I read the Headlines. Hitler just came to power.
Keeping that in mind I will try and refrain from making any long answers, just the details.
Hitler was sponsored just like any candidate that ever came to power, the US operates the same way.
Germany at that time had massive debt, the whole cost of WWI was given to it to repay ..... at interest. How much would that be in today's dollars. This was also the first time that the
loser still owed the bank their debt. Before that the bank that financed the loser was out the
'investment'.
Who collected the money? It would be the same ones that financed any Nation that had 'expenses' related to WWI. (insert list that would most likely match the one labeled 'Who owns the (US) Fed?)
Maybe if more of the world had joined the boycott, Hitler could could have been stopped economically.
It did what it was intended to do, take all products made in Germany off the shelves, any store that didn't would be 'targeted' so their whole business would fail. I could get the transcript from Benjamin Freedman's 1961 speech that gives some details on how it was implemented.
I'm not going to criticize Jewish organizations that recognized evil earlier than most of the rest of the world.
How about today's organization that get paid huge amounts of taxpayer money and they usually end up making the (inevitable to some extent) various small disputes into regional affairs (and the $$$$ that go with an expanded conflict)
I'd have supported the Jewish led boycott of Germany for the same reason why I support this boycott:
Let's stick to Germany (and Iceland) for this exercise. Along with the 'headlines' I already posted here is one more site that covers the same time period. (if you don't go and read the whole thing don't bother replying to this post) The beginning was like the quote below says or it wasn't. Which is the correct answer?
http://christconquers.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/germays-freedom-from-international-debt-slavery/
(in part)
When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation’s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany. Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.
I am against anti-Semitism.
I would expand that list considerably, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela all 'broke free from US domination, yet they have to endure 'sanctions' and even 'proxy wars' being waged on them. There doesn't seem to be any real rush to deal with that 'targeting of a specified group' in an 'internationally organized group' (US and anybody it can influence)
I'm sure Jews who know each other cooperate, just like Catholics or members of the Rotary club.
When the boycott is in the interest of their own banks is it a political or economic or religious movement? By printing their own money (that is a right every Nation has BTW) they did revive the economy, it had to be doing quite well to have lots of exported good for sale. German engineering at the time was 'top of the line' so there would have been a preference for those products (various machinery and gadgets)
But I see no evidence that all Jews around the world take orders Israel.
Think Goldstone wasn't influenced by the Israeli Government (after they lobbied the UN extensively) ? Lobby groups in the US would be the most visable sign that they do try and influence other Nations, for their own good which at times could be above and beyond what is right for the Nation being lobbied. The defend even if Israel is in the 'wrong' would seem to be one of those 'one-sided' deals. The US would be better off with a defend if Israel is 'right' and nothing if they are in the 'wrong'. Hardly incentive for them to stay on the right side of the 'Law'.
Jews are an extremely diverse group. I'm sure some Jews are sympathetic to Israel and are willing to overlook or even support their Zionist war crimes and crimes against humanity
How about NY,NY 1920's. Say there were some Jewish Gangsters (as well as many others, like the Irish) They never fleeced another Jew and they were 'rich' and they could afford to let some 'excess money' filter down into the Jewish community. That sort of 'compassion' would make them welcome in the Synagogues even though being a Gangster is equal to being a social parasite. Ireland doesn't have a lobby group in every Nation, Israel does and it is for the good of themselves compared to being 'what can Israel do for you'.
while others vehemently support human rights and are completely appalled that their belief system has been linked to gross human rights violations and atrocities.
No, if that was the case the flotilla boats would be manned by Rabbis and ex-IDF sort of people. They sit in the background and make one or two small statements a year, if then. Ask Goldstone if he ever felt like he was being boycotted? How many Jews
vehemently argued for the report being true before/after his 'update'. (I say after because the co-authors have not changed their mind on that incident that killed 30 people from the same family.
I expect that most Canadian Jews would be loyal to Canada first before other nations, including Israel.
How many lobby groups do we have in Israel that is there to 'influence' which bill get passed and which don't?
How many lobby groups do we have in Canada that represent the desires of a foreign nation above our own citizens? (US & F-35's is a valid example)
You
'expecting' doesn't make it a fact though.
I'd like to think I would have recognized Hitler for what he was as soon as certain Jewish groups did.
Just who was that? The boycott was in support of what would have been 'International Bankers', a citizen of Germany would have supported cancelling an 'illegal debt' and that would put Jew and Gentile to work building and selling things that is the sign of a healthy/vibrant society. In those exports the 'goods' would have been useful everyday items rather than weapons of war, which is what they produced once money started to flow back in via ......... Banks controlled by the same Banks that held Germany's debt after WWI.
I also support boycotts as a non-violent way to resist oppression and injustice.
So if Israel was 'in the wrong' you would support all goods marked as being 'kosher' beeing taken off the shelves and if that didn't happen the store and customers could be 'targeted' for more 'intensive lobbying'
Transfer that to Iceland and the World Bank, since crimes were committed against the 'people' should all Nations support cancelling a 'bad debt' rather than upholding the debt and setting up a repayment that adds extra costs or(even worse) a 'reduced amount' where the International community of interest payers is the one to make up what the 'discount' was, and probably a bit more.
If I was alive then, I'd probably join the Jewish boycott of Germany and help make it an international boycott.
You are alive now, which side of the Icelandic Revolution are you on? Who would you be boycotting?
Your latest statement isn't anti-Semitic.
If that is ever applied to Anti-Banksterism then I would suggest they remove themselves from that 'profession' rather than use their influence a corrupt system that just happens to benefit them a little more than any other group. You aren't impartial when $$ is at stake.
Here you lay blame with Bankers.
It should be a non-profit service that costs as little as possible and where the Merchants take care of all the 'costs' since they are the ones that use $$$$$ most of the time. (a person might have 4,000 transactions per year, a 'business' would have 4M transaction in that same period. If you need a lesson in fiat-money go watch some(readily available) vid.
Not all Bankers are shady, but some probably are.
Since the 'some' are at the very top it matters little that a local chapter has honest employees. You have to be able to separate the ones who can get the Fed (1013) put into law from 'others'. You don't seem to be able to do that at present, that's why I'm trying to substitute Iceland for Germany in 1933. I have another example, after WWII a lot of people were in debt with no hope of being able to repay the loans. The Government in power was 'toeing the line' as directed by the Banks. Suddenly an 'up-start' opposition came up with a campaign that would cancel all 'personal debt to the banks', they got voted in and for the next 20 years 'they could do no wrong'.
On the surface that looks like a good deal but banks don't just 'walk away', the debt would have been moved around by smoke and mirrors and over the next 20 years some form of tax (or incentive) would have made up the 'loss' and set the stage for greater profits.
That place is Alberta and the time was in the 50's and the political party was the Social Credits. I don't have any figures for the amount that was involved but it saved farmers but not long after that it became mandatory to use chems to grow enough to turn a profit so perhaps that is how the Gov was able to 'get square' with the bank.
In this case some bankers loaned Iceland a foolish amount of money.
WhatReallyHappened had some links to Iceland just yesterday, I would suggest you read them before you summarize the situation.
Both sides of those risky transactions are to blame for the resulting problems.
Sticking it to the Taxpayer was via a combined effort, no accident involved at all, it happens in every Nation that 'owes' them.
No bank should have assumed that level of risk, and from what I've read, Icelanders are justified in refusing to allow foreign interests from taking over their country. (Good luck getting a loan in the future.)
I'll take that bolded part as being an indicator of which side you would support. The part you are missing is that every Nation has the right to print their own money @ 0% interest to themselves. You just pointed out that the 'World Bank' would use it's 'influence' to make sure Iceland cannot get a 'loan'. Let's say she wanted to develop power generators and send it to the UK for distribution as a 'for-profit company' where the Taxpayers see the $$$ returns going into their own pockets. By restructuring, the World Bank could take the 'fields' as security and then use International Companies to do the same project except the Taxpayers would see $0 return and they would still have to be paying off what 'crooks' (themselves) go away with last time 'loans' got involved.
Its anti-Semitic to blame the "world Jewry" for Germany's problems during the 1930's.
Is it anti-Icelandic to promote they accept a dept caused by criminal activities against themselves. If I rob you of $100 and I lose $20 I'm not going to be able to come back to you and 'demand' you make up the 'difference'.
Most Jews had nothing to do with Germany's problems back then.
Which resource are you basing that opinion on? And is that pre or post Hitler coming to power, pre would be the introduction of making the loser responsible for all war related debt. That was their solution to supporting both sides which always ended up in them making large amounts of money through the act of giving out loans @ interest.
Even if some of the bankers and financiers were Jewish, Judaism had little to do with what they did, or why they did it.
That is who the 'army' was. My question is why would German Jews support the World Bank over the Nation of Germany, it is tantamount to shutting down your own Nation from being able to climb out of a serious depression. Say Canada refused to lend Israel some of our F-35's and Israel organized a 'boycott' so that none of our exports could be sold anywhere, if that boycott was started by Canadian Jews wouldn't they being doing 'harm' to themselves and to Canada (if our motives were justified by some law)?
Individual greed and opportunism were bigger factors.
Do you have some reference for this point? Germany was booming in order to build an fully equipped military, Banks floated those loans and they always know what the money is for before giving it in loans, most times they will even instigate the need for a loan.
The German people were rightfully angry because they had been screwed by their leaders, bankers and foreign powers.
So they voted in a Party that promised change (1933 conditions )
As a result of 1929 crash, many Germans became desperately poor.
It's a little more involved than that, link already provided.
Angry desperate people are easy to manipulate, which is why Hitler became popular. (BTW, so did the Communists).
That doesn't explain Iceland currently or Alberta when the SC came into power, freedom from debt is how they won. (most likely a smoke and mirror show, just like interest free loans from a Muslim owned bank)
Hitler harnessed all that negative energy and exploited German prejudices against Jews and minorities to gain absolute power.
It was the Jews declaring war in 1933, would Jews have declared the boycott if it was not Jewish Bankers who were being 'rejected'?
That would move the argument into the Merchant world. France, Spain and England had many wars, when it came to the Bank of France demanding payment for Haiti gaining 'independence' that took 250 years to pay off was fully supported by the 'waring nations' as being the right way to dael with the situation. That is how corrupt the system is.
