An Online Debate:
Is it the Evil Capitalists
or the Goddamn Jews?

This online debate, conducted by email to an audience of about forty people, with the subject heading "Who's wagging whom?", occurred from the 16th to the 21st of January, 2004. It was occasioned by an email message from Ray Wilson to one Frank, who forwarded it to John Kaminski, who initiated the discussion. The participants were John Kaminski, Edgar J. Steele, Jeffrey G. Strahl, Eric Arnow, JB Campbell, Jim Kirwan, Jon Phalen, Israel Shamir and one Alex (to all of whom thanks for this very interesting debate).

The various views and readings of history contained herein are very relevant to an understanding of the problems today facing the common people of the world, the connection of these problems with oil and the control of oil, and the possibility of imminent global famine. As JB Campbell says in one message (and quite presciently, since he said this over four years ago), "Shortage is the key to people-control. Such a thing is always contrived by government ... The one we have to worry about is a food shortage."


From: Ray Wilson

Frank,

It is all very simple. Just before the turn of the 20th century there were pogroms in Russia in which Jews were persecuted along with others. They became refugees. During the early 20th century oil was discovered in the Middle East and Royal Navy Admiral Churchill wished to convert his coal-fired engine navy to oil-fired engines. Churchill and others in the British Empire wanted control of the oil and also saw the area as a point of intersection between the capitalist west and socialist east. World War I was carried on in this region between the Ottomans and the British for this very reason — the Ottomans controlled the oil regions and the British wanted to take over these regions. The Arabs were promised their independence by the British if they helped fight the Ottomans. The British Capitalist Imperialists recognized that they needed to populate the region with a compliant group — who better than poor Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe. From that point on the area of Israel became an effective British colony and later a US colony/51st state. You may as well look at Sharon as Governor of the US's 51st state.

Total Jews in the world are 13 million. There are 6.4 billion people in the world. Obviously the Jews are a convenient scapegoat for the US CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] Capitalist Imperialists to toss out there. It becomes a great distraction. Some people will blame the Jews and others will shout anti-Semitism. In the meantime, no one is focusing on the real culprit — US CFR Capitalist Imperialists who want a 51st state where they can store their nukes to control the area and spread capitalist imperialism eastward.

It is a great diversionary tactic to term this a Jewish problem or even a Zionist problem. That way the focus is taken off of the root cause of the problem — a few Elite Capitalist Imperialists trying to maintain and increase their wealth and power by whatever means necessary — including barbaric actual and economic wars. If any of these Wealthy elites are "religious" it is simply to gain political support from the masses — the best example is "Christian" Bush who hands out "opium for the people" as Marx would say.


From: John Kaminski

Hi guys,

I like this interpretation, though I don't think it's quite that simple, in that Jewish infiltration of the British and American power structures began at the time of Disraeli, and has accelerated since through distinctly specific programs in social philosophy that have affected banking, the hard sciences, medicine and media. We can debate this a long time and the result would be who's wagging whom, with good arguments on both sides. This debate needs to take place. I'd like it to continue, and I'll take the liberty of adding a few interesting names to the discussion.

Best wishes,
John K.


From: Edgar J. Steele

These two fellows have established the boundaries pretty well, I think. As is often the case, I suspect the truth lies somewhere between them, though tending toward John's end of things. The jewish tribal thing has become endemic, actually genetic, and, therefore, second nature — like pigeons homing in on the same target without knowing why or who else is enroute. Or, as I prefer putting it, like a dog humping your leg.

Without jews, the CFR would never have come into being or become the force that it has. It is merely the messenger. The message is the death knell of all things goy. The senders of the message ... ah, now there lies the real problem, particularly since they largely seem individually unaware of their Manchurian Candidate roles in life.

Say what you will of Yockey's "Imperium." Yes, it is obtuse and turgid. Consider the circumstances of its authorship. However, Yockey correctly perceived that there is something afoot in a supervening racial consciousness or imperative. We may merely be blind men feeling up an elephant, but clearly we have hold of the real perps, nonetheless.

Don't forget — in time of war, foot soldiers get shot.

— ed


From: Jeffrey G. Strahl

I dare anyone to find "Jewish genes", esp given the Khazar empire origins of most European Jews, meaning a mixture of all of eastern Europe's ethnicities. And the CFR was founded by the likes of Rockefeller and Morgan, Dutch and Anglo families, and first brought into positions of power by Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

Jeff


From: Eric Arnow

This "the Jews" did such and such is not accurate on the face of it. Anne Frank, Emma Lazarus, Einstein, Karl Max — did any of these Jews infiltrate the British power structure? The across the board generalization is really counterproductive and does a disservice to all the Jews who have fought and lost their lives in the pursuit of peace and social justice. That said, a case can be made that elements of the Jewish elites use Jewish ideals to get their foot in the door.

But the same can be said of the American notion of democracy and the Constitution, which sounds great ... "We the People ...", but we all know that the Constitution was essentially a contract between slaveholders and thieves.

That denies the fact that many Americans just like Jews try to actualize these ideals.

The percentage of Jews who have worked for unions, to break down prejudice, who work for peace is I would guess higher than the general population. The mindless patriots accuse dissenters as "America Haters". They confuse a small group of criminals for the whole population. Bush is not America. This controversy about Jews is very similar. Confusing the action of a subgroup with characteristics of the whole group is just that — confusion, and dangerous destructive confusion at that.

While I don't practise Judiasm now, I can say that my family are all — with the exception of one who has been a jerk all his life — New Deal progressive Democrats. Not neo cons. We got Harpers, not Commentary at home.

But the main point is that any time you take components of a group and generalize to the whole, you deny reality. And if that process is used as a weapon to demonize the whole group, that is a reflection on the one who goes that route, more than it is an accurate portrayal of the group. When I start hearing endless discussions of the WASP conspiracy or the European conspiracy or the Irish conspiracy I'll know that conspiracy is an equal opportunity problem.

Finally, to hopefully illustrate my point, how many Skull and Bones members are Jewish? As nasty and conspiratorial a group as ever existed, but unlikely a Jewish fraternity.

Eric Arnow


From: Edgar J. Steele

>But the main point is that any time you take components of a group
>and generalize to the whole, you deny reality. And if that process
>is used as a weapon to demonize the whole group, that is a reflection
>on the one who goes that route, more than it is an accurate portrayal
>of the group.

(expletive deleted) Conclusory propaganda masquerading as rational argument, completely without foundation, coupled with an ad hominem attack. You do it so well, too. Classic jewish "discussion" technique.

Stereotyping is perfectly valid ... the cops and Homeland Security call it "profiling." So do the jews when they speak of Arabs, especially Palestinians. Less well known is the jewish stereotyping of all us goyim.

By your reasoning, all that black-on-white violent crime (50x the white level, even with latinos included only on the perp side, by the way) is just indicative of white racial animus, and not inbred by eons of jungle survival. And, of course, the NBA is virtually all-black due to affirmative action hiring. Even blacks know better ... especially blacks just ask Jesse Jackson.

