Treating Brits Akin To Lunatics: Saul Alinsky behind Cameron’s Big Society – seize political power – Alinsky learned from the British – Alinsky: al capone is ‘a public utility’ Cameron and Co, Tories? Then I’m a VIRGIN!

The zionist owned media- tell the listeners they don’t know what Camerons BIG SOCIETY is….i’ll bet they don’t – Alinksy wasn’t backwards in coming forward with his Commie ideas.


Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Saul Alinsky behind Cameron’s Big Society – seize political power – Alinsky learned from the British – Alinsky: al capone is ‘a public utility’

Note: A picture of Saul Alinsky appears over the left shoulder of Barry Soetoro, sorry, we mean, President Obama in the shingle across the top of the Abel Danger blog.

“She said, ‘Barack stood up that day,’ talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, ‘and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ‘The world as it is’ and ‘The world as it should be…’ And, ‘All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to, fight for the world as it should be.”

Do you wonder who – or whose values – should determine what “the world… should be?”

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” –Saul Alinsky


David Cameron’s Big Society is a grotesque fantasy inspired by leftist subversive Saul Alinsky

By Gerald Warner Politics April 1st, 2010

“This plan is directly based on the successful community organising movement established by Saul Alinsky in the United States and has successfully trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama.”

That statement, which beggars belief even in the political fairground we now inhabit, is not taken from some far-out Trotskyite samizdat, but from the official Conservative Party introduction to David Cameron’s Big Idea – the creation of a “Neighbourhood army” of 5,000 full-time community organisers to implement his grotesque fantasy called “Big Society”. If you ever doubted that, under Cameron, the Conservative Party has become ideologically and culturally deracinated, has lost its political compass and is occupied by an alien clique that has disfigured it beyond recognition, here is the incontestable evidence.

Saul Alinsky is here openly acknowledged as the inspiration behind Cameron’s “Big Idea”. Alinsky was the lifelong cultural revolutionary and political subversive whom Barack Obama formerly claimed as his “spiritual mentor”; since Obama hit mainstream politics, however, his supporters have expended a vast amount of effort on trying to conceal that embarrassing history. The aggressively amoral Alinsky believed there was no right or wrong in politics, only what was necessary to seize power (well, Dave and his gang would buy that).

Yet the Conservative Party blurts out this admission in the launch document of Big Society. There is a pedantic debate over whether Alinsky was technically a Marxist, or by-passed Marx as old-hat. What is beyond question is his project to overthrow capitalist society and to do so through infiltration of political parties, institutions and, above all, by the use of “community organisers”. Anybody who thought claims on this blog of Cultural Marxism influencing even the Tory Party were exaggerated can now think again. Alinsky was the first begetter of ACORN, the sinister organisation that tried to gerrymander the American electorate.

Born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, Saul Alinsky

kharzia terrorists freely entering the Western world!

Saul Alinsky, Communist Party USA member
Born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, Saul Alinsky was a Marxist …. Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh ……

Saul Alinsky – Metapedia
Dec 11, 2010 … Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) was a communist Jew agitator, who developed methods for controlling communities for ……<

Saul D. Alinsky – a role model for…
And, on the last page of a. … he seemed to have distanced himself from his. … from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down….

Saul Alinsky, Obama's Political…
Oct 22, 2009 … Selected highlights from the Saul Alinsky profile: Born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, Saul Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist ……


"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." –Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky

Obama helped fund 'Alinsky Academy': "The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy…. Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization…. 'Midwest describes itself as 'one of the nation's oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.'… Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing."

Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties…. Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

"Obama is also an Alinskyite…. Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project…. Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer." (By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)

Opening page – Dedication

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”



"The Revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, 'Burn the system down!' They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book."


1. The Purpose

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace…. "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.' This means revolution." p.3

"Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing." p.6

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism." p.10

"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations…." pp.10-11

Notes on Saul Alinsky and Neo-Marxism:

Alinsky's tactics were based, not on Stalin's revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci's transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.

Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins's wrath by suggesting that Lenin's revolutionary plan wouldn't work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:

"By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible…. Gramsci's master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity's transcendent God."

2. Of Means and Ends [Forget moral or ethical considerations]

"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. … The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be…." pp.25-26

"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means…." p.29

"The seventh rule… is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics…." p.34

"The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments…. It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?… If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…" p.36

Notes: Apparently, Michelle Obama referred to these words during her Democratic National Convention speech:

"She said, 'Barack stood up that day,' talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, 'and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about 'The world as it is' and 'The world as it should be…' And, 'All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do – that we have an obligation to, fight for the world as it should be."

Do you wonder who — or whose values — should determine what "the world… should be?"

4. The Education of the Organizer

"To the organizer, imagination… is the dynamism that starts and sustains him in his whole life of action as an organizer. It ignites and feeds the force that drives him to organize for change….
"The organizer knows that the real action is in the reaction of the opposition. To realistically appraise and anticipate the probable reactions of the enemy, he must be able to identify with them, too, in his imagination, and foresee their reactions to his actions….
"The organizers searching with a free and open mind void of certainty, hating dogma, finds laughter not just a way to maintain his sanity but also a key to understanding life."pp.74-75

"…the organizer must be able to split himself into two parts — one part in the arena of action where he polarizes the issue to 100 to nothing, and helps to lead his forces into conflict, while the other part knows that when the time comes for negotiations that it really is only a 10 percent difference." p.78

"…the organizer is constantly creating new out of the old. He knows that all new ideas arise from conflict; [See Dialectic Process] that every time man as had a new idea it has been a challenge to the sacred ideas of the past and the present and inevitably a conflict has raged." p.79


5. Communication [Notice the emphasis on conflict, dialogue, relationships, etc. Team "service" is essential to building strong relationships through "common involvements"]

"And so the guided questioning goes on without anyone losing face or being left out of the decision-making. Every weakness of every proposed tactic is probed by questions…. Is this manipulation? Certainly…." p.88

"One of the factors that changes what you can and can't communicate is relationships. There are sensitive areas that one does not touch until there is a strong personal relationship based on common involvements. Otherwise the other party turns off and literally does not hear….

"Conversely, if you have a good relationship, he is very receptive…. For example, I have always believed that birth control and abortion are personal rights to be exercised by the individual. If, in my early days when I organized… neighborhood in Chicago, which was 95 per cent Roman Catholic, I had tried to communicate this, even through the experience of the residents, whose economic plight was aggravated by large families, that would have been the end of my relationship with the community. That instant I would have been stamped as an enemy of the church and all communication would have ceased.

"Some years later, after establishing solid relationships, I was free to talk about anything…. By then the argument was no longer limited to such questions as, 'How much longer do you think the Catholic Church can hang on to this archaic notion and still survive?' …the subject and nature of the discussion would have been unthinkable without that solid relationship." pp.93-94

6. In the Beginning: The Process of Power [Notice the compromise needed to build the power base. Yet, since pragmatism has eroded all values, it's simply a matter of ends justifying means. It's not unlike churches that attract members through the world's entertainment — then continue to soften or hide Truth in order to keep them happy and lure more.]

