If he really lived today, where might we find him?

 

As a TV journalist for the ABC, I think!
 

Or as Beazley's speech writer ?
Would he hold a down a job in ASIO or in SDS?

Or be a journalist on the Age ?
Unlikely to be in the Military or in the Federal Police....

The Uriah Heeps among us are so often the men behind the throne, so to speak, the backroom boys who shape the policies and therefore the destinies of so many nations. And  privy to all in every environment.

Shakespeare does allow Shylock to get in his say, giving an interesting insight into the downside of being a Jew in Elizabethan England. 

Shakespeare more or less portrays him as the taunted mongrel rabid dog, kicked once too many times in the arse by the Gentiles, and mad for vengeance. But he remains a disgusting character, whatever the circumstances which led to his creation and no matter who wronged whom first. A vile and dangerous bug, for whom only being crushed beneath a boot will suffice.

 

But Shakespeare did allow Shylock the chance to speak out. Not so, Dickens' Jews, Dickens is merciless with the Jews. It is interesting that he had a major influence as a social reformer in his day.

 

In contemporary society, we have been schooled (largely due to the alleged Holocaust) to see Jews as perennial victims and even where they are clearly not victims, (such as in Israel), we observe the cultural cringe, and thus tend to accept them as Potential Victims, until such time as the status of Actual Victim can be afforded them.

 

Today, when we hear accounts of Holocaust experiences from the odd 50 year old Jew, we start counting on our fingers and shake our heads wearily ... and it was once quite de rigeur to have a number tattooed on one's inner wrist, here in Melbourne during the 1950s.

 

Victimhood is the essential element of the Jewish psyche. For 58 years now, Victimhood has been made into an art form by some of them.

 

As an aside, I know two Jewish business people, who openly laugh at one of their number for the tattoo they know he put on his own wrist.

 

But Dickens got stuck right into them, not merely portraying them as cardboard cut-out stereotypes of evil, but actually fleshing out their evil in his characterisations, as being sneaks, thieves and always treacherous.

 

Dickens' Jews have no redeeming aspects to their finely drawn characters at all. None. Zip. No compensatory values at all.
 

Dickens was a man who travelled the world, giving readings of all his books, too.

Clearly, Dickens did not see Jewry as part of the socially downtrodden he was so keen to alleviate from their ills.

He saw them as perpetrators. Ayn Rand created a character who was the perfect profile of the modern Jew in the media, with the wonderfully drawn "Ellsworth Toohey". So far as I know, the name "Toohey" is Irish, but that is about as far as this guy departs from being your archtypical media Jew.

Toohey is clearly intended to be a Jew. Ayn Rand devotes a whole chapter to building up his persona, a chapter titled with his name, and then proceeds to illustrate his modus operandi as a manipulator of public opinion.
 

By the way - have you ever noticed how many lefty journalists, especially on The Age and in the Australian have Irish names? Rather like Abos allegedly of the Stolen Generation - did the early Irish here had a taste for dark meat?

A great deal of what Ayn Rand described about the way Ellsworth Toohey worked in manipulating public opinion is more or less updated in a recent best-seller book by Ann Coulter, Slander, in which she describes the means of manipulation employed by modern media, focussing her attention on the New York Times, The Washington Post and the LA Times.

Miss Coulter does not name the real Jews as Jews, either, but uses actual names and that allows her to achieve the same end, in many cases. Not all of those she pillories are Jews, either.  Some are treasonous Gentile, leftist, swine.

Both ladies stop/ stopped well short of throwing on the armband, so to speak, because each clearly wished/wishes to survive in the world. But the books are more than worthwhile.

In fact, in another of Miss Coulter's 'surprise best seller' books, Treason, she goes back into the days of FDR and follows very closely the writings of the late Capt Ramsey, MP, as published in his work, The Nameless War, so far as the US traitor-President, FDR goes.
She might have read it, too, not that I in any way suggest she has plagiarised him.

Ramsay's book produces a series of links and otherwise co-incidences, which make it all but impossible not to believe that Jewish revolutionary involvement has played a major role right through the ages, from Cromwell's beheading of Charles 1st, to the conspiracy between Cromwell and Jews from the Hanseatic League in financing his Model Army, the payoffs to the jews by the formation of the Bank of England in 1684, the legalising of usury, the institution of the National Debt, the allowing of Jews back into England, set the stage for something rather more than your dime a dozen conspiracy theory.

 

He writes, too, of the influence of Jews in the Masonic Lodges in fomenting the French Revolution, the essential jewishness of the Bolshevik Movement, how the bolshies were financed by two Jewish New York bankers, (Kuhn-Loeb and Bernard Baruch), the jew /bolshie plots to destabilise Spain which led to the Spanish Civil War, the undying hatred by the Jew/Bolsheviks of Hitler and Mussolini, for bombing the Spanish Reds, and the attempts by world Jewry to bring down a rising Adolf Hitler and Bent Mussolini.

Most readers are familiar with this book - I think it is the best handbook around for a person wanting to get an encapsulated view of Jewish influence on world affairs since the 1600s. 
 

This book demonstrates that organised Jewry dedicated itself to the destruction of the crowned heads of Europe, because democracy and a rising free press opened up opportunities for manipulation impossible under the inherited rule of monarchs.
Especially opportunities to use Capital to control nations.

How poignant that of the major monarchies, only Elizabeth 1st really survived them - and that was only achieved because under England's constitutional monarchy, the Jews had been allowed free reign to prosper, to become nobles and knights - Disraeli was even PM a couple of times. Otherwise, history might have recorded that, in 1885, or in 1918, the Royal Family of England were marched off to the Tower by Bolsheviks and Jews from the West Sheffield Midlands Trades Union and murdered, like their relatives in Russia

Perhaps, if Ramsay's theories are correct, we should consider them in the light of the alleged Holocaust ... Whether they actually happened or not, were the alleged gas-fuelled bonfires of the Third Reich a fit and proper punishment for all the bloodshed the Jews have caused through the ages? Were these killings really War Crimes (if indeed they occurred) or Natural Justice?