NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THIS - The Kalergi Plan.

[Principante8]

The "declared war on Germany" is more a figure of speech, a handy headline. The subheading talks of Boycott of German goods. The Jews were not a nation and could not declare war on anyone. I think they mean that the Jews were in united opposition to Nazi Germany. They certainly did nothing militarily as they did not have the capability.

@sandman, there certainly is a far/extreme right. You might think they are sane, but that says more about your views than anything else. It's all very well that people don't like labels, however words are descriptive and far/extreme right certainly describes some people attitude and political bent. I was reluctant to use the term Fascist to describe Trump, but most of his actions were right out of the Fascist playbook. Events on 6 January kind of proved it to me.

The piece of the puzzle that you're missing is that some people felt the Jews were the hand moving the chess pieces around the board. People felt the Jews used wealth and power to get into political positions in order to influence and control other people's countries, and armies, to suit their own needs. Do you know that the bolshevik revolution in Russia was started by Jews. They had a massive military that they used to kill or displace millions of innocent people once they took the reins, and created an empire of misery. These were the jews that Germany was against. A lot of German politicians wanted to team up with the Ruskies to turn Germany into a communist nation and that's why Adolf became popular amongst the citizens. If the people would submit, they would submit to a countryman instead of an international banking cartel. Both communism and socialism are terrible ideas in my opinion so I wasn't routing for either of them.

There was more to the National Socialists though than just fascism, there was also nationalism. This is the real 'evil' that the power players fear. A group of like minded people that love themselves and their heritage. Trump is a nationalist, but a capitalist, a free american in support of a free USA. At least this is what his persona, and his words suggest. Because I'm a patriotic american and we just had political season I watched a few of his rallies to see if he had anything important to say. To stay apolitical, I won't say whether I approved of his message, but I will say he's certainly not promoting fascist ideas. In fascism there must exist a mechanism of control. People may or may not have liked his domestic or foreign policy, and he may have been abrasive to a lot of folks, and of course very much like every president before him he's clearly quite narcissistic, but calling him a fascist is more than a stretch. It's ok to disagree with someone's ideas without labeling a person as such.

Trump's playbook seems to be a nationalist playbook. Don't forget that Americans voted for Trump, not Chinese citizens, or Russian citizens, or 1930's German citizens, etc. Hard working red blooded Americans. When the left gets too far out of touch with their controlling, authoritarian policies, and general way of life, that's when you'll see real, unimagined fascism rise again and counter with their own brand of authoritarianism. Before this summer neither side has pushed far enough yet in recent times for any real conflict here in the US, but now that Antifa is back doing the same exact thing they were doing 90 years ago, maybe we'll see something happen. Up is down, left is right, boys are girls, Christians are evil, white folks (the majority) are evil, abortions a great, the immigrant that took your job is amazing, etc. BLM are destroying cities, and it's leaders are claiming to be trained marxists (authoritarian leftists) that want to destroy the idea of a nuclear family. That means parents shouldn't have a say and that the state makes all the rules. They are also supported by the biggest corporations in the world, and by politicians that promote controlling authoritarian policies. People are being told what is acceptable to think and say. That's sure a lot of buttons to push considering that an opposing ideology exists. It's akin to poking a wild animal with a stick.

Historically, fascism as we know it, was a reaction. If it in fact is coming back in your opinion, which I don't believe it is 'yet', ask yourself why. Balance is the key. Right now the weight is clearly on the left.

In regards to the Jan 6 protest and mini riot, it is incredible to me that there's more security at an average concert than I saw on all of the videos I've seen from that event. The mayor and capitol police really blew it on that and cost people their lives. Speaking of concerts, I was in mosh pits in the 90's that looked more intense. I also have seen videos of the police letting protestors past the barricades at the capitol building. This is after the FBI and Homeland Security reported a threat several days in advance. Instead the idiot politicians put fencing and protection up after the event??? If they had acted responsibly it would have looked like a watered down BLM Antifa event with some fireworks and pepper spray. This was very much calculated for maximum visual effect. It appeared that the Trump supporters were overpowering, but in reality it was complete lack of security and defense, or what I would call criminal negligence.

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

The Jewish people only made up 1% of the German population. In 1938 hitler banned the ownership and sales of guns to the Jewish people while making it easier for the majority white population to own guns.

So I'm not sure how the Jewish population at 1% and the inability to own firearms would have hitler think in any way they would be a threat.

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi was a 27 year old idealist who had a utopian vision for the world. It wasn't based on hate or genocide of a particular race. He envisioned a society where people would get along. regardless of race. I think his idea was flawed and had no way of working with a government so far away from the people it ruled based on five states in the world. Nerveless he wanted to advance society. Flawed as it may be he never left a legacy of paving a road to hell based on good intentions.

So I find it strange that a man like him is slandered with laser focus as spreading the ills of the world. Had it not been for white supremist bringing his name to the forefront to advance their agenda to place blame for disenfranchised white people nobody would even know his name.

Is Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi's vision being followed today? Or is it more likely the ability to travel so easily to any destination that has caused the influx of immigrants to the west? I don't think any country should have an "open border" policy. Immigration laws should be enforced and carefully written to allow for good immigration policy. In the States anybody from around the world can buy our land. I would like to see that ended. I can't own land in Canada. I've seen many towns in the US being bought up by wealthy foreigners for investment. It's driving up housing prices and not any good for the people here who want homes. So I do get the want and right to control who comes and what outside investment can do with the homeland.

People like AH needed an enemy and at the time in Germany the Jewish population was the target. Blaming minorities for the ills of society is nothing new. It's rather simple. For example you make the majority feel like the minority. You make it sound as if believing in patriotism is a minority view.

Peace.

* Top Jewish Zionist bankers such as Jacob Schiff - funded the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 - Russia was a communist nation after that - and AH was a staunch anti-communist -

*I'll try and take up a contrary position in this debate - to attempt at seeing events in that time in history from a German perspective (even though I'm no German) - its always good to try and take a look at a world 100 years ago or more - from the side of the victors - and then the side of the vanquished - (if proper research allows) - to be able to fully understand it - so here goes - lol

- Patriotism is no minority view - and perhaps patriotism is what helped propel the Germans to remove the Jews - since they were a minority - and a very powerful minority they were too - the top international tribe throughout the world and history at the time (and still to this day methinks) - in my estimation - so let me take you back to Germany 1900-1933 - before the wrath of the Nazi's really came down hard on the mainly poor Jews - the wealthy aristocratic Zionist Jews funded Hitler and/or paid him bribes to escape Nazi Germany - (one of the Rothschilds was asked to pay an enormous amount of money for his freedom - but of course he had it) - and managed to get all of their upper class/families out of Nazi Germany - leaving the poor/middle class Jews - to be the victims of the Nazi's -

The German-Jewish Economic Elite (1900 – 1933)

In the early twentieth century, a dense corporate network was created among the large German corporations ("Germany Inc."). About 16% of the members of this corporate network were of Jewish background. At the centre of the network about 25% were Jewish.

- The percentage of Jews in the general population
was less than 1% in 1914. What comparative advantages did the Jewish minority enjoy that enabled them to succeed in the competition for leading positions in the German economy?

Three hypotheses are tested:

(1) The Jewish economic elite had
a better education compared to the non-Jewish members of the network (human
capital).

(2) Jewish members had a central position in the corporate network, because many of them were engaged in finance and banking.

(3) Jewish members created a network of their own that was separate from the overarching corporate network (social capital). The density of this Jewish network was higher than that of the non-Jewish economic elite (embeddedness). Our data does not support any of these hypotheses. The observed correlation between Jewish background and economic success cannot be explained by a higher level of education, a higher level of social capital, or a higher proportion of Jewish managers engaged in (private banking).

1. The spirit of capitalism: Sombart versus Weber.

The question which role the Jewish minority played in the development of capitalism during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was a controversial issue in scholarly literature already before the First World War. Werner Sombart saw Jews as
the "founders of modern capitalism" and emphasized their "great importance for modern economic life, one that far surpassed all other influences." He argued that the Protestant ethic had been influenced by the Jewish religion and that it would therefore be more accurate to speak of an elective affinity between the Jewish religion and the spirit of capitalism: "…those elements of Puritan dogma that appear to me to be truly important for the development of the capitalism spirit [were] borrowed from ideas within the realm of the Jewish religion."

1. Max Weber rebuffed Sombart’s critique. He argued instead that it was not possible to attribute the characteristic form of capitalistic rationality to the Jewish religion or Jewish traditions: "… for the Puritans, the Jew was the epitome of all things abominable because he participated in irrational and illegal businesses, such as war usury, tax and office farming, etc, like the court minions." "On the whole, yet with the ever inevitable qualifications, the contrast can be said to be that Jewish capitalism was speculative pariah-capitalism, while the Puritan was the bourgeois organization of work." "Therefore, hardly a Jew is to be found among the creators of the modern economic organization, the entrepreneurs of big business. This type of person was Christian and only conceivable in the realm of Christianity" (Weber 1981, p. 307). Barkai (1988) considers Sombart’s book to be a "sorry piece of work" and summarized his criticism by quoting David Landes: this book "should have been dismissed out of hand as a pseudo-scholarly hoax, a pedantic effort to confer … an academic respectability on arrant nonsense…."

Barkai maintains "that the course of industrialization in Germany would hardly have been significantly different had not a single
Jew existed there" (p. 4). Yet, in the empirical part of his analysis, Barkai does present findings that confirm the data collected by Sombart. One such example deals with the higher tax revenue generated by Jews as compared with Protestants. More recent research also confirms the large percentage of Jews sitting on the supervisory boards of major German
firms – a finding that Sombart also pointed out earlier. Barkai (1988, p. 60) comes to the conclusion that the economic advantage -
enjoyed by the Jewish minority at the time cannot be denied. He attributes this finding to the concentration of Jews in the big cities (particularly in Berlin) and in the professions (law, medicine).

Rahden (2008) shows that before the First World War more than half of the Jewish population in the German city of Breslau belonged to the bourgeoisie. About 25% of the male Jewish population earned more than 10,000 Marks per year (the highest income class).

Because of the three-class-suffrage (Dreiklassenwahlrecht) in Prussia, Jews were able to exercise considerable influence upon community politics in Breslau.

We take the Sombart-Weber controversy as a starting point and test the hypothesis of a relatively high percentage of Jews among the German economic elite with more recent data. We have collected a database which contains the entire top executive personnel of major German firms in the period between 1896 and 1938. Our analysis of the corporate networks shows that in Germany prior to the First World War, about 16% of the board members were of Jewish background. At the center of the network (big linkers) about 25% were Jewish. The percentage of Jews in the general population was less than 1% in 1914.

In their study on "Diversity in the Power Elite, " Zweigenhaft and Domhoff (2006, p.22) report that in the United States 3.4% of the top managers of large corporations were of Jewish origin at the beginning of the twentieth century; this percentage increased to 4.3% by 1925. Tedlow et al. (2003, p. 56) have identified the religious affiliation of the CEOs of the 200 largest U.S.-firms in 1917. About two thirds of the top-managers were Episcopalian or Presbyterian, 7% were Roman Catholic, and 4.6% were Jewish. In 1920, about 3.5% of the U.S.-population was of Jewish origin. Jeremy (1988, pp. 16-18) used the Dictionary of Business Biography. He was able to identify the religious affiliation of 428 businessmen in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century in Britain. About 2% of them were of Jewish origin. Jews made up 0.7% of the general population in Britain.

When we compare the religious affiliation of the economic elite in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany, it seems that a relatively high proportion of the top managers of the largest corporations in Germany was of Jewish background. How can we explain this relative overrepresentation? More specifically, how could a minority that was subject to numerous forms of discrimination throughout the entire
nineteenth century still fill a significant percentage of the top managerial posts in German big business?

What comparative advantages did the Jewish minority enjoy that enabled it to compete successfully in the struggle for top positions in big business? And was this comparative advantage context-sensitive? Did it favor the Jewish community in one country more than in another one?


* much more here - https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb4/prof/SOZ/APO/WindolfMS577June10.pdf

The "declared war on Germany" is more a figure of speech, a handy headline. The subheading talks of Boycott of German goods. The Jews were not a nation and could not declare war on anyone. I think they mean that the Jews were in united opposition to Nazi Germany. They certainly did nothing militarily as they did not have the capability.

@sandman, there certainly is a far/extreme right. You might think they are sane, but that says more about your views than anything else. It's all very well that people don't like labels, however words are descriptive and far/extreme right certainly describes some people attitude and political bent. I was reluctant to use the term Fascist to describe Trump, but most of his actions were right out of the Fascist playbook. Events on 6 January kind of proved it to me.

 

[Chi13]

The piece of the puzzle that you're missing is that some people felt the Jews were the hand moving the chess pieces around the board. People felt the Jews used wealth and power to get into political positions in order to influence and control other people's countries, and armies, to suit their own needs. Do you know that the bolshevik revolution in Russia was started by Jews. They had a massive military that they used to kill or displace millions of innocent people once they took the reins, and created an empire of misery. These were the jews that Germany was against. A lot of German politicians wanted to team up with the Ruskies to turn Germany into a communist nation and that's why Adolf became popular amongst the citizens. If the people would submit, they would submit to a countryman instead of an international banking cartel. Both communism and socialism are terrible ideas in my opinion so I wasn't routing for either of them.

There was more to the National Socialists though than just fascism, there was also nationalism. This is the real 'evil' that the power players fear. A group of like minded people that love themselves and their heritage. Trump is a nationalist, but a capitalist, a free american in support of a free USA. At least this is what his persona, and his words suggest. Because I'm a patriotic american and we just had political season I watched a few of his rallies to see if he had anything important to say. To stay apolitical, I won't say whether I approved of his message, but I will say he's certainly not promoting fascist ideas. In fascism there must exist a mechanism of control. People may or may not have liked his domestic or foreign policy, and he may have been abrasive to a lot of folks, and of course very much like every president before him he's clearly quite narcissistic, but calling him a fascist is more than a stretch. It's ok to disagree with someone's ideas without labeling a person as such.

Trump's playbook seems to be a nationalist playbook. Don't forget that Americans voted for Trump, not Chinese citizens, or Russian citizens, or 1930's German citizens, etc. Hard working red blooded Americans. When the left gets too far out of touch with their controlling, authoritarian policies, and general way of life, that's when you'll see real, unimagined fascism rise again and counter with their own brand of authoritarianism. Before this summer neither side has pushed far enough yet in recent times for any real conflict here in the US, but now that Antifa is back doing the same exact thing they were doing 90 years ago, maybe we'll see something happen. Up is down, left is right, boys are girls, Christians are evil, white folks (the majority) are evil, abortions a great, the immigrant that took your job is amazing, etc. BLM are destroying cities, and it's leaders are claiming to be trained marxists (authoritarian leftists) that want to destroy the idea of a nuclear family. That means parents shouldn't have a say and that the state makes all the rules. They are also supported by the biggest corporations in the world, and by politicians that promote controlling authoritarian policies. People are being told what is acceptable to think and say. That's sure a lot of buttons to push considering that an opposing ideology exists. It's akin to poking a wild animal with a stick.

