Judeo-Christian Vaules? May I ask, if Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah, which he was, then why is their such a thing as Judeo-Christian values and morals? Do not Jews also follow the Talmud and sometimes the Zohar and Cabala? Why is this rabbi saying Yeshua is boiling in feces?

submitted by Jesus from twitter.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

  1. Andrew Jackson loved slavery. He loved slavery that much that he was one of the most powerful slaveholders in the USA, owning 300. And he loved slavery that much that when his runaways were captured and returned he would have them beaten. One such runaway called Gilbert died during his beating. And Jackson loved slavery that much that he organised a raid on a fort on Spanish territory where runaway slaves had found sanctuary with the Seminoles. Jackson planned to capture the fugitive slaves and return them to their 'rightful owners'. But the officer commanding the raid fired a cannonball into the fort's arsenal and blew the fort to pieces, killing 300 men, women and children;

  2. "Andrew Jackson paid off the debt", cry the Jacksonites. Yes, that is true.

But he did not pay off all the debt. Most of the hard work had been done by Nicholas Biddle who paid off most of the debt. Jackson only paid off the last few dollars;

[Is this true, I'll have to research this.]

  1. Jackson was a tool of the British by destroying the BUS2. The BUS2 was financing the contruction of the USA into a threat to the British Empire.

Jackson had previously flirted with treason against the USA when he plotted with Aaron Burr after Burr had assassinated Alexander Hamilton. Burr fled to the UK and stayed with the head of British Intelligence, Jeremy Bentham. When Burr returned to the USA he began to propose using Jackson as the tool to destroy the USA, using Jackson's adventures at New Orleans in the 1812 war as propaganda. Burr was aided in this by Martin van Buren. Jackson's main aim was to destroy the BUS2. But by withdrawing the federal funds from BUS2, Jackson was committing a crime. And he also risked the stability of the economy of the USA by placing the funds in 'pet banks' that were chosen not for their banking acumen but because they were owned and/or run by Jackson cronies. Those cronies could not resist the temptation and issued large amounts of credit based on the federal funds for land speculation, which eventually produced the 1837 panic.

  1. Jackson was the Godfather of the Confederacy. Not only did he destroy the BUS2 and condemn the south to a rural economy based on slavery, he also began the process of the removal of the Native Americans from states like Georgia to what is now Oklahoma. The ancestral lands of the Native Americans were sold to planters who built plantations which were worked by slaves, thus increasing the number of slaveholders prepared to support the Confederacy;

  2. The Rothschilds did not have any influence over BUS2. It was the Barings. Jackson helped to make the Rothschilds what they are by making them official agents for the United States in Europe.

[I do not known if this is true but did not a Rothschild thank Jackson for his endeavours?]

So for Trump to compare himself Jackson?

HOLY SHIT!!

From this point on until further noted, is quoted from the Truth-Serum blog:

I thought it was already really bad when Trump said that nobody loves Israel more than he does, and that he has promised to move the U S Embassy to Jerusalem, a move that is guaranteed to detonate the Middle East.

But this comparison to Jackson is really, really, really bad.

Barings were the agents in Europe for the United States Government and the first and second Bank of the United States for the best part of the 19th Century, and could easily have let the USA crash if the British government had ordered them to do so. But no such order was ever given, or if it was it was ignored.

Barings financed the annexation of Texas from Mexico, and the purchase of Alaska from Russia. These are not tiny plots of land with space for just a few houses. Louisiana, Alaska and Texas were very, very significant pieces of land.

But, get this. During the Civil War Barings financed the purchase by the United States Federal Government, i.e. Lincoln and the north, of Ironclads, which were the new military ships of their day, as well as arms!

Barings as a house unequivocally supported the North and deplored the British government's policy of non-intervention. So much might have been expected of a staunch New Englander like Joshua Bates, but Thomas Baring was a little less enthusiastic. 'People in this country look upon you as a friend of the country', Samuel Ward assured him, '...I was applied to lately for your autograph to go in an album containing autographs of "our friends in Europe".' Benjamin Moran, at the American Legation, noted with approval a speech that Baring made in the House of Commons in May 1864:

The man is a gentleman...It is mortifying to me that while he is loyal to us, the only citizen of the United States belonging to his firm, Mr Russell Sturgis, is a rebel sympathizer.' Sturgis was indeed a considerable embarrassment to his colleagues. While Samuel Ward deplored the fact that he 'did not take the view of American affairs natural for a Northern man', he thought Sturgis' 'personal friendliness and efficiency' would make up for this. The American Government took the matter more seriously.

