Why the Holocaust Story Was Invented

TBR writer John Wear has been asked the questions: “Why was the Holocaust story invented? Who benefits from this falsification of history?” This article will answer these questions.

By John Wear

The first reason the Holocaust was invented was for justification for the war with Germany. World War II was by far the bloodiest and most destructive war in human history. Many people wondered whether all of the death and destruction caused by the war had been necessary.

The so-called Holocaust (alleged genocide of Jews) was used by the Allies to demonize Germany and prove that their war effort was necessary to defeat such an evil nation.

With the liberation of Ohrdruf, Buchenwald and Dachau by the American Army and the liberation of Bergen-Belsen by British troops, large groups of Western observers confronted the horrors of the German camps for the first time.

The gruesome scenes of huge piles of dead bodies and emaciated and diseased surviving inmates were filmed and photographed for posterity by the U.S. Army Signal Corps. Prominent newsmen and politicians were flown in to formerly German-occupied territory to see the harrowing evidence at the camps for themselves. The horrific scenes in the German-run camps were used by the Allies to justify their participation in the war.¹

Jewish historian Robert Jan van Pelt writes:

To the Allies, the discovery of the camps proved a final justification of their war effort. In 1940, Churchill had proclaimed that a Nazi victory would bring “a new dark age made more sinister by perverted science.” The liberation of the camps proved that Churchill had not exaggerated the danger. And even though Auschwitz had been liberated by the Russians, the English and Americans heard many stories about that camp.²

Establishment of Israel

The Holocaust story has also been used to justify the creation of the nation-state of Israel. Simon Wiesenthal writes: “The creation of Israel was the only possible and the only correct reaction to Auschwitz. There had to be a country in the world where the Jews were the landlords instead of tolerated guests, a place of refuge in the truest meaning of the word, even for Jews who live in other countries.”³

David Ben-Gurion stated at the beginning of World War II that the war should end by giving the Zionists their own state. After the war, Ben-Gurion and other Israeli leaders said that the Holocaust had proven once again that the only solution to the Jewish problem was an independent state in Palestine. Ben-Gurion again mentioned during Adolf Eichmann’s trial that the Holocaust happened because Jews did not live in their own country.⁴

Israeli historian Tom Segev explains why the Holocaust story is so important to Israel:

Israel differs from other countries in its need to justify—to the rest of the world, and to itself—its very right to exist. Most countries need no such ideological justifications. But Israel does—because most of its Arab neighbors have not recognized it and because most of the Jews of the world prefer to live in other countries. So long as these factors remain true, Zionism will be on the defensive. As a justification for the state of Israel, the Holocaust is comparable only to the divine promise contained in the Bible: It seems to be definitive proof of the Zionist argument that Jews can live in security and with full equal rights only in their own country and that they therefore must have an autonomous and sovereign state, strong enough to defend its existence.⁵

Tom Segev further writes, “The demonization of Nazism and its mythologizing, in general, were also necessary since the Holocaust served as the main justification for the creation and existence of the state of Israel.”⁶

Justification of Israeli Violence

There were at least 33 massacres of Palestinian villages during Israel’s “war of independence.” Zionist forces were larger and better equipped than their opponents, and by the end of the war over 750,000 Palestinians were ruthlessly expelled from their homes.⁷

As Segev writes, “Israel was born of terror, war, and revolution, and its creation required a measure of fanaticism and of cruelty.”⁸

Entire cities and hundreds of villages in Israel were left empty and repopulated with new Jewish immigrants. The Jewish immigrants numbered 100,000 in April 1949, most of them survivors of the so-called Holocaust. The Palestinians lost everything they had and became destitute refugees, while the Jewish immigrants to Israel stole the Palestinians’ property and confiscated everything they needed.⁹

The Holocaust story has been repeatedly used to justify Israel’s aggression against its neighbors. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin justified the demolition of an alleged Iraqi nuclear facility in June 1981 with the words, “We must protect our nation, a million and a half of whose children were murdered by the Nazis in the gas chambers.”¹⁰

Before Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, Begin told his cabinet: “You know what I have done and what we have all done to prevent war and loss of life. But such is our fate in Israel. There is no way other than to fight selflessly. Believe me, the alternative is Treblinka, and we have decided that there will be no more Treblinkas.”¹¹

A few weeks after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Begin stated that after the Holocaust the international community had lost its right to demand that Israel answer for its actions. Begin declared in the Knesset, “No one, anywhere in the world, can preach morality to our people.” A similar statement was included in the resolution adopted by Begin’s cabinet after the massacres in Palestinian refugee camps on the outskirts of Beirut.¹²

By the late 1980s there was hardly a day when the Holocaust story was not mentioned in one of the Israeli newspapers. Such constant exposure encouraged many Israeli soldiers to plan ways to exterminate the Arabs. According to Israeli education-corps officer Ehud Praver, “too many soldiers were deducing that the Holocaust justifies every kind of disgraceful action.”¹³

German Guilt

The so-called Holocaust has also been effectively used to induce guilt in the German people. As British historian Ian Kershaw writes: “Decades would not fully erase the simple but compelling sentiment: ‘I am ashamed to be German.’ ”¹⁴

Friedrich Grimm, a renowned German authority on international law, was shown samples of new leaflets printed in German soon after the war to be distributed by the Allies throughout Germany. Describing alleged German war crimes, the leaflets were the first step in the reeducation program designed for Germany. Grimm suggested to an Allied officer that since the war was over, it was time to stop the libel. The Allied officer replied:

Why no, we’re just getting started. We’ll continue this atrocity campaign, we’ll increase it till no one will want to hear a good word about the Germans anymore, till whatever sympathy there is for you in other countries is completely destroyed, and until the Germans themselves become so mixed up they won’t know what they’re doing!¹⁵

The Allied campaign to make Germans feel guilty concerning the so-called Holocaust has been highly successful.

German guilt feeling is so powerful it has caused the German government to make enormous reparations and offer humble apologies to the Allies, while ignoring the atrocities committed by the Allies against the German people during and after the war. Millions of German expellees have paid reparations to survivors of the German concentration camps even though these German expellees had their land and personal possessions stolen from them.

James Bacque writes in regard to German feelings of guilt:

Guilt pervades Germany like a religion. It is the “Canossa Republic,” penitent in pain before its judges. Guilt is so powerful that it has caused the Canossa Republic repeatedly to deny any intention of reclaiming sovereignty over the eastern lands, although it is a well-established UN principle that no government has the right to waive the claims of individuals to their property. Nor may it impede their right of return to their former homeland.¹⁶

Allied Guilt and Apathy

The Allies have also been declared guilty of not doing more to prevent the alleged genocide of European Jewry. Jewish historian Deborah Lipstadt writes:

A real antipathy toward Jews certainly affected the Allied response. While no one among the Allies or in the press wanted to see Jews killed, virtually no one was willing to advocate that steps be taken to try to stop the carnage. Many Allied officials in positions of power in London and Washington were tired of hearing about Jews and even more tired of being asked to do something about them even though there were steps that could have been taken.¹⁷

Elie Wiesel writes in regard to the Allies’ failure to rescue European Jewry, “It almost seems as if both diplomats and statesmen spent more time inventing reasons not to save the Jews than trying to find a way to save them.”¹⁸

U.S. presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush have all made statements that the United States will never again fail to act to stop something as evil as the genocide of European Jewry. At the dedication of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, President Bill Clinton spoke in a similar vein: “For those of us here today representing the nations of the West, we must live forever with this knowledge: Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”¹⁹

Michael Goldberg says in regard to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum: “The museum stands as a grim reminder that for all its purported ideals, America nevertheless turned its back on Jews fleeing Hitler. . . . Hence, the museum’s recalling what happened to Jews in the past may move Americans and their national policymakers in Washington to support Israel in the present, lest in the future, the same fate lie in store for Jews again—and the same moral failure await Americans once more.”²⁰

President Barack Obama affirmed on the 70^th anniversary of the liberation of Dachau: “. . . we fervently vow that such atrocities will never happen again,” and, “History will not repeat itself.”²¹

Of course, Obama forgot to tell his audience that most of the inmates at Dachau died of natural causes. Obama also conveniently failed to mention that the single biggest atrocity that occurred at Dachau was the mass murder by American troops of 520 German guards on the day Dachau was liberated.²²

