“Labour is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labour, and could never have existed if labour had not first existed. Labour is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” (Abraham Lincoln, December 3, 1861, address to Congress) See, in this connection, Karl Marx on productive and unproductive labour, and the parasites that live on productive labour through their minions of unproductive labourers (politicians, lawyers, bankers, etc., etc.); the dwindling returns of victim nations within their grasp, ending in bankruptcy by over-investment in the military.
In the USSR, in 1991, “The production of money was growing, but it was not backed with the industrial production of essential commodities. In short, guns and tanks were produced in excess, but ordinary butter was hard to find.” (Pravda, July 16, 2013)
In his book, Jews Must Live, Jewish writer, Samuel Roth, states of the Jews, “Our major vice of old, as of today, is parasitism. We are a people of vultures living on the labour and the good nature of the rest of the world. But, despite our faults, we would never have done so much damage to the world if it had not been for our genius for evil leadership.”
This “evil leadership” often consists of a number of ennobled Jews, whose self-advancement has included some title. The ludicrous notion of Jewish nobility is a contradiction in terms and a debasement of all it purports to represent. However irregular in practice, it is the apprehension of rectitude that has been violated by this traducement. The morally elevated and admirable character implied by the concept of nobility stands in direct contrast to the huckstering that is the nexus of Jewish progress. While Jewish titles abound—from those achieved by the nineteenth century infiltration of European nobility, through the clownish Lord “Cashpoint” Levy (cash for titles scandal, arrested, later released), to the superior Lord Rothschild—the barrier between ancient hierarchy and modern mountebank is insurmountable.
With the opening of the twentieth century, those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception. In nearly all of them the strain was more or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the name was still English and the tradition that of a purely English lineage of the long past, the physique and character had become wholly Jewish and the members of the family were taken for Jews whenever they travelled in countries where the gentry had not yet suffered or enjoyed this mixture. (Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, 1922)
Again, elevation to the peerage confirms the allegiance of an individual to a country and its traditions. A glance at the frequent eviction of Jews throughout history will show that, far from belonging anywhere, their very existence depends on their aptitude as carpetbaggers.
Queen Victoria herself had qualms about the granting of titles to Jews. When it was recommended to her that Sir Lionel Rothschild should be promoted to the peerage, she wrote as follows in a letter dated November 1, 1869, to Mr. Gladstone:
It is not only the feeling, of which she cannot divest herself, against making a person of the Jewish religion a peer, but she cannot think that one who owes his great wealth to contracts with foreign governments for loans, or to successful speculation on the stock exchange can fairly claim a British peerage. However high Sir L. Rothschild may stand personally in public estimation, this seems to her not the less a species of gambling because it is on a gigantic scale and far removed from that legitimate trading which she delights to honour, in which men have raised themselves by patient industry and unswerving probity to positions of wealth and influence. (By 1885, perhaps due to the death of Prince Albert and to Disraeli’s influence, her resistance had been broken and Rothschild was elevated to the peerage.)
William Cobbett thus addressed the aristocracy of his day (about 1827) in his Letter to the Nobility of England:
COBBETT
You feel ... that you are not the men your grandfathers were; but you have come into your present state by slow degrees, and therefore you cannot tell, even to yourselves, not only how the change has come about, but you cannot tell what sort of change it really is. You may know what it is, however ... when you reflect that your grandfathers would as soon have thought of dining with a chimney sweep than of dining with a Jew or with any huckstering reptile who has amassed money by watching the turn of the market; that those grandfathers would have thought it no dishonour at all to sit at table with farmers, or even with labourers, but that they would have shunned the usurious tribe of loan Jobbers, and other notorious changers of money as they would have shunned the whirlwind or the pestilence.
