by Jimmie Moglia for The Saker Blog
Reading Hegel requires a reader in perfect health. The alternative is to attempt but a little at a time, which, after all, is the secret of all learning.
In the instance, Hegel says that history is but the realization of the idea of Reason – a proposition that, without further elucidation, may prompt many to wonder if Hegel said so while drunk. For a quick look at the ways of the world proves that he who places his hopes in reason, lives like a drunken sailor on a mast, ready with every nod, to tumble down into the fatal bowels of the deep.
But Reason, says Hegel, does not show itself in a way that we can reasonably recognize. Rather, it works indirectly and therefore cunningly. The tools of Reason are the passions, the irrational elements in human nature, arising from a private interest to which all others are sacrificed. In the end, however, the Idea of Reason manifests itself in the national spirits, as represented through the deeds of heroes, for example, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and others.
As frequent in this and similar cases we meet a semantic challenge. A reason that works unreasonably bumps into the principle of non-contradiction, unless we give it another name. Or, in the instance, by capitalizing the ‘R’ as in ‘Reason.’ That, however, does not solve the problem. Because if there is more than one reason, there can be not only two but as many as the imagination bodies forth.
My unabashed philosophical littleness prevents me from challenging a master. Besides, philosophy is not the subject of this post. Rather it is an attempt at an interpretation of the massacre at the Synagogue in Pittsburgh.
That the author of the deeds was mad requires no explanation, for to define true madness what is it but to be nothing else but mad.
Nevertheless, Hegel’s concept of the oblique ways of reason leads to another semantic curiosity, linking the words ‘action’ and ‘reaction,’ with their respective histories. For action and reaction are engines through which Hegel’s Reason cunningly shows itself.
The history of ‘action’ and ‘reaction’ shows us intriguing developments. Considering, setting Hegel aside, that we can often find the secrets of the world in the life of words. For the history of language reflects the history of societies. Hence it becomes a kind of index or key, to interpret or better perceive actual events and changes in the state of the collective mind.
The word ‘reaction’ seems as obvious and easy to understand as ‘action,’ its natural parent. Therefore, we do not pause to question its origins. But, as with the word ‘action,’ what interests a historian of words are birth, development, variety and changes in its semantic functions.
At first glance, the nearest lexical relative of ‘reaction’ is ‘action.’ And it would seem that, right when the word ‘action’ was born, ‘reaction’, its verbal offspring, was inevitable. It seems but it isn’t.
‘Act’ and ‘action’ are derivatives of the Latin verb ‘agere.’ In turn, the original suggested action referred-to by the verb, was ‘to push forward,’ to cause a spatial advance, as in moving forward a flock of sheep. Something associated with a pastoral or agricultural setting.
But soon the metaphor was lost and only its abstract meaning remains. To be sure, killing people at random with a machine gun is a concrete event, but ‘action’ is the abstract verbal container of the factual occurrence(s).
In Latin, the antonym of ‘action’ is ‘pati’, infinitive of the verb ‘patior’, which means ‘to suffer’ or ‘to endure’. From the same route we have ‘passion,’ in the sense of a mental pain demanding to be removed.
For example, in a 1413 writing titled “Pylgrim Sowle” we find “Thine was the action, and I nought but abyl for to suffer.” (Yours was the action, and I can do nothing but to suffer.)
We find a timid baptism of ‘reaction,’ in its psychological implications, in Thomas Browne, a 17th century English writer whose major work is “Religio Medici” (A Doctor’s Religion.” (“It is the method of Charity to suffer without Reaction.”) But this happened when ‘reaction’ was already establishing itself as a successful partner of ‘action’ in the realms of physics, alchemy, medicine and mechanics. To secure its triumph and immortality was Isaac Newton (1643-1727) with its third law of motion, “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.“ (Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.”
In Germany, Kant describes history as a theater where actions and reactions play out. They are the empirical reality of a plot. To uncover the plot is the task of the historian. However, today, he who disagrees with the anointed historians’ description and development of the plot is a conspiracy theorist.
Bringing ‘action’ and ‘reaction’ closer to their current use them was the French Revolution. At the beginning the word ‘reaction’ its meaning was neutral. It is/was the contrary action of an oppressed faction in a contested cause. The “Dictionnaire de l’Academie, 1798” defines ‘reaction’ as “a word used figuratively of an oppressed party, which, in turn, acts.”