"From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams… only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no major issues…. Until he has those means and power instruments, his 'tactics' are very different from power tactics. Therefore, every move revolves around one central point: how many recruits will this bring into the organization, whether by means of local organizations, churches, service groups, labor Unions, corner gangs, or as individuals."

"Change comes from power, and power comes from organization." p.113

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns…. All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." p.116

Compare with this excerpts from “Group Decision and Social Change” by Kurt Lewin:

"A change toward a higher level of group performance is frequently short lived: after a “shot in the arm”, group life soon returns to the previous level. This indicates that it does not suffice to define the objective of a planned change in group performance as the reaching of a different level. Permanency of the new level, or permanency for a desired period, should be included in the objective. A successful change includes therefore three aspects:

UNFREEZING (if necessary) the present level…

MOVING to the new level . . . and

FREEZING group life on the new level."

"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent… He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises….
"The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict." p.117

"Process tells us how. Purpose tells us why. But in reality, it is academic to draw a line between them, they are part of a continuum…. Process is really purpose." p.122


7. Tactics

"Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. … Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves." p.126

Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat…. [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time…."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'…

"…any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…'

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)

Saul Alinksky, Rules for Radicals, Vintage Books, New York, 1989.

Additional Notes:

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: "Known as the 'father of modern American radicalism,' Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. … Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work."


Article by Phyllis Schalfly titled "Alinski's Rules: Must Reading In Obama Era," posted at (2-2-09)

"Alinsky's second chapter, called Of Means and Ends, craftily poses many difficult moral dilemmas, and his 'tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends' is: 'you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.' He doesn't ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He is much more devious; he teaches his followers that 'Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.'…

"The qualities Alinsky looked for in a good organizer were:

ego ("reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God"),

curiosity (raising "questions that agitate, that break through the accepted pattern"),

irreverence ("nothing is sacred"; the organizer "detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality"),

imagination ("the fuel for the force that keeps an organizer organizing"),

a sense of humor ("the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule"), and an

organized personality with confidence in presenting the right reason for his actions only "as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved.'…

"'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'"



See also Obama: Training an army of world servers

Collectivism in churches and Trading Truth for a "Social Gospel"


Nick Clegg – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nicholas William Peter "Nick" Clegg (born 7 January 1967) is an English Liberal … was the daughter of a baron from the multiethnic Imperial Russia, of German- Russian and …. The final conclusions included the idea of pupil premiums so that children from poorer backgrounds receive the …… The Jewish Chronicle. ……

David Cameron – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
David Cameron's great-great grandfather Emile Levita, a German-Jewish ……

Ed Miliband: Climate change can…
Dec 10, 2009 … Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, speaking at a London … Nazi-occupied Belgium), he agreed that his background had helped … The recent discovery of a long-lost relative in Russia brought him closer to his Jewish roots. ……

David Miliband – Britain´s Jewish…
It is in this perspective David Miliband´s connection to the Jewish mafia becomes … David Miliband's Jewish background will be noted particularly in the Middle East. ….. the world that the West was more compassionate than “the Russian way ”. ……




Zion in Britain

David Miliband

Britain´s Jewish Foreign Secretary

June 2009

Britain´s Jewish Foreign Secretary David Miliband with skullcap during a visit to Israel

Two main European powers have Jewish Ministers of foreign affairs. In France Bernard Kouchner acts as France´s representative abroad and directs France´s foreign policies including its stance on Israel, the Arab world and Iran (in cooperation with his Jewish boss and President, Nicolas Sarkozy). In Great Britain Prime Minister Gordon Brown – who according to Jewish sources has Jewish economic backing – has chosen a Jew in the form of David Miliband to take over the rudder of Britain´s foreign policies. In the case of Britain one should note that the predecessor of Miliband also was Jewish, the Labour-Jew Jack Straw.

In this document we will demonstrate some information collected to prove Miliband´s Jewishness and in the same time remind our readers that Jewish leaders over and over again repeat that Jews all over the world have a special responsability to help the Jewish state of Israel and that Jews should have a first loyalty to this Jewish state, regardless of whichever non-Jewish majority country they are citizens in.

It is in this perspective David Miliband´s connection to the Jewish mafia becomes interesting and thus deserves investigation and exposure.

"Every Jew is an Ambassador for Israel"

– Australian Rabbi Aron Moss, Arutz Sheva, Israel National News, 07/25/2006.

"I consider that all Jews in the Diaspora, and thus it is true in France, should everywhere they can lend their support to Israel. This is why it is also important that Jews take political responsabilities. […]. In sum, in my functions and in my everyday life, through the whole of my actions, I try to make so that my modest stone is brought to the construction of the land of Israel."
– Dominique Strauss-Kahn, French Jew, politician and chief of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as stated in Passages, N° 35 – February/March 1991.

"Every French Jew is a representative of Israel… Rest assured that every Jew in France is a defender of that which you defend."

– French Chief Rabbi Joseph Sitruk in a declaration to Israel´s criminal leader Yitzhak Shamir, Le Monde, 9 July, 1990.

"I have dual allegiance. My loyalty to Israel is part of me and there are many Jews who think and feel likewise."

– Rabbi Joachim Prinz, former president of the American Jewish Congress, July 23, 1969 issue of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin.

" The Zionist leaders didn't hide the role of their lobby. Ben Gurion stated clearly: "When a Jew, in America or in South Africa, talks to his Jewish companions about 'our' government, he means the government of Israel." "
– "Rebirth and Destiny of Israel", 1954, p. 489.

Britain´s Jewish Foreign Minister
David Miliband

France´s Jewish Foreign Minister
Bernard Kouchner

Miliband is considered Jewish

David Miliband comes from a Polish-Jewish family with political connections. His brother Ed Miliband is also a British Labour party politician and is the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

The family´s Jewishness is completely outspoken. As we show below he has himself used the term "us" when he spoke of the Jewish people at a Jewish "High Holy Days" ceremony in 2008, something that really made fellow Jews happy, "giving the clearest indication yet that he identifies with the Jewish community":

The Jewish Chronicle
September 29, 2008

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has issued a special message for the High Holy Days. The wording is unusual: he speaks of "us" in his greeting, giving the clearest indication yet that he identifies with the Jewish community.

"These days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are the most sacred in the Jewish calendar. The entire Jewish people takes an honest look at the previous year, tries to make amends for any harm done, and reinforces the bonds of family and community that sit at the heart of its identity.

"It is right that at the dawn of the New Year, we also re-dedicate ourselves to the search for security and peace in the Middle East. All will share my hope that this year is the one that brings close the peace and security its peoples deserve.