'The man's disloyalty has caused the Government to think seriously of transferring its business to some other House', recorded Moran. The minister, Charles Adams, formally called on Sturgis to express his displeasure.

On the whole, though, Barings proved loyal friends of the Federal government. William Aspinwall visited London to buy ironclads for the Northern government and paid a rousing tribute to Barings' role in the transaction. 'These gentlemen unhesitatingly authorized us to draw on them, at sight, for a very large amount - some millions - and on terms at once liberal and most considerate as to the time of the reimbursement by our Government, thus showing a most exceptional degree of confidence and sympathy at a period when the public feeling in London was almost universally in favour of the South...From motives of delicacy, no public mention has been made of this honourable act, which certainly no other house in Europe could have or would have done.' In August 1861 Barings advanced $500,000 so that George Schuyler could purchase arms for the American government even though the documents he produced did not authorize any such activity. By the time the proper authorization was received in October the amount had risen to $634,000.

With so creditable a record Barings had reason to feel a little aggrieved when they lost the agency of the United States government in 1871. It was by no means the first time such a setback had seemed possible since they had recaptured it from Rothschilds in 1843. Rothschilds, Peabody, Rothschilds again, and Brown Brothers each in turn thought that the prize was theirs. Yet as late as 1869 the Secretary to the Navy had gratuitously assured Barings that 'we have every reason to be satisfied with the transactions that have taken place between yourselves and the Government, and hope the feeling may long continue'.

...'Though we should of course be proud to be once more the agents of the United States Government', Barings told Ward, 'we can quite understand the difficulty which the existing cabinet would have in appointing us.' They were right, and not only for the existing cabinet. Morton, Rose and Co. were appointed. The days were past when a British bank could represent the American government in London.

[source : The Sixth Great Power : Barings, 1762 - 1929, p213-215]

All this under the noses of the British Government!?

The EIR/LPAC crowd lump Barings in with the Hofjuden, calling them opium runners, etc.

Yes, Barings owned a slave plantation, and directed The British East India Company through Francis, and even The Bank of England through Alexander.

But can anyone explain why The United States of America would conclude so much very important business with Barings, and why it is being covered up?

From "The Sixth Great Power : Barings, 1762 - 1929" by Philip Ziegler:

Thomas Willing of the Bank of the United States had been one of Francis Baring’s staunchest allies since the early 1790s. Cazenoves had previously been the closest associate of the Bank and were not at all pleased to see their cosy relationship disturbed. In July 1793 Baring wrote to thank Willing for trying to steer all the Bank’s business in his direction.

…In February 1803, however, Willing, with some help from Rufus King in London, secured Barings the prize they had long coveted – the agency of the government of the United States in London. When Barings took over the payment of dividends on US government stock, Alexander had argued that in this way they would ‘secure a species of monopoly in the direction of American Stocks in Europe and become more obvious for individual operations of commerce.’ The government agency was the logical next step. After the failure of the previous agents Bird, Savage and Bird, Rufus King told Barings, the American government had decided to employ ‘an English house of the first Reputation and Solidity’ to make the ‘large Remittances to the Continent’ which were periodically necessary and to keep in funds various US diplomatic missions. The work was often troublesome and the recompense in commission income insignificant, but the prestige was all important. From 1803 no one could doubt that Barings were the leading ‘American’ house in London.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

...The fact that Barings were the foreign bankers most trusted by the American government did not mean that they were treated as sacrosanct or given the benefit of the doubt. In 1806 the former Vice President, Aaron Burr, was accused of plotting to dismember the Union and was widely believed to have British backing. Vincent Nolte found himself looked on with suspicion by the commanding general in New Orleans ‘since he ascertained that the house of Baring, at London, had placed itself in readiness to furnish the funds necessary to secure the success of Burr’s conspiracy; and I was well known to be the agent for that firm’. Such rumours were fantastical and easily disproved – nothing would have suited Barings less than the disintegration of the United States – but they illustrated the alarm with which Americans viewed British intentions and also the mounting hostility between the two nations.

War came in 1812. Barings took the line that, as British citizens, they would do nothing of which their government would disapprove, but that the war was a temporary aberration and they would never cease to plan beyond its ending. Alexander Baring said frankly that it was his object to help maintain the credit of the United States, and it is an interesting comment on the attitude towards war in the early nineteenth century that ministers felt this to be not merely reasonable but actually desirable. Barings continued to pay interest to holders of American bonds, even though the funds were not available from the United States, and to perform routine transactions like the liquidation of outstanding converted 6 per cent bonds, but they refused to sell new Federal issues. Their main preoccupation was to support any initiative that might lead to peace.

