You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
If you acknowledge that Canada is now home for us, then what suggestions or recommendations do you have in order to resolve this conundrum? First Nations people hold claim to the land, and yet non-First Nations also hold ownership titles to their individual homes and land that way. The reserve system is at best imperfect, and yet any large change in the status quo would result in thousands if not millions of people displaced and dispossessed; you yourself have railed against any type of forced-relocation camps (reserves, internment/concentration camps).
We as citizens cant do much because we as a group here even, cant reach the greater population and illuminate them to what is going on, specially with our corrupt banking system.
(By the way, some 5 Canadian Banks have had their rating drop by this Moody's institution last week... like other countries, watch as austerity cuts will be on the horizon. )
So mass protests are kind of out of the question... seeing how even with the occupy movement in which many people knew it had a good cause with how corporations (and their none tariff import goods) are taking away jobs and inflation making people work like slaves (of course nowhere like America's black slave past)... people are still too comfortable compared to the rest of the world to get out of their homes and make a change.
To change the status quo, I really think the first nations struggle could be the answer in which their independence would trickle down for the rest to be somewhat more stably independent.
If the natives of this land have been granted to keep some territory, could the leaders get some kind of support from none western aligned countries to extract any minerals... I would bet some remote lands that the aboriginals hold, could hold diamonds that in reality are not as rare as its reported, but a monopoly is kept around it to keep its value high. Outside mineral geologist will be needed with care for the environment too if things go forward.
These kind of ideas will not go over well with the elites, so by force they'll stop any kind of wealth coming into the hands of the people, specially the small aboriginal population that rightfully claim lots of Canada's land and could re-invest that money for more development.
This stoppage of extraction will then show the true face of our government to more people, local and outside of Canada.
Another tactic, a local one, could be to gather a majority of first nations clan members in which claimed lands like the UBC forest grounds (that have recently been given back after a treaty had expired) to build on... but for some reason, probably money incentive, the leaders decided to keep the grounds intact.
I say fuck that, if a majority can over rule whatever agreements and build a resort or large hotel there... students and tourists world wide would pay good money to stay there and that could be a good cash cow... but I bet the Crowns police would stop this too.
Like I stated before, if the first nations can generate wealth independently, this money would flow to other Canadian businesses just like how B.C.'s 9 billion dollar Marijuana trade money will find its way into local businesses.
This could be a starting point for a long term struggle plan to get more independence from the government.
Other things Canadians can do... this is small time stuff, but try converting peoples front and back yards with perennial (lives for a long time) fruit trees or herbs so that again we are more independent from the system and maybe we can start bartering more like how Craigslist is setup and maybe even some genius can devise an online money credit status system which would take us further away from the devaluing dollar.
In the 1600's, a European king started a money exchange system using whats called tally sticks and this angered the money master that had a monopoly on world banks at the time because they couldn't manipulate the cash.
Its hard to explain its value without knowing how the banking system works and its history but lucky all is easily shown in this 3 hour video where I first found out about it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
Last edited by CharlesInCharge; 10-29-2012 at 05:19 PM.
We as citizens cant do much because we as a group here even, cant reach the greater population and illuminate them to what is going on
So what is going on?
Quote:
So mass protests are kind of out of the question...
Mass protests about what? To what end? Protests only help if there is a goal, and I am curious what you believe the proper goal would be.
Quote:
people are still too comfortable compared to the rest of the world to get out of their homes and make a change.
I can't disagree there.
Quote:
To change the status quo, I really think the first nations struggle could be the answer in which their independence would trickle down for the rest to be somewhat more stably independent.
What kind of struggle? What kind of independence? Again, you're a bit fuzzy, I'm not saying we don't need change, but I'm not sure what kind of change you're advocating. Nelson seems to want revolutionary change (military action), but in that case you'd end up with the wrong end of a gun pointed at you.
