Jewish Predatory Agenda

jewish manipulation

jewish manipulation

 

Richard Dawkins recently remarked that the Israel Lobby controls American foreign policy, Daniel Finkelstein, a Jewish editor of the London Times “Comments” section heard Nazi storm troopers banging on his door. “So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power.” Finkelstein sighed. “And, judging from the Guardian, it is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I am over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened. All I can manage is, Oh My God.” Finkelstein’s outburst is ironic. Here is a Jewish opinion gatekeeper, employed by a Jewish press magnate (Rupert Murdoch), shocked at the mention of Jewish power, persuading the public that the very suggestion is in bad taste. He cannot be accused of objectivity. The Times is not just any newspaper. It has been the voice of the British establishment for more than 100 years. Along with Chatham House (the RIIA) and Tavistock, it is a principal instrument of the cabal that governs England and most of the world. That cabal consists of Jewish central bankers and British (European and American) aristocracy united by money, marriage and a belief in the occult (Freemasonry.) I object to the term “the Jews” when obviously we are talking about very rich and powerful Jews who have intermarried with rich and powerful Gentiles. Sid the tailor does not control the world. I do not control the world.We are talking about rich Jews who most other Jews wouldn’t even recognize: they are Freemasons. They worship Lucifer and think God is evil. I represent that silent majority of average Jews, who have assimilated, and support the national interest. Rich Jews will want ordinary Jews to take the fall when opposition grows to their predatory agenda and anti-Semitism increases. Anti-Semitism never made any headway in Europe in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century until rich Jews decided to sponsor it. There is no way Hitler would have come to power without the backing of world finance. Hitler was Time Magazine “Man of the Year” in 1938. Stalin, another Freemason created by the Money Power, took the honor in 1939. Hey let’s have a war between the two! The central bankers owned I.G. Farben, the backbone of the Nazi war machine. Max Warburg was a Director until 1938. In March 1941 the Warburg family and employees were spirited out of Nazi Europe by the SS. Hitler so hated the Jewish bankers that he had them escorted to safety in a private train. Assimilated and religious Jews who did not serve the bankers’ interests were the main victims of Nazi persecution. Zionists, on the other hand, were spared. These same Zionists put ordinary Jews on trains to Auschwitz telling them they were being “resettled.” If the past is a guide, in an economic or social breakdown, the bankers will focus blame on their pawns, Zionists or neo nons, or preferably Jews in general. This is why patriotic Jews must disassociate from the bankers and their minions now. What is Anti-Semitism? Anti-Semitism might be called anti-imperialism. At heart, it is opposition to the plan of the central bankers, based in the City of London, to “gradually absorb the wealth of the world” and establish a masked “world government” dictatorship. This involves stupefying and degrading society through faux education, porn and violence; and bankrupting and brutalizing us through war, pandemics and domestic repression. It involves destroying “all collective forces except our own” which means destroying all race, religion, (God), nation and family. They use social engineering like diversity, feminism, multiculturalism and homosexuality to accomplish these aims. (I like homosexuals & different races; I just don’t think they should be used as a weapon.) The bankers place cooperative Jews in positions of control. The stigma attached to anti-Semitism is a form of mind control used to immunize their agents and their agenda against criticism. The Holocaust is callously used for this purpose. If we think of anti-Semitism in terms of opposition to the bankers’ political and cultural policy rather than to a race, it can be justified. The key is to distinguish between Jews who advance the New World Order and those who do not.

 

jewish supremacy

jewish supremacy

 

 

Predatory lending Jewish History

Jews and Predatory Money lending:

Predatory lending is Jewish Control

Predatory lending is Jewish Control

The question of why so many Jews have been monopolizing money is a touchy one. For hundreds of years, it has been fraught with suspicion, hatred and violence.  Still, in this essay collection “Capitalism and the Jews,” Jerry Z. Muller presents a provocative and accessible survey of how Jewish culture and historical background ripened Jews for predatory lending and why that success has earned them so much hatred. As Muller, a history professor at the Catholic University of America, explains it, much hatred can be attributed to a misunderstanding of basic Jewish economics. From Aristotle through the Renaissance (and then again in the 19th century, thanks to  former Jew Karl Marx), thinkers believed that money should be considered sterile, a mere means of exchange incapable of producing additional value. Only labor could be truly productive, it was thought, and anyone who extracted money from money alone — that is, through interest — must surely be a parasite, or at the very least a fraud. The Bible also contended that charging interest was sinful, inspiring Dante to consign usurers to the seventh circle of hell. In other words, 500 years ago, the phrase “predatory lending” would have been considered evil. Lending at interest was thus forbidden across Christian Europe — for Christians. Jews, however, were permitted by the Roman Catholic Church to charge interest; since they were going to hell anyway, why not let them commit these crimes against humanity. According to Halakha, or Jewish law, Jews were not allowed to charge interest to one another, only to non-jews (gentiles). And so it was, Muller explains, that Judaism became forever fused in the mind of finance. To conceal predatory lending, Christian moneylenders were sometimes designated as temporary Jews when they lent money to English and French kings. Some of Europe’s official money­lenders, Jews became both necessary and despised. The exorbitant interest rates they charged — sometimes as high as 60 percent — only fed the fury. But considering the economic climate, capital was scarce, and lenders frequently risked having their debtors’ obligations canceled or their own assets arbitrarily seized by the crown. This early, semi-exclusive exposure to finance, coupled with abstract thinking, trade and specialization gave Jews the human capital necessary to dominate in modern capitalism. It also helped that Judaism, unlike many strains of Christianity, did not consider poverty particularly important. Most of Muller’s strongest arguments are in his first essay, which draws on everyone from Voltaire to Osama bin Laden to illustrate how the world came to conflict with the negative viewpoints of Jews and those of capitalism’s excesses. The book’s remaining three essays deal somewhat evenly with the fallout of the Jews’ predatory lending, and in particular the resentment it inspired among economic history. Muller explores, for example, how Jews probably became associated with both poles of political economy: hypercapitalism and ­Communism. Some Jews had indeed sought refuge from hatred by Communism. But history of socialism in Eastern Europe, it is argued that “Judeo-Bolshevism” was promoted perhaps to malign the Communist movement. While this book is ostensibly about “the Jews,” Muller’s most chilling insights are about exploiting the poor, hatred and predatory lending have combined into a dangerous brew.

Jewish money owns Corporate Media

Dan Rather Says ‘Big Money Owns Everything … Including the News’:

Jewish Illuminism

Jewish Illuminism

One of Bud Benjamin’s dreams was to expand the CBS Evening News to a full hour. And Bud wasn’t thinking of filling it with helicopter shots, celebrity gossip and punditry. He imagined an entire hour brimming with investigative reporting, exposés and dispatches from around the world. It was a different time in journalism. A time when professional duty was patriotic, and the freedom of the press motivated and inspired newsrooms. I know it is hard to believe – but it’s true – newsrooms were not supposed to turn a profit. Frankly, news was considered an acceptable loss on the balance sheet. To keep our FCC license and the public trust, we had to use the public’s airwaves in the public interest. Yes, that’s a whole lot of “public.” But that’s the way it was. It’s the way it should be again. Today, how we look and how we “present” information has become far more important than how we gather it. It’s upside down and backwards. And, the worst part is … we have gotten used to it. The caretakers of the Fourth Estate have, at times, left the building unattended. Public interest be damned. It was Thomas Jefferson who noted in 1799 that, “Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light.” Jefferson trusted the press – not to stir up heat, but to deliver insight. Of course freedom of the press and of speech both come with pitfalls. People can peddle opinions as if they were facts. Those armed with the big, expensive megaphones drown out those blowing whistles. But now, we see our fellow citizens taking to the streets. And, that my friends, is our cue to get back to work. As the People of our nation begin rising up, they expect the business of news to be about inquiry and accountability. And, luckily for us, we can still do that … but it may not be within the confines of big corporate media. As you know, we are living in an age when big money owns everything … including the news. That cash bought a lot of silence for a long time. Enough time for unchecked power to get this country tangled into messes all around the world. We all know that money talks. But, so do the people. They tire of conflicts at home and abroad … conflicts that avert our eyes from the corruption and callowness that does little more than spill our blood and misspend our treasure. “We had fed the heart on fantasies,” wrote William Butler Yeats, “the heart’s grown brutal from the fare.” In other words, we have gotten used to it. What happens to a country when the press helps divide people into Us and Them? When it fans the flames of conflict and calls it reporting? We need to restore, at some point, the teaching of the craft of journalism. The best way to protect journalists is to teach them how to do journalism and, therefore, protect themselves from becoming irrelevant. I am reminded of the finest speech I ever heard on the subject of television journalism. It was given by Ed Murrow in 1958. Murrow said, “This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But, it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends … otherwise, it is merely wires and lights in a box.” Dear friends, we must untangle the wires from the lights. We must halt the steady decline of broadcast journalism and the endless compromises to the boardroom. Some say it is too late. That Congress wrote our epitaph in 1996 when they all came together and passed the Telecommunications Deregulation Act. Since then, the lights in a box have gotten brighter and flashier … but the truth dimmer and dimmer. And … we have gotten used to it. The late, great Molly Ivins used to tell a story about what happens when fear grips a country. Molly liked to tell the story about her late friend, the celebrated Texas civil libertarian John Henry Faulk, who, as a boy of six, went with his seven-year-old friend, Boots Cooper, to rid the family henhouse of a harmless chicken snake. From its high perch, the boys found themselves eyeball to eyeball with the snake. Growing up in Texas, it’s not uncommon to see a chicken snake … but being close enough to spit in the snake’s eye must have been quite disconcerting. As Molly would tell the story, the two boys ran out of the henhouse so fast they nearly tore off the henhouse door … not to mention doing damage to themselves in the process. When Faulk’s mother reminded the boys that chicken snakes are not dangerous, Boots Cooper responded, “Yes, ma’am, but some things will scare you so bad, you’ll hurt yourself.” That is what we have been subject to as a country. We have been so afraid; so hell bent on destroying enemies … both foreign and domestic … we have hurt ourselves and our democracy. You are probably asking yourself now what you should do. Well, it may take courage. There are so many wrongs to make right, it is going to get messier before it gets better. We have to begin asking the hard questions once again.We have to demand and earn back the respect that gave us the right to ask them.We must protect whistleblowers by using our megaphones to make their risky admissions even louder.We must demand access to all those risking their lives to challenge power. We must refuse to simply read press releases and rely on official sources. And we must begin to enforce our own professional code of ethics. Refuse to compromise. Going along to get along is getting us nowhere. Tonight, if I can convince you of anything, it is to buck the current system. Remember anew that you are a public servant and your business is protecting the public from harm. Even if those doing harm also pay your salary. To once again quote Ed Murrow, “There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference … this weapon of television could be useful.” And wouldn’t it be great if our country could get used to that.

Jews have control of US Department of Justice, Goldman Sachs

Anger as US prosecutors scrap probe of Goldman:

Anger as US prosecutors scrap probe of Goldman

Anger as US prosecutors scrap probe of Goldman

Goldman Sachs was let off the hook yesterday as the US Department of Justice dropped plans to bring criminal charges over claims the bank was betting against the same toxic subprime mortgage securities it sold to clients. In April last year senator Carl Levin demanded a criminal investigation after his sub-committee spent more than a year looking into Goldman. Chief executive Lloyd Blankfein faced a embarrassing grilling for hours from Mr Levin over whether it was morally correct for the firm to sell its clients products described internally as “crap”. The DoJ yesterday dropped plans to prosecute, saying: “the burden of proof to bring a criminal case could not be met based on the law and facts as they exist at this time”. The Securities and Exchange Commission also dropped a separate probe into the firm’s role in selling a different $1.3bn (£830m) subprime mortgage-related deal arranged in 2006. However, the regulator is still pursuing a civil complaint against Goldman vice-president Fabrice Tourre over its Abacus deal, which the bank settled for $550 million in 2010. Tourre was based in London while marketing the controversial investment, which saw Goldman sell loans selected by a hedge fund client it knew was betting against them. The failure to prosecute Goldman triggered frustration in some quarters. Neil Barofsky, a former watchdog for the US government’s 2008 bailout of the banks, said no individual or institution had been held accountable for the financial crisis. “Without such accountability, the unending parade of megabanks scandals will inevitably continue,” he said.