Antisemite Henry Makow discusses banker theory...

by **StarmanSkye** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:41 pm

OK, reply desired: Fair enough. I don't think overpay --or underpay-- are the root 'problems' in the world today -- The power and influence of the elites are simply going to be immune to any logical argument about why such pay disparities are wrong -- Imean, they are promoting wars and manufacturing crises, revising history and systematically training future generations for their intended roles as servants, worthy adversaries, zombie-soldiers, party-hacks, bagmen, middle-managers, worker-drones, baby-makers, mercenaries, tractor-repairmen, technicians, bomb-makers, etc. -- planning wars 30-60 years in advance so they can redraw boundaries, clinch new deals, sign new leases, make a killing and consolidate their dynasties against the competing interests of other Mafia syndicates. As I see it -- some of the more immediate big 'problems' (which are discussed and analyzed on this forum), and which are all linked include: tyranny and chronic abuse of authority, social and economic injustice, human rights abuses, genocidal and neocolonial policies by transnational corporations aided by state actors and ruling elites, increasing environmental degradation, corrupt institutions (that keep citizens disenfranchised and inadequately informed/ignorant and disempowered), and so on. For the large percentage of people who are un-or-uneployed, economic or war-refugees, landless, homeless, stateless, under occupation by invader forces, overpay (and underpay) are peripheral or indirect issues. How does the Fed ponzai scheme by which the IMF and World Bank and the US State Dept. keep whole nations in an impoverished state of debt-indenture bondage, forced to keep making ruinous cuts in social services and sell-off public infrastructure and resources aka restructuring and privatization, relate to your thesis of overpay/overpower? Do you think it is within the power of the few who are even aware of such issues to dissuade the powerful international institutions to cease exploiting people's misery? That's NOT how the world works. At the very least, it's going to take massive awareness, self-education and self-empowerment by the masses before the people will be able to organize in order to effectively resist the tyranny of the ruling elites. This won't be achieved JUST by talking to people --people must learn to see and think and argue and reason for themselves, to find the courage and determination and inner resources to do what is necessary to truly wrest political power from the despotic criminals who have subverted the principles of our democratic republic, and placed many hundreds of millions of people in crude forms of bondage and involuntary servitude. Likewise -- It's going to take a lot of reasoning and rational debate and positive example to convince the cheerleaders of Empire and wars that their assumptions are just plain wrong and counterproductive -- or else there will be civil war before a great many people will finally see the light and acknowledge the kind of needful changes required to constructively address the serious issues and problems we are challenged with today. Starman "I guess the Iraqis who thought the US was going to turn Iraq into another America weren’t really far from the mark- we too now enjoy inane leaders, shady elections, a shaky economy, large-scale unemployment and soaring gas prices." -- Riverbend, Baghdad Burning

by **scollon** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>At the very least, it's going to take massive awareness, self-education and self-empowerment by the masses before the people will be able to organize in order to effectively resist the tyranny of the ruling elites. This won't be achieved JUST by talking to people --people must learn to see and think and argue and reason for themselves, to find the courage and determination and inner resources to do what is necessary to truly wrest political power from the despotic criminals who have subverted the principles of our democratic republic, and placed many hundreds of millions of people in crude forms of bondage and involuntary servitude.<hr></blockquote> That's absolutely true, but I don't think resistance will happen because nothing similar has happened in the past. The sheer size and technological sophistication of the internal security apparatus makes it more difficult daily. I don't think the average Anglo American citizen cares if they live in a military dictatorship if they can eat, watch TV and take drugs. As long as they avoid a draft, no one will really care the way they did about Vietnam. In a conscript army, dead soldiers are poor soldiers .

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:15 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>if ANYONE can even just HEAR just ONE POINT i am trying to make, please respond<hr></blockquote> Try making points that are on topic or starting your own thread. And a darker font.

by **Francis Parker Yockey** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:30 pm

I only have one question, are these bankers- the Warburgs, the Rothschilods, et al- Jewish, or are you stating that they are not?

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:50 pm

Good god...it's like termites on this board. yeah, warburg is Jewish. So is Rothschild. I'm saying they don't run the fucking world. They are not the head of the Illuminati and they don't worship Satan. Are you people intentionally missing the point or are you really that dense?

by **scollon** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm saying they don't run the fucking world. They are not the head of the Illuminati and they don't worship Satan."<hr></blockquote> Barbie Dolls shouldn't swear. How do you know Rothschild doesn't worship Satan, is it because you know him personally ? Do you think he is your friend because he is Jewish or something ?

by **Francis Parker Yockey** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:15 pm

Who are you calling dense? Makow wrote an opinion piece about "Jewish bankers" and the result was, as it often is, hysterical and rife with ad hominem attacks accusing him of "antisemitism", ironically enough. The question is this, are they Jewish bankers or are they not? One of the problems we have today is the constant and unremitting restrictions on open discussion of the root causes of what Mr. Makow calls "satanic" behavior. I prefer criminal behavior, but that's just me. Bombing people, stealing their resources, enslaving the minds of a populace through the use of disinformation and propaganda, these are crimes and someone is behind them. Now if we wish to see some improvement in our situation, oght we not look for the culprits rather than attack those who are exploring the avenues of discovery, vis a vis, means, motive and opportunity? If your point is that certain factors may never be discussed because it's upsetting and disconcerting, then maybe you ought to stay away from discussions that might upset or disconcert you. The FACT that these men control vast amounts of accumulated wealth and have used it in the past to actively foment war and to profit from it is not in dispute. The FACT that they are also Jewish is also undisputed. If you are afraid that discussion of these facts might lead to some unitended consequence, then disabuse the researcher into these facts of their importance, don't act as if the matter has been settled and anyone who questions your pronouncements from on high is somehow "dense", they aren't. Suppose Makow wrote and article about the fact that the vast majority of those who instigate and fight wars are male, would your response be the same or would you simply concur and say, "but of course, men are by far more violent than women and prone to such behaviors", or would you attack anyone who suggested such an idea as being "anti-male" because the vast majority of males do not? There are all kinds of facts that are uncomfortable to think about and discuss, but in the Western World we put a premium on the fact that we can and do discuss them freely and openly. Any aspect we ignore we do so at our own peril, IMHO. And your response was awfully rude to a first time poster who asked a sincere question. I wonder why that is?

by **robertdreed** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:44 pm

FPY, perhaps that's because we've already had enough would-be Francis Parkey Yockeys traipsing through here. Yeah, I read Imperium. It's a cut above the usual ranting that views modernity with utter alienation and horror, viewing it as a "Jewish plot." But however densely written, in the end it's nothing more than an attempt to justify the author's obsessions with cultural "purity", pursued to the point of mental imbalance. What about all the international bankers who aren't Jewish? Where do they fit in the scheme? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 1/18/06 10:50 am

by **Francis Parker Yockey** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:55 pm

I suppose you don't see the irony in your post? Human beings behave both as individuals and as collectives. I find that by examining BOTH individual and collective behavior we come closer to understanding the causes of criminality, be it a man beating another man for a dollar or an army bombarding a civilian populace in order to "weaken their spirit". We live in a time of great collective criminality; one nation wages war on another, to do so it must have the means, motive and opportunity, no different than an individual assaulting another individual. It would be nigh on impossible to come to grips with, let's say the War in Iraq, if we pretended it was simply and act of hundreds of thousands of atomized "individual" soldiers just deciding to invade and wage war of their own volition. War is an act of Masses, not individuals. In examining the behavior that leads to Mass crimes, one must examine Mass behavior, not cast about endlessly looking for "individuals" who are responsible. Or do you disconcur?

by **scollon** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:21 pm

If you want to put forard the theory that Jewish bankers act together to control the world, you will have to give some proof by naming them and what they did. Less convincing is the testimony of people who have made accusations of major Jewish plots and would be in a position to know. Recent examples have been former president of Malaysia Mathatir, President Putin of Russia and President Hugo Chavez of Venezuala. I am persuaded these gentlemen might have a point so my mind is certainly open to the possibility. The fact that six of the eight oligarchs who 'inheried' a substantial part of the wealth of a whole country, Russia were Jewish is also very persuasive. The biggest crook Khodorkovsky handed over his shares to Lord Rothschild (a banker) on his arrest which is prima facie evidence of a Jewish plot. He was vigorously defended by a number of prominent Jews including Kisinger and mega financial 'operator' George Soros. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/18/06 11:30 am

by **scollon** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:32 pm

They didn't have to mention it at all. They must have thought it was important. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4622372.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4622372.stm</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>His decision to appear at his first court hearing wearing a baseball cap and his second wearing a black trilby and a black trench-coat have been gifts to cartoonists. One explanation is that, being an orthodox Jew, this father of five needs to cover his head. So what is wrong with an old fashioned yarmulke, I ask you? <hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/18/06 11:38 am

by **Francis Parker Yockey** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:01 pm

"If you want to put forard the theory that Jewish bankers act together to control the world, you will have to give some proof by naming them and what they did." You've confused me with someone else, I never put forth any such theory. The fact that there are x number of bankers who control x number of financial resources who belong to a specific group that represent x percentage of the earth's population is simply a mathematical equation, devoid of any emotion. That these people are able to use those resources in order to acheive ends that they have determined isn't really the stuff of "conspiracy theories" but of historic reality. Why do they behave in such a way? Why isn't anyone studying, for example, group behavior by analyzing known groups and their known behaviors? Because it is unpopular or politically incorrect? That's not much of a defense, is it? When Pasteur discovered that it was germs, not spirits or bad juju that caused diseases and sicknesses human beings were able to address the issue far more effectively than they had previously. I would suggest that in light of the fact that over the course of the last century hundreds of millions of human beings have died horrible deaths as a direct result of group behaviors, be they national, racial, ethnic or religious, it would behoove us to start looking quite closely at the root of those "behaviors" and find a way to mitigate them. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. Oh and the hat Abramhoff wore was a Borsalino- "After pleading guilty to three felony counts of mail fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy, lobbyist Jack Abramoff walked out of federal court in Washington, D.C., in a black fedora purchased from Bencraft Hatters, a Brooklyn-based haberdasher that caters largely to Orthodox Jews. Two conservative commentators suggested that Abramoff's hat was intended to make a religious statement. In a posting on the National Review Online, John Podhoretz wrote that Abramoff was wearing "the black hat of a very Orthodox Jew" while New York Times columnist David Brooks described the hat as "a pseudo-Hasidic homburg [sic]." Not that matters of course.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The fact that there are x number of bankers who control x number of financial resources who belong to a specific group that represent x percentage of the earth's population is simply a mathematical equation, <hr></blockquote> Okay, then start with that. How many bankers control what percentages of the wealth of the world? How many nonbankers? Adjust your calculations based on mergers, co-ownerships, partnerships, interlocking boards of directors, etc. Then explain why only the wealthy who are BANKERS are of interest to you, while the wealthy who are NOT bankers seem to get a pass. Add all that up. Now, tell me exactly what percentage of that is owned by Jews. Then, tell me how they specifically utilize this wealth in order to <blockquote>Quote:<hr> use those resources in order to acheive ends that they have determined isn't really the stuff of "conspiracy theories" but of historic reality.<hr></blockquote> Give specific examples. And you'll need to provide evidence. Someone on here recently posted, for example, that J.P. Morgan was an "Agent" of the Rothschilds. This allows a non-jewish banker to be put into the equation to reach a predetermined conclusion. No proof was offered, of course, nor will it be. And yes, Abramoff is a Jew. He's not a banker, though, so I guess since your concern is Jewish bankers then he has nothing to do with anything. Or is it your contention that many Jews who are not bankers conspire with the Jewish bankers to rule the world? This tautological reasoning you pathological anti-semites engage in is beyond belief. You start with the premise that Jewish bankers run the world. Borrowed directly from Mein Kempf, no doubt. Then you go and find Jews involved in world affairs...point to them...and there you have your proof. Never ANY evidence of causation...sometimes barely even any evidence of correlation. The wealthy, as a class, do things that are not so hot for the rest of us. So it's not surprising to find the wealthiest financial elites among Jews intermingled with the wealthiest elites of non-Jews...particularly anglo-American. How could they be in banking without such connections? Interlocking boards of directors is the rule among all corporations...not just banks. As for this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>One of the problems we have today is the constant and unremitting restrictions on open discussion of the root causes of what Mr. Makow calls "satanic" behavior. I prefer criminal behavior, but that's just me. Bombing people, stealing their resources, enslaving the minds of a populace through the use of disinformation and propaganda, these are crimes and someone is behind them. Now if we wish to see some improvement in our situation, oght we not look for the culprits rather than attack those who are exploring the avenues of discovery, vis a vis, means, motive and opportunity? If your point is that certain factors may never be discussed because it's upsetting and disconcerting, then maybe you ought to stay away from discussions that might upset or disconcert you.<hr></blockquote> No, I discuss them all the time. I'm saying that your reductionist, nazi theory of Jews running the world is bullshit. THAT'S what I'm saying. You guys ALWAYS do this. If we disagree with your THEORY about Jewish world domination, then you conflate this into DISALLOWING discussion of the world's ills and their root causes. It's disingenuous sophistry. And you only engage in it because your actual argument is so weak. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The FACT that these men control vast amounts of accumulated wealth and have used it in the past to actively foment war and to profit from it is not in dispute. The FACT that they are also Jewish is also undisputed. If you are afraid that discussion of these facts might lead to some unitended consequence, then disabuse the researcher into these facts of their importance, don't act as if the matter has been settled and anyone who questions your pronouncements from on high is somehow "dense", they aren't.<hr></blockquote> See the above. Which men? Only JEWS control vast amounts of wealth? What percentage of wealth do these men control compared to non-Jewish elites. I await your spreadsheet on that one. Meanwhile, you've also got the added burden (and it is YOUR burden, since you want to impugn an entire ethnic group) to show not only that they have this wealth but how they use that to cause all the world's ills. I don't mean the wealthy in general, I mean Jewish bankers. And a little credible evidence, for one, would be nice. And I mean evidence, not ramblings of Eustace Mullens. So quit acting like our rejection of your pathetic theories has anything to do with censorship or political correctness. Sure, MOST of us would feel a little uncomfortable promoting the exact same theories that Hitler put forward....but different strokes for different folks. But we reject your theories because they are wrong. And worse, they distract from understanding the way the world actually works.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:07 pm

