>>9761517 lb
No really. Hannity has said this about Byrd for twenty years and nobody fucking cares.
Like in actual reality. Nobody gives a fuck. Calling the Democrats racist or fascist doesn't and never will work faggot.
The opposite is true.
>>No. Germans were pupetted by jews into fighting Americans, British, and Soviets, who were also pupetted by jews.
No. America, Britain and Soviets were puppetted by Jews into fighting Germany, who were the only group not controlled by Jews. In fact they stripped Jews from power in politics and media.
As you can see it's the EXACT opposite of what you believe.
You are retarded?
Laughably stupid. Now we are making the Jews the poor victims again.
https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1779&hilit=Internation+jewry
‘International Jewry’? What was that prior to 1939? And what is it now?
It works to delude and mislead dumb cuckservatives. That's it's function.
Anyway …
To correctly and impartially understand what was happening in Germany between the wars, one HAS to try and understand what was the contemporary perspective, regardless of whether that perceived perspective was based upon real or imaginary forces.
(I.e. Strawman 'Protocols of Zion' comparisons are an obfuscatory and therefore dishonest tactic.)
The issue facing anyone wanting a correct appraisal of this history is to understand CORRECTLY AND IMPARTIALLY the motives behind the actions. The problem is though that ANY criticism of Jews or Jewish groups is taboo and is treated as if it were the repeating anti-semitical "jew-hating tropes". Bollocks. No group, or race, or abstract conceptual 'people', are above criticism. None.
These examples I am showing WERE the perceptions of the times. So… Why are people avoiding it?
AND - surprise, surprise - these perceptions were NOT exclusive to Hitler nor to pre-war Germany.
Yet this is NOT HOW the history(?) (or 'dogma') of 'THE Holocaust' is presented to us, is it?
Ur implying the Germans did something wrong. Soros looked out for himself and avoided deportation. That's it.
Jew playbook when useful information is being exposed.
Dems real racist
Soros Nazi
Hitler puppet
Q said…
That's it.
More on how there was a widely held perception in the 1920's concerning a groups of "like-thinking men at the highest levels", "chief financial backers and supporters" of royalty, etc., men who were "bound together" with "ties of race and interest" and who operated within an undisclosed "international 'network'" whereby they could "secretly" "influence the political decisions of a score of countries."
Now what else would you call such a body of men who were "bound together" with "ties of race and interest"??
The more you look into it, the more the honest amd impartial reader must acknowledge that this WAS the perception of the time, EVEN of people passionately opposed to Hitler.
The question is how much that was a real or imaginary "international 'network'" and how much the ties binding them were Jewish and/or Zionist and/or Bolshevik?
It really doesn't help to dismiss this as anti-semitism in a thread asking the question what exactly was being described in this time period both by its supporters, participants and enemies as "International Jewry".
>>Of this international "network" of like-thinking men at the highest level, in Dr. Herzl's day, the student may only make a picture by carefully piecing together significant glimpses and fragments (its existence and concerted actions in our time are plainly demonstrable, as this book in its later chapters will show, from the growing mass of literature). For instance, Dr. Weizmann says he told Dr. Herzl that Sir Francis Montefiore (a leading Jew in England) was "a fool", whereon Herzl answered, "He opens kingly portals to me". Again, one Baron de Hirsch was Herzl's chief financial backer and supporter. Of this Baron de Hirsch Count Carl Lonyay (quoting from documents in the secret archives of the Imperial Court at Vienna) says that Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria, wishing to make provision for a woman friend before his suicide at Mayerling, obtained 100,000 gulden "from the banker, Baron Hirsch, in return for an act of friendliness he had performed in December, when he invited the banker to meet the Prince of Wales" (the future Kind Edward VII).
