In the late 1800’s only one percent of Jews were Zionists. That means 99% thought it was an absurd idea. To be banished to the margins of civilization was only anti-Semitism on steroids.
Hello Tereza, I'll answer here above to make a Note. Thanks for these questions, some of which are exactly what I want to answer.
(I don't do nearly as much work as you do.) I find authors who have done that work for me, and I quote them. Although I don't rigorously use the Substack quote symbols, you'll notice in all my books, I include their footnoted source materials. I always suggest following the footnotes as you read.
My investigation is aimed at breaking some of the stereotypes that are attached by people who use the term "the Jews". Those stereotypes are what I call anti-Semitism, even if they somehow seem positive attributes. I will never use that collective term myself, (which doesn't exist).
All of civilizations are built on various stories. That's no different for anyone. Most of those stories have their "toxic corners", some are more blatant than others. I like to look at individual people as life-affirmative and life-denial, meaning those that build (on something) and those that destroy (most everything). It is a generalization, that tells me where to "watch out". Destruction may seem useful in certain eras. Most ancient history that I have found is a devastation. Later on, destructive imperatives may diminish. But the seed is still there and can be re-ignited.
Guyenot says that his book is a critique of toxic ideas, (stereotypes), and that lies come first. It’s only by exposing the lies that the violence will end. I don't exactly agree. He exposes plenty of lies, but on UNZ, it fires up his commenter's into even more disdain, or more sureness that their pre-existing anti-Semitism is right.
I see him as building hate. I don't say intentionally, but that is the result. Well meaning authors have to be cognizant of how their work is being received. It is not a path I would choose.
I am going to propose that HATE is a commodity that can be sold. There are many examples, from the Mujahideen, JIhadists, ISIS, Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic States, Israel and others. Each of them has a seed of hate, either dormant or more or less active, and which can be energized. Guyenot is focusing on the sellers of Hate, and their inherent toxicity. (I don't deny that they have it.)
But the complete formula includes the sellers-of-Hate, and the buyers-of-Hate.
The Buyers of hate are you and me, if we enjoy the prosperity of the west based on colonialism, and if we pay taxes to purchase armaments for Ukraine and Israel. This we want to cover up, so we welcome Guyenot's diversion, and focus only on those evil sellers of hate. (All the way back for 4,000 years.) It is an unbroken chain that overpowers us all! Or is that just more diversion from what really counts???
My theory is what really counts are the BUYERS OF HATE. They find the seed of hate and they nurture it and empower it to fulfill their ends with their (oh-so important), "Plausible Deniability".
I wonder; would there be any hate without the Buyers of hate? For sure it would be orders-of-magnitude less, and also impotent. Why does anyone engage in conflict? BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY WILL WIN. Or if that is impossible, they have an Uncle that will back them up, and pay them for being the front man. This is certainly the history within our lifetime. America has sent $ 100's of Billions worth of bombs to Ukraine and Israel. If these groups didn't have an "Uncle", they would have to learn to get-along with neighbors, or die. Even the Baltics would pacify, without EU encouragement. It would be a different world. Some people have written that both Ukraine and Gaza would stop within days, the moment America so-decides.
Western populations may think that world peace will bring prosperity to all, but it won't. Your prosperity is based on world turmoil, and the more the better. This is the ugly truth, and we are all into denial about it. THIS IS THE CAUSE that you seek.
I have more segments that point toward the real probabilities. Those that hate Jews the most, are white European Christians. That hate broke loose big-time from 1880 to its culmination in 1945. Arab Muslims have little or nothing to do with anti-Semitism, until now.
The Balfour Declaration was Jewish Hate, because it manipulated the Jewish for purely British colonial ends. What I wrote above makes that clear (to me). I don't say the British sent Jews to Palestine to massacre the Arabs, but the seed of hate was the insurance that British long-term programs would be fulfilled. The Brits also lied big-time to the Arabs for their help in WWI. These are the "lies that need to come first". What are the British secret societies and secret writings that have prolonged their colonial superiority for 500 years? These are the intrigues and conspiracies that overshadow all Hebrew fantasies.
The "great trail of Jewish research", might just be the cover-up for Britain. Let's investigate that.
