Anything goes discussion forum about the great town of Coshocton, Oh
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log inLog in  

Share | 

 Rothschild conspiracies, Turks, and Jew-Gentile relations

Go down 


Posts : 408
Join date : 2008-03-12

PostSubject: Rothschild conspiracies, Turks, and Jew-Gentile relations   Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:55 pm

Rothschild conspiracies, Turks, and Jew-Gentile relations: Several not quite random thoughts

Hereward Lindsay

June 21, 2008

Part I

Rothschild conspiracy stuff has generally been detrimental to serious consideration of the problems in relations between Jews and Non-Jews.
It is true that the Rothschilds emerged early in the course of Jewish emancipation in Europe as a major financial player.
It is also true that they were loyal to their race and used that power to assist Jews around the world and to push an agenda favorable to their ilk.

I am not an expert on Rothschilds but am aware that they influenced British policy and were able to nudge the British to help Jews around the world in the heyday of the British Empire. The Rothschilds played a role, for instance, in getting the British (and the French) to intervene in the 1800's when the Turks arrested a number of Jews in Damascus and accused them of the ritual murder of a Catholic priest. This is an interesting incident of which many readers will be aware, but I’ll return to this item in Part II of this commentary.

While the Rothschilds certainly used their influence to impact policies in Britain and elsewhere, I doubt the Rothschild banks were ever the all-powerful-power-behind-the-throne they have been made out to be in the literature of anti-Semitism. And whatever the role the Rothschilds played in the 19th century, they do not appear to be significant now or in the past several generations.There are scads of Jewish-owned or -controlled banks vastly more powerful than the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds do not appear to play much of a role any more.

Indeed, it appears that one of the Rothschild scions, Victor Rothschild, may have been a low level Communist spy on the fringes of the Cambridge cell. If the Rothschilds ever were the mega-power element within a Jewish conspiracy, which some conspiracy theorists make them out to be, then the descent from omnipotent string pullers to serving Stalin as a second-tier member of a Stalinist spy ring is a shocking example of downward social mobility.

I have long had the opinion that the Establishment pushes conspiracy theories as a distraction. The intent is to distract the most active and observant opposition from the obvious and also to discredit conspiracy theories in general.

As I once told Sam Francis (the only thing I ever told him that he quoted and made his own — truly flattering) that conspiracy theories along the lines of the Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Illuminati and Rothschild ones actually give reason for optimism. If they were true, all that would be necessary to set the world right regarding all of the above “conspiracies” would be for someone to call the police at the right moment and have the conspirators arrested. Presto! All problems solved! Just nip the whole matter in the bud by arresting the bad guys!

Alas, life isn't so easy.

The Rothschilds are not the masterminds of a Jewish conspiracy.Nor is it necessary that there be a hidden hand directing Jewish depredations against Europeans.The average Jew does not need to be directed and micromanaged by the Learned Elders of Zion.Jews are perfectly capable on an individual basis of knowing what needs to be done for their community to flourish and triumph. They know it as easily as many of our readers know what things benefit, and what things hurt, the White Christian European community.

Jews instinctively fear and feel threatened by nationalistic, particularistic societies.They know that when societies enjoy a robust, patriotic self-confidence, there is little scope for Jewish advancement and control.Elizabethan England, Renaissance Florence, Periclean Athens and Siglo de Oro Spain are all examples of societies in which by definition the scope of Jewish activity in commerce, culture and government would necessarily be dramatically confined.

In any such society the chances that there would be, for instance, two foreign-born Jews in one generation serving as Secretary of State and controlling foreign policy (I am referring, of course, to Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright) would be zero. In any of these four examples of patriotic, self-confident societies the Kissingers and the Albrights would have as little chance to rise to control of the country's foreign policy as a Scottish Presbyterian or Spanish Catholic would of taking charge of the Foreign Office of the State of Israel.

The Kissingers and Albrights would ineluctably be squeezed out and marginalized. Instead of directing foreign policy of the entire nation, they would be pressing pants in a laundry—just as their coreligionist Leon Trotsky did in Brooklyn until the Russian Revolution opened up vast and new opportunities to him and others similarly situated not available to them in the bad old days of pre-war Europe.
No one needs to explain to Kissinger or Albright or to any Jew living, say, in the small town South what policies endanger Jews and their interests and what policies benefit them.Jews favor multi-ethnic, divided, demoralized, degenerate societies as instinctively as bees build beehives.

And this is the core of the problem.

While, contrary to the wildest anti-Semitic theorists, there do exist "civilized Jews" (Paul Gottfried comes to mind immediately), they necessarily are the exceptions.

Jews have existed and persisted as a distinct, separate racial, religious and cultural people through two millennia of dispersion among the “Gentiles" (from the Latin translation of goyim, the often derogatory Hebrew phrase) not by merely being a people who dwell apart or remain separate but by being at all times adversarial to any society in which they live. (I do not use "people who dwell apart" in any sense as a slap at Kevin MacDonald's title of that phrase which necessarily was moderate. In fact, a prominent aspect of MacDonald’s work is that Jews have formed a hostile elite whenever they have had the opportunity.)

The only way for a dispersed minority to survive for two millennia under the circumstances in which the Jews found themselves is to be hostile and adversarial to the host society. Merely being different would not suffice, just as it did not suffice in the case of the French Huguenots who came to South Carolina in the 1600s.The Huguenots were Protestant but they still remained distinct and hostile in every way toward their Anglican, Anglo-Saxon neighbors.
While they were non-Catholics like the Anglicans, their Protestantism was radically different from that of the established church in the colony. They regarded the Church of England as little different from and little better than the Church of Rome. They had their own language. They inherited the ingrained hostility that the French and English had shared for each other for centuries. They were only in South Carolina because they had no other place to go.And there were significant problems for the colony in the friction between Presbyterian Frenchmen and Anglican Englishmen.The Huguenots settled in their own towns and communities where they tried to preserve their own language, culture and religion.The English resented this and feared their French neighbors as potentially disloyal.The colonial legislature had passed laws to squelch and suppress the French, banning their language from public usage and ordering them to adopt an Anglican prayer book and to conform to the established church.The French undoubtedly resented this.

And so the friction went on...

But only for several generations.

Today in South Carolina the French Huguenots have disappeared. They are remembered only in peculiar French names like my father's first name "Bonneau" and my mother's middle name of "Legare."And the reason the French have disappeared in South Carolina is that for all the denominational, national, linguistic and cultural friction, at heart the French Huguenot did not hate his neighbor.His religion did not mandate and encourage him to lie awake at night mentally sticking Voodoo pins into a doll of the Anglican Anglo-Saxon next door.While separate from the English and while separated from the English by denomination, nationality, language and culture, the French Huguenot in South Carolina was not actively hostile, hateful and adversarial toward his neighbors.And so within a few generations use of the French language was dying out, many of the French Huguenots had been absorbed into the Anglican Church and their descendants were intermarrying with the English boys and girls in the vicinity.

No. To survive for millennia as a small minority scattered "amongst the nations" mere separation is not enough.

Such remarkable survival requires hatred, hostility — in short an attitude toward society that is absolutely adversarial at all times and remains so even in the face of non-discriminatory and even amicable treatment.The problems in the relations between our people and our society on the one hand and the Jewish community and its society on the other do not arise from and are not confined to the role of the Rothschild Banks or a tight little committee of rabbis making up the Learned Elders of Zion.

They are warp and woof of the Jewish personality itself.

The problems have existed back to the times of Antiquity. They predate Christianity.The friction would exist if Europeans had never converted to Christianity and even if Christianity had never existed and indeed would probably have been all the sharper, as is seen if one looks at the extraordinarily vicious massacres perpetrated by the Jews and the Greeks on each other in pre-Christian times.

The friction and the problems arise from the normal, natural and healthy competition and struggle of peoples against each other for resources, space and survival.

It was a stroke of genius for the Jews to inject into this natural evolutionary competition a false moral issue of "hate" or "discrimination."

It is no more hateful or discriminatory for me as the descendant of English and French colonists who came to America in the 1600s to resent the fact that two alien-born Jews usurped the office of Secretary of State in my county in my lifetime than it would be "hate" for Israelis to be outraged if I demanded that some Scottish Presbyterian be made Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel.

In my garden at the moment that I am writing this little essay two plants are contending for mastery. The Wandering Jew (to use the old, politically incorrect word for what the nursery saleswoman informed me is now called "Purple Heart") is battling for space with the Rabbit's Ears. It is a ruthless, cruel fight with each plant species seeking to smother and choke the other.

This is not because the Wandering Jew and the Rabbit's Ear's plants are evil, immoral or hateful.
It's the fact that they are responding to the commands of their genes, the laws of nature.
Last weekend I, as the owner of the garden, embarked upon a severe pruning of the Rabbit's Ears which were winning the battle.

Not because I think the Rabbit's Ears are anti-Semitic, morally bad and deserving of punishment but because I — for my own selfish human pleasure as a member of my own species of life with my own agenda — want to preserve the attractive contrast between the two swaths of silvery-green Rabbit's Ears and purple Wandering Jew.

Conspiracy theories carried to unrealistic extremes — as I believe characterizes the claims about the Rothschilds — distract us from the obvious, confuse our people about what must be done for us to survive and triumph in a society natural to our own natures, and diminish our credibility.One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the problems created by Jewish influence in our society. These problems are right in front of our eyes. They are conspicuous in groups like AIPAC and cause dramatic and unconcealed tragedies as in the 9/11 attack made upon us as "blow back" (Ron Paul's term) from the Arabs who have sustained the pain caused by the kidnapping of our foreign policy by the American Jewish community.

[Continued in Part II]
Back to top Go down
View user profile


Posts : 408
Join date : 2008-03-12

PostSubject: Rothschild conspiracies Part II   Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:05 pm

Rothschild conspiracies, Turks, and Jew-Gentile relations: Several not quite random thoughts

Hereward Lindsay

June 28, 2008

Part II

Let us return now to the matter mentioned in Part I about early 19th -century Turks in Damascus arresting Jews for ritual murder. The charges by the Turks have been dismissed by historians as just another old anti-Semitic, lurid, ritual murder charge. Actually, there is some evidence supporting the ritual murder accusation.

Two things about the charge itself immediately jump out at you:

1. Unlike Eastern Europe, there is no significant history, of which I am aware, of Islamic anti-Semitism and charges of ritual murder. In fact, the Turks and the Jews have almost always been on the same side and have a history of very cozy and friendly relationships. This partnership started with the Jews opening the gates to the Turks and other Muslims in their "Crescentades"1 in the Balkans and in Spain. It continued with the Sephardic "Ladinos" who were expelled from Spain in 1492 and who then settled in the Ottoman Empire in North Africa and in Constantinople itself.

A ritual murder charge by local Turkish officials is therefore not lightly dismissed as just typical lurid anti-Semitism.

2. If the Turkish authorities who brought the charge were anti-Semites fabricating the case, they would surely have concocted a story of Jews ritually murdering a Muslim, not a Christian priest. The Turks, contrary to the standard line that they were tolerant, treated Christians very harshly and would not have had any reason to alienate the Jewish community in Syria and around the world by prosecuting Jews for the murder of a despised infidel and especially a Catholic priest. (But see below) Local Muslim (Arab) sympathies in Damascus would not have been particularly excited over the murder of a Christian clergyman.

The famous Victorian explorer Sir Richard Burton was the British consul in Damascus at the time of the incident. He investigated and — despite official pressure and interference from London — concluded that the Jews had in fact committed the ritual murder. This destroyed his career in the British diplomatic service.

He wrote about the matter in his last book The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam.2 Only about 1,000 copies of this book were published before the Jews were able to acquire the copyright from Burton's silly, addle-brained widow, a member of the recusant Arundel family, who was actually deeply embarrassed by her husband's writings including both his translations of what was regarded as pornography in the Victorian age and his anti-Semitic "The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam."

The Jews were able to bottle up the book for generations. I got a copy back in the 1960s only after years of searching all over the globe. There was (is) a considerable market for Burton's books by his fans. And since this book was not only anti-Semitic and therefore prone to be shredded when a copy was found but also scarce and his last book, it was almost entirely unavailable.

I understand that it has now been reprinted and is fairly easily available. I should also point out that a similar fate happened to Israeli historian Ariel Toaff’s Blood Passover: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murder except that, despite being pulled off the bookshelves due to pressure by the ADL, it is freely available in English translation due to the wonders of the internet. Toaff showed that there was good evidence that some fundamentalist Ashkenazi Jews did engage in ritual murder by crucifying Christian children and then selling their blood for ritual purposes. There was a black market on both sides of the Alps in which Jewish merchants sold human blood, complete with rabbinic certification of the product. In other words, it was kosher blood.