>>Baron de Hirsch, in the sequence to this introduction, became an intimate of the Prince of Wales, and private banker and financial adviser to the future King of England. He was also brother-in-law of a Mr. Bischoffsheim of the Jewish financial house of Bischoffsheim and Goldschmidt in London, of which a very rich German-born Jew, Sir Ernest Cassel, was a member. Sir Ernest, as Mr. Brian Connell says in a biographical study, fell heir to Baron de Hirsch's friendship with the future king: "where Hirsch had been an intimate, Cassel was to become Edward VII's closest personal friend". He was indeed the last of the king's intimates to see him alive, the king, on the day of his death, insisting on keeping an appointment with Sir Edward and rising to dress himself for the purpose.
>>In the sequence to this account Mr. Connell says: "The small international fraternity of which he" (Sir Ernest Cassel) "became perhaps the leading member were all men with backgrounds similar to his own, people whom he approached in the course of his extensive travels. There was Max Warburg, head of the great private banking house in Hamburg; Edouard Noetzlin, honorary president of the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas, in Paris; Franz Philippson in Brussels; Wertheim and Gompertz in Amsterdam and, above all, Jacob Schiff of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company in New York. Ties of race and interest bound these men together. The web of their communications quivered at the slightest touch. They maintained between them an incredibly accurate network of economic, political and financial intelligence at the highest level. They could withdraw support here, provide additional funds there, move immense sums of money with lightning rapidity and secrecy from one corner to another of their financial empires, and influence the political decisions of a score of countries".
–Douglas Reed quoting a biographer of Sir Ernest Cassell. 'The Controversy of Zion', pgs. 204-205.
Samuel Landman was a well-known English Zionist, was Hon. Secretary of the Joint Zionist Council of the United Kingdom in 1912, Joint Editor of the" Zionist" in 1913-14 and author of pamphlets on "History of Zionism" and "Zionism, its organisation and institutions" published during the war.
From 1917 to 1922 he was Solicitor and Secretary to the Zionist Organisation. At the time of writing this pamphlet he was Legal Adviser to the New Zionist Organisation.
Landman confirms in detail that 'Jews' set in motion - by their own admission and in pursuit of Jewish interests - America's entry into World War One against Germany.
"In Germany, the value of the bargain to the Allies, apparently, was duly and carefully noted. In his Through Thirty Years, Mr. Wickham Steed, in a chapter appreciative of the value of Zionist support in America and elsewhere to the Allied cause, says General Ludendorff is alleged to have said after the War that: "The Balfour Declaration was the cleverest thing done by the Allies in the way of propaganda, and that he wished Germany had thought of it first" (vol. 2, p. 392).
As a matter of fact, this was said by Ludendorff to Sir Alfred Mond (afterwards Lord Melchett), soon after the War.
The fact that it was Jewish help that brought USA into the War on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German – especially Nazi – minds, and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme."
– S. Landman. 'Great Britain, The Jews and Palestine', pp. 3-6.
Yes, the role of people from many different nations working together and supporting a mutual interest due to the same perceived bonds of a mutual kinship based upon notions of an international 'race' is still very much active today. That this also is denied or avoided is testimony to the dishonesty of the main respondents in this thread.
To state the obvious that not ALL of this alleged 'race' subscribed to the same beliefs or goals is an idiotic red herring dealt with now many times.
This doesn't refute the allegation that some people from many nations but loyal to none, manipulated and influenced world affairs for their own common interest based upon ideas of belonging to a common race.
Not all citizens of 1930s and 40s Germany had the same beliefs either, yet they were all tarred with the same brush both then and now. Not even all members of the NSDAP held exactly the same beliefs, intentions or goals. Yet they all worked together for some perceived and agreed common causes.
But pointing out the certain Jews Internationally congregated and worked for certain perceived common causes both secretly and openly against Germany from 1916 onwards is dismissed as anti-semitic propaganda. :roll:
That is either deliberate dishonesty or delusional denial.
What remains is the fact that I have demonstrated with verifiable references that we have a wide swathe of people referring to such a thing as 'International Jewry'.
