sexiest woman room

Well, that was the clerihew year that was: so many sparkling moments, so many of the world's movers and shakers and other sodomites reduced to four lines of nonsense poetry.

The little dog barked to see such fun, indeed. And quite right too.

May your cow jump over your moon and your dish run away with your spoon.

Merry Clerihew Christmas and a Happy Clerihew-less new year.

Today in Clerihew Club we match the clerihews below with each of the famous quotes about them. First correct entry gets a free copy of The Firm-Buttocked Clerihew by Sir Joshua Reynolds.* (*not really).

"Gentlemen, I give you the clerihew! Pray do not look away!"

"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Clerihew, Ein Verrücktwerden Abwesenheit von Reim oder Versmaß."

"Bugger the humidity, it's those bloody clerihews! Won't they ever stop?"

"Every goy who studies the clerihew and every Jew who helps him in it, ought to die."

"The Thinking Crumpet's Clerihew"

Scarpia: Ascolta mi, un ultimo clerihew...
Tosca: Mori! Mori!

♪ From Finders' foundling found in an old kom-beee ♫

♫ To the very model of a monarch mind-zom-beee ♪

Check out the new one... not done by a long shot... just seems to have more options...
www.erikrhodes.tumblr.com

Paris Hilton is a fan. So is Miley Cyrus. Daniel Radcliffe says they're like the coolest thing ever. For those who don't know, we're talking about clerihews. Say the high priests of the time-honoured, gone-in-sixty-seconds oxymoron we call 'youth culture', clerihews are the next big thing. Frankly this is mixed news for lovers of clerihews: on the one hand there will be more of them; and on the other hand, every word will be spelt with the characters k, z, U, 8, and : )

Next year will see the massive Klerihoolapalooza!™ roadshow, Lady GaGa's clerihew CD I'm Kleri-me, Kleri-you, Kleri-who?, as well as the UN sponsored U2 ⚡ MKleriZOO world tour, a satire with the band as imaginary MKULTRA zombies tasked by their luciferian masters with the soundtrack for a genocidal new world order. And to cap it all off there's the much-anticipated cinema release of the all-clerihew Twilight - I Bight.

What with yours truly always being ahead of the grooviness curve, I thought the least I could do was give everyone a head start so that next time they talk to a teenager they may do so as shining, glib-tongued paragons of contemporaneity.

The people who rule us know that to behave overtly is death. Thus they are occult, which is to say, hidden. And this works brilliantly for them sure, but it's not without its downsides. Imagine the crushing irony of being a death cult god-king utterly full of yourself - self-impressed beyond all imagining - and having to keep it to yourself. What a bummer. Sure they award themselves honours and knighthoods and Nobel prizes etc. but these are all substitutes, awards they take in lieu of acknowledging their true brilliance.


If only they could crow like a rooster and brag of their real achievements, their true genius, their infinite superiority over the dim-witted masses. Happily for us sometimes they just can't help themselves and they say what they think. Does everyone remember this fine chestnut courtesy of Ron Suskind in the NYT 2004:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

That's perfect isn't it? In a real world, that would be headlining the Penguin Book of Quotations, but as things are it will never earn an entry. I actually already wrote about this quote way back when but here now I want to come at it from a slightly different angle: the idea of posited reality and the use of artifice to arrive us there, and also the created realities versus the creation itself.

With the above quote it should be kept in mind that the man saying it is undoubtedly an habitual liar. And Jewish, natch. The odds of the above sentiment being voiced by a non-Jew are so low as to be worthless. The only people to argue otherwise would be Jews - 'If a goy wants a Jew to stand witness against a Jew in a Court of Law, and if the Jew could give fair evidence, he is forbidden to do it' - and goyim who are unfamiliar with the book from which those italics were taken (which is admittedly pretty much everyone).


Where was I? Oh yeah, what with the quoted fellow lying like he blinks, the above quote, whilst telling, is not everything it says it is. For instance, 'we're an empire now' is neither here nor there. What would be more accurate? How about 'we're our own messiah', ha ha ha. The word 'now' is rubbish of course, merely there to put distance between the current shenanigans and what's otherwise been going on for centuries. His other furphy is the use of the word 'actors' to describe himself and his like-minded fellows. They are not actors - they are writer/directors. We, the Christian and Muslim bunnies fighting each other are the actors. We get given our lines and we do what we're told. And all to the tremendous amusement of our master scenarists, sure.

But never mind the lies. In amongst the above quote is a perfect discussion of the dilemmas facing anyone attempting to decipher the auteur's artifice. It's foolishness of course since the artifice is merely a vehicle. Not that we get that of course - we're all too busy with the minutiae. Meanwhile we're being carried somewhere with none of us even aware. We see the scenery outside the window constantly changing but that's what it's meant to do isn't it? It's 'progress' or something. And aren't our feet planted on firm ground same as it ever was? And sure we're moving forward but that's obviously a good thing otherwise why would sportsmen put it in every sentence?


Just now The Illusionist popped into my head. Poof! It's the perfect example of a narrative we didn't need leading us to a posited reality we were always going to get. Punters in the audience follow the plot's twists and turns - 'judiciously, as you will' - all the while utterly failing to realise it's all a con.The truth of the matter is that the film merely exists to lionise Jewish rat-bastardry and to depict those who doubt or oppose the Jewish trickster as flat-footed dimwits who deserve death. The entire film (as are most of them funnily enough) is merely artifice, a variety of reverse engineering to arrive us at the dreamt up Frank Frazetta reality of our Jewish hero triumphant with his foot planted on the corpse of his goyim victim, the deluded but worshipful trophy-shiksa on his arm, and his awe-struck shabat goy step-and-fetchit pleased to have glimpsed such genius.


Jewish people are not geniuses of course - they only imagine themselves so. But if all you get on TV is Jewish imaginings, then how would you know to think otherwise?

Long and short, the only thing worth knowing in any story coming from Jewish sources is that it's a story coming from Jewish sources. In the face of the Talmud's 'Love each other, love the robbery, hate your masters and never tell the truth,' the intricacies of any given plot were always going to be worthless - mere lies to arrive us all at the 2000 year old posited reality of Jews as masters over their goyim hewers of wood and drawers of water. 'When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves'. And of course in the Jewish world of us-and-them and its inevitable self-fulfilling prophecy of 'if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly', all goyim effectively qualify as opposition and thus it's necessary we view each other as villains and make war upon ourselves.


And then there's Julian Assange! What's that, Julian? Australian ex PM KRudd said that America should attack China? And the Lebanese said that Israel should wipe out Hezbollah? And the Sauds said that America should cut the head off the Iranian snake? And the Americans said Putin is a Girl who takes it up the jacksy? And the English said the French don't wash, smell bad, and like to make love with their faces? Gosh it just goes on and on doesn't it? And of course always with Israel high and dry - no need to dance between the rain drops since since they're standing well back with their hand on the tap. Laugh? This is more fun than machine gunning Palestinian women and children.


Admittedly, Julian Assange is not Jewish. But gee whiz how many clues do we need as to whose zombified mouthpiece he is? Says Benjamin 'Three cheers for Wikileaks' Netanyahu:

“Israel has not been damaged at all by the WikiLeaks publications. On the contrary, the documents showed support in many quarters for Israel’s assessments, especially on Iran.”

Ha ha ha ha! Very good! And blow me down if Wikileaks' Assange doesn't love him right back:

"We can see the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu coming out with a very interesting statement that leaders should speak in public like they do in private whenever they can. He believes that the result of this publication, which makes the sentiments of many privately held beliefs public, are promising a pretty good [indecipherable] will lead to some kind of increase in the peace process in the Middle East and particularly in relation to Iran."

God spare me, the butcher of Gaza as paragon of honest government. Hands up everyone who feels sick. And the dead-giveaway dirt continues to come to the fore. This via Aangirfan. Fine - me, I'm taking it as read. (PS - Oh look, the tail-wagged-dog did their bit too. Three cheers).

Not forgetting of course, that: in spite of AIPAC being the single most powerful lobby in the US (indeed none may stand against it); in spite of Israel being called the US's 'number one ally' for no apparent reason and absurdly receiving more US foreign aid than the rest of the world put together; in spite of Anne Coulter ruling herself out of the Neocons on account of not being Jewish enough, and all American policy right up until the other day being routinely described as 'neocon'; in spite of the last couple of years having seen hundreds of Israeli spies thrown out of the States for espionage immigration violations, easily more than every other country put together; in spite of every single one of Obama's 'czars' being Jewish and/or dual passport holders; in spite of the Jewish state seeming to wholly occupy American foreign policy it magically only seems to comprise 0.03% of the various memos that fly backwards and forwards through the Byzantine channels of the US government. The big message from Wikileaks is, 'Israel? Jews? Who? What?'

Hyperbole aside, that right there is what's known in the real world as a complete impossibility. Any punter with even the meanest understanding of the laws of probability would look at that and know that the game was fixed.

Memo
To: Mossad
From: nobody

Hey Boys and Girls, I just thought I'd drop you a line saying how much I love your work, love your gear. And big fan though I am, I thought you slipped up ever so slightly in this wikileaks caper. I mean honestly, what with Israel being the US's number one client state (Ha! Just joking, but you get it I'm sure) what with that as the facade don't you think that it looked a bit ordinary how every country seemed to be bagging out every other country but not a single person in the US had anything to say about Israel? It's a bit weird isn't it?

And sure I know Israel has to be that shining beacon on the hill with nothing bad said about it ever, but I had a thought - what if you had some US criticism of Israel but all from the basis of Israel not cracking down hard enough on the Palestinians? That would work wouldn't it? You could have whomever it is complaining that Israelis are just too big hearted, ha ha ha.

Here's an idea: what if it featured the phrase Israel is soft on terror? Tell me that that isn't the perfect soundbite? You guys of course would instantly come out in righteous indignation saying how untrue it all was and how you were selflessly leading the world in the very important battle against terrorism and to prove it you'd... I don't know, re-invade Gaza or Lebanon or something. But properly this time. None of the pooncing about like last time - imagine killing people in the six digits - wouldn't that be grand!

yours in dreams of bloodshed and carnage,

n

Okay so what was all that stuff about not getting distracted by the narrative etc? Haven't I done precisely that? Well yes, but that's the thing you see: the above chap sneering at us for playing catch-up - 'judiciously as you will' - knows that we haven't any choice. But at least we've got a head start: at least we know to cherchez le Juif. Ayah! There's an ugly phrase, eh? Who knew (back in our former lives) that we'd be uttering such things? But sure enough here we are, and sure enough here they are, hiding in plain sight, daring us to call them out.

Right, so we don't believe anything they tell us and we know that goyim being turned against each other is an inevitability, and... and... that's it, is it? We're going to be lied to and the lie will a neat, easy-to-understand one-off. Somehow I don't think so: as if the masters of the Big Lie would expend this much time and energy on a simple one-fer. Lies this big are always layered. Never mind the onion, any give Big Lie will be like a citadel with successive walls, each to be abandoned with the final never-breached inner sanctum being 'the truth is elsewhere'.


Whilst I was never a big fan of Marshall McLuhan's the medium is the message, I'm thinking it might be useful here, albeit from a sideways direction. In spite of the fact that not one single Wikileaks story went on the Wikileaks website without first being featured in (and of course vetted by) the MSM, somehow all this alleged leaking is the prompt for a discussion, not about the media, but rather the internet. Or so insists the MSM. Well they would wouldn't they?

Under this rubric, McLuhan suddenly becomes right, which is to say, the individual messages don't really count. That doesn't mean that there aren't rules about what the messages may discuss, but we can sum that up by saying that all the topics currently verboten in the media are likewise verboten in the Wikileaks' material. Or to put it another way, there is nothing in there to cause anyone any real trouble. No heads will roll. No heavens will fall.


Or to put it another way: IT'S THE END OF THE GODDAMN WORLD! WON'T SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING TO SAVE OUR INNOCENT WESTERN GOVERNMENTS FROM THIS WICKED INTERNET? OH, THE HUMANITY!