Try to get your mind around a religious ritual in which you literally consume the blood of the children of the people you hate.

Getting back to the matter of Turks and “tolerance”: Establishment history books unvaryingly depict Islam as more tolerant than Christianity. Many readers will be aware of sugary descriptions of pre-Isabella Spain and the Ottoman Empire as so superior to Christian Europe.

This claim of Moslem moral superiority founded upon Moslem tolerance is merely an oblique attack on Europeans and Christians.

It is utter bunk.

But it works, as seen by the Pope's apology for the massacre of Moslems by the Crusaders in Jerusalem and the King of Spain's recent apology to the Moslems for the Reconquista.

As one witty friend of mine said, an apology for the Reconquista should only have been made after the Moslems apologized for the “CONQUISTA.”

Likewise, when the cruel Turk took Constantinople in 1453, the Moslems perpetrated the same kind of massacre that the Crusaders did in Jerusalem.

No Turk or Moslem is ever going to apologize for the massacre of the Christian Greeks. Turks are too healthy and patriotic for that.

But white Christian Europeans have been so psychologically raped that they think taking back their own soil from invaders (as in 1492 in Grenada) is something for which they should be ashamed and for which apologies are owed.

One final exquisite example of how the establishment historians spin things:

The Turks devised a cruel and cleverly dysgenic policy toward the Christian nationalities subject to their brutal control: the Janissaries.

The Turks would go to the villages and farms of the Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians and other nationalities and compel the Christians to bring out their sons.

The strongest, brightest and best looking of the Christian boys would then be taken away from his parents, essentially kidnapped, and taken to Constantinople to be put to the service of the Turks as "Janissaries."

The strong ones would be enlisted as the elite units of the Turkish military which were made up from these kidnapped Christian children. They were prohibited from marrying. They were sent into battle as crack soldiers of the Ottoman army and sustained the greatest casualty rate.

The smart ones were used as scribes and clerks in the civil service.

The good-looking ones were often used by Turkish pederasts.

This horrific policy is praised by most modern historians and is characterized as actually affording wonderful career opportunities to its victims who were thereby enabled to leave their primitive farms to the wider, brighter spheres of life in the imperial capitol!

Just imagine for one moment that at some time in history a Christian dynasty had adopted a policy like this toward Jews and Muslims.

That every several years every Jew under their control was compelled to parade his sons for inspection by royal officials.

That the best boys were then torn from their parents' arms and taken away to be essentially sterilized (via the marriage ban the Turks imposed) and worked the rest of his life — for the advantage of the Christians.

Is there any simpleton anywhere who believes that modern historians would be praising the Christian dynasty for its "tolerance" and enthusing over how this practice really was a great boon by generous Christians to the little Jewish boys because it got them out of the ghetto and opened career opportunities for them?

It is not surprising that the outrageous claim that the Janissary practice was an example of Turkish-Muslim generosity was cooked up (probably by the usual suspects) or that the more general thesis is advanced that the Muslims in Spain, the Balkans and the Middle East were tolerant toward Christians.

What is shocking is that we have members of our race in the form of liberal white Christian historians who will allow themselves to be spoon-fed this garbage and then vomit it back out on their own race.

That is the shocking thing.

Is there anything viler, more repulsive and disgusting than a white liberal?

End Notes:


1 Since there exists no word in English for the Muslim attacks on Europeans other than "jihad", I’ve made one up.

2 Those who have not read Burton’s books have missed out on a great joy. A really great read is his second volume To Mecca and Medina in Disguise.

Burton was a fantastic linguist. He had a secret method by which he could learn a language in a matter of weeks. He made the Haj to Mecca and Medina claiming to be an Afghan pilgrim. He was the first Christian to visit Mecca in centuries and one of only a handful ever to do so because the “tolerant” Muslims would kill any non-Muslim who set foot in Mecca.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rothschild conspiracies, Turks, and Jew-Gentile relations
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
» Discus Red Turks
» The Hyuga's Relation to the Uchiha

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Coshocton :: POLITICS-
Jump to: