Poland Turns Tables on Jews in Holocaust Debate

Jews are fuming at Poland after its right-wing government put forward a law that aims to criminalize assertions that Poland was in  any way culpable in the Holocaust. Those claims have been disseminated largely by Jewish historians and leaders over the years seeking to guilt trip Europeans more generally, and Poles in particular, for the fate of their brethren in World War II. Will we now see top Jews arrested and fined for inferring Polish guilt?

The Guardian reported:

Israeli leaders have attacked pending legislation in Poland that would outlaw blaming Poles for the crimes of the Holocaust, with some accusing the Polish government of outright denial as the world marked International HolocaustRemembrance Day.

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called the proposed law “baseless” and ordered his country’s ambassador to meet Polish leaders to express his strong opposition. “One cannot change history and the Holocaust cannot be denied,” he said.

On Friday the lower house of the Polish parliament passed the bill, which prescribes prison for using phrases such as “Polish death camps” to refer to the killing sites Nazi Germany operated in occupied Poland during the second world war.

Many Poles fear such phrasing makes some people incorrectly conclude that Poland had a role in running the camps. But critics say the legislation could hinder debating history, thus harming freedom of expression and opening the way to Holocaust denial.

Can you believe the chutzpah of this? For years Jews have terrorized Europeans with Holocaust denial laws. Dozens of European men and women have been unjustly flung in prison for years and impoverished by fines for “denying” some aspect of the Holocaust religion. Just recently, a German-Canadian woman, Monika Schaefer, was attending the thought crime trial of lawyer Sylvia Stolz in Germany and was herself arrested and charged with denial. Canadian Jewish organizations then praised German authorities for Schaefer’s arrest! They’re literally rounding up and imprisoning old women, like 88-year-old  German Ursela Haverbeck, for challenging Jewry’s skewed victimhood narrative. And Jews are applauding this travesty.

Yet when the tables are turned and Jews are faced with jail or fines for insinuating that others besides Germany were culpable, they cry foul and demand “free speech”. Obviously, Jews want unlimited free speech to malign their Gentile enemies, but seek to restrict the speech of inquisitive Gentiles that doesn’t suit their interests. This sort of infuriating hypocrisy among Jews may  eventually lead to another pogrom.

Little discussed is the Jewish role in the Soviet death camps and NKVD (Stalin’s dreadful secret police). During the Soviet occupation of eastern Poland starting in 1939, large numbers of Polish Jews defected to the Soviet communists, betraying their nation by taking up prominent positions in the Soviet secret police which hunted down and executed tens of thousands of rebellious Poles resisting Bolshevism. Poland’s Jews favoured the Soviets to their own countrymen because they knew Soviet Russia’s government was dominated by Jews and would treat them favourably as opposed to the Catholic Poles who were always suspicious of the Jews and hated communism. This Jewish Holocaust of Poles has been swept right under the rug. Historians outside Poland won’t dare touch it. Even Polish historians are hesitant to talk about it fearing the wrath of the Jewish lobby.

Years ago former Israeli President Shimon Peres visited Ukraine and gave a speech imploring Ukrainians to “forget history.” He was speaking in reference to the Holodomor, a deadly 1932 famine deliberately organized by Stalin and his henchmen. A large percentage of the Soviet perpetrators of that crime were ethnic Jews, hence why Peres and organized Jewry want Ukrainians to forget all about it. Meanwhile, the Jews continue to needle and shame Ukrainians about their “collaboration” with the Nazis.

This is all so infuriating. Watching arrogant Jews twist facts and manipulate history to their benefit, and then denying others the right to investigate absurd Jewish claims which, if allowed to be properly challenged, would fall apart under the pressure of logic, reason and science. They know this which is why they must maintain the iron curtain of thought policing throughout Europe. Without widespread belief in their sacred myth of the six million, they would lose much of their power, at least over the European psyche.

About Brandon Martinez

A prolific writer, historian and social commentator, Brandon Martinez is a 21st century counter-cultural heretic and rebel intellectual for the new European Reconquista.

View all posts by Brandon Martinez →

23 Comments on “Poland Turns Tables on Jews in Holocaust Debate”

    1. I’ve noticed the reason you don’t respond to comments, questions, and arguments over here, Joe (assuming the other “Joe Cardsbury” – an extremely likely pseudonym, isn’t really you), is because you have nothing to debate; just like the typical moron. Ignoring them all and popping your head in to comment on succeeding articles does NOT mean you’ve won any fukin debates. Many, many clowns in the internet-world have this problem. This also includes beloved “truther” libtards like Trevor Labonte, Khanverse, Mark Glenn, Ken O’Keefe, and many others. They want and/or even demand to be heard, but don’t want to hear.

      Real quick, for example, can you name the specific Jews who made Joe Biden write up VAWA in 1994? Can’t name them or even any? I’ve never seen you mention any problems with an act like VAWA and so I have to presume you’re in favor of it by default. You and the rest of the libtard gang I mentioned above.

      Issues like the Holohoax, 9/11, Mossad false flags, fractional reserve banking, and the likes have been known about for years and years and don’t take a “genius” to figure out… they’re actually quite obvious and simple. I’ll tell you this, too: anyone who has been around for awhile and hasn’t yet realized that there are blatant anti-white, anti-male, anti-heterosexual, anti-cisgender, anti-gun; pro-welfare, pro-affirmative action, and pro-multicultural agendas, is a fucking clown. That includes the people I mentioned above and people like you. Of course that other douche bag Joe who comes over running his mouth and claims to have known 9/11 was a false flag from the very beginning (I seriously doubt it), but yet somehow STILL hasn’t figured any of this out is absolutely disgraceful.

      I’m seriously still wondering why both you tossers (if you’re not the same) still live in the West. There are many ‘nice’ Muslim countries you can go that not only are not in the Jewish cross hairs, but are complicit in working with the Jews you so despise. Clearly they’re superior and you two can go and fit right in; you’re surely not a mind-reader; you’re surely not psychic; and you surely aren’t helping much of anything over here, but are instead attacking ideas that don’t fit in with your simple-minded paradigms. Goddamned douche bag who needs to be hammered, hung, or just shot.

        1. Lol @ his dream of a glorious rainbow coalition; good fukin luck with that. He can’t figure out that all these other “poor”, “oppressed” groups in his mind all “aligning together” against da Jew all happen to also have in-group-first views, habits, and identities. Only small numbers of each group will ever be “down” for such a thing, as it were.

          Like blacks, (especially black Americans), they don’t give a shit about politics , planning, or anything of the sort. As far as they’re concerned, Jews and whites are the same and this white demon “owes” them until the end of time for so-called past and present “mistreatment” and “oppression”. Da white demon could die for all the pro-blacks care. To make matters worse, for the smaller groups of blacks who don’t think whites and Jews are the same, the larger of the two believes “evil whites” are “oppressing” Jews. It’s the smaller group who actually knows that Jews are oppressing whites. And funny that as pro-black as people like Ken O’Keefe are, he sure doesn’t have a lot of black friends…. real “shocker”.

          Or a Western/Muslim coalition, like Labonte, Khanverse, Glenn, Sigur and so many others are calling for…. Muslims as a group don’t give a shit about whites and are anti-white, too.

          Or even women… and as much of a white knight as Ken O’Keefe is, he sure seems to have lots of problems with women. Whether he’s had problems with his prior ex or with his current, plain Jane, (she’s not even good looking but Ken sure seems to think she is), dishonest, occultist of a girlfriend now, he sure doesn’t seem to realize that his white knightery doesn’t do him much of any favors with women. He’s got a strong tendency to attract trash and even put up with it. That said, not a lot of women at all are going to be putting in the time and effort or critical thinking skills to figure this all out. Just because some, or a small number can, doesn’t mean most ever will.

          He also hasn’t realized that all these “poor”, “oppressed”, “morally superior” groups don’t fukin get along with each other when they have to live in close proximity together, either.

  1. Most Polish Jews emigrated to Israel and USA in the late 1940s and the 1950s. Wonder why they should give such a fuss about Polish laws when they do not live there anymore for decades. Poland itself still has some anti-nazi laws (specifically against that particular ideology) including against promotion of SS Nazi symbols. Poles were on the allied side of that war, so why they should have any guilt for that conflict is very nonsensical and illogical.

    1. @Roman: The reason is very simple: Poland has a strong traditionalist and nationalist culture, largely free of cultural Marxism and skeptical of both Capitalism and Communism given its history. Thus, its largely immune nowadays to Jewish domination and pressure.

      The irony is that historically, Poland was one of the most pro-Jewish nations, ever since Casimir welcomed the Jews to Poland and they flooded in thereafter. In their sectarian feuds with the Ukrainians, the Polish nobility used Jewish merchants as their local arendars (tax and land farmers), so that to Ukrainians, the local middlemen of the Polish overlord were Jews.

      From what I’ve been able to tell, Jewish anti-Polonism arose with the Bolshevik Revolution, when Poland actually halted the Bolsheviks at the Vistula in 1920. Within the British Foreign Office, Polish-born Jews such as Lewis Bernstein Namier pursued an anti-Polish, pro-Soviet policy whose Jewish inspiration is very apparent.

      Despite the Poles’ actual situation during WWII, because they are so traditionalist and nationalist – and, therefore, a natural impediment to Jewish power over them – Jewish groups love to accuse them of “anti-Semitism” and “complicity with the Nazis”. Anything to make European peoples generally collectively, they will and do use.

      1. Sean, really quick, I know you’re anti-Communist, but I know you’re also against all strains of Capitalism, and every time I’ve asked anti-Capitalists what they propose instead of Capitalism, I always get some kind of Marxist/Socialist/Communist response. So many prominent Marxist anti-Capitalists out there as well as we know, from Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, MLK, Einstein, Marx, etc.

        Some of my questions are:

        What do you personally propose instead of Capitalism?

        How is having an employee inherently bad?

        How is using capital to make capital inherently bad?

        1. And interestingly, this author believes Poland is becoming Europe’s most capitalist country:

          “4. EVOLUTION OF POLISH ECONOMY After the end of the World War II Poland was under Soviet Communist dominance. Since 1952 the official name of Poland was People’s Republic of Poland. At that time Polish economic system was based on centrally-planned economic model and nationalized companies. The government was significantly involved in shaping Polish market. It turned out quite soon that this kind of economic model couldn’t work well. There was a lack of basic products and jokes about vinegar being the only thing avaliable on shop shelves became very popular among the society.
          5. In 1989, after Polish Round Table Agreement, Poland had to face economical changes. The effects of multi- year absolute communist rule were hard to imagine: rising inflation, enormously huge debt, poverty among the society. A method of rapid transition from a communist economy, based on state ownership and central planning, to a capitalist market economy, appeared to be the Balcerowicz Plan, also termed Shock Therapy. It was a packet of 11 acts, which included many solutions to the difficult economic situation in Poland. The Balcerowicz Plan became the begining of Polish dream about prosperity.
          6. Now, Polish economy is officially considered free market-based, but it certainly isn’t true. There are still many problems we have to struggle with, such as government involvment in the market, privatisation and social welfare. In fact, we are in the middle of the way between socialism and capitalism.
          7. POLISH ECONOMY TODAY Poland’s high-income economy is the 6th largest in the EU and one of the fastest growing economies in Central Europe, with an annual growth rate of over 6.0% before the late-2000s recession. It is the only member country of the European Union to have avoided a decline in GDP, which means that in 2009 Poland obtained the biggest GDP growth in the EU. As of December 2009, the Polish economy had not entered recession nor contracted, while its IMF 2010 GDP growth forecast of 1.9 per cent is expected to be upgraded. However, the economic activity of its workforce is 59%, one of the lowest in the European Union.”

          https://www.slideshare.net/nikitakozlov/capitalism-in-poland

        2. We obviously have different definitions of “capitalism”. Yours is the most common in society, of a system of making “capital” and a system of employers/employees. In theory, of a free enterprise system free from the constraints of government.

          That, however, is not how Capitalism as it was truly conceived or how its practiced is at all. From its inception, its been about the privileges of certain economic elites that are guaranteed by the government. The privileges of these elites arose simultaneously to the rise of the central bank, another inherent feature of capitalism.

          Together, these native economic elites and the Jewish financiers made this alliance that has increasingly over the centuries and decades been propped up by the government, which is basically their debt and tax collector. The markets are naturally distorted through the actions of these governments, to uphold the artificial privileges given to these financial/corporate elites.

          “So many prominent Marxist anti-Capitalists out there as well as we know, from Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, MLK, Einstein, Marx, etc.” … They are merely the other side of the dialectic from capitalism. Just like the earliest advocates of capitalism, Marx supported both the idea of usury/central banking and “free trade”. He certainly lived like the classic capitalist, vulturing like a parasite off the same workers he claimed to extol as “the proletariat” while benefiting personally from different political elites. Every communist revolution was always backed up by financiers and propped up by the same “capitalist” system they claimed to oppose.

          “How is having an employee inherently bad?”….I don’t think it is and I don’t see this as a defining feature of capitalism. Its merely a replacement of the old guild structure of master and apprentice. I’ve personally been an employee at different jobs, and I don’t see a problem with it since its a non-coercive agreement of free exchange.

          “How is using capital to make capital inherently bad?”….It depends on what your definition of “capital to make capital” is. If its real wealth, such as money that you earned and you’re now investing it in something to make more wealth, then I don’t see any problem with that. But if you mean usury, then I am ardently against such “wealth” since I agree with successive philosophers and thinkers from Aristotle that usury is artificial and about making what is “barren” fruitful. Its gotten even more artificial as time passed, so that now its basically made-up numbers on a screen backed up by the force of the law so that these financier parasites can collect real debts from people.

          1. Where we differ, Sean, is that you believe all strains of capitalism are bad and that it was conceived from it’s very beginning to be beneficial to a small group of people while working as a detriment to everybody else.

            Of course I personally abhor crony capitalism, but you view all forms of capitalism to be crony capitalism when they are not. Owning a business, or having an employee, or being an employee, or using capital to create capital are all forms/strains/parts of capitalism. And there is a distinct delineation between a business that isn’t in bed with the government and one that is, although this is obviously not to say that a business owner has to be in bed with the government to be corrupt – that’d be like saying a person who doesn’t work can’t be corrupt if he’s not making deals with the government.

            Capitalism really occurs naturally and is thousands of years old, although it obviously hasn’t occurred to the same degree as it has until the last 200 years. But there was capitalism in ancient Rome, for example, and there have always also been different intra-tribal and inter-tribal distributions of wealth and different tribes have always used capital to attain for themselves more capital if/when possible, as another example.

            One of the situations we have in the West is that it has become much more anti-Capitalist (and Marxist, as well as crony capitalist – too big to fail banks, for example) over the decades, and not just from the government, but from society.
            I’ve gotten into lots of arguments with anti-capitalists over issues like the “top 1%”. It turns out that the top 1% is being heavily and unfairly taxed on a % basis when compared to the rest of the population, especially the further down the tax brackets one goes. (The top .01% is a different story, but speaking specifically about the top 1%). It also so happens that the top 1% aren’t the top 1% for very long. You might have noticed that in the US, it has become harder and harder to start businesses as there are more government regulations, red-tape, and capital gains taxes than ever. Or all these people complaining that the minimum wage needs to be raised without taking into account what this does to others competing for the same jobs. There are lots of entitled, Marxist-minded people out there who believe somebody owes them something… especially these types who are low-ambition, low-skilled, and low-IQ. Obama: “You didn’t build that.” In these senses, I don’t see how anyone couldn’t be defending defending free-market Capitalism, because it’s definitely an economic aid that has created major and never-before-seen amounts of wealth for massive numbers of people over the last 200 years, and not just for a few people.

            The Rothschilds could be considered capitalists in the senses that they’ve used capital to create capital, and they have a lot of employees, but they’re also anti-capitalist, and Marxist, whereas capitalists are anti-Classical Marxist. It’s a situation of do as I say and not as I do, or as Rockefeller said “Competition is a sin” – no true capitalist would say that. They’re definitely not true capitalists but do use capitalism to their means, just like they use crony capitalism to their means, whereas many other capitalists don’t, meaning capitalism by itself is not inherently evil; it just depends on how it’s used. Moreover it can be and continues to be very often used for good. The West has become more and more Marxist economically and culturally. Today it’s very Marxist and this means standards of living and wealth production will continue to decline as opposed to when it was more capitalist.

            Some of these anti-capitalists on people like Henry Makow’s site just say capitalism was created for evil. That’s a very simple, including false and inaccurate way of looking at it. It can be used for evil, but it can be and continues to be used for good as well. You view capitalism and government as intrinsically evil, whereas in reality they’re like a gun: they’re just a vehicle or apparatus that can be used for bad or good. If capitalism in it’s entirety was created for bad, as many people believe, it couldn’t and wouldn’t have brought so much wealth to so many people and measures wouldn’t have to be taken to restrict it or demonize it. Does the fact that somebody owns a business and is not in bed with the government make him a capitalist? Yes. Does it make him evil? Of course not. Does it make the person harder to control? Yes, but people like this are becoming more and more controlled all the time. Do you have any alternative propositions to capitalism that aren’t Marxist?

            1. A lot of people call the US a very capitalistic country and proceed to blame it’s ills and problems on ‘capitalism’. While it might have plenty of crony capitalism, calling it ‘capitalist’ is an error. It has really become heavily Marxist, and if capitalism was the work of the devil, steps like these wouldn’t need to be taken; they’d already be taken care of:

              “1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

              The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868) to give the government far more “eminent domain” power than was originally intended, Under the rubric of “eminent domain” and various zoning regulations, land use regulations by the Bureau of Land Managementproperty taxes, and “environmental” excuses, private property rights have become very diluted and private property in landis, vehicles, and other forms are seized almost every day in this country under the “forfeiture” provisions of the RICO statutes and the so-called War on Drugs..

              2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

              The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913 (which some scholars maintain was never properly ratified), and various State income taxes, established this major Marxist coup in the United States many decades ago. These taxes continue to drain the lifeblood out of the American economy and greatly reduce the accumulation of desperately needed capital for future growth, business starts, job creation, and salary increases.

              3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

              Another Marxian attack on private property rights is in the form of Federal & State estate taxes and other inheritance taxes, which have abolished or at least greatly diluted the right of private property owners to determine the disposition and distribution of their estates upon their death. Instead, government bureaucrats get their greedy hands involved .

              4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

              We call it government seizures, tax liens, “forfeiture” Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

              5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

              The Federal Reserve System, created by the Federal Reserve Act of Congress in 1913, is indeed such a “national bank” and it politically manipulates interest rates and holds a monopoly on legal counterfeiting in the United States. This is exactly what Marx had in mind and completely fulfills this plank, another major socialist objective. Yet, most Americans naively believe the U.S. of A. is far from a Marxist or socialist nation.

              6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

              In the U.S., communication and transportation are controlled and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established by the Communications Act of 1934 and the Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission (established by Congress in 1887), and the Federal Aviation Administration as well as Executive orders 11490, 10999 — not to mention various state bureaucracies and regulations. There is also the federal postal monopoly, AMTRAK and CONRAIL — outright socialist (government-owned) enterprises. Instead of free-market private enteprrise in these important industries, these fields in America are semi-cartelized through the government’s regulatory-industiral complex.

              7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

              While the U.S. does not have vast “collective farms” (which failed so miserably in the Soviet Union), we nevertheless do have a significant degree of government involvement in agriculture in the form of price support subsidies and acreage alotments and land-use controls. The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

              8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

              We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920’s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot…The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

              9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

              We call it the Planning Reorganization Act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136.

              10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

              People are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education”.”

              http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html

            2. This is a good, five-part article on capitalism:

              “The old Marxian notion that capital is the enemy of working people is belied by a simple, undeniable truism: “A country becomes more prosperous in proportion to the rise in the invested capital per capita.”4 Without capital at their disposal, workers’ productivity remains low. The historical record shows that increases in wages and standards of living rise are driven by increases in the productivity of labor. In turn, the primary driver of the productivity of labor is how much capital labor has at its disposal.5

              A ditch-digger who uses a backhoe not only moves more dirt per hour and consequently receives more pay, but he also is freed from the backbreaking exertions that a worker equipped only with a shovel must endure. Capital liberates labor from many forms of drudgery. A socialist regime may enforce strict economic equality and so fulfill a socialist theory of justice, but no government can legislate or decree wealth without capital and capital goods to multiply the productivity of labor, any more than a human being can travel at 75 mph or lift a ton of matter using only his own power.

              Many critics believe that capital and labor are irreconcilable enemies—that capital evilly exploits labor and keeps workers poor. How then, does one explain the fact that the countries that have the highest capital per capita invested are the countries where the standards of living are highest or whose economies are growing at the fastest rates? The poorest countries are not those where capital is abundant, but where it is most scarce. Every year I break the “bad news” to my Econ 101 students that we Americans have been “exploited” by capital to a greater extent than any other people in the history of the world. It is tragicomic that leftist professors apparently can’t see the irony and idiocy of teaching their students that capital is rapacious, dehumanizing, and destructive when, in fact, more capital has been invested in the USA than any other country in the world and that the USA also happens to be the most affluent country in history.

              Poor people in Third World countries don’t share American professors’ disdain for capital; on the contrary, although they may not understand the underlying economics, their daily hope and prayer is that they themselves some day will be “exploited” (enriched) even one-tenth as much as we have been.

              Just as foreign capital helped to make us the richest country in the world, so today the astounding explosion of wealth in China is turbo-charged by the jet fuel of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment), i.e., foreign capital, added to China’s considerable supply of domestically accumulated capital. Although China is still nominally a Communist state and far from being a free society, their Communist Party leaders are unmistakably—indeed, emphatically—pro-capital. This stands in marked contrast to Barack Obama’s hostility to capital formation as manifested in his hostility to profits, one of the major sources of capital accumulation. Unfortunately, the hostility and misunderstanding that surround the terms capitalist and capitalism often rubs off on the neutral, objective term capital. The remainder of this series will try to rescue and rehabilitate those two tortured terms.

              All societies use capital, so every society has capitalists. They are those who decide who, how, where, and when the various forms of capital are used. In a socialist society, the government controls most of the capital. What socialist and other leftist writers despise are capitalists who have some independence from the state. It is the non-socialist owner of capital—the genuine capitalist rather than his pale socialists imitators—that is our focus in this article.

              Anyone who saves part of his income and invests it in a productive enterprise—whether his own, a relative’s, or that of a total stranger via a bank or other financial intermediary—is a capitalist.

              Historically, though, the term capitalist referred to entrepreneurs who used capital (either their own or capital borrowed from others) to produce goods and/or services that consumers wanted. Although capital clearly enhanced the productivity of labor, and so gradually raised workers’ wages and standards of living, capitalists themselves rarely have been depicted as heroes. On the contrary, they often have been despised, distrusted, resented, denounced, vilified, and hated.

              In the excellent collection of essays Capitalism and the Historians, Bertrand de Jouvenel captured this irony, writing, “Strangely enough, the fall from favor of the money-maker [i.e., the portion of entrepreneurs who proved capable of using capital to earn profits] coincides with an increase in his social usefulness.”2 Counter-intuitively, the more wealth that capitalists produced and the higher standards of living rose, the more capitalists were cast as villains. This is doubly ironic in light of the contrast between the capitalist era of workers’ rising (however unevenly) standards of living and the pre-capitalist era when laborers were trapped in lives of abject poverty by a rigged, rigid economic system.

              Who objected most strongly to the capitalists? It was not, at the outset, their employees, most of whom—though perhaps prone to grumbling about work, as most humans do at one time or another—had at least a dim recognition that capitalist-provided jobs improved their life prospects.

              Initially, the attacks against capitalists came primarily from the prosperous, comfortable strata of society—ladies, gentlemen, and aristocrats. In England, the prominent critics of capitalists included William Blake (the poet whose famous poem Jerusalem referred to “those dark, satanic mills”); Blake’s fellow poet, Elizabeth Barrett Browning; the novelist, Charles Dickens, and numerous others who themselves were not members of the laboring class. Notice that these critics were writers. Indeed, the reputation of capitalists was shaped at least in part by the written word, which has proven to be the primary lens through which subsequent generations have perceived the early capitalists.”

              https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/199650/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-ii-mark-hendrickson

            3. Walter Williams – “The rich have always had access to entertainment, and some times in the comfort of their palaces and mansions. The rich have never had to experience the drudgery of having to beat out carpets, iron their clothing or slave over a hot stove all day in order to have a decent dinner; they could afford to hire people. Today, the common man has the power to enjoy much of what only the rich could yesteryear. Capitalism’s mass production have made radios and televisions, vacuum cleaners, wash-and-wear clothing and microwave ovens available and well within the reach of the common man; thus, sparing him of the drudgery of the past.

              What about those who became wealthy making comforts available to the common man? Henry Ford benefitted immensely from mass producing automobiles but the benefit for the common man, from being able to buy a car, dwarfs anything Ford received. Individual discovers and companies who produced penicillin, polio and typhoid vaccines may have become wealthy but again it was the common man who was the major beneficiary. In more recent times, computers and software products have impacted our health, safety and life quality in a way that dwarfs the wealth received by their creators.

              Here’s a little test. Stand on the corner and watch people walk or drive by. Then, based on their appearances, identify which persons are wealthy. Years ago, it wouldn’t have been that hard.

              The ordinary person wouldn’t be dressed as well, surely not wearing designer clothing, nor would they have nice looking jewellery plus, they wouldn’t be driving by. Compare the income status of today’s airline passengers with those of yesterday; you’ll find a greater percentage of ordinary people.

              That’s one of the great benefits of capitalism; it has made it possible for common people to enjoy at least some of what wealthy people enjoy. You say, “Williams, common people don’t have access to Rolls Royces and yachts!” You’re wrong. Microsoft’s Bill Gates is super-rich and can afford to ride in a Rolls Royce and go yachting sailing; so can Williams – just not as long. I can rent a Rolls or a yacht for a day, half-day or an hour.”

              “Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man. Capitalists seek to find what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible. Here’s a question for us: are people who by their actions create unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and more fun available to the ordinary person, and become wealthy in the process, deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals and politicians? Are the wealthy obliged to “give something back?” For example, what more do the wealthy discoverers and producers of life-saving antibiotics owe us? They’ve already saved lives and made us healthier.”

            4. ““No government of the left has done as much for the poor as capitalism has. Even when it comes to the redistribution of income, the left talks the talk but the free market walks the walk.
              What do the poor most need? They need to stop being poor. And how can that be done, on a mass scale, except by an economy that creates vastly more wealth? Yet the political left has long had a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. As far as they are concerned, wealth exists somehow and the only interesting question is how to redistribute it.”
              ― Thomas Sowell, Controversial Essays

              “Most officially “poor” Americans today have things that middle-class Americans of an earlier time could only dream about—including color TV, videocassette recorders, microwave ovens, and their own cars. Moreover, half of all poor households have air-conditioning.
              Leftist redistribution of income could never accomplish that, because there are simply not enough rich people for their wealth to have such a dramatic effect on the living standards of the poor, even if it was all confiscated and redistributed. Moreover, many attempts at redistributing wealth in various countries around the world have ended up redistributing poverty.
              After all, rich people can see the political handwriting on the wall, and can often take their money and leave the country, long before a government program can get started to confiscate it. They are also likely to take with them skills and entrepreneurial experience that are even harder to replace than the money.”
              ― Thomas Sowell, Controversial Essays

              “One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”
              ― Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

              If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today.”
              ― Thomas Sowell

              “We seem to be getting closer and closer to a situation where nobody is responsible for what they did but we are all responsible for what somebody else did.”
              ― Thomas Sowell

              “I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”
              ― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays

              “Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good.”
              ― Thomas Sowell

              ““Despite a voluminous and often fervent literature on “income distribution,” the cold fact is that most income is not distributed: It is earned.”
              ― Thomas Sowell

              “Bailing out people who made ill-advised mortgages makes no more sense that bailing out people who lost their life savings in Las Vegas casinos.”
              ― Thomas Sowell

              “It was Thomas Edison who brought us electricity, not the Sierra Club. It was the Wright brothers who got us off the ground, not the Federal Aviation Administration. It was Henry Ford who ended the isolation of millions of Americans by making the automobile affordable, not Ralph Nader. Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing ‘compassion’ for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about.”
              ― Thomas Sowell

              “No matter how much people on the left talk about compassion, they have no compassion for the taxpayers.”
              ― Thomas Sowell, The Thomas Sowell Reader

              “Nowhere in the world do you find this evenness that people use as a norm. And I find it fascinating that they will hold up as a norm something that has never been seen on this planet, and regard as an anomaly something that is seen in country after country.”
              –Thomas Sowell

              https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2056.Thomas_Sowell?page=4

            5. @Dana: The point is that I reject the same definition of “capitalism” that you have, because to me a true free market, entrepreneurship, small businesses, are not Capitalism at all. They exist in spite of Capitalism and not because of it. Those things were already in place before this financial-mercantile system of “Capitalism” was imposed over our societies, and especially now their nexus with Big Government means infringing constantly on free markets, small businesses, small-time farmers, etc.. This capitalism has presided over the transition from a manufacturing, productive economy into a debt-based economy of consumers.

              So quite simply, we support many of the same things – but what you call “Capitalism” I don’t ascribe to Capitalism at all. Especially since both the Marxists and Corporatist apologists have manipulated the very definitions of “Capitalism” to promote their respective system. Together they erode a true free market.

              “One of the situations we have in the West is that it has become much more anti-Capitalist (and Marxist, as well as crony capitalist – too big to fail banks, for example) over the decades, and not just from the government, but from society.”

              Its the merger of Capitalism with Cultural Marxism. Read the origins of the Frankfurt School to know what I mean. They were frustrated with the failure of the workers in industrial societies to revolt and usher in their “revolution”, so transferred their desire “lumpenproletariat” to various socially “disaffected” or “minority” groups in society, as well as more upper-class ivory tower students and academia over the working-class.

              This obviously fit in well with the oligarchs and bankers. Their system is called “Cultural Marxism” because, as per the theories of George Lukacs and Antonio Gramsci, they replaced an economic revolution with a cultural revolution. Marxist academics formed close partnerships with various financial institutions and “charities”, which funded their activities while simultaneously profiting throughout the economy. Thus, its a hybrid system of Cultural Marxism and Economic Capitalism in the modern West.

              The rest of your arguments are irrelevant, because they are directed towards the run-of-the-mill, Commie millennial apology of Big Government who doesn’t know anything about economics. But I on the other hand, reject both these dialectics – my critique of Capitalism is not that of the Marxists, and my critique of Marxism is not that of the Capitalists.

              As for your identifying the central bank with Marx, yes he believed in the central bank – and that’s actually one of my many critiques of Communism. He actually agreed with the Capitalists on the central bank. Not surprising, because behind both always stood Jewish financiers and all the rhetoric about the “proletariat” was nothing but a scheme to take power. They never cared anything about the workers, nor did they ever oppose Capitalism. They’re just two sides of the same coin.

              “This is a good, five-part article on capitalism: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/199650/capital-capitalists-and-capitalism-part-ii-mark-hendrickson

              Honestly, nothing coming from the former Trotskyite agitator-turned-Cuckservative Neocon Jew David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag is “good” in my book. Its nothing but just another niche to control and deceive yet another group of gullible “goyim”. The internal disputes between the two dialectics doesn’t concern me, because like I said, I don’t accept either side’s re-definition of free-market as “Capitalist”. Its just unfortunate that they’ve been able to achieve such a control in society that they’ve changed these words from their original meanings.

            6. Sean, one thing I will say is that there has been an ongoing, recurring problem for who knows how long, but many centuries, with many organizations (be it a corporation or government) that get very big. It definitely does seem as though a giant organization is very susceptible to being infiltrated and subverted as opposed to a bunch of smaller organizations. Of course there are also giant companies that have been intentionally created with evil intentions (like Facebook, as an example).

              It seems one of the conundrums to figure out is what and where is the dividing line between when an organization becomes too big? And how could this be regulated?

              In your view, what would be your opinion on this hypothetical scenario: a bunch of poker players and investors got together and put up one billion in cash to form a private media corporation?

              If you look at the current list of the top 100 biggest corporations, you can find many of those corporations have these Luciferian connections and agents working in/among them and even running them, and of course they’re obviously in cahoots with the government. When I say “many”, I don’t know if it’s the majority or not, but definitely quite a few. I recognize many of the corrupt corporations but then I look at some of those corporations like Texas Instruments, for example, and can’t figure out exactly what evil it is doing, although I haven’t looked deeply into it’s history and/or what kind of corrupt people it may possibly have had involved in and/or running the organization. What is your personal view of Texas Instruments? What bad or evil do you believe or see them doing?

            7. Dude, WND has a lot of good articles, even if David Horowitz is a neo-con Jew and cuckservative. All it is, is that you recognize the site won’t be exposing neocons and other certain issues like the JQ. I was just talking about this with American Renaissance: it’s a great site with a lot of great info, just primarily that it’s absolutely pathetic on anything regarding exposing the JQ (Jared Taylor seems to have this love infatuation with Jews). But in these situations, you take what’s useful and discard the rest.

              An example though of somebody who writes for WND is Colin Flaherty. If you’re not familiar with him, he has done a bunch of great work on exposing black-on-white crime and he has been at it since about 2011. What pisses me off about Colin is his complete ignorance of the JQ, even saying such dumb shit as “nerdy white guys run the media”, lol. This does not mean that he doesn’t know his shit when it comes to black-on-white crime as well as black on non-white crime in America, because he does, and he knows it better than over 99% of the population. There probably really are only a handful of people who know it better than he does, if anyone even does (maybe like Paul Kersey or something).