And there you have it. A medium that allows the free exchange of information cannot be allowed to live. Every other medium is in the hands of the Jews (in as precise a display of contempt for the medium is the message as could be found) and so it goes for the internet too.

Thinking about it, how much effort went into the media campaign to bring war against Iraq? Now compare war against Iraq with the taking of an entire medium. Believe it or not the latter is waay more important than the former. A people in control of a totality of falsity grant themselves the god-like ability to control the narrative and create their own reality. Thus lesser things like wars become a snap of the fingers.

The net as it stands must be taken - dead or alive, pick one. The falsity must be a totality. Everything else is second fiddle.


Thus: Julian Assange as scarlet pimpernel; the well-meaning but deluded legions rallying around him; our politicians flipping between nonchalance and high dudgeon; the machinations of Swedish justice; the endless carefully scripted talking heads; the earnest blatherings of should've-known-betters; hell, let's just say this whole fucking herculean effort is not here for any run of the mill ginned up wars. Sure they may result since everything is a two-fer minimum but really this is way beyond such lesser topics as this-or-that versions of desired reality. This is about the very ability to create those realities in the first place. Like I said, first comes the lie. Everything is subordinate to this.

Dad - "Sam and Marg are coming over so they'll probably want coffee."

Nobby - "Er... possibly... I guess."

Dad - "Well, is it alright if I have a coffee?"

Nobby (rolling eyes) - "Oh for fuck's sake. You don't have to ask permission to have a coffee. The coffee is in there, the pot is in there, you just go and make one. I've shown you how to do it any number of times. We don't need any silly games. I've told you, I don't care what you do - you may do anything you like, go make a coffee, whatever - but just include me out of the silly games."

Dad (with a look of cold hatred in his face) - "It's not a game."

Nobby - "It is a game. If it has rules and it has roles it's a game. What are the rules? Okay, here they are, I'll tell you - The Coffee Rules:

1. (nodding head with happy face): You really, really like having a coffee.
2. (shaking head with sad face): You can't make a coffee.
3. (nodding head): Nobby can make a coffee.
4. (shaking head): You can't ask Nobby for a coffee if it's only for you.
5. (nodding head): You can ask for a coffee if it's being made for other people.

"Thus (finger goes in the air as dominoes of realisation fall), if Nobby is making coffee for other people... it's alright for me to mention it... and since I am mentioning it, if I ask very, very politely and meekly so that no one could possibly object... and besides which, I'm not asking for me, I'm asking for other people... then I can have a coffee! Yay! Victory in the Pacific!

"God spare me. And that's the coffee game. It and a thousand other variations, always this way. And for yourself within the logic of the game, the question 'Is it alright if I have a coffee?' makes sense. But if you're me and you think the game is bullshit to begin with, the question is absurd. And it is absurd. It's precisely as absurd as 'Is it alright if I turn on the TV?', and 'Is it alright if I go to bed?', and 'Is it alright if I don't finish my meal?'. And we know it's absurd because: What if I was to answer no? No, you must stay up all night staring at a black television forcing yourself to eat the cold congealed remains of your dinner. Yeah right, what obvious bullshit.

"But never mind all that. I'm going to short circuit the game. Come with me, you're going to make yourself a coffee. You make yourself twenty cups of tea a day and making coffee is no different. You're perfectly capable. You can do one, you can do the other. Let's do it."


After a momentary pause wherein he wonders if he can sulk his way out of it without looking like a complete dickhead (and quickly deciding no), he gets up and under my instruction makes himself a coffee. It takes a couple of minutes and is slightly more complicated than turning on a light switch but not much.

Shortly thereafter Sam and Marg arrive, and with his coffee in front of him, and to prove he's not a bullshit artist and how necessary and right the game was, he makes a big fuss of asking them if they want a coffee. The prospect of further game playing and point scoring is cruelly crushed when they say no. Cue the eye-roll. And without looking, I know for a cold hard certainty that the old man's head is now running with pointless calculations for how he might have achieved the end result of having a coffee made for him in spite of no one else wanting one and all the while still conforming to the rules of the game. Games is all there is.


I also know with equal certainty that he will never make a coffee for himself ever again. Here, as in the real world, there is no greater crime than the calling of a game. The old man would rather do without coffee for the rest of his life, indeed never mention the accursed drink again, as long as we never go anywhere near a conversation that may involve his falsity being called out. The only thing that will put that look of hatred on his face is having a game named.

And in this regard he's nothing special. We see it all the time. Every idiotic charade will take place in order to preserve the sanctity of falsity uber alles. We will turn ourselves inside-out, say any idiotic thing, declare black to be white, whatever, and all to avoid acknowledging the mind buggering breadth and depth of the lie.

---

I realise now that when I wrote that Big Lie thing a while back I made a mistake. I declared that the great sin being protected in the bullshit discussion about Hitler and the Big Lie was usury. It isn't. Usury is merely a mechanism under the overarching ne plus ultra sin of falsity itself. The arse-about crap surrounding what we call Hitler's Big Lie exists in order to protect falsity as totality. This is the topic that may not be broached. Everything underneath it is effectively second fiddle. Even the sleek viciousness of usury must kneel at the altar of falsehood.


Whether you want to use the term or not, it's all about the continuum. That's the selfishness / selflessness continuum at the top of the page there. It's un-patented so anyone may feel free to steal it and do whatever they like with it. And ever predictable yours truly, there's nothing I like better than throwing the topic-du-jour up against the continuum to see which of them comes out of it alive.

Here we plunge into circular logic but never mind, let's just go with it. When juxtaposed against the unarguable rightness of selflessness, the concomitant 'wrongness' of selfishness becomes too obvious for itself. Further, as one travels in the wrong direction on the continuum the more obvious this becomes. Thus: the mind set that says that an accumulation of chateaux, yachts with helicopters, and under-age sex-slaves is more important than the right of entire towns not to be fire-bombed must come from a false view of the self. It must. And we're at a truly fundamental level here - the level of the self versus the not-self. This is the anti-buddha sure, and such an black beast must view himself, and everything not-him (which is to say 'all of creation') through a lens of falsity. Falsity comes first and foremost, the thing without which there is nothing, not even the definition.


It's not for no reason that one of Satan's titles is the Prince of Lies. Such a personification could never be called the Prince of Usury, or Theft, or any other lesser sin. Each of those is merely a mechanism under the totality of falsity, the falsity that comes with denying the continuum. And for anyone who wants to point to beasts and the reality of their behaviour, go and do that thing - tell yourself you're a beast and prove my point for me while you're at it. Back to Satan now: in naming the personification of evil, only one sin was ever going to cut the mustard and that was lying.

---

In the beginning was the word. Yeah, right. What are the odds that that word was a lie? With falsity at the heart of things I'd say it's somewhere in the vicinity of a certainty. And in today's discussion we take the word away (word = thought = conversation = philosophy = every goddamn thing) and what is there? What of a person is left? What of a people is left? With the lies so big, so numerous, so total, to call the lie leads where? A discussion like this of such a totality, whether for the macro or the micro, is a discussion of the self, an attack at the heart, a thing that cannot be permitted.

---

Let justice be done though the heavens fall. I admit that there's not much space in that expression for the micro but what if we substitute 'let the truth be told' for 'let justice be done'? That works doesn't it? So let's carry on - Why do we hear that phrase but never see it take place? Kevin Costner said it in JFK and what happened? Nothing - Tommy Lee Jones walked. Was anyone surprised? Of course not. The heavens cannot fall. Everything must be done to ensure that that doesn't happen.

Not forgetting the irony of course: there is no heaven. As if let justice be done though the heavens fall could escape the totality of the lie. In the beginning was the lie remember? The lie, the totality, cannot be called. God forbid. Without it we are nothing. Without it God is nothing. No word, no God, no nothing.

Excellent. Let's do it - Nothing Here We Come. There's no point being bloody-minded if you're not going to go all the way. Let's strip it to the core until nothing is left. Fuck heaven.

We'll all take turns.

I'll get mine too.

Whatever the fuck it is, this thing we've constructed, this bullshit self, we'll burn it all away. Send that metaphoric monkey back to his bullshit heaven. Fingers crossed there's nothing left except for whatever there was before the word, before the lie. God knows what that'll look like. A man sitting under a Bodhi tree perhaps. Or is that too romantic? How about a burned out eucalyptus with the smell of charcoal hanging heavy?

The tax file number, the family name, the christian name, all gone with nobody recognisable left behind.

This is all bullshit of course. None of it makes a lick of sense. But since when did that ever stop anyone?

"Did you enjoy the trip to Brisbane?"

"It was good. The high point was when we were sitting in the waiting area for the CT scan thingy at the hospital and the old man was filling out the form and he asked me what the date was. And it was funny he asked me that because when he's at home he asks me what day it is every single day. Sometimes several times a day. In spite of the fact that the newspaper is always right there in front of him face up with the date prominent, he never bothers looking. Instead he asks me what day it is and I always lean across and say, 'The newspaper's here. What does it say?' And I point at the date and say, 'Oh look it's Thursday.' And he always says, 'Oh right,' and there we are, another conversation dealt with.

"So we're in the reception area in the hospital and he's there filling out his form and he asks me the date. The day is one thing and the date is another - I never know what the date is. So I ask the receptionist and she tells us and he writes it down. And it was good that that happened because otherwise the 12 hours I spent in the ambulance and standing around at the hospital would have been a complete waste of time with me as the most superfluous man in the world. As it was it was a good thing I was there since I saved him having to ask the receptionist himself.

"And not only that, what was really brilliant was how it cast my whole life into stark relief. What with all those hours sitting in the ambulance staring out the window (with barely five words of conversation during the whole trip) I came up with a one-page Robert Crumb cartoon that describes my life.

"It involves a man at an information window (that would be me) and on the glass it says 'Ask me what day it is'. And above the glass is a huge LED sign, it's like 2m across in bright red and it has the day and date on it - Thursday 18th November 2010. And anyway, I'm standing at the window and an old man comes up and says, 'What day is it?' and I point up at the big LED sign and say, 'If you look just above your head there, there's a big sign with the day and date on it and it says that today is Thursday.' 'Thanks very much,' says the man and shuffles off. And the next day he comes back and asks me what day it is and I point up at the sign, 'If you look just above your head...' etc. etc. And we repeat that over and over until the page is full and then in the last panel someone comes along and says, 'You're doing a great job. The old man is very lucky to have you.' "

David Sassoon is a most extraordinary character. During the nineteenth century he was the richest man in the world. It was said of him that "whatever moves over sea or land feels the hand or bears the mark of Sassoon and Company". And when you're that wealthy and that powerful, if a country like China declares your product of opium illegal then you merely get another country, like Great Britain, to declare war on them. Subsequently, all of that Chinese history: the Opium Wars, the theft of Hong Kong, the rampant looting and destruction of China's cultural treasures - variously depicted heroically in Hollywood pictures such as 55 Days in Peking and The Sand Pebbles, or through a lens of subjugation and humiliation in Chinese flicks like the Once Upon a Time in China series - all of that may be laid at the feet of the greatest drug kingpin in the history of the world, David Sassoon.

And astoundingly nobody has ever heard of him. He has no listing in Encyclopaedia Britannica at all - nothing, not a sausage. The only Sassoon they acknowledge is anti-war poet Siegfried Sassoon, whose idiot father got himself disinherited by the family for failing to marry a Jewess. Clearly Siegfried's dad also failed to teach his son the Talmud: "When you go to war do not go as the first, but as the last, so that you may return as the first." Oh well, never mind.

But it occurs to me that in some ways Sassoon's non-existence in the official records is par for the course. Fame in inverse proportion to wealth and power are how things are done at that level. Who was it that said, "Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws"? Who knows? Did anyone say it at all? It's not in wikiquotes so perhaps it never happened. Unsurprisingly, the Sassoons married into the family of whoever it was that didn't say that and who certainly don't control the monetary policy of almost every nation on earth.

Mind you, the from-on-high Britannica is one thing and the democratic Wikipedia is another. There, David Sassoon does have an entry. But the beauty of things democratic is the ease with which they may be subverted. And here (coming to the point at last) you may see that process take place right before your very eyes. The first entry here comes from my hard drive and I have it dated late 2007. This is immediately followed by wikipedia's current entry. See if you can spot the difference. Sorry, no brownie points because really it's too goddamn easy. However for those who need a hint - see if you can find the words 'opium wars' anywhere in amongst the second entry. NB. The so-called 'Legacy' section of each is a) identical, b) predictable, and, c) not worth reading, so feel free not to.*

BTW. Have a look at wikipedia's entry for the Sassoon family. See if you can spot the inbreeding. It seems the products of this inbreeding are all talmudic rabbis. Whilst I'm pretty sure you don't have to be inbred to be a scholar of the talmud, I suspect it helps.



- Wikipedia 2007 -

David Sassoon (1792 – 1864) was a prominent Bombay (now Mumbai) businessman of Jewish-Iraqi origin who is best known for monopolizing the opium trade into China and encouraging its use there.[citation needed] He was born in Baghdad into a family of Nasis, traditional leaders of the Jewish community. His father, Saleh Sassoon, was a wealthy banker and chief treasurer to the pashas, the governors of Baghdad, from 1781 to 1817. However, the Jews came under pressure from the Muslim Turkish rulers of Baghdad. Fleeing with his wife and family and a small part of the family's wealth, Sassoon arrived in Bombay in 1833.

He started business in Bombay with a counting house, a small carpet godown, and an opium business. He was soon one of the richest men in Bombay. He chose to follow the market, but he pursued all his enterprises better than his chief rivals, the Parsis. By the end of the 1850s, it was said of him that "silver and gold, silks, gums and spices, opium and cotton, wool and wheat - whatever moves over sea or land feels the hand or bears the mark of Sassoon and Company".

Role in the Opium War in China

In Bombay, David Sassoon established the house of David Sassoon & Co., with branches at Calcutta, Shanghai, Canton and Hong Kong. His business, which included a monopoly of the opium trade in China, (even though opium was banned in China) extended as far as Yokohama, Nagasaki, and other cities in Japan.

In 1836, the opium trade reached over 30,000 chests per annum and drug addiction in coastal cities became endemic. In 1839, the Manchu Emperor ordered that the opium smuggling be stopped. He named the Commissioner of Canton, Lin Tse-hsu, to lead a campaign against opium. Lin seized and destroyed 2,000 chests of Sassoon opium. An outraged David Sassoon demanded that China compensate for the seizure or Great Britain retaliate.[citation needed]

The Chinese Army, decimated by 10 years of opium addiction, proved no match for the British Army.[citation needed] The war ended in 1842 with the signing of the Treaty of Nanking. The "peace treaty" included these provisions:

1. Full legalisation of the opium trade in China
2. Compensation from the opium stockpiles confiscated by Lin of two million pounds
3. Territorial sovereignty for the British Crown over several designated offshore islands.

Legacy

Although David Sassoon did not speak English, he became a naturalised British citizen in 1853. He kept the dress and manners of the Baghdadi Jews, but allowed his sons to adopt English manners. His son, Abdullah changed his name to Albert, moved to England, became a Baronet and married into the Rothschild family. All the Sassoons of Europe are said to be descendants of David Sassoon.

He built a synagogue in the Fort (area) and another in Byculla, as well as a school, a Mechanics' Institute, a library and a convalescent home in Pune.

David Sassoon was conscious of his role as a leader of the Jewish community in Bombay. He helped to arouse a sense of Jewish identity amongst the Bene Israeli and Cochin Jewish communities. The Sassoon Docks (built by his son) and the David Sassoon Library are named after him. He also built a synagogue in Byculla.

David Sassoon died in his country house in Pune in 1864. His business interests were inherited by his son.

- Wikipedia 2010 -

David Sassoon (October 1792 – November 7, 1864) was the treasurer of Baghdad between 1817 and 1829 and the leader of the Jewish community in Bombay (now Mumbai).

Biography

Sassoon was born in Baghdad, where his father, Saleh Sassoon[1], was a wealthy businessman, chief treasurer to the pashas (the governors of Baghdad) from 1781 to 1817, and leader of the city's Jewish community.

The family were Sephardim with Spanish origins. His mother was Amam Gabbai. After a traditional education in the Hebrew language, Sassoon married Hannah in 1818. They had two sons and two daughters before she died in 1826. Two years later he married Farha Hyeem (who was born in 1812 and died in 1886). The pair had six sons and three daughters.

Following increasing persecution of Baghdad's Jews by Daud Pasha, the family moved to Bombay via Persia. Sassoon was in business in Bombay no later than 1832, originally acting as a middleman between British textile firms and Gulf commodities merchants, then investing in valuable harbour properties. His major competitors were Parsis, whose profits were built on their domination of the Sino-Indian opium trade since the 1820s.

When the Treaty of Nanking opened up China to British traders, Sassoon developed his textile operations into a profitable triangular trade: Indian yarn and opium were carried to China, where he bought goods which were sold in Britain, where he obtained Lancashire cotton products. He sent his son Elias David Sassoon to Canton, where he was the first Jewish trader (with 24 Parsi rivals). In 1845 David Sassoon & Sons opened an office in what would soon become Shanghai's British concession, and it became the firm's second hub of operations.

It was not until the 1860s that the Sassoons were able to lead the Baghdadi Jewish community in overtaking Parsi dominance. A particular opportunity was the American Civil War, during which turmoil American cotton exports declined. Lancashire factories replaced American cotton imports with Sassoon's Indian cotton

Legacy

Although David Sassoon did not speak English, he became a naturalised British citizen in 1853. He kept the dress and manners of the Baghdadi Jews, but allowed his sons to adopt English manners. His son, Abdullah changed his name to Albert, moved to England, became a Baronet and married into the Rothschild family. All the Sassoons of Europe are said to be descendants of David Sassoon.

He built a synagogue in the Fort (area) and another in Byculla, as well as a school, a Mechanics' Institute, a library and a convalescent home in Pune.

David Sassoon was conscious of his role as a leader of the Jewish community in Bombay. He helped to arouse a sense of Jewish identity amongst the Bene Israeli and Cochin Jewish communities. The Sassoon Docks (built by his son) and the David Sassoon Library are named after him.

David Sassoon died in his country house in Pune in 1864. His business interests were inherited by his son Sir Albert Sassoon; Elias David had established a rival firm.

---

*Sure enough, weathy Jews are always described as 'philanthropists' in spite of the fact that they only ever give to Jewish charities. The greatest criminal in Australian history, Dick Pratt, owner of packaging mega-corp Visy, was responsible for running a cartel that bilked customers of somewhere in the vicinity of a billion dollars. The corporate fine of $36M was the biggest in Australian history but actually represented 0.75% of Pratt's personal fortune. What with being terminally ill, all charges against Pratt as an individual were dropped, and that being the case, and he being such a fine contributor to charities (all Jewish) it was fitting and proper that he be publicly rehabilitated, with no less than that shit Johnny Howard donning a yamulka and declaring him the best thing since sliced bagels. No doubt his rehabilitation wasn't hurt by the the fact that he'd had half a dozen ex-prime-ministers and state premiers on the payroll with one, Bob Hawke (the man who publicly wept for Israel) receiving up to $8333.33 a month as 'consultation fees'.

Either way it's telling that we use the word 'philanthropist' in describing a person who only gives to Jewish charities. One would think that with the Greek base of philanthropy (γειά σου Hellene) being philos 'loving' and anthropos 'mankind', a fellow who only contributes to Jewish charities would not qualify. The mistake here of course is that, as anyone who's read the talmud would know, Jews are mankind. Everyone else (ie. we Goyim) isn't so much a human as 'a beast in human form' there to save the Jews from being served by, I don't know... donkeys or armadillos or something. Thus it is demonstrated that the description of wealthy Jews who contribute solely to Jewish charities (shabbat goy politicians notwithstanding) as 'philanthropists' is perfectly correct and proper.

PS. And one does love the irony that the very people who gave us the word anthropos, the ancient Greeks, should find themselves (along with everyone else) excluded from it. Never mind.