Monday, July 10, 2017

Jews And Moneylending: A Contemporary Case File

 


   


“Interest on debts grows without rain.”-Yiddish Proverb


Some things never change, and one of these things seems to be the Jewish connection to usury. During a recent conversation with a good friend who now finds himself at the sharp end of the financial downturn, he mentioned having been forced to turn to the ‘services” of what has become known as a “payday loan” company. The relatively small, short-term, unsecured loans offered by these companies, to those struggling to hold onto the socio-economic ladder, very often come with eye-watering rates of interest. 

As the conversation continued, my friend despondently informed me that because of the rate of interest on his current loan, when the end of the month came he was in all likelihood going to be facing the prospect of paying off his loan only to have to immediately take out another.

He was trapped. Looking at this younger man, who also has a baby on the way, I offered to cover the totality of the interest on this particular loan on one condition: that he avoids at all costs taking out another loan. He gratefully accepted my offer, but I couldn’t help but feel that it won’t be long before the allure of quick (but expensive) cash begins to tug at him once more.

Cicero once remarked on “how large an income is thrift,” and I would also echo the sentiment that thrift is a matter of character more than of economics. But more immediately pressing to me in this case was the fact that although my young friend believed he was dealing with a fairly small-scale operation, with a “down-home” feel, he was in fact becoming ensnared in an international web that thrives and feeds on people just like him — the hard-working but economically weak victims of “the system.” 

The small storefront instant loan operations in your hometown, or the comforting names of the seemingly small-scale online lender, are simply the extremities of this web. Sitting at the feast table of this feeding frenzy on the working poor are a large number of businessmen who hail from an ethnic community which has a long, rich, and unbroken history in precisely this line of work. 

Regardless of those screeching cries of ‘stereotype,” this history is a well-documented one, and with the posting of this essay I hope it will be documented better still. Moreover, I might add, despite the obfuscations of those with obvious bias, this particular tribe has more often than not engaged in this trade out of choice. After all, unlike crops which require toil, sweat, rootedness and, yes, rain, interest grows simply and incessantly with the tick of the clock.

Nevertheless, in order to counter any allegations of “prejudice” which this essay may attract, I draw attention to the painstaking research which I have undertaken into the companies and individuals detailed below, and I ask simply that the facts I am about to adduce be left to speak for themselves. 

I aim, primarily, to explode the idea that the link between Jews and exploitative finance is a myth or a stereotype. With a historical survey, as well as detailed factual evidence on a large number of contemporary individuals, companies and business practices I hope to establish the premise that there is occurring in our midst a vast and detrimental transfer of wealth and resources from non-Jews to Jews, and that this is occurring via the employment of age-old methods. 

I will detail, and provide evidence for, the typical features of these methods, the most starkly apparent of which is financial fraud. In the third part of this essay. I will offer my thoughts on what might be done, as well as broader reflections on the nature of economic contact between Jews and non-Jewish over historical time.

Historical Context

In "Separation and Its Discontents" Kevin MacDonald notes that a common situation resulting in accusations of economic domination “was the tendency for Jews to be involved in moneylending to gentiles.”[1] MacDonald states that moneylending was “a very potent source of anti-Semitic writing in traditional societies.”[2] Seen as inherently exploitative, moneylending evoked an even more negative reaction when pursued by “an ethnic group whose separation from the borrowing class was obvious and many members of which were engaged in this profession.”[3] 

The ethnocentric nature of Jewish communities and their position as alien agents of the elite contributed to perceptions that moneylending was itself a form of inter-tribal warfare. In fact, Jewish historian Robert Chazan has argued that the perception was rife during the medieval period in Europe that “Jewish moneylending was a vehicle through which Jews carried on their never-ending struggle against Christianity and Christians.”[4]

Moneylending became, in several respects, the focal point of non-Jewish protests against Jewish successes in resource competition. Haim Hillel Ben-Sassoon remarks in "Economic History of the Jews" that from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries “usury became the main source of livelihood” for Jews across Europe, and that as a result “anti-Jewish persecutions acquired an economic as well as religious character.”[5] 

Acts of violence which had an outwardly religious motivation, such as the so-called “Blood Libel,” were in fact much more closely linked to extortionate local Jewish moneylending operations, and the desire of the peasantry both to escape debt and to receive some sort of absolution by doing it in the name of piety. The period did, however, witness a growing literary and artistic link between Jews, blood and money, as artists, writers and public figures drew allegories depicting money as the “life blood” of society which was being drained exclusively for Jewish benefit. 

A great example of the confluences involved in an artistic expression is a six-part praedella by Paolo Ucello (Paolo Uccello (1397-1475), "Praedella of Profanation of the Host"). The image depicts a Jewish pawnbroker’s home. There is blood emanating in the background, and seeping under the door, where the moneylender has evidently attempted to cook the Host — the body of Jesus in Catholic theology. Angry citizens attempt to beat down the door, presumably to protect the Host and exact their revenge.

The work was commissioned by the local Confraternity of the Holy Sacrament, but its religious element was likely to have been of only tangential significance to everyday people. As Jay Berkovitz concedes, the charge of Host desecration, and the related charge of ritual murder, were very often just convenient “excuses for popular anti-Jewish uprisings.”[6] However, I should myself concede that some of these incidents may well have been solely provoked by accusations of Host desecration, although I should further add that at least some of the accusations are likely to have had some factual foundation. 

For example, as late as 1908 a Jewish professor from Austria named Feilbogen, along with his wife and sister-in-law, received international notoriety when, during a visit to Rome, they received communion from the Pope only for all three to immediately spit the wafer onto the floor. (See the Washington Herald’s coverage of that story ).[7] The incident prompted a major damage-limitation effort by Jews internationally. Authorities at Felibogen’s university immediately took steps to remove him from his academic post, at which point the undoubtedly insincere Jew expressed his desire to convert to Catholicism in order to atone for his behavior.

Real incidents of Host desecration aside, most acts of violence against Jews in the period were the direct result of economic factors, and ethnic rivalry in resource competition. Despite the relative frequency of non-Jewish reactions against exploitation by Jews and the non-Jewish elite, the practice of usury remained attractive to Europe’s Jews throughout that period, suggesting that the benefits of the Jewish strategy and position in European society considerably outweighed potential negative outcomes. 

On the most basic level, moneylending enabled Jews to acquire sufficient resources for population growth — a key marker of success in any evolutionary strategy. As Chazan expresses it:

"To be sure this specialization [moneylending] was costly in multiple ways. … On the other hand, the moneylending speciality did permit the eventual growth of the Jewish population of medieval western Christendom, which was a major positive development in medieval Jewish history."[8]

Rather than small-scale, localized, acts of violence, the biggest threat appended to moneylending was the threat of expulsion in the event of a failure of the alliance with native European elites. Since elite protection was crucial to compensate for the socially odious position in which Jews plied their widely despised trade, the removal of state protection normally marked the cessation of Jewish activity and habitation in that location. 

This normally occurred in the form of rapid and complete expulsion. In England, for example, Jews persisted in moneylending until the tension among the peasantry (and later the nobility) reached such an unbearable level that Edward III was forced to pass severe anti-usury laws in 1275. When Italians were called in by the English to fill the position of moneylender, the Jews finally turned to coin-clipping. 

This was the practice of trimming small amounts of precious metal from coins and then returning them to circulation, before melting down the trimmings to make new coins and thereby creating money from nothing.[9] It was the discovery of large-scale Jewish coin-clipping operations, and the now economically useless position of the Jews, that led to a Royal edict of expulsion in 1290.

