From "A Certain Truth" of January 28th, 2011 by John Kaminski:
You can tell if something’s the truth or not by this one criterion. If they pass a law that says you have to believe a certain story in a certain way, you can be certain that that certain story they’re trying to get you to believe is a lie.
This is how the cynical Jewish Holocaust mythology has clamped a mindlock on free thought throughout the world, much in the same way that Constantine’s politically astute creation of Christianity, all those centuries ago, trapped human thinking into a giant iron box which turned every aspect of everyone’s lives into a questionable gift with a hefty price.
You only got “peace of mind” IF . . . you followed God’s holy laws. And this was a god that this Roman emperor created, a deity whose very name was decided by a VOTE of — to use an oft-quoted description — “a synod of fools and madmen.” Talk about a psyop.
What an alluring advertising campaign! Eternal life if you just follow our simple rules (which the people who invented and enforced these rules never really followed themselves). Now, the Jews have changed that human ethos to: “Be respectful of our cleverly contrived suffering so that we may rob you and profane you more easily.” Quite a drop in expectations, I’d say, yet another relevant barometric reading of the controlled devolution of humanity.
So it is with the word “Zionist,” now in fashion with all the Jews who pretend to be critical of Israel and some minor aspect of the Jewish prostitution of reality, as well as those many sycophantic non Jews who generally explain their support in vague terms like “they know on which side their bread is buttered,” which is the remark of a true slave and faux human being, uttered by all those who seek to curry favor from the Jews.
Using the word “Zionist” when the more accurate appellation would be “Jew” shows that the speaker is implying that the general run of Jews isn’t responsible for all this depraved horror with bloody Jewish fingerprints all over it, but also that there actually are Jews who genuinely and truly oppose this omnidirectional carnage that the Jewish philosophy has wreaked upon the world.
I believe this contention to be false, and that all Jews — especially the ones who say they’re atheists! — are imbued from birth — through circumcision and the repetition of pathological rituals — with a reflexive motivation that subconsciously adheres them to defense of their tribe no matter how many lies they tell themselves and others that they are true human beings working for the betterment of humanity, and no matter how many Jewish atrocities and crimes against humanity they have to cover up to do it.
I think the acutely deteriorated condition of today’s world verifies this.
And I believe that it is the very nature of the Talmud AND the Torah, Judaism’s supposedly ‘holy’ books, which contain the most depraved statements ever made by humans, that guarantees this is so.
So when supposedly “hip” websites and spokespeople like Rense, Jones, Information Clearinghouse and various other popular news sources glibly use the term “Zionist” to describe the 360 degrees of depravity now engulfing us all, I hear the word as just another synonym the Jews use to conceal the true identity of the real perpetrators who are running the world into the ground just so they can get rich and control everybody.
This is demonstrably pathological behavior, and it is what runs the world.
You simply cannot retain your ethnic/racial/sociological label as a Jew and be opposed to the depredations that the Jewish philosophy have unleashed upon nonmembers of this diabolical tribe. No practicing Jew is going to sabotage the success of the Jewish crime scheme; hence, all Jews participating in this discussion are not to be trusted for obvious reasons. There is no way to pretend that Judaism offers any other universal value than slavery.
Therefore, all those of Jewish heritage who genuinely oppose their own philosophy of destruction and depravity are no longer Jews, but human beings working to expose the deadly projection of psychological fear that the Jews use to deaden their own consciences.
This renders the term Zionist only of use in describing those non Jews who have been hypnotized by the cynical mystifications of Christian Zionism, which were invented by Scofield and Darby, agenturs of the Jewish conspiracy, to subvert Christianity from within by inserting an Israeli aegis to the Bible that previously did not exist and hijack the Hebrew heritage for their own profitable purposes.
The bigger question is this.
“How do you trust someone who has constantly lied to you for three thousand years?”
Ponder the synonyms that Jews have used to conceal their identity, or at least deflect or stall people from ascertaining true facts.
Zionist, Communist, anarchist, liberal, Bolshevik, socialist, lesbian, equal opportunity, Jacobin, Shabbatean Frankist . . . all these labels send people concerned with the problems these groups have created down blind alleys, false avenues of investigation, tracking what are only splinter groups of the one central, evil sanctioning central group, which is the Jewish Sanhedrin, the ultimate Jewish “religious” authority which issues such compassionate pronouncements as a Jew can commit any kind of crime anywhere in the world, and then flee to Israel and be forever free of any prosecution for those crimes, or, “non Jews exist only to serve Jews.”
All these deceptive substitute labels were created as smokescreens for the word “Jew.” The situation can be instantly remedied in your mind by understanding that all these endeavors with all these names and philosophical explanations are all synonyms aimed at camouflaging the words “Judaism” or “Jewish”.
And as I’ve said so many times before, the Talmud and the Torah are the prime motivators of human evil in the world, the heart of demented darkness in human history.
So the disingenuous protestations of Jews and Jew wannabes who wish to be either excluded or concealed from the blame of Israelis for being the ugliest and least trustworthy people in the world — all because of their demonstrably insane religion — don’t resonate in my ears anymore.
This appeal to fairness and human compassion that the Jews always use doesn’t work with me anymore — this is how they got Christians to be meek and submissive — because the Jews urge fairness and compassion from other people, but don’t practice it themselves. This should have told us long ago that this actually means they can never be trusted, under any circumstances.
Three thousand years of evidence proves this.
But the question you keep running into is this.
“Surely, you don’t mean it’s all Jews?” Yes, I absolutely do. Anyone who calls themselves a Jew is by definition endorsing the loveless exploitation of humanity. To defend Jews, Judaism or Jewishness in any way is a moral crime against humanity, because Judaism commands its followers to kill or enslave all the non Jews in the world and take their property without penalty. Judaism is, without question, the unnatural cause of our upcoming and imminent deaths.
And anyone who uses the term Zionist in conjunction with anything at all is working for the Jews, assisting in the concealment of who is really responsible for creeping bloody horror that now promises to end all our lives prematurely by their pathologically destructive behavior. They are helping the Jews hide behind a distracting label, and in this, are able to distance themselves from the guilt of their own crimes against humanity.
Instead of describing these robotized Christians as Christian Zionists, you should use this more accurate definition, which could really describe all of us. The proper phrase, really, should be “dupes of the Jews.”
Note from the author: Note to editors and those who might forward this story: you may want to cut this story here to avoid this maudlin conclusion.
So, what are you going to do about this information? I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m going to spellcheck this story, drive the couple of blocks to the library to get an Internet connection, and send this story out, along with a couple of other things. I’m eating the last of my roast beef and the last of my broccoli. I’m out of money — another week to my Social Security check — out of gas, out of food, out of cigarettes, and out of hope. So when I get done at the library, I think I’ll just come home, and lay down and die, which, preposterous though it seems, is what the rest of you will soon be doing, too, when they start pumping anesthesia from the sky or set off a false flag nuke or begin rounding up people like me for speaking so openly about the Jews.
The situation has deteriorated to now, when no one has the means or the motivation to oppose this accelerating robotization of humanity, and what we could have solved had we just opened our mouths a little sooner and a little louder is now no longer fixable. The die is cast, and the shadow of a dark future speeds towards us like the tsunami at the end of time.
I know in the past that I’ve prophesied on several occasions that this would be my last story. If it is, then, the last thing I wanted to say was thank you for all the support and nice words. You were really the fuel for my fury. Sorry I couldn’t make it clearer. Stay safe for as long as you can, and don’t worry about the place where you are destinated to wind up. Too bad we never figured out that we create that place with every breath we take and every story we believe.
