Monday, June 20, 2016

820 The Jewish ancestry of the Rockefeller family - a debate with Paul Bustion

The Jewish ancestry of the Rockefeller family - a debate with Paul Bustion

Newsletter published on 31 March 2016

(1) Why did you publish Ron's meaningless insults in your newsletter?
(2) to (6) The Jewish ancestry of the Rockefeller family - a debate with
Paul Bustion
(7) American Jews face dilemma in presidential elections - Isi Leibler

(1) Why did you publish Ron's meaningless insults in your newsletter?

    Paul Bustion<pbustion30@gmail.com> 30 March 2016 at 18:11

Peter,

Why did you publish these emails in your newsletter ==

REPLY
Paul,

 > Why did you publish Ron's meaningless insults

Well, they weren't meaningless. The sender had a clear meaning, and I
received that clear meaning.

I've been doing this newsletter for 15 years. I usually publish insults
when people insult me.

One reason is to show that I don't care about the insults. Another is
because they are a sign of weakness, because the sender has no rational
means of expression, only insults.

(2) The Jewish ancestry of the Rockefeller family

    Paul Bustion<pbustion30@gmail.com> 30 March 2016 at 18:20

Peter,

Also this was stated in the newsletter,

"If the Rockefeller family are covert Sephardic Jews - as reported by
Malcolm H. Stern in his study of "Americans of Jewish Descent" (see
items 6-9) - then that is a matter of the public interest."

Item 8 was my evidence the Rockefellers are of Jewish ancestry. It is
true that the Rockefellers are of Jewish ancestry, but I don't believe
they identify with Judaism as a religion or as a political ideology. I
think in terms of identifying with Judaism whether a person is racially
Jewish is largely irrelevant, politics and culture are much more
relevant. For example, my father admires Jews and is at one unhealthy
extreme where he thinks Jews can do no bad, but I have no evidence that
he has any Jewish ancestry, but my mother has anti-Jewish tendencies,
for example she has made negative statements about the Jewishness of
some journalists like William Schneider of CNN when I was in middle
school and obsessed over trashy unpleasant stereotypes of Jews as stingy
and she made negative comments about one of my teachers at Carthage
Robert Schlack on the basis of an assumption she had that he was Jewish
without evidence, although many of the teachers there were Jews I have
no evidence he was, so her assuming that without evidence and trashing
him for it to me was evidence of Anti-Judaism on her part, but my mother
actually is of German Jewish ancestry. Her father Fred Wilt,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Wilt, was an FBI agent and athlete
descended from a German Jewish American named Israel Isaac Wilt,
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=29456359. So
whether is racially Jewish can be irrelevant to whether he is
politically, religiously, or socially Jewish. Otto Weininger was from a
Jewish family but he hated Jews and he was one of the main sources of
Hitler's ideas. I'm not saying the Rockefellers are Anti-Jewish, but I
don't see much evidence that there Jewish ancestry impacts their policy
stances or that they identify with Judaism. ==

REPLY
Paul,

 > I don't believe they identify with Judaism
 > as a religion or as a political ideology

But that's just your opinion - a guess, which you are treating as a fact.

This is a matter of the public interest; especially in view of Marranism.

(3) Re: The Jewish ancestry of the Rockefeller family

    Paul Bustion<pbustion30@gmail.com> 30 March 2016 at 18:59

I think in some cases the Jewishness of a leader is of public interest
but not always. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are not Jewish but they're
very pro-Israel whereas Bernie Sanders is Jewish and he's not
particularly pro-Israel, as you pointed out in your newsletters he was
the only candidate to refuse to have anything to do with AIPAC. David
Rockefeller was very critical of Israel's belligerence towards Muslim
countries, a long time ago I sent you a quote from his autobiography
about it, I don't want to rewrite the quote now although I may later,
but I just reread David Rockefeller's chapter where he discussed Israel
in his autobiography tonight. Nelson Rockefeller when he ran for
Governor of New York was criticized by Averall Harriman for not
supporting Israel enough. On the other hand the Bush family, who there
is no evidence have Jewish ancestry, have been extremely pro-Israel. So
whether or not a politician is Jewish isn't always relevant, although it
can be. Also, Henry Ford in The International Jew made a statement that
seemed to suggest that he did not regard the Rockefellers as Jewish in
any political or religious sense.

"As to the second point, every reader can verify the fact from his own
experience. Let him recall to his mind the capitalists who have been
held up to public scorn in the Jew-controlled press of the United
States—and whom does he find them to be? Whose forms have you seen
caricatured with the dollar-mark in Hearst’s papers? Are they Seligman,
Kahn, Warburg, Schiff, Kuhn, Loeb & Company, or any of the others? No.
These are Jewish bankers. The attack is never made on them. The names
made most familiar to you by newspaper denunciation are the names of
Gentile industrial and banking leaders—and Gentile leaders only—the
principal ones being Morgan and
Rockefeller."https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_International_Jew/Volume_1/Chapter_20
==

REPLY
Paul,

 > David Rockefeller was very critical of Israel's
 > belligerence towards Muslim countries

There are different kinds of Judaism. There's the Likud kind, and the
Soros kind. David Rockefeller belongs to the Soros kind.

The Likud kind launches wars on Moslems. The Soros kind promotes Open
Borders and Gay Marriage.

Does the public have a right to know? Yes.

 > Bernie Sanders is Jewish

I have not said anything about his Jewishness, because he is open about
it. He is an honest man, like Jimmy Carter. Sanders' Jewishness is not
an issue, but COVERT Jewish identity IS an issue, whether of the
Rockefellers or of Sotomayor.

The fact that the media keeps silent about such identities, even as the
US Constitution is rewritten by reinterpreting it, hints of conspiracy.

(4) Re: The Jewish ancestry of the Rockefeller family

    Paul Bustion<pbustion30@gmail.com> 30 March 2016 at 19:35

Even though David Rockefeller's brother Nelson was a leftist, David has
right-wing views on economics. Soros is basically a Trotskyist, as you
say. But David Rockefeller was opposed to President Nixon's wage and
price controls, stating that he wanted the free markets to be left
alone. He refused to be President Nixon's Treasury Secretary because he
disagreed with President Nixon's leftist economic policies. Soros and
Rockefeller have similar views on social issues but opposite views on
economic issues. Also David was very friendly with the Russian
government, meeting with Khrushev and other Soviet leaders frequently
despite his brother Nelson's anti-Russian stance, that would be opposite
from Soros who advocates a policy of belligerence towards Russia. I
never said the public didn't have a right to know. I said Judaism was
not in every single case a relevant issue. ==

REPLY
Paul,

 > Judaism was not in every single case a relevant issue

That's for the public to decide. Not you, not me. The public have a
right to know the identity of very powerful people. The public's right
to know outweighs those individuals' right to privacy.

When it comes to Jews on the Supreme Court undermining the US
Constitution by reinterpreting it - that's clear-cut case of Jewish
identity influencing an outcome.

The Mainstream (Jewish-owned) media failed to report that Jews comprised
3 or 4 of the 5 judges pushing that change through.

You yourself seem very worried about offending Jewish sensibilities, but
not much concerned about subversion in high places.

(5) Re: The Jewish ancestry of the Rockefeller family
    Paul Bustion<pbustion30@gmail.com> 30 March 2016 at 19:59

I never said they had a right to privacy. I meant maybe it was a mistake
to focus on the issue in their case. Henry Ford in The International Jew
in the quote I provided, seemed to be saying that the Rockefellers were
not Jewish in any sense other than a racial one. So you dismiss what
Ford said as naievete? ==

REPLY
Paul,

 > Rockefellers were not Jewish in any
 > sense other than a racial one

Perhaps they are Non-Jewish Jews.

But can you tell me what a Non-Jewish Jew is? I'm waiting for a definition.

Who would have thought that Jews would come out for Gay Marriage? What
kind of Jews are these? Not Likudniks. They're the Soros kind. Surely
Rockefeller is too.

Stop making excuses for the mainstream media silence about Jewish
political action.

(6) Re: The Jewish ancestry of the Rockefeller family

    Paul Bustion<pbustion30@gmail.com> 30 March 2016 at 20:28

I meant the Rockefellers were of Sephardic Jewish ancestry, but did not
believe in the religion. There's a difference between the idea, whether
it is true or not, of the Jewish race, and practicing the Jewish
religion. So a person could be Jewish in a racial sense but not a
religious one. That's the definitional difference. I think there are
some Jewish politicians whose Judaism should be focused on others whom
it should not be focused on. Not because of privacy issues but for
economic reasons. In some cases focusing on who is and who is not Jewish
can be counterproductive, in other cases it can be helpful. It depends
on if it is relevant to what they are doing. Clearly, Sanders' Judaism
has not impacted his views on Israel much. Bush is not Jewish at all but
he was a fanatical supporter of Israel. I remember you published in your
newsletter a long time ago evidence Hitler had African and Jewish
ancestry, that certainly did not stop him from being an enemy of the
Jews and Africans. Otto Weininger liked I mentioned above, was racially
Jewish but hated Jews. By racially I mean in terms of ancestry, that's
the difference between being a member of the ethnicity of Jewry, which
is not optional, versus the religion of Judaism which is optional. In
the first sense the Rockefellers are clearly Jewish, they are of that
ethnicity, but I see no evidence that they practice the religion. ==

REPLY
Paul,

 > Rockefellers were of Sephardic Jewish ancestry,
 > but did not believe in the religion

There are variants in the Jewish religion.

Ezra created the Jewish religion as we (thought we) knew it. Ezra is
called "the prophet Ezra" in Islam. His grave is a Shiite shrine in Iraq:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/02/iraq-tomb-jewish-prohet-ezra-turned-islamic.html

They also have a shrine for "the prophet Ezekiel":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCBHlPURqes and
https://www.facebook.com/SaveMuslimHeritage/

After the fall of Jerusalem, Judaism reinvented itself as Rabbinic
Judaism (Phariseeism).

Spinoza inaugurated non-theistic Judaism - the kind practised by Jewish
Revolutionaries as well as Soros & co. You can't seem to get your mind
around the idea that an atheistic ideology can be a religion.

Originally, Buddhism was an atheistic religion - before Buddha was
turned into a god. Before Buddhism, Jainism was the first atheistic
religion we know of, and it's still going. I visited the Jain village of
Sonagir in India, with over 100 Jain temples, and met naked Jain monks:
http://mailstar.net/india-pakistan.html

Siva (Shiva) was a major god of the Indus (Harappan) Civilization. He
was depicted in statues as ithyphallic, nude in a yoga pose with erect
penis. Orisis of Egypt was also depicted with erect penis, as was
Dionysius of Greece. Alain Danielou says that all three were analogues
of one another, part of one common cultural heritage spreading from
India to Sumeria to Minoan Crete: http://mailstar.net/danielou-paglia.html.

Mahavira, the historical founder of the Jains, is like Siva also
depicted nude, but always with pendant penis.

The difference is significant. Siva represents male potency, whereas
Mahavira represents renunciation.

The Sivalingam (Siva linga, Siva lingam, Shiva linga, Shiva lingam),
found all over India, is a sex-symbol: it depicts the male organ seated
within the female organ. This is a representation of both fertility and
delight, but tastefully done, with understatement, unlike the lurid
scenes of modern pornography.

A plaque at a Jain temple in Khajuraho reads:

Every soul is independent. None depends on another. {this is a rejection
of Monism}
All souls are alike. None is superior or inferior.
Every soul is in itself absolutely omniscient and blissful. The bliss
does not come from outside. Not only-Soul, but every object of the
universe, is subject to change by itself, without any external
interference.
All human beings are miserable due to their own faults, and they can
themselves be happy by rectifying the same.
The greatest mistake of a soul is non-recognition of its real self and
it can only be rectified by recognising itself.
There is no separate existence of God. Everbody can attain Godhood by
making supreme efforts in the right direction.
Know thyself; recognize thyself; be immersed in thyself'-you will attain
Godhood.
God is neither the destructor of the universe. He is merely a silent
observer and omniscient.
One, who, even after knowing the whole universe can remain unaffected
and unattached is God.

See the plaque at http://mailstar.net/Khajuraho-Jain-plaque.jpg

The Jains call their own sadhus (monks) "gods".

