The Tory Parliamentary Struggle to Preserve English National Identity, 1753–1858: Parts IV and V

/10 Comments/in , /by

Part IV: The Collapse of the Anti-Jewish Party, 1847–1858

The agitation for Jewish “emancipation” would not begin again in earnest until the Whig ministry of Lord Russell. There was no law against Jews taking up seats in Parliament; rather, they were effectively barred from taking office because of a technicality. In 1847, Lionel de Rothschild, Nathan’s son, was elected to the Commons. Unable to swear the Oath of Abjuration because of the words “upon the true faith of a Christian,” he could not take his seat. A Jewish Disabilities Removal Bill was again sent through the Commons in 1848. This provoked significant opposition among High Tories because it placed Jews on an equal footing with Roman Catholics. It was passed in the Commons, but rejected in the Lords. Following the Whig failure to get the bill passed through the Lords, Rothschild vacated his seat. He was re-elected in 1850. In consequence, the Whigs introduced into the House of Commons an Oath of Abjuration Bill, which would allow Rothschild to swear a modified oath and take his seat. Although it was passed in the Commons, it was ultimately rejected by the Lords in 1851.

Lord Russell, now Foreign Secretary in Lord Aberdeen’s Conservative cabinet, passed another Jewish Disabilities Bill in 1853. This was steered through the Commons without issue, but Lord Shaftesbury had urged its rejection in the Lords, where it was voted down after a second reading. Russell tried to pass a bill modifying the Oath of Abjuration, but it also abolished the Catholic version of the oath. This provoked considerable opposition among members of the Commons and it was voted against by a majority of MPs. In 1856, during Lord Palmerston’s Whig ministry, the MP for Manchester introduced a bill proposing the abolition of the Oath of Abjuration, but this measure was rejected after a second reading in the Lords. In 1857, Palmerston and Rothschild were returned to Parliament, with a large Whig majority. Palmerston passed an oaths bill in the Commons with the aim of substituting the Oath of Abjuration for another. This time, the Catholic version of the oath was left intact. This passed the Commons, but was rejected by the High Tories. Again Baron Rothschild again vacated his seat but was subsequently re-elected to the Commons. Lord Russell introduced another oaths bill, but before the second reading could be completed, Lord Palmerston’s ministry had fallen and was replaced by Lord Derby’s Conservative ministry in 1858. The Lords read the bill, then removed the clause affecting Jews, an amendment that was promptly rejected by the Commons.

Eager to break the stalemate between Houses, a committee was established by the Commons, with Baron Rothschild, much to the disgust of the Lords, appointed as a member. The committee’s purpose was to provide reasoned objections to the Lords’ stance on Jewish civil and legal disabilities. This would be submitted to the Lords for consideration. The Lords would then appoint a committee to come up with reasons in favor of maintaining the status quo, then submit these to the Commons for examination. During the committee stage, the High Tories, after decades of intra-Parliamentary squabbling, finally cracked. Much to their abhorrence, the Tories found themselves drawing up a compromise bill out of political expediency, even though the majority were still against Jews in parliamentary office. This was then sent to the Commons.

On the third reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill (1858), Tory MP Samuel Warren protested, describing the measure as a “wholly unprecedented course …  calculated to lower the Legislature in the estimation of the country.” Forcing the Tories to embrace a bill they opposed on Christian principles would hurt the Conservative party. If Jews were allowed in Parliament, it would lead to the national repudiation of Christianity.

“The Jew must, therefore, in the whole tone of his thoughts, and in the whole series of his principles,” said Warren, “be so at variance with the principles and tone of thought of a Christian community, that he cannot safely be trusted with the discretionary power of making laws for that Christian community.”

He objected to the elitist nature of the campaign for Jewish relief:

The admission of Jews into the Legislature is opposed to public opinion and the wishes of the people, which ought to be distinctly ascertained by means of a general election before taking a step so seriously affecting the constitution of the Legislature. … The Bill before the House is, in the above and other respects, without precedent in our legislation; opposed to the genius and spirit of the Constitution; offensive to the Jew; derogatory to the dignity of this House; provocative of disunion and collision between the two Houses; and violates equally the principles of both parties to this unhappy contest.[1]

With the passage of the Jewish Relief Act of 1858, the Tories were forced to shed an integral part of their English ethnic identity. This is doubtless why the contest between both houses was a protracted one. The bill gave each House the ability to decide which oath they would use. It did not expressly give Jews the right to sit in Parliament, but they would be able to sit in the Commons upon alteration of the oath. The Tories would see to it, in determining what oath they would use, that the seats in the Lords would be reserved for Christians, a state of affairs that continued until 1885.

One of the Benefits of the Jewish Emancipation (1849-1858). An old Jew shows his wife a sucking pig and says_ Dare mine dear, see vot I’ve pought you! tanks to de Paron Roast-child & de Pill.

Part V: The Destruction of English National Identity

In the History of the Jews in England, Jewish historian Cecil Roth wrote, with an air of triumph:

“On Monday, 26 July 1858, Baron de Rothschild at last took his seat in the House. Two hundred years after Cromwell’s death the work that he had begun reached its culmination, and an English Jew was for the first time recognized as an equal citizen of his native land.”[2]

The High Tories were the racial consciousness of the English nation, the last bulwark of the nation’s racial defenses against alien intruders. They were willing to fight tooth and nail for the preservation of England’s distinctive ethnic character. With the numbers and influence of the High Tories seriously diminished by late nineteenth century, who would stand for England?

The triumph of the Judeo-Liberal vision was possible for two reasons:

(a) The millenarian beliefs of evangelical Christians. Millenarian beliefs among English Puritans introduced a world-denying and ascetic spirit into the English culture of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These destructive tendencies exacerbated the Englishman’s weaknesses, especially his relative lack of ethnocentrism, his individualism, and his tendency to promiscuous altruism.

Christianity is not an intrinsically destructive force; from the Middle Ages to the nineteenth century, it functioned as an Anglo-Saxon ethnic identifier. On the other hand, its universalist tendencies could be exploited by hostile elites—Jews, Whigs, liberals etc.—to dissolve and replace English national identity with a raceless cosmopolitanism. For example, historians speculate that Cromwell had both economic and millenarian reasons for re-admitting the Jews in 1656, believing this would lead to mass conversion of Jewry, ushering in the Millennium. The Jew Bill of 1753 was interpreted within a similar eschatological framework of mass Jewish conversion and universal redemption. In the nineteenth century, many Christians believed it was their duty to fight for Jewish relief because it would usher in the Second Coming. The Anglican evangelical Robert Grant, who tirelessly agitated for the removal of Jewish disabilities in the Commons during the 1830s, was an advocate of pro-Jewish millenarianism.

Perhaps our solution to this paradox is found in Oswald Spengler, who wrote: “It was not Christianity that transformed Faustian man, but Faustian man who transformed Christianity—and he not only made it a new religion but also gave it a new moral direction.”

If the birth of Western civilization occurred in the late Middle Ages, as Spengler contended, then Faustian man inherited the Christianity of late antiquity and “made it a new religion,” one that reflected Faustian man’s affirmation of life and striving towards the infinite. Faustian man transformed an ascetic and syncretistic Middle Eastern cult into a militant faith that would alter the course of world history. The music, architecture and literature of the late medieval period, like the Scientific Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, all sought to expand Faustian man’s consciousness.  Christianity, by accommodating itself to the Germanic warrior ethos, served as an ethnic marker that preserved English identity when faced with ethnic conquest and subversion by hostile invaders. In this Faustian regime, Europeans did not hesitate to drive out Jews and Saracens who threatened their survival as a race or the territorial integrity of their homeland. This warrior ethos permeated the medieval doctrines of the Christian church, i.e., the military orders, the code of chivalry, the rejection of infidels as sworn enemies of Christ, the glorification of the book of Revelation’s warrior Christ, the importance of jus ad bellum etc.

Faustian Christianity concealed a double-edged sword. The world-denying and universalistic dogmas of the old Magian religion, never completely submerged by ethnocultural Germanization, could be recovered and used to de-emphasize the religion’s significance as a Germanic ethnic marker. These dogmas, i.e. pacifism, universal love, the brotherhood of man, would be employed by hostile elites—Whigs, Jews, and liberals—to exploit European vulnerabilities. As a result, Europeans would no longer be willing to fight for what their ancestors had handed down to them. Courage, bravery, honor, glory, wealth—these were the values of Faustian Christianity, of Columbus, the conquistadors, the English settlers in America. The Magian-like Christianity that now dominates the Western World is a complete reversal of these values, the last gasp of a dying civilization.

(b) Whiggism, which evolved into modern liberalism. This political philosophy, in its earliest form, stressed the economic benefits of Jewish immigration. It assumed a Benthamite utilitarian cast as time wore on. Liberals who fought alongside the Jews to sabotage English identity argued that maximizing Jewish happiness would increase the happiness of the greatest number. Although Bentham himself was not an egalitarian, many of the Jews’ liberal champions were just as much concerned with liberty as they were with equality.

The diseases of liberalism and cosmopolitanism were already in existence by the mid-seventeenth century, albeit in an inchoate, nascent form. In the Whig-liberal narrative, the Jewish attack on English national identity was portrayed as the underdog’s struggle for legal and civil equality in an oppressive society. The liberalism of the nineteenth century allowed Jews to establish a permanent foothold within the host society, with the aid of those Englishmen who had a diminished sense of racial consciousness. The Jews and their liberal regressive allies had succeeded against their “oppressors,” but only at great cost to the survival of Western civilization, which had been infiltrated and weakened from within. The roots of modern Western degeneracy are found in the emergence of the more inclusive liberal world-views of the nineteenth century.

The Whiggish view of history—the belief in endless social progress—does not promote mutual co-operation in an ethnically heterogeneous living space, but inter-ethnic warfare. When two distinct ethnic groups with diametrically opposed interests are confined to a single geographical area, the racially healthy group will always take advantage of the racially unhealthy; if lack of good racial health is defined as widespread promiscuous altruism, i.e., Lockean individual rights, religious tolerance, universal suffrage, feminism etc., the group with the strongest ethnic identity will use these as weapons against the group being infiltrated and subverted. By exploiting its weaknesses, such as the European’s promiscuously altruistic attitude toward outgroups, the invading Jewish ethny maximizes its own survival at the expense of the host.

