Jewish Control of the British Empire, Divide and Conquer, Comandeering European War efforts

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 09:01.

Germans in Slavic Lands, Poles and Other Eastern Europeans in Western Europe

Nathan Mayer Rothschild

When grappling with the extent and length of entanglement of Jewish interests in European affairs, perhaps one can come to appreciate GW’s fastidious concern to separate what is authentic native/nationalist European - and what is not - through his ontology project.

Cromwell re-admits the Jews to Britain

A commentator from Western Spring attributes the angle that I have been promoting, viz., for reclaiming “the left for Whites” to the pro-Hitler David Jones and “ANN”.. who probably co-opted this angle. Not that adopting the position of White leftism wouldn’t be fine with me, and Dave does seem like an otherwise well motivated and knowledgeable fellow, but for the fact that he would couple this with pro Nazism. White Leftism is a different thing than what Hitler had in mind – that because Hitler was a right-winger at heart and in effect. Leftism, to him, was a mere vehicle (not for export) for consolidating Germans into a right-wing force to lord over others.

From the comment section of the essay that GW pointed out on Western Spring - “Four Practical Strategies for Whites”

Steve said

More a case of what areas you apply intellectualism to and how your message is communicated.

Economic issues are wipe for exploitation. Labour & the Conservatives have surrendered economic intervention to political bureaucrats in Brussels who’s modus operandi is akin to the Soviet Central Committee of the Communist Party. Inefficient and self serving when it does invest in an area they plaster EU stickers and logos to make it come across that the EU is so benevolent when in fact they are extremely poor.

I believe Nationalism needs to draw a new line in the sand by first and foremost pushing back against our enemies deliberately pigeon holing us as ‘far right’. In accepting this we end up feeling the need to defend the baggage of the past which holds no bearing on our future. Imperialism and traditionalism.

Reject imperialism as the empire did not benefit the working men and women of the industrial towns and mines as they worked and lived in despicable conditions while the fruits of their labour were used to expand imperialism that only benefited the few. We today are faced by reverse colinisation by Marxist Imperialists with the assistance of international capitalism.

Reject traditionalism as we know it. We recognise the differences between genders, the differing desires of Man and Woman, their strengths and weaknesses but we acknowledge they are ‘Ying and Yang’. What we know as ‘traditionalism’ is the shackles of industrialised society to keep the male from looking for political alternatives. The traditionalism that we should offer is a choice. The lady who wants a career is supported but the lady that decides to raise many children is supported even more so by the state.

While the rhetoric may sound Marxist the solution certainly is not. Marxism subverts a people, Nationalism makes them prosper. Marxist plans are based around false pseudo science, Nationalist plans are on practicality and welfare of the people.

As the excellent David Jones says on ANN we must position ourselves as the heirs to the original Labour Movement. We need to be unashamedly economically left wing and recognise that the left does not equal Marxism.

Benjamin Disraeli

Speaking of David Jones and ANN then, let me make a note at this point to the legions Poles who have made themselves comfortable in Britain: that you are exacerbating the sentiments of the pro-Hitler British and should make an effort to correct that; whether returning to Poland or, at very least, fighting to help the natives of the British isles to maintain their kind, especially by alliance against those still more exotic – the non-Europeans and their masters.

Also, now at “ANN” is one “Giacomo Vallone” of “The European Knights Project” (terrible site, absurd rhetoric), who is pandering to this anti-Polish angle. Lame and badly motivated as his rhetoric clearly is toward Poles*, their impact on Britain is hard to defend and, with that, it is more difficult to allay heavy handed arguments such as his that Hitler was simply on the right side; as Poles, one of the best warranted nations to oppose Hitler, impinge upon an Allied nation.

* Now, why do I say that Giacomo Vallone is pandering and taking advantage of the largely desperate, opportunistic kind of Pole who have gone to Britain en masse? Several months back I heard him on Renegade talking with Dana Antiochus, saying that Germans hated Poles and that Poles hated Germans. I had to respond with a comment as it simply is not true, certainly not from the Polish end that hatred of Germans is remotely characteristic and anything like a preoccupation. But Giacomo persisted in trying to stir-up this animus between Poles and Germans and from other European countries against Poland as well. How? By using sock puppets, various pseudonyms who supposedly avowed to the mutual hatred of Poles and their neighbors. These comments “testifying” to his truth were all written tactlessly, with almost no attempt to so much as change the language and usage despite supposedly coming from different sources. The deception was confirmed by Kyle Hunt as these “testimonies” came from the same IP.

Of course efforts to harmonize European nationalisms are made more difficult when those taking a pro-Nazi angle are intent on rekindling the lines of discord that Hitler preferred. It is especially troubling when people who profess to be about “the truth” have so little concern for it when it contradicts their champion cause.

Coming back to Steve’s comment:

I believe Nationalism needs to draw a new line in the sand by first and foremost pushing back against our enemies deliberately pigeon holing us as ‘far right’. In accepting this we end up feeling the need to defend the baggage of the past which holds no bearing on our future. Imperialism and traditionalism.

Reject imperalism as the empire did not benefit the working men and women of the industrial towns and mines as they worked and lived in despicable conditions while the fruits of their labour were used to expand imperalism that only benefited the few. We today are faced by reverse colinisation by Marxist Imperalists with the assistance of international capitalism.

Reject traditionalism as we know it. We recognise the differences between genders, the differing desires of Man and Woman, their strengths and weaknesses but we acknowledge they are ‘Ying and Yang’. What we know as ‘traditionalism’ is the shackles of industrialised society to keep the male from looking for political alternatives. The traditionalism that we should offer is a choice. The lady who wants a career is supported but the lady that decides to raise many children is supported even more so by the state.

While the rhetoric may sound Marxist the solution certainly is not. Marxism subverts a people, Nationalism makes them prosper. Marxist plans are based around false pseudo science, Nationalist plans are on practicality and welfare of the people.

As the excellent David Jones says on ANN we must position ourselves as the heirs to the original Labour Movement. We need to be unashamedly economically left wing and recognise that the left does not equal Marxism.

...and in line wth that,

Tanstaafl’s latest podcast on Yockey criticizes Yockey for not appreciating the extent of Jewish control over the British Empire and war efforts.

http://age-of-treason.com/?s=

Tanstaafl discusses Jewish families’ take-over the British Empire, commandeering it into war against the Boers and Nazi Germany. He faults Yockey for not seeing the depth of its influence on Britain, taking hold even by the turn of the century. He also criticizes Yockey’s philosophy for not following Hitler’s conviction that culture grows out of a people, Yockey believing instead that culture shapes people.

One might question Tan for not seeing the extent to which Hitler’s philosophy grew out of a reaction - that Nazi Germany was a reaction in militaristic overcompensation to the virus and manipulated as such, something characteristic of what GW argues, largely inauthentic, rather a mirror image of Talmudic supremacism and imperialism, attacking other White nations (in addition to Jews more rooted in Europe).

Churchill is criticized as “his justification for going into the war was to rescue Eastern Europe from communism”, so why then did he let it fall under its sway by the War’s end?

Well, if Hitler was so Jew-wise, and if his motives were strictly in authentic concern for “Whites”, fighting a war that “all Whites lost”, then why did he let elite Jews escape with their wealth and treat Jewish control over Britain different than Jewish influence over Slavic nations and territories? Attacking these nations while ignoring their anti-Jewish anti-Soviet leaders – those who would have been intent on deporting Jews from Europe and holding their worst offenders accountable?

Because Hitler was a right-wing imperialist, fighting other Europeans as well as Jews. His was not a “national socialist” war for the White race.

Tags: Activism, British Politics, European Union, Far Right, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, National Socialism, White Nationalism

Comments:

Posted by Jozef on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:55 | #

Conversely, why did the antisemitic Poles align with the philosemitic British and not the antisemites in Berlin? The Poles were also imperialists advancing there own interests with no concern for the well-being of “Whites”.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:53 | #

Posted by Jozef on September 24, 2014, 03:55 PM | #

Conversely, why did the antisemitic Poles align with the philosemitic British

The same reason they allied themselves with the French and any other nations who would recognize and ally with their national boundaries, to save themselves from Hitler’s obvious intentions.

“and not the antisemites in Berlin?”

Because the Nazis had clear intention to take “liebensraum” and deprive Poland of its newly re-established nationhood.

“The Poles were also imperialists”

Not really.

“advancing there own interests with no concern for the well-being of “Whites”

They were interested in protecting themselves (White) and had some border disputes over adjacent border cities, but were predominantly allied with other (White) countries. Not quite imperialist; not comparable to the designs of Hitler - which, at least you now admit, “Jozef.” But then, you didn’t have anything to do with it and neither did I.

Posted by Jozef on Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:46 | #

The same reason they allied themselves with the French and any other nations who would recognize and ally with their national boundaries, to save themselves from Hitler’s obvious intentions.

Surely we must grant the Poles more credit for a greater understanding of the duplicity of the French and British philo-semites. Why would an Albion, dominated by Jewish money, care about the existential well-being of a virulently antisemitic Poland?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:55 | #

Jozef,

In the 1930s Britain was still a great imperial power, not merely a puppet of the Jewish financial dynasties, and had a very longstanding policy in Europe of effecting a balance of power. That balance was perceived as the means by which Britain secured its own independence. For this reason - mutual independence - it was natural for Britain to ally with Poland.

Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:32 | #

Just a quick update no need to respond.

John DeNugents site is back up and running that apparently he has not been butt fucked by grey aliens or taken out by the MIB.

What exactly are European nationalists protesting against that some seem to want a European nationalist alliance that has never existed in history with the exception of the EU and NATO although that was not based on nationalist ideology that during the course of European history including recently all of the bloodiest conflicts have been between European states (WW1, WW2, Ireland-Britain, Balkans conflict and now Ukraine)?

I have mentioned before when discussing the debate of immigration to Europe that galvanises all nationalist movements despite their historical and cultural leanings that with Britain at least immigration is from the newest Eastern European EU countries that are not seeking permanent citizenship and work in Britain for a set number of years.
The largest ethnic group being Poles that Poland has a strong and growing economy so when the Polish economy reaches more towards Britain most will likely move back to Poland that has a shortage of jobs like plumbers that Poland needs that Polish immigrant workers are providing to the UK.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:50 | #

Who cares about Polish plumbers? The issue is Muslim terrorist and rapists. The issue is RACE.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:49 | #

Note the “Gates of Vienna” type of perspective trolled by L.H.

Posted by jamesUK on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:31 | #

@Leon Haller

How can the issue be about race when most of the immigration into EU countries is internal economic migration mostly from new Eastern European EU countries?

The greatest determent would seem to be conflicts between European countries themselves, EU economic issues and failing native birth rates among the native EU/Western countries themselves.

Posted by TrollWatch on Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:59 | #

JamesUK,

I believe that you understand that Leon is not on-page here and that you want to encourage him in his efforts to derail and divert MR’s direction. I.e., you should talk to him elsewhere and not encourage him here. But asking trolls to politely go elsewhere is pointless, isn’t it?

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:12 | #

Western Civ is dying because it has abdicated the Racial Principle - that race is meaningful; that race is the foundation of particular civilizations; that the white race is the foundation of Western Civ; that for races to endure they must be kept mostly separate, especially genetically, but also geographically; and that the greatest threat to the survival of the West is public acceptance of the presence (as well as the reality of that presence) of nonwhites on European soil.

Europeans have been interbreeding for centuries. Most white Americans are of mixed European ethnicity, but that in itself has not resulted in any civilizational decay. The future of Europe will see ever more intra-European ethnic mixing. That is fine. The problem occurs with miscegenation, as well as the cultural pollution engendered by the presence of nonwhites integrated into white societies.

RACE is the issue for any real nationalist. Nonwhites must be removed from European soils. After that, nationalists can break up into other ideological formations.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:54 | #

Leon Haller’s modus operandi is devised to provide an inroad for Jews.

When are you leaving Haller?

Posted by Gio on Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:13 | #

best of luck in the new year!.

Posted by The ROTHSCHILDS & Gentile Folly on Sun, 08 May 2016 13:10 | #

The ROTHSCHILDS

Gentile Folly: Chapter 6

Commodore Perry married his daughter into the Tribe!

The AMERICAN HOUSE

In 1837 the Rothschilds sent an agent of theirs to establish offices in New York. This was a Jew called Schoenberg, whose name was changed to August Belmont, and who professed Christianity. This Jew had had experience both in the Frankfort and the Naples branches of the Rothschild connection.

Jewish August Belmont Schoenberg

In 1853, Belmont became U.S.A. representative to the Netherlands, living at The Hague for several years. After that, in 1860, he became Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Altogether it is clear that Belmont had tremendous power in the United States. He became enormously rich and married the daughter of Commodore Matthew Perry who “opened up” Japan to the western nations.

Meanwhile, the Rothschilds “established offices in the Southern States of the U.S.A. for the purchase of wool, which they shipped to France, where they marketed it. They bought up whole tobacco harvests for supplying the tobacco requirements of the various States. Their own ships carried the enormous cargoes between the United States and France.” Thus, when the Civil War (1861-5) broke out between North and South, the Rothschilds of Europe were obviously very deeply involved on both sides.

Napoleon III had very definite plans as to the future of America, and the Rothschilds evidently had a somewhat similar scheme. His idea was to establish a new Empire by acquiring Mexico and some of the Southern United States, and he wanted Britain to come in with him to compel the North to abandon the blockade of the Southern ports. The Confederates, hard-pressed, were trying to secure Napoleon III’s intervention in their favour, which they hoped to get by offering him some territory, viz.: Louisiana and Texas. The Confederate Government had the Jewish Judah P. Benjamin as their Secretary of State.

Judah P. Benjamin

Aided by Jewish loans, through the Credit Mobilier and backed by the Péreire brothers firm, Napoleon’s nominee, Maximillion of Austria, landed in Mexico in 1864 to become its short-lived Emperor. But the plot failed. Britain would not play her part. The man who prevented it was Tsar Alexander II of Russia! He sent his fleet across the ocean and put it at Abraham Lincoln’s disposal, so that the British and French knew that if they attempted to carry out the scheme of Napoleon III, they would find themselves engaged in hostilities with Russia.

Chaos is the Jewish seed

Now what did the Rothschilds want? Their desires may be estimated fairly accurately by quoting the opinion given by Disraeli on the future of America when the Civil War was over: “It will be an America of armies, of diplomacy, of rival States and manoeuvering Cabinets, of frequent turbulence, and probably of frequent wars.”

Benjamin Disraeli was Lionel Rothschild’s mouth-piece. The Rothschilds wished to reproduce in America the chaotic conditions obtaining in Europe whereby they ruled all States; a united America would be too powerful for them; it must be split, and now was the time to do it, but it was awkward that Napoleon III would not work with them!

What were they to do? There was only one answer. Support both sides and prevent a win outright for either side, and so force apart the North and the South, with the possibility of the North becoming annexed to Canada. In practice, this meant helping the weak South more than the strong North.

War is the Jewish harvest

August Belmont in New York supported the North “with the greatest vigor.” Meanwhile, the other Rothschilds invested heavily in the bonds of the South. The Rothschilds, I repeat, backed both sides, their material interests being on both sides, and their political interests requiring a long war and a stalemate, which could only be produced by giving more help to the South than to the North.

Abraham Lincoln tried to introduce State Loans to free the people of America from the clutches of the bankers. We need not be surprised therefore that August Belmont “strongly opposed the nomination and election of Lincoln.”

Lincoln financed the Civil War on state credit, and for that he was murdered in 1865 by the Jewish actor Booth. An attempt to murder Seward was made the same evening; Seward was the man who gave the invitation to the Russian fleet. An attempt against the Tsar himself was made in Paris in the following year and in 1881 he was blown to pieces by a bomb. Lincoln, Seward and the Tsar were the three people who had chiefly prevented the Jewish partition of the United States! (President Garfield, who held the same views about the true nature of national credit as Lincoln did, was also duly assassinated.)

August Belmont, the Rothschild representative, became Grand Sachem of the Tammany Society which ran Tammany Hall, the centre of boss rule and corruption in New York; this position was extremely useful to the House considering the amount of Rothschild money that was invested in New York. Tammany Hall is a sort of Gentile front for the Jewish Kehilla, or Jewish secret government.

Arnold Leese