Quote:
If the natives of this land have been granted to keep some territory, could the leaders get some kind of support from none western aligned countries to extract any minerals... I would bet some remote lands that the aboriginals hold, could hold diamonds that in reality are not as rare as its reported, but a monopoly is kept around it to keep its value high. Outside mineral geologist will be needed with care for the environment too if things go forward.
They have been granted territory--we've discussed this, and it's the Reserves. Again, admittedly, the Reserve system is massively fubar'd, and if you mean "full development rights" on the reserve land that they have, or in expanding the current reserve areas, I'm not entirely opposed. Again, the question is "how do we do it?" Anyone who currently lives on land that First Nations would like to claim would have to be relocated against their will--and you've repeatedly stated that you're opposed to that. So, again, specifics?
Quote:
These kind of ideas will not go over well with the elites, so by force they'll stop any kind of wealth coming into the hands of the people, specially the small aboriginal population that rightfully claim lots of Canada's land and could re-invest that money for more development.
Which elites? Isn't it your supposition that The Elites want to develop the land regardless of who owns it, and as such if it's First Nations who are signing the papers or someone else...they'll still win. So where's the loss in granting more rights to First Nations? Isn't it more logical to assume that First Nations would be more eager to sign contracts and rights in order to stimulate their local economies in order to fund more local development and gain more use of the natural resources themselves?
But perhaps my logic is flawed.
Quote:
Another tactic, a local one, could be to gather a majority of first nations clan members in which claimed lands like the UBC forest grounds (that have recently been given back after a treaty had expired) to build on... but for some reason, probably money incentive, the leaders decided to keep the grounds intact.
I say fuck that, if a majority can over rule whatever agreements and build a resort or large hotel there... students and tourists world wide would pay good money to stay there and that could be a good cash cow... but I bet the Crowns police would stop this too.
It's interesting that earlier you said that The Elites are opposed to First Nations development, and now that you say First Nations don't want to develop the land. Are you not the one who has repeatedly discussed the respect First Nations have for the land?
Quote:
Like I stated before, if the first nations can generate wealth independently, this money would flow to other Canadian businesses just like how B.C.'s 9 billion dollar Marijuana trade money will find its way into local businesses.
This could be a starting point for a long term struggle plan to get more independence from the government.
Or a stronger position on interdependence--both of us are outsiders commentating on things we have no direct knowledge of. I look forward to giving First Nations the chance to develop and profit from the resources of the land, and I expect they do too.
Quote:
Other things Canadians can do... this is small time stuff, but try converting peoples front and back yards with perennial (lives for a long time) fruit trees or herbs so that again we are more independent from the system and maybe we can start bartering more like how Craigslist is setup and maybe even some genius can devise an online money credit status system which would take us further away from the devaluing dollar.
I don't see how farming is related to First Nations rights issues. Nor how "devaluing the dollar" would be of any assistance either.
Also: as far as your commentary on economics goes, saying that a king in the 1600s planned to have our current system of economics (which is essentially what you're implying) is fairly amusing. The system of economics we use now has been about as planned as a drunk guy stumbling around his own house: stumbling, bumping into things, occasionally falling down a little (or a lot) but still moving to the washroom. And hopefully not dying on the way.
And yes, I realize I did cut out some of the stuff you mentioned, but as I and others have repeatedly said in this thread, we should focus on First Nations issues. Of course everything is interrelated in some way or another, but this isn't the thread for that.
Well personally my plans are to start making money here with my CNC machine, then apply the same strategy in Iran... hopefully my business will be successful for me to stay there and mate with a beautiful girl even though my Farsi language is less then a 5th grader.
I will somewhat be leaving my immediate family behind but will be closer to my huge extended family.
Were you born in Canada, or did you emigrate from Iran to Canada?
Just curious.
Props to you for returning to this thread, not many people will continue a discussion when the position they take is in an extreme minority.
If you acknowledge that Canada is now home for us, then what suggestions or recommendations do you have in order to resolve this conundrum? First Nations people hold claim to the land, and yet non-First Nations also hold ownership titles to their individual homes and land that way. The reserve system is at best imperfect, and yet any large change in the status quo would result in thousands if not millions of people displaced and dispossessed; you yourself have railed against any type of forced-relocation camps (reserves, internment/concentration camps).
So, what do we do?
Few land claims would result in substantive displacement.
One portion of First Nations people pursue land claims for the monetary benefit of owning natural resources. The reasoning given to dispel the appearance of outright greed is that the injection of funds would help uplift the troubled state of First Nations people. Nelson takes this position, and that's why he's willing to go to war over pipelines.
The other portion of First Nations people pursue land claims to maintain stewardship of ecosystems, which is in part motivated by the desire to continue to practice traditional lifestyles and also by the general desire to protect the land.
Surrey was once the location of some of the richest agricultural land on earth, but it's been so heavily seeded by human development it will never again support much life. That makes the land of no especially significant value to First Nations people looking to act as stewards. It's also not the location of billions of dollars in fossil fuel resources. The lack of billions of dollars in resources rule out the significant monetary value a successful land claim has to the other group of First Nations people. Most all large population centers fit the profile of Surrey, so First Nations land claims have minimal interference with the majority of non-First Nations land claims. The point of conflict really only exists when resources get involved, and that's just about money and short term jobs.
Last edited by MindBomber; 10-29-2012 at 07:53 PM.
Few land claims would result in substantive displacement.
One portion of First Nations people pursue land claims for the monetary benefit of owning natural resources. The reasoning given to dispel the appearance of outright greed is that the injection of funds would help uplift the troubled state of First Nations people. Nelson takes this position, and that's why he's willing to go to war over pipelines.
The other portion of First Nations people pursue land claims to maintain stewardship of ecosystems, which is in part motivated by the desire to continue to practice traditional lifestyles and also by the general desire to protect the land.
Surrey was once the location of some of the richest agricultural land on earth, but it's been so heavily seeded by human development it will never again support much life. That makes the land of no especially significant value to First Nations people looking to act as stewards. It's also not the location of billions of dollars in fossil fuel resources. The lack of billions of dollars in resources rule out the significant monetary value a successful land claim has to the other group of First Nations people. Most all large population centers fit the profile of Surrey, so First Nations land claims have minimal interference with the majority of non-First Nations land claims. The point of conflict is really only exists when resources get involved.
Honestly, when it comes down to stewardship and resource rights, I am definitely on the First Nations' side. And it's my understanding that you're right--very few land claims would result in mass displacement, but (and maybe this is just my misunderstanding) it seems as though CiC is in a general sort of way advocating the mass exodus of all non-ancestral Canadians.
I'm one of those people who feels that the people whose genes have been sequenced in order to create new therapies should be owed some small royalties of the profits netted by the pharmaceutical companies, so on that same vein I absolutely believe that one should be able to exercise full rights over what you control--be it land or bodies. So resource rights? Stewardship rights? Hells yes.
Honestly, when it comes down to stewardship and resource rights, I am definitely on the First Nations' side. And it's my understanding that you're right--very few land claims would result in mass displacement, but (and maybe this is just my misunderstanding) it seems as though CiC is in a general sort of way advocating the mass exodus of all non-ancestral Canadians.
I'm one of those people who feels that the people whose genes have been sequenced in order to create new therapies should be owed some small royalties of the profits netted by the pharmaceutical companies, so on that same vein I absolutely believe that one should be able to exercise full rights over what you control--be it land or bodies. So resource rights? Stewardship rights? Hells yes.
I agree, CiC seems to believe all non-First Nations people should either GTFO or pay First Nations people rent for living on ancestral lands. I might be misunderstanding, but that appears to be his position distilled.
I believe all humans are stewards of the Earth, and that unless we decide to give up on Earth altogether and start work on terraforming Mars, we as a society need to become far better stewards in the very near future. First Nations culture views the land differently from other cultures, so in the short term, I believe these communities make the most effective stewards and can earn that title through land claims. Of course, that's just my very personal take.
Hey Arash, why do you want to go back to Iran? Mostly for family and society reasons.
From what I've been hearing from my Persian friends, it's becoming quite the drug infested shit hole. I would describe DTES like that.
Ive heard about drug use in Iran but I havent been there for decades to see for myself the extent that your telling. Maybe your friend is from a kind of Surrey, Maple Ridge, Abbotsford like area that has a high drug use.
Obviously Zionist pollute Iran as they do with all the countries in the world and their own to break people and nations. The opium wars are a good example and as recent as flooding the black neighbourhoods in the states to stop them from progressing.
Im betting provinces like Manitoba are targeted also to break the first nations there with its high incarceration rates.
Also, wouldn't you be morally opposed to moving to a country that is responsible for the exportation (from Afghanistan) of the majority of Opium/Heroine in the world?
Now are you morally opposed to living in a country that supports drugging the world?
How about supporting the schemed WWII campaign in which 60 million people died and of those people 2 million were soldiers, 58 million civilians?
*just watched an Ahmadinejad for that last statement
Hey Arash, can you do us all a favour? Can you please go work and make money instead of watching 3 hour 'documentaries'? The sooner you have the money to leave Canada the better. Do you all a favour because you cant face the hypocrisy of what Canada is suppose to stand for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme S
So what is going on? I already gave an example, reread that section again.
Mass protests about what? To what end? Protests only help if there is a goal, and I am curious what you believe the proper goal would be. Reform the banking system for starters as money is what most of our time revolves around
I can't disagree there.
What kind of struggle? In context to my post your suggesting first nations people are happy and content?
What kind of independence? Banking and money independence, local farming to support the nation specially if oil was to be cut in a world war, tariff protection, etc
Again, you're a bit fuzzy, I'm not saying we don't need change, but I'm not sure what kind of change you're advocating.
Nelson seems to want revolutionary change (military action), but in that case you'd end up with the wrong end of a gun pointed at you. Hows that?
They have been granted territory--we've discussed this, and it's the Reserves. That's it? so these old time treaties are nullified?
we dont know how large these reserves are or what land mass is exactly given to which clans.
Again, admittedly, the Reserve system is massively fubar'd, and if you mean "full development rights" on the reserve land that they have, or in expanding the current reserve areas, I'm not entirely opposed.
Again, the question is "how do we do it?" Anyone who currently lives on land that First Nations would like to claim would have to be relocated against their will--and you've repeatedly stated that you're opposed to that. So, again, specifics? I never said Im opposed to that, but if people are living on claimed land, then compromises can be made taking other areas if the original place is not resource rich... if this is what you meant on how do we do it.
Which elites? The Imperial sweetheart Zionist that run Canada.
Isn't it your supposition that The Elites want to develop the land regardless of who owns it, Develop? the Elites will extract resources any way they can, by murder if they need to.
and as such if it's First Nations who are signing the papers or someone else...they'll still win. You'll need to expand on this if you like as I dont understand
So where's the loss in granting more rights to First Nations? Im for granting first nations more rights but not giving away their resources for them... for example a right to build a house is worthless compared to having lots of money to by ten houses.
Isn't it more logical to assume that First Nations would be more eager to sign contracts and rights in order to stimulate their local economies in order to fund more local development and gain more use of the natural resources themselves? They can sign contacts with resource hungry China and get paid market price for their goods.
If they settle for Canadian contracts, dont you think the natives of this land would be cheated by the same entity that has cheated the world over time after time? If its doesnt secretly pocketing the goods, they'll secretly pollute the land.. or just delay the whole process... you cant trust a crackhead.
But perhaps my logic is flawed.
