I am obliged to Guthrum at Looking for a voice for reference to this (the constitution of the Falkland Islands); Guthrum wonders whether this might represent a draft written UK constitution.
It starts off with a grandiose statement about everyone’s ‘rights’, then proceeds in subsequent paragraphs to whittle away those ‘rights’ until, in every case in which they might actually be needed, they will not apply.
Among other things this ‘constitution’ allows for the imposition of indefinite forced labour upon the population, should the government deem this necessary for the ‘well-being of the community’ (4.3.d), and for the shooting of rioters (2.2.c). Detention for any period of time is provided for by 5.6, the term ‘promptly’ (like what seems to be all critical terms in the document) being undefined. 6.12.b provides for secret trials; 6.3.b for conviction in absentia. 8.3.a provides for movement restrictions and passport confiscations on the basis of undefined conditions (including the risible ‘reasonably justifiable in a democratic society’). 9.2.a.i gives search and entry powers in respect of ‘public morality’ and ‘the development or utilisation of any other property in such a manner as to promote the public benefit’. 10.3.b allows the regulation of ‘in the public interest, the procedures and modalities of marriage’ (whatever that means). 11.5.b does not define ‘unsolicited intervention’. 12.4.b allows the prescription of educational curricula on political grounds. 13.3.a.ii appears to be intended to eliminate the public-interest defence in cases of alleged libel. 14.2.b provides for the suppression of assemblies on the grounds that they might inconvenience the police. 15.1.a allows the seizure of private property ‘in the public interest’. 17 provides for suspension of all other provisions in the event of an ‘emergency’. 18.1.c allows for indefinite detention under emergency powers, with reviews every three months (90 days). 19.3.b allows for the award of damages in respect of violation of constitutional rights against the agents of the state, but not against those who enacted the violating law.
And that’s just the first page. As the old song says: “If you want any more, you can sing it yourself.”
I am not a constitutional expert but I have drafted constitutions for a couple of voluntary organisations and have to say that even on this strictly amateur basis I feel that I could do better than Mr. Straw.
Fortunately I was not thinking of emigrating to the Falkland Islands. One suspects that if this constitution is imposed upon that once happy place, the reverse process will quickly occur, until there is nobody left there at all except for members ‘of a disciplined force in pursuance of his or her duties’ (4.3.b).
I wonder how many who fought in the Falklands saw this as the end result of their sacrifice.
If this is how Government represent the people, if Jack Straw believes that this is what is genuinely required in the Falklands, and it is a blueprint of what he intends to put in place in a post democratic UK, then I can only say that the dawn of the tyrannical Dictatorship is well and truly upon us.
“The English are not worth saving as a race” – Jack Straw.
The Libertarian Party totally denounce the UK Government for the imposition of a Dictators Charter on the people of the Falklands Islands, and demand that they withdraw this new Constitution immediately.
Hat tip PJC Journal
The Communist Fascist Fabian just can’t help himself can he- read with care the above because as sure as today is saturday- this is also your fate.
Commie Filth
Added anymore D notices recently to protect your famililies REPUTATION Comrade?
Families..Sorry!
Anybody see Channel 4 last night about the British Gov of the 60s?
Lord somebody or other Tory peer and some Labour MP.
Both caught up with rent boys and sleeze.
The Kray twins..one had sex with the Tory peer.
Laws were bent and twisted newspapers too scared to print the stories.
It was disgusting really was.
Both parties protected their scum right to the end.
Try watching it online …it was 9pm monday.
Really allows us to see just how the perverts are protected by police and everyone in high office!
A book with all the facts, to this day can’t be published such is their power.
TODAY D NOTICES PROTECT PERVERTS AND PAEDOS’ IN WESTMINSTER!!
British Union Of Fascist–True facts’ not the lies fed by commies!
Perhaps more ironic still was the treatment of several BUF members who volunteered to take their small pleasure boats to Dunkirk to help evacuate the remnants of the British army following its defeat in France. Having saved dozens of soldiers on repeated crossings through German bombing and gunfire, they finally staggered exhausted onto dry land only to be thrown into prison as potential traitors.
Mosley’s men…real monsters eh?
NOT TO WORRY THE FABIAN COMMIIES HAVE PREPARED A BOOK FOR THE POST DEMOCRACTIC SOCIETY PLUS THEIR COMMON PURPOSE TRAITOR GRADUATES—THOSE TRAINED TO LEAD BEYOND AND WITHOUT OUR AUTHORITY.
Coping with post-democracy.
by Colin Crouch, Fabian Society
About this title: Argues that the democratic movement has passed, and that, in the West, we are moving into a post-democratic age where power becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a professionalized, political elite. Also shows how our opportunities for participating in public life have diminished.
Note: This is a general synopsis. Each listing is described below.
Available copies Customer reviews
Your search: Books » Author: Fabian Society » Coping with post-democracy (3 available copies)
Narrow your results by: New books (from £61.00)
When politicians use the word Democracy like it’s going out of style, you know it already has gone.
Keep using the word- to convince the public that it still exists’
Notice how recently they use-OUR COUNTRY…Always’
When they know thats’ also a bloody lie.
Mind Game Arseholes, is what the Westminster Mafia are!
Griffin ought to quote this to Comrade Straw on QT….I would!
“The English are not worth saving as a race” – Jack Straw.
Stammering Red Jack the scrawny Pillock!
The Secret People by G. K. Chesterton
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget;
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
There is many a fat farmer that drinks less cheerfully,
There is many a free French peasant who is richer and sadder than we.
There are no folk in the whole world so helpless or so wise.