Historically, fascism as we know it, was a reaction. If it in fact is coming back in your opinion, which I don't believe it is 'yet', ask yourself why. Balance is the key. Right now the weight is clearly on the left.

In regards to the Jan 6 protest and mini riot, it is incredible to me that there's more security at an average concert than I saw on all of the videos I've seen from that event. The mayor and capitol police really blew it on that and cost people their lives. Speaking of concerts, I was in mosh pits in the 90's that looked more intense. I also have seen videos of the police letting protestors past the barricades at the capitol building. This is after the FBI and Homeland Security reported a threat several days in advance. Instead the idiot politicians put fencing and protection up after the event??? If they had acted responsibly it would have looked like a watered down BLM Antifa event with some fireworks and pepper spray. This was very much calculated for maximum visual effect. It appeared that the Trump supporters were overpowering, but in reality it was complete lack of security and defense, or what I would call criminal negligence.

I don't accept this notion of Jews pulling the strings and secretly running the world. I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise, just cut and paste from what I consider biased sites. All the stuff about the Jews being behind the Bolshevik revolution is a myth that keeps getting perpetuated on certain sites. From Wiki;
The worldwide spread of the concept in the 1920s is associated with the publication and circulation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a fraudulent document that purported to describe a secret Jewish conspiracy aimed at world domination. and'
According to the 1922 Bolshevik party census, there were 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks, comprising 5.21% of the total, and in the 1920s of the 417 members of the Central Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the People's Commissars, 6% were ethnic Jews.[19] Between 1936 and 1940, during the Great Purge, Yezhovshchina and after the rapprochement with Nazi Germany, Stalin had largely eliminated Jews from senior party, government, diplomatic, security and military positions.[20]

Some scholars have grossly exaggerated Jewish presence in the Soviet Communist Party. For example, Alfred Jensen said that in the 1920s "75 per cent of the leading Bolsheviks" were "of Jewish origin".[better source needed] According to Aaronovitch, "a cursory examination of membership of the top committees shows this figure to be an absurd exaggeration".[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

I probably shouldn't have mentioned Trump. A big part of Fascism is Nationalism, although there is not a crystal clear definition. We will have to disagree. To me Trump emphasisied Nationalism, took every opportunity to create enemy's (real or imagined; China, Antifa, Mexico, the radical Left, immigrants, WHO, UN, etc). It felt to me that it ended in an attempted coup. How do you get more authoritarian than someone who demonised his opponents, and threatens them with violence?

 

[Switcher56]

*SNIP
I probably shouldn't have mentioned Trump. A big part of Fascism is Nationalism, although there is not a crystal clear definition. We will have to disagree. To me Trump emphasisied Nationalism, took every opportunity to create enemy's (real or imagined; China, Antifa, Mexico, the radical Left, immigrants, WHO, UN, etc). It felt to me that it ended in an attempted coup. How do you get more authoritarian than someone who demonised his opponents, and threatens them with violence?

The perfect boogieman!

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

- ahh - wikipedia again - which is good to use on some topics - but perhaps not this one - since it can be argued to be bias - under the control of those in power over it -

- although I did take this about Jacob Schiff from wiki just now - and could lead to our understanding why he funded The Bolshevik Revolution - he was a staunch anti-Russian :

'What was perhaps Schiff's most famous financial action was during the Russo-Japanese War, in 1904 and 1905. Schiff met Takahashi Korekiyo, deputy governor of the Bank of Japan, in Paris in April 1904. He subsequently extended loans to the Empire of Japan in the amount of $200 million (equivalent to $4.5 billion in 2019), through Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

These loans were the first major flotation of Japanese bonds on Wall Street, and provided approximately half the funds needed for Japan's war effort. Schiff made this loan partly because he believed that gold was not as important as national effort and desire in winning a war, and due to the apparent underdog status of Japan at the time; no European nation had yet been defeated by a non-European nation in a modern, full-scale war. It is quite likely Schiff also saw this loan as a means of answering, on behalf of the Jewish people, the anti-Semitic actions of the Russian Empire, specifically the then-recent Kishinev pogrom of 1903.''

*even wikipedia says Schiff funded The Russian Communist Revolution via Kerensky -

"Schiff's gripe against Russia had been its anti-Semitism. At home Schiff had never shown any sympathy for socialism, not even the milder Morris Hillquit variety. Schiff had declared victory for his purposes in Russia after the tsar was toppled in March 1917 and Alexander Kerensky, representing the new provisional government, had declared Jews to be equal citizens.

- In addition to repeated public statements of support, he used both his personal wealth and the resources of Kuhn Loeb to float large loans to Kerensky's regime. When Lenin and Trotsky seized power for themselves in November 1917, Schiff immediately rejected them, cut off further loans, started funding anti-Bolshevist groups, and even demanded that the Bolsheviks pay back some of the money he'd loaned Kerensky. Schiff also joined a British-backed effort to appeal to fellow Jews in Russia to continue the fight against Germany. -

'Alexander Fyodorovich Kerensky ( 4 May [O.S. 22 April] 1881 – 11 June 1970) was a Russian lawyer and revolutionary who was a key political figure in the Russian Revolution of 1917. After the February Revolution of 1917, he joined the newly formed Russian Provisional Government, first as Minister of Justice, then as Minister of War, and after July as the government's second Minister-Chairman. A leader of the moderate-socialist Trudovik faction of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, he was also vice-chairman of the powerful Petrograd Soviet. On 7 November, his government was overthrown by the Lenin-led Bolsheviks in the October Revolution. He spent the remainder of his life in exile, in Paris and New York City, and worked for the Hoover Institution.''

'Kerensky's father was the teacher of Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin), and members of the Kerensky and Ulyanov families were friends'

In 1912, Kerensky became widely known when he visited the goldfields at the Lena River and published material about the Lena Minefields incident. In the same year, Kerensky was elected to the Fourth Duma as a member of the Trudoviks, a moderate, non-Marxist labour party founded by Alexis Aladin that was associated with the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, and joined a Freemason society uniting the anti-monarchy forces that strived for the democratic renewal of Russia. In fact, the Socialist Revolutionary Party bought Kerensky a house, as he otherwise wouldn't be elective for the Duma, according to the Russian property-laws. He then soon became a significant Duma member of the Progressive Block, which included several Socialist Parties, Mensheviks, and Liberals – but not the Bolsheviks -

Kerensky was an active member of the irregular Freemasonic lodge, the Grand Orient of Russia's Peoples, which derived from the Grand Orient of France. Kerensky was Secretary-General of the Grand Orient of Russia's Peoples and stood down following his ascent to the government in July 1917. He was succeeded by the Menshevik, Alexander Halpern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Kerensky

* so wiki is saying that Schiff funded Karensky and the February 1917 Russian Communist Revolution - Karensky was Jewish an active freemason and a Menshevik - and not a Bolshevik - but he did perhaps inadvertently fund and help the Bolsheviks to get into power - when they had The Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917 -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff

* I was inspired to do a little genealogy digging due to some dodgy memes (thanks for heads-up Absolem) - Adam Schiff's (current usa politician) last paternal ancestor in Russia was one Yaakov Zalman Schiff, who emigrated to the U.K., where he had a son named Frank Ephraim Schiff. That was Adam's grandfather. While many of the relatives of Yaakov and Frank Ephraim are redacted, Jacob Henry Schiff comes through a German line. They could possibly be distant cousins, but they're not lineally related. - here is a genealogical map of the family of Jacob Schiff -