It's interesting that earlier you said that The Elites are opposed to First Nations development, and now that you say First Nations don't want to develop the land. Are you not the one who has repeatedly discussed the respect First Nations have for the land? Reread my post again, this is about me watching a news report over a year ago about the UBC lands being given back to the aboriginals after a treaty expired but I guess the leaders for some reason made the decision of keeping it intact where I say the majority of the clan members for these lands should overturn this.
Or a stronger position on interdependence--both of us are outsiders commentating on things we have no direct knowledge of. I look forward to giving First Nations the chance to develop and profit from the resources of the land, and I expect they do too. Unfortunately you dont have the power to give them any gifts... I actually do have direct knowledge about this, the first nations got robbed and their people killed by this crackhead government... if interdependence between the two gives aboriginals a fair share, so be it... if not I would say a last resort would be what Nelson says... to get inbetween the crackhead and this money... like activist slowing down production with protests.
I don't see how farming is related to First Nations rights issues. Nor how "devaluing the dollar" would be of any assistance either. Money assets and food are the essentials of life right now, and having control over these two things equates to power rather then servitude.
Also: as far as your commentary on economics goes, saying that a king in the 1600s planned to have our current system of economics (which is essentially what you're implying) is fairly amusing. System of economics? No its about the medium of exchange we use for goods, money, and for it not to be manipulated by outside forces.
The system of economics we use now has been about as planned as a drunk guy stumbling around his own house: stumbling, bumping into things, occasionally falling down a little (or a lot) but still moving to the washroom. And hopefully not dying on the way. The system of banking the Zionist use today is made to work against the people that use it with inflationary and deflationary schemes to devalue our hard earned money and the homes we'd like to buy.
Its like a crackhead slipping into ones home and skimming off our wallets when we go to the washroom.
And yes, I realize I did cut out some of the stuff you mentioned, but as I and others have repeatedly said in this thread, we should focus on First Nations issues. Of course everything is interrelated in some way or another, but this isn't the thread for that. Myself I wont be having the time to continue this thread much longer
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindBomber
Were you born in Canada, or did you emigrate from Iran to Canada?
Just curious.
Props to you for returning to this thread, not many people will continue a discussion when the position they take is in an extreme minority.
Thanks and I was born in Iran.
Last edited by CharlesInCharge; 10-30-2012 at 04:54 AM.
but (and maybe this is just my misunderstanding) it seems as though CiC is in a general sort of way advocating the mass exodus of all non-ancestral Canadians..
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindBomber
I agree, CiC seems to believe all non-First Nations people should either GTFO or pay First Nations people rent for living on ancestral lands. I might be misunderstanding, but that appears to be his position distilled.
Nope, you have a sea of text before you to prove otherwise.
Advocating money and food independence works against being at the mercy of our lords.
I forgot to mention that the "Rothchilds" factually setup Isreal and the modern term Zionist embodies who is in power.
If the little state of Isreal nuked Russia or China, you can bet nukes will be retaliated against Europe and the US.
Not at all, call be brain washed but here is how I put the puzzle together.
In Ancient times we have
hmmm, someones knocking at the door
No, no, no...
You have such limited insights in some instances, it's mind boggling.
You need to start reading and comparing various scholarly sources of history, instead of just accepting what is presented by tinfoilhat.com as truth.
Before you suggested, Jews were the only group who committed usury and that's why they were expelled from Europe.
Now you're also suggesting, Jews crucified Jesus, because he advocated against usury.
That is NOT accurate.
Catholics have been heavily involved in usury for ever.
The Catholic Church didn't actually prohibit usury until 1437, and even after that, a 2000 florin "fine," absolved you of any wrong doing for a full year.....
The wealthiest families in Europe were bankers, and they all loaned money, and they all had considerable influence over the Catholic Church....
I suggest money changers killed Jesus not Jews as a whole... and it was supposedly the only time Jesus got angry and flip over their tables in business.
I would also like to point out that ethnic Jews were never expelled from Isreal so people that may have been doing unsound business could have been converts or a small number of Jewish business men. http://electronicintifada.net/conten...-ideology/7753
I have read that supposedly even American officials in the old days banned people of this religion from doing business for unfair trading... so its not just that it was their religion that got them in trouble as you claim.
Lastly if high powered people were practicing usury in Europe, wouldnt small business men that also did the same be in competition to them, thus expelling any one from their background stopped this.
Last edited by CharlesInCharge; 12-06-2012 at 10:56 AM.
Reason: Edited everything
I guess Im wanting a more scholarly answer like they were expelled because Jews would convert Christians or that they didnt want people practicing false gods in their eyes.
WHEN ROMAN LAW WAS SUPPLANTED BY CATHOLIC Canon law the Jews lost their right to practice their religion as citizens but not legal autonomy. At the start of the Middle Ages, when the pagans took over the western provinces of the Roman Empire, now the countries of Western Europe, they regarded the Roman citizens as strangers. As these pagans converted to Christianity, the two groups fused: but the Jews still remained distinct, the result being that they were still considered strangers without losing the traditional right to regulate their own communities.( n1)
According to Germanic custom, which was tribal in concept, a stranger was considered a person without a master and as such enjoyed no rights. The normal procedure was for the stranger to seek protection by paying a tax to the chief ruler of the area which he entered. The stranger then lived under this protection and an attack on him was considered an attack on his protector.
This custom was adequate for pilgrims or transient merchants but obviously did not fit the odd situation of two resident communities--Jew and gentile--living side by side for generations but governed by different rules. The first rather clumsy attempt to deal with this problem was the issuance of residence permits with commercial rights, somewhat similar to passports. We have historical proof of this from the writings of Archbishop Agobard of Lyons (779-840), who attacked the practice in hatred of the Jews. One of his letters complained to Louis the Pious, Charlemagne's son, that the governor of the province was protecting the Jews from his attacks. However, such Jewish privileges were based neither on generosity nor a changed view of the "stranger," but rather for the profit of rulers. It was only through express permission, which had to be paid for, that the status of a stranger was suspended.
A new problem was introduced by the Crusaders when it became evident that the Jew needed protection neither as a transient nor as a resident but rather as a non-Christian subject from the fanaticism of Christian mobs. A temporary solution was found in the General Peace accepted by the different powers within the Holy Roman Empire in 1103, wherein the Jews were classed with women and clergy as people subject to protection because they could not protect themselves.
All these diverse ideas were tied together in the later medieval definition of Jewish status as "servitudo camerae" sometimes "servi camerae," "serfs of the chamber [treasury]," somewhat akin to the position of the villein in feudal structure, that is, having security through custom, subject however to his ruler's will. In the rather optimistic view of Meir son of Baruch of Rothenburg (the Maharam, 1220-1293), this means that the '[Jews are not bound to any particular place as gentiles are; for they are regarded as impoverished freemen who have not been sold into slavery; the government attitude is according to this."( n3) Perhaps the general Jewish view that "the law of the government is law" best expressed the fact that one had to survive under different legal and political structures, hoping that benevolence at best and bribery as a norm would lessen the worst effects of such a system of values.
Charters granting some security to Jews were the privilege of individual overlords. This created diverse and often conflicting charters--a principal source of misery to the Jews--for some were granted by kings or emperors, some by clerical or secular princes, and some by cities. In many cases these overlapped. The Jewish community of Regensburg, for example, fell under the jurisdiction of three authorities, the Holy Roman emperor, the Bavarian duke, and the municipality: as we shall see, this was the reason for its destruction.