There is hunger in our bellies, there is laughter in our eyes;
You laugh at us and love us, both mugs and eyes are wet:
Only you do not know us. For we have not spoken yet.
The fine French kings came over in a flutter of flags and dames.
We liked their smiles and battles, but we never could say their names.
The blood ran red to Bosworth and the high French lords went down;
There was naught but a naked people under a naked crown.
And the eyes of the King’s Servants turned terribly every way,
And the gold of the King’s Servants rose higher every day.
They burnt the homes of the shaven men, that had been quaint and kind,
Till there was no bed in a monk’s house, nor food that man could find.
The inns of God where no man paid, that were the wall of the weak.
The King’s Servants ate them all. And still we did not speak.
And the face of the King’s Servants grew greater than the King:
He tricked them, and they trapped him, and stood round him in a ring.
The new grave lords closed round him, that had eaten the abbey’s fruits,
And the men of the new religion, with their bibles in their boots,
We saw their shoulders moving, to menace or discuss,
And some were pure and some were vile; but none took heed of us.
We saw the King as they killed him, and his face was proud and pale;
And a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale.
A war that we understood not came over the world and woke
Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke.
They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people’s reign:
And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again.
Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then;
Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men.
In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains,
We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains,
We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not
The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought,
And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke;
And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke.
Our patch of glory ended; we never heard guns again.
But the squire seemed struck in the saddle; he was foolish, as if in pain,
He leaned on a staggering lawyer, he clutched a cringing Jew,
He was stricken; it may be, after all, he was stricken at Waterloo.
Or perhaps the shades of the shaven men, whose spoil is in his house,
Come back in shining shapes at last to spoil his last carouse:
We only know the last sad squires rode slowly towards the sea,
And a new people takes the land: and still it is not we.
They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.
We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia’s wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God’s scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.
Now GFY Jack!!
Straw was ever a con-artist. He has never done a proper job but burst onto the scene as a student agitator in the 1960s. Somehow he managed to get himself elected as President of the National Union of Students, then a new creation. As a student myself in 1968-71 I was very aggrieved that money from our own Students’ Union (that would otherwise have been spent on entertainment for us students) was passed on to the stupid NUS. What did we get in return? Nothing but agitprop and encouragement to hold sit-ins. Absurd. Now this idiot is coming (hopefully) to the end of his political career, should we be surprised that he is trying to stop the Tories taking marginals? Of course not. He has been a political animal all his adult life and nothing is going to change now. All we can say is that Jack would be very foolish to fix things too far in favour of incumbent Labour MPs. When they get kicked out, as they surely will in many marginals at the next election, they will find themselves unable to get back into the game for lack of leaflet money. But then he has never had the intelligence to think that far ahead. That’s why first Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown ran circles round him and stopped him becoming PM.
Adrian Gilbert
on June 20, 2008
at 09:37 AM
Report this commentRefer to the DT article dated 13 November 2006 on how Labour puts our liberty in jeppardy by PHILIP JOHNSON. With 5 Acts on immigration 7 on terrorism 10 on education 11 on health 23 on criminal justice..creating 3,000 new crimes. That was back in 2006. The worst case was the LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY REFORM BILL which proposed that all power to amend replace or repeal any law was to be in the hands of our (discredited) govt…somplete control….thats British democracy?
muggeridge
on June 20, 2008
at 09:36 AM
Report this commentIf all else fails, NuLabour can resort to using cardboard ballot-boxes with papers seals, just as they do when the BNP have a candidate standing against them. At the recent elections, over 400,000 papers were ‘spoilt’ after the ballot boxes were stored overnight. By the time they reached the counting stations the numbers on the seals were different from those on the seals when the boxes left the polling stations. Make from that what you will. It appears our electoral system was devised by the Mugabe School of Democracy. Of course, if NuLabour are that desperate to stay in power – at least until their masters in EUrope take complete control – they could use another option … call a State of Emergency and cancel all elections until then. To paraphrase Pastor Martin Niemöller – First they came for the BNP – but I was not a nationalist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, – but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Christians, – but I was not a Christian so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Jack Straw is acting like Caligula in trying to stifle democracy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iaindale/3559669/Jack-Straw-is-acting-like-Caligula-in-trying-to-stifle-democracy.html
Peter Hitchins Daily Mail Blog
In search of my MI5 file, the only thing I have in common with Professor Eric HobsbawmWell, actually, I quite like the Professor’s daughter, Julia, and I imagine he does too, so it’s not really the only thing. But I did laugh on Monday morning to see in ‘the Guardian’ (I read it, so you don’t have to) that this unashamed old Communist, hilariously a ‘Companion of Honour’ after all those years working for that filthy cause, has been refused permission to see his MI5 file.
I rather enjoy his books, oddly enough. He’s without doubt a distinguished historian. But if he had spent his life apologising for the Third Reich rather than for the USSR, I somehow doubt if he’d have become a CH. Are the two causes, the two regimes, the two sets of death camps, the two pyramids of skulls, so distinct and different that an apologist for one gets honoured, and the apologist for the other gets ostracised? David Irving’s not in the Hobsbawm class as a historian, but if he had been, would he have become a CH? Of course not. And rightly not. So are there double standards here? I rather think so. I don’t think either of them should be honoured. But I digress.
I could have told him he was wasting his time with the request for the file. Some years ago I too tried to see my MI5 record, having become curious about how closely I was watched during my days as a full-time Trotskyist nearly 40 years ago. I had a pretty good idea who the watchers were (nice chaps, all of them, doing a fine job) and didn’t at all resent their activities. All kinds of people hung around student revolutionary gatherings in those days. Watch them, and you might pick up lots of interesting things. I remember one very gaunt Irish character who gave off a whiff of genuine, terrible danger, and I hope my MI5 watchers spotted him.
The Home Office had said, back in 2002, that such files could be opened if there were no security implications. But my efforts produced nothing except a blank refusal on the only piece of MI5 headed paper I have ever seen – rather stylish, as I recall, with a little motto in Latin. I pursued this to the Information Tribunal, who, after a bizarre hearing which is still recorded somewhere on the web, told me I had come to the wrong tribunal and suggested I try again with another one. No thanks. I knew the answer would be the same.
And by then I knew why. For I had looked up the press cuttings and found that in September 1997 the future Lord Mandelson, then ‘Minister without Portfolio’ had publicly demanded that files on people such as himself should be destroyed. The then Mr Mandelson had been annoyed by alleged disclosures from his own file, themselves following claims by the ex-MI5 officer David Shayler (yes, I know about poor Mr Shayler’s later years, but can we pass over that in polite silence?) that dossiers were held on several ministers.
Soon afterwards, the Guardian’s very reliable security correspondent, Richard Norton-Taylor, recorded that this destruction had begun. My guess is that my file (and Professor Hobsbawm’s) went into the incinerator in a general cull of all Cold War records on the Left, Communists and Trots alike. All very 1984, isn’t it? I suspect a lot of Labour MPs and ministers were relieved, as there probably is no other proof of what they were up to in those years. And I don’t think most of them have changed their ideas all that much since then, only their methods of achieving their aims.
There was then a curious Parliamentary debate about it, on 25th February 1998, involving the Tory MP Julian Lewis and the then Home Secretary Jack Straw (who had also been outed by Mr Shayler as having an MI5 file). You can look it up in Hansard, and I urge you to do so. It is one of the oddest exchanges ever to take place in the House of Commons, and very unusual, if not unprecedented, for a Cabinet Minister to respond to such a debate. Mr Lewis deserves some credit for spotting this and persisting with it.
Personally, I think Mr Lewis is on to something quite big. The wiping out of such files was part of the transformation of MI5 from a plodding, conservative organisation with an old-fashioned idea of subversion into the PC, new Labour outfit it is now. I rather wonder if it has opened a new file on me?
There are a couple of other points I’d like to make here. The Labour Peer Lord Lipsey is backing Professor Hobsbawm in his quest. Well, good luck to him. But he goes further than that. Lord Lipsey, who was a special adviser to Anthony Crosland and James Callaghan in the last old Labour government, also says:”In my years in government in the 1970s, I found the security services only too eager to collect information about Communists – by then a party which represented no threat to anyone – while they ignored Trotskyist sects who were a potential threat to national security.”
I wouldn’t want this to pass uncontradicted. Why on earth would such an apparently sensible person say anything so silly? The British Communist Party (CPGB) in the 1970s was, as it always had been, electorally insignificant. But it still possessed a large, well-run industrial organisation which had a great deal of influence in and through the trade unions. Through them, I personally believe it stirred up a lot of the industrial trouble which helped to destabilise the country during that period. I still hope that someone will one day get into the Soviet archives on this.
Even more important was its indirect political influence, through the TUC and the union seats on Labour Party policy-making bodies, on Labour policy and on the constitutional revolution which transformed Labour in the early 1980s. Anyone who thinks that there was no major Communist influence here should look up accounts of the TUC conference in September 1980, where the platform (with a couple of honourable exceptions) were wretchedly unwilling to support the Polish shipyard workers of Gdansk against Communist tyranny. One day, perhaps, the level of Communist penetration of the Labour movement, secret membership and the rest will come out. It hasn’t yet. I personally know enough about it to be sure that there is a lot that’s yet to emerge, but my information takes the form of small glimpses, bits of private gossip and reminiscences. But to say that the CP was no threat in the 1970s is ridiculous. I can also vouch for the keen interest shown by the security organs in Trotskyists in that period. Lord Lipsey may contact me for details.
The word Communist changed to Fabians.
Straw and Mandy –are now all Fabian Fascists’ and it’s starting to show!!
Commies to Fabians with just a name change!
The Future of Socialism at 50: Celebrating Crosland
The Fabian fringe in Manchester opened with a celebration of the 50th anniversary edition of Tony Crosland’s Future of Socialism, examining how its vision of equality and reform could influence Labour’s next generation agenda.
Austin Mitchell, Crosland’s successor as MP for Grimsby, chaired the session having hosted the Fabian Northern Conference the previous week in Grimsby, which had discussed in more detail the relevance of Crosland’s ideas on revisionism, on education and on inequality to Labour’s future politics.
Dick Leonard, editor of the 50th anniversary edition of The Future of Socialism, opened the meeting, recalling how he had met Tony Crosland through the Fabian Society before going on to work closely with him in parliament and government. Crosland had been the leading Fabian of his generation, said Leonard, although he had been very clear that his Fabianism was different from that of the Webbs, as in his famous assertion in the book that Total abstinence and a good filing-system are not now the right sign-posts to the socialist Utopia: or at least if they are, some of us will fall by the wayside’.
http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/events/event-reports/the-future-of-socialism-at-50-celebrating-crosland
MI5 Looking for Commies thats’ a joke–The MI5 Top dogs were Fabians too.
Labour Old and New-Fabians…Rothschilds Fabians…..Hows’ that for portraying yourself as a workers party….DUPING STILL TO THIS DAY!