P.S. Judaism inculcates jewish supremacism, jewish exceptionalism and jewish paranoia, which demands apartheid from the gentiles. Zionism is: jewish supremacism, jewish exceptionalism, jewish apartheid, which is indefensible by just, rational human beings.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Anti-Semitic Musing 012: Should Israel Be Considered A Civilized Nation?
From "Israel Does Not Exist!" by Jim Kirwan:
You would think that after all the time that has passed since Israel declared itself to be a state among the community of nations; that by now, it would be at least an accepted fact in the world. However you would not be correct. Israel is a place that has yet to finish claiming, what 'it' sees as its own border-rights; see the map above.
In the map you can see that Israel wants a piece of Turkey; more than half of Syria; more than half of Iraq; a tiny bit of Iran; nearly half of Kuwait; more than a third of Saudi-Arabia; half the Red Sea; All of Suez; a large chunk of Egypt; and All of Jordon, Palestine and Lebanon. That is what Israel is demanding from the Middle-East in exchange for "peace in the region." Instead it is Israel that must be delegitimized and censored not the rest of the world!
Fact is Israel continues to violate every tenet of national and international law; regardless of the nation that feels they have been either raped or robbed-blind by this international teen-ager that has no respect for anyone but themselves.
In fact they have recently begun a campaign to slaughter everyone-else-in-the-world that is not an authentic Israeli. This alone is enough of a reason to "cast-out" Israel from the community of nation-states. Israel cannot be allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner over the lives of every other person on this planet, simply because they come from a tribal state that is not part of the twenty-first century: And is not even made up of tribes that can communicate with each other. (1)
"Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro, who heads the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in the Yitzhar settlement, wrote in his book "The King's Torah" that even babies and children can be killed if they pose a threat to the nation.
Shapiro based the majority of his teachings on passages quoted from the Bible, to which he adds his opinions and beliefs.
"It is permissible to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation," he wrote, adding: "If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments - because we care about the commandments - there is nothing wrong with the murder."
This 'problem' gets blamed on a few Rabbis' many of whom are revered inside that country-that-is-not a state. But in reality this 'problem' goes far beyond the border dispute that began in 1948. Because this situation has become central to the issue of when any state, anywhere, becomes an "outlaw-nation." In this case it seems that Israel has actively sought that status since the 'idea' of Israel was born.
Today it was announced that Israel will offer sanctuary to yet another War-Criminal: this one being the soon-to-be-deposed "leader" of Egypt: Hosni Mubarak. The United States has long been the haven of deposed-dictators, but even we could not stomach bringing this criminal over here. So Israel stepped up and showed the world where its real sympathies have always lain. (2)
Mubarak according to George Galloway: "That there are many governments responsible for this great crime in Palestine. But the dictatorship of Hosni Barack is jointly responsible for the murder of every Palestinian who has died these last few years when he was embracing Libney as the bombs were falling; when he locked the border of Raffia he became an international criminal, and an outlaw of the Arab world. So I call in conclusion on the great people of Egypt; on the heroic armed forces of Egypt; on the heroic army of Egypt of 1973 - to rise up and sweep away this tyrant Mubarak. To rise-up; to rise-up and to demolish the border at Raffia and LET THE PEOPLE GO FREE!" (3)
'The only way to stop this nightmare is to delegitimize Israel Embassies worldwide: They have never been a legitimate nation - ever.
It is time for the civilized world to throw out all the Israeli embassy's, and pull their own embassy's out of Israel. Israel has chosen to ignore all international and state laws of every country they have gone into; and it's way past time to withdraw all diplomatic relations-globally!
This would be the least bloody solution to the continuing crime that Zionism has been giving to the world since 1948. Taking in this war criminal is just about the last straw in international relations in the nearly permanently destabilized Middle-East and Israel ought to be punished accordingly-not just for Mubarak-but for everything they have planned using their Mossad and other death-squads around the world as well as their stated goals as seen on the map at the top of this article!'
Israel's main export today is pure violence that is cloaked as "security-services." There is nothing positive that has ever come from this brooding and vengefully paranoid "state' that could ever add anything to the human condition. It is time for Israel to be delegitimized-forever!
Source article with references can be located here.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Anti-Semitic Musing 011: Lots of Those Holocaust Stories Are Just Lies
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Anti-Semitic Musing 009: Did Jews Kill General Patton?
General George Patton's murder on 21 December 1945 is one of the most concealed events in military history.
Although Patton’s military file at the National Archives in St Louis has over 1300 pages of documents, only a handful of pages are devoted to the car crash. Strangely, the 5 on-the-scene military reports of the incident disappeared shortly after archived. Why?
Patton’s end began on 9 December 1945 when after setting out on a pheasant hunting trip near Mannheim, Germany, a two-ton US Army truck collided into his Cadillac staff car.
Patton suffered neck injuries either from a bullet or less likely from impact but was not seriously hurt. Yet his driver, Horace Woodring and his chief of staff, General Hap Gay, walked away with barely a scratch.
On the way to the hospital, Patton’s rescue vehicle was struck again by another two-ton Army truck. This time he was injured more severely, but still clung to his life.
Neither of the truck drivers were arrested nor had their names disclosed although Patton’s driver stated that the first truck was waiting for them on the side of the road as they’d started up from a railroad track stop.
It was later reported by former intelligence agent Ladislas Farago, that the driver of the first truck, Robert L Thompson, (who was whisked away to London before he could be questioned), was not authorized to drive the vehicle and had two mysterious passengers with him “in violation of rules.”
Ladislas also pointed out that although the crash occurred on a remote road on a quiet, no-work Sunday morning, a large crowd of mostly military personnel quickly descended on the scene.
Once at the hospital, Patton was able to contact his wife in America urging her to remove him from the hospital because, “They’re going to kill me here.” And that they did.
On 21 December 1945, Patton was pronounced dead due to an “embolism,” that is, a bubble of blood which is fatal when it reaches a vital organ. It can be introduced into the bloodstream with a syringe by anyone with brief medical training.
Not only did the US army make no investigation into the “accident” - but no questions were raised about his “embolism.” The remains of this American hero were never brought to the United States and no autopsy was ever performed.
When Patton assumed command of occupied Germany in October 1945, he came to a new understanding of the European conflagration.
The war hero expressed grave misgivings regarding the harsh treatment of Germans by the Allies and urged creating a strong Germany to counter the advance of Soviet Russia into Eastern Europe.
The more Patton saw of the Soviets, the stronger his conviction grew that the right course of action was to stifle communism while the opportunity was ripe.
But Patton was thwarted by Roosevelt’s Jewish advisers, Henry Morgenthau and Bernard Baruch, who pursued a post-war bond with Jewish-Soviets.
The conflict between Jewry and Patton grew when he refused to remove German civilians from their homes so as to house “Displaced Persons.” Most of these were Jews who were never “displaced” but rather had swarmed into Germany from Poland and Russia.
Patton’s diary entry for 17 September 1945 reads:
“The virus started by Morgenthau and Baruch against all Germans is semitic revenge. Now I’m being ordered to remove German civilians from their homes for the purpose of housing Displaced Persons.
It appears that this order is to punish the German race and not individual Germans. It’s against my Anglo-Saxon conscience to remove a person from his house without due process of the law.
Those issuing these orders believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not. This applies particularly to the Jews, who are lost to all decency, relieving themselves on the floors, showing themselves to be lower than animals.” View Entire Story Here.
When Patton later linked Communists with Jews, his fate was sealed. The Jewish-owned press in America began a smear campaign describing Patton as “soft on Nazis.”
General Patton had always carried with him a special notebook. It disappeared from his pocket upon his arrival at the hospital after the collisions.