The attempt to do away with English ethnicity in the early modern period was led by a Judeo-Whig-Liberal elite, in collusion with Anglican evangelicals. By the late twentieth century, it would become so powerful that race-conscious whites would find their civilization being taken away from them and given to racial aliens. The attempt to encourage ethno-racial amalgamation between Jews and Englishmen was an attempt to redefine English national identity to accommodate Jewish ethnic interests. The result was inter-ethnic warfare, followed by subversion of English national identity from within. Once the Jewish influence had spread throughout the English body politic, English national identity would be further expanded to accommodate the peoples of the Third World, a development that will ultimately lead to the ethnic extinction of the English. The year 1948, the arrival of the HMT Empire Windrush on English shores (see Andrew Joyce’s “The SS Empire Windrush: The Jewish Origins of Multicultural Britain”), was really the culmination of a series of events set in motion by Oliver Cromwell.

The parallel between Judeo-Whig-Liberal elite betrayal of the English public from 1753–1858 and Judeo-Liberal elite betrayal of the European public from 1948 to the present is striking. Cromwell invited Jewish foreigners to settle on English soil for economic reasons, just like the globalist elites, who invite Third-World immigrants to colonize Western countries so they can be economically exploited as a source of cheap labor. Jews were also re-admitted for millenarian reasons, with the Puritans believing that Jewish colonization of England was part of the divine plan, one that would usher in humanity’s universal redemption; in the same vein, Third World immigrants are imported by neoliberal globalists to recreate heaven on earth, similar to the New Jerusalem of the English Puritans.

There are other similarities. The Jew Bill was the result of Jewish meddling in English affairs at the highest levels of government, with the collusion of the Whig elite. Similar events occurred in the United States during the 1960s, where Jewish involvement in the demographic transformation of the country, in collusion with liberal elites, has been among the most decisive factors.[3] That Jews have always been a weapon of Western elites eager to advance their narrow economic and ideological goals is an inescapable conclusion. The difference, of course, is that national populist resistance to Judeo-Whig-Liberal elite power in 1753 was able to exploit the patriotic sentiments of the Anglo-Saxon peasantry to devastating effect, temporarily thwarting Jewish infiltration of English society.

Self-identified Jews pushing for dissolution of English national identity while maintaining their ethnic identity as Jews, would be a recurring leitmotiv in the history of Jews in Europe and the New World. This aspect of Jewish behavior would figure prominently in the twentieth century and would be a major factor in the undoing of Western civilization in the Anglosphere.

Whether the integrity of one’s racial identity can be preserved or not typically depends on the resolve of the elites, since a nation’s world-view or “ruling ideology” is ultimately a reflection of elite power. If the elites value the survival of the people they rule, they will preserve their distinct ethno-racial character; if they do not, they will undermine it by importing racial aliens. This was the case in early Victorian England; public opinion was molded by the millenarian evangelicalism and utilitarian liberalism of the Judeo-Liberal elite, placing the Lords at a strategic disadvantage because of the increased public pressure to resolve the intra-Parliamentary disputes in favor of the Jews and their allies. At some point in the late 1850s, resistance to Jewish interests became futile and High Toryism ceased to exist as a major force in English politics.

The victory of the Judeo-Liberal elite in 1858 spelled the death of English national identity. If the Jew could be an Englishman, anyone could be an Englishman. The effects of this decline have worsened considerably since Jewish “emancipation” and are now unstoppable, unless drastic measures are taken.

Bibliography:

Alderman, Geoffrey. “Not Quite British: The Political Attitudes of Anglo-Jewry.” In The Politics of Race by Ivor Crewe (2015).

Endelman, Todd M. The Jews of Britain: 1656 to 2000. Univ. of California Press, 2002.

Endelman, Todd M. The Jews of Georgian England, 1714-1830: Tradition and Change in a Liberal Society. University of Michigan Press, 1999.

Hibbert, Christopher. Wellington: A Personal History. HarperCollins Publishers, (2010).

Latimer, B. “Samuel Richardson and the ‘Jew Bill’ of 1753: A New Political Context for Sir Charles Grandison.” The Review of English Studies, 66 (275), 2015b, 520–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgu112

‌Panayi, Panikos. Germans in Britain since 1500. Hambledon Press, 1996.

Perry, Thomas Whipple. Public Opinion, Propaganda, and Politics in Eighteenth Century England. Harvard University Press, 1962.

Rabin, Dana Y. “The Jew Bill of 1753: Masculinity, Virility, and the Nation.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol. 39, no. 2, 2006, pp. 157–171., doi:10.1353/ecs.2005.0067.

Roth, Cecil. A History of the Jews in England. Clarendon Press, 1964.

Shapiro, J.S. Shakespeare and the Jews. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016.

‌Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn and Arnold, Thomas. The life and correspondence of Thomas Arnold, D.D. Two Volumes. London: T. Fellowes, 1858.

[1]     https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1858/jul/21/aejourned-debate

[2]     1964, pg. 266

[3] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002; orig.: (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998).

The Tory Parliamentary Struggle to Preserve English National Identity, 1753–1858, Part III

/2 Comments/in , /by

Part III: The Jewish Campaign Against Parliamentary Anti-Judaism, 1829–1836

The movement for Jewish “emancipation” in nineteenth-century England was spearheaded by Jews and their Whig or Liberal allies, while the opposition was led by the High Tories:

The High Tory majority in the House of Lords had acted as a barrier to the advancement of Jewish ‘emancipation’ … and some of the arguments put forward against the Jews, both in and out of Parliament, reflected the traditional Tory view that Church and State were part of an inseparable entity, in the promotion of which Jews ought to play no part. (Alderman, 2015)

In practice, Anglo-Jewry had more freedoms than their compatriots in central Europe, but in late-Georgian England, the laws on the books indicated that they were less free. Cecil Roth writes:

The entire body of medieval legislation which reduced the Jew to the position of a yellow-badged pariah, without rights and without security other than by the goodwill of the sovereign, remained on the statute book, though remembered only by antiquarians. As late as 1818 it was possible to maintain in the courts Lord Coke’s doctrine that the Jews were in law perpetual enemies, ‘for between them, as with the devils, whose subjects they are, and the Christian there can be no peace.’[1]

Despite his freedoms vis-à-vis Ashkenazim of Central Europe, in the English society of the nineteenth century, politically and professionally, the Jew was still excluded from the mainstream:

Public life was, in law, entirely barred. Jews were excluded from any office under the Crown, any part in civic government, or any employment however modest in connexion with the administration of justice or even education, by the Test and Corporation Acts. … These made it obligatory on all persons seeking such appointment to take the Sacrament in accordance with the rites of the Church of England. … Naturally these disqualifications included the right to membership of Parliament, for which the statutory oaths in the statutory form were a necessary preliminary. For the same reason the universities were closed, and, as a consequence of this, various professions.[2]

The Jew says: “Come I sha—Open the door vill ye—I vants to come in—and heres a shentlemans a friend of mines—vants to come in too—dont be afeard—I dont vant a sheat for nothing—I can pay for it So help me Got.”

Read more

The Tory Parliamentary Struggle to Preserve English National Identity, 1753–1858, Parts I and II

/14 Comments/in /by

 

 

Henry Pelham (1694–1754), Whig Prime Minister who introduced the Jew Bill in Parliament in 1753

Part I: The English Common Law Basis of Tory Anti-Judaism

A legal case involving Robert Calvin, although seemingly unrelated, would play a key role in shaping attitudes and beliefs about Jews and Jewishness until the mid-nineteenth century. The plaintiff was born in Edinburgh, two years after the Union of the Crowns in 1603.  Some land was purchased on his behalf, to test whether his Scottish parentage was an impediment to ownership of English real property. However, it was promptly confiscated because, it was claimed, his birth had occurred outside the “ligeance” or dominion of the English Crown. This meant that Calvin, from an international perspective, was an alien. In 1608, the Lord Chancellor and justices of the Exchequer Chamber ruled in favor of the plaintiff, reasoning that since Scotland and England were ruled by the same monarchy, Calvin’s birth had actually occurred within the ligeance of King James I, making him a full subject with the same rights as an Englishman. The court concluded that he had been wrongfully dispossessed of the land.

The Elizabethan jurist Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634) used Calvin’s case to define the proper legal relationship between infidels and Christians:

All infidels are in law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potentia, a remote possibility) for between them, as with the devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christian, there is perpetual hostility, and can be no peace.[1]

Since Jews were infidels, they were “perpetual enemies” subject to a plethora of civil and legal disabilities. In the First Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England (1628), Coke wrote: “If the witness be an infidel, or infamous, or of non-sane memory, or not of discretion, or a party interested, or the like, he can be no good witness.”[2] This meant that Jews, because they were infidels, were not allowed to bear witness or testify in a court of law, even in cases of assault, robbery and murder. As far as English jurisprudence was concerned, the Jew was a legal non-entity.

Because Jews were perpetual enemies, certain interactions between Christians and Jews were punishable by death.  In the Institutes, Coke “found that by the ancient laws of England, that if any Christian man did marry with a woman that was a Jew, or a Christian woman that married with a Jew, it was a felony, and the party so offending should be burnt alive.”[3]

This was based on legislation recorded in the medieval Fleta, seu Commentarius juris anglicani (circa 1290):

Those who have connection with Jews and Jewesses or are guilty of bestiality or sodomy shall be buried alive in the ground, provided they be taken in the act and convicted by lawful and open testimony.[4]

In Coke’s opinion, Jewish-Christian relations were best governed by medieval common law, such as King Edward’s Statutum de Judaismo (1275) or the anonymous Fleta. His reverence for medieval law was based on an a posteriori approach to English jurisprudence. In his Reports, he wrote:

For any fundamental point of the ancient common law and customs of the realm, it is a maxim in policy, and a trial by experience, that the alteration of any of them is most dangerous for that which had been refined and perfected by all the wisest men in former succession of ages and proved and approved by continual experience to be good & profitable for the common wealth, cannot with great hazard and danger be altered or changed.[5]

The doctrine of the “Jew as perpetual enemy” remained on the books until the re-admission of the Jews in 1656. By that time, English jurists had begun to simply ignore it. It would be revived again by Tory parliamentarians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

In addition to the “perpetual enemies” doctrine, there was the “Christianity is law of the land” doctrine, also based on Coke’s legal analysis of Calvin’s case. The law of nature “which God at the time of creation of … man infused into his heart” was the “Moral Law,” which was, Coke said, “immutable,” existing “before any judicial or municipal law in the world.” This Christian “Moral Law” was a “part of the laws of England.”[6] Sir Matthew Hale, in the case of Rex v Taylor (1676), affirmed Coke’s position as the bedrock of English jurisprudence: “Christianity is parcel of the laws of England; and therefore to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law.”[7]

The “Christianity is law of the land” doctrine served as the legal justification for relegating Jews to second-class citizenship until 1858, when the Jew Lionel de Rothschild was allowed to take his seat in the House of Commons.

Part II: The Jews, the Whigs and the Tories, 1753

Jews were barred from full participation in English life because they rejected Christianity. They could only be “endenized by royal letters-patent” to become permanent residents; they could not become full subjects because parliamentary naturalization required taking the Eucharist. Compared to parliamentary naturalization, endenization had certain drawbacks. It was not retroactive, so if a Jew had been endenized after the birth of his children, they would not be able to inherit his property. The only advantage of endenization was that Jews were granted the right to participate in the lucrative colonial trade.

Endenized Jews, like other non-Anglican residents, “could not hold municipal office, be called to the bar, obtain a naval commission, take a degree in the two universities, vote, or be elected to parliament” (Rabin, 2006). Unlike other non-Anglican residents, endenized Jews were subject to additional restrictions. They could not participate in commerce on the same terms as other British subjects; they were not allowed to own real estate without parliamentary approval, nor were they allowed to become members of the most prominent West Indian trading companies. They were also compelled to pay alien customs duties on imported goods. These commercial disabilities hit the more commercially enterprising Jews very hard, disproportionately affecting the Sephardi community, rather than the Ashkenazi. The disproportionate impact stemmed from socioeconomic differences between Jewish ethnicities:

The Ashkenazim were poorer and tended to integrate less well; they accounted for most of the Jewish pedlars and small-dealers, and were associated in the English cultural imagination with the figure of the wandering Jew. … The Sephardim, by contrast, traded on a larger scale; wealthier and more politicised, they were arguably laxer about religious observances, shaved, and dressed in English fashions. (Latimer, 2015b)

Whether lending money to the Crown, to provision British troops and fight wars overseas, or hawking secondhand clothes in London’s slums, the Jews were disproportionately engaged in commercial and financial activity, just as they had been on the Continent. In London, the Sephardi Jewish community became so wealthy and influential they were able to successfully lobby the Whig government for naturalization. In 1753, Joseph Salvador, a prominent Sephardi Jew, convinced Henry Pelham’s Whigs to introduce the Jewish Naturalization Bill, or “Jew Bill” for short, in the House of Commons. The purpose of the bill was not to naturalize Anglo-Jewry, but to eliminate holy communion as a requirement for parliamentary naturalization, allowing Jews to participate in English commercial life as if they were full subjects of the British Empire.

The Jew Bill, drafted by Pelham and his brother, the Duke of Newcastle, was steered through Parliament as “a favor to some of the Sephardi mercantile elite who had been active in supporting the financial policies of the ministry and who had now solicited a favor from the government.”[8] Among the most prominent Jewish financial contributors was Samson Gideon, a Sephardi Jew who had loaned the Hanoverian Crown ₤1,700,000 (more than $2 billion in today’s dollars) to suppress the Jacobite Uprising of 1745 and establish order in the aftermath of the rebellion.

The English public believed that officials of Pelham’s ministry had received Jewish bribes in exchange for moving the Jew Bill through the Commons, a result of the government’s extensive financial dealings with Sephardi financiers and merchants. This belief was further disseminated by the anti-Jew Bill prints of 1753, where Jewish bribery of government was a common theme. In one such engraving, “The Grand Conference or the Jew Predominant,” Samson Gideon is shown bribing the Duke of Newcastle and Henry Pelham with a bag of gold in exchange for passage of the Jew Bill.

In another, “A prospect of the New Jerusalem,” the London Mayor, standing on a hill with municipal officials, holds a paper that says “Naturalization Bill”; in the immediate foreground is the devil with a bag marked ₤500,000. He points toward a group of Jews in the background, implying that the Jew Bill had been introduced in the Commons because of Jewish bribery. The widespread perception of Jewish financial meddling at the highest levels of government was, of course, grounded in solid fact.

Although the Jew Bill was a reward for Jewish financial assistance to the government, it inadvertently served the purpose of attracting more wealthy Jewish immigration to England. This allowed the Jewish financial elite to strengthen and consolidate its power and influence over the English Crown and economy, while threatening the ethnic cohesiveness and political stability of the English nation. Since the re-admission of the Jews, anti-Jewish laws—based on Lord Coke’s legal analysis of Calvin’s case—had been slowly relaxed to encourage more Jewish settlement. It was felt among Anglo-Saxon elites of the time that having Jewish merchants on English soil would help stimulate commerce and enrich the treasury.

In parliament, polarization reflected ideological differences between Whigs and Tories on the economic benefits of immigration. Thomas W. Perry writes:

In the 1750’s these orthodox opinions — exclusionist with regard to the whole economy, and restrictionist with regard to movement within it — were under attack, and so were all the more tenaciously held and alertly defended. The criticism came principally from a school of protoliberal pamphleteers who insisted that the economy would benefit both from an infusion of new blood, as it were, and from a freer internal circulation. The debate also had a political aspect, since most of these writers seem to have been Whig partisans, and since Henry Pelham was on record as favoring, at least in principle, not only a general naturalization but also ‘the repeal [of] every law, tending to establish a monopoly, in any quarter of the realm.’[9]       

Since the Tories prioritized nation over economy, they were staunch economic protectionists. As the proto-conservatives of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, they believed that restrictions on naturalization served the national interest because it protected natives from the demoralizing effects of foreign competition. In parliamentary debates, they focused on the potentially damaging effects of the Jew Bill on the English domestic and international economy. The Jews were considered especially dangerous because of their reputation for ruthlessness and lack of moral scruples in their financial dealings with non-Jews.

John Perceval, the second earl of Egmont, remained true to his Tory beliefs when, in a speech before the Commons, he dismissed Jewish naturalization as an economically harmful policy:

The trade of the Jews, as it appears by the oldest of our histories, and the earliest records both here and in other countries, was usury, brokerage, and jobbing, in a higher or a lower degree. By this traffic, in former ages, they distressed and ruined the Christian subjects in such numbers everywhere, as to draw down upon them from time to time the resentment of all nations, and in this traffic they have improved so far in this age, as now to ruin whole kingdoms instead of individuals, by aiding ministers to beggar the states they serve, by which traffic also they have greatly aided to plunge this nation into a debt of near eighty millions.

Lord Egmont said the Jews were a class of shady businessmen who had refused to engage in any “real commerce” or “honest trade of merchandize” since re-admission to England. This was understandable because, from the medieval period on, Jews were acknowledged by Europeans as a universal symbol of international financial corruption, a stereotype with more than a grain of truth to it. Contrary to the Whiggish belief that Jewish resettlement would economically benefit the of the kingdom, the potential Jewish contribution to English commercial life, in light of the historical record, was nugatory:

Since therefore the naturalization of the Jews tends to no important addition of property to this kingdom; to no possible increase in strength; to no improvement in manufactures; to no extension of the commerce of the kingdom; this bill can be no measure of utility, and cannot merit the sanction of this House.[10]

Sir John Barnard, a dissenting Whig, focused on the negative impact Jewish resettlement would have on native English productivity. He argued that Jews were a net fiscal drain on English society. Barnard demanded a permanent moratorium on all Jewish immigration because it would

in time render it impossible for any Christian to carry on any trade, either foreign or domestic, to advantage; Jews may become our only merchants, and our only shop-keepers. They will probably leave the laborious part of all manufactures and mechanical trades to the poor Christian, but they will be the paramount masters.[11]

Jewish economic control of the English economy was not the worst that could happen. According to Sir John Barnard, the Jews were a race of destroyers. Allowing Jews to compete on the same terms as Englishmen was tantamount to ethnic suicide:

It is madness, if not worse, to put … foreigners upon an equal footing with natives, because it only enables the former to take the bread, or part of the bread, out of the mouths of the latter, without increasing in the least the national trade or commerce.[12]

Notwithstanding the determined opposition of Tories and dissenting Whigs, the bill passed through both houses of Parliament, and was given royal assent by King George II. There was little dispute among MPs, since both houses were Whig-dominated. The Whigs, ideologically proto-liberal, were usually sympathetic to Jewish causes.

James Shapiro writes:

Insofar as Englishness was being reconstituted socially, politically, economically, and religiously at this time, the attempt to naturalize Jews—and thereby do away with that which distinguished Englishness from Jewishness—proved explosive.[13]

Passage of the Jew Bill was followed by a massive outcry among Tories; a wave of anti-Semitism, never before seen since the days of Edward I (r. 1272–1307), swept across England. The ferocity of this public reaction to Jewish naturalization was due, in part, to widespread perception of Jewish foreignness:

The non-Jewish world … viewed the Jews in their midst as a separate people, regarding even native-born, highly acculturated Jews as different in kind, marked off by a distinctive, irreducible essence or otherness that remained despite their adaptation to English conditions. In fact, the belief in Jewish distinctiveness was so embedded in popular consciousness that converted Jews, including the children of Jews baptized at birth, were commonly referred to as Jews.[14]

Through their attitudes and behavior, Jews reinforced English perceptions of their foreignness and clannishness that was based on kinship and thus independent of religious observance:

The mass of Jews … socialize[d] and marr[ied] within their own community, irrespective of their attachment to Jewish ritual and worship. Moreover, they continued to think of themselves as Jews first and foremost, as members of a distinct people, and not as Englishmen, even if they were native-born citizens who had known no other homeland. In this respect, they were no different from their ancestors, who had lived in conditions of much greater isolation from the surrounding society.[15] 

The emergence of English ethno-racial consciousness was a consequence of Jewish ethno-racial and cultural foreignness. Jews would maintain a fully articulated Jewish identity even when fighting for Jewish naturalization and, in the nineteenth century, “emancipation.”

Publish’d for Mr Foreskin at the great pair of Breeches in the Parish of Westmter Satire on the Jewish Naturalization Act suggesting that the Duke of Cumberland is to be circumcised or castrated (1753)

Widespread perception of Jewish foreignness and self-identification served as fertile ground for the growth of extra-parliamentary opposition to Jewish naturalization. According to scholar Todd M. Endelman, the “agitation sparked by passage of the Jew Bill in 1753 functioned as a lightning rod for the articulation of nationalist sentiments at the time.”[16] Through pamphlets and newspaper editorials, ballads and songs, etchings and engravings, Tories were able to awaken a sense of English national pride in the common people, reminding them of the dangers of ethnic dilution and loss of Christian religious belief if Jews became Englishmen. Although Whigs would fret that Jews would remain an ethnically indigestible element on English soil, the Tories worried about the fragility of English ethnic identity and how easily it could be destroyed through assimilation of Jewry. As a verse of contemporary doggerel had concluded about passage of the Jew Bill:

Such actions as these most apparently shews,
That if the Jews are made English, the English are Jews.

Outside Parliament, Tory opponents relied on a combination of religious, patriotic, legal and economic arguments to convince the English public of the dangers of Jewish naturalization. Jonas Hanway, philanthropist and anti-Jewish pamphleteer, objected to Jewish naturalization because it was “as unnatural a mixture in the body politic, as bread and arsenic in the human body; and therefore such a mixture could produce no happiness, but, on the contrary, dishonor and reproach.”[17] The Jews were a dangerous foreign element—a poison—that destroyed everything it touched. Hanway further argued that because the Jews were a separate nation, guilty of “unparalleled iniquity,” such as “the national crime of crucifying the Lord of life,” their naturalization was undesirable.

In the anonymous pamphlet A Modest Apology for the Citizens and Merchants of London, who petitioned the House of Commons against Naturalizing the Jews, it was argued that Jews could never be naturalized because they were “Rebels against God” who were guilty of deicide.

“You know a Jew at first sight,” the author wrote:

Look at his eyes. Don’t you see a malignant blackness underneath them, which gives them such a cast, as bespeaks guilt and murder? You can never mistake a Jew by this mark, it throws such a dead, livid aspect over all his features, that he carries evidence enough in his face to convict him of being a crucifier.[18]

If the Jews were ever to become English citizens, the native English would share in the guilt of Christ’s murder, becoming “crucifiers” or “Christ-killers” themselves. Jewish naturalization would also subject the English people to divine wrath and punishment.

The High Church evangelical William Romaine wrote:

The Jews then in the Eye of the Common Law were always looked upon as Aliens – neither natural-born Subjects, nor capable of being naturalized – but perpetual Aliens, because there is no reasonable Ground to expect they will ever be converted, their Opposition to the Christian being as implacable as the Opposition of the Devil: For they are his Subjects, not Christ’s, and as Subjects to the Devil, they are in perpetual Hostility with Christ, so that there can be no peace between them and Christians.”[19] 

Jewish naturalization was impossible because of Lord Coke’s “perpetual enemies” doctrine. If Jews are the “avowed enemies of Christianity,” making them citizens would violate English law, since it was based on Christian principles. Romaine continued:

The Jews Murdered Christ, and would murder us if they had Power: They blaspheme Christ and his Religion; so that they are Murderers and Blasphemers Convict; and who ever heard of a natural-born Murderer, or a natural-born Blasphemer? For murdering and blaspheming Christ, God drove them out of the Holy Land, and made them Vagrants all over the Earth, and who ever heard of a natural-born Vagrant? Or a natural-born English-Foreign-Jew? i.e., a free Slave-born in the Liberty of Bondage. And yet however absurd this may seem, we have these Native Foreigners imported among us. We have Murderers, Crucifiers, Blasphemers, Vagrants all become natural-born Jew-Englishmen—in opposition to our History and Records—to our Constitution and Laws—to the Laws of God and to Reason and common Sense—which declare with one Voice, That no infidel Jew can be a free-born subject of our Christian society.[20]

The Jew Bill was to be rejected because the Jews were both Christ-killers and blasphemers. A “natural-born Jew-Englishman” was a contradiction in terms.

The Jews were not only “subjects of the Devil,” but were emblematic of the worst excesses of international finance. “Money is their idol. Money they most ardently worship.” If the essence of Judaism is money, then Jewish relations with non-Jews will always be economically predatory, just as they were during the days of King Edward I.

In Romaine’s discussion of Anglo-Jewish history, the Jewish “Money-Engine” figures prominently. The Jews successfully bribed William the Conqueror and Oliver Cromwell with their “ill-gotten Wealth”; seduced by the Jew’s “all-powerful Gold,” these English statesmen gave them carte blanche to grow rich through plunder of the nation’s inhabitants.

Beside the pamphleteers, there were the Tory newspapers that warned the English public of the dangers of Jewish naturalization. Foremost among these was the London Evening Post. In an editorial of May 17, 1753, a gentleman calling himself “Old England,” fearing the English would be “sold into Captivity under the Jews,” wrote:

This supposed Bill is nothing less than giving ourselves, our Liberty, Property, and Religion, into the Hands of the Jews. For it is an open, full invitation of the whole scatter’d Race to come and take Possession of all our Estates. For who knows not, that they have more Millions to spare than would purchase all our Island. … [I]f this Bill should pass, it is more than probable, that in Ten Years our Tenants may have Jewish Landlords, Two thirds of our Free holders be oblig’d to be circumcised, or vote as they are order’d. … God preserve us from Jewish Power!

In an article on the consequences of the Jew Bill, published June 23, 1753, an author asked rhetorically:

Doth not this give rise to a new interest in Great Britain, which never was known or heard of before? A Jewish landed interest? … will not dominion follow property? Or are our present managers in possession of a secret of frustrating the operation of this hitherto uncontested principle? Can they allow the Jews to purchase the half, or three parts, of the lands of the kingdom, and still withhold from them that weight and influence which is the consequence of property?

What would the distant future look like after passage of the Jew Bill, given that “dominion follows property”? The London Evening Post attempted to answer this question with the dystopian “News from One Hundred Years hence,” a satirical jibe at Pelham’s ministry. The year is 1853, England has been taken over by wealthy Jews, renamed Judea Nova and placed under the rule of the Sanhedrin. The Merchant of Venice is banned, “Galileans” are hunted down and shot on site, pork is illegal and naturalization of the few remaining Christians is now under debate.

The propaganda seems to have had real-world consequences. While the Jew Bill was law of the land: “Jewish peddlers were insulted and harassed in the streets and the murder of Jonas Levi in November of 1753 may have resulted from the passions sparked by the bill” (Rabin, 2006). Anti-Semitic polemicists portrayed Jews as money grubbing and cunning; they were traitorous foreign interlopers who were suspicious of outsiders. Newspapers all around the country ran story after story about what “ravenous, destroying Wolves,” “blasphemers and crucifiers” and “Children of the Devil” the Jews were. Because of the Jew Bill, patriotic Englishmen feared that:

Britain would be swamped with unscrupulous brokers, jobbers, and moneylenders, who would use their ill-gotten gains to acquire the estates of ruined landowners. Moreover, because dominion followed property, Jews would control Parliament (which would be re-named the Sanhedrin), convert St. Paul’s to a synagogue, circumcise their tenants, and perpetrate countless other anti-Christian crimes.[21]

Because of the widespread Tory-led opposition to the Jew Bill, Pelham’s Whigs were forced to repeal it in December of 1753. The status quo returned; Jewish immigration, which had been ongoing since Cromwell’s decision to re-admit the Jews in 1656, continued unabated.

Vox Populi or the Jew Act Repealed (December, 1753)

The Jews pouring into England were now predominantly lower-class Ashkenazim from Central Europe, rather than the wealthy and cosmopolitan Sephardim of Spain and Portugal. This new influx stoked the fires of English anti-Semitism. The observations of German tourists in eighteenth-century Georgian England furnish us with a valuable source of information about contemporary Anglo-Jewry. Panikos Panayi writes:

Hostility … developed during the eighteenth century towards poor Jews. The German traveller Carl Philip Moritz wrote that ‘antipathy and prejudice against the Jews, I have noticed to be far more common here, than it is even with us, who certainly are not partial to them.’ Hostility focused particularly on the allegation that they played a large part in the peddling of stolen goods, which resulted in attacks upon them to the extent that ‘Jew-baiting became a sport.’ One German traveller wrote of ‘the general discontent of the nation occasioned by the German Jews, a class of men detested as the offscourings of humanity.’[22]

Mass immigration of Jews to England led to an increase in the national crime rate, with Jews among the most visible criminal elements of the London underground. Endelman writes:

Not many years after the controversy over the Jew Bill, Jewish criminal activity reached such a pitch that it became a matter of concern to the leaders of Anglo-Jewry. In the 1760s, the number of Jews sentenced to death or transportation at the Old Bailey jumped to thirty-five—almost double what it had been in the previous decade—and then in the 1770s it rose to sixty-five.[23]

The emigration of poverty-stricken, crime-prone Ashkenazim from Central Europe was reduced to a trickle during the French Revolutionary Wars of the 1790s, giving Ashkenazim in London and elsewhere time to assimilate Anglo-Saxon behavioral norms. By the 1820s, the Jews and their Whig allies would be ready to take on the Tories once again, but this time in the name of “Jewish emancipation,” an obvious misnomer. Compared to conditions on the Continent, the disabilities faced by Anglo-Jewry were mild, with Jews still having considerable upward mobility and freedom. In fact, English Jews were the envy of Central European Jewry, which is why so many immigrated to England during the latter half of the eighteenth century.