We have 'International Jews' themselves such such, as Rabbi Maurice Perizweig, Samuel Landman, Samuel Untermyer, Chaim Weizmann, Dr. David Wolfsson, Jewish "leaders of Zionist Movement at POSEN, Poland", Benjamin H. Freedman, James A. Malcolm, etc., etc.
We also have British people - all opposed to Hitler - ranging from leading intellectuals such as Bertrand Russel to authors and journalists such as Douglas Reed, to Winston Churchill, etc., referring to such a thing.
We have the American Ambassador to Russia, David Francis, writing in 1921 of Jews who were "internationalists" "caring little for Russia OR any other country" collectively working for Bolshevik aims.
We have Forestal recording Chamberlain telling the US Ambassador Joseph Kennedy to Britain that "WORLD JEWS forced England into the war".
We have the record of the interview between Sir Neville Henderson and Hitler where Henderson admits certain Jews hostile to Germany, outside of government, "wanted war".
Etc., etc., etc.
And what is the reply of the exterminationlaists here?
That this is merely anti-semitic propaganda? :roll:
The following excerpt of the Armenian-English (international?) Jew, James Malcom's account of how he and Weizmann manipulated the British Government and the American government into prolonging WW1, scuppering the proposed 1916 peace armistice, and causing the defeat of Germany leading to the resulting democidal starvation blockade and economic ruin of Germany, also details how Jewish opposition to the announcement of the Balfour declaration was neutralised. Relevant to an understanding and contemporary usage of the term "International Jewry"?
You decide.
Bear in mind that this addresses the simplistic 'strawman' that "International Jewry" was an anti-semitic fantasy as not all Jews around the world agreed on everything.
The idiocy of this argument is that not all Americans agreed on everything in the same time period, not even within government, yet we can still discuss American foreign policy as a definitive unity.
Obviously perceptions of "International Jewry" and actions attributable to that can also contain and cover numerous even opposing views.
…one of the members of the British Cabinet was working with all his might to prevent the promise being given. This was Edwin Montagu, the Secretary for India, himself a Jew and the son of Lord Swaythling (the Banker).
Further opposition came from Jewish quarters in France and in this country. In France, as I have said, nearly all the leading Jews, with the exception of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, were bitterly opposed to the pro-Zionist declaration by M. Pichon. Their opposition was not only due to French patriotism, but also to their fears that a National Home for Jews in Palestine could somehow affect their political status in France. The same motive explained the growing opposition from the influential Jews of England. In May, 1917, the two heads of Anglo-Jewry, the late Claude Montefiore, President of the Anglo-Jewish Association, and the late David Alexander, K.C., President of the Board of Deputies acting through Lucien Wolf of the Conjoint Foreign Committee of these two bodies, gathered together a number of their colleagues and wrote to The Times protesting against the reported intention of the Government to adopt a pro-Zionist policy in regard to Palestine.
Fortunately, with the assistance of the editor of "The Times", Mr. Wickham Steed, who had lived for many years in Vienna, had met Herzl and understood the Zionist Movement, we were able to counter this move by publishing immediate replies from Chief Rabbi Dr. Hertz, Lord Rothschild and Dr. Weizmann. The Chief Rabbi's contribution was particularly useful to counteract the views of Claude Montefiore, who was known as a religious and spiritual Ieader.
Lord Swaythling and the League of British Jews continued their active opposition and sent a very able memorandum to the Cabinet, drafted by Lucien Wolf, disavowing the Zionist claims. Sir Mark and I discussed the position and the Zionist leaders were advised to take up the challenge as it was absolutely essential to convince the Cabinet that Anglo-Jewry was Zionist in sympathy and outlook, although their official spokesmen were anti-Zionist. A rapid campaign among the members of the Board of Deputies was organised in order to prove that British Jewry was not anti-Zionist. A pro-Zionist resolution was introduced and carried by a large majority. This led to the resignation of the President, David Alexander, and the Vice-President, Mr. S. Q. Henriques, and the fact was duly reported in 'The Times" and the general British press, and greatly impressed and influenced the Government.
It is extraordinary to me how obstinately these leading English Jews struggled to prevent the British Government from making the promise. They were able to postpone the matter for quite a long time and finally the War Cabinet determined to take the opinion of the leaders of Jewry in this country before finally deciding. Although the number of our friends in the Cabinet had grown and now included Lloyd George, Balfour, Milner, Barnes and General Smuts, we were very apprehensive because from the point of view of wealth and influence, the anti-Zionist Jews greatly outweighed the few Zionist leaders who were in London. The enquiry from the War Cabinet (not the Foreign Office) was sent to the following eight persons: Leonard Cohen, Claude Montefiore, Sir Stuart Samuel, Sir Philip Magnus, Lord Rothschild, Sokolow, Dr. Weizmann and the Chief Rabbi. Three of them - Leonard Cohen, Claude Montefiore and Sir Philip Magnus - replied strongly opposing the proposed statement.
The late Sir Stuart Samuel, brother of Lord Samuel, while not hostile, was not greatly enthusiastic.
It was fortunate, therefore, that the Chief Rabbi, with all the weight of his ecclesiastical authority, sent a very emphatic reply in favour. This undoubtedly helped greatly to satisfy the Cabinet that the proposed declaration would be hailed with enthusiasm by the vast majority of the Jewish people in the British Empire. I personally was very pleased with this because this had been my point of view from the very beginning, and Sir Mark Sykes was also most happy with the reply of the Chief Rabbi.
This article also explains how such "hidden-hands"-maneuvering by powerful and influential Jews from different national backgrounds definitely did work together to influence governments in anti -German attitudes and belligerent activity. I am quite amazed at the obstinacy and denial which some people are displaying around this incontestably reliable factual information.
If this could occur in 1916, and is still happening today, why is that considered so impossible in the 1930's?
What a worthless tweet. Everyone is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points. May god have mercy on your soul.
Those are some literature by Jewish people on transgenderism and homosexuality. Probably all the Marxist greatest hits are being cooked right there. Looks like a great time was had by all.
Got the posts mixed but u can figure it out.
Little late but we'll take it.
I am curious to understand how it was perceived that International Jewry had participated in the cause of what became WW2, and who exactly is being referred to.
We know that Joseph Kennedy thought it was so. I presume that Forrestal believed it possible or he wouldn't have included it in his diary in the way that he did. We know that Kennedy claimed Chamberlain also believed that. And this is supported by the notes of the meeting between Sir Neville Henderson and Adolf Hitler in August 1939.
We know that Hitler and Goebbels believed International Jewry was the main motivating force behind the manoevering into place for a British declaration of war over Danzig and the Polish corridor, and for the refusal to accept any peace propasal offered by Hitler after the fall of Poland, then again after the fall of France, and again after the Dunkirk defeat of Britain, etc.
We know that many commentators - including powerful and influential International Jews themselves - have acknowledged that International Jewry manipulated America into entering WW1 against Germany in order to get a promise from Britain that they would receive a Jewish homeland in the British-controlled Palestinian territories.
Now I have discovered that it was perceived at the time that people who could be described as International Jewry or Jews of no particlular national identity or allegiance, had had a hand in the cause of the Boer War for financial gain:
In 2002 several compilations were published to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Boer War of 1899–1902. The intention of the authors of these studies was to go beyond standard conceptualisations of the war by placing it in a wider context of globalisation – an orientation which is illustrated for example by the compilation entitled Writing a Wider War.
They felt that previous conceptualisations did not take account of new research perspectives on, for example, race, gender and identity.
Hobson also placed the war in the wider context of capitalism and Imperialism.