- what I do notice are other names - marriages between Schiffs - Loeb's - Salomons - and Warburgs amongst others - all prominent banking/finance families - keeping the money and the bloodlines together -

* so who funded Trotsky and Lenin? -

** from a Quora post -

''According to Russian judicial investigator Nikolay Sokolov, the Bolsheviks were financed by a New York banker named Jacob Heinrich Schiff. He was a German-Jewish immigrant to America. Most of the Bolshevik leadership were Jewish. According to Sokolov, it was Schiff who instructed the Bolshevik leadership to “liquidate” the entire Romanov royal family including the cousins of the Emperor.. The German government financed Lenin when he first returned to Russia in 1917.''

https://www.quora.com/Who-funded-the-Bolsheviks-rise-to-power-in-Russia

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

- a VERY important book to read - and you don't even have to buy it - lol

https://www.chinhnghia.com/The-Creature-from-Jekyll-Island-by-G.-Edward-Griffin.pdf

- The Creature from Jekyll Island - by G. Edward Griffin -

 

[gaiusmarius]

labels can be handy in fairness, but the problem is in their incorrect usage. just because someone sees a problem with mass migration from the third world, does not make them a racist, or a fascist. these terms have clear definitions and misusing them is just a cheap way to insult someone who you can't argue with.

lets go down this road shall we, you say Trump is a fascist, but clearly government institutions and private corporations are not ganging up on his side, in fact they played a great part in getting him out. so that definition error no 1. but lets travel further down this road of miss labelling, then we get to the 74 million trump supporters. clearly they must be fascists too as they supported a fascist right? so now we have a nation, where one side sees the other as misguided power hungry, while the other side sees the opposition as fascist. so where does that leave us in this muddle of misused words? civil war? re education camps? reparations? where? im pretty sure you also think 74 millions of YOUR fellow citizens are racists too? although i bet 99% believe in racial equality.

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

How Britain is being ruined by the ever-increasing demand for new homes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4o-bu1HSWM

* Simon discusses the problems of housing in England/UK

** related to:
UN migration compact
Barcelona declaration
EU migration compact
Kalergi plan -

*** - from the comments :

- ''We are adding an average of 320,000 people per year to the population just through immigration alone. That is a city the size Southampton each and every year for the past 24 years.

''What most people do not seem to realise is that this will never end. Unless a new political and cultural movement appears, England will eventually be an island city. All the major parties - the Conservatives - Labour - LibDems - as well the Greens and UKIP are beholden to the economic growth and debt finance system. Which means we need unlimited numbers of consumers and debt slaves.'' -

''Most of the countries that the immigrants come from prohibit foreigners from doing unskilled work: We should do the same. But instead we incentivise employers to pick immigrants over the native population. Try applying for a job in any of the major stores, supermarkets, or fast-food restaurants; once you are done filling in the usual details you will be asked to fill out a 'diversity survey' and you can bet your life that if you put down anything other than straight, white, and male your application will be more highly considered.''

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

- I find that within a debate - its best not to get personal - nor too emotive - just present your side as factually and honestly as you can - back it up with what you feel are good references - pics, graphs, memes - whatever supports your side/opinion on the discussion - and hope that with logical reasoning - someone else might realize what you have - and it is of interest - after thinking and being educated that a part of history happened a certain way - and then you realize that might not have happened - and see it from other perspectives - it does broaden ones understanding of the matter -

- The simple rule I follow - if I see a war/revolution or awful atrocity committed - and wish to know who was ultimately responsible - is to FOLLOW THE MONEY - find out who funded these murderous episodes in human history - and why - who were the bankers of these radically extreme ideologies that led to tens of million - even hundreds of millions of innocent people getting butchered- Already we all know the in-famous dictators- politicians - kings - queens and popes - that were blamed for the mass murders of innocents - not many look to who actually gave them the money - to do it -

- Today I did spend much time researching Jacob Schiff - who was definitely a funder of wars/revolutions - and had a Zionist agenda - since he was a figurehead of the Zionist movement in the USA - it seems like many others have already done all there is to do researching this interesting character - well hidden from any history books - kids get in school today - and perhaps a man much more important to how relatively modern history has been formed and shaped via finance - by supporting his tribe/people - with the power of money - than any single dictator did with their wars - Holocaust's or Holodomor's - to support their own - because they were always dependant on the money-lenders to propagate any disaster -

*- here is an interesting piece on this topic I just read -


''I was not so totally naïve that I did not recognize some of the powerful taboos surrounding discussion of the Bolsheviks, particularly regarding their ethnic composition. Although most of the books hardly emphasized the point, anyone with a careful eye for the occasional sentence or paragraph would surely know that Jews were enormously over-represented among the top revolutionaries, with three of Lenin’s five potential successors— Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev—all coming from that background, along with many, many others within the top Communist leadership.

Obviously, this was wildly disproportionate in a country having a Jewish population of perhaps 4%, and surely helped explain the large spike in worldwide hostility towards Jews soon afterward, which sometimes took the most deranged and irrational forms, such as the popularity of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and Henry Ford’s notorious publication of The International Jew. But with Russian Jews so much more likely to be educated and urbanized, and suffering from fierce anti-Semitic oppression under the Czars, everything seemed to make reasonable sense.

Then perhaps fourteen or fifteen years ago, I encountered a rip in my personal space-time continuum, among the first of many to come.

In this particular instance, an especially right-wing friend of evolutionary theorist Gregory Cochran had been spending long days browsing the pages of Stormfront, a leading Internet forum for the Far Right, and having come across a remarkable factual claim, asked me for my opinion. Allegedly Jacob Schiff (pictured), America’s leading Jewish banker, had been the crucial financial supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution, providing the Communist revolutionaries with $20 million in funding.

My first reaction was that such a notion was utterly ridiculous since a fact so enormously explosive could not have been ignored by the many dozens of books I had read on the origins of that revolution. But the source seemed extremely precise. The Knickerbocker columnist in the February 3, 1949 edition of The New York Journal-American, then one of the leading local newspapers, wrote that “Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.”

Once I checked around a little, I discovered that numerous mainstream accounts described the enormous hostility of Schiff towards the Czarist regime for its ill-treatment of Jews, and these days even so establishmentarian a source as Wikipedia’s entry on Jacob Schiff notes that he played a major role financing the Russian Revolution of 1905, as was revealed in the later memoirs of one of his key operatives. And if you run a search on “jacob schiff bolshevik revolution” numerous other references come up, representing a wide variety of different positions and degrees of credibility. One very interesting statement appears in the memoirs of Henry Wickham Steed, editor of The Times of London and one of the foremost international journalists of his era. He very matter-of-factly mentions that Schiff, Warburg and the other top Jewish international bankers were among the leading backers of the Jewish Bolsheviks, through whom they hoped to gain an opportunity for the Jewish exploitation of Russia, and he describes their lobbying efforts on behalf of their Bolshevik allies at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference following the end of the First World War.

Even the very recent and highly sceptical 2016 analysis in Kenneth D. Ackerman’s 2016 book Trotsky in New York, 1917 notes that U.S. Military Intelligence reports of the period directly made that astonishing claim, pointing to Trotsky as the conduit for the heavy financial backing of Schiff and numerous other Jewish financiers. In 1925 this information was published in the British Guardian and was widely discussed and accepted throughout the 1920s and 1930s by numerous major media publications, long before Schiff’s own grandson provided a direct confirmation of those facts in 1949. Ackerman rather cavalierly dismisses all of this considerable contemporaneous evidence as “anti-Semitic” and a “conspiracy story,” arguing that since Schiff was a notorious conservative who had never shown any sympathy for socialism in his own American milieu, he surely would not have funded the Bolsheviks.