How does a statistician approach something like this? Let me give an example. On another thread I've listed the Scots who fill the positions of power in the United Kingdom. Something like the top eight such position. Scots account for about one tenth of the population of the UK. You can use the Binomial distribution to compute the probability of such a result occuring purely by chance. It's millions to one. Similarly with Jewish people. Very rough figures suggest the Jewish population is less than one half a percent of the world population. Do they hold one half a percent of the money? Or power? This question answers itself. And with respect, DreamsEnd and Mr Reed, it strikes me that the subject of Jewish people comes up on this board in proportion to their share of power, not share of population. To be honest, the concept of ethnicity never occured to me in the past, before I began reading these boards. You can search all that correspondence in Data Dump and you will find but a single reference to the Jews, and that was entirely sympathetic. Yet the man I called the Vampire of Finance, the man who has done so much to murder me, might well fit the profile. He's certainly a banker. Is Lord Clive Hollick Jewish? I don't know. have a look at the picture and let me know. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/537996.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/537996.stm</a>

by **scollon** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:13 pm

Who are they, names will do ?

Antisemite Henry Makow discusses banker theory...

Re: destr(o)ying everyone's problem-tree

Re: destr(o)ying everyone's problem-tree

Re: destr(o)ying everyone's problem-tree

Re: destr(o)ying everyone's problem-tree

Re: destr(o)ying everyone's problem-tree

Re: destr(o)ying everyone's problem-tree

Re: destr(o)ying everyone's problem-tree

Yockey

Re: Yockey

Yockey

BBC says Abromoff is a jew.

Re: BBC says Abromoff is a jew.

Re: BBC says Abromoff is a jew.

Mathematics

Something like the top eight such positions

Who is online