"To the people of Israel, the Jewish community of Britain, and all the Jewish people, I wish us all Shana Tova U'Metuka."

The Jewish Chronicle, October 7, 2008, writes in a revealing manner:

Foreign Secretary David Miliband (according to his Rosh Hashanah message now officially one of "us") remained in his post and the reshuffle gave further advancement to his brother Ed.

Henry Grunwald, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, lets David Miliband
light a Jewish hanukkah candle.

And in Israel they also consider him part of their exclusive Jewish group. The Jerusalem Post, June 28, 2007, writes:

One official in Jerusalem said that Miliband, who is Jewish, was expected to follow Brown's policies toward Israel. Brown is considered to be a friend of Israel.

In official biographies Miliband´s Jewishness is noted. BBC News, 2 July 2007, writes in its profile of David Miliband:

Educated at a comprehensive school and at Oxford, he is from an immigrant family of Polish Jews.
His father Ralph changed his name from Adolphe when he arrived in England, and escaped from Belgium – to which his family had moved from Poland – by getting one of the last ships across the Channel in 1940.

Ralph Miliband became a leading Marxist writer, yet David emerged as one of the main thinkers behind the phenomenon known as "New Labour".

David Miliband's brother Ed is also a member of Gordon Brown's cabinet.
David Miliband's Jewish background will be noted particularly in the Middle East.

Many Israelis and Jews around the word will welcome the fact that someone with his dramatic family history has made it to one of the high offices in British and world diplomacy.
Somewhat controversially, Mr Miliband had been "parachuted in" from outside to fight the 2001 general election.
He has been tipped as a future leader of his party, but stood for neither the leader nor deputy leader posts now occupied by Mr Brown and Harriet Harman.

The new foreign secretary was working in Mr Blair's policy unit in the mid-1990s when Labour was still in opposition.

After his party's landslide victory in 1997, he became head of the 10 Downing Street policy unit and, as such, was a key figure in the prime minister's so-called "kitchen Cabinet".

Since then he has moved quickly through the government's ranks.

David Miliband is himself open about his Jewish connection. In an article written by him specifically for The Jewish Chronicle, July 2, 2009, "How I found life in a graveyard", he writes about his trip to the Jewish cemetary in Warsaw, Poland, "when I took time out from my official programme of meetings and speeches for a private visit into my own past". Miliband continues:

By 1945, only 250,000 of Poland’s 3.5 million Jews had survived the Holocaust. One of them was my mother. She was born in Czestochowa. My father’s parents were also born in Poland but left for Belgium after the First World War. Many of their relatives are buried in the Warsaw cemetery. Sixteen Milibands, Milebands, and Milenbands have been found so far, going back to the early part of the 19th century.

This was my first visit to Poland. There must have been a deep ambivalence at the heart of this delay. Poland is my roots. […] The Milibands are not a big part of that story. But, like so many Britons of Polish Jewish origin, it is an important and unforgettable part of us.

The Jewish Chronicle comments in another article, June 25, 2009:

Officials from the proposed Museum of the History of Polish Jews had earlier met Mr Miliband in Brandt Square, where the museum is to be located. “He’s gone to visit the family grave,” said Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, leader of the museum’s development team. “This is quite a homecoming.”

Miliband shows his Jewish colours

The Jewish networks and contact systems ride across all spectra of society. Business-Jews and so-called Leftist-Jews interact without problem. In the Telegraph article below we can read about a "dinner hosted by Miliband in the Foreign Office's Locarno Room for patrons of the United Jewish Israel Appeal – a charity funding educational programmes for Jews in Britain and Israel". Here we can see Miliband misusing his position as Foreign Secretary to lend support to his Jewish brethren and their racist state of Israel. And the Jewish capitalist donor David Abrahams turns up at the event…

Miliband's dinner guest raises eyebrows

David Miliband entertains controversial Labour donor David Abrahams

Mandrake by Tim Walker

The Daily Telegraph, 04 Aug, 2008

After a busy few days of not campaigning for the Labour leadership last week, David Miliband's every move is being scrutinised as never before.

So I am intrigued to discover that last month the Foreign Secretary welcomed into the bosom of his department none other than David Abrahams, the reclusive businessman and Labour donor who controversially channelled hundreds of thousands of pounds into party coffers through a series of conduits.

He was among the guests at a dinner hosted by Miliband in the Foreign Office's Locarno Room for patrons of the United Jewish Israel Appeal – a charity funding educational programmes for Jews in Britain and Israel.

Abrahams was cleared by the police of any wrongdoing over the "Donorgate" affair, but wouldn't Miliband be best advised to keep him at arm's length in the current febrile political environment?

"The guest list was not a matter for the Foreign Office," said Miliband's spokesman.

And in speeches to the representatives of this state of Israel, it´s all sweet words. Adopting their rhetoric and lamenting their fallen soldiers. And Miliband is "determined to ensure" that the new conference on Racism 2009 will not point out Israel as a racist state, “we are very concerned to not have a repeat of Durban I” (the conference where Israel was under attack for its racist policies, see appendix below).

Milliband tribute ahead of Israel trip

By Daniella Peled

The Jewish Chronicle, May 15, 2008

Foreign Secretary David Milliband delivered an unscripted tribute to Israel’s achievements and search for peace at the Israeli embassy Independence Day Party this week. Expressing his delight at participating in the celebration, held at a central London hotel with 2,000 invited guests, Mr Milliband praised Israel’s free press and achievements in agriculture and technology. Referring to recent meetings with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, he said their message was that “there was an unwritten chapter to Israel’s history that still has to be written and that is peace with their neighbours”. Mr Miliband also quoted Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-gurion, who said “if we have to defend ourselves against our enemies, then we can only count on ourselves…but when there is a chance to make peace, we must mobilise all our allies to achieve it”. Last week, in a briefing with Jewish and Israeli media, Mr Milliband insisted that “the next six to eight weeks will come to be seen as very important in the search for a sustainable two-state solution”. Mr Milliband is to visit Israel next month, while Prime Minister Gordon Brown — who also attended the embassy party — is scheduled to go there in July. Mr Milliband said that recent unrest in the region, including the violence in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, was cause for concern, along with the situation in the occupied territories. “It’s very important to address the human crisis in Gaza,” he said, while stressing that the Palestinians were becoming aware of who was ultimately responsible for their situation. “Hamas has killed two israeli civilians trying to deliver fuel — yet another reason to be under no illusions as to what Hamas is doing. “The attacks show who is trying to make a political point.” He also expressed concerns over the forthcoming UN Human rights conference, which has been dubbed Durban II and scheduled to be held next year. The previous UN human rights summit in Durban, South Africa, in 2000 was marred by a series of antisemitic incidents and a wave of anti-Israeli rhetoric. “We are very concerned to not have a repeat of Durban I,” he said. “We are engaged but determined to ensure it doesn’t become Durban II.”