THE FOUR CARDINAL ERRORS THAT ALMOST DESTROYED AMERICA
PART 1
By Professor Steven Yates
September 13, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
Four Cardinal Errors, as I will call them, have all but destroyed our original Republic, dating from July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. Error One: the Republic failed to gain full freedom and economic sovereignty from the British Crown, and this state of affairs went unrecognized. Error Two: the country adopted an educational system whose premises were alien to those of a free Republic. Error Three: Americans slowly but steadily lost the “moral religiosity” of its founding traditions, replacing it with a naturalistic materialism also imported from Europe. Error Four: Americans did not recognize the British Fabian Society for what it was, and stayed blind as agents of Fabian permeation gradually assumed control over dominant institutions and occupations in this country. This paved the way for the piece-by-piece erosion of our sovereignty and its replacement by world government (“global governance”).
The first of these will doubtless come as something of a surprise. Please allow me to elaborate. (The second, third and fourth will be dealt with in future installments.)
Cardinal Error One. Our Republic, founded in 1776, failed to retain its full freedom and economic sovereignty from the British Crown—which had long been the wealthiest and most powerful secular entity in the Western world. (See E.C. Knuth, The Empire of the City: The Secret History of British Financial Power, orig. 1944).
I.
Concentrations of power have always been dangerous. This can be as true of private wealth as it is state power; when used to buy and retain the loyalty of heads of state, private wealth is power. Such a system was built up gradually by the Rothschild dynasty in the final third of the 18th century. Mayer Amschel Bauer had been a child prodigy of sorts, growing up in Frankfort-on-the-Main and learning the art of moneylending from his father, Amschel Moses Bauer. The elder Bauer had started a counting house and hung a red shield over the entrance. The Bauers were Ashkenazi Jews, and the red shield was a revolutionary symbol. Young Amschel Mayer’s parents having died from the plague, he was sent to Hanover to work in a major bank. His talent obvious, he became a partner when still in his teens. He returned to Frankfort and bought the family business back. The red shield was still there. He changed his last name to Rothschild (Rott schild = red shield), offered his services as a dealer in rare coins to local heads of state, and as a moneylender. He was soon on his way to becoming fabulously wealthy. He would move with his family into a house shared with the Schiffs, another fabulously wealthy banking dynasty whose most famous progeny would be Jacob Schiff.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild had five sons and five daughters. He trained each son in the science of moneylending, and eventually placed each in a central bank in a major city in Europe: Amschel Mayer stayed in Frankfurt, Salomon Mayer went to Vienna, Nathan Mayer went to London, Kalmann (Karl) Mayer went to Naples, and Jacob (James) Mayer went to Paris. Remaining in close communication, the five Rothschild sons became the first internationalists whose only loyalties were to money, power, and the Rothschild name. Central bankers had adopted fractional reserve banking, the art and science of lending more money than the bank had in reserve—in effect, creating money out of thin air—and then charging interest on it. This had proven to be a road to riches previously undreamt of! Mayer Amschel Rothschild has been quoted: “Allow me to issue and control a nation’s money, and I care not who makes the laws.”
Each Rothschild daughter, meanwhile, married into another wealthy banking house, extending Rothschild influence but without using that name. Within a couple of generations, there were people advancing Rothschild causes who very likely had no idea who they were working for.
The British Crown was, as we already noted, one of the largest repositories of wealth and power in the West. The Crown’s Dutch East Company spanned the globe. It was inevitable that the most talented of the Mayer Amschel’s sons—Nathan Mayer—would establish his bank (N.M. Rothschild & Sons) in the hoary City of London, the heart of Crown territory. Soon, Rothschild influence also spanned the globe.
II.
The colonies established in North America were intended to be commercial entities serving the Crown. The colonists eventually began to chafe at the fact that they were not treated the same as other British citizens. Contrary to what many history books teach, they did not initially want independence from the British Empire. ‘Taxation without representation,’ for example, was obviously not a demand for independence but for equal treatment under British law. Their demands met with no response from King George III, who in 1775 proclaimed the colonies to be in rebellion. (Note that word proclaimed. We will see it again.) By the end of the year, independence stirrings had begun. In early 1776, Thomas Paine published Common Sense. Paine’s tract brazenly attacked the very institution of monarchy and made an eloquent case for independence over reconciliation: “The authority of Great Britain over this continent, is a form of government, which sooner or later must have an end …” And later: “A government of our own is our natural right.” Common Sense was widely read throughout the colonies. A Declaration of Independence was inevitable, as was the war for independence which followed.
Advertisement
Thirteen colonies became a Perpetual Union of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation—a document creating a highly decentralized society rooted in the assumption that concentrations of power are dangerous. By the mid-1780s, however, the elites within the states were grousing that the federal government established under the Articles was too weak—and to be sure, a number of volatile issues both within and between the states had erupted which it was unclear could be resolved peacefully under the authority of the Articles. It wasn’t clear that the Perpetual Union established under the Articles was sustainable. In 1787 the states sent representatives to the first Constitutional Convention, which met behind closed doors. Its stated purpose was to revise the Articles of Confederation. But why the secrecy? This raised red flags even then.
The representatives emerged after three months with an entirely new document, the Constitution of the United States of America. When asked by a woman what kind of government this Constitution created, monarchy or republic, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” One thing was for sure: the Constitution had created a stronger central government than its predecessor. It is unfortunate that Thomas Jefferson had been in Europe while this was going on. Had he participated in the Constitutional Convention, it is at least possible that the resulting Constitution and all subsequent history might look very different.