But, following the polarization of the political space, the lexical pair ‘revolution/reaction’ acquired a sharper meaning,
In its neutral sense, ‘reaction’ was any violence caused by a preceding violence. But the revolutionaries conceived the French Revolution as a new era, a religion without a religion. Therefore their adversaries would or could only act in defense of their ideas or in revenge against the revolution – and their ‘actions’ could only be ‘reactions.’
The “Friend of the People” (“Ami du People”) of Aug 10, 1792, in saluting the capture of the Tuileries and the arrest of the royal family writes, “Fear the reaction – I say it again. Your enemies would not spare you, should they gain the upper hand…. None more than I abhors the shedding of blood. But to prevent blood from running in rivers, I incite you to shed a few drops.”
That a “few drops” meant a civil war with hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, a heap of headless corpses and finally a tyrant, is an option that the ‘Ami du People’ did not contemplate, nor – by and large – did most subsequent revolutionaries and revolutions.
But where is the link between Hegelian ‘Reason’, ‘action’ and ‘reaction’, revolution, counter-revolution and the Pittsburgh massacre?
Before continuing, it should be clear that history, intended as an explanation of the past, is not a scientific deduction, but an imaginative guess at the most likely generalizations. In the instance, it is easy to associate the madness of the perpetrator with the innocence of the victims and declare the event as an extreme case of anti-Semitism. But even the New York Times sets aside such logical explanation and, instead, assigns to Trump the responsibility for the massacre. An interesting deduction from a newspaper that routinely labels dissenters as ‘conspiracy theorists’ or insults them as ‘truthers.’
Arbitrarily, I assign the beginning of the train of events that ended with the madness of the Pittsburgh murderer, to Pope Callistus II, who, in 1120 AD, issued a papal bull establishing the official position of the Church regarding the treatment of Jews – “Sicut Judaeis” (“As for the Jews.”)
Why not sooner? Because the historical information from the end of the Roman Empire to about the year 1000 is complicated by the action, interaction, conflicts, invasions and superposition of peoples of different cultures, religions and even civilizations. But we know with reasonable certainty that, in the main, Jews were merchants, at times gaining favor and at times ill-will from the various feudal lords they interacted with.
Now, independently of religion, ethnicity or belief, in a buy-sell transaction, the seller is usually the winner. And money being power, with every sale, the seller acquires some measurable degree of additional power. It sounds silly to say it, but we know that ‘laughing all the way to the bank” is the seller much more frequently than the buyer. This is important, I think, to frame the perception of the Jews in the collective mind, independently of religious, ethnic and other issues.
But around the year 1000, trade, manufacturing, technical innovations, artisanship and wars, required more gold and silver than were available. That is when lending at an interest (also referred to as usury, depending on the religious-ideological point of view), came into being on a grand scale. And due to their mercantile skills, tradition and experience, it fell to the Jews to become the proto-capitalist European bankers or usurers. Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice” gives us an imaginative and convincing profile.
We know that gold can make black white, foul fair, wrong right, base noble, old young and cowards valiant, irrespective of the origins, politics or religion of its handlers. Furthermore, at the onset of the first crusade in the 11th century to recapture the Holy Land, a widespread belief convinced Western Christians that Muslims and Jews made one block. Considering that the Jews were allied with the Moors in the conquest of Spain, and that the French King Charles Martel had stopped their advance to Northern Europe at the Battle of Poitiers in 741 AD.
Skipping many intermediate steps, out of Moorish Spain, along with the translations of the Greek and Latin classics came the awareness of the Talmud, the equivalent of the New Testament for the Jews. Its translation by converted Jews was the metaphorical bombshell. Most readers will be aware of the ignoble Talmudic treatment of Christ and of the sacred icons of Christianity, coupled with the utter contempt of goys and ‘shiksas.’ Where ‘shiksa’ means ‘foul animal,’ a label applied at large to all Christian women.
In summary, the circumstances of their trade and the acquired notions of their religion inspired an endemic and widespread wave of hatred and persecutions against Jews.
