On the question of “What is the cause of anti-Semitism?” and 359 expulsions, maybe the Talmud is the key to understanding a large part of it, more even than the Old Testament? I haven't read the Talmud; but I'm told that some people find its contents so satanic and repugnant that they will not allow a copy in their homes.
I'm sure that's also true. I think my theory is that sociopathic behaviors are manipulated by the rabbinical class, set in motion by Talmudic scholars, and I'm sure there's a layer or two above that. Certainly the Kol Nidre is sociopathic. In addition to expulsions, there were the attempts to segregate or limit their influence. From a Jewish lens, that's because of anti-Semitism. But it would be interesting to hear the other side--something I feel is coming out more and more.
On the 359 expulsions, some list a reason but it would be a great research project to trace each one and find out the reason given.
My wife asked me a similar question "why have they been kicked out so many times?"
The answer is simple. Usury and Sorcery are incompatible with a civil society.
It certainly looks like people are noticing once again...with the Federal Reserve being hacked to the tune of 33T of data (there's that magick Masonic number again).
In my notes, I was spelling (and there's a sorcery word) it 'yewsury'. Every time the J is yewsed for a Hebrew name, where they didn't have the J, it's a clue. And it isn't interest and money creation that's the problem--those can be used for community benefit rather than yewsed to enrich the rich.
It's also never been taxation that they've enacted since the invention of coinage. It's tribute. I completely agree that Gaza is taking the blindfold off for the world. The first thing Yahweh does to his children is rip out their hearts and eat them. That's the only way to make them automatons in his service. And of course, I mean Yahweh as a metaphor for the earthly archons subjugating all of us to their rule.
Yes, agreed. I'm sure there's a layer or two above also. In fact the only explanation that makes sense to me is that the intellect behind it all is not even human. Archons/Elohim/Nephilim/Anunnaki? I know you don't want to go there; but that's where my head is for better, or for worse :)
It's not that I don't want to go there, Tirion. I just think that the simplest explanation should be eliminated first. My book goes through the mechanics of how coinage and 'taxation,' which should be called tribute, could get all the people of one fiefdom to turn on and cannibalize their neighbors. And create so much cognitive dissonance in the process that people could never see it without admitting their own complicity in it.
A wandering tribe of goldsmiths led by a ruthless warlord could spread this process from place to place, being the catalyst for empire building. The face-cards of rulers would be both dependent and subject to blackmail. Especially if this was combined with blood rituals of sex and child sacrifice.
Today, if we look at all of the labor in the world, except for a handful of exceptions, being controlled for free by the bankers through the mortgages and currencies, what do you need a supernatural intellect for? You and I could certainly do the same, if we had this power and the ambition to rule the world. It's child's play, if that child was a megalomaniac bully ;-)
Oh, yes. Coinage and tribute are clearly part of the kontrol mechanism. An outside force. Wandering goldsmiths would be another.
Perhaps I'm in denial or just plain ignorant about human nature; but I find it intuitively satisfying to to conclude (or is it just wishful thinking?) that the idea of blood rituals of sex, cannibalism and child sacrifice, of kontrolling, manipulating and harvesting humans and all the other anti-human behaviors which seem hell-bent on destroying the human spirit rather than celebrating and evolving it, must have originated in a supernatural intellect. To me, that is the simplest explanation. That the supernatural exists is not in doubt as far as I am concerned. I don't find its active involvement in human affairs a stretch. In fact I think it explains a great deal, simply. But I've led a sheltered life!
Every day I see evidence of the supernatural, primarily in the timing of how things work out that seem like coincidences but too exact to be accidental. It's always beneficial. And, in my experience and my daughters, always at the last possible minute. As I tell them, if it happened any earlier, you'd miss the miracle of it.
When I did the episode on Anneke Lucas, who was a child victim (and forced to be a perpetrator) in these rituals, she talks about love for those even who raped and tortured her. It's not Stockholm Syndrome. It was her intuitive ability to connect to the child within the man, who was re-enacting what had been done to him in order to gain a moment of release and mastery by passing it on.
It's been 3500 yrs since the person who originated these methods of control was alive. Since then, shame and intergenerational trauma has kept it going.
What makes blackmail work? Our revulsion and blame of the person. If every oligarch is a scared child, told that they've already sacrificed their soul and might as well serve the devil, what could end it? Us. We can release the child in a man's body by seeing the child and not the man.
The condemnation of them as evil and supernatural evil fits right into their belief system. It gives them power over us but not power over themselves.
Thank you for both of those thoughts. I actually do see my homeless solution as compassionate. Because it isn't sending them back to their hometowns or families to live on the streets. It's giving all communities and families the means to care for their own. And most importantly, giving people a way of healing within their own context.
There is an intergenerational trauma that's being passed on and we need to break that cycle. Allowing a new generation to grow up within families that are supported by the community is key. Our streets and parks should be safe for children, even to go alone, because everyone around them is a neighbor and part of their 'village'.
"the United States, which was almost totally pro-German"
The situation flipped 180 degrees. The person who had a major role in this mass-psychology transformation was Edward (Ed) Bernays. In my opinion Ed was the individual with most impact on 20th century, transforming people into consumers. BBC made a fascinating documentary on him, The Century of Self: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
"see if you can find a page without something morally revolting. If your scripture celebrates deceit, enslavement, dismemberment, rape, incest, imperialism and genocide down to the suckling babe"
This IS the fundamental problem. Just as Nazism is banned, this ideology needs to be banned even more so.
Thank you Fadi. I've been listening to your interview with Kevin Barrett and really enjoying it. Our perspectives are certainly aligned and you add many new data points for me.
Yes, my daughters watched the whole Century of Self series with me. Quite the eye-opener.
My parents were both second or third generation US-German, and this shift would have happened shortly before they were born. I wonder if they ever learned about it from their parents. I suspect it was buried and became a source of shame in their heritage and recognizably German names.
I wouldn't, personally, make an equivalency to Naziism. I've been writing about how the term should be ZioNazi because the National Socialist party was infiltrated and exploited. There are accounts of the camps as training grounds run by Zionists in order to force and prepare Jews to move to Palestine, something they vehemently didn't want to do.
And the question of whether Hitler was an agent of London/ Rothschild is still an open one, in my mind. I tap into the research of others to explore it here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/my-hitler-journey. Thanks for reading!
Yes, I saw that article by Karl Radl. He may well be correct, possibly a bit harsh, but I give Robert Sepehr full credit for his work in exposing the Sabbatean/Frankists in his booklet
... with some interesting (?unlikely) commentary by Steven Ben De Noon and David Icke about the Dönmeh and related topics.
And Robert Sepehr gives a very balanced perspective on more recent history in his chapter 7: Ending The Swastika.
A snippet:
“When Adolf Hitler’s period as Chancellor of Germany began, he refused to play ball with the Rockefeller-Rothschild rules, and instead issued Germany’s own currency known as Reichsmarks, which were debt free and uncontrollable by international financial interests.
Hitler fixed the corrupt, debt-based financial system by completely thwarting the international banking cartels, resulting in Germany printing its own currency, instead of borrowing it on interest from a Rothschild bank (which is what is currently in place in America under the Federal Reserve, or the FED).
Hitler lifted Germany out of the heinous economic depression which was imposed on it, ushering in a decade of self-determined growth and prosperity. Germany started offering completely debt-free finance for constructing new roads, bridges, dams, canals, port facilities, and much needed repair of public and private buildings. None of the public money that Nazi Germany issued owed any interest to the International Banksters.”
Oh, I'll check that out. Yes, he definitely deserves credit for publicizing the economic system that freed Germany from the Weimar strangulation. I'm currently leaning towards your theory that Hitler was sincere in his defense of the Germans, fair in his treatment of the Jews--with Zionists controlling the camps--and mistakenly naive in his trust in British honor.
If National Socialism with its Positive Christianity (under the Hitler) wasn't banned we'd have known what awful direction we were being pushed. None of what you mention would've been tolerated. But it's been so subverted/twisted beyond recognition many never veer beyond the official narrative. Evil Nazis/Hitler is suffice. Awful shame.
• Part 3: "There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads; He Must Be Destroyed."
