← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 16630 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2005-02-07
2005-02-07 06:44 | User Profile
Interesting thread at majorityrights.com:
[url=http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/392/]The founder of modern conservatism was a Jew[/url]
2005-02-07 06:53 | User Profile
Tex, This is a load of crap, particularly this:
[QUOTE]Disraeli saw ââ¬ÅJewââ¬Â as, first and foremost, a nationality or race. The world having visited on them ââ¬Åevery term of obloquy and every form of persecution,ââ¬Â he wrote in his Biography of Lord George Bentinck, the Jews are, notwithstanding, ââ¬Åthe human family that has contributed most to human happiness.ââ¬Â [/QUOTE]
Yes, I just absolutely love the 20th century!
2005-02-07 07:01 | User Profile
As soon as someone tosses around the word "democracy" [as Disraeli did], I instinctively head for the door. "Democracy" is code-speak for "watering-down-the-host-culture-to-benefit-the-Jews." In fact, our American forebears warned[I] against [/I] democracy [in favor of a republic].
I'm not impressed with Disraeli's clever words.
2005-02-07 07:11 | User Profile
Yes, interesting thread. Philosophically Disraeli is insignificant in the conservatives lexicon. But politically he was notable. You can see why the neo-cons like him.
[QUOTE]Post-1832, Britainââ¬â¢s Tories had two main alternatives. They could turn themselves into a watered-down version of the opposition or become something brand new. Disraeli believed in the second alternative. He wanted the Tories [B]to care about poverty, favor democracy, be ââ¬Åinclusive,ââ¬Â [/B] and hold the nationââ¬â¢s traditions in deep romantic reverence--in other words, be just like him[/QUOTE]
We don't studied British history much in the U.S. but I think 1832 must have been one of the years of great expansion of the voting franchise in Britain for Parliament. It was assumed that the new voters would be more liberal than the old aristocratic monopoly was. Disraeli actually at the time was called a "Red Tory". Maybe that label has more significance than I initially dismissed it as, seeing the neo-cons today.
2005-02-07 14:49 | User Profile
[quote=Franco]"Democracy" is code-speak for "watering-down-the-host-culture-to-benefit-the-Jews."
Do you believe that Disraeli wanted to water down British culture for the benefit of the Jews?
2005-02-07 15:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Luh_Windan]Do you believe that Disraeli wanted to water down British culture for the benefit of the Jews?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Jews have an inborn desire to water-down all White cultures in which they live. They believe [quite correctly] that a more liberal society will be less likely to "oppress" them. That Jewish belief also applies to multicultural societies.
2005-02-07 15:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Yes. Jews have an inborn desire to water-down all White cultures in which they live. They believe [quite correctly] that a more liberal society will be less likely to "oppress" them. That Jewish belief also applies to multicultural societies.
----------[/QUOTE] Can you prove that this desire existed in Disraeli, and explain how his support for parliamentary democracy in Britain served it?
2005-02-07 16:05 | User Profile
[quote=Okiereddust]We don't studied British history much in the U.S. but I think 1832 must have been one of the years of great expansion of the voting franchise in Britain for Parliament. It was assumed that the new voters would be more liberal than the old aristocratic monopoly was. Disraeli actually at the time was called a "Red Tory". Maybe that label has more significance than I initially dismissed it as, seeing the neo-cons today.
'Red Tory' is still in common use around here... They define themselves against neoconservatism actually, instead reflecting more communitarian or 'collectivist' social values. Many oppose free trade and are thus associated with protectionist economics. Take from that what you will.
2005-02-07 16:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Luh_Windan]Can you prove that this desire existed in Disraeli, and explain how his support for parliamentary democracy in Britain served it?[/QUOTE]
I believe the argument would be that Disraeli, as a self-identifying ethnic jew, is invariably against the interests and aims of ethnic white gentiles on some level.
2005-02-07 17:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I believe the argument would be that Disraeli, as a self-identifying ethnic jew, is invariably against the interests and aims of ethnic white gentiles on some level.[/QUOTE] On some level, sure, but not necessarily one of any consequence to this matter.
2005-02-07 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Luh_Windan]On some level, sure, but not necessarily one of any consequence to this matter.[/QUOTE]MacDonald discusses Disraeli's racial beliefs, in fact this quote of Disraeli's seems to be one of his favorites, although nothing more than that.
But existing society has chosen to persecute this race which should furnish its choice allies, and what have been the consequences?
They may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and propertyââ¬Â¦. The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skillful accumulators of property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe! And all that because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.