“I have a little black book in my pocket,” Patton once said, “and when I get back home I’m going to blow the hell out of everything.” But Jewry made sure Patton would never see America again.
In his book, “Target Patton,” author Robert Wilcox describes his interviews with WWII sharpshooter, Douglas Bazata, a Lebanese Jew, who died in 1999.
Based on these interviews, (Bazata, with declining health, was tormented by qualms of conscience), Wilcox details how the marksman staged the car crash by getting a troop truck to plough into Patton’s Cadillac.
He then arranged for the General to be shot with a low-velocity projectile which entered Patton’s neck while his fellow passengers escaped without a scratch. (The impact theory is less likely since the vehicles were advancing at only 20 miles per hour, both being hardly damaged.)
Bazata said that the order “to silence Patton” was given by the head of the OSS (forerunner to the CIA), General “Wild Bill” Donovan, who was pursuing close ties with Communist intelligence officers.
Donovan told Bazata, “We’ve got a terrible situation with this great patriot, he’s out of control and we must save him from himself and from ruining everything the allies have done.”
The marksman gave similar testimony to a group of 450 ex-members of the OSS at the Hilton Hotel in Washington on 25 September 1979.
Bazata said, “Many high-ranking military persons hated Patton. I know who killed him because I was hired to set up the accident by General William Donovan for $10,000. But since Patton didn’t die in the accident, he was kept in isolation in the hospital where he was killed with an injection.”
General Bill Donovan is alleged to have been a crypto Jew, as his mother, Anna Letitia Donovan, was likely a Jewess. Her name, “Anna Letitia,” is typically Jewish but uncommon as an Irish name.
Donovan’s rise as a Wall Street lawyer, his intimacy with FDR’s Jewish inner circle, and his role as adjunct to Jewish Judge Samuel Rosenman at the Nuremberg trials, strengthens the premise of Donovan’s Jewish identity, or at least, his Jewish sympathies.
And those “sympathies” felled a great American hero through the intrigues of the dark forces of international Jewry now pervasive in our post WWII world.
Source article, "Did Jews Kill General Patton?", from Brother Nathanael can be found here.
Although Patton’s military file at the National Archives in St Louis has over 1300 pages of documents, only a handful of pages are devoted to the car crash. Strangely, the 5 on-the-scene military reports of the incident disappeared shortly after archived. Why?
Patton’s end began on 9 December 1945 when after setting out on a pheasant hunting trip near Mannheim, Germany, a two-ton US Army truck collided into his Cadillac staff car.
Patton suffered neck injuries either from a bullet or less likely from impact but was not seriously hurt. Yet his driver, Horace Woodring and his chief of staff, General Hap Gay, walked away with barely a scratch.
On the way to the hospital, Patton’s rescue vehicle was struck again by another two-ton Army truck. This time he was injured more severely, but still clung to his life.
Neither of the truck drivers were arrested nor had their names disclosed although Patton’s driver stated that the first truck was waiting for them on the side of the road as they’d started up from a railroad track stop.
It was later reported by former intelligence agent Ladislas Farago, that the driver of the first truck, Robert L Thompson, (who was whisked away to London before he could be questioned), was not authorized to drive the vehicle and had two mysterious passengers with him “in violation of rules.”
Ladislas also pointed out that although the crash occurred on a remote road on a quiet, no-work Sunday morning, a large crowd of mostly military personnel quickly descended on the scene.
Once at the hospital, Patton was able to contact his wife in America urging her to remove him from the hospital because, “They’re going to kill me here.” And that they did.
On 21 December 1945, Patton was pronounced dead due to an “embolism,” that is, a bubble of blood which is fatal when it reaches a vital organ. It can be introduced into the bloodstream with a syringe by anyone with brief medical training.
Not only did the US army make no investigation into the “accident” - but no questions were raised about his “embolism.” The remains of this American hero were never brought to the United States and no autopsy was ever performed.
When Patton assumed command of occupied Germany in October 1945, he came to a new understanding of the European conflagration.
The war hero expressed grave misgivings regarding the harsh treatment of Germans by the Allies and urged creating a strong Germany to counter the advance of Soviet Russia into Eastern Europe.
The more Patton saw of the Soviets, the stronger his conviction grew that the right course of action was to stifle communism while the opportunity was ripe.
But Patton was thwarted by Roosevelt’s Jewish advisers, Henry Morgenthau and Bernard Baruch, who pursued a post-war bond with Jewish-Soviets.
The conflict between Jewry and Patton grew when he refused to remove German civilians from their homes so as to house “Displaced Persons.” Most of these were Jews who were never “displaced” but rather had swarmed into Germany from Poland and Russia.
Patton’s diary entry for 17 September 1945 reads:
“The virus started by Morgenthau and Baruch against all Germans is semitic revenge. Now I’m being ordered to remove German civilians from their homes for the purpose of housing Displaced Persons.
It appears that this order is to punish the German race and not individual Germans. It’s against my Anglo-Saxon conscience to remove a person from his house without due process of the law.
Those issuing these orders believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not. This applies particularly to the Jews, who are lost to all decency, relieving themselves on the floors, showing themselves to be lower than animals.” View Entire Story Here.
When Patton later linked Communists with Jews, his fate was sealed. The Jewish-owned press in America began a smear campaign describing Patton as “soft on Nazis.”
General Patton had always carried with him a special notebook. It disappeared from his pocket upon his arrival at the hospital after the collisions.
“I have a little black book in my pocket,” Patton once said, “and when I get back home I’m going to blow the hell out of everything.” But Jewry made sure Patton would never see America again.
In his book, “Target Patton,” author Robert Wilcox describes his interviews with WWII sharpshooter, Douglas Bazata, a Lebanese Jew, who died in 1999.
Based on these interviews, (Bazata, with declining health, was tormented by qualms of conscience), Wilcox details how the marksman staged the car crash by getting a troop truck to plough into Patton’s Cadillac.
He then arranged for the General to be shot with a low-velocity projectile which entered Patton’s neck while his fellow passengers escaped without a scratch. (The impact theory is less likely since the vehicles were advancing at only 20 miles per hour, both being hardly damaged.)
Bazata said that the order “to silence Patton” was given by the head of the OSS (forerunner to the CIA), General “Wild Bill” Donovan, who was pursuing close ties with Communist intelligence officers.
Donovan told Bazata, “We’ve got a terrible situation with this great patriot, he’s out of control and we must save him from himself and from ruining everything the allies have done.”
The marksman gave similar testimony to a group of 450 ex-members of the OSS at the Hilton Hotel in Washington on 25 September 1979.
Bazata said, “Many high-ranking military persons hated Patton. I know who killed him because I was hired to set up the accident by General William Donovan for $10,000. But since Patton didn’t die in the accident, he was kept in isolation in the hospital where he was killed with an injection.”
General Bill Donovan is alleged to have been a crypto Jew, as his mother, Anna Letitia Donovan, was likely a Jewess. Her name, “Anna Letitia,” is typically Jewish but uncommon as an Irish name.
Donovan’s rise as a Wall Street lawyer, his intimacy with FDR’s Jewish inner circle, and his role as adjunct to Jewish Judge Samuel Rosenman at the Nuremberg trials, strengthens the premise of Donovan’s Jewish identity, or at least, his Jewish sympathies.
And those “sympathies” felled a great American hero through the intrigues of the dark forces of international Jewry now pervasive in our post WWII world.
Source article, "Did Jews Kill General Patton?", from Brother Nathanael can be found here.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Manifestations of Zionist Power: From 9/11 to Gaza to a New War on Lebanon
WHAT??? ISRAEL WAS INVOLVED IN 9/11???