Apart from the monks and nuns, the Jain laity traditionally engaged in
money-lending and commerce; they have now moved into manufacturing and
wholesale commerce. They are the "Jews" of India, and have a similar
repressive "Protestant ethic". Werner Sombart pointed out that the
Protestant Ethic was really a Christian version of the Jewish Ethic:
http://mailstar.net/sombart.html.

Alain Danielou wrote, "Mahavira, the last Jaina prophet, was the
contemporary and rival of Gautama Buddha. Like the Buddhists, the Jainas
sent missionaries to all parts of the world. The influence of these
naked ascetics was very important in Greece, as can be perceived in
certain of the philosophical schools and in Orphism. Later Hinduism took
from Jainism the theory of transmigration and vegetarianism which
originally existed neither in Shivaism nor in Vedism." (Shiva and
Dionysus, p. 28)

(7) American Jews face dilemma in presidential elections - Isi Leibler

American Jews face dilemma in presidential elections

    Isi Leibler

Jerusalem Post 03.30.2016 | 20 Adar II, 5776

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Candidly-Speaking-American-Jews-face-dilemma-in-presidential-elections-449628

The turmoil associated with the American presidential elections has
impacted on much of the nation, and certainly on the Jews. Many, both
liberal and conservative, feel that their traditional political
affiliations have been destabilized.

Grass-root voters have rebelled against entrenched long-term politicians
and have astounded analysts by supporting relatively obscure
personalities who have introduced levels of primitive populism into
American politics unseen since the days of Huey Long.

Those deeply concerned about Israel find themselves in a special quandary.

Democratic supporters witnessed a struggle between Hillary Clinton --
who until recently faced virtually no competition -- and Bernie Sanders,
a relatively unknown older Jewish senator from Vermont, a leftist
throwback to prewar Jewish socialists raging against the "domination" of
Wall Street and calling for a redistribution of wealth. He is also
highly critical of Israel and a J Street supporter, pandering to the
growing anti-Israeli sentiment among left-wing Democrats. His populism
has generated substantial support, especially from young people.

Nevertheless, despite being widely resented and distrusted in her own
party, Hillary Clinton is likely to win the Democratic nomination. But
the dramatic flow of support of the radical views promoted by Sanders
has created concern that in office, she would seek to placate the
radicals within the party. That, in turn, could encourage her to revert
to the hostile attitude that prevailed during her term as secretary of
state toward Israel and especially Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It
also reinforces concerns about some of the vicious anti-Israeli advisers
she had engaged in the past, who were exposed in her declassified emails.

Every presidential candidate invited to the recent annual convention of
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), passionately
supported the Jewish state. The only exception was Sanders, who declined
to address AIPAC and spoke at another location where he bitterly
criticized Israel. But electoral pledges and passionate undertakings by
presidential candidates and politicians at AIPAC must be treated with
considerable cynicism, as from experience, they are frequently watered
down or breached.

Yet, Clinton’s address to AIPAC was significant (click here to watch
Clinton address). Despite justifying President Barack Obama’s Iran
policy and criticizing Israeli settlements, her powerful endorsement of
support for Israel was warmly received. She distinguished herself from
Obama by promising that a renewal of good relations with Israel would be
a priority, and that one of her first acts in office would be to invite
Netanyahu to Washington. She expressed these views obviously aware that
she would be intensifying the ire of the radical anti-Israel elements in
her party.

The uneasiness concerning the Clinton candidacy shared by some
traditional Jewish Democratic supporters pales when compared to the
turmoil among many Republican supporters at the explosive ascendancy of
Donald Trump, who was initially perceived as a clown, with virtually all
analysts predicting his early political demise.

Trump primitively denigrates intellectual discourse but has displayed an
extraordinary populist talent to communicate and reach out to the
disaffected masses who have flocked to support him, ditching seasoned
leaders like former Governor Jeb Bush, eliminating Senator Marco Rubio,
and at this stage enjoying a substantial lead over Senator Ted Cruz, his
sole remaining credible opponent.

He has adopted crude, inconsistent and contradictory policies but struck
a responsive chord from many Americans alienated and frustrated with
their current status and seeking radical solutions.

