thermate2
1/16/2008 6:33:00 PM
Very well researched article. Only needs improved typesetting,
conversion to a pdf and attachment/inclusion of the video file in it.
A job well done !!!!
On Jan 15, 3:32 pm, thermate <therm...@india.com> wrote:
> 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 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.
>
> 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 follows]
>
> This Sunday AM, 1-13-8, we are working on putting speech into
> paragraphs. Please bear with us as it will be more readable soon.
> Thank you. Meanwhile, next is Mr. Freedman's speech without
> paragraphs.
>
> 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! 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 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 ... ": one-world-or-none.html.
> Documents on the Baruch Plan are shown here: baruch-plan.html. Stalin
> himself was murdered during the conflict over the "Doctors' Plot:
> kaganovich.html. Also see David Ben Gurion's article in LOOK magazine,
> January 16, 1962 (scroll down to see text): 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: 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, is at Benjamin-
> Freedman.jpg. 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. (War monger
> Jews.)