Reparations to Jews

German guilt for the so-called Holocaust has resulted in massive reparations being paid to Holocaust survivors and the state of Israel. German reparations to Jews were discussed from the beginning of World War II. Segev writes:

The idea [of reparations] seems to have been in the air from the time the war started, apparently sparked by the punitive reparations payments imposed on Germany at the end of World War I. Ben-Gurion received a memorandum on the subject as early as 1940. Berl Katznelson spoke of it publicly toward the end of that year. By December 1942, there was already a private organization in Tel Aviv called Justicia that offered to help Nazi victims draft compensation demands.²³

Hatred of Germans in Israel was intense after the war. Many advocated a special law barring Israelis from all social contacts with German citizens. However, since most Israelis felt that the Germans owed them massive paybacks for the so-called Holocaust, Germany and Israel began negotiating reparations on March 20, 1952. The Luxembourg Agreement was reached six months later and committed the German government to paying massive reparations to Holocaust survivors.²⁴

Nahum Goldmann said in a 1976 interview that the Luxembourg Agreement “constituted an extraordinary innovation in the matter of international rights.” Goldmann also boasted that he had obtained 10 to 14 times more from the Bonn government than he had originally expected.²⁵

Millions of Jews eventually received personal compensation for their pain and suffering in the so-called Holocaust. The German federal government as of 1998 had paid reparations to Israel and Third Reich victims of about $61.8 billion. In addition, Germans had paid many additional billions in private and other public funds to wartime forced laborers.²⁶German reparations to Israel and Jews continue to this day.²⁷

Jewish Solidarity

The Holocaust story is described by many Jewish leaders as a uniquely evil event. An example of this view was expressed by Abraham H. Foxman when he was the national director of the Anti-Defamation  League of B’nai B’rith:

The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God Himself. It is an event that is the antithesis of Creation as recorded in the Bible; and like its direct opposite, which is relived weekly with the Sabbath and yearly with the Torah, it must be remembered from generation to generation.²⁸

Michael Goldberg confirms that the Holocaust story has become a religion [sometimes called Holocaustianity—Ed.] to many Jews: “As the Holocaust has become many contemporary Jews’ master story, so, too, its perpetual observance has become their paramount Jewish practice, its veneration their religion. And as with any organized church, this Holocaust cult has its own tenets of faith, rites, and shrines.”²⁹

Israelis are obsessed with the history and heritage of the Holocaust. A 1992 study of Israeli college students found that close to 80% of those asked identified with the statement, “We are all Holocaust survivors.” The so-called Holocaust has become a way for secular Jews to feel connected to their Jewish heritage.³⁰

The Holocaust, commemorated ritually through the observance of Holocaust Remembrance Day, is a major means of creating solidarity among Jews. While some Jewish communities experience conflicts among Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews, they set aside their differences and join together to mourn the so-called Holocaust. Any truth in Judaism’s slogan of “Jews Are One” manifests itself ritually on Holocaust Remembrance Day.³¹

Conclusion

The alleged genocide of European Jewry has been used to justify the Allied war effort, to establish the state of Israel, to justify Israel’s violence against its neighbors, to induce guilt in both Germans and the Allied nations, to allow Jews to receive massive reparations from Germany and to create solidarity in the Jewish community. The extreme importance of the Holocaust story in advancing Zionist/Jewish interests ensures that this falsification of history will continue in the future.

ENDNOTES

 Van
Pelt, Robert Jan, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002, p. 165.

²
Ibid.

³
Wiesenthal, Simon, Justice Not Vengeance: New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1989, p. 224.

⁴
Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 82, 185, 330.

⁵
Ibid., p. 514.

⁶
Ibid., p. 480.

⁷
Weir, Alison, Against Our Better Judgement: The Hidden History of How the U.S. was Used to Create Israel, 2014, p. 58.

⁸
Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, p. 63.

⁹
Ibid., pp. 161-162.

¹⁰
Ibid., p. 399.

¹¹
Ibid.

¹²
Ibid.

¹³
Ibid., pp. 407, 412.

¹⁴
Kershaw, Ian, Hitler 1936-45: Nemesis, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000, p. 840.

¹⁵
Tedor, Richard, Hitler’s Revolution, Chicago: 2013, p.
263.

¹⁶
Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950, 2^nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, pp. 175-176.

¹⁷
Lippstadt, Deborah E., Beyond Belief: The American Press & the Coming of the Holocaust 1933-1945, New York: The Free Press,
1986, p. 277.

¹⁸
Wyman, David S., The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945, New York: The New Press, 2007, p. x.

¹⁹
Ibid., pp. 342-343.

²⁰
Goldberg, Michael, Why Should Jews Survive?: Looking Past the Holocaust Toward a Jewish Future, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995, p. 55.

²¹
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Obama-vows-never-again-on-70th-anniversary-of-liberation-of-Nazis-Dachau-camp-400570.

²²
Buechner, Howard A., Dachau: The Hour of the Avenger, Metairie, LA: Thunderbird Press, Inc., 1986, pp. 5, 29, 96-97.

²³
Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, p. 104.

²⁴
Ibid., pp. 190-191, 227, 233.

²⁵
“West Germany’s Holocaust Payoff to Israel and World Jewry,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 8, No. 2,
Summer 1988, p. 245.

²⁶
“Germany Has Paid Out More Than $61.8 Billion in Third Reich Reparations,” The Journal of Historical Review,
Vol. 17, No. 6, Nov./Dec. 1998, p. 19.

²⁷
See
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/world/europe/for-60th-year-germany-honors-duty-to-pay-holocaust-victims.html
and
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Germany-to-pay-250-Million-to-child-Holocaust-survivors-374596.

²⁸
ADL on the Frontline, January 1994, p. 2.

²⁹
Goldberg, Michael, Why Should Jews Survive? Looking Past the Holocaust Toward a Jewish Future, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995, p. 41.

³⁰
Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 513, 515-516.

³¹ Goldberg, Michael, Why Should Jews Survive? Looking Past the Holocaust Toward a Jewish Future, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995, p. 50.

The Hidden Origins Of The Bank Of England

BY STEPHEN GOODSON

AS THE FINANCIAL CRISIS WORSENS IN AMERICA and across the globe, people want to know: “When did it all start”? In fact, the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank in the United States is a spinoff of the Bank of England, established in the 1694. And, as the earl of Anglesey presciently observed in 1658: “It is dangerous to the peace of the kingdom when it shall be in the power of half a dozen or half a score of rich, discontented or factious persons to make [an accumulation] of our own coin and bullion beyond the seas and leave us in want of money when it shall not be in the king’s power to prevent it.”

From A.D. 757 to his death in 791, the great King Offa ruled the kingdom of Mercia, one of the seven autonomous kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy. Offa was a wise and able administrator and a kindhearted leader, though he could be hard on his enemies. He established the first monetary system in England (as distinguished from Romano-Keltic Britain). On account of the scarcity of gold, he used silver for coinage and as a store of wealth. The standard unit of exchange was a pound of silver, divided into 240 pennies. The pennies were stamped with a star (Old English stearra), from which the word “sterling” is derived. In 787 Offa introduced a statute prohibiting usury: charging of interest on money lent. The laws against usury were further entrenched by King Alfred (r. 865-99), who 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 be banished for life.

FIRST JEWISH MIGRATION AND EXPULSION

The Jews first arrived in England in 1066 in the wake of William I’s defeat of King Harold II at Hastings on October 14. These Jews came from Rouen, 75 miles from Falaise, where William was born illegitimately as William the Bastard. Although the historical record does not indicate whether they promoted the idea of a military invasion of England, these Jews had at the very least financed it. For this support they were richly rewarded by being allowed to practice usury under royal protection. The consequences for the English people were disastrous. By charging rates of interest of 33% per annum on lands mortgaged by nobles and 300% per annum on tools of trade or chattels pledged by workmen, within two generations one-quarter of all English lands was in the hands of Jewish usurers.

Furthermore these Jewish immigrants undermined the ethos of the guilds and enraged the English merchants by selling a large variety of goods under one roof. They also played a large role in the clipping of silver coins and the melting of them into bullion and the plating of tin with silver. The famous economist Dr. William Cunningham compared “the activity of the Jews in England from the 11th century onward to a sponge, which sucks up all the wealth of the land and thereby hinders all economic development. Interesting too, is the proof that even at this early period the government did everything in its power to make the Jews take up decent trades and honest work and thereby at the same time amalgamate with the rest of the population, but all to no purpose.”