[1]     Seventh Part of Sir Edward Coke’s Reports, pg. 397

[2]     A readable edition of Coke upon Littleton by T. Coventry, 6b

[3]     Third Part, pg. 89

[4]     Vol.1, pg. 90

[5]     Fourth Part, pg. v, vi

[6]     Seventh Part, pg. 392

[7]     http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1726/773.pdf

[8]     Endelman, 1999, pg. 59

[9]     1962, pp. 40-41

[10]   The Parliamentary History of England, From the Earliest Period to the Year 1803, 1813, Vol. XIV, pg. 1424

[11]   Ibid, pg. 1393

[12]   Ibid, pg. 1392

[13]   1999, pg. 196

[14]   Endelman, 2002, pg. 68

[15]   Ibid, pg. 67

[16]   2002, pg. 6

[17]   Letters Admonitory and Argumentative by Jonas Hanway (London, 1753), pg. 22

[18]   Perry, 1962, pg. 93

[19]   Ibid, pg. 10

[20]   An answer [by W. Romaine] to a pamphlet [by Philo-patriæ] entitled, Considerations on the bill to permit persons professing the Jewish religion to be naturalized, 1753, pp. 21-22

[21]   Endelman, 2002, pg. 75

[22]   1996, pg. 47

[23]   1999, pg. 196

WorldTruth.mx: The Best Pro-White Social Network You’ve Never Heard Of

/15 Comments/in , /by

In early September, after posting a link to my BitChute channel on the social networking site VK, I was contacted by one of the folks in my friends list, Michael James (no relation to this author), and asked to check-out a pro-White video-sharing network called WTVideo. After asking a few questions and finding out that the site was part of a group of social media platforms owned and operated by two men with strong pro-White sympathies (Michael being one of them), I decided to check it out. I joined the main site, WorldTruth.mx, introduced myself to Michael’s co-owner, Cozumel, and started posting. I liked what I saw, there was immediate feedback and a lot of interaction. So, after a few days I asked them if they’d like to do an interview to help get the word-out about their sites and explain what they are trying to do. Michael graciously accepted my invitation. We conducted this interview via email over an 18-day period beginning September 7, 2019.

Russell James: Sorry to be so late with this, but the tail-end of Hurricane Dorian is smacking northern New England right now, and we had a mini-emergency we had to deal with this morning.

Let’s get right into it, with the first question: To start, could you tell the readers a little about yourself?

Michael James: Basically, I am an average Joe is what some might think that would pass me by on the street or make casual small talk. Nothing could farther from the truth though; I work long hours on my IRL job and on my websites that promote freedom of speech even if I do not agree with that speech. I am divorced but have children that are grown now and I visit with them weekly.

RJ: How did you come to the conclusion that a social network that provided a platform for free speech was necessary?

MJ: Well, after seeing what other websites were doing to stifle any type of anti-establishment dissent for several years, I came to that conclusion, And that includes our video site as well, I personally have seen many times that “THEY” will deplatform or shadow ban people or groups that do not fit into the narrative they want projected which in my opinion is degeneracy.

RJ: What is your website and how does it work?

MJ: WorldTruth.MX (WT) is the website. We condone free speech, but I always tell people that we at WT do not protect someone from the consequences of that speech, so threats to staff or doxxing IRL is not tolerated. Perverse porn or underage porn is also not tolerated. We try to make the user experience pleasant for all members regardless of what country they come from. Read more

The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XIII: Ideological Stop-and-Frisk

/2 Comments/in , /by

Politicians largely serve at the pleasure of major corporate and financial interests and their Jewish backers.  Maine politicians are no exception, and many are deeply corrupt. As Mike Bond writes:

Some of America’s most corrupt politicians can be found in the windswept wilds of Maine. The Pine Tree State rates next-to-last in citizens’ trust of their legislators according to the Gallup Poll (April 4, 2014), and the Center for Public Integrity gives the state an F for corruption. Maine politicians appropriate taxpayer funds for their own companies, while governors pass legislation for huge energy projects which they then create companies to run. And energy companies write laws protecting their projects, laws that are obligingly passed verbatim by politicians who receive major payoffs from these companies. The Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting recently revealed that former state Senate President Justin Alfond introduced bills in the Senate written entirely by energy industry lawyers, after the industry awarded him with major donations to his Political Action Committee, funds which he then used to pay other Democrats so they would vote for him as state Senate President.

Senator Angus King has an atrocious record on immigration (as do his peers Representative Jared Golden, Senator Susan Collins, and Representative Chellie Pingree). I wonder who funds King? Well, some of the top donors throughout his career include JStreetPAC (the “pro-Israel” PAC which, “advocate[s] for policies that advance shared US and Israeli interests as well as Jewish and democratic values, leading to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”), as well as PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Bernstein Shur, Unum, Bowdoin College, Northrop Grumman, Drummond Woodsum, Texas Instruments, Raytheon, Geiger, Jackson Labs, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, T-Mobile, Verrill Dana, Harvard University, Microsoft, TD Bank, Comcast, Google, LL Bean, Podesta Group, Bain Capital, Time Warner, Walmart, the Rosenthal Foundation, McKesson, Liberty Mutual, and Eliot Cutler LLC. You might remember our friend, the Jewish Eliot Cutler, Director and Senior Advisor to the Chairman and to the CEO at Thornburg Investment Management and former candidate for Maine’s governorship himself. The former partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP is very pro-immigration and is deeply embedded in the “Woke Capital” axis presently destroying the country. In 2012, Angus King held a fundraising event with Michael Bloomberg, and has also received substantial funding from S. Donald Sussman’s Paloma Partners, LLC (more on them later).

We’ve gone over Jared Golden’s sources of funding in an earlier installment, but what of Collins, Pingree, and Governor Janet Mills? We do know Mills, like Portland Mayor Ethan Strimling and Congresswoman Pingree, received funding from EMILY’s List, a pro-abortion PAC founded by Ellen Malcolm. Other Mills donors include attorney Joe Bornstein, Justin Alfond, S. Donald Sussman, Ira Waldman of Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP, Bernstein Shur, and LL Bean. Senator Collins’s major donors include PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Goldman Sachs, the Blackstone Group, Marriott, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, FedEx, Unum, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the Cohen Group, Verizon, Kleinberg Kaplan et al, Lions Gate Entertainment, Liberty Mutual, New Balance, Boeing, Pfizer, Warner Media Group, MGM Resorts, Morgan Stanley, UPS, Bank of America, Aetna, AT&T, Walmart, Home Depot, AFLAC, General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Berkshire Hathaway, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Visa, American Bankers Association, New York Life Insurance, MetLife, Citigroup, Cisco Systems, JP Morgan Chase, Target, Elliott Management, DLA Piper, Blank Rome LLP, MBNA Corp., Fidelity, and McDonald’s. Pingree, educated at the College of the Atlantic and the University of Southern Maine, has received substantial campaign donations either directly from or from PACs representing and/or individuals affiliated with: Goldman Sachs, General Dynamics, Unum, Harvard University, Berman & Simmons, the Rosenthal Group, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, MoveOn.org, Boeing, Nancy Pelosi for Congress, the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, Diversified Communications, Farm Aid, Inc., Tishman Construction, Harvard University, Drummond Woodsum, the University of Maine, UPS, Texas Instruments, Prudential, Bernstein Shur, Joe Bornstein, Pfizer, Tides Foundation, and Caremi Partners.

An explosive report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists chronicled Les Wexner’s illicit dealings involving HSBC—a list including al-Qaeda members, Clinton Foundation donors, and Jewish financier S. Donald Sussman, ex-husband of Maine Democratic Congresswoman Chellie Pingree. Sussman’s Paloma Partners, LLC has donated over $236,000 to Pingree’s political campaigns and Pingree allegedly used Sussman’s private jet to attend campaign fundraisers, which is illegal. Pingree has also received over $100,000 from EMILY’s List and over $41,000 from JStreet.

Sussman has also donated large sums of money to EMILY’s List. In fact, he donated over $1.5 million to EMILY’s List in the 2018 election cycle alone. Angus King received $35,600 from Paloma Partners (on top of his almost $89,000 from JStreet), putting him in such company as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, and…Chellie Pingree. Despite no longer being wed, Sussman seems to continue to be able to open the purse strings for the “progressive” Pingree. You may find it interesting that Pingree’s daughter, Hannah, was appointed to the newly-created post of Head of the Office of Innovation by Governor Mills.

Paloma Partners has also donated to Shenna Bellows, state senator and Executive Director of The Holocaust and Human Rights Center (introduced in Volume IV). Paloma Partners also fund Emerge Maine, an organization dedicated to “increase the number of Democratic women leaders from diverse backgrounds in public office through recruitment, training and providing a powerful network.” Emerge Maine also receives funding from Southern Maine Community College, Berman & Simmons, the University of Maine, the University of Southern Maine, Bates College, Drummond Woodsum, Golden Leadership Fund (Representative Golden’s organization), Bernstein Shur, and Time Warner. Sussman disperses funds widely over the state; in addition to the people and organizations we’ve just covered, he also finances or co-finances: the Maine People’s Alliance, along with George Soros; the pro-amnesty, pro-open borders Maine Center for Economic Policy; the Maine Democratic Party; Maine Equal Justice Partners (MEJP), notorious for suing the LePage administration because it stopped the flow of welfare to illegal aliens; State Victory Action (backers of Maine Governor Janet Mills), along with fellow Jewish billionaires Soros and Tom Steyer through his NextGen America; and Maine Women Together. S. Donald Sussman was also once the majority owner of MaineToday Media, effectively putting him in control of most of Maine’s largest newspapers (more on this next time). What better way to control the narrative than to control the media? The Jews learned this lesson a long time ago.