But, it is never ok to generalize when speaking of the Chosen. In fact, one best not even speak of the Chosen, on pain of being demonized. That, too, is your genetically-prompted message.

Thanks for the response. I offer it up as Exhibit A. You prove my point exactly.

— ed


From: Alex

The logic and science here escape me.

Apparently we're to believe that “eons of jungle survival” account for black-on-white violent crime. Aside from whether or not “eons of jungle survival” can affect the genes, how is jungle survival comparable to crime? Are we to think they require the same mindset and same skills? (Anyway, according to The World Book Encyclopedia, deserts cover about 2/5 of Africa. Savannas — grasslands — occupy more than 2/5. Forests cover less than 1/5, and most of the forests are tropical rain forests. "True jungle is rare in Africa." )

And we're to believe that what is here called “classic jewish 'discussion' technique” stems from a particular genetic makeup? What is the probability that the offspring of a Jew and a Gentile would inherit this condition?


From: Eric Arnow

Gosh — I don't mean to get the emotions up here, folks. Who said that blacks or any other group is all good or all bad from a genetic point of view? I don't follow the argument. The point I make is that genetic or ethnic profiling of any type and any group is a very slippery slope.

In any case, should Karl Marx be assumed to have been a front for the Rothschilds? In one of the best articles I've seen on this, Socialist Viewpoint, September 2002 go to the website to read it, had a letter signed by Albert Einstein, and noted fascist researcher Hannah Arendt warning, along with a number of other prominent Jewish intellectuals in 1948, that Nazi fascist elements in the newly formed State of Israel led by Menachem Begin were lobbying for American Jewish support.

Perhaps they wrote the letter to create "plausible deniability" so the genetically rapacious Jews could say "see it's not really OUR fault." If that is what is assumed here, then I give up.

More likely, the meaning of their warning is that there ARE fascist elements within the Jewish community which apparently took control. But it is also true that many Jews were bitterly opposed to the fascists, and were themselves suppressed.

So does the whole Jewish community get tarred with the Fascist feather? It is the same type of profiling which is used by racist whites to decide that the minority of criminals within communities of color prove that the entire group is genetically criminal. I don't believe that of ANY group.

A thousand years ago the Mongols swept through Asia and one might have assumed that Mongols genetically are as vicious as ... Mongols. Well, the Mongol empire came and went. Mongols don't seem to be any more vicious than any other group.

But right now, I think we all agree that Euro Americans elites and their Israeli counterparts are the big problem.

Finally, I personally find the Israeli swagger which I noted 30 years ago to be not something to emulate. And of course they thought of liberal Jews as contemptible and weak.

You can send me to the camps if it will make you feel better but it won't solve the problem of hatred and bigotry. I am not your enemy.


From: JB Campbell

John —

This [message from Ray Wilson] is an interesting summary of the roots of Zionist Palestine, as is the question about who's doing the wagging.

My version is similar but goes a little farther. Zionist (Russian Jew) fanaticism to invade and occupy Palestine and make the Law go forth from Zion predates the oil discoveries. This weird dream would prove useful to the money power.

The oil monopolists early saw that an oversupply of the product was ruining their price structure. Rockefeller constantly claimed "shortages" threatened his operations in Ohio and Indiana, as a way to keep prices up, when in fact Standard Oil was floating on an ocean of deposits. This scam was wrecked when the Spindletop wildcat blew in in East Texas. Oil prices went down!

The last thing Rockefeller (who was a wholly owned subsidiary of Rothschild of Frankfurt, Paris and London) wanted was for similar deposits to be found and produced in Russia or China or the Middle East. How to prevent such a catastrophe? Or at the very least, severely control any exploitation?

Rockefeller/Rothschild chose violence. John D. had employed violence, extortion and fraud in his control of railroad shipping in Ohio and Erie region. This gave him a monopolistic advantage over the smaller producers, many of whom were ruined. John D.'s motto: "Competition is a sin." And he meant it.

And so, a decision was made to support the Bolsheviks as the most cost-effective means to prevent the commercial exploitation of raw materials in Russia and all of central Asia. Lenin and Trotsky were sent into Russia to seize the Russian government from Kerensky. As the Red death squads began liquidating the upper and emerging middle classes of Russia, the country naturally ground to a halt. Wall Street pumped many millions of dollars to prop up the cancerous Jewish dictatorship and so kept Russia from ever developing her oil and minerals in a meaningful way. (Right up through the '80s, Russian oil rigs were like scenes from a comedy, with dozens of inept workers trying to do what a handful of American roughnecks normally and efficiently do. Kind of an oilfield kibbutz.)

The Jewish twins, Communism and Zionism, developed side by side in Russia during the same period in the late 19th Century. The Zionists had this pipe dream that if only they could emigrate to Palestine and somehow seize control of it, they could rule the world from there. But it seemed an impossible dream. Who would support such a thing?

Rockefeller and Rothschild did, for the same reasons they supported the Communist Jews in Russia. They subsidized the Zionist Russian Jews in Palestine, forcing the British Army to protect them after 1919 under the terms of the League of Nations "mandate." The bizarre and alien Russian Jewish outpost in Palestine was a destabilizing cancer which would keep oil prices as high as they could possibly go. This open wound would be formalized and made permanent by Rockefeller in 1948 when the United Nations created the "nation" of Israel. The UN was created by Rocky's Council on Foreign Relations, all paid for by Standard Oil.

The next year saw China turned over to the Rockefeller/Rothschild agents, Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai. The latter had been educated at Rockefeller's Nanking University. Thus began perhaps the greatest human slaughterhouse in history, though which Communist party, Russian or Chinese, killed more millions is debatable. But the Chinese upper and middle classes were wiped out forever. The lower class was terrorized and brainwashed down to a zombie-like state. There would be no oil production (or any production of anything) until my old outfit, ARCO, went into China in 1979, before it was "legal" to do so. Deals were cut and all of a sudden Chinese slaves started producing all kinds of things. But total Communist control was and is maintained. The CFR did not want Chiang Kai-Shek running China and his betrayal and forced deportation to Formosa turned out to be a wise move. Just think what Chiang's China could have produced! His tiny, barren island (Taiwan) rose to number four GNP in the entire world by the 1970s. Horrors!

French Indochina was a threat as well, oil-wise. The Communist agent, Ho Chi Minh, was subsidized by Rockefeller and made his political reports to the Hanoi office of Texaco. Ho was an OSS agent. In November, '43 Roosevelt (at Teheran) chose him to be the next leader of the northern half of Indochina. The OSS groomed him for leadership and in 1945 foisted him on the Vietnamese people, who had never heard of him. Nguyen Ai Quoc (real name) had been in Russia and France most of his life. He was sent back home in the '40s to take over for Rothschild/Rockefeller. Bottom line: French kicked out, two American puppets installed in north and south, big war, millions dead, billions in war profits, no upper or middle class and NO OIL PRODUCTION.

Some people who know that the Rockefellers have always supported Communism have never understood how Capitalists could do such a thing. It's good for business!

The story is the same for Eastern Europe, especially Rumania (handed over to Stalin by Eisenhower), and Africa. Every Communist party of every country has been supported by the US Department of State and the CIA.