Thanks for giving such a comprehensive reply, Librarian, and for subbing my stack.
You define anti-Semitism as "stereotypes that are attached by people who use the term "the Jews" and state that you would never use that term. But this seems a contradiction because you did need to use the term in order to identify this self-identified group as a unique exception that can never be talked about as a group.
You then talk in negative generalities about other groups: white European Christians who 'hate Jews the most.' That combines race, nationalities and religion into one generalization that I'm assuming you see as culminating in 'the Holocaust.' You don't name particular people who took particular actions against other particular people. There is a generalization of guilt and responsibility to one named group identity and a legacy of victimization to another, resulting in them being forever unable to be named as a group--or that is considered 'hate.'
Is it not hate to ascribe to white European Christians the attribute of hate? If I were to say "Jews are taught to hate and distrust all non-Jews," you would see that as anti-Semitic. So the prohibition against speaking in generalities about ethnic groups, nations or religions either needs to apply universally or not name Jews as the sole exception.
I don't hold anyone responsible for the comments of their commenters. I do myself have a rule where I will ban any commenter who insults the character of any individual or group, but I never ban anyone for criticizing the words or behaviors of any individual or group. However, that's my own rule and not one others need to adopt.
I'm very curious about your thoughts on Benjamin Freedman's speech, in which he looks at the Bolshevik Jews of Germany as instigating the Balfour Declaration by making the deal to involve the US in the Great War at a time when Germany had, in all but signed document, won the war and offered peace without reparations. I have an unedited version in one of my episodes, I can find that if you don't already have one. Thanks for this work, Librarian.
This is good timing for me since I am just reading on the nuances of international treaties and international law. It's then that language has to be examined very carefully to avoid misunderstanding and later erroneous interpretation. If somebody does something and they identify themselves as Jewish, then Jews did this. That is just English. That is a far cry from saying "The Jews did this", a collective. I did not say "The White European Christians" hate Jews, meaning all of them. Without the article "the" it is just a statement of fact, meaning some White European Christians hate Jews. I hope that is settled.
The above is totally incidental, but it is interesting that your comments missed all the important points of my previous comment. I said:
1. All cultures have stories with toxic corners, and they act as a seed that can be re-ignited and fanned into a flame.
2. ? Is it true that telling what's wrong with people, where they lied, even 1,000 years ago, (which I can't see how it relates), will stop their violence?
3. I proposed that HATE is a commodity that can be sold.
4. Many people feel better by condemning the sellers-of-hate.
5. I proposed that the Buyers-of-Hate are way more toxic than the sellers of hate. They take, what may be an obsolete idea, and fan those flames into an inferno. Then they justify it with their control of world media, and supply (sell) all the necessities for the conflict.
6. By the way, this post above demonstrates that the written seed of an idea, (the return to Palestine), WAS DEAD. But British diplomacy brought it back to life, solely for its own colonial purposes and to the detriment of the Jewish populations world-wide. Yes, I am saying that the creation of Israel, (in the way that it was done), has been a negative for the Jewish. The Balfour Declaration was part of their most hateful condemnation, to 75 years of killing and counter killing. (And maybe the Diaspora ignores that part. But those in the killing-cage know it well.)
7. Then I said that sellers of hate are impotent, until their uncle gives them money and guarantees. It is the buyers of hate that have all the hateful potency, and they are engaged in developing their proxies.
Everything else is the cover-up.
I hope you don't omit any of these numbers in your considerations.
8. I'll throw in the last ones: Communication is made of monitoring both the sending and the receiving. If you are only sending, saying these are my honest well-researched opinions, but you're not checking on how they're received, then that is not communication. Thus to be a communicator, you are responsible for how your audience grasps your statements.
9. It has been said that American Jewish people could have convinced America to enter WWII. Rest assured, America will ALWAYS enter into every war, (the later the better to sell arms to both sides). They will enter because the greatest WIN is to author the peace agreements. You have to be seated at the head of the table.
I finished reading this, Librarian, and have some thoughts.
The question it addresses, I think, is "Who instigated the Balfour Declaration?" Your premise, I believe, is that it was specifically named British imperialists with political motives. They initiated it as a bribe in the hopes that Jewish Zionists would use their influence on the side of Britain in the war.
While British figures are named, and certainly don't assume that the man or woman on the London street shared in these manipulations, it's juxtaposed against 'the Jews' as in "the Jews showed little inclination to migrate," showing they had no interest in the Balfour. 'The Jews' are seen as a people without leadership or elites. No political or imperial motives are attributed to individual Jews. I didn't do a search, but it seems the name Rothschild wasn't mentioned.
The first victims of the Balfour were not the Palestinians but the Germans. They were betrayed from within Germany--that's confirmed by historical documents presented after the end of the war in order to lay claim to Palestine when land was being divvied up. Judea called itself a nation when it declared war on Germany in 1933. That's not something that can be done without an internal authority system. Here is a lengthy quote from Benjamin Freedman's speech:
"World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?
"Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her -- and after that, starvation.
"At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
"Now Germany -- not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated. While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible -- the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war."
"In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey."
"Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain -- that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine -- should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.
"However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German -- totally pro-German -- because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.
"The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
"Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.
"Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany. The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room."
Freedman was in a position to know the truth and had nothing to gain by saying this, in fact, lost all his savings by trying to get this word out. To say that British imperialists instigated this would need to present evidence refuting his claims. Here's the full text: https://www.mailstar.net/freedman.html.
That's quite a write-up you gave to Benjamin Freedman. He must have been convincing. Wikipedia says he was a Holocaust denier, and vocal anti-Zionist. I scanned his speech. For me it was pretty crude and full of assertions. He claims Judea declared war on Germany in 1933, but most of the speech is about before WWI. He says "the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet, (before the Balfour Declaration). Names he mentions are German industrialists and bankers, Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Nahum Sokolow a Hebrew, Mr. Rathenau, Mr. Balin, Mr. Bleichroder, the Warburgs. Were these all Zionists? Remember that Zionist plans were dead in the water because there were no people that wanted to move there.
Then these combined with the British Zionists went to the war cabinet. Who were they? Theodor Herzl was Austro-Hungarian. Rothschild was a reluctant Zionist, only trying to protect the Jews already in England. Herbert Samuel, Chiam Weizmann, Sir Eric Cassel (?) Who else? What are the names of the English Zionists pre-1917? Please make a convincing case.
So this little group claims they have the power to control America, because THE JEWS, run the United States, and they will do what these Zionists (we) dictate. So lets have the names of THE JEWS that run America? There was Felix Frankfurter and Justice Louis Brandeis. He drops names like Henry Morgenthau, Sr. and then he says Freedman himself sat at the negotiating table, where President Wilson proved clueless on what was going on, (kind of like Biden I guess)?
I will remind you that at this exact time the book "the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", came out, its Russian author Sergyei Nilus, (New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000), (‘International sales of the pamphlet were astronomical during the 1920s and 1930s; Henri Rollin, the French scholar of anti-Semitism, called the Protocols the most widely distributed book in the world other than the Bible, and its distribution was accompanied by a mountain of secondary literature comprising well more than one thousand titles’). They were published in English as late as the 1970's, 50 years after it's proven a forgery.
(‘One would normally expect the mysterious rulers to be called Elders of Jewry or Elders of Israel. There must be some reason why they bear the absurd name of Elders of Zion, but that was their target.)
Was Turkey reading this book, was Iran, or India, or China, the Japanese? NO, Only Europeans and Americans have rabid anti-Semitist's.
All these men (especially Churchill), Balfour and others, believed these allegations were true at the time. (Benjamin Freedman too.) The Protocols were a forgery of an earlier book published in France entitled, ‘Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu; or, the Politics of Machiavelli in the Nineteenth Century’, {which had nothing to do with the Jews}. If you go through the two books line by line you will find many paragraphs directly copied.
{Churchill categorized Jews into ‘Good and Bad Jews’, ‘National Jews’, ‘International Jews’, and ‘Terrorist Jews’.}
{Churchill told Lloyd George, "there is a point about the Jews which occurs to me – you must not have too many of them".}
Anyone who claims that Jews run the world and we will deliver any policy that you desire if you just "give us" Palestine, is really the epitome of idiocy, not to say epitome of anti-Semitism. Please see my post number 9 for more clarity.
I have my ideas on why Britain pursued Zionism, and why the US entered the war. They are really not related. But another time.
It is a composite from both of those books. I am not saying that it proves anything. But it shows in part, that broad inferences that there is a "people" out there with nefarious intentions, can't be correct. There is both the writer's perhaps more neutral stance, and the reader's grasping to build their anti-Semitism surety.
That's why I caution on presenting too much objectionable material from the distant past. Somebody is going to believe that is the cause of present-day atrocities. (And it might have some connection.)
Future posts will also cast more doubt on any theory of "THE JEWS" did this or that.
Ah yes, I did later get to the part where it changes books. Is it, then, your writing to summarize them or are they direct quotes?
Could you define anti-Semitism how you mean it, Librarian? And perhaps who you mean when you say 'THE JEWS' although I recognize you're talking about the theories of others. I think that you and I agree there is no unified genetic people that ties back to ancient Judea but has spread around the world in the last two millennia. And I'm certain we agree that no people are genetically predisposed to nefarious intentions.
The only thing that unifies those who currently identify as Jews is a story. My intent is to show that story is both false and written with nefarious intent, to manipulate those who believe it into nefarious actions. Those stories, without a doubt, are the cause of present-day atrocities. Those who believe the stories need support to recognize they're being manipulated.
We agree, I'm sure, that there are present-day atrocities being committed by those who identify as Jews against Palestinians. One of those stories was keeping me awake last night and haunting my dreams. If these are not a 'people' with nefarious intent (and I don't think that's true of anyone) what do you see as the cause?
Thank you again for posting this crucial information, going deep into these questions.
I appreciate both of you for the deep dive you’ve both taken. Quite impressive. Thank you. Librarian, do any of your writings attempt to address the Holocaust??
Hello Tereza, I'll answer here above to make a Note. Thanks for these questions, some of which are exactly what I want to answer.
(I don't do nearly as much work as you do.) I find authors who have done that work for me, and I quote them. Although I don't rigorously use the Substack quote symbols, you'll notice in all my books, I include their footnoted source materials. I always suggest following the footnotes as you read.
My investigation is aimed at breaking some of the stereotypes that are attached by people who use the term "the Jews". Those stereotypes are what I call anti-Semitism, even if they somehow seem positive attributes. I will never use that collective term myself, (which doesn't exist).
All of civilizations are built on various stories. That's no different for anyone. Most of those stories have their "toxic corners", some are more blatant than others. I like to look at individual people as life-affirmative and life-denial, meaning those that build (on something) and those that destroy (most everything). It is a generalization, that tells me where to "watch out". Destruction may seem useful in certain eras. Most ancient history that I have found is a devastation. Later on, destructive imperatives may diminish. But the seed is still there and can be re-ignited.
Guyenot says that his book is a critique of toxic ideas, (stereotypes), and that lies come first. It’s only by exposing the lies that the violence will end. I don't exactly agree. He exposes plenty of lies, but on UNZ, it fires up his commenter's into even more disdain, or more sureness that their pre-existing anti-Semitism is right.
I see him as building hate. I don't say intentionally, but that is the result. Well meaning authors have to be cognizant of how their work is being received. It is not a path I would choose.
I am going to propose that HATE is a commodity that can be sold. There are many examples, from the Mujahideen, JIhadists, ISIS, Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic States, Israel and others. Each of them has a seed of hate, either dormant or more or less active, and which can be energized. Guyenot is focusing on the sellers of Hate, and their inherent toxicity. (I don't deny that they have it.)
But the complete formula includes the sellers-of-Hate, and the buyers-of-Hate.
The Buyers of hate are you and me, if we enjoy the prosperity of the west based on colonialism, and if we pay taxes to purchase armaments for Ukraine and Israel. This we want to cover up, so we welcome Guyenot's diversion, and focus only on those evil sellers of hate. (All the way back for 4,000 years.) It is an unbroken chain that overpowers us all! Or is that just more diversion from what really counts???
My theory is what really counts are the BUYERS OF HATE. They find the seed of hate and they nurture it and empower it to fulfill their ends with their (oh-so important), "Plausible Deniability".
I wonder; would there be any hate without the Buyers of hate? For sure it would be orders-of-magnitude less, and also impotent. Why does anyone engage in conflict? BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY WILL WIN. Or if that is impossible, they have an Uncle that will back them up, and pay them for being the front man. This is certainly the history within our lifetime. America has sent $ 100's of Billions worth of bombs to Ukraine and Israel. If these groups didn't have an "Uncle", they would have to learn to get-along with neighbors, or die. Even the Baltics would pacify, without EU encouragement. It would be a different world. Some people have written that both Ukraine and Gaza would stop within days, the moment America so-decides.
Western populations may think that world peace will bring prosperity to all, but it won't. Your prosperity is based on world turmoil, and the more the better. This is the ugly truth, and we are all into denial about it. THIS IS THE CAUSE that you seek.
I have more segments that point toward the real probabilities. Those that hate Jews the most, are white European Christians. That hate broke loose big-time from 1880 to its culmination in 1945. Arab Muslims have little or nothing to do with anti-Semitism, until now.
The Balfour Declaration was Jewish Hate, because it manipulated the Jewish for purely British colonial ends. What I wrote above makes that clear (to me). I don't say the British sent Jews to Palestine to massacre the Arabs, but the seed of hate was the insurance that British long-term programs would be fulfilled. The Brits also lied big-time to the Arabs for their help in WWI. These are the "lies that need to come first". What are the British secret societies and secret writings that have prolonged their colonial superiority for 500 years? These are the intrigues and conspiracies that overshadow all Hebrew fantasies.
The "great trail of Jewish research", might just be the cover-up for Britain. Let's investigate that.
.
Crazy amazing response Librarian. I was going to copy one of your comments back and say ‘Amazing’ but the entire response is exactly that.
I’ll reread and likely plagiarize one or two comments to help expose the lies.
Thx & Best
Thanks for giving such a comprehensive reply, Librarian, and for subbing my stack.
You define anti-Semitism as "stereotypes that are attached by people who use the term "the Jews" and state that you would never use that term. But this seems a contradiction because you did need to use the term in order to identify this self-identified group as a unique exception that can never be talked about as a group.
You then talk in negative generalities about other groups: white European Christians who 'hate Jews the most.' That combines race, nationalities and religion into one generalization that I'm assuming you see as culminating in 'the Holocaust.' You don't name particular people who took particular actions against other particular people. There is a generalization of guilt and responsibility to one named group identity and a legacy of victimization to another, resulting in them being forever unable to be named as a group--or that is considered 'hate.'
Is it not hate to ascribe to white European Christians the attribute of hate? If I were to say "Jews are taught to hate and distrust all non-Jews," you would see that as anti-Semitic. So the prohibition against speaking in generalities about ethnic groups, nations or religions either needs to apply universally or not name Jews as the sole exception.
I don't hold anyone responsible for the comments of their commenters. I do myself have a rule where I will ban any commenter who insults the character of any individual or group, but I never ban anyone for criticizing the words or behaviors of any individual or group. However, that's my own rule and not one others need to adopt.
I'm very curious about your thoughts on Benjamin Freedman's speech, in which he looks at the Bolshevik Jews of Germany as instigating the Balfour Declaration by making the deal to involve the US in the Great War at a time when Germany had, in all but signed document, won the war and offered peace without reparations. I have an unedited version in one of my episodes, I can find that if you don't already have one. Thanks for this work, Librarian.
This is good timing for me since I am just reading on the nuances of international treaties and international law. It's then that language has to be examined very carefully to avoid misunderstanding and later erroneous interpretation. If somebody does something and they identify themselves as Jewish, then Jews did this. That is just English. That is a far cry from saying "The Jews did this", a collective. I did not say "The White European Christians" hate Jews, meaning all of them. Without the article "the" it is just a statement of fact, meaning some White European Christians hate Jews. I hope that is settled.