In 1233 and 1275 Statutes of Jewry were passed which abolished all forms of usury. As most of these Jews could now no longer earn a “living,” a statute was passed by King Edward I (1272-1307) on July 18, 1290 compelling the entire Jewish population of 16,000 to leave England forever. Unlike the modern practice of ethnic cleansing, the Jews after paying a tax of 1/15 of the value of their movables and 1/10 of their specie were permitted to leave with all their goods and chattels. Any Jew who remained after Nov. 1, 1290 (All Saints Day) was liable to execution.

THE GLORIOUS MIDDLE AGES

With the banishment of the moneylenders and the abolition of usury, there were hardly any taxes to pay and no state debt, as the interest-free tally stick was used for government expenditures. England now enjoyed a period of unparalleled growth and prosperity. The average laborer worked only 14 weeks a year and enjoyed 160 to 180 holidays.

According to Lord Leverhulme, a writer of that time: “The men of the 15th century were very well paid,” in fact so well paid that the purchasing power of their wages and their standard of living would only be exceeded in the late 19th century. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the Anglo-German philosopher, confirms these living conditions in The Foundations of the XIXth Century: In the 13th century, when the Teutonic races began to build their new world, the agriculturist over nearly the whole of Europe was a freer man, with a more assured existence, than he is today; copyhold was the rule, so that England, for example—today a seat of landlordism—was even in the 15th century almost entirely in the hands of thousands of farmers, who were not only legal owners of their land, but possessed in addition far-reaching free rights to common pastures and woodlands.

END OF A GOLDEN ERA

During the 17th century this golden era came to a tragic end. Large numbers of Jews, who had been expelled from Spain in 1492 by Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon had settled in Holland. Although the Dutch were at that time an important maritime power, the Jewish usurers based in Amsterdam desired to return to England, where their prospects for expanding the operations of their money lending empire were far more promising. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) small numbers of Marranos—Spanish Jews, who had converted to a sham form of Christianity—settled in London. Many of them practiced as goldsmiths, accepting deposits of gold for safekeeping, and then issuing ten times the amount of gold received as gold receipts, that is loans with interest. These receipts, a forerunner of the fraudulent fractional reserve system of banking, were initially lent to the crown or treasury at 8% per annum, but according to Samuel Pepys, the diarist and Secretary to the Admiralty, the interest rate increased by as much as 20% and even 30% per annum.

The rate of interest merchants paid often exceeded 33% per annum, even though the legal rate was only 6% per annum. Workmen and poor people bore the brunt of these extortionate rates of interest by having to pay 60%, 70% or even 80% per annum. According to Michael Godfrey, the author of a pamphlet entitled A Short Account of the Bank of England, 2 to 3 million pounds had been lost through the bankruptcies of goldsmiths and the disappearance of their clerks.

Throughout most of the Middle Ages, Portuguese Jews enjoyed unparalleled freedom, wealth and power. They occupied key positions in government, academia, commerce and the professions of medicine, science and law. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, some 20-30 Portuguese Marranos (Jews who pretended to be Christians) settled in London. One of the most notable was Rodrigo Lopes, the queen’s physician. Lopes dabbled in international intrigue and was hanged, drawn and quartered in 1594 for allegedly plotting to poison the queen. His widow was allowed by the queen’s bounty to retain his estate. The frères Peyrere (Pereira) of Bordeaux and later Paris, contemporaries and associates of the Rothschilds, were Marrano descendants. The Rockefellers, it is said, also were Marranos. The original Rockefeller made his money selling narcotics (which were legal then). After acquiring a little capital, he branched out into oil. But it was the Rothschild money that made the Rockefellers so powerful.

CROMWELL AND THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR

In 1534, by the Act of Supremacy, the Church of England was established as the official religion of England by King Henry VIII (1509-47). During the 16th and 17th centuries Puritan beliefs based on the teachings of John Wycliffe and John Calvin gained an increasing number of adherents.

The Puritans considered the Bible to be the true law of God and emphasized Bible reading, prayer and preaching and the simplification of the ritual of the sacraments. The Stuart King Charles I (1625-49), who wished to maintain the pre-eminence of the Anglican Church, came into intensified conflict with the Puritans, who were making great progress in proselytizing the entire population. After the assassination of Charles’s trusted friend and adviser, the duke of Buckingham, in 1628, he gradually became more isolated. This growing religious division provided a perfect opportunity for exploitation by the Jewish conspirators.

As Israel Disraeli, the father of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, wrote in The Life and Reign of Charles I, "the nation was artfully divided into Sabbatarians and Sabbath Breakers.” In 1640 one of the leaders of the clandestine Jewish community Fernandez Carvajal, a merchant and spy, who was also known as “the Great Jew,” organized an armed militia of about 10,000 operatives, who were used to intimidate the people of London and sow confusion. Large numbers of pamphlets and leaflets were also distributed.

Civil war soon followed between the Royalists (Anglicans) and Roundheads (Puritans) and lasted from 1642-48. The Roundheads with their “New Model Army” were victorious and an estimated 190,000 persons or 3.8% of the population died. The leader of the Roundheads was Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), whose New Model Army was not only outfitted and provisioned by the chief contractor and professional agitator, Fernandez Carvajal, but also bankrolled by the Jewish moneylenders in Amsterdam. The leader of the Dutch Jews, Manasseh Ben Israel, now sent begging petitions to Cromwell asking that the Jews be allowed to immigrate to England in return for the financial favors, which he had so generously arranged.

Rosicrucian Mason Oliver Cromwell: In 1642, when King Charles I of England, the son of King James, and brother to Elizabeth Stuart, wife of Frederick of the Palatinate of the Rhine, tried to arrest five members of Parliament for obstructive behavior, the English Masonic Civil War erupted, and Oliver Cromwell assumed command of the Parliamentary forces. The civil war in England ultimately toppled the Stuart dynasty with the beheading of King Charles I. There were among the Cromwellian Puritans some influential Rosicrucians who funded his revolution. Among the Rosicrucians there were powerful Kabalistic Marrano Jews, who convinced Cromwell that without the spread of Jews worldwide, the biblical millennium could not arrive. Cromwell did their bidding by allowing them to immigrate to England. Well-placed Rosicrucians gave Cromwell advance knowledge of British troop movements. Consequently he won every battle. Later, during his protectorate, Cromwell surrounded himself with Rosicrucian Masons. Cromwell promised Jewish representatives that through Freemasonry he would symbolically rebuild for them Solomon’s Temple. The Jewish document that Cromwell used to turn Freemasonry into the synagogue of Satan was the Kabala. This caused many Jews to consider the possibility that Cromwell might be their Messiah.

THE MURDER OF KING CHARLES I

The treachery to which Cromwell descended is revealed in correspondence between himself and the Synagogue of Mulheim, Germany: June 16, 1647 From O.C. (Oliver Cromwell) by Ebenezer Pratt In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.

A reply was dispatched the following:

To O.C. by Ebenezer Pratt July 12, 1647 : Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given an opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.”

King Charles was staying as a virtual prisoner in Holmby House, Northamptonshire. On June 4, 1647, 500 revolutionaries seized the king, but then allowed him to escape to the Isle of Wight, where he was subsequently arrested. On Dec. 5, 1648 the House of Commons decided “That the king’s concessions were satisfactory to a settlement.”20 Cromwell then purged the House of Commons with the assistance of Colonel Pryde until there was only a “rump” of 50 members left, who then duly voted that the king be put on trial.

Not a single English lawyer was prepared to draw up a charge sheet against the king. Eventually it was provided by a Dutch Jew, Isaac Dorislaus. The king was forced to participate in a show trial in a High Court of Justice in which two-thirds of its members were Levelers from the army. King Charles refused to plead, but was found guilty and executed anyway on Jan. 29, 1649. As the procession approached the scaffold large numbers of the crowd shouted, “God save the king!” After the deed had been done there was an enormous groan of anguish.

Parliament claimed King Charles I was responsible for all the deaths, burnings, damages and mischiefs to the nation in the civil war in England and so they brought him to trial. It was the first time a king in England had ever been put on trial. The king said the court had no jurisdiction and refused to enter a plea. Found guilty, the innocent king, a good Christian, was sentenced to death. On Jan. 30, 1649, the king is marched to the scaffold to have his head cut off with an ax. He wore two shirts to keep from shivering because people might think he was afraid to face his maker.

