Group Psychology And The Ukraine


R.E. Prindle

Let us ask ourselves a single question about the situation in the Ukraine.

That question is, who is the central player in this enormous critical game?  Who is the motive force?  Which nation is directing the action and to what goal?  It is an easy answer, but one that will still surprise you and which you will immediately deny.  Yes, you guessed it,  the Jews.

This issue is not specifically the Ukraine but includes it; nor is it Russia; nor the US; nor Europe.  This issue is all of them streaming out of Germany in the eighteenth century of the Affaire Jud Suss.  Of a people that cherishes grievances, this issue in the Ukraine represents Ultima Judaica.  Nor is this the first time in the last hundred years that the Jews have tried to destroy all.  They almost succeeded with the one-two punch, WWI and WWII.  Totally shattered by the results of the latter of those two wars the Jews needed a few decades to regroup.  If this is intended to be WWIII it may succeed where the first two wars failed.

The whole of Europe West from England, East to the Soviet Union the continent then lay in ruins.  The unexpected collateral damage was that both Hitler and Stalin nearly terminated the Jewish career.  Amid the holocaust of Europe there was the Jewish holocaust.

The result was that they played a revived Germany, Europe and the US to finance their own recovery.  Then they had to figure out a way to continue the destruction of Europe, Russia, the US and perhaps Western Civilization.  Jewish civilization must not only reign supreme but alone.

Events transpired in their favor.  When the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1980s and disintegrated, a window was opened.

Israel, established in 1948 was now a mature State, over populated to the gills.  The State had to move people to other shores,  they had to populate another country.  The US, Russia and Western Europe were out.  That left the Ukraine, an old haunt of theirs going back hundreds of years.  Jews began migrating to the Ukraine.

Accordingly if accounts are correct they have created the largest and most vibrant Jewish colony in Europe.  Europe had, or has, a loose confederation of States under the government of the EU combined with that of NATO, both heavily infiltrated by Jews.  NATO then was used as an irritant against Russia.  Jews hatred of Russia prevented the new Russian State, now that the USSR had disappeared, from prospering so that NATO and Europe were their enemies.  The Ukraine was then a Jewish colony, historically a Russian province i.e. Ukraine was placed within historically Russian borders. 

The Ukraine under Jewish domination then cultivated a relationship with the US and NATO to install missiles essentially within Russia around the perimeter of the Ukraine facing Russia. 

I don’t know whether the missiles were only planned or actually installed but I suspect the latter.  If one looks at Russian war plans they seem very odd.  Russia attacked Ukraine along the entire perimeter within Russia and then bombed the entire perimeter at once.  Why?  Very probably to destroy those very missiles before they could be fired.

As Ukraine was not supposed to have the missiles they would naturally be disguised in public buildings, perhaps hospitals.  It appears that Russia has destroyed them so that that game is up.

But now, using a different tactic that dates back to the Semite, Cadmus and Grecian Thebes in ancient Boeotia about 1700 BC, used again in Sarajevo in WWI, that is, as a third party getting two other parties fight each other to extinction then picking up the pieces, the Jews have or are setting up a fratricidal war between NATO and Russia that will, at the very least, flatten the entire continent from England to Russia leaving only the US to be finished later if it wasn’t lost as collateral damage.

Israel will remain standing.  Thus a project dating back a millennium will have been achieved.  Remember the Amalekites.

Note #13:  George W. M. Reynolds

A Curious Reference


R.E. Prindle

The following quotation is taken from Alexander Charles Ewart’s ‘The Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli, Earl Of Beaconsfield, K.G. And His Times, Div. 3 of 5. Vol. II. P.25.

I have no dates for Ewald, but since he died in his nineties in the 1890s it must have been c. 1800.  He was born in Jerusalem and like Disraeli, possibly in emulation of him, he also accepted Jesus of Nazareth as completing the Jewish ethos.  He makes no point of being Jewish and/or Christian.  He is, however, a near worshipper of Disraeli.

If he had been born c. 1800 he was forty-eight  in ’48 and a witness to the Trafalgar Square demonstrations.  In 1883 he was still indignant.


