Aletho News


A Glimpse into Jewish Guilt and Aggression

By Gilad Atzmon | October 16, 2016

Some Jews were not delighted by Donald Trump’s recent reference to ‘International Bankers”. Trump declared this week that his rival Hillary Clinton is somehow “an instrument of a vast conspiracy involving scads of money and international banks”

You may note that Trump didn’t refer to Jews nor did he point out any ethnicity or religious group. However, Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, was quick to react using the twitter platform. “Trump should avoid rhetoric and tropes that historically have been used against Jews and still spur antisemitism,” Greenblatt said and then added “Let’s keep hate out of campaign.”

One may wonder at this stage why a leading American Jew sees ‘hatred’ in Trump’s critical reference to ‘International Banking’? Is it because Greenblatt knows that the International Bankers who fund Clinton’s presidential affair belong to one particular ethnic group? Is it possible that Greenblatt believes that the bankers at Goldman Sachs, along with individuals like Haim Saban and George Soros, may have one or two things in common apart from being filthy rich?

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency was also alarmed by Trump’s true observation that “This election will determine if we are a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system”

Once again Trump didn’t refer specifically to Jews, yet the JTA must have gathered that he had Jews in mind. The JTA probably knows something many of us may have gathered but prefer to suppress.

I guess the good news is the sudden appearance of Jewish guilt. Greenblatt and the JTA act out of guilt. They do know that international banking is a Jewish territory and that makes them feel uncomfortable.  But the tragic news is that Jewish guilt hardly leads to ethical reflection, and too often it is quick to transform into aggression.

If Greenblatt was genuinely concerned with defamation and the safety of American Jews he should have lobbied the herd of Jewish international bankers to remove themselves from American politics. But for Greenblatt and others within his tribal milieu, Jewish power is the power to silence the very discussion of Jewish power!

In practice, Greenblatt, an American Jewish leader, is telling the Republican presidential candidate which topics to avoid.

I would like to tell Greenblatt and his acolytes that this development is very dangerous to American people and to American Jews, in particular.

October 16, 2016 - Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Corruption | , , ,


  1. “Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, was quick to react using the twitter platform. “Trump should avoid rhetoric and tropes that historically have been used against Jews and still spur anti-Semitism,”

    Given that Trump never mentioned the “Jews”, calling him anti-Semitic just goes to show how utterly sensitive “Jews” are about the Banking industry and the power that it gives them, even though everyone in the industry is clearly not Jewish.
    Nearly everyone on this planet has probably been ‘branded’ as ‘anti-Semitic’ at some stage(it’s thrown around like confetti at an Italian wedding), and in a world ‘full of anti-Semites’, maybe, just maybe, it’s the “Semites” fault……

    Comment by Brian Harry, Australia | October 16, 2016 | Reply

    by Mark Burdman

    Herzl’s diaries are filled with references to the strategies and ideas behind this relationship. “The anti-Semites will be our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries, our allies.” “Selling” Zionism would “cost nothing, for the anti-Semites will rejoice.” Anti-Semitism is at bottom understandable, since “they could not have let themselves be subjugated by us in the army, in government, in all of commerce.” And, in meetings with various reactionary European potentates, as Bilinski charged, Herzl freely conjured up massive world Jewish financial power and extensive Jewish control over revolutionary movements, playing off the “benefits” for collaborating with the Zionists against the “risks” of not doing so.

    This collaboration presaged the close collaboration between Zionists and Nazis during the 1933-45 period, including Zionist agreement to let nearly a million Jews die in return for letting the select, racially “pure” few escape from Hungary and Rumania. In this relationship, the cult of Thule and Odin of the elite Nazis, and the cult of Zion, both created in London’s oligarchic cult laboratories, were to help each other “purify their races.”

    There is one man who can properly be regarded as the father of Zionism and Nazism: Benjamin Disraeli. To omit Disraeli from a central place in the 19th century development of Zionism, agent historian Barbara Tuchman once said, “would be as absurd as to leave the ghost out of Hamlet.” As prime minister under Victoria in the 1870s, Disraeli was the overseer of Britain’s imperial design to secure a “homeland” for Jews as a British outpost in the Middle East, and a secret document authored by Disraeli became the manifesto for early Zionism in Europe. That much is admitted on the public record.