At this point, Callistus II intervened, and the content of his bull can be summarized as follows. The Jews are entitled to live undisturbed and to practice their religion without interference or hindrance from Christians. In turn, Jews must not interfere or corrupt the civilization and moral norms of the places where they reside.
This was the essence Callistus’ deliberations. Nine other subsequent bulls and encyclicals followed along the same lines, up to the last in 1937 by Pius XI. But as we know, the ample propositions that hope makes fail in their promised largeness or expected results. In the 1200 King Edward I expelled the Jews from England, in the 1300 they were banned form France and in the 1400 from Spain. In Italy they were confined to live in their own quarters. Venice called the quarter assigned to Jews ‘ghetto,’ and the term became a universal name for Jewish quarters in a city.
In 1227 the Synod of Narbonne decreed that, “So that Jews may be distinguished from others, we decree and emphatically command that in the center of the breast (of their garments) they shall wear an oval badge, the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height.”
Banned from Spain, the Jews moved to Italy, Holland, Greece and Turkey. In Holland, they were instrumental in the revolution that detached Holland from the Hapsburg Empire. And from Holland they financed Cromwell in the English Civil War (1642-1649). He rewarded them by removing the banishment enforced by Edward the First.
The French Revolution resulted in their emancipation in France, and during the XIX century they began to develop their plan for a Judean homeland as the hub for a world revolution (globalization). This is accurately described by Coudeneuve-Kalergi, the founder of the European Union, in his book “Praktischer Idealismus.” What is happening in Europe (and America) shows what they had and have in mind, with the promoted and actually enforced mass migrations.
During the XIX century and at the beginning of the XXth, they allied themselves in various forms with the nobility-laden but cash-strapped English aristocracy, even leading to the first Jewish prime minister of England (Disraeli). By the end of the XIX century new Jewish English baronets were a common event. Even in the widely popular “Downtown Abbey” the wife of Grantham, lord of the manor, is the American daughter of a wealthy Jew. “Title for cash” even became part of the language of the time.
The Rothschilds financed the heavily gambling-indebted Churchill family. And on November 2, 1917 Foreign Secretary Balfour wrote to Lord Rothschild as follows:
“His Majesty’s government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
We know what happened to the Palestinians. Lesser known is that in 1903 the English Government made an offer for a Jewish homeland in Uganda, which the Zionists refused.
Jewish money and their role in the Bolshevik Revolution is now universally acknowledged. On the 2018 anniversary of Marx’ birth, a large page title of the New York Times said, “ Happy Birthday Karl, You Were Right.” Which, the reader may agree, sounds paradoxical, when proclaimed by the acknowledged shaper of American public opinion. And, along with the Wall Street Journal, a pillar of neo-liberal economics and winner-take-all capitalism.
Zionism’s determinant role in WW1 and WW2 is sufficiently documented. And after WW2, the Plan hatched by the Jewish Harry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury in the Roosevelt administration, called for the annihilation and the actual sterilization of the German race.
From its inception, Jews occupied Hollywood, as proudly recognized by their official media. The Motion Pictures Production Code was abolished in 1954. From then on, a barrage of filth has been unleashed on the American screen and the American mind. In 1965 strong Jewish political pressure eliminated all restrictions to immigration. The Cultural Marxist revolution of the 1960s, along with the students’ revolution opened the way to “sexual liberation,” leading to the legalization of sodomy and homosexual marriages.
When Jews fell in disfavor in the Soviet Union, Russia became an enemy. Their role in its collapse can be observed in the number of Russian Jewish Oligarchs who acquired the most valuable resources of the USSR for the proverbial pennies on the dollar.
Their role in the destruction of Iraq and Libya is universally recognized, for by now, in its foreign policies, the US acts as the secular arm of the Jewish state.
Still, the great majority of Americans, and I suspect of many in other nations, were almost if not completely unaware of the Jewish role in critical historical developments. Who writes here was equally ignorant. What triggered my curiosity was my having worked in Iraq at length – so that I could compare the false Western Zionist narrative, with the reality of a civilized and in many ways a prosperous state.