Miliband´s Jewish settler relatives in Israel

The article belows reveals that Miliband even has relatives who are Jewish settlers: "… most of Mr Miliband’s relatives in Israel are Orthodox, including some West Bank settlers":

David Miliband denies visiting family in West Bank settlement

By Bernard Josephs and Simon Griver Tel Aviv

The Jewish Chronicle, 22/11/2007

A report that Foreign Secretary David Miliband took time out to dine with relatives at a Jewish settlement in the West Bank threatened to overshadow his visit to the region this week.
The report, strenuously denied, was broadcast on Israeli Army Radio and comes in the run-up to the Annapolis peace summit next Tuesday. The British government has made clear its opposition to the building of settlements in the occupied territories, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has pledged a settlement freeze.

A spokesman for the British embassy said that, although Mr Miliband had relatives in Israel, he dined with them in Tel Aviv. “The Foreign Minister was in Jericho on Saturday to meet Palestinian Authority leaders. He certainly was not at any West Bank settlements.”

One of the relatives, David Landau, an insurance agent, said he was at the Tel Aviv dinner. “We are very proud of the Milibands, even if we do not always agree with their political positions on Israel,” he said.

Mr Landau added that most of Mr Miliband’s relatives in Israel are Orthodox, including some West Bank settlers. “But he has no direct connection with them,” he insisted. Both British and Israeli officials declared that Mr Miliband’s visit — the first since he became Foreign Secretary — had been productive.

After meeting him, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni described talks about the summit and on the threat posed by Iran as “very fruitful”.

Mr Miliband said that the opportunities presented by the summit “don’t come along very often”, and that it was very important that the international community provide “practical and political support for the two parties”.

Miliband aligns Britain´s foreign policies to those of Israel

Miliband tells UJIA that Britain ‘won’t duck’ Iran’s nuclear threat

By Jenni Frazer

The Jewish Chronicle, July 17, 2008

Foreign Secretary David Miliband paid a warm and emotional tribute to the Anglo-Jewish community on Wednesday, along with a trenchant warning that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were “a challenge that Britain will not duck” for the sake of stability for Israel and the whole of the Middle East.

The Foreign Secretary was the guest of honour at UJIA’s annual patrons’ dinner, held in the Foreign Office’s Locarno Rooms, where, he reminded guests, the seven Locarno Treaties had been signed in December 1925.

“The Locarno Rooms are testimony to the catastrophe of attempts to build a brighter, more peaceful future in Europe in the inter-war years.

“As a result of the treaties signed in this room, Germany was admitted to the League of Nations. The consequences were desperate: the treaties were seen as an excuse for Germany to attack Eastern Europe as the price for stability in Western Europe. The lesson is very clear: nations cannot be built on false promises, on fudged commitments, on insecure borders, on promises made on paper but which are vapid as thin air.

“Nations are built through the toil and graft of a people, through a commitment to a common dream — and that takes something else”.

Praising UJIA, he said its spirit was to unite people behind a common cause. “Britain need look no further for a model of how to mobilise people for a common cause than its Jewish community. This is the community, with its institutions and its leadership, its philanthropy and its values, which so many in this country take so much pride in, whether or not they are Jewish.” He went further, saying that the whole of Britain could learn from UJIA’s values.

It was, he added, “important to say loud and clear that a strong and independent and secure Israel is actually the foundation of stability in the Middle East, not a threat to it. That’s what nation-building is about.”

But there was an “unwritten chapter, in which Israel and its neighbours are permanently written into the book of peace. In some ways, it’s the most significant chapter of all.

“It’s the hardest to write because it involves big responsibilities for Israel. And there are responsibilities for its neighbours.” These included Iran.

“The Iranian nuclear programme is not a marginal issue, it’s fundamental, not just for Israel but also for the whole region. The message to Iran is simple: your people need economic growth and investment, your region needs stability, not a nuclear arms race. There is a very clear offer on the table if you want to engage. If you don’t want to engage, there will be further sanctions, and the challenge is one that Britain and the other countries will not duck.”

It was, he said, a shared ambition of Britain and Israel to bring the time of peace closer.

Mr Miliband began his remarks with a tribute to the families of the two dead soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, whom he had met in New York at the UN last year. “We are grieving with Israel,” he said. He hoped for a speedy conclusion to the Gilad Shalit hostage crisis.

In another article in The Jewish Chronicle, it is revealed how David Miliband misuses his political clout – as does his likewise Jewish colleague Ivan Lewis in the FO – to attack anti-Israel dissent within the Labour movement:

Stop boycotting, Miliband tells unions

By Leon Symons

The Jewish Chronicle, June 25, 2009

The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, has expressed dismay that Israel boycotts are being discussed by trade union congresses and conferences.

He said this week: “Ivan Lewis, minister of state responsible for the Middle East, is meeting representatives of leading British unions in order to make clear the government’s firm belief that calls for boycotts of Israel cannot and do not contribute to peace.

“British people of all backgrounds are distressed and frustrated by the Arab-Israeli conflict. Many wish to take action to advance the goals of peace and justice, a response I understand and share intensely.

“But I am saddened when this proactive energy is channelled into boycotting economic and academic events, as well as cultural events which seek to increase understanding.

“Such boycotts would, I believe, obstruct opportunities for co-operation and dialogue and serve only to polarise debate further. Boycotts would only make it harder to achieve the peace that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve and desire.

“Rather than seeking to boycott, I urge the British unions to help find a shared solution to common challenges, and I am encouraged that they are ready to do so. […]

Miliband bonding with the pro-Israel mafia

David Miliband adresses UJIA – United Jewish Israel Appeal

Jewish Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Jewish youths that are supported by the UJIA
– United Jewish Israel Appeal – all happy faces

David Miliband and UJIA chairman Mick Davies

Brown and Miliband both appear at LFI fringe event

By Anshel Pfeffer

The Jewish Chronicle, September 26, 2008

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has reiterated Britain's commitment to the diplomatic campaign against Iran's nuclear programme.

Speaking at the annual reception of Labour Friends of Israel on Monday at Labour's conference in Manchester, Mr Brown said that Iran had only two alternatives – to comply with the demands of the international community or steadily to isolate itself.

The packed reception at the Midland Hotel was the only event on the conference's fringe circuit attended by both Mr Brown and the man widely seen as his main leadership rival, Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
Mr Brown spoke of his own close family and personal ties to Israel, and called Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who resigned this week, "a personal friend".

He had, he said, been very pleased that he had been the first British PM to address the Knesset when he visited Israel earlier this year.

Mr Miliband elaborated on the speech he had given earlier in the conference in which he had spoken of the need for a secure Israel next to a viable Palestinian state. The Foreign Secretary told LFI supporters that he had thought at length about that particular part of his speech. All supporters of Israel, he said, had to realise that there was a closing window of opportunity to reach a two-state solution.