General Anwar Eshki of the Saudi army told me in the early '80s that every Arab country, including his own, is manipulated by the Israelis. This is Israel's function, to set one Arab country against others, causing suspicion and hatred — and volatile oil prices. It was reported by Nord Davis in the '80s that one of Israel's first acts was to cut all the oil pipelines under its control.

Who wags whom? When you have rich Jews (Rothschild) at the top and parasitic Jews (Israelis) at the bottom, the inescapable answer is that it is a totally Jewish show. It's hard to credit because it is never seen in this way. But the events of the 20th Century — the Federal Reserve, WWI, the Bolshevik coup, WWII, the spread of Communism, Israel's rise and now the war on Islam run by Zionist fanatics who control the White House — cannot be denied or twisted.

Dwight Eisenhower said shortly after he left office, "The smartest thing I ever did was to ask Bernard Baruch for advice on my career in 1939." It lead to his skyrocket military and political careers. It also lead to the slaughter of millions of innocent people, to the exact specifications of Rothschild/Rockefeller.


From: Eric Arnow

Now I think I get it. The benign British and American power structure was infiltrated by the goddamn Jews. If the kind Queen Victoria and Jefferson Davis and George Washington hadn't been influenced by the goddamn Jews, there wouldn't have been the Indian Wars, the trail of tears, the broken treaties, slavery, and centuries of European colonialism. The King of Belgium wouldn't have killed ten million people to create his own Belgian Congo fiefdom, and millions of Africans wouldn't have been enslaved by the Southern slave holders. They were all manipulated by the Jews.

The US Constitution would have given everyone the right to vote, including women and the slaves would have been set free. But the Jews hypnotised the framers of the Constitution to write it the way they did. Wow. Makes sense to me.


From: JB Campbell

>From: Eric Arnow
>
>Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Rockefeller, Lenin, Stalin. I knew
>these guys were Jews all along!!

Geez — did I say that? What a bonehead I am!

Gettin' a little defensive there, aren't you?

Actually, declassified Soviet records indicate that Ulyanov (Lenin) was in fact a Jew. But what does it matter, since he and Bronstein (Trotzky) were doing the Jews' bloody work, slaughtering millions of normal Russians — for what? Can you Jews defend this Jewish slaughter program which has been so unmentioned since it happened?

Or would you rather not talk about it?


From: Eric Arnow

Once when I was 8, I cut off the legs of a fly and watched it hobble around. Years later, as I developed knee problems, I assumed it was my bad karma for hurting that fly. Aside from that and my share of mosquitos, I have been a pacifist all my life since reading Albert Einstein's (another slaughterer of mankind and a Jew) autobiography. I do not detect a genetic dispositon to harming others in myself, but maybe you are right. I may have overlooked it.

So I will defend each man as my brother and each man as my friend. ANY killing is wrong and to be avoided at all costs, whether by Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin or any other deranged person who derives pleasure from causing suffering to other beings.

It is said that the Nazis, when confronted with their slaughter in WWII excused themselves by saying they got their idea from the American treatment of the Indians.

There is a lot of blood on lots of hands. Please don't assume that every single evil in the world is due to Jews. In fact most people are really just trying to live their lives, and the hate freaks and control freaks make a mess of things by manipulating people who should be more observant. That is true no matter what ethnic racial national or belief system oriented group there is, in my humble opinion.

I like that one about the "getting a little defensive". A nice way to make one feel defensive. What I am trying to do is find a way to create more kindness in the world.

Assign blame where due, yes, but as Jesus said (and no I am not a "believer in Christ", I just appreciate wisdom whatever the source) something about stones thrown by the guilty so they can overlook their own faults.

I had an email exchange with my sister, in which I pointed out the fascist nature of the Israeli government, after sending her Kaminski's article. She didn't like that.

It's fine to criticize some Jews. No problem. But the issue here is one of generalization. It would be an interesting study to chart by group the various slaughters in history and see who wins.

Roman slaughters 700 BC to 400 BCE. Damn Italians, I knew they were the ultimate evil. Huns, Goths, Visigoths sacked Rome. Damn barbarians. Christian crusades against the Moslems. Those Christians are BAD. Moslem invasion of Asia. Damn Moslems. Mongol invasion of Asia. Damn Mongols, can't trust 'em. Spanish Inquisition of Moslem and Jews. Euro invasion of Western Hemisphere. They assumed the natives weren't human so they were evil. Or was it the merciless redskins who had the nerve to try to defend themselves against the whites?

Of course during WWI and WWII, the Germans and the Japanese were considered evil and subhuman. Their populations were manipulated by their corporate and government leaders, and many individuals did horrible things but having known many Germans and Japanese, I sincerely doubt that they are genetically cruel.

So likewise, knowing many Jews, I don't see a genetic predisposition to cruelty.

If people really feel good about hating and demonizing all 13 million Jews, it's up to them. I just don't think that will solve the problem of human suffering cruelty and greed.

Enough said. No more rants from this one.

I think you get the point. Assigning cruelty and greed to one group or other is pointless.


From: JB Campbell

Let's see — Cromwell was influenced by the Jews wasn't he? Charles II? Didn't the British rabbis sell him the British Israel idea, so they wouldn't be expelled from England? Many European leaders were influenced by the ubiquitous "court Jews," the powers behind the thrones.

Who was the "Architect of Secession?" It wasn't Jeff Davis — it was Judah P. Benjamin, a Rothschild relative — right or wrong? He was the Confederate Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasury and War at various times throughout the war. Davis hated him and once challenged him to a duel. Davis himself was eventually captured and put in chains in the dungeon at Ft. Monroe. Benjamin was captured by federals as he was about to escape at the coast. The "Architect of Secession" was allowed to go on his way to England, where he became a successful barrister and Queen's Counsel.

Slavery? Who were the principal owners of the slave ships on which died thousands of Africans? Rhode Island Jews. But slavery was a British institution not American. Slavery was British law. 600,000 American men were slaughtered in a war orchestrated by the Rothschild agent, Judah P. Benjamin.

So, yes — much of our tragic history and that of most of the world has been the result of Jewish influence over governments — for centuries.


From: Jim Kirwan

I just watched a program on “The American Experience” that covered “Reconstruction” mainly in the South after the Civil War. I kept seeing innumerable parallels between the issues in that conflict (post-civil war) and what is happening now in the Middle East.

However the differences are also stark. In America, “the nation” was a fact that both sides recognized, and both struggled over what the nation would become and how life could be changed by what they did with and to each other. The basic issue was about race, and probably still is to some extent — and that took place over 140 years ago.

The Israeli-Palestinian War, is perhaps much older, but it goes well beyond simply racist ideas of dominance and “chosen peoples.” One facet of this has to be the expansion of, if not the complete elimination of national borders — as practiced by the Zionists. Of course this is a matter of degree: Yet, it would appear that Israeli extremists see the whole world as their “plantation” and all the other populations as their slaves. But without any consensus, and with an entrenched and determined resistance in their immediate territories, even without the territorial demands, which they have placed upon the world at large — what seems to be playing out now is a virulent form of international racism.

By comparison with the struggle here in the 1860’s: the scale of this crime, being both international and anti-human, is subjectively based on a supposedly “chosen race.” The proportion of this cancer upon humanity requires a global solution to the rights and legalities denied, by the very fact of the Zionist’s demands, upon those with whom they share space on this planet.

Part of the problem, obviously is the fact that so much of what many countries still recognize as their legitimate right of domination — goes against what free people see as basic human rights. Because nations do not necessarily agree about these basics, and because there is no recognized higher authority to which an appeal can be made — the cancer only grows.

If the body politic of the planet were a person, then the diagnosis would have to be to remove the cancer from the community of nations — and banish the leaders from all contact with others. But to do this Israel and all its agencies would have to be dissolved.

When a cancer is not removed it will continue to grow until it has killed the host. Similarly in world affairs whenever any power becomes so entrenched and so hardened to its own ends only — at the expense of all the rest in perpetuity — then almost no other course of action is open to the remaining world — if we are ever to have peace in any region. This at last, because Tel Aviv has chosen to ignore all other national boundaries whenever they have targeted a person, an ideal, or any other nation for destruction.

We have not eliminated the vestiges of racism in the US. And of course since we have provided over $3 trillion to Israel since 1948 we can hardly be seen to be any kind of disinterested observer. The blood that Israel has shed is on our hands — so it is incumbent upon us to take the lead in removing this cancer from the global stage. But instead Bush & the Bandits have chosen to use Tel Aviv as a surrogate assassin, that can be used by us, with impunity, to aid and abet The Bush Doctrine around the world. I don’t know how the above plays out — or if this is what you meant to draw out John — when you raised this question. But that’s how I see the question.

kirwan


From: Jeffrey G. Strahl

The cancerous Jewish dictatorship? Lenin, Stalin, Malenkov, Kruschev, Brezhnev, Kosygin, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorby: pick out a single Jew here.

This is beginning to sound like the pages of Mein Kampf. I want OUT!

Jeff


From: Edgar J. Steele

Uhhhhh ... well, Lenin, for one, given that lineup, though I doubt he is the only jew listed. Even Lenin suggested that Russian jews, especially those in the Communist Party hierarchy, change their names to something more Russian sounding.

The current issue of "The Truth at Last" has some revealing commentary in this area, from which I paraphrase some of the following:

After the jewish overthrow of the Tsar, Lenin lifted the restrictions on Russian jews, who then flooded into Moscow, seized total control of the Communist Party and became commissars over most businesses.

Jews avoided heading up any of the communist state parties, but always comprised a significant portion of the membership and occupied virtually all the middle and upper positions. Even in the US, jews made up over half the Communist Party, but not one ever served as Chairman.

Only after Russia defeated Germany did the jews feel powerful enough to assume leadership roles under their own names, which promptly happened in most eastern-bloc countries.

Just before he died, Kruschev wrote his memoirs ("Kruschev Remembers") and recounted how he was part of Stalin's entourage in the 1920s. Some 30 years later, he seized power himself. He was in charge of the 1931/32 "famine" in the Ukraine which killed 7 million. Only when Kruschev's reign ended did the jews begin to leave Russia.

Kruschev noted that there was something that held Stalin back from limiting jewish power.

The latest dictatorship to come under total jewish control is America, of course. Note that its titular head is not jewish ... yet.

Mr. Strahl sounds a familiar cry, one that you hear Michael Savage (nee Weiner) invoke daily against those with whom he disagrees. Strahl labels us 'Nazis' for even daring to have this discussion: ("This is beginning to sound like the pages of Mein Kampf. I want OUT!"). Again, we see a very typical jewish response to those who dare to mention the J-Word, designed to frighten us into silence and shift the balance of power his way. (Yawn) The door is over there, Jeff ...

I offer Exhibit B, ladies and gentlemen.

— ed


From: Jim Kirwan

Many thanks Ed!

The convolutions explain a great deal — having to do with the built-in historical fears from the pogroms, and essentially living as they did "technically without actual nations to call home." Looks like they have become what they professed, in those earlier days, to truly hate.

kirwan


From: John Kaminski

Received this from deep in the heart of Asia.

(This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a "CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.)

"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.

"In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.

"For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.

"If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.

"If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.

"Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even though they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention."

— Benjamin Franklin, 1787, at The Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Where would be had we heeded his warning? Not in Iraq, wasting lives over lies, that's for certain.

John Kaminski


From: Jeffrey G. Strahl

If Franklin said that, he was an asshole supreme.

In fact, Franklin was likely well aware that the US was not founded as a Christian nation, that a substantial number of the Founding Fathers were not even Christian (Jefferson was a Deist), or else not devout ones, a major reason for their separation of church and state. Fantasy land again.

Jeff


From: JB Campbell

Mr. Arnow asks, "If what you say is true, what is the solution to the Jewish Problem?"

If what I and many others say is true, what would you say is that solution?

Every single cabinet post during the Clinton administration was held by a Jew. Do you think this was proper? Was this because each Jew was the best person for the job? What did Mr. Glickman know about agriculture?

Now, how could this have happened? How could a president's entire cabinet be staffed from a tiny segment of the US population?

Now we have a president who openly admires, to the point of sycophancy, a Jewish genocidal monster Ariel Sharon. This monster has dealt in mass murder, mass theft and mass rape of Palestinians for over 46 years to the outrage of decent people everywhere, but our president defers to him in every encounter. He cannot say "No" to this monster. Why is that?

The Jewish researcher Skolnick says the reason is that Bush is blackmailed with his secret homosexuality. I believe that all presidents are blackmailed over the USS Liberty scandal.

For whatever reason, it must be acknowledged that Jews have a ridiculously high amount of control over American foreign and domestic policy. Has this Jewish control been beneficial to us? America and Israel are the two most hated countries on Earth. Together the two governments make up a Zionist empire of the world with American armed forces occupying to some extent over 100 countries. All countries are on notice that they are subject to attack, invasion, occupation and/or revolution if they voice opposition to Zionism. Megatons of high explosives will be dropped on any government that believes in the myth of its own sovereignty or independence from Zionist rule.

Opposition to Zionism is the greatest crime and is punishable by slander, murder and war.

Our president is brazenly run by Zionists, who brag about their control of him. They admit that the Iraq landgrab was based on lies and then say, "But so? Do you have a problem with that?" Bush himself said in a recent interview, "So, what's the difference?"

What is the solution to our Jewish Problem? The first step is to admit that we have a Jewish Problem. Once that is accomplished, once people are willing to say this, then the Jews will begin to be afraid and to withdraw from their unearned positions of power. They have become quite bold due to the debilitating effects of Christianity, which has steadily trained Christians to obey Jews in all matters and to excuse them from all the terrible crimes they have committed. And this is a big, big problem for America. Jewish power would not exist without the masses of Zionist Christians in this country.

So education is crucial but Jews have a stranglehold on education, or at least they did until the advent of the Internet. Traditionally, though, everything Americans learned, read, watched or heard came through the Jewish filter. Only their personal experiences were their own but everything else in terms of news, entertainment and education was screened by Jewish censors. Can you deny this?

