Edward I banished the Jews from England
for many grave offences
endangering the welfare of his realm and lieges, which were to a great extent
indicated in the Statutes of Jewry, enacted by his Parliament in 1290, the
Commons playing a prominent part.
The King of France very shortly followed suit, as did other Rulers in
Christian Europe. So grave did the situation for the Jews in Europe become, that
an urgent appeal for help and advice was addressed by them to the Sanhedrin,
then located at Constantinople.
This appeal was sent over the signature of Chemor, Rabbi of Arles in
Provence, on the 13th January, 1489. The reply came in November, 1489, which
was issued over the signature of V.S.S. V.F.F. Prince of the Jews. It advised the
Jews of Europe to adopt the tactics of the Trojan Horse; to make their sons
Christian priests, lawyers, doctors, etc., and work to destroy the Christian
structure from within.
The first notable repercussion to this advice occurred in Spain in the reign
of Ferdinand and Isabella. Many Jews were by then enrolled as Christians, but
remaining secretly Jews were working to destroy the Christian church in Spain.
So grave became the menace finally, that the Inquisition
was instituted in
an endeavour to cleanse the country from these conspirators. Once again the
Jews were compelled to commence an exodus from yet another country, whose
hospitality they had abused.
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.
Great Britain, newly united under James I, was a rising naval power, which
was already beginning to sway the four corners of the discovered world. Here
also there existed a wonderful field for disruptive criticism; for although it was
a Christian kingdom, yet it was one most sharply divided as between Protestant
A campaign for exploiting this division and fanning hatreds between the
Christian communities was soon in process of organization. How well the Jews
succeeded in this campaign in Britain may be judged from the fact that one of
the earliest acts of ‘their creature and hireling’ Oliver Cromwell, after executing
the King according to plan, was to allow the Jews free access to England once
1. THE BRITISH REVOLUTION
“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, [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.]
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
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,”
states Disraeli, “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
: 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
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 had 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
Isaac Disraeli draws again and again startling parallels between this and the
French Revolution: Notably in his passages on the Press, “no longer under
and the deluge of revolutionary pamphlets and leaflets. “From 1640 to
he writes, “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
He goes on, “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
“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
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 [Note: 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 received:From O.C. (i.e. Oliver Cromwell), by Ebenezer Pratt.
16th June, 1647.
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
“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
“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 settlement.”
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 Purge.” 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 court.” 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 money.
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 would be 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,”
writes Isaac Disraeli, “was unlike any preceding one ... From that time and event we contemplate in our history the phases of revolution.”
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, 14.]
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
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
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 Debt.” 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
, frustrating true national reaction and enabling the wire-pullers to divide
and rule; using their newly-established financial power to ensure that 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 in gold would be legal security
for £1,000 of loan
; at 3% therefore £100 in gold could earn £30 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.
2. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
The French Revolution of 1789 was the most startling event in the history
of Europe since the fall of Rome.
A new phenomenon
then appeared before the world.
Never before had a mob apparently organized successful revolution against
all other classes in the state, under high sounding, but quite nonsensical slogans,
and with methods bearing not a trace of the principles enshrined in those
slogans. Never before had any one section of any nation conquered all other
sections; and still less swept away every feature of the national life and
tradition, from King, religion, nobles, clergy, constitution, flag, calendar, and
place names, to coinage.
Such a phenomenon merits the closest attention; especially in view of the
fact that it has been followed by identical outbreaks in many countries.
The main discovery that such an examination will reveal is this fact: the
revolution was not the work of Frenchmen to improve France. It was the work
of aliens, whose object was to destroy everything, which had been France.
This conclusion is borne out by the references to “foreigners” in high
places in the Revolutionary Councils, not only by Sir Walter Scott, but by Robespierre himself.
We have the names of several of them, and it is clear that they were not British, or Germans, or Italians, or any other nationals; they were, of course, Jews.
Let us see what the Jews themselves have to say about it:
“Remember the French Revolution to which it was we who gave the
name of ‘Great.’ The secrets of its preparation are well known to us for it was
wholly the work of our hands.”
Protocols of Zion—No. 7.
“We were the first to cry among the masses of the people the words
‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.’ The stupid Gentile poll parrots flew down from
all sides on to these baits, and with them carried away the well-being of the
world. The would-be-wise men of the Gentiles were so stupid that they could
not see that in nature there is no equality, and there cannot be freedom
(meaning, of course, freedom as understood by Socialists and Communists,
freedom to wreck your own country).”
