***
The Rothschilds introduced the rule of money into European politics. The Rothschilds were the servants of money who undertook the reconstruction of the world as an image of money and its functions. Money and the employment of wealth have become the law of European life; we no longer have nations, but economic provinces. (Professor Wilhelm, German historian, New York Times, July 8, 1937).
***
... The Great War brought thousands upon thousands of educated men (who took up public duties as temporary officials) up against the staggering secret they had never suspected - the complete control exercised over things absolutely necessary to the nation’s survival by half a dozen Jews, who were completely indifferent as to whether we or the enemy should emerge alive from the struggle. Incidentally, the wealth of these few and very wealthy Jews has been scandalously increased through the war on this very account. There is already something like a Jewish monopoly in high finance. There is a growing tendency to Jewish monopoly over the stage for instance, the fruit trade in London, and to a great extent the tobacco trade. There is the same element of Jewish monopoly in the silver trade, and in the control of various other metals, notably lead, nickel, quicksilver. What is most disquieting of all, this tendency to monopoly is spreading like a disease. One province after another falls under it and it acts as a most powerful irritant. ....
It applies, of course, to a tiny fraction of the Jewish race as a whole. One could put the Jews who control lead, nickel, mercury and the rest into one small room: nor would that room contain very pleasant specimens of their race. You could get the great Jewish bankers who control international finance round one large dinner table, and I know dinner tables which have seen nearly all of them at one time or another. These monopolists, in strategic positions of universal control are an insignificant handful of men out of the millions of Israel, just as the great fortunes we have been discussing attach to an insignificant proportion of that race. Nevertheless, this claim to an exercise of monopoly brings hatred upon the Jews as a whole. (Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, 1922)
The history of the Jews in England is significant.
There is no evidence of Jews residing in England before the Norman Conquest. The few references in the Anglo-Saxon Church laws either relate to Jewish practises about Easter or apply to passing visitors, the Gallo-Jewish slave-traders, who imported English slaves to the Roman market and thus brought about the Christianizing of England. William of Malmesbury (Gesta Rerum Anglorum, ed. Duffy, p. 500) distinctly states that William the Conqueror brought the Jews from Rouen to England, and there is no reason to doubt his statement. The Conqueror’s object can easily be guessed. From Domesday it is clear that his policy was to get the feudal dues paid to the royal treasury in coin rather than in kind, and for this purpose it was necessary to have a body of men scattered through the country that would supply quantities of coin. (Jewish Encyclopaedia)
William the Conqueror’s expedition may have been financed by “Lombard” Jews (protected by the Medicis) who had been expelled from Spain.
Having secured the benevolent neutrality of Holy Roman emperor Henry IV and with solemn approval by Pope Alexander II, he invaded England in 1066 (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. # 23, p. 609).
***
They were at first treated with special favour and allowed to amass considerable wealth, “They brought to England their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it . . .” (Footnote 11: H.C. Richardson, The English Jewry Under Angevin Kings (1960) p. 94).
They also introduced “collateral pledging” or pawn broking to England. The pawnshop became known by its three sphere symbol, attributed to the Medici Family of Florence, in the Italian province of Lombardy, owing to its symbolic meaning of Lombard, originated under the name of Lombard banking. They subsequently converted into a class of “royal usurers” so abhorrent to the English that in 1290 Edward I expelled them all, over 16,000 Jews, principally owing to the problem of usury. (See the trilogy of historian Sir Arthur Bryant)
Since the time of the Norman Conquest, Jews had been filling a small but vital role in the English economy. Usury by Christians was banned by the church at the time, but Jews were permitted to act as moneylenders and bankers. That position enabled some Jews to amass tremendous wealth, but also earned them the enmity of the English populace, which added to the increasing anti-Semitic sentiments of the time, due to widespread indebtedness and financial ruin among the Gentile population.
When Edward returned from the Crusades in 1274, two years after his accession as King of England, he found that land had become a commodity and that many of his subjects had become dispossessed and were in danger of destitution. Jews traded land for money, and land was often mortgaged to Jewish moneylenders.
As special direct subjects of the monarch, Jews could be taxed indiscriminately by the King. Some have described the situation as indirect usury: the monarch permitting and encouraging Jews to practice usury and then “taxing” or expropriating some of the profit. In the years leading up to the Statute, Edward taxed them heavily to help finance his forthcoming military campaigns in Wales, which commenced in 1277. One theory holds that he had exhausted the financial resources of the Jewish community when the Statute was passed in 1275.
Provisions:
Usury was outlawed in every form.
Creditors of Jews were no longer liable for certain debts.
Jews were not allowed to live outside certain cities and towns.
Any Jew above the age of seven had to wear a yellow badge of felt on his or her outer clothing, six inches by three inches.
All Jews from the age of 12 on had to pay a special tax of three pence annually.
Christians were forbidden to live among Jews.