Now admittedly, a few details might easily have gotten somewhat garbled over time. For example, although Trotsky quickly became second only to Lenin in the Bolshevik hierarchy, in early 1917 the two were still bitterly hostile over various ideological disputes, so he certainly was not then considered a member of that party. And since everyone today acknowledges that Schiff had heavily financed the failed 1905 Revolution in Russia, it seems perfectly possible that the $20 million figure mentioned by his grandson refers to the total invested over the years supporting all the different Russian revolutionary movements and leaders, which together finally culminated in the establishment of Bolshevik Russia. But with so many seemingly credible and independent sources all making such similar claims, the basic facts appear almost indisputable.

Consider the implications of this remarkable conclusion. I would assume that most of Schiff’s funding of revolutionary activities was spent on items such as activist stipends and bribes, and adjusted for the average family incomes of that era, $20 million would be as much as $2 billion in present-day money. Surely without such enormous financial support, the likelihood of any Bolshevik victory would have been far lower, perhaps almost impossible.

When people casually used to joke about the total insanity of “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” no better example was ever tossed around than the self-evidently absurd notion that the international Jewish bankers had created the worldwide Communist movement. And yet by any reasonable standard, this statement appears to be more or less true, and apparently was widely known at least in rough form for decades after the Russian Revolution, but had never been mentioned in any of the numerous more recent histories that shaped my own knowledge of those events. Indeed, none of these very comprehensive sources ever even mentioned Schiff’s name, although it was universally acknowledged that he had funded the 1905 Revolution, which was often discussed in enormous detail in many of those very weighty books. What other astonishing facts might they similarly be concealing?

When someone encounters remarkable new revelations in an area of history in which his knowledge was rudimentary, being little more than introductory textbooks or History 101 courses, the result is a shock and an embarrassment. But when the same situation occurs in an area in which he had read tens of thousands of pages in the leading authoritative texts, which seemingly explored every minor detail, surely his sense of reality begins to crumble.

In 1999, Harvard University published the English edition of The Black Book of Communism, whose six co-authors devoted 850 pages to documenting the horrors inflicted upon the world by that defunct system, which had produced a total death toll they reckoned at 100 million. I have never read that book and I have often heard that the alleged body-count has been widely disputed. But for me the most remarkable detail is that when I examine the 35 page index, I see a vast profusion of entries for totally obscure individuals whose names are surely unknown to all but the most erudite specialist. But there is no entry for Jacob Schiff, the world-famous Jewish banker who apparently financed the creation of the whole system in the first place. Nor one for Olaf Aschberg, the powerful Jewish banker in Sweden, who played such an important role in providing the Bolsheviks a financial life-line during the early years of their threatened regime, and even founded the first Soviet international bank.

When one discovers a tear in the fabric of reality, there is a natural tendency to nervously peer within, wondering what mysterious objects might dwell there. The Ackerman book denounced the notion of Schiff having funded the Bolsheviks as “a favourite trope of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda” and just prior to those words he issued a similar denunciation of Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, a publication which would have meant almost nothing to me. Although Ackerman’s particular book had not yet been published when I began exploring the Schiff story a dozen years ago, many other writers had similarly conjoined those two topics, so I decided to explore the matter.

Ford himself was a very interesting individual, and his world-historical role certainly received very scanty coverage in my basic history textbooks. Although the exact reasons for his decision to raise his minimum wage to $5 per day in 1914—double the existing average pay for industrial workers in America—can be disputed, it certainly seems to have played a huge role in the creation of our middle class. He also adopted a highly paternalistic policy of providing good company housing and other amenities to his workers, a total departure from the “Robber Baron” capitalism so widely practiced at that time, thereby establishing himself as a world-wide hero to industrial workers and their advocates. Indeed, Lenin himself had regarded Ford as a towering figure in the world’s revolutionary firmament, glossing over his conservative views and commitment to capitalism and instead focusing on his remarkable achievements in worker productivity and economic well-being. It is a forgotten detail of history that even after Ford’s considerable hostility to the Russian Revolution became widely known, the Bolsheviks still described their own industrial development policy as “Fordism.” Indeed, it was not unusual to see portraits of Lenin and Ford hanging side-by-side in Soviet factories, representing the two greatest secular saints of the Bolshevik pantheon.

As for The Dearborn Independent, Ford had apparently launched his newspaper on a national basis not long after the end of the war, intending to focus on controversial topics, especially those related to Jewish misbehaviour, whose discussion he believed was being ignored or suppressed by nearly all mainstream media outlets. I had been aware that he had long been as one of the wealthiest and most highly-regarded individuals in America, but I was still astonished to discover that his weekly newspaper, previously almost unknown to me, had reached a total national circulation of 900,000 by 1925, ranking it as the second largest in the country and by far the biggest with a national distribution. I found no easy means of examining the contents of a typical issue, but apparently the anti-Jewish articles of the first couple of years had been collected and published as short books, together constituting the four volumes of The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem, a notoriously anti-Semitic work occasionally mentioned in my history textbooks. Eventually my curiosity got the best of me, so clicked a few buttons on Amazon.com, bought the set, and wondered what I would discover.

Based on all my pre-suppositions, I expected to read some foaming-at-the-mouth screed, and doubted I would be able to get past the first dozen pages before losing interest and consigning the volumes to gather dust on my shelves. But what I actually encountered was something entirely different.

Over the last couple of decades, the enormous growth in the power and influence of Jewish and pro-Israel groups in America has occasionally led writers to cautiously raise certain facts regarding the untoward influence of those organizations and activists, while always carefully emphasizing that the vast majority of ordinary Jews do not benefit from these policies and actually might be harmed by them, even leaving aside the possible risk of eventually provoking an anti-Jewish backlash. To my considerable surprise, I found that the vast majority of the material in Ford’s 300,000 word series seemed to follow this same pattern and tone.

The individual 80 chapter-columns of Ford’s volumes generally discuss particular issues and events, some of which were well-known to me, but with the vast majority totally obscured by the passage of almost a hundred years. But as far as I could tell, almost all the discussions seemed quite plausible and factually-oriented, even sometimes overly cautious in their presentation, and with one possible exception I can’t recall anything that seemed fanciful or unreasonable. As an example, there was no claim that Schiff or his fellow Jewish bankers had funded the Bolshevik Revolution since those particular facts had not yet come out, only that he had seemed to be strongly supportive of the overthrow of Czarism, and had worked toward that end for many years, motivated by what he regarded as the hostility of the Russian Empire towards its Jewish subjects. This sort of discussion is not all that different from what one might find in a modern Schiff biography or in his Wikipedia entry, though many of the important details presented in the Ford books have disappeared from the historical record.

Although I somehow managed to plow through all four volumes of The International Jew, the unrelenting drum-beat of Jewish intrigue and misbehaviour became somewhat soporific after a while, especially since so many of the examples provided may have loomed quite large in 1920 or 1921 but are almost totally forgotten today. Most of the content was a collection of rather monotonous complaints regarding Jewish malfeasance, scandals, or clannishness, the sort of mundane matters which might have normally appeared in the pages of an ordinary newspaper or magazine, let alone one of the muckraking type.

However, I cannot fault the publication for such a narrow focus. A consistent theme was that because of the intimidating fear of Jewish activists and influence, virtually all of America’s regular media outlets avoided discussion of any of these important matters, and since this new publication was intended to remedy that void, it necessarily required coverage overwhelmingly skewed toward that particular subject. The articles were also aimed at gradually expanding the window of public debate and eventually shame other periodicals into discussing Jewish misbehaviour. When leading magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and Century Magazine began running such articles, this result was cited as a major success.

Another important goal was to make ordinary Jews more aware of the very problematical behaviour of many of their community leaders. Occasionally, the publication received a letter of praise from a self-proclaimed “proud American Jew” commending the series and sometimes including a check to purchase subscriptions for other members of his community, and this achievement might become the subject of an extended discussion.

And although the details of these individual stories differed considerably from those of today, the pattern of behavior being criticized seemed remarkably similar. Change a few facts, adjust the society for a century of change, and many of the stories might be exactly the same ones that well-meaning people concerned about the future of our country are quietly discussing today. Most remarkably, there were even a couple of columns about the troubled relationship between the earliest Zionist settlers in Palestine and the surrounding native Palestinians, and deep complaints that under Jewish pressure the media often totally misreported or hid some of the outrages suffered by the latter group.

I certainly cannot vouch for the overall accuracy of the contents of these volumes, but at the very least they would constitute an extremely valuable source of “raw material” for further historical investigation. So many of the events and incidents they recount seem to have been entirely omitted from the major media publications of that day, and surely were never included in later historical narratives, given that even such widely known stories as Schiff’s major financial backing for the Bolsheviks were completely tossed down George Orwell’s “memory hole.”

With the volumes long out of copyright, I have added the set to my collection of HTML Books, and those so interested may read the text and decide for themselves.''

https://www.europereloaded.com/american-pravda-the-bolshevik-revolution-and-its-aftermath/

I removed my reply because I learned long ago that people are too far gone to attempt to explain, enlighten or educate them...and it always eventually leads to negative vibes. Just as Yuri Bezmenov explains...no amount of facts and proof you present people will sway them after their brainwashing is complete. This is so true and is a futile effort. I still will continue to comment but only in presenting reality for those minds lurking out there that can be salvaged.

 

[Montuno]

The Jewish people only made up 1% of the German population. In 1938 hitler banned the ownership and sales of guns to the Jewish people while making it easier for the majority white population to own guns.

So I'm not sure how the Jewish population at 1% and the inability to own firearms would have hitler think in any way they would be a threat.

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi was a 27 year old idealist who had a utopian vision for the world. It wasn't based on hate or genocide of a particular race. He envisioned a society where people would get along. regardless of race. I think his idea was flawed and had no way of working with a government so far away from the people it ruled based on five states in the world. Nerveless he wanted to advance society. Flawed as it may be he never left a legacy of paving a road to hell based on good intentions.

So I find it strange that a man like him is slandered with laser focus as spreading the ills of the world. Had it not been for white supremist bringing his name to the forefront to advance their agenda to place blame for disenfranchised white people nobody would even know his name.

Is Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi's vision being followed today? Or is it more likely the ability to travel so easily to any destination that has caused the influx of immigrants to the west? I don't think any country should have an "open border" policy. Immigration laws should be enforced and carefully written to allow for good immigration policy. In the States anybody from around the world can buy our land. I would like to see that ended. I can't own land in Canada. I've seen many towns in the US being bought up by wealthy foreigners for investment. It's driving up housing prices and not any good for the people here who want homes. So I do get the want and right to control who comes and what outside investment can do with the homeland.

People like AH needed an enemy and at the time in Germany the Jewish population was the target. Blaming minorities for the ills of society is nothing new. It's rather simple. For example you make the majority feel like the minority. You make it sound as if believing in patriotism is a minority view.

Peace.

The "declared war on Germany" is more a figure of speech, a handy headline. The subheading talks of Boycott of German goods. The Jews were not a nation and could not declare war on anyone. I think they mean that the Jews were in united opposition to Nazi Germany. They certainly did nothing militarily as they did not have the capability.
°
@sandman, there certainly is a far/extreme right. You might think they are sane, but that says more about your views than anything else. It's all very well that people don't like labels, however words are descriptive and far/extreme right certainly describes some people attitude and political bent. I was reluctant to use the term Fascist to describe Trump, but most of his actions were right out of the Fascist playbook. Events on 6 January kind of proved it to me.

I don't accept this notion of Jews pulling the strings and secretly running the world. I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise, just cut and paste from what I consider biased sites. All the stuff about the Jews being behind the Bolshevik revolution is a myth that keeps getting perpetuated on certain sites. From Wiki;
The worldwide spread of the concept in the 1920s is associated with the publication and circulation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a fraudulent document that purported to describe a secret Jewish conspiracy aimed at world domination. and'
According to the 1922 Bolshevik party census, there were 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks, comprising 5.21% of the total, and in the 1920s of the 417 members of the Central Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the People's Commissars, 6% were ethnic Jews.[19] Between 1936 and 1940, during the Great Purge, Yezhovshchina and after the rapprochement with Nazi Germany, Stalin had largely eliminated Jews from senior party, government, diplomatic, security and military positions.[20]

Some scholars have grossly exaggerated Jewish presence in the Soviet Communist Party. For example, Alfred Jensen said that in the 1920s "75 per cent of the leading Bolsheviks" were "of Jewish origin".[better source needed] According to Aaronovitch, "a cursory examination of membership of the top committees shows this figure to be an absurd exaggeration".[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

I probably shouldn't have mentioned Trump. A big part of Fascism is Nationalism, although there is not a crystal clear definition. We will have to disagree. To me Trump° emphasisied Nationalism, took every opportunity to create enemy's (real or imagined; China, Antifa, Mexico, the radical Left, immigrants, WHO, UN, etc). It felt to me that it ended in an attempted coup. How do you get more authoritarian than someone who demonised his opponents, and threatens them with violence?

????? ??? ?? ????: "???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ? ???? ???? ..."

My grandfather used to say: "As true as a whippet is not a bulldog, they are both dogs ..."

They need an enemy with which to penetrate the good people, inflaming their fears until they transform them into hatred ...

Did you see how they have already reached the stage of joking about "throwing leftists off buildings"?

Even if they delete it later, like other barbarities...
But, of course, then they are not fascists, neither far-right nor racists (nor politically correct hypocrites) but "one love one love" humanist philanthropists ....It's just that our "cognitive dissonance" is confusing us....

They need an enemy to blame, to hate, and to grow. That is why there is no better ally for the far right and western neo-fascism than the fascist beast of Islamic fundamentalism. N' viceversa. Both feed off each other, and they need each other, in order to corrupt and bewitch their respective audiences...

Anyway... I wish you Chi 13 & Absolem, as my other grandfather would say:

"??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ..."

"May peace always be with you, and that together with health and happiness, make life a carpet of soft moss through which your feet and those of your descendants can softly slide ..."

 

[Guest]

Fukn Right Wing Drongoes! Drongoes: an Aussie word for Dumbass or Git.

A Congressman/person/woman in the U.S. alleges Jewish Lasers set fire to the California Forests. Isn't she wonderful? And SO newsworthy!

Guess which Party she represents ...


BAD Jews! Naughty bad wicked Jews. Round up the Jews!

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

- Ahh - nice to see you back around Montuno -

''throwing leftists off buildings?' - Hmm - never a thought in my mind - till you mentioned it - then when I do think on it - the last time I heard about people being thrown off tall buildings was when ISIS had a caliphate in Syria/Iraq - and their Sharia law - included throwing gay people off tall buildings - and I did peek at a few videos of such happenings - and was shocked and disgusted - and hoped it would never happen in my own country -

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

- Welcome to the thread - never heard of this Laser story - sounds a bit far-fetched old chap - can you tell us more?

- If you feel that all Jews are bad - then you are sadly mistaken - and 'rounding them up' is not going to serve any purpose - other than social unrest -

- What we are discussing here is a financial aristocracy of Zionist Jews - that were around over 100 years ago - and funded certain people and events that led to many innocent people - Jews and Christians and Muslims losing their lives - in wars and revolutions - in gulags and concentration camps -

- If you wish to add to the discussion with anything other than name-calling - it would be appreciated -

Fukn Right Wing Drongoes! Drongoes: an Aussie word for Dumbass or Git.

A Congressman/person/woman in the U.S. alleges Jewish Lasers set fire to the California Forests. Isn't she wonderful? And SO newsworthy!

Guess which Party she represents ...


BAD Jews! Naughty bad wicked Jews. Round up the Jews!

 

[Chi13]

- ahh - wikipedia again - which is good to use on some topics - but perhaps not this one - since it can be argued to be bias - under the control of those in power over it -

- although I did take this about Jacob Schiff from wiki just now - and could lead to our understanding why he funded The Bolshevik Revolution - he was a staunch anti-Russian :

'What was perhaps Schiff's most famous financial action was during the Russo-Japanese War, in 1904 and 1905. Schiff met Takahashi Korekiyo, deputy governor of the Bank of Japan, in Paris in April 1904. He subsequently extended loans to the Empire of Japan in the amount of $200 million (equivalent to $4.5 billion in 2019), through Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

These loans were the first major flotation of Japanese bonds on Wall Street, and provided approximately half the funds needed for Japan's war effort. Schiff made this loan partly because he believed that gold was not as important as national effort and desire in winning a war, and due to the apparent underdog status of Japan at the time; no European nation had yet been defeated by a non-European nation in a modern, full-scale war. It is quite likely Schiff also saw this loan as a means of answering, on behalf of the Jewish people, the anti-Semitic actions of the Russian Empire, specifically the then-recent Kishinev pogrom of 1903.''

*even wikipedia says Schiff funded The Russian Communist Revolution via Kerensky -

"Schiff's gripe against Russia had been its anti-Semitism. At home Schiff had never shown any sympathy for socialism, not even the milder Morris Hillquit variety. Schiff had declared victory for his purposes in Russia after the tsar was toppled in March 1917 and Alexander Kerensky, representing the new provisional government, had declared Jews to be equal citizens.

- In addition to repeated public statements of support, he used both his personal wealth and the resources of Kuhn Loeb to float large loans to Kerensky's regime. When Lenin and Trotsky seized power for themselves in November 1917, Schiff immediately rejected them, cut off further loans, started funding anti-Bolshevist groups, and even demanded that the Bolsheviks pay back some of the money he'd loaned Kerensky. Schiff also joined a British-backed effort to appeal to fellow Jews in Russia to continue the fight against Germany. -

'Alexander Fyodorovich Kerensky ( 4 May [O.S. 22 April] 1881 – 11 June 1970) was a Russian lawyer and revolutionary who was a key political figure in the Russian Revolution of 1917. After the February Revolution of 1917, he joined the newly formed Russian Provisional Government, first as Minister of Justice, then as Minister of War, and after July as the government's second Minister-Chairman. A leader of the moderate-socialist Trudovik faction of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, he was also vice-chairman of the powerful Petrograd Soviet. On 7 November, his government was overthrown by the Lenin-led Bolsheviks in the October Revolution. He spent the remainder of his life in exile, in Paris and New York City, and worked for the Hoover Institution.''

'Kerensky's father was the teacher of Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin), and members of the Kerensky and Ulyanov families were friends'

In 1912, Kerensky became widely known when he visited the goldfields at the Lena River and published material about the Lena Minefields incident. In the same year, Kerensky was elected to the Fourth Duma as a member of the Trudoviks, a moderate, non-Marxist labour party founded by Alexis Aladin that was associated with the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, and joined a Freemason society uniting the anti-monarchy forces that strived for the democratic renewal of Russia. In fact, the Socialist Revolutionary Party bought Kerensky a house, as he otherwise wouldn't be elective for the Duma, according to the Russian property-laws. He then soon became a significant Duma member of the Progressive Block, which included several Socialist Parties, Mensheviks, and Liberals – but not the Bolsheviks -

Kerensky was an active member of the irregular Freemasonic lodge, the Grand Orient of Russia's Peoples, which derived from the Grand Orient of France. Kerensky was Secretary-General of the Grand Orient of Russia's Peoples and stood down following his ascent to the government in July 1917. He was succeeded by the Menshevik, Alexander Halpern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Kerensky

* so wiki is saying that Schiff funded Karensky and the February 1917 Russian Communist Revolution - Karensky was Jewish an active freemason and a Menshevik - and not a Bolshevik - but he did perhaps inadvertently fund and help the Bolsheviks to get into power - when they had The Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917 -

View Image



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff

* I was inspired to do a little genealogy digging due to some dodgy memes (thanks for heads-up Absolem) - Adam Schiff's (current usa politician) last paternal ancestor in Russia was one Yaakov Zalman Schiff, who emigrated to the U.K., where he had a son named Frank Ephraim Schiff. That was Adam's grandfather. While many of the relatives of Yaakov and Frank Ephraim are redacted, Jacob Henry Schiff comes through a German line. They could possibly be distant cousins, but they're not lineally related. - here is a genealogical map of the family of Jacob Schiff -

View Image

- what I do notice are other names - marriages between Schiffs - Loeb's - Salomons - and Warburgs amongst others - all prominent banking/finance families - keeping the money and the bloodlines together -

* so who funded Trotsky and Lenin? -

** from a Quora post -

''According to Russian judicial investigator Nikolay Sokolov, the Bolsheviks were financed by a New York banker named Jacob Heinrich Schiff. He was a German-Jewish immigrant to America. Most of the Bolshevik leadership were Jewish. According to Sokolov, it was Schiff who instructed the Bolshevik leadership to “liquidate” the entire Romanov royal family including the cousins of the Emperor.. The German government financed Lenin when he first returned to Russia in 1917.''

https://www.quora.com/Who-funded-the-Bolsheviks-rise-to-power-in-Russia

Gypsy, you have used a Welsh Nationalist site for much of your argument, and an American Christian site, and yet you call Wiki biased? Sorry but I don't get it? I can find Jewish sources but do not post them as i think they would be biased. That is why I use Wiki or academic papers.

Earlier I am pretty sure that you said that the $200 million funded the Russian Revolution, yet that article says that amount was a loan to the Japanese some 15 years earlier. The article does not say Schiff funded the Russian Revolution, but he was certainly anti Tzar. It also said that as soon as the Bolsheviks gained power he did not support them. Indeed it says he funded anti Bolshevik groups.

You keep repeating that the Jews were behind the Revolution but there is no concrete evidence of that at all. In fact they made up as little as 5%, and some years later had no power within the movement.

This thread seems to have degenerated, if that is possible, into cut and paste at fifety paces. You asked earlier for people to refute the Kalergi Plan if they could. Imo that's been done but nothing will change your mind as you have this belief that somehow the Jews are pulling strings, apparently for a century. It's not something I accept. It is just too convenient to discount the entire internet, apart from a few sites that you think are legit. If you think that all the info on the net is somehow controlled, then it is never possible to refute your argument. I have spent more than enough time down the Kalergi rabbit hole. Intersting to look back at history, but no conspiracy.

 

[Montuno]

Another thing that makes them equal to the ultra-right, fascism, Islamic fundamentalism and Stalinism...: neo-truth, the conversion of lies into truth repeating it til neverend, and the gross manipulation of the opponent's argument: If he defines himself as firstly a humanist democrat Hellenist and of the principle "equality, liberty, and fraternity", and secondly as of Islamic culture and social democratic sympathies, they will comment only on the sad and limited of the latter (because they don't give a shit about my values; they prefer to focus on the latter and criticise it as if it were a fault, and to ignore the latter altogether : against the former it is more difficult to instil hatred...).

Likewise, they will find it hard to remember their racist racial classifications by intelligences in other threads, or they will disguised n' obviated that in this one their followers joke about executing leftists by pulling them down from the heights (deleted right now, btw).. as has already been done by both the ultra-right-western fascist regimes, and the Islamic DAESH.

But remember that the ones who are square with the racial-cultural-political labels, the racists, the ultra-right-wingers, the hypocrites and phonies, the cognitively dysfunctional... are the others.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

- ehh - $200 million - funded the Russian Revolution? - don't remember that one mate - of course there were other investors too - but trying to add all what different people invested in it - would be kinda difficult after all these years -

For sure Wikipedia says that Jacob Schiff funded The Russian Revolution - when the Tsar was toppled in March 1917 - via Alexander Karensky's regime - once again here is the link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff - and here is the quote from the Jacob Schiff page on Wikipedia - since that's where you 'trust' -

"Schiff's gripe against Russia had been its anti-Semitism. At home Schiff had never shown any sympathy for socialism, not even the milder Morris Hillquit variety. Schiff had declared victory for his purposes in Russia after the tsar was toppled in March 1917(Russian Revolution) and Alexander Kerensky, representing the new provisional government, had declared Jews to be equal citizens. In addition to repeated public statements of support, he used both his personal wealth and the resources of Kuhn Loeb to float large loans to Kerensky's regime. When Lenin and Trotsky seized power for themselves in November 1917, Schiff immediately rejected them, cut off further loans, started funding anti-Bolshevist groups, and even demanded that the Bolsheviks pay back some of the money he'd loaned Kerensky. Schiff also joined a British-backed effort to appeal to fellow Jews in Russia to continue the fight against Germany."

' - Allegedly Jacob Schiff - America’s leading Jewish banker, had been the crucial financial supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution too -providing the Communist revolutionaries with $20 million in funding.

- My first reaction was that such a notion was utterly ridiculous since a fact so enormously explosive could not have been ignored by the many dozens of books I had read on the origins of that revolution. But the source seemed extremely precise -

In the February 3, 1949 issue of the New York Journal American Schiff’s grandson, John, was quoted by columnist Cholly Knickerbocker as saying that his grandfather had given about $20 million for the triumph of Communism in Russia. (To appraise Schiff’s motives for supporting the Bolsheviks, we must remember, that he was a Jew and that Russian Jews had been persecuted under the Tsarist regime. Consequently the Jewish community in America was inclined to support any movement, which sought to topple the Russian government and the Bolsheviks were excellent candidates for the task. As we shall see further along, however, there were also strong financial incentives for Wall Street firms, such as Kuhn, Loeb and Company, of which Schiff was a senior partner, to see the old regime fall into the hands of revolutionaries, who would agree to grant lucrative business concessions in the future in return for financial support today.

* remember that there were two 'revolutions' in Russia during 1917 - The Russian Revolution in March 1917 when the Tsar was deposed - then the Bolshevik revolution in November of the same year 1917 - and Wiki does state that Schiff funded the first one - ''In addition to repeated public statements of support, he used both his personal wealth and the resources of Kuhn Loeb to float large loans to Kerensky's regime'' - other sources claim that he also funded the second one to - Schiff had the motive and the money to contribute to complete regime change in Russia - and for what he thought was good reason (supporting the Russian Jews) -

Alexander Fyodorovich Kerensky was a Russian lawyer and revolutionary who was a key political figure in the Russian Revolution of 1917. After the February Revolution of 1917, - funded by Jacob Schiff of Khun Loeb Bankers -

- You can lead a horse to water - but you can't make him drink - but the question is - can you make him read a book?

- try reading this book Chi13 - https://archive.org/details/TheGula...go__vol1__I-II__Solzhenitsyn/page/n1/mode/2up - it might help - its free - so no need to have to buy it -

Gypsy, you have used a Welsh Nationalist site for much of your argument, and an American Christian site, and yet you call Wiki biased? Sorry but I don't get it? I can find Jewish sources but do not post them as i think they would be biased. That is why I use Wiki or academic papers.

Earlier I am pretty sure that you said that the $200 million funded the Russian Revolution, yet that article says that amount was a loan to the Japanese some 15 years earlier. The article does not say Schiff funded the Russian Revolution, but he was certainly anti Tzar. It also said that as soon as the Bolsheviks gained power he did not support them. Indeed it says he funded anti Bolshevik groups.

You keep repeating that the Jews were behind the Revolution but there is no concrete evidence of that at all. In fact they made up as little as 5%, and some years later had no power within the movement.

This thread seems to have degenerated, if that is possible, into cut and paste at fifety paces. You asked earlier for people to refute the Kalergi Plan if they could. Imo that's been done but nothing will change your mind as you have this belief that somehow the Jews are pulling strings, apparently for a century. It's not something I accept. It is just too convenient to discount the entire internet, apart from a few sites that you think are legit. If you think that all the info on the net is somehow controlled, then it is never possible to refute your argument. I have spent more than enough time down the Kalergi rabbit hole. Intersting to look back at history, but no conspiracy.

 

[audiohi]

 

[Montuno]

View Image

It is clear: "the same dogs with different collars".

Pinochet, another lover of shooting gays, democrats and leftists from the heights, like the DAESH (ISIS, you English speakers call it)...

 

[Chi13]

- You can lead a horse to water - but you can't make him drink - but the question is - can you make him read a book?

- try reading this book Chi13 - https://archive.org/details/TheGula...go__vol1__I-II__Solzhenitsyn/page/n1/mode/2up - it might help - its free - so no need to have to buy it -

We can at least agree on the horse to water, although I reckon it's you that needs a drink.

I am not sure if that book would give any insight into the Kalergi plan, or anything discussed here. I am a bit of a lefty, but am certainly not a Communist, nor would I make excuses for the appalling events post revolution. I am certainly against Fascism, but that doesn't equate to pro Communism. In fact I don't think either system can solve the worlds problems, as they are both based on increased consumption (but that's another story).

Anyway I will try and leave it here.

 

[Montuno]

We can at least agree on the horse to water, although I reckon it's you that needs a drink.

I am not sure if that book would give any insight into the Kalergi plan, or anything discussed here. I am a bit of a lefty, but am certainly not a Communist, nor would I make excuses for the appalling events post revolution. I am certainly against Fascism, but that doesn't equate to pro Communism. In fact I don't think either system can solve the worlds problems, as they are both based on increased consumption (but that's another story).

Anyway I will try and leave it here.

Is this really so? Or perhaps even economic degrowth and ecology fit into Marxism?
It is true that among the old currents there were those who believed in the possibility of continuous growth (like capitalism), but based on supposed technical-scientific solutions that humanity would find, not on things like inculcating consumerism for consumerism's sake, or programmed obsolescence...

Thanx form your interestig posts.

Salud!