He claimed that the Boer War was brought about through the influence of the gold-mining magnates of the Rand in their search for increased profits. Hobson’s view on the causes of the war was a basis for the first theoretical analysis of the role of capitalists in Imperialism.
Being a matter of real significance for the Empire as well as for South Africa, the war offered Hobson an opportunity to study the origins, participants and consequences of Imperialism.
– 'Hobson’s Imperialism: a study in late-Victorian political thought'
Who do people suppose that was referring to, if not people who can be described as Jews of many nationalities, 'i.e. 'international Jewry'!
Of course I understand and acknolwedge that this term is a vague and blunt description apparently used to encompass anyone from a Bolshevik Jew from Russia, to a capitalist financier Jew from Europe or America. Obviously many of these held various opinions and goals, some of them contradictory. But that doesn't in itself refute the evidence that in either case the term fits to some considerable degree.
Goebbels' perception that
"Western European democracy is really only a Western European plutocracy that rules the world. It declared war on Germany because it endangered their capitalist interests"
deals with one aspect of that perceived "International Jew" classification.
A perception that I now discover was held by the great economist and political-scientist, J.A.Hobson writing in 1902.
I can understand why certain people who regard themselves as 'jewish' would want to close down any discussion of such historically verifiable findings.
W A R C A B I N E T.
PEACE PROPOSALS BY GERMANY.
At the Prime Minister's request I circulate, for the information of the War Cabinet, copies of a telegram to the four Dominion Governments, and of General Smuts' reply.
Cypher telegram to the Governments of Canada, Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.
Sent 12 noon 12th July, 1940.
Circular D. No. 340. Most Secret.
"We have been considering possibility that Herr Hitler may shortly launch plan for a European, if not world-wide economic conference, a move which would not necessarily interfere with, any military operations which he has in view. He would no doubt represent himself as founding a new European economic system, which would sweep away the customs barriers, quotas, currency restrictions, wastefulness and inefficiency of an anachronistic capitalist system, and all other obstacles which have prevented efficient European, economic co-ordination. He would promise ' that, this economic unit once established, all would share in the wealth and resources of Europe as a whole within the framework, of course, of an all-embracing and benign totalitarian system.
It is obvious that he [Hitler] could make great play with all this amongst most neutrals and some belligerents… …who are longing to get back to normal peace-time regime. Moreover, it would be easy for him to represent that sole barrier to his economic paradise was obstinacy and selfishness of Great Britain, who not merely refused to co-operate but by her continuance of the war, particularly by her blockade, was demonstrable bent on reducing the greater part of the world to ruin. We are putting these consideration to the United States Government and suggesting advisability of concerting with them anticipatory counter-offensive.
For example, we might discuss likelihood of Herr Hitler dressing up German and Nazi Fascist domination in the guise of an economic paradise. We could show that it is merely a device to harness all European wealth and production to the Nazi chariot wheels - an extended German "autarky" for military aggrandisement of the "superior" German race and for the suppression of freedom everywhere. We could, demonstrate that German economic domination invariably means German political domination.
To these somewhat negative arguments it would be necessary to add something more positive, defining advantages of the international economic structure which the United States and we wish to emerge as part of the peace settlement. It is in this particular direction that we are inviting suggestions from the United States President and Secretary of State. We would hope, with them to make clear that our aim is to break down artificial barriers to trade, which impede any general rise in the standard of living and that we are convinced that this can only be achieved by free peoples, freely negotiating on an equal basis and animated neither by ideological passion nor political ambition.
Our idea would be that speeches might be made by leading politicians on both sides of the Atlantic embodying
the foregoing arguments and any others which the United States Secretary of State may care to suggest.
-—-
Cypher telegram from the Minister of Externa l Affairs, Pretoria , to the High Commissioner, London. [General Smuts' reply]
Received- 6 p.m 17th July. 1940
No.547* Secret.
"Circular D340 of June 25th raises a very important point which has trouble d me for some time. It is most probable that Hitler wil l start a peace offensive at an early date . This may be either for a conference or some other form of peace propaganda.
With practically the whole of Europe in Hitler's hands and Russia and the Balkans in his pocket before winter comes he may then think the auspicious moment has come to launch his peace offensive. He will pose as the regenerator of an effete European system and will propose a United States of Europe composed of so called free states between whom tariff walls and economic barriers will have been abolished and only some such Schacht currency plan will exist. Being in fact master of Europe, Hitler can afford to restore the semblance of freedom to his victims. America will be plausibly reminded of her own Monroe Doctrine. In fact, however, the Continent will become a closed German market from which Britain and America will be largely excluded.
Some such scheme could be clothed in such plausible appearances as to make a formidable appeal to world public opinion already sickened of the horrible destruction of the war, and the spectre of the coming European famine. If, in addition, Hitler is big enough to renounce annexations and indemnities, its appeal may become irresistible and make Europe accept a peace which will be a moral and political disaster of the first water.
The problem is how to meet such a peace offensive if and when i t comes. I think suggestion for American consultation and. agreement' on a positive alternate plan will be essential. A warning note in advance in the press and on platform in both countries would also help to prepare public opinion against this peace manoeuvre. Advance ridicule may take much sting out of it.
The problem is, however, a very serious one and I would advise that in addition it be submitted to special committees of first rate minds in both countries'for their careful exploration in all its aspects. We have been surprised at every, stage of the war and should now take every precaution not to be surprised into a fatal peace.
Let brain trusts be set going to work out an alternate democratic plan for countering a peace movement which is certain to come sooner or later and, should find us prepared with the answer."
General Smuts
Top secret military intelligence illustrating how they feared Hitler would make world peace.
Jews "filter it"
Quite telling isn't it?
Guess I didn't filter
Here is some evidence of the kind of mentality that was operating among people who considered themselves 'Jewish' in America. This was ultimately a largely failed organisation regarding its own stated aims. But I add this here as indicative of the mind set prior to 1933-39.
On August 18th 1913, Horace M. Kallen - instructor of philosophy and psychology at the University of Wisconsin - founded a secret Zionist society which he called The Parushim, the Hebrew word which means both "the Pharisees" and "separate".
The Parushim was …organized both as a secret fraternity and as a reform movement. …both men and women were eligible…
Enrollment was by an oath of initiation, and there was a probationary period for up to three years, during which time the initiate was to give exclusive and specific service to the cause."
Kallen invited no one to become a member until the candidate had given specific assurances regarding devotion and resolution to the Zionist cause, and each initiate had to undergo a rigorous analysis of his qualifications, loyalty, and willingness to take orders from the Order's Executive Council. The motto of the group was the response traditionally attributed to the Jewish people on receipt of the Ten Commandments-"Nasseh V'Nishmah"-"we will do and we will hear."
A member swearing allegiance to the Parushim felt something of the spirit of commitment to a secret military fellowship. At the initiation ceremony the head of the Order informed him:
You are about to take a step which will bind you to a single cause for all your life.
You will for one year be subject to an absolute duty whose call you will be impelled to heed at any time, in any place, and at any cost.
And ever after, until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be fellow of a brotherhood whose bond you will regard as greater than any other in your life - dearer than that of family, of school, of nation.
By entering this brotherhood, you become a self-dedicated soldier in the army of Zion.
Your obligation to Zion becomes your paramount obligation…
It is the wish of your heart and of your own free will to join our fellowship, to share its duties, its tasks, and its necessary sacrifices.
The kind of people Kallen considered worthy of invitation to the Parushim is indicated in a memorandum he prepared on "Signatories to the Zionist Pledge." The list includes, among others, Alexander Dushkin, an authority on Jewish education; Dr. I. L. Kandel, an educator then with the Carnegie Foundation and Teacher's College of Columbia University; Israel Thurman, a lawyer and "Harvard man," who would be used to propagandize among young lawyers; and Nathan C. House, a "Columbia man" and high school teacher, who could work out plans for training Jewish high school boys "along the lines of Zionist sentiment coupled to physical development and Boy Scout discipline."
In 1913 Kallen, aware of the moribund condition of the Zionist organization, felt that the way in which he and the Parushim would-be most influential was through a program of education.
By April 1914 Kallen was writing to Max Nordau, a political Zionist who had been Herzl's first and most loyal colleague and closest adviser, of his desire to internationalise his secret order:
Our present purposes one of quiet propaganda and education in the "political idea."
We aim to make the masses consciously "political."
…It is our desire and plan to organise brotherhoods all over the world…
I'm investigating an admittedly complex history that I admittedly don't understand in any depth. I have made that clear from the outset and numerous times since. I do so again here, now.
In reply to my request to help me understand I have had opinions and - and apart from three persons contributing verifiable information - nothing but personal attacks. The thread is replete with off-topic nonsense, such as this new barrage. That I consider revealing.
As predicted this is considered a taboo-topic. One which none of the resident holocaust-narrative-defenders will provide any reputable source of information for understanding what was meant by it, nor anything other than ill-informed opinion that helps explain the use of the term. Nor have any of them anything which explains why there was such a wide acceptance of such a thing as organised 'international Jewry' affecting global political and economic affairs, nor why there was use of the term by a great many people besides Hitler and Goebbels in that regard. People from US Ambassadors, to future British Prime-ministers, to future Israeli Presidents, to famous British philosphers, to Anti-Hitler journalists, to celebrated political scientists and economists, etc., etc., etc.
When so many of these people referred to it in connection with causing conflicts, contributing to the cause of wars, instigating civil unrest, profiteering from wars, etc., this is further demonstration of the depth of denial of certain posters here now collectively collaborating in a chorus of personal attack.
Yeah. Crazy, crazy.
'Jews' who felt no allegiance to their host nation, who were in touch with and operated with other like-minded 'Jews' for various aims, were regarded crazily as a single entity, both by themselves and others.
How crazy is that?
We have 'International Jews' themselves such, as Rabbi Maurice Perizweig, Samuel Landman, Samuel Untermyer, Chaim Weizmann, Dr. David Wolfsson, Jewish "leaders of Zionist Movement at POSEN, Poland", Benjamin H. Freedman, James A. Malcolm, etc., etc., crazily accepting this notion.
We also have British people - all opposed to Hitler - ranging from leading intellectuals such as Bertrand Russel to authors and journalists such as Douglas Reed, to Winston Churchill, etc., quite crazily referring to such a thing.
We have the American Ambassador to Russia, David Francis, crazily writing in 1921 of Jews who were "internationalists" "caring little for Russia OR any other country" collectively working for Bolshevik aims.
We have Forrestal crazily recording Chamberlain telling the US Ambassador to Britain Joseph Kennedy that "WORLD JEWS forced England into the war".
We have the crazy record of the interview between Sir Neville Henderson and Hitler where Henderson admits certain Jews hostile to Germany, outside of government, "wanted war".
We have political scientist John Hobson crazily detailing how certain such 'Jews' were highly instrumental in causing the Boer war and stating that no European country could go to war without their financial backing.
Etc., etc.
Obviously these people were all just quite CRAZY.
we know the perception amongst the well-informed was that 'international financiers, etc., helped cause The Boer War.
We know that by their own admission Zionists prolonged WW1 by manipulating USA into thar war against Germany.
And we know that the same sort of world fraternity/tribe and/or zionist clique have been and still are pimping for war against Iran.
To get this back to the subject of RODOH DISCUSSION, we also know that certain key participants of Government admitted that "Jews wanted war" and that "World Jews" forced Britain to declare war over the Danzig issue in 1939.
Although certain people here are unwilling to acknowledge all this, these remain the bare facts.
As BRoI quoted, Hobson nailed it in 1902, so we KNOW this perception shared later by Chamberlain, Henderson, Kennedy, Forrestal, Hitler and Goebbels wasn't new, and wasn't the first time such perceptions had been expressed. Jews for various reasons wanted a defeated Hitler. Economic reasons played a large part of that, as was noted by Goebbels and was admitted in the TOP SECRET communications between Churchill, General Smuts and others. The economic aspect of this is as far as I know, is completely ignored and avoided in histories aimed at the masses. If I am wrong on that please provide references.
Hitler's 'economic miracle' and elimination of Jews from positions of power, etc., was that perceived as a threat not just to capitalists but to largely Jewish oligarchies? Was this why… etc., etc.
A consideration of these points throws a clear light upon the nature of the conflict in South Africa. We [the British] are fighting in order to place a small international oligarchy of mine-owners and speculators in power at Pretoria. Englishmen will surely do well to recognise that the economic and political destinies of South Africa are - and seem likely to remain - in the hands of men most of whom are foreigners by origin, whose trade is finance, and whose trade interests are not chiefly British. If all I say be true, it gives no ground for any final judgment on the merits of the war. This international oligarchy may be better for the country and for the world than the present or any other rule ; and England may be performing a meritorious world-service, in establishing it. But it is right for us to understand quite clearly what we are doing.
– Hobson, John Atkinson.
The War In South Africa: Its Causes And Effects.
We're talking about the only one that is taboo to talk about right now
Here below is yet another example of how what can accurately be referred to as 'International 'Jewry' have used their global power and influence for self-centred goals that have had an adverse effect on the entire global society.
We know that this started in the later 1800's and we know that it continues today, with the current war-pimping against Iran.
Here is discussed how that adversely affect the United Nnations organisation from its very beginnings.
This is OBVIOUSLY NOT the work of ALL 'Jews', whatever that is supposed to mean.
Nor is pointing to these facts meant as an attack on 'Jews' generally.
It is merely again pointing to aspects of a topic that has been taboo, and - as has been proven here - which any mention or discussion of, is met with 'anti-semite' smear attacks.
On 9th May 2014 Justice Minister and chief negotiator (with the Palestinians) Tzipi Livni said on Israeli Army Radio that Israeli settlements were to blame for the failure of peace talks:
“The settlers want to prevent us from living a normal life and do not accept the authority of the law…
Settlers are preventing us from reaching a resolution…
Settlement construction makes it impossible to defend Israel around the world.”
The real blame [for the ongoing conflict in Palestine and thus for other related tensions in the Middle East] has to be laid at the feet of the American-dominated UN Security Council for its failure to put Israel on notice in the text of Resolution 242 that it would not be permitted to settle (colonise) any of the Arab territory it grabbed in the 1967 war. All those who drafted 242 knew it was a war of Israeli aggression not self-defence; and after “Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, the text should have indicated that if Israel settled the newly occupied territories in defiance of international law it would be sanctioned.
The passing of Resolution 242 on 22 November 1967 was the moment the Security Council said goodbye to its integrity.
This is what was said to me by a very, very senior and globally respected UN official:
“Zionism has corrupted everything it touched, including this organisation [the UN] in its infancy“.
I knew, really knew, that he was reflecting the deeply held but private conviction of all the top international civil servants who were responsible for trying to make the world body work in accordance with the ideals and principles enshrined in its Charter and international law.
Though it is contentious to say so in public, the corruption charge is supported by the facts. In 1947 the Zionists and their allies in the U.S. Congress subverted the General Assembly of the UN to get a rigged and bare minimum majority for the partition plan, which was subsequently vitiated. And in 1967 the Security Council was effectively subverted by the Johnson administration’s Zionist-driven refusal to label Israel the aggressor and hold it accountable to international law and its obligations as a member of the UN.