To be adopted, the new Constitution needed ratification by nine of the thirteen states. James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton penned The Federalist Papers making a public case for ratification. Others—whom history labels the “Anti-Federalists”—smelled a rat and argued against the Constitution’s ratification. Authors such as Richard Henry Lee and Robert Yates (no known ancestral relation to the present author) among others circulated numerous statements contending, among other things, that the Constitution contained too many loopholes which those who wanted a still larger central government would eventually climb through. Among their worries was the lack of an explicit statement of people’s natural rights which the federal government was obligated to respect. Statesmen like George Mason paid attention. A compromise was reached: a Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the Constitution) was inserted.
In light of history, this wasn’t enough. History has validated the fears of the “Anti-Federalists.” But alas, we get ahead of ourselves.
The Constitution created a new system of government, one stronger and more centralized than that of the Articles but still limited. The federal government was to have three branches, each with specific delegated powers—or, better, responsibilities, since the overriding aim of having a Constitution was to contain power by creating a balance of powers within the federal government itself; and with dual sovereignty—the central concept of true federalism in which the powers of the federal government were few and carefully defined while the rest was left to the states (Ninth and Tenth Amendments).
Among the responsibilities assigned to Congress was to “coin money and regulate the value thereof.” Article I Section 8 did not authorize Congress to delegate this responsibility to any private entity or public-private partnership. This clause in the Constitution was abrogated almost at once by Thomas Jefferson’s arch foe Alexander Hamilton, allowed to create the first Bank of the United States over Jefferson’s explicit objections. Jefferson’s warnings about central bankers, doubtless based on first hand observations from his time in Europe, are well known.
It is likely that the European banking elite—centered in dynasties such as that of Rothschild and Schiff—wanted to destroy the fledgling Republic across the ocean right from the start. They would bring it under their control, or else! The Treaty of Paris of 1783 had officially ended the war, but His Brittanick Majesty’s overbearing presence remained, including on U.S. soil. President George Washington, seeking to avoid renewed hostilities with the still-powerful British war machine, sent John Jay to London to work out a new treaty that would diffuse the danger of renewed conflict. This treaty—virtually forgotten by historians today—became known as the Jay Treaty and was very controversial in its time. It was signed in London on November 19, 1794. Back in the states, it was submitted to our Senate on June 8 the following year and provoked an angry and rancorous debate. It was finally passed on June 24 (the vote was 20 – 10). The House passed it on August 14, 1795. Then it was sent back to the British. Great Britain ratified it on October 28, 1795; His Brittanick Majesty proclaimed it on February 29, 1796.
Time out! Remember that word proclaimed? What, precisely, do we mean, proclaimed? There was no basis for a recognition of proclaimed in the Constitution! Proclaiming was something done by British royalty, not Constitutional Republics!
What this means is bound to be startling, even to Patriots who believe they’ve seen everything! In the last analysis, given that it was proclaimed, the Jay Treaty is more a British document than an American one. His Brittanick Majesty ended the American War for Independence on February 29, 1796—with a treaty that does not explicitly assent to U.S. sovereignty and independence. Rather, it establishes “a firm inviolable and universal Peace, and a true and sincere Friendship between His Brittanick Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and the United States of America …” Had Americans just fought a war for independence only to have established an ambiguous “Friendship” with the Crown, one that is “inviolable”?
Advertisement
The disturbing question that should pull us all out of our comfort zones: in this last analysis, did the United States of America remain, however covertly, under the thumb of the British Crown? Were Americans merely allowed to believe they had attained full sovereignty?
A final note about the Jay Treaty. Its Articles V, VI and VII of the Jay Treaty establish the first international mixed commissions, to resolve disputes not yet resolved through negotiation. This set an important precedent for later “commissions of inquiry” with autonomous decision-making power.
III.
Remember that Alexander Hamilton’s Bank of the United States was in operation by this time. Hamilton had defended what amounts to mercantilism in Federalist #12. Unlike Jefferson and the “Anti-Federalists” he wanted a centralized and activist government. Was Hamilton secretly working for the Crown, and therefore also for the Rothschilds? His goals aligned with theirs, and the future was open to the very meddling by European bankers about which Jefferson was warning everyone who would listen. A few historians believe Nathan Meyer Rothschild ordered the War of 1812 as punishment for our refusal to recharter Hamilton’s bank (so much for the “inviolability” of the Friendship Treaty from the Crown’s point of view). Wars, of course, create debt; central banking, to create the money to pay the debt, becomes an irresistible temptation. The Second Bank of the United States was chartered in 1816. Rothschild agents John Jacob Astor, Stephen Girard, and David Parish were placed in charge. With Nathan at the helm, the Rothschilds ascended to full power during the first two decades of the 1800s—especially with the insider-trading stunt he pulled with the Battle of Waterloo which made him Great Britain’s richest man.
President Andrew Jackson—a hero of that war following his victory in the Battle of New Orleans—would shut down the Second Bank of the United States having denounced the institution as “a den of vipers and thieves.” This was the culmination of his protracted battle with Rothschild agent Nicholas Biddle, who had assumed the Bank’s presidency in the 1820s. The bankers retaliated by causing a near-depression that severely damaged the remainder of Jackson’s presidency. He would survive an assassination attempt on January 30, 1835. His would-have-been assassin admitted working for “foreign interests.”
While we had no central bank during the decades which ensued, we also had no means to prevent Rothschild meddling in American affairs. For example, Rothschild agent August Schoenberg came to our shores and changed his last name to Belmont. He began purchasing government bonds, rose in wealth and stature through his firm August Belmont & Co., and eventually became an advisor to the White House. John Slidell, another Rothschild agent, had been a merchant in New York before relocating to New Orleans to build up a law practice. He would serve in the Louisiana House of Representatives. Finally, Judah Benjamin was a Rothschild agent who would rise to become Jefferson Davis’s chief advisor. Yes, we now have pretty good evidence that the attempt to divide the U.S. in two was a Rothschild scheme from the get-go. The emerging battle over slavery served as a convenient issue on which to focus public attention. Those with real power couldn’t care less about such things as the treatment of minority groups unless it creates a wedge issue they can use.
Fractional money flowed into the coffers of corporations that built the industrial revolution that transformed the Northern states during the second third of the 1800s. This process took people off the land they had farmed and sent them into burgeoning cities. It created a fundamentally different culture. Invariably, people began to lose touch with the land and would eventually lose the ability their ancestors possessed to live off the land. The North’s commitment to industry versus the South’s preference for an agrarian economy also helped set the stage for dividing America into two separate nations that could be more easily brought under Rothschild/Crown control.
Was the most violent war ever fought on U.S. soil really orchestrated from overseas, or is this just a “conspiracy theory”? Consider what Otto Bismarck (a protégé of Frankfort’s Amschel Mayer Rothschild) would say in 1876: “The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds prevailed… Therefore they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to open an abyss between the two sections of the Union.”
Abraham Lincoln thwarted the division of the U.S. into two separate nations—and kept the nation out of debt to foreign bankers by printing Greenbacks. He’d had to sign a National Banking Act (1863) as a wartime measure, however, and this was a step back toward a central bank. Some recent treatments of Lincoln portray him as a ruthless and unscrupulous tyrant (see, e.g., Thomas DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln, 2002). In a sense, he was between a rock and a hard place. By using brute force to bring the Confederacy back into the Union he thwarted the Rothschild scheme but there was a steep price: the end of dual sovereignty and hence of true federalism. The federal government ascended to its present status as dominant over the states. The consolidation of federal power (which should have become known as central power) proved to be permanent. The South, ravaged by war, descended into poverty. For all this, there are Southerners who have never forgiven Lincoln. On the other hand, had he allowed Southern secession to stand, this would have given the Rothschilds what they wanted—and heralded an uncertain future for both societies in which neither would have enjoyed what sovereignty they had for very long. Lincoln seems to have known what was really going on. In an 1865 statement he told Congress, “I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe.”
Lincoln made other remarks suggesting that he believed his life would end violently, with an assassination. He knew he had made enemies who had no scruples about murdering those who interfered with their plans. Not long before his assassination he wrote: “The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
Suffice it to say: a major treaty ending our initial conflict with Great Britain in the late 1700s was proclaimed (not simply signed or ratified). The money that grew U.S. industry in the 1800s came from Great Britain—a great deal of it came specifically from that powerful family ensconced in the City of London: the Rothschilds. The effort to divide the nation also appears to have emanated from the Rothschild/Crown axis. Even though the Rothschild/Crown axis lost that battle, the question remains: was our Republic ever truly sovereign and free of Rothschild/Crown interests? It appears not! To be sure, we believed we were free. We generally acted as if we were free! But were we merely allowed to believe we were free while in truth remaining the Crown’s biggest covert colony?
© 2009 Steven Yates –
——————————————————————————–
Steven Yates has a doctorate in philosophy and has taught the subject at a number of Southeastern colleges and universities. He is the author of two books: Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994) and Worldviews: Christian Theism versus Modern Materialism (2005). His articles and reviews have appeared in refereed philosophy journals such as Inquiry, Metaphilosophy, Reason Papers, and Public Affairs Quarterly, as well as on a number of sites on the Web. He also writes regular columns for a conservative weekly, The Times Examiner. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina with two spoiled cats, Bo and Misty
E-Mail: Not Available
http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven139.htm
Whose the bogey man now then?????/
Great Britain to this day collects taxes from the American people. The IRS
is not an Agency of the United States Government.
All taxpayers have an Individual Master File which is in code. By
using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking
series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid. Most
taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is
reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399 which is the Business Master File in
6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are
considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes
A MUST READ……..Nothing is what it appears to be….Still Trust ROTHSCHILD PUPPET’S?
Those that count the votes, decide on which Government…..Stalin.
http://www.tpuc.org/node/367
TAXES FOR THOSE TOO HEAVY WITH £££££££££££££..$$$$$$$$$$$$$
SUCKERS….
The American Dream
http://harveyalexander.weebly.com/themoneyscam.html
Pingback: UK: “Natural Solution” Found — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami
Rare footage of NKVD mass graves in Poland, Ukraine
NKVD Later became the KGB Jack will know that ofcourse.
NKVD MASTERS OF TORTURE
WITH COMMUNISM IN CHARGE DON’T EXPECT THE TRUTH HERE!!
History They Don’t Teach 2 – Jewish Bolshevism
The fact is, that this would not have been possible without the active or passive collaboration of millions of Russian gentiles. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn openly denounced the passivity of his fellow citizens during the communist takeover.
chemerich 1 week ago
Weve only to see how the West reacts today to understand- PC walks in with it’s FAUX fear- TRUTH RUNS OUT OF THE DOOR!
CHURCHILL TODAY WOULD BE IN PRISON….
STRAW AND HIS FABIAN MATES’ – MUST CHUCKLE THEIR LITTLE HEADS OFF!
Zionism versus Bolshevism:
A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.
By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill, the Zionist, later helped the Jews to take control of Palestine.
But he was not uninformed about certain dark aspects of the Jews.
Jews in similar role in American Communism:
….I soon found out that Jews dominated the International Communist movement in modern times just as they had led Bolshevism in Russia early in the 20th century.
Jewish scribe Nathan Glazer stated matter-of-factly that in the 60s and 70s the Jews comprised half of all the active Communists in the United States and four out of five of its leaders.
Two Jews, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, led the Marxist-Oriented, Yippie Movement, and they were two of the five Jewish members of the revolutionary “Chicago Seven” group – tried for the violent disruption of the 1968 Democratic Convention.
I read a book called Behind Communism, and I was surprised to discover that at least 4 out of 5 of all those caught and convicted of Communist espionage and treason in the United States and Canada were Jews. More. (mouse over)
See also: The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution
The percentage of Jews among the leaders of the Russian (Bolchewist) revolution and the Cheka death squads. (mouse over)
In 1920, Churchill wrote a long newspaper article of the recent Bolshevik seizure of Russia.
First he praised what he called the “national Jews” of Russia:
SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and successful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Cooperative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.
International Jews
“In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish efforts rise the schemes of the International Jews.
The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race.
Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world.
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 revolutionary 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 played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster has ably shown, a definite recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.
It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworlds 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 the enormous empire.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews.
It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others.
With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.
Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders…
Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews.
In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. Table Leaders
And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been take by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. Table all members NKVD
The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun (Cohen) ruled in Hungary.
The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people.
Although in all these countries there are many nonJews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
“Protector of the Jews.”
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.
Wherever General Denikin’s authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them.
So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front.
But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate. to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs.
The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.
The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated.
A Home for the Jews.
Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular.
The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal.
The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.
(“Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.” ILLUSTRATED SUNDAY HERALD, London, February 8, 1920.)
——————————————————————————–
http://www.mosaisk.com/revolution/Winston-Churchill-Zionism-Versus-Bolshevism.php
THE WINNERS WROTE THE HISTORY- FOR YOU TO SWALLOW HOOK LIKE AND SINKER.
HISTORIANS ARE MOCKED AND SILENCED BY THE UNELECTED ADL.
OUR POLITICIANS BRAG ABOUT BEING ZIONISTS’ LIKE IT’S A BADGE OF HONOUR!
—————
[1] ‘Starting in April 1945, the United States Army and the French Army casually annihilated about one million men, most of them in the American camps,’ a part of the US-UK-Russia plan ‘to destroy Germany as a world power once and for all…’ James Bacque Other Losses London 1989 p.xix.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
http://www.rense.com
In a dramatic and unprecedented videotaped interview, Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of archives of the
fabricated after the war by the Soviet Union -apparently on the direct orders of Josef Stalin.
What Piper said – in effect and on camera – was that the explosive 1988 Leuchter Report was correct: no homicidal gassings took place in the buildings designated as ‘homicidal gas chambers’ at Auschwitz.
With this admission by none other than the respected head of the
on which much of the foreign and domestic policies of all Western nations since WWII are based.
It is the basis for the $100+ billion in foreign aid the United States has poured into the state of Israel since its inception in 1948 – amounting to $16,500 for every man, woman and child in the Jewish state and billions more paid by Germany in ‘reparations’ – not to mention the constructing of Israel’s national telephone, electrical and rail systems…all gifts of the German people. It is the basis for the $10 billion ‘loan’ (read ‘gift’) made to Israel for housing its immigrants in the occupied territories…while Americans sleep on the streets and businesses are bankrupted by the thousands. (Note – As of 2004, not a single ‘loan’ of US tax money made to the state of Israel by Washington has ever been paid back. -ed)
Germany is paying ‘reparations’ – the the United States is making major contributions – to atone for
were postwar creations of the Soviets, in which
creed, color or country of national origin, then these ‘reparations’ were unnecessary, and were based on
The videotape on which Dr. Piper makes his revelations was made in mid-1992 by a young Jewish investigator, David Cole and follows 12 years of intensive investigation by dozens of historians, journalists and scientists who have tried to get to the bottom of what really happened at Auschwitz.
Like most Americans, since his youth, Cole had been instructed in the ‘irrefutable fact’ that mass homicidal gassings had taken place at Auschwitz. The number of those executed – also declared irrefutable – was 4.1 million.
Then came the Leuchter Report in 1988 which was followed with an official ‘re-evaluation’ of the total deaths at Auschwitz (down to 1.1 million). As a budding historian – and a Jew – Cole was intrigued.
Previous to 1992, anyone who publicly doubted or questioned the official 4.1 millon
an anti-semite, neo-nazi skinhead at the very least. Quietly, because of revisionist findings, the official figure was lowered to 1.1 million. No mention was made of the missing 3 million.
The Cole videotape interview proves that the people who run the
Keep in mind that over the years millions of tourists have been told that 1′ is in its original state, while officials knew that ‘original state’ is
The political, religious, fiancial and historical ramifications of this
cannot be measured. Coupled with the Leuchter Report, the Cole interview with Dr. Piper on videotape proves that what Western governments have taught
It proves that what televangelists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have been telling their flocks is
No one, regardless of race, creed, color or country of national origin was
in any building And without
where is the reasoning for the special treatment of the state of Israel?
Note – This is excerpted from the orginal, much longer article by P. Samuel Foner.
Comment
From Michael Rivero
5-31-4
Current events should make it clear that deceptions in support of a war are the rule rather than the exception throughout history. Looking at the post-WW2 climate, the need for a cause on which to base the formation of Israel was clear. Here the allies had waged war on Germany for invading other peoples’ lands and taking them by force, and here those same allies were asked to reverse themselves and allow the exact same thing to happen in Palestine. Clearly, only a monstrous
would trick the same world which halted the Nazi’s land grab into turning a blind eye to the same thing being done in Palestine.
