Benjamin H. Freedman: The Role of the Jews in WWI and WWII

[Laura]

Might be interesting to compare this to the Harold Wallace Rosenthal thing found here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3408

From Peter Meyer's website:

Speech by Benjamin H. Freedman, given at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D. C. in 1961.

From Jackie Patru at http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

A Jewish Defector Warns America:

Benjamin Freedman Speaks on Zionism This should do it! For the second and last time we are updating the transcript of Ben Freedman's 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel. The piece has been posted for over a year now. A few months ago, a person challenged the authenticity of the transcript, because his version stated that Samuel Untermeyer had used the Columbia Broadcasting studios when he declared a worldwide boycott against Germany -- in his words: 'A Holy War'. We could not debate the issue, having never heard the actual recording of Mr. Freedman's speech. Today, I discovered that we have a cassette tape of the speech, so I listened to the entire tape while reading the posted transcript. According to Mr. Freedman the radio station used by Untermeyer was, in fact, ABC. There had also been some simple rearrangements of sentence structure in that transcript, and a line or two omitted in places. For the sake of authenticity, the corrections have been made. The transcript is now word for word from Mr. Freedman's speech. The original transcriber had 'tidied up' Mr. Freedman's responses during the Q&A period, omitting superfluous and repetitious words. For the most part, we've left the tidied up version as it was, since it didn't change the response, and actually helped to clarify Mr. Freedman's answers. If the names were changed, he could have been making that speech yesterday. -- Jackie -- April 8, 2003 Here is our first update notice, about a year ago: The original posting of this speech was taken from an existing web site. In going through our files we recently discovered a full transcript of the speech and realized the original posting was not complete. Here is the transcript from our files, with additional text at the beginning - some within the body of the speech - and a question and answer section at the end that had not been included in the original posting. There will be further postings from other writers and quotes that will confirm much of what Mr. Freedman said here. Many of you will see the truth of it, as it stands. -- Jackie --

The Truth will stand on its own merit

A Jewish Defector Warns America:

Benjamin Freedman Speaks by Benjamin H. Freedman

Introductory Note -- Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century.

Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-

ist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times. This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us -- his warning to the West -- is more urgent than ever before. -- K.A.S. ---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE HOLOCAUST Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening speech. This speech is an explanation of the plans now being laid to throw the United States into a third world war. It was made a short time ago before a large group in the Congressional 'Room of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. Both the speech and the question and answer period later so electrified the audience that a group of patriots has transferred it to two long-playing records which you may buy to play for friends, clubs, and your church group in your community. The speaker is Mr. Benjamin Freedman, noted authority on Zionism and all of its schemes. Mr. Freedman is a former Jew, and I mean a FORMER Jew. He has fought the Communist world conspiracy tooth and nail, and stands today as a leading American patriot. We now take you to the speaker's platform to present Benjamin Freedman. (applause) [Freedman's speech]

What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity. I'm not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I'm here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the world: the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians. Now, first of all, I'd like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 -- that was shortly before elections -- Senator Kennedy, who is now the President of the United States, went to New York, and delivered an address to the Zionist Organization of America. In that address, to reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would use the armed forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that area. In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want to follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the last twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to return to their homes.

Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight with the Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern Europe... when that happens, the United States will trigger World War III.

You say, when will that take place? The answer is, as soon as the difficulty between France and Algeria has been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move these people back into their homes, and when they do that and President kennedy sends your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a cause.

I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the United Nations -- and of the ninety-nine nations there, I've consulted with maybe seventy of them -- and when we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves retain possession of what they have stolen from these innocent people we're not going to have a man there to fight with us as our ally. And who will these people have supporting them, you ask. Well, four days after President Kennedy -- or he was then Senator Kennedy -- made that statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.

Not only that... they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead these people back to their homeland. With them, they have as their allies all the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group. That includes the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite. It includes Red China; it includes every independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of the world's total population. Eighty percent of the world's population. Four out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our enemies at war with us. And not alone are they four out of five human beings now on the face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian population of the world and they are the non-Caucasians... the non-white nations of the world, and that's what we face. And what is the reason? The reason is that here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons too many and too complex to go into here at this -- time I'll be glad to answer questions, however, to support that statement -- the Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country.

Now, you say, 'well, that's a very broad statement to make', but let me show what happened while you were -- I don't want to wear that out --- let me show what happened while WE were all asleep. I'm including myself with you. We were all asleep. What happened?

World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?

Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her -- and after that, starvation.

At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

Now Germany -- not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated. While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible -- the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war."

In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey."

Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain -- that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine -- should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German -- totally pro-German -- because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.

Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany. The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

Now the war -- World War One -- in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there -- we were railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened? After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.

Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it's history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.

Now, that brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany.

You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. Now, the Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout." It was a sellout that I can best compare -- suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass.

Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. "We've been so nice to them"; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth." Now, Nahum Sokolow -- all the great leaders, the big names that you read about in connection with Zionism today -- they, in 1919, 1920, '21, '22, and '23, they wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their statements -- that "the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the United States into the war against them." The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious.

Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema' Yisrael" or "Our Father." No one cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because World War One was started against Germany for no reason for which they [Germans] were responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time of the French Revolution, what was the German Reich consisted of 300 -- three hundred! -- small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred little separate political entities. And between that time, between the period of ... between Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years after that time they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivalling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody and make better products. And what happened? What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that: "We must slap down Germany", because there isn't one historian in the world that can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened after that?

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international affiliations.

Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

So they did take appropriate action against them [against the Jews]. They ... shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could? They shunned them. The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.

Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn't know what to do, so they called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler! And you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist, no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way! And we, the Jews of the world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you." Well, the Germans told them ... you can imagine. So what did they [the Jews] do?

They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything to people here ... (You want to ask a question? --- Uh, there were no Communists in Germany at that time. they were called 'Social Democrats.)

Well, I don't want to go by what they were called. We're now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material ... but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for safety and for security.

Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back into their former -- their status -- and the Germans fought them in every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone's head. The same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were interested in liquor, and they didn't fight one another with pistols, they did it every way they could.

Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And, at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and there were only 460,000 Jews ... less than one half of one percent of Germany were Jews. And yet, they controlled all of the press, they controlled most of the economy, because they had come in and with cheap money -- you know the way the Mark was devalued -- they bought up practically everything.

Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr. Untermeyer came back to the United States -- who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference -- and he went from the steamer to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he said:

"The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them, that will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business."

And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. Their labor. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There just was not enough food for more than one third of the population.

Now in this declaration, which I have here, it was printed on page -- a whole page -- in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that: "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the NRA" . [National Recovery Administration] -- which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless they followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, which of course was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that time.

Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it.

In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted. If anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs: "Hitler", "murderer", and so forth, and like -- something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.

R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews ... a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany". Well, they were cotton stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since I've been observing women's legs in the last twenty years, I haven't seen a pair with cotton stockings on them. So Macy! I saw Macy boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "MURDERS" and "HITLERITES", and so forth.

Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

Now, that ... naturally, the Germans said, "Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews.

Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.

That continued for some time, and it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now, for anyone to say that -- I don't like to use the word 'anti-Semitism' because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it -- the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three -- did I say for World War One, they were responsible? For the boycott -- and also for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive.

In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. It's going to be Christian or it's going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: "We're going to keep it Christian if possible". And they started to re-arm.

And there intention was -- by that time the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 -- the Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: "Well, our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong."

And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for defense, they say. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world.

Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. One million tons of TNT is a megaton. Now, our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT. That was when they were first developed five or six years ago. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.

So, what do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. And why will it take place? It will take place because Act III ... the curtain goes up on Act III. Act I was World War I. Act II was World War II. Act III is going to be World War III.

The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it, and it's known all over the world.

Now, what are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it.

Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Others knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.

I was 'confidential man' to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.

Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. And that's how they got us into World War I, while we all slept.

Now, at this moment... at this moment they may be planning this World War III, in which we don't stand a chance even if they don't use nuclear bombs. How can the United States -- about five percent of the world -- go out and fight eighty to ninety percent of the world on their home ground? How can we do it... send our boys over there to be slaughtered? For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their 'commonwealth'? They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.

Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness that you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." That is correct. I don't know from what state you come, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness said one lie, disregard his testimony.

Now, what are the facts about the Jews?

The Jews -- I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn't a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.

Now what happened? The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.

They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe -- and to reduce this so you don't get too confused about the history of Eastern Europe -- they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles. Only, there was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.

Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy. I don't want to go into the details of that now. It was their religion the way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere in the world.

Now, the [Khazar] king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either Christianity, Islam -- the Moslem faith -- or what is known today as Judaism -- really Talmudism. So, like spinning a top and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion.

He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people -- 800,000 thousand square miles -- and maybe ten to twenty million people; and they became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them that had an ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:

"Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God's chosen people to their Promised Land, their ancestral homeland, It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews."

Well, they were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish [were converted]. And it's just as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be ... there are 54 million Chinese Moslems. Fifty four million! And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that time, 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief.

Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born ... imagine if the 54 million Chinese called themselves 'Arabs'. Imagine! Why, you'd say they're lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia.

The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants that were Christians. They weren't different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns ... they were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. They likewise, because their king took the faith -- Talmudic faith -- they had no choice. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So everybody -- they lived on the land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land under their feudal system -- so they [Khazars] all became what we call today, Jews!

 

[Laura]

Conclusion:

Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians ... for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power, our prestige to repatriate God's chosen people to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land."

Now, could there be a bigger lie than that? Could there be a bigger lie than that?

And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language ... so naturally you'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.

Now, that is one of the great lies ... that is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world. Because after two wars fought in Europe -- World War I and World War II -- if it wasn't possible for them to live in peace and harmony with the people in Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States, what were the two wars fought for? Did they have to -- like you flush the toilet -- because they couldn't get along, did they have to say, "Well, we're going back to our homeland and you Christians can help us"?

I can't understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have been that dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew the things that I'm telling you. But, they naturally bribed them, shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with money, and now ... I don't care whether you know all this or not. It doesn't make any difference to me whether you know all these facts or not, but it does make a difference to me. I've got, in my family, boys that will have to be in the next war, and I don't want them to go and fight and die... like they died in Korea. Like they died in Japan. Like they've died all over the world. For what?

To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people who had been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years? Is that why the United States must go to war? Because the Democratic Party wants New York State -- the electoral vote? Illinois, the electoral vote? And Pennsylvania, the electoral vote?... which are controlled by the Zionists and their co-religionists? ... the balance of power?

In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists. And New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes. Now, I don't blame Mr. Kennedy. I'm fond of Mr. Kennedy. I think he's a great man. I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him. And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows. He's playing with the enemy. Like when you go fishing, you've got to play with the fish. Let 'em out and pull 'em in. Let 'em out and pull 'em in. But knowing Mr. Kennedy's father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don't think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.

But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal Christian , every person that regards the defense of this country as a sacred right, that they communicate -- not with their congressman, not with their senator, but with President Kennedy. And tell him, "I do not think you should send my boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and under the flag that you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the hands of these that which they have stolen". I think everyone should not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends to write.

Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to support what I have just asked you to do. But I don't think it's necessary to do that. You're above the average group in intelligence and I don't think it's necessary to impress this any more.

But ... I want to tell you one more thing. You talk about... "Oh, the Jews. Why the Jews? Christianity. Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion". But do you know that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that on that day... and I was one of them! This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts.

When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand -- and it's the only prayer for which you stand -- and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months -- any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void.

The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and so forth and so on.

And further than that, the Talmud teaches: "Don't forget -- whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge -- remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that".

How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.

And we're going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason. You can't depend upon something as insecure as the leadership that is not obliged to respect an oath, vow or pledge. Now I could go on and recite many other things to you, but I would have a little respect for your time, and you want to really, uh, get through with all of this. Tomorrow's going to be a long day.

Now I want to say one thing. You ask me ... well, you think to yourself: "well how did this fellow get mixed up in this the way he got mixed up in it." Well, I opened my mouth in 1945, and I took big pages in newspapers and tried to tell the American people what I'm telling you. And one newspaper after another refused the advertisement. And when I couldn't find a newspaper to take them -- I paid cash, not credit -- what happened? My lawyer told me, "There's an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take your announcement". So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and that's how I met him.

So somebody told me the lawyer who introduced me, who was the son of the Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he said: "Well, I think he's a little anti-Semitic. I don't know whether I can get him over here. So he brought him over to my apartment and we hit it off wonderfully, and have since then.

Now, I say this, and I say it without any qualifications. I say it without any reservations. And I say it without any hesitation ... if it wasn't for the work that Mr. Conley McGinley did with "Common Sense" -- he's been sending out from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 every year -- if it wasn't for the work he's been doing sending those out for fifteen years now, we would already be a communist country. Nobody has done what he did to light fires. Many of the other active persons in this fight learned all about if for the first time through "Common Sense".

Now, I have been very active in helping him all I could. I'm not as flush as I was. I cannot go on spending the money ... I'm not going to take up a collection. Don't worry. I see five people getting up to leave. (laughter)

I haven't got the money that I used to spend. I used to print a quarter of a million of them out of my own pocket and send them out. Mr. McGinley, when I first met him, had maybe 5,000 printed and circulated them locally. So I said, "With what you know and what I know, we can really do a good job". So I started printing in outside shops of big newspaper companies, a quarter of a million, and paid for them. Well, there's always a bottom to the barrel. I suppose we've all reached that at times.

I'm not so poor that I can't live without working and that's what worries the Anti-Defamation League. I can just get by without going and asking for a job or getting on the bread line. But Mr. McGinley is working. He's sick and he's going at this stronger than ever. And all I want to say is that they want to close up "Common Sense" more than any other single thing in the whole world, as a death-blow to the fight Christians are making to survive. So I just want to tell you this. All they do is circulate rumors: "Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman is the wealthy backer of 'Common Sense'." The reason they do that is to discourage the people in the United States: don't send any money to Common Sense. They don't need it. The've got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as a backer. That all has strategy. They don't want to advertise me so that people that have real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me. They just want people to lay off "Common Sense". And all I'm telling you is, I do try to help him, but I haven't been able to. And I will be very honest. One thing I won't do is lie. In the last year I've had so much sickness in my family that I could not give him one dollar.

How he's managed to survive, I don't know. God alone knows. And he must be in God's care because how he's pulled through his sickness and with his financial troubles, I don't know. But that press is working ... and every two weeks about a hundred or a hundred-fifty-thousand of "Common Sense" go out with a new message. And if that information could be multiplied ... if people that now get it could buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them around. Plow that field. Sow those seeds, you don't know which will take root, but for God's sake, this is our last chance. [Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing unnecessary purchases to 'buy more stuff', play golf, etc., and use the money to keep "Common Sense" going. He explains that the paper is going in debt; could be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer has the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the information to the American public and elected officials. He then asks for questions from the audience.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {Question inaudible] Freedman: All right, I'll comment on that. This is rather deep, but you all have a very high degree of intelligence, so I'm going to make an attempt. In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea. Judea was a province of the Roman Empire. Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius. Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.

Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as 'j', and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts 'ghu'. Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic... all those languages. Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn't exist. Judea was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean. I've seen those early... the earliest scripts available.

In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to translate the Bible into English. There was no English edition of the Bible because who the Devil could read? It was only the educated church people who could read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages. Anyhow, Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. But in it, he had to look around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius.

There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', "jew". At the time, there was no printing press.

Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many changes... I have them all here. If you want I can read them to you. I will. That word 'gyu' which was in the Wycliffe Bible became ... first it was ' gyu ', then ' giu ', then ' iu ' (because the ' i ' in Latin is pronounced like the ' j '. Julius Caesar is ' Iul ' because there is no 'j' in Latin) then ' iuw ', then ' ieuu ', then ' ieuy ', then ' iwe ', then ' iow ', then ' iewe ', all in Bibles as time went on. Then ' ieue ', then ' iue ', then ' ive ', and then ' ivw ', and finally in the 18th century... ' jew '. Jew.

All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin. Now, there was no such thing as 'Jew', and any theologian -- I've lectured in maybe 20 of the most prominent theological seminaries in this country, and two in Europe -- there was no such word as Jew. There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was 'gyu' -- Jew. A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a laboratory a 'lab', and gasoline 'gas'... a tendency to short up.

So, in England there were no public schools; people didn't know how to read; it looked like a scrambled alphabet so they made a short word out of it. Now for a theologian to say that you can't harm the Jews, is just ridiculous. I'd like to know where in the scriptures it says that. I'd like to know the text. Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews. What would you, as a citizen of the United States, do to people who did to you what the so-called Jews -- the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers -- they weren't Jews, as I just explained to you. They were Eastern Europeans who'd been converted to Talmudism. There was no such thing as Judaism. Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible]. No Jew or no educated person ever heard of Judaism. It didn't exist. They pulled it out of the air ... a meaningless word.

Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew who's a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews. So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this reverend who told you these things, I'll convince him and it'll be one step in the right direction. I'll go wherever I have to go to meet him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, ma'am. Well... I can answer that. First of all, your first premise is wrong. Your first premise that all the Jews are loyal to each other is wrong. Because, the Eastern European Jews outnumber all the rest by so many that they create the impression that they are the Jewish 'race'; that they are the Jewish nation; that they are the Jewish people ... and the Christians swallow it like a cream puff.

But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from all over the world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of Atonement religious ceremony. In Brunswick, Germany, where that conference was held in 1844, there was almost a terrific riot. A civil war.

The Eastern Europeans said, "What the hell. We should give up Kol Nidre? That gives us our grip on our people. We give them a franchise so they can tell the Christians, 'Go to hell. We'll make any deal you want', but they don't have to carry it out. That gives us our grip on our people". So, they're not so united, and if you knew the feeling that exists ... Now, I'll also show you from an official document by the man responsible for ... uh, who baptized this race. Here is a paper that we obtained from the archives of the Zionist organization in New York City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who -- on behalf of the British Cabinet -- negotiated the deal with these Zionists.

And in here he says that all the Jews in England were against it. The Jews who had been there for years, the [inaudible - probably Sephardim], those who had Portuguese and Spanish ad Dutch ancestry... who were monotheists and believed in that religious belief. That was while the Eastern European Jews were still running around in the heart of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no more to do with them than ... can we talk about a Christian 'race'? or a Christian religion?... or are the Christians united?

So the same disunity is among the Jews. And I'll show you in this same document that when they went to France to try and get the French government to back that Zionist venture, there was only one Jew in France who was for it. That was Rothschild, and they did it because they were interested in the oil and the Suez Canal

------------------------------------------------ [Question inaudible] Freedman: You know why? Because if they don't, they're decked up. They come around and they tell you how much you must give, and if you don't ... oh, you're anti-Semitic. Then none of their friends will have anything to do with them, and they start a smear campaign ... and you have got to give.

In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve manufacturers in the building. And when the drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United Jewish Drive, they put a big scoreboard with the names of the firms and opposite them, as you make the amount they put you down for, they put a gold star after the name. Then, the buyers are told, "When you come into that building to call on someone and they haven't got a gold star, tell them that you won't buy from them until they have the gold star". BLACKMAIL. I don't know what else you can call it.

Then what do they do? They tell you it's for 'humanitarian purposes' and they send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible. So if they hadn't sent that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have gone into the U.S. Treasury as income tax. So what happens? That seven billion dollars deficit -- that air pocket -- the gullible Christians have to make up.

They put a bigger tax on gas or bread or corporation tax. Somebody has to pay the housekeeping expenses for the government. So why do you let these people send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their ancient homeland? And you say, "Oh, well. The poor Jews. They have no place to go and they've been persecuted all their lives". They've never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.

Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England? King Edward the First in 1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the Cromwell Revolution which was financed by the Rothschilds. For four-hundred years there wasn't a Jew. But do you know why they were driven out? Because in the Christian faith and the Moslem faith it's a sin to charge 'rent' for the use of money. In other words - what we call interest [usury] is a sin.

So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much interest, and when the Lords and Dukes couldn't pay, they [Jews] foreclosed. And they were creating so much trouble that the king of England finally made himself their partner, because when they they came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped off the Jews ... the money-lenders. So the king finally said -- and this is all in history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the Jews in England; two books you can find in your library. When the king found out what the trouble was all about, and how much money they were making, he declared himself a fifty-percent partner of the money lenders. Edward the First. And for many years, one-third of the revenues of the British Treasury came from the fifty-percent interest in money-lending by the Jews.

But it got worse and worse. So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes kept killing the money-lenders, the King then said, "I declare myself the heir of all the money-lenders. If they're killed you have to pay me, because I'm his sole heir". That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out and collect the money with an army, so he told the Jews to get out. There were 15,000 of them, and they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland, and that's how Ireland got to be part of the United Kingdom.

When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to take Ireland for himself before someone else did. He sent Robert Southgard with a mercenary army and conquered Ireland. So, show me one time where a Jew was persecuted in any country because of his religion. It has never happened. It's always their impact on the political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community in which they settle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [Question inaudible] Freedman: Yes, sir. Well, they say most of those things themselves. It was unnecessary for Benjamin Franklin to say it. Most of those things they say themselves. But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe.

When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the Khazar Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled to Western Europe and brought with them the very things to which you object and I object and a lot of other people object. The customs, the habits, the instincts with which they were endowed.

When Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that's the name that they went by, and when the Christians first heard that these people who were fleeing from Russia -- who they were -- that they had practiced this Talmudic faith -- the Christians in Western Europe said, "They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!"

And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that -- and he's probably as good an authority on that subject as there is. So when Ben Franklin came to Europe in the 18th century, he already saw the results of what these people had done after they left their homeland. And every word of it is true... they say it themselves. I can give you half a dozen books they've written in which they say the same thing: When they have money they become tyrants. And when they become defeated, they become ruthless. They're only barbarians. They're the descendants of Asiatic Mongols and they will do anything to accomplish their purpose.

What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did? The Czar had abdicated nine or ten months before that. There was no need for them ... they were going to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn't want that. When the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they mowed them all down and established the Soviet Union.

There was no need for that. But they thought, "Now is the time", and if you you will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word 'Bolshevism', you'll find the five laws there that Lenin put down for a successful revolution. One of them is, "Wait for the right time, and then give them everything you've got". It would pay you to read that.

You'd also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and created and cultivated the Communist movement. And that their energy made them the spearhead of the movement. Harold Blacktree wrote it and no one knew more about Communism than he. And the Encyclopedia Britannica for 25 years has been printing it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [Question inaudible] Freedman: Well, I can't advocate that you do anything that's criminal, but I can tell you this. You can start what I call an endless chain. If you can get your friends to write, objectively, here is the statement: Mr. Kennedy's office gave me this himself. Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr. Kennedy, took over his office -- was in his office -- and gave me this. He delivered this on the 25th, and it says here:

"For release to AM (that means morning papers), August 25th". "Israel is here to stay. It is a national commitment, special obligation of the Democratic Party. The White House must take the lead. American intervention. We will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab states our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation".

Well, do you call the return of people to their homeland [the Arab Palestinians] aggression? Is Mr. Kennedy going to do that? Suppose three million Mexicans came into Texas and drove the six million Texans into the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. Suppose these Mexicans were slipped in there armed -- the Texans were disarmed -- and one night they drove them all out of Texas and declared themselves the Republic of the Alamo. What would the United States say?

Would we say it's aggression for these Texans to try to get their homes back from the Mexican thieves? Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly armed by the Soviets and overnight they rose up and drove all the whites into the swamps of Mississippi and Georgia and Florida ... drove them out completely, and declared themselves the Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other. Would we call it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go back to their homes?

Would we ... what would we think if the soviet Union said, "No, those Negroes now occupy them! Leave them there!", or "No, those Mexicans are in Texas. they declared themselves a sovereign state. Leave them there. You have plenty of room in Utah and Nevada. Settle somewhere else".

Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to go back to their homes? So now, you've got to write to President Kennedy and say, "We do not consider it aggression in the sense that you use the word, if these people want to return to their homes as the United Nations -- fifteen times in the last twelve years -- called upon the Zionists in occupation of Palestine to allow the Arab Palestinians to return to their former homes and farms". [End of transcript of Benjamin Freedman speech, given in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.]

=== end of speech ===

Comments by Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602 Australia; (02) 62475187. Date 31 Oct 1999; update September 19, 2004.

(1) For background information, see Robert John's book Behind the Balfour Declaration, Institute for Historical Review, 1988. Question: why was the Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild? Why was he, rather than a rabbi, chosen by Jews to represent the Jewish religion?

(2) Nazis insist that all Jews are one, but evidence shows that they are sharply divided into secular and religious factions. The former tended to support Communism, the latter Zionism; the two sides represent rival visions of world government. The split was openly visible when Rabin was assassinated. The Balfour Declaration - appealing to Zionists - was made just a few days before Lenin - appealing to secularists - seized power. When the state of Israel was created, it became a rival to the USSR, for Jewish loyalties. The 1967 and 1973 wars finalised the split; after 1973, Jews increasingly abandoned the USSR.

(3) The League of Nations was created by the "British" faction of Internationalists. The USSR did not join, and did a deal with Weimar Germany to sidestep the League. This deal was agreed in the Treaty of Rapallo, and was arranged by Jews, Rathenau in Germany, and of course the USSR at that time was Jewish-run. It seems to prove that there were 2 distinct factions of Internationalists at that time. Even now, there are two factions: the laissez-faire individualists, e.g. Lord William Rees-Mogg, who favour a sort of world anarchy where the rich hold sway, and those who favour a regulatory world government - this is supported by Soros & the Jewish faction. In general, the Republicans support the first, while the Democrats support the second.

(4) When Lenin took power, he implemented the "pacifist" line which Bolshevik Jews had been promoting, and pulled Russia out of the war, as promised to the German military in return for safe passage. Just a few days earlier, Britain agreed to the Balfour Declaration, an appeal to the Zionists which also acted as a counter to Lenin's appeal to the Marxist Jews.

(5) It was Stalin who removed the Jews from power in the USSR; through him, Russians took charge of a system that had been set up by Jews. Some Jews of course remained at the top, and foreign Jews remained largely supportive. During WW2, Stalin toyed with the creation of a Jewish Crimea, to get American Jews onside.

(6) In 1946, American Jews put a proposal for World Government to him; he turned it down. Just after World War II, there were two huge armies, those of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. If ever there was a time when a world government might have been formed, this was it: if they had joined up, no other force could have resisted them. Such a proposal was put in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists over several months in 1946. In his book Has Man a Future?, Bertrand Russell - an advocate of world government - describes how it developed, first as a proposal assembled by David Lilienthal, then in a form developed by Bernard Baruch (p. 25 & p. 97). This "Baruch Plan" was canvassed in the issues of 1946 and put to Stalin. By the end of that year, Stalin had rejected it, on the grounds that it required submission to Washington, and the Cold War had begun. Baruch and Lilienthal were Jews; the Jewish backers of the Baruch Plan belong to the International Socialist faction, which now promotes the World Court, the Kyoto Protocol, Feminism, and Gay Marriage.

The International Socialist faction opposed the earlier May-Johnson Bill, which belongs to the Tory faction. On the three factions see http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/british-conspiracy.html

In the International Socialists' book ONE WORLD or NONE, one contributor, Harold C. Urey, wrote, "Here was a bill originating in the War Department ... The May-Johnson Bill was actually similar in intent and effect to the transfer of power from the German Reichstag to Hitler ... ": http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/one-world-or-none.html
Documents on the Baruch Plan are shown here: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/baruch-plan.html

Stalin himself was murdered during the conflict over the "Doctors' Plot: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/kaganovich.html

Also see David Ben Gurion's article in LOOK magazine, January 16, 1962 (scroll down to see text): http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/bengur62.jpg

(7) When Israel was created, many Russian Jews were drawn to it, showing their allegiance to it over the USSR. In response, they were further purged in the USSR, although they were running the satellite governments in Eastern Europe.

(8) The wars of 1967 and 1973 moved many foreign Jews from being liberals to being neoconservatives, from Marxism to Zionism. They encouraged Jewish emigration from the USSR, and co-operated with the Reagan military buildup. In effect, having lost control of the USSR, they contributed substantially to its destruction.

(9) It is iromic that Hitler, the leading antisemite in the West, attacked Stalin, the leading antisemite in the East; and that Zionism has proved stronger than Marxism - Israel having outlasted the USSR. The "British" faction has three times successfully used Zionism to split the Jewish allegiance to the USSR: once with the Balfour Declaration, once with the creation of Israel, once with the 1967-1973 wars. Zionism has been the price for the defeat of Communism. ===

Also see Robert John's book Behind the Balfour Declaration: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/balfour.html

Robert John paid tribute to Freedman in his book Behind the Balfour Declaration: The Hidden Origins of Today's Mideast Crisis (The Institute for Historical Review, 1822l/2 Newport Blvd., Suite 183 Costa Mesa, California 92627, 1988):

{p. 27} Acknowledgements

To Benjamin H. Freedman, who committed himself to finding and telling the facts about Zionism and Communism. and encouraged others to do the same. The son of one of the founders of the American Jewish Committee, which for many years was anti-Zionist, Ben Freedman founded the League for Peace with Justice in Palestine in 1946. He gave me copies of materials on the Balfour Declaration which I might never have found on my own and encouraged my own research. (He died in April 1984.) ...
{endquote}

A photo of Benjamin Freedman, and of the newspaper he used to write in, Common Sense

I asked Robert John if he can verify that this photo is a photo of Benjamin Freedman. He replied, "I do".

I asked if he come across that newspaper, Common Sense, before? He replied, "I was a subsriber for years. Ed. Conde McGinley".

David Lloyd George (Prime Minister at the time) on why Britain made the Balfour Declaration: l-george.html.

Added May 7, 2006:

E. J. Dillon in his book The Peace Conference (Hutchinson & Co., London, 1919) noted that the Peace Conference of Versailles was dominated by the Anglo-Saxon powers, and that they in turn were dominated by their Jewish members:

'Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, form Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Roumania, Greece, Britain, Holland and Belgium; but the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States' (p. 10).

'This adverse vote on Mr. Wilson's pet scheme to have religious inequality proclaimed as a means of hindering sanguinary wars brought to its climax the reaction of the Conference against what it regarded as a systematic endeavour to establish the overlordship of the Anglo-Saxon peoples in the world. ... Most of them believed that a pretext was being sought to enable the leading Powers to intervene in the domestic concerns of all the other States ... other Delegates ... feared that a religious - some would call it racial - bias lay at the root of Mr. Wilson's policy. It may seem amazing to some readers, but it is none the less a fact that a considerable number of Delegates believed that the real influences behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic' (p. 422).

'They confronted the President's proposal on the subject of religious inequality, and, in particular, the odd motive alleged for it, with the measures for the protection of minorities which he subsequently imposed on the lesser States, and which had for their keynote to satisfy the Jewish elements in Eastern Europe. And they concluded that the sequence of expedients framed and enforced in this direction were inspired by the Jews, assembled in Paris for the purpose of realizing their carefully thought-out programme, which they succeeded in having substantially executed. The formula into which this policy was thrown ... was this: "Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who, in turn, are swayed by their Jewish elements". It is difficult to convey an adequate notion of the warmth of feeling - one might almost call it the heat of passion - which this supposed discovery generated. The applications of the theory to many of the puzzles of the past were countless and ingenious. The illustrations of the manner in which the policy was pursued, and the cajolery and threats which were said to have been employed in order to ensure its success, covered the whole history of the Conference, and presented it through a new and possibly distorted medium. The morbid suspicions aroused may have been the natural vein of men who had passed a great part of their lives in petty racial struggles; but according to common account, it was abundantly nurtured at the Conference by the lack of reserve and moderation displayed by some of the promoters of the minority clauses who were deficient in the sense of measure' (pp. 422-3).

Dillon says that the delegates noted that, at that very time, Communist revolutions were breaking out in Central and East European countries, led by Communist Jews for whom the religious Jews felt "disgust" (p. 69). If the religious Jews distanced themselves from the Communist Jews, why did they defend the latter, instead of repudiating them, when governments cracked down on them? Why did religious Jews like financier Jacob Schiff want to bring down the Czar's government, on account of its pogroms against revolutionary Jews, if Schiff was repudiating those revolutionary Jews?

In his letters (Cyrus Alder, Jacob H Schiff: His Life and Letters, 1928), Schiff reveals an obsession with bringing down the Russian government. He admits to loaning money to Japan for the 1904-5 war, for a political purpose: 'I further said, that as a friend of Japan, who had rendered important services in financing her war loans, in order to enable her to defend herself and become victorious over Russia, " the enemy of mankind," ...' (vol I, p. 255). He admits, "The claim that among the ranks of those who in Russia are seeking to undermine governmental authority there are a considerable number of Jews may be true" (vol II, p. 131), then goes on to blame and attack the Czar, rather than repudiate those revolutionary Jews.

 

[Laura]

Have pointed out elsewhere: I've been observing this Peter Myers for a bit and have come to the conclusion that a) he really isn't interested in truth, he is only interested in confirming his own assumptions, or b) he is disinfo either conscious or unconscious. And of course, all can be true at once.

 

[PatrickSMcNally]

I'm well familiar with Freedman's diatribe. Unfortunately on all of the checkable points it proves to be false so that we can't take seriously anything else which he claims to have been true where he is our only source.

The biggest hoax played in Freedman's speech is where he tells us that:

"It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine, should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally. I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass-communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms of the United States, refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar."

That is a total falsehood. The Morgan family of New York was making loans to England early on and the media of the United States was totally pro-British from the first day of the war. This one of the few assertions by Freedman which we can really check based upon preserved micro-film records of old media archives which exist in many big libraries, as well the revisionist histories of World War I which were frequently written in the 1930s. A good book to check out is Walter Millis, THE ROAD TO WAR. There is absolutely no truth to the claim that the media in the Unites States was ever pro-German at any time in the First World War.

What is true is that the British Empire made many scattered, conflicting promises in all directions, including promises to both the Arab states and the Zionists. I'd even be open to the argument, if coherently made, the perhaps the Balfour Declaration did play some kind of a role as a kind of tipping point over the edge in bringing the United States into the war, though I've never seen this coherently argued. In Congressional inquiries made after the war the Morgan family, with its close ties to London, was identified as the source of the drive for the United States to go to war. Maybe they missed something by overlooking the Balfour Declaration, but if one wishes to seriously argue that then it is necessary to first of all recognize that the push by the Morgan family for the United States to enter the war was already in place and very well strong enough to account in the main for the decision to go war. Then perhaps you could develop a more detailed argument that the Balfour Declaration was somehow the last straw. But I haven't seen this seriously done by anyone and Freedman's claim that the media in the USA had actually been pro-German for the first two years of war is so idiotic that it totally discredits him.

I have run across claims by people to the effect that we really don't have any documentation of Freedman's presence at Versailles apart from his say-so. Is that correct? I don't know off-hand but this is the type of thing which would have to be carefully checked by anyone wishing to take a liar like this seriously.

Another bit of false innuendo worth noting in Freedman's are his comments about the uprisings which broke out across Germany at the end of the war:

"In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the goverment for three days."

Coming after the previous comments about the Balfour Declaration the reader is misled into thinking that what occurred in this uprising was part of events triggered by the Balfour Declaration with Jews acting together. This is false on multiple accounts.

First of all it has to be noted that the uprising was suppressed under the leadership of the German Social Democratic Party, the main labor party which also had a high percentage of Jews in leading positions. In fact, the common usage by the Nazis of the term "Jewish Marxists" referred to the the Social Democrats, not the Communists who were characterized as "Jewish Bolsheviks." The Social Democrats had voted for war in the first days of August 1914 and had played a principal role in binding the organized labor force to the war up until the early days of November when spontaneous mutinies and desertions began breaking across Germany.

That's another point to be noted. Rosa Luxemburg went along with the wave of uprisings that were spreading because she felt obligated to stay close to the workers. But it's been well-known by every biographer with access to her private notes that Luxemburg was personally opposed to the events in Bavaria and similar incidents elsewhere because she didn't feel that the labor force was ready for anything so drastic. She was easily caught and assassinated simply because she stayed out in the open, didn't go underground the way that Lenin had in the summer of 1917, because she felt she had to be with the rebellious workers and soldiers even when their efforts were misguided for the time being.

It should be noted that the wave of mutinies and desertions which spread through the German army at this time show no sign of centralized control. If they had had such a coherent direction then the old government would have been overthrown since disaffection was widespread among the populace, but not organized. Luxemburg believed in the theory of spontaneity, rather than Lenin's concept of a well-disciplined party, and therefore she felt it her duty to be with the workers where they were rebelling. But the wave of mutinies and desertions which broke out early November 1918 had nothing particularly Jewish about it. The most you can say is that those rebelling tended to look for political leadership back towards parties whose intellectual leadership had traditionally been heavily Jewish, which meant first of all the Social Democrats and secondly the small Left-wing splinter group which Luxemburg and others had started to form in the early beginning of the war (not after the Balfour Declaration, which had absolutely nothing to do with Luxemburg's motives).

Freedman carries the innuendo further when he later announces that:

"The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against the Jews was because they were responsible for World War I..."

So now we've gone from saying that they were responsible for the United States entering the World War I to saying that they were actually responsible for the whole war, and not even a pretense of argument has been provided. In fact we know from MEIN KAMPF that Hitler was happy when World War I broke out so it's doubtful that that had anything much to do with his views.

These are the types of points where we have some chance to cross-check what Freedman claims, and it doesn't appear very promising.

 

[smsc]

Have pointed out elsewhere: I've been observing this Peter Myers for a bit and have come to the conclusion that a) he really isn't interested in truth, he is only interested in confirming his own assumptions, or b) he is disinfo either conscious or unconscious. And of course, all can be true at once.

Or none.

Have you read Peter Myers' book 'Welcome to the USSA: Corruption in the Government and Media'? I thought it was pretty good. And his archives have some good material all in one place.

Also

From Charles Kimball:

How does one know when a religion (or any ideology) is becoming evil or corrupt?

1. Absolute truth claims
2. Requirements of Blind obedience
3. Establishing the "ideal" time (Millennium/Great Cleansing/Armageddon/2012)
4. The end justifies any means
5. Declaring holy war

I think we should all be careful we don't start falling into these traps.

 

[smsc]

I'm well familiar with Freedman's diatribe. Unfortunately on all of the checkable points it proves to be false so that we can't take seriously anything else which he claims to have been true where he is our only source.

The biggest hoax played in Freedman's speech is where he tells us that:

"It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine, should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally. I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass-communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms of the United States, refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar."

That is a total falsehood. The Morgan family of New York was making loans to England early on and the media of the United States was totally pro-British from the first day of the war. This one of the few assertions by Freedman which we can really check based upon preserved micro-film records of old media archives which exist in many big libraries, as well the revisionist histories of World War I which were frequently written in the 1930s. A good book to check out is Walter Millis, THE ROAD TO WAR. There is absolutely no truth to the claim that the media in the Unites States was ever pro-German at any time in the First World War.

J.P.Morgan was found at his death to own only 10% of his own company. The rest, much like one of the Russian oligarchs, was largely held by the Rothschilds. And the Rothshchilds founded the World Zionist organization, and the first Jewish settlements in Palestine, and as such Rothschild was the entity to which the Balfour Declaration was addressed. Of COURSE Morgan was pro-British.

I think Jews were very divided over WWI, because they wanted the Czar overthrown - and so sided with Germany since they were fighting him - the Germans, Schiff, etc. even funding/allowing the sealed train into Russia. For example, Henry Goldman was pushed out of Goldman-Sachs because he held pro-German views while Sachs held pro-British views.

I don't have time to go into the rest at the moment.

 

[anart]

Have pointed out elsewhere: I've been observing this Peter Myers for a bit and have come to the conclusion that a) he really isn't interested in truth, he is only interested in confirming his own assumptions, or b) he is disinfo either conscious or unconscious. And of course, all can be true at once.

Or none.

Have you read Peter Myers' book 'Welcome to the USSA: Corruption in the Government and Media'? I thought it was pretty good. And his archives have some good material all in one place.

What made it 'pretty good'?

Also

From Charles Kimball:

How does one know when a religion (or any ideology) is becoming evil or corrupt?

1. Absolute truth claims
2. Requirements of Blind obedience
3. Establishing the "ideal" time (Millennium/Great Cleansing/Armageddon/2012)
4. The end justifies any means
5. Declaring holy war

I think we should all be careful we don't start falling into these traps.

Who is 'we' and what are you implying? You created an account here today and seem to be implying that anyone here is 'falling into a trap' - based on a list of requirements that don't apply in any way, shape or form to this forum? What an odd beginning. So, please clarify exactly what you mean by your statements.

 

[ark]

How does one know when a religion (or any ideology) is becoming evil or corrupt?

Can you do us a favor and specify precisely what is your definition of a "religion"? Then we will be able to discuss the subject. Otherwise what you have quoted is useless. So many things people understand under the term religion. So, please, be precise.

 

[PatrickSMcNally]

J.P.Morgan was found at his death to own only 10% of his own company. The rest, much like one of the Russian oligarchs, was largely held by the Rothschilds.

Source for this claim? In modern companies, 5% is usually considered monopoly ownership. Since you claim that 90% was actually owned by a single source, the Rothschilds, that would have to be backed up. It doesn't sound likely.

But in any event, Freedman's claim that the US media was pro-German up until October 1916 is distinctly off the wall. The US media was pro-British from the very first day of the war. Most US newspapers of that didn't even have trained foreign correspondents able to speak for languages. Even before the war had broken out in 1914, the US media had followed a steady track record of depending on British news for their reportage on the continent. The New York Times would simply relay whatever the London Times reported about France, Germany or Russia. That continued once war had begun. No evidence exists to suggest that the Balfour Declaration made any impact on the generally pro-British reporting. Woodrow Wilson didn't even hear of the Balfour Declaration until six months after the he had asked Congress to declare war.

the Germans, Schiff, etc. even funding/allowing the sealed train into Russia.

The German generals did give Lenin a trip back to Russia, because the Kerensky government had decided to continue the war. Schiff had nothing to do with that however.

For example, Henry Goldman was pushed out of Goldman-Sachs because he held pro-German views while Sachs held pro-British views.

No surprise there. The atmosphere in upper New York circles was very broadly pro-British at the onset of the war in 1914.

 

[Juba]

Not only WWI and WWII, there are more games behind curtain that will pop up some questions; Ex-Yugoslavia, for example was state made of 6 republics in their middle was Bosnia (multi ethnic republic with majority of liberal Muslims), Jews were scattered all around ex-Yugoslavia but their strongest and most cohesious group was in Sarajevo (yes again Bosnia) made mostly of askhenazi (ex-Khazars), Jews were very active in WWII on side of Tito and partisans and gained high military ranks and like Moshe Pijade were Tito's right hand but on the end of the war they suddenly left Yugoslavia and continued their careers in new state of Israel using advanced guerrillas skills from WWII or they just abruptly stopped their high end careers when Tito almost got in the war with SSSR in summer of 1948, than something funny happened, Tito made alliance with India and Egypt giving unreserved support to Palestinians and Arabic world in Israel's surrounding, clearly stating that Yugoslavia was occupied by Germans for 5 years and that Jews are doing wrong. Ex-Yugoslavia was only non Muslim country on the world that openly supported Palestinians with food, weapons, uniforms and Yassir Arafat was something like national hero for Yugoslavs (please note once more that Yugoslavia had less than 9% of Muslims of 25000000. Of course connections between Yugoslavia and Israel were put on cold and no harm to Yugoslavia happened during Tito's life but we all know how awful was the war in Yugoslavia and we know how Bosnia ended after all, Muslim part of Bosnia is marginalized in small portions scaterred between enclavas strongly surrounded with Croatian and Serbian parts, it was obviously that world will not allowed Muslim country in heart of the Europe, talking about war in same Yugoslavia it is interesting to know that state of Israel evacuate Jews from Sarajevo by charter flights month and half before actual fights begone, Jews from Zagreb and Belgrade were not moved except if they wanted to go to Israel by their own will, the questions if they knew what will happen and where are more than inappropriate in this moment. Will stay tuned:)!!