No problem. The Americans will never figure it out. We zionists control the media. And besides, in the unlikelihood that they do figure it out, they'll be too paralyzed to do anything about it. Why it's ANTI-SEMTIC to even think it, let alone do anything about it. Ha ha ha...
No naive gentiles, it isn't all jews, and not your jewish neighbors. But it is because of them that we can't talk about it, lest one be offended.
No problem. The Americans will never figure it out. We zionists control the media. And besides, in the unlikelihood that they do figure it out, they'll be too paralyzed to do anything about it. Why it's ANTI-SEMTIC to even think it, let alone do anything about it. Ha ha ha...
No naive gentiles, it isn't all jews, and not your jewish neighbors. But it is because of them that we can't talk about it, lest one be offended.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Jewish Compassion: Home demolitions for Christmas
On 13 December 2010, Israeli bulldozers, flanked by hundreds of municipal, riot squad and border police forces, demolished seven homes belonging to the Abu Eid family in Lydd, a city a few miles east of Tel Aviv.
When the bulldozers finished demolishing the seventh house, children were starting to come back from school only to find their homes reduced to rubble.
Click here to see a sampling of jewish compassion for one Palestinian family this Christmas. I think jewish compassion is especially inspired, motivated, during the Christmas season. Remember Operation Cast Lead?
P.S. The event and the timing of the event poignantly illustrate the anti-Christ nature of judaism, I think. Oh I know IT'S NOT ALL JEWS. But there weren't enough good jews in Israel to stop this, were there?
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
Gilad Atzmon: Milton Friedman's 'Capitalism and the Jews' Revisited
Given the severity and uncertainty of the economic crisis we are all experiencing, I suggest we look once more at the work of Milton Friedman, the leading economist and a staunch advocate of hard capitalism.
During the 1960s -80s Friedman was regarded by many academics, politicians and world leaders as the most important post- World War Two economist. Friedman was chief economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Menachem Begin. He also went on record advising the Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet.
It is far from surprising to note that more and more commentators have realised in recent years that it was Friedman’s ideology and advocacy of free enterprise, zero governmental intervention and privatisation that has led to the current financial turmoil. It was Milton Friedman’s philosophy that also contributed to the transformation of the West into a service economy.
But Friedman wasn’t just an economist: he was also a devout Zionist and a very proud Jew. Friedman was interested in the role of the Jews in world finance and politics. He also attempted to analyse and understand the attitude of Jews towards wealth. In 1972 Friedman spoke to The Mont Pelerin Society about “Capitalism and the Jews”. In 1978 he repeated the same talk, addressing Jewish students at the Chicago University’s Hillel institute.
I'd suggest that Friedman deserves our immediate attention, since he contributed to the rise of an ideology and school of thought that bears some responsibility for the rearrangement (some might say dismantling ) of the West's economy.
The Jewish Paradox
Friedman was, no doubt, a sharp intellect, and could offer sharp and succinct criticism. Yet, Friedman was not entirely 'a cosmopolitan' in every sense of that word, since he was deeply involved in Jewish concerns and Zionist affairs, and he was deliberately open and transparent about being so.
In the talks he gave in 1972 and 1978, Friedman examined a unique Jewish paradox : “Here are two propositions,” he said. “Each of them are validated by evidence yet they are both incompatible one with the other.”
The first proposition is that “there are few peoples if any in the world who owe so great a debt to free enterprise and competitive capitalism as the Jews.“
The second proposition is that “there are few peoples or any in the world who have done so much to undermine the intellectual foundation of capitalism as the Jews.”
How do we reconcile these two contradictory propositions?
As one may gather by now, Friedman, the free enterprise advocate, was clearly convinced that monopoly and government intervention were bad news in general; but, more crucially for him, they were also very bad for the Jews.
“Wherever there is a monopoly, whether it be private or governmental, there is room for the application of arbitrary criteria in the selection of the beneficiaries of the monopoly—whether these criteria be color of skin, religion, national origin or what not. Where there is free competition, only performance counts.”
Friedman, clearly prefers competition. According to him “the market is color blind. No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or atheist; by whites or blacks.”
Friedman’s elaborates further: “Any miller who wishes to express his personal prejudices by buying only from preferred groups is at a competitive disadvantage, since he is keeping himself from buying from the cheapest source. He can express his prejudice, but he will have to do so at his own expense, accepting a lower monetary income than he could otherwise earn.”
“Jews” Friedman continues, “have flourished most in those countries in which competitive capitalism had the greatest scope: Holland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Britain and the U.S. in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.”
According to Friedman, it is also no accident that Jews suffered the most in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, for these countries clearly defied free market ideology.
One may suggest at this point, that though it is undoubtedly true that Jews suffered in Soviet Russia and in Nazi Germany, and though it is also true that these countries defied free market ideology -- Friedman fails to establish a causal or even rational relationship between the opposition to the free market, and anti Jewish policies.
However, the message Friedman conveys is clear -- Jews do benefit from hard capitalism and competitive markets.
Yet, Friedman is also genuinely intrigued by Jewish intellectuals' affinity with anti-Capitalism : “Jews have been a stronghold of anti-capitalist sentiment. From Karl Marx through Leon Trotsky to Herbert Marcuse, a sizable fraction of the revolutionary anti-capitalist literature has been authored by Jews.”
How could that be, Friedman wonders? Why is it that, despite the historical record of the benefits of competitive capitalism to the Jews; despite the intellectual explanation of this phenomenon that is implicit or explicit in much liberal literature from at least Adam Smith onwards, the Jews have been disproportionately anti-capitalist?
Friedman considers some answers --
Rather often we hear from Jews on the left that their affinity to humanitarian issues is driven by their ‘Jewish humanist heritage’. More than once I myself have commented that this is an utter lie. There is no such a Jewish heritage. Driven by tribal precepts, both Judaism and 'Jewish ideology' are devoid of universal ethics. If there are some remote patches of humanism in Jewish culture, these are certainly far from being universal.
Friedman, however, offered a further take on the subject: In direct reference to Lawrence Fuchs who argues that the anti-capitalism of the Jews is a “direct reflection of values derived from the Jewish religion and culture,” Friedman wonders -- if Jewish culture is, indeed, inherently anti capitalist (as Fuchs suggests) how is it then, that Jews failed to successfully combat Capitalism and free markets throughout their history? Friedman analyses that whilst “Jewish religion and culture date back over two millennia; the Jewish opposition to capitalism and attachment to socialism, is at the most, less than two centuries.”
Being a sharp intellect then, Friedman managed to dismantle Fuchs’s argument. He managed to counter the argument that Jewish culture is inherently socialist or humanist. If Judaism is, indeed, inherently and innately bound to such ethics, how is it that this humanism failed to become dominant throughout Jewish history?
Friedman also reflects in a surprisingly respectful manner, on the writing of alleged anti Semite Werner Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism. Sombart identifies Jewish ideology at the heart of capitalism. “Throughout the centuries, the Jews championed the cause of individual liberty in economic activity against the dominating view of the time. The individual was not to be hampered by regulations of any sort. I think that the Jewish religion has the same leading ideas as capitalism . . . “(1)
Though Jewish intellectuals at the time were largely unhappy with Sombart’s book, Milton Friedman is brave enough to admit that there is nothing in Sombart’s book itself to justify any charge of anti-Semitism (though, he argues, there certainly is in Sombart’s later work). Friedman, a proud capitalist, tends actually to interpret Sombart’s book as “philo-Semitic”.