Michael Rivero
What Really Happened.com
Comment
From Jim Mortellaro
Jsmortell@aol.com
5-31-4
When I read such as the above, I become angry. I want to hurl the lunatic who said it into the past to see what really did happen. No, I did not see what happened. But my aunt did. As did her brother, her mother, father, sister, uncles and aunts and cousins.
A family of Budapest Jews, taken from their homes, packed into cattle cars and hauled into a place called Auschwits. There, my aunt and her brother were the only survivors in a family of 93. Ninety-three human beings, men, women and children were starved to death, forced into hard labor and those who could not cut the mustard were gassed.
My uncle Mike, a Christian, and his fellow CIC Jewish CIC soldiers, liberated Olga’s family from Auschwits and saw with their own eyes, the ovens, the gas chambers and the bodies stacked high, stripped not only of belongings but of all their humanity.
A ? Yes. But a perpetrated by those who naysay a truth. And that truth will stand for as long as there are humans left to remember.
I abhor Zionism. I abhor what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people. I abhor the fact that Israel is doing many of the same things the NAZI’s did to them. But it _was_ done to them. Nothing can change that. Not the pap some people attempt to sell, which is tantamount to the worst kind of lying.
Remember. For in remembering, there should be something called humanity. Some in Israel have not remembered. And that will be their downfall.
Jim Mortellaro
Comment
Geoffrey Transom.
12-5-5
Jim Mortarello wrote:
“My uncle Mike, a Christian, and his fellow CIC Jewish CIC soldiers, liberated Olga’s family from Auschwits and saw with their own eyes, the ovens, the gas chambers and the bodies stacked high, stripped not only of belongings but of all their humanity.”
That is bullshit, unless his uncle was serving with the SOVIET Army (the Soviets ‘liberated’ Auschwitz – on January 27th, 1945 – and it remained in the Soviet sector for the remainder of the Occupation). So it’s not clear to me – again, unless tha guy was in the Red Army – that Mr Mortarello’s uncle was in any posiion to make any eyewitness statements regarding
This is something that the
relies on heavily – that nobody will check the facts.
Regards,
Geoffrey Transom.
Comment
From Stephen Sterling
5-31-4
This makes perfect sense…exactly what Stalin would do and perfect for world Zionism to exploit. Read more about Zionism and its relations with Hitler and the Nazis.
http://www.rense.com/general36/colb.htm
I read the Leuchter Report. Everyone should and only THEN make their own decision. The horrors of the concentration camps defy description…death, murder, mass starvation, deadly epidemics which killed enormous numbers of people. By 1944, much of Germany was in near starvation and food supplies to camps would have been marginal. We should also keep in mind that Roosevelt and Churchill never ordered a single bombing raid to hit the rail lines leading to any of the major concentration and slave labor camps. Why? Furthermore, where is the worldwide lobby which mourns and memorializes the estimated 2-3 million Japanese civilians who were incinerated by American bombing? Or, the 50-60 million civilians that ‘Uncle Joe’ annihilated? On and on it goes. Death is death. All holocausts are equal.
Comment
From Sam Feldman
5-31-4
Dear Mr. Rense,
As I have heard you mention, Prof Finkelstein’s book ‘The Holocaust Industry’ is must reading for anyone trying to honestly understand what has been done with the Holocaust as an instrument of profit.
Furthermore, Zionists are NOT the best friends of most of us Jews. Look what they have done to Israel. Look what they are doing to the Palestinians.
And if there is any doubt about their involvement in the Holocaust, I quote from Lenni Brenne in an article by Dr. Henry Makow, PhD, who is also a Jew:
According to Lenni Brenner’s online book Zionism in the Age of Dictators (Ch.7), the Zionist party was the only other political party in Nazi Germany that enjoyed a measure of freedom, and could publish a newspaper. The reason: Zionists and Nazis had a common interest, making German Jews go to Palestine. (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch07.htm)
History is not always what you’d expect.
There are more shocking examples in Brenner’s book (Chapters 24 & 25).
For instance, in November 1942, Rabbi Michael Dov-Ber Weismandel, a Jewish activist in Slovakia approached Adoph Eichmann’s representative, Dieter Wisliceny: “How much money would be needed for all the European Jews to be saved?” Wisliceny went to Berlin and returned with an answer. For a mere $2 million they could have all the Jews in Western Europe and the Balkans. Weismandel sent a courier to the World Zionist Organization in Switzerland. His request was refused. The official, Nathan Schwalb sent enough money to save only Weismandel and his cadre. He wrote:
“About the cries coming from your country, we should know that all the Allied nations are spilling much of their blood, and if we do not sacrifice any blood, by what right shall we merit coming before the bargaining table when they divide nations and lands at the war’s end? ….for only with blood shall we get the land.” (p.237)
Brenner writes that Zionism had come full turn. “Instead of Zionism being the hope of the Jews, their blood was to be the political salvation of Zionism” (p.238).
I urge your visitors to read the rest of the article by Dr. Makow:
http://www.rense.com/general31/zionist.htm
As he says, in one of the biggest understatements of all time: “History is not always what you’d expect.”
DELETED PARTS- THATS’ HOW HISTORY IS BEING TAUGHT!
NOT ONE POLITICIAN HAS DARED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH- IT’S ALWAYS RUSSIANS THIS – USSR THAT…
THE BBC WAR SERIES…..Well we know how honest that bunch are.
Learn from history or it will repeat itself.
COMMUNISM MUST APPEAR SOFT AND CARING- THATS’ WHERE YOU’RE HEADED WITH THE FABIAN COMMIES AGAIN!!
http://www.rense.com/general53/aauz.htm
JACK ACTING AGAIN!!