Sussman doesn’t just dispense funds through Paloma Partners, he also does so through tax haven loopholes by using his personal residence in the US Virgin Islands and shell companies like Simply Radiant in the British Virgin Islands.[1] Sussman, like many wealthy Jews, uses his largesse and his power to influence lawmakers to produce (or re-produce as the case may be) legislation that is advantageous to his co-ethno-religionists and key business and financial players—often one and the same. Returning to Mike Bond:

Hedge fund billionaire Donald Sussman, until recently the owner of most Maine newspapers, and the recipient of $200 million in taxpayer bailouts, was a major funder of an energy company now destroying Maine’s mountains, and whose previous Italian partners have been jailed in the largest Mafia bust in Italian history. His ex-wife, Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, helped former Maine governor Angus King get a fraudulent $102 million taxpayer loan for energy projects he then made millions on, some of which he then used to buy his current seat in the US Senate.

Now entrenched, King and Pingree (and Mills and Strimling and Golden and Collins) are able to shape policy in Maine in such a way that the state has essentially become a playground for the rich. It is, on a much smaller scale, what has happened to countries like Ireland. In addition to tax loopholes and corporate tax breaks, many of these “philanthropic” organizations are tax-exempt, and charitable giving is also tax deductible. Add to this the fact that the government itself funds many of these organizations, and you have basically created the present situation whereby we pay for our own population replacement and subsidize massive corporate profits—all while buying their commercial products. It’s a sick joke.

Sussman is the perfect case study of the Jewish neo-liberal tycoon whose unscrupulousness most Whites would find appalling—if they actually believed it could, and does, happen here. Instead, it’s easy to retreat to “it’s the Democrats” or “it’s the Clintons,” and while in Sussman’s case both happen to be part of the picture, it is a woefully incomplete one to leave it at that. Look at the top donors so far in the 2020 election cycle—how many of them are Jewish? I’ll answer for you. Of the top 50 donors to 527’s and super-PACs, eight of the 36 Republicans are Jewish, and of the 14 Democrats, only one is not Jewish; moreover the top nine contributors to both liberals and conservatives are Jewish, with total contributions north of $62,ooo,000 and led by Tom Steyer’s $21,063,000. Though support for rogue state Israel is baked into the cake, explicit lobbies such as J Street and AIPAC are its visible icing, or the two pieces of foreign policy bread in this particular “kosher sandwich,” if you like. Philip Weiss writes:

J Street was for the Iran Deal, AIPAC was opposed. J Street was against S.1, the anti-boycott legislation passed by the Senate last week; AIPAC was for it. But to be clear, J Street opposes Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) which [Ilhan] Omar supports. And J Street supports continued aid to Israel at the tune of $3.8 billion a year.[2]

On the one hand, the Jewish lobby demands America use its military to enact the Yinon Plan and shatter countries like Syria, and on the other they demand we open our doors to the same people we’ve been bombing into oblivion for Israel’s benefit. Stephanie Schriock, current president of EMILY’s List, had the following to say on the role of AIPAC in campaign fundraising:

Before you went to the Jewish community, you had a conversation with the lead AIPAC person in your state and they made it clear that you needed a paper on Israel. And so you called all of your friends who already had a paper on Israel — that was designed by AIPAC — and we made that your paper. This was before there was a campaign manager, or a policy director or a field director because you got to raise money before you do all of that. I have written more Israel papers than you can imagine. I’m from Montana. I barely knew where Israel was until I looked at a map, and the poor campaign manager would come in, or the policy director, and I’d be like, ‘Here is your paper on Israel. This is our policy.’ We’ve sent it all over the country because this is how we raise money. … This means that these candidates who were farmers, school teachers, or businesswomen, ended up having an Israel position.[3]

Just as is the case with liberals and conservatives in mainstream political discourse, it is the apparent opposition which is most damning. J Street exclusively funded Democrats (and the “Independent” Angus King), to the tune of over $4 million in the 2018 election cycle, whereas AIPAC tends to exert a greater, though not exclusive, influence on the Republicans. Although AIPAC does not technically contribute directly to political candidates, it does require its members to donate to the campaigns of certain candidates in order to receive exclusive membership benefits, and it is able to mobilize donors for their selected candidates. With respect to direct lobbying efforts, their 2018 expenses were in excess of $3.5 million—remarkably little when considering their clout, and likely an indication that politicians are self-censoring to avoid being targeted. The mission of both AIPAC and J Street (and their lesser-lights) is clear—protect Jewish interests and the state of Israel at all costs, even at the expense of American national security and civil liberties such as free speech. Regarding AIPAC, Peter Feld writes:

In 1988, at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco — yes, representing the Dukakis campaign at an AIPAC luncheon is a thing I have done in this life — I heard an AIPAC speaker boast unabashedly about AIPAC’s vast influence. In recent cycles, he said, AIPAC had punished enemies of Israel in Congress, like Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, who had lost his 1984 re-election after criticizing Israel’s settlements and Lebanon invasion[4]…It cannot be anti-Semitic to say that a lobby that spends large sums of money and boasts (at least to its own supporters) of its influence, is influential through money…Israel also exerts influence in the donations of wealthy individuals like Sheldon Adelson who has given the GOP a reported $100 million and was rewarded by Trump with the Jerusalem embassy move. It’s AIPAC, not the evangelicals, who made the Israel Anti-Boycott Act a legislative priority and got 292 House and 69 Senate cosponsors from both parties to place protecting Israel from criticism above their own constituents’ constitutional rights to free speech…It was AIPAC who helped force a different anti-BDS bill, S.1, to the Senate floor three times this winter in the midst of a government shutdown.

AIPAC and J Street are far from the only pro-Israel lobbies active in the United States, just the most prominent. The Center for Responsive Politics reports:

NorPAC, a nonpartisan PAC with the goal of supporting members and candidates who “demonstrate a genuine commitment to the strength, security, and survival of Israel,” spent more than $1.1 million in the 2018 cycle, with much of it going to Democrats…A variety of other groups other than AIPAC spend some money on lobbying, such as the Israeli-American Coalition for Action with $550,000…The group which spent the most on Republican candidates was the Republican Jewish Coalition which contributed $501,097 during the midterms. The group’s biggest contribution, $42,474, went to the campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). On the Republican Jewish Coalition board is the largest individual donor from the 2018 cycle, Sheldon Adelson. Also holding a board seat is another big money donor, co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus.[5],[6]

Pro-Israeli foreign agents registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which can include lobbyists working on behalf of the Israeli government, companies, political parties, and other organizations, spend tens of millions of dollars annually influencing American policy; the government of Israel has spent over $50 million since 2017, and other agencies such as the World Zionist Organization ($8.6 million in 2018) and the Jewish Agency for Israel ($7.4 million in 2017) have contributed an additional $33 million in that time frame, putting official—and I stress official—Israeli contacts third on the list of foreign entities that’ve spent the most in the United States over that time frame, almost double the amount spent by Russia.

While in Maine it is largely the Democrats who rely on out-of-state “dark money,” as evidenced above (see Susan Collins), this is not a partisan issue, nor is it just limited to PACs and Super-PACs. Corporations, banks, lobbyists, NGOs and other advocacy groups, defense contractors—all exert undue influence, nay, control, over our politics, and all are either under Jewish influence or are beneficiaries of Judeo-neo-liberalism. It is the money that is forever greasing the skids, but if that doesn’t work, there are others ways to ensure politicians remain compliant—just ask former Maine Senator and alleged Jeffrey Epstein sex ring participant George Mitchell.

Reposted with permission from The Anatomically Correct Banana.

[1] “Sussman’s firm, Paloma Partners, is a Simply Radiant shareholder, as are Paloma subsidiaries Golden Mountain Partners and Sunrise Partners, ICIJ data show. Paul Wolansky, a former managing director at the Paloma Partners, is listed as a Simply Radiant director. An individual named Harry S. Campbell is also listed as a director. He was previously a director of Cathay Investment Fund Ltd., in which Paloma is a major shareholder.” https://freebeacon.com/issues/offshore-tax-haven-leak-implicates-seven-figure-pro-clinton-donor/

[2] https://mondoweiss.net/2019/02/congressional-candidates-stephanie/

[3] https://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/forward-columnist-and-emilys-list-leader-relate-gigantic-shocking-role-of-jewish-democratic-donors/

[4] See also: Cynthia McKinney.

[5] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/02/aipac-dont-contribute-which-pro-israel-groups-do/

[6] Bernie Marcus is also one of Turning Point USA’s primary financiers.

 

The Way Life Should Be? Vol. XII: LexisNestlé (Water under a Dilapidated Bridge)

/15 Comments/in , /by

As declining infrastructure and environmental degradation are part and parcel of neo-liberalism’s infinite growth model, it stands to reason that the most fundamental element of life—water—should eventually become commodified and privatized. This has already occurred to a frightening degree, though the process is not yet complete. We would do well to understand precisely what this entails and what methods are being used to achieve these ends.

With a market in excess of $19 billion in the US alone and a price point that’s nearly 2,000 times more expensive than tap water and four times more expensive than regular-grade gasoline, the market for bottled water is enormous, and its potential, if you’ll pardon the pun, is as of yet still largely untapped. It will not stay that way for long, though. According to a 2017 OECD policy paper, plans are already underway to create “a global public-private platform for knowledge exchange and effective engagement, collaboration, and action across governments and regulators in developed, emerging and developing economies, institutional investors, the private sector, international organisations, philanthropies, academia and civil society organisations.”[1]

This kind of hybrid action is not limited to just the OECD and its partners. According to the United Nations’ Agenda for Sustainable Development, the aim is for major multi-nationals to “collaborate with governments, UN bodies, NGOs, industry associations and other businesses to create more effective, enabling environments for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, on both international and national levels.” In addition to an accelerated wealth transfer from the First to the Third World to “bridge the infrastructure gap” and “combat climate change,” so-called “impediments to private investment in infrastructure” will be removed and “blended finance” will allow for public funds to underwrite projects where the profits will naturally accrue to the private sector.[2] In “neo-liberalese”:

Both public and private investment have key roles to play in infrastructure financing, including through development banks, development finance institutions and tools and mechanisms such as public-private partnerships, blended finance, which combines concessional public finance with non-concessional private finance and expertise from the public and private sector, special-purpose vehicles, non-recourse project financing, risk mitigation instruments and pooled funding structures. Blended finance instruments including public-private partnerships serve to lower investment-specific risks and incentivize additional private sector finance across key development sectors led by regional, national and subnational government policies and priorities for sustainable development…We encourage the use of innovative mechanisms and partnerships to encourage greater international private financial participation.[3]

As we’ve explored in other contexts, this vast matrix of organizations work in tandem or at least toward common ends through mutually-ensured profit-maximization schemes and social, political, and demographic transformation in whatever form will be most expedient. It is truly a global phenomenon:

Philanthropic funds often foster healthy information-sharing and cooperation among the organizations they support. They also often work on common problem-solving strategies with other kinds of donors. These include multilaterals such as the World Bank, the Global Fund, or the World Health Organization; bilaterals such as USAID and the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID); and large foundations, corporations, and significant individual donors.[4]

Many of the new philanthropic funds are funded by private equity and venture capitalists. New Profit, as just one example, is housed in the offices of Bain Capital (founding partner: Mitt Romney) and receives its funding from private equity professionals affiliated with Greylock, JP Morgan, and many other firms in addition to Bain Capital. These groups and individuals apply the private equity model to their philanthropy, which is reflected in a variety of ways (this will be explored more fully in the series’ final installment). In 2017, charitable assets in donor-advised funds reached an all-time high of $110 billion. Donor-advised assets have a growth rate of nearly 20 percent annually. In practical terms, let’s see what the profit-maximizing chain of events looks like with “charitable nonprofits” as the tip of the spear:

Splash, a relatively small nonprofit with revenues of about $3 million in 2017, that in 2018 received a green light for an investment of $20 million from the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), with a match of more than $12 million from city and state governments in Ethiopia and India, to dramatically expand its efforts to bring clean water to millions across the globe. Splash…was tackling an enormous problem (lack of clean water for people around the world); it was approaching that problem innovatively, using off-the-shelf technology employed by the most sophisticated corporations, such as McDonalds. For Splash, the big bet was designed to build something that local actors would then sustain. Eric Stowe, Splash’s founder and director, and his team pivoted to that longer-term vision and developed an investment concept with a clear and compelling goal: to provide clean water, sanitation, and hygiene to all public schools in two of the biggest megacities in the developing world. At the end of five years, Splash’s work in Kolkata, India, and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, is expected to reach the point where local government and local private-sector actors, already well-established in those places, take it over.[5]

Now what happens when inevitable mismanagement from the local government causes regression to the mean? Well, those private sector actors are there to assume full control, and there are certainly plenty of bottled water companies out there to “supplement” cities suffering clean water crises with their products. We have seen the dire consequences here in the United States as a result of the demographic transformation of cities such as Flint, Michigan and Camden, New Jersey, and the consequent neglect, gross mismanagement, and corruption. These are reflections of a wider trend; since peaking in 1977 inflation-adjusted federal funding for water infrastructure has been cut 74 percent. On a per capita basis, that is an 82 percent drop. In 1977, the federal government spent almost $77 per person (in 2014 dollars) on water infrastructure, but by 2014 that support fell to slightly more than $14 per person.[6] As Alexis Bonogofsky reports:

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the nation’s drinking water utilities need $384.2 billion in infrastructure investments over the next 20 years for thousands of miles of pipe as well as thousands of treatment plants and storage tanks to ensure the public health. Consequences of this inadequate investment have been seen in recent high-profile public health crises in Flint, Michigan, and the New Jersey public schools. Internationally, the UN finds that investment in public water systems and infrastructure is at an all-time low.[7]

The Trump administration has advanced plans to make it easier for private companies to control public water systems, including further cuts to federal funding for water protection; the administration’s plan “relies on a $100 billion fund incentivizing private sector involvement in public utilities to address aging pipes, aqueducts, and other critical pieces of hardware essential to the provision of drinking water.”[8] We already know what this looks like, and it is not pretty. From a 2018 exposé penned by Sharon Lerner and Leana Hosea:

Flint and Pittsburgh have many unfortunate parallels. Residents of both cities unknowingly drank water with high levels of the potent neurotoxin [lead], which has long-term health consequences. … The two lead crises have another important thing in common: a private water company named Veolia. The world’s largest supplier of water services, Veolia had contracts with both Flint and Pittsburgh around the time that lead levels rose in their drinking water. And in both places, Veolia wound up in legal disputes over its role in the crises. … The promise of saving money has been central to Veolia’s appeal to cash-strapped cities and towns struggling with water provision. That was certainly the case in Pittsburgh, where the water authority was facing more than $720 million in debt when it decided to contract with Veolia in 2012. The contract was based on Veolia’s “peer performance solutions” model, in which the company is paid based in part on how much it cuts costs.[9]

This has proven very lucrative for Veolia, which now has in excess of $30 billion in revenue and its stock price has increased more than 50 percent over the past half-decade. We also learn from Lerner and Hosea’s piece that, “At least some of those profits may be stowed in an offshore company Veolia set up in the Bahamas, according the Paradise Papers database.” Under Veolia’s oversight, residents’ water bills have steadily risen while the water quality has continued to decline. Controversy seems to follow Veolia wherever they’ve been contracted:

The company’s methods have also come under scrutiny outside the U.S., with controversies in Canada, France, and Gabon. In 2015, Romania’s anti-corruption agency launched an investigation into Veolia’s Romanian subsidiary, Apa Nova Bucuresti, and individual executives for allegedly running a multiyear, multimillion-euro bribery scheme in order to dramatically raise water rates.[10]

Though the crises caused by municipal degradation in Flint, Camden, and to a lesser extent Pittsburgh are in no small part the consequence of their demographic transformation, these kinds of systemic failures are not confined to cities and communities hammered by “diversity”—though that is certainly why they receive more media coverage than Martin County, Kentucky, for example. At nearly 94% white and entirely rural, Martin County is indicative of the deep neglect our non-metropolitan and –cosmopolitan communities suffer at the hands of a ruling class that hates them and wants them extinguished. Residents in Martin County have had to grapple with what has been described as “a catastrophically failing water system” compounded by water rates rising close to 50 percent, even though many residents have to purchase bottled water because the tap water is often undrinkable.

The continued failure—by design—at the municipal level both in public and private hands dovetails rather nicely with the privatization schemes of companies such as Nestlé that benefit from public disinvestment in water infrastructure, as the chairman of Nestlé Waters stated in 2009: “We believe tap infrastructure in the U.S. will continue to decline. … People will turn to filtration and bottled water for pure water needs.”[11] A recent Michigan State University study predicts over a third of Americans could be priced out of their municipal water supplies within the next half-decade as costs triple while the infrastructure continues to break down. The only alternatives will then be to turn to bottled water or find local natural springs that aren’t owned by these companies or other possible water sources; as 83% of Americans live in metropolitan areas and their suburbs and exurbs, finding clean natural sources of water will not be an easy task, to put it mildly. According to the United Nations, up to two-thirds of the world’s exploding population could be living under “stressed water conditions” by mid-next decade. Returning to Alexis Bonogofsky:

Internationally, bottled water consumption is estimated to have neared 70.4 billion gallons in 2013, according to data from the latest edition of Beverage Marketing’s report “The Global Bottled Water Market.” Consumption increased 6 percent in one year and is projected to grow. In fact, the International Bottled Water Association predicts the largest growth in bottled water to be in poor countries, where access to safe and clean water is not necessarily a given, and public water infrastructure is severely underfunded.[12]

Providing one case-in-point, Caroline Winter reports:

Failing infrastructure has already led to a near-total reliance on bottled water in parts of the world. Nestlé started selling Pure Life in Lahore, Pakistan, in 1998 to “provide a safe, quality water solution,” the company says. But locals wonder if the Swiss multinational is exacerbating the problem. “Twenty years ago, you could go anywhere in Lahore and get a glass of clean tap water for free,” says Ahmad Rafay Alam, an environmental lawyer in the country. “Now, everyone drinks bottled water…What Nestlé did is use a good marketing scheme to make tap water uncool and dangerous. It’s ubiquitous, like Kleenex. People will say, ‘Give me a bottle of Nestlé.’”…He adds that this change has taken the pressure off the government to fix its utilities, degrading the quality of Lahore’s supply.[13]

Nestlé has been anticipating and increasingly exploiting this situation for decades, controlling local springs and aquifers for their exclusive use. Other bottled water companies do the same. While people are literally dying from the water in Flint, a mere two hours down the road, Nestlé pays just $200 a year in municipal extraction fees to pump clean water and sell it at dramatically marked-up prices. Nestlé’s California water use increased by 19 percent during the major drought from 2011 to 2014. The company paid only $524 annually in permit fees to pump water from the San Bernardino National Forest—on a permit that was nearly thirty years expired, no less.

Nestlé generally seeks out areas with weak or antiquated water laws and regulations. In states like Maine and Texas, a law from the 1800s called “absolute capture” is still in effect. Absolute capture allows for landowners to use unlimited amounts of groundwater “captured” from said property. Nestlé will then appeal zoning resolutions and other restrictions to build massive facilities to extract the water, as in Fryeburg, Maine, where Nestlé’s Poland Spring line now has the means and the rights to extract water for the next twenty to forty-five years, perhaps longer.

Nestlé has sought to influence the political process at the state level in Maine as well, donating to such PACs as [Susan] Collins for Senator, Angus King for US Senate, Leading to a Balanced Maine, and the Alfond Business Community and Development. The Alfond Family, you’ll recall, are an extraordinarily wealthy Jewish family working to transform Maine both through their involvement in politics and through their many “philanthropic endeavors.” Nestlé/Poland Springs effectively has carte blanche in the state to buy up as many springs and aquifers as they can, privatizing what was once publically-accessible and what for many Mainers was their primary or secondary water source.[14] Water independence is part of the deeply self-reliant culture found in the state of Maine; 40 percent of Mainers drink private, unregulated well water as opposed to 86 percent of Americans who drink municipal water treated with fluoride, chlorine, and other chemicals. Furthermore, writes Winter:

Despite the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, compliance with harmful chemical restrictions isn’t monitored carefully, and most wastewater-treatment systems aren’t designed to remove hormones, antidepressants, and other drugs…77 million Americans are served by water systems that violate testing requirements or rules about contamination in drinking water, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council…[Bottled water] outpaced soda sales for the first time as drinkers continue to seek convenience and healthier options and worry about the safety of tap water after the high-profile contamination in Flint, Mich...Nestlé has come to dominate a controversial industry, spring by spring, often going into economically depressed municipalities with the promise of jobs and new infrastructure in exchange for tax breaks and access to a resource that’s scarce for millions. Where Nestlé encounters grass-roots resistance against its industrial-strength guzzling, it deploys lawyers; where it’s welcome, it can push the limits of that hospitality, sometimes with the acquiescence of state and local governments that are too cash-strapped or inept to say no.[15]

Nestlé will also sometimes buy water straight from a municipality with clean water, such as Fryeburg, and as Katy Kelleher writes, “sell it under its private labels, meaning that the same water flowing through faucets in Fryeburg for free is distributed in convenience and grocery stores throughout the country for around $1.99 a liter. One of those private labels is Poland Spring.”[16] If neither springs nor compliant municipalities with clean water are available, Nestlé is content to use common ground water from populated areas and pass it off as “fresh”; a recent lawsuit alleges Poland Spring bottles much of its water from ground water near petroleum pits, landfills, and densely-populated areas. In fact, per Kelleher, “Multiple lawsuits alleging mislabeling of water have been brought against Poland Spring over the past 20 years. A 2017 class-action lawsuit argued that ‘not one drop of Poland Spring Water emanates from a water source that complies with the FDA’s definition of spring water.’”[17]

Not that any of this comes as a surprise from a Nestlé that in the 1970s and 80s pressed a misinformation campaign on women across the Third World and aggressively marketed their infant formula—to be mixed with local water, which as we know is likely to be impure and/or polluted—as a superior alternative to breastfeeding. Nevertheless, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) saw nothing wrong with entering into a partnership with Nestlé. In fact, in a darkly ironic turn:

In 2003, Nestlé began a partnership with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to address the water needs of 210,000 Somali refugees and local people in Eastern Ethiopia. The partnership was both financial and practical, including on-going technical assistance in the form of a Nestlé Waters hydrogeologist and water resources manager…During 2005, the process of handing over the long-term operation and maintenance of the system to local water authorities was commenced. … In November 2005, Nestlé became a founding member of BAFF, a coalition working to reduce vitamin and mineral deficiencies through food fortification. Nestlé is the world’s largest producer of manufactured foods fortified with micronutrients. Nestlé collaborated with NGOs, ENDA Tiers Monde, and the International Association for Maternal and Neonatal Health in Senegal to establish a number of local centers “to improve nutritional and hygiene status of mothers and their infants under 5 years of age.”[18]

The Nestlé Nutrition Duchess Club markets Nestlé products to children in countries such as Nigeria under the guise of humanitarian outreach in order to, “Meet basic needs such as nutrition, healthcare, water…through affordable products and services. Food and beverage companies can develop new products that combat nutritional deficiencies and are affordable to low-income families.”[19] Nestlé works with NGOs and governmental organizations in countries such as Turkey, Egypt, South Africa, and Malaysia to do something similar.[20] As we might expect, the unethical and probably lethal practices of Nestlé have not disqualified the company from “educating” Senegalese mothers on the very infant formula they’ll be purchasing in bulk—or subsidized to purchase in bulk in any case—for their average close to five children per mother. With its low average IQ, dearth of education,[21] and fecundity, Senegal makes for the perfect market, and these factors, along with what for succinctness’s sake we’ll call the “Jewish Question,” are key to understanding neo-liberalism. Recalling the marketing strategies used in Pakistan discussed earlier and understanding the just-aforementioned factors of the Senegalese and Third World peoples in general, Nestlé has endeavored to position itself as a major beneficiary of America’s continued demographic transformation and municipal services degradation:

According to a 2014 market research report, adults that consume large volumes of bottled water are more likely than average to be African American, and Latinos make up the key customer base for bottled water. Researchers from the Medical College of Wisconsin and the University of Wisconsin found that Latino and African-American parents were more likely to buy bottled water than white parents, and they are dishing out more money on bottled water primarily because of perceived health benefits. The bottled water industry markets to Latino immigrants…in part by exploiting bottled water as part of the immigrant “heritage” of coming from places with less access to clean drinking water. Nestlé Pure Life’s target audience is recent Latin-American immigrants, particularly mothers. In 2014, Nestlé spent over $5 million advertising Pure Life… and three-quarters of this spending ($3.8 million) went to Spanish-language television advertising.[22]

A recent Penn State study found that Black and Hispanic adults in the United States are half as likely as Whites to drink tap water and more than twice as likely to drink bottled water. Much of this is attributable to the state of municipal tap water in more “diverse” and urban environs, but the ability to market to these population groups more successfully is also a major factor. This may seem harsh, but disparities in intelligence and time preference do make Blacks and Browns better consumers, and a lower ability to engage in critical thinking makes these populations easier to manipulate and thus control. Despite the fluffy egalitarian propaganda that would force us to think otherwise, the ruling class understands this well—so well they’re party to mass genocide in order to produce a new hyper-consumerist, easily-controlled global serf class. It truly is a numbers game for them, and you can scarcely find anything more dehumanizing than that.

Reposted with permission from The Anatomically Correct Banana.

[1] http://www.oecd.org/water/Policy-Paper-Financing-Water-Investing-in-Sustainable-Growth.pdf

[2] From the OECD policy paper: “Blended finance is not an asset class, rather it uses a range of instruments to calibrate the risk-return profile of projects and to address other barriers to private investment…Challenges related to blending include the need for a good enabling investment environment, ensuring that development finance does not crowd out private finance and that the desired development outcomes are realised…Investments in water security compete with other sectors for financiers’ attention, driven primarily by the attractiveness of the risk-return profile. This depends on two factors: i) a stable revenue stream; and ii) how the range of risks related to water security investments are shared between public and private actors. Mobilising commercial finance, in particular domestic sources, need to be based on policy reforms of the water sector to promote efficiency gains, cost reduction and cost recovery, as well as improving the balance of tariffs and taxes as sources of finance.” Also from said paper, and of particular note to how the globalist entities view the project to commodify water and ultimately completely privatize it, with the state only useful in an interim stage as facilitator:

“[To date] water services are often under-priced, resulting in a poor record of cost recovery for water investments…Valuing water means recognising and considering all the diverse benefits derived from improvements in water management in terms of valued goods and services…It creates opportunities for converting the benefits from investments in water management into revenue streams, potentially improving the financial case for investment…Financial flows may benefit projects which are bankable, but may not maximise benefits for communities and the environment [my emphasis]…Mapping the flow of finance to water security investments can identify the ultimate sources of capital…The ‘Infrastructure Data Initiative’ was recently launched to address this need and support efforts to establish infrastructure as an asset class. This is a joint initiative by the OECD, the European Investment Bank, Global Infrastructure Hub, Long-term Infrastructure Investors Association and the Club of Long-Term Investors, which aims to create a centralised repository on historical long-term data on infrastructure (including water) at an asset level…This methodology should also explore the potential benefits from synergies emerging from interrelated projects and their impact on water resources. It would inform project preparation and selection by governments, development finance institutions and other partners.”

 

[3] https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/frameworks/addisababaactionagenda

[4] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/reimagining_institutional_philanthropy

[5] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/becoming_big_bettable#sidebar1

[6] https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/rpt_1802_tbttbigwaterhustle-web.pdf

[7] https://truthout.org/articles/nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extraction/

[8] https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/pittsburgh-flint-veolia-privatization-public-water-systems-lead/

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/nestle-and-others-cashing-us-water-infrastructure-crisis

[12] https://truthout.org/articles/nestle-is-trying-to-break-us-a-pennsylvania-town-fights-predatory-water-extraction/

[13] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-21/nestl-makes-billions-bottling-water-it-pays-nearly-nothing-for

[14] To say nothing of the dramatic environmental impact: “Bottlers’ groundwater pumping operations can harm the local environment as well as natural resources that communities rely on for drinking water, farming, recreation and other uses. Groundwater sources are usually connected to surface waters, and when an aquifer is over-pumped, the water levels…can change. Large-scale groundwater extraction, such as for water bottling plants, could reduce the availability of local groundwater and surface water supplies to the detriment of the natural resources that depend on them. When bottled water companies extract groundwater sources, they not replenish what they take.” https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/rpt_1802_tbttbigwaterhustle-web.pdf

[15] Ibid.

[16] https://www.topic.com/wet-n-wild

[17] Ibid.

[18] https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/asset-library/documents/reports/csv%20reports/community%20and%20development/un_millennium_development_2005_2006_english.pdf

[19] Ibid.

[20] Nestlé, in conjunction with Project Head Start in townships around Pretoria, South Africa, “trains adult caregivers in adequate pre-school education to stimulate children, age 6 and under. Teaching materials as well as health and nutrition education are given to overcome negative effects of poor nutrition. Workshops and weekly training at the University include appropriate handling of HIV/AIDS cases in the pre-school environment (my emphasis) and treating of cuts and wounds”…Nestlé also provides funding for a dietician to give nutrition advice and help to “inner-city” HIV/AIDS patients in France.

[21] A corporation named Bridge International Academies (BIA) is opening for-profit schools across the Third World, where instructors in the Bridge schools teach a pre-scripted curriculum from a computer. Liberia is considering outsourcing its entire elementary program to BIA, which is funded by Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and a number of prominent interests from Wall Street.

[22] https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/rpt_1802_tbttbigwaterhustle-web.pdf