In Regensburg, probably typical of Rhenish and south German cities, Jews had been gradually expanding moneylending operations from 1250 to 1400. This lending was mainly provided for the municipality, the nobility and the clergy. After 1400, lending switched for the first time to the lower orders of society, as it had in England much earlier. Ben-Sassoon remarks that “knights, burghers and artisans pawned objects for short terms, and borrowed small sums at high rates of interest.”[10] 

As in England, tension slowly increased until all Jews were expelled from the city in 1519. Elsewhere in Germany, where Jewish communities were permitted to settle, surviving municipal charters from the 13th to 15th centuries show that “articles regulating moneylending” were implemented in all localities in which Jews came to dwell.[11] Concern at restricting Jewish lending practices is evident across Europe in the same period. 

In Italy, the activities of Jewish moneylenders were regulated by the condotta, conditions set out in charter treaties between municipalities or rulers and Jewish lenders. They fixed interest rates and set down as law the principle that the charge of interest was never to exceed the value of the pledge. The first privilege granted to Jews in Poland in 1264 contained similar restrictions.[12]

With the rise of conventional banking in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and the drift of the wealthiest Jewish moneylenders into that sphere of economic activity, the importance of “traditional” Jewish moneylending declined in importance. It also began to diversify in its expression, as Jewish innovations in trade such as payment for goods “on credit” provided Jews with a means of remaining in the loan business but this time less obviously because of the involvement of goods. 

In Eastern Europe, where trade was less developed, moneylending and the deriving of income from credit were most often practised by the ubiquitous Jewish tavern owner. Since the late fifteenth century elites in many Eastern European states had given Jews “an exclusive monopoly on the production and sale of alcohol.”[13] The Jewish alcohol monopoly was associated with Jewish credit and loan facilitation, forming an almost inescapable social web in which the peasants were entangled. 

A report from Minsk to the Czar in 1797 explained peasant poverty as the fault of “landowners who keep Jews under leases in taverns in their villages. … By selling liquor to the peasants on credit … the Jews lead them into squalor.”[14] The monopoly was also widely associated with fraud. 

In Hungary, for example, a commonly held stereotype was that of a Jewish tavern owner who entices the local peasantry to drink on credit. The drunken peasant quickly loses count of how many drinks he has had, and is forced, along with enduring a hangover the following morning, to accept the Jew’s tally as legitimate. Tension over the sale of alcohol on credit, as well as Jewish financial malpractice, reached such a fever pitch in the 1780s that at one point Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor, proposed cancelling all Jewish-held tavern permits across the nation.[15]

When many of these tavern-owning Jews emigrated west from Russia and the surrounding countries in the nineteenth century, they brought with them this extensive experience in credit and loans. Although no longer able to corner the market in alcohol production and sale, the same financial skills were applied to retail, in the form of payment for goods on the instalment system, and the trade in cash (pawn-broking and conventional moneylending). 

Pawn-broking in particular had a long history among the Jews of Europe, and especially in Italy where Raymond Scheindlin states it “often provided the entire raison d’ĂȘtre for a Jewish community.”[16] Jewish involvement in moneylending and pawn broking was also accompanied by a strong strategic drive to achieve Jewish monopoly in these economic areas. Indeed, the famous humanist Antonio Ferrari, known as Galateo (1444–1517), pointed out that Neapolitan Jews engaged in trade and free professions but “enjoyed an actual monopoly in the lending business.”[17]

It was also, thanks to Jewish lobbying, a legally enforced monopoly. Leon Poliakov traces the monopoly in fifteenth-century Italy to efforts where Jewish communities successfully lobbied local elites for exclusive rights to conduct these businesses, with the result that “to start with, pawn-broker’s licenses for Christians were no longer renewed. Then at the end of 1437 the monopoly of lending was granted to a Jewish group.”[18]

Likewise, when mass Jewish emigration to the United States occurred, beginning in the 1850s, pawn-broking very quickly became dominated by Jewish immigrants as family networks and interest-free loans between Jews facilitated the buying up of the industry. A New York Times report in 1866 on the trade in stolen goods observed that Jews had “a monopoly of the pawnbroking business in this City.”[19] 

Wendy Woloson notes in her excellent "History of Pawning in America" that in the United States, by 1860, “pawnbrokers and resale traders in most cities were predominantly Jewish, and extended inter- and infra-familial involvement in various sectors of the used goods business was fairly common.”[20] One such family operation was the early twentieth-century Sam’s Loans, once located on Michigan Avenue in Detroit. 

Today you can watch Sam’s grandson, Les Gold, operate his own store, American Jewelry and Loan, on truTV’s Hardcore Pawn. Still in the family business, Les and his children can be witnessed charging high levels of interest to an overwhelmingly poor, African-American clientele. Even cursory searches for information on the show turn up a high number of articles and comments on the allegedly racist picture it conveys. 

But since the show is apparently unscripted one must accept that the financial practices of the Gold’s and the low-IQ and high level of aggression of their clients should be accepted at face value. Having watched a few episodes now, I can state that it’s a bizarre mix of trash TV and enlightening racial anthropology.

As in the past, money-orientated Jews have been eager to take new opportunities to diversify and complicate the way in which they persist in the business of creating money from nothing. From coin-clipping to offering poor quality loans on the goods of their customers they have rarely spurned innovation, and this has been apparent with both the boom in storefront lending, and in the relatively new online moneylending model. It is with these new “business models” in mind that we now turn our attention to Jewish moneylending today.

One of the standout stars of the online moneylending business is Al Goldstein, a Jew from Uzbekistan who arrived in America with his family in 1988. Goldstein is the co-founder and CEO of AvantCredit.com, one of America’s fastest growing online providers of consumer loans. After securing more than $1 billion in funding, AvantCredit was the most funded company in Chicago in 2014. The company has issued more than 100,000 loans operating in 46 U.S. states and in the United Kingdom where it has operated under the brand SpringCoin.co.uk. 

But these aren’t the only strands in Goldstein’s web. A major trait of these Jewish moneylending mega-operations is that they start off with a single company and then spawn innumerable new branches and brand names over time. In such ways, the ownership and liabilities for these companies quickly becomes obscured. 

For example, Goldstein was also co-founder, President and CEO of CashNetUSA, which then changed its name to Enova International, from 2004 until 2008. Enova trades under several more company names in Canada (Dollars Direct), Australia (Dollars Direct Australia), and Great Britain, where it operates as QuickQuid, Pounds to Pocket and also On Stride Financial. As for where Goldstein might put some of his “rainless crop,” I note that Goldstein is an “active member” of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Unlike most White Americans, who look on with horror at the declining fortunes of the American middle class, Goldstein sees opportunity in it. In 2009 he started Pangea Properties in order to buy thousands of foreclosing properties. This Uzbek Jew now owns more than 10,000 homes previously in the hands of debt-saddled Americans. Enova has been recorded boasting that “demand in the consumer segment we serve has been influenced by several demographic and socioeconomic trends, including an overall increase in the population and stagnant to declining growth in the household income for this segment.” 

It touts a recent National Bureau of Economic Research survey in which nearly half of U.S. consumers said they couldn’t come up with $2,000 in emergency funds even if they had a month to do so. They predict more and more citizens will be turning to them for financial “assistance,” and Goldstein’s operation has been described as “ideal” by Dan and Bob Wolfberg, the co-founders of another Chicago-based loan firm, PLS Financial Services Inc. Another increasingly influential player in the American online moneylending game is LendUp, founded in 2011 in San Francisco by Sasha Orloff and Jacob Rosenberg.