    What’s hidden are Disraeli’s motivations. In the 40 novels he also authored, Disraeli called for an Aryan-Semitic alliance to form an organized superior “Caucasian race” that was destined to rule the world with British power and the Hebrew-centered “sacred mysteries of the East.” This was the counter-cult to the rising demand for industrialization and progress throughout Europe, the United States, and the Arab world. As we shall show, Nazism and Zionism were the hideous twin offspring of the same Anglican racist mother.

    Disraeli himself was the son of an early British cultist, Isaac D’Israeli, a dilettantish figure and literary critic associated with circles around the Edinburgh Review and Sir Walter Scott. Nominally a Jew by name, Isaac D’Israeli was involved in the Isis cult worship of these circles and encouraged his son to study Jesuit teachings and explore other pagan anti-Christian teachings. The Walter Scott clique was the originator of numerous myths and cults conduited into Europe, including the Odin cult in Germany that supplied a mythical history for Nazism.

    Early in his political literary career, Disraeli made two important connections. The first was to the up-and-coming Rothschild family. The most notable Hofjuden (“Court Jew”) family of Britain patronized Disraeli’s activities and Disraeli wrote in a letter, “I have always been of the opinion that there cannot be too many Rothschilds.”

    Secondly, he was introduced to Edward Bulwer- Lytton, an arch-priest of the Isis cult in Britain. Bulwer- Lytton was the author of the Last Days of Pompeii which promulgated the Isis cult and the novel Rienzi. The latter supplied the story for one of Wagner’s first operas which became another manifesto of Nazism. Bulwer- Lytton and his son were both to serve as Colonial and India Office secretaries during the mid-nineteenth century. Bulwer-Lytton’s novels became the seminal tracts for a whole variety of cults devoted to spreading the cult of Isis directly or in other guises. Those included the 1848 creation of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, the 1860s Metaphysical Society and Masonic Rosicrucian Lodge, the 1880s creation of the Isis-Uranus Temple of the Hermetic Students of the Golden Dawn, the Theosophy Society founded by Madame Blavatsky, who published Isis Unveiled and The Cabala Unveiled, and end-of-the-century grotesqueries like the Cannibal Club and the Suicide Society. There was one aim behind all these cults: the formation of ritual worship cults for the creation of terrorists, environmentalists, anarchists, and other zombified enemies of progress that could be deployed against whatever obstacle stood in the way of Britain’s imperial designs.
    Disraeli’s own initiation into the Isis cult came with an early 1830s trip to the countries of the Mediterranean, a trip that took him to Malta, the home base of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, Greece, Egypt, and Palestine, the latter two for extended stays. In Greece, the future prime minister expounded on the theme of the “Oriental background of Hellenistic civilization. ‘ According to Disraeli, “in art the Greeks were the children of the Egyptians, ‘ the originators of Isis. The trip provided Disraeli with his hallucinatory raw material for his “cabalistic” 1830s-1840s novels, which according to one of their Rothschild-modeled characters, Sindonia, were aimed at “penetrating the great Asian mystery.” Upon his return from the Near East, Disraeli set to work on writing Alroy, his first call for a return to Palestine.

    The first British cries for a return to Palestine were sounded when Napoleon conquered Egypt. In entering Egypt with the idea of creating a modern nation in this country that had fallen to the rule of the homosexual Mamluks, Napoleon was carrying out the Grand Design of the great 17th century humanist Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. That Grand Design, the design of humanist republicans in the United States, France and elsewhere, called for industrializing Asia, the Near East, and Africa — the Third World — as a means of advancing the process of industrialization of Europe and America. Leibniz’s special project for conquering Egypt to open the Mediterranean as a trade route for a France-centered European trade drive was coopted in full by Napoleon in the 1790s. When Napoleon’s troops landed in Egypt, the British press shrieked in. loud headlines: “Napoleon: Plagiarist of Leibniz.”

