I don't believe anti-Zionist statements are necessarily anti-semitic.  Many Zionists have taken a militant stance regarding the Palestinians just as many Hamas have taken militant positions toward Israel.  One of the dangers of mixing politics and religion is to be misunderstood.  Misunderstanding abounds in today's politically charged religious wars.  Let's put away the religious and anti-religious fervor and concentrate on what is happening.  What is happening is the impoverishment of most of America by the financial and corporate community.

OK......I have to call attention to this...this video was posted in "support"of OCCUPY...however...why is it funny for a Jewish celebrity to JOKE about "Jews siding with the banks"...????? Can someone explain why we are supposed to find that funny? Or why the ADL thinks we don't know WHY this is SUPPOSED to be funny (and is not..if you are aware)

http://occupylosangeles.org/?q=node/892

This isn't about Zionism versus anti-Zionism.  It's about reviving a conspiracy theory about "international Jewish bankers."  Re-read her statement:

"I think that the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government -- they need to be run out of this country.”

That's racist on so many levels. And by racism I mean bigotry against Jews, but you get what I mean.  There are definitely Zionists and Jews in power in finance.  But there are a whole lot of non-Jews and non-Zionists in power too.  (Also, are the Jews even practicing, or are they ethnic?  Maybe not an issue.)  Look up the CEOs of JPMorgan, BofA, Wells Fargo.  Not Jewish.  Geithner, not Jewish.  Summers, he's Jewish.  So is Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein - but look at this rich guy: working class background, and a Democrat.  He's a crook but knows his roots.

The President is not Jewish.  The previous one was not either - both are Christians, and one is half African-American.  Aren't they part of the problem too?

The idea of the "international Jewish banker" is a conspiracy theory that is rooted in modern society.  It's the idea that there's a nefarous group of outsiders to society that are operating behind the scenes, secretly, to mainpulate the good people of the nation.  These people have no alliance to the nation, are urbane, know how to work with money.

This is a persistent and malleable story, and is particularly popular with white Christians in countries that are dominated by white Christians.  It would be ironic, if not for the real reason why the myth exists: to take the heat/guilt off of the majority, who know full well that they are the powerful group.

This myth has been revived via the End the Fed people, and also by David Icke.

Zizek has a great lecture about The Sound of Music, where he argues that in that film, the Nazis officers actually play the role of the "International Jew", oppressing the "good people of Austria" who are portrayed as being rural and not embroiled in the capitalist system.  Thus, via this film, the Austrians, who were big-time Nazi fascists and oppressors of Jews, and big-time capitalists, are let off the hook for their war crimes.
Here's a link to the lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiTum8eQ51E

As always, the London Jewish Chronicle (JC) is providing us with an accurate insight into Jewish influence within the media and beyond. The JC is desperate to stop my book, The Wandering Who -- and it is also foolish enough to disclose its tactics, openly revealing to us the pressure which some elements within the Jewish community are willing to mount on Britain’s leading newspapers and other outlets. 

This weekend The JC seems to be particularly frustrated, explaining to their concerned readers that “Britain's largest book distribution database company has said it cannot withdraw The Wandering Who unless the title is found to have breached race hate legislation”

And yet, it  seems that no one in the Jewish Chronicle has read the book, or any of my writing -- otherwise it is hard to explain why the JC keeps labeling me as an ‘anti-Semite’ or a ‘racist’. Had the JC actually bothered to read my writing or taken the time to follow my speeches and debates, they would have realised that there is no trace of ‘racism’ or ‘anti-Semitism’ in my work: yes, I am critical of Jewish politics; yes I am an opponent of Jewish political power, and yes, I follow my duties as a humanist to expose Jewish identity politics for what it really is.  This fact alone may explain why my book is supported by  respected humanists and some of the most distinguished academics, all of whom are held in high regard in their fields and beyond.

The JC complains that “in the book Atzmon discusses his belief that ‘the Holocaust religion was well-established’ before the Nazis carried out aspects of the Shoah including the Final Solution and Kristallnacht.”