That the Internet would develop into a new source of information that could demonstrate the mendacity of the Zionist narrative, was probably unpredicted and maybe unpredictable. In this, perhaps, a philosophical analyst may find some evidence for the Cunning of Reason. It’s no wonder that a new wave of Internet censorship has been unleashed in Europe and the United States. An emblem of the current Zeitgeist is Ursula Hauerbach, an 85-year old woman, jailed in Germany for daring to assert publicly that not all that is said about the ‘Holocaust’ is true.
While from the Zionist controlled academia, Noel Ignatius, professor at Harvard calls for the “abolition of the white race.” I quote but one example because listing more would unduly strain the reader’s patience.
What written and said above is now well known by many. The overwhelming majority of whom reacts rationally, but some – and fortunately very few – do not.
In one of his novels, writer Arnold Bennett speculates on the thoughts of a condemned man, as he hears the blade of the guillotine descending towards his neck.
But we can only imagine what went through the mind of the Pittsburgh massacre perpetrator. Historical and literary lore informs us that between the acting of a dreadful thing and its first motion, the interim is like a vacuum or a hideous dream. The mind, the center of power, and the body, the instrument of action, are in conflict, and the state of man, like a little kingdom, suffers then the nature of an insurrection. That is, reason and unreason hang in precarious balance. What tipped it in Pittsburgh is unknown.
Still, the New York TImes, and other venues and networks of the same ilk, ownership and patronage, found in the event a source of absurd political capital, naming Trump as a facilitator.
Absurd because, for decades now, president, senators and congressmen vie with each other as to who is the greatest friend of Israel. Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is an example, along with the continued program of regime change in Iran. Plus the stony silence at the ongoing massacre of Palestinians, armed with burning kites and stones against the army of those who stole their land. Not to mention the ordinary Israelis who, safe on the Israeli side of the border wall, set up elevated picnic chairs and tables to cheer the shooting and death of Palestinians, as if they were but live bowling pins.
As for a domestic example, Trump just awarded the Medal of Freedom – the equivalent of the French ‘Legion d’Honneur’ – to Miriam Adelson, wife of Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas multi-billionaire casino-mogul and his most generous contributor. Miriam Adelson – so we learn – is a great philanthropist who directs her philanthropy to Jewish schools, Holocaust memorial organizations, Friends of Israel Defense Forces, and Birthright Israel. The latter being a large program intended to finance free trips to Israel for young Jews of marriageable age, who can prove the genuineness and authenticity of their Jewish blood. So that they can bring back to America an Israeli bride or groom.
But maybe the New York Times has a point. For the news from the corporate media, which is called true, is so like an old tale, that the verity of it is in strong suspicion. In other (Trump’s) words it is “fake news” – a verbal pair whose semantic worth transcends the meaning of its lexical components, and has anchored itself in the imagination of many. Maybe a contemporary Hegelian can spot in this semantic development a glimpse of the “cunning of reason.”
In the end, whether the Pittsburgh massacre may induce more than a few to meditate on the history behind the event, and to draw their independent conclusions, is uncertain. On one side of the equation there is an inarticulate accumulation of historical resentment – on the other, innocent victims of that resentment.
If we extract madness from the equation, indiscriminate murder may quench the lust for revenge but it does not satisfy, and actually obstructs, the claims of justice. Though in a degenerate way, the episode conforms to the criteria of a murderer’s ‘reaction’ to an ‘action’ of which the victims were not responsible, and certainly not directly.
But abstract and historical considerations are unappealing to most, and capitalistically unproductive. For ours is a society of trifles in need of a perpetual fund of merriment. Spectacular trifles that require exuberance of ornament, for the building that has no strength can be valued only for the showiness of its decorations. The pebble must be masked with care, which hopes to be valued as a diamond; and the empty words of paid pundits are bound to gain prominence when they are intended to replace nothingness.
Paul Valéry on History (1931)
History is the most dangerous product evolved from the chemistry of the intellect. Its properties are well know. It causes dreams, it intoxicates whole peoples, gives them false memories, quickens their reflexes, keeps their old wounds open, torments them in their repose, leads them into delusions either of grandeur or persecution, and makes nations bitter, arrogant, insufferable, and vain.
History will justify anything. It teaches precisely nothing, for it contains everything and furnishes examples of everything.