Mr. Disraeli had, as we have seen, expressed himself with equal caution upon the subject, though in more encouraging tones; but the masses, turbulent, ignorant, and out of work, and completely under the influence of their unscrupulous agents, had made up their minds that the Conservative party was hostile to the cause of reform, and that their object could only be attained  by assuming a threatening  attitude.  Meetings were held at Primrose Hill and at Trafalgar Square, where speakers who could obtain notoriety after no other fashion than a base and disloyal agitation, vehemently denounced the policy of the government, of which they knew nothing, to a rabble composed of the scum and outcasts of London, who no more represented the sober, intelligent working classes desirous of the franchise than our convicts represent the honesty and industry of the country.  It was arranged that a monster meeting should be held in Hyde Park, when certain conclusions, based upon spite and inspired by ignorance, which were termed “resolutions,”  were to be passed condemnatory of all opposition to the cause of reform.  The government, however, fully alive to the dangers which might ensue from the assembling in our chief public park of all that was vile and disorderly, promptly forbade the meeting.  A notice to that effect was delivered  to Sir Richard Mayne, the chief commissioner of police.  “There is nothing,’ said Mr. Walpole the home secretary, in defence of the instructions he had issued,  ‘there is nothing in the notice signed by Sir Richard Mayne to imply that processions, orderly conducted, are illegal–to prevent persons from holding meetings in the usual way for the purpose of discussing politics or ;any other subject but I think that any one holding the office which I have the honour I hold is bound to attend to the public peace of this metropolis; and if he believes that the parks, which are open by the permission of Her Majesty for benefit of all Her Majesty’s subjects, are little to be devoted to any purpose that would interfere with the quiet recreation of the people, and might lead to riot and disorderly demonstrations, he would be most blamable if he did not issue an order similar to that which I have given.”


You will notice that there was no reference to the ’48 revolution going on in Europe.  Nor did he mention any names, although George W.M. Reynolds’ name must have been on his mind.  Reynolds as the key speaker who was carried home on the shoulders of the Demonstrators must have called attention to himself as a key agitator ‘having no other way to call attention to himself.’  Likely that Ewald couldn’t force himself to eighter speak or write the name

Anyway, there is an official account of the demonstrations.

A small point of interest.

Note #12:  George W.M. Reynolds: Passing Through Time.


R.E. Prindle

Texts:  Ewald, Alexander Charles, The Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli, EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, K.G. And His Times, William MacKenzie, 1883

Reynolds, George W.M., Works 1844-1860


In order to understand an author correctly one must have some idea of his cultural milieu.  I am offering some here, I am not being comprehensive.  I am going to take a longish quote from Alexander Charles Ewald’s ‘The Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli, First Earl of Beaconsfield, K.G., And His Times to begin.

Ewald was especially suited to interpret Disraeli in great detail and length.  The work is divided into five divisions, two volumes in a beautifully designed book designed to honor Ewald’s great man.  Each page is a wonderfully detailed, almost day by day, hour by hour, account of Disraeli’s political career. The social, cultural and historical context is amazing.

Ewald was especially suited to interpret Disraeli as he too was a converted, or in Disreali’s term, ‘completed Jew’, observing both the new and old testament.  His understanding is that Jesus came to fulfill the law.  Ewald was born in Jerusalem, converting to, or assuming a complementary, Christianity.  Something like the contemporary Jews for Jesus.  I’m just guessing but I’m going to put his assumption at about the age twenty after he had time to recognize Disraeli and imitate him.  In his book her he assumes the role of Disraeli’s Boswell.

He provides magnificent detail, worshipping every word the Disraeli spoke in Parliament.  Below he is setting the stage, discussing electoral matters.  Division 1, p. 47


During the present generation the House of Commons, owing to the development of the reforms that have been effected in its constitution, has lost many of the characteristics which it formerly possessed.  It is now a practical, business-like, but, it must be confessed, a somewhat dull assembly.  The elements of youth and wit are conspicuous by their absence, while municipal eloquence and vestry-like personalities reign in their stead.  Before the abolition of nomination boroughs, a young man of great ability—like the second Pitt, Canning, Macauly and others—was taken by the hand by some powerful minister, and launched upon a parliamentary career in the easiest and most inexpensive fashion.  The leaders of the great parties, who swayed the opinions of parliament were always on the watch for talent that might serve their political ends.  Many a young man by his clever speeches at the debating-club of his university, by a happy pamphlet, or by a bitter and opportune squib, found himself safely seated on the green benches of the House of Commons as a representative of a borough in the hands of a powerful lord, or of a large-acred  squire without his election having cost him more than the issue of his address or the delivery of a few speeches before a sympathetic audience.  Commerce had not then assumed the high position it now occupies, nor had the banker’s book usurped the influence of  the pedigree chart.  The lower house was in a large measure, filled by the representatives of the landed gentry, who knew little of science of the laws of political economy, but who shuddered if they heard a false quantity, and piqued themselves that they were as familiar with the classics as a priest is with his breviary.  A few merchants of the highest class, a few successful lawyers, a few Irish, then as now not held in much esteem, and several clever young men who were the little deities of their university, completed the list. The constitution of such an assembly, though it might not offer the same scope as now exists for the exercise of those talents which especially appeal to what Mr. Disraeli called the “parochial mind,” yet afforded every opportunity for the display of culture.  A classical and a literary flavour penetrated the parliamentary eloquence of those days.  A speech delivered in the House was a solemn undertaking, and not to be lightly entered upon; its periods were carefully dismissed in stately terms worthy of the occasion; the gestures and attitudes of the speaker were studied with a Chatham-like view of effect; whilst his words were listened to by an assembly which never forgot, even in the most feverish times of party heat, that it represented the gentry of England.  Then on the following day the details brought forward were fully reported and discussed in the leading journals.  Eloquence was thus the most powerful weapon that could be wielded in parliamentary warfare, and it consequently became the favorite and most cultivated of all studies.  To be a showy speaker or a ready debater, no matter how incorrect or superficial the sentiments expressed, was to be on the high road to the cabinet; whilst the erudite and the thinker, who could never address a few words to the Speaker without confusion, were completely ignored. 

The Reform Bills and the development of a newspaper press have, however, ushered in a new state of things. The abolition of pocket boroughs has rendered it impossible for clever but impecunious youth to obtain a seat in parliament.  The competition that arises upon every vacancy in the House of Commons, and the rigid measures now most properly dealt out of those guilty of bribery and corruption, make it a matter of necessity at the present day for the candidate for parliamentary honours  to be not only a rich man, but one who has long been courting the favours of a constituency.  Those who derive their wealth from industry seldom have attained to fortune till past middle age and consequently the House of Commons will become more and more the assembly of elderly men; in other words, more grave, more practical, more dull.



What Ewart describes is the grey ease of the transition point between a change of scale, the changing of the guard.  As Greg Allman lyricist for the Allman Bros. Band described it:  ‘See that clock upon the wall?  Time can make it fall.’  Time flows it doesn’t run.  One era was ending, another beginning.

Disraeli’s career can be divided into two parts, 1837 to 1860 and from 1860 to his death.  The first period ended in success as in 1858 he and Lionel Rothschild breached the British square to allow Jews to seated in Parliament as Jews and not English thus creating the real Two Nations contending for mastery.  The Rothschilds succeeded in extending their power over all Europe while operating in the US initially through their agent August Belmont, who proved to independent and after  with the full cooperation of the J.P. Morgan organization and Kuhn-Loeb on the Jewish side.

By then Disraeli had established himself as the leader of the Conservative Party.  He was then instrumental in managing English political affairs until his death.

Reynolds’ destiny seems to have been written out of both literature and history.  The deeper I get into his study the more convinced I am that he was much more influential in promoting his agenda than he has been accredited for even by his literary admirers.  His entire political agenda was effected by the time he died.  The Chartist program which I am sure he must have had a hand in forming and which in his utopianism he thought was going to produce the perfect world had been realized.

  Disraeli seemed aware, as he was promoting the change was able to transition from one period to the other with some success.  Ewart in his political biography quotes from a Disraeli speech: Division II, p.423:


But I think that the reform of the House of Commons in 1832 greatly added to the energy and public spirit in which we had then become somewhat deficient.

But, sir, it must be remembered that the labours of the statesmen who took part in the transactions of 1832 were eminently experimental.  In many respects they had to treat their subject empirically, and it is not to be wondered at if in the course of time it was found that some errors were committed in that settlement; and if, as time rolled on, some, if not many deficiencies, were discovered.   I beg the House to consider well those effects of time, and what has been the character of the twenty-five years that have elapsed since 1832.  They form no ordinary period.  In a progressive country and a progressive age, progress has been not only rapid, but perhaps precipitate.  There is no instance in the history of Europe of such an increase of population as has taken place in this country during this period.  There is no example in the history of Europe or of America, of a creation and accumulation of capital so vast as has occurred in this country in those twenty-five years.  And I believe the general diffusion of intelligence has kept pace with that increase of population and wealth.  In that period you have brought science to bear on social life in a manner no philosopher in his dreams could ever have anticipated; in that space of time you have, in a manner, annihilated both time and space.  The influence of the discovery of printing is really only beginning to work on the multitude.  It is, therefore, not surprising that in a measure passed twenty-five years ago, in a spirit necessarily experimental, however distinguished were its authors, and however remarkable their ability, some omissions have been found that ought to be supplied, and some defects that ought to be remedied.  In such a state of things a question in England becomes what is called a public question.


Disraeli seems to handle space and time well is that excerpt.  Satisfied me anyway.

 Reynolds on the other hand was fairly rooted in the departing era that he examined in great detail handling time and space well for the period 1826 to 1848 .  When the break point came in 1859-60 he knew he couldn’t adapt to the new era.  Gave it up, handed his pen and ink to the younger generation to drift off ostensibly to do newspaper work on his newspaper, involving himself in political affairs anywhere he was welcome, wandering in the wilderness for nearly twenty years, while the new generation of novelists such as Anthony Trollope took his place as political and social commentators.  His earthly travails ended at seventy-nine.  His time had been well spent.

Disraeli died a couple years later, if I’m not mistaken, a bitter vengeful old man nursing his delusions of being a ‘great man.’  Lionel Rothschild also died in 1980 thus topping off the period.