Protocols of Zion—No. 1.
With this knowledge in our possession we shall find we possess a master
key to the intricate happenings of the French Revolution. The somewhat
confused picture of characters and events moving across the screen, which our
history books have shown us, will suddenly become a concerted and connected
When we begin to draw parallels between France of 1789, Britain of 1640,
Russia of 1917, Germany and Hungary of 1918-19, and Spain of 1936, we shall
feel that drama grip us with a new and personal sense of reality.
“Revolution is a blow struck at a paralytic.” Even so, however, it must be
obvious that immense organization, and vast resources, as well as cunning and
secrecy far above the ordinary are necessary for its successful preparation.
It is amazing indeed that people should suppose that “mobs” or “the
people” ever have, or ever could, undertake such a complicated and costly
operation. No mistake moreover could be more dangerous; for it will result in
total inability to recognize the true significance of events, or the source and
focus of a revolutionary movement. The process or organizing revolution is seen
to be firstly the infliction of paralysis; and secondly, the striking of the blow or
blows. It is for the first process, the production of paralysis, that the secrecy
is essential. Its outward signs are debt, loss of publicity control, and the
existence of alien-influenced secret organizations in the doomed state.
Debt, particularly international debt, is the first and over-mastering grip.
Through it men in high places are suborned, and alien powers and influences are
introduced into the body politic. When the debt grip has been firmly established, control of every form of publicity and political activity soon follows, together
with a full grip on industrialists. The stage for the revolutionary blow is then set.
The grip of the right hand of finance established the paralysis; while it is the
revolutionary left that holds the dagger and deals the fatal blow. Moral
corruption facilitates the whole process.
By 1780 financial paralysis was making its appearance in France. The
world’s big financiers were firmly established. “They possessed so large a share
of the world’s gold and silver stocks, that they had most of Europe in their debt,
So writes Mr McNair Wilson in his Life of Napoleon
continues on page 38:
“A change of a fundamental kind had taken place in the economic structure
of Europe whereby the old basis had ceased to be wealth and had become debt.
In the old Europe wealth had been measured in lands, crops, herds and minerals;
but a new standard had now been introduced, namely, a form of money to which the title ‘credit’ had been given.’
The debts of the French Kingdom though substantial were by no means
insurmountable, except in terms of gold: and had the King’s advisers decided to
issue money on the security of the lands and real wealth of France, the position
could have been fairly easily righted. As it was the situation was firmly gripped
by one financier after another, who either could not or would not break with the
system imposed by the international usurers.
Under such weakness, or villainy, the bonds of usury could only grow
heavier and more terrible, for debts were in terms of gold or silver, neither of
which France produced.
And who were the potentates of the new debt machine; these manipulators
of gold and silver, who had succeeded in turning upside down the finances of
Europe, and replacing real wealth by millions upon millions of usurious loans?
The late Lady Queenborough, in her important work Occult Theocrasy
gives us certain outstanding names, taking her facts from L’Anti-Semitisme
the Jew Bernard Lazare, 1894. In London she gives the names of Benjamin
Goldsmid and his brother Abraham Goldsmid, Moses Mocatta their partner, and
his nephew Sir Moses Montifiore, as being directly concerned in financing the
French Revolution, along with Daniel Itsig of Berlin and his son-in-law David
Friedlander, and Herz Cerfbeer of Alsace.
These names recall the Protocols of Zion, and turning up Number 20 we read:
“The gold standard has been the ruin of States which adopted it, for it has
not been able to satisfy the demands for money, the more so as we have removed gold from circulation as far as possible.”
“Loans hang like a Sword of Damocles over the heads of rulers who ...
come begging with outstretched palm.”
No words could describe more aptly what was overtaking France. Sir Walter Scott in his Life of Napoleon
, Vol. 1, thus describes the situation:
“These financiers used the government as bankrupt prodigals are treated by
usurious moneylenders, who feeding their extravagance with the one hand, with
the other wring out of their ruined fortunes the most unreasonable recompenses
for their advances. By a long succession of these ruinous loans, and the various
rights granted to guarantee them, the whole finances of France were brought to
King Louis’ chief finance minister during these last years of growing
confusion was Necker
, “a Swiss” of German extraction, son of a German professor of whom McNair Wilson writes:
“Necker had forced his way into the King’s Treasury as a representative of
the debt system owning allegiance to that system.”
We can easily imagine what policy that allegiance inspired in Necker; and
when we add to this the fact that his previous record was that of a daring and
unscrupulous speculator, we can understand why the national finances of France
under his baneful aegis rapidly worsened, so that after four years of his
manipulations, the unfortunate King’s government had contracted an additional
and far more serious debt of £170,000,000.
By 1730 Freemasonry
had been introduced into France from England. By
1771 the movement had attained such proportions that Phillipe Due de Chartres
afterwards d’Orleans became Grand Master. This type of freemasonry was
largely innocent, both in policy and personnel in its early days; but as events
proved, the real moving spirits were ruthless and unscrupulous men of blood.
The Duc d’Orleans was not one of these latter. Though a man of little
principle, and an extravagant, vain and ambitious libertine, he had no motives
beyond the ousting of the King, and the establishing of a democratic monarchy
with himself as that monarch. Having in addition but little intelligence, he made
the ideal stalking horse for the first and most moderate stage of revolution, and a
willing tool of men whom he probably scarcely knew; and who sent him to the
guillotine soon after his base and away role had been played.
The Marquis de Mirabeau who succeeded him as the leading figure of the Revolution was cast in much the same role. He was a much abler man than d’Orleans, but so foul a libertine that he was shunned by all his own class, and imprisoned more than once at the instance of his own father.
He is known to have been financed by Moses Mendelssohn, head of
the Jewish Illuminati, and to have been more in the company of the Jewess Mrs.
Herz than was her husband. He was not only an early figure-head in French
Freemasonry in the respectable years, but introduced Illuminism into France.
This Illuminism was a secret revolutionary society behind freemasonry.
The Illuminati penetrated into all the lodges of Grand Orient Freemasonry, and
were backed and organized by cabalistic Jews. It is interesting to note that the
Due d’Orleans and Talleyrand were both initiated into Illuminism by Mirabeau
shortly after the latter had introduced it into France, from Frankfurt, where its
headquarters had been established in 1782 under Adam Weishaupt.
In 1785 there happened a strange event, which makes it seem as though the
heavenly powers themselves made a last moment attempt to warn France and
Europe against these massing powers of evil. Lightning struck dead a messenger
of the Illuminati at Ratisbon. The police found on the body papers dealing with
plans for world revolution. Thereupon the Bavarian Government had the
headquarters of the Illuminati searched
, and much further evidence was
discovered. French authorities were informed, but the process of paralysis was
too far advanced, and no action resulted.
By 1789 there were more than two thousand Lodges in France affiliated to
the Grand Orient, the direct tool of international revolution; and their adepts
numbered over 100,000.
Thus we get Jewish Illuminism under Moses Mendelssohn and Masonic
Illuminism under Weishaupt established as the inner controls of a strong secret
organization covering the whole of France. Under the Illuminati worked Grand
Orient Freemasonry, and under that again the Blue, or National, Masonry had
operated until it was converted over-night into Grand Orient Masonry by
Phillipe d’Orleans in 1773. Little did Egalité suspect the satanic powers that
he was invoking, when he took that action, and satanic they certainly were. The
name Lucifer means “Light Bearer”; and Illuminati those who were lit by that
By the time the Estates General met at Versailles on 5th May, 1789, the
paralysis of the executive authority by the secret organizations was complete.
Paralysis by control of public opinion and publicity was well advanced by
This was the manner of its accomplishment.
By 1780 d’Orleans’ entire income of 800,000 livres, thanks to his reckless gambling and extravagance, was mortgaged to the moneylenders. In 1781, in return for accommodation, he signed papers handing over his palace, estates, and house the Palais Royal, to his creditors, with powers to form there a centre of politics, printing, pamphleteering, gambling, lectures, brothels, wine-shops,
theatres, art galleries, athletics, and any other uses, which subsequently took the form of every variety of public debauchery. In fact, Egalité’s financial masters used his name and property to install a colossal organism for publicity and corruption, which appealed to every lowest instinct in human nature; and deluged the enormous crowds so gathered with the filthy, defamatory and revolutionary output of its printing presses and debating clubs. As Scudder writes in A Prince of the Blood
: “It gave the police more to do than all the other parts of the city.”
interesting to note that the general manager installed by the creditors at the Palais
royal was one de Laclos, a political adventurer of alien origin, author of Liaisons
, and other pornographic works, who was said “to study the politics of love because of his love for politics.”
This steady stream of corruption and destructive propaganda was linked
with a series of systematic personal attacks of the vilest and most unscrupulous
nature upon any public characters whom the Jacobins thought likely to stand in
their way. This process was known as “L’infamie.”
Marie Antoinette herself was one of the chief targets for this typically Jewish form of attack.
No lie or abuse was too vile to level at her. More intelligent, alert, and vigorous than the weak and indolent Louis, Marie Antoinette presented a considerable obstacle to the revolution. She had, moreover, received many warnings regarding freemasonry from her sister in Austria; and no doubt was by this time more awake to its significance than when she had
written to her sister some years previously:
“I believe that as far as France is concerned, you worry too much about
freemasonry. Here it is far from having the significance that it may have
elsewhere in Europe. Here everything is open and one knows all. Then where
could the danger be? One might well be worried if it were a question of a
political secret society. But on the contrary the government lets it spread, and it is
only that which it seems, an association the objects of which are union and
charity. One dines, one sings, one talks, which has given the King occasion to
say that people who drink and sing are not suspect of organizing plots. Nor is it a
society of atheists, for we are told God is on the lips of all. They are very
charitable. They bring up the children of their poor and dead members. They
endow their daughters. What harm is there in all that?”
What harm indeed if these blameless pretensions masked no darker
designs? Doubtless the agents of Weishaupt and Mendelssohn reported on to
them the contents of the Queen’s letter; and we can imagine them shaking with
laughter, and rubbing their hands in satisfaction; hands that were itching to
destroy the very life of France and her Queen; and which at the appropriate
hour would give the signal that would convert secret conspiracy into the
“massacres of September” and the blood baths of the guillotine.
In order to further the campaign of calumny against the Queen, an elaborate
hoax was arranged at the time, when the financiers and grain speculators
were deliberately creating conditions of poverty and hunger in Paris.
A diamond necklace
valued at nearly a quarter of a million was ordered at the Court jewellers in the Queen’s name by an agent of the Jacobins. The
unfortunate Queen knew nothing of this affair until the necklace was brought round to her for acceptance, when she naturally disclaimed anything to do with the matter, pointing out that she would consider it wrong to order such a thing when France was in so bad a financial way. The printing presses of the Palais Royal, however, turned full blast on to the subject; and every kind of criticism leveled at the Queen. A further scandal was then engineered for the presses.
Some prostitute from the Palais Royal was engaged to disguise herself as the
Queen; and by the forged letter the Cardinal Prince de Rohan was induced to
meet the supposed Queen about midnight at the Palais Royal, supposing he was
being asked for advice and help by the Queen on the subject of the necklace.
This event, needless to say, was immediately reported to the printing presses and
pamphleteers, who started a further campaign containing the foulest innuendoes
that could be imagined concerning the whole affair. The moving spirit behind
the scene was Cagliostro
, alias Joseph Balsamo, a Jew from Palermo, a doctor of
the cabalistic art, and a member of the Illuminati, into which he was initiated at
Frankfurt by Weishaupt in 1774. When the necklace had finally served its
purpose, it was sent over to London, where most of the stones were retained by
the Jew Eliason.
Attacks of a similar nature were directed against many other decent people,
who resisted the influence of the Jacobin clubs. After eight years of this work
the process of paralysis by mastery of publicity was complete.
In every respect therefore by 1789, when the financiers forced the King to
summon the Estates General, the first portion of their plans for revolution (i.e.
paralysis) were accomplished.
It now only remained to strike the blow or series of blows, which were to
rob France of her throne, her church, her constitution, her nobles, her clergy, her
gentry, her bourgeoisie, her traditions, and her culture; leaving in their place,
when the guillotine’s work was done, citizen hewers of wood and drawers of
water under an alien financial dictatorship.
From 1789 onwards a succession of revolutionary acts were set in motion;
each more violent than the one preceding it; each unmasking fresh demands and
more violent and revolutionary leaders. In their turn each of these leaders, a
puppet only of the real powers behind the revolution, is set aside; and his head
rolls into the basket to join those of his victims of yesterday.
Philippe Egalité, Duc d’Orleans
, was used to prepare the ground for the
revolution; to protect with his name and influence the infancy of the
revolutionary club; to popularize freemasonry and the Palais Royal; and to
sponsor such acts as the march of the women to Versailles. The “women” on this
occasion were mostly men in disguise.
d’Orleans was under the impression that the King and Queen would be
assassinated by this mob, and himself proclaimed a democratic King. The real
planners of the march, however, had other schemes in view. One main objective
was to secure the removal of the royal family to Paris, where they would be
clear of protection from the army, and under the power of the Commune or Paris
County Council in which the Jacobins were supreme.
They continued to make use of Egalité right up to the time of the vote on
the King’s life, when he crowned his sordid career by leading the open vote in
voting for the death of his cousin. His masters thereafter had no further use for
his services; and he very shortly followed his cousin to the guillotine amidst the
execrations of all classes.
played a similar role to that of Egalité. He had intended that
the revolution should cease with the setting up of Louis as a democratic
monarch with himself as chief adviser. He had no desire to see violence done to
the King. On the contrary, in the last days before he died mysteriously by
poison, he exerted all his efforts to get the King removed from Paris, and placed
in charge of loyal generals still commanding his army. He was the last of the
moderates and monarchists to dominate the Jacobin club of Paris; that
bloodthirsty focus of revolution, which had materialized out of the secret clubs
of the Orient Masons and Illuminati.
It was Mirabeau’s voice, loud and resonant, that kept in check the growing
rage of the murderous fanatics who swarmed therein. There is no doubt that he
perceived at last the true nature and strength of the beast, which he had worked
so long and so industriously to unchain.
In his last attempt to save the royal family by getting them out of Paris, he
actually succeeded in shouting down all opposition in the Jacobin club. That
evening he died by a sudden and violent illness; and, as the author of The
writes: “Louis was not ignorant that Mirabeau had been
Thus, like Philippe Egalité, and later Danton and Robespierre, Mirabeau
too was removed from the stage when his role had been played. We are
reminded of the passage in Number 15 of the Protocols of Zion:
“We execute masons in such wise that none save the brotherhood can ever
have a suspicion of it.”
“In this way we shall proceed with those goy masons who know too much.”
As Mr E. Scudder writes in his Life of Mirabeau
“He died at a moment when the revolution might still have been checked.”
The figure of Lafayette
occupies the stage on several important occasions
during these first revolutionary stages.
He was one of those simple freemasons, who are borne they know not
whither, in a ship they have not fully explored, and by currents concerning which
they are totally ignorant.
While a popular figure with the revolutionary crowds, he very severely
handled several incipient outbreaks of revolutionary violence, notably in the
march of the women to Versailles, during the attack on the Tuilleries, and at the
Champs de Mars. He, too, desired the establishment of a democratic monarchy,
and would countenance no threat to the King even from Philippe Egalité, whom
he treated with the utmost hostility during and after the march of the women to
Versailles, believing on that occasion that Egalité intended the assassination of
the King, and the usurpation of the Crown.
He evidently became an obstacle to the powers behind the revolution, and
was packed off to a war against Austria, which the Assembly forced Louis to
declare. Once he did dash back to Paris in an effort to save the King; but he was
packed off again to the war. Mirabeau’s death followed, and Louis’ fate was
The wild figures of Danton, Marat, Robespierre
, and the fanatics of the Jacobin club now dominated the scene.
In September of 1792 were perpetrated the terrible “September massacres”; 8,000 persons being murdered in the prisons of Paris alone, and
many more over the country.
It should be noted here, that these victims were arrested and held till the
time of the massacre in the prisons by one Manuel, Procureur of the Commune.
Sir Walter Scott evidently understood much concerning the influences
which were at work behind the scenes. In his Life of Napoleon
, Vol. 2, he writes
on page 30: “The demand of the Commune de Paris, [Note: The Paris County Council, equivalent to the L.C.C. in London,] now the Sanhedrin of the Jacobins, was, of course, for blood.”
Again, on page 56 he writes: “The power of the Jacobins was irresistible in Paris, where Robespierre, Danton and Marat shared the high places in the synagogue.”
Writing of the Commune, Sir Walter Scott states in the same work: “The principal leaders of the Commune seem to have been foreigners.”
Some of the names of these “foreigners” are worthy of note. There was Choderlos de Laclos, manager of the Palais Royal, said to be of Spanish origin. There was Manuel, the Procureur of the Commune, already mentioned. He it was who started the attack upon royalty in the Convention, which culminated with the execution of Louis and Marie Antoinette. There was David the painter, a leading member of the Committee of Public Security, which “tried” the victims. His voice was always raised calling for death. Sir Walter Scott writes that this fiend used to preface his “bloody work of the day with the professional phrase, let us grind enough of the Red’.”