“If, like me”, says Friedman, “you regard competitive capitalism as the economic system that is most favorable to individual freedom, to creative accomplishments in technology and the arts, and to the widest possible opportunities for the ordinary man, then you will regard Sombart’s assignment to the Jews of a key role in the development of capitalism as high praise. You will, as I do, regard his book as philo-Semitic. “
Milton Friedman may even agree with early Marx, that Capitalism is Jewish 'by nature'. Yet, while Marx believed that in order for the world to liberate itself from Capitalism it had better emancipate itself from the Jews (3), for Friedman capitalism is of profound value and to be respected, and Jews should be praised for their inherent bond with this philosophy and its diverse ramifications. As far as Friedman is concerned, for Capitalism to prevail, Jews should continue to do what they are good at: and that is to trade freely in an open and competitive market.
Friedman seems to dismiss the presumed 'intellectual honesty' behind Jewish affiliation with the left and anti capitalism: He tends to argue that the Jewish intellectual inclination towards the left is a direct outcome of some political and historical circumstances, rather than ethical or ideological choice. He explains that, in his view, Jewish affiliation with the left is the product of a particular occurrence in Europe in the nineteenth century.
“Beginning with the era of the French revolution, the European political spectrum became divided into a “Left” and a “Right” along an axis that involved the issue of secularism. The Right (conservative, Monarchical, “clerical”) maintained that there must be a place for the church in the public order; the left (democratic, liberal, radical) held that there can be no Church at all . . . .”
It was only natural, then, for the Jews to join the left -- in fact Jews could only join the left.
“The axis separating left from right also formed a natural boundary for the pale of Jewish political participation. It was the left, with its new secular concept of citizenship, that had accomplished the Emancipation, and it was only the left that could see a place for the Jews in public life.”
Such a reasoning, then, views Jewish affiliation with the left as a politically opportunistic move instead of a form of ‘moral awakening’.
Such a reading of the 'Jewish left' reaffirms my own critical assessment. It also explains why some Jews join the left -- they support cosmopolitanism, solidarity, an international working class; and yet, they themselves often seem to prefer to operate within ‘Jews only’ racially orientated cells such as the Bund, Jewish Socialists or even Jews For Boycott of Israeli Goods. Friedman’s reasoning might also explain why so many Jews who had their roots in the so- called ‘left’, ended up preaching moral interventionism and Neo Conservatism.(4)
Friedman argues also, that Jewish affiliation with the left might be better understood as an attempt to disown some anti Semitic stereotypes of the Jew as being “a merchant or moneylender who put commercial interests ahead of human values.”
According to Friedman, the Jewish anti capitalist is there to prove that, far from being money-grabbing, selfish and heartless, Jews are really public spirited, generous, and concerned with ideals rather than material goods. “How better to do so than to attack the market with its reliance on monetary values and impersonal transactions and to glorify the political process, to take as an ideal a state run by well-meaning people for the benefit of their fellow men?”
And yet, in Friedman's logic then, it is not a ‘moral awakening’ that moves the Jew to the left; it is neither humanism, nor solidarity and nor is it kindness, but, instead, it seems to be a desperate attempt to replace or amend the Jewish image.
Surprisingly enough, I find myself in total agreement with Friedman, though I would phrase it differently. I do differentiate between ‘the leftist who happen to be Jewish’- an innocent category inspired by humanism, and ‘the Jewish leftist- which seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, for the left aims to universally transcend itself beyond ethnicity, religion or race. Clearly ‘Jewish left’ is there to maintain a Jewish tribal ethno-centric identity at the heart of working class philosophy. 'Jewish left' is there to primarily serve Jewish interests
I noticed that Richard Kuper, the European Jewish activist behind the recent Jewish Boat to Gaza, was quoted as saying that their goal was to show that “not all Jews support Israeli policies toward Palestinians.”
It seems to me that the message Kuper conveyed was pretty clear: Rather than being driven entirely by a genuine care for the Palestinians in Gaza, the Jewish boat was also engaged in a symbolic exchange. It was also there to save the image of the Jews rather than solely providing humanitarian support. This fact alone may explain why the Jewish boat hardly carried any humanitarian aid for the Gazans. Rather than a ‘humanitarian aid mission for the Palestinians,’ it was probably also an ‘image rescue for the Jews’.
Seemingly then, Friedman managed to resolve the paradox between his two initial propositions (Jews being the benefactors capitalism vs. Jews being profoundly anti-capitalist) by offering an historical and political explanation: Jews or Jewish intellectuals are not really against capitalism; it was just the “special circumstances of nineteenth-century that drove Jews to the left, and the subconscious attempts by Jews to demonstrate to themselves and the world the fallacy of the anti-Semitic stereotype.” It was neither ideology nor ethics.
This interpretation explains why left Zionism was doomed to disappear. During his talks, Friedman reviewed the right/left political division in Israel. He noticed that two opposing traditions were at work in the Jewish State: “an ancient one--going back nearly two thousand years-- of finding ways around governmental restrictions (and) a modern one-- going back a century-- of belief in “democratic socialism” and “central planning.” Friedman was clever enough to gather already in 1972 that it is the “Jewish tradition”, rather than ‘socialism’, that would prevail. Friedman noticed already in the 1970’s that Israel was capitalist to the bone. He predicted that the short phase of Zionist ‘pseudo socialism’ was foreign to Jewish culture.
Yet. It isn’t just Israeli left that was doomed to die. Friedman's reading of Jewish culture also explains why the Bund (5) died; it didn’t really spread to the West; it also explains why the legendary Mazpen and other Jewish tribal anti Zionist revolutionary groups have never attracted the Jewish masses.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Friedman is not free of fault. In spite of his succinct reading of the Jewish left/right divide there are a few crucial points that have to be made about Friedman’s reading of Jewish culture, and his reading of capitalism.
Friedman argues that the free market and competition is good for the Jews. Yet he is also adamant that Government intervention is a disaster that leads to anti Semitism and other forms of institutional bigotry. If Friedman’s model is valid, then Jews in the West had better brace themselves, for Western Governments are currently intervening in the markets in a desperate attempt to slowdown the inevitable collapse of what is left of our economy and relative wealth.
If Friedman’s model is correct, and intervention is indeed bad for the Jews, then anti Jewish bigotry could be immanent, especially considering the gigantic bailout intervention schemes put up by states in an attempt to save what remains of the Western economy.
But it goes further -- it is also plainly clear that the bailout schemes are there to amend a colossal disaster caused by the endorsement of Friedman’s own ideology. We are all paying a very heavy price for free enterprise, hard capitalism, or, in general, the ideologies Friedman was so enthusiastic about.
There is something Friedman didn’t tell his listeners in the 1970s -- He himself probably did not realise the full meaning of his economic model. He himself did not realise that the adoption of his philosophy by Roland Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would eventually bring the West to its knees. He himself did not realise that it was his own advocacy of hard capitalism that would lead Western continents to poverty and deprivation. He perhaps did not realise back in the 1970s that it was his model that would eventually eliminate productivity, and every positive aspect of the welfare state. Milton Friedman did not realise at the time that service economy that suited some ethnic minorities for two millennia wouldn’t necessarily be a successful model once adopted into a macro model. As Friedman had gathered, throughout their history Jews and other ethnic minorities were very effective operating as service economy within competitive and productive markets. However, Jews and other ethnic or religious minorities did well because others were there to work around them. The transforming of the West into a service economy driven by relentless greed, a process that followed Friedman’s economic precepts, is now proving to be a disaster. It means poverty and global depression. It is translated into alienation from labour and productivity.
Friedman may have been correct when he predicted that governmental intervention may lead to anti Semitism -- yet, he probably failed to realise that it was largely his own intellectual heritage that would be responsible for the current financial disaster. It is in fact his own economic model and prophecy that could also introduce Jews to far more suffering.
Source article was found here.