—-
L’Histoire est le produit le plus dangereux que la chimie de l’intellect ait élaboré. Ses propriétés sont bien connues. Il fait rêver, il enivre les peuples, leur engendre de faux souvenirs, exagère leurs réflexes, entretient leurs vieilles plaies, les tourmente dans leur repos, les conduit au délire des grandeurs ou à celui de la persécution, et rend les nations amères, superbes, insupportables et vaines.
L’Histoire justifie ce que l’on veut. Elle n’enseigne rigoureusement rien, car elle contient tout, et donne des exemples de tout.
Thank you Moglia,
Though I would add these people of the book so called would never, ever have the kind of influence over the entire world if it wasn’t for the creation of the Gentile Synagogue called Freemasonry.
There is a quote handed down to us by General George Cornwallis 1781 which has often left me wondering what did that man know:
“Your churches will be used to teach the Jew’s religion and in less than two hundred years, the whole nation will be working for Divine World Government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be permeated with Judaism without them even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry.”
Gentile traitors are in our midst and they are the most guilty of all!!
No need to worry however, this was all prophesied long ago with it’s ultimate fulfillment in the words:
“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!
There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.
They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Luke 21:20
Armageddon approaches and we know what the end of the history of mankind is.
LOL, that new world order everyone talks about happened a long, long time ago in a place called Golgotha did it not?
Motto:Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ!
Hegel vs John ( smile )
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through Him; and without Him nothing was made that was made.
In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it .
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
He was not the Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
That was the true Light, which gives light to every man coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him .
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Reading what Jimmie Moglia has written about some of the deeds of the Jewish people, especially of his elite throughout history, seeing how a handful of people almost have seized financial, economic and political power and controlling information worldwide, can not help me think of God’s choice of their ancestors as His chosen people.
If all this energy and their force were put into the service of good and not of evil ( Mammon ), it would otherwise have shown humanity today.
Though killed by them, God tells them: I have come in My Father’s name and you do not receive Me; if another ( Antichrist ) comes in his own name,him you will receive.
PS: Zionism’s determinant role in WW1 and WW2 is sufficiently documented.What about WW3 ?
Once again an excellent article. I would like to add that, while I was never interested with Western Roman Empire, which quite early collapsed and fell under the control of Germanic hordes. I must also say that Eastern Empire known as Byzantium saved the Western Brethren few times, so the brethren would fall into the hands of Germanic hordes shortly after, anyway this is a sidestep. What I would like to add to Jimmie’s critical opinion of Hagel (whom I never bothered to read), because as some Greek said, all those pseudo philosophical writings (Hagel and the likes) are just rewrites of the original Greco-Roman works. Having said that. Reason, as Jimmie points out is seldom used by guys like Alexander III and Napoleon. Alexander was looking for revenge for assassination of his father, and being well versed in philosophy and ancient Greek history works, wanted to follow the steps of his Greek ancestors Pelasgoi who in prehistoric times created Summer, hence him establishing his new residence in the ancestral City in Mesopotamia (sorry the name slipped my mind). Napoleon on the other hand, had a job to do assigned to him by the ones who instigated French Revolution in order to create European Empire (EU is a modern day remake). I can go one step further and say Hitler tried to do the same.
So, having said that I agree history has nothing to do with Reason and everything about capturing and recording transpired events.
An excellent account about historical events and jewish ascendency during the past 1000 years.
This is a brilliant and engaging essay. (Perhaps worthy of a more intriguing title??) Thank you Jimmie Moglia!!
By the way here are the names of the people who led the onslaught against Serbia: Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrook, James Rubin, Wesley Clarke. A pattern emerges…
I doubt many Christians have read the Talmud as most of them haven’t even read the bible.
Dear Jimmie,
” Rather it is an attempt at an interpretation of the massacre at the Synagogue in Pittsburgh.
That the author of the deeds was mad requires no explanation, for to define true madness what is it but to be nothing else but mad.”
Madam, I swear I use no art at all. That he is mad, tis true, tis pity and pity tis tis true. A foolish figure. Mad let us grant him and now and thus remains that we find out the cause of this effect, or rather say, the cause of this defect for this effect defective comes with cause. (Tis a long time since I studied Hamlet at school.)
