The Khazarian Bankster Cult That Hijacked the World

By Jonas E. Alexis on July 7, 2017

Heinrich Heine: “No one does more to further the revolution than the Rothschilds themselves…and, though it may sound even more strange, these Rothschilds, the bankers of kings, these princely pursestring-holders, whose European-state system, nevertheless carry in their minds a consciousness of their revolutionary mission.”

So, tell me: who are we going to con this time?

…by Jonas E. Alexis

During the Revolution of 1848, Karl Marx wrote that “the Jew, who in Vienna, for example, is only tolerated, determines the fate of the whole Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German states, decides the fate of Europe. This is not an isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because…money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations.” Marx had the Rothschilds in mind when he wrote this.

He went on to say that the only solution to the problem is for society to abolish “the empirical essence of Judaism,” and only then will “the Jew…become impossible”[1] in fomenting subversive activity.

Heinrich Heine likewise noted, “No one does more to further the revolution than the Rothschilds themselves…and, though it may sound even more strange, these Rothschilds, the bankers of kings, these princely pursestring-holders, whose European-state system, nevertheless carry in their minds a consciousness of their revolutionary mission.”[2]

According to Heine, “the Rothschild ‘system’ is also potentially revolutionary in itself” because since it “possesses the moral force or power which religion has lost, it can act as a surrogate for religion—indeed, it is a new religion, and when the old religion [Christianity] finally goes under it will provide substitutes for its practical blessings strangely enough, it is once again the Jews who invented this new religion.”[3]

Heine saw James Rothschild as “a powerful destroyer of patrician privilege, and the founder of a new democracy.”[4]

British philo-Semitic historian Niall Ferguson noted that “not only had the Rothschilds replaced the old aristocracy; they also represented a new materialist religion. ‘Money is the god of our time,’ declared Heine in March 1841, ‘and Rothschild is his prophet.’”[5] Heine saw this as dangerous. Marx saw it too. The “new materialist religion” was Mammon, which came in the form of capitalism.

But if we peel the historical onion, we see the same pattern in the early centuries. In fact, Mammon was a major issue in Poland during the 1660s. During that time, scholarship for the Jews was primarily drawn from two main currents: the Talmud and rabbinical literature.[6] Jewish historiographer Heinrich Graetz tells us:

“The study of the Talmud in Poland, established by Shachna, Solomon Lurya, and Moses Isserles, reached a pitch attained at no previous time, nor in any other country. The demand for copies of the Talmud was so great that in less than twenty years three editions had to be printed, no doubt in thousands of copies…

“The cultivation of a single faculty, that of hairsplitting judgment, at the cost of the rest, narrowed the imagination, hence not a single literary product appeared in Poland deserving the name of poetry. All the productions of the Polish school bore the Talmudic stamps, as the school regarded everything from the Talmudical point of view.

“The disciples of this school looked down almost with contempt on Scripture and its simple grandeur, or rather it did not exist for them…They knew something of the Bible from the extracts read in the synagogues, and those occasionally quoted in the Talmud…

“A love of twisting, distorting, ingenious quibbling, and a foregone antipathy to what did not lie within their field of vision, constituted the character of the Polish Jews. Pride in their knowledge of the Talmud and a spirit of dogmatism attached even to the best rabbis, and undermined their moral sense…Integrity and right-mindedness they had lost as completely as simplicity and the sense of truth. The vulgar acquired the quibbling method of the schools, and employed it to outwit the less cunning.

“They found pleasure and a sort of triumphant delight in deception and cheating against members of their own race; cunning could not well be employed, because they were sharp-witted; but the non-Jewish world with which they came into contact experienced to its disadavantage the superiority of the Talmudical spirit of the Polish Jews.”[7]

This energized an anti-Jewish spirit among the Poles, for they knew that they were being cheated. This quickly led to violence among the Gentiles, who in 1638 “slew 200 Jews, and destroyed several synagogues.”

Ten years later, Jews clung to the book of Zohar for Messianic revolution, and this again caused “bloody retribution,” during which both innocent and guilty Jews were slain.[8] Because of this, both Jews and gentiles died by the thousands in the same year.

Within the next three years, anti-Jewish resistance led again to a bloody war that took the lives of thousands of Jews, and caused many others to move to places like the Netherlands, Bohemia, Austria, Italy, and Hungary. Wherever they went, however, they took the study of the Talmud with them, bearing the same attitudes towards Gentiles. “Far from giving up their own method in a foreign country, they demanded that all the world should be regulated by them, and they gained their point.”[9]

Yet despite all of that, historian Israel Abrahams declares that for Jews in the Middle Ages “to cheat a non-Jew was a double crime: it was an act of robbery, and it involved a profanation of God’s holiness…The prices that they charged their co-religionists were higher than the prices they charged Gentiles. That it was a greater offense against Judaism to cheat a Christian than to cheat a Jew is the constant burden of the Jewish moral books of the middle ages…I cannot remember a moral book of those times from which this doctrine is absent”[10]

Nothing could be further from the truth.  READ MORE>>>