The Internet has changed this perfect Jewish setup and the Jews don't like it. Jews must control everything. The Soviet Union was the highest form of Jewish control, but as with everything they touch and dominate, they blew it. Jews have this remarkable idea that they are competent to run any enterprise or business or country. The Jewish tailor knows he can step in and run a movie studio or the Department of Agriculture — it makes no difference. But he can't. Just observe the state of Jewish entertainment, or the state of American agriculture. Israel is a perfect example of Jewish control today: Chaos! America is now approaching chaos with the insane Zionist policy of legalizing illegal aliens. Zionists would not dream of such a thing in Israel but of course America and every other country must conform to Jewish policy and destroy itself.

Judaism represents destruction. As America's Chief Rabbi Stephen Wise said in 1935, "Some call it Marxism — I call it Judaism."

To solve the Jewish Problem requires the acknowledgment of it. So, first step — Does anyone here deny that we have a Jewish Problem? Forget the Mein Kampf diversions — just the facts.


From: Jeffrey G. Strahl

The notion that "jews overthrew the czar" flies in the face of historical fact, it was the workers of Petrograd and other cities, and the mutinous soldiers and sailors, who did that, and established Soviets (means "councils" in Russian) and factory committies, organs of direct democracy which were the organizational structure of many a rebellion since the Paris Commune for implementing real socialism (ie control by *society* of productive resources). These were denatured by the Bolshevik gov't once it took over, ending any attempt at socialism, though not without fierce resistance that lasted several years (eg the Makhnovists in Ukraine, the Kronstadt Rebellion in March '21). The actors in those events were largely non-Jewish, but of course that doesn't fit into paranoid conspiracy fantasies which pass as history in this excuse of a "debate".

See Maurice Brinton, the Bolsheviks and Workers Control, it's on-line, comes up easily on a Google search.

Jews controlled the Soviet Union, yet only one head of state of the Soviet Union can be even remotely tied to Jews. But hey, why worry about FACTS, we got Jews to pick on, so much the better so as not to look at CAPITAL.

Jeff


From: JB Campbell

The first government of Russia after the Czar was deposed was a Jew — Kerensky. Then two Jews, Ulyanov and Bronstein [Lenin and Trotsky], deposed him and formed the Soviet Union, backed up by several hundred Jews and financed by Jews such as Jacob Schiff, who was the big Rothschild agent in New York. Thus Communism was begun and millions of Russians died under this purely Jewish murder machine. Dzhugashvili ("Stalin") took over when Lenin died but put his Jewish brother-in-law, Kaganovich, in charge of murdering millions more Russians and other ethnics. Solzhenitsyn reported that the entire Gulag slave system was run by Jews, whom he named with photos in his Gulag book.

Communism is a Jewish thing, invented by Marx, who came from a long line of rabbis. If it's practiced by Chinese or Africans or Cubans, it's still a Jewish thing. Its purpose, as financed by Rothschild/Rockefeller, is its deliberate inefficiency which prevents the Communized country from competing with the West, by keeping raw materials in the ground and by murdering the middle class ("bourgeoisie"), or entrepreneurial class. There is nothing more ruthless or cold-blooded.

All Russians hate Jews. Everyone who has experience with them feels this way — it's just human nature. Even Stalin, the Georgian, who married one, hated them. Communism destroys morality and begets more criminality in everyone under it. Just as America has been criminalized by Jewish organized crime, started by Rothstein and Lansky, just as Gentiles in Hollywood act like Jews, just as Gentile bankers practice Jewish fractional reserve (fraudulent) banking, the corrupt Russian leadership after Lenin and Trotsky merely aped their formula for holding onto power: kill everyone whom you suspect.

Communism is cancer of the society. Judaism is cancer of the intellect and it is highly contagious. As Rabbi Wise said, they're the same thing.


From: Jeffrey G. Strahl

Kerensky tried to carry on the war effort against the German/Austrian army in the face of mutinous ranks and a takeover of society by the Soviets (councils) and factory committees, made up of ordinary Russians and all other ethnicities (including, yes, Jews), people who were workers, soldiers, sailors and just human beings living there. They were generally unaffiliated with any party, but were strongly influenced by anarchist and genuine communist ideas such as those that were put into practice in the Paris Commune. This was the only genuine communist moment in Russian history. After the Bolsheviks took over, they centralized all power in the hands of the state, taking away all power from the soviets and the committees, and instituted state capitalism (Lenin's words). Lenin and Trotsky's notion of "socialism" idealized Ford's assembly lines and the discipline of the German army. Stalin imposed polices of enclosures upon Russian farmers, driving millions off the land and into factories, doing in 2 decades what took hundreds of years to do in England at the bloody birth of capitalism (long before the Rothschilds were anything).They were resisted by the likes of the anarchist Makhnovist militias in Ukraine, by workers and sailors in Kronstadt and Petrograd, where the Revolution started, and by other less-known actions, but eventually prevailed.

Real communism is a human thing, it's how humans lived for countless millennia before agriculture, sharing of land was in fact still the common practice in Russia till the 19th Century (the Mir), and definitely in England before the Enclosures. The Soviet Union merely represented another form of capitalism, a vicious social form, a cancer which relies upon mass dispossession and exploitation, and which is rapidly moving towards total planetary destruction. And racism is one way to divert attention from all this.

Jeff


From: John Kaminski

Hi Jeff,

You're doing a great job defending your position against staunch opposition. I wonder if you could clarify something that is a point of confusion for me. I've been criticized by not a few people for using the word 'Jew' when I should use 'Zionist', and 'Zionist' when I should use 'Jew'. Could you explain to me, please, what the difference is between how Jews regard the horrific behavior perpetrated on the nearly defenseless Palestinians by the Israeli government (and I'm talking about rockets from Apache helicopters vs. children throwing stones and mothers giving birth to babies who die at barbed wire checkpoints) as opposed to how Zionists regard the Israeli government's behavior in these situations? Is it only Zionists who defend the practice of shooting peace activists in the head, while Jews condemn this? If this is so, why do polls show 80-90 percent of American Jews support Israel. Does this mean that 80-90 percent of American Jews are Zionists?

Thanks.
Best wishes,
John K.


From: Jeffrey G. Strahl

John,

Do you have specific polls? And what do polls indicate? Polls show what the poll-maker wants to be shown. Locally here (San Francisco Bay Area), the overwhelming number of anti-Israel and anti-Zionist activists i know are of Jewish background. This includes people whose lives have been threatened. The witnesses who've told the story of Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall to the world were American Jews. The peace protester who was shot in the leg 2 weeks ago was an Israeli Jew. Jeff Blankfort, Dennis Bernstein, Adam Shapiro, ... If pollsters put a question in the form "Do you favor the defense of Israel against those who would destroy it?" what would you think most American Jews would say? When we confronted Benjamin Netanyahu when he came to the area, i saw few people who weren't either Arabs (mostly Palestinians, of course) or Jews, and more of the latter (i'm talking of the demonstrators, several of whom risked police beatings). The reality is that it is thanks to Americans of Jewish background that a lot of the info about what's really going on in occupied Palestine is getting out. And Palestinians i know are aware of it and appreciative.

