Benjamin Freedman, Willard Hotel, 1961 – “A Jewish Defector Warns America”

Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Born in 1890, he was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City at one time principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist 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.

Here he tells his crucial story.

(Note – the information on this page is anti-Zionist, anti-Communist, anti-Usury Capitalist, anti-(Judeo-)Masonic, and against the Jewish religion. I am not intending this to be an attack on all people of Jewish descent, and I do not support those who want to turn this into a race issue. After overviewing the material on this site, people will see that World Zionism and the Judeo-Masonic edifice has left a legacy of destruction. But be aware that the person speaking in this audio (Benjamin Freedman), is himself Jewish, and I have featured many other Jewish dissenters on this page. The thing that distinguishes these individuals is their opposition to the political manifestations of the hateful Jewish religion, manifested in the Torah, Talmud, and Kabbalah. I am not criticizing all Jews – however, the idea that Jewish people collectively are “persecuted” for no reason is a myth. The financial elite who have erected a system of parasitism is Jewish, and the destructive scourge that has plagued the world with the Cromwell Revolution, French Revolution, the Slave Trade, the revolutionary scourge of the Bolshevik Revolution, and especially World Zionism, have largely been Jewish projects. Limiting this to Jews would be erroneous – I personally prefer the term Judeo-Masonic. For the non-Jewish aspect of this system, please refer to this:

Now, let’s begin with the contents of Freedman’s speech.

Freedman stated that Jews and Zionists rule the United States as if they were the absolute monarch of this country, he was speaking in 1961, but a few years prior to that, Douglas Reed noted the following:

“More important still, during all that period and to the present time, it was not possible freely to report or discuss a third vital matter: Zionist Nationalism. In this case the freedom of the press has become a fallacy during the past two decades. Newspaper-writers have become less and less free to express any criticism, or report any fact unfavourable to this new ambition of the Twentieth Century. When I eventually went to America I found that this ban, for such it is in practice, prevailed even more rigidly there than in my own country.

Today an awakening is supposed to have occurred in the matter of Communism. During the most fateful and decisive years of the Second War, when the things were being done which obviously set the stage for a third one, it was in fact almost impossible for any independent writer to publish any reasonable criticism, supported by no matter what evidence, about Soviet Communism and its intentions. Now, when the damage is done, Communism is much attacked, but even so the mass of Communist writers who were planted in the American and British press during those years has by no means been displaced; and the attentive newspaper-reader in either country may see for himself how the most specious Communist sophistries are daily injected into the editorial arguments and the news-columns of newspapers professing the most respectable principles.

In the matter of Zionist Nationalism, which I hold to be allied in its roots to Soviet Communism, the ban is much more severe. In my own adult lifetime as a journalist, now covering thirty years, I have seen this secret ban grow from nothing into something approaching a law of lese majeste at some absolute court of the dark past. In daily usage, no American or British newspaper, apparently, now dares to print a line of news or comment unfavourable to the Zionist ambition; and under this thrall matters are reported favourably or non-committally, if they are reported at all, which if they occurred elsewhere would be denounced with the most piteous cries of outraged morality. The inference to me is plain: the Zionist Nationalists are powerful enough to govern governments in the great countries of the remaining West!

I believe Zionist Nationalism to be a political movement organized in all countries, which aims to bring all Jews under its thrall just as Communism enslaved the Russians and National Socialism the Germans. I hold it to be as dangerous as both of those, and when I recall the results that came of the subtle suppression of information in the cases of Stalinism and Hitlerism, I judge that the consequences of this even more rigorous suppression will not be less grave.

I think it a cardinal error to identify ‘Jews’ with Zionist Nationalism, ‘Russians’ with Communism, or ‘Germans’ with National Socialism. I saw the enslavement of Germans and Russians and know different. I believe that the astonishingly powerful attempt to prevent any discussion of Zionist Nationalism by dismissing it as the expression of an aversion to Jews, as Jews, is merely meant to stop any public discussion of its objects, which seem to me to be as dangerous to Jew as to Gentile. Of the three groups which have appeared, like stormy petrels, to presage the tempests of our century, the Zionist Nationalists appear to me the most powerful. National Socialism, I think, was but a stooge or stalking horse for the pursuit of Communist aims. Communism is genuinely tigerish, and was strong enough to infest governments everywhere and distort the policies which were pursued behind the screen of military operations; but, if forced into a corner by the rising unease of their peoples, Western politicians are prepared in the last resort to turn against it.

But Zionist Nationalism! . . . That is a different matter. Today American Presidents and British Prime Ministers, and all their colleagues, watch it as anxiously as Muslim priests watch for the crescent moon on the eve of Ramadan, and bow to it as the faithful prostrating themselves in the mosque at Mecca. The thing was but a word unknown to the masses forty years ago; today Western politicians hardly dare take the seals of office without first, or immediately afterwards, making public obeisance towards this strange new ambition.”—Douglas Reed, “Somewhere South of Suez”, Devin-Adir, U. S. A., (1951), pp. 8-10.

This dominance has continued onto the present day, and only strengthened . To truly grasp this reality, I recommend Michael Collins Piper’s book “The New Jerusalem”, which quotes from entirely mainstream, non-controversial (Jewish) sources, showing the degree to which they dominate our society:

But sometimes merely counting the percentage of Jews vs. non-Jews in the major institutions of the United States and the World establishes the reality of the situation. So I recommend this site, detailing the massively disproportionate Jewish dominance of those institutions (ranging from 3,000-21,000(!!!)% over-representation!):

Naturally this sort of over-representation gives these people enormous leverage in the power centers of society. And so Brendon O’Connel, a pacifist activist who tried to bring up some of the subjects discussed here, was sentenced to 14 years of prison for these videos:

Onto Zionism –

Douglas Reed introduces the subject beautifully, in “The Controversy of Zion”, pp. 134-137 – “”Our governments”, in the half-century that has elapsed, have become such “willing slaves” of the Judaic master-sect that they are in fact the bailiffs or agents of a new, international ruling-class, and not true governors at all.

The West has come to this dilemma through the pressure of two millstones, Communism and Zionism, the nation-destroying world-revolution and the new, nation-creating, ruling-class. The one has incited the mob; the other has gained mastery over rulers. Are the organizers of both the same? This book seeks to answer the question in its remaining chapters. What is clear is that each stage in the ruination of the West, during these 170 years, has been accompanied by successive stages of “the return” to the promised land. That is an indication of common managership too strong to be set aside unless it can be conclusively disproved. To the “heathen” masses of Christendom the process which began with the emergence of the world-revolution in 1789 has been merely one of sound and fury, signifying nothing; but the student perceives that in majestic rhythm it fulfils The Law and The Prophets of Judah.

The 19th Century was one of conspiracy, of which the things we witness in the 20th Century are the results. Conspiracy bred Communism and Zionism, and these took the future of the West in a pincer-like clutch. What were their origins? Why did they germinate in darkness until they broke ground together in the 19th Century? Had they a common root? The way to answer that question is to examine the roots of each separately and find out if they join; and the purpose of this chapter and the next is to trace the root-idea of world-revolution.

The French revolution was the world-revolution in action, not a revolution in France. From the moment of the event in France no doubt remains on that score. Before then people might indulge notions about suffering peasants, stung to sudden uprising by arrogant aristocrats and the like, but diligent study of the background of the French revolution dispels such illusions. It was the result of a plan and the work of a secret organization revealed before it occurred; it was not merely a French outburst produced by French causes. The plan behind it is the plan of Communism today; and Communism today, which is the world-revolution in permanence, has inherited the organization which evolved the plan.

The French revolution of 1789 is the one that provides the key to the mystery. It forms the link between the English one of 1640 and the Russian one of 1917 and reveals the whole process as a planned and continuing one which, havingpassed through these three stages, clearly will reach its final orgasm at some moment not far distant, probably during this century. That climax, foreseeably, will take the shape of an attempt to consummate and complete the worldrevolution by setting up a world-government under the control of the organization which has guided the revolutionary process from its start. This would establish the sway of a new ruling-class over the submerged nations. (As Dr. Kastein would say, it would “determine the fate of the whole world”).

This picture, which only slowly emerged as the three centuries passed, is today clear in its historical perspective, where each of the three great revolutions is seen in the light thrown on it by the next:

(1) The English revolution appeared at the time to be a spontaneous English episode, directed only against the pretensions, at that moment, of a particular royal house, the Stuarts, and a particular form of religion, called “Popery”. No contemporary dreamed of considering it as the start of a world-movement against all religion and all legitimate government. (The ruling sect of Jewry supplied the revolutionary dictator with funds and by means of this, traditional “abetting” part the Jewish leaders became chief beneficiaries of the revolution; if they had any part in the original instigation of it, this cannot be shown, nor has any evidence of a long-term, master-plan behind the revolution survived).

(2) The nature and course of the French revolution, however, puts the English one in a different light. It was not, and even at the time did not seem to be, a native French episode caused merely by French conditions. On the contrary, it followed a plan for universal revolution discovered and made public some years before; and the secret organization then exposed had members in many countries and all classes. Therefore its most characteristic acts (regicide and sacrilege), though they repeated those of the revolution in England, were seen not to be spontaneously vengeful deeds committed in the heat of a moment, but actions deliberately symbolic of a continuing plan and purpose: the destruction of all religion and all legitimate government, everywhere. Inevitably, this revelation leads to the surmise that the English revolution too may have been prepared by this secret organization with the aim of destroying all nationhood. (In the French revolution, as in the English one, the Judaist sect emerged as a chief beneficiary; the general emancipation of Jews, which came of it, was used by it as a cover for its conspiratorial work during the ensuing decades. Original Judaist instigation is not shown by any evidence now available.)

Thus the French revolution, unlike the English one, demonstrably was the product of a major conspiracy, with worldwide aims and deep roots. From this instant, the nature of the plan was plain, but the conspirators, wherever they were unmasked, seemed to be a horde of individuals with no bond of union between them save that of the arsonist’s lust for destruction. The purpose was beyond doubt, but the identity of the organizers was still mysterious. This half-clarified scene was depicted in famous words by a c1assic authority on the subject, Lord Acton:

“The appalling thing in the revolution is not the tumult but the design. Through all the fire and smoke we perceive the evidence of calculating organization. The Managers remain studiously concealed and masked but there is no doubt about their presence from the first”.

The French revolution, then, revealed a design behind revolution, and it was the design of a set purpose in a worldwide field. What had seemed planless at the time of the English revolution now was seen to be, or had become the result of a plan and a pattern, and the conspiracy clearly was of such strength and age that its complicity in the earlier revolution had to be allowed for. However, this second revolution still left “the managers” masked, so that only half of the mystery had been solved (Lord Acton died in 1902 and thus did not see the third revolution).

(3) The revolution in Russia, again, opened room for new theories about the French and English revolutions. Its acts of regicide and sacrilege were as unmistakable an identity-card as the Muslim’s greeting is a token of his faith; by them it informed all who wished to hear that it was still working to “the design” of worldwide destruction first revealed by the French revolution. Moreover, the secret, for a hundred years called “a lie”, was no longer even denied; from 1917 on the world-revolution was avowedly permanent, avowedly worldwide in purpose, and the erstwhile secret conspiracy became a political party, operating in all countries under orders from a central headquarters in Moscow.

Thus the Russian revolution threw a brighter light on the French one, clarifying its outlines and origins. However, in the matter of the “studiously concealed” and “masked” managers, the Russian revolution threw an entirely different light on the two earlier ones, or at the least it opened up conjectures about their possible origins which none had previously spent much thought upon. The “managers” of the revolution in Russia were nearly all Eastern Jews. On this occasion the significant, symbolic acts of regicide and sacrilege were committed by Jews and a law was enacted which in effect forbade all discussion of the part played by Jews, or by “the Jewish question”, in these events or in public affairs at all.

Thus vital questions were answered and what was a great mystery in 1789 became plain in 1917. The great benefit which today’s student derives from the French revolution is the proof, supplied by it, of the existence of a design for world-revolution, and of an organization which pursued that destructive ambition. Its existence and activity made the 19th Century the century of the grand conspiracy. A sense of evil things stirring in dark places, like the sounds which a prisoner in a dungeon awaits at night, disquietened men and nations. This was the feeling imparted by conspiracy to the enpested air around. From the moment of the French revolution men intuitively knew that they lived with conspiracy in their midst; in our day, which has suffered its effects, we can at least see with what we have to deal, if we look, and may say that it is the devil that we know.”

Here I would like to make a digression. Many people have been taught that Jews are a persecuted minority, indeed, Jewish literature repeats this ad nauseam. To find out what the actual definition of this “”persecution is, let’s consult the old testament …

So “persecution” means having to contend with the existence of Gentiles!

Thus the Jewish intellectual Maurice Samuel said

Douglas Reed wrote in a chapter of “The Controversy of Zion” entitled “The Destructive Mission” that Samuel’s sentence We find that this destructive mission is embedded in the core of Judaism. In Esther 9:16, we find the story of how the Jews, with Mordacai at their head, murdered 75,000 Persians and members of other nations:

The Jews celebrate this genocide every year in February or March as the feast of Purim.

Douglas Reed, citing the zealous Zionist historian Dr. Josef Katsein, notes this destructive legacy of the Jews in “The Controversy of Zion”, pp. :

“From the time of Mordecai, as the 01d Testament provides no more history, the student must turn to Judaist authorities to learn whether later events also were presented to Jews in the same light; namely, as a series of Jewish ordeals suffered at the hands of “the heathen”, each leading to the ruination of the heathen nation concerned and to a Judaic vengeance.

This research leads to the conc1usion that all history, to the present time, is so seen by the elders of the sect and so presented to the Jewish masses. In the same way that Egypt, Babylon and Persia, in the Old Testament, exist only insofar as they capture, oppress or otherwise behave towards Jews, who are then avenged by Jehovah, so in the scholars’ presentation of the later period does all else fall away. Rome, Greece and all subsequent empires have life and being, in this depictment, only to the extent that the behaviour of Jews towards them or their behaviour towards Jews gives them existence.

After Babylon and Persia, the next nation to feel the impact of the catalytic force was Egypt. The Jewish community in Alexandria (which had been large even before its reinforcement by fugitives from the Babylonian invasion) was at this period the largest single body of Jews in the known world; Egypt was in that respect in the position of Russia before the 1914-1918 war and of the United States today. The attitude of the Jews, or at all events of the elders, towards the Egyptians was the same as their earlier attitude towards the Persians and Babylonians.

Dr. Kastein says, first, that Egypt was “the historic refuge” for Jews, which sounds like a grateful tribute until subsequent words show that “a refuge” is a place to be destroyed. He describes the feeling of the Jews towards the Egyptians in words very similar to those concerning the Jews which Exodus attributes to the Egyptians in respect of the earlier “captivity”. He says, the Jews in Egypt “constituted a c1osed community . . . they led a secluded life and built their own temples . . . the Egyptians felt that the religious exclusiveness of the Jews showed that they despised and spurned their own form of faith”. He adds that the Jews “naturally” upheld the Persian cause because Persia had formerly “helped them restore Judah.

Thus the fact that Egypt had given shelter, and was “the historic refuge” did not entitle Egypt to any gratitude or loyalty. Hostility to the host-people took the form of support for the Egyptians’ enemy and therefore awoke Egyptian suspicion: “Other causes of hostility were the determination Shown by the Jews not to become assimilated with the people about them or identify themselves with the country of their adoption . . . The profound spiritual necessity of keeping in touch with every branch of the nation, the call for loyalty towards every group of their own people, however fragmentary, was bound to affect the integrity of their citizenship of a particular state”.

“As in Babylon of yore”, concludes Dr. Kastein, the Jews in Egypt extended “open arms” to the Persian conqueror. Yet Egypt had shown the Jews only hospitality.

Babylon, Persia, Egypt . . . then came Greece. In 332 BC. Greece conquered Persia and the Greek rule of Egypt began; Alexandria became the Greek capital. Many Alexandrine Jews would fain have followed Jeremiah’s counsel to “seek the peace of the city”. The power of the sect and the destructive teaching prevailed.

Dr. Kastein, the sect’s devotee, says of Greece and its civilization merely that, “it was intellectually brilliant . . . but the prototype of everything that was mendacious, cruel, slanderous, cunning, indolent, vain, corruptible, grasping and unjust”. He dismisses the episode of Greece with the triumphant note. “The Alexandrian Jews brought about the disintegration of Hellenic civilization “.

Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece . . . Up to the start of the Christian era, therefore, history back to the Creation was presented to the Jews, by their scriptures and their scholars, as an exclusively Jewish affair, which took note of “the heathen” only insofar as they impinged on Jewish life, and as a record of destruction achieved against these heathen, in peace and war.

Was this portrayal true, of events in the pre-Christian era, and did it continue true of later events, down to our day?

The inference of our own generation, of which it is certainly true, is that is has always been true. In our century conflicts between nations, on the Babylonian-Persian model, even though they seemed at their start to be concerned with issues remote from any Jewish question, were turned into Judaic triumphs and Judaic vengeances, so that the destruction which accompanied them became an act of fulfilment under The Judaic Law, like the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn, the destruction of Babylon, and Mordecai’s pogrom.

Rome followed Greece, and when Rome rose Cicero evidently shared the opinion, about the part played by the Jews in the disintegration of Greek civilization, which a Dr. Kastein was to express twenty centuries later, for at the trial of Flaccus Cicero looked fearfully behind him when he spoke of Jews; he knew (he said) that they all held together and that they knew how to ruin him who opposed them, and he counselled caution in dealing with them.

Fuscus, Ovid and Persius uttered similar warnings, and, during the lifetime of Jesus, Seneca said, “The customs of this criminal nation are gaining ground so rapidly that they already have adherents in every country, and thus the conquered force their laws upon the conqueror”. At this period too the Roman geographer Strabo commented on the distribution and number of the Jews (which in our time is patently so much greater than any statistics are allowed to express), saying that there was no place in the earth where they were not.

Greece and Rome, in the common Gentile view, created enduring values on which the civilization of Europe was built. Out of Greece came beauty and Greek foundations lie beneath all poetry and art; out of Rome came law and Roman ones lie beneath Magna Charta, Habeas Corpus and the right of a man to fair and public trial, which was the greatest achievement of The West.

To the Zionist scholar Greece and Rome were just transient heathen manifestations, equally repellent. Dr. Kastein says disdainfully that in Rome “from the very beginning Judea quite rightly saw merely the representative of unintellectual and stupid brute force”.

For three hundred years after the lifetime of Jesus, Rome persecuted the Christians. After the conversion of the Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 320 AD, the Jews were forbidden to circumcize their slaves, keep Christian ones, or intermarry; this application of the Judaic Law in reverse is held by Dr. Kastein to be persecution.

After the division of the Roman Empire in 395 Palestine became part of the Byzantine Empire. The ban on Jews in Jerusalem had only been lifted after Rome became predominantly Christian, so that the city might still have been empty of Jews, but for Christianity. However, when the Persians in 614 carried their war against Byzantium into Palestine, the Jews “flocked to the Persian army from all sides” and then participated, “with the fury of men bent on avenging themselves for three hundred years of oppression”, in “a wholesale massacre of Christians”, (again according to Dr. Kastein, to whom, as above shown, the ban on the enslavement of Christians is oppression).

Enthusiasm for the Persians died with the vengeance on Christians; fourteen years later the Jews “were only too ready to negotiate with the Byzantine emperor Heraclitus”, and to help him to reconquer Jerusalem.

Then came Muhammad and Islam. Muhammad shared the view of Cicero and other, earlier authorities; his Koran, in addition to the allusion previously cited, says, “Thou shalt surely find the most violent of all men in enmity against the true believers to be the Jews and the idolaters . . .”

Nevertheless, Islam (like Christianity) showed no enmity against the Jews and Dr. Kastein has a relatively good word for it: “Islam allowed the infidel absolute economic freedom and autonomous administration . . . Islam certainly practised toleration towards those of other faith . . . Judaism was never offered such fine chances, such fine opportunities to flourish, from Christianity”.

These “opportunities to flourish” were provided by Islam for the Jews on the soil of Europe, in Spain, as previously told; this was the entrance into the West, made possible by Islam to “the most violent of all men”. In the wake of the Islamic conqueror the Talmudic government (after the Caliph Omar had taken Jerusalem in 637 and swept on westward with his armies) moved into Spain!

The Visigoth kings there had already developed similar feelings, about the Jews in their midst, to those expressed by Cicero, Muhammad and others. One of their last, Euric, at the Twelfth Council of Toledo, begged the bishops” to make one last effort to pull this Jewish pest out by the roots” (about 680). After that the Visigoth era quickly came to an end, the Islamic invader establishing himself in southern and central Spain in 712.

Dr. Kastein says, “The Jews supplied pickets and garrison troops for Andalusia”. Professor Graetz more fully describes this first encounter between the Jews and peoples of Northern European stock:

“The Jews of Africa . . . and their unlucky co-religionists of the Peninsula made common cause with the Mohammedan conqueror, Tarik . . . After the battle of Xeres, July 711, and the death of Roderic, the last Visigoth king, the victorious Arabs pushed onward and were everywhere supported by the Jews. In every city that they conquered, the Moslem generals were able to leave but a small garrison of their own troops, as they had need of every man for the subjection of their country; they therefore confided them to the safekeeping of the Jews. In this manner the Jews, who but lately had been serfs, now became the masters of the towns of Cordova, Granada, Malaga and many others. When Tarik appeared before the capital, Toledo, he found it occupied by a small garrison only . . . While the Christians were in church, praying for the safety of their country and religion, the Jews flung open the gates to the victorious Arabs, receiving them with acclamations and thus avenged themselves for the many miseries which had befallen them . . . The capital also was entrusted by Tarik to the custody of the Jews . . . Finally when Musa Ibn Nossair, the Governor of Africa, brought a second army into Spain and conquered other cities, he also delivered them into the custody of the Jews . . .”

The picture is identical with that of all earlier historical, or legendary, events in which the Jews were concerned: a conflict between two “stranger” peoples was transformed into a Judaic triumph and a Judaic vengeance.

The Jews (as in Babylon and Egypt) turned against the people with whom they lived and once more “flung open the gates” to the foreign invader. The foreign invader, in his turn, “delivered” the cities taken by him to the Jews.

In war the capital city and the other great cities, the power and control over them, are the fruits of victory; they went to the Jews, not to the victor. The Caliph’s generals evidently paid as little heed to the Koran’s warnings as Western politicians of today pay to the teaching of the New Testament.

As to “the miseries” for which the Jews thus took vengeance, Professor Graetz specifically states that the cruellest of these was the denial of the right to keep slaves: “the most oppressive of them was the restraint touching the possession of slaves; henceforward the Jews were neither to purchase Christian slaves nor to accept them as presents”!

If the Arab conquerors counted on thankfulness from those to whom they had “entrusted the capital” and the great cities, they misreckoned. After the conquest Judah Halevi of Cordova sang:

“. . . how fulfil my sacred vows, deserve my consecration,

While Zion still remains Rome’s thrall, and I an Arab minion?

As trash to me all Spanish treasure, wealth or Spanish good,

When dust as purest gold I treasure, where once our temple stood!”

This spirit disquietened the Caliph’s advisers, as it had disquietened the Visigoth kings, Muhammad and the statesmen of Rome. Abu Ishak of Elvira spoke to the Caliph at Cordova in words which again recall those of Cicero:

“The Jews . . . have become great lords, and their pride and arrogance know no bounds . . . Take not such men for thy ministers . . . for the whole earth crieth out against them; ere long it will quake and we shall all perish . . . I came to Granada and I beheld the Jews reigning. They had parcelled out the provinces and the capital between them; everywhere one of these accursed ruled. They collected the taxes, they made good cheer, they were sumptuously clad, while your garments, O Muslims, were old and worn-out. All the secrets of state were known to them; yet is it folly to put trust in traitors!”

The Caliph, nevertheless, continued to select his ministers from among the nominees of the Talmudic government of Cordova. The Spanish period shows, perhaps more clearly than any other, that the Jewish portrayal of history may be nearer to historical truth than the narrative according to the Gentiles; for the conquest of Spain certainly proved to be Judaic rather than Moorish. The formal Moorish domination continued for 800 years and at the end, in keeping with precedent, the Jews helped the Spaniards expel the Moors.

Nevertheless, the general feeling towards them was too deeply distrustful to be assuaged. This popular suspicion particularly directed itself against the conversos, or Marranos. The genuineness of their conversion was not believed, and in this the Spaniards were right, for Dr. Kastein says that between the Jews and Marranos “a secret atmosphere of conspiracy” prevailed; evidently use was being made of the Talmudic dispensation about feigned conversion.

In spite of this public feeling the Spanish kings, during the gradual reconquest, habitually made Jews or Marranos their finance ministers, and eventually appointed one Isaac Arrabanel administrator of the state finances with instructions to raise funds for the reconquest of Granada. The elders, at this period, were dutifully applying the important tenet of The Law about “lending to all nations and borrowing from none”, for Dr. Kastein records that they gave “financial help” to the Christian north in its final assault on the Mohammedan south.

After the reconquest the stored-up feeling of resentment against the Jews, born of the 800 years of Moorish occupation and of their share in it, broke through; in 1492 the Jews were expelled from Spain and in 1496 from Portugal.

Today’s Zionist historians show a remarkable hatred of Spain on this account, and a firm belief in a Jehovan vengeance not yet completed. The overthrow of the Spanish monarchy nearly five centuries later, and the civil war of the 1930’s, are sometimes depicted as insta1ments on account of this reckoning. This belief was reflected in the imperious words used by Mr. Justice Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court, a leading Zionist, to Rabbi Stephen Wise in 1933: “Let Germany share the fate of Spain!” The treatment accorded to Spain in the subsequent decades of this century, in particular its long exclusion from the United Nations, has to be considered in this light.”

I would like to pause for an instant and note that naturally this sort of behavior would have made them the enemies of the kingdoms of Europe:

Queen Isabella of Spain was so patient with the Jews, always giving them the benefit of doubt — until her eyes were opened completely to their deceptions. She then attempted to forcibly convert them to Christianity, believing that this would halt their parasitism. Readers interested in this episode would do well to obtain “Isabella of Spain” by William Thomas Walsh. They might also be interested in Walsh’s book “Phillip II”.

As a result of this, we witness one of the most amazing examples of Jewish treachery. On the
13th January, 1489, Chemor, chief Rabbi of Spain, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin, which had its seat in Constantinople, for advice, when a Spanish law threatened expulsion. This was the reply:
“Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves.
The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:
1. As for what you say that the King of Spain obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise.
2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs.
3. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives.
4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.
5. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix in affairs of State, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.
6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power.

This reply is found in the sixteenth century Spanish book, La Silva Curiosa, by Julio-Iniguez de Medrano (Paris, Orry, 1608), on pages 156 and 157, with the following explanation: ” This letter following was found in the archives of Toledo by the Hermit of Salamanca, (while) searching the ancient records of the kingdoms of Spain; and, as it is expressive and remarkable, I wish to write it here.”

a facsimile of this remarkable excerpt is available here:
p. 156:
p. 157:

They would continue to be a formidable menace, and their perfidy would increase. Thus they were expelled.

Trekking eastwards, these Jews joined other Jewish communities in western Europe; considerable numbers flowed on to Holland and Switzerland.

From now on these two countries were to become active centres of Jewish intrigue. Jewry, however, has always needed a powerful seafaring nation to which to attach itself.

For the Information about Cromwell’s “Glorious” Revolution, I credit Archibauld Maule Ramsey’s “The Nameless War”:

“”It was fated that England should be the first of a series of Revolutions, which is not
yet finished.”
With these cryptic words Isaac Disraeli, father of Benjamin Earl of Beaconsfield,
commenced his two volume life of Charles I published in 1851. A work of astonishing
detail and insight, much information for which, he states, was obtained from the
records of one Melchior de Salom, French envoy in England during that period.
The scene opens with distant glimpses of the British Kingdom based upon Christianity,
and its own ancient traditions; these sanctions binding Monarchy, Church, State,
nobles and the people in one solemn bond on the one hand; on the other hand, the
ominous rumblings of Calvinism.
Calvin, who came to Geneva from France, where his name was spelt Cauin, *possibly
a French effort to spell Cohen, organized great numbers of revolutionary orators, not a
few of whom were inflicted upon England and Scotland. Thus was laid the groundwork
for revolution under a cloak of religious fervour.
*Note. At a B’nai B’rith meeting in Paris reported in ‘Catholic Gazette’ in Feb
1936 he was claimed to be of Jewish extraction.
On both sides of the Tweed these demagogues contracted all religion into rigid
observance of the “Sabbath.” To use the words of Isaac Disraeli,
“The nation was artfully divided into Sabbatarians and Sabbath breakers.”
“Calvin deemed the Sabbath to have been a Jewish ordinance, limited to the
sacred people.”
He goes on to say that when these Calvinists held the country in their power,
“it seemed that religion chiefly consisted of Sabbatarian rigours; and that a
British senate had been transformed into a company of Hebrew Rabbins”:
and later
“In 1650, after the execution of the King, an Act was passed inflicting penalties
for a breach of the Sabbath.”
Buckingham, Strafford and Laud are the three chief figures round the King in these
early stages: Men on whose loyalty to himself, the nation, and the ancient tradition Charles can rely.
Buckingham, the trusted friend of King James I, and of those who had saved his life at
the time of the Gowrie Conspiracy (of ominous cabalistic associations) was
assassinated in the early years of King Charles’ reign under mysterious
Strafford, who had been in his early days inclined to follow the opposite faction, later
left them; and became a staunch and devoted adherent of the King.
This opposition faction became steadily more hostile to Charles and by the time that
they were led by Pym and decided to impeach Strafford. “The King,” writes Disraeli,
“regarded this faction as his enemies”; and he states that the head of this faction was
the Earl of Bedford.
Walsh, the eminent Catholic historian, states that a Jew wine merchant named
Roussel was the founder of this family in Tudor times. With the impeachment and
execution of Strafford, the powers behind the rising Calvinist, or Cohenist, Conspiracy
began to reveal themselves, and their focus, the City of London.
At this time there suddenly began to appear from the City armed mobs of “Operatives”
(the medieval equivalent for “workers” no doubt). Let me quote Disraeli:
“They were said to amount to ten thousand …
with war-like weapons. It was a militia for insurgency at all seasons, and might
be depended upon for any work of destruction at the cheapest rate …
as these sallied forth with daggers and bludgeons (from the city) the inference is
obvious that this train of explosion must have been long laid.”
It must indeed; and we must recollect here, that at this time Strafford was still
unexecuted, and civil war in the minds of none but of those behind the scenes, who
evidently had long since resolved upon and planned it.
These armed mobs of “workers” intimidated all and sundry, including both Houses of
Parliament and the Palace at critical moments, exactly on the model employed later by
the “Sacred Bands” and the “Marseillais” in the French Revolution.
Isaac Disraeli draws again and again startling parallels between this and the French
Revolution; Notably in his passages on the Press, “no longer under restraint,” and
the deluge of revolutionary pamphlets and leaflets. He writes:
“From 1640 to 1660, about 30,000 appear to have started up.”
And later,
“the collection of French revolutionary pamphlets now stands by the side of the
French tracts of the age of Charles I, as abundant in number and as fierce in
passion. . .
Whose hand behind the curtain played the strings . . .
could post up a correct list of 59 commoners, branding them with the odious title
of ‘Straffordians or betrayers of their country’.”
Whose hand indeed? But Disraeli who knew so much, now discreetly draws a veil over
that iron curtain; and it is left to us to complete the revelation.
To do so we must turn to such other works as the Jewish Encyclopedia, Sombart’s
work, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, and others. From these we learn that
Cromwell, the chief figure of the revolution, was in close contact with the powerful Jew
financiers in Holland; and was in fact paid large sums of money by Manasseh Ben
Israel; whilst Fernandez Carvajal, “The Great Jew” as he was called, was the chief
contractor of the New Model Army.
In The Jews in England we read:
“1643 brought a large contingent of Jews to England, their rallying point was the
house of the Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew).
Prominent among them was Fernandez Carvajal, a great financier and army
In January of the previous year, the attempted arrest of the five members had set in
violent motion the armed gangs of “Operatives” already mentioned, from the city.
Revolutionary pamphlets were broadcasted on this occasion, as Disraeli tells us:
“Bearing the ominous insurrectionary cry of ‘To your tents, O Israel’.”
Shortly after this the King and the Royal Family left the Palace of Whitehall.
The five members with armed mobs and banners accompanying them, were given a
triumphal return to Westminster. The stage was now set for the advent of Carvajal and
his Jews and the rise of their creature Cromwell.
The scene now changes. The Civil War has taken its course. The year is 1647:
Naseby has been won and lost. The King is virtually a prisoner, while treated as an
honoured guest at Holmby House.
According to a letter published in Plain English (a weekly review published by the
North British Publishing Co. and edited by the late Lord Alfred Douglas.) on 3rd
September, 1921:
“The Learned Elders have been in existence for a much longer period than they
have perhaps suspected.
My friend, Mr. L. D. van Valckert, of Amsterdam, has recently sent me a letter
containing two extracts from the Synagogue at Mulheim. The volume in which
they are contained was lost at some period during the Napoleonic Wars, and has
recently come into Mr. van Valckert’s possession.
It is written in German, and contains extracts of letters sent and received by the
authorities of the Mulheim Synagogue. The first entry he sends me is of a letter
16th June, 1647
From O.C. (i.e. Oliver Cromwell), by Ebenezer Pratt.
In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England:
This however impossible while Charles living.
Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do
not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but
will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin,
though willing to help in his escape.
In reply was dispatched the following:
12th July, 1647
To O.C. by E. Pratt.
Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted.
Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to
escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support
will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.”
With this information now at our disposal, the subsequent moves on the part of the
regicides stand out with a new clearness. On 4th June, 1647, Cornet Joyce, acting on
secret orders from Cromwell himself, and, according to Disraeli, unknown even to
General-in-Chief Fairfax, descended upon Holmby House with 500 picked
revolutionary troopers, and seized the King. According to Disraeli,
“The plan was arranged on May 30th at a secret meeting held at Cromwell’s
house, though later Cromwell pretending that it was without his concurrence.”
This move coincided with a sudden development in the army; the rise of the ‘Levelers”
and “Rationalists.” Their doctrines were those of the French revolutionaries; in fact,
what we know today as Communism. These were the regicides, who four times
“purged” Parliament, till there was left finally 50 members, Communist-like themselves,known later as the Rump.
To return to the letter from Mulheim Synagogue of the 12th June, 1647, and its
cunning suggestion that attempted escape should be used as a pretext for execution.
Just such an event took place, on 12th November of that year. Hollis and Ludlow
consider the flight as a stratagem of Cromwell’s. Isaac Disraeli states:
“Contemporary historians have decided that the King from the day of his
deportation from Holmby to his escape to the Isle of Wight was throughout the
dupe of Cromwell.”
Little more remains to be said. Cromwell had carried out the orders from the
Synagogue, and now it only remained to stage the mock trial.
Maneuvering for position continued for some time. And it became apparent that the
House of Commons, even in their partially “purged” condition, were in favour of coming
to an agreement with the King. On 5th December, 1648, the House sat all night; and
finally carried the question, “That the King’s concessions were satisfactory to a
Should such agreement have been reached, of course, Cromwell would not have
received the large sums of money which he was hoping to get from the Jews. He
struck again. On the night of December 6th, Colonel Pryde, on his instructions, carried
out the last and most famous “purge” of the House of Commons, known as “Pryde’s
On 4th January, the Communist remnant of 50 members, the Rump, invested
themselves with “the supreme authority.”
On 9th January “a High Court of Justice” to try the King was proclaimed. Two-thirds of
its members were Levelers from the Army. Algernon Sidney warned Cromwell:
“First, the King can be tried by no court. Second, no man can be tried by this
So writes Hugh Ross Williamson in his Charles and Cromwell; and he adds a
finishing touch to the effect that
“no English lawyer could be found to draw up the charge, which was eventually
entrusted to an accommodating alien, Isaac Dorislaus.”
Needless to say, Isaac Dorislaus was exactly the same sort of alien as Carvajal and
Manasseh Ben Israel and the other financiers who paid the “Protector” his blood
The Jews were once again permitted to land freely in England in spite of strong
protests by the sub-committee of the Council of State, which declared that they wouldbe a grave menace to the State and the Christian religion. Perhaps it is due to their
protests that the actual act of banishment has never to this day been repealed.
“The English Revolution under Charles I was unlike any preceding one …
From that time and event we contemplate in our history the phases of
revolution.” Isaac Disraeli
There were many more to follow on similar lines, notably in France.
In 1897 a further important clue to these mysterious happenings fell into Gentile hands
in the shape of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In that document we read this
remarkable sentence:
“Remember the French Revolution, the secrets of its preparation are well known
to us for it was entirely the work of our hands.”[Protocol No.3]
The Elders might have made the passage even fuller, and written,
“Remember the British and French revolutions, the secrets of which are well
known to us for they were entirely the work of our hands.”
The difficult problem of the subjugation of both Kingdoms was still however unsolved.
Scotland was Royalist before everything else; and she had proclaimed Charles II King.
Cromwell’s armies marched round Scotland, aided by their Geneva sympathizers,
dispensing Judaic barbarity; but Scotland still called Charles II King. He moreover
accepted the Presbyterian form of Christianity for Scotland; and slowly but steadily the
feeling in England began to come round to the Scottish point of view.
Finally upon the death of Cromwell, all Britain welcomed the King’s restoration to the
throne of England.
In 1660 Charles II returned; but there was an important difference between the
Kingdom he had fled from as a boy, and the one to which he returned as King. The
enemies of Kingship were entrenched within his kingdom now, and as soon as the
stage should be set for renewing the propaganda against the papacy and so, dividing
once more persons, all of whom considered themselves as part of Christ’s Church, the
next attack would develop.
The next attack would aim at placing the control of the finances of both Kingdoms in
the hands of the Jews, who were now firmly ensconced within.
Charles evidently had no consciousness of the Jewish problem or plans, or the
menace they held for his peoples. The wisdom and experience of Edward I had
become lost in the centuries of segregation from the Jewish virus. A consciousness of
the danger to the Crown in placing his enemies in possession of the weapon of a
“Popish Plot” cry he did retain.
With James II’s accession, the crisis could not be long delayed. The most
unscrupulous pamphleteering and propaganda was soon in full swing against him, and
it is no surprise to find that many of the vilest pamphlets were actually printed in
Holland. This country was now quite openly the focus for all disaffected persons; and
considerable comings and goings took place during these years.
Stories were brought to the King that his own brother-in-law had joined those who
plotted against him; but he utterly refused to credit them, or take any action till news
came that the expedition against himself was actually under way.
The chief figure amongst those who deserted James at that crucial juncture was John
Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough. It is interesting to read in the Jewish Encyclopedia
that this Duke for many years received not less than 6,000 pounds a year from the
Dutch Jew Solomon Medina.
The real objective of the “Glorious Revolution” was achieved a few years later in 1694,
when the Royal consent was given for the setting up of the “Bank of England” and the
institution of the National Debt.
This charter handed over to an anonymous committee the Royal prerogative of minting
money; converted the basis of wealth to gold; and enabled the international money
lenders to secure their loans on the taxes of the country, instead of the doubtful
undertaking of some ruler or potentate which was all the security they could previously
From that time economic machinery was set in motion which ultimately reduced all
wealth to the fictitious terms of gold which the Jews control; and drained away the
life blood of the land, the real wealth which was the birthright of the British peoples.
The political and economic union of England and Scotland was shortly afterwards
forced upon Scotland with wholesale corruption, and in defiance of formal protests
from every county and borough. The main objects of the Union were to suppress the
Royal Mint in Scotland, and to force upon her, too, responsibility for the “National
The grip of the moneylender was now complete throughout Britain. The danger was
that the members of the new joint Parliament would sooner or later, in the spirit of their
ancestors, challenge this state of affairs. To provide against this, therefore, the party
system was now brought into being, frustrating true national reaction and enabling the
wire-pullers to divide and rule; using their newly-established financial power to ensurethat their own men and their own policies should secure the limelight, and sufficient
support from their newspapers, pamphlets, and banking accounts to carry the day.
Gold was soon to become the basis of loans, ten times the size of the amount
deposited. In other words, 100 pounds in gold would be legal security for 1,000
pounds of loan; at 3% therefore 100 pounds in gold could earn 30 pounds interest
annually with no more trouble to the lender than the keeping of a few ledger entries.
The owner of 100 pounds of land, however, still must work every hour of daylight in
order to make perhaps 4%. The end of the process must only be a matter of time. The
moneylenders must become millionaires; those who own and work the land, the
Englishman and the Scotsman, must be ruined. The process has continued inexorably
till now, when it is nearly completed.
It has been hypocritically camouflaged by clever propaganda as helping the poor by
mulcting the rich. It has been in reality nothing of the kind. It has been in the main the
deliberate ruination of the landed classes, the leaders among the Gentiles, and their
supplanting by the Jew financiers and their hangers-on.”

Thus the system would be set in place for the Rothschilds to exploit as they established their World System.

For a considerable amount of our history we have had a progression of Secret Societies that lent themselves to subversion, and created a nexus of occult control via which competing power elites could exercise power. These were based on the Kabbalah, which is utterly supremacist in nature. Webster notes – “it is in the Cabala, still more than in the Talmud, that the Judaic dream of world-domination recurs with the greatest persistence. The Zohar indeed refers to this as a fait accompli, explaining that “the Feast of Tabernacles is the period when Israel triumphs over the other people of the world; that is why during this feast we seize the Loulab [branches of trees tied together] and carry it as a trophy to show that we have conquered all the other peoples known as ‘populace’ and that we dominate them.”807 God is, however, asked to accord these other peoples a certain share of blessings, “so that occupied with this share they shall not participate nor mingle with the joy of Israel when he calls down blessings from on high.” The situation may thus be compared with that of a king who, wishing to give a feast to his special friends, finds his house invaded by importunate governors demanding admittance. “What then does the king do? He orders the governors to be served with beef and vegetables, which are common food, and then sits down to table with his friends and has the most delicious dishes served.”808
But this is nothing to the feasting that is to take place when the Messianic era arrives. After the return of the Jews from all nations and parts of the world to Palestine, the Messiah, we are told in the Talmud, will entertain them at a gorgeous banquet, where they will be seated at golden tables and regaled with wine from Adam’s wine-cellar. The first course is to consist of a roasted ox named Behemoth, so immense that every day it eats up the grass upon a thousand hills; the second of a monstrous fish Leviathan; the third of a female Leviathan boiled and pickled; the fourth of a gigantic roast fowl known as Barjuchne, of which the egg alone was so enormous that when it fell out of the nest it crushed three hundred tall cedars and the white overflowed threescore villages. This course is to be followed up by “the most splendid and pompous Dessert” that can be procured, including fruit from the Tree of Life and “the Pomegranates of Eden which are preserved for the Just.”
At the end of the banquet “God will entertain the company at a ball”; He Himself will sit in the midst of them, and everyone will point Him out with his finger, saying: “Behold, this is our God: we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.”809
The eighteenth-century commentator, whose summary of these passages we quote, goes on to observe:
But let us see a little after what manner the Jews are to live in their ancient Country under the Administration of the Messiah. In the First Place, the strange Nations, which they shall suffer to live, shall build them Houses and Cities, till them Ground, and plant them Vineyards; and all this, without so much as looking for any Reward of their Labour. These surviving Nations will likewise voluntarily offer them all their Wealth and Furniture: And Princes and Nobles shall attend them; and be ready at their Nod to pay them all Manner of Obedience; while they themselves shall be surrounded with Grandeur and Pleasure, appearing abroad in Apparel glittering with Jewels like Priests of the Unction, consecrated to God….
In a word, the felicity of this Holy Nation, in the Times of the Messiah, will be such, that the exalted Condition of it cannot enter into the Conception of Man; much less can it be couched in human Expression. This is what the Rabbis say of it. But the intelligent reader will doubtless pronounce it the Paradise of Fools.810
It is interesting to notice that this conception of the manner in which the return to Palestine is to be carried out has descended to certain of the modern colonists. Sir George Adam Smith, after watching Zionism at work in 1918, wrote:
On visiting a recently established Jewish colony in the north-east of the land, round which a high wall had been built by the munificent patron, I found the colonists sitting in its shade gambling away the morning, while groups of fellahin at a poor wage did the cultivation for them. I said that this was surely not the intention of their patron in helping them to settle on land of their own. A Jew replied to me in German: “Is it not written: The sons of the alien shall be your ploughmen and vinedressers?” I know that such delinquencies have become the exception in Jewish colonization of Palestine, but they are symptomatic of dangers which will have to be guarded against.811
The fellahin may, however, consider themselves lucky to be allowed to live at all, for, according to several passages in the Cabala, all the goyim are to be swept off the face of the earth when Israel comes into its own. Thus the Zohar relates that the Messiah will declare war on the whole world and all the kings of the world will end by declaring war on the Messiah. But “the Holy One, blessed be He, will display His force and exterminate them from the world.”812 Then:
Happy will be the lot of Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen from amongst the goyim of whom the Scriptures say: “Their work is but vanity, it is an illusion at which we must laugh; they will all perish when God visits them in His wrath.” At the moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist, even as it is written: “The Lord alone will appear great on that day.”813
The hope of world-domination is therefore not an idea attributed to the Jews by “anti-Semites,” but a very real and essential part of their traditions. What then of their attitude to Christianity in the past? We have already seen that hatred of the person and teaching of Christ did not end at Golgotha, but was kept alive by the Rabbis and perpetuated in the Talmud and the Toledot Yeshu. The Cabala also contains passages referring both to Christ and to Mohammed so unspeakably foul that it would be impossible to quote them here.”

For serious students of this subject, Nesta Webster has produced a definitive study called “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements”:

Webster has her detractors, but they almost all rely on falsehoods when trying to “refute” her text. I have published a rebuttal to these detractors, it contains spelling and formatting errors, so I will update it at a later time:

What Reed spoke of on p. 137 was the inception of the Bavarian Illuminati. This Group would take over the network Webster had chronicled and become the Umbrella Organization for this criminal mafia.

Reed notes the importance of the “Glorious”, French, and Russian revolutions, suggests a greand design behind these, and then states (p. 137):

“This proof was given when the papers of Adam Weishaupt’s secret society of “Illuminati” were seized by the Bavarian Government in 1786 and published in 1787. The original blueprint of world-revolution, and the existence of a powerful organization with members in the highest places, were then revealed. From that moment on no doubt remained that all countries and classes of society contained men who were leagued together to destroy all legitimate government and all religion. The conspiratorial organization burrowed underground again after its exposure, but survived and pursued its plan, bursting into full public view in 1917. Since then, as Communism, it has openly pursued the aims disclosed by the Bavarian Government’s coup of 1786, by the methods then also revealed.”

Reed’s chapter, “The Design”, is authoritative, but here I would like to provide a brief synopsis of the facts:

There were many who were quite aware of the supra-masonic influence upon the initiation of the French terror.

Webster quotes Eckert, La Franc-Maçonnerie dans sa véritable signification, II. 125, which itself contains the following citation:

“A great sect arose which, taking for its motto the good and the happiness of man, worked in the darkness of the conspiracy to make the happiness of humanity a prey for itself. This sect is known to everyone: its brothers are known no less than its name. It is they who have undermined the foundations of the Order to the point of complete overthrow; it is by them that all humanity has been poisoned and led astray for several generations. The ferment that reigns amongst the peoples is their work. They founded the plans of their insatiable ambition on the political pride of nations. Their founders arranged to introduce this pride into the heads of the peoples. They began by casting odium on religion…. They invented the rights of man which it is impossible to discover even in the book of Nature, and they urged the people to wrest from their princes the recognition of these supposed rights. The plan they had formed for breaking all social ties and of destroying all order was revealed in all their speeches and acts. They deluged the world with a multitude of publications; they recruited apprentices of every rank and in every position; they deluded the most perspicacious men by falsely alleging different intentions. They sowed in the hearts of youth the seed of covetousness, and they excited it with the bait of the most insatiable passions. Indomitable pride, thirst of power, such were the only motives of this sect: their masters had nothing less in view than the thrones of the earth, and the government of the nations was to be directed by their nocturnal clubs.
This is what has been done and is still being done. But we notice that princes and people are unaware how and by what means this is being accomplished. That is why we say to them in all frankness: The misuse of our Order, the misunderstanding of our secret, has produced all the political and moral troubles with which the world is filled to-day. You who have been initiated, you must join yourselves with us in raising your voices, so as to teach peoples and princes that the sectarians, the apostates of our Order, have alone been and will be the authors of present and future revolutions. We must assure princes and peoples, on our honour and our duty, that our association is in no way guilty of these evils. But in order that our attestations should have force and merit belief, we must make for princes and people a complete sacrifice; so as to cut out to the roots the abuse and error, we must from this moment dissolve the whole Order. This is why we destroy and annihilate it completely for the time; we will preserve the foundations for posterity, which will clear them when humanity, in better times, can derive some benefit from our holy alliance.”

The individual who said this is none other than the Duke of Brunswick, Grand Master of German Freemasonry.

George Washington was very aware of the accuracy of Robison’s diagnosis of the revolutionary turmoil in Europe. The following citations are from his letters to George Snyder:

“Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798.

“Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into.

It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

The idea that I meant to convey, was, [b]that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.

My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time.


Mount Vernon, September 25, 1798.

“Sir: Many apologies are due to you, for my not acknowledging the receipt of your obliging favour of the 22d. Ulto, and for not thanking you, at an earlier period, for the Book you had the goodness to send me.

I have heard much of the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the Book until you were pleased to send it to me. The same causes which have prevented my acknowledging the receipt of your letter have prevented my reading the Book, hitherto; namely, the multiplicity of matters which pressed upon me before, and the debilitated state in which I was left after, a severe fever had been removed. And which allows me to add little more now, than thanks for your kind wishes and favourable sentiments, except to correct an error you have run into, of my Presiding over the English lodges in this Country. The fact is, I preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or twice, within the last thirty years. I believe notwithstanding, that none of the Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati. With respect I am &c.”
[Note : In a letter from Snyder (Aug. 22, 1798, which is in the Washington Papers), it is stated that this book “gives a full Account of a Society of Free-Masons, that distinguishes itself by the Name of ‘Illuminati,’ whose Plan is to overturn all Government and all Religion, even natural.”]”

See also Washington’s letters to Jedediah Morse, congradulating him on his sermons against Illuminism.


see also: … 22&f=false

Librarian of Congress James Billington, although he took a much more restrained approach than Webster, noted the role of the Illuminati in initiating the revolutionary flame, and that secret societies were instrumental in fomenting revolution in the 19th century, in his book “Fire in the Minds of men”. Billington notes that Fillipo Buonarroti, the “Plato” of Revolution, was obsessed with Romantic Occultism (p. 91): … ti&f=false, and states (p. 99) “Whether or not Buonarroti was in effect propagating an Illuminist program during his revolutionary activity of the 1790s. he had clearly internalized a number of Illuminist ideals well before his revolutionary blueprint of 1810-1811. [Billington gives examples, and then states] Such borrowings from Illuminism seem substantial enough to challenge the long accepted judgement of the leading student of the subject that, after 1790, Illuminism “having disappeared from history … lived on only in legend.” There seems good reason to believe that Illuminist influence was not so much a “legend” as an imperfectly perceived reality. The same historian’s perplexed observation that “the police legend” about Illuminists began to “develop with more amplitude and originality” in the Napoleonic era points to a surprising source of Illuminist influence.”: … ti&f=false

A very well documented book concerning the role of Illuminism in the French Revolution is by Nesta Webster herself, utilizing a great deal of primary source material: … lution.pdf

It was held in high enough esteem that Winston Churchill praised it in an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled “Zionism vs. Bolshevism”:

In the article, he stated:
“From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. ”

Trotsky confirmed this, writing, in “My Life”, about his experience in the Odessa prisons: ” It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry. For several months, I avidly studied books on its history, books given to me by relatives and friends in the town. Why had the merchants, artists, bankers, officials, and lawyers, from the first quarter of the seventeenth century on, begun to call themselves masons and tried to recreate the ritual of the medieval guilds? What was all this strange masquerade about? Gradually the picture grew clearer. The old guild was more than a producing organization; it regulated the ethics and mode of life of its members as well. It completely embraced the life of the urban population, especially the guilds of semi-artisans and semi-artists of the building trades. The break-up of the guild system brought a moral crisis in a society which had barely emerged from medieval. The new morality was taking shape much more slowly than the old was being cut down. Hence, the attempt, so common in history, to preserve a form of moral discipline when its social foundations, which in this instance were those of the industrial guilds, had long since been undermined by the processes of history. Active masonry became theoretical masonry. But the old moral ways of living, which men were trying to keep just for the sake of keeping them, acquired a new meaning. In certain branches of freemasonry, elements of an obvious reactionary feudalism were prominent, as in the Scottish system. In the eighteenth century, freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of revolution; on its left, it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern Germany, freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the court of Catherine the Great it was a masquerade reflecting the aristocratic and bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason empress.” (

In other parts of the chapter, he noted that it was through his study of Freemasonry that he was led to Bolshevism.

In the late 1940s, a series of documents were published as “Sinfonia en Rojo Mayor”, later Translated by George Knuppfer (author of “The Struggle for World Power”) as “Red Symphony” This contained the minutes of the NKVD interrogation of Christian Rakovsky, and fits the other facts presented in this piece. It picks up where Trotsky, in his admission, left off. To say it is CRUCIAL would be an understatement:

An in depth analysis of this document is given here:

On pp., Rakovsky shows the link between the House of Rothschild and the Illuminati. He states:

“R. – The understanding of how the financial International has gradually, right up to our epoch, become the master of money, this magical talisman, which has become for people that which God and the nation had been formerly, is something which exceeds in scientific interest even the art of revolutionary strategy, since this is also an art and also a revolution. I shall explain it to you. Historiographers and the masses, blinded by the shouts and the pomp of the French revolution, the people, intoxicated by the fact that it had succeeded in taking all power from the King and the privileged classes, did not notice how a small group of mysterious, careful and insignificant people had taken possession of the real Royal power, the magical power, almost divine, which it obtained almost without knowing it. The masses did not notice that the power had been seized by others and that soon they had subjected them to a slavery more cruel than the King, since the latter, in view of his religious and moral prejudices, was incapable of taking advantage of such a power. So it came about that the supreme Royal power was taken over by persons, whose moral, intellectual and cosmopolitan qualities did allow them to use it. It is clear that this were people who had never been Christians, but cosmopolitans.
G. – What is that for a mythical power which they had obtained?
R. – They had acquired for themselves the real privilege of coining money … Do not smile, otherwise I shall have to believe that you do not know what moneys are … I ask you to put yourself in my place. My position in relation to you is that of the assistant of a doctor, who would have to explain bacteriology to a resurrected medical man of the epoch before Pasteur. But I can explain your lack of knowledge to myself and can forgive it. Our language makes use of words which provoke incorrect thoughts about things and actions, thanks to the power of the inertia of thoughts, and which do not correspond to real and exact conceptions. I say: money. It is clear that in your imagination there immediately appeared pictures of real money of metal and paper. But that is not so. Money is now not that; real circulating coin is a true anachronism. If it still exists and circulates, then it is only thanks to atavism, only because it is convenient to maintain the illusion, a purely imaginary fiction for the present day.
G. – This is a brilliant paradox, risky and even poetical.
R. – If you like, this is perhaps brilliant, but it is not a paradox. I know – and that is why you smiled – that States still coin money on pieces of metal or paper with Royal busts or national crests; well, so what? A great part of the money circulating, money for big affairs, as representative of all national wealth, money, yes money – it was being issued by those few people about whom I had hinted. Titles, figures, cheques, promissory notes, endorsements, discount, quotations, figures without end flooded States like a waterfall. What are in comparison with these the metallic and paper moneys? … Something devoid of influence, some kind of minimum in the face of the growing flood of the all-flooding financial money. They, being the most subtle psychologists, were able to gain even more without trouble, thanks to a lack of understanding. In addition to the immensely varied different forms of financial moneys, they created credit-money with a view to making its volume close to infinite. And to give it the speed of sound … it is an abstraction, a being of thought, a figure, number, credit, faith …
Do you understand already? … Fraud; false moneys, given a legal standing …, using other terminology, so that you should understand me. Banks, the stock exchanges and the whole world financial system – is a gigantic machine for the purpose of bringing about unnatural scandals, according to Aristotle’s expression; to force money to produce money – that is something that if it is a crime in economics, then in relations to finances it is a crime against the criminal code, since it is usury. I do not know by what arguments all this is justified: by the proposition that they receive legal interest … Even accepting that, and even that admission is more than is necessary, we see that usury still exists, since even if the interest received is legal, then it invents and falsifies the non-existent capital. Banks have always by way of deposits or moneys in productive movement a certain quantity of money which is five or perhaps even a hundred times greater than there are physically coined moneys of metal or paper. I shall say nothing of those cases when the credit-moneys, i.e. false, fabricated ones, are greater than the quantity of moneys paid out as capital. Bearing in mind that lawful interest is fixed not on real capital but on non-existing capital, the interest is illegal by so many times as the fictional capital is greater than the real one.
Bear in mind that this system, which I am describing in detail, is one of the most innocent among those used for the fabrication of false money. Imagine to yourself, if you can, a small number of people, having unlimited power through the possession of real wealth, and you will see that they are the absolute dictators of the stock-exchange; and as a result of this also the dictators of production and distribution and also of work and consumption. If you have enough imagination then multiply this, by the global factor and you will see its anarchical, moral and social influence, i.e. a revolutionary one … Do you now understand?
G. – No, not yet.
R. – Obviously it is very difficult to understand miracles.
G. – Miracle?
R. – Yes, miracle. Is it not a miracle that a wooden bench has been transformed into a temple? And yet such a miracle has been seen by people a thousand times, and they did not bat an eyelid, during a whole century. Since this was an extraordinary miracle that the benches on which sat the greasy usurers to trade in their moneys, have now been converted into temples, which stand magnificently at every corner of contemporary big towns with their heathen colonnades, and crowds go there with a faith which they are already not given by heavenly gods, in order to bring assiduously their deposits of all their possessions to the god of money, who, they imagine, lives in the steel safes of the bankers, and who is preordained, thanks to his divine mission to increase the wealth to a metaphysical infinity.
G. – This is the new religion of the decayed bourgeoisie?
R. – Religion, yes, the religion of power.
G. – You appear to be the poet of economics.
R. – If you like, then in order to give a picture of finance, as of a work of art which is most obviously a work of genius and the most revolutionary of all times, poetry is required.
G. – This is a faulty view. Finances, as defined by Marx, and more especially Engels, are determined by the system of Capitalistic production.
R. – Exactly, but just the reverse: the Capitalistic system of production is determined by finance. The fact that Engels states the opposite and even tries to prove this, is the most obvious proof that finances rule bourgeois production. So it is and so it was even before Marx and Engels, that finances were the most powerful instrument of revolution and the Comintern was nothing but a toy in their hands. But neither Marx nor Engels will disclose or explain this. On the contrary, making use of their talent as scientists, they had to camouflage truth for a second time in the interests of the revolution. And that both of them did.
G. – This story is not new. All this somewhat reminds me of what Trotzky had written some ten years ago.
R. – Tell me …
G. – When he says that the Comintern is a conservative organization in comparison with the stock-exchange in New York; he points at the big bankers as being the inventors of the revolution.
R. – Yes, he said this in a small book in which he foretold the fall of England … Yes, he said this and added: “Who pushes England along the path of revolution?” … and replied: “Not Moscow, but New York.”
G. – But remember also his assertion that if the financiers of New York had forged the revolution, then it was done unconsciously.
R. – The explanation which I had already given in order to help to understand why Engels and Marx camouflaged the truth, is equally applicable also to Leo Trotzky.
G. – I value in Trotzky only that he in a sort of literary form interpreted an opinion of a fact which as such was too well known, with which one had already reckoned previously. Trotzky himself states quite correctly that these bankers “carry out irresistibly and unconsciously their revolutionary mission.”
R. – And they carry out their mission despite the fact that Trotzky has declared it? What a strange thing! Why do they not improve their actions?
G. – The financiers are unconscious revolutionaries since they are such only objectively, as the result of their intellectual incapacity of seeing the final consequences.
R. – You believe this sincerely? You think that among these real geniuses there are some who are unconscious? You consider to be idiots people to whom today the whole world is subjected? This would really be a very stupid contradiction!
G. – What do you pretend to?
R. – I simply assert that they are revolutionaries objectively and subjectively, quite consciously.
G. – The bankers! You must be mad?
R. – I, no … But you? Think a little. These people are just like you and me. The circumstance that they control moneys in unlimited amounts, insofar as they themselves create them, does not give us the opportunity of determining the limits of all their ambitions … If there is something which provides a man with full satisfaction then it is the satisfaction of his ambition. And most of all the satisfaction of his will to power. Why should not these people, the bankers, have the impulse towards power, towards full power? Just as it happens to you and to me.
G. – But if, according to you – and I think the same – they already have global political power, then what other power do they want to possess ?
R. – I have already told you: Full power. Such power as Stalin has in the USSR, but world-wide.
G. – Such power as Stalin’s, but with the opposite aim.
R. – Power, if in reality it is absolute, can be only one. The idea of the absolute excludes multiplicity. For that reason the power sought by the Comintern and “Comintern,” which are things of the same order, being absolute, must also in politics be unique and identical: Absolute power has a purpose in itself, otherwise it is not absolute. And until the present day there has not yet been invented another machine of total power except the Communist State. Capitalistic bourgeois power, even on its highest rung of the ladder, the power of Caesar, is limited power since if, in theory, it was the personification of the deity in the Pharaohs and Caesars in ancient times, then nevertheless, thanks to the economic character of life in those primitive States and owing to the technical under-development of the State apparatus, there was always room for individual freedom. Do you understand that those who already partially rule over nations and worldly governments have pretensions to absolute domination? Understand that that is the only thing which they have not yet reached.
G. – This is interesting: at least as an example of insanity.
R. – Certainly, insanity in a lesser degree than in the case of Lenin, who dreamt of power over the whole world in his attic in Switzerland or the insanity of Stalin, dreaming of the same thing during his exile in a Siberian hut. I think that dreams of such ambitions are much more natural for the moneyed people, living in the skyscrapers of New York.
G. – Let us conclude: Who are they?
R. – You are so naive that you think that if I knew who “They” are, I would be here as a prisoner?
G. – Why?
R. – For a very simple reason, since he who is acquainted with them would not be put into a position in which he would be obliged to report on them … This is an elementary rule of every intelligent conspiracy, which you must well understand.
G. – But you said that they are the bankers?
R. – Not I; remember that I always spoke of the financial International, and when mentioning persons I said “They” and nothing more. If you want that I should inform you openly then I shall only give facts, but not names, since I do not know them. I think I shall not be wrong if I tell you that not one of “Them” is a person who occupies a political position or a position in the World Bank. As I understood after the murder of Rathenau in Rapallo, they give political or financial positions only to intermediaries. Obviously to persons who are trustworthy and loyal, which can be guaranteed a thousand ways: thus one can assert that bankers and politicians – are only men of straw … even though they occupy very high places and are made to appear to be the authors of the plans which are carried out.
G. – Although all this can be understood and is also logical, but is not your declaration of not knowing only an evasion? As it seems to me, and according to the information I have, you occupied a sufficiently high place in this conspiracy to have known much more. You do not even know a single one of them personally?
R. – Yes, but of course you do not believe me. I have come to that moment where I had explained that I am talking about a person and persons with a personality … how should one say? … a mystical one, like Ghandi or something like that, but without any external display. Mystics of pure power, who have become free from all vulgar trifles. I do not know if you understand me? Well, as to their place of residence and names, I do not know them … Imagine Stalin just now, in reality ruling the USSR, but not surrounded by stone walls, not having any personnel around him, and having the same guarantees for his life as any other citizen. By which means could he guard against attempts on his life? He is first of all a conspirator, however great his power, he is anonymous.
G. – What you are saying is logical, but I do not believe you.
R. – But still believe me; I know nothing; if I knew then how happy I would be! I would not be here, defending my life. I well understand your doubts and that, in view of your police education, you feel the need for some knowledge about persons. To honour you and also because this is essential for the aim which we both have set ourselves. I shall do all I can in order to inform you. You know that according to the unwritten history known only to us, the founder of the First Communist International is indicated, of course secretly, as being Weishaupt. You remember his name? He was the head of the masonry which is known by the name of the Illuminati; this name he borrowed from the second anti-Christian conspiracy of that era – gnosticism. This important revolutionary, Semite and former Jesuit, foreseeing the triumph of the French revolution decided, or perhaps he was ordered (some mention as his chief the important philosopher Mendelssohn) to found a secret organization which was to provoke and push the French revolution to go further than its political objectives, with the aim of transforming it into a social revolution for the establishment of Communism. In those heroic times it was colossally dangerous to mention Communism as an aim; from this derive the various precautions and secrets, which had to surround the Illuminati. More than a hundred years were required before a man could confess to being a Communist without danger of going to prison or being executed. This is more or less known. What is not known are the relations between Weishaupt and his followers with the first of the Rothschilds. The secret of the acquisition of wealth of the best known bankers could have been explained by the fact that they were the treasurers of this first Comintern. There is evidence that when the five brothers spread out to the five provinces of the financial empire of Europe, they had some secret help for the accumulation of these enormous sums: it is possible that they were those first Communists from the Bavarian catacombs who were already spread all over Europe. But others say, and I think with better reason, that the Rothschilds were not the treasurers, but the chiefs of that first secret Communism. This opinion is based on that well-known fact that Marx and the highest chiefs of the First International – already the open one – and among them Herzen and Heine, were controlled by Baron Lionel Rothschild, whose revolutionary portrait was done by Disraeli (in Coningsby – Transl.) the English Premier, who was his creature, and has been left to us. He described him in the character of Sidonia, a man, who, according to the story, was a multi-millionaire, knew and controlled spies, carbonari, freemasons, secret Jews, gypsies, revolutionaries etc., etc. All this seems fantastic. But it has been proved that Sidonia is an idealized portrait of the son of Nathan Rothschild, which can also be deduced from that campaign which he raised against Tsar Nicholas in favour of Herzen. He won this campaign.
If all that which we can guess in the light of these facts is true, then, I think, we could even determine who invented this terrible machine of accumulation and anarchy, which is the financial International. At the same time, I think, he would be the same person who also created the revolutionary International. It is an act of genius: to create with the help of Capitalism accumulation of the highest degree, to push the proletariat towards strikes, to sow hopelessness, and at the same time to create an organization which must unite the proletarians with the purpose of driving them into revolution. This is to write the most majestic chapter of history. Even more: remember the phrase of the mother of the five Rothschild brothers: “If my sons want it, then there will be no war.” This means that they were the arbiters, the masters of peace and war, but not emperors. Are you capable of visualizing the fact of such a cosmic importance? Is not war already a revolutionary function? War – the Commune. Since that time every war was a giant step towards Communism. As if some mysterious force satisfied the passionate wish of Lenin, which he had expressed to Gorky. Remember: 1905-1914. Do admit at least that two of the three levers of power which lead to Communism are not controlled and cannot be controlled by the proletariat.
Wars were not brought about and were not controlled by either the Third International or the USSR, which did not yet exist at that time. Equally they cannot be provoked and still less controlled by those small groups of Bolsheviks who plod along in the emigration, although they want war. This is quite obvious. The International and the USSR have even fewer possibilities for such immense accumulations of capital and the creation of national or international anarchy in Capitalistic production. Such an anarchy which is capable of forcing people to burn huge quantities of foodstuffs, rather than give them to starving people, and is capable of that which Rathenau described in one of his phrases, i.e.: “To bring about that half the world will fabricate dung, and the other half will use it.” And, after all, can the proletariat believe that it is the cause of this inflation, growing in geometric progression, this devaluation, the constant acquisition of surplus values and the accumulation of financial capital, but not usury capital, and that as the result of the fact that it cannot prevent the constant lowering of its purchasing power, there takes place the proletarization of the middle classes, who are the true opponents of revolution. The proletariat does not control the lever of economics or the lever of war. But it is itself the third lever, the only visible and demonstrable lever, which carries out the final blow at the power of the Capitalistic State and takes it over. Yes, they seize it, if “They” yield it to them …”

Incidentally, The anarcho-syndicalist Mikhail Bakunin, who was very familiar with Marx and opposed him devoutly, likewise thought that Bolshevim (Marxism ant the time) was a Jewish movement, and made the most peculiar criticisms of it. He said of Marx, “Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press – they have taken possession of all the newspapers – and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion – this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.
This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ….”

This is noted in the following anarchist publication:

Bakunins assertions are corroborated on p. 272 of the book “The Jews: ancient, mediæval and modern” By James Kendall Hosmer (p. 272), where we find that “the house of Rothschild … floated buoyant on the waves of the stormy upheaval, saw the Prussians enter with little regret, and was even spared by the Commune, when all else was subject to destruction or pillage”:

In the book Trotsky and the Jews, published by the Jewish Publication Society, Joseph Nedava speaks of (p. 36), “A Jewish journalist who knew Trotsky from the period of his stay in Vienna (“when he used to play chess with Baron Rothschild in Cafe Central and frequent Cafe Arkaden daily to read the press there”) is even firmer on the Yiddish issue: “He [Trotsky] knew Yiddish, and if at a later date, in his autobiography, he pretends to know nothing about Jews and Judaism, then this is nothing but a plain lie. He who had visited at Cafe Arkaden for years on end must have mastered both these matters to perfection. The language in greatest use at that Cafe was – besides ‘Viennese-German’ – Yiddish.”

Bernard Lazare, the Jewish socialist and Dreyfusard (who therefore can’t be accused of being a biased source), wrote in “Antisemitism: It’s History and Causes” that ” What then was the connection between these secret societies and the Jews? The problem is a difficult one to solve, for respectable documentary evidence on the subject there is none. It is clear, however, that the Jews were not the dominant factors in these associations, as the writer whom I have just now quoted would have it; they were not “necessarily the soul, the heads, the grandmasters of Free Masonry,” as Gougenot des Mousseaux maintains. 233 It is true, of course, that there were Jews connected with Free Masonry from its birth, students of the Kabbala, as is shown by certain rites which survive. It is very probable, too, that in the years preceding the outbreak of the French Revolution, they entered in greater numbers than ever, into the councils of the secret societies, becoming, indeed, themselves the founders of secret associations. There were Jews in the circle around Weishaupt, and a Jew of Portugese origin, Martinez de Pasquales, established numerous groups of illuminati in France and gathered a large number of disciples, whom he instructed in the doctrines of reintegration. The lodges which Martinez founded were mystic in character, whereas the other orders of Free Masonry were, on the whole, rationalistic in their teachings. This might almost lead one to say that the secret societies gave expression in a way to the two fold nature of the Jew, on the one hand a rigid rationalism, on the other that pantheism which, beginning as the metaphysical reflection of the belief in one God, often ended in a sort of Kabbalistic theurgy. There would be little difficulty in showing how these two tendencies worked in harmony; how Cazotte, Cagliostro, Martinez, Saint-Martin, the Comte de Saint Gervais, and Eckartshausen were practically in alliance with the Encyclopaedists and Jacobins, and both, in spite of their seeming hostility, succeeded in arriving at the same end, the under-mining, namely, of Christianity.

This, too, then, would tend to show that though the Jews might very well have been active participants in the agitation carried on by the secret societies, it was not because they were the founders of such associations, but merely because the doctrines of the secret societies agreed so well with their own. The case of Martinez de Pasquales is an exceptionable one, and even with regard to him, it should be remembered that before he became the founder of lodges, Martinez had already been initiated into the mysteries of the illuminati and the Rosicrucians.

During the Revolution the Jews did not remain inactive, considering how few their numbers were in Paris; the position they occupied as district electors, officers of legion, and associate judges, was important. There were eighteen of them in the capital, and one must wade through provincial archives to determine what part they played in affairs. Of these eighteen some even deserve official mention. There was the surgeon Joseph Ravel, member of the General Council of the Commune, who was executed on the ninth Thermidor; Isaac Calmer, President of the Committee of Safety at Clichy, executed on the 29th Messidor, Year II; and Jacob Pereira, who had held the post of commissioner of the Belgian government with the army of Dumouriez, and who as a follower of Hebert, was brought to trial and condemned at the same time as his chief, and was executed on the 4th Germinal, Year II. We have seen how, as followers of Saint Simon, they bought about the economic revolution in which the year 1789 was but a step, the important position occupied by d’Eichthal and Isaac Pereira in the school of Olinde Rodriguez. During the second revolutionary period, which begins in 1830, they displayed even greater ardour than during the first. They were actuated by motives of personal interest, for in the great number of European countries they were not as yet completely emancipated. Those, therefore, who were not revolutionists by temperament or principle, became such through self-interest. In labouring for the triumph of liberalism, they were looking for their own good. It is beyond a doubt that the Jews, through their wealth, their energy and their talents, supported and furthered the progress of the European revolution. During this period Jewish bankers, Jewish manufacturers, Jewish poets, journalists, and orators, stirred perhaps by quite different motives, were, nevertheless, all striving towards the same goal. “With stooping form, unkempt beard, and flashing eye,” writes Cretineau-Joly, “they might have been seen breathlessly rushing up and down everywhere in those countries which were unhappy enough to be afflicted with them. Contrary to their usual motives, it was not the desire for wealth that spurred them on to such activity, but rather the thought that Christianity could no longer withstand the repeated shocks which were convulsing society, and they were preparing to wreak on the cross of Calvary revenge for eighteen hundred and forty years of well-deserved suffering.”:

By 1848, Jews had assumed full control over the Revolutionary secret societies. I note the words of British Primier Benjamin Disraeli, who recoiled in horror at revolutionary activity, but apologetically condemned anti-Semitism as a force that drew Jews into Communist activities, and attempted to distinguish the phenomenon from Judaism:

“But existing society has chosen to persecute this race which should furnish it’s choice allies, and what have been the consequences? They may be traced to the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or Christian form, the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional Governments, and men of the Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God cooperate with atheists; the most skillful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure. – “Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography”, Colburn & Co., London, 1852, page 497:

Remember at this point that there is no “Judeo-Christian” tradition, for Judaism and Christianity, in their real nature, are at total odds.

Modern Zionism began with the Jewish Grand Orient Freemason Moses Hess, mentor to Karl Marx, who founded Communism and Zionism. This is well known in academic circles, and the Jewish academic Shlomo Alverni has produced a biography entitled “Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism”, giving a glimpse into the life of this character.

I have given a glimpse into the Judeo-Masonic domination of Bolshevism below, but I will write a lengthy article in the near future covering this extensively. (Note: Those who object to the term “Judeo-Masonic” should keep in mind that )

A full history of Zionism, discussing it’s occult roots, and giving an account that parallels Freedman’s (yet focuses on different details) is given in Douglas Reed’s “The Controversy of Zion”:

That book as important, if not more important, than this speech. To say it is a MUST READ is an understatement.

The Zionists of the late 1800’s faced one small problem with their bold takeover scheme of Arab Palestine. Palestine was under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Turkish Empire and the Arabs certainly weren’t about to just give away prime real estate in Palestine to the Zionists of Europe. There were very few jews even living in Palestine and the jews had not controlled Palestine since the days of the Roman Empire. The handful of non-extremist Arab jews who lived in Palestine had cordial relations with their Muslim hosts and, to the best of my knowledge, did not express the desire to overthrow the Ottoman rulers and establish Israel. The movement to strip Palestine away from the Ottoman Empire came strictly from European Zionists who had become very influential within several European nations.

The leading Zionist Max Nordeau had a solution to the problem.

The story of Zionist intrigue before WWI, during WWI, and after WWI is given in the following crucial sources:

1) An essay dedicated to Ben Freedman entitled “Behind the Balfour Declaration” (The Balfour Declaration is here:, which gives supporting material for most of the speech. It asks – why did the British government pledge allegiance to Lord Rothschild of all people on the issue of Zionism and provides stunning insight. This is the most important source provided, as it documents Freedman’s claims about World War One extensively:

2) Freedman’s book “The Hidden Tyranny”:

3) Freedman’s book “Facts are Facts” (corroborates the later part of the speech):

4) Jackie Petru’s overview of wars:

Freedman states that at the end of 1916, Germany had offered peace terms. This is quite correct, and was documented in “The Indepedent”, Volume 88 (c. 1916):

Freedman notes that Jews boasted of having led to the defeat of Germany in WWI. For an in depth overview of this fact, I recommend pp. 1110-1267 of Christopher jon Bjerknes’ book “The Manufacture and Sale of St. Einstein”:

David Lloyd George, Britain’s wartime prime minister, wrote the following about the Balfour Declaration:

“Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first… by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognized as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the entente.
It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchase. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.” (Cf. George, David Lloyd, “Memoirs Of The Peace Conference”, p. 726)

Senator Gerald P. Nye, who headed the Nye Committee hearings, into the records and bringing to light the Balfour-Lansing correspondence by which President Wilson is shown to have agreed to enter the war long prior to the sinking of the Lusitania. I excerpt from the following 1939 speech recorded in the Congressional Record, 76th Congress, Vol. 84, No. 82, pages 6597‐6604:

“There has been published a series of works under the title “The Next War.’ One of the volumes in this series is entitled ‘Propaganda in the Next War.’ This particular volume was written by one Sidney Rogerson. I have been unable to obtain any trace of his background or of his connections; but the editor-in-chief of all these works, including” the one entitled ‘Propaganda for the Next War,’ is a man whose name is recognized the world over as an authority in Great Britain. He is none other than Capt. Liddell Hart, associated with the London Times, a writer and a military authority in Europe.”

He then cites “Propaganda in the Next War”, which states:

“”For some time the issue as to which side the United States would take hung in the balance, and the final result was a credit to our propaganda …


There remain the Jews. It has been estimated that of the world Jew population of approximately 15,000,000, no fewer than 5,000,000 are in the United States; 25% of the inhabitants of New York are Jews. During the Great War we bought off this huge American Jewish public by the promise of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, held by Ludendorff to be the master stroke of allied propaganda, as it enabled us not only to appeal to Jews in America but to Jews in Germany as well.”

Readers will immediately want to read “The Colonel House Report”, having read that statement:

Then the Lusitania was deliberately sunk. Col. Edward Mandell House relates the full story on p. 432 of The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, Vol. 1:

“On the morning of May 7, House and Grey drove out to Kew. `We spoke of the probability of an ocean liner being sunk,’ recorded House, `and I told him if this were done, a flame of indignation would sweep across America, which would in itself probably carry us into the war.’ An hour later, House was with King George in Buckingham Palace. `We fell to talking, strangely enough,’ the Colonel wrote that night, `of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner. . . . He said, “Suppose they should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board. . . .”‘

That evening House dined at the American Embassy . A despatch came in, stating that at two in the afternoon a German submarine had torpedoed and sunk the Lusitania off the southern coast of Ireland. Many lives had been lost.

Thus did Germany interpret the Freedom of the Seas .”

Colin Simpson gives the full, documented story of the fact that the Lusitania was armed and deliberately sent into enemy waters, with conditions rigged against the Germans, in his book “The Lusitania”:

In his corroborating book, “The Hidden Tyranny”, Freedman cites Samuel Landman, the secretary of the World Zionist Organization in London from 1917 to 1922, who wrote in his book “Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine”, p. 6 that: ”The fact that it was Jewish help that brought the U.S.A. into the war on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German – especially Nazi minds and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupied in the Nazi program.”

Freedman cites Bernard Baruch’s prominence in the Wilson administration, and the fact that he was a leader of the American Delegation to the Paris peace conference. Corroborating information comes from Eustace Mullins’ book “The World Order”:

“When we went into World War I, Wilson appointed his campaign fundraiser,
Bernard Baruch, head of the War Industries Board. Baruch was later investigated
by the Graham Committee. He testified, “I probably had more power than
perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true.” He said of his
prewar actions, “I asked for an interview with the President. I explained to him as earnestly as I could that I was deeply concerned about the necessity of the
mobilisation of the industries of the country. The President listened very
attentively and graciously, as he always does, and the next thing I heard, some
months afterward, my attention was brought to this Council of National Defense.”
“MR. GRAHAM: Did the President express any opinion about the
advisability of adopting the scheme you proposed ? BARUCH: I think I did most
of the talking. GRAHAM: Did you impress him with your belief that we were
going to get into the war ? BARUCH: I probably did. GRAHAM: That was your
opinion at the time ? BARUCH: Yes. I thought we were going to get into the
war. I thought a war was coming long before it did. MR. JEFFRIES: Then the
system you did adopt did not give the Lukens Steel & Iron Co. the amount of
profit that the low-producing companies did ? BARUCH: No, but we took 80%
away from the others. MR. JEFFRIES: The law did that, didn’t it ? BARUCH:
The government did that. GRAHAM: What did you mean by the use of the word
‘we’? BARUGH: The government did that excuse me, but I meant we, the
Congress. GRAHAM: You meant that the Congress passed a law covering that.
BARUCH: Yes, sir. GRAHAM: Did you have anything to do with that ?
BARUCH: Not a thing. GRAHAM: Then I would not use the word ‘we’ if I were
The American Commission to Negotiate Peace predictably included Walter
Lippmann, the Dulles brothers, the Warburg brothers (Paul from the U.S., Max
from Germany) L.L. Strauss, Thomas W. Lamont, as well as House, Wilson and
Wilson’s Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, the Dulles’ uncle. Their genial host was Baron Edmond de Rothschild. Representing France at the Peace Conference
was Finance Minister Klotz, who, according to Nowell-Baker, had for years been
usefully employed by the Rothschilds to distribute bribes to the press. The
Reparations Commission was established Jan. 25, 1919, with Bernard Baruch from
the U.S., Klotz from France, and Lord Cunliffe, Governor of the Bank of England,
representing England. Carter Field notes, “Nearly every afternoon Baruch had a
pleasant session at the Crillon with three or four of his old cronies from the War Industries Board.”
Wilson returned to the United States July 8, 1919, laden with one million
dollars worth of jewelry, gifts from appreciative Europeans as a reward for his
promise to get the U.S. into the League of Nations. Not a single member of
Congress had been with him at the Paris Peace Conference. His associates were
the Fabians of America, Dr. James T. Shotwell, Eugene Delano, and Jacob Schiff.
Herbert Hoover immediately joined Col. House as the most vociferous advocate of
our joining the League of Nations.
Baruch later testified before the Graham Committee; “I was economic
advisor with the peace commission. GRAHAM: Did you frequently advise the
President while there ? BARUCH: Whenever he asked my advice I gave it. I had
something to do with the reparations clauses. I was the American Commissioner
in charge of what they called the Economic Section. I was a member of the
Supreme Economic Council in charge of raw materials. GRAHAM: Did you sit in
the council with the gentlemen who were negotiating the treaty ? BARUCH: Yes,
sir, some of the time. GRAHAM: All except the meetings that were participated
in by the Big Five. BARUCH: And frequently those also.””

Sir Philip A. G. D. Sassoon was likewise the Grey eminence behind David Lloyd George (Congressional Record, Aug. 21, 1940, p. 16368)

Time Magazine, May 27, 1940, p. 34, noted that Jeroboam Rothschild was the grey eminence behind Georges Clemenceau:

“To the vital Ministry of the Interior, Premier Reynaud appointed energetic, 54-year-old Georges Mandel, till then Minister of Colo-nies. This was no new job for the sharp-nosed, stocky little Cle-mencist, who as the Tiger’s chef de cabinet during the last war ran the country’s domestic affairs and kept up civilian morale. Born Jeroboam Rothschild, Mandel has often been called France’s Disraeli, is a super-politician in a country of politicians, lately showed in the Colonial (and Post Office) Ministry that he had lost none of the drive and administrative flare that made him indis-pensable to Clemenceau. He was so close to the Premier that the Rabelaisian Tiger once quipped: “Quand je pete, Mandel pue.”

The New York Times noted that Nahum Sokolow boasted before the World Zionist Congress that the League of Nations was a “Jewish Idea”, and that Jerusalem will one day be the capital of the World:

Freedman talks about the War that World Jewry declared on Germany in 1933, led by Samuel Untermeyer. This was noted in the New York Times:

The article costs $4.00 to purchase. But it is available on Jackie Petru’s website in her overview of wars.

On this subject two texts are useful.

For instance, A propaganda article the American Hebrew on October 31, 1919 entitled “The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!” In the article, it was claimed that during WORLD WAR 1, because of epidemics, starvation and a “holocaust”, SIX MILLION Jews succumbed:

Also, Gittin 57b of the Talmud slanders the Romans, specifically emperor Vespasian, by claiming that he “killed in the city of Bethar four hundred thousand myriads”. This is equivalent to 4 BILLION Jews.

To really understand the depth of the fraud involved in the “Holocaust” story, I suggest beginning with the documentary “Buchenwald: A Dumb, Dumb Portrayal of Evil”:

The information will shock you. Further insight can be garnered here:

The second item I suggest is entitled “Witness to History”, which shows the extent of the lies we have been fed about Hitler and the Nazi era:

Now – Hitler was not always sovereign. In “The Fourth Reich of the Rich”, Des Griffin produces a facsimile of a transfer of funds from Max Warburg to Adolf Hitler, with both of their signatures on it. Also, Antony Sutton produced a wonderful book entitled “Wall St. and the Rise of Hitler”:

showing how New York (and London) financial and industrial interests were crucial in funding the rise of Nazi Germany. So what happened? What did Hitler do? It turns out that he bit the hand that fed him. This story is revealed in Stunning detail in “Red Symphony”:

Under National Socialist economic policies, unemployment went from 30.1% in 1932 to 2.1% in 1938:

For insight into Hitler’s economic reforms, I suggest reading this:

I also suggest “Icebreaker” by former Soviet Intelligence agent Victor Suvorov, showing that it was Stalin, and not Hitler, who initiated World War II:

The aforementioned text “Propaganda in the Next War”, notes, with regards to enticing America into WWII:

“To persuade her to take our part will be much more difficult, so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed. It will need a definite threat to America, a threat, moreover, which will have to be brought home by propaganda to every citizen, before the Republic will again take arms in an external quarrel …
The position will naturally be considerably eased if Japan were involved, and this might and probably would bring America in without further ado. At any rate, it would be a natural and obvious object of our propagandists to achieve this, just as during the Great War they succeeded in embroiling the United States with Germany.
Fortunately with America, our propaganda is on firm ground. We can be entirely sincere, as our main plank will be the old democratic one. We must clearly enunciate our belief in the democratic form of government and our firm resolve to adhere to it. Our minor propaganda will aim at attaching the support of important sections, such as the Jews, probably by the declaration of a clear-cut policy in Palestine, and of our intention, if victorious, to put an end to anti-Semitic persecutions; and of the Roman Catholic community in similar terms …
In the realm of the moving picture industry we may be able to depend on the natural bias of the United States film manufacturers in favor of Great Britain as opposed to Germany, Japan, or Italy, and on their command of the machinery of international film distribution. This will be an asset both with the stock enter-tainment picture and the news reels.”

“Britain”, in this case, was probably the city of London, controlled by the Rothschilds:

To assist this entry, FDR deliberately provoked Pearl Harbor::

Now – something that will really clarify understanding is this speech by Adolf Hitler explaining the conditions in which he entered the War:

Perhaps the most important item for understanding this period is “From Major Jordan’s Diaries”:

Iserbyt’s description of it is quite apt. She says of the book that it is “the most important contribution to Twentieth Century history ever written proving that the United States turned over highly-classified documents and materials to the Soviet Union, many of which related to the building of the atom bomb. This book would be a thriller even if it were not true. The content of this book calls into question the existence of a Cold War. Excerpt follows from Congressional testimony related to Major Jordan’s findings: Mr. Nixon : On the point of the so-called shipments of uranium-. . . the shipments went through. Is that correct? Mr. Appell: Two specific shipments of uranium oxide and uranium nitrate, and shipments of heavy water have been completely documented to include even the number of the plan.”


Jackie Petru gives some insight into this anomaly:

During the war, the allies initiated a massive holocaust of the Germans at Dresden:

With the Morgenthau plan, the Germans suffered further:

Eisenhower greatly contributed to the suffering of the Germans. He deliberately murdered 1 million Germans AFTER Germany had been defeated in WWII:

Stalin was instrumental in facilitating Zionism. If you look at the results of the Yalta Conference, you see that he admitted to being a Zionist:,9171,937135,00.html

Yet Operation Keelhaul (enabled by Eisenhower) forcibly repatriated Russians who attempted to leave the Soviet tyranny during WWII. They were then sent to gulags or shot:

Antony Sutton noted that Wall St. interests funded the Soviet Union throughout it’s entire reign. His work is interspersed amidst the aforementioned documents in the “World Order” collection, but I also suggest this introduction to his work:

Returning to Freedman – Freedman talks about the Zionist desire for a World Government controlled by Israel. This was articulated by David Ben-Gurion, in Look Magazine, January 16, 1962, p. 20 (see this facsimile:, when he predicted the end of the Cold War at the end of the 1980s [which begs the question – how did he have such foresight?], and the beginnings of a World Government led by Israel. He overshot a little bit, but the article is nevertheless quite interesting. He presented this as a “positive” development:

“The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: the Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligensia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the scene of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnancy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India. And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years.”

Listeners will also note Freedman’s references to the Khazhars. The Khazarian origin of modern Jewry is fully documented in Arthur Koestler’s book “The Thirteenth Tribe”:

Freedman also references the Kol Nidre, as the Jewish “prayer” made on the day of atonement relinquishing oaths. This is referenced in the Jewish Encyclopedia as follows:

“Before sunset on the eve of the Day of Atonement, when the congregation has gathered in the synagogue, the Ark is opened and two rabbis, or two leading men in the community, take from it two Torah-scrolls. Then they take their places, one on each side of the ḥazzan, and the three recite in concert a formula beginning with the words , which runs as follows:

“In the tribunal of heaven and the tribunal of earth, by the permission of God—blessed be He—and by the permission of this holy congregation, we hold it lawful to pray with the transgressors.”

Thereupon the cantor chants the Aramaic prayer beginning with the words “Kol Nidre,” with its marvelously plaintive and touching melody, and, gradually increasing in volume from pianissimo to fortissimo, repeats three times the following words:

“All vows [], obligations, oaths, and anathemas, whether called ‘ḳonam,’ ‘ḳonas,’ or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths.”

The leader and the congregation then say together:(Num. xv. 26).

“And it shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them, seeing all the people were in ignorance”

This also is repeated three times. The ḥazzan then closes with the benediction, : “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast preserved us and hast brought us to enjoy this season.” In many congregations Num. xiv. 19-20 is recited before this benediction. After it the Torah-scrolls are replaced, and the customary evening service begins.”

The editors of the encyclopedia attempt to mitigate the public relations damage that revealing such a despicable fact would create – they state that Jews only relinquish their oaths to “God”.

Michael Hoffman, in pp. 961-979 of “Judaism Discovered”, notes the deceptionof the damage controllers, and that the Kol Nidrei is actually what it appears to be on the surface. Pay particular attention to p. 972:

Hoffman’s work is useful as a guide to Judaic deceit, and supports Freedman’s contention that Judaism is Talmudism. I differ from Hoffman in that I believe that the Torah is also reprehensible. In this way, I take the view of Douglas Reed (in his aforementioned text). Christopher Jon Bjerknes produced what I consider to be a very good source for those interested in Jewish racism:

Because of this hatred that adherents of Talmudic Judaism are indoctrinated with from birth, it is unsurprising that they are fifth columnists, with no loyalty whatsoever to the gentile countries in which they reside. This is not an assertion of “bigoted extremists”, but is affirmed by leading Jewish sources.

Rabbi Drach summed up the situation in chilling words:

“What can the wisest measures of the authorities of all countries do against the vast and permanent conspiracy of a people which, like a network as vast as it is strong, stretched over the whole globe, brings its force to bear wherever an event occurs that interests the name of Israelite?” (Drach, “De l’Harmonie entre l’Église et la Synagogue”. I. 79 (1844))

I urge readers to really let those comments sink in. Jewish individuals listening to this face a choice between being loyal to humanity or being loyal to Judaism. If they choose the ladder, even after being confronted with the legacy of perfidy and destruction that has been uniquely their own, then we will have to deal with them as we would any other hazard to our safety. It is a terrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.

Freedman also refers to Kennedy gaining awareness of the Zionist threat. In “Final Judgment”, Michael Collins Piper presents a very compelling case that the Kennedy assassination was caused by Kennedy’s deep seated disagreements with Israel over nuclear policies, and notes the role of Mossad in the fiasco:

Here is some more information expanding on Piper’s thesis:

Victor Ostrovsky also delivers a much needed assault on the Mossad in his books “By Way of Deception”:

and “The Other Side of Deception”:

After you have absorbed the previous information, I suggest the following video series:

…which reveals 2 things:

1) the terrorism of Zionism – Zionist intrigues are exposed in the video and in the recommended sources, but for anybody who doubsts the utter brutality of the Zionist regime, I suggest reading a transcript of Rachel Corrie’s emails, which provide utterly chilling insights into the place:

and Ralph Schoenman’s “The Hidden History of Zionism”:

Here is a profile of the War Criminals in Gaza:

Jewish defector Jack Bernstein likewise revealed very troubling realities about the state of Israel:

Here is a typical picture of the ordeal of a Palestinian woman as her house is bulldozed by Israelis:

2) the fact that Bolshevism was so Jewish that it might be called Jewish. This was well known in that time, although it is now forgotten, due to Jewish control of our intellectual sphere.

To see how well known this was at the time, I present British White Paper on Bolshevism, Russia No. 1, a very rare document that I have found and archived:

The relevant pages concerning Jews and Bolshevism are pp. 6, 23, 28, 32, 33, 41, 57, 65, 68, 78 – on p.6 we find a telegram from Sir M. Findlay to Mr. Balfour relaying a report by the Netherlands Minister at Petrograd, which contains the following message:

“I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”

p. 23 signifies that the Jews had preferential treatment, as they were allowed to engage in illicit trading, while all other trade was at a standstill, it also contains documentation to the effect that Bolshevism was despised by the Russians, but carried out by Jews,
p.33. document # 33 says that most of the Bolsheveki were Jews
p. 41, document # 38, reveals that the party responsible for the murder of the Romanovs consisted entirely of Jews
p. 56 document # 56, says again that Bolshevism was a movement led by Jews,
p. 57, The Results, says that after the Revolution, Jews became the possessors of most of the business houses,
p. 65, “The Terror”, noting the persecution of Russians for thought crimes, and the fact that people had to pay intermediaries, who were mostly Jewish, before they could obtain their release,
p. 68 shows that the food supply committees were entirely in the hands of the Jews, and that anti-Semitism was rampant because of the extreme misery that ensued after the Jews had obtained control, p. 78 details the screams of “Down with that Jew!” thrown at Zinoviev, and that the following couplet was placarded upon the walls of Petrograd – “Down with Lenin and horseflesh, Give us the Tsar and pork.”

Page 80 quotes Zinoviev as saying “To overcome our enemies we must have our own Socialist Militarism. We must win over to our side, 90 millions out of the 100 millions of population of Russia under the Soviets. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them; they must be annihilated.”

Winston Churchill wrote an article entitled “Zionism vs. Bolshevism”, in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, p. 5 (pdf here: where in addition to everything else, he noted that “The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated.”

Bertrand Russell was another observer, initially sympathetic to the rhetoric of the Revolution. However, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1914-1944, Little, Brown & Co., Boston 1968, p. 172 contains a letter in which he says “Bolshevism is a close tyrannical bureaucracy, with a spy system more elaborate and terrible than the Tsar’s, and an aristocracy as insolent and unfeeling, composed of Americanised Jews. No vestige of liberty remains, in thought or speech or action.”

The anarcho-syndicalist Mikhail Bakunin, who was very familiar with Marx and opposed him devoutly, likewise thought that Bolshevim (Marxism ant the time) was a Jewish movement, and made the most peculiar criticisms of it. He said of Marx, “Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.
This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ….”

This is noted in the following anarchist publication:

Stalin was also instrumental in facilitating Zionism. If you look at the results of the Yalta Conference, you see that he admitted to being a Zionist:,9171,937135,00.html

Yet Operation Keelhaul forcibly repatriated Russians who attempted to leave the Soviet tyranny during WWII. They were then sent to gulags or shot.

Douglas Reed, in “The Controversy of Zion”, wrote, in a chapter entitled “World Revolution Again” that “The fact of Jewish leadership was a supremely important piece of knowledge and the later suppression of it, where public debate would have been sanative, produced immense effects in weakening the West. The formulation of any rational State policy becomes impossible when such major elements of knowledge are excluded from public discussion; it is like playing billiards with twisted cues and elliptical balls. The strength of the conspiracy is shown by its success in this matter (as in the earlier period, of Messrs. Robison, Barruel and Morse) more than by any other thing.”

He noted the existence of the document ”Russia No. 1”, and that later editions of it had censored out the documentation pertaining to Jewish leadership. He then said:

“Fortunately for the student, one witness preserved the official record. This was Mr. Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times, who experienced the Bolshevik revolution. The French edition of his book included the official Bolshevik lists of the membership of the ruling revolutionary bodies (they were omitted from the English edition).

These records show that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprized 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919, were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly “Socialist” or other non-Communist parties (during that early period the semblance of “opposition” was permitted, to beguile the masses, accustomed under the Czar to opposition parties) were 55 Jews and 6 others. All the names are given in the original documents reproduced by Mr. Wilton. (In parentheses, the composition of the two short-lived Bolshevik governments outside Russia in 1918-1919, namely those of Hungary and Bavaria, was similar).

Between the advent of the Kerensky government in the spring of 1917 and the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in November 1917, his duty was to report an entirely new phenomenon in world affairs: the rise of a Jewish regime to despotic supremacy in Russia and to overt control of the world-revolution. At that moment he was made to realize that he would not be allowed faithfully to report the fact.

The secret story is told, with surprising candour, in the Official History of his paper, The Times, published in 1952. It shows the hidden mechanism which operated, as early as 1917, to prevent the truth about the revolution reaching the peoples of the West.

This volume pays tribute to the quality of Mr. Wilton’s reporting, and his standing in Russia, before 1917. Then the tone of the references to him abruptly changes. Mr. Wilton’s early warnings of what was to come in 1917, says the book, “did not at once affect the policy of the paper, partly because their writer did not command full confidence”.

Why, if his earlier work and reputation were so good? The reason transpires.

The narrative continues that Mr. Wilton began to complain about the “burking” or suppression of his messages. Then The Times began to publish articles about Russia from men who had little knowledge of that country. As a result the editorial articles about Russia took on the tone, exasperating to Mr. Wilton, with which newspaper-readers became familiar in the following decades: “those who believe in the future of Russia as a free and efficient democracy will watch the vindication of the new regime with patient confidence and earnest sympathy”. (Every incident of Mr. Wilton’s experience in Moscow, which Colonel Repington was sharing in London, was repeated in my own experience, and in that of other correspondents, in Berlin in 1933-1938).

The “interregnum of five months began, during which a Jewish regime was to take over from Kerensky. At this very moment his newspaper lost “confidence” in Mr. Wilton. Why? The explanation emerges. ”The Official History of The Times” says, “It was not happy for Wilton that one of his messages … should spread to Zionist circles, and even into the Foreign Office, the idea that he was an anti-semite” .

“Zionist circles”, the reader will observe; not even “Communist circles”; here the working partnership becomes plain. Why should “Zionists” (who wanted the British government to procure them “a homeland” in Palestine) be affronted because a British correspondent in Moscow reported that a Jewish regime was preparing to take over in Russia? Mr. Wilton was reporting the nature of the coming regime; this was his job. In the opinion of “Zionists”, this was “anti-semitism”, and the mere allegation was enough to destroy “confidence” in him at his head office. How, then, could he have remained “happy” and have retained “confidence”. Obviously, only by misreporting events in Russia. In effect, he was expected not to mention the determining fact of the day’s news!”

The English edition of Wilton’s book, though incomplete, nevertheless is illuminating:

Around the beginning of the book, he noted that “Nonentities, figureheads of the Sovnarkom, do not interest us. We are concerned with great, if maleficient, personages in the Red world. Most of them are still unknown outside the ranks of professional revolutionaries. A goodly proportion of the hundred Jews who came out of Germany with Lenin, and the hundreds who came from Chicago, deserve to be included in this gallery, for they undoubtedly held Russia under their sway. To enumerate and describe them would require a small volume. I need sketch only those who act prominently in the drama of Ekaterinburg. The most important were: Sverdlov, Safarov, Voikov, and Goloshcheckin, and the murderer-in-chief, Yurovsky. Others will be introduced later on.” (Wilton, Robert,”The Last Days of the Romanovs”, London, Thornton Butterworth Limited, 1920., pp. 26-27)

“But why all these precautions? If the people are so anxious to try and punish their late ruler, why resort to all manner of subterfuges, both in committing the ‘execution’ and in acquainting the people with the death of their ‘oppressor’?
The answer is a simple one: Sverdlov and his associates were not sure of the people. The reason of that is equally simple: they were not Russians; they were Jews. They were ‘internationalists,’ repudiating all nationality, yet disguised under Russian names. The Russians in their midst were dupes or dummies. Krassin might come to clear the ground, but Apfelbaum-Kamenev appeared for the serious work. What happened in London in 1920 is comparable in a modest way with the Red mechanism in Russia itself.
Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the komisars that rule Bolshevik Russia they are nine in ten – if anything, the proportion of Jews is still higher.
These men feared the Russian people, they feared the Romanovs because they were Russians, they feared Nicholas Romanov because he had been a Russian Tsar, and when he refused to be seduced from his loyalty to his people and to the Allies they resolved that he should die – he and all the Romanovs. This resolve was carried out when the advance of anti-Bolshevik forces gave a reasonable hope of sophisticating the crime and avoiding a just punishment. And so definite was Jew-ruled Moscow on the necessity of the ex-Tsar’s death that a whole month before the murder the report persisted that Nicholar II was dead.

The Germans knew what they were doing when they sent Lenin’s pack of Jews into Russia. They chose them as agents of destruction. Why? Because the Jews were not Russians and to them the destruction of Russia was all in the way of business, revolutionary or financial. The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov (who came to Russia as a paid agent of Germany) and carried out by the Jews Goloschekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov and Yukovsky, is the act not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader.
The Jewish domination in Russia is supported by certain Russians: the ‘burgess’ Ulianov, alias Lenin, the ‘noble’ Chicherin, the ‘dissenter’ Bonch-Bruevich. The whole record of the Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov and carried out by the Jews Goloshekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov, and Yurovsky, is the act, not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader.

The Jewish domination in Russia is supported by certain Russians: the ‘burgess’ Ulianov, alias Lenin, the ‘noble’ Chicherin, the ‘dissenter’ Bonch-Bruevich. They are all mere screens or dummies behind which the Sverdlovs and the thousand and one Jews of Sovdepia continue their work of destruction; having wrecked and plundered Russia by appealing to the ignorance of the working folk, they are now using their dupes to set up a new tyranny worse than any that the world has known.
Sovietdom has consecrated three heroes to whom monuments have been erected: to Karl Marx, to Judas Iscariot, and to Leo Tolstoi, the three names that are assocuated with Revolution, Apostasy, and Anarchism; two of them Jews.
When the Jew Kanegisser assassinated the Jew Uritsky, the Soviets ordained a Terror throughout the land. Rivers of Russian blood had to wipe away the stain caused by a Jew who dared to oppose the Jewish rulers of unhappy Russia.” (Ibid., pp. 146-148)
“To bring the Tsar or the Tsarevich to Moscow would involve risks. The Jews were in a fright; telegrams discovered in Ekaterinburg show that they trusted none of the Russians in their employ. That is why the Romanovs remained in Ekaterinburg.” (Ibid., p. 153)
“In the autumn of 1915 there assembled in Vienna the representatives of the German and Austrian General Staffs to discuss a plan for the promotion of a revolutionary movement in Russia. It was then that all the outlines of the ‘Russian’ revolution were laid down; it was at that meeting that the leading actors in the Red tragedy were chosen: the Lenins and the Sverdlovs and the host of Jewish wreckers, who spent the interval between their engagement and their appearance on the Russian stage in the calm of Swiss resorts, studying and rehearsing their parts.
The money that financed the ‘Russian’ revolution was German money, and – I say it on the strongest evidence which can be corroborated in the German secret archives – YYANKEL SVERDLOV RECEIVED A SALARY FROM THE GERMANS TILL NOVEMBER 7, 1917, when, becoming Red Tsar of All the Russias, he had at his disposal loot unimaginable.” (Ibid., p. 155)

And this is very important – Wilton noted, reporting on the murder of the Romanovs, that,

“In the death-chamber there was a curious inscription in German, written by a man of some culture-not Yurovsky, therefore, but perhaps one of the two men from the Chrezvychaika whom he had left in charge of the house on his departure. It was an adaptation of Heine’s lines on the fate of Belshazzar :-

Belsatzar ward in selbiger Nacht
Von seinen Knechten umgebracht.

He had omitted the conjunctive ‘aber’ which comes in the poet’s line after ‘ward,’ and then, having first written ‘selbigen,’ had changed it to ‘seinen,’ feeling perhaps that these modifications were necessary to fit the occasion. Perhaps unconsciously he also converted Belsazar (as Heine spells the name) to Belsatzar. The writer was quoting a Jew whose poem expatiates on the overthrow of a Gentile sovereign who had offended Israel . The Book of Daniel is not so explicit. It says : ‘In that night was Belshazzar the King of the Chaldeans slain’ (Dan . vi. 30) . But the author of the inscription wished to make it ‘clear’ that ‘Belsatzar’ was slain by his own people.” (Ibid., p. 118)

To appreciate the extent of Jewish power in Bolshevism, note the following, written by Stalin – “In the USSR anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under USSR law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.” (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30):

Rabbi Harry Waton stated that “It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism; all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews. The Jews should realize that Jehovah no longer dwells in heaven, but he dwells in us right here on earth ; we must no longer look up to Jehovah as above us and outside of us, but we must see him right within us.”(Rabbi Harry Waton, ”A Program for the Jews and Humanity and An Answer to All Anti-Semites”, p. 148:

Evidently the advent of the indwelling Jehovah required the extermination of Gentiles.

A great deal of background information on this and other subjects is provided in the following works:

The collected works of Nesta Webster:
…and Eustace Mullins, a disciple of Ezra Pound:
as well as…
“The Cause of World Unrest”:
“The Secret World Government or “The Hidden Hand”” by White Russian General Count Cherep-Spiridovich:
“Judaism and Freemasonry – The Secret Powers Behind Revolution”:
“The Plot Against the Church” by Maurice Pinay:
“Gentile Folly: The Rothschilds” by Arnold Leese:
“The Nameless War” by Archibald Maule Ramsay:
“The Iron Curtain over America” by Professor John Beaty (extremely well documented, this book is a MUST READ, and more important than the other books on this list, with the exception of Mullins and Webster):
“Red Stars Over Hollywood” by Myron Fagan (audio file – very interesting when you have absorbed Beaty’s information):
“Behind Communism” by Frank L. Britton (Excellent book):
“The Ultimate world Order as Pictured in ‘The Jewish Utopia'”:
“Beasts of the Apocalypse”:
“Jews in Russia and in the USSR” :
“Barbarians Inside the Gates”:
“The Judeo-Russian Mafia”:
“Under the Sign of the Scorpion” by Juri Lina (this book is particularly good):

And the aforementioned corroborating text entitled “Red Symphony” is extremely important. In it, we see the subversive tak over of the world lucidly explained by one of it’s exponents. Like :

Finally, I suggest reading Walter White’s interview of Harold Rosenthal:

After absorbing the above information, readers will have a great deal of awareness of the Masonic and financial edifice, as well as the other means through which international Jews exercise their power.

Much of this seems to fit in with the agenda described in the Protocols. Which is why it is not surprising that there are serious flaws in the “forgery” arguments of people like Norman Cohn. For more on that, I suggest Peter Myers’ work:,,,

Myers notes the most common criticism, that the protocols are a blanket plagiarism, is incorrect: “Cohn’s arithmetic is incorrect. The word-count of the parallel-passages from the Protocols, as listed by Bernstein (at, is 4,361, while the word-count of the Protocols is 26, 496. That is, the parallel passages comprise 16.45% of the Protocols; this is substantial, but still less than one sixth of the total. What Cohn especially omits to mention, is the Protocols’ extensive coverage of the world finance system.”

The author(s) of the protocols likely utilized Joly in their research, but did not plagiarize him outright – interestingly, there is a book by Jacob Venedy, a Jewish revolutionary and associate of Karl Marx entitled “Machiavelli, Montesqieu, and Rousseau”. The extraordinary significance of this was spelled out in “Waters Flowing Eastward”, which is perhaps as important analysis of the protocols aside from Myers’ work:

” By way of illustration, let it be assumed that the Book of Common Prayer used in the Anglican Church were unknown to the Jews. Suppose, then, that a copy of it were secretly obtained by a certain Jew and published, and that the Jews were shocked by the Anglican doctrine of which they learned in this way for the first time. It would then be easy for another Jew to show that the Book of Common Prayer was a plagiarism: it contains passages copied, word for word, from the Gospels; the Psalms are a transcript from King James’ Bible; and so on. And not only that, but there are many parallels to be found in the secular literature. ” At any rate “, one can imagine the second Jew saying at the end, ” the fact of plagiarism has been conclusively established, and we may therefore affirm that no such Book of Common Prayer is used in the worship of the Church of England.”
The second Jew would be right in pointing out the parallels in the earlier literature—though his conclusion would be ridiculous—for there is a very real connection: and so it is with the Protocols.
One might have thought that The Times, in its desire to publish the truth about the Protocols, would at least have given the correct title of the Geneva Dialogues, it is, Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu, published anonymously in Brussels in 1865. Moreover a minute’s search in a library catalogue shows that another book, bearing a similar title, was published some years earlier: namely, Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, by Jacob Venedey, published by Franz Dunnicker in Berlin in 1850. The Times, with its interest in plagiarisms, might have been tempted to glance at this latter volume as also at The Prince by Machiavelli and L’Esprit des Lois by Montesquieu. Had it done so, its curiosity would have been amply rewarded: passages quoted from the Protocols as plagiarised from the Dialogues of 1865, are similar to several10 in Venedey’s book of 1850, and both Jacob Venedey and Maurice Joly should be branded as plagiarists.
But the resemblance between the Protocols and Venedey’s book does not stop with a few parallel passages: the spirit of both is the same; it is revolutionary, whereas the Dialogues of 1865 are socialistic and polemical. The anonymous author merely borrowed certain descriptive passages in Venedey to give colour to his argument.11
Now hadn’t The Times better discover a copy of Venedey belonging to a former Okhrana officer, so as to explain how the Russian secret police were able to plagiarize the spirit, as well as a few platitudes and descriptive bits, when forging the Protocols ? Its correspondent in Peiping might make that discovery some day? No, the Peiping correspondent (or any other) will be-very careful not to make that discovery, for the simple reason that Venedey was a Jew, whereas
The Times’ point is that the Jews had nothing to do with the drafting of the Protocols. Its argument is that the author of the Dialogues was a Corsican; that the Corsicans in the Paris Police preserved the Dialogues and gave a copy to the Corsican members of the Russian police, who used it to forge the Protocols: these insidious Corsicans!12 But what of Venedey ?
Jacob Venedey, born in Cologne in May, 1805, was early engaged in revolutionary activities which caused his expulsion from Germany. He settled in Paris where, in 1835, he edited a paper of subversive character, called Le Proscrit. Driven from Paris by the police, he moved to Havre, until, thanks to the representations of Arago and Mignet, friends of Cr6mieux, he was allowed to return to the capital. Meanwhile his book, Romanisme, Christianisme et Germanisme, won the praise of the French Academy, Venedey was a close friend and associate of Karl Marx. After spending the years 1843-44 in England, the headquarters of continental revolutionaries, he worked in Brussels for the founding, with Marx in 1847, of a secret organization, ” The Communist League of Workers ” (later the ” Societe internationale de la Democratic “).
After the February revolution in 1848, Venedey joined Marx in Germany, where he became one of the chiefs of the revolutionary committee of Fifty (March, 1848), and was sent as commissar into the Oberland to stand against Hecker. Later elected as a member of the Left from Hesse-Homburg, he continued to serve on the Committee of Fifty. It was at this time that he brought out in Berlin his Machia-yelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, stressing the views attributed to Machiavelli and Rousseau in favour of despotism and oppression.13
When order was restored in Germany, Venedey was expelled from Berlin and Breslau. He was an active member of the Free Masons and affiliated with the Carbonari;14 he was also closely associated not only with the revolution 12. It is noteworthy that no Corsican has yet raised a voice ofprotest against the charges made in The Times. Yet it is the Corsicanswho are the real victims of a libel, not the Jews tionaries of his day, but (as might be expected) with the leading Jews, the founders of the Alliance Israelite Univer-selle.15 The latter included men of as different political parties as the reactionary-imperialist Fould, the liberal-conservative Disraeli, and the communist-revolutionary Marx, and whether living under an empire, a constitutional monarchy or a republic, all laboured towards a common aim, the establishment of an international Jewish world power.16 Prominent among them and in close touch with Venedey, was Adolphe Isaac Cremieux (1798-1880). A Nimes lawyer with an ardent admiration for Napoleon, he became legal adviser to the Bonaparte family and an intimate of Louis Napoleon with whom he joined in overthrowing the government of Louis Philippe in 1849. A member of the Mizraim Lodge, the Scottish Rite (of which he became Supreme Master on the death of Viennet), he was familiar with all new movements; and his influence enabled him to render at least one important service to Jewry by having the Jewish murderers of Father Thomas in Damascus (1841) set at liberty. One of the leaders in the revolution of February ] 848, he was appointed minister of justice under the provisional government, and used all his political influence in the election of Louis Napoleon to the presidency of the republic. Cremieux hoped in this way to be named Prime Minister and to control French policy for a period, as Disraeli did in England somewhat later. Like Disraeli, he had the financial support of the Rothschilds; but when the President chose for his banker another Jew, Fould, and named General Cavaignac premier, Cremieux saw he had lost. Bitterly disappointed, he became so hostile to his former friend that, at the time of the coup d’e”tat in 1851, he was imprisoned at Vincennes. On his release, he identified himself with the enemies of the emperor; these included the communist associates of Marx, Mazzini, Jacob Venedey (already mentioned), Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin, Pierre Leroux, and a group of socialists, among whom was Maurice Joly.17
Joly, some thirty years younger than Cr6mieux, with an inherited hatred of the Bonapartes, seems to have fallen very largely under his influence. Through Cr6mieux, Joly became acquainted with communists and their writings. Though, until 1871 when his ambition for a government post turned him into a violent communist, he had not in 1864 gone beyond socialism, he was so impressed with the way they presented their arguments that he could not, if the chance were offered, refrain from imitating it. And this chance came in 1864-1865, when his hatred of Napoleon, whetted by Crdmieux, led him to publish anonymously in Brussels the Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu. In this work he tells us,18 ” Machiavelli represents the policy of Might, while Montesquieu stands for that of Right: Machiavelli will be Napoleon, who will himself describe his abominable policy “. It was natural that he should choose the Italian Machiavelli to stand for Bonaparte, and the Frenchman Montesquieu, for the ideal statesman: it was equally natural that he should put in the mouth of Machiavelli some of the same expressions which Venedey had put in it, and which Joly had admired. His own view was: ” Socialism seems to me one of the forms of a new life for the people emancipated from the traditions of the old world. I accept a great many of the solutions offered by socialism; but I reject communism, either as a social factor, or as a political institution. Communism is but a school of socialism. In politics, I understand extreme means to gain one’s ends—in that at least, I am a Jacobin.”19
The French authorities, however, penetrated the thinly disguised satire: Joly was arrested and sentenced to two years imprisonment (April, 1865). But the Dialogues had pleased Cremieux as much as they had displeased the emperor, and, when his term expired, his Jewish patron rallied to his support: Joly was able to found a legal review, Le Palais, with Jules Favre, Desmaret, Leblond, Arago, Berryer, and Adolphe Cremieux as its principal stockholders.
With the fall of Napoleon III, Adolphe Cremieux once more took an open part in politics. Pushing to the front his former secretary, Gambetta, he directed through him the negotiations with Bismarck. Bismarck himself was guided by the Jew Bamberger (1832-1899), a former revolutionary of ’48, but who had for years managed the Paris branch of the Jewish bank Bischofsheim & Gold-schmidt; he was also a friend of Cremieux. A third Jew in the negotiations was the son of James Rothschild.20 In this way, care was taken that the treaty should be satisfactory, if not entirely to the signatories, yet at least so to the Alliance Israelite Universelle.
From then (1871) until his death in 1880, as President of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and Supreme Master of the Scottish Rite, Cremieux was one of the promoters of the anti-clerical movement following the Franco-Prussian war. His favourite theme was that there should be one cult: speaking at a general assembly of the Alliance he said: ” The Alliance is not limited to our cult; it voices its appeal to all cults and wants to penetrate in all religions, as it has penetrated into all countries. Let us endeavour boldly to bring about the union of all cults under one flag of ” Union and Progress “: such is the motto of humanity.”21
One cult, one flag. Are the Protocols of Nilus, or the words of Machiavelli in Joly’s book or in Venedey’s book, anything but an elaborate exposition of the ideas thus briefly expressed by Cremieux? His activities are one of the best examples of Jewish internationalism. Thus the principal attempt to discredit the Protocols leads directly into historical studies which substantiate and illustrate their doctrine in a remarkable and unexpected manner.”

L. Fry’s CRUCIAL book is available in full here:

The protocols might as well be called “The Twentieth Century”

Jackie Petru cites Henry Ford as saying:

“When you see how closely the Jews are united by various organizations in the United States, and when you see how with practiced hand they bring those organizations to bear as if with tried confidence in their pressure, it is at least not inconceivable that what can be done within a country — can be done, or has been done between all the countries where the Jews live.

“At any rate, in the American Hebrew of June 25, 1920, Herman Bernstein writes thus:

‘About a year ago a representative of the Department of Justice submitted to me a copy of the manuscript of ‘The Jewish Peril’ by Professor Nilus, and asked for my opinion of the work. He said that the manuscript was a translation of a Russian book published in 1905 which was later suppressed.

‘The manuscript was supposed to contain ‘protocols’ of the Wise Men of Zion and was supposed to have been read by Dr. Herzl at a secret conference of the Zionist Congress at Basle.

‘He expressed the opinion that the work was probably that of Dr. Theodor Herzl… He said that some American Senators who had seen the manuscript were amazed to find that so many years ago a scheme had been elaborated by the Jews which is now being carried out, and that Bolshevism had been planned years ago by Jews who sought to destroy the world’.

“This quotation is made merely to put on record the fact that it was a representative of the Department of Justice of the United States Government, who introduced this document to Mr. Bernstein, and expressed a certain opinion upon it, namely, ‘that the work was probably that of Dr. Theodor Herzl’. Also that ‘some American Senators’ were amazed to note the comparison between what a publication of the year 1905 proposed and what the year 1920 revealed.

“The incident is all the more preoccupying because it occurred by action of the representative of a government who today is very largely in the hands of, or under the influence of, Jewish interests. It is more than probable that as soon as the activity became known, the investigation was stopped.

“A copy of the Protocols was deposited in the British Museum and bears on it the stamp of that institution, ‘August 10, 1906’.

“The document was published in England recently under auspices that challenged attention for it, in spite of the unfortunate title under which it appeared. Eyre and Spotiswoode are the appointed printers to the British Government, and it was they who brought out the pamphlet. It was as if the Government Printing Office at Washington should issue them in this country. While there was the usual outcry by the Jewish press, the London Times in a review pronounced all the Jewish counter-attacks as ‘unsatisfactory’.

“. . . The interest of the Protocols at this time is their bearing on the questions: Have the Jews an organized world system? What is its policy? How is it being worked?

“The Protocols are a World Program — there is no doubt anywhere of that. Whose program, is stated within the articles themselves. But as for outer confirmation, which would be the more valuable — a signature, or six signatures, or twenty signatures, or a 25-year unbroken line of effort fulfilling that program?

“The point of interest for this and other countries is not that a ‘criminal or a madman’ conceived such a program, but that, when conceived, this program found means of getting itself fulfilled in its most important particulars. The document is comparatively unimportant; the conditions to which it calls attention are of a very high degree of importance.” — Dearborn Independent – Issue of July 10, 1920.

Petru’s very important book, “Jewish Persecution”, can be read here:

4 Responses to Benjamin Freedman, Willard Hotel, 1961 – “A Jewish Defector Warns America”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Show some support!

We are 100% Listener & User supported!! Every little bit helps us continue. Donations help fund the site and keep all the free information on it. Thanks in advance and KEEP UP THE FIGHT!!!

Visitor Map

Subscribe For New Posts & Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to FederalJack and Popeyeradio and you will receive notifications of new posts by email.

News Categories
The Wigner Effect
Col. L Fletcher Prouty: Secret Team