It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Observations and Reflexions on the Jews

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
This is the first post in a series of posts on the subject of the Jews. I think it belongs in the Deconstructing Disinformation forum, but that might not be apparent from the outset. I hope the mods will indulge me in this placement of the thread.

When I was growing up I never really gave the Jews a serious conscious thought. There were no Jews in our neighborhood that I was aware of. It was a small bedroom community outside of Saint John, New Brunswick. The most contentious issue where I lived was leaking basements. It was a relatively new housing development and some people were not happy with the contractor who built the houses.

One day a Jewish family that my father knew came to dinner. They were nice. I played with their son in the back yard, but they lived too far away from us to become part of our social circle. Our family wasn't really that social. Another person who came to dinner occasionally was my father's boss, at the time. He was from Montreal and used to get into the kitchen and make a great spaghetti sauce. I thought he was Jewish. One day I mentioned it to my father and he laughed. The next time the boss showed up at our house, they both had a chuckle over it. The boss was Italian Catholic, of course.

When I went to university, there was a law student in our residence who was Jewish. He was a nice guy. His father died during the school year and he had to soldier on through his courses. He was stoic about it. It didn't seem to bother him that much, but I wasn't really close enough to him to know that for sure. He was a businesslike person with a heavy course load. He wasn't someone that I discussed anything with.

Of course I knew there were issues like the Holocaust. I did first year History and the problem of Nazi-ism was explored. We were convinced that such things as happened in Germany could never happen in Canada. Our traditions were different. We were different.

Much later when I was on a European trip that lasted almost half a year, I met a German in a camp ground who told me that Nazi-ism could happen anywhere. I disagreed. I told him that it could never happen in Canada. Our democratic institutions and tradition were too strong.

Unfortunately, at that time I didn't really know what Nazi-ism was, despite my university course. I thought that Nazi-ism was ultra nationalism combined with militarism. I wasn't aware of the subtleties of it. I wasn't truly aware of the importance of the corporatist aspects of it or how the interaction between State and Oligarchy worked.

As I grew older these issues weren't of much concern to me. I was aware of controversies involving Israel and the Arabs, and wars, but I wasn't really interested in them except as a consumer of news as entertainment. I was a typical young university left liberal. I wanted the US to get out of Vietnam. I wanted me to graduate. I wanted to become a writer. I wanted to get laid. Politics was entertainment.

I was sympathetic to the Israelis but also slightly ambivalent. I didn't inquire too deeply into the origin of Israel's problems. While a student, in 1967, I thought Moishe Dayan was a tremendous hero. I wasn't really aware of the Arab side of the disagreement. Arab/Israeli stuff was complicated.

I was beginning to realize that the Jews were complicated and maybe a little awkward in some way. They seemed to occupy a peculiar place in society. People in my socioeconomic segment of society acknowledged them with a kind of politeness that was also nonplussed. They were a peculiar religious group. It was awkward but we could deal with it. They were like peculiar relatives.

I realize now, with the perspective of time and experience and education that we were really bumpkins, unsophisticated hicks, who occasionally attitudinized in the way small town folk in the backwaters of the world do. We were big fish in a little pond. Humor occasionally crept in, referencing the Jews. Not from me, but I heard it from others.

There is something insidious about that kind of humor. It is so easy to accept it, to go along with the demeaning of others. There is a primitive, atavistic and subtle surge of pleasure in being a secure member of a group cutting someone out of the pack for being different.

There was nothing wrong with the Jews.

In our little world people were allowed to be supporters of either of two political parties and to be members of the Christian sect of their choice, but even that was stretching it. Conformity was the rule and we happily conformed, sometimes tolerating the demeaning of Jews and the demeaning of Blacks while being inwardly aware that Jesus wouldn't approve of that sort of thing.

It was the kind of dilemma that was so minor that it was almost always swept aside by the tidal wave of practical problems that everyone deals with in life. It was so trivial that to dwell on it would mark one as peculiar. Dwelling on it or making an important issue of it would be a significant departure from conformity, in itself. Almost universally we didn't dwell on it. It was understood, not commented on. Of course Jews were different, in some way, but almost everyone really didn't give a hoot about it.

Labeling the attitudes described above as "antisemitism" is a stretch. I know now, with the perspective of years, that I grew up in an atmosphere of what I would call "muddling bumpkinism". Very few people where I grew up had a clue about anything but their jobs and their wartime experiences. People with ideas were a little odd. Ideas were odd in themselves, but nobody really cared about them seriously. Not in my circle anyway, not so as to express themselves.
edit on 16-9-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
May I share a personal observation?
I knew a few Jewish people while I was growing up. I also knew some anti-semites.
The Jewish people I knew were just like everyone else. They never gave me any reason to
form a negative opinion of them.