Jeff


From: Edgar J. Steele

With this, I have reached the point whereafter responding to Mr. Strahl's gross misstatements, deception and ad hominem attacks is something I will consider beneath myself. This exchange is illustrative of why I find it so pointless to engage in internet forums, all of which are bristling with jews like him, armed with the same lies and employing the same attack mode, often with the same ADL computer database files open to their elbows (because the same points and styles, even the selfsame phrases, keep repeating, that's how I know).

Specifically, to respond to Strahl's intentional lie concerning the overthrow of the Tsar, Robert Wilton's "The Last Days of the Romanovs," first published in 1920, details their captivity and murder by jews. The walls were scrawled with blood dripping Hebrew words which detailed their deaths. So much for "it wasn't jews."

And, there is a jew beneath every Russian rock, it seems. In his book, "Dan, a Man Without Youth," Dan Roman, a Romanian escapee, recounts the common knowledge in the Romanian prisons where he was brutalized that Nikita Kruschev (a distinctly Ukrainian sounding name) was born Solomon Perlmutter. Kruschev was the short bald dictator with the large rubbery lips who, while pounding his shoe on the podium at the UN, shouted "we will bury you." This explains why the distinctly non-Ukrainian looking "Kruschev" was so willing to oversee the death of millions of his so-called "countrymen."

Lie upon lie upon lie upon misdirection, followed by personal attacks. This is why it is so important to study the holocaust closely, so as to see the pattern of jewish deception and gross exaggeration. From that, one can extrapolate to all that so many jews, such as this Strahl fellow, have to say. This is how they have hijacked America.

And, regarding the zionist/jew distinction — it's a distinction without a difference, I say, because all jews provide cover to their fellow zionists and thereby are to be condemned alongside them. Only a very few, such as Israel Shamir, actively work against the zionist agenda and thereby distinguish themselves, earning from me and my kind a "get out of jail free" card for use when the time comes.

I commend the following articles I have written as particularly relevant to this general theme:

In Defense of Antisemitism
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/antisemite.htm
It Wasn't Arabs
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/arabs.htm
Tell a Joke, Go to Jail
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/rant.htm
Hate Speech: Anything Jews Hate to Hear
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/hate.htm

Strike 3, Mr. Strahl. You're out.

— ed


From: Jeffrey G. Strahl

Thanks for hiding nothing, Ed. Now i know i face jail simply for having a "Jewish background" (whatever the fuck that means) if anyone like you ever even approaches a position of influence.

My lie re the overthrow of the Czar? You talk about the killing, which was in July '18, i talk of the March '17 revolution. Guess you can't tell the difference.

Nikita a Jew? ROTFL.

Jeff


From: Jon Phalen

Okay, I think we've had plenty of input from the blame-everything-on-Jews camp. Now, as per John's original message, I think the blame-everything-on-Western-Imperialists crackpots deserve equal time.

Having said that, I am quite aware of our "Jewish problem," okay? It is real and quite ominous. Much of its severity is due to the fact that Jews, since WWII, have enjoyed a unique privilege: they can fully indulge their hearty appetites for racist thought and conduct without ever having to worry about consequences. Most Westerners won't even notice. Let any awareness of a Jewish racial agenda begin to form in their heads, and they suffer an immediate Pavlovian reaction: "Oh my God! I'm thinking bad thoughts about Jews! I must be a NAZI!!" And they purge said thoughts from their minds. This inhibits any dawning awareness of Jewish culture's ancient and emphatic racist themes, which in turn enables zionist Jews to be the most blatant, bloodthirsty supremacists in the world today.

While zionist Jews take full advantage of this situation, they aren't the only ones who benefit from it, nor do I believe they're the only ones who engineered it. Following WWII, the Holocaust gave the US government an irresistible opportunity: by presenting the Nazis as the greatest villains in history, they could, by way of contrast, portray themselves as its greatest heroes. This worked extremely well. So well, in fact, that the US could then wage a global war of extermination against independence movements of all kinds — a war that would kill at least as many as the Holocaust — without provoking widespread outrage. Only now are the nations of the world finally realizing we didn't oppose the Nazis because they were evil, but because they were our rivals.

There has been a definite linkage, then, between the Jewish amnesty from criticism and that of the US government — a linkage inherent to this government's bogus historical narrative of WWII: that the Germans were sub-human monsters; that the Jews were their innocent helpless victims; and that the US is totally and permanently above reproach because it went in and saved the poor Jews from the beastly Germans. Allow any part of this mythology to be questioned, e.g. the part about the long-suffering blameless Jews, and the whole construct begins to fall apart, which means none of it can EVER be open to question. It must be hammered into people's heads over and over until they're stupid with it, until they accept it with the blind faith of a three-year-old. This is one of the most striking present-day realizations of Hitler's Big Lie principle, and it explains the pro-Jewish bias of our media, including all the 'anti-Semite' labeling, without resorting to the somewhat questionable principle of monolithic Jewish control.

And that's only the beginning of this government's sleazy marriage to the zionist movement. Then there's the way it dovetails perfectly with US strategic objectives for the Middle East. If it weren't for this, Israel would have long since been overrun by its neighbors.

There is widespread awareness that the conquest of Iraq is really about oil, but I still suspect many don't fully understand how important oil is, how it constitutes the entire basis of modern technology and military power; this fact is just so HUGE. The Middle East, of course, has the largest known reserves of oil. During the two decades following WWII, Western dominance of the region declined, and a popular movement to unite the region under a single government — the Arab reunification movement — gained strength. Had this movement succeeded, the resulting nation would have had unparalleled control of the world's oil supply, which would have made it an instant world power. Which meant there was no way in hell the US government, among others, would ever allow this movement to succeed.

In fact, every Arab leader who championed reunification — Nasser, Qassem, Qadafi, Saddam Hussein — ran afoul of the US government, their governments were targeted for destabilization and overthrow, and the men themselves targeted for assassination by the CIA, with Qassem actually being assassinated.

Israel was a crucial weapon in this undeclared war, and continues to be. It is literally a geographic wedge between the two major Arab spheres of Northern Africa and Arabia proper, and its military is far and away America's most successful proxy army, the only one it allows to have nukes. Zionist fanaticism is as fundamental to this army as Islamic fanaticism was to the Mujahideen of Afghanistan, and in both cases, the US has done whatever it could to whip fanaticism to a fever pitch. In this, we have acted in concert with Israel's amoral reptilian political leaders, who seem to have a secret understanding with our own amoral reptilian political leaders. Racial/religious fanaticism alone is all that keeps Jews from realizing these men are NOT acting in the interest of Israelis, or of world Jewry. By slow degrees, they are winding up the charge that will detonate a gigantic bomb, a bomb disguised as a park bench, with a sign that reads:

Loyal Jews Sit Here
by order of A. Sharon

Their apparent REAL motive: carving out a cushy spot for themselves in a world dictatorship that already exists, and over which the US ruling class — NOT Jews — reigns supreme. No, those are not the same thing. The sociology of wealth, e.g. Old Money, is all that's needed to expose the absurdity of this position. This country's ruling class has always been dominated by WASPs. Jews are no doubt on the rise, but there's no way they're dominant. There are simply too few of them. To insist they are is to ascribe to them supernatural abilities of manipulation, i.e. smacks of racist paranoia.

One other thing: don't forget what the "P" in WASP stands for, as in dispensationalist nut-jobs like Dubya. Here again, there is a resonance of interests between America's elite and the Zionists, one I suspect isn't fully appreciated.


From: Israel Shamir

Hi, friends

This is an interesting discussion! We should be able to discuss it without fear, even if our ideas coincide with those of the famous vegetarian and painter from Vienna. I have to disagree with many of you on many small points — Khruschow (good or bad) was not a Jew, neither was Kerensky. Anyway, they were not more Jews than our friend Edgar Steele (nee Sucherbrucker :-) But I also disagree with the Jewish trend to claim Anne Frank for their defence — and whether her diaries are real or 'edited', she was an innocent girl; as innocent as my Palestinian neighbour girl murdered by Jews two days ago.

'The Jews' — distinct from 'Jews' — are like the Catholic Church, or Standard Oil, or the UK — or all of it together. Unusual body; nothing good about it. There can be good separate Jews, but 'the Jews' — always bad, even when doing good.

In short, yes, the dog is being wagged, but it is not the tail (Israel) but the Mind (the US Jews). Actually all pre-19th century references to Jewish power are rather doubtful; and the rise of the Jews in the US begins at the earnest in 1968. But today — it is the reality. WASPs, money and all, lost it; as much as the Turkic nobility of Khazaria lost it to the immigrant Jews.

So, the Americans were subdued. What else is new?

Israel Shamir
Jaffa


From: Edgar J. Steele

I know that I swore I was through with this thread, but a very well-read friend sent over the following just now:

Here's another one the Jews don't want talked about. In the Georgian language "shvili" means son of, or son, as in Johnson. "Djuga" means Jew. Therefore Djugashvili means Jewison. So Joe Stalin's real name, before he changed it, was Joe Jewison. It gets better, his name was Joseph David Djugashvili, a typical Jewish name. During his revolutionary days he changed his name to "Kochba", the leader of the Jews during one of the anti-Roman uprisings of the Jews. Russians don't change their names. Georgians don't change their names. Jews change their names. Reporting these facts probably is a hate crime because Jews hate to hear about it.

Also, since I'm here already, to those who didn't know Mr. Shamir was joking (I didn't), "Sucherbrucker" has nothing to do with the "Steele" surname. For what it's worth, "Steele" originated in the highlands between Scotland and England.

— ed


From: Jeffrey G. Strahl

Yep, Joe Stalin only became a Georgian Orthodox priest to mask his Jewish background. I was wondering how long we were gonna be able to keep this a secret. It's a good one, almost as good as Franklin Delano Rosenfeld.

Jeff


From: JB Campbell

Ray Wilson emailed:

> It is interesting — you have "liberal" socialists
> who are blaming the Jews
> and now you have "conservative" capitalists who are
> blaming the Jews.

Well, at least we're all agreed.

> since I was a political appointment under Reagan
> Bush, know the Bush family
> personally, went to Catholic schools right from
> grade school through undergraduate
> school, and was mentored by the Bush
> Administration's Ambassador to the
> Vatican, have a Wharton MBA — receiving one of 10
> academic awards — mine for
> security analysis, have practiced capitalism in the
> mergers and acquisition, private
> equity, banking and investment banking areas and
> taught it as an adjunct in
> Graduate programs, my viewpoint should be viewed as
> rather unbiased.

Pretty good Capitalist pedigree.

> I now consider myself Agnostic and a citizen of the
> world — waving no flags,
> supporting neither of the two political parties
> (they are both identical
> Capitalist Imperialist Fascist Plutocrat owned), and
> not participating in other
> divisive schemes over race, gender, sexual
> orientation, ethnic roots, etc. etc.
> that the CFR Capitalist Imperialist Fascist
> Plutocrats like to toss out there
> to keep people confused and fighting amongst
> themselves while they increase
> their wealth and power and move their pawns around
> their world chessboard.

You mean — you just observe but don't get involved?

> Marx was an atheist who said "Religion is Opium for
> the Masses".

True enough, except that Marx proposed replacing the Church with the Party as an institute of worship and obedience. In its heyday the Roman Catholic Church was the Communist Party. It gave the world the Dark Ages, just as the CP did in every country it ruled. Marx dreamed of duplicating this totalitarian social system with himself as the Pope.

> Although Communism is the accomplishment of
> Socialism by revolution and I
> don't prescribe Communism, there is no system that
> has caused more brutal and
> cold blooded behavior than capitalism. After
> capitalism is constrained by
> domestic monopoly it reaches for imperialism.

So, you do prescribe socialism?

> Let me Contrast for a moment Capitalism and
> Socialism for you:
>
> Socialism, as Marx envisioned it, called for an
> equal distribution of the
> fruits of labor. It is principled on the thought:
> "from one according to one's
> ability, to one according to one's needs". One
> needs to be able to empathize
> with the plight of the less fortunate to be able to
> embrace it.

If you believe that sob story, I've got a watch here I'd like you to look at.

> Capitalism as I learned it, practiced it and taught
> it, is based on
> shareholder wealth maximization — you maximize
> shareholder wealth by minimizing cost
> and maximizing price. Other stakeholders
> consumers, workers, the community
> are not capitalism's focal point. Capitalism, if it
> is to be carried out most
> effectively, does not allow for empathy.

Socialism does? Where is one example? England? Sweden? America? The "empathy" you mention requires money to be stolen from the ones who earned it and given to the ones who didn't, with a little commission taken out first by the government. You hand over your money or you go to prison. Your "empathy" is pretty selective.

> Capitalism is meant to reward the capitalist — the
> owner of labor and
> capital. There is no control to prevent those
> who control the capital from perpetuating
> that control generation after generation — it is a
> formula for trust fund baby parasites.

Are you referring to our children? The ones whom we'd like to have our savings? "Parasites?"

> Socialism is meant to reward the laborer and capital
> is owned communally.

You mean, by the government? How does Socialism reward the laborer? Can he ever hope to better himself?

> Socialism is about communal ownership of the means
> of production; capitalism
> is about individual ownership of the means of production.

What is "communal ownership?" Doesn't that mean, "no ownership?" You mean government ownership, right?

> Some view socialism as a mid point between
> capitalism and communism in terms
> of the degree of private vs. public ownership of the
> capital in a country.
> Some view socialism as the economic system and
> communism as the political
> revolution. Chile's Allende,
> for instance, was a twice
> democratically, popular vote elected Communist and
> ran a socialist economy.

If the Chileans voted for Communism, that's their stupid business. But where's your empathy for the Chileans who didn't vote for dictatorship? What sort of life did those non-Communists have under Allende's oddball system, which ran Chile into the ground?