SECOND JEWISH MIGRATION

From Dec. 7-18, 1655 Cromwell held a conference in Whitehall, London in order to obtain approval for the large-scale immigration of Jews. In spite of the conference being packed with Cromwell’s supporters, the overwhelming consensus of the delegates, who were mainly priests, lawyers and merchants, was that the Jews should not be permitted to enter England.

In October 1656 the first Jews were surreptitiously allowed to land freely in England, in spite of strong protests having been lodged by the sub-committee of the Council of State, who declared that these Jews “would be a grave menace to the state and the Christian religion.”

“The merchants, without exception, spoke against the admission of the Jews. They declared that the proposed immigrants would be morally harmful to the State, and that their admission would enrich foreigners at the expense of the English.”

Cromwell died on Sept. 3, 1658 and was succeeded by his son, Richard, who ruled for nine months. Charles I’s son Charles II (1660-85) succeeded his executed father. Although he would be the last English monarch to issue money (notes) in his own right, he made two fatal errors of governance. On August 1, 1663 he passed the euphemistically sounding Act for the Encouragement of Trade, which enabled the “export of all foreign coins or bullion of gold or silver, free of interdict, regulation or duties of any kind.”

Three years later by means of An Act for the Encouragement of Coinage he permitted private persons i.e. bankers and goldsmiths to mint the coins of the realm at the Royal Mint and thereby acquire the considerable benefits of the seigniorage income for their own private account. His brother James II’s (1685-88) reign only lasted three years. He was a victim of unscrupulous pamphleteering and propaganda, which emanated mainly from Holland.

A military expedition undertaken by Prince William of Orange eventually dethroned him. Although James’s army was numerically superior, he was discouraged from attacking after John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough had suddenly deserted him. According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, Churchill subsequently received an annual stipend of 6,000 pounds from the Dutch Jew Solomon Medina in payment for his treasonous conduct.

William of Orange’s military campaign like that of the other William (the Conqueror) in 1066 had been financed by Jewish bankers. In return for their support William III (1689-1702) would surrender the royal prerogative of issuing England’s money free of debt and interest, to a consortium known as the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. A.N. Field in All these Things summarizes these momentous events as follows:

Thirty-three years after Cromwell had let the Jews into Britain, a Dutch prince arrived from Amsterdam surrounded by a whole swarm of Jews from that financial center. Driving his royal father-in-law out of the kingdom, he graciously consented to ascend the throne of Britain. A very natural result following on this event was the inauguration of the national debt by the establishment six years later of the Bank of England for the purpose of lending money to the crown. Britain had paid her way as she went until the Jews arrived. The pawnshop was then opened, and the resulting situation in which the nation finds itself today could not be better described than in the words put by Shakespeare with prophetic vision in the mouth of the dying John of Gaunt:

“This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England, . . . / This land of such dear souls, this dear, dear land / Dear for her reputation through the world, / Is now leas’d out, (I die pronouncing it,) / Like to a tenement, or pelting farm:/England, bound in with the triumphant sea, / Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege / Of wat’ry Neptune, is now bound in with shame, / With inky blots, and rotten parchment bonds: / That England, that was wont to conquer others, / Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.” (Richard II, Act 2, Scene 1)

The history of the second Jewish settlement in Britain is one long trail of parchment bonds shackling the nation in debt. Every step in the ascent of the Jew in the nation’s affairs has been marked by the increase and multiplication of debt.”

THE BANK OF ENGLAND

The need for a privately owned central bank was fronted by a retired pirate, William Paterson, when he wrote a pamphlet in 1693 entitled A Brief Account of the Intended Bank of England. He would later boast that this bank “hath the benefit of interest on money which it creates out of nothing.”

On Thursday, June 21, 1694, subscription lists for the bank, which had a capital of 1.2 million pounds, were opened. By the following Monday, this amount had been fully subscribed. The ostensible purpose of the bank was to lend King William unlimited sums at 8% per annum to enable the prosecution of war, and in particular the conflict against Louis XIV of France.

The bank would thus receive from the crown interest of 100,000 pounds per annum, the additional 4,000 pounds being an administrative fee. The bank also acquired the right to issue 1.2 million in banknotes without any gold cover. Prior to its listing, the bylaws of the bank were carefully scrutinized by Serjeant Levinz in order to ensure that the bank complied with its hidden purpose, viz. to fleece the English people in perpetuity by allowing the creation of the nation’s money and means of exchange out of nothing, at interest. All this fake money was accompanied by compounding interest.

Levinz was a Jew from Amsterdam who practiced as an advocate. There was much opposition to the establishment of the bank. Foremost were the goldsmiths and moneylenders, who correctly foresaw that it would bring an end to their usurious racket of fractional reserve banking based on their gold receipts. Landowners and country gentry feared an escalation in interest rates, as the bank would control the nation’s money supply. There were allegations that the bank would favor certain merchants with low rates of interest. The biggest fear was that “the bank would grow too powerful and would become the keystone of the commercial world.”

Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened, as the Bank of England became the model on which all subsequent central banks were replicated. At that time the House of Commons had 512 members, consisting of 243 Tories, 241 Whigs and 28 members whose allegiance was unknown.

About two thirds of the members were country gentlemen and it is believed that of the 512 members approximately 20% were illiterate. The bill was debated in July 1694, the high point in summer, when most of the rural members were engaged in summer pursuits and the harvesting of their crops.

On that fateful Friday, July 27, 1694, when the charter of incorporation was granted, only 42 members were present, all of them Whigs as the Tories opposed the bill. All the Whigs voted for it. [This begs the question as to what a quorum consisted of in those days.] The title of the bill made no mention of the proposed Bank of England, which is only described or one might say secreted, two-thirds down in the unintelligible verbiage—to the layman that is—of the bill. The opening sentence of the bill reads as follows: “William and Mary by the grace of God, King and Queen of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, defenders of the faith etc. To all for whom these presents shall come greeting.”

The third sentence, which contains 242 words starts:

Whereas in and by a certain Act lately made in Parliament entitled an Act for granting to their majesties several rates and duties upon TONNAGE OF SHIPS AND VESSELS, and upon beer, ale, and other liquors, for securing certain recompenses and advantages in the said Act mentioned, to such persons as shall voluntarily advance the sum of fifteen hundred thousand pounds towards carrying on the war with France it is amongst other things enacted...

The gist of the first two-thirds of the bill details the necessity to levy a complicated array of new rates, duties and taxes on ships, beer, ale and other liquors. The true purpose of these taxes is that they were needed in order to fund the interest on all future government loans. Shortly thereafter further taxes were introduced including a land tax, paper tax, poll tax, salt tax, stamp tax and window tax, which replaced the hearth or chimney tax. Other taxes initiated were a tax on pedlars, a tax on hackney coaches, a tax on births, marriages and deaths and lastly a tax on bachelors. However, the most punitive tax introduced was an income tax, levied at a rate of 20%. It was applied not only on companies, but laborers too.

WAR AND DEBT SLAVERY

Henceforth a pattern would emerge where unnecessary wars would be embarked upon which simultaneously increased the national debt and the profits of the usurers. Significantly, many of these wars were started against countries, which had implemented interest-free state banking systems, as was the case in the North American Colonies and France under Napoleon. This pattern of attacking and enforcing the bankers’ system of usury has been deployed widely in the modern era and includes the defeats of Imperial Russia in World War I, Germany, Italy and Japan in World War II and most recently Libya in 2011.

These were all countries that had state banking systems, which distributed the wealth of their respective nations on an equal basis and provided their populations with a standard of living far superior to that of their rivals and contemporaries. Within two years of its establishment in 1696 the Bank of England had 1,750,000 worth of bank notes circulating with a gold reserve of only 2% or 36,000 pounds. On May 1, 1707 the union between Scotland and England was established, motivated in no small way by the necessity to seize control of the royal mint in Edinburgh, which took place in 1709. By 1720 after the conclusion of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14) the national debt had risen to 30 million pounds with the war itself having cost 50 million pounds.

After the American War of Independence (1775-83), which had been fought after the Colonists were forced to replace their debt-free Colonial scrip with English money that resulted in 50% unemployment, the national debt soared to 176 million pounds. In 1786 Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger tried to abolish the national debt with a sinking fund which generated interest of 1 million pounds per annum to repay the debt.