In [I]Lord George Bentnick, a Political Biography *(1852)
2005-02-07 18:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Luh_Windan]On some level, sure, but not necessarily one of any consequence to this matter.[/QUOTE]
If we go back to Okie's posted quote as follows: > (Disraeli) wanted the Tories to care about poverty, favor democracy, be “inclusive,” and hold the nation’s traditions in deep romantic reverence--in other words, be just like him
Viewing that in light of today's distortion of American conservatism by the neo-cons, I would say that it is of critical consequence.
2005-02-07 18:34 | User Profile
[quote=Texas Dissident]Quote: (Disraeli) wanted the Tories to care about poverty, favor democracy, be “inclusive,” and hold the nation’s traditions in deep romantic reverence--in other words, be just like him
Viewing that in light of today's distortion of American conservatism by the neo-cons, I would say that it is of critical consequence.
Maybe, if you can explain how his Jewishness (in accordance with Franco's take on it) influenced those positions of his, rather than an earnest care for the British people...
Is it a particularly malicious trait the Jews have, that causes them to demand others to hold the nation's traditions in deep romantic reverence?
2005-02-07 18:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Luh_Windan]Maybe, if you can explain how his Jewishness (in accordance with Franco's take on it) influenced those positions of his, rather than an earnest care for the British people... Really, as Americans, we know nothing about Disraeli. I doubt, that like most politicians, that his expressed "love of the people", was entirely devoid of personal pecuniary political benefit, but really know little about the man.
Is it a particularly malicious trait the Jews have, that causes them to demand others to hold the nation's traditions in deep romantic reverence?[/QUOTE]Well here it certainly seems that way with the American neo-cons, when the "nations traditions" as they describe them of course, are used against the nations people, i.e. the "credal nation" concept.
The fact that these people are now promoting a Disraeli revival seems quite significant, but exactly how so yet I really can't say.
2005-02-07 18:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Luh_Windan]Maybe, if you can explain how his Jewishness (in accordance with Franco's take on it) influenced those positions of his, rather than an earnest care for the British people...
As a self-identified ethnic jew distinct from the British white gentile majority, was his 'earnest care for the British people' really appropriate? I'm certainly no Disraeli scholar, but based on the overwhelming evidence throughout the history of Western Christendom, I doubt it.
Is it a particularly malicious trait the Jews have, that causes them to demand others to hold the nation's traditions in deep romantic reverence?[/QUOTE]
The basic point is that if one or many identify as ethnic jews, as in the case of the founding neo-conservative intelligentsia, then their beliefs/views of what is the nation's traditions will be skewed and at variance with the core ethnic group that comprise the nation in question. Or in other words, they can't reverence the nation's traditions because at bottom, they are not truly of the nation.
2005-02-07 19:29 | User Profile
In 1877, Disraeli vehemently opposed Russia's Balkan invasion - which had been prompted by terrible massacres of Christian Bulgarians who had rebelled against their Turkish overlords.
[B]Fyodor Dostoevsky [/B] was enraged because of this Turk-loving diplomacy that nearly drove Great Britain into war with Russia, on Turkey's side, and mentions (with sarcasm) "Lord Beaconsfield and other Jews" in his "[I]Writer's Diary[/I]" that dealt with current events.
Petr
2005-02-07 20:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]In 1877, Disraeli vehemently opposed Russia's Balkan invasion - which had been prompted by terrible massacres of Christian Bulgarians who had rebelled against their Turkish overlords.
[B]Fyodor Dostoevsky [/B] was enraged because of this Turk-loving diplomacy that nearly drove Great Britain into war with Russia, on Turkey's side, and mentions (with sarcasm) "Lord Beaconsfield and other Jews" in his "[I]Writer's Diary[/I]" that dealt with current events.
Petr[/QUOTE] Yes, this seems to be part of the continuing trend in English diplomacy in the mid 19th century, typified by such exceedingly obscure events to us like the [URL=http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/russia/lectures/19crimeanwar.html]Crimean War[/URL], which most Americans if they have heard of all just remember on account of the famous Tennyson poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade".
It certainly was Disraeli's era, whatever his actual involvement was. I always wondered along these lines why turn of the century Russians seemed to have such a contempt for the "pseudo-jewish" British. Perhaps this was why. Britain's support for marginal Christianity seems about as sincere and complete as Disraeli's "conversion" at 13.
2005-02-08 02:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Luh_Windan]Can you prove that this desire existed in Disraeli, and explain how his support for parliamentary democracy in Britain served it?[/QUOTE] Can I prove it? Well, look at Disraeli's "PC" words and remember the era in which those words were uttered [the 1800s]. That was not exactly a PC era.
Most Jews have that inborn desire to re-make gentile societies to keep Jews safe from "anti-Semitism," and I am certain that that desire was even stronger in Disraeli, since he had more brains and ambition than many other Jews. Of course, given the times, he couldn't be overt in that desire. He had to be rather careful....but still, look at Disraeli's words and ponder them.
2005-02-08 02:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I always wondered along these lines why turn of the century Russians seemed to have such a contempt for the "pseudo-jewish" British. [/QUOTE] Okie, that is a topic that needs its own thread!
The British are considered to be long-time "Jew-pals." That's why the neocons love the British. And that's also why many WNs dislike England.
2005-02-08 02:59 | User Profile
Disraeli said "race is the key to history" and he is right about that.
2005-02-08 03:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Okie, that is a topic that needs its own thread! Dig up a reference, go ahead.
The British are considered to be long-time "Jew-pals." That's why the neocons love the British. And that's also why many WNs dislike England.
-----------[/QUOTE]In all fairness though America is still the King. Listen to some jews talking about England they can still hardly keep the snear off their face. Such as Like I remember a columinist Mandel out in SF talking about Prince Charles, how he hated him cause he was so English.
Of course the Tudors actually aren't english at all - they're german.
Anyway, I suspect all nations have their philo and phobo semitic sides.
2005-02-08 04:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Can I prove it? Well, look at Disraeli's "PC" words and remember the era in which those words were uttered [the 1800s]. That was not exactly a PC era.
Most Jews have that inborn desire to re-make gentile societies to keep Jews safe from "anti-Semitism," and I am certain that that desire was even stronger in Disraeli, since he had more brains and ambition than many other Jews. Of course, given the times, he couldn't be overt in that desire. He had to be rather careful....but still, look at Disraeli's words and ponder them.
--------[/QUOTE] Of course he would have wanted to protect Jews... The question is, how did he endeavour to water down British culture as you've claimed? What exactly about his "PC" vision indicates that desire, and how did his actions accomplish that in any way?
2005-02-08 04:23 | User Profile
Anyone read the book "Empire Of The City" by E.C.Knuth?
The author documents the misdeeds of the British & other world powers vis-a-vis the policies of the cabal of financiers who inhabit "The City" financial district of London, England.
A real eye opener, to say the least.
Book: "The Empire Of The City" - Item # E-121 @ [url]http://www.midnight-emissary.com/illum.htm[/url]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ An excerpt from "The Empire of The City"
[url]http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/empire.htm[/url]
THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY" (An excerpt from the book by E.C. Knuth)
"The City" is an international financial oligarchy and is perhaps the most arbitrary and absolute form of government in the world. This international financial oligarchy uses the allegoric "Crown" as its symbol of power and has its headquarters in the ancient City of London, an area of 677 acres; which strangely in all the vast expanse of the 443,455 acres of Metropolitan London alone is not under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police, but has its own private force of about 2,000 men, while its night population is under 9,000.
This tiny area of a little over one square mile has in it the giant Bank of England, a privately owned institution; which as is further elaborated hereinafter is not subject to regulation by the British Parliament, and is in effect a sovereign world power. Within the City are located also the Stock Exchange and many institutions of world-wide scope. The City carries on its business of local government with a fanciful display of pompous medieval ceremony and with its officers attired in grotesque ancient costumes. Its voting power is vested in secret guilds with names of long extinct crafts such as the Mercers, Grocers, Fishmongers, Skinners, Vintners, etc. All this trivial pomp and absurdity and horse-play seems to serve very well to blind the eyes of the public to the big things going on behind the scenes; for the late Vincent Cartwright Vickers, once Deputy-Lieutenant of this City, a director of the great British armament firm of Vickers, Ltd., and a director of the Bank of England from 1910 to 1919, in his "Economic Tribulation" published 1940, lays the wars of the world on the door-step of the City.
That the British people and the British Parliament have little to say in the foreign affairs of the British Empire, and that the people of the British Empire must fight when International Finance and the City blow the trumpet, appears from the paean of praise of America by Andrew Carnegie, "Triumphant Democracy," published in 1886 by that American super-industrialist and British newspaper publisher, in the following words: "My American readers may not be aware of the fact that, while in Britain an act of Parliament is necessary before works for a supply of water or a mile of railway can be constructed, six or seven men can plunge the nation into war, or, what is perhaps equally disastrous, commit it to entangling alliances without consulting Parliament at all. This is the most pernicious, palpable effect flowing from the monarchial theory, for these men do this in 'the king's Name,' who is in theory still a real monarch, although in reality only a convenient puppet, to be used by the cabinet at pleasure to suit their own needs."
Edwin J. Clapp, Professor of Economics at New York University, in his "Economic Aspects Of The War" published in 1915, developed the utterly boundless authority assumed by the "Crown" in its commands to the nations of the world through its "Order-in-Council," used without restraint and without reference to existing usage or so-called International law, by making new International Law to fit any situation, as required. The Balance of Power is a creation of this financial oligarchy and its purposes are as follows:
(1) To divide the nations of Europe into two antagonistic camps of nearly equal military weight, so as to retain for Britain itself the power to sway a decision either way.
(2) To make the leading and potentially most dangerous military power the particular prey of British suppression and to have the second strongest power on the other side. To subsidize the "Most Favored Nations" with financial investments, and to permit them to acquire political advantages under the beneficent protection of the Sea-Power, to the disadvantage and at the expense of the nations being suppressed.
(3) To subject the continent of Europe to the "Policy of Encirclement" so as to keep the nations of the continent in poverty and ineffectiveness, and thereby prevent the growth of sufficient commercial expansion and wealth to create a rival sea-power.
(4) To retain that complete control and hegemony over all the seas of the world, which was acquired by defeating the allied fleets of its only real rivals, France and Spain, in 1805; and which is artfully and subtly called "The Freedom of the Seas."
(5) To shift this Balance of Power as required so as to be able to strike down friend or foe in the rapidly shifting scene of world power politics, in that inexorable ideology that demands that everything and anything must be sacrificed where the future welfare and expansion to the eventual destiny of the Empire are affected; that eventual destiny outlined by its proponents as the eventual control of All the lands, and All the peoples, of All the world.
The ideology of the British Empire has been outlined in the past by various British statesmen and specifically by Mr. Disraeli (Lord Beaconsfield). The modern version which has been broadened to include the United States as a principal in the British Empire was outlined by Cecil Rhodes about 1895 as follows: "Establish a secret society in order to have the whole continent of South America, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan and, finally, the United States. In the end Great Britain is to establish a power so overwhelming that wars must cease and the Millenium be realized."
The secret societies of the above plan apparently came to life immediately after the death of Mr. Rhodes in the Pilgrims of Great Britain, often used by British statesmen in recent years as a public sounding board; and the Pilgrims of the United States, the latter founded in New York City on January 13, 1903, and listed in directories of secret societies with no indication or purpose. Mr. Rhodes left a fortune of about $150,000,000.00 to the Rhodes Foundation, apparently largely directed towards the eventual intent of his ideology. One admitted purpose was "in creating in American students an attachment to the country from which they originally sprang . . ." It appears that organizations such as "Union Now," subversive to the liberty and the Constitution of the United States of America, have a large sprinkling of Rhodes scholars among their staff.
The Pilgrims were founded in London July 24, 1902, four months after the death of Cecil Rhodes who had outlined an ideology of a secret society to work towards eventual British rule of all the world, and who had made particular provisions in his will designed to bring the United States among the countries "possessed by Great Britain."
Sir Harry Brittain (high-ranking member of the Pilgrims) records that he was requested to come to New York in 1915 by the Chairman of the American Pilgrims "in order to give him a hand" in welcoming Lord Reading (Rufus Isaacs). The dinner in honor of Lord Reading took place at Sherry's on October 1st, and was attended by 400 representative men prominent in the banking, commercial and political life of the United States.
The magic number of 400, once the symbol of reigning wealth and privilege, appears here in a new role. Men of millions here sway the destiny, the life or death of their fellow citizens, with an organization which is subversive to the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States, an organization of which not one in one thousand of their fellow citizens has ever heard. The purpose of these men is completely interwoven with the dependence of their own invariably great fortunes on the operations of "The City," citadel of International Finance. Not only do these men collectively exert a planned influence of immense weight in utter secrecy, but they operate with the support of the immense funds provided by Cecil Rhodes and Andrew Carnegie.
The late Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., in the course of a speech in the United States Senate in March, 1908, asserted that fewer than one hundred men control the great business interests of the country. His statement brought forth a nation-wide storm of denunciation and ridicule, and even today any similar statement is invariably derided as "crackpot." Nevertheless, Senator LaFollette conclusively demonstrated a few days later from the Directory of Directors that through interlocking directorates actually less than one dozen men controlled the business of the country, that in the last analysis the houses of Rockefeller and Morgan were the real business kings of America. empire.htm
If you wish to receive our FREE weekly Newsletter please e-mail: [url]http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/[/url]
2005-02-08 04:29 | User Profile
Bardamu,
I have never been sure what to make of Disraeli...
Disraeli on Race: [QUOTE]ââ¬ÅNo one must lightly dismiss the question of Race. It is the key to world history and it is precisely for this reason that written history so often lacks clarity.....It is written by people who do not understand the Race question and what belongs to it.....Language and religion do not make a Race, only blood does that.ââ¬Â [/QUOTE]