But Hamlet was not mad, but burdened with the knowledge that his father had been murdered, and once Hamlet stabbed Polonius thinking it was his uncle hiding behind the arras things became murkier. When the king asked Hamlet where Polonius was Hamlet replied send a messenger to heaven, and if he is not found there then seek him out yourself in the other place. And all of this is pertinent in regard to the events at Pittsburgh.
Nick Kollerstrom’s site: http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2018/10/28/us-synagogue-attack-but-where-are-the-bodies/#more-8270
asks the simple question where are the bodies from this event? If there are no bodies, how can there be a massacre?
Was this an event perpetrated by Jews to demonstrate the anti-Semitism of some non-Jews which has occurred previously. I can recall one such incident in France some time ago and another in the Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy back in the 1970’s.
I can recall that Theodor Herzl also commented on the need for ‘anti-Semitism’ in assisting the Jews attain ‘their homeland’ in Palestine, but then when Herzl deviated from Rothschild’s plan and accepted the 1903 proposal of Joseph Chamberlain of Uganda that Herzl suddenly died of heart problems at the age of 36.
And I wonder as to what the poster ‘Arthur’ was referring to when he asked Mulga Mumblebrain about his absence in regard to Pittsburgh.
Dear Jimmie,
“Arbitrarily, I assign the beginning of the train of events that ended with the madness of the Pittsburgh murderer, to Pope Callistus II, who, in 1120 AD, issued a papal bull establishing the official position of the Church regarding the treatment of Jews – “Sicut Judaeis” (“As for the Jews.”)”
I wonder why Senator Cicero warned us to speak softly so that they may not hear you, and that warning has been relevant for almost two millenniums.
Dear Jimmie,
“But around the year 1000, trade, manufacturing, technical innovations, artisanship and wars, required more gold and silver than were available.”
This is relevant to William the Bastard’s defeat of his cousin Harold at the battle of Hastings in 1066. But William’s backers were not just interested in the gold return on their loans; they also wanted land and titles. Hence England became a ‘Feudal’ State.
Now at this time King David of Scotland was hanging around London, and was interested in William’s construction of the ‘Tower of London’ to house William’s opposition. David took the construction ideas back to Scotland with him, plus those that would ‘finance’ those buildings, and to seal the contract, the financiers were given as wives, some of David’s daughters, as was the custom of the time. This would have great repercussions in 1286 when Alexander died in an accident.
Dear Jimmie,
” In the 1200 King Edward I expelled the Jews from England,”
If I remember correctly Edward Longshanks invented the first Parliament in 1290 to raise taxes to finance his adventures in France and elsewhere. It was only after the Parliament was created that Edward kicked the Jews out of England. Sir Walter Scott’s novel ‘Ivanhoe’ tells us why.
Prior to the Parliament, the Jews were the personal property of the King. Thus it was that only the king could steal the gold collected by the Jews much like the bee-keeper collects honey. One means of collecting the Jews money was by torture such as extracting the Jews teeth, until the Jew surrendered and handed over his gold to the king. However, Edward found that his Parliament was a far more efficient method to raise the funds necessary for his adventures, but this then created another problem. Edwards opponents could then have the opportunity to steal the Jews gold and to ensure that didn’t happen the Jews were expelled.
I would imagine that the other kings of Europe once they saw the advantages of Parliaments would have followed suit, and thus the Jews were expelled. Was this ever written in the history books? Of course not; the kings had another weapon, beheading those who wrote the truth.
Now, not all of the English Jews sailed across the pirate infested English Channel to Europe, some such as the Jardine family moved north, and remember King David’s daughters married off to the financiers? Well one of the descendants got to become king, by hook and by crook, and defeated Edward at Bannockburn.
But how do I know that that particular Scottish king was Jewish? Easy, his best friend, the ‘Black Douglas’ was killed in Spain carrying the King’s heart to Jerusalem; the first Scottish King to ever consider such a pilgrimage. Also worthy of mention was Robert’s younger brother who was crowned King of Ireland, but captured by the English and suffered the usual ‘hung, drawn and quartered’ fate.
Andrew, you are asking “…. But how do I know that that particular Scottish king was Jewish? …”
Well, you are applying modern propaganda, that under every rock is a Jew.
Also, there was never a nation of Jews, hence no ethnicity, and forget the “mother lineage” BS. WHat does it mean anyway? So, just like from their early days some time after IX BC, they were converting Greeks and others to Judaism, the same worked the other way around. Once the Jew converted to Christianity his Jewishness seized to exist, okay except for his dick which unfortunately could not be changed. Hence when the chips fell, this is how they were identified, by dropping their nickers down (okay the same worked for muslims). Interestingly enough Poles have a saying, rather derogatory, “obżezańcy”, you can get an idea what it means.
Oh, yes as an afterthought, I have seen many people throwing around name “shiksa”, including our respected author, but nobody including vast majority of Jews (even of Polish bloodline) knows what it actually means, except all the ones who grew up in Poland. So, here I go, in Polish the word “siki – means piss, proper expression would be mocz – urin “. Poles (guys) called women “siksa – pisser”. THe expression was used by the Poles towards all women (Jew women including), usually when they had “discussions about women while drinking”. So, again the word is siksa and not shiksa, this proves the saying “the bells are ringing, but nobody knows where”. It helps to hang around real Poles, to know it.
I am back with apologies for misspelling the word which should have been obrzezańcy (I had to consult Polish Encyklopedia from 1969). In addition “rz” and “ż” sound the same but their usage is determined by the rules in grammar, English equivalent would suggest “zh”.
The word “siksa” is sounded out is somewhere between si and shi”. Poles have a letter “ś” which gets dropped and replaced with “si” when “i” has to be pronounced. Example of the opposite is “pośpiesz się – hurry up”. Also, their “sz” is equivalent to “sh”
Ahh, sorry Jimmie, but it’s me again.
“During the XIX century and at the beginning of the XXth, they allied themselves in various forms with the nobility-laden but cash-strapped English aristocracy,”
Oh, no, it started much earlier than that, and not just in England but Scotland and Ireland as well. After the 45, the Hieland chiefs were invited to reside in London, where as per expectations they got into debt and had to marry into money.
In his book, ‘The Highland Clearances’ John Prebbles tells of the old Duke of Sutherland whose only surviving child was his daughter who married a wealthy Welsh coal-miner. On his death it was ‘discovered’ that the Duchy of Sutherland was the only Duchy where the title could pass on to the female side. Of course it took an Act of Parliament to attempt to resolve the Marlborough issue, and then of course there was Lord Randolph Churchill who first met his future wife in Paris and was then given an offer he couldn’t refuse by the New York Jew in regard to his daughter Jenny Jerome.
In fact it was noted throughout Europe the changes to the ‘English Aristocracy’ from the 1700’s, but even earlier than that the ‘English’ Pope Boniface was an imported European of the ‘Black Nobility’ Whose brother was given the title Duke of Surry and then he was made the Archbishop of Canterbury; all with a bit of grease the palm.
Dear Jimmie,
At last we have this: “What triggered my curiosity was my having worked in Iraq at length – so that I could compare the false Western Zionist narrative, with the reality of a civilized and in many ways a prosperous state.”
I wonder as to how many sleepless nights you suffered once you started to discover some reality. And it is at that stage that a new journey starts, for we all need to know ‘the truth’, and we all need to make this world safer for our children and grandchildren.
All of my previous little barbs of truths cannot overcome this one reality; the realisation that our world is flawed and the need to understand how we got to this point, and then to discover how to remedy the situation.
Please keep searching and keep writing.
Andrew,
Thank you for the topic and interesting comments and additions. Any historical account involves much excising of information that is equally relevant and interesting, such as the one you have provided.
Jimmie
Toleration of and respect for Jews has been the official position of the Church since Pope Gregory I (590-604) issued the first Sicut Judaeis statement to the Bishop of Naples. Since the healing of the blind man, Jews have loathed Christ and Christianity.
Note that in 600 A.D. there was no Roman Catholic Church, there was only the Church Universal. Gregory was only the Bishop of Rome, a high office. At that time, all bishops were equal though some were more equal than others.
I think the author should credit E. Michael Jones for much of this article. From Jones’ book, “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” to his many other writings on Hegel, English usury, Papal writings and the history of the Jews who were exiled from Spain where they took over much of the financing of the invasion by William of Orange, Cromwell and Churchill’s capture by the usurers.