What I've noticed over the years is that when people of other social groups, national origins, races or cultures stuck together, it was fine. They were practicing solidarity. But when Jews did it, it was somehow bad.
"Boy, they really stick together."



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ColeYounger

I agree. I'm going to explore some of this in my next installment. I don't want to elaborate too much for that reason, but my attitudes at the beginning of my life were largely the result of belonging to what was, in effect a small, near monolithic society.

I first encountered serious antisemitism when I moved to the large, multi-ethnic city of Toronto, where ethnicity often defines neighborhoods.
edit on 16-9-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
where i grew up jewish was sometimes a racial indicator other times it is a religious belief system, so it can describe either or both depends on situation, mistaken by many on purpose



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: blacktie

Very good point. I'm going to get into that shortly.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Up until recently I was in a bit of a fog of confusion on the subject .I think it was coming from a distorted view of history or lack of . Sometimes the smallest bit of true info can make our minds not go where they may have gone before . Then you see this "NILES' WEEKLY REGISTER, Baltimore, November 28, 1829
* The Rothschilds buy Jerusalem
One of the articles within is headed: "Jerusalem" with the text beginning: "There is a report that the Rothschilds have purchased Jerusalem! We see nothing improbable that, in the pecuniary distress of the sultan..." with more, & ending with: "...The sultan is in great difficulty--Baron Rothschild was proceeding to Constantinople & a second rebuilding of the temple is not among the most strange things expected in these strange times, by some of the Jews." www.rarenewspapers.com...

Why this bit of info from history has been absent until recently is anybody's guess . One thing is for sure is that viewing the modern state of Israel will never be the same in my mind again .Those once talking points that held me silent are gone and I think speaking to truth can only lead to better understanding .



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

there have been so many lies about the past it might never be straightened out to our satisfaction, i wouldnt dwell on it too much



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: blacktie

I don't really spend much time dwelling on subjects but do spend a bit of time to form a reasonable opinion .I have a Christian world view so some subjects have a louder ring to them then others . Unlike Jews where 3 of them can have 4 or more opinions I like to stick closer to 1 or another ...The subject of Israel has been so closely related to the subject of The Jew that it was hard to separate the 2 . Not any more after discovering that 1829 bit of info ...It became something other for me .



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

yes that does throw an additional light on it and why what happened happened as it did



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Town buying is not common but it does occur.

www.bbc.com...


When Neal and Maddie Love heard that the itty-bitty town of Wauconda, Washington, 38 miles from the Canadian border and “in the middle of nowhere”, was up for sale, they knew it was for them.

“It’s God’s country, it’s beautiful here,” said Maddie Love. “This is the Old West.”

After a 2010 eBay auction of the town closed and the leading buyer’s bid fell through, the Loves purchased the four-acre Wauconda for $360,000 from Daphne Fletcher, who had owned it since 2007.


The Rothschild story seems somewhat apocryphal. When one buys a town what exactly does one purchase? Perhaps the right of expropriation in cases where the town itself might not have title to all the property. I know towns have been bought property by property, at least according to the linked article.

I wonder if the purchase would have been recognized after the fall of the Ottoman control of the area. Interesting story though.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

I don't think comparing Jerusalem to a small midwest town in the US can be made . Rothschild's fund both sides to wars between nations .They are very powerful people and have long strategic plans .They use political powers , military powers ,and religious powers . If they own Jerusalem then they own the Temple mount . Knowing that, begs bigger questions as to why this fact has been hidden for so long .



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I'm sorry. I got about three and a half minutes into the first video and gave up. It's a farrago of unexplained insinuations about stock market manipulations by a self confessed amateur in that subject.

I know that there is no end of manipulation in financial matters and have no doubt that Rothschild interests are up to their elbows in it.

The Rothschilds are a Jewish family, at least nominally, but their financial activities take place on a plane that Jews generally, like everybody else, just don't have access to. In Toronto there are wealthy Jews who have endowed many cultural institutions of the city and made donations of art works, etc. I'm not really interested in these wealthy individuals. They do come up in what I have planned for this thread but not in the way you seem to be heading.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: blacktie

I don't really spend much time dwelling on subjects but do spend a bit of time to form a reasonable opinion .I have a Christian world view so some subjects have a louder ring to them then others . Unlike Jews where 3 of them can have 4 or more opinions I like to stick closer to 1 or another ...The subject of Israel has been so closely related to the subject of The Jew that it was hard to separate the 2 . Not any more after discovering that 1829 bit of info ...It became something other for me .


