Modi Ban Creating Bengal Famine

In Bengal, famine is imminent, as a result of  Modi’s murderous cash ban:

Demonetisation has hit citizens across India, but it is the lower stratas of society that are struggling the most with the currency ban. Farmers in Bengal have said that if the situation carries on for 15 days more, the state could be headed for a famine as the state stares at an impending food shortage.

Bengal as a state relies heavily on agriculture and 70% of the rural economy has been hit hard by PM Modi’s demonetisation move. The paddy planted in the last season is ready for reaping, but the farmers can’t do anything about it. They cannot sell their harvest. 50% of the total cultivation – 20 lakh hectares of paddy – are lying in their fields, untouched.

With all this produce on the verge of being wasted, farmers fear that a famine-like situation is highly possible due to food shortage.”



Historic Silk-Weaving Destroyed By Evil Stooge Modi

Rothschild puppet, former tea-wallah and current Payt-Wallah (h/t to Mamata Banerjee), Narendra Modi destroys the historic Benares silk-weaving industry

“In Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political base of Varanasi, weaver Zainul Abedin stares at the uneven mud floor of his home. Behind him, more than a dozen handlooms lie idle.

Abedin is part of the collateral damage of Modi’s 8 November decision to ban high-value currency notes, effectively cancelling 86% of cash in circulation. The move was designed to stifle corruption and tax evasion, but many of the hardest-hit are workers in India’s vast and intricate informal economy—the small businesses, shops, drivers and countless other basic industries and services that employ more than 90% of Indian workers.

Most are poor like Abedin, who earns Rs250 a day, but collectively they account for almost half the economy. That’s some $1 trillion, or more than the GDP of Indonesia.

Modi’s cash ban has broken our backs,” said Abedin, 39, who makes Varanasi’s famous silk fabrics, shot with gold and silver, and says he can no longer feed his children. “We weavers won’t last if this continues for even another month.”

Modi Reenacts Rothschild-Engineered Indian Famines

Excellent analysis of the Modi ban’s cataclysmic impact on the aam admi (common man) in India:

Published: December 16, 2016 18:43 IST
Bengal famine 1770: “The British had removed a large fraction of the coinage, evidently, which destroyed the mechanism of the exchange of goods. It is difficult to buy food when there is no money.”

– Richard Stevenson, historian

“Money for day to day transactions became scarce. In rural Bengal, rupees alone had amounted to two-thirds of the currency. (In Modi’s India, the banned notes amounted to over 86% – my note). Money became so dear that prices of all other goods slumped; the scarcity of money was accompanied by deflation. Artisans, weavers and workers were thrown out of work due to the slump in demand. The credit market collapsed…without credit and in the absence of traders, equalizing supply and demand became difficult and had a destabilizing effect on the economy.”

– Sashi Sivaramkrishna, In Search of Stability: Economics of Money, History of the Rupee

That was in the 18th century. Ever since the midnight of 8/9 November 2016, the economy has suffered so severe a liquidity crunch that, says the CII, the decline in daily trade is of the order of 50-70%. This is just as it was in 1770 – precisely because “the removal of a large fraction of the coinage” (86% in demonetized notes, up from two-thirds in 1770) led to “money for day to day transactions becoming scarce”!”

Owing to the prevailing uncertainty, even those with ready resources in 2016 are not entering the market, as they did not in the 18th century. Sales of high-end automobiles – usually paid for by cheque or other banking instruments – are down between 20% (Hyundai) and 38% (Mahindra). Two-wheelers are hit by 35-40%; tractor purchases have collapsed by 63%; in the labour-intensive textiles and garments sector, four lakh workers have been laid off, and 60,000 in leather. These are figures for the last three weeks of November. This is not in consequence of only demonetization but the deleterious collateral damage that demonetization has inflicted on the economy as a whole.

Leaving aside apologists for the Modi regime, most independent economists are agreed that GDP for the next two and possibly three quarters has taken such a hit that GDP growth will decline by at least one percentage point or more, with Ambit Capital estimating that GDP growth will be more than halved to 3.5% for FY 2017.

Transition costs before the restoration of normalcy is brought about have been estimated by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy to be in the region of Rs. 1.28 lakh crore, borne by ordinary households, commercial and manufacturing enterprises, banks, government and the RBI. Moreover, deposits of demonetized notes have already crossed Rs. 13 lakh crore of the Rs. 15 lakh crore earlier in circulation. Almost all these deposits are lilywhite, representing the hard-earned income and savings of ordinary folk. Black money held in cash has never exceeded 5-6% of the total stock of illegally held wealth. So it was always ridiculous to imagine that the menace of illegal money could be met by demonetizing so-called High Denomination Notes (HDN). The Government gave their game away when they informed to the Supreme Court that they hoped to garner 4 lakh crores through black money hoarders not depositing HND for fear of exposure. The BJP’s evident but unstated intention was to use this bonanza to announce populist schemes through the Union Budget on the eve of the Uttar Pradesh and Punjab elections. In the event, I am given to understand by reliable sources that internal estimates in the RBI show that the sterilized amount on the last day of December is unlikely to exceed Rs. 50,000 crore. Thus, there will be no bonanza for Modi to compensate the aam admi for the rough time he has been put through.

And times have been rough since Modi went on TV that dreadful night of 8/9 November. Just as the kisan and khet mazdoor were recovering from two successive years of drought, cash-dependent sales, transport, marketing and distribution of agricultural produce, especially of perishable fruits and vegetables, have suffered huge losses along the entire supply chain from the farm to the mandi and the rehriwallah. Non-availability of ready money has resulted in a staggering drop in labour employed in farm and farm-related activities. Plantation labour is not getting paid, not because plantation owners and management do not have the money to pay them, but because owners and management are unable to access their own money.

Similar is the situation in construction and real estate, the second-largest employers after agriculture, accounting for 34-45 million daily-wage jobs in an economy of jobless growth. Contractors are laying them off in droves because the contractors are denied access to their own money to pay their labour. Wage-earnings in construction have thus been slashed by 80%-90%. One prominent news magazine has a cover story portraying Real Estate as descending from “Boom to Doom”.

As for manufacturing, millions – literally millions – of small and medium enterprises have closed down. At least 60,000 microfinance companies are badly hit, repayment collections having dropped by 600 cores and disbursements having collapsed in similar measure. (See the parallel to 1770 when, to quote Sivaramkrishna, “Artisans, weavers and workers were thrown out of work due to the slump in demand.”) Urban unemployment has shot up from a little over 7% to well over 9%. As one financial analyst succinctly put it: “cash shortages (have) hampered growth of new work, buying activity and production”. (That is what Stevenson meant when he said of the shortage of money that aggravated the causes of the Bengal famine of 1770, that this “destroyed the mechanism of the exchange of goods”). As for the informal sector of the economy that employs 90% of the work-force, the renowned economist, Pronob Sen of the International Growth Centre, has bluntly stated that demonetization has “penalized” the entire informal sector and damaged it “permanently”.

Six Lies About Modi Cash Ban

Some quick thoughts about mass media propaganda on the Modi cash ban in India.

  1. Critics in the mainstream media, especially from Western establishment mouthpieces like the London School of Economics, are repeatedly mentioning “the poor” as the primary victim of the cash ban.  Now,  daily workers are certainly suffering, because they can’t be paid in cash regularly, but they are very, very far from being the only people suffering. Indeed, the affluent, the middle-class, the lower middle-class, urban residents and rural, the whole of the country has been profoundly affected. Being rich does not exempt you from standing in line for days trying to get out a trivial part of your savings. Being rich (on paper) does not prevent your business from collapsing because you cannot order supplies or because consumer demand has collapsed with the cash crunch.
  2.  Mainstream critics are breezily assuming the virtue of the alleged objective of the plan: rooting out corruption, “black money,” and crime.  But the printing of  new 2000 rupee notes belies this assumption. Larger bills are usually favored by people involved in shady cash dealings.  By contrast, the banned 500 and 1000 rupee notes were widely used in the legitimate cash-based economy. This suggests that attacking the cash-based economy was the real goal of the cash ban.
  3.  Mainstream critics are repeatedly associating cashless with crimeless or “clean” money.  The cashless project has become equated with the cleanliness program. Swacch Bharat or Clean India and Digital India have become one. But in fact,  money-laundering and the financing of criminal activity and terrorism are usually done through digital payments, especially the much-touted Bitcoin, which, elsewhere on this blog, I have deconstructed as a tool of the financial elites. Bitcoin India has soared multiple times following the cash ban. Who profited? When will the media go after this story?
  4.  The mainstream media has given us very sparse coverage of the broad and profound destruction of the economy underway, instead, opting for sound-bytes about a “temporary” decline in GDP that at most will take a few months to recover. But GDP itself is a spurious indicator of the economic well-being a country.  A far better indicator of the effects of the cash ban is taking a cross-section of the industries being devastated: the breadth and depth is astounding. The numbers are in the tens and hundreds of thousands. The workers involved are in the millions. From the ceramic and diamond industry in Gujarat (Modi’s home state) to the chit-fund industry, farming, and leather-working; from book sellers to vegetable sellers, from real estate to Ayurvedic medicine, there is not a business that has not been dealt a severe blow, often,  irretrievably. The closing of tens of thousands of small businesses that constitute the majority of a sector leaves the market wide open for big businesses. Thus, the diamond business in Gujarat has been ruined for the small businesses that dominate 60% of it. But the large diamond merchants have survived and will no doubt expand. Now, who are those large diamond merchants? Could they be the same merchants who dominate the global industry from Antwerp? What is their relationship to the Modi government and its foreign backers?
  5.  The last lie that is being circulated about the cash ban is that it was an ill thought-out, poorly planned act.  The evidence does not support this lie. The “cashless” project is a globalist objective with hoary roots, going back, proximately, to the 1990’s, when the capital markets were financialized and centralized. However, theoretically, since the inauguration of the Internet, the potential has always existed for the economic world to be digitalized and centralized. We must assume that those behind the adoption of the ‘net knew this. So, truthfully, at least from the 1970’s, the cashless project has been in the works. Secondly,  Western fintech has been trying to get its foot into the Indian market over the last several years, without success. The Modi cash ban has now forcibly opened the market for it. Indeed, finance capital has RAPED the country. Here is a real “rape crisis” that the Western media is glossing over.
  6.  My final point in this post is perhaps the most disturbing. While there is indeed a global move toward “cashless,” the notion that is being circulated in the MSM that the Indian cash ban is more-of-the-same is totally false and most likely disinformation. There is no Western country in the world in which the cashless project has intentionally and immediately inflicted the kind of damage that the Modi ban has done. The Western measures  are staid, gradualist, and leave scope for the use of cash and for privacy, since the infrastructure and policing available in the West is excellent. In India, by contrast, the cash ban is nothing less than dekulakization, and should bluntly be called economic warfare. Given that the powers-that-be behind Modi constitute the right-wing of the Anglo-Jewish oligarchy, the cash ban is an act of monumental treachery on the part of the PM; a rape of the native population and industry by a conspiracy of the state and big business; and the savage, unilateral imposition of a digital dictatorship from New York, London, and Tel Aviv, on the no-longer sovereign republic of India.

Bolshevism and the Jews


“Bolshevism and the Jews” – Victor Moss


The unprecedented catastrophe of the Russian revolution required an explanation… For very many this lay in the coming to power of the Jews, and their hatred for the Russian people. For after the revolution of February, 1917 the Jews acquired full rights with the rest of the population, and the (already very porous) barriers set up by the Pale of Settlement were destroyed. Jews poured from the western regions into the major cities of European Russia and soon acquired prominent executive positions in all major sectors of government and the economy.

As Alexander Solzhenitsyn has written, February brought only harm and destruction to the Russian population. However, “Jewish society in Russia received in full from the February revolution everything that it had fought for, and the October coup was really not needed by it, except by that cutthroat part of the Jewish secular youth that with its Russian brother-internationalists had stacked up a charge of hatred for the Russian state structure and was straining to ‘deepen’ the revolution.” It was they who through their control of the Executive Committee of the Soviet – over half of its members were Jewish socialists – assumed the real power after February, and propelled it on – contrary to the interests, not only of the Russian, but also of the majority of the Jewish population, – to the October revolution.

Nevertheless, at the time of the October revolution only a minority of the Bolsheviks were Jews (in the early 1900s they constituted 19% of the party). “At the elections to the Constituent Assembly ‘more than 80% of the Jewish population of Russia voted’ for Zionist parties. Lenin wrote that 550,000 were for Jewish nationalists. ‘The majority of the Jewish parties formed a single national list, in accordance with which seven deputies were elected – six Zionists’ and Gruzenberg. ‘The success of the Zionists’ was also aided by the Declaration of the English Foreign Minister Balfour [on the creation of a ‘national centre’ of the Jews in Palestine], ‘which was met by the majority of the Russian Jewish population with enthusiasm [in Moscow, Petrograd, Odessa, Kiev and many other cities there were festive manifestations, meetings and religious services]’.”

The simultaneous triumph of the Jews in Russia and Palestine was indeed an extraordinary “coincidence”: Divine Providence drew the attention of all those with eyes to see this sign of the times when, in one column of newsprint in the London Times for November 9, 1917, there appeared two articles, the one announcing the outbreak of revolution in Petrograd, and the other – the promise of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine (the Balfour declaration).

This coincidence was reinforced by the fact that the theist Jews who triumphed in Israel in 1917, and especially in 1948 after the foundation of the State of Israel, came from the same region and social background – the Pale of Settlement in Western Russia – as the atheist Jews who triumphed in Moscow in 1917. Sometimes they even came from the same families. Thus Chaim Weitzmann, the first president of Israel, points out in his Autobiography that his brothers and sisters were all either Zionists or Bolsheviks. M. Heifetz also points to the coincidence in time between the October revolution and the Balfour declaration. “A part of the Jewish generation goes along the path of Herzl and Zhabotinsky. The other part, unable to withstand the temptation, fills up the band of Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin.” “The path of Herzl and Bagritsky allowed the Jews to stand tall and immediately become not simply an equal nation with Russia, but a privileged one.”

Indeed, the Russian revolution may be regarded as one branch of that general triumph of Jewish power which we observe in the twentieth century in both East and West, in both Russia and America and Israel. The mainly Jewish nature of the Bolshevik leadership – and of the world revolution in general – cannot be doubted. Such a view was not confined to “anti-Semites”.

Thus Winston Churchill wrote: “It would almost seem as if the Gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were designed to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the Divine and the diabolical… From the days of ‘Spartacus’ Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.”

Douglas Reed writes: “The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprised 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919 were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly ‘Socialist’ or other non-Communist parties… were 55 Jews and 6 others.”

Richard Pipes admits: “Jews undeniably played in the Bolshevik Party and the early Soviet apparatus a role disproportionate to their share of the population. The number of Jews active in Communism in Russia and abroad was striking: in Hungary, for example, they furnished 95 percent of the leading figures in Bela Kun’s dictatorship. They also were disproportionately represented among Communists in Germany and Austria during the revolutionary upheavals there in 1918-23, and in the apparatus of the Communist International.”

According to Donald Rayfield, in 1922, the Jews “reached their maximum representation in the party (not that they formed a coherent group) when, at 15 per cent, they were second only to ethnic Russians with 65 per cent.”

The London Times correspondent in Russia, Robert Wilton, reported: ”Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevik Russia they are nine in ten; if anything the proportion of Jews is still greater.”

On June 9, 1919 Captain Montgomery Shuyler of the American Expeditionary Forces telegrammed from Vladivostok on the makeup of the presiding Soviet government: “… (T)here were 384 ‘commissars’ including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians, and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number, 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government.”

The Jews were especially dominant in the most feared and blood-thirsty part of the Bolshevik State apparatus, the Cheka, which, writes Brendon, “consisted of 250,000 officers (including 100,000 border guards), a remarkable adjunct to a State which was supposed to be withering away. In the first 6 years of Bolshevik rule it had executed at least 200,000. Moreover, the Cheka was empowered to act as ‘policeman, gaoler, investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner’. It also employed barbaric forms of torture.”

So complete was the Jewish domination of Russia as a result of the revolution that it is a misnomer to speak about the “Russian” revolution; it should more accurately be called the Russian-Jewish revolution.

That the Russian revolution was actually a Jewish revolution, but at the same time part of an international revolution of Jewry against the Christian and Muslim worlds, is indicated by an article by Jacob de Haas entitled “The Jewish Revolution” and published in the London Zionist journal Maccabee in November, 1905: “The Revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution, for it is a turning point in Jewish history. This situation flows from the fact that Russia is the fatherland of approximately half of the general number of Jews inhabiting the world… The overthrow of the despotic government must exert a huge influence on the destinies of millions of Jews (both in Russia and abroad). Besides, the revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution also because the Jews are the most active revolutionaries in the tsarist Empire.”

But why were the Jews the most active revolutionaries? What was it in their upbringing and history that led them to adopt the atheist revolutionary teachings and actions of Russia’s “superfluous young men” more ardently than the Russians themselves? Hatred of Christ and the Christians was, of course, deeply imbedded in the Talmud and Jewish ritual – but the angry young men that began killing thousands of the Tsar’s servants even before the revolution of 1905 had rejected the Talmud as well as the Gospel, and even all religion in general.

Donald Rayfield writes: “The motivation of those Jews who worked for the Cheka was not Zionist or ethnic. The war between the Cheka and the Russian bourgeoisie was not even purely a war of classes or political factions. It can be seen as being between Jewish internationalism and the remnants of a Russian national culture…

“…What was Jewish except lineage about Bolsheviks like Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev or Sverdlov? Some were second- or even third-generation renegades; few even spoke Yiddish, let alone knew Hebrew. They were by upbringing Russians accustomed to a European way of life and values, Jewish only in the superficial sense that, say, Karl Marx was. Jews in anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia had few ways out of the ghetto except emigration, education or revolution, and the latter two courses meant denying their Judaism by joining often anti-Jewish institutions and groups.”

This can be illustrated from the deathbed confession of Yurovsky, the murderer of the Tsar: “Our family suffered less from the constant hunger than from my father’s religious fanaticism… On holidays and regular days the children were forced to pray, and it is not surprising that my first active protest was against religious and nationalistic traditions. I came to hate God and prayer as I hated poverty and the bosses.”

At the same time, the Bolshevik Jews did appear to sympathize with Talmudism more than with any other religion. Thus in 1905 the Jewish revolutionaries in Kiev boasted that they would turn St. Sophia cathedral into a synagogue. Again, in 1918 they erected a monument to Judas Iscariot in Sviazhsk, and in 1919 – in Tambov! Perhaps the strongest evidence of the continued religiosity of the Bolshevik Jews was the fact that when the Whites re-conquered Perm in 1918 they found many Jewish religious inscriptions in the former Bolshevik headquarters – as well as on the walls of the basement of the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg where the Tsar and his family were shot.

While officially rejecting the Talmud and all religion in general, the revolutionaries did not reject the unconscious emotional energy of Talmudic Judaism. This energy was concentrated in a fiercely proud nationalism, a nationalism older and more passionately felt by virtue of the fact that the Jews had once truly been the chosen people of God. Having fallen away from that chosen status, and been scattered all over the world by the wrath of God, they resented their replacement by the Christian peoples with an especially intense resentment. Roma delenda est – Christian Rome had to be destroyed, and Russia as “The Third Rome”, the Rome that now reigned, had to be destroyed first of all. The atheist revolutionaries of the younger generation took over this resentment and hatred even while rejecting its religious-nationalist-historical basis.

L.A. Tikhomirov wrote: “It is now already for nineteen centuries that we have been hearing from Jewish thinkers that the religious essence of Israel consists not in a concept about God, but in the fulfilment of the Law. Above were cited such witnesses from Judas Galevy. The very authoritative Ilya del Medigo (15th century) in his notable Test of Faith says that ‘Judaism is founded not on religious dogma, but on religious acts’.

“But religious acts are, in essence, those that are prescribed by the Law. That means: if you want to be moral, carry out the Law. M. Mendelsohn formulates the idea of Jewry in the same way: ‘Judaism is not a revealed religion, but a revealed Law. It does not say ‘you must believe’, but ‘you must act’. In this constitution given by God the State and religion are one. The relationships of man to God and society are merged. It is not lack of faith or heresy that attracts punishment, but the violation of the civil order. Judaism gives no obligatory dogmas and recognizes the freedom of inner conviction.’

“Christianity says: you must believe in such-and-such a truth and on the basis of that you must do such-and-such. New Judaism says: you can believe as you like, but you have to do such-and-such. But this is a point of view that annihilates man as a moral personality…”

Thus Talmudism creates a personality that subjects faith and truth to the imperative of action. That is, it is the action that is first proclaimed as necessary – the reasons for doing it can be thought up later. And this corresponds exactly both to the philosophy of Marx, for whom “the truth, i.e. the reality and power, of thought must be demonstrated in action”, and to the psychological type of the Marxist revolutionary, who first proclaims that Rome (i.e. Russia) must be destroyed, and then looks for an ideology that will justify destruction. Talmudic Law is useful, indeed necessary, not because it proclaims God’s truth, but in order to secure the solidarity of the Jewish people and their subjection to their rabbinic leaders. In the same way, Marxist theory is necessary in order to unite adherents, expel dissidents and in general justify the violent overthrow of the old system.

So the Russian revolution was Jewish not so much because of the ethnic composition of its leaders as because the Satanic hatred of God, Christ and all Christians that is characteristic of the Talmudic religion throughout its history was transferred – by spiritual rather than genetic heredity – from the nationalist Talmudic fathers to their internationalist atheist sons.

March 8/21, 2011.