David it was who inaugurated the Cult of the Supreme Being; and organized “the conducting of this heathen mummery, which was substituted for every external sign of rational devotion.”
(Sir Walter Scott, Life of Napoleon
There were Reubel and Gohir, two of the five “Directors,” who with a
Council of Elders became the government after the fall of Robespierre, being
known as the Directoire.
The terms “Directors” and “Elders” are, of course, characteristically Jewish.
One other observation should be made here; it is that this important work by Sir Walter Scott in 9 volumes, revealing so much of the real truth, is practically unknown
, is never reprinted with his other works, and is almost unobtainable.
Those familiar with Jewish technique will appreciate the full significance of this fact; and the added importance it lends to Sir Walter Scott’s evidence regarding the powers behind the French Revolution.
To return to the scene in Paris. Robespierre now remains alone, and apparently master of the scenes; but this again was only appearance. Let us turn to the Life of Robespierre
, by one G. Renier, who writes as though Jewish secrets were at his disposal. He writes:
“From April to July 1794 (the fall of Robespierre) the terror was at its
height. It was never the dictatorship of a single man, least of all Robespierre.
Some 20 men (the Committees of Public Safety and of General Security) shared
“On the 28th July, 1794,”
to quote Mr. Renier again,
“Robespierre made a
long speech before the Convention ... a philippic against ultra-terrorists—
uttering vague general accusations. ‘I dare not name them at this moment and in
this place. I cannot bring myself entirely to tear asunder the veil that covers this
profound mystery of iniquity. But I can affirm most positively that among the
authors of this plot are the agents of that system of corruption and extravagance,
the most powerful of all the means invented by foreigners for the undoing of the
Republic; I mean the impure apostles of atheism, and the immorality that is at its
Mr Renier continues with all a Jew’s satisfaction: “Had he not spoken these words he might still have triumphed!”
In this smug sentence Mr Renier unwittingly dots the i’s and crosses the t’s, which Robespierre had left uncompleted. Robespierre’s allusion to the “corrupting and secret foreigners” was getting altogether too near the mark; a little more and the full truth would be out. At 2 a.m. that night Robespierre was shot in the jaw and early on the following day dragged to the guillotine.
Again let us recall Protocol 15:
“In this way we shall proceed with goy masons who know too much.”
Note: In a somewhat similar manner Abraham Lincoln was shot and
killed by the Jew Booth on the evening of his pronouncement to his cabinet that
he intended in future to finance U.S. loans on a debt free basis similar to the
debt free money known as “Greenbacks,” with which he had financed the Civil
3. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION
Monsieur Francois Coty, the celebrated scent manufacturer, wrote in Figaro
on 20th February, 1932:
“The subsidies granted to the Nihilists at this period (1905-1917) by Jacob
Schiff, of Kuhn Loeb and Co., New York, were no longer acts of isolated
generosity. A veritable Russian terrorist organization had been set up at his
expense. It covered Russia with its emissaries.”
This creation of terrorist formations by Jews within a country marked down
for revolution, whether they be called Nihilists or as in France in 1789, “Sacred
Bands,” or “Marseillais”; or “Operatives,” as in the Britain of Charles I, now stands revealed as standard technique. Jacob Schiff also financed Japan in her war against Russia 1904-5, as we learn from the Jewish Encyclopedia
This war was immediately followed by an attempt at revolution on a
considerable scale in Russia, which, however, proved abortive. The next
attempt, during the Great War, met with complete success.
On the 3rd January, 1906, the Russian Foreign Minister supplied to
Emperor Nicholas II a report on this revolutionary outbreak, which, as revealed
in the American Hebrew
of July 13th, 1918, contained the following passages:
“The events which took place in Russia in 1905 ... plainly indicate that the
revolutionary movement ... has a definite international character ... the
revolutionaries possess great quantities of arms imported from abroad and very
considerable financial means ... one is bound to conclude that there are foreign
capitalists’ organizations interested in supporting our revolutionary
movement. If we add to the above that, as has been proved beyond any doubt, a
very considerable part is played by Jews ... as ring-leaders in other organizations as well as their own ... always the most bellicose element of the revolution ... we
may feel entitled to assume that the above-mentioned foreign support of the
Russian revolutionary movement comes from Jewish capitalist circles.” [Jews
should be read as International Zionists, Ed.]
The assumption in the foregoing report was indeed well justified. It was to be confirmed by an even more important official document penned at the height of the revolution itself, in 1918, by Mr Oