By William Markiewicz
I've tried in the past to throw a dispassionate view on the first three groups to which I now add bankers, as they are all targets of conspiracy theories and character assassination.
The Jews are probably the most common target of collective obsession. What is their stigma? In my view it is that the Jews and the Gypsies are the only groups I know which in their "diasporas" have not developed the sense of self-defence. Economically and socially the Jews are in better shape than the Gypsies because they're part of modern civilisation, but in the time of trouble they share the same helplessness. Wealth without power is counterproductive because it's a lure for the stronger; Iraq et al know it already. Why didn't the Jews and the Gypsies develop power during all those centuries? Concerning Gypsies, perhaps because nomads cannot change their situation. Concerning the Jews, it is because, contrary to general opinion, the Jews were unable to unite. As in a bucket of sand each grain remains separate, socially and politically the Jews remain chronic individualists. They totally lack the organized group approach. They can be brilliant individually but it doesn't protect their throats from the butcher's knife. One can build wealth individually, but cannot build security individually. The Gypsies at least, don't have wealth to be coveted.
People who have something in common cooperate or compete; it shouldn't be called, grandiloquently, "conspiracy."
When the Asians excel in studies and careers it is interpreted as due to their culture and diligence. Replace 'Asians' with 'Jews' and it's called conspiracy!
For the first time in their history the Jews now unite in favour of Israel but in a very clumsy way; they ally with the neocons and try to grab a few ounces of stones and dust from the Palestinian Territories. By being petty and greedy they prepare Armageddon for Israel. Polish Marshall Pilsudski, proven friend of the Jews, rightly remarked at the beginning of last century, that the Jews are the worst politicians in the world.
I mentioned previously that at the basic social level, the Muslims are the best functioning society in the world. Each religion has its sages; the priest, minister, rabbi, mullah, can give excellent individual advice, but Islam has The Book which transcends individual talents because it has a written answer for practically everything. In disastrous situations, those societies skillfully organize self-help, often before help arrives from abroad. Contrary to general opinion, there is less hunger and homelessness in the Islamic societies than anywhere else. Its drawback is that the Islamic fundamentalists have too much power and harm the cause of their societies by strangling human rights and stopping scientific progress. They pay dearly for it by opening the way to the predominant powers' aggression.
Without those aggressions, there wouldn't be Muslim mass emigration to the Old Countries in Europe resulting in mutual defiance.
As with all the victims of conspiracy theories, a lot of nonsense has been spread about the Masons. They have picturesque mysterious rituals, which obviously please them. No particular benefits are linked to the condition of being a Mason, no more and no less than to any other fraternity. Masonry has a haunting surrealistic poetry uncovered by the French 19th century poet Gerard de Nerval. In his book "Encounter of King Soliman and Queen Sheba" the author quotes poetry sung and played by a bard in an Istanbul café (alcohol was served generously and discreetly in coffee cups). Personally I doubt that G. de N. possessed enough knowledge of the Turkish language to translate such sophisticated poetry.
The readers are distracted from nonsense about Masons while enjoying his book.
Contrary to the fairy tales, the banker is a bureaucrat of money, not a dictator of money. Banks don't predict, don't provoke nor profit from crisis. Wars enrich some branches of industry. Banks, like most institutions, profit rather from security and prosperity.