaust of the Hungarian Jewry’, Moshe Y Herclz, 1993 New York University press
    As to USA non neutrality in WWI:
    Charles Callan Tansill, ‘Amerika geht in den Krieg’, Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War, 1938)
    About the Lusitania, as far as I know to this day radio conversation betweennthe Lusitania and the British admiralty is secret, the suggestion is that the Lusitanian was meant to be torpedoed.
    A great book on FDR Churchill cooperation early in WWII
    Thomas E. Mahl, ‘Desperate deception, British covert operations in the United States 1939-44’, Dulles, Virginia, 1998
    The writer suggests that FDR had the republican chairman of the convention murdered in order to get pro war Willkie nominated.
    On the day Willkie was nominated Churchill stopped peace negotiations with Hitler.
    As to the USA’s realations with the USSR after 1933: ambassador Davies was a nephew of Morgenthau
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  41. Thomm says:
    @Nancy Pelosi's Latina Maid
    What a very Jewish thing to say.
    And? You are effectively admitting that I am intelligent and that you WN wiggers have IQs of 70. I love how you wiggers tremble in my presence.
    Any more questions?
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  42. @Curmudgeon
    Unable to confirm this
    E. T. Raymond (Edward Raymond Thompson), ‘Disraeli: The Alien Patriot’, 1925, London
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  43. Curmudgeon says:
    @CoryCalculus007
    The Jewish IQ debate may well be true. Studying the Talmud and its mental gymnastics to justify Jewish actions, would certainly give them a leg up on the rest of us. Throw in the Jewish schools, where dumbing down has not taken place, is another factor. Those Jews only schools allow networking to succeed without interference. It is the networking that places huge numbers of Jews, with unremarkable intellect, in positions of power. For example, I have heard “brilliant” Jews like Alan Dershowitz and Richard Perle being interviewed. They are lobbed softball questions and their responses are, quite frankly, little more than babble. They didn’t get there by being the brightest bulb in the box.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  44. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally
    No one can possibly cite specific pages of books they read unless the books are right there and the comment writer feels like citing the specific page.
    A comment section isn’t a PHD thesis that needs footnotes. Jilles makes comments on a variety of subjects unlike certain people who just clip and paste the same comment into every thread no matter how irrelevant the comment.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  45. Ben Sampson says:
    I cant read a long thing like this when the author begins by full and prostrate apology to those ‘he might hurt in his scientific and accurate presentation’
    I would think that all Dalton should care about is that what he presents is truthful to the best of his ability, and present the case straight up,without those first paragraphs.. and let the world assess its worth.
    if we have to deal with several paragraphs of even handed praise of the Jews even before we get to what Dalton has to say, then his wimpish approach attitude will necessary pervade and degrade his content making it useless for any serious consideration
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  46. c matt says:
    @Thomm
    Know what is more amazing? You don’t point to one shred of evidence to refute any of this. Actually, that is not amazing – it is typical.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  47. George says:
    Some quibbles about the stuff about ancient animosities toward the so called Jews. At the time there really was an ethno linquistic national state in Judea. It is not clear who was pissing off the emperor. Was it Jews, Judeans, Christians, or some other group of Semites. It is also not clear if so called Jews were the only ones Romans hated. The various wars with Germans, Parthians, Huns probably have associated with them nasty quotes. The Jewish war was fought close to the Mediterranean coast making a successful campaign possible for Rome, elsewhere the Romans eventually lost.
    The 20th century for whatever reasons seems to have been the Jewish century in all areas of human endeavor. What you see as Jewish conspiracy could be just a statistical anomaly caused by the large number of Jews in all fields. The set up for Jews to be replaced by Asians is already in the works. America’s #1 capitalist apologist Ajit Pai. America’s #1 Red Kashama Swant. America’s #1 imperial apologist, John Yu. So expect to see South and East Asians playing the same role this century as Jews did last, with Jews winning a kind of booby prize, being the decadent WASPs of the 21st century. In many ways, I think the forever war could be explained as legacy whites (miltary) and legacy Jews trying to maintain prominence in the face of their own mediocrity (regression to their mean).
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  48. Jeff Stryker says:
    @Wally
    [Too many off-topic comments. Change this if you want your comments published.]
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  49. @CoryCalculus007
    You’re planting your flag on a disconnected factoid. Oh, no doubt the numbers are accurate — “Figures don’t lie (but liars sure do figure)” — but you’ve presented ONLY a factoid, not an argument, and not an assessment of how, when, why those Ashkenazi Jews got to be so smart. You haven’t asked any questions of the data.
    imo, rather, the way I stack up the data, the FACT that “Ashkenazi Jews” have the highest avg IQ in the world,
    correlated with the FACT Arthur Ruppin, the “creator of Hebrew culture in Palestine” was a eugenicist;
    correlated with the FACT that Eugenecist Ruppin established the parameters for the “human material” to make the “new Jew” to populate Palestine — > zionist Israel;
    correlated with the FACT that in Ruppin’s era, Slavic Jews were so pathetically dumb that even Vladimir Jabotinsky was repulsed by them;
    correlated with the FACT that Slavic/Eastern European who migrated to Palestine had to be sent back because they could not measure up;
    correlated with the FACT that Slavic / Polish Jews who were GIVEN land and support to settle in BieroBjain could not do so successfully; the women turned to prostitution and the men peddled their wares rather than use them to farm or manufacture;
    correlated with the FACT that on Feb. 14, 1933, Louis Brandeis directed that “all German Jews — all 587,000 German Jews leave Germany, for Palestine, which desperately needed their wealth and education, attained at German & Austrian universities;
    (a similar situation developed in the 1980s: Jews who had benefited from education in fine Russian universities migrated to Israel and formed the backbone of Israel’s “Start-Up Nation”)
    correlated with the FACT that Polish/Slavic/East European Jews formed the large majority of Jews who died in wars that Brandeis and his co-conspirators maneuvered to start; German Jews — the smart, wealthy Jews — had the lowest rate of deaths in WWII;
    correlated with the FACT that Jewish myths/sacred writings record in numerous places that the ancient Hebrew people slaughtered undesirable elements within their own group, the most notorious incident being when, as Michael Ledeen explained, “Jews killed Jews at Mount Sinai: the Levites, and I’m a proud Levite,” said Ledeen, “killed their fellow Jews on direction from Moses.”
    One hypothesis that emerges from this assembly of FACTS is that WWII was a process by which Jewish zionist elites led by Louis Brandeis culled the herd, eliminating Jews who were unfit “human material” for the “new Jew” to populate Palestine/Israel. Germans may have ‘pulled the trigger,’ but Brandeis and the zionist elite conceived the plan and set it in motion.
    That is one, major factor that produced “Ashkenazim [who] have the highest average IQ in the world.”
    Several other factors are,
    ~due in large measure to the practice of usury, Jews had access to far greater wealth than many other cultures in Europe and thus could afford the leisure to educate their young;
    ~ Jews were migratory people and settled in lands where educational institutions had been established by the natives, and Jews took advantage of those institutions. There is not a history of Jews building universities in the middle ages, but scholars of Jewish history discuss how Jewish young people enrolled in, i.e. University of Padua, in its fine medical school, post-expulsion from Spain.
    ~Gilad Atzmon has explained the Jewish practice of marrying the rabbi’s smart son to the wealthy merchant’s daughter, in order to produce a wealthy, educated elite.
    The practice was not broad-based, hence the vast bubble of dumb and dirt-poor Eastern European Jews in the late 19th- and early-20th century that had to be culled.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  50. anon[317] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeffery Cohen
    @ Jeffery Cohen
    please advice the creditable source of your statement (“..the destruction of the Islamic Archaeology is due to Wahhabi sick mind”).
    Zionism 1896 developed corporate oil as their warrior to take the oil from the Arabs. Engineering Wahhabism into the mind of as many amoral persons as possible is a result of influence and pressure that reduced USA and UK foreign policy.. into a set of generalized goals that include to weaponize as many amoral minds as possible with Wahhabism. Whenever the interest of Zionism is challenged, these human weapons, led by the Ghost of Terror, appears to impose regime change, to destroy life style comforting infra-structure, and to reduce the habitats of those who live there to rubble, in order to make room for the oil bandits.
    I would love for you or anyone to prove the long standing thesis wrong, but I cannot accept that the weapon is responsible for the destruction of Islamic Archaeology, its not even the person who pulls the trigger or wacks the head off, its the Oligarch and their corporate interests that control the awesome powers of goverments that are responsible.
    Dalton’s article is fantastic.. research well done.. and well presented.
    • Agree: Jeffery Cohen
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  51. LarryS says:
    “Before the time of the mashiach, there shall be war and suffering.
    The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem . He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles. He will rebuild theTemple and re-establish its worship. He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land.”
    • Replies: @Jeffery Cohen
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  52. McAron says:
    In vino veritas.
    I hope Mel Gibson reads this article
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  53. @LarryS
    “Before the time of the mashiach, there shall be war and suffering.
    The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem . He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles. He will rebuild theTemple and re-establish its worship. He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land.”
    Because some obsolete religion believes in this BS, the whole humanity is to suffer. Where is the proof?
    And, god needs help to make his prophesies to come true!
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  54. Art says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    WHITE TRASHNATIONALIST MANIFESTO
    Oh dear – a Talmud Middle School grad speaks up! (He is now in Talmud Lemming High.)
    Little Master Talmud Pride – gives us his indoctrinated sick hateful views of Western folks. (He is so smart.)
    Think Peace — Art
    p.s. Hmm – how many Palestinian children did Talmud Pride kill today?
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  55. MarkinLA says:
    @CoryCalculus007
    As Ron Unz has pointed out, the huge number of whites should negate a lot of that. If you have 200 million people with average IQ of 100 and 6 million with average IQs of 115 the total number of people with IQs of 150 is higher with whites. The issue is one of networking and cronyism in garbage areas where actual accomplishment is hard to determine like the law, social “sciences”, economics, and the media which Jews dominate more by networking than by doing anything constructive for society.
    • Agree: Wade
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  56. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake
    All of Christianity is a Judaizing heresy, including your Catholicism.
    Jew Testament: “The Jew First.” ~Romans 1:16
    Catechism: “To the Jews ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship…’” ~vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm
    Pope: “Inside every Christian is a Jew.” ~washingtonpost.com/national/religion/pope-francis-inside-every-christian-is-a-jew/2014/06/13/775750fc-f324-11e3-8d66-029598e98add_story.html
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  57. Heros says:
    License plate number A 111 118 on the Austrian crown princes auto in Sarajevo= Armistice 11/11/1918.
    Whoever caused WWI knew already on the day they got it started on what day their ritual slaughter was going to end. If we look only at what happened in 1914, it is possible that this secret organization had nothing to do with judaism. If we look at the history of what happened after 11/11/18 and what is going on to this very minute, it is obvious that the first world war was all about Eretz Israel, as was practically every war since.
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  58. Mr. ANon says:
    @Thomm
    It is amazing how obsessed WN wiggers are with Jews (even though Jews are white).
    Can you point to anything the author said that was wrong? If so, do so.
    It is remarkable how degenerates like you are obsessed with obscuring actual arguments with rhetorical squid-ink.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  59. Mr. Anon says:
    @Michael Kenny
    The article is much too long-winded to be gone into in detail…..
    …..because you would not be able to say that any particular thing about it is wrong?
    It is the wholly irrational belief that the established discourse is always and automatically wrong and, even more irrationally, that that means that the opposite of the established discourse must automatically be right.
    The author of the article seems to be contending that a particular small group of people were powerful, and often got their way. The fact that powerful people and/or authoritative sources, contemporaneous to that time, said that this group was powerful, as evidenced by the fact that they actively sought out their help, would tend to support the authors argument. What part of the article do you contend is wrong? Can you say? Or are you just, in effect, covering your ears and repeating “Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah, Not Listening”.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  60. TomVe says:
    It seems to me that Jews contradict themselves. On the one had they are proud of their success and corresponding power, and on the other they don’t want to be accused of using that success and power to affect society.
    For example:
    1) Joel Stein wrote: “Who runs Hollywood? C’mon “
    “I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.”
    3) Alan Dersowwitz says:
    “We earned our influence in this country by contributing more to its success than others– so now use your influence! Jews need to use their financial power to punish Israel’s critics.”
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  61. @Agent76
    What rubbish.
    Wilson was a fool and a pawn in a game he did not comprehend.
    Joyce Carol Oates wrote Wilson into “The Accursed” and revealed a version of the callow preacher/prude/president that his propagandists prefer to sugar-coat.
    “Woodrow Wilson is also present and accounted for, painted in scalpel-sharp Oatesian prose as a high-functioning but deeply paranoid university administrator, convinced that his archenemy, Dean Andrew Fleming West, will do anything to bring him low (as might in fact be the case — I told you, this book swarms with ambiguities). The man who would survive at least two strokes to become one of America’s pivotal presidents is here depicted as a racist, sexually repressed hypochondriac whose daily intake of patent medicines includes morphine, heroin and opium. He is also the proud possessor of his very own stomach pump, to the use of which he seems addicted.”https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/books/review/the-accursed-by-joyce-carol-oates.html
    As I recall, Oates devotes some attention to Wilson’s love-life, consistent with the allegations of Benjamin Freedman that one of Wilson’s lover’s blackmailed him: she offered to exchange Wilson’s love letters for $40,000; Samuel Untermeyer offered to pay the amount for the penurious Wilson, in exchange for the appointment of Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court.
    Brandeis was, by that time, passionately committed to Zionism and the head of the zionist effort worldwide. Jeffrey Rosen, a Brandeis biographer & head of US Center for the Constitution, has stated that above all others, Brandeis, Rosen’s idol, is responsible for creating “a homeland for Jews in Palestine.”
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  62. Mr. Anon says:
    @Heros
    License plate number A 111 118 on the Austrian crown princes auto in Sarajevo= Armistice 11/11/1918.
    It’s acutally AIII 118, i.e. roman numeral three.
    Still, it is a (somewhat) remarkable coincidence, much like the expiration date on Neo’s identity card in The Matrix – Sept. 11, 2001. If anything however, it is more suggestive of the notion that we live in a computer simulation rather than that the World is controlled by a vast, multi-generational illuminati conspiracy. For the record, I don’t believe in either of those two fantasies.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  63. Mr. Anon says:
    @Thomm
    Nobody “trembles in your presence”. Although I’m sure quite a lot of people – especially women – evince obvious disgust in the presence of your repellant personality.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  64. Dykeward says:
    Much of the foregoing is given fascinating chapter and verse in the late Douglas Reed’s magisterial Controversy of Zion, which someone has helpfully uploaded to the web
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  65. awry says:
    They are also pretty dominant in non-garbage areas like mathematics and theoretical physics.
    Of course you can say that networking plays a role in those areas too, but there one must have some actual accomplishment, it cannot be replaced by pure bullshitting.
    Maybe they don’t just have a higher average IQ but there tends to be more of them at both extremes. As the saying goes, a smart Jew is very smart, a dumb Jew is very dumb.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER 
  66. Wade says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Yeah me too. Whatever happened to him? The American Pravda series would’ve been right down his alley.
    REPLYAGREE/DISAGREE/ETC. THIS COMMENTER THIS THREAD HIDE THREAD 
  67. Mulegino1 says:
    Insofar as the world falls under the malevolent influence of organized Jewry, it becomes ever more hateful, ugly, depraved, violent, impoverished and deformed. The international Jew knows no craft or artifice but cultural and societal demolition and no operating principles other than diabolical hatred for the natural order and the desire for its destruction. A destructive nature and a delight in perversion are the international Jew’s twin identities, and he derives his greatest pleasure from the corruption of innocence and the ruination of all creative endeavor that he or his tribal confreres cannot personally benefit from.
    It is a shame that so many of those who, by mere accident of birth and default identification as “Jews”, are swept up in this.