> It is true that socialism\communism, when it is not
> implemented according to
> the theoretical model envisioned by its proponents,
> can be as bad as
> capitalism, but capitalism, even in theory — in its
> purest form, provides for no safety
> net. The whole idea behind socialism is to create a safety net.

I thought the point I was trying to make was that our Rockefeller Capitalists arranged — with big Capitalist money — to have Russia taken over by Communists in 1917, and China in 1945-9, along with all the other victim countries. That Communism is not possible without big Capitalist money supporting it. That Communism is not a movement of the downtrodden but rather a power-grab by the Capitalists.

I am not a Capitalist or a conservative. I believe in untaxed private enterprise with no government participation in one's business, either to help it or hinder it. The safety net, which concerns you greatly, is one's ability to live without being robbed and sent to prison for trying to take care of yourself and to pass on your savings to your children. Capitalism, as you describe it, is just corporate socialism — dependent on government regulations to prevent competition and maximize profits for the shareholders, who do no actual work of the corporation. Corporations are government-control systems and are the death of private enterprise, as we see in the California business model.

> Capitalism in its practical form, not only provides
> no safety net, but
> rewards those that start the game with the most
> capital with monopoly power.

"Safety net," to you, means stealing money from the guy who made it and giving to someone who didn't. It always means prison for the guy who wants to keep what he makes, and degradation for the one who accepts stolen loot.

> Proponents of socialism\communism have in some cases
> gone astray when
> encountering violent capitalist opposition. At that
> point, socialist leaders have
> found themselves needing to compromise between
> capitalists and workers and the
> outcomes have at times been brutal.

I like that — "gone astray." You mean, when Stalin had millions of Ukrainians slaughtered by stealing their food, that he had "gone astray?" He considered the Ukrainian farmers "capitalist opposition." He and Lenin before him had indeed found themselves needing to compromise when their "socializing" ran Russia into the ground. Lenin called it his "New Economic Policy" and Stalin his "Five Year Plans." They had to allow a little private enterprise to keep people from starving, plus a hell of a lot of Western food, after which they murdered the ones who saved them. That's where all your dreamy ideas eventually lead — the firing squad.


From: Jeffrey G. Strahl

Capitalism was born in rural England several centuries ago. This was way before any corporations. It was initiated on the basis of mass enclosures of land that was common, owned by no one, or of small plots, land that then became the property of large landowners. The inhabitants, the peasants, were mostly expelled. The remaining ones became wage laborers, working for the landlords, who now ran farms as businesses aimed at expanding their money holdings (capital) by operating at a profit, obtained via appropriating the product of the labor of the wage slaves.This had nothing to do with the merchants of Europe's towns, who operated in an equilibrium situation with the feudal structure, and for the most part continued to do so till the capitalist social relations expanded and overwhelmed their set-up. And this process of *Enclosures* was facilitated by the *state*, increasingly even coordinated by it. It faced incredible resistance, as shown in the English Civil War of the 17th Century, which featured movements such as the Levellers (everyone should be at the same level) and Diggers (who dug up common land), whose program was basically genuine communism, the sharing of society's productive resources by all its members. Even as late as the 19th Century the Enclosures and early capitalism faced a bloody rebellion with the Luddites, required mass use of state force to be repressed. This is the true history of "pure" capitalism", a social system which requires mass expropriation and exploitation for its very existence and mass ecocide for its thriving.

Ray Wilson is wrong in an important way. Socialism does not mean capital is owned either by the state or by everyone together. There is no capital, which is a a social relation that involves treating productive resources as money equivalents that must be expanded or else are driven into bankruptcy. People make decisions on what they need and then produce to match needs, not for a market with capital accumulation as the goal. Production for accumulation is what marks capital, regardless of whether ownership is private, corporate, a collective (eg co-op) or state.

Jeff


From: JB Campbell

The egalitarians, driven either by empathy or envy, rail against the facts of life. One of the facts is this: you either produce too much or too little. Private enterprise produces too much and this results in surplus and lower costs. It is represented by the cornucopia, or abundance.

Socialism produces too little, by design or by the fact that people don't get to keep what they produce. The government steals some or all of it, depending on the degree of the disease. This results in shortage and is represented by empty shelves, long lines and misery. The costs may not be high, but they are more than the people can afford. In Soviet Russia and the satellites, even if a guy had some money he couldn't get decent clothes or shoes. Such things just weren't available because the government set the quota for such things too low.

So the question is, which would you rather have? Too much or too little? Now, in America, we are moving toward the latter. Shortage is the key to people-control. Such a thing is always contrived by government because we all know that if government gets out of the way, we have abundance.

The one we have to worry about is a food shortage. It is no coincidence that the first Communist spy ring in this country — the Harold Ware ring — was in the Department of Agriculture. Now, with agriculture run by a few gigantic agri-businesses, the merchants of grain also controlling beef, pork and poultry production, we are extremely vulnerable. The grain giants are Con-Agra, Dreyfus, IBP, etc., and are mostly Jewish-owned. Now we have genetically-modified grains and "suicide seeds!" Do you believe that these monstrosities were needed so that pesticides could work more efficiently?

The Communists have always used food and the lack of it to control rebellious populations. Eisenhower slaughtered millions of Germans after the war in this fiendish manner (Other Losses, Crimes & Mercies). Starvation has always been the Jews' favorite method of extermination since the time of Joseph of Egypt — it is extremely painful and doesn't cost anything. The Zionists are using this against the Palestinians now, too. We read reports last year that the Israelis were severely controlling Palestinian caloric intake by withholding the hundreds of millions in taxes from them, saying they will never return this money while Arafat is their leader. The money is needed for food and medicine.


From: Jeffrey G. Strahl

Again the false comparison between some capitalist ideal and "socialism" as supposedly represented by the Soviet Union, where any tendencies towards socialism were repressed after Nov 1917. Experiments in real socialism did not feature either deprivation of the producers or inefficiency, as chronicled by George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia (instructive that the Catalonian collectives were extinguished not by Franco's fascists, but by the Liberal/Stalinist gov't in Madrid, as also chronicled by Orwell in the same book (this experience is what's behind 1984 and Animal Farm, Orwell died still believing in genuine socialism).

Capitalism produces "abundance" for a smaller and smaller segment of society, the ones who benefit from the expropriation and exploitation that are inherent in the system, e.g. the Enclosure Process, which didn't end in England, but was extended world-wide, to theft of the resources and land of the Americas, Africa and Asia (and of course the rest of Europe), and is in fact more widespread today than ever (Mexico, India, Nigeria, Brazil, New Guinea, ...). All capital is nothing more than a representation of stolen land/resources and stolen labor (as the people enclosed have no way of surviving aside from wage labor). And this was true of the Soviet Union as much as the US, the state bureaucrats simply formed a collective capitalist group (discussed by Orwell in 1984, in one of the parts which are the supposed writings of Immanuel Goldstein), no different in actual social role than corporate managers or individual enterprise owners.

Jeff

Weber on the origins of modern capitalism
Zionism Serendipity Home Page