The reception was also attended by Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor and MK Colette Avital. The representative of the Israeli Labour Party, she thanked Mr Brown for his speech to the Knesset.

Long-time LFI leader Mike Gapes, chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said later: "The fact that both Brown and Miliband attended the event is very significant, and shows this government's support for Israel's future."

At the conference itself, in a session devoted to crime, the Jewish Labour Movement's Mike Katz highlighted a recent rise in antisemitic incidents and called on the party to do more to counter the campaigning by the British National Party, which polled more votes than Labour did at the Henley by-election.

The Holocaust Educational Trust also held a well-attended fringe meeting at the party conference.

And Miliband gets praise from his Jewish pals in Israel…

Israeli leaders ‘satisfied’ with Miliband’s pressure on Syria

By Anshel Pfeffer

The Jewish Chronicle, November 20, 2008

Israeli leaders have expressed their satisfaction with the results of Foreign Secretary David Miliband's visit to the Middle East this week.
In Israel he met Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Likud Leader Binyamin Netanyahu.

In a show of solidarity, Mr Miliband also visited the town of Sderot which this week was once again under fire from Kassam rockets from the Gaza Strip and talked about "the suffering of the Israelis on the one hand, symbolised here, but the suffering of the Palestinians as well.

But some dark family backgrounds haunts him….

David Miliband’s family ‘lied’ to enter UK

By Brendan Montague

The Sunday Times, April 6, 2008

THE family of David Miliband, the foreign secretary, was branded untrustworthy and misleading by Home Office and Foreign Office officials when it tried to migrate to Britain, documents to be released tomorrow will reveal.

The foreign secretary will find his department thought that his father and grandfather played fast and loose with the truth and lied to immigration officers.

The government papers accuse Miliband’s late grandfather, Samuel, a Polish migrant, of exaggerating the antisemitism he faced in Belgium after the second world war in order to move to Britain. A hand-written Home Office report from March 8, 1949, doubts the Milibands’ honesty, stating: “Mili-band, father and son, have so misrepresented the case in the past, I am afraid we can place no reliance on their statements.”

Samuel’s claim that he faced “Nazi” style antisemitism were dismissed as “very thin”. His son Ralph (the foreign secretary’s father) was accused by the Home Office of making repeated “misrepresentations” to support Samuel’s application.

The files also reveal that when embassy officials interviewed Samuel directly he admitted the claims of Nazi-style persecution were untrue and that he was not being expelled from Belgium.

The revelation of the way in which the foreign secretary’s forebears talked their way into Britain is particularly piquant given Labour’s record on migration. When David Miliband took up the post last year, he said immigration would remain a key issue. Since then, however, Labour has continued to preside over record levels of immigration despite concern among voters that the rate is too high.

The documents, obtained by The Sunday Times under a freedom of information request, reveal how a struggle over migration played a key part in the fortunes of the Miliband family.

When the Germans overran Belgium in May 1940, Samuel and Ralph fled because they were Jews. They were given refuge in Britain. Ralph stayed and later became an influential Marxist academic and close friends with Tony Benn and other Labour grandees until his death in 1994.

Samuel returned to Belgium in 1946. Finding his business destroyed and refused a work permit, he tried to return to Britain. Between 1948 and 1954 he applied nine times to be made a British citizen or to have six-month visas extended.

The documents, which include reports from Special Branch, show that immigration officials recorded Samuel had “misrepresented the case” when he claimed there was growing antisemitism in Belgium.

They also cast doubt on his claims that he needed to visit his son Ralph in England because the young academic was suffering “nervous depression”.

A letter sent on behalf of Ernest Bevin, then foreign secretary, in May 1948 stated: “Mr Miliband was interviewed by a representative of His Majesty’s embassy and stated there had never been any question of his expulsion from Belgium.

“The suggestion the Belgian authorities are adopting a ‘Nazi’ or antisemitic policy . . . seems to be without foundation.”

After the war, hundreds of thousands of Jewish people were left homeless and stateless and millions of people were beginning to understand the enormity of the Holocaust. In 1948, however, Belgium was under the relatively liberal rule of Paul-Henri Spaak, the Socialist.

Martin Conway, a historian at Balliol College, Oxford, said there was almost no evidence of government or police persecution of Jews in Brussels after the war. “It could not be said they were forced out of Belgium because of antisemitism,” he said.

Harold Laski, the eminent intellectual, came to the aid of the Milibands. In personal correspondence with James Chuter Ede, then home secretary, Laski asked him “as one socialist to another” to allow Samuel residency to show the world that the West was more compassionate than “the Russian way”. In the end Samuel’s application was successful.

Yesterday David Miliband and his brother Ed, the Cabinet Office minister, declined to comment. The Foreign Office said: “This is a personal matter for the foreign secretary.”

The documents have echoes of the position Michael Howard found himself in when he was Tory leader. While his party was opposed to mass immigration, Howard was forced to admit that his father had lied about his circumstances when he applied for British citizenship in 1947.



Part of the NGO Forum declaration of the WCAR held in Durban ("Durban I"), signed by 3000 NGOs, South Africa 28 August – 1 September, 2001. Excerpt concerning the Palestine conflict:

98. Recognizing further that the Palestinian people are one such people currently enduring a colonialist, discriminatory military occupation that violates their fundamental human right of self-determination including the illegal transfer of Israeli citizens into the occupied territories and establishment of a permanent illegal Israeli infrastructure; and other racist methods amounting to Israel’s brand of apartheid and other racist crimes against humanity. Recognizing therefore that the Palestinian people have the clear right under international law to resist such occupation by any means provided under international law until they achieve their fundamental human right to self-determination and end the Israeli racist system including its own brand of apartheid.
99. Recognizing further that a basic “root cause” of Israel’s on going and systematic human rights violations, including its grave breaches of the fourth Geneva convention 1949 (i.e. war crimes), acts of genocide and practices of ethnic cleansing is a racist system, which is Israel’s brand of apartheid. One aspect of this Israeli racist system has been a continued refusal to allow the Palestinian refugees to exercise their right as guaranteed by international law to return to their homes of origin. Related to the right of return, the Palestinian refugees also have a clear right under international law to receive restitution of their properties and full compensation. Furthermore, international law provides that those Palestinian refugees choosing not to return are entitled to receive full compensation for all their losses. Israel’s refusal to grant Palestinian refugees their right of return and other gross human rights and humanitarian law violations has destabilized the entire region and has impacted on world peace and security.


•More on Jewish influence in Great Britain; politics, media, business


Chris Huhne « Britology Watch:…
Nov 19, 2007 … Here's how Nick Clegg describes his national background: “Son of a Dutch mother and half-Russian father”. Does that mean 'half-English' as … So is he the son of German-Jewish refugees? Or, if not that, does he have some ……

Nick Clegg's foreign blood « Enemies of Reason
Apr 18, 2010 … Despite his Anglo-Saxon name, Nick Clegg is by blood the least … the son of a Dutch mother and a half-Russian merchant banker father. … (Did Michael Howard get the same kind of sneery treatment for his European background?) … Churchill of course, American, if we're playing by Jewish (maternal) rules. ……

Miliband: the socialist who hated…
May 13, 2010 … Nick Clegg's paternal grandmother was a Russian Baroness whose … Levita, was a Jewish immigrant who arrived from Germany in the 1850s. ……



Cameron's paternal forebears also have a long history in finance. His father Ian was senior partner of the stockbrokers Panmure Gordon, in which firm partnerships had long been held by Cameron's ancestors, including David's grandfather and great-grandfather,[8] and was a Director of estate agent John D Wood. David Cameron's great-great grandfather Emile Levita, a German-Jewish financier (and descendant of Renaissance scholar Elia Levita) who obtained British citizenship in 1871, was the director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China which became Standard Chartered Bank in 1969.[13] His wife, Cameron's great-great grandmother, was a descendant of the wealthy Danish Jewish Rée family on her father's side.[14][15] One of Emile's sons, Arthur Francis Levita (died 1910, brother of Sir Cecil Levita),[16] of Panmure Gordon stockbrokers, together with great-great-grandfather Sir Ewen Cameron,[17] London head of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, played key roles in arranging loans supplied by the Rothschilds to the Japanese Central Banker (later Prime Minister) Takahashi Korekiyo for the financing of the Japanese Government in the Russo-Japanese war.[18]


Cameron then began his Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) in Oxford.





Peter Bone on dictator Cameron and Europe referendum vote (24Oct11)
Uploaded by liarpoliticians on 24 Oct 2011

Conservative Peter Bone talks about dictator David Cameron, who promised free votes in opposition, but in government refuses to give free votes, knowing how angry the public are, and what a vote result would be – against the government.

Recorded from Sky News, 24 October 2011.

Labour party leader Ed Miliband hypocrisy on attacking the Conservatives on refusing people the right to a referendum on being in / out of Europe, when he himself is three-line whipping his Labour MPs to also stop the people having a referendum on Europe.







2 responses to “Treating Brits Akin To Lunatics: Saul Alinsky behind Cameron’s Big Society – seize political power – Alinsky learned from the British – Alinsky: al capone is ‘a public utility’ Cameron and Co, Tories? Then I’m a VIRGIN!






    Capitalism is a Jewish stronghold, whilst banking throughout the world and throughout history has always had a high Jewish involvement.

    The world of high finance is a Jewish world. War and revolution is interwoven with International Jewish Finance. These purveyors of disturbance have no political affiliations. National loyalty (if it exists for them ) is subordinated to the business of international finance.


    Some of the main Jewish Banking Houses are :


    August Belmont & Co.

    J. & W. Seligman & Co.

    Kuhn Loeb & Co. (Warburg)

    Lehman Brothers

    Goldman, Sachs & Co.


    The Jewish Encyclopaedia claims that the great fortune accumulated by the Rothschilds was based on the “businesslike” method of fraud, i.e. Mayer Rothschild embezzled the sum of $3,000,000 which his employer had left in his trust when he was forced to flee to Denmark.

    Mayer Amschel Bauer was born in the mid-eighteenth century and, worked for Prince William of Hanau as court factor and agent for the Prince’s trade in mercenaries. He then changed his name to Rothschild and established his five sons in European cities. Anslem in Frankfurt, Solomon in Vienna, Nathan in London, Charles in Naples and James in Paris.

    “They saw neither peace nor war, neither slogans or manifestos, nor orders of the day, neither death nor glory. They saw none of the things that blinded the world. They saw only steppingstones. Prince William had been one. Napoleon would be the next.”

    (Quote from “The Rothschilds” by Frederic Morton.)

    For the United States Jewish high finance first arrived with the Rothschilds. The first twenty million dollars they speculated with was the money paid for Hessian troops to fight against the American colonies.

    That first connection was indirect and in fact the Rothschild sons never established themselves in the newly-founded United States but always acted through agents.

    Their fortune was based, as are many other Jewish fortunes, on war.

    Much depended on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo. Having learned through his own news grapevine that Napoleon had been defeated, Nathan Rothschild publicly sold his British Consuls on the floor of the London Stock Exchange. As he had anticipated, his fraudulent action caused a panic and a disastrous drop in price. He, meantime, through his agents, bought all the Consuls back at rock bottom price and increased his fortune.

    The French Government, now under Louis XV111, borrowed from the banks, Ouvrard and Baring Brothers, ignoring the Rothschilds .

    In 1818 the French government bonds began to fall. Using the same method that Nathan Rothschild had pulled off with British Consuls, the Rothschild agents had bought in huge quantities of the French government bonds causing them to rise in value then dumped them on the open market in the main commercial centres in Europe causing a panic, while the Rothschilds waited in the wings. The king was forced to call them in and in this way they obtained financial control of France.

    The United States was to be their next target. The first documented evidence of Rothschild involvement in the financial affairs of the United States came in the late 1820s and early 1830s when their agent, Nicholas Biddie, fought to defeat Andrew Jackson’s move to curtail international bankers. The Rothschilds lost the first round. In 1832 President Jackson vetoed the move to renew the charter of the “Bank of the United States” (a central bank controlled by the international bankers) and in 1836 the bank went out of business.

    In the years following Independence, a close business relationship had developed between the cotton-growing aristocracy in the South and the cotton manufacturers in England. The European bankers decided that this business was America’s Achilles Heel.

    History reveals that the Rothschilds were heavily involved in financing both sides in the Civil War. Lincoln put a damper on their activities when in 1862 he refused to pay the exorbitant rates of interest demanded by the Rothschilds and issued constitutionally authorised interest-free United States notes. Lincoln’s assassination in 1865 probably stemmed from this action.

    After Lincoln’s death, Otto von Bismark made the following statement:

    “The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and torturous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America, and use it systematically to corrupt modern civilisation. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos in order that the earth should become their inheritance.”
    Having founded their fortune on fraud, the Rothschilds sank from the limelight, but remain the hidden hand behind many fronts.


    Many of the international Jewish financiers have had their beginnings in Frankfurt, among these are the Schiffs and the Speyers.

    The firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., was founded by Jacob Schiff whose father was one of the Rothschild brokers. One of Jacob Schiff’s associates, Otto Kahn, was associated with the Speyers, (who came to power in England during the reign of Edward VII). Another associate, Felix Warburg, married into Jacob Schiff’s family and became some of the most influential members of America’s diplomatic representatives.

    The main agents in the United States between this period and 1914 were Kuhn, Loeb and Co. and J.P. Morgan Co.