***
“Fraud is the vital weapon in the battle of the mobile (Jewish) versus the tangible (Aryan) spirit and indeed has been since eternity. So, over the chapter which might describe this battle, should be plastered, in huge letters the word Fraud (…) Fraudulent are the multiplicity of political catchwords entrenched behind which the real goal of world domination of the mobile spirit could stay hidden for so long (…) But before we explore, in the multifarious fields of commercial and civil life, how the Jews succeeded in cheating the Aryans of their right of primogeniture over the tangible spirit, we must learn to recognize from a few examples how it was possible for the weak, impotent, despised and seemingly so powerless Ghetto-Jew to know how to force upon the German his will very gradually, without the latter ever being conscious of this mysterious violation.
The individual’s fraud only becomes a monstrous power when a crowd of accomplices, initiated into the goal of a collectively well-planned deception, support him in these baffling dealings (…) And while the German today only slowly and gradually learns and will have to learn to be loyal to his fellows, the Jew has an easy time, thanks to his basic structure and without the slightest uniting pressure, joining his fellows in mutual affairs.” (Jewish philosopher Arthur Trebitsch, Deutscher Geist oder Judentum, “The Path to Deliverance”, 1921. p.62)
Why is there no Jewish equivalent to Dickens, Goethe, Victor Hugo, Leo Tolstoy or Mark Twain? Because these seminal authors wrote about their respective cultures, in which they were embedded. Not only their genius, but also their verisimilitude guarantees them eternal life. No floating population could conceive such works. Similar deductions can be made with regard to Jewish taste. On September 29, 2014, BBC Four showed two contrasting English gardens: Biddulph Grange, and, in stark contrast, Rothschild’s Waddesdon Manor (one of innumerable Rothschild palaces). The first, with its emblematic wild luxuriance and unique sequoia avenue, is considered the best Victorian garden in England. So dedicated was its originator, James Bateman, that he ruined himself in its creation. Whereas an English country house is embedded in its surroundings and ancient stone plays off against timeless greenery, carefully placed but natural in aspect, Waddesdon Manor’s manicured flora, curbed to perfection in its stone beds, its selected shrubs and statuary, for all the personal engagement and ambiance they exude, could have been municipal planting.
The viewer was assured that these flowers had short blooming periods and therefore only great wealth could afford them, but they might as well have been toilet rugs fronting the convenience. This exhibition-cum-inorganic-garden is not for the enthusiastic amateur, but for show. No Rothschild could be mistaken for an English gentleman, weeding on his knees in a threadbare Savile Row suit, for the latter implies a connection to the soil. “Great wealth” was also evident in the interiors of this place, shown on another programme, where the atmosphere was that of an elegant waiting room. Furniture and objects of singular discomforting and even ugly appearance, but doubtless authentically expensive French antiquity, repelled the visual visitor with their cold artificiality. Whether commissioned expertise or individual bad taste was to blame is immaterial; the result is the same. Intimacy and other attributes of humaneness are missing. It remains for Jews only to imitate or destroy what they can never have or become, and to undermine the homogenous social fabric via their political stooges, by civil war induced migrations and so-called anti-discriminatory legislation, including
attacks on such core values as the traditional family, through contrived “gender neutral” and radical feminist ideologies and “movements.”
“The phrase, ‘Emancipation of Women’ is only an invention of the Jewish intellect and its content is stamped with the same spirit. In the really good periods of German life the German woman never needed to emancipate herself.” (Adolf Hitler)
Incidentally, as part of the ongoing campaign to denature and dismantle traditional biological structures, “hate-crime” has just been extended by the EU Commission to include “homophobia”—insults against homosexuals, transsexuals, etc. --whose propagators may now be prosecuted under a law named after its instigator, a Green Party lesbian politician (Lunacek-law, February, 2014), another example of the remarkable modern tendency of individuals with some political influence to refashion the world to suit their personal and private tastes (see Coudenhove-Kalergi).
What we need are artisans (“butcher, baker, candlestick-maker”), craftsmen, and original, independent thinkers. What we get are pathetic goody-goodies and disturbed folk with meaningless but elaborate socio-bla-bla and psycho-bla-bla qualifications, desperate to be taken seriously. None of these comical “professions” existed just a short while ago. Where polytechnics once produced skilled workers, now superfluous “universities” feed superfluous populations in assembly-line fashion into prurience-appeal courses, and disgorge alphabetized peepers who need jobs. The job-market, hand-in-glove, invents employment for these dangerously useless drones, perhaps even in the law courts, where their state sanctioned “expertise” may lead to the release of violent criminals, for instance, or to state supported promotion of their sick fantasies through the publication of manuals for the abolishment of societal norms and the sexual education of preschool-age children. (“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts,” and results in “the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisors.”-- Richard Feynman, What is Science? )
The University of Roehampton Online:
The Department brings together world-leading research and teaching in all major areas of Psychology, Psychological Therapies and the Arts & Play Therapies. As well as being one of the largest psychological training departments in the UK, the Department has an active research community of staff and students in six research centres:
Centre for Applied Research and Assessment in Child and Adolescent Wellbeing (CARACAW)
Centre for Research in Cognition, Emotion and Interaction (CRICEI)
Clinical and Health Psychology Research Centre (CHP)
Research Centre for Therapeutic Education (RCTE)
Centre for Arts Therapies Research (CATR)
Centre for Research in Individual Differences (CRID)
The online masters degree in psychology helps working professionals to gain a deep understanding of psychology for the real world. Subject-matter experts, academics and online learning specialists have created an extraordinary and highly interactive learning journey, presenting core psychology subjects in an everyday context. As an online student with Roehampton, you’ll be part of an international community, networking, experimenting and sharing ideas with fellow professionals. Assessment is continuous, with no exams.With this practical approach and your final Psychology Research Project, the online psychology masters programme offers you the opportunity to move ahead in your career, gaining global connections and the “psychological literacy” of a successful “global citizen.” (Roehampton University internet site)
Here are a few of the areas apparently requiring psychologists: Health psychologists, Experimental psychologists, Criminal psychologists, Aviation psychology, Geropsychologists, Organizational Psychologist, Traffic psychology, military psychology, Consumer psychologists, Art therapists, school psychology, industrial-organizational psychology, forensic psychology, sports psychology. And these are just the non-prurient ones.
Here are the other kind:
Who are the pioneers of this new wave of enlightenment? And is it even new? Particularly influential are the “Society for Sexual Education,” GSP, and its co-founder and director Uwe Sielert, Professor of Pedagogy in Kiel. Sielert is the interpreter of a gender-sexual-pedagogy, with which he wishes to “de-naturalize” three facts of life: the nuclear family, heterosexuality and generativity, meaning the age-limits between generations. Sieler has also investigated processes of socialisation and work with youth. Sieler comes from the school of so-called neo-emancipatory sex investigation, founded by formerly widely admired sex researcher and social pedagogue Helmut Kentler. Kentler invited young boys into his home. During the early Seventies, Kentler allowed homeless young to be housed by convicted paederasts. These received care allowance from the senate, and Kentler dropped by regularly – to “supervise.”..Sielert’s Gender-Mainstream-Programme can be perused in the information service of the Federal Agency for Health Education. Professor Elisabeth Tuider from Cassel is also a member of the Society for Sexual Education. She and Sielert published the book: Further thoughts on Sexual Education, subtitle: Postmodern Elimination of Boundaries. With a few colleagues, all in the GSP, Tuider has in addition compiled the standard work Diversity in Sexual Education. The team of authors want to teach children and the young by means of “practical methods” “where else the penis may be put” – in order to emphasize the issue of “diversity.” (Under the Cloak of Diversity, FAZ, December 5, 2014)
“Top-down” “Gender-Mainstreaming” is merely another mechanism for pulling apart traditional societal structures and yet another example of the deplorable habit of modern “experts” of cobbling together a parody of language, by which, in this case, the normal definition of the word “gender” as “sex”—male, female, neuter-- has been distorted to mean “sexual preference.” Coupled with anti-discriminatory movements, such legislation has succeeded in thrusting marginal subjects and peculiar preferences that previously belonged in the private sphere into such fashionable prominence that they have become a positive boon in public life for their adherents. Whereas once disreputable personalities and behaviour occupied the fringes of society, now they are courted and feted in the glare of the yellow media. The time has come for the gambler, the embezzler, the paedophile-- the more shameless and shiftless the better. (However, while “fish stink from the head,” it may still be a little too early for small fry to expect the same exoneration for crimes of depravity as their leaders enjoy.)
Minorities, such as migrants or homosexuals, are also in vogue. Their ideological or political stance is secondary to the puppeteers. Those who have already demonstrated some failing or deviation are particularly well suited to modern politics and to municipal appointments, as their weaknesses allow them to be manipulated more easily. A flashy homosexual socialite as mayor, or an obese drug-addicted governor, from whom no serious civic duties are expected, may be considered a useful distraction.
Because of the irresistible financial advantages and other perquisites inherent in aiding and abetting Jewish concerns, most heads of government and of important international corporations and organizations have opportunistically become fellow-travellers of the cause; predetermined appointments have ensured that the rest have been reduced to mere marionettes. Whoever the U.S. president happens to be, as well as the heads of state of Canada, Australia, the UK and Germany are all clearly creatures of Israel, as are probably most other political leaders. A sign of this is the canine obedience with which they often pay tribute by prostrating themselves before the Yad Vashem shrine immediately after election. Those of consequence who have not of their own free will succumbed to this lure can be caught by bribery, blackmail or other subornation, or, ultimately, if they should prove impervious to these, or threaten to betray the system, can be assisted to fall from a high window, for instance, or succumb to other accident (e.g. “Boston Brake,” probably used on Jorg Haider, Princess Diana) or quasi-suicide, allowing their replacement by a more compliant counterpart.
Speculation that British Princess Diana and Austrian politician Jorg Haider were victims of Israeli intelligence operations has been openly discussed.
Aside: Although present generations of politicians and other luminaries can in no way be held responsible for what is alleged to have happened seventy years ago, apparently, they still go through this rigmarole without protest. Why doesn’t Japan require of American diplomats that they visit the Yasukuni shrine to make amends for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and for the treatment of Japanese-Americans? (On the contrary: “Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has expressed “deep repentance” over Japan’s role in World War II, in a landmark speech to the US Congress” –Al Jazeera, April 29, 2015)
Above all, why doesn’t Germany require of all Allied diplomats an annual inclination before the Dresden Frauenkirche (for example), needlessly devastated by allied bombing a few weeks before the war ended, as a token of remorse for their barbaric deeds?
On the subject of Yad Vashem, any so-called “right-wing” party whose leader visits Israel or this tabernacle of submission must immediately be written off as a phony. This includes the Austrian FPO (H.-C. Strache), the Belgian Vlams Belang (Philip Dewinter), the Dutch Party for Freedom (Gert Wilders), the German Die Freiheit (René Stadtkewitz) (as if Germany needed another one), and alas, perhaps soon, even the French Front National (Marine Le Pen). What they share, besides fealty to Israel, is their anti-Moslem stance. Presumably, this is their trade-off with Israel for being stamped “harmless.” Their hope is to cast off the stain of “anti-Semitism,” thereby giving them at least a chance at a domestic parliamentary seat and associated perks. For their amenability, this group as well as Sweden’s Free Democrats and UK’s UKIP were permitted to form a small “anti-EU” group in the European Parliament, although they almost failed, due to the embarrassing “anti-Semitism” of one or other of them. How many of their followers, persuaded perhaps that their party has volkish roots and aims, would be dismayed to discover the truth? Politics is just another form of employment, but, unlike normal businessmen who fail if they do not produce articles for which there is a demand, politicians produce only themselves. Theirs is only a self-service store. Additionally, they can and by their natures will continue to fail the demand made of them, which is to carry out the will of the people, without suffering any consequences.
Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil Page 29