• Part 4: "Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering"
Of course Bernays was just one cog in the wheel and I refer to John Coleman’s “The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations” which I made Mention of here:
Good stuff, Tereza. It seems according to people like Librarian, there must be a hell of a lot, thousands and thousands, of Jewish "anti-Semites." From all over the political spectrum, from Freedman himself, who I believe converted so he's a poster-child "self hating Jew" (when was that term invented?), to of course the many on the left, but also to rabid Zionists themselves. Yitzhak Shamir tried to volunteer to fight WITH the German army during the war (I believe twice) to help defeat the British in Palestine. (I guess Hitler, "being what he was," turned him down.) This was revealed publicly by the NY Times in 1984 based on research by "the Jewish" historian Lenni Brenner. Two years AFTER the story, Shamir was elected prime minister. So is a "founding father" and subsequent prime minister of Israel an "anti-Semite," too? The point about the term ingrained "anti-Semitism" in the words "Jew" and "Jewish people" is absurd. Growing up in New York in a "regular" Brooklyn neighborhood, one always heard them referring to themselves in those terms (often either proudly or boastfully). The statement by Pinsker is ridiculous.
Thank you so much, Howard. Very interesting about Shamir. He tried to volunteer with Germany in WWII to prevent the British from creating Israel? And then became its prime minister? That sounds like a story with a lot more fascinating details.
Yes, I'm trying to stay within the realm of people whose intentions are good, and who give me the same benefit of the doubt. I feel that's the way to find where the logic is going askew. Even Shlomo Sand doesn't seem to get to the heart of it. He sees it as a religion but still thinks others are just biased against people who worship differently. So far, I'd say that Kevin Barrett and Laurent Guyenot hit the nail almost square on the head. But they both defend other Abrahamic religions as the 'good' alternative. Laurent ends his book by saying, "courageous Jews, from Jesus and Paul to Shlomo Sand and Gilad Atzmon, will continue to pave the way in solitude, vilified as self-hating Jews by those they wish to liberate."
Right. Those two are tops, but yeh, one on the Islam"side" and one on the Christian. It's interesting with Guyenot because he lambasts (I think rightfully) "Christians" who with a straight face simultaneously worship the Sermon on the Mount and the Old Testament god of genocides. But that group includes Jesus himself, doesn't it? With Shamir, I was going from memory (I have Brenner's book on the internet archive), but "the deal" may have been, "You let us have Palestine (which would also mean building on the foundational material support the Reich ALREADY gave to it in the 1930s, not just military) and we'll help you against the Russians on the Eastern front.") Whatever the dynamics, his desire to serve is a matter of record. And he HATED the U.S., per another strong "Jewish" source, Ari Ben-Menashe ("Profits of War"). Back to Barrett/Guyenot, I'm not sure I'd put Gilad Atzmon on the same line with Shlomo Sand.
Yes, I keep being pointed back to Gilad Atzmon. A search just comes up with him as a jazz saxophonist and, way down, his book "The Wandering Who?" Are there any articles you'd recommend?
I'd recommend that book and "Being in Time," which is a little more philosophical. I believe that's where he wrote (to paraphrase) that the most successful accomplishment of Jewish power has been the ability to suppress all questioning of Jewish power.
I modified my statement in a reply to Tereza. However, don't hold your breath. He's an original Stern Gang leader and Jabotinsky follower, joined with Begin in the Irgun, and was a key player in the Deir Yassin massacre. He served 10 years in the Mossad.
I still haven't read Part 2 of Webb's magnum opus. Even though it focuses on Epstein, it's hard to imagine how it could equal Part 1. But I'll get to it ......
That's funny, Howard, I read Part 2 but not Part 1. I think I happened to have 2 handy. I highly recommend it. I've been meaning to do a post called Whitney's Web. But I guess I should read Part 1 first (or second, as the case may be).
Guyénot then argues, logically, that if Jews want to be feared, then they must also accept being hated. So if Jews want to be feared in order to fight anti-Semitism, then anti-Semitism has a bright future ahead.
This does not make much sense, but it is very biblical. Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible does not recommend that Jews should strive to be loved by non-Jews. If Yahweh wants to spread terror among non-Jews, that makes him a terrorist, or the god of terrorists, and it makes Zionists good Yahwists.
Now, how about that, hey Tereza, for some logical reasoning? Think the Jews would accept it? Of course not. The Jews are allowed to terrorize (e.g. Gaza) but the terrorized are not allowed to hate the Jews for it ... the holocaust etc.
Really good article, Ngungu. And I was trying to figure out how to sub Laurent on Unz, so that solved the problem of where to find him, since he's not a regular columnist.
Chilling to read about Shmuley humiliating RFK by playing the newscaster that his father was killed by Sirhan Sirhan and he 'wanted to be like the Jews.' I wonder what it is they have on him.
“ if Jews want to be feared, then they must also accept being hated. So if Jews want to be feared in order to fight anti-Semitism, then anti-Semitism has a bright future ahead.”
Could one substitute “USA” for Jews, and “Democracy” for Anita-Semitism??
Thanks for supplying that reference, Israhell. Yes, it was an odd phrase that Librarian said Freedman 'claimed' that Judea Declared War on Germany in 1933.
Well written article. When I researched my last piece on the Habiru under Abdi-Ashirta/ Abraham, it was clear that the same technique has been in use (yews) for over two millennia. Create terrorism through putting a people under siege and committing false flag acts of violence, thereby inducing them to turn against their own leaders or rulers. Then take over under the guise of a 'popular' coup while decapitating all of the so-called elite, aka middle class. And yes, my book looks closely at that 1913 coup that was the 'federal reserve act.'
Woah! So refreshing to hear from someone who doesn't pussyfoot but makes his position known. There are a few places, however, I'd disagree. Dalton writes:
"Things are disintegrating on several fronts around the world: war, migration, economic gyrations, physical and mental illness, environmental degradation, overpopulation, runaway technology. When things go badly, those in charge must take the blame. And in the West, those in charge, those who have the most leverage and the greatest control, are predominantly Jews."
I think overpopulation is a psyop by the YahChoPeeps for depopulation. And it's too vague to name all the problems (and Corbett points out that polycrisis is a word being used by the WEF along with precariat, which I used in my book and last post) and then say those in charge must take the blame, and they happen to be Jews. There are so many lines of direct manipulation that generalizing only creates the impression it's a generalized reaction.
And he does the cause and himself no favors by promoting a bias against people by embracing the term anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish. It's the ideology that's at the root of it, which is blatantly on exhibit in the Torah but not exclusive to it. That's why I call it anti-Shemitism, it's the right to rule over other. Being against Semitic people is a wide swath that serves no one, and actually names your enemy as the people you want to defend. Palestinians are the Semites, not Ashkenazis originating from Ukraine.
He writes, "The time has come to be an open and courageous anti-Semite, and to take action consistent with this view, as I will explain. But two further points at the outset. I refer here to Jews as an ethnicity, as a genetic group, and not as a religion. My concern is with ethnic Jews."
This would certainly be the opposite of my point. Being against people because of their ethnicity is racism. He's being inclusive in feeling that it's wrong to critique someone's religion but instead holding against them the thing they can't change.
He has a lot of good evidence, but this point is so basic it even makes me wonder if he is controlling the opposition. He certainly produces an easy target and encourages others to do the same, potentially disempowering them and justifying laws against them. Just my two cents, but I didn't finish reading the whole thing. Thanks for the recommendation!
Yes, he's somewhat hardcore :-) I do get his point though and now agree with much.
I understand he's a racialist, National Socialist (perhaps sharing very similar views as Dr Karl Radl or Karl Haemers).
Feel a pull in this direction myself tbh.
Are you familiar with Asha Logos' work? I really love it. Have listened/watched mostly everything...when I started I'd no idea his evolving stance would share similarities.
If his position is that all people should be ethnocentric, as the YahChoPeeps are mandated to be by their scriptures, then he's anti-Semitic but not anti-Shemitic against an ideology of masters and slaves. He's saying that other races should copy them and do what's right for their race, no matter the detriment to others.
