×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules
30

A historical example of why to never trust jews.

submitted by didyouknow to Jews 2.3 yearsFeb 13, 2022 09:53:44 ago (+30/-0)     (Jews)

At the start of the 19th century, jews with the exception of court jews, bankers and wholesale merchants, jews lived in villages, small towns ,country towns and were underprivileged and were outside the social hierarchy. However, in the 19th century, liberalism was starting to become widespread in Europe, specially in Germany and with it of course came socialism because they go hand in hand.

Even though jews had not yet been emancipated until 1871 in Germany, because of the jew-rigged 1848 revolution (read; https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=6206acfbdd266 ) and the acceptance of liberalistic ideas into Germany, more doors of opportunities was opened to the jews and by mid 19th century the numbers of jews belonging to the lower classes had fallen drastically and by 1850 HALF of the known entrepreneurs in Berlin were jews, jews who had previously been pedlars or weavers in villages and small towns..

https://files.catbox.moe/yxiges.png

https://files.catbox.moe/41xg4v.png

But that was not good enough, they still had not received emancipation. The jew puppet Bismarck who was a ''conservative'' was used for this purpose, he provoked three wars against Denmark, Austria, and France and was able to win all three wars thanks to the jewish banker and Rothschild agent, Gerson von Bleichröder, who provided him financial support when Prussian parliament refused to financially support his war effort. Victory of these wars led to the unification of Germany and with it came 'Jewish Emancipation' (I.E the cutting of the throat of Germany)

From wikipedia : ''Rothschild gave the name of Gerson Bleichröder, who took over Bismarck's private banking transactions as well as the transfer of credits and/or placing of loans on behalf of the Prussian state and the German Empire. Thus, Bleichröder became intimately involved with not only Bismarck but also with the inner dynamics of the unification of Germany''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerson_von_Bleichr%C3%B6der

Conservative side at the top in Germany = Totally jew controlled.

The results of jewish emancipation thanks to the ''conservatives'':

”By the 1870s the jews appeared as the bourgeois par excellence in a society that was not yet modernized”. Their predominance in finance, commerce and the press and their penetration of insitutions of higher learning was beginning to provoke a backlash of envy and resentment”.

https://de.catbox.moe/41xg4v.png

''By 1882, Bank and stock exchange in Germany the jewish share of all employees was around 22 %, jews represented 43,25 % of all proprietors and directors of banking and credit enterprises. jews accounted for 25.1 % of the money market and for the same percentage of commerce and small businesses in Berlin. 20% of all wholesale merchants were jews, 11.7 % of all doctors were jews, 8.6 % of all journalists and 7.9% of all lawyers, this is all when jews were only 1.24 % of Germanys population. Relative to their population strength, the number of jews among leading newspaper publishers and editorial staff was very high. Similarly, the figures for secondary schools and universities show that jews were generously represented.''

https://de.catbox.moe/p5snn8.png

Who was the leading ”anti-bourgeois” in the 19th century? Karl Marx and his jewish buddies. Karl Marx called out the jews even, criticizing them and stating that their god is money, he made many what people today would call, ”anti-Semitic” statements and is even called a ''radical anti-Semite'' by some, but he only did it because many of the very rich and powerful were jews at this time and this was already known by the public so he had to criticize them in order to gain the trust of the Germans so he could spread his communist bullshit.

But while he was criticizing the jews, from 1842 to 1843, he was an editor of the communist paper ‘The Rheinische Zeitung’ along with many other jewish editors and this paper supported the cause of jewish emancipation of course which as we saw led and could only lead to many jews reaching the higher middle class and also the upper class because of the powerful influence of court jews, jewish bankers and jewish merchants who were already rich and well established and connected, this was something that Marx was supposedly against but of course he was not, all he was spewing was rhetoric.

In actuality Marx was helping his jewish buddies advance in German society while tramping down on the Germans, particularly the German middle class.

Even Engels made ”anti-semitic” statements but he was fully in league with them as we know.

This is what Engels had to say about his personal admiration for the jews ”devotion, self sacrifice and ability” in their role in creating modern socialism;

”To say nothing of Heine and Börne, Marx was of purest Jewish blood; Lassalle was a Jew. Many of our best people are Jews. My friend Victor Adler , who is at present paying in prison for his devotion the cause of the proletariat, Eduard Bernstein, editor of the London Sozial-Demokrat, Paul Singer, one of our best men in the Reichstag, people of whose friendship I am proud, are ALL JEWS! Have I not been turned into a jew myself by the ‘Gartenlaube’? And indeed if I had to choose then better a Jew than Herr von”.

jewish socialist/communists were the leading ‘anti middle class’ group while the jews were the fastest group of people to rise to the top of the middle class as well reaching the highest echelon of society in all avenues which the jewish communist helped to make possible by supporting jewish emancipation. Marx and many other jewish communists/socialist was supposedly against the conservatives but as I mentioned earlier, it was through the jewish control over the 'conservative' Bismarck that allowed jews to be fully emancipated in all German land that allowed communist jews such as Eduard Bernstein and Paul Singer to have a seat in the Reichstag representing their socialistic party..

However while it was starting get more known that socialism was led by jews, you had socialist jews within socialistic parties making ‘anti-semitic’ statements like Höchberg, Kayser and Paul Singer to help mask that fact.

At the same time you also had jewish leaders coming out and claiming to be ‘anti-socialist’ like Dr. Aronheim who was the head of a local jewish community who had held an anti-socialist employers union. All for the purpose of not making it obvious that it was jews behind socialism, just as jews being against the 'conservatives' was a mask against the jews pulling the strings behind the conservatives as well.

Despite according to the jewish encyclopedia;

Theory of civil polity which advocates public collective ownership, production, and distribution. Jews have been prominently identified with the modern Socialist movement from its very inception.

https://archive.ph/2K2s9

And we know jews were the leading socialists and were playing the main role in spreading socialism all over Europe.

They make sure to play all sides, making sure all opposition is under their control. That's why when a jew claims to be on your side, there is almost always a hidden agenda behind with the ultimate goal of benefiting their tribe, one way or the other.


21 comments block


[ - ] oyblat 0 points 2.2 yearsFeb 23, 2022 12:49:11 ago (+0/-0)

I want to learn about how they got into positions of power to begin with/amassed their wealth.

I'm very familiar with their current tricks but I don't understand how, let's say, the Rothschild's were able to accumulate their wealth from the beginning.

Could you provide me some worthwhile reading? Thank you.

[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.3 yearsFeb 13, 2022 13:13:21 ago (+1/-0)*

However, in the 19th century, liberalism was starting to become widespread in Europe, specially in Germany and with it of course came socialism because they go hand in hand.

I disagree. Socialism is not caused by too much freedom, it's caused by too much dependence. Why has there not been a major socialist revolution in rural america? Arguably it's one of the most classically liberal places on the face of the planet.

The answer is because the people there are self sufficient. If they see a problem they fix it themselves. If they can't fix it on their own they ask their neighbour for help. They have zero need or use for scientific communism, central planning or social programs. Those things would only ever get in their way.

Now look at the cities. Major cities everywhere in the west are full of people who are naturally dependent on others for all their daily needs. They depend on someone else to provide their food, deal with their waste, fix their things when they break and move them around from place to place. When something goes wrong their natural inclination is to look around for authority figure to fix it. If it doesn't get fixed, they don't fix it, they get angry someone isn't fixing it for them and they hold a protest.

The same goes for working class English and Germans in the 19th century. They were so used to having someone tell them what to do and provide for their needs that their natural response upon gaining political power was to demand a government that told them what to do and provided for their needs. Bismarck tried to keep the jews out by making the Prussian state the socialist provider, but ultimately that just created more dependence and more subservience.

Socialism will always be found sprouting wherever there are dependent people. Jews are a poisonous accelerant, but not the root cause. The only way to avoid this is to ensure everyone is as independent as possible. Dependency should be an ugly shameful thing that people avoid as much as possible. I've read countless stories on here about poor families who refused welfare because they could just about scrape by without it. That's how it should be.

[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 1 point 2.3 yearsFeb 13, 2022 23:17:40 ago (+1/-0)

I've always looked at it as people who live close together want the government to protect them from each other. People with plenty of room don't have to care what the next guy over does. Thus socialism is tied to urbanization. Policies that were just considered common sense an a largely rural country are considered radical libertarianism in an urbanized one. Think gun control for one. It would be unthinkable to ban guns from people who need them for hunting and for whom the police may be hours away. In a city, the attitude is "what do you need one for?" You can't hunt ,and you're supposed to call the cops if something goes wrong.

[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.3 yearsFeb 14, 2022 07:39:16 ago (+0/-0)

Yep. Subtle detail though: It's not the proximity that does it, it's the dependency. The less you rely on yourself the more natural it seems to rely on the government. The same pattern appears in countries where the rural classes are primarily tenants, sharecroppers and/or slaves rather than freemen. The moment they get political power they flock to whoever promises them food and rules.

[ - ] didyouknow [op] 1 point 2.3 yearsFeb 15, 2022 01:46:35 ago (+1/-0)

I agree with your overall point. If people were less dependent on the state as many people were let's say over 100 years ago, the shenanigans ZOG pulls of today, wouldn't have been possible. That's one of the reasons for urbanizations. But in the context of the jew, their fight for liberalism was only a means to achieve freedom for themselves so that they could take over all avenues of society without hindrance from the law and thus use those positions to push socialism unto society to create a big government they would be in control over.

Liberalism was a stepping stone to implementing socialism and communism to the jew.

[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.3 yearsFeb 15, 2022 09:36:55 ago (+1/-0)

It doesn't really matter what principles a society is based on, freedom, obedience, faith etc. No matter what they are they'll allow themselves to break the rules while requiring us to follow them.

- If they invade a theocracy they'll infiltrate the church hierarchy first, then brand their opponents heretics. Their supporters will be judged faithful no matter what they do and doctrine will be twisted to mean whatever they please.

- If they invade an absolute monarchy they'll infiltrate the court. Their opponents will be branded as rebels and their supporters will be praised as loyalists and promoted to every important position.

- If they invade a liberal social order they will use the freedoms they are granted to obtain power, then adjust the meaning of freedom to restrict their opponents and grant privileges to their supporters.

Keep in mind the point of evidence I presented in the top comment: If liberalism and freedom are the ultimate weakpoint for jews then rural america should have been the first place to fall. Instead it's pretty much the last.

The only possible way of combatting this behaviour in any lasting manner is to be as flexible as possible. Political unions should always be voluntary, so the moment jews take over one power center, it's adherents are free to disassociate from it and form a new one.

That's part of why talk of secession makes them reeeee so hard: They've been working for centuries to gain power in washington, london, brussels etc. If the communities ruled by those places simply go their own way and form new alliances then all that work was for nothing.

[ - ] didyouknow [op] 1 point 2.3 yearsFeb 15, 2022 16:08:53 ago (+1/-0)*

Of course, but at the end of the day, it's all propaganda and manipulation they turn to achieve what they want and as you said they will adapt to any system of rule that's currently in place. So while secession is a good idea, I think it is equally important to strip the people of all the jew lies by continuously educating them and keeping them informed of all the sleazy tactics that's used to take over a nation from within and openly encourage hostility towards the jew or they will end up infiltrating and ruining it from within as they have always done. Even if it takes them decades or centuries to do so, they are relentless and we need to also be relentless in resisting them.

I think for that to be even possible, jew religions such as Christianity and Islam has to go. Both of these religions not only have Gentiles look up to a jew god and jew figures, but it also treats jews as a special kind of people, that they have a special role to fill and thus should be included into society when jews in reality should be viewed as nothing more than as sewer rat, looked down upon more than we look down upon gypsies...

[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 2.3 yearsFeb 15, 2022 16:44:47 ago (+1/-0)

Of course, but at the end of the day, it's all propaganda and manipulation they turn to achieve what they want and as you said they will adapt to any system of rule that's currently in place. So while secession is a good idea, I think it is equally important to strip the people of all the jew lies by continuously educating them and keeping them informed of all the sleazy tactics that's used to take over a nation from within and openly encourage hostility towards the jew or they will end up infiltrating and ruining it from within as they have always done. Even if it takes them decades or centuries to do so, they are relentless and we need to also be relentless in resisting them.

Oh totally. We need to regain control of culture badly. Currently they tell the stories, read the news and rule academia. If we take those back then they've lost. I was just talking about the ideal political structure which would allow a j-pilled population to resist infiltration. If they're not j-pilled then it doesn't really matter what the structure is.

I think for that to be even possible, jew religions such as Christianity and Islam has to go.

Yeah, I agree. I was considering returning to christianity but I shied away for that reason: Historically it's been a primary jewish entry-point into european societies.

[ - ] mattsixteen24 0 points 2.3 yearsFeb 13, 2022 21:47:55 ago (+0/-0)*

Liberalism like socialism is evil, so they do go hand in hand in that sense. I don't see how there could ever be a major socialist revolution in rural America. Rural people are much too busy trying to survive with the little help they can get unlike in the cities where there are more people due to more job opportunities. Cities and rural areas are not a good comparison me thinks.

[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.3 yearsFeb 14, 2022 07:41:52 ago (+0/-0)

Liberalism like socialism is evil, so they do go hand in hand in that sense.

Why is freedom evil? The only way that could be true is if humans are evil, in which case any heavily centralised order must also be evil because it will be ruled by humans.

Rural people are much too busy trying to survive with the little help they can get unlike in the cities where there are more people due to more job opportunities.

Lol? There's plenty of wealthy farmers and plenty of poverty stricken cities. Just because someone's working hard doesn't mean they're poor.

[ - ] mattsixteen24 0 points 2.3 yearsFeb 14, 2022 21:15:55 ago (+0/-0)

Freedom is when a person is not attached to this world but completely attached to God. There are people who have reached this state and they are called Saints. Liberalism on the other hands is rebellion against God. All Freemasons are liberals and they are the ones who spread liberalism throughout the world because they reject Christ and worship man. Hence why they separated the Church from the government and why they believe all religions are equal. That's satanic.

Yes, there are wealthy farmers, but how many are there in small town, and who does all their work, and how much do their workers make, and what percentage of the workers make up the rural town population?

[ - ] Silverwakeskater 1 point 2.3 yearsFeb 13, 2022 10:41:28 ago (+1/-0)

Great research

[ - ] account deleted by user 1 point 2.3 yearsFeb 13, 2022 09:54:50 ago (+1/-0)

account deleted by user

[ - ] Doglegwarrior -1 points 2.3 yearsFeb 13, 2022 14:01:39 ago (+0/-1)

Nice brother war supporting name...

Serius question on a scale of 1 to 100 with 100 being the most conservative and free speech site and 1 being the most liberal Jewish commie shit where would u rank these three sites.

Reddit is a 1
Voat is a 95
Poal is a 93

Why the name? Just realized u said fuck voat I go back and forth so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree

[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.3 yearsFeb 14, 2022 07:43:46 ago (+0/-0)

Poal is a 93

Fuck system in his cancerous aids ridden asshole. I'm going to downvote all of his posts.

Now try that on poal and see how fast you get "algo'd".

[ - ] account deleted by user -1 points 2.3 yearsFeb 13, 2022 14:02:57 ago (+0/-1)

account deleted by user

[ - ] HonkyMcNiggerSpic -1 points 2.3 yearsFeb 13, 2022 14:29:47 ago (+0/-1)

You think Pole is free speech?? lol It is a kike censorshithole.

[ - ] Ironcrusader88 0 points 2.3 yearsFeb 13, 2022 13:29:48 ago (+0/-0)

Jews would usually use nationalists groups like the pan German, Slavic, and Italian movements were funded and instigated by Jewish bankers to put central banks in control of many European countries also to distract nationalists groups from the rise of liberalism and Marxism in central and Eastern Europe.

[ - ] oyblat 0 points 2.2 yearsFeb 23, 2022 12:59:36 ago (+0/-0)

How did this put central banks in control of European countries?

[ - ] OldGoat 0 points 2.3 yearsFeb 13, 2022 13:19:09 ago (+0/-0)

I read the whole thing.

[ - ] AryanPrime 0 points 2.3 yearsFeb 13, 2022 12:40:25 ago (+1/-1)

TL:DR

If a kike was on his dying breath, he would use it to try and push one more piece of chutzpah...they will never stop lying...ever...either accept living on a planet with genocidal kikes, or do something about it