“With the people! For the nation!”
The New York Times today denounces the “barbarism” of the Syrian army, which is supported, as we know, by Russia. What did the same New York Times say about the Russia of the tsar a century ago?
The same thing and for the same reason: to bring down a strong nationalist power and replace it with a cosmopolitan power under the control of the self-elected tribe.
To be convinced of this, it is enough to observe the unfolding of the first anti-Russian media hysteria. A book by Naomi W. Cohen published in 1999, “Jacob H. Schiff – A Study in American Jewish Leadership” will serve as a source.
The young Jacob Schiff emigrated early to the United States where he became a very powerful banker, in second place, right behind Morgan.
But he was not just a banker. To immediately situate his importance and the political and historical role he played for his community, it must be remembered that it was he who helped Adolph Ochs – a member of the American Jewish Committee – to acquire the New York Times in 1896 because he thought that “this could be very useful to Jews in general.”
Adolph Ochs and his daughter Iphigene in 1902
The goal of his life was to overthrow the Tsar and, like a modern Moses, “liberate” his people from this “regime”.
N. Cohen describes him as one who led a crusade against Russia. In 1904, without the American government instigating it in the least, Schiff decided to finance Japan in the war with Russia.
After the war was over, he continued to refuse to ever finance Russia, saying that
“Russia had lost the favor of the American financial markets by its barbarous mistreatment of the Jews.”
In the same vein, he did not hesitate to affirm that he refused to stoop to help those [Russians] who “with malicious hostility tortured my people”.
He questioned the widely held idea that Russia was a friend of the United States and pilloried those who – like Ambassador Robert McCormick or Ambassador William Rockhill – dared to deny, or even supported “Russian atrocities” — sufferings by Russian Jews that were grossly exaggerated.
In 1910 Schiff described Russia as an enemy of the human race and declared that pogroms had now given way to “an even more brutal method of slow extermination.”
However, Russia was not the only target of Jacob Schiff, and, paradoxically, the fight against the Romanov empire will be the occasion of a brilliant victory by him over the United States government itself.
The main weapon this time will not be the money, but a spectacular media campaign orchestrated by Schiff and the American Jewish Committee (AJC).
In 1910, Schiff and the AJC were determined to attack the then-American president, the Republican William Howard Taft, who was elected in 1908,
…trip him up, and elect in his place in 1912 his Democratic rival, Woodrow Wilson.
This was done by means of the Jewish campaign of abrogation, a campaign to revoke the 1832 treaty of American-Russian commerce.
Under this treaty, reciprocal rights of sojourn and commerce were granted to Russians and Americans. However, during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Russia [, cracking down on the Jews,] began to deny treaty benefits to American Jews.
Taft, then a presidential candidate, drafted the Republican commitment on the rights of passport holders, and he addressed the issue in campaign speeches. The situation is funny because on the one hand Schiff wanted America to force Russia to respect the treaty, including for American Jews, while on the other hand, as we have seen above, it absolutely did not want American Jews do any business at all with the tsarist regime!
This is where we can measure the real issue. The full application of the trade treaty or its repeal were secondary. What wass important for Jews is to be able to impose their agenda on American election campaigns and to decisively influence their outcome, in short, to take power in the US.
But Taft, who became president, did not take the full measure of the threat, thinking he can “forget” about this whole treaty nonsense, and so, in February 1910, the problem was still unresolved. Urged to act, Taft said he was
“not willing to risk the commercial interest of 98 million US citizens because 2 million felt that their rights were being violated.”
As Schiff said, that “means war,” and he committed $ 25,000 [$1.2 million today] to launch a massive media campaign. A wave of agitations then traveled the country becoming larger. The AJC demanded a joint congressional resolution calling for the end to the Russo-American treaty. The Congress obeyed in December 1911, and after holding a hearing for Schiff, the treaty was repealed.
Schiff greeted the victory in vibrant terms:
“For the first time, Russia, this great colossus, received a slap from a great nation … This act will forever mark the history of civilization.“
Certainly, of course — but bear in mind that the most important thing in this affair was not so much the blow to Russia as having succeeded in forcing this against America’s will and interests on the United States.
Shortly after his defeat in the 1912 election campaign, Taft bitterly declared that he was right from start to finish to oppose the repeal of the treaty and that the shame was on the side of Schiff and his “circumcised brothers”.
In other words, “I tried to prevent the Jews from taking power, but I failed.”
It should be noted that this affair might have burst open much earlier, during Theodore Roosevelt’s two terms of office from 1901 to 1908, but Schiff had clearly felt that Taft was easier prey than Teddy Roosevelt. The following year, 1912, Wilson, who had campaigned for the repeal, and thus against Russia, was elected.
The parallel with the current situation is not difficult to draw, the only difference being that at that time, Jacob Schiff, conservative, had chosen to drop the Republican and to elect in his place a Democrat, while today the ex-Democrats, the “neoconservatives,” now support the Republicans.
But who are these neoconservatives precisely?
Jews, “progressive” on absolutely everything: contraception, abortion, gay marriage, mass immigration, miscegenation, all but on one issue. They are for the unconditional support by the US of the State of Israel. That is their only reason for being “neoconservatives,” and that is what pushed them to go from the Democrats, their natural point of attachment, over to the Republicans.
Only in that alone are they “neo”-conservatives, because they come from the Democratic camp, and not because they would argue for a renewal of conservatism in the US — quite the opposite.
As for the rest of the picture, everything is identical: the same subservient media, the same phrases, the same lobbying, the same willingness to bring down nationalist countries, whether the tsars yesterday or Putin today – a man who embodies the will of the Russians to remain a nation and a people and continue their history – all this while ensuring the advancement of the interests of their tribe, using the US yesterday for the benefit of Israel today, Israel, a tiny state which symbolizes a Jewish power that wants to be global.
In relation to this thousand-year-old goal, the Promised Land, the political color of the various puppet parties is, obviously, totally secondary. The important thing is to understand that it is the very same people who are behind our current media hysteria and their cortege of economic sanctions. The same ones give the commands in the United States: the neoconservatives, the worthy successors of Jacob Schiff.
Francis Goumain
.
.
.
Leave a Reply