    Upon arriving in the Near East, Bible in one hand, Koran in the other, Napoleon made an appeal for an ecumenical alliance of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to bring the Near East under the hegemony of republican forces in Europe. Within this ecumenical framework, Napoleon called for the return of Jews to Palestine as a crucial input for the development of the entire region.

    Upon routing Napoleon from Egypt, the British moved quickly to subvert the potential the project had represented. First, through agents like explorer and profiler Richard Burton, the British Foreign Office set about infiltrating Islam with overlays of Isis cult mythology through Sufism and other cults. Secondly, Zionism emerged as a fundamental tool to secure British imperial designs.

    In the first decade of the 19th century, a few ideologues pushed for the Palestine return perspective as an anti-French weapon; not until the 1830’s did leading British policy makers, however, turn Zionism into a live operation, and the search began for Jews who could be duped, coerced, or threatened into allying with the scheme. Except for a few Hassidic elements in Eastern Europe, Zionism had little attraction for Jews. Western European and American Jews were celebrating the recently won achievements of emancipations brought with the Napoleonic Code to Europe and republicanism. Eastern European Jews in Poland, Russia, and elsewhere eagerly awaited the process of industrialization and de-ghettoization of their countries. And for every one or two who trekked off to Palestine to worship the land of Mother Zion, tens of thousands of Jews migrated to the “Promised Land” — the United States.

    The first important impetus for Zionism from Britain came with the formation of an “Evangelical Revival.” Its best-known preacher came from the highest ranks of the British aristocracy: Anthony Ashley Cooper, the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury. The revival was the promotion of an anti-Vatican, anti-French “Anglican Israel” movement which called for the restoration of British-sponsored Jews to a “homeland” in Palestine.

    Shaftesbury sounded the trumpet for a “Second Advent” of the Messiah. Calling for a “return to Hebraism,” the Anglican Earl molded the Old Testament doctrines into a weapon against the humanist hopes of Europe’s Jews and against “continental rationalism and revolution.” In one telling outburst on this theme, Shaftesbury attacked science as follows: “Revelation is addressed to the heart and not to the intellect. God cares little comparatively for man’s intellect. He cares greatly for man’s heart. Two mites of faith and love are of infinitely higher value to Him than a whole treasury of thought and knowledge. Satan reigns in the intellect; God in the heart of man.”

    By the 1820s, Shaftesbury’s irrationalists were compiling a monthly periodical entitled “Jewish Intelligence,” under whose auspices missionaries were sent to Eastern Europe to proselytize for the Anglican “return to Israel” doctrine to Jews.

    As a result of this mission, Shaftesbury was to write in late 1838 of a “resurgence of feeling” among Jews in Russia and Poland that the moment “for the turning of their captivity was nigh at hand.” He described images of Jews “once they felt the soil of Palestine beneath their feet … again becoming agriculturists“; and of Jews’ willingness, by nature, to “implicitly obey…the existing form of government.” (emphasis added)

    For this racist claptrap, Shaftesbury has been called a “Zionist-before-the-fact,” and during the 19th century membership in his Jews’ Society (or the London Society for Promoting Christianity Among the Jews) was occasionally cited as proof of insanity before a Lunacy Commission established in London.

    But exactly such insanity became a centerpiece of British Near East strategy during the 1838-40 period, under the aegis of Shaftesbury in-law, British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston, the same Lord Palmerston who was overseeing the establishment of Scottish Rite freemasonry cults across the globe.

    Palmerston’s turn toward Zionism as a useful tool was again the result of a renewed threat of an Egyptian-French alliance. Egyptian leader Mohammed Ali had conquered much of Syria and Palestine beginning in 1832, and he had established allies in both these areas. Mohammed Ali was a strong believer in development and had secured the first major imports into the Arab East of the technologies, skills, and trained manpower that had transformed the European nations into modern, industrial societies. The Egyptian ruler was threatening to catalyze a “bonapartist” momentum throughout the Islamic world which would reverse centuries of stagnation and would jeopardize two centuries of British East India Company-Levant Company control of the region. To “check any…evil designs of Mohammed Ali or his successor,” Palmerston was by 1838 quite ready to set in motion the proposals of Shaftesbury and several other Church of England and Church of Scotland officials for a Jewish Palestine. In 1839, a Foreign Office outlet, the London Globe, ran a series of articles envisaging the mass settlement of Jews in the context of the establishment of an independent state in Syria and Palestine — without, of course, there being any Jews to enlist in such a mission.
    This fact did not stop Palmerston from exclaiming in an August 1840 memorandum, “There exists at the present time among the Jews dispersed over Europe, a strong notion that the time is approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine.” Palmerston “strongly recommended” that the Turkish Sultan be persuaded “to hold out every just encouragement to the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine.”

    During the same month, the Times of London reported on a scheme to “plant the Jewish people in the land of their fathers.” The Times praised Lord Shaftesbury’s “practical and statesmanlike” efforts to this end. According to the article, Shaftesbury was in the process of “canvassing … Jewish opinion” to see how both masses of Jews and rich Jews “felt about a return to the Holy Land,” and to see “how soon they would be ready to go back.”
    In preparation for this new exodus, Shaftesbury appointed an “Anglican bishopric” in Jerusalem to be overseen by a converted Jew, “an Israelite belonging to the Church of England.” This Reverend Alexander was also a professor of Hebrew and Arabic at the King’s College.

    Zionists for the Queen
    The Zionist project, however, would have remained a harebrained scheme of Shaftesbury and his brother-in-law had it not been for the “in field” operations of Charles Henry Churchill, the progenitor of the British warmongering tradition of Lawrence of Arabia and Henry Kissinger.
    Churchill was in the British army that defeated Mohammed Ali in 1840 and was one of the intelligence officers assigned in the late 1830s to foment anti-French tribal uprisings against the French and pro-French Maronite Christians in Mount Lebanon. Working primarily among the Druze tribes, Churchill was responsible for instigating bloodbaths in the regions matched only by the Lebanese civil war set off by Kissinger in 1975.

    A deliberate consequence of Churchill’s tribal provocations was an environment of terror and tension throughout the Levant area. In an incident that gained international publicity, a Jew was accused of committing ritual murder involving the death of a friar in Damascus. The facts surrounding the case have never come to light, but it was the British that gained by playing both sides in the international uproar. First, the prosecution of the Jew in question gave a new impetus to Shaftesbury propaganda about the “protestant duty toward Jews,” and the call to bring in Jews to the region for an anti-French, anti-Vatican crusade. Secondly, the incident gave a sudden shot in the arm to “Jewish nationalism” as press coverage induced a wave of paranoia throughout the world’s Jewish communities. Hofjuden Moses Montefiore, the first Jew to become a member of Queen Victoria’s Most Venerable Order of the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem, made a much-publicized investigatory trip to the Levant accompanied by several continental European Jewish leaders.

    Within Damascus, Churchill pleaded with the city’s Jews to remember first, that “England was the most constant and loyal friend of the Jews”; second, that Palestine was still “echoing with the songs of the Daughters of Zion”; and third, that hopes were growing that “the hour of liberation of Israel was approaching.” Churchill’s speech was called the “first public Zionist manifestation.” Then, on June 14, 1841, Churchill wrote the following astounding letter to Montefiore:

    I cannot conceal from you my most anxious desire to see your countrymen endeavor once more to resume their existence as a people. I consider the object to be perfectly obtainable. But two things are indispensably necessary. Firstly, that the Jews will themselves take up the matter universally and unanimously. Secondly, that the European Powers will aid them in their views. It is for the Jews to make a commencement. Let the principal persons of their community place themselves at the head of the movement. Let them meet, concert, and petition. In fact, the agitation must be simultaneous throughout Europe The result would be that you would conjure up a new element in Eastern diplomacy—an element which under such auspices as those of the wealthy and influential members of the Jewish community could not fail only of attracting great attention and of exciting extraordinary interest, but also of producing great events.

    Continuing that “these countries must be rescued from the grasp of ignorant and fanatical rulers,” Churchill “predicted” the imminent collapse of the Ottoman Empire and swore that “progress” could never be achieved “under the blundering and decrepit despotism of the Tucks of the Egyptians.”

    Churchill went on:

    What a great advantage it would be, how indispensably necessary, when at length the Eastern Question comes to be argued and debated with this new ray of light thrown around it, for the Jews to be ready and prepared to say, ‘Behold us here all waiting, burning to return to that land which you seek to remold and regenerate. Already we feel ourselves a people. The sentiment has gone forth amongst us and has been agitated and has become to us a second nature; that Palestine demands back again her sons— I say it is for the Jews to be ready against such a crisis in diplomacy.

    Emphasizing that “the hour is nigh at hand when the Jewish people may justly and with every reasonable prospect put their hands to the glorious work of National Regeneration,” Churchill concluded with a personal appeal to Montefiore as the “most likely to take the head in such a glorious struggle for national existence.”

    With the exception of Montefiore, who was already running colonization projects into Palestine, and a handful of others, however, Churchill’s words met with no response. Forced to tone down his insistence on the creation of a “Jewish Kingdom,” Churchill undauntedly wrote in 1842,

    “I trust every effort will be made by the Jews to accomplish the means of living amidst those scenes rendered sacred by ancient recollection and which they regard with filial affection.” Only the “dread of insecurity of life and property,” he claimed, “has hitherto been a bar to the accomplishment of their natural desire.”

    To encourage this “natural desire,” Churchill appealed for a mission of high-level Jewish personalities to go to Eastern Europe to “endeavor to ascertain the feelings and wishes of the Jews in the rest of Europe on a question so interesting and important” as the “prospective regeneration” of “their country.”

    Several years later, in his 1853 book Mount Lebanon, Churchill echoed Disraeli’s excitement over a prospective “British-Eastern” quasi-mystical alliance: ‘This East, which may yet become the seat and centre of the Universal Reign! — it also has claims on England’s watchful vigilance and sympathising care and already invokes her guardian Aegis…. It must be clear to every English mind, that if England’s Oriental supremacy is to be upheld, Syria and Egypt must be made to fall more or less under her sway of influence.”

    Churchill’s scenario was put “on hold” until the Balfour Declaration of 1917, following the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Nevertheless, pseudo-mystical and imperial propaganda for “Jewish restoration” kept coming forth from London throughout the 1840s and 1850s under such noteworthy titles as “An Appeal in Behalf of the Jewish Nation, in Connection with British Policy in the Levant”; “India and Palestine: Or the Restoration of the Jews Viewed in Relation to the Nearest Route to India”; and “A Statement to the Queen, the Parliament and the People of England, in Favor of the Restoration of the Jews.” Most of these documents were produced by the British and Foreign Society for Promoting the Restoration of the Jewish Nation to Palestine. Such pressure continued through the 1850s, including periodic interventions by Shaftesbury and one appeal by a British consul in Jerusalem to “persuade Jews in a large body to settle here as agriculturists.” However, little concretely was done until the mid-1870s.

    At that point, the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War afforded the British some maneuvering room. In that decade, the British sent South African Lawrence Oliphant to conduct a feasibility study for settlement in Palestine. His report back stated that a Jewish state in Palestine would ensure the “political and economic penetration of Palestine by Britain.” Oliphant’s efforts won an official endorsement by the British government of a Jewish state-settlement scheme in Jordan. The British government intervened in European continental affairs to obtain a “charter of rights for the Jews of southeastern Europe,” particularly Romania.

    The head of that British government was Benjamin Disraeli. In 1877, the British Prime Minister wrote a blueprint for a Zionist state in Palestine under British rule; the document was published anonymously and put into circulation in Vienna.

    Comment by Buddy | October 17, 2016 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s