Alexander Baring, said James Gallatin, ‘had done more than any other man in England, or perhaps, with one exception, even in America, to hasten the peace, and had, with the knowledge and consent of his own government, rendered very important financial assistance even while the war was going on’.

With so much goodwill working in their favour, immense financial resources and unrivalled connections, Barings should have continued to dominate Anglo-American trade in the decades after the Napoleonic wars. Certainly no one house can be said to have displaced them, but their prominence was not so absolute as at first seemed probable. This was due more to a lack of interest and energy on the part of Barings than to any mechanism of their rivals. Things began well. In 1817 John Sergeant came to London on behalf of the Bank of the United States to select as agent for the bank the house that would ‘be of the greatest solidity and integrity and possess in the highest degree the confidence of the public’. To no one’s surprise, the choice fell on Barings. The distinction may have seemed of questionable value when mismanagement in the bank led to its being $1.76 million in debt to Barings and other European houses by the middle of 1818 but the problems proved transitory. By the time its greatest, if most erratic, greatest President, Nicholas Biddle, took over in 1823, affairs seemed soundly based. The Montagu Norman of his day, he believed that his task was to fuel the growth of the American economy. He scorned the cautious attitude of his predecessor and embarked on a bold, and at times alarmingly, expansionist course. Some dismissed him as a playboy but he was in fact supremely professional.

Rothschilds were inconsiderable in the commercial field, but after their setbacks in 1830 in France they began to look with interest at the United States. In 1834 this brought them into direct conflict with Barings. The new administration under President Andrew Jackson was known to be violently opposed to Nicholas Biddle’s Bank of the United States, with which Barings were closely allied, and Baring had also been somewhat less than sympathetic when the Secretary of the Treasury carelessly drew a bill without first appropriating the necessary funds. It seemed possible the United States government might wish to change its agent. Rothschilds evidently volunteered for the role, for in July 1834 the Treasury Department wrote to thank them: “The high standing and character of your house is well understood in the United States, and I take pleasure in saying that the Government of this country will probably avail itself of yr offer”.

The first Barings heard of it was a brusque note from the Secretary of the Treasury telling them that the account would be transferred in just over two months….’They might have written us a more civil letter’ was their [Barings] temperate comment. They comforted themselves with the reflection that they had kept the far more profitable US Navy account, and that since the change had been a political one, ‘and as parties are rapidly changing, it is probable that we shall have it back in two or three years time’.

In this they were proved right. In 1843 Tyler became President, with Barings’ staunch friend, Daniel Webster, as Secretary of State. At once the account was restored to Barings. When Webster resigned Rothschilds’ man in America, August Belmont, saw a chance to regain the prize. ‘It would be an easy matter to get the account back’, he wrote, ‘provided, however, the place is not filled by a creature of Webster’s, who for weighty reasons is very attached to Barings.’ Some months later he was pointing out to all and sundry the merits of transferring the account to Rothschilds in Paris, arguing ‘how impolitic it is on the part of the United States Government to keep her accounts for the disbursement of her diplomatic agents and a great portion of her foreign fleet not only in England, the only country with which ever a collision is likely to occur, but moreover in the hands of a banking house whose close connection with a member of the House of Lords puts the accounts of this Government almost under the immediate eye of the British Cabinet’.

Barings were far from being the only house dealing in American securities, and Rothschilds became more interested as the scale expanded. Their motives seem to have been as much to spite Barings as to make money. Urging his nephews in London to buy American State bonds, James de Rothschild wrote, ‘I do this, so that Barings should not be in the position to say: “I forced Rothschild out of the way”. Therefore, even if there is not a penny profit, so long as there is no loss – I shall carry on with the business.’

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As directly relevant as any state loan to the development of North America was the close relationship that grew up between Barings and the Bank of the United States under its ambitious, headstrong and sometimes maverick President, Nicholas Biddle. Biddle was an economic nationalist, who felt that the Bank should be used to free the United States from the shackles of European capitalism. Up to a point Barings supported him in the enterprise, and even the cautious Mildmay was in 1829 prepared to increase the Bank’s credit from £100,000 to £250,000: ‘We will not deny the mortification would be great were we to see the Institution in correspondence with any other House in London as their Agents’. With Biddle at the helm, things rarely ever ran altogether smoothly – in 1831 Barings seriously considered giving up the agency – but a more or less amicable relationship was maintained until the crisis of 1836 and 1837.

In Treason in America : Part 3 by Anton Chaitkin an EIR Larouche member, Chaitkin provides a brief history of the barbarity of the British East India Company in India, and a brief pro-slavery history of Thomas Carlyle, who wrote what appears to be a poor history of the French Revolution at the request of John Stuart Mill.

But Chaitkin then links Carlyle to the Barings.

Carlyle's way in these later years was made considerably easier by the patronage of the Baring family. The second Lord Ashburton, head of the family in the mid 1800s, hosted Carlyle and his wife in royal fashion at the Baring castle; Lord and Lady Ashburton became the most intimate confidantes of Thomas Carlyle. Lord Ashburton was the grandson of Francis Baring, who had been Chairman of the East India Company and founder of the Baring bank. The Barings, from Francis on, financed all the company's trade, and that of the Boston merchants who cooperated with the British in Asia.

Now, forgive me for being confused, but what the f*k were the USA thinking making Barings their agents in London? The sequence seems to be

  1. Cazenove

  2. Baring

  3. Rothschild

  4. Baring (again)

  5. Frankfurt bankers

So how can Barings be at one time at the nerve centre of British intrigue against the USA while at the same time keeping the USA afloat by extending lines of huge credit, even when the USA had declared war on the British?!

Surely Barings were giving the British government and The British East India Company all information they had on the alleged enemy, the United States of America?

Why did Nicholas Biddle and John Quincy Adams not cancel this agreement with Barings? Jackson did! But he transferred the account to the Rothschilds! But it was later transferred back to Barings.

COME ON!!!

I have to say that Treason in America is a fascinating book, but I cannot understand why, if Barings were so evil and pro-British and at the financial nerve centre of British intrigue against the United States, they had so much very important business with the United States Government.

And why several times Barings could have let the United States go under but didn't, instead extending significant lines of credit to keep the USA afloat, AND AT ONE TIME TO EVEN KEEP A WAR WITH THE BRITISH GOING (1812)?

For a glimpse into just how cosy the relationship was between Biddle and Barings see "The House of Baring and the Second Bank of the United States, 1826-1836" by R. W. Hidy in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jul., 1944), pp. 269-285. Barings could easily have let the USA crash any number of times because Biddle went way over the overdraft the USA had with Barings a few times without agreement, and asked for huge credit when the USA was facing financial trouble. This annoyed Barings but they acquiesced and in the end made a huge profit from doing so.

But Barings' business with BUS2 was without question helping the USA to very quickly develop into a huge economic rival to the British Empire.

So why would the British want to destroy BUS2, as Michael Kirsch and Anton Chaitkin show?

Or was it just the Rothschilds, not the British?

One of the consequences of the destruction was that Jackson made the Rothschilds bankers to the USA, replacing Barings.

So was the destruction of BUS2 just a turf war between Barings and the Rothschilds?

Or was there more to it, as Chaitkin and Kirsch show?

I have suggested that the USA has had a destiny pre-planned millenia ago. On this I agree with David Icke. All the Freemasonic stuff, the parades, ceremonies, regalia, processions, cannot be ignored. Two symbols that cannot be ignored are:

  1. the inverted, irregular and incomplete pentagram to the north of the White House, particularly when America's warmongering and terrorism is taken in to consideration (I mean, how can a God fearing Christian nation turn into Satan's attack dog?)

  2. the cornerstone of the Capitol laid by George Washington in a Freemasonic ceremony which had a plaque with text that implied Freemasonry is approximately 6000 years old! We are led to believe it was only formed in 1717.

My gut feeling is that:

  1. The Rothschilds had nothing to do with Bank of North America, BUS1 or BUS2 until Jackson made them European bankers to the USA, replacing Barings.

  2. Barings involvement in American banking is being covered up by several authors and documentary makers.

  3. Barings may have been allowing the USA to develop too quickly for the Satanists running the conspiracy so BUS2 was destroyed and responsibility for American financial dealings with Europe was handed to the Rothschilds

  4. but because BUS2 was doing so well and threatening the British Empire BUS2 had to be discredited so it and national banks before it have been portrayed as Rothschild projects from the start, when in fact at that time the Rothschilds were still building their European network and had some but nowhere near as much power as they pretend.

But this bloggers manifesto is deluded:

https://thetruthserumblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/manifesto.html