Friday, November 29, 2013

Schonborn and B'nai B'rith Ancestors, Together Cruelly Exploiting Common People for Centuries

Traditionalist pundits have pointed to the recent honoring of Cardinal Schonborn by the Juedeomasonic B'nai B'rith lodge. The information is typically framed; as a post-Vatican II aberration. We will attempt to get to the true essence of the matter here.

First, what really is Schonborn being honored for? We say, precisely what his family has done for centuries, that is, keep the Christian common folk as mystified, dumbed down, docile sheep for shearing by themselves and their fellow rabbi and banker mobsters.

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn is a descendant of old nobility of the Holy Roman Empire known for its sheltering of usurers, rabbis, intelligencers and the Talmud itself (see: Judaism Discovered) and peddling of alcohol on credit via Judaic front-men to the poorest of Christian peasants.

The Schonborn clan was made at Kazenelnbogen, coincidentally (or, rather, not), where the Katzenellenbogen rabbinic dynasty originates, whose descendants allegedly include the Rothschilds, Karl Marx, Rabbi Abraham Heschel, 'Messiah' Schneerson, Arnon Milkman, among many others (see: The Unbroken Chain* by Neil Rosenstein, himself allegedly a descendant of Katzenellenbogen, who recently plead guilty to the charge of knowingly possessing child pornography).

The first Jews likely settled in Subcarpathian Rus’ [Western Ukraine] during the Turkish occupation of Hungary (1526–1686); they were probably of Sephardic origin. Refugees from the Khmel’nyts’kyi rebellion of 1648–1649 followed. Later, a tiny stream of Moravian and Bohemian Jews arrived via the northern Slovak counties. The major influx of Jews, however, occurred in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and consisted of migrants wandering southward from Galicia. The newcomers were welcomed by Magyar magnates, in particular by the Schönborn dynasty, which owned much land in the area. Nobles hired Jews to administer estates, sell spirits, and develop local trade.

Est Coelum Nobilitorum. Paradisus Judeorum. Et Infernum Rusticorum

The following is excised from an article,"Die wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Verhaeltnisse der Juden auf dem Dominium Munkacs-Szentmiklos im XVIII Jahrhundert." (Economic and social conditions of the Jews on the Munkacs-Szentmiklos Estate during the 18th Century) by Dr. Andreas Sas, in Juedisches Archiv 2, issue 1-2, Oct.-Dec. 1928:

In 1711, after the revolt of Franz Rakoczi II (1705-11) against princely absolutism had been quashed, the Habsburgs confiscated the Rakoczi estates and Munkacs-Szentmiklos domain was administered as a state property. In October 1728, Lothar Franz Schoenborn (1655-1729), archbishop of Mainz, was awarded this domain as a reward for his loyalty to the emperor, but he died almost immediately thereafter. Successor to the property was Schoenborn's nephew Friedrich Karl Count von Schoenborn (1674-1746), the bishop of Wuerzburg and Bamberg.
Both rulers represented princely absolutism and the age of the baroque life at court. Their personalities leaned toward the worldly; their zeal went to the accumulation of wealth; their enthusiasm for the arts competed with their splendid ambitions for the Munkacs estate. Their methods of governing, which were slightly affected by the coming enlightenment and which they introduced into their territories, provide a key to understanding the economic and social conditions of the second largest estate in Hungary in the 18th century.
The Munkacs and Szentmiklos estates in the former Hungarian Komitate (county) Bereg (today [1928] part of the province Podkarpatska Rus in the Czechoslovak Republic) were liquidated on January 1, 1928, as part of a Czech landholding reform. In 1749, this enormous complex comprised 61.5 percent of Komitate Bereg. [Since the Middle Ages Munkacs had been ruled variously by the houses of Arpad, Anjoy, Piast, Hunyadi, Jagello, Lazarevics, Valois-Bourbon, Hohenzollern, Rakoczi and Bethlen. The old fortress of Munkacs was the site of far-reaching political decisions well into the 18th century.]
The internal history of the estate is a typical slice of the economic past of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. Rich in natural resources, but worked inefficiently by a thinly scattered population, its peasantry remained economically and culturally backward until the 19th century. The most recent two centuries of the rule of the Schoenborns can be studied thoroughly on the basis of large archival holdings. All of the data comes from the handwritten material of the archive of the Munkacs domain in Munkacevo.
For Eastern European Jewry, the giant domain provided an entry to the West; on its territory is the town of Munkacs in which Jews today [1928] make up a plurality. Soon after the Schoenborns took over the Munkacs-Szentmiklos estate in 1729, one of the first decisions of Friedrich Karl Graf Schoenborn included a claim to the protection fees (toleration taxes) imposed on Jews. Schoenborn claimed that the collection was a royal privilege that devolved to him along with all other fiscal entitlements. The protection tax entitled those who paid to receive certain privileges under private law, assurance to a kind of island in a world of serf-like attachment to the land and similarly confined industrial production, an island on which the Jews, within firmly established limits, could enter into contracts, could buy and sell under conditions of the then prevailing aristocratic private laws.
At the beginning of the 18th century, Jews adapted themselves to the life of the estate by paying for concessions to deal in liquor (as innkeepers), sale of meat, sale of distilled spirits, grinding of cereals and collection of tolls (custom duties). At Munkacs-Szentmiklos, concessions for the sale of soap and candles existed until 1761, longer for trade in wool and kosher wine. In 1738, the adjoining village of Rosvigovo even had a concession for the trade in cheese.
According to documents in the Munkacs Schoenborn archives, the custom of leasing concessions to Jews dates back to the middle of the 17th century. Around 1730, the fees paid by Jews represented one-third of the official income of the Munkacs-Szentmiklos domain. The importance to the owners of the fees from concessions may be determined not only from the amounts, but also from the fact that they were truly secure and could be controlled. That is, they were incomes that reliably could be delivered to the central administration of the Schoenborn domains in Vienna.
Income from the Munkacs domain during the 18th century was extremely small because of low population density and inefficient exploitation of the land. The Schoenborns lived far away and exerted control indirectly through agents; this made possible increases in the personal income of some agents at the expense of the owners. The careers of numerous senior employees on the domain during the 18th century ended with sudden discharge and investigations embarrassing to the employees.
Under such circumstances, Vienna appreciated the income secured by the concessions, income that was known because it derived from a public auction and the winning proposal was forwarded to Vienna for approval. The income could not be diverted and flowed undiminished into the coffers of the Schoenborns.
Records show the first concessionary or resident Jews in the domain of the Munkacs castle as of 1649. During the revolt of Franz Rakoczi II against Leopold I, a series of concessions covering the entire domain were conveyed to Jews for the dispensing of wine, beer and brandy. Later, during the 17th century, grants of entitlements were made for running the inn, collecting tolls, quarries and meat storagealmost exclusively to Jews. The Schoenborns imported German colonists from Franconia to their north Hungarian domain in an attempt to make them concessionaires, but they did not succeed in this role.
The attitude of the owners and administrators of the Munkacs Schoenborn property during the 18th century toward the Jews living on their property was determined primarily by economic considerations. The founder and accumulator of the family fortune generally was tolerant toward Jews, a view the Schoenborns brought with them from Germany. After the turmoil of the Thirty Years War (1618-48), the largest Jewish population in Germany at the start of the 18th century was in the city of Fuerth near Nuremberg where 400 Jewish families lived. There also was a large printing concern that supplied central Europe with Hebrew books. 
Fuerth was under the rule of the Bamberg diocese, and the holder of the diocese in 1729-46 was lord of the Munkacs-Szentmiklos domain. The view of Jews that the bishop of Wuerzburg and bishop of Bamberg, Imperial Prince Friedrich Karl Schoenborn, held which also were followed by administrators of the domain, were relatively humane. This helps to explain why the Schoenborns wanted to establish a Hebrew press in Munkacs-Szentmiklos to publish books in 1768, if the Jews could assure production and distribution. Undoubtedly, the Schoenborns knew of how profitable the famous Hebrew presses in Fuerth were and hoped to duplicate the process in Munkacs-Szentmiklos. Count Friedrich Karl von Schoenborn knew the revenues of the residence (tolerance) tax  and income taxes imposed on the Jews only too well, since he shared half the income from the Fuerth tolerance tax with the Margrave of Ansbach. Jewish communities managed to persist in Ansbach and Fuerth even in those days when the sweeping and radical measures of the Catholic counter-reformation expelled even Protestants from various cities in southern Germany.
Occasional cries arose against the Jews in the domain in the first half of the 18th century. An edict of the owner in 1739 emphasized that Jews could acquire no real estate and referred to them as bloodsuckers who feast on the other subjects of the ruler. He added that it would be preferable if the concessions could be leased by Christians insofar as they were reliable. In fact, the idea surfaced that it might be necessary to introduce a quota for Jews.
This outburst, however, stands apart amid a long series of declarations that contradict it and, even more important, of policies that contradict it in their economic applications. When in the same year no Christian could be found who was willing to pay the annual rental of 300 guilders for the toll concession in the border town of Verecke, the antipathies of the bishop of Wuerzburg and Bamberg against the Jewish lessors were reduced. He even ordered that, under certain conditions, some Polish Jews were to be brought or admitted to settle in Verecke. Many years later in 1761, the prefect representing the owner sought to award the concession in Szentmiklos to a non-Jew. He was not successful because the local administrators declared that they could not find a single reliable and qualified Christian man.
The Countess Maria Theresia Montfort, mother and guardian of the then-minor owner of the domain, in 1748 asked only that when a concession was to be awarded at auction, a Jew was not to be preferred over a Christian provided that an award to a Christian would not impair the revenues of the owners.
This means that existing antipathies toward the Jews were limited by the understood economic interest of the owners of the domain. When the Countess Montfort issued her 1748 ruling, the inspector replied (in archaic, stilted German):
While your excellency had ordered most graciously that the aforementioned lessors are to be awarded by preference to Christians and subjects rather than to Jews, experience has shown that no subject is as productive as a Jew.
The inspector also recalled that in the German village of Unter-Schoenborn, the local village official had leased the inn for 6 guilders per year, but at the most recent auction, Jews had offered 15 guilders. In addition, the problem of harmful competition also made exclusion of Jewish lessors ill-advised. As an example, the inspector told of the Jew Isaak, lessor in Munkacs and at the same time holder of the concession for the inn in the domain of the noble Leövey family. Were Isaak to be dismissed by the owners of Munkacs, he could offer his drinks in the inn on the Leövey property which would represent dangerous competition. Young Eugene Erwin Schoenborn understood this reasoning and, in 1752, ordered that the concessions be awarded to whomever offered the most money, no matter whether his name was Schmul or Itzig.
Jews were considered a nation on the domain of the Schoenborn, which is only natural since the Jews, who increasingly infiltrated from Poland during the 18th century, carried the stamp of Eastern European ghettos. An occupation that could almost be said to be hereditary is the dealing in drinks (all of which were taxed).
The inn was an important source of revenue for Polish nobility, but Polish lords did not like to have Polish innkeepers, because when it came to providing payment or accounting, Polish innkeepers dared to be difficult, while Jews delivered the sometimes very high concession fees most punctually to the lords and magnates. German and Austrian diplomats, who expressed surprise in their travel accounts that, during the 18th century, the largest share of Polish inns was in Jewish hands, could have made a similar observation about the Munkacs domain.
Reports dealing with the administration of the domain during the 18th century are full of complaints about the typically negative attitudes of the serfs, the poverty of the population living in the hills of the estate and their lack of initiative. With this went the knowledge that the cares and misery of the locals would not be alleviated even if they worked harder for their overlords. Of local population groups, the Jews were the ones who made it possible, without special incentives or administrative duress, for the owners to exercise their feudal rights and also to utilize their natural resources. They brought to the slow rhythm of agriculture some notions of movement and trade that increased the scarce cash incomes which, because of their rarity, were that much more desirable. The large landowners sought to increase their revenues, and to achieve this the Jewish concessionaires were essential. The charge by the owners, that the peasantry was delivered to the mercy of the Jews, was neither sincere nor tactful because the landowners made no efforts to protect the serfs against the Jews. For example, whenever a serf violated the monopoly on alcohol (i.e., bootlegged) and thus damaged the Jews, the fine was 12 guilders.
The social position of the Jews unquestionably was more favorable than that of the serfs, because even when they were oppressed by demands for various feesthe status of the Jews in the economy and in the legal order of the domain was governed by a contract that had its roots in the economy (i.e., contracts could be enforced by the courts). There also is no doubt that in the rural feudal society, the Jews followed the lead of the ruling landlord and sided with him. This lifestyle, when considered objectively, cannot be used to justify either historically or morally the claim that the large landowners were defenders of the peasantry vis-a-vis the Jews. The serfs could have been protected against their indebtedness at the local pubs by preventing the establishment of dispensaries of beer and brandy in the poorest villages. The landlords who awarded the concessions for the pubs cannot be relieved of their responsibilities when, on the one hand, they accumulated the considerable concession fees, which they sought to increase through the sales of beverages with all of the means at their command, while, on the other hand, cast the concessionaire, the Jew, as a bloodsucker.
If there is a responsibility in this matter, it falls equally on the domain as well as the Jews, except that the landlords were, from a social point of view, in a more despicable position because their use of the liquor licensing power was a governmental function. The Jews, scattered individuals who fought a hard battle for their existence, were isolated, without legal rights at the bottom layer in a society in which, without permission of the rulers, they never could have dealt with the peasantry.
The concessions were based on annual contracts until 1748 when they ran for three years. The public auctions were held during the second half of December under the following conditions: The highest bidder was awarded the concession but was obligated to meet the need for grain from the landlord at prevailing prices. The concession fee had to be paid quarterly. The innkeeper could extend credit up to two guilders to better situated serfs, and only one guilder for a poor one. Beverages had to be served in mugs that were flawless and marked with the etch mark of the domain. (Even today in many European countries, beer and other alcoholic beverages are served in glasses with a horizontal mark, etched to show that the glass has been filled to the proper level.) Joseph II von Habsburg-Lorraine, who became emperor of the Austrian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire in 1765, later reduced credit at the inn to 30 kreuzer.
The Toleranz, the tax paid by the Jews, introduced in 1718 by the same Karl VI von Habsburg (1711-40) who had awarded the Munkacs-Szentmiklos domain to the Schoenborns, consisted at first of a head tax, a capital tax and an income tax. Later the toleration tax was put on a uniform schedule for all of Hungary, but scaled according to each county. Within each county, it was allocated according to the leases paid by the Jews. The domain protested this practice as late as 1735 because the county wanted to determine the number and the economic conditions of the Jews in the domain. Later the local rulers were forced to yield when the Royal Chamber in Kaschau (today Kosice, Slovakia) installed a tax collector, who also was a Jew, by awarding him the concession to collect the toleration tax. The system of collecting taxes through concessionaires ended, and the public administrative office in Munkacs administered the toleration taxes.
On May 21, 1730, an administrator of the domain petitioned that officials charged with the collection of toleration taxes not collect more than the officially prescribed sums from the Jewish innkeepers "for otherwise it is to be feared that the concessionaires, now frightened, might leave the domain." The administrators of the domain clearly differentiated between the Jews living in the four districts of Bereg County, the so-called Komitatsjuden, and the Jews living within the domain.
As an example of how the administrators concerned themselves with the interests of the Jews living within the domain, consider the conflict between Inspector Rosshirt in 1751 with the deputy, because the latter reportedly overburdened the innkeepers of the domain with toleration taxes, especially the Jew Schmul from Munkacs who paid the largest fee. Rosshirt complained that the deputy assessed the Jews not according to their wealth (net worth) but rather according to the concessionary fees paid. Rosshirt noted especially that in the four districts of Bereg Komitat controlled by nobles: Jews in many localities are members of the AKompossessorates (an obsolete term that apparently refers to a form of ownership or control of land), that they enter only into smaller leases and thus are better off when it comes to toleration taxes, while the Jews of the domain have entered into large leases but own no real estate.
The administrator of the domain, in opposing the deputy, found it necessary to explain that in this matter he (the administrator) was not guided by the interests of the Jews, but those of the rulers of the domain. He feared that to the extent the concessionary fees might be the basis for assessing the toleration taxes, Jews would be willing to take on only smaller leases and the expensive leases (like the liquor concession for Munkacs-Rosvigovo, for which 160 guilders were due and some 80 guilders of toleration taxes on top of that), would remain without innkeepers, leaving the ruling landlord stuck.
According to Rosshirt, the Jews paid toleration taxes in return for royal protection. Thus, the greater the wealth and larger the household of a Jew, the greater the need for protection.
Within the domain it may happen that some Jews pay high leases and thus acquire nothing (no property), while in the noble Komitate districts it happens that the Jew who pays a modest leasing fee may, at the same time, accumulate as a Kompossessor a considerable fortune through cattle.
Rosshirt's effort was successful. The assembly of the Komitate opposed his proposal and sided with the deputy. What is clear is that the domain sought to protect its Jews from overtaxation ...
… During the early days of the Schoenborn rule, the leading figure among the local Jews was Berko Daniel Dalovicz, holder of the tax concession and military supplier, who was a confidant of the commander of the Munkacs fortress as well as of Ungvar Baron Anton Behmen. The latter for several consecutive years had acquired the lease from the Chamber for the Munkacs property. In 1732, the widow of Baron Behmen complained to the Chamber in Zips that Dalovicz had failed to provide an accounting for his dealings with her late husband. In his rebuttal, Dalovicz rejected the charges, invoked his proper and useful services and emphasized, "I never was a subject or slave of His Lordship."

Jews residing in the domain also provided political services. Innkeepers were obliged to observe their customers and were responsible not to serve "suspicious persons" and even to report them to the authorities. The lessee for Szentmiklos, Israel Lazarovits, was sent to Poland in 1742 as a buyer of arms and supplies for the army of Empress Maria Theresa of Austria. When General Field Marshall Count Alexander Karolyi, whose possessions were in the adjoining Szatmar Komitat, learned of this, he urgently contacted the prefect of the domain because he wanted to know what intelligence the Jews had brought and whether or not the Poles were planning an invasion.

*[This writer views Judaic genealogies with skepticism; one of the key mechanisms used to gain unearned prestige. Judaism's stepchild, Freemasonry, adapts this mechanism by writing itself into major historical events and usurping historical figures and legacies. My interest is primarily in the associations these storytellers claim about themselves].

Also see:

Schönborn Upstages Falwell

Queen Beatrix Makes Chabad Chief Rabbi 'Officer of the Order of Orange-Nassau'

The "Sorcerer's Apprentice” Cardinal Christoph Schönborn

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Maimonides and Rabbi Riskin's 'Morality' of Cruel, Wildly Disproportionate Vengeance

We have thoroughly documented that Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have sent priests to learn at the feet of Chabad Rabbi Shlomo Riskin at his 'Noahide' center in Counterfeit Israel.

Rabbi Riskin's teachings published in the The Jewish Week routinely give us cause to acknowledge the wisdom of Pope Innocent IV in his observation that the rabbis render their students utterly alien to Scripture.

I have no time for in-depth analysis. I ask the reader to simply read Riskin's justification of Simeon and Levi's subterfuge and subsequent murder of all males in an entire city as "retaliation" for the rape of one woman by one man. Riskin goes so far as to claim, "It is especially important to note that Jacob does not charge his two sons with moral opprobrium."

Compare this rabbinic analysis with the moral opprobrium, and indeed, the curse that Jacob does in fact charge his sons with:

"Simeon and Levi are brothers indeed, warriors both, and ready tools of violence. Never may this soul of mine take part in their conspiracy, this heart be of their company; raging, they slew their enemy … A curse on this unrelenting rage of theirs, this bitter spite! I will distribute them here and there in Jacob, I will scatter them throughout Israel." (Genesis 49; 5-7)

 No better advice has ever been spoken by a pope regarding these so-called "fathers in the faith" than that of Pope Innocent IV. Certainly, they render their listeners utterly alien to the intended meaning of Scripture. Beware the leaven of the rabbis.