P.S. Host country USA has little more to give before giving up the ghost. It can't work when the only jobs the host gentiles have are selling products of slave labor that's replaced them. Oh, I forgot, there is still the option of joining the military and fighting for the cause of jewish supremacism... and forget about one's family dying in poverty back home.
During the 1960s -80s Friedman was regarded by many academics, politicians and world leaders as the most important post- World War Two economist. Friedman was chief economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Menachem Begin. He also went on record advising the Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet.
It is far from surprising to note that more and more commentators have realised in recent years that it was Friedman’s ideology and advocacy of free enterprise, zero governmental intervention and privatisation that has led to the current financial turmoil. It was Milton Friedman’s philosophy that also contributed to the transformation of the West into a service economy.
But Friedman wasn’t just an economist: he was also a devout Zionist and a very proud Jew. Friedman was interested in the role of the Jews in world finance and politics. He also attempted to analyse and understand the attitude of Jews towards wealth. In 1972 Friedman spoke to The Mont Pelerin Society about “Capitalism and the Jews”. In 1978 he repeated the same talk, addressing Jewish students at the Chicago University’s Hillel institute.
I'd suggest that Friedman deserves our immediate attention, since he contributed to the rise of an ideology and school of thought that bears some responsibility for the rearrangement (some might say dismantling ) of the West's economy.
The Jewish Paradox
Friedman was, no doubt, a sharp intellect, and could offer sharp and succinct criticism. Yet, Friedman was not entirely 'a cosmopolitan' in every sense of that word, since he was deeply involved in Jewish concerns and Zionist affairs, and he was deliberately open and transparent about being so.
In the talks he gave in 1972 and 1978, Friedman examined a unique Jewish paradox : “Here are two propositions,” he said. “Each of them are validated by evidence yet they are both incompatible one with the other.”
The first proposition is that “there are few peoples if any in the world who owe so great a debt to free enterprise and competitive capitalism as the Jews.“
The second proposition is that “there are few peoples or any in the world who have done so much to undermine the intellectual foundation of capitalism as the Jews.”
How do we reconcile these two contradictory propositions?
As one may gather by now, Friedman, the free enterprise advocate, was clearly convinced that monopoly and government intervention were bad news in general; but, more crucially for him, they were also very bad for the Jews.
“Wherever there is a monopoly, whether it be private or governmental, there is room for the application of arbitrary criteria in the selection of the beneficiaries of the monopoly—whether these criteria be color of skin, religion, national origin or what not. Where there is free competition, only performance counts.”
Friedman, clearly prefers competition. According to him “the market is color blind. No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or atheist; by whites or blacks.”
Friedman’s elaborates further: “Any miller who wishes to express his personal prejudices by buying only from preferred groups is at a competitive disadvantage, since he is keeping himself from buying from the cheapest source. He can express his prejudice, but he will have to do so at his own expense, accepting a lower monetary income than he could otherwise earn.”
“Jews” Friedman continues, “have flourished most in those countries in which competitive capitalism had the greatest scope: Holland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Britain and the U.S. in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.”
According to Friedman, it is also no accident that Jews suffered the most in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, for these countries clearly defied free market ideology.
One may suggest at this point, that though it is undoubtedly true that Jews suffered in Soviet Russia and in Nazi Germany, and though it is also true that these countries defied free market ideology -- Friedman fails to establish a causal or even rational relationship between the opposition to the free market, and anti Jewish policies.
However, the message Friedman conveys is clear -- Jews do benefit from hard capitalism and competitive markets.
Yet, Friedman is also genuinely intrigued by Jewish intellectuals' affinity with anti-Capitalism : “Jews have been a stronghold of anti-capitalist sentiment. From Karl Marx through Leon Trotsky to Herbert Marcuse, a sizable fraction of the revolutionary anti-capitalist literature has been authored by Jews.”
How could that be, Friedman wonders? Why is it that, despite the historical record of the benefits of competitive capitalism to the Jews; despite the intellectual explanation of this phenomenon that is implicit or explicit in much liberal literature from at least Adam Smith onwards, the Jews have been disproportionately anti-capitalist?
Friedman considers some answers --
Rather often we hear from Jews on the left that their affinity to humanitarian issues is driven by their ‘Jewish humanist heritage’. More than once I myself have commented that this is an utter lie. There is no such a Jewish heritage. Driven by tribal precepts, both Judaism and 'Jewish ideology' are devoid of universal ethics. If there are some remote patches of humanism in Jewish culture, these are certainly far from being universal.
Friedman, however, offered a further take on the subject: In direct reference to Lawrence Fuchs who argues that the anti-capitalism of the Jews is a “direct reflection of values derived from the Jewish religion and culture,” Friedman wonders -- if Jewish culture is, indeed, inherently anti capitalist (as Fuchs suggests) how is it then, that Jews failed to successfully combat Capitalism and free markets throughout their history? Friedman analyses that whilst “Jewish religion and culture date back over two millennia; the Jewish opposition to capitalism and attachment to socialism, is at the most, less than two centuries.”
Being a sharp intellect then, Friedman managed to dismantle Fuchs’s argument. He managed to counter the argument that Jewish culture is inherently socialist or humanist. If Judaism is, indeed, inherently and innately bound to such ethics, how is it that this humanism failed to become dominant throughout Jewish history?
Friedman also reflects in a surprisingly respectful manner, on the writing of alleged anti Semite Werner Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism. Sombart identifies Jewish ideology at the heart of capitalism. “Throughout the centuries, the Jews championed the cause of individual liberty in economic activity against the dominating view of the time. The individual was not to be hampered by regulations of any sort. I think that the Jewish religion has the same leading ideas as capitalism . . . “(1)
Though Jewish intellectuals at the time were largely unhappy with Sombart’s book, Milton Friedman is brave enough to admit that there is nothing in Sombart’s book itself to justify any charge of anti-Semitism (though, he argues, there certainly is in Sombart’s later work). Friedman, a proud capitalist, tends actually to interpret Sombart’s book as “philo-Semitic”.
“If, like me”, says Friedman, “you regard competitive capitalism as the economic system that is most favorable to individual freedom, to creative accomplishments in technology and the arts, and to the widest possible opportunities for the ordinary man, then you will regard Sombart’s assignment to the Jews of a key role in the development of capitalism as high praise. You will, as I do, regard his book as philo-Semitic. “
Milton Friedman may even agree with early Marx, that Capitalism is Jewish 'by nature'. Yet, while Marx believed that in order for the world to liberate itself from Capitalism it had better emancipate itself from the Jews (3), for Friedman capitalism is of profound value and to be respected, and Jews should be praised for their inherent bond with this philosophy and its diverse ramifications. As far as Friedman is concerned, for Capitalism to prevail, Jews should continue to do what they are good at: and that is to trade freely in an open and competitive market.
Friedman seems to dismiss the presumed 'intellectual honesty' behind Jewish affiliation with the left and anti capitalism: He tends to argue that the Jewish intellectual inclination towards the left is a direct outcome of some political and historical circumstances, rather than ethical or ideological choice. He explains that, in his view, Jewish affiliation with the left is the product of a particular occurrence in Europe in the nineteenth century.
“Beginning with the era of the French revolution, the European political spectrum became divided into a “Left” and a “Right” along an axis that involved the issue of secularism. The Right (conservative, Monarchical, “clerical”) maintained that there must be a place for the church in the public order; the left (democratic, liberal, radical) held that there can be no Church at all . . . .”
It was only natural, then, for the Jews to join the left -- in fact Jews could only join the left.
“The axis separating left from right also formed a natural boundary for the pale of Jewish political participation. It was the left, with its new secular concept of citizenship, that had accomplished the Emancipation, and it was only the left that could see a place for the Jews in public life.”