The situation in the south of Europe was not quite the same as in the north, for the Jewish communities had been established there since Roman times, the main difference with their neighbors being religion; and it was only toward the very end of the Middle Ages (sometimes even against the wishes both of the local population and the gentry) when they were destroyed or expelled by mandate from above. In northern Europe, however, Jewish communities were often artificial in the sense that Jewries were deliberately introduced, expelled, and then reintroduced, for the sole purpose of usury to benefit the overlord: the Jew thus was a sponge through which the Christian ruler sucked up money and then, after squeezing the sponge dry, threw it away. Starting in the thirteenth century and most common in the fourteenth century, those communities became pawns in the hands of lords, churchmen, and city burghers, who vied with one another for the profits from Jewish usury, usually ranging from ten percent and more of their total income. The Jews were forced to charge higher interest rates, and then still higher, in order to pay the crushing taxes: indeed, in some cases Jewish communities were deliberately encouraged to increase these rates to feed their overlords.
The inevitable result was that the granting of Jewish resident charters became mere speculations and when they were wrung out, the Jews were expelled.( n4) As is obvious, the gentile population, plucked clean by this usury, had even less love for their oppressors than did the overlords using them. Since by the late Middle Ages certain powerful Christian families--Italians and those from southern France called the "pope's usurers"--already controlled commercial loans, the ill-will was heightened. The strong residue of this hatred in Germany was a factor in the coming to power of a man like Adolf Hider many centuries later.
The underlying tragedy involved in the granting of these charters, aside from their limited nature, was that they could be modified or revoked at the caprice of the overlord, for in both the theory and practice of medieval law the Jew was without fixed fights. In what might almost be considered a prologue to a Zionist tract of the late nineteenth century, a charter of John II of France in 1361 stated: "They have not country nor one single place in all Christianity where they can live, frequent and dwell, and it is only by the pure and singular license of the Seigneur or Seigneurs who desire to bear them as subjects that they will be gathered and received.(n5) His predecessor Saint Louis put the matter more bluntly in his Statutes: "The Jew has nothing of his own and what he acquired, it is the king who acquires."(n6) It thus became the custom for the Jews themselves and their property to be transferred as chattel.
Different practices developed in various countries. In England the kings pawned Jews but never surrendered to others authority over them. Henry II, for example, sold "his Jews" to his brother Richard, but never to the lesser nobility. Edward I and Henry III went so far as to give away property of Jews without bothering to inform them; while fighting in Gascony, Henry II would often write home to the justices of the Jews to inform them that he had canceled a debt, half a debt, the interest on another, etc. The situation became so fraught with danger that in 1254 the English Jews begged for permission to leave the country. Henry III refused, still hoping to wring from them more money and threatening with awful consequences anyone who tried to escape.
In France the Jews might belong to the king or the barons. If it were not for the fact that human beings were involved, one would be amused at the terms of early French treaties between the kings and their barons. What stands out from the background is how each is trying to steal the others' Jews and their property.
Under the Holy Roman Empire the emperor claimed an unconditional fight over the Jews but often surrendered this fight as part of the power politics involved among the various bodies within the empire. This sometimes degenerated into a farce with results more or less vicious depending on the circumstances. In the late thirteenth century, when Albert of Hapsburg was fighting with Adolf of Nassau as to which would be the emperor, the property and loans
outstanding of Jews killed in the riots attending this struggle were a key in Albert's victory and consolidation of power. Emperor Charles IV in 1349 gave the archbishop of Trier (Treves) the goods of Jews "who have already been killed or may still be killed"; in the same year he offered the Margrave of Brandenburg the choice of the three best houses in Nuremberg "when there is next a massacre of Jews there."(n7) Perhaps the most extreme position was taken by Margrave Albert III Achilles of Brandenburg who in 1463 declared that each new Holy Roman Emperor had the right to burn the Jews on his accession, to expel them, or to take a third of their property--and as the emperor's emissary he graciously chose the third alternative.
The insecurity created by such a legal system, if so it may be called, can barely be imagined by persons raised in a modem state where all inhabitants have equal protection under the law. This insecurity explains both the frantic scramble of Jews to survive in such a hostile environment and also certain personality traits ascribed to them by persons who see the end product of this psychological perversion without understanding its causes.
The fight over who would own the Jews became even more ferocious because it also involved control over lawsuits as well as over the licensing authority. In a system where the money income came from usury, lawsuits were common and the punishment meted out through fines was most lucrative. In Jewish affairs, new and more ingenious systems of licensing were invented to bilk the helpless victims: fees were charged for loan registering, trade licensing, marrying and abstaining from marrying, changing residence, burying the dead, even the birth of children and obtaining of servants. After quittances involving debt payments, perhaps the next largest number of documents involving Jews were concerned with buying defense against outrageous fees and licensing.
It should be emphasized as well that protection for Jews against church fanaticism or mob violence involved compensation to the royal purse and not to the injured Jews. Henry IV fined the Rhineland towns after the 1096 massacres, but the money went to him and not to rebuilding the shattered Jewish communities. After the savage religious fanaticism in Spain in 1391 almost destroyed Spanish Jewry, the royal fines imposed against the Christian population were taken by the king as recoupment for his losses because the remaining Jews were too impoverished to pay their taxes. The absolute powerless nature of the Jewish position may be summarized: "There was no custom, no tradition to which they could refer, as could the villeins or tenants, in the care of an autocratic master. Their owner could allow them to settle or reject them; could suddenly decide to alter the conditions of their residence, could as suddenly uproot them from one town and send them to another; or, if he so willed, expel them at a few days' notice from their dominions, or even kill them."(n8) History indeed records that several times, by prearrangement throughout certain cities of England and provinces of Germany, as well as the entire realm of France, on a set day (which was kept strictly secret beforehand) the Jews in their entirety were seized, their papers confiscated, a plague of commissioners was sent down to survey their operations, dig up their cellars and threaten their Christian friends with excommunication if withholding money or information; and then the Jews were expelled as an entire community after being pressed dry, with a blanket cancellation of their outstanding debts.
The official attitude of the Church throughout this development, though deploring violence, was that the Jews must be kept in a condition of servitude as a deicide people; and certainly the creation and enforcement of various decrees involving the humiliating badge, the restriction to what were later called ghettos, and most especially the exclusion from many trades(n9) aided in Jewish degradation. The final formal imprimatur of such actions was given by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who solemnly wrote that the Jew was legally a slave and that the Church, kings and princes could regard Jewish possessions as their own property(n10)--thus wedding Canon law to Germanic custom. The basic problem was already seen in one of the prophetic letters of Bernard of Clairvaux, who instituted the Second Crusade but tried to protect the Jews at the same time: "They [the Jews] are for us like a living document recording the passion of our master. They are thus scattered all over the world, so that they may be witnesses to our redemption while they suffer the just punishment of such a deed."(n11) As Wolfgang S. Seiferth comments in Synagogue and Church in the Middle Ages, "The Old Testament was restricted to its theological significance, which no longer cast any light on the lives of the Jews. They ceased to be 'descendants of the patriarchs and prophets' and were regarded as the 'murderers of Christ.'"(n12)
The sole protection that individual Jews or Jewish communities could obtain was through money. This was called bribery and the legend rose, and persisted throughout the Middle Ages, that whenever a ruler offered the Jews some measure of security--whether the popes, kings, bishops, or barons--it was due to bribery. There is however in this condemnation a fault, for an important distinction exists between that bribery committed to escape the consequence of an illegal act and bribery committed merely to ensure physical survival. The latter type of bribery, permitting the right to exist in some degree of security, thus became almost common practice. Jews had to pay to obtain the right of settlement, to secure protection against mob violence and religious fanaticism, and even to avoid the result of accusations deliberately created to force them to yield more money. This was so accepted as normal custom that a Hebrew chronicler recorded with wonder that the aforementioned Bernard of Clairvaux actually tried to protect the Jews of France without being bribed.(n13)
The poisoned seeds of this historic past in many ethnic, religious, and national groups are still with us today, actively or in temporary lull.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
This is by far the best thread this year. Hey Arash, do you mind giving us an in depth explanation of who our Zionist rulers are?
