Post by been_there on Jan 12, 2022 17:16:03 GMT
Continuing from the old version of ’RODOH’, here is a thread on the phenomena that many people — such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Benjamin Disraeli, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, etc., — referred to with the term ’INTERNATIONAL JEWRY’.
I first came across it when in my fifties it occurred to me that if I wanted to approach WW2 history giving a fair and open-minded listen to the perspective of the ones who lost, I should maybe read the statement dictated by Adolf Hitler the night before he shot himself (he chose suicide to avoid being captured by the Russians and treated as Mussolini had been).
Reading it I came across the term ’international Jewry’ in these two early paragraphs:
When I read that for the first time, I had never heard the term ’international Jewry’ before. And so I assumed that such a thing as Jews wordwide working together for a common aim didn’t actually exist, and must be some paranoid delusion of Hitler’s due to his extreme anti-semitism.
Imagine my suprise then, when — just to double-check — I did a search of the term on the internet and found high in the search-results were numerous links to an essay by Winston Churchill written in the 1920s where HE also had used the term to refer to the same pan-global ’jewish’ phenomena!!! 😮
Interestingly if you do an online search now of the term, Churchill’s essay will not appear high in the results, not even if you do a search with the term PLUS his name.
Also, doing a search today of Hitler’s last will gives many links to discussion of the circumstances surrounding (how it was dictated and how the Allies got hold of it). But its actual contents — what Hitler wanted to tell the world before his death — is no longer something those who control the internet make easy to find.
Yet when I did a search for it about twelve years ago, it was easy to access and even was on the wikipedia page about it. Not so now.
Further proving the existence of Jews wordlwide surreptitiously and openly working for common perceived-Jewish ends. As, if you check, you will find that those who control access to the internet are increasingly people who can be described as belonging to the phenomena that Disraeli, Napoleon, Churchill and Hitler termed ’international jewry’!
—————
What is more is that not only is this global clique still operational and active NOW, but there appears to me to be increasingly clear examples of this phenomena of Jews worldwide working in cooperative coordination. They also seem less concerned with even trying to hide it.
Two examples came to my attention today.
1. The first was when I received a letter from my youngest child’s school headmaster, informing parents that the annual school trip taking their fifteen year olds to Poland and Germany to visit Auschwitz, Ravensbruck and Dachau concentration camps was cancelled due to fear over COVID-19.
INSTEAD the school trip would be to places in our country to ”learn about Nazism and anti-semitism”!?!?!? 😮
Hunh! 😮🤔
Q: But why don’t they devise a trip to teach them about other forms of institutionalised racism? Like the European slave trade? Or... Maybe some even occurring today like in Tibet, Palestine, etc.
A: I believe the answer is because the people organising this indoctrination of impressionable school children are predominantly Jewish and are acting according to a script devised by international Jewish organsations to create support and sympathy for Jews worldwide and — most importantly — to create support for their RACIST LAND THEFT and ethnic cleansing for Jew-only lebensraum in occupied Palestine.
2. The second example of international jewry in action was the case of a British Jew who had campaigned with and for Jews in Israel and America to interfere with the democratic process in Britain.
Here is a description of that:
You can read the whole article — and understand how dangerous this phenomena of Jews wordlwide increasingly exerting undue influence and control over journalism, main-stream news, socialmedia, government and even the judiciary — here:
www.mintpressnews.com/rachel-riley-libel-defamation-ruling-judicial-attack-political-speech/279419/
I first came across it when in my fifties it occurred to me that if I wanted to approach WW2 history giving a fair and open-minded listen to the perspective of the ones who lost, I should maybe read the statement dictated by Adolf Hitler the night before he shot himself (he chose suicide to avoid being captured by the Russians and treated as Mussolini had been).
Reading it I came across the term ’international Jewry’ in these two early paragraphs:
It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. I have made too many offers for the limitation and control of armaments, which posterity will not be cowardly enough always to disregard, for responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be placed on me. Nor have I ever wished that, after the appalling First World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America. Centuries will go by, but from the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred of those ultimately responsible will always grow anew against the people whom we have to thank for all this: international Jewry and its henchmen.
Only three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I proposed a solution of the German-Polish problem to the British Ambassador in Berlin — international control as in the case of the Saar. This offer, too, cannot be lied away. It was only rejected because the ruling clique in England wanted war, partly for commercial reasons and partly because it was influenced by the propaganda put out by international Jewry.
Only three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I proposed a solution of the German-Polish problem to the British Ambassador in Berlin — international control as in the case of the Saar. This offer, too, cannot be lied away. It was only rejected because the ruling clique in England wanted war, partly for commercial reasons and partly because it was influenced by the propaganda put out by international Jewry.
When I read that for the first time, I had never heard the term ’international Jewry’ before. And so I assumed that such a thing as Jews wordwide working together for a common aim didn’t actually exist, and must be some paranoid delusion of Hitler’s due to his extreme anti-semitism.
Imagine my suprise then, when — just to double-check — I did a search of the term on the internet and found high in the search-results were numerous links to an essay by Winston Churchill written in the 1920s where HE also had used the term to refer to the same pan-global ’jewish’ phenomena!!! 😮
Interestingly if you do an online search now of the term, Churchill’s essay will not appear high in the results, not even if you do a search with the term PLUS his name.
Also, doing a search today of Hitler’s last will gives many links to discussion of the circumstances surrounding (how it was dictated and how the Allies got hold of it). But its actual contents — what Hitler wanted to tell the world before his death — is no longer something those who control the internet make easy to find.
Yet when I did a search for it about twelve years ago, it was easy to access and even was on the wikipedia page about it. Not so now.
Further proving the existence of Jews wordlwide surreptitiously and openly working for common perceived-Jewish ends. As, if you check, you will find that those who control access to the internet are increasingly people who can be described as belonging to the phenomena that Disraeli, Napoleon, Churchill and Hitler termed ’international jewry’!
—————
What is more is that not only is this global clique still operational and active NOW, but there appears to me to be increasingly clear examples of this phenomena of Jews worldwide working in cooperative coordination. They also seem less concerned with even trying to hide it.
Two examples came to my attention today.
1. The first was when I received a letter from my youngest child’s school headmaster, informing parents that the annual school trip taking their fifteen year olds to Poland and Germany to visit Auschwitz, Ravensbruck and Dachau concentration camps was cancelled due to fear over COVID-19.
INSTEAD the school trip would be to places in our country to ”learn about Nazism and anti-semitism”!?!?!? 😮
Hunh! 😮🤔
Q: But why don’t they devise a trip to teach them about other forms of institutionalised racism? Like the European slave trade? Or... Maybe some even occurring today like in Tibet, Palestine, etc.
A: I believe the answer is because the people organising this indoctrination of impressionable school children are predominantly Jewish and are acting according to a script devised by international Jewish organsations to create support and sympathy for Jews worldwide and — most importantly — to create support for their RACIST LAND THEFT and ethnic cleansing for Jew-only lebensraum in occupied Palestine.
2. The second example of international jewry in action was the case of a British Jew who had campaigned with and for Jews in Israel and America to interfere with the democratic process in Britain.
Here is a description of that:
Rachel Riley libel ruling is the latest Judicial attack on political speech
Giving judges the power to settle quite unremarkable, daily political speech confrontations on social media is a recipe for hollowing out the right to express a critical opinion in the main public squares of the digital age.
by Jonathan Cook
A separate legal case that reached its conclusion shortly before Christmas also needs highlighting as yet another front in this judicial attack on the right to speak — one with severe implications for the public as well as journalists. After espionage and contempt, we can now add “defamation” to the list of legal tools that are being weaponized to crush critical thinking.
So draconian is this undermining of a basic right to speech that I will have to be extremely cautious in how I write about this ruling. The defamation case was brought by Rachel Riley, a TV-show host who, during Corbyn’s tenure as leader of the Labour Party, harnessed her minor celebrity status to promote a strongly anti-Corbyn line.
Riley regularly took to social media to bolster the establishment’s “antisemitism” narrative against Corbyn: that he and the party he led were a threat to British Jews. As I and others have pointed out endless times before, this narrative was both entirely evidence-free and McCarthyite in nature.
The narrative fueled a classic witch hunt: anyone who followed the evidence and denied that Labour suffered from an especial antisemitism problem – mainly those who identified with the anti-racism, anti-imperialist, democratic socialist politics of Corbyn – was burnt at the stake.
It was treated as a confirmation of Jew-hatred to note that all the evidence indicated Labour had less of a problem with racism than both the Conservative Party and wider British society – or that, as a result, it seemed likely antisemitism was being weaponised to vilify a socialist politician who had unexpectedly risen to a position from which he could challenge for power.
Riley has often resorted to incendiary language and imagery against Corbyn and his supporters, presumably with the aim of inflaming passions on the subjects. (In the photo, above, she altered the text of a protest placard Corbyn carried against apartheid South Africa, at a time when the U.K. government was a close ally of Pretoria. She thereby deceptively twisted Corbyn’s anti-racism into evidence of his racism.)
Her campaign against Corbyn has, of course, assisted the establishment narrative rather than challenging it. For that reason, she was exempt from the criticism faced by those sympathetic to Corbyn, who often responded to her in equally vehement terms. Riley, like many others, was able to exploit the fact that the discourse playing-field about Corbyn and his supporters, policed by traditional and new media alike, was far from level.
This inequity was at the heart of a legal defamation suit Riley launched in 2019 against Laura Murray, then an assistant to Corbyn. Riley had effectively initiated the online encounter by making a post on Twitter in March of that year after Corbyn was attacked, during a visit to a London mosque, by an ardent Brexit supporter who lunged at him and hit him on the head with an egg.
The incident came in the wake of other serious attacks on MPs, including the murder of Labour politician Jo Cox three years earlier, and was a part of a continuing trend of violence towards MPs that led recently to the murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess – all disturbing evidence of the growing polarization of British politics.
But for Riley, the attack on Corbyn appeared to offer another opportunity to amplify her long-running insinuations that Corbyn was an antisemite. She recycled an old tweet from Owen Jones, a Labour activist and Guardian columnist, who had previously observed: “If you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi.” Jones was referring to an incident back in 2009 when eggs were thrown at Nick Griffin...
...Given the timing, context, and her prior statements about Corbyn, many people who read Riley’s tweet believed she was implying that Corbyn was a Nazi or harbored Nazi-like views, such as antisemitism. She was also castigated for normalizing physical violence against a senior politician in a wider political climate in which passions were intensifying and violence was a real threat. Some on the thread considered that dangerously irresponsible and said so.
One was Laura Murray. She responded:
Giving judges the power to settle quite unremarkable, daily political speech confrontations on social media is a recipe for hollowing out the right to express a critical opinion in the main public squares of the digital age.
by Jonathan Cook
A separate legal case that reached its conclusion shortly before Christmas also needs highlighting as yet another front in this judicial attack on the right to speak — one with severe implications for the public as well as journalists. After espionage and contempt, we can now add “defamation” to the list of legal tools that are being weaponized to crush critical thinking.
So draconian is this undermining of a basic right to speech that I will have to be extremely cautious in how I write about this ruling. The defamation case was brought by Rachel Riley, a TV-show host who, during Corbyn’s tenure as leader of the Labour Party, harnessed her minor celebrity status to promote a strongly anti-Corbyn line.
Riley regularly took to social media to bolster the establishment’s “antisemitism” narrative against Corbyn: that he and the party he led were a threat to British Jews. As I and others have pointed out endless times before, this narrative was both entirely evidence-free and McCarthyite in nature.
The narrative fueled a classic witch hunt: anyone who followed the evidence and denied that Labour suffered from an especial antisemitism problem – mainly those who identified with the anti-racism, anti-imperialist, democratic socialist politics of Corbyn – was burnt at the stake.
It was treated as a confirmation of Jew-hatred to note that all the evidence indicated Labour had less of a problem with racism than both the Conservative Party and wider British society – or that, as a result, it seemed likely antisemitism was being weaponised to vilify a socialist politician who had unexpectedly risen to a position from which he could challenge for power.
Riley has often resorted to incendiary language and imagery against Corbyn and his supporters, presumably with the aim of inflaming passions on the subjects. (In the photo, above, she altered the text of a protest placard Corbyn carried against apartheid South Africa, at a time when the U.K. government was a close ally of Pretoria. She thereby deceptively twisted Corbyn’s anti-racism into evidence of his racism.)
Her campaign against Corbyn has, of course, assisted the establishment narrative rather than challenging it. For that reason, she was exempt from the criticism faced by those sympathetic to Corbyn, who often responded to her in equally vehement terms. Riley, like many others, was able to exploit the fact that the discourse playing-field about Corbyn and his supporters, policed by traditional and new media alike, was far from level.
This inequity was at the heart of a legal defamation suit Riley launched in 2019 against Laura Murray, then an assistant to Corbyn. Riley had effectively initiated the online encounter by making a post on Twitter in March of that year after Corbyn was attacked, during a visit to a London mosque, by an ardent Brexit supporter who lunged at him and hit him on the head with an egg.
The incident came in the wake of other serious attacks on MPs, including the murder of Labour politician Jo Cox three years earlier, and was a part of a continuing trend of violence towards MPs that led recently to the murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess – all disturbing evidence of the growing polarization of British politics.
But for Riley, the attack on Corbyn appeared to offer another opportunity to amplify her long-running insinuations that Corbyn was an antisemite. She recycled an old tweet from Owen Jones, a Labour activist and Guardian columnist, who had previously observed: “If you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi.” Jones was referring to an incident back in 2009 when eggs were thrown at Nick Griffin...
...Given the timing, context, and her prior statements about Corbyn, many people who read Riley’s tweet believed she was implying that Corbyn was a Nazi or harbored Nazi-like views, such as antisemitism. She was also castigated for normalizing physical violence against a senior politician in a wider political climate in which passions were intensifying and violence was a real threat. Some on the thread considered that dangerously irresponsible and said so.
One was Laura Murray. She responded:
Rachel Riley tweets that Corbyn deserves to be violently attacked because he is a Nazi. This woman is as dangerous as she is stupid. Nobody should engage with her. Ever.”
www.mintpressnews.com/rachel-riley-libel-defamation-ruling-judicial-attack-political-speech/279419/