Jews, Scots and Masonry
Jim Bowery
seeded the downfall of the clans that came when the clan chiefs betrayed
their "kin" a few centuries later. This is one of the reasons I think Y
chromosome analysis technology
http://www.oxfordancestors.com/order.html#order_Y-Line will be key a to
reconstituting the clans with integrity. A lot of the "chiefs" that
identified more with the urban lords than with their rural "kin" are quite
likely to have had Jewish ancestors for the same reason European royal
houses ended up with Court Jews fucking the royal wives. Jews took up
residence in the trade centers when Longshanks expelled them to Western
Europe allies of Scotland and possibly on Scotland as well -- therein to
have much traffic with the Scottish nobles -- as well as ample opportunity
to impress the noble wives with JEWelry and other seductions of the urban
trade-route bottlenecks.
The pre-Cromwell nobles of Scotland rid their lands of their kinsmen, who
should have also been highly valued as mercenaries as well as kinsmen, when
the post-Guttenberg wars for religious and cultural independence from Rome
were demanding enormous quantities of mercenaries -- at least as great as
the demand for wool from the sheep with which the clan chiefs replaced their
kinsmen on the ancient lands of Scotland. The Scottish clans were the
backbone of military strength in the UK, and that strength was devalued by
Jews since they did not have access to the UK's trade centers after
unification -- indeed the strength of the Scots was a problem if there were
to be a religious zealot like Cromwell to usurp power and openly readmit
Jews to England's trade centers. So leading "Scottish" clan chiefs,
trafficking with the urban sophisticates as they were, sold out their
"kindly tenants" with the "feu fees" even though they could have rented them
out as mercenaries at a high profit. Amsterdam's Menasseh Ben Israel's
Cromwell then readmitted Jews to England with the Manifest Destiny of
realizing the Kingdom of God on earth (in competition with the Spanish
Inquisition's world empire emerging during the Age of Exploration) as a
prelude to the coming of the Jewish Messiah
http://www.uba.uva.nl/en/collections/rosenthaliana/menasseh/19f5/index.html
decreed by the Amsterdam Rabbi -- and the second coming of Christ as decreed
by Cromwell's Puritans. Financial influence over Cromwell in his adventures
(which included burning the clan genealogical records in Scotland) is likely
due to the financial influence of Amsterdam's Jews in western Europe; as
well as reports such as this:
"In return for financial support will advocate admission
of Jews to England; this, however, impossible while
Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial
adequate grounds for which at present do not exist.
Therefore, advise that Charles be assassinated, but will
have nothing to do with procuring an assassin, though
willing to help with his escape."
Ebenezer Pratt's reply was on July 12th 1647:
"Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and
Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles
should be given the opportunity to escape. His recapture
will then make trial and execution possible. The support
will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial
commences."
"The Temple and The Lodge", page 187.
The likely origin of the Scottish and York Rites of Freemasonry in this
historic link between Longshanks' expulsion of Jews and the assimilation of
Scottish clan chiefs in west European trader culture should be emphasized.
These secret societies are not "Jewish" per se -- rather they are societies
(Yorkish and Scottish) divided by Hadrian's Wall -- an ancient work of
masonry central to Scottish culture, by worshipers of Mithras (origin of
Christmas if not of Christ himself) with strong relations, involving blood
as well as money, with Reformation trade center Jews. The Jacobite
rebellion gave rise to a very interesting event in South Carolina with the
establishment of a renegade branch of the Scottish Rite, but not being a
Mason, nor a scholar on its history, I can only mention this in passing as
an interesting fact that should be kept in mind for those willing to delve
more deeply into this crucial era -- a scant 30 years before the American
Revolution.
All of this, of course, was central to the Scotch-Irish migrations to the
New World -- migrations that preserved in places like Appalachia, culture
that was still alive during the reign of Elizabeth.
" Akins of that Ilk" <sja...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> It was the Jews who financed the so-called civil-rights
> movement, which helped to break up the white voter block and desegregated
> the school system, lowering the educational standards of white students
and
> socializing them with the blacks in the hope that the two groups would
> intermingle to create a mongrelized race that was inferior even to the
Jew.
That is a the US Southern view of what powerful Jewish interest groups were
doing, and it fails to recognize the fact that there are powerful
evolutionary forces at work here creating self-deception among Jews that is,
although unconscious as are most of our biological processes, adaptive in
the ancestral environment which, for the Jews, has been the trade-route
bottlenecks known as cities. This leads to very broad-ranging urban control
systems involving Jews in key positions including religion
(JudeoChristianity, Marxism, Freudianism, Political Correctness), money
management, media (as documented in the prior message) and academia -- and
all the associated ethnic conflicts of interest that along with controlling
trade route bottlenecks for more rural peoples, such as Scots.
For example, radical liberalization of immigration policy in the western
world was a creature of Jewish interests as documented by Professor Kevin
MacDonald in:
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/paper/ABERNET3.PDF
MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Jewish involvement in influencing United States
immigration policy, 1881-1965: A historical review. Population and
Environment, 19, 295-355.
For a more complete picture, there is no substitute for Kevin MacDonald's
"Culture of Critique":
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275961133
MacDonald's entire trilogy on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy is
reviewed at:
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.htm
--
Men: Discover your DNA patrilineage:
http://www.oxfordancestors.com/order.html#order_Y-Line
Jim's page: http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery
--------
Stephen Copinger
Jim Bowery scrawled in message ...
<snip much racialist drivel>
>So leading "Scottish" clan chiefs,
>trafficking with the urban sophisticates as they were, sold out their
>"kindly tenants" with the "feu fees" even though they could have rented
them
>out as mercenaries at a high profit.
"Kindly Tenants" has absolutely nothing to do with "feu fees". If you think
otherwise, please explain you understanding of the terms. In fact kindly
explain the meaning of the quoted sentence.
Beannachd leibh
Stephen
Jim Bowery
"Causes of the Scottish Migration" section "A. Economic" on page 99:
Men move to new homes because of the attractions offered and because of the
unsatisfactory life they are presently living, and sometimes for both
reasons as well as for personal ones. As the folk saying has it, the donkey
moves because of the carrot before and the stick behind. Both carrot and
stick operated to move thousands of Scots across into northern Ireland in
the seventeenth century.
There was no doubt, at home or abroad, that life in Scotland was hard and
poor for most of its population. Incentives to emigrate must have been
powerful if, as the estimates indicate, there were forty thousand
able-bodied Scots living in Ulster after the first thirty years of the
colonization project. Into the general state of Scottish economic
backwardness had appeared, in the years just before 1610, a new cause of
hardship which, now that opportunity offered, was often determinative for
the prospective emigrant. This new cause was the increasing hardship
occasioned by the spread of a form of land tenure, the "feu" which had the
effect of dispossessing many farmers of their traditional lands.
A "feu" is a device whereby the landlord may acquire money in reasonably
large sums: his tenant agrees to pay a fixed rent each year, with no
obligations of services; in return the landlord gives him lease for as long
as he pays his rent. On the surface, it seems to be sound, practical and
even democratic, for it gives security to the farmer who rents the land,
enables him now with free conscience to make improvements, and rids him of
interruptions to his own labors to work on the landlord's property. The
appeal of the "feu" to the landlord is clear: he has a fixed and increased
income, for the payments of his tenants for the extended lease are fairly
heavy; and he has fewer farmers to deal with and fewer quarrels to settle.
It was the average humble farmer who was hit by the new device. The
situation in Scotland resembled the hardships of English farmers in a later
period when landlords began to enclose land traditionally held, so that the
squire might raise sheep for the profitable woolen industry. With the
introduction of the "feu" (a definite, if unintentional, breach in the
feudal system), Scottish tenants now saw lands which for generations had
been leased to their families let out to others. If, by moving to some
other locality, the dispossessed farmer could still find no land to rent, he
was almost inevitably reduced to the position of becoming, at a great blow
to his pride, a mere laborer or subtenant. Many of the dispossessed found
their way to the towns, to increase there the already grim number of
beggars. Grant speaks eloquently of the hardships of dispossession as "only
one note in the great minor chord of misery that rings through so many
contemporary descriptions of the country-folk." Sir David Lindsay of the
Mount, who flourished during the reign of James V (1513-42), lamented the
fact that the tenure of "feuing" encouraged the dispossession of smaller
tenants by those who were able to pay more. "Kindly tenants" and old
possessors were everywhere suffering, for in 1566 the proposal was made in
Parliament that "no mailer, farmer, or other occupier of lands, who pay
their order may be taken for the relief of the poor and "the better
forthsetting of the king's service."
The position of kindly tenants became steadily weaker. If they had been the
ones who were able to pay the feu-fees, Scotland might have developed
something approximating the yeoman class in England; but kindly tenants were
as little able to discover the money -- were, indeed, quite as
poverty-stricken -- as other tenants. The "feus", therefore, were chiefly
acquired by great landholders, especially by ambitious lairds, in order to
extend their estates; and the enlarged farms were now worked by hired
laborers who had lost their status and independence as tenants.
There are no figures by which the number of dispossessed may be estimated
for the Lowlands. The process had gone on so slowly that it seemed to most
farmers to be their individual problem, their personal crisis. There was no
national movement of resistance to a development whose rationality was
evident. By 1610, when the Plantation of Ulster was announced, many Scots
felt not only the stick of poverty, lawlessness, and insecurity, to which
they had grown accustomed; there was now the new goad of loss of status. It
was, of course, not merely the dispossessed who were attracted to the
generous lands visible across the Channel from the shores of southwestern
Scotland. The old Scottish readiness to go abroad to seek one's fortune was
stimulated by the advertisements of the planters. Country-folk far and wide
entered upon the migration.
Any Scot who had the inclination might now take the short journey across to
Ulster and there, on easy terms, acquire a holding of land reputed to be far
more fertile and productive than any he was likely to know in his own
country. More than this, he would be encouraged in his enterprise: the
native Irish were to be driven back into the hills or expelled altogether,
and there would be the protection of the English army, with a promise of
peace and law. All this was a powerful attraction to men who wanted to
better their lot.
--
Men: Discover your DNA patrilineage:
http://www.oxfordancestors.com/order.html#order_Y-Line
Jim's page: http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery
--------
A prime candidate for Y chromosome fingerprinting,
"Stephen Copinger" spewed forth:
Sharon L. Krossa
has demonstrated that he really has no clue what he's talking about
(which will come as no surprise to those who read his early post to this
thread).
I confess, I particularly amused by the part where he describes the
"feu" as "a definite, if unintentional, breach in the feudal system" --
even people who believe in a historical "feudal system" will find that
idea a bit jarring! It almost reaches the heights or hilarity of calling
the feu something "new" to the period just prior to 1610...
For the uninitiated, "feu" is just the late medieval Scottish term for
medieval "fief". The most secure, permanent, and inheritable form of
land tenure/ownership from around the 12th century was the fief/feu,
held of the superior by whatever terms were in the contract (which could
mean for a yearly payment, or could mean for absolutely nothing -- and
since whatever monetary amount was fixed in the contract, and these were
inheritable, they were actually a lousy way for the superior to earn an
income as the yearly payment, if any, would become less and less
valuable every year -- consider, if your only income was the amount set
as good and desirable by your great-great-grandfather a 150 yeras ago).
Property let for yearly (or longer term) rents, on the other hands, were
called tacks, and there was no guarantee that a tack would be renewed at
the end of its term. "Kindly tenants" had tacks, not feus, which was
precisely the problem -- they could therefore be kicked off the land
they worked at the end of a rental term even if they had the money to
pay for a new term, since the landlord was under no obligation to renew
the let of the tack, no matter how long the tenant or their ancestors
had been let the same tack. [Note that a person who holds a feu *is* a
landlord -- those were the guys kicking people off their traditional
tacks.] The difference in security is roughly like the difference
between land owners and renters. It isn't so easy to kick someone off
land they own (feu) but it's relatively easy to kick somone off land
they're only renting (tacks -- kindly tenants).
In other words, the existence of feus (for many centuries previously)
was not the cause of landlords not renewing leases and clearing their
lands of former tenants in the early modern period -- societal and
economic changes were. I think someone who actually investigates the
evidence will discover that the landlords clearing their land of such
"kindly tenants" were not doing so in favour of feuing out that land,
but rather in favour of letting the tacks to different people, more
directly hiring people to work the land, and/or using the land for
different purposes.
Anyway, based on this display, I suggest not believing any supposed
"facts" (let alone any opinions based on them) claimed by Jim Bowery.
Sharon
PS For info on historical Scottish land holding, I suggest starting with
things like Stair's Institutes, Balfour's Practicks, or even just a good
Encyclopedia of Scots Law. The Leges Burgorum has useful information,
as, of course, do the many historical documents recording land
transactions of all kinds. Mind you, reading quality general Scottish
history books covering the clearances is probably a more accessible way
than doing one's own primary research ;-)
Jim Bowery <jim_bower...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A prime candidate for Y chromosome fingerprinting,
> "Stephen Copinger" spewed forth:
>
> > Jim Bowery scrawled in message ...
> > <snip much racialist drivel>
> > >So leading "Scottish" clan chiefs,
> > >trafficking with the urban sophisticates as they were, sold out their
> > >"kindly tenants" with the "feu fees" even though they could have rented
> > them
> > >out as mercenaries at a high profit.
> >
> > "Kindly Tenants" has absolutely nothing to do with "feu fees". If you
> think
> > otherwise, please explain you understanding of the terms. In fact kindly
> > explain the meaning of the quoted sentence.
--
Sharon L. Krossa, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/