That information has not been kept from history, it simply has limited relevance in the scheme of things. It is mentioned in histories of the Ottoman empire, and in Ferguson's History of the Rothschilds, as well as in numerous conspiracy theories. The Rothschilds, at that time were very active in aiding Jews in the Ottoman empire and without doubt those charitible works had considerable diplomatic and economic benefits for the British Government as well, but any ownership, implied or otherwise, would have been negated with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and Jerusalem fell under British mandate. That entire period, the Rothschild's of England were diligent and eager servants to British objectives but continued to be generous contributors, financially, to Jewish emancipation and while considering themselves fully assimilated to Britain and not wishing for Zion themselves, did invest, and at times support the creation of Israel when it was mutally beneficial to do so. Even their early philanthropy under the Ottomans can be better understood if viewed as them serving British diplomatic needs and facilitated by their existing behaviour of championing (selectively) Jewish causes.
edit on 17-9-2015 by Anaana because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Part Two

Most people are not silly clots most of the time, although I think an honest person will own up to having been a silly clot occasionally, and usually, unless one is an extremely self deprecating sort of person, one will withhold the details of one's silliness and clottishness from view. Publicizing one's own arrant stupidity might, after all, be counterproductive to one's own self interest. If it is counterproductive to the interests of others, well, that is their look out.

The corollary to all of that is that even honest people are dishonest.

During my life I have spent an awful lot of time on duty as a security guard. The vast majority of that time has been spent in very mundane duties, stupefyingly mundane duties, duties that nobody with even a tiny window of escape from that position in life would endure.

The peculiar thing about such a job and such a life is that it amounts to being condemned to live the life of an indentured contemplative. After a few years one is surprised to find that one has been dragooned by fate into the life of a Trappist monk.

Every day is spent thinking and remembering and analyzing, everything.

Of course one could pursue "security" as a profession. One could become a keen guard aspiring to advancement, aspiring to become a "patrol supervisor", driving a pseudo police car from site to site looking for snoozers in the middle of the night, or one could angle into the position of radio dispatcher, or in some companies, dog handler or armed cash courier.

There are other avenues too that tend strongly toward actual law enforcement. One could go in plain clothes as a "loss prevention officer" looking for shop lifters in shopping malls or, one could go undercover in a warehouse or facility of some kind trying to get the goods on serious organized criminals.

I had an offer to do that once. I gave it some serious thought but turned it down for personal, psychological reasons. I didn't want to become a professional "rat". I was a little disgusted with myself for having already, in life, achieved talented amateur status. I wanted, actually, to back away from that sort of thing and move into new territory, ethical integrity.

I am not saying that people who do that kind of work are "rats" or that infiltrating criminal gangs is unethical. This is dangerous work that needs to be done and the people who do it are daring and in some cases heroic individuals, and sometimes of course, they are 'rats".

Although this is honest work, I turned it down because it would be utilizing a tendency in my own personality, a weakness that I was trying to eliminate.

Some people working as security guards can't handle the dullness. They develop behavior problems and become unbalanced. They can't deal with the mental confinement and start to act out and to invent ways to liven up their very dull lives. This can become a trial to others. Guards are shifted around a lot from site to site for this reason but usually only after the situation has become very onerous.

Over the years I marinated in this milieu on the edges of law enforcement. I became a paid up member of the "rule enforcement community" as I like to put it, somewhat satirically. The police might like to think that they were the first line of defense for civilization and for humanity, but this was patently untrue. We in the "rule enforcement community" were the ones out on the sharp edge where subtle forms of criminal behavior gestate, I told myself in Walter Mitty fashion.

In a sense I did become a professional, certainly in the "armchair" sense of the term. I started to read detective novels and spy novels and true crime and true espionage books. I read nearly all of Len Deighton's books and many books by John LeCarré. I read Raymond Chandler and most of Ross MacDonald. I read The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammet, himself a former Pinkerton's agent, and numerous books of Julian Symons, former associate of George Orwell. I read Ashendon by Somerset Maugham, another former espionage agent and all of Eric Ambler's novels. I read Peter Wright's Spy Catcher and Kim Philby's My Silent War, both written by very tough former professionals. I read the very subtle and well observed books of Graham Greene, another former intelligence professional.

I became steeped in that sort of thinking. I became a ticking time bomb of latent criminological and coincidentally, political, acuity.

Then along came 9/11.

edit on 18-9-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Very interesting stuff there on the purchase of Jerusalem. That's a real step having the aim of a zionist program and fulfilling it. I always considered that British chemist who during the war developed a chemical to replace something in the making of munitions, we were on the edge of grinding to a halt with our munitions factories and losing the war as we couldn't import the essential ingredients. This Jewish chemist came up with acetone, or ethyl acetate or something like that, thus our munitions factories could ramp up production and we held out against the Germans until the USA came to our shores to save the day. As a reward for his service in keeping us in the war the scientist was asked what he would like and he asked for a declaration on creating a state for Europe's oppressed Jews, hence the Balfour Declaration happenced. Always makes me wonder if he hadn't asked for a declaration, would Israel not actually exist today?



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
Part Two
In a sense I did become a professional, certainly in the "armchair" sense of the term. I started to read detective novels and spy novels and true crime and true espionage books. I read nearly all of Len Deighton's books and many books by John LeCarré. I read Raymond Chandler and most of Ross MacDonald. I read The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammet, himself a former Pinkerton's agent, and numerous books of Julian Symons, former associate of George Orwell. I read Ashendon by Somerset Maugham, another former espionage agent and all of Eric Ambler's novels. I read Peter Wright's Spy Catcher and Kim Philby's My Silent War, both written by very tough former professionals. I read the very subtle and well observed books of Graham Greene, another former intelligence professional.



Sounds like my time as a Night Porter...some of my favourites there.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Very interesting stuff there on the purchase of Jerusalem. That's a real step having the aim of a zionist program and fulfilling it. I always considered that British chemist who during the war developed a chemical to replace something in the making of munitions, we were on the edge of grinding to a halt with our munitions factories and losing the war as we couldn't import the essential ingredients. This Jewish chemist came up with acetone, or ethyl acetate or something like that, thus our munitions factories could ramp up production and we held out against the Germans until the USA came to our shores to save the day. As a reward for his service in keeping us in the war the scientist was asked what he would like and he asked for a declaration on creating a state for Europe's oppressed Jews, hence the Balfour Declaration happenced. Always makes me wonder if he hadn't asked for a declaration, would Israel not actually exist today?


Not sure about the Chemist angle, but the Balfour Declaration has to be taken in context with the two other such "agreements" that the British government made, at the same time, with the bin Alis and bin Sauds, as well as their behaviour of the British once the mandate came into force and the immigration of European Jews became a flow.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Very true. Britain was setting up links and connections to continue its influence in the middle east long after end of Empire. Here's a bit more on acetone leading to the Balfour Declaration and the settling of Israel.

www.aish.com...

greatwarfiction.wordpress.com...

www.historyextra.com...
edit on 19-9-2015 by ufoorbhunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

These are the crème de la crème of this type of writing. They make Tom Clancy look like an excited school boy.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Part Three

I slept in that morning, September 11, 2001, and didn't wake up until around noon. When I got up, a lady who shares accommodation in our meditation center told me that two airplanes had crashed into the World Trade Center and the "Twin Towers" had collapsed!

I said, "That's impossible!"

A couple of years later, when the President started menacing Iraq in his public statements, the penny dropped. Until that moment the suggestion that 9/11 could have been an inside job was completely and utterly inconceivable to me. The notion of such a separation, such an estrangement, between the people who governed a country and the ordinary citizens of the country, which would admit of the slaughter of thousands of the citizens by the government, was, for me, completely outside the range of the possible.

I started to look into it.

After years in the 9/11 forum trenches here on ATS, I was convinced that 9/11 was an inside job carried out by "rogue elements" in the administration of George W. Bush, including the President, at least as an accessory after the fact, and in the US armed forces, with the assistance of allies in Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and likely the UK. In addition, I believed and still do believe that there had to be facilitation of the operation by the media and particularly by the insurance industry as well as cover ups by regulatory bodies such as NIST and the USGS. 9/11 was an inside job.

This thread is, of course, about my personal observations of and reflexions on the Jews.

One sure thing in all of this is that there are a staggering number of Jews who are not Ariel Sharon. The same could be said for the same staggering number of Jews who are not Larry Silverstein or Frank Lowy. A smaller but still gigantic number of Jews are not in Mossad. A ridiculously huge number of Jews did not film the collapse of the WTC and dance after it fell while "high five-ing" one another. (These high five-ing dancers were subsequently identified as Mossad operatives.)

And yet . . .

If one Googles Jews did 9/11, one receives about 12,600,000 hits.

Google's search engine is a very blunt instrument, of course. I did a large number of Google searches this morning and threw in some control questions to clarify this. They help to give an idea of factors that influence search results.

Googling Winnie the Pooh did 9/11 I received about 388,000 hits.

Interestingly, googling pet goat did 9/11 I received about 630,000 hits.

One can account for the difference in these two results and realize the sort of thing, basically word occurrences and proximities, that determine numbers of hits. In the first search, one term, 9/11, is directly related to the incident being researched. In the second search, two terms, 9/11 and pet goat, are directly related to the incident being researched. Two darts in the zone will bring more results. Google is a very blunt instrument when used as a sort of polling application and it is hard to see how such a blunt instrument could tell us anything at all.

But look at these results:

Googling Mohammed Atta did 9/11 I received about 287,000 hits. It would appear that Mohammed Atta is very low on the radar when it comes to discussing 9/11, even lower than Winnie the Pooh!

Here is another interesting result:

Googling Mossad did 9/11 I received about 599,000 hits. It would seem that Mossad is associated with 9/11 with much greater frequency than Winnie the Pooh (388,000) and is almost, but not quite as important, in the public's mind, to the discussion of 9/11, as the famous pet goat (630,000).

Keep in mind that Jews did 9/11 received about 12,600,000 hits.

Does this mean that people generally are vastly more suspicious of Jews than they are of Mossad? Perhaps the doings of Mossad are largely kept out of the press. Perhaps it means that relatively few people actually inquire into the details of incidents like 9/11, enough to be aware of individuals or organizations suspected to have been intimately involved in perpetrating them.

These searches help to make that point:

Googling Larry Silverstein did 9/11 I received about 214,000 hits. "Lucky" Larry "Pull it" Silverstein is the object of considerable suspicion among 9/11 truthers. His name, however, comes up less than that of Winnie the Pooh, at least in Google searches, apparently.

Googling Frank Lowy did 9/11 I received about 49,000 hits. Lowy was a partner of Silverstein's in the WTC complex and is a former Israeli commando, prominent as an international banker and businessman, and is well connected to the heart of political power in Israel, i.e, Zionism. Lowy is low on the public's radar, at least on Google, but he also is regarded with a great deal of suspicion by some 9/11 researchers.

Perhaps in the public's mind, any suggestion of Israeli involvement simply precipitates a wave of reaction around "the Jews" (12,600,000 google hits) in general, while not really settling upon individual Jews in particular.

For certain Jews in particular that might be rather convenient.

Given the domination of the media by those in political power the following results are more to be expected:

Googling Terrorists did 9/11 I received about 69,400,000 hits.

Googling Arabs did 9/11 I received about 31,300,000 hits.

But interestingly Bush did 9/11 yielded 41,100,000 hits. This result, I think, points to the importance of word proximities in producing results on Google. We are dealing with a very blunt instrument.

Barbara Bush did 9/11 produced about 3,890,000 hits, even more hits than Dick Cheney did! Surely a testimony to the popularity of the President's mother.

Cheney did 9/11 produced about 2,010,000 hits.

I think this is indicative of the power of the mass media to focus attention away from suspected people. That the number is quite a bit higher than the one related to Mohammed Atta is somewhat revealing of this suspicion I believe. Why would Cheney's number not be closer to that of the President? It seems that when we look at individuals with a substantial cloud of suspicion hovering over them, people more likely to be involved in the actual mechanics of the 9/11 incident, as an operation, the numbers fall off sharply.

Googling Jews did 9/11 produced about 12,600,000 hits.

Googling Israel did 9/11 produced about 5,260,000 hits.

Googling Zionists did 9/11 produced about 1,410,000 hits.

Googling Mossad did 9/11 produced about 599,000 hits.

Googling Ariel Sharon did 9/11 produced about 432,000 hits.

Googling Larry Silverstein did 9/11 produced about 214,000 hits.

Googling Frank Lowy did 9/11 produced about 49,100 hits.

Discussion of Jewish responsibility, in relation to the 9/11 incident, seems to be inversely proportional to the power and proximity (means and opportunity) of the particular Jews being discussed to actually carry out, or even participate in the destruction of the World Trade Center.

I find it hard to believe that this situation is not the result of design. Maybe I'm just too suspicious.

edit on 19-9-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join