Such a reasoning, then, views Jewish affiliation with the left as a politically opportunistic move instead of a form of ‘moral awakening’.
Such a reading of the 'Jewish left' reaffirms my own critical assessment. It also explains why some Jews join the left -- they support cosmopolitanism, solidarity, an international working class; and yet, they themselves often seem to prefer to operate within ‘Jews only’ racially orientated cells such as the Bund, Jewish Socialists or even Jews For Boycott of Israeli Goods. Friedman’s reasoning might also explain why so many Jews who had their roots in the so- called ‘left’, ended up preaching moral interventionism and Neo Conservatism.(4)
Friedman argues also, that Jewish affiliation with the left might be better understood as an attempt to disown some anti Semitic stereotypes of the Jew as being “a merchant or moneylender who put commercial interests ahead of human values.”
According to Friedman, the Jewish anti capitalist is there to prove that, far from being money-grabbing, selfish and heartless, Jews are really public spirited, generous, and concerned with ideals rather than material goods. “How better to do so than to attack the market with its reliance on monetary values and impersonal transactions and to glorify the political process, to take as an ideal a state run by well-meaning people for the benefit of their fellow men?”
And yet, in Friedman's logic then, it is not a ‘moral awakening’ that moves the Jew to the left; it is neither humanism, nor solidarity and nor is it kindness, but, instead, it seems to be a desperate attempt to replace or amend the Jewish image.
Surprisingly enough, I find myself in total agreement with Friedman, though I would phrase it differently. I do differentiate between ‘the leftist who happen to be Jewish’- an innocent category inspired by humanism, and ‘the Jewish leftist- which seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, for the left aims to universally transcend itself beyond ethnicity, religion or race. Clearly ‘Jewish left’ is there to maintain a Jewish tribal ethno-centric identity at the heart of working class philosophy. 'Jewish left' is there to primarily serve Jewish interests
I noticed that Richard Kuper, the European Jewish activist behind the recent Jewish Boat to Gaza, was quoted as saying that their goal was to show that “not all Jews support Israeli policies toward Palestinians.”
It seems to me that the message Kuper conveyed was pretty clear: Rather than being driven entirely by a genuine care for the Palestinians in Gaza, the Jewish boat was also engaged in a symbolic exchange. It was also there to save the image of the Jews rather than solely providing humanitarian support. This fact alone may explain why the Jewish boat hardly carried any humanitarian aid for the Gazans. Rather than a ‘humanitarian aid mission for the Palestinians,’ it was probably also an ‘image rescue for the Jews’.
Seemingly then, Friedman managed to resolve the paradox between his two initial propositions (Jews being the benefactors capitalism vs. Jews being profoundly anti-capitalist) by offering an historical and political explanation: Jews or Jewish intellectuals are not really against capitalism; it was just the “special circumstances of nineteenth-century that drove Jews to the left, and the subconscious attempts by Jews to demonstrate to themselves and the world the fallacy of the anti-Semitic stereotype.” It was neither ideology nor ethics.
This interpretation explains why left Zionism was doomed to disappear. During his talks, Friedman reviewed the right/left political division in Israel. He noticed that two opposing traditions were at work in the Jewish State: “an ancient one--going back nearly two thousand years-- of finding ways around governmental restrictions (and) a modern one-- going back a century-- of belief in “democratic socialism” and “central planning.” Friedman was clever enough to gather already in 1972 that it is the “Jewish tradition”, rather than ‘socialism’, that would prevail. Friedman noticed already in the 1970’s that Israel was capitalist to the bone. He predicted that the short phase of Zionist ‘pseudo socialism’ was foreign to Jewish culture.
Yet. It isn’t just Israeli left that was doomed to die. Friedman's reading of Jewish culture also explains why the Bund (5) died; it didn’t really spread to the West; it also explains why the legendary Mazpen and other Jewish tribal anti Zionist revolutionary groups have never attracted the Jewish masses.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Friedman is not free of fault. In spite of his succinct reading of the Jewish left/right divide there are a few crucial points that have to be made about Friedman’s reading of Jewish culture, and his reading of capitalism.
Friedman argues that the free market and competition is good for the Jews. Yet he is also adamant that Government intervention is a disaster that leads to anti Semitism and other forms of institutional bigotry. If Friedman’s model is valid, then Jews in the West had better brace themselves, for Western Governments are currently intervening in the markets in a desperate attempt to slowdown the inevitable collapse of what is left of our economy and relative wealth.
If Friedman’s model is correct, and intervention is indeed bad for the Jews, then anti Jewish bigotry could be immanent, especially considering the gigantic bailout intervention schemes put up by states in an attempt to save what remains of the Western economy.
But it goes further -- it is also plainly clear that the bailout schemes are there to amend a colossal disaster caused by the endorsement of Friedman’s own ideology. We are all paying a very heavy price for free enterprise, hard capitalism, or, in general, the ideologies Friedman was so enthusiastic about.
There is something Friedman didn’t tell his listeners in the 1970s -- He himself probably did not realise the full meaning of his economic model. He himself did not realise that the adoption of his philosophy by Roland Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would eventually bring the West to its knees. He himself did not realise that it was his own advocacy of hard capitalism that would lead Western continents to poverty and deprivation. He perhaps did not realise back in the 1970s that it was his model that would eventually eliminate productivity, and every positive aspect of the welfare state. Milton Friedman did not realise at the time that service economy that suited some ethnic minorities for two millennia wouldn’t necessarily be a successful model once adopted into a macro model. As Friedman had gathered, throughout their history Jews and other ethnic minorities were very effective operating as service economy within competitive and productive markets. However, Jews and other ethnic or religious minorities did well because others were there to work around them. The transforming of the West into a service economy driven by relentless greed, a process that followed Friedman’s economic precepts, is now proving to be a disaster. It means poverty and global depression. It is translated into alienation from labour and productivity.
Friedman may have been correct when he predicted that governmental intervention may lead to anti Semitism -- yet, he probably failed to realise that it was largely his own intellectual heritage that would be responsible for the current financial disaster. It is in fact his own economic model and prophecy that could also introduce Jews to far more suffering.
Source article was found here.
P.S. Host country USA has little more to give before giving up the ghost. It can't work when the only jobs the host gentiles have are selling products of slave labor that's replaced them. Oh, I forgot, there is still the option of joining the military and fighting for the cause of jewish supremacism... and forget about one's family dying in poverty back home.
Anti-Semtic Musing 008: They Invented a Religion to Steal a Land from Its Owners
I previously proposed in this column the idea that Muslim scholars should attempt to differentiate between the prophets mentioned in the Holy Quran and the prophets of the Jews who are mentioned in the Torah, since any history student in any major Western university (but not an Arab university) will learn that Jewish history is only an amalgamation of biblical myths about prophets, kings and kingdoms that never existed.
In the simplest possible terms, the Israelis have been looking for their “traces” in Palestine for the last 62 years without finding anything so far, to the extent that Israeli archaeologists have stopped looking in Jerusalem. Moshe Dayan, an amateur archaeologist himself, looked for 13 years in the Sinai for the traces of his “ancestors”, but found nothing whatsoever related to Moses or the Wandering Years.
I am well aware of the sensitivity of this subject, and it is for this reason that I only propose an idea and let the Muslim scholars – and I mean Muslim archaeologists and historians and not theologians – to confirm or deny what I and my son studied, in an American and a British university respectively.
Israel’s advocates are so insolent, meanwhile, or obscene, that they actually forge and falsify a modern history that we have lived and seen ourselves. It is thus no wonder that they invented a religion to steal a land from its owners. Recently, I followed four episodes on a U.S. Likudnik website which relied on a French Likudnik website as its source, and which concluded that the child Muhammad al-Durrah was not shot dead by Israeli soldiers while in his father’s lap in Gaza in 2000 and that the footage that the French television and the world media carried, showing the child and his father, was not true.
I suffice myself with the above on that subject, and move on with the Israeli peace advocate Uri Avnery, and his article published on August 16, 2009, which was inspired by a dispute between Palestinian residents of Acre and the Jews there, following a decision by the government to remove all Arab names and keep the (fabricated and falsified) Jewish names which are to be written in Hebrew. Thus, for example, Jerusalem became Urshalim. In Acre, the Jewish-dominated municipality threatened to destroy the monument of the Muslim diver Issa al Awwam who fought with Salah al-Din…But then if Muhammad al-Durrah did not exist in 2000, then why would they acknowledge Issa al-Awwam who lived 800 years before him?
Avnery cites the Book of Joshua in the Bible, describing it as being ‘genocidal’, which is true, since the book mentions that the Lord told Joshua to kill “both man and woman, young and old”. But despite the events of the Book of Joshua, Avnery says that Acre remained a Phoenician city like the rest of the coast of Palestine.
The writer wonders who came to the land of Canaan first, and replies that the Arabs had conquered the land which they called Jund Filistin (military district Palestine) in 635 A.D, and that they ruled it since then without interruption except during the Crusader period. On the other hand, the Zionist version claims that the land belonged to the kingdoms of Judea and Israel, although the coast was Phoenician. Avnery carries on by saying that despite all the unrelenting efforts over a hundred years, no archaeological evidence has been found that there ever was an exodus from Egypt, a conquest of Canaan by the Children of Israel, or a kingdom of David and Solomon.
The article after that speaks of the “legends” of the Torah about Abraham in Iraq and the exodus from Egypt, the Conquest of Canaan, King David, and the other legends of the Bible, “which are taught as actual history”, and then the destruction of the Temple and the “exile” of the Jews and their persecution.
Uri Avnery is neither an Arab nor a Muslim. He is an Israeli who served in the Israeli army before becoming a prominent peace activist, and is also a researcher and an authority on the history of the entire region.
I do not ask the Arabs and the Muslims to approve of anything I said above, but only to ask their scholars to study the subject and then enlighten us all.
If they fail to do so, we might find ourselves reading a history where Muhammad al-Durrah was not killed, where Jesus committed suicide (I cannot even insinuate at what the Talmud says about the Virgin Mary), and where Muslims attacked the Jews in Palestine in 1948 to uproot them from their own country. A history where there were and there are no Palestinians (recall what Golda Meir and other ultra-Zionists said), where Egypt attacked the Negev in 1956 instead of Israel attacking Sinai, where Arab armies attacked Israel in 1967 and so Israel had to respond in self-defense (I swore that I read this in their writings as I read that the United Nations is ‘Muslim’), where Hezbollah invaded Israel in the summer of 2006, and where Hamas attempted to invade Ashkelon two years later. We might also read that Israel did not kill 1500 Palestinian minors in this decade alone, compared to 135 Israeli minors, that B’Tselem’s figures are false and that it is infiltrated or that B’Tselem lies like all peace activists around the world, including Jews, and maybe even that this article itself does not exist except in the readers’ imaginations.
Source article by Jihad el-Khazen can be found here. I originally found it here.
P.S. They are the best liars the world has ever seen. They are liars par excellence.
In the simplest possible terms, the Israelis have been looking for their “traces” in Palestine for the last 62 years without finding anything so far, to the extent that Israeli archaeologists have stopped looking in Jerusalem. Moshe Dayan, an amateur archaeologist himself, looked for 13 years in the Sinai for the traces of his “ancestors”, but found nothing whatsoever related to Moses or the Wandering Years.
I am well aware of the sensitivity of this subject, and it is for this reason that I only propose an idea and let the Muslim scholars – and I mean Muslim archaeologists and historians and not theologians – to confirm or deny what I and my son studied, in an American and a British university respectively.
Israel’s advocates are so insolent, meanwhile, or obscene, that they actually forge and falsify a modern history that we have lived and seen ourselves. It is thus no wonder that they invented a religion to steal a land from its owners. Recently, I followed four episodes on a U.S. Likudnik website which relied on a French Likudnik website as its source, and which concluded that the child Muhammad al-Durrah was not shot dead by Israeli soldiers while in his father’s lap in Gaza in 2000 and that the footage that the French television and the world media carried, showing the child and his father, was not true.
I suffice myself with the above on that subject, and move on with the Israeli peace advocate Uri Avnery, and his article published on August 16, 2009, which was inspired by a dispute between Palestinian residents of Acre and the Jews there, following a decision by the government to remove all Arab names and keep the (fabricated and falsified) Jewish names which are to be written in Hebrew. Thus, for example, Jerusalem became Urshalim. In Acre, the Jewish-dominated municipality threatened to destroy the monument of the Muslim diver Issa al Awwam who fought with Salah al-Din…But then if Muhammad al-Durrah did not exist in 2000, then why would they acknowledge Issa al-Awwam who lived 800 years before him?
Avnery cites the Book of Joshua in the Bible, describing it as being ‘genocidal’, which is true, since the book mentions that the Lord told Joshua to kill “both man and woman, young and old”. But despite the events of the Book of Joshua, Avnery says that Acre remained a Phoenician city like the rest of the coast of Palestine.
The writer wonders who came to the land of Canaan first, and replies that the Arabs had conquered the land which they called Jund Filistin (military district Palestine) in 635 A.D, and that they ruled it since then without interruption except during the Crusader period. On the other hand, the Zionist version claims that the land belonged to the kingdoms of Judea and Israel, although the coast was Phoenician. Avnery carries on by saying that despite all the unrelenting efforts over a hundred years, no archaeological evidence has been found that there ever was an exodus from Egypt, a conquest of Canaan by the Children of Israel, or a kingdom of David and Solomon.
The article after that speaks of the “legends” of the Torah about Abraham in Iraq and the exodus from Egypt, the Conquest of Canaan, King David, and the other legends of the Bible, “which are taught as actual history”, and then the destruction of the Temple and the “exile” of the Jews and their persecution.
Uri Avnery is neither an Arab nor a Muslim. He is an Israeli who served in the Israeli army before becoming a prominent peace activist, and is also a researcher and an authority on the history of the entire region.
I do not ask the Arabs and the Muslims to approve of anything I said above, but only to ask their scholars to study the subject and then enlighten us all.
If they fail to do so, we might find ourselves reading a history where Muhammad al-Durrah was not killed, where Jesus committed suicide (I cannot even insinuate at what the Talmud says about the Virgin Mary), and where Muslims attacked the Jews in Palestine in 1948 to uproot them from their own country. A history where there were and there are no Palestinians (recall what Golda Meir and other ultra-Zionists said), where Egypt attacked the Negev in 1956 instead of Israel attacking Sinai, where Arab armies attacked Israel in 1967 and so Israel had to respond in self-defense (I swore that I read this in their writings as I read that the United Nations is ‘Muslim’), where Hezbollah invaded Israel in the summer of 2006, and where Hamas attempted to invade Ashkelon two years later. We might also read that Israel did not kill 1500 Palestinian minors in this decade alone, compared to 135 Israeli minors, that B’Tselem’s figures are false and that it is infiltrated or that B’Tselem lies like all peace activists around the world, including Jews, and maybe even that this article itself does not exist except in the readers’ imaginations.
Source article by Jihad el-Khazen can be found here. I originally found it here.
P.S. They are the best liars the world has ever seen. They are liars par excellence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