This scheme was soon abandoned by the enormous increase incurred to finance the war against Napoleon. In 1797 in order to pay for the burgeoning interest burden, a system of graduated income tax had to be introduced. The war against France lasted from 1792 until 1815. Among the principal objectives of this pointless bloodletting was to destroy Napoleon’s debt and interest-free system of finance.

On Jan. 18, 1800 Napoleon established the Banque de France as a state bank. As Napoleon detested the bankers, he made himself not only governor of the bank, but also appointed himself first minister of Treasury. During this period England waged a war against the United States from 1812 until 1814. This war was instigated by England after the United States Congress refused to renew the charter of the foreign-owned Bank of the United States, which had been the central bank of America from 1791 until 1811.

By 1815 the national debt had ballooned to 885 million pounds. This completely unnecessary and unwinnable war which resulted in approximately three million military personnel and at least one million civilians losing their lives, cost 831 million pounds 44 of which over 2.5 billion pounds were still outstanding in 1914.

The principal of 504 million pounds increased fivefold as a result of compound interest. An astute agrarian and parliamentarian, William Cobbett (1763-1835), at this time perceived what was afoot and wrote as follows: “I set to read the Act of Parliament by which the Bank of England was created. The investors knew what they were about. Their design was to mortgage by degrees the whole country . . . lands . . . houses . . . property . . . labor. The scheme has produced what the world never saw before: starvation in the midst of abundance." The affairs of the Bank of England remained secret, and it was not until 1833, 139 years later, that a sanitized version of its accounts was presented to Parliament by means of the Act of 1833.

Political Zionism—the attempt by the Jews to take over Palestine—actually did not start with the Balfour Declaration. Napoleon Bonaparte (above), founder of the Banque de France, was among the first Christian Zionists. In Paris, Le Moniteur Universal published in 1799 a short statement sent from the French forces besieging Acre, saying that: “Buonaparte a fait publier une proclamation, dans laquelle il invite les juifs de l’Asie et de l’Afrique à venir se ranger sous ses drapeaux, pour rétablir l’ancienne Jérusalem; il en a déjà armé un grand nombre, et leurs bataillons menacent Alep.” This has been translated in English as: “Bonaparte has published a proclamation in which he invites all the Jews of Asia and Africa to gather under his flag in order to re-establish the ancient Jerusalem. He has already given arms to a great number, and their battalions threaten Aleppo.” But Napoleon was defeated in Palestine, and the Zionist scheme temporarily fell through as a result. Throughout his empire, Napoleon gave the Jews equal rights with Christians. For more from Napoleon, we recommend The Maxims of Napoleon, a compilation of thought from Bonaparte himself.

In 1800 a member of Parliament, Sir William Pultney, proposed the formation of a national bank after having made “vigorous attacks” against the bank. In 1824 another member of parliament, David Ricardo, submitted a detailed plan to convert the Bank of England into a national bank. Both attempts failed.

At the start of World War I in 1914, the British national debt stood at 650 million pounds. On March 31, 1919 it had increased to 7. 434 billion pounds, of which 3 billion pounds is still outstanding after 94 years at a coupon of 3.5% per annum. In World War II the national debt rose by almost 200% from 7.1 billion pounds in 1939 to 20.1 billion pounds in 1945. Currently it stands at almost 1.2 trillion pounds.

CONCLUSION

For over 300 years England has been drawn into the thrall of a ruthless clique of international bankers, whose parasitic empire now threatens the existence of this island nation. The once proud people of yeomen and peasants, out of ignorance and indifference, has become a multicultural melting pot of debt slaves. Unless its original citizens take responsibility to familiarize themselves with the true nature of their problem, they are doomed within a few generations to irreversible enslavement and genetic destruction.

STEPHEN GOODSON: is the leader of the Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party in South Africa. He studied economics and law at Stellenbosch University, South Africa and at the University of Ghent, Belgium. For 15 years he managed investment portfolios at various financial institutions. He is currently a director of the South African Reserve Bank. He can be contacted at abolishusury@telkomsa.net. Goodson is the author of An Illustrated Guide to Adolf Hitler, published by THE BARNES REVIEW.

The Kennedys vs Israel’s Lobby

From Pulse Media.

By Grant F. Smith, director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRMEP) and author of many books, including America’s Defense Line. In this feature, Grant reveals the emerging details of the secret battles between the Kennedys and the Israel lobby.

[caption id="attachment_17198" align="aligncenter" width="623"] AIPAC Founder Isaiah L. Kenen and Ted Kennedy.[/caption]

The lobby’s accolades for the late Ted Kennedy and his support of Israel mask the generally unknown conflicts fought by the senator’s older brothers.  It is likely that lessons from the fiercest of all battles, fought behind the scenes by President John F. Kennedy alongside his brother and Attorney General Robert—guided the younger sibling’s political choices.  Details of the JFK-RFK duo’s effort to register the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) parent organization, the American Zionist Council (AZC) as an Israeli foreign agent were shrouded in mystery until declassified in mid-2008.

Between 1962 and 1963 Senator J.W. Fulbright uncovered a massive network of financial “conduits” moving funds directed by the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem to Israel lobby startup groups across the United States.  Even as JFK attempted to place Israel’s Dimona nuclear weapons program under US inspection, RFK ordered the AZC to openly register and disclose all of its foreign funded lobbying activity in the United States.

The DOJ and AZC fought their secret battle as Fulbright’s hearings disclosed the immense proportions of the Israel lobby effort.  Nathan B. Lenvin, a DOJ attorney who had been after AIPAC’s founder Isaiah Kenen since 1951 to continue registering as a foreign agent after he left the employ of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs took copious notes of the many meetings, AZC’s offers of limited registration and the DOJ’s counter offers.

But the law enforcement effort ended in tragedy.  JFK’s assassination on November 12, 1963 in Dallas meant RFK’s political cover for the prosecution was gone and his days at the DOJ were numbered.  He left to run for a New York senate seat.  In 1965 the DOJ allowed the AZC to file a highly redacted and non-standardized FARA declaration in secret.  The AZC then shut down and transferred lobbying activity to AIPAC, which refused to register.

RFK’s assassination in 1968 was followed a few months later by the quiet death of the 58 year old Nathan Lenvin during a DOJ recruiting trip in Chicago.  Low level DOJ officials involved in the AZC registration battle such as Irene Bowman were gently eased out, while high officials willing to defer to the lobby, such as Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and J. Walter Yeagley, moved on to stellar careers.

As details of the secret DOJ-Israel lobby showdowns continue to emerge, it is hard not to conclude that the younger Kennedy’s renowned accommodation, mastered as a child from within the shadows of his siblings, was as much a survival strategy as the hallmark of an effective politician.

Multiculturalism: For A Race That Will Accept Tyranny?

Rootless, spiritless underlings are desirable. A mestizo race of rootless cosmopolitan simpletons is the cultural-Marxist goal, in order to flood the West and balkanize the electorate to eradicate the voting power of those who still identify with their nation.

By introducing foreign groups with foreign propensities globalists can buy votes for their internationalist supranational brand of politics.

You also buy the apathetic, unintelligent genetics that will allow that internationalism to take hold and keep its grip; from there the globalist agenda is unclear — a nihilist consumer society, or one (eventually) guided by the principles of Luciferian Freemasonry, with all humankind under their boot?

This isn't a hypothetical conclusion - this is seen around the world in all nonwhite nations - the inhabitants and their unfavorable genetic behaviors and inclinations are being mass-imported into Europe as I write this. The EU is a sociopolitical welfare "paradise" designed to attract this mass immigration.

[caption id="attachment_16914" align="aligncenter" width="364"] Multiculturalism eliminates the races adapted in their own environments with their own cultures and customs. It destroys the vibrancy of true diversity; people living in their own nations with their own kind under their own laws and traditions.[/caption]

Asians/Indians are an ideal race for an underclass to be ruled over.

Asians/Indians (and to a lesser extent, Africans) are the best population to rule over if you're an Elite presiding over them. They have three major desirable traits to tyrants; passivity, lack of creativity, and moderate intelligence.