As you know, I say that any statement of ethics can't contain any proper noun. What my system does is give priority to the long-term residents of all communities, however they define it. They should absolutely protect their borders economically by setting an exchange rate against other currencies that favors people who live and work there, and who were born and raised there, over those coming from elsewhere.
That doesn't discriminate by race, but it absolutely discriminates between community members and guests/ speculators/ freeloaders/ infiltrators.
I scanned the Asha Logos site but do you have a specific video you like?
And yes, that's my kind of listening. I can't just watch something. I have to be doing something at the same time. Then it helps me get work done too, especially a good series. Thanks much!
It provides some startling new [for me] insight into the machinations behind the creation of the Balfour Declaration. Apparently it went through several drafts and was actually approved/signed off by none other than Jewish SCOTUS Louis Brandeis.
Duane Hayes explains the background and context. I have updated the complete playlist of audio (with commentary) and original text here
“We fell clear to the ground, nearly losing all feeling in our legs when finding out while researching parts 3 and 4, that, on top of everything else already said, Brandeis became the leader of the entire international Zionist movement by being elected chairman in 1914 of the Provisional Executive Committee on General Zionist Affairs. Brandeis masterfully parlaying his Zionist influence on the US president, American Jewry, and Christian Dispensationalists into support for the founding of Israel. And there wasn’t enough voltage in the world to electroshock us back to coherence when finding out Brandeis was central to both the drafting of the Balfour Declaration and the construction of the earliest settlements in Palestine, founding the very country of Israel(!)
Amazing to learn that it was through the hands of Brandeis, that passed the many drafts of the Declaration and it was only upon Brandeis’ final approval that the Balfour Declaration was finally made official – while in the presence of only British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, his secretary Eustace Percy, and Brandeis’ lieutenant, Felix Frankfurter.
[in other words, Balfour was merely the ‘shabby’ messenger.]
The sounds of truth bombs dropping were heard upon the discovery that three of the four in the room at the consummation of the document most responsible for creation of Israel were actually House of Truth residents(!) Our brains simply melted when finding out Brandeis was also closely working with the House of Rothschild in the actual construction of infrastructure for early Jewish settlements in Palestine through Brandeis’, Palestine Economic Corporation, and Baron Rothschild’s, Palestine Jewish Colonization Association(!)”
Not a single word in either the text of the document itself [His Majesty's Government's declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations] or Rothschild’s description of events a hundred years ago remotely hints at ‘British Colonialism’ being a factor in its creation.
“The word Jew was not coined until the 18th century”
How do you figure?
The King James Bible (1611) is peppered liberally with the word. The Gospel of St John is, particularly.”The archons” should (and apparently do) want that narrative banned in the US altogether (HR 6090.)
I appreciate the detailed parsing of the word “antisemitism” here, which is one of those words like Heidegger’s “technology” the definition of which becomes more puzzling the closer you look. And so may get defined for us by speech law!
In What Is a Jew?, I presented this on the King James:
"In 1241 Jeu was used as a surname. Before 1200, Chambers Dictionary of Etymology [553] states that Jew was probably giw. The earliest use in English is Gyv in a 13th c. translation from John 18:35: “Pilates hym onswerede, am ich Gyv enne?” "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew?" Another gospel translation I consulted, more true to the original, translates this word as Judean."
Much later in that essay, I look at the original Greek word translated as Jew in the KJB:
"When the word ioudaios is used in the gospels, I think it means a rebel against the Roman empire and a follower of Judas, a follower of the Jew. Someone who identifies as a Jew and believes their ancestors came from Judea would come from a great class of fearless heroes and heroines, who stood up to the Roman Empire and defended themselves and others against the exploitation of their own high priests.
"And for their trouble, they were sold off as slaves and turned into the scapegoats of the next iteration of empire: the Holy Roman and the Davidic dynasty. Someone who is a true ioudaios is descended from anti-imperial, anti-Yahwist rebels who rejected the Torah, wanted to intermarry and not be subjected to the imperial taxation that funded their own enslavement and the conquest of others."
The whole episode is here, thanks for asking! Because you're absolutely right--the NT is an anti-Judean polemic in the same way the OT is an anti-Canaanite polemic. It's not about God at all, but about the perfidy of the 'Jews' as it's misleadingly (intentionally) translated:
I found the details about the Jewish betrayal of Germany during WW1 a great reminder, and the 1961 speech link great background - all of this backs up my theory of a virtual, hiding in plain sight Zionist Evil Empire.
And coming back to declarations of war by the nation of Judea as in 1933, I have maintained for some time that was a declaration of war, and the question you alluded to in this article of it tells us there is some sort of organization, that organization, and another declaration of war, came to the public's view in 1897 with the formation of the World Zionism Organization and their 1st Congress in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland, where they put out the Basel Manifesto - which was a DECLARATION OF WAR on the Ottoman Empire and the people of Palestine.
Have you ever read it - it's short. But it is clearly a declaration of war against all the people of Palestine saying "We want that land and we will take it." Which they did.
I get irritated by the often repeated lie that the Protocols were a fraud, or a forgery.
Firstly they were not copied from anything. So they can be neither.
And they are not anti-Semitic, as in anti-Jews - they are ANTI-CHRISTIAN, and a vile piece of anti-human work. And instead of anyone writing a plan to STOP THIS PLAN - the British in particular immediately published it and circulated it worldwide - claiming it was a warning - But in fact, just as happened in Russia - they were SPREADING THE PLAN OF ACTION to all their hidden army of useful idiots. There isn't a single book written since the early 1900s that has a concrete plan of action or a poliitical movement to RESIST communism - because the true communists are the richest people on the planet - bankers, billionaires and monarchies - and they are all Zionists.
Because Israel is the home of Zion, and Zion is the key to the End Times and making people believe in the HOAX of a new Messianic age.
What pisses me off the most about anti-Semitism is why are we all spending endless amounts of time, energy and money obsessing about the 'feelings' of a group of people that are the richest group per capita in the world, have the best jobs in the world, own the biggest banks in the world, own the biggest media in the world, control most of the worlds multinationals, devote all of their philanthropic money to supporting just their own community - and yet only make up 0.02% of the worlds entire population - and meantime real crises ARE NEVER DISCUSSED - like
I'm not 100% certain that Israel is the home of Zionism. I think it might be the City of London, that one square mile. Israel might be a sacrificial zone, even for Jews.
The economic plan in my book shows how to take back our labor and property, so that we're not all beholden to this group of oligarchs. It doesn't need to figure out and name who's behind it because it simply defangs the snake.
It will be interesting to see how things play out. We're certainly in a pivotal time.
That wasn't an honorable mention, that was nine times that you represented my words to Librarian as your own. I'm done, Nefahotep. I don't want the private relationship that you want, and I don't want a public relationship where you appropriate my ideas as yours--something you've done twice even in comments back to me. I'm done with this and I'd like you to unsub my stack.
You say I represented your words here? All of these are yours?
First, I would say the key to "re - cognize" and "re - collect" the events that may have taken place in ancient times, is Linguistics. … Such as the real name of the Hebrew: Habiru or Hapiru or Apiru.
----- This is Etymology: Re-cognize or Re-collect, I'm not sure you should say that you coined these, although if you did, my apology. I don't try to claim anything I put out in comments.
"Semitism itself is a system of slaves and masters from the most ancient attestations. The Canaanites were bequeathed by Noah to Shem to be his slaves. To be Anti Shemite is to be against that system of slaves and masters."
---- It's true it's your concept, I don't think I worded it in the same way you may have. So, if you "Own this concept" this means I'm not supposed to say it or use anywhere?
… usually those stories were written long after the events they describe, yet are used to justify the claims of Empire and the construction of a "Control Prison" called "Hierarchy." Etymology: from Greek Roots: Hieros (“sacred”) and archein (“rule” or “order”)
---- Etymology again, is from Wiki, public domain. I'm not sure who may have said "Control Prison" I may have other similar expressions.
My theory is these "Habiru" were the same ones known in Sumeria as Šagašu, meaning trespassers because they were wanderers that were not welcome. They became the "Shepards" the Egyptians had reason to fear.
---- You were NOT first one to talk of the fear of Shepards, I have seen this brought up by others, ALSO ---- > The research on the Habiru and Šagašu has been one of my own since the post I did on: "The First Holocaust." Where I discuss the Heka Khasut and the Inverted story of Exodus.
… "that includes their very secretive Parasitic Culture which also includes its own Psychopathy." It's basically a "Cult." One lady posted a very strong worded article in 2016 about why she left the Cult. https://mondoweiss.net/2016/10/why-i-left-the-cult/
------ First half of this: "Parasitic Culture which has it's own Psychopathy" is something I have been saying since before I had a substack. ----- The link is just a link, I sub'd to mondoweiss, and took a good look.
I believe that people are essentially morally equal, when "Bad" things happen, systems are to blame and those can be changed. ----- Yes I have been saying this from you because it's true. I won't say it anymore.
… the reason for the emphasized violence and superiority in the Hebrew stories is because the whole story of Shemitism is one about Masters and Slaves. ---- Yes you have said this too, I should have credited it.
"Hating someone or something is like taking Poison and expecting the other person to die."
---- This is 100% my own, I have said this for a long time, at least once in awhile.
"Originally, with barter there was always a slight advantage from one side or other, this imbalance was only there to keep the relationship of exchange going. One person would get a "Barter - Gain" (Bargain) the other would try to get the upper hand next time; however, there was no third party or Ususrer." ----- This is really the only one that is an uncredited but not an exact quote.
For the record, you are forgetting that in many of the comments that I posted to Librarian, I DID credit to you.
""---- There were NO Jewish forebears; I'll give you a quote from my friend Tereza because I think she says it best:
"In the end, the phrase 'the origin of the Jews' is misleading because there is no one coherent people who stayed intact throughout millennia and can be traced back to those mentioned in the fictional revenge story of the Torah.""
I wasn't trying to copy you. The Biblical stuff you know is your specialty. I was attempting to make sense in those comments. I wasn't asking for a private relationship either, I think you may have completely mistaken my intentions.
I'm sorry that you were not willing to communicate your frustrations.
Nefahotep, you know, unlike other readers, that it's not just this. Your reaction to my request that we keep our communication public was over the top. My email with the request was gracious. It talked about how much I valued you and was honored by the status you gave me as spiritual sister. I wrote:
"I would like to keep our conversations public, on the ideas, and respond to each others’ blogs as they’re posted. I value the similarity in our ideas and feel that you help move my ideas forward in your posts, your comments to me, and your comments to others. I’m glad to have been sent photos of your beautiful family. You’ve trusted me and opened up your personal life to me, and I’m honored by that."
I said I knew your intentions were respectful. A friendship was more responsibility than I felt I could live up to. Was there more that concerned me? Without going into public details, yes, it was more intense and complicated than I wanted.
Your public responses included: 'Men are rational and logical, but women think in curlicues, which can be fun or hurtful.' You talked about women setting boundaries. Mentioning that Kathleen felt we were friends. Saying that you trust me more than I trust you but 'friendship has no expectations.' Hoping that I would recognize 'our Friendship' and not deflect to the group. More that you've since deleted.
Going back to a public discourse without an undercurrent of resentment didn't seem like an option. And honestly, it pissed me off. Once again, I'd been fooled into thinking someone was interested in my ideas for their own sake, only to find that was contingent on a personal relationship.
And now you're saying that I've been "nursing a cloaked 'Cold Hatred' of everything you have ever written, maybe of you personally, hard to tell." I don't think this situation warrants that level of emotion. It's a little scary, and doesn't seem like it's about me.
I don't think that I turned on a dime. I've indicated that I wasn't comfortable with things you said, to me and to others. I just don't think you picked up on it, like you didn't 'get' my statement that Librarian's response may have been different if credit had been given. Even with all nine quotes put together, you didn't see the pattern of those being my ideas.
Likewise, the two times you sent me a comment with something you'd gotten from me, you clearly didn't remember it was my statement or you wouldn't have said it. That concerned me, that the lines were so blurred that you didn't know you were reflecting my words back to me.
But I would have said nothing if I hadn't been researching Librarian and started noticing the number of times you did it in your conversation with him. You use terms I coined like anti-Shemitism. You then explain what you mean by that, as if it's your idea. And I agree that you didn't use my same words--you misquoted me:
--from the back cover of my book, "I believe that people are intrinsically good and, when they behave badly, systems are to blame."
--from me quoting my daughter's hospice mentor, "Anger is wishing the other person would die, but swallowing the poison yourself."
--from p. 13 of my book, when I talk about a bargain as a barter-gain, the point is that barter didn't precede coinage. It was a gift economy where a little more or less kept the exchange going. Barter was a game played by men to cheat those from elsewhere.
Inadvertently, it was an interesting experiment to see how my ideas would be received if written by a man. I don't blame you for that. But it was your lack of awareness that disturbed me. In your email, you were "hoping to set up a type of partnership in our research" and therefore wanted direct communication. That seems especially tenuous when even words I make up, like anti-Shemitism, can be appropriated and used as your own.
I know that you'll be very much missed on my threads and that we will cross paths on pretty much everyone I read. Maybe there will be a time when we can have a productive dialogue. This isn't that time. I would like you to unsub and unfollow me.
Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that she has been "nursing" a cloaked "Cold Hatred" of everything I have ever written, maybe of me personally, hard to tell.
For myself, I can say I have made some mistakes obviously; this turning on a dime was something that she describes others as doing. Mostly, these types of mistakes can be avoided with clear upfront communication, something that I suspect was always absent.
On the question of “What is the cause of anti-Semitism?” and 359 expulsions, maybe the Talmud is the key to understanding a large part of it, more even than the Old Testament? I haven't read the Talmud; but I'm told that some people find its contents so satanic and repugnant that they will not allow a copy in their homes.
I'm sure that's also true. I think my theory is that sociopathic behaviors are manipulated by the rabbinical class, set in motion by Talmudic scholars, and I'm sure there's a layer or two above that. Certainly the Kol Nidre is sociopathic. In addition to expulsions, there were the attempts to segregate or limit their influence. From a Jewish lens, that's because of anti-Semitism. But it would be interesting to hear the other side--something I feel is coming out more and more.
On the 359 expulsions, some list a reason but it would be a great research project to trace each one and find out the reason given.
My wife asked me a similar question "why have they been kicked out so many times?"
The answer is simple. Usury and Sorcery are incompatible with a civil society.
It certainly looks like people are noticing once again...with the Federal Reserve being hacked to the tune of 33T of data (there's that magick Masonic number again).
https://securityaffairs.com/164873/cyber-crime/lockbit-claims-hacked-us-federal-reserve.html
Twitter is full of exposure of their war crimes in Gaza, so people are noticing the truth.
In my notes, I was spelling (and there's a sorcery word) it 'yewsury'. Every time the J is yewsed for a Hebrew name, where they didn't have the J, it's a clue. And it isn't interest and money creation that's the problem--those can be used for community benefit rather than yewsed to enrich the rich.
It's also never been taxation that they've enacted since the invention of coinage. It's tribute. I completely agree that Gaza is taking the blindfold off for the world. The first thing Yahweh does to his children is rip out their hearts and eat them. That's the only way to make them automatons in his service. And of course, I mean Yahweh as a metaphor for the earthly archons subjugating all of us to their rule.
Yes, agreed. I'm sure there's a layer or two above also. In fact the only explanation that makes sense to me is that the intellect behind it all is not even human. Archons/Elohim/Nephilim/Anunnaki? I know you don't want to go there; but that's where my head is for better, or for worse :)
It's not that I don't want to go there, Tirion. I just think that the simplest explanation should be eliminated first. My book goes through the mechanics of how coinage and 'taxation,' which should be called tribute, could get all the people of one fiefdom to turn on and cannibalize their neighbors. And create so much cognitive dissonance in the process that people could never see it without admitting their own complicity in it.
A wandering tribe of goldsmiths led by a ruthless warlord could spread this process from place to place, being the catalyst for empire building. The face-cards of rulers would be both dependent and subject to blackmail. Especially if this was combined with blood rituals of sex and child sacrifice.
Today, if we look at all of the labor in the world, except for a handful of exceptions, being controlled for free by the bankers through the mortgages and currencies, what do you need a supernatural intellect for? You and I could certainly do the same, if we had this power and the ambition to rule the world. It's child's play, if that child was a megalomaniac bully ;-)
Oh, yes. Coinage and tribute are clearly part of the kontrol mechanism. An outside force. Wandering goldsmiths would be another.
Perhaps I'm in denial or just plain ignorant about human nature; but I find it intuitively satisfying to to conclude (or is it just wishful thinking?) that the idea of blood rituals of sex, cannibalism and child sacrifice, of kontrolling, manipulating and harvesting humans and all the other anti-human behaviors which seem hell-bent on destroying the human spirit rather than celebrating and evolving it, must have originated in a supernatural intellect. To me, that is the simplest explanation. That the supernatural exists is not in doubt as far as I am concerned. I don't find its active involvement in human affairs a stretch. In fact I think it explains a great deal, simply. But I've led a sheltered life!
Every day I see evidence of the supernatural, primarily in the timing of how things work out that seem like coincidences but too exact to be accidental. It's always beneficial. And, in my experience and my daughters, always at the last possible minute. As I tell them, if it happened any earlier, you'd miss the miracle of it.
When I did the episode on Anneke Lucas, who was a child victim (and forced to be a perpetrator) in these rituals, she talks about love for those even who raped and tortured her. It's not Stockholm Syndrome. It was her intuitive ability to connect to the child within the man, who was re-enacting what had been done to him in order to gain a moment of release and mastery by passing it on.
It's been 3500 yrs since the person who originated these methods of control was alive. Since then, shame and intergenerational trauma has kept it going.
What makes blackmail work? Our revulsion and blame of the person. If every oligarch is a scared child, told that they've already sacrificed their soul and might as well serve the devil, what could end it? Us. We can release the child in a man's body by seeing the child and not the man.
The condemnation of them as evil and supernatural evil fits right into their belief system. It gives them power over us but not power over themselves.
There is a reason jews were expelled 1030 times. And pretty much none of them can be accurately called semite.
Also agree with your homeless solution. I, for one, am tired of being assaulted by them every f-ing day whilst just trying to walk down my street.
Good on ya.
Thank you for both of those thoughts. I actually do see my homeless solution as compassionate. Because it isn't sending them back to their hometowns or families to live on the streets. It's giving all communities and families the means to care for their own. And most importantly, giving people a way of healing within their own context.
There is an intergenerational trauma that's being passed on and we need to break that cycle. Allowing a new generation to grow up within families that are supported by the community is key. Our streets and parks should be safe for children, even to go alone, because everyone around them is a neighbor and part of their 'village'.
As usual, creatively informative.
A couple of notes:
"the United States, which was almost totally pro-German"
The situation flipped 180 degrees. The person who had a major role in this mass-psychology transformation was Edward (Ed) Bernays. In my opinion Ed was the individual with most impact on 20th century, transforming people into consumers. BBC made a fascinating documentary on him, The Century of Self: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
"see if you can find a page without something morally revolting. If your scripture celebrates deceit, enslavement, dismemberment, rape, incest, imperialism and genocide down to the suckling babe"
This IS the fundamental problem. Just as Nazism is banned, this ideology needs to be banned even more so.
Thank you Fadi. I've been listening to your interview with Kevin Barrett and really enjoying it. Our perspectives are certainly aligned and you add many new data points for me.
Yes, my daughters watched the whole Century of Self series with me. Quite the eye-opener.
My parents were both second or third generation US-German, and this shift would have happened shortly before they were born. I wonder if they ever learned about it from their parents. I suspect it was buried and became a source of shame in their heritage and recognizably German names.
I wouldn't, personally, make an equivalency to Naziism. I've been writing about how the term should be ZioNazi because the National Socialist party was infiltrated and exploited. There are accounts of the camps as training grounds run by Zionists in order to force and prepare Jews to move to Palestine, something they vehemently didn't want to do.
And the question of whether Hitler was an agent of London/ Rothschild is still an open one, in my mind. I tap into the research of others to explore it here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/my-hitler-journey. Thanks for reading!
Karl debunks an awful lot of Hitler related propaganda...in his articles and X posts. He's quite excellent.
https://karlradl14.substack.com/
Thanks Pauline. This was interesting too: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/is-robert-sepehr-jewish.
Yes, I saw that article by Karl Radl. He may well be correct, possibly a bit harsh, but I give Robert Sepehr full credit for his work in exposing the Sabbatean/Frankists in his booklet
• 1666 Redemption Through Sin - Robert Sepehr PDF
https://ia801901.us.archive.org/3/items/1666-redemption-through-sin-global-conspi-robert-sepehr/1666-Redemption-Through-Sin-Global-Conspi-Robert-Sepehr.pdf
Here Robert reads from its Introduction on the fifth anniversary of its publication.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgklbIau4yg
... with some interesting (?unlikely) commentary by Steven Ben De Noon and David Icke about the Dönmeh and related topics.
And Robert Sepehr gives a very balanced perspective on more recent history in his chapter 7: Ending The Swastika.
A snippet:
“When Adolf Hitler’s period as Chancellor of Germany began, he refused to play ball with the Rockefeller-Rothschild rules, and instead issued Germany’s own currency known as Reichsmarks, which were debt free and uncontrollable by international financial interests.
Hitler fixed the corrupt, debt-based financial system by completely thwarting the international banking cartels, resulting in Germany printing its own currency, instead of borrowing it on interest from a Rothschild bank (which is what is currently in place in America under the Federal Reserve, or the FED).
Hitler lifted Germany out of the heinous economic depression which was imposed on it, ushering in a decade of self-determined growth and prosperity. Germany started offering completely debt-free finance for constructing new roads, bridges, dams, canals, port facilities, and much needed repair of public and private buildings. None of the public money that Nazi Germany issued owed any interest to the International Banksters.”
Oh, I'll check that out. Yes, he definitely deserves credit for publicizing the economic system that freed Germany from the Weimar strangulation. I'm currently leaning towards your theory that Hitler was sincere in his defense of the Germans, fair in his treatment of the Jews--with Zionists controlling the camps--and mistakenly naive in his trust in British honor.
If National Socialism with its Positive Christianity (under the Hitler) wasn't banned we'd have known what awful direction we were being pushed. None of what you mention would've been tolerated. But it's been so subverted/twisted beyond recognition many never veer beyond the official narrative. Evil Nazis/Hitler is suffice. Awful shame.
Yes Fadi, that is a great documentary – seconded and highly recommended. Here is another set of links to a four-part playlist.
• Part 1: "Happiness Machines"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04&list=PLktPdpPFKHfoXRfTPOwyR8SG8EHLWOSj6
followed by:
• Part 2: "The Engineering of Consent"
• Part 3: "There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads; He Must Be Destroyed."
• Part 4: "Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering"
Of course Bernays was just one cog in the wheel and I refer to John Coleman’s “The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations” which I made Mention of here:
https://juliusskoolafish.substack.com/p/the-tavistock-institute-of-human
I wish you well on learning more about National Socialism.
Good stuff, Tereza. It seems according to people like Librarian, there must be a hell of a lot, thousands and thousands, of Jewish "anti-Semites." From all over the political spectrum, from Freedman himself, who I believe converted so he's a poster-child "self hating Jew" (when was that term invented?), to of course the many on the left, but also to rabid Zionists themselves. Yitzhak Shamir tried to volunteer to fight WITH the German army during the war (I believe twice) to help defeat the British in Palestine. (I guess Hitler, "being what he was," turned him down.) This was revealed publicly by the NY Times in 1984 based on research by "the Jewish" historian Lenni Brenner. Two years AFTER the story, Shamir was elected prime minister. So is a "founding father" and subsequent prime minister of Israel an "anti-Semite," too? The point about the term ingrained "anti-Semitism" in the words "Jew" and "Jewish people" is absurd. Growing up in New York in a "regular" Brooklyn neighborhood, one always heard them referring to themselves in those terms (often either proudly or boastfully). The statement by Pinsker is ridiculous.
Thank you so much, Howard. Very interesting about Shamir. He tried to volunteer with Germany in WWII to prevent the British from creating Israel? And then became its prime minister? That sounds like a story with a lot more fascinating details.
Yes, I'm trying to stay within the realm of people whose intentions are good, and who give me the same benefit of the doubt. I feel that's the way to find where the logic is going askew. Even Shlomo Sand doesn't seem to get to the heart of it. He sees it as a religion but still thinks others are just biased against people who worship differently. So far, I'd say that Kevin Barrett and Laurent Guyenot hit the nail almost square on the head. But they both defend other Abrahamic religions as the 'good' alternative. Laurent ends his book by saying, "courageous Jews, from Jesus and Paul to Shlomo Sand and Gilad Atzmon, will continue to pave the way in solitude, vilified as self-hating Jews by those they wish to liberate."
Oy veh!
Right. Those two are tops, but yeh, one on the Islam"side" and one on the Christian. It's interesting with Guyenot because he lambasts (I think rightfully) "Christians" who with a straight face simultaneously worship the Sermon on the Mount and the Old Testament god of genocides. But that group includes Jesus himself, doesn't it? With Shamir, I was going from memory (I have Brenner's book on the internet archive), but "the deal" may have been, "You let us have Palestine (which would also mean building on the foundational material support the Reich ALREADY gave to it in the 1930s, not just military) and we'll help you against the Russians on the Eastern front.") Whatever the dynamics, his desire to serve is a matter of record. And he HATED the U.S., per another strong "Jewish" source, Ari Ben-Menashe ("Profits of War"). Back to Barrett/Guyenot, I'm not sure I'd put Gilad Atzmon on the same line with Shlomo Sand.
Yes, I keep being pointed back to Gilad Atzmon. A search just comes up with him as a jazz saxophonist and, way down, his book "The Wandering Who?" Are there any articles you'd recommend?
I'd recommend that book and "Being in Time," which is a little more philosophical. I believe that's where he wrote (to paraphrase) that the most successful accomplishment of Jewish power has been the ability to suppress all questioning of Jewish power.
I modified my statement in a reply to Tereza. However, don't hold your breath. He's an original Stern Gang leader and Jabotinsky follower, joined with Begin in the Irgun, and was a key player in the Deir Yassin massacre. He served 10 years in the Mossad.
Probably worked with the Bronfmans and Lanskeys of the Mega Mafia Group, as described by Whitney Webb. https://www.newsfromtheperimeter.com/home/2019/8/15/the-origins-of-the-mega-group-mafia
I still haven't read Part 2 of Webb's magnum opus. Even though it focuses on Epstein, it's hard to imagine how it could equal Part 1. But I'll get to it ......
That's funny, Howard, I read Part 2 but not Part 1. I think I happened to have 2 handy. I highly recommend it. I've been meaning to do a post called Whitney's Web. But I guess I should read Part 1 first (or second, as the case may be).
We both have a goal to accomplish! I wonder how Whitney and her kids are doing?
Here is a good short article by Laurent Guyénot: https://www.unz.com/article/fear-of-the-jews-and-the-jewish-god-of-terror/
In it he quotes rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who says "it is time for Jews to be feared" — https://twitter.com/KarlGolovin/status/1765914079821005093?t=FF_Yups8NB_uTOlS5UFglQ&s=03 "https://twitter.com/KarlGolovin/status/1765914079821005093?t=FF_Yups8NB_uTOlS5UFglQ&s=03"
Guyénot then argues, logically, that if Jews want to be feared, then they must also accept being hated. So if Jews want to be feared in order to fight anti-Semitism, then anti-Semitism has a bright future ahead.
This does not make much sense, but it is very biblical. Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible does not recommend that Jews should strive to be loved by non-Jews. If Yahweh wants to spread terror among non-Jews, that makes him a terrorist, or the god of terrorists, and it makes Zionists good Yahwists.
Now, how about that, hey Tereza, for some logical reasoning? Think the Jews would accept it? Of course not. The Jews are allowed to terrorize (e.g. Gaza) but the terrorized are not allowed to hate the Jews for it ... the holocaust etc.
Really good article, Ngungu. And I was trying to figure out how to sub Laurent on Unz, so that solved the problem of where to find him, since he's not a regular columnist.
Chilling to read about Shmuley humiliating RFK by playing the newscaster that his father was killed by Sirhan Sirhan and he 'wanted to be like the Jews.' I wonder what it is they have on him.
“ if Jews want to be feared, then they must also accept being hated. So if Jews want to be feared in order to fight anti-Semitism, then anti-Semitism has a bright future ahead.”
Could one substitute “USA” for Jews, and “Democracy” for Anita-Semitism??
Good one, Greg!
Here is the front page of The Daily Express dated March 24, 1933. The Romans weren't the only ones who prefer that month to go to war.
https://www.h-ref.de/feindbilder/juedische-kriegserklaerungen/judea-declares-war-evening.jpg
I have a much shorter read on this than you do, Tereza, where I simply ask "Who Started It?"
https://greaterisrahell.substack.com/p/who-started-it
Thanks for supplying that reference, Israhell. Yes, it was an odd phrase that Librarian said Freedman 'claimed' that Judea Declared War on Germany in 1933.
Well written article. When I researched my last piece on the Habiru under Abdi-Ashirta/ Abraham, it was clear that the same technique has been in use (yews) for over two millennia. Create terrorism through putting a people under siege and committing false flag acts of violence, thereby inducing them to turn against their own leaders or rulers. Then take over under the guise of a 'popular' coup while decapitating all of the so-called elite, aka middle class. And yes, my book looks closely at that 1913 coup that was the 'federal reserve act.'
Thanks for the citation and link!
"Well written article."
Thank you, Tereza. I have included many of the same things there that you have in this post, but your post is more detailed.
Well done, as always Tereza!
No beating around the bush by antisemitic Thomas Dalton :-)
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2024/02/21/the-primacy-of-anti-semitism/
Woah! So refreshing to hear from someone who doesn't pussyfoot but makes his position known. There are a few places, however, I'd disagree. Dalton writes:
"Things are disintegrating on several fronts around the world: war, migration, economic gyrations, physical and mental illness, environmental degradation, overpopulation, runaway technology. When things go badly, those in charge must take the blame. And in the West, those in charge, those who have the most leverage and the greatest control, are predominantly Jews."
I think overpopulation is a psyop by the YahChoPeeps for depopulation. And it's too vague to name all the problems (and Corbett points out that polycrisis is a word being used by the WEF along with precariat, which I used in my book and last post) and then say those in charge must take the blame, and they happen to be Jews. There are so many lines of direct manipulation that generalizing only creates the impression it's a generalized reaction.
And he does the cause and himself no favors by promoting a bias against people by embracing the term anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish. It's the ideology that's at the root of it, which is blatantly on exhibit in the Torah but not exclusive to it. That's why I call it anti-Shemitism, it's the right to rule over other. Being against Semitic people is a wide swath that serves no one, and actually names your enemy as the people you want to defend. Palestinians are the Semites, not Ashkenazis originating from Ukraine.
He writes, "The time has come to be an open and courageous anti-Semite, and to take action consistent with this view, as I will explain. But two further points at the outset. I refer here to Jews as an ethnicity, as a genetic group, and not as a religion. My concern is with ethnic Jews."
This would certainly be the opposite of my point. Being against people because of their ethnicity is racism. He's being inclusive in feeling that it's wrong to critique someone's religion but instead holding against them the thing they can't change.
He has a lot of good evidence, but this point is so basic it even makes me wonder if he is controlling the opposition. He certainly produces an easy target and encourages others to do the same, potentially disempowering them and justifying laws against them. Just my two cents, but I didn't finish reading the whole thing. Thanks for the recommendation!
Yes, he's somewhat hardcore :-) I do get his point though and now agree with much.
I understand he's a racialist, National Socialist (perhaps sharing very similar views as Dr Karl Radl or Karl Haemers).
Feel a pull in this direction myself tbh.
Are you familiar with Asha Logos' work? I really love it. Have listened/watched mostly everything...when I started I'd no idea his evolving stance would share similarities.
https://ashalogos.com/home
If his position is that all people should be ethnocentric, as the YahChoPeeps are mandated to be by their scriptures, then he's anti-Semitic but not anti-Shemitic against an ideology of masters and slaves. He's saying that other races should copy them and do what's right for their race, no matter the detriment to others.
As you know, I say that any statement of ethics can't contain any proper noun. What my system does is give priority to the long-term residents of all communities, however they define it. They should absolutely protect their borders economically by setting an exchange rate against other currencies that favors people who live and work there, and who were born and raised there, over those coming from elsewhere.
That doesn't discriminate by race, but it absolutely discriminates between community members and guests/ speculators/ freeloaders/ infiltrators.
I scanned the Asha Logos site but do you have a specific video you like?
Loved this reply Tereza (like most of them tbh). You really are a very gifted girl. In so many ways.
All, I guess. Listened to the podcasts when cooking/baking or house work :-)
Regards the videos...have been very struck and moved by the Our Subverted History series.
(And was truly shocked, e.g, to learn about how utterly hellish both the French Revolution and Fall of Rome were).
Thanks for that kind comment, Pauline.
And yes, that's my kind of listening. I can't just watch something. I have to be doing something at the same time. Then it helps me get work done too, especially a good series. Thanks much!
The Balfour Declaration Exhibit B
Duane Hayes [aka Diego Gracia] has produced an exceptional treatise on recent history titled Brandeis: The Rise of the Experts.
I Mentioned it here https://juliusskoolafish.substack.com/p/brandeis-the-rise-of-the-expert
It provides some startling new [for me] insight into the machinations behind the creation of the Balfour Declaration. Apparently it went through several drafts and was actually approved/signed off by none other than Jewish SCOTUS Louis Brandeis.
Duane Hayes explains the background and context. I have updated the complete playlist of audio (with commentary) and original text here
https://juliusskoolafish.substack.com/p/brandeis-the-rise-of-the-expert/comment/55419941
Just search Part 3 for the word “Balfour”.
• Brandeis Part 3: American Zionism and the Making of Israel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3raGGYKHmKg
http://bulletproofpub.com/2024/01/28/brandeis-part-3-american-zionism-and-the-making-of-israel-part-1/
In Part 10, Hayes recaps as follows:
“We fell clear to the ground, nearly losing all feeling in our legs when finding out while researching parts 3 and 4, that, on top of everything else already said, Brandeis became the leader of the entire international Zionist movement by being elected chairman in 1914 of the Provisional Executive Committee on General Zionist Affairs. Brandeis masterfully parlaying his Zionist influence on the US president, American Jewry, and Christian Dispensationalists into support for the founding of Israel. And there wasn’t enough voltage in the world to electroshock us back to coherence when finding out Brandeis was central to both the drafting of the Balfour Declaration and the construction of the earliest settlements in Palestine, founding the very country of Israel(!)
Amazing to learn that it was through the hands of Brandeis, that passed the many drafts of the Declaration and it was only upon Brandeis’ final approval that the Balfour Declaration was finally made official – while in the presence of only British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, his secretary Eustace Percy, and Brandeis’ lieutenant, Felix Frankfurter.
[in other words, Balfour was merely the ‘shabby’ messenger.]
The sounds of truth bombs dropping were heard upon the discovery that three of the four in the room at the consummation of the document most responsible for creation of Israel were actually House of Truth residents(!) Our brains simply melted when finding out Brandeis was also closely working with the House of Rothschild in the actual construction of infrastructure for early Jewish settlements in Palestine through Brandeis’, Palestine Economic Corporation, and Baron Rothschild’s, Palestine Jewish Colonization Association(!)”
I love the style of writing in this. So dramatic! As well it should be. Thanks for this.
The Balfour Declaration Exhibit A
• Lord Rothschild Discusses How His Family Created Israel - Full Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIA4EkvpLtc
Not a single word in either the text of the document itself [His Majesty's Government's declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations] or Rothschild’s description of events a hundred years ago remotely hints at ‘British Colonialism’ being a factor in its creation.
Appreciate the clarity and primary sources you bring to these questions, Julius.
“The word Jew was not coined until the 18th century”
How do you figure?
The King James Bible (1611) is peppered liberally with the word. The Gospel of St John is, particularly.”The archons” should (and apparently do) want that narrative banned in the US altogether (HR 6090.)
I appreciate the detailed parsing of the word “antisemitism” here, which is one of those words like Heidegger’s “technology” the definition of which becomes more puzzling the closer you look. And so may get defined for us by speech law!
In What Is a Jew?, I presented this on the King James:
"In 1241 Jeu was used as a surname. Before 1200, Chambers Dictionary of Etymology [553] states that Jew was probably giw. The earliest use in English is Gyv in a 13th c. translation from John 18:35: “Pilates hym onswerede, am ich Gyv enne?” "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew?" Another gospel translation I consulted, more true to the original, translates this word as Judean."
Much later in that essay, I look at the original Greek word translated as Jew in the KJB:
"When the word ioudaios is used in the gospels, I think it means a rebel against the Roman empire and a follower of Judas, a follower of the Jew. Someone who identifies as a Jew and believes their ancestors came from Judea would come from a great class of fearless heroes and heroines, who stood up to the Roman Empire and defended themselves and others against the exploitation of their own high priests.
"And for their trouble, they were sold off as slaves and turned into the scapegoats of the next iteration of empire: the Holy Roman and the Davidic dynasty. Someone who is a true ioudaios is descended from anti-imperial, anti-Yahwist rebels who rejected the Torah, wanted to intermarry and not be subjected to the imperial taxation that funded their own enslavement and the conquest of others."
The whole episode is here, thanks for asking! Because you're absolutely right--the NT is an anti-Judean polemic in the same way the OT is an anti-Canaanite polemic. It's not about God at all, but about the perfidy of the 'Jews' as it's misleadingly (intentionally) translated:
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/what-is-a-jew
Hi Tereza - wow. That's a great essay.
I found the details about the Jewish betrayal of Germany during WW1 a great reminder, and the 1961 speech link great background - all of this backs up my theory of a virtual, hiding in plain sight Zionist Evil Empire.
And coming back to declarations of war by the nation of Judea as in 1933, I have maintained for some time that was a declaration of war, and the question you alluded to in this article of it tells us there is some sort of organization, that organization, and another declaration of war, came to the public's view in 1897 with the formation of the World Zionism Organization and their 1st Congress in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland, where they put out the Basel Manifesto - which was a DECLARATION OF WAR on the Ottoman Empire and the people of Palestine.
Have you ever read it - it's short. But it is clearly a declaration of war against all the people of Palestine saying "We want that land and we will take it." Which they did.
I get irritated by the often repeated lie that the Protocols were a fraud, or a forgery.
Firstly they were not copied from anything. So they can be neither.
And they are not anti-Semitic, as in anti-Jews - they are ANTI-CHRISTIAN, and a vile piece of anti-human work. And instead of anyone writing a plan to STOP THIS PLAN - the British in particular immediately published it and circulated it worldwide - claiming it was a warning - But in fact, just as happened in Russia - they were SPREADING THE PLAN OF ACTION to all their hidden army of useful idiots. There isn't a single book written since the early 1900s that has a concrete plan of action or a poliitical movement to RESIST communism - because the true communists are the richest people on the planet - bankers, billionaires and monarchies - and they are all Zionists.
Because Israel is the home of Zion, and Zion is the key to the End Times and making people believe in the HOAX of a new Messianic age.
What pisses me off the most about anti-Semitism is why are we all spending endless amounts of time, energy and money obsessing about the 'feelings' of a group of people that are the richest group per capita in the world, have the best jobs in the world, own the biggest banks in the world, own the biggest media in the world, control most of the worlds multinationals, devote all of their philanthropic money to supporting just their own community - and yet only make up 0.02% of the worlds entire population - and meantime real crises ARE NEVER DISCUSSED - like
-Anti-White people HATRED worldwide
-Anti-German hatred (WW1 and WW2)
-Anti-German HOLOCAUST after WW2
-Anti-Christian HOLOCAUSTS by the communists
-Anti Jewish hatred by ZIONISTS.
I'm not 100% certain that Israel is the home of Zionism. I think it might be the City of London, that one square mile. Israel might be a sacrificial zone, even for Jews.
The economic plan in my book shows how to take back our labor and property, so that we're not all beholden to this group of oligarchs. It doesn't need to figure out and name who's behind it because it simply defangs the snake.
It will be interesting to see how things play out. We're certainly in a pivotal time.
Check this out while you can.
https://www.scribd.com/document/115135631/Dommergue-Polacco-de-Menasce-Roger-A-letter-from-Jewish-French-Dr-Roger-Dommergue-Polacco-de-Menasce-to-Stevens-Spielberg
Ooh I want to talk to you about some of this stuff IRL!
That wasn't an honorable mention, that was nine times that you represented my words to Librarian as your own. I'm done, Nefahotep. I don't want the private relationship that you want, and I don't want a public relationship where you appropriate my ideas as yours--something you've done twice even in comments back to me. I'm done with this and I'd like you to unsub my stack.
You say I represented your words here? All of these are yours?
First, I would say the key to "re - cognize" and "re - collect" the events that may have taken place in ancient times, is Linguistics. … Such as the real name of the Hebrew: Habiru or Hapiru or Apiru.
----- This is Etymology: Re-cognize or Re-collect, I'm not sure you should say that you coined these, although if you did, my apology. I don't try to claim anything I put out in comments.
"Semitism itself is a system of slaves and masters from the most ancient attestations. The Canaanites were bequeathed by Noah to Shem to be his slaves. To be Anti Shemite is to be against that system of slaves and masters."
---- It's true it's your concept, I don't think I worded it in the same way you may have. So, if you "Own this concept" this means I'm not supposed to say it or use anywhere?
… usually those stories were written long after the events they describe, yet are used to justify the claims of Empire and the construction of a "Control Prison" called "Hierarchy." Etymology: from Greek Roots: Hieros (“sacred”) and archein (“rule” or “order”)
---- Etymology again, is from Wiki, public domain. I'm not sure who may have said "Control Prison" I may have other similar expressions.
My theory is these "Habiru" were the same ones known in Sumeria as Šagašu, meaning trespassers because they were wanderers that were not welcome. They became the "Shepards" the Egyptians had reason to fear.
---- You were NOT first one to talk of the fear of Shepards, I have seen this brought up by others, ALSO ---- > The research on the Habiru and Šagašu has been one of my own since the post I did on: "The First Holocaust." Where I discuss the Heka Khasut and the Inverted story of Exodus.
… "that includes their very secretive Parasitic Culture which also includes its own Psychopathy." It's basically a "Cult." One lady posted a very strong worded article in 2016 about why she left the Cult. https://mondoweiss.net/2016/10/why-i-left-the-cult/
------ First half of this: "Parasitic Culture which has it's own Psychopathy" is something I have been saying since before I had a substack. ----- The link is just a link, I sub'd to mondoweiss, and took a good look.
I believe that people are essentially morally equal, when "Bad" things happen, systems are to blame and those can be changed. ----- Yes I have been saying this from you because it's true. I won't say it anymore.
… the reason for the emphasized violence and superiority in the Hebrew stories is because the whole story of Shemitism is one about Masters and Slaves. ---- Yes you have said this too, I should have credited it.
"Hating someone or something is like taking Poison and expecting the other person to die."
---- This is 100% my own, I have said this for a long time, at least once in awhile.
"Originally, with barter there was always a slight advantage from one side or other, this imbalance was only there to keep the relationship of exchange going. One person would get a "Barter - Gain" (Bargain) the other would try to get the upper hand next time; however, there was no third party or Ususrer." ----- This is really the only one that is an uncredited but not an exact quote.
For the record, you are forgetting that in many of the comments that I posted to Librarian, I DID credit to you.
For example from: https://library4conciliation.substack.com/p/7-remembering-and-forgetting-the/comments
""---- There were NO Jewish forebears; I'll give you a quote from my friend Tereza because I think she says it best:
"In the end, the phrase 'the origin of the Jews' is misleading because there is no one coherent people who stayed intact throughout millennia and can be traced back to those mentioned in the fictional revenge story of the Torah.""
I wasn't trying to copy you. The Biblical stuff you know is your specialty. I was attempting to make sense in those comments. I wasn't asking for a private relationship either, I think you may have completely mistaken my intentions.
I'm sorry that you were not willing to communicate your frustrations.
Nefahotep, you know, unlike other readers, that it's not just this. Your reaction to my request that we keep our communication public was over the top. My email with the request was gracious. It talked about how much I valued you and was honored by the status you gave me as spiritual sister. I wrote:
"I would like to keep our conversations public, on the ideas, and respond to each others’ blogs as they’re posted. I value the similarity in our ideas and feel that you help move my ideas forward in your posts, your comments to me, and your comments to others. I’m glad to have been sent photos of your beautiful family. You’ve trusted me and opened up your personal life to me, and I’m honored by that."
I said I knew your intentions were respectful. A friendship was more responsibility than I felt I could live up to. Was there more that concerned me? Without going into public details, yes, it was more intense and complicated than I wanted.
Your public responses included: 'Men are rational and logical, but women think in curlicues, which can be fun or hurtful.' You talked about women setting boundaries. Mentioning that Kathleen felt we were friends. Saying that you trust me more than I trust you but 'friendship has no expectations.' Hoping that I would recognize 'our Friendship' and not deflect to the group. More that you've since deleted.
Going back to a public discourse without an undercurrent of resentment didn't seem like an option. And honestly, it pissed me off. Once again, I'd been fooled into thinking someone was interested in my ideas for their own sake, only to find that was contingent on a personal relationship.
And now you're saying that I've been "nursing a cloaked 'Cold Hatred' of everything you have ever written, maybe of you personally, hard to tell." I don't think this situation warrants that level of emotion. It's a little scary, and doesn't seem like it's about me.
I don't think that I turned on a dime. I've indicated that I wasn't comfortable with things you said, to me and to others. I just don't think you picked up on it, like you didn't 'get' my statement that Librarian's response may have been different if credit had been given. Even with all nine quotes put together, you didn't see the pattern of those being my ideas.
Likewise, the two times you sent me a comment with something you'd gotten from me, you clearly didn't remember it was my statement or you wouldn't have said it. That concerned me, that the lines were so blurred that you didn't know you were reflecting my words back to me.
But I would have said nothing if I hadn't been researching Librarian and started noticing the number of times you did it in your conversation with him. You use terms I coined like anti-Shemitism. You then explain what you mean by that, as if it's your idea. And I agree that you didn't use my same words--you misquoted me:
--from the back cover of my book, "I believe that people are intrinsically good and, when they behave badly, systems are to blame."
--from me quoting my daughter's hospice mentor, "Anger is wishing the other person would die, but swallowing the poison yourself."
--from p. 13 of my book, when I talk about a bargain as a barter-gain, the point is that barter didn't precede coinage. It was a gift economy where a little more or less kept the exchange going. Barter was a game played by men to cheat those from elsewhere.
Inadvertently, it was an interesting experiment to see how my ideas would be received if written by a man. I don't blame you for that. But it was your lack of awareness that disturbed me. In your email, you were "hoping to set up a type of partnership in our research" and therefore wanted direct communication. That seems especially tenuous when even words I make up, like anti-Shemitism, can be appropriated and used as your own.
I know that you'll be very much missed on my threads and that we will cross paths on pretty much everyone I read. Maybe there will be a time when we can have a productive dialogue. This isn't that time. I would like you to unsub and unfollow me.
I do hope this gets sorted, I've so enjoyed reading your exchanges.
Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that she has been "nursing" a cloaked "Cold Hatred" of everything I have ever written, maybe of me personally, hard to tell.
For myself, I can say I have made some mistakes obviously; this turning on a dime was something that she describes others as doing. Mostly, these types of mistakes can be avoided with clear upfront communication, something that I suspect was always absent.
Listen to what Stephen Hawking said:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=pink+floyd+keep+talking&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAVzM6cS1iME
(oh dear, I'm sorry to be reading.)