Online lending hasn’t just been pioneered by Jews in relation to small loans. One of the major contributing factors in the economic crash was the advent in 2000 of easy online mortgage loans. One of the biggest companies in this area of moneylending is Quicken Loans. Quicken is owned by Daniel Gilbert, whom Wikipedia describes as “born to a Jewish family in Detroit.” Quicken Loans was originally called Rock Financial Mortgage when it was founded in 1985 by Gilbert and his younger brother Gary, along with fellow co-ethnics Ron Berman and Lindsay Gross. 

Gilbert’s firm has done well out of the economic devastation that has befallen Detroit, and as of last year it remains America’s second biggest mortgage lender. Although Gilbert has been careful to try to maintain a clean image of his company, Quicken has attracted several federal lawsuits. In particular, CBS has reported that employees have come forward with information to the effect that the company was heavily involved in the kind of reckless, illegal lending that typified lending behavior in the run-up to the housing crash. 

Employees interviewed by federal authorities have accused the company of using high-pressure salesmanship to target elderly and vulnerable homeowners, as well as misleading borrowers about their loans, and falsifying property appraisals and other information to push through bad deals. A group of ex-employees, meanwhile, have gone to federal court to accuse Quicken of abusing workers and customers alike. In court papers, former salespeople claim Quicken executives managed by bullying and intimidation, pressuring them to falsify borrowers’ incomes on loan applications and to push overpriced deals on desperate or unwary homeowners.

A former loan salesman at Quicken has reported that senior figures in the company put employees under pressure to “lock the customer into a higher interest rate, even if they qualified for a lower rate, and roll hidden fees into the loan.” In 2010 a West Virginia court found Quicken guilty of fraud for misleading a mortgage borrower, gouging her on fees and wrongly inflating the value of her home. The judge overseeing the case described the company’s conduct in the case as “unconscionable.” Quicken appealed the decision, only to be hit with $3.5 million in punitive damages for continuing to avoid dealing fairly with the customer. 

Like Al Goldstein, Gilbert is generous when it comes to his fellow Jews. When not engaged in immoral lending practices, Gilbert is keenly involved in the US Friends of the Israeli Defense Force and sits on the Israeli and Overseas Committee of the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit.

But Quicken wasn’t even the worst of the sub-prime mortgage lenders. The consensus is that one of the most predatory was Ameriquest, founded in 1979 in California by Roland Arnall. Wikipedia states that Arnall was born in Paris, France in 1939 to “Eastern European Jews.” Ameriquest wasn’t the first thing founded by Arnall. Like Goldstein and Gilbert, Arnall was a pillar of the Jewish community. Two years before founding Ameriquest, Arnall, a “long-time supporter of Israel,” helped found the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. 

Arnall wasn’t so charitable or honest when it came to non-Jews using his company to buy a home. Arnall’s Wikipedia entry states that by the end of 2005 two of Arnall’s companies, Ameriquest and Argent, had funded almost $75 billion in bad subprime loans. A major factor in the development and growth of his companies was yet another Jewish credit “innovation”: Arnall is widely acknowledged as having originated the “stated income loan,” often called “liar loans,” because they were loans given without verification of income.

These loans were then bundled by major Wall St. financial firms, certified as investment-grade securities by companies like Standard and Poor’s, and then sold to investors who lost billions, resulting in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Recently Standard and Poor’s agreed to a fine of $1.37 billion because they were paid by companies whose securities they were rating. 

This means that the total paid out by American financial institutions for malfeasance leading up to the financial crisis is $40 billion — widely considered a slap on the wrist given the profits involved, the ongoing damage caused, and the fact that “not one top executive at S.&P., or any major Wall Street firm, was charged criminally for the misdeeds during the era.” 

Quite obviously, there can be no trust in our financial elites. As Matt Taibi noted, “The real problem is that it doesn’t matter what regulations are in place if the people running the economy are rip-off artists. The system assumes a certain minimum level of ethical behavior and civic instinct over and above what is spelled out by the regulations. If those ethics are absent — well, this thing isn’t going to work, no matter what we do. ”

"In Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis", Paul Muolo and Matthew Padilla state that at least thirty per cent of Arnall’s business was based on “stated-income or limited-documentation mortgages.”[1] A fellow financial predator was reported by the authors as stating: “[Arnall] plays by his own rules. He’s the guy who started stated-income loans, the guy who started no-documentation loans.”[2] By 2005 Ameriquest stood accused of misrepresenting and failing to disclose loan terms, charging excessive loan origination fees and inflating appraisals to qualify borrowers for loans. 

Despite costing the United States billions of dollars, playing an instrumental part in bringing the nation to its knees, and throwing untold numbers of hard-working American families into pits of despair, in early 2006 the company was permitted to pay just $325 million in a settlement with state attorneys general and law enforcement agencies and financial regulators in 49 states and the District of Columbia. This criminal, who brought so much damage to America, was then inexplicably made a US Ambassador to the Netherlands from 2006 until his death in 2008.

Or, perhaps, it’s more explicable than we might think given that Arnall was one of the biggest donors for pro-Israel neoconservative Republicans, and an especially lavish contributor to George W. Bush and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. As an example of the distance between the elite and the people, when challenged on Arnall’s funding, Schwarzenegger explained that the sources of Ameriquest’s ill-gotten gains “are not our area of concern” — which would best be translated as “ordinary Americans are not our area of concern.”

Like his fellow Jewish financial predators, Arnall spared no expense when it came to supporting Jewish interests with his “rainless crop ”(see also “The Sandlers and the Arnalls: The sub-prime meltdown funds Jewish political activism.”) According to Judaic Studies teacher Rabbi Aaron Parry, he gave tens of millions of dollars to charity every year, including to “every single Jewish educational organization in [Los Angeles], regardless of denomination.” 

Arnall was also instrumental in buying land and homes from Arabs near the Western Wall in Jerusalem, in order to sell them cheaply to Jews who wanted to live there. Utlimately it was a simple formula — take homes from Americans in the U.S., give them to Jews in Israel.

Returning to the thriving industry of small-scale, high-interest, online moneylending, the title of kingpin probably goes to multi-millionaire Jeffrey Weiss. Weiss, 71, is the chief executive of Dollar Financial or DFC Global Corp, a US-based payday lender which is expanding rapidly in Canada (where it operates under the name of Money Mart) and Britain, where it assumes several trading names. 

Britain has attracted these international Jewish lenders because for a long time the country, unlike increasing numbers of American states, had no limits on what interest rates could be charged. Looking at some articles from the UK, it’s clear that Dollar Financial owns The Money Shop, with 370 stores across the nation. It charges 1,311% annual interest on 30-day loans and made £33 million ($51 million) profits last year, up 21% from the previous year. Dollar Financial also owns online lenders Payday UK and Payday Express, which charges 1297% APR interest on loans of up to £800 ($1200). Profits at Payday Express more than tripled last year to £4.9 million ($7.5 million).

Because more and more US states were taking action on the interest rates charged by the companies operated by Dollar Financial, Weiss turned his attention overseas: “We have dramatically diversified out of the US where the regulatory environment … is at best unclear. We have diversified into geographies like Canada and the UK with relatively little competition where we can build a dominant market position.” 

Weiss calls his customers “Alice” — “asset-limited, income-constrained, employed.” “Because they are under skilled and undereducated, the opportunity for them to advance above that income bracket is very limited.” So he tempts them with easy but crippingly expensive cash.

Cash comes easier to Weiss, however. On top of his basic salary of $1 million annually, Dollar Financial also pays Weiss’s $34,000 country club membership last year and his $17,000 tax and legal bill. He also doesn’t need to worry about his company’s interest rates. In 2005, Dollar forgave Weiss $2.3 million in interest on a loan he had from the company, believed to be for more than $15 million. This comes on top of other benefits far too numerous to cite here, but available for the viewing of the curious.

America may be a net importer of goods and services, but the payday lending industry dominated is becoming one of the nation’s fastest growing exports. Payday lending, pioneered by Jewish financiers, has spread like a weed into most of the Western economies in the developed world. Weiss and DFC lead the way with subsidiaries in the U.S., the U.K., the Czech Republic, Spain, Poland, Scandinavia, and Canada. 

Not to be outdone, their rival EZCorp has stores in almost thirty countries. By far the most influential shareholder on the EZCorp board is Phillip Cohen. According to Wikipedia Cohen is an Australian private equity investor with a background at Kuhn Loeb and Oppenheimer & Co. After taking advice from fellow co-ethnics, and notorious fraudsters, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky, Cohen founded Morgan Schiff & Co. Cohen then became majority and then exclusive shareholder of voting stock for EZCorp.

Among its American assets, Cohen’s EZCorp has a portfolio which includes EZ Pawn, Pawn Plus, Value Pawn and Jewelry, Premier Pawn and Jewelry, USA Pawn and Jewelry Company, Easy Cash Solutions, Jerry’s Pawn Shop, and CashMax Payday Loans. Internationally, it also owns Cash Amigo in Mexico, as well as the Cash Converters International Brand. 

EZ Corp has joined the U.K. feeding frenzy by offering the online payday lending “service” Cash Genie. As well as coming under criticism for charging annual interest rates of 2,986% on its loans, Cash Genie has been forced to repay money to its customers after the Financial Conduct Authority found that the company applied unauthorized charges to customer accounts and permitted customers to become indebted far beyond their means.

But the problems faced by Cohen’s U.K. customers are merely the tip of the iceberg. Newspaper reports suggest three-and-a-half million British adults are considering taking out an extortionate payday loan over the next six months as almost half the population struggle in the aftermath of a crisis instigated by the likes of Arnall and Gilbert. The number of people who run out of cash before the month is up has increased by seven percentage points since this time last year. Payday loan companies are now worth more than $3 billion a year, with some lenders charging interest rates of more than 4,000%, leaving borrowers drowning in debt.

As well as the intrusions of American Jews into the British loan market, the country also has a number of “home-grown” online moneylenders. They all have friendly names such as Wonga, Mr Lender, and Uncle Buck. Mr Lender styles himself “Your Friend Until Payday.” But who is Mr Lender? The founder and owner of the company is Adam Freeman, a member of the South West Essex and Settlement Reform Synagogue who was also selected for the U.K.’s version of The Apprentice. Even with new laws and restrictions, Mr Lender still charges 1,269.6% APR on his loans, so I’m pretty sure that come payday he really won’t be your friend any longer.

By far the most notorious “domestic” online moneylender in Britain is Wonga. It was the astonishing 5,853% rate on Wonga’s annual loans that finally prompted the British government to begin closing the loopholes which permitted the moneylender’s feeding frenzy on the British people. Wonga, which still charges annual interest rates of 1,509%, was founded by two South African Jews, Errol Damelin and Jonty Hurwitz. According to his Wikipedia entry, Damelin “grew up in a Jewish family where he attended the University of Cape Town. Following his graduation in 1992 he immigrated to Israel. 

He began his career working as a corporate finance banker at an Israeli bank that later merged into Israel Discount Bank.” He founded Wonga in 2007, with the company soon attracting criticism for “fraud and the exploitation of the most vulnerable in society.” Among the company’s practices was the forging of legal letters in order to terrorize customers into paying ever higher fees. Because such practices are completely illegal the company was later subject to a criminal investigation.

Like a rat deserting a sinking ship, Damelin stepped down from his leadership at Wonga (retaining shares) just two weeks before the company was due to be hit with new regulations from the Financial Conduct Authority as well as a $4 million compensation demand. As of November 2014, however, Wonga had yet to pay thousands of customers. 

Damelin isn’t as tardy when it comes to supporting Jewish interests. He is active in supporting Jewish charities such as World Jewish Relief and Jewish Care, but when challenged by the press over the way in which his company treats British customers, he disclosed “that he felt no moral personal issues relating to Wonga’s much criticised trading ethics.”

Those finding themselves in the grasp of the online moneylenders are often forced to turn to those in another burgeoning but related industry — businesses built on consumer debt relief and debt consolidation. For example, you might turn to the services of Consolidated Credit Counseling Services Inc., one of America’s largest credit-counseling firms. In 2013 it generated $31 million in revenue. 

It’s more than a little interesting, however, that Consolidated is owned and operated by David Dvorkin, who also has financial interests in the very same payday lending companies that get his customers into trouble in the first place, thereby benefiting from both sides of the financial trap. Apparently this is no big deal to Dvorkin, who counters press enquiries on the matter with sob stories about his father dying the week before his bar mitzvah. My heart bleeds.

Some of the money funding the expansion of Jewish payday loan companies might come from surprising sources. For example, Bloomberg reports that money from Harvard University has been implicated in a number of suspect ventures (“Secret Network Connects Harvard Money to Payday Loans”). 

In 2007, Vector Capital, a fund operated by San Francisco Jewish financier Alex Slusky was tasked by Harvard and other investors with raising $1.2 billion to buy and turn around struggling software companies. Slusky instead worked with co-ethnics, and fellow Venture comrades, Robert and Daniel Ziff to build “a network of payday-lending websites, using corporations set up in Belize and the Virgin Islands that obscured their involvement and circumvented U.S. usury laws.” 

Employees connected to the scam claim that Slusky was behind “CashYes.com, CashJar.com and at least four other payday-loan websites.” Although Slusky refused to respond to e-mailed media enquiries, and actually hung up when called for comment, I note that the companies quickly disappeared after Bloomberg’s exposĂ©.

As well as luring in the vulnerable with online mortgages and small loans, Jews have also been reaping the “rainless crop” via online gambling. One of the pioneers and biggest players in the online poker industry was Isai Scheinberg, an “Israeli-Canadian” former programmer for IBM. Scheinberg is the co-founder and former co-owner (with his son Mark Scheinberg) of PokerStars “the largest online poker cardroom in the world.” 

In United States v. Isai Scheinberg et al., federal authorities accused Scheinberg, along with associates and co-ethnics Howard Lederer and Rafael Furst, of extensive fraud and money laundering. The case concerned the fate of approximately $3 billion in assets; authorities sought prison terms for all the executives concerned, apart from Mark Scheinberg. One of the named executives, Ira Rubin, attempted to flee to Guatamala, but was arrested there on Monday, April 25, 2011. Rubin was subsequently sentenced to three years in prison, with the judge remarking: “You are an unreformed con man and fraudster.” 

Isai Scheinberg is still under indictment in the U.S., but has relocated himself and PokerStars to the Isle of Man, a self-governing British Crown dependency in the Irish Sea. He recently became a billionaire after selling the company to the Canada-based Amaya group. But some things never change, and the Chairman and CEO of gambling conglomerate Amaya is another co-ethnic, David Baazov. Baazov has been described by Jewish Business Week as the new “king of online gambling.”

Online gambling, like online moneylending, is currently one of the world’s largest growth markets. And given what we have discussed above, it is perhaps not all that surprising that Israel is emerging as a global center for online gambling companies. In fact, some commentators have credited Israel with “essentially creating the online gambling industry back in the 1990s.” 

Although Israelis are banned from targeting their own people with these websites, this has not prevented them from “catering” to gamblers abroad. Some of the biggest names in the online gambling industry are Israeli, such as Playtech, the world’s largest online gaming software supplier. Other well-known online gambling companies that maintain a sizeable presence in the Jewish State include 888, Bwin.Party Digital Entertainment, William Hill Online, Ladbrokes Digital, and Caesars Interactive Entertainment.

As online moneylending and gambling takes off, adding to the financial woes of consumers, more and more Americans, Europeans, Canadians and Australians will fall into the hands of the Jewish CEOs and companies I have listed. These citizens will descend into an inescapable spiral of debt. Across America, household debt is increasing at an alarming rate. It now approaches $12 trillion. Both Canada and Australia have household debt figures that are higher even than those in the United States. In the UK, household debt is predicted to grow three times faster than salaries over the next four years.

The flies are struggling in the web, but become only ever more fastened to it. I therefore contend that the Jewish CEOs and companies listed above, along with their “innovations,” fraudulent procedures, and practice of dual ethics represents a clear and present danger to the wealth, interests, and well-being of our societies.

Josephus, the first-century Jewish “historian,” anticipated many of his co-ethnic apologists in Against Apion, his two-volume defense of Judaism. In it, Josephus contested the early reputation for Jewish economic unscrupulousness, arguing that robbery “is alien to us, as are wars for enrichment, since we delight not in merchandise or the world of trade.”

Two thousand years later, Abraham Foxman would write another blanket denial of reality in "Jews and Money: Story of a Stereotype." Although only spending about 5% of the book even discussing the nature and impact of Jewish wealth (the remainder predictably advocating harsh restrictions on free speech), Foxman makes the ridiculous claim that “Jews are just another ethnic minority, with both winners and loser in the race for economic success.”[1] 

As a true reflection of the nature of Jewish economic activity through the ages, this clearly leaves a lot to be desired. Thus, although separated by two millennia, Josephus and Foxman both have the same basic exhortation: “Move along. Nothing to see here.”

But of course there is something to see here, and that “something” is the story of the Jewish quest for the “rainless crop” — for the money to be made from money, from coin-shavings, or from air. Time and again, as many of these people have admitted or even boasted, Jews have been at the forefront of innovations in debt. 

Loans for monarchs, knights and peasants in England. Credit for alcohol in deepest Russia. Expensive credit and the instalment plan for cheaply made goods in Germany. Pawnbroking in Chicago. The stated income loan across America. Online moneylending throughout the West. Online gambling around the globe. They pioneered and expanded these spheres of economic activity and they remain its largest beneficiaries. 

I’ve established with ease that those billionaires who sit at the very top are loyal to those of their own ethnicity and comparably heartless to the millions of their customers who aren’t members of their impeccably moral tribe and “Light unto the Nations.” Jewish financial conduct, as well as reactions to it from within the Jewish community, are rife with ethnocentric cooperation and the age-old practice of dual ethics. 

Among the businessmen and companies listed here, there is a high level of within-group altruism. Hundreds of Jewish charities and organizations, as well as the State of Israel and Israeli occupiers in Palestinian land, are very much benefiting from the vast transfer of wealth from needy non-Jews to these companies. (Relatedly, the theme of Jewish financial criminals and their contributions being welcomed in the Jewish community see Edmund Connelly’s “The Culture of Deceit”). 

This raises uncomfortable, but vitally important, questions about the level of responsibility which should be shouldered by the Jewish community as a whole for the actions of those they refuse to condemn, or even ostracize. In fact, it is extremely concerning that these figures are held up as heroes by those within the Jewish community, and that Errol Damelin was even invited to give a business seminar by Jewish Care, the largest Jewish health and charitable society in London, which last year held “An Evening with Wonga.” 

The concept of “collective guilt” is one normally much-favored by organized Jewry, particularly in relation to the German people. But the Jewish refusal to accept responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of miscreants within their ranks, and their eager acceptance of ill-gotten funds, reveals more about the character of the majority of that population than any number of anti-Semitic essays could ever convey.

Outside the group, there is apparently little concern for the interests of the millions of non-Jewish customers who have fallen into these “innovative” economic traps. Desperate and unwary American homeowners were sold expensive mortgage deals by Gilbert, and Arnall’s Ameriquest lured in the vulnerable with the stated income loan. Millions were put in fear by Wonga’s fake legal letters. Many more were duped into paying hidden fees and added costs, and they continue to labor under high interest rates which plunge them deeper into the cycle of debt.

It is a heart-breaking fact that our elites turn a selfish blind-eye to the suffering of their people, arguing, like Schwarzenegger did, that it is not “an area of our concern.” Whites are everywhere abandoned by their leaders. Hundreds of thousands of American men, women and children have been thrown onto the streets. 

I have a vivid personal memory of seeing this hardship from last summer. My wife, mercifully a thrifty woman, wanted to go touring garage sales one weekend and we cast our net a little wider than usual, ending up wandering through some small towns in the area of Washington State along the Columbia River. We happened upon one medium-sized, modest home, most of the possessions of which had evidently been strewn on the front lawn. 

After striking up conversation with the patriarch of the family who lived there, he told me that it was a house clearance. Assuming the family was up-sizing, I asked him where he was going to move. “I don’t know,” he pensively replied. “We’ve been foreclosed.” The veil of obliviousness now lifted, I saw the faces of the family members in a new light. Premature lines of worry etched into the faces of the young. Despondency and hopelessness written in the eyes of the old. It was unusually warm for Washington that summer, but I left the area feeling cold.

The problem is cultural and well as financial. The West has been saddled with a sick consumer culture that threatens to eat it alive, and which drives the international debt machine that I have analyzed. Millions of families are foundering under the weight of consumer debt. It will only worsen. I am reminded of one of the most powerful passages from Julius Evola’s Revolt Against The Modern World (1934) in which Evola pours scorn on the kind of “innovations” which the above named businessmen have brought us:

"Modern civilization has pushed man onward; it has generated in him the need for an increasingly greater number of things; it has made him more and more insufficient to himself and powerless. Thus every new invention and technological discovery, rather than a conquest, really represents a defeat and a new whiplash in an ever faster race blindly taking place within a system of conditionings that are increasingly serious and irreversible and that for the most part go unnoticed. This is how the various paths converge: technological civilization, the dominant role of the economy, and the civilization of production and consumption all complement the exaltation of becoming and progress; in other words, they contribute to the manifestation of the “demonic” element in the modern world."[2]

Evola, a Traditionalist philosopher of remarkable insight, traced the beginning of modern cultural decline to a “regression of the castes” and the error of the West in making industrial progress the focal point of their civilization:

"Aristocracy gave way to plutocracy, the warrior, to the banker and industrialist. The economy triumphed on all fronts. Trafficking with money and charging interest, activities previously confined to the ghettos, invaded the new civilization. According to the expression of W. Sombart, in the promised land of Protestant puritanism, Americanism, capitalism, and the “distilled Jewish spirit” coexist. It is natural that given these congenial premises, the modern representatives of secularized Judaism saw the ways to achieve world domination open up before them."[3]

In this, Evola was echoing Karl Marx, of all people. But Marx probably uttered some of the most important and prophetic words of the nineteenth century when he wrote in On the Jewish Question that: 

"The Jew has emancipated himself in a typically Jewish fashion not only in that he has taken control of the power of money, but also in that through him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the spirit of the Christian people. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews."

I might quibble with choice of word, but the essence of what Marx states holds true. Over the course of the last century non-Jewish society has developed an acquisitive character that sharply contrasts with earlier periods. When we meet a man, the worst among us may form a judgment on his value according the car he drives or the size of his home. Our children come home asking for the latest iPhone, not because they need any of its “innovations,” but because most of their friends have it. And to have in this culture is to be, to the extent that a person with nothing becomes nobody. 

As a convinced atheist, I hesitate to remark that part of this is related to the decline of older forms of Christianity and the ascetic ideals and cultural norms associated with it. However, to deny the influence of this factor would be intellectually dishonest of me. Our values have changed for the worse. It’s hard to tempt a man who is satisfied with his lot in life. But, as Evola argued, modern civilization, replete with the “distilled Jewish spirit,” has bestowed upon man the “gifts” of “restlessness, dissatisfaction, resentment, the need to go further and faster, and the inability to possess one’s life in simplicity, independence and balance.”[4] 

Human needs, in the form of food, warmth and shelter are remarkably basic. With just these three factors, ably provided by pathological Whites, Africa’s population is predicted to double by 2050. 

White populations meanwhile decline around the world. We are heading for minority status because we live in the era of the invention of need, and the needs we are chasing are chimerical and pathological — the need to have “fun” and “independence” rather than having children being among the most racially suicidal. Or, to put it another way: we care more about possessing designer jeans than genes.

If our culture is sick, and enables our exploitation by the international moneylenders, the question remains: What can we do about this? Firstly, raising awareness is vitally important. When we allow “the economy” to dominate the way in which we perceive events we enable the bigger picture to escape attention. As race realists we appreciate that ethnicity is both a crucial factor in how the world works, and the way we should react to how it works. 

As such, I argue that an economy is only useful to the extent that it enables and permits the perpetuation of my race. “Our” current economy enables the transfer of vast amounts of wealth (and also therefore influence) towards individuals and a community who are not of my race, and are not in sympathy with its interests. All this economy offers me in compensation is debt, and modern versions of the shiny trinkets and baubles that we ourselves gave to natives centuries ago when we wanted to colonize them and take their resources.

I recognize that the material inducements of modern culture are no adequate compensation for mass biological failure in the form of racial extinction. I therefore condemn the current economic system as unfit for purpose and alien to the interests of the White race. Whites should be made aware of the extent to which their resources are being transferred from them, the manner in which this is being carried out, and the destination to which their funds are headed. 

They should also be made aware of the dismissive attitude towards this by their elites, and the fact that the Jewish community as a whole refuses to condemn this international group of robber barons. For too long there have been vague and unsophisticated references in White advocacy to “international Jewish finance.” This should be replaced with more and more research on the international networks I have described. Uzbek, South African, French, American — many nationalities are represented in this network, but only one ethnicity. These are the names and faces of international Jewish finance. Make them known.

Secondly, Whites are in dire need of profound cultural change. I want to see Whites shrinking from material comforts and once more making their mark on the earth. I want them to get their priorities in line with biological success and to once more compete in the race for life. I want to see this ancient and storied group of people, united by blood and history, get off its knees and fulfil its potential. I believe that a man should see his grandchildren, rather than the contents of his 401 (k), as the greatest thing to look forward to in retirement. 

As race realists, we are aware of biological and historical truths which shape the way in which we see the world. We need to share these truths but also show them in action. We should be evangelists for our cause in every way, above all, in being examples to our fellow Whites. In as many social interactions as possible we should be the tidiest, the most well-read, the most sober and measured, the most responsible with money, and the most orderly. 

I imagine that proceeding to a discussion of the problems of my race with a slovenly, ignorant, debt-ridden White liberal, his inferiority will be made evident before we even begin the exchange. But, much as I despise his doctrine as poisonous, I embrace him as a fellow of my own blood. I desire that he find in me a model worth emulating.

Thirdly, we must fully embrace the idea of boycott with all of our energy and all of our talent. Although necessary, agitating against the specific misdeeds of Jewry offers only limited benefits. Aside from a small number of exceptions, throughout history it has most often led to an increase in the level of security for Jews and the limitation of freedoms for non-Jews. As further restrictions on free speech may be on the horizon throughout the West, our best opportunities may lie in developing ideas, groups and practices designed to improve our own group. 

The overarching goal of such an effort would be to reduce the susceptibility of our race to exploitation. While we should avoid seeing the economy as the summum bonum, we should also investigate precisely how and why our economic culture is prone to Jewish predations, and develop practical internal strategies to proof our economic life against such predations. 

We should acknowledge that by encouraging thrift and selective buying behavior among our family, friends, and fellow Whites we starve the debt beast and those behind it. Declining incomes for the CEOs of the debt machine will mean less money going to Jewish organizations, and less money going to Israel.

Ultimately, I want the debt machine to be put out of business. I want to see the Simon Wiesenthal Center unable to pay its electricity bill. I want to see the ADL worrying about how much the phone bill will be this month. I want to see the funds that enable powerful alien businessmen to sway our political fortunes be reduced to pennies. I opened these essays with a Jewish proverb. I’ll close with a Norse one from the HĂĄvamĂĄl.

Where you recognize evil, speak out against it, and give no truces to your enemies.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Myth Of Gun Control In Germany, 1928-1945




by William L. Pierce | A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, “You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms,” or, “The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns.”


One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can. Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him. If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.

This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a heading: “All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.” A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control statute enacted by Germany’s National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.

Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group such as the JPFO to mount a damage- control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most hated enemies, the National Socialists — or at least to create enough smoke to obscure the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.

It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the “Nazi” brush: the whole spirit of Hitler’s government was starkly different from its portrayal by America’s mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:

1. The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect.


2.The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man’s character.


3. Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially ameliorating it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler’s government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler’s government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.


4. At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States after the war. In 1945 General Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and Germans were required to hand in their shotguns and rifles as well as any handguns which had not already been stolen. In the Soviet occupation zone German civilians were summarily shot if they were found in possession of even a single cartridge.


Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate. The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing or dealing in firearms or ammunitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal firearms. The exclusion of Jews from the firearms business rankled them as much as any other exclusion, and in their typically ethnocentric fashion they have misrepresented the law involved as an anti-gun law in an effort to cast their enemies in a bad light. It should be noted in passing that the restrictions placed on Jews by the National Socialists had the intended effect: between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews residing in Germany emigrated, reducing the Jewish population of the country from 600,000 when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 to 200,000 at the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Jews in the United States, looking at this period from their own narrowly focused viewpoint, have described these peacetime years of the National Socialist government as a time of darkness, terror, and regression, whereas for the German people it was a time of hope, joy, and spiritual and material renewal.

Much the same type of distortion is seen in the portrayal of the United States in the early 1950s: the so-called “McCarthy Era.” Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin) used his position as chairman of the Senate’s Government Operations Committee to expose the widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other U.S. institutions which had taken place during the Second World War. A substantial majority of the communists who were dragged reluctantly out into the light of day by his efforts were Jews. As a result, the controlled media always have portrayed the period as one of terror and repression, when everyone was frightened of Senator McCarthy’s “witch-hunt.” Of course, it was nothing of the sort to non-Jewish Americans, who were not intimidated in the least. History viewed through a Jewish lens — i.e., through media controlled by Jews — always is distorted in a way corresponding to Jewish interests and concerns.

Both the German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, enacted by the National Socialists, and the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, which was enacted by an anti-National Socialist government, are given below in full, first in facsimile and then in English translation. A little background information first, however, may help the reader to understand their significance. After Germany’s defeat in the First World War (a defeat in which Germany’s Jews played no small part, demoralizing the home front with demonstrations and other subversive activity much as they did in America during the Vietnam war), the Kaiser abdicated, and liberals and leftists seized control of the government in 1918. Hitler, recovering in a military hospital from a British poison-gas attack which had blinded him temporarily, made the decision to go into politics and fight against the traitors he felt were responsible for Germany’s distress.

The tendency of Germany’s new rulers after the First World War was much the same as it is for the liberals in America today: they promoted cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and egalitarianism. By 1923 economic conditions in Germany had become catastrophic, and there was much public unrest. The communists had made major inroads into the labor movement and were a growing threat to the country.

Hitler had indeed gone into politics, and his National Socialists battled the communists in the streets of Germany’s cities and gradually came to be seen by many patriotic Germans in the working class and the middle class as the only force which could save Germany from a communist takeover and total ruin. Hitler’s National Socialists continued to win recruits and gain strength during the 1920s. The communists, with aid from the Soviet Union, also continued to grow. The political situation became increasingly unstable as the government lost popular support.

The government’s response was to substantially tighten up restrictions on the rights of German citizens to keep and bear arms. The Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, was the most substantial effort in this regard. This law was enacted by a left-center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government was headed by Chancellor Wilhelm Marx and consisted of a coalition of Socialists, including many Jews, and Catholic Centrists).

Five years later, in 1933, the National Socialists were in power, Hitler headed the government, and the communist threat was crushed decisively. The National Socialists began undoing the social and economic damage done by their predecessors. Germany was restored to full employment, degeneracy and corruption were rooted out, Jews and their collaborators were removed from one facet of national life after another, and the German people entered a new era of national freedom, health, and prosperity.

Finally, in 1938, the National Socialist government got around to enacting a new firearms law to replace the one enacted by their opponents ten years earlier. The highlights of the 1938 law, especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:

1. Handguns may be purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle- loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. [The 1928 law had required a permit for the purchase of long guns as well, but the National Socialists dropped this requirement.]


2. Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.


3. A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.


4. Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. [The age limit had been 20 years in the 1928 law.]


5. Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.


6. A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:


1. persons under the age of 18 years;


2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;


3. Gypsies or vagabonds;


4. persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole] or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;


5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;


6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.


The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:


1. “trick” firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);


2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;


3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.


That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military, and other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmark); to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations.

The requirements of “trustworthiness” and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law: they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists these requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement such as, “I often carry sums of money,” was accepted as proof of need.

The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the latter were inhumane.

Now read the German firearms laws for yourself, either in the original German exactly as they were published by the German government in the Reichsgesetzblatt or in the complete English translations which are provided here. If you want to skip over most of the legal gobbledygook and go directly to the most pertinent part of the National Socialist Firearms Law — the part pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms by private citizens — turn to page 35 (Part IV of the Law). Note, as already mentioned above, that two separate and distinct types of permits are referred to: a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), required only for purchasing a handgun; and a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein), required for carrying any firearm in public. Interestingly enough, as also mentioned above, a hunting license could take the place of both these permits.

When you have read the two laws mentioned here, you will understand that it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s right of self- defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.

Thursday, June 29, 2017

The Money (((Masters)))

   

The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America

This documentary is outstanding, overall. I only wish that more would have been said in the WWII segment concerning the successful economic reforms which took place under Adolf Hitler. I am naturally aware that this is an unpopular subject in the mainstream and in the minds of normies who have been lobotomize all their lives. 

But by failing to adequately explore the issue of National Socialist Germany’s debt-free national revival, as well as the foundation of its stable currency against the gold standard, the primary causes of WWII are sure to remain misunderstood. 

Until Hitler’s economic revolution is understood, the establishment’s artificial excuses for that terrible war will continue to be used against us. I trust critical thinkers to review the information available here and elsewhere and make up their own minds. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. 

With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned “central” bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers.

The success of the central banking scheme developed into a far-reaching plan described by President Clinton’s mentor, Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley: 

"to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. 

The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the levels of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”

Several short-lived attempts to impose the central banking scheme on the United States were defeated by the patriotic efforts of Presidents Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren and Lincoln. But with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, America was firmly lashed to the same yoke, so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the masses a yoke little better than slavery itself. 

That yoke inevitably grows heavier with ever-compounding interest, and totals over $20 trillion of debt owed by the American people today ($80,000 per American) ultimately to these bankers. This vast accumulation of wealth concentrates immense power and despotic economic domination in the hands of the few central bankers:

"who are able to govern credit and its allotment, for this reason supplying, so to speak, the life-blood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of the economy so that no one dare breathe against their will.”

Segments: 

•The Problem

•The Money Changers

•Roman Empire

•The Goldsmiths of Medieval England

•Tally Sticks 

•The Bank of England

•The Rise of the Rothschilds

•The American Revolution

•The Bank of North America 

•The Constitutional Convention 

•First Bank of the U.S.

•Napoleon’s Rise to Power

•Death of the First Bank of the U.S. / War of 1812

•Waterloo

•Second Bank of the U.S.

•Andrew Jackson

•Abe Lincoln and the Civil War

•The Return of the Gold Standard

•Free Silver

•J.P. Morgan / 1907 Crash; Jekyll Island

•Fed Act of 1913

•J.P. Morgan / WWI 

•Roaring 20s / Great Depression

•FDR / WWII / Fort Knox

•World Central Bank

Conclusions:

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” - Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” – Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” – Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” – Thomas Jefferson

“…The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.” - Thomas Jefferson

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.” - James Madison

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” - The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.

“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.” - Abraham Lincoln

“The death of Lincoln was a disaster… There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots and the bankers went anew to grab the riches. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it to systematically corrupt civilization.” - Otto von Bismark (1815-1898), German Chancellor, after the Lincoln assassination

“Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to…provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands.” – Theodore Roosevelt

Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote:

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” - Woodrow Wilson

“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.” - Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” - Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.

“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.” - John Kenneth Galbraith (1908- ), former professor of economics at Harvard, writing in ‘Money: Whence it came, where it went’ (1975).


Thursday, June 22, 2017

In Defense Of "Losers"

By Aedon Cassiel


Originally, I had planned for this essay to be a response to Jack Donovan’s still relatively recent essay, “Why I Am Not a White Nationalist.” However, I’ve decided that this essay would work better if thought of as an extended discussion of a couple of the topics raised by Donovan’s essay, rather than as another open letter response aimed at Donovan himself. In part, this means it will only address a fraction of the things Donovan actually said.

Beyond the Buddy System

For the most part, the subtext of these arguments was not really “why I disagree with the premises of ethnonationalism” so much as it was “why I don’t personally want to buddy up with everyone who identifies as a White Nationalist.” Since Donovan’s entire political philosophy now appears to be “cracking open a cold one with the boys in the woods,” it makes sense why he would implicitly muddle the distinction in this way between what one’s political philosophy is and who one would like to buddy up with.

I don’t have to be ‘buddied up’ with everyone I want to form political alliances with. Indeed, the inability to form and negotiate political alliances with people who aren’t pals and bros is a kind of weakness. And it is a kind of weakness that will be bred out of the world by evolution, because groups that are capable of this will inevitably dominate groups that can’t. If the United States government were to turn against the Wolves of Vinland and try to wipe it out of existence, how long do you think the Wolves would survive? I think it would be reasonable to bet they wouldn’t last a week. And why is that?

It’s because the United States government is a larger entity than the Wolves. And the United States government is a larger entity than the Wolves because membership in it is based on shared dedication to common principles and goals as well as consent to the hierarchy of an overarching command structure—not whether or not everyone who joins the U.S. government wants to buddy up with each other. The U.S. government’s capacity for domination of fringe groups like the Wolves is, in and of itself, proof that political alliances built out of principle and extended hierarchy rather than “buddying up” will trump isolated, small–tribe “groups of buddies” every time.

In light of this, Donovan should ask himself why he’s in favor of forming groups of “buddy-based” tribes in the first place. Whatever answers he gives for why individuals should network together to form tribal groups will probably end up being the same exact reasons why those very tribal groups should network together to form larger political blocs.

I say this truly—I really do respect the inner core of the anarcho-primitivist instinct. If I had the choice to live in a thoroughly anarcho-primitivist world, I would be tempted to take it.

But in reality, the inevitable course of events is that tribes will either network into political blocs that grow to the scale of governments, or else they will be dominated by whatever other network of tribes manages to do so first. For a historical analysis of this aspect of the relationship between tribal warfare and the formation of ordered civilizations throughout history, Ian Morris’ War! What Is It Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots gets my highest possible recommendation. In short, this is the scenario that repeats on an endless cycle all over the world: individuals form into tribes, and these tribes either grow to the scale of governments that eventually rule over the other tribes—or else they end up dominated themselves because some other tribe built itself up to that level first. Like it or not, one’s tribe either “dominates” or grows to become “dominated.”

But as far as Jack Donovan personally goes, there isn’t much left for argument on this point to prove. Either a time will come within Donovan’s lifetime when his tribe needs a more extended network in order to protect itself against outside assaults from activist enemies ethnonationalists share in common—or there won’t. Either ethnonationalists will be organized enough to be able to usefully offer this kind of protection at that time—or they won’t. Either Donovan’s disavowal of the most crude “skinhead” types in the movement will help shift the Leftist bullseye off of his back, even if it doesn’t remove it completely—or it won’t.

Either way you go, these are all inconclusive predictions of the future; this is not a case where we can pontificate and produce “proof.” In the meantime, all any of us are doing is building our own personal projects while discussing them with our often separate, sometimes overlapping followings . . . and all of us, in our own ways, are ultimately trying to prepare for civilization to collapse. Should the collapse set in within our lifetimes, we’ll just have to see who makes it out given however the general situation will have changed by that time.

And on that point, there really isn’t anything left to be said. So this concludes the first point raised by Donovan’s essay that I thought there might be some value in discussing.

What if We Really are “Losers”?

The second point I thought there might be some value in discussing is Donovan’s suggestion that White Nationalism will fail because of White Nationalists. Throughout the essay, Donovan continually refers back to the most tired Left-liberal characterizations of what kinds of people “White Nationalists” supposedly are: men with “‘white pride’ tattooed on [their] chest[s]” who “theatrically claim to be proud of being white because it is usually the only thing they have going for them.” To be fair, this may very well describe Donovan’s personal encounters with self-professed “White Nationalists.” But to speak for myself, I’ve been involved with Counter-Currents for long enough to have accumulated a rather large pool of people I would call “White Nationalists,” and I’m quite certain I have literally never met a single one who had “white pride” tattooed either on their chests or otherwise.

In fact, most “White Nationalists” I know would look down on anyone who has any tattoos at all—Richard Spencer thinks tattoos are degenerate, for example. For this new generation, “white pride” isn’t something “white supremacists” boast about, it’s just what regular old milquetoast conservatives who read outlets like Breitbart or The Blaze try to ironically (and ineffectually) throw back in the face of liberals when the topic of black or Mexican pride comes up. The average “White Nationalists” of the younger generations today are likely educated enough to be familiar with findings from the field of biosocial criminology showing that genes do indeed have an influence on the propensity to criminal behavior, probably turned in the direction that led them towards ethnonationalism after liberal researcher Robert Putnam finally published his results showing the negative impacts of diversity brought by immigration on community trust, hate drugs and porn and promiscuity, desperately want to build wholesome families, and are genuinely afraid to reveal their views to their peers.

The nature of the “movement” (such as it is) is changing rapidly, and part of the issue here may simply be that Jack Donovan has relatively more contact with the older breed of “White Nationalists” that most people in the new generation only know from cheesy stereotypes.
Either way, this finally brings me to the second point I want to discuss.

If White Nationalists were losers, just what would that prove?

Let’s grant it just for the sake of the argument: let’s assume 100% of people who identify as “White Nationalists” are “losers” in a broad sense.

Well, one could make a similar argument about welfare. According to your definition, you could say that most or all people who rely on welfare to survive are “losers,” in the sense that they would literally “lose” without welfare because they can’t stand on their own feet (or else they wouldn’t be on it in the first place). But what would liberals think about an argument that said that welfarism is dumb because people on welfare are “losers”? Certainly they would recognize it as a non sequitur: so maybe they are “losers”—does that mean we should let them starve in the streets? “Not so fast,” they’d respond.

Let’s step back for a moment.

Within any given race, all traits are distributed along bell curves.

On the one hand, this means it will always be true that keeping groups with different bell curves separate will lead to more social cohesion than mixing them willy nilly—as is validated by the literature on diversity and social cohesion that began with the previously mentioned research from liberal Robert Putnam.

On the other hand, it also entails that there will always be a minority of outliers in any given group who actually are more similar to the average member of a different group than they are to the average member of their own.

These minorities will always exist. But because of—you know—the very meaning of the word “average,” it follows that they will also always be in the minority. So even if not all admixture leads directly to reduced social cohesion, a totally segregated society would still always be more cohesive than a totally integrated society.

Now, suppose you live in an area like Palo Alto, California. The average rent in Palo Alto is almost $2,800 for a single bedroom apartment, and these expenses keep out anyone who can’t afford to pay. As it turns out, one’s IQ predicts one’s future wealth better than one’s wealth predicts one’s future IQ scores. This means if there are some groups with low average IQs and low wealth, then someone who lives in Palo Alto will have experiences almost exclusively with the outliers from that group—the few that are unlike most of the rest of them. A similar point would go for a black man whose only experiences with white men are in underground rap battle scenes: such an environment would inherently select for white men who are more extroverted, aggressive, and impulsive than the white male average; and this particular black man could end up as a result with an inaccurate idea of what most white men are really like as a result.

In other words, smart and successful whites who dismiss the “racism” of lower IQ whites who decry the negative effects of diversity because those whites aren’t as smart or successful as others might be rather like the tallest man in the room mocking everyone around him for drowning while the room they’re in begins to flood, dismissing them because he thinks they’re too short to have a valid opinion. It turns out that actually experiencing diversity also predicts one’s holding a negative view of it. Evidence like this suggests that it is much more often those who haven’t experienced as much diversity who imagine that its effects on a community are better than they really are, than it is those who haven’t lived around large members of other races who expect they would find the experience to be less enjoyable than they really would.

And IQ helps predict one’s experiences with diversity. When more successful whites enter diverse areas, they inevitably end up “gentrifying” them. And guess what happens when middle and upper class regions full of successful whites grow increasingly diverse? “White flight”. This deserves repetition for emphasis: do more successful, higher IQ whites stay or go when regions grow more diverse? As a matter of fact, they go. As regions grow more diverse, very large numbers of those whites who can leave in fact do. Thus, more successful whites never have to think about the idea of ethnonationalism, for exactly the same reason they never have to think about food stamps and other forms of welfare.

While it is absurd that this simultaneous condemnation of “gentrification” and “white flight” leaves successful whites damned if they do and damned if they don’t, whether they stay or they go (in other words, if they do just about anything other than give all their money away to blacks as one Baltimore professor insists or else just plain drop dead), there is truth to the fact that both these phenomena imply forms of “privilege”: successful whites rarely, if ever, have to experience any form of “diversity” that doesn’t entail skimming the cream of the crop off of outside groups while staying safely sequestered away from the rest. Less successful whites aren’t so lucky—as successful whites move away, they get left behind. Thus, it is actually less successful whites who end up acquainted with what multiculturalism actually is like, in the real world, for most people, most of the time. Should they be forced to live in increasingly stratified communities because someone thinks they aren’t intelligent enough to be worth caring about?

Are they really just too dumb to deserve cohesive communities to live in?