They have a proven record of being less resistant to tyranny — it's no coincidence that their cultures never birthed or maintained liberty, freedoms, and constitutionalism in any meaningful form whatsoever. So how can we expect them to uphold it in Europe? The answer is they likely will not only not do so, but due to their lacking social empathy — won't care to do so.

The People's Republic of China is a prime example of where tyranny has been allowed to flourish by a race of (mostly) gormless, submissive conformists, that lack the necessary creativity, general intelligence, and empathy to question, address, and maintain a healthy state and nation. Their conformity has assisted them though, as their in-group preference has been impenetrable to outside forces. While lacking creative faculties, the Chinese are intelligent enough to create a global industrial powerhouse, albeit at the expense of its workers' standard of living.

An example of racial advantage across national boundaries, as seen with Jews in the West - is in Indonesia, the Chinese Indonesian community make up 3% of the population, but control 70% of the economy.

In the Republic of India, similarly to China, a form of modern slavery is also in effect - people work long hours for barely any money - here, it is money, not wellbeing, that is the objective. An estimated IQ of Indians (from the subcontinent of India) living in the UK is 93, about 7 points below the average Briton. In India itself this figure is lower due to environmental reasons (lower standard of education, etc). Adding environmental factors; radiation, fluoridation, a sedentary lifestyle, additives, pesticides, vaccinations, chemtrailing, and brainwashing - and this figure is potentially lowered yet further.

These nonwhites are more easily exploited by multinational companies that disregard their quality of life, directly linked to their lower IQ - they fail to effectively unionize or ensure political systems defending individual rights. The Indians, as well as the Chinese, Africans and Arabs, generally accept this servitude - no glimmer of push-back or revolution as seen in France with the yellow vest movement. Nothing at all. They are at a lower state of consciousness, more firmly tied to the baseness of human animosity than whites.

Tyranny will reign over any nonwhite population. As evidenced around the world already.

Or, what whites consider "tyranny" is acceptable and tolerable to other races who don't generally practice values of liberty or constitutionalism.



The r-K selection theory is a theory which argues that different species face a trade-off between high rate of reproduction (r-strategy) and extensive care for their offspring (K-strategy). Humans may be the most K species of all.

J. Philippe Rushton applied r-K selection theory on human races and argued that human races differ regarding their degree K-strategy, which is argued to explain many racial differences.

He further argued that Europeans and East Asians evolved more toward a K-strategy than Africans because of a colder and more predictable climate and environment. Rushton argued that the survival challenges of making warm clothes, building durable shelter, preserving food, and strategically hunting large animals all selected genes for greater intelligence and social organization among the populations that migrated to cold climates.

Nonwhites tend to have no or few biological traits responsible for an expression of healthy individualism, as informed by a more K-selective profile — because of this, their version of sociological collectivism is inherently conducive to tyrannous rule — and allows a substantial measure of corruption to pervade their societies.

Some Asians are reasonably intelligent, but very susceptible to societal norms, they generally lack the useful "collective individualism" of the white man.

They are very passive and will tolerate a lot of nanny-statism. They're reasonably smart so you'll get enough people to man the high IQ positions in society like that of a surgeon and professor. But most of all they're happy to live in overcrowded cities in their shoebox apartments where they can content themselves with the latest gadgets and takeout.



They cram themselves into overstretched public transport and civil services. They work for peanuts and won't complain about paying obscenely high taxes, let alone ask where that money is going.

The bottom line: nonwhites are overwhelmingly apathetic, uncreative unquestioning consumers concerned with their immediate needs. Whites are questioning creative empaths and social gadflies; able to challenge systems, norms and institutions and have the foresight to make necessary amendments, having a more innate ability to effectively organize themselves.

[caption id="attachment_16913" align="aligncenter" width="629"] The typical rush hour in the Asian third world. In any self-respecting white nation there would be an uproar at such poor standards.[/caption]

A race that was forged under cold, scarce and other unfavorable environmental limitations is the only option for preserving freedoms and civilization.

The Nordic and Germanic white race are the single race forged most aptly under scarce conditions, their descendants have created nearly all in the world of note. Is it any wonder Germany is known as Das Land der Dichter und Denker (“the land of poets and thinkers”).

Their stock built the economic, social, and political systems and machinations that define the modern world. All races adapted to their environments, whether that was in body or mind or a mix of the two. But in the modern era the white man emerged as the most advantageous breed of hominid. It is undeniable that either the salvation of eugenicist policymaking is accepted, or the world slips back into the dark ages; a cluster of primitive warring states - until the graces of eugenicist evolutionary selection - or otherwise - enable a better course for human sensibility.

Their propensity for order, creativity and healthy individualism generated the most advanced society known to man; their track record is undeniable. It makes sense to be a white advocate.

The book "Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950" stated that "Whether measured in people or events, 97 percent of accomplishment in the scientific inventories occurred in Europe and North America" (white people).

No whites, no civilization.

The IQ researcher Helmuth Nyborg wrote in 2012 that "The bleak situation is characteristic of the rest of Europe too, perhaps with Eastern Europe as an exception. [...] Ethnic Europeans will soon be wiped out of their own countries by this ever-expanding colossal demographic transition. Their national average IQs go down in the process, and when an average national IQ of 90 is reached, down go also their democracies and welfare. This also happens to European-Americans in the US. [...] To sum up, not only Denmark but Europe and the US get dumber by internal dysgenic decay and by northbound mass-immigration. This will have catastrophic consequences for Western democracy and welfare, but non-Western countries will also suffer. Unfortunately, most ruling (left- or right-oriented) Western leaders are not only seriously misguided by the illusion of equality but also blatantly ignorant of biological realities, so they can’t see the elephant in the room. They eventually will, but that will be beyond the point of no return."

Marxist-globalist Utopians think race-mixing will create human equality. It won't work as they envision it. 

Journalist Peter Hitchens once said that “The problem of utopia is that it can only be approached across a sea of blood, and you never arrive.”

Either Marxist-globalists want a slave class or they genuinely want to "guide human reproduction wisely", as stated on the Georgia Guidestones. The latter I'd prefer to the former. The outcome of their international experiment is yet to be fully seen, the prognosis is worrisome though.

Heroine Ursula Haverbeck Goes To Prison: Jews Continue To Force Deutschland To Mistreat Its Own Elderly Folk

From Carolyn Yeager's blog.

THE JEWISH WORLD IS CELEBRATING! The 89-year-old woman they have dubbed the “Nazi Grandma” has finally been incarcerated in a prison in western Germany for a two year term. According to Jewish news outlets, Ursula Haverbeck was picked up at her home in Vlotho, North-Rhine Westphalia by police on Monday and taken to the prison at nearby Bielefeld to begin serving her sentence.

https://youtu.be/CCHwIbo_JEM

(The video, by Ursula Haverbeck, that is censored in some countries. Use a VPN to bypass this.)

In this most important video, Frau Haverbeck explains how:

1) German courts decided that the movie "Holocaust" is the truth and the well known German judge who wrote a book about Auschwitz is a liar, and so are the others who researched and wrote books at the same time.

2) She tells how the German people have been deceived with the 2 Plus 4 contract telling them they are sovereign, but then the Allies and the German traitors (Jews) secretly made a contract to reverse that back to 1952. Very, very devilish.

3) It also shows the books (Die Aushwitz-Lüge/Auschwitz: A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen, Der Auschwitz-Mythos/Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence by Wilhelm Stäglich, Der Sündenbock/Scapegoats by J. G. Burg, and Der Jahrhundertbetrug/The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Arthur Butz) that are the foundation of revisionism; all had/have been forbidden and only the movie "Holocaust" counted. Severe corruption of the courts by the Jews in Germany.

---

I have been informed that her lawyer is already petitioning to have Ursula released on grounds of health.

The laws under which the Federal Republic of Germany (which is a non-Constitutional construct) prosecutes and punishes people like Haverbeck were put in place by the Americans in the late 1940's as a temporary legal structure until the people were “re-educated” enough to form a new Constitution. Called the 'Basic Law', it installed the findings of the 'International Tribunal of Major War Criminals' and subsequent post-war tribunals carried out by the WWII victor nations as law that supercedes any of the freedoms guaranteed to Germans. Under this 'legal' system, non-Germans are given great liberties and protections while the indigenous German people are forced to comply with the multiculturalization and multiracialization, and also subservience to Israel, of their homeland. If they publicly express their disagreement, they are arrested, tried, fined and jailed.

Note that the name of this people in their own language is 'Deutsch' and their country is Deutschland. Land of the Deutsch … land where Germans live. The post-war global order wants to destroy nationalism by destroying the nation itself—as said above, by multiculturalizing and multiracializing every European homeland. This is the idea behind 'One Europe.' So Deutsch people are to disappear as a unique product of evolution so that their superior qualities don't make other, less well-endowed people look bad. And so they won't be able to sucessfully interfere with the Jewish 'One Europe' plan.

The liberal political parties (that sometimes call themselves 'conservative' or 'centre' but remain liberal-globalist) that have been in power since 1945 do not want to return to a national orientation or perspective. They actually want to retain whatever American control mechanisms are in place because that helps them retain their power. This is the reason no new Constitution has ever been called for. The Basic Law is called the Constitution now, and no one questions it except the small number of patriots like Ursula Haverback who refuse to quietly let the Deutsch people disappear. Watch her talk about the phony German Constitution here.

Witches in the Middle Ages

This treatment of 'holocaust deniers' in Deutschland is similar to hunting witches in the Middle Ages. At that time, the very powerful Catholic Church terrorized women in order to keep the faithful in fear of the Church's power to condemn their souls to Hell. Sacrificing a few innocent victims in this cause did not bother the hierarchy for they told themselves the end justified the means—they were saving souls.

It is no different now. The importance of keeping the Jewish-inspired global order in place (the horrific world wars also gave them the opportunity to establish this order in the first place) is the “end” that justifies the sacrifice of the 'free speech' and democratic processes they claim to offer. In other words, Big Lies have to be backed up with many more lies, thus those who still insist on telling the truth must be sacrificed.

The greater good that they are protecting is the Global New World Order that they say is necessary to bring peace to the world.

Canadian citizen, violinist Monika Schaefer was arrested for no crime committed in Germany and has been held in a Munich prison for many weeks now because of a video she released onto the Internet from her home country of Canada where it is not against the law. Because she was visiting her brother in Germany, and attended a court hearing for Sylvia Stolz (another woman who spent a long stretch in prison for 'holocaust denial'), the German government applied it's strict laws to Monika.

The Jews are trying to get more countries to pass ever more stringent laws against 'holocaust denial' with their global campaign against 'anti-Semitism.' They flood the media with this campaign, while not covering people like Ursula Haverbeck and Monika Schaefer at all. This is a kind of tyranny and dictatorship that must be fought, but requires a level of intelligence that is being bred out of our Western and European people at a rapid rate. We are at a critical stage.

Understanding the Christchurch Shooting & Manifesto

The Australian man Brenton Tarrant's racially and politically motivated shooting in Christchurch New Zealand coincided with the Roman Ides of March (15th March), a day used by the Romans as a deadline for settling debts.

It was the day Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC, and was a pivotal moment in the Roman Empire's history — Tarrant's "debt collection" was attributed mainly to avenging the 2017 death of 11-year-old Ebba Åkerlund, who was plowed down by a HGV at the hands of an Islamic terrorist.

"...That difference was Ebba Åkerlund. Young, innocent and dead Ebba."

— Tarrant's Manifesto "The Great Replacement", on why he committed the acts.

The Christchurch shooting left 50 dead, and many injured. The bought-out media - of course - has plastered every outlet with condemnation for the eminent threat of far-right "white supremacist" extremism - such coverage being many magnitudes greater than coverage of similar, and far more numerous Islamic fundamentalist atrocities against Europeans.

Most recently, the Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama among others, covered up the massive attack on Christians by using the vague term "Easter worshippers". Both Hillary and Obama identified Muslim victims directly and honestly in similar attacks.

The so far 359-death Sri Lanka attack was carried out by ISIS on 21st April 2019 - the Islamic terrorists that claimed to be ISIS, "carried out (the attack) in retaliation for a March attack on two mosques in New Zealand".

Racial and national determinism is celebrated in more or less all non-Western countries. Jews can practice ethnic and national determinism, as seen in modern Israel as the "homeland" for the Jewish people, China can do the same for the ethnic Chinese, there was no media outcry for the racially motivated pogroms against whites in South Africa. Minority groups in the West are acknowledged by the Marxist leftist institutions as groups with identities - the whites are, for the most part, not.

This is sinister and deliberate cultural Marxism. This is the great blatant hypocrisy of our time.

The targeted Mosque had links to radical Islam.

A previous investigation revealed that the Mosque that was targeted had hosted speakers which encouraged active engagement of violence in the struggle of jihad against the infidels.

Stuff.co.nz:

Jones was killed alongside Australian Christopher Havard, whose parents said he was introduced to radical Islam at the Al-Noor mosque in Christchurch.

Mosque leaders confirmed Havard stayed there and studied in 2011, but denied radical teaching took place. But a man who attended a converts’ weekend at the mosque 10 years ago said a visiting speaker from Indonesia talked about violent jihad and plenty shared his views. “Most of the men were angry with the moral weakness of New Zealand. I would say they were radical.”

British political activist and the author of The Fall of Western Man, Mark Collett posted on Twitter:

"When 22 people, mainly young girls, were killed by a Muslim suicide bomber at Manchester Arena, people sang 'Don't Look Back in Anger' & were told not to blame 'groups' for the actions of one. Will people be singing that song today, or will the media be singing a different tune?"

European advocacy think tank VertigoPolitix tweeted:

"According to many sources, including the UN, some 90,000+ Christians were murdered last year worldwide by Muslim fundamentalists. Not a single report on CNN, nor a brief newscast on the subject by any entity in the media. That's 250 Christians murdered every day. Just silence..."

The mainstream media has failed to present balanced coverage of the fact that this is clearly a one-sided conflict in terms of numbers — according to the "What makes Islam so different?" website; 859 people were killed and 844 injured in "killings in the name of Islam" in the past 30 days alone. Can the same be said for Christians? That doesn't even account for the huge death toll of European innocents at the hands of Islamic terror in the past bloody decade.

It also doesn't account for the astronomical figures of shady "collateral" civilian Muslim deaths in the middle east at the hands of neoconservative foreign policies seeking to wrest control of the region - using mass displacement, starvation & disease (as seen in Yemen), and the bombing of civilian buildings to pressure the administrations of target regimes to buckle and break.

The Tarrant Manifesto.

The shooter, besides recording the entire event with a GoPro, also wrote a short, albeit compelling manifesto - which he uploaded with the video, titled "The Great Replacement" - likely inspired by the writings of French writer, Renaud Camus, who first coined the term.

In this manifesto, its contents informed "over a great deal of time, from a great deal of places", Tarrant expresses support for the conservative policies of the People's Republic of China (PRC). He criticizes the "milquetoast", cosmopolitan leaders of Europe, also discussing the leftist's "long march through the institutions" among many other topics.

Tarrant's principal goal was accelerationist; to trigger conflict along racial, political, and social lines - especially through inflaming the gun debate in the United States, possibly triggering conflict. He states that "only in times of radical change and social discomfort can great and terrific change occur", opposing the ineffective due processes that have been hijacked by the Jewish moneylender plutocracy.

"Democracy is mob rule and the mob itself is ruled by our enemies. The global and corporate run press controls them, the education system (long since fallen to the long march through the institutions carried out by the Marxists) controls them, the state (long since heavily lost to its corporate backers) controls them and the anti-white media machine controls them. Do not suffer under the delusion of an effortless, riskless democratic victory. Prepare for war, prepare for violence and prepare for risk, loss, struggle, death. Force is the only path to power and the only path to true victory."

Tarrant presented his actionable aims in bold subheadings with thought-provoking titles such as "destabilization and accelerationism: tactics for victory", "globalized capitalist markets are the enemy of racial autonomists", "NGOs are directly involved in the genocide of the European people", the harbinger's "it is never wise to become a minority group", the anti-democratic "there is no democratic solution", and the fiscally-minded "no taxes to anti-white States", among others.

"This solution of a Democratic salvation is nothing but a pipe dream, and as our enemies increase within our lands, driven by mass immigration and the invaders own higher birth rate it will be pushed further and further into the realms of impossibility."

His position as an "eco-fascist" in agreement with Sir Oswald Mosley’s views, seeks to abolish the laissez-faire nature of modern money-centric globalist economics and social order in turn for more morally, culturally, racially and environmentally conscious and autonomous European nation states.

"In the end human greed and the need for increasing profit margins of capital owners needs to be fought against and broken."

His proposed method is hyper-protectionism, distantly akin to the protectionism of the European Union, although far less globally-minded still, calling to "break the back of cheap labour", calling it "slave labour" and a force for denigrating meaningful advanced human societies:

"An environmentally conscious and moral society will never be able to economically compete with a society based on ever increasing industrialization, urbanization, industrial output and population increase. The cheaper labour and ignorance of environmental health will always result in cheaper goods produced with less effort and inevitably result in control of the market."

Tarrant also addresses the issues of the mass-proliferation of foreign populations in relation to the environment and world stability, positing an argument for white advocacy and ethno-nationalism, as opposed to seeing demographics as a purely financial tool in a race to seize the global markets.

Tarrant argues against modernity, arguing human stock ought to live meaningful lives guided by environmental consideration and social and moral principles of higher thought. Tarrant believed whites have demonstrated this capacity better than other groups:

"The environment is being destroyed by over population, we Europeans are one of the groups that are not over populating the world. The invaders are the ones over populating the world. Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment."

A more satirical side emerged in the manifesto, as Tarrant highlighted the fact Nelson Mandela had emerged a celebrated leader, politician and an icon of African ethnic and national identity following his similar acts of terrorism:

"I do not just expected to be released, but I also expect an eventual Nobel Peace prize. As was awarded to the Terrorist Nelson Mandela once his own people achieved victory and took power. I expect to be freed in 27 years from my incarceration, the same number of years as Mandela, for the same crime."

UPS Stops Delivering Packages to Swedish No-go Zones After Multiple Attacks on Drivers

Courier company UPS stopped delivering packages in the multicultural district of Rosengård in Malmö.

United Parcel Service Inc. started as a courier company in the United States in 1907 and has grown into a multi-billion dollar company. Every day, UPS handles goods, money and information in more than 200 countries and regions worldwide.

One area that currently does not receive packages is the multicultural district of Rosengård in Malmö.

UPS confirms that they no longer deliver to the area because the risk of being subjected to robbery and other crimes is too high. “Our drivers have been attacked and we have therefore decided not to distribute packages in Rosengård”, says a customer service employee.

The decision was made two months ago. Similar stops have been introduced in areas in Stockholm. And according to UPS, the new terms will remain in place as long as drivers are at risk of being attacked.

However, according to the Swedish police and left-wing politicians there are no “no-go zones” in Sweden. Only 61 “vulnerable areas”, which need prioritising and more attention from the police. 23 of these areas are identified as “particularly vulnerable.” Another handful are deemed to be in the “risk zone”.

Several of them are basically run by criminals and the police cannot carry out their job. Car fires, grenade attacks and bombings occur almost daily. Police, firefighters and ambulance workers are attacked by migrants and prevented from doing their job on a regular basis.

The situation has gotten so bad that ambulance unions have put forth requests for bullet proof vests to be given to paramedics operating in the problematic areas.
The bombing of a police station in Helsingborg recently was described by Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven as an “attack” on democracy itself.

In the migrant-majority town of Södertälje, a police station was shot at ten times overnight, though no officers were present at the station at the time.
Many such attacks have been captured on surveillance and other cameras and are widely available to be seen online. Footage from 2015 shows police officers being attacked while others are shouting “you are not in charge here” to them.

Four stations in Stockholm Metro have become so dangerous for personnel that they are only able to perform their duties with the help of extra police.
Parking attendants are being chased away or attacked. Thus parking companies cannot guarantee for their employees safety.

The government-owned postal service PostNord has halted mail delivery to some addresses near the troubled Stockholm suburb of Rinkeby.
And now UPS stops delivering packages to certain areas.

The definition of “no-go zone” is “a region where the ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce the rule of law”. Which means that there without a doubt are no-go zones in Sweden – and that Swedish politicians and police are flat-out lying.

On Vaccine Adjuvants

There are no clinically approved (aluminium) adjuvants.

There are only clinically approved "vaccines".

In late 2018, Dr. Chris Exley, Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University, discussed his views on vaccine adjuvants' questionable safety:

https://vimeo.com/317531401

Here is my summary, including some excerpts from Exley's speech:

Adjuvants have not undergone any sort of safety trial beforehand. The safety of adjuvants is established alongside the safety of vaccines, in other words, no specific safety testing is done on key components of the vaccine such as the adjuvants.

So, why are aluminium adjuvants used as placebos in vaccine safety trials?

"In fact, so-called 'safety trials' for aluminium adjuvants occur with the vaccine, so the safety of the adjuvant is established alongside the vaccine. So, in other words, a vaccine that has an aluminium adjuvant goes through an - inverted commas - 'safety trial'."

Adjuvants do not undergo specific safety trials, and the conditions for an entire vaccine to be safe are loose to say the least.

Aluminium adjuvants are included in placebos in vaccine safety trials. "Placebo" means "do no harm" — this means aluminium adjuvants are assumed to do no harm in safety trials, without any evidence they have actually been properly tested to prove such an assertion.

Exley states that he wrote a letter detailing his concerns to a leading medical journal:

"I wrote a letter to one of the leading journals exactly on this a while ago, pointing out: 'why are we using something which does and is known to produce harm as a placebo in vaccine safety trials?'. The journal had no problem publishing the letter, but did it change anything in the world of vaccine safety trials? Absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing."

Adjuvants are inherently toxic, that's part of their purpose.

Adjuvants are supposed to stimulate the immune system to get it to produce antibodies, at the point of injection you get a little red mark; an inflammatory response has occurred. That's toxicity.

If this toxicity was only at the injection site, none of us would worry about vaccines - but is that what we are seeing in recipients of these vaccines? Is a contained, controlled inflammation and immune response really what is happening? Or do the problems run deeper than meets the eye?

Exley has developed a way to identify aluminium in a cell or human tissue such as the brain.

Studying how adjuvant aluminium is distributed throughout the human body, Dr. Exley has used laboratory testing to find where the aluminium salts end up in the body.

From about 13:30 in the video, Exley states that an aluminium-identifying "orange fluorescence" is the colour that comes up in his studies in affected human cells and tissue.

Exposing human cells to a common aluminum adjuvant called "Alhydrogel", showed how the aluminium was taken up inside the cells on the presentation images displayed by Exley.

"They load up on the adjuvant. They (the cells) fill their cytoplasm with it."

If you put adjuvants exclusively in the "placebo" then subtract it from the "vaccine" you have a "safe vaccine".

Italy & Hungary: Taking Back Control

Recent populist moves by Hungary's Viktor Orbán and Italy's Matteo Salvini have widened the rift between their nations and transnational EU policies.

• Orbán has passed a law permitting families with four or more children to be exempt from income tax for life:

This new tax incentive is a clear pro-white move to boost the native Hungarian population, such a powerful incentive is proof that mass migration is not necessary to replenish a declining population.

Orbán stated that “they (the EU) want as many migrants to enter as there are missing kids, so that the numbers will add up. We Hungarians have a different way of thinking. Instead of just numbers, we want Hungarian children. Migration for us is surrender.” Orbán also called for anti-migration politicians to take over the EU, as he recently hailed a new partnership between Poland’s right wing government and Italy’s populist interior minister, Matteo Salvini.

• Salvini has called for central banking in Italy to be audited and "reduced to zero":

Salvini has called for wresting control of Italy's sizeable gold reserves away from the country's central bank in a series of threats to the independence of the Bank of Italy by Rome's populist coalition.

He said the Bank of Italy and Consob, the country’s stock market regulator, should be "reduced to zero, more than changing one or two people, reduced to zero" or in other words eliminated, and that “fraudsters” who inflicted losses on Italian savers should "end up in prison for a long time."

Meanwhile, ECB head Mario Draghi, an Italian and former former governor of the Bank of Italy, last year warned that central bank independence was under threat by populist governments, while not making a direct reference to Italy. Should Salvini cement his de facto Italian leadership in upcoming elections, it would make life for the local central bank especially complicated.

Recently, the government nominated Paolo Savona, a veteran economist and prominent Eurosceptic who had previously served as minister for European affairs, as the new president of Consob. Savona was last year been blocked as the coalition’s first choice as economy minister by Italian president Sergio Mattarella, following strong pressure from Brussels and a revolt in the Italian bond market.