The JC is absolutely correct here. That is exactly what I am discussing. And yet, the question is, what is wrong with doing so? Is it racist or anti-Semitic? And indeed, I also insist that trauma is inherent to Jewish Culture.  Here is, for instance, an old Jewish joke from the 19th century

A Jewish Telegram:

‘Get Worried, details to follow’.

In ‘The Wandering Who’ I contend that Jewish identity politics is defined by a unique condition, namely, ‘Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder’. It is the ‘future trauma’ that shapes the Jewish present and ideology.  

The JC is also concerned with the following quote: "It is more than likely that 'Jews' do not have a centre or headquarters. It is more than likely that they aren't aware of their particular role within the entire system, the way an organ is not aware of its role within the complexity of an organism."

And yet I am puzzled by their concern: what is exactly wrong with the above? If anything, it suggests that there are no Jewish conspiracies, and that Jews as people are actually innocent of the sinister associations of such.

Or, does the JC prefer to argue otherwise?  Would The JC insist that Lord Levy knew exactly what he was doing when he was the leading fundraiser for a government that took Britain into an illegal war? Does the JC prefer to argue that Neocons David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen knew exactly what they were doing when they advocated the same war on every  British press outlet that was foolish enough to let their voice be heard? 

I actually seem to be slightly kinder to Aaronovitch, Cohen, Levy, Saban, Wolfowitz, Freidman, Sharon, Peres, Livni, Greenspan, Foxman and many others: I am happy to agree that they were hijacked by a lethal ideology or culture rather than being consciously sinister.

The Guardian of British Jews

I also learned from the JC that “A Guardian spokeswoman said that the way its books were advertised online would be reviewed following complaints about The Wandering Who.”

I think that The Guardian should indeed review its policy -- and  the sooner the better. When I settled in this country seventeen years ago  the ‘Left’ paper was regarded by many as the ‘guardian of the truth’, and yet it seems as if, in the last few years, this paper has deteriorated into a guardian of Zionist interests. This, explains for instance,  The Guardian’s  dubious relationship with Wiki leaks, and it explains why the paper failed to publish leaks concerning Israel. In a recent Counterpunch expose, Jonathan Cook elaborated on the Guardian as an increasingly  Dangerous Cult.

However, I still want to believe that The Guardian will find within itself the powers to liberate itself from its current masters, for now, more than ever, we need in this country a brave, egalitarian critical outlet rather than yet another Zionist submissive mouthpiece.

Anne,  Shlomo and Me. 

And now here is the good news: it seems as if the JC/Guardian  joint efforts to stop ‘The Wandering Who’ have been  totally counterproductive, for according to Amazon, The Wandering Who is number 2 on the ‘Bestsellers in Religious History of Judaism’ list.

This morning, number 1 is Anne Frank’s The Diary of a Young Girl; number 2 is The Wandering Who; Number 3 is Anne Frank Again (different edition)  and Number 4 is Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People. It is not a coincidence. As it happens, The Wandering Who is there to locate Anne Frank  within the context of the phantasmic invention of the Jewish people.

By now, it should be clear to both The Guardian and the JC that their joint attempt has failed. But far more interesting  is the fact that their failure is just another symptom of their growing intellectual irrelevance.

If some Jewish people still insist on regarding themselves as ‘the people of the book’, they should stop wasting their time, and they should start to engage in a dialogue with my text rather than trying to burn it. If Jews insist that I am misguided and wrong, they would be better off showing some tolerance and joining in the open debate.

I wish them luck -- but I don’t hold my breath.  

1. An end to creating money out of thin air on computer screens and charging interest on it (fractional reserve lending).

  2. An end to governments borrowing fresh-air money called ‘credit’ from private banks and the people paying interest on this ‘money’ that has never, does not and will never exist. Governments (and that concept must change radically) can create their own currency – interest free.

  3. An end to private banks issuing non-existent money called ‘credit’ at all and thus creating ‘money’ as a debt from the very start.

  4. An end to casinos like Wall Street and the City of London betting mercilessly on the financial and commodity markets with the lives of billions around the world.

  5. An end to all professional lobby groups that earn their living and their clients’ living from corrupting the professionally corruptible – vast numbers of world politicians and the overwhelming majority on Capitol Hill.

  6. An end to no-contract government in which mendacious politicians can promise the people they will do this and that to win their support and then do the very opposite after they have lied themselves into office (see Obama).

  7. An end to the centralisation of power in all areas of our lives and a start to diversifying power to communities to decide their own lives and thus ensure there are too many points of decision making for any cabal to centrally control.

The banking system as we know it does not need to be ‘changed’ - it needs to be gone. It is a criminal activity based on fraud, extortion and, through its effect, on worldwide mass murder.

Its replacement needs to be decided by the population - not the very people who created it in the first place and are covertly manipulating a new global structure of financial control based on a world central bank

----- Original Message -----

From:

To: anti-zionistcanada@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 1:03 PM

Subject: [Anti-ZionistCanada] GREAT ARTICLE - Fw: "The City” of London -- the "Jewish Vatican" above the British Monarch and Kingdom -- You thought you knew who "the Crown" is

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: "The City” of London -- the "Jewish Vatican" above the British Monarch and Kingdom -- You thought you knew who "the Crown" is
To:

That photo of Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler with the name of General Nathan Mayer Rothschild under the picture is very curious indeed.

Perhaps Daniel Krynicki can explain that.  That photograph is not in the original article 

http://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/jewish-banishment-the-city-of-london/  

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Dick Eastman <oldickeastman@q.com> wrote:

In which we learn the unsuspected and very important difference between "The Crown Empire" and "The British Empire"  -- but not the name fo the current ruling Lord Mayor of The City which is a well kept secret.

(additional photos and notes added from various sources)

From: DANIEL KRYNICKI
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011

Subject: The Lord Mayor - with a Brief Jewish History

Thanks Martin.  There is no place in a Christian's life for hate, but there is the need for wisdom.  And how can we be wise without first learning the facts.

Daniel Krynicki

http://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/jewish-banishment-the-city-of-london/  

February 26, 2011

Jewish banishment and The “City” of London

Anyone thinking very logically and simply would simply ask one question:

WHY HAVE JEWS BEEN BANISHED FROM SOME MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND CULTURES OVER CENTURIES? BY PEOPLES WHO HAVE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSPIRE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF VAST DISTANCES BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE BANISHED THEM. YET ALL OF THESE PEOPLES HAVE, AT DIFFERENT TIMES THROUGHOUT HISTORY, FELT IT NECESSARY TO DO JUST THAT. FOR NO REASON? ALL OF THESE CULTURES HAVE JUST HAD SOME RACIAL HATRED OF JEWS? THERE’S NO LOGIC IN IT. THE ONLY COMMON DENOMINATOR WHICH PERMEATES THROUGHOUT THESE BANISHMENTS IS THAT OF MONEY AND USURY.

Henk Ruyssenaars’ article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book “Descent into Slavery” by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term “City of London” is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.

“To the majority of people the words “Crown” and “City” in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.

This is not the truth. The “City” is in fact a privately owned Corporation – or Sovereign State – occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile ‘Greater London’ area. The population of ‘The City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of ‘Greater London’ (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

“The Crown” is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

“The City”, which is often called “the wealthiest square mile on earth,” is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.

The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16:

“The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”
It certainly is and certainly does!

When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits
“the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”

The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.

The symbolism is clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject.

The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D’Israeli wrote:

“So you see… the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”
(Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).

Rothschild gold bought supplies for the Duke of Wellington

before Waterloo, financed Disraeli's purchase of the Suez Canal

and bankrolled 19th century Imperialism

This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen’s book:

“The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador said: “Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister.”
Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden… launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor’s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards.”

The British government is the bond slave of the “invisible and inaudible” force centred in the City. The City calls the tune. The “visible and audible leaders” are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.

It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire.

The colonial possessions that were white were under the sovereign – i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the Britsh Empire.

All the other parts of the British Empire – nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.

As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown’s supremacy in these areas.

The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn’t British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and those members of the aristocracy who were part of the “City” machine accumulated vast fortunes .

About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that :

….”financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts… Loans to foreign countries are organised and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich…”

In “Empire of the City” E. C. Knuth said:

” This national and mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today we see through a glass darkly: for there is so much and it would not be in the public interest to divulge.”…

The battle for power and riches is an ancient one, but any attempt to make sense of the present world situation where the bulk of humanity is being herded like sheep into a corral without some knowledge of history is a difficult if not impossible task.

At present names have been replaced by groups, capitalists, republicans, democrats, terrorists, corporations, NATO, UNO, NAFTA, EMI, ECB, ASEAN. They are names that are spewed out like confetti in an endless list of anonymity.

In spite of modern technology the figures in the background remain blurred. Mention the word “Jew” or “Conspiracy” and everyone with few exceptions will turn away. Why? Fear? Of what? What is the magic talisman which makes the mention of these co-religionists a no-go area? Is it because they have infiltrated every aspect of human activity? Is it they who are pulling the strings which are leading the world on its downward slope?

The Jew has been mistrusted since way back. But what is apparent now is that any attempt to offer an answer to the question is clamped down upon. What does that indicate? Above all it indicates that these shadowy figures fear more than anything else the truth.

Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, “The American Hebrew,” expressed the following similar sentiments:

“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism.

In Europe and Russia alone, the Jews have been banished 47 times in the last 1,000 years: Mainz, 1012; France, 1182; Upper Bavaria, 1276; England, 1290; France, 1306; France, 1322; Saxony, 1349; Hungary, 1360; Belgium, 1370; Slovakia, 1380; France, 1394; Austria, 1420; Lyons, 1420; Cologne, 1424; Mainz, 1438; Augsburg, 1438; Upper Bavaria, 1442; Netherlands, 1444; Brandenburg, 1446; Mainz, 1462; Lithuania, 1495; Portugal, 1496; Naples, 1496; Navarre, 1498; Nuremberg, 1498; Brandenburg, 1510; Prussia, 1510; Genoa, 1515; Naples, 1533; Italy, 1540; Naples, 1541; Prague, 1541; Genoa, 1550; Bavaria, 1551; Prague, 1557; Papal States, 1569; Hungary, 1582; Hamburg, 1649; Vienna, 1669; Slovakia, 1744; Mainz, 1483; Warsaw, 1483; Spain, 1492; Italy, 1492; Moravia, 1744; Bohemia, 1744; Moscow, 1891.

(The above is excerpted from The Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.)
Of what were these people guilty to arouse such a reaction from so many diverse people?
Well, in England, it’s very interesting:

IT ALL STARTED with The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 AD.

The Jews would have us believe that their expulsion from England by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307) was due to their money lending endeavors. The real reason was due to the Jews’ crime of blood ritual murders.

The Orthodox Christian historian of the 5th Century, Socrates Scholasticus, in his Ecclesiastical History, 7:16, recounts an incident about Jews killing a Christian child:

— “At a place near Antioch in Syria, the Jews, in derision of the Cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a cross they made, began to sneer at him. In a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands.” —
Here are a few examples which led to the English expulsion of the Jews in 1290 AD:

1144 A.D. Norwich: A twelve year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew to Christianity named Theobald of Cambridge informed the authorities that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever return to Palestine. The boy has ever since been known as St. William.

1160 A.D. Gloucester: The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the wounds of crucifixion.
1255 A.D. Lincoln: A boy named Hugh was tortured and crucified by the Jews. The boy’s mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew named Jopin. 18 Jews were hanged for the crime by King Henry III.

1290 A.D. Oxford: The Patent Roll 18 Of Edward I, 21st June 1290 contains an order for the Gaol delivery of a Jew named Isaac de Pulet for the murder and blood letting of a Christian boy. Only one month after this, King Edward I issued his decree expelling the Jews from England.

(See Sources #1 Below )

JEWISH BANKERS FROM AMSTERDAM led by the Jewish financier and army contractor of Cromwell’s New Model Army, Fernandez Carvajal and assisted by Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew), saw an opportunity to exploit in the civil unrest led by Oliver Cromwell in 1643.

A stable Christian society of ancient traditions binding the Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and people into one solemn bond was disrupted by Calvin’s Protestant uprising. The Jews of Amsterdam exploited this civil unrest and made their move. They contacted Oliver Cromwell in a series of letters:

Cromwell To Ebenezer Pratt of the Mulheim Synagogue in Amsterdam,
16th June 1647:

— “In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.” —
To Oliver Cromwell From Ebenezer Pratt, 12th July 1647:

— “Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.” —

Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649.
Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England.

(See Sources #2 Below )

JEWS GET THEIR CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND

WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William’s elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange.

The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange.

To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers.

In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England. In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L’Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England.

The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers’ chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.

Since the state’s debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.

ENTER THE ROTHSCHILDS

MAYER AMSCHEL BAUER OPENED a money lending business on Judenstrasse (Jew Street) in Frankfurt Germany in 1750 and changed his name to Rothschild. Mayer Rothschild had five sons.

The smartest of his sons, Nathan, was sent to London to establish a bank in 1806. Much of the initial funding for the new bank was tapped from the British East India Company which Mayer Rothschild had significant control of. Mayer Rothschild placed his other four sons in Frankfort, Paris, Naples, and Vienna.
In 1814, Nathanael Rothschild saw an opportunity in the Battle of Waterloo. Early in the battle, Napoleon appeared to be winning and the first military report to London communicated that fact. But the tide turned in favor of Wellington.
A courier of Nathan Rothschild brought the news to him in London on June 20. This was 24 hours before Wellington’s courier arrived in London with the news of Wellington’s victory. Seeing this fortuitous event, Nathan Rothschild began spreading the rumor that Britain was defeated.
With everyone believing that Wellington was defeated, Nathan Rothschild began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone panicked and also began selling causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, Nathan Rothschild began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices.
This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy – now the financial centre of the world and forced England to set up a revamped Bank of England with Nathan Rothschild in control.
(See Sources #4 Below )

ALL ABOUT THE JEWISH VATICAN

(As much as that is possible given Rothschild secrecy)

A PRIVATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION exists today in England known as “The City.” It is also known as The Jewish Vatican located in the heart of Greater London.

A Committee of 12 men rule The Jewish Vatican. They are known as “The Crown.” The City and its rulers, The Crown, are not subject to the Parliament. They are a Sovereign State within a State.
The City is the financial hub of the world. It is here that the Rothschilds have their base of operations and their centrality of control:

* The Central Bank of England (controlled by the Rothschilds) is located in The City.
* All major British banks have their main offices in The City.
* 385 foreign banks are located in The City.
* 70 banks from the United States are located in The City.
* The London Stock Exchange is located in The City.
* Lloyd’s of London is located in The City.
* The Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts) is located in The City.
* Fleet Street (newspapers & publishing) is located in The City.
* The London Metal Exchange is located in The City.
* The London Commodity Exchange (trading rubber, wool, sugar, coffee) is located in The City.
Every year a Lord Mayor is elected as monarch of The City. The British Parliament does not make a move without consulting the Lord Mayor of The City. For here in the heart of London are grouped together Britain’s financial institutions dominated by the Rothschild-controlled Central Bank of England.

The Rothschilds have traditionally chosen the Lord Mayor since 1820. Who is the present day Lord Mayor of The City? Only the Rothschilds’ know for sure…
(See Sources #5 Below )

Sources #1: Ariel Toaff, Bloody Passover-Jews of Europe and Ritual Homicide, 2007 Click Here; J. C. Cox, Norfolk Churches; Victoria County History of Norfolk, 1906; Arnold Leese, Jewish Ritual Murder In England; Henry III, Close Roll 16; Joseph Haydn, Dictionary of Dates.

Sources #2: Isaac Disraeli, Life of Charles I, 1851; Hugh Ross Williamson, Charles and Cromwell; AHM Ramsey, The Nameless War; Lord Alfred Douglas, Plain English, 1921; Geoffrey H. Smith, The Settlement Of Jews In England

Sources #3: John Harold Wood, History of Central Banking in Great Britain; Gustaaf Johannes Renier, William of Orange

Sources #4: Frederick Morton, The Rothschilds; Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby

Sources #5: E.C. Knuth, The Empire of The City; Des Griffin, Descent Into Slavery

In 1875, the Khedive of Egypt, forced by financial stringency, was anxious to sell his interest in the Suez Canal. Disraeli must have known of this at once through his friend and master Rothschild. A Mr. F. Greenwood, Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, received private advices that the shares might be acquired for England, and patriotically refusing to make a journalistic “scoop” of the information, hastened to Lord Derby with the news. Lord Derby consulted with his Hebrew Prime Minister, and the latter then bought the shares. Parliament was not sitting at the time, and Disraeli borrowed £4,000,000 from his colleagues the Rothschilds, who made a profit of about £500,000, which no doubt earned for Disraeli a considerable commission. It was, of course, to the Jewish interest that Britain should hold the Suez Canal (until the Jews got Palestine out of the Great War). Disraeli had written to the Queen saying, “We have scarcely time to breathe, we must carry the matter through.” He was very, very anxious that Rothschilds should handle the loan! Now, read this extract from a letter from the Hon. G. M. Kinnaird to The Times dated 20th March, 1930.

Nathan Mayer Rothschild  also funded Cecil Rhodes in the development of the British South Africa Company and the De Beers diamond conglomerate. He succeeded him as General of the Society of the Elect and later administered Rhodes's estate after his death in 1902 and helped to set up the Rhodes Scholarship scheme at Oxford University.  He worked as a partner in the London branch of the family bank NM Rothschild and Sons and became head of the bank after his father's death in 1879. During his tenure he also maintained its pre-eminent position in private venture finance and in issuing loans to the governments of the USA, Russia and Austria. Following the Rothschild's funding of the Suez Canal a close relationship was maintained with Benjamin Disraeli and affairs in Egypt and the Middle East.

__._,_.___

.

__,_._,___

*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only *** CAVEAT LECTOR *** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. NOTE: Some links may require cut and paste into your Internet Browser. Please check for daily real news posts and support the truth! (sorry but don't have time to email all posts) at http://tinyurl.com/33c9yr    or  http://tinyurl.com/yzbolzu or http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ttsarchive/messages ; You can also subscribe to the multiple daily emails by sending  an email to total_truth_sciences+subscribe@googlegroups.com ; free book download:http://tinyurl.com/2afxwx2 ;*** Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes only. ***  NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency (NSA) may have read emails without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse, nor protection.......... IF anyone other than the addressee of this e-mail is reading it, you are in violation of the 1st & 4th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Patriot Act 5 & H.R. 1955 Disclaimer Notice: This post & all my past & future posts represent parody & satire & are all intended for intellectual entertainment only.To be removed from the weekly list, please reply with the subject line "REMOVE"

 
Patricia McAllister - Fired
LAUSD School Teacher - Update 
From Patricia McAllister
10-23-11 

What I have experienced less than a week ago, (Tuesday, October 18, 2011) has been unbelievable. Let me start from the beginning.

 

As you might remember, I was posting, asking teachers to come to Occupy LA with our cause about the firing and mistreatment of teachers.  That is what I did.  I made a sign about teachers losing their jobs, and about money being stolen from teachers, and I took my lawn chair and sat on the grounds of city hall, like many other citizens...seniors, young, and old.

 

I was approached by a reporter who said he wanted to ask me some questions.  He had a camera crew guy with him to take the video.  The interview was about 5 minutes long.  After the interview I forgot about it.  I think the interview took place on Friday, October 14, 2011.  On Monday morning, October 17, I started getting calls on my cell phone with such comments as "we support you", and some not so nice comments.  I did not know WHAT was going on.  I then went on the web and I started looking around the web, and I found the Occupy LA video!  I was shocked.

 

I had an assignment to teach at a high school on subfinder. A school requested me for a future assignment.  I then decided to go to subfinder to check the assignment, and I got the message, "your status is inactive, contact your supervisor."  I then knew that something was brewing.

 

I called the Subunit, and I was transferred to a supervisor.  She asked me to call upstairs to Ira Berman, Director of Employee Relations.  I called and we decided that I should come into the office to speak to Mr. Berman.

 

When I got to headquarters on Beautry, I was escorted into Mr. Berman's office, along with his assistant.  Mr. Berman gave me his business card, and he said that I no longer had a job with the district, that I was dismissed.  I asked him why, and he said that he could not talk about it.  I then asked him for the pink slip, and he said that he did not have one.  I was in his office no more than 45 seconds.

 

This happened to be the same day that the Occupy LAUSD rally was held.  I did not realize that until afterwards.  I went to the supply store and I bought some sign boards and I stood in front of Beaudry.  News reporters saw me and ran up to me saying that they heard I was fired, and they interviewed me...Fox news and KTLA.  I have also had interviews with other news media.

 

One might ask why this is such a hot topic.  Well, anytime you mention the Zionist Jews and their ownership of the printing of our money, and their ownership of the Federal Reserve Bank, you will get a lot of static.  Remember Helen Thomas and Rich Sanchez?  All they did was mention Jews, and they were fired.

 

The statement that I made was true. I will never apologize or back down from my statement. This matter concerning our Federal Reserve Bank being privately owned has been a concern of mine for years. Congress does not even have the authority to audit the Federal Reserve Bank!

 

I will have extensive history of the Federal Reserve Bank in the near future for the world to read.  Experts have also said that if the printing of America's money is turned over to the Treasury, through the Congress, that the U.S. could be out of debt within a year!  Do you see, the mismanagement and the printing of America's money by the Feds is the reason why we as Americans are suffering today!  This is why what I said is causing such a stir.

 

The Zionist Jewish bankers who started the Feds started the IRS within months of the Fed's beginning. The Fed buys U.S. debt with money they printed from nothing (trees), then charges the U.S. taxpayers interest. The government had to create income tax to pay the interest expense to the Fed's shareholders, but the income tax was never legally passed. The Fed is illegal per Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, not one state legally ratified the 16th Amendment making income tax legal.

 

I created the petition to have my job reinstated. Please go to the following website to sign the petition.  Thank you in advance for all of your support.

 

 

http://www.change.org/petitions/los-angeles-unified-school-district-
reinstate-my-job-as-a-substitute-teacher?share_id=zyHhqdlGNG&pe=pce

 

Have a blessed day.

 

 

Note - View Patricia's Free Speech video that resulted in her being fired.  Click HERE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IMjm4LxFa1c

 

 

Questions About New LAUSD

 

Superintendent John Deasy's Credentials

By Patricia McAllister 

 

10-23-11

 

 

Per the LA Weekly News:

 

The newly appointed Superintendent of LAUSD, John Deasy, who had worked with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, found himself in two major controversies.  In 2008, Capital News Service found lies in Deasy's resume. He stated the wrong date he received a master's degree, and he claimed he held a position in the doctoral program at Loyola Marymount University from 2003 to present. Loyola's human resources department could not find Deasy listed as a current or past faculty member.

 

Also, the Griffith Park Wayist also offers up a Baltimore Sun article that goes into how Deasy was caught in another controversy in 2008. He received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Louisville after completing only nine credits.

 

============================

 

We as educators know that to receive a doctorate degree, a total of no less than 54 credits are required beyond a 36 semester hour Master's degree.  I think that John Deasy is a fraud.

 

Questions? Call Deasy at 213-241-7000.

 

John Deasy is the same Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School district, who went on TV this week telling the world that I was fired for making my comments.

 

I think that when a lot of embezzlement is going on, all of the top people that are recruited must be willing to take the same chances.  Based on Deasy's resume, it is evident that he is not a man of high character.

 

I think that we should call for the resignation of John Deasy, for falsifying his credentials.  If teachers were caught falsifying their credentials, they would be fired. Deasy is no better than we are. In my opinion, John Deasy is not qualified to be the Superintendent of the Los Angeles School District.

 

Note: The LAUSD School Board members knew about Deasy's false credentials, and they hired him anyway.  The LAUSD board members should be held accountable for their decision.

 

Please visit the following link for more information on John Deasy and the falsifying of his credentials.

 

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/06/john_deasy_lausd.php

 

 

Have a blessed day.