He has created a major schism in the Republican Party because of his
rabble-rousing, vulgarity, abusive remarks about women and
discriminatory outbursts against minorities -- especially Mexicans. Many
traditional Republicans, including senior party leaders, refuse to
endorse him and some have even stated that they would never vote for him
as president. His critics include the neoconservatives and the most
prominent conservative thinkers and commentators who are outraged by his
isolationist outbursts and demagogic anti-intellectual approach.

Trump attests to his long track record of friendship for Jews and Israel
and constantly highlights the fact that his daughter converted and leads
a traditional Orthodox Jewish lifestyle.

But those voters seeking the restoration of warmer relations between the
United States and the Jewish state are concerned with Trump’s ad lib
flip-flop responses in relation to Israel.

Initially, he antagonized supporters of Israel by stating that he would
be "neutral" in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On one
occasion, he promoted the extreme isolationist view that Israel should
not be reliant on U.S. defense support and should repay American
military aid. He even suggested that the U.S. should withdraw from NATO.
He particularly angered Jews when initially, perhaps in ignorance, he
dismissed calls to dissociate himself from support he was receiving from
white supremacists and extreme anti-Semites.

When it was announced that Trump would join other presidential
candidates and address AIPAC, a group of Reform and Conservative rabbis
planned a demonstrative walkout as he approached the podium. Their
widely publicized threat turned out to be farcical and resulted in the
boycott of only about 30 of the 18,000 participants.

Trump’s address to AIPAC (click here to watch Trump address) was his
first attempt to present a crafted policy on any subject. He used a
teleprompter which diverted him from his customary ad-libbing. It was an
extraordinary political coup in which he received repeated standing
ovations as he swept the audience off its feet by pressing all the
pro-Israel buttons and systematically presenting a coherent case for
Israel. He contradicted some of his earlier critical remarks, including
his intention of being "neutral" in order to consummate a "deal" between
Palestinians and Israel. He also announced his intention to move the
U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

Trump’s direct critique of Obama drew such a demonstratively
wholehearted response from his audience that Lillian Pinkus, the newly
elected president of AIPAC, desperate to display ongoing bipartisanship,
felt obliged to go to the other extreme and reprimanded him, tearfully
apologizing to Obama supporters and castigating the enthusiastic
applause of Trump’s denigration of the president.

Events of the past few weeks indicate that, barring a dramatic
last-minute turnaround at the national convention, Trump should win the
Republican nomination.

But he is widely distrusted and considered unpredictable, even among
those who are bitterly opposed to Clinton. Indeed, some may ultimately
support her as the lesser of two evils.

Ironically, the hostility Trump faces among segments of the Republican
Party matches the opposition Clinton faces from within her own party. It
is unprecedented for both party representatives to face such resentment
and distrust from their own circles.

AIPAC can take satisfaction that the 18,000 enthusiastic participants at
their convention included a healthy and diverse cross section of young
people, demonstrating that, contrary to what much of the media and
liberals maintain, committed Jews remain strongly supportive of Israel.
It also highlights the fact that, notwithstanding its confrontation with
Obama over Iran, AIPAC has not lost its clout and remains one of the
most effective bipartisan lobbying groups in the U.S.

There could be many surprises before a new president is elected.
Although today, polls suggest that Clinton seems destined to win
overwhelmingly against Trump, one should not underestimate the huge
anti-establishment anger that prevails among voters.

Undoubtedly, Trump gained support from some Jews with his unexpectedly
coherent pro-Israel AIPAC address. But other than the most committed
supporters of Israel, the majority of Jews will not vote exclusively or
even primarily on a single issue.

Yet if Trump’s AIPAC speech was the harbinger of a more responsible and
coherent approach, dispensing with vulgarity and seeking support from
centrists, predictions that he will be defeated by a landslide could
prove to be wrong. Further terror attacks, especially an incident in the
U.S., could also tilt many voters in his direction.

Indeed, many Jews -- like other wavering American voters -- will
probably only decide at the last minute, and even then may hold their
noses when they go to the polling station, concerned that their
candidate will prove to be unpredictable and will not live up to their
expectations. Some may even abstain, although most will retain their
allegiance to the Democratic Party.

There is one ray of sunshine: Irrespective of who is elected, the next
president will endeavor -- at least initially -- to reaffirm and repair
the relationship with Israel. And whoever is elected should still be a
massive improvement on the current U.S. president.


No comments:

Post a Comment