Jews were licensed to buy farmland to make their living for the next 15 years.
Jews could thenceforth make a living in England only as merchants, farmers, craftsmen or soldiers.
The license to buy land was included so that farming, along with trading, could give Jews an opportunity to earn a living with the abolition of usury. Unfortunately, other provisions along with widespread prejudice made this difficult for many. When the 15 years passed, and it was widely discovered that their practice of usury had been secretly continued, Jews were finally presented with the Edict of Expulsion of 1290. (Wikipedia article on Statute of the Jewry)
***
The most hated sort (of wealth getting) and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange but not to increase at interest. (Aristotle, 1258b, Politics)
***
...those who ply sordid trades, pimps and all such people, and those who lend small sums at high rates. For all these take more than they ought, and from the wrong sources. What is common to them is evidently a sordid love of gain... (Aristotle, 1122a, Ethics)
***
The litmus test of any successful civilisation is the financial arrangements which prevail in its economic life. Are the means of exchange - that is money and credit - issued by the state for the sole benefit of its inhabitants, or are they controlled and manipulated by private bankers for their own enrichment and the enslavement of the people? In mediaeval England state finances were firmly in the hands of the king, but prior to 1290 they were in the grip of a group of marauding moneylenders.
The laws against usury before the arrival of William the Conqueror in 1066 were very strict. In 899 King Alfred (871-99) directed that the property of usurers be forfeited, while in 1050 Edward the Confessor (1042-66) decreed not only forfeiture, but that a usurer be declared an outlaw and banished for life. These wise laws were abandoned when the Normans defeated the English at Hastings on October 14th 1066. William I (1066-87) was accompanied by a party of Jewish settlers, who had been resident in Rouen, Normandy, since Roman times. Circumstantial evidence indicates that these Jews had provided financial support for William’s m
ilitary campaign in return for the right to practise usury in England under royal protection. (Stephen Mitford Goodson, leader of the Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party, former board member of the South African Reserve Bank, In Praise of Medieval England).
***
(Jews) ate the English nation to its bones. (John Speed, British Historian, in Historie of Great Britaine, 1611).
***
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing. (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5)
Shakespeare wrote these lines in 1606. His insights into the nature of Jewry are well-known. Perhaps humans might have been allowed to “strut” and “fret” their admittedly brief lives in light and hope, instead of being harried at every turn by the sound and fury of “idiots,” for whom the resplendence of a culturally significant existence is anathema.
In the 18th century, the enterprise assumed a kind of Russian Doll structure of which the core component, a frenziedly avaricious entity (goldsmith and moneylender Bauer/Rothschild, 1744-1812), sought to conceal its machinations within Freemasonry (probable orig. 15th century), an initially benign but secretive society intended to unite crafts, undermined in part by the ideology of a renegade crypto-Jewish Jesuit (Weishaupt 1748-1830) whose psychopathic vision(“Illuminism,” 1776) was exposed as follows:
An association has been formed for the express purposes of rooting out all the religious establishments and overturning all existing governments. . .the leaders would rule the World with uncontrollable power, while all the rest would be employed as tools of the ambition of their unknown superiors.
It has accordingly happened, that the homely Free Masonry imported from England has been totally changed in every country of Europe, either by the imposing ascendancy of French brethren, who are to be found everywhere, ready to instruct the world; or by the importation of the doctrines, and ceremonies, and ornaments of the Parisian Lodges. Even England, the birth-place of Masonry, has experienced the French innovations; and all the repeated injunctions, admonitions, and reproofs of the old Lodges, cannot prevent those in different parts of the kingdom from admitting the French novelties, full of tinsel and glitter, and high-sounding titles. (John Robison, physicist, mathematician, professor of philosophy at Edinburgh University, Freemason, Proofs of a Conspiracy, 1797, pp. 5,6,7).
***
But it was not until the Congrès de Wilhelmsbad that the alliance between Illuminism and Freemasonry was finally sealed. This assembly, of which the importance to the subsequent history of the world has never been appreciated by historians, met for the first time on the 16th of July 1782, and included representatives of all the Secret Societies—Martinistes as well as Freemasons and Illuminati—which numbered no less than three million members all over the world. Amongst these different orders the Illuminati of Bavaria alone had formulated a definite plan of campaign, and it was they who henceforward took the lead. …One honest Freemason, the Comte de Virieu…could not conceal his alarm, and when questioned on the “tragic secrets” he had brought back with him, replied: “I will not confide them to you. I can only tell you that… the conspiracy which is being woven is so well thought out that it will be…impossible for the Monarchy and the Church to escape from it.” From that time on, the Comte de Virieu would only speak of Freemasonry with horror.” The years of 1781 and 1782 were remarkable for the growth of another movement which found expression at the Congrès de Wilhelmsbad, namely, the emancipation of the Jews. …Graetz, the Jewish historian, himself recognizes the immense importance of Dohm’s work, “painting the Christians as cruel barbarians and the Jews as illustrious martyrs.” (Nesta H. Webster, World Revolution, p. 18/19) So, when this misrepresentation was trotted out in 1943, to slander National Socialism, it was already a standard contrivance.
This plan amounted to an updated version of the Protocols. Jewish society is by nature patriarchal. Men delight in secret societies, clubs, intelligence agencies, etc. This childish fascination is ideal for those who seek a cover for a selfish cause. The ideologies of Freemasonry, Illuminism and the Society of Jesus, three existing, covert, exclusively male organizations, could be joined for this purpose. Illuminism, based on Jesuitical discipline and organization, served as the Trojan horse which colonized Freemasonry. Illuminism offered the means; the Society of Jesus, the training; Freemasonry, the vehicle.
In the 19th century, wealthy Jews consolidated their positions, trading money for respectability by intermarriage into families with high social status. In Britain, death duties were introduced in 1894 and the rates were steadily increased, leading in many cases for the first time to the breaking up of large estates which had been the backbone of the country. The 1909/1910 People’s Budget of British Prime Minister H. H. Asquith’s Liberal government imposed unprecedented taxes on the wealthy in Britain and inserted radical social welfare programmes into the country’s policies.
In the 20th century, the hiatus of world war interrupted the organic flow of life in all the countries concerned. They fell prey to governments and systems that would not in all likelihood have acquired power, if these wars had not occurred. All life on earth depends for its coherent development on organic evolution. That includes a normal human life trajectory, just as it includes the life-cycles of animals, insects and vegetation. Humankind’s most dangerous and unnecessary characteristic is its interference in all spheres of life. In this regard, religion in general has a lot to answer for. According to the Bible, God made the world in a few days for Man to rule (Genesis 1:26). The human race considers itself the primary living element on the planet and genetically authorized to interfere in every field to suit its convenience. Humans first; all else after, is the unwritten law. In fact, the opposite should be the case: given the endless harm humans inflict on the planet, the human race should come last in the hierarchy, even after the insects, which do no harm that nature cannot repair.
If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos, Edward Osborne “E. O.” Wilson, biologist, researcher (sociobiology, biodiversity).
Humans are only guests on Earth, guests who treat their host abominably.
Whether in the name of religion, improvement, modernisation or, simply, of “might makes right,” there often seems to be no other consistent collective determinant of our race than interference. From U.S.-instigated imperialistic wars, over multiple international interference organisations -- the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, the IMF, the BIS, the WTO, the WHO -- down to gene-manipulation, geo-engineering and the indoctrination of our children, we seem compelled to meddle; we cannot let well enough alone.
Some people are not very bright, some are feckless. But few are dangerous. Whatever their abilities, they should be allowed to pursue their existences as best they can. Some will succeed; some will fail. That is the result of happenstance, as opposed to interference. Well-meaning or would-be beneficial human engineering is bad enough. The kind of monstrous machinations to which the planet is presently subject, and the people who are behind them, are dangerous.
Those who decide what proportion of the world’s population is composed of dispensable “useless eaters” are simply evil. They instigate wars and are directly responsible for unimaginable privations. They are therefore the only humans of whom it can truly be said that they are unnecessary and that the world would be better off without them. Ironically, they are precisely the ones who are best-protected. They are the
ones we see every day on the news, being escorted by bodyguards to their armoured cars.
In fact, these familiar faces do not belong to the truly wicked. They only foment trouble on commission. They are mere marionettes and readily interchangeable, should they fail. The truly wicked are rarely visible. Should they appear, it is with a humble smile. They are above suspicion and beyond criticism because they have caused their marionettes to draft into law “declarations” and other self-serving injunctions which render them immune from censure (“The OSCE --Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--Berlin Declaration against anti-Semitism,” 2004; “The London Declaration on Combating anti-Semitism,” 2009). They endeavour to suppress curiosity about the actual state of our world, among children as well as adults. Instead of seeking self-fulfilment according to their individual needs, children should from earliest days be prepared to serve unquestioningly within the hamster wheel of a life restricted to suit people of whose existence they may forever remain unaware.
Ideally, a nation’s children should be conditioned to accept the worldview imposed on them by those in power, regardless of the opinions of their parents. “Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” (Joseph Stalin in an interview with H.G. Wells, 1934)
Illuminism’s disciples eventually took a hand in public education.
When over one thousand Communists rioted in front of the Chicago School Board offices (March 27, 1932), they bore a placard: “We Want Soviet Conditions Here.” Some misguided Americans, openly or covertly, are echoing this sentiment. The universities seem to have joined the gutter Communists in “going Red.” They unite in using the argument that inasmuch as the American “economic system” has “collapsed” we must have Russian revolution to right matters. (Elizabeth Dilling, The Red Network, 1934) Well, we’re on our way there now.
Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil Page 24