    Within twenty years Kuhn Loeb whose new partner, had important financial connections in Europe (i.e. Rothschilds and M.M. Warburg,) had provided the capital for John D. Rockefeller to expand Standard Oil and also financed the activities of Edward Harriman (Railroads) and Andrew Carnegie (Steel).

    The next step was the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve System.

    It is known that Jacob Schiff gave material assistance to Japan in the 1905 war with Russia.

    Jewry emerged from the 1914-1918 war more strongly entrenched, as it did from the Second World War. Its position enhanced by the sentimental euphoria of the Holocaust myth.

    Following the Second World War the creation of the World Bank, Director: Robert Zoellick who replaced Paul Wolfowitz, (ex US Deputy Defence Secretary and architect of the Iraq war) and the International Monetary Fund served to tighten the stranglehold.

    Like the tentacles of a giant octopus, flank movements reached out to other countries – notably to Central and South America.

    The financial assistance offered to Mexico was given by Jewish groups. The political upheavals and the financial arrangements in the tiny but strategically placed countries of Central America all came from the same source. (An aspect dealt with more fully under the heading “South America” elsewhere on this site.)

    There could be the promise of a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel for South America.

    In the closing weeks of 2007 a region in revolt against the economics of corporate globalisation issued its most unified declaration of independence to date.

    On December 9th standing before the flags of their countries the Presidents of Argentine, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay and Venezuela along with the representative from Uruguay gathered in Buenos Aires and signed the founding charter of the Banco del Sur or the Bank of the South.

    The Bank of the South will allow the participating governments to use a percentage of their collective currency reserves to strengthen Latin America’s economy and promote cooperative development. It plans lending as early as 2008 with about 7 billion dollars in capital.

    By itself the Bank represents a serious challenge to US dominated institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Inter-American Bank (IDB) as part of a larger trend it signals a major break from the policies of “Free Trade” neo-liberalism that dominated in the region through the eighties and nineties.

    The bankers of the south are keenly aware of the significance of this break. In the words of the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, the” Bank is aimed at freeing us from the chains of dependance and under-development”.

    President Chavez who regularly clashes with the Bush administration, took over ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips’ stakes in multi-billion dollar heavy oil projects in Venezuela’s oil region last June.

    A move that could not be allowed to go without a counter attack. ExxonMobil Corporation which last week (January 2008) posted the largest ever year’s profits by a US company said it had received court orders in Britain, the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles each freezing up to $12 billion in assets of the Venezuelan oil firm PDVSA as it fights for compensation for operations lost to President Hugo Chavez’s nationalisation drive.

    The move is the boldest challenge yet by international oil companies against any governments around the world that have moved to increase their hold on natural resources.

    On February 10 in response President Chavez threatened to stop the supply of oil to the United States.


    Russia’s “Oligarchs”:

    Fraud or deception of some kind has been the basis for most modern fortunes. The collapse of the Soviet State saw the rise of numerous tycoons who acquired state enterprises when these were sold off and vouchers issued to the population in lieu of cash or shares. Buying the virtually worthless vouchers, gave control of vast riches.

    A bigger scandal was the loans for shares scheme of 1995 when Russia’s prime industrial assets were sold off to the “oligarchs” in exchange for loans to the government.

    Boris Berezovsky bought 51 per cent of the Sibneft oil company for $100 million that two years later was valued at $5 billion. (now $12.5 billion)

    Mikhail Khodorkovsky paid $309 million for 78 per cent of Yukos oil (worth in 2003 $30 billion) the world’s fourth largest oil producer after ExxonMobil, Shell and BP.

    Boris Beresovsky formed the LogoVAZ car dealership and ended up worth $3 billion owning ORT television, the Izvestiyg newspaper and Sibneft oil Company. He also controlled Aeroflot and had shares in LUKoil.

    His close business partner Roman Abramovich set up a co-operative making toys and moved into oil trading in Omsk. His other interests were Russian Aluminium (Rusal) the world’s second largest producer, the Gaz car company, the Transneft Oil company and a minority stake in Aeroflot.

    Vladimir Gusinsky branched out into banking and the Media-Most group which included NTV, Moscow Echo radio, Itogi magazine and the Segodnya newspaper.

    Mikhail Fridman is head of Russia’s largest private bank. Alfa Bank. His other interests include TNK oil company, which recently linked up with BP.

    As is apparent every one of these new billionaires is Jewish. None of them previously owned more than a few thousand dollars. How did they manage to put up the money to buy these vastly under-priced assets which gave them virtual control of the Press, oil and minerals?

    Putin’s attack on these new-rich oligarchs for tax evasion and fraud can certainly be heralded as a brave move. He is the first national leader to attempt to dislodge the Jewish control, but time alone will tell whether this is genuine.


    (The following is an extract from “Jews and Money: the Myths and the Reality” by Gerald Krefetz, himself a Jew.):

    The five Rothschild brothers who had banks in Frankfurt, London, Paris, Vienna and Naples, Eleichroder in Berlin, Warburg in Hamburg, Oppenheim in COlogne and Speyer in Frankfurt, individual Jews founded banks from London (Hambros ) to Bombay (Sassoons ) to Petersburg ( Guenzburg ) and a number of points in between.

    Besides these personal or private banks, roughly equivalent to merchant banks or investment banks today, Jews helped to establish a number of important stock banks or commercial banks: the Deutsche Bank and the Dresdner Bank ; two of Germany’s big three ; the French Credit Mobilier, and the Bank de Paris et des Pays Bas, the Italian Banca Comerciale italiana, and Credito Italiano, the Creditan-Stalt-Bankverein and Banque de Bruxelles amongst others.

    There were a few Jewish bankers in the United States : Haym Salomon of revolutionary fame and Isaac Moses who, with Alexander Hamilton, was one of the founders of the Bank of New York in 1784. It was not until the German/Jewish immigration of the 1840s that the presence of Jewish bankers was felt in America.

    Some of the established German bank sent representatives but for the most part the German Jewish banks appeared onloy after the immigrants arrived.

    Between 1840 and 1880 a dozen banking houses were started: Bache; Auguste Belmont; Goldman, Sachs; J. W. Seligman; Kuhn, Loeb; Ladenburg, Thalmann; Lazard Frères; Lehman Brothers; Speyer; and Wertheim.

    Influential, but unorthodox, in financial matters and inbred like the Rothschilds, their children married each other. Jewish bankers projected an image of concentrated power because they often acted in concert, collaborating on financial deals.

    This collection of Jewish bankers and banks in both Europe and America convinced many people that the Jews were out to dominate and control the world.

    At the height of nationalistic resurgence in the 19th century, the Rothschilds were developing international syndicates, a form of international banking. In twentieth century America Jewish businessmen were developing investment banking expertise to finance consumer-oriented businesses. department stores, Alaskan fisheries, movies, theatres, copper mining and smelting, airlines and clothing factories.

    In the 1960s Jews were again in the forefront in creating a new business form – the conglomerate, a multi-purpose holding company whose disparate profit centres were purely synergistic, greater than the sum of its component parts. It was not a Jewish invention, that probably belongs to Roy Little of Textron, but Lehman Brothers, Lazard Frères, and Goldman Sachs were forcible in selling the new notion.

    Besides the self-interest of these investment banking houses, mergers and acquisitions generated volumes of new corporate issues that Wall Street underwrote, sold and traded.

    Besides the investors in conglomerate shares and debentures, the people who had the most to lose were the staid managements of the victim companies, for the most part the take-over candidates were old industrial companies with secure, if unexciting, markets, substantial assets with little debt, under-utilised capital, high dividends, diverse ownership and no immediate growth prospects.

    The conglomerate era of the sixties, abetted by a high-flying stock market and a prolonged boom was really a non-too subtle attack on established corporations.

    Though the accounting was devious and the newly issued paper of dubious value, the conglomerate posed a substantial threat to the corporate status quo. By the late sixties the stalwarts of American industry and finance such as Chemical Bank, Goodrich, Great American Insurance, Jones & Laughlin and Pan American were under the gun, and naturally in the spirit of free enterprise they ran to the government for protection.

    James Ling of Ling-Temco-Vaught, Roy Ashe of Littom and Roy Little of Textron were joined by Ben Heineman of North-West Industry, Howard Newman of Philadelphia and Reading, Saul Steinberg of Leasco, Charles Bludhorn of Gulf and Western, Riklas of Rapid American, Lawrence Tish of Loess, each practising the highest form of “creative” Capitalism. These Jewish conglomerate builders, from the flamboyant to the conservative, spearheaded the attack, aided by clever investment bankers, a permissive Democratic president and a credulous public. They shook up old managements, created anomalous corporations and provided Wall Street with the strength of dazzling investment vehicles.

    Just about everyone suffered grieviously when reality in the form of recession and a strict Republican administration returned in the 1970s.

    The old establishment was Republican whilst the Jewish investment bankers and conglomerate builders were strongly represented in the Democratic party. The Nixon administration immediately directed the Justice Department Anti-Trust Division against what had been called “the Jewish-cowboy” connection, i.e. the Wall Street financiers and Texas oil men.

    The “Jewish-cowboy” connection contained some oil companies: Amerada-Hess, Tidewater, Kerr-McGee, Halliburton, airlines: American, Braniff, Continental, Movies: Paramount, Twentieth-Century Fox and Metro Goldwyn-Meyer, and, best of all consumer goods and merchandising: Sears, Jewel Tear, Gimbel’s, Macy’s, City Stores, Allied Department Stores.

    The Nixon attack cut the conglomerates to the quick . The Stock Market reappraised their values. Within the first couple of months of the new adminstration 13 conglomerates lost 5 billion. It marked the end of an era, and the Jews emerged relatively unscathed.


    It is worthy of comment that hitherto the Jews have played the “undercover game”, right from Jakob Fugger in the early sixteenth century, acting surreptiously mainly through agents with the Freemasons their principal conduit. Is this advertising of their perfidity now a sign of acknowledgment of guilt or is it bravado?


    There is a Zionist dominance in the British economy, names like Goldsmith, Clore, Wolfson, Joseph, Bentley and Maxwell all of whom implemented the breakdown of long-established English companies to their own gain causing thereby a loss of employment for many workers.

    “The plan I think is the old one of world dominion in a new form … The money power and the revolutionary power have been set up and given sham but symbolic shapes, (Capitalism or Communism) and sharply defined citadels (America and Russia). Such is the spectacle publicly staged for the masses, but what if similar men with a common aim secretly rule in both camps and propose to achieve their ambition through the clash between those masses? I believe that any diligent student of our times will discover that this is the case.” (Douglas Reed.)

    The Bible defines usury as an abomination but it is also defined as a means of gaining power over others.

    “And thou shalt lend unto many nations but thou shalt not borrow. And thou shalt reign over many nations but they shall not reign over thee.” Deuteronomy 15:16
    “Thou shalt lend to many nations and thou shalt not borrow and the Lord shall make thee the head and not the tail, and thou shalt be above only and thou shalt not be beneath.” Deuteronomy 28.12

    This is the Levitical priesthood speaking not the God of the New Testament.

    Far worse than usury on money already in existence is “fiat”-money, money created out of nothing nearly always as interest-bearing debt.

    “The main mark of modern government is that we do not know who governs de facto any more than de jure . We see the politician and not his backer, still less the backer of the backer or, what is most important of all, the banker of the backer, throned about all in a manner without parallel in all the past is the veiled prophet of finance, swaying all men living by a sort of magic.” (G. K. Chesterton.)

    Cultural subversion is massively encouraged by the Media of the money establishment the most degraded drug-sodden artists are held up as models to be admired and emulated by the young. (Kate Moss, Britney Spears and Madonna.)

    Western Super-capitalism lives in constant dread of nationalism and thus also of monarchies. An all important factor, with a binding and directing influence on all the other components of the twentieth-century world revolution, is that of Zionism, which can be described as a geographically dispersed, but intensely united and passionately motivated Jewish nationalism.

    Paradoxically the Jewish people have come to the fore as a dominant influence in world affairs at a time when most Jews attach little or no importance to a religion which for close on two millenia was a powerful binding force.

    There is only one political weapon that Super Capitalism can use against nationalism and that is a communist ideology that marshals the forces of the underworld and of rootless intellectualism holding them ready to be aimed like a battering ram against any nationalist target.

    The World Revolution can thus be described as a struggle in which one powerful nation is bent on the overthrow of all other nations.

    The brilliant and penetrating words of authors Christian de Brie and Jean de Maillard explain the actual world economic and political situation.

    “By allowing capital to flow unchecked from one end of the world to the other, globalisation and the abandon of sovereignity have together fostered the explosive growth of an outlaws’ financial market. It is a coherent system closely linked to the expansion of modern capitalism and is based on the association of three partners : governments, trans-national corporations,and the Mafias.

    Business is business. Financial crime is first and foremost a market, thriving and structured, ruled by supply and demand. Big business complicity plus political laissez-faire is the only way that large- scale organised crime can launder and re-cycle the fabulous proceeds of its activities and the trans-nationals need the support of governments and the neutrality of regulatory authorities in order to consolidate their position, increase their profits, withstand the competition, pull off the deal of the century and finance their illicit operations.

    Politicians are directly involved. Their ability to intervene depends upon the backing and the funding of the people in power. This collusion of interest is an essential part of the world economy, the oil that keeps the wheels of capitalism turning.”

    For more on Jewish control

    Or: Capitalism



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s