The above is totally incidental, but it is interesting that your comments missed all the important points of my previous comment. I said:
1. All cultures have stories with toxic corners, and they act as a seed that can be re-ignited and fanned into a flame.
2. ? Is it true that telling what's wrong with people, where they lied, even 1,000 years ago, (which I can't see how it relates), will stop their violence?
3. I proposed that HATE is a commodity that can be sold.
4. Many people feel better by condemning the sellers-of-hate.
5. I proposed that the Buyers-of-Hate are way more toxic than the sellers of hate. They take, what may be an obsolete idea, and fan those flames into an inferno. Then they justify it with their control of world media, and supply (sell) all the necessities for the conflict.
6. By the way, this post above demonstrates that the written seed of an idea, (the return to Palestine), WAS DEAD. But British diplomacy brought it back to life, solely for its own colonial purposes and to the detriment of the Jewish populations world-wide. Yes, I am saying that the creation of Israel, (in the way that it was done), has been a negative for the Jewish. The Balfour Declaration was part of their most hateful condemnation, to 75 years of killing and counter killing. (And maybe the Diaspora ignores that part. But those in the killing-cage know it well.)
7. Then I said that sellers of hate are impotent, until their uncle gives them money and guarantees. It is the buyers of hate that have all the hateful potency, and they are engaged in developing their proxies.
Everything else is the cover-up.
I hope you don't omit any of these numbers in your considerations.
8. I'll throw in the last ones: Communication is made of monitoring both the sending and the receiving. If you are only sending, saying these are my honest well-researched opinions, but you're not checking on how they're received, then that is not communication. Thus to be a communicator, you are responsible for how your audience grasps your statements.
9. It has been said that American Jewish people could have convinced America to enter WWII. Rest assured, America will ALWAYS enter into every war, (the later the better to sell arms to both sides). They will enter because the greatest WIN is to author the peace agreements. You have to be seated at the head of the table.
.
When two dogs fight over a bone, normally a third dog is the one who walks the bone home.
I finished reading this, Librarian, and have some thoughts.
The question it addresses, I think, is "Who instigated the Balfour Declaration?" Your premise, I believe, is that it was specifically named British imperialists with political motives. They initiated it as a bribe in the hopes that Jewish Zionists would use their influence on the side of Britain in the war.
While British figures are named, and certainly don't assume that the man or woman on the London street shared in these manipulations, it's juxtaposed against 'the Jews' as in "the Jews showed little inclination to migrate," showing they had no interest in the Balfour. 'The Jews' are seen as a people without leadership or elites. No political or imperial motives are attributed to individual Jews. I didn't do a search, but it seems the name Rothschild wasn't mentioned.
The first victims of the Balfour were not the Palestinians but the Germans. They were betrayed from within Germany--that's confirmed by historical documents presented after the end of the war in order to lay claim to Palestine when land was being divvied up. Judea called itself a nation when it declared war on Germany in 1933. That's not something that can be done without an internal authority system. Here is a lengthy quote from Benjamin Freedman's speech:
"World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?
"Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her -- and after that, starvation.
"At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
"Now Germany -- not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated. While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible -- the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war."
"In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey."
"Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain -- that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine -- should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.
"However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German -- totally pro-German -- because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.
"The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
"Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.
"Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany. The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room."
Freedman was in a position to know the truth and had nothing to gain by saying this, in fact, lost all his savings by trying to get this word out. To say that British imperialists instigated this would need to present evidence refuting his claims. Here's the full text: https://www.mailstar.net/freedman.html.
That's quite a write-up you gave to Benjamin Freedman. He must have been convincing. Wikipedia says he was a Holocaust denier, and vocal anti-Zionist. I scanned his speech. For me it was pretty crude and full of assertions. He claims Judea declared war on Germany in 1933, but most of the speech is about before WWI. He says "the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet, (before the Balfour Declaration). Names he mentions are German industrialists and bankers, Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Nahum Sokolow a Hebrew, Mr. Rathenau, Mr. Balin, Mr. Bleichroder, the Warburgs. Were these all Zionists? Remember that Zionist plans were dead in the water because there were no people that wanted to move there.
Then these combined with the British Zionists went to the war cabinet. Who were they? Theodor Herzl was Austro-Hungarian. Rothschild was a reluctant Zionist, only trying to protect the Jews already in England. Herbert Samuel, Chiam Weizmann, Sir Eric Cassel (?) Who else? What are the names of the English Zionists pre-1917? Please make a convincing case.
So this little group claims they have the power to control America, because THE JEWS, run the United States, and they will do what these Zionists (we) dictate. So lets have the names of THE JEWS that run America? There was Felix Frankfurter and Justice Louis Brandeis. He drops names like Henry Morgenthau, Sr. and then he says Freedman himself sat at the negotiating table, where President Wilson proved clueless on what was going on, (kind of like Biden I guess)?
I will remind you that at this exact time the book "the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", came out, its Russian author Sergyei Nilus, (New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000), (‘International sales of the pamphlet were astronomical during the 1920s and 1930s; Henri Rollin, the French scholar of anti-Semitism, called the Protocols the most widely distributed book in the world other than the Bible, and its distribution was accompanied by a mountain of secondary literature comprising well more than one thousand titles’). They were published in English as late as the 1970's, 50 years after it's proven a forgery.
(‘One would normally expect the mysterious rulers to be called Elders of Jewry or Elders of Israel. There must be some reason why they bear the absurd name of Elders of Zion, but that was their target.)
Was Turkey reading this book, was Iran, or India, or China, the Japanese? NO, Only Europeans and Americans have rabid anti-Semitist's.
All these men (especially Churchill), Balfour and others, believed these allegations were true at the time. (Benjamin Freedman too.) The Protocols were a forgery of an earlier book published in France entitled, ‘Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu; or, the Politics of Machiavelli in the Nineteenth Century’, {which had nothing to do with the Jews}. If you go through the two books line by line you will find many paragraphs directly copied.
{Churchill categorized Jews into ‘Good and Bad Jews’, ‘National Jews’, ‘International Jews’, and ‘Terrorist Jews’.}
{Churchill told Lloyd George, "there is a point about the Jews which occurs to me – you must not have too many of them".}
Anyone who claims that Jews run the world and we will deliver any policy that you desire if you just "give us" Palestine, is really the epitome of idiocy, not to say epitome of anti-Semitism. Please see my post number 9 for more clarity.
I have my ideas on why Britain pursued Zionism, and why the US entered the war. They are really not related. But another time.
.
I should know this but I'm forgetting--is this from Shlomo Sand's book or Victor Kattan? Thanks.
It is a composite from both of those books. I am not saying that it proves anything. But it shows in part, that broad inferences that there is a "people" out there with nefarious intentions, can't be correct. There is both the writer's perhaps more neutral stance, and the reader's grasping to build their anti-Semitism surety.
That's why I caution on presenting too much objectionable material from the distant past. Somebody is going to believe that is the cause of present-day atrocities. (And it might have some connection.)
Future posts will also cast more doubt on any theory of "THE JEWS" did this or that.
Ah yes, I did later get to the part where it changes books. Is it, then, your writing to summarize them or are they direct quotes?
Could you define anti-Semitism how you mean it, Librarian? And perhaps who you mean when you say 'THE JEWS' although I recognize you're talking about the theories of others. I think that you and I agree there is no unified genetic people that ties back to ancient Judea but has spread around the world in the last two millennia. And I'm certain we agree that no people are genetically predisposed to nefarious intentions.
The only thing that unifies those who currently identify as Jews is a story. My intent is to show that story is both false and written with nefarious intent, to manipulate those who believe it into nefarious actions. Those stories, without a doubt, are the cause of present-day atrocities. Those who believe the stories need support to recognize they're being manipulated.
We agree, I'm sure, that there are present-day atrocities being committed by those who identify as Jews against Palestinians. One of those stories was keeping me awake last night and haunting my dreams. If these are not a 'people' with nefarious intent (and I don't think that's true of anyone) what do you see as the cause?
Thank you again for posting this crucial information, going deep into these questions.
Hello: I answered on a new comment.
I appreciate both of you for the deep dive you’ve both taken. Quite impressive. Thank you. Librarian, do any of your writings attempt to address the Holocaust??
Oh never mind, I read to the part that talks about the author, Shlomo Sand's, parents. Thanks Librarian.