              Definitely a logical fallacy to just brush an entire site or pieces of information off, even if you don’t like who pointed out the pieces of information you’re looking at or the person who runs the site. Like this article, for example, try to disprove anything he’s saying:

              http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/another-tough-to-watch-black-on-white-beating/

  2. I’ve noticed the reason you don’t respond to comments, questions, and arguments over here, Joe (assuming the other “Joe Cardsbury” – an extremely likely pseudonym, isn’t really you), is because you have nothing to debate; just like the typical moron. Ignoring them all and popping your head in to comment on succeeding articles does NOT mean you’ve won any fukin debates. Many, many clowns in the internet-world have this problem. This also includes beloved “truther” libtards like Trevor Labonte, Khanverse, Mark Glenn, Ken O’Keefe, and many others. They want and/or even demand to be heard, but don’t want to hear.

    Real quick, for example, can you name the specific Jews who made Joe Biden write up VAWA in 1994? Can’t name them or even any? I’ve never seen you mention any problems with an act like VAWA and so I have to presume you’re in favor of it by default. You and the rest of the libtard gang I mentioned above.

    Issues like the Holohoax, 9/11, Mossad false flags, fractional reserve banking, and the likes have been known about for years and years and don’t take a “genius” to figure out… they’re actually quite obvious and simple. I’ll tell you this, too: anyone who has been around for awhile and hasn’t yet realized that there are blatant anti-white, anti-male, anti-heterosexual, anti-cisgender, anti-gun; pro-welfare, pro-affirmative action, and pro-multicultural agendas, is a fucking clown. That includes the people I mentioned above and people like you. Of course that other douche bag Joe who comes over running his mouth and claims to have known 9/11 was a false flag from the very beginning (I seriously doubt it), but yet somehow STILL hasn’t figured any of this out is absolutely disgraceful.

    I’m seriously still wondering why both you tossers (if you’re not the same) still live in the West. There are many ‘nice’ Muslim countries you can go that not only are not in the Jewish cross hairs, but are complicit in working with the Jews you so despise. Clearly they’re superior and you two can go and fit right in. You’re surely not a mind-reader; you’re surely not psychic; and you surely aren’t helping much of anything over here; even spreading information around that certain people who don’t agree with you are “on assignment”, and are instead attacking ideas that don’t fit in with your simple-minded paradigms. Goddamned douche bag who needs to be hammered, hung, and/or just shot for treason, like you’re on assignment.

  3. Was happy to hear about this, but don’t get your hopes up. The president of Poland is just another puppet figure. “Duda is married to Agata Kornhauser, a teacher of German at Jan III Sobieski High School in Kraków.[33] They had met at a party while still attending rival schools[3] and have been married since 21 December 1994.[34] Together they have one daughter, Kinga, born in 1995, now also studying law.[35] His father-in-law is Julian Kornhauser, a well-known writer, translator and literary critic of Jewish descent.[36]“

    This Jew propaganda is smoke and mirrors and meant to push an agenda or demonize a group of people in this case.

    1. You realize you’re claiming to know for *certain* that this is just Jew propaganda meant to push an agenda or demonize a group of people, and you’re doing it Joe Sigur-style, too. Joe Sigur loves to shoot his mouth off and make statements of fact or about shit that *isn’t* fact at all. I can imagine he does the same with certain predictions as well. Obviously somehow you haven’t caught on to his massive shortcomings, either.

      While I can imagine the Polish president being easily compromised or a puppet figure, what will you say if the bill indeed gets passed by the Polish Senate and President? Will your master “mind-reading”, “psychic” skills and abilities conveniently forget that your “Jew wisdom” is really sub-par and that, no, you’re not too fukin good at “seeing through” agendas (whether Jewish or not)? Because if you were, all the other Jewish agendas wouldn’t have to be explained to your dumb ass. If the bill does, I can imagine you using selective memory skills and conveniently forgetting about it all, right away, like the clown that you are (if you and your very likely fake name is not Joe Sigur himself).

      1. The guy is openly married to a woman with a Jewish background. Who’s father was a “literary critic”. If you forgot the mainstream media is completely controlled by Jews.

        Even if the bill gets passed by the senate, it doesn’t matter. It will demonize the Polish people permanently. They will be accused of al sorts of things after this. The Jews want that given how traditional and nationalistic the Poles are. They want them to bend the knee.

        I would suggest you go take your meds now, before you have a breakdown.

        PS For the last fucking time I am not Joe Sigur.

        1. If you haven’t noticed, anyone who’s white has been being demonized, but I know it’s too much for you to figure out, even though you’re a “genius” at “seeing through” Jewish agendas, n stuff.

          FYI, I don’t take meds and never have taken meds in my life. You’d like to think I do, though. No, the problem is you’re a dumb fucking schmuck who has a tendency to piss people like me off.

          Why is it that you’d be the first person I’ve ever met with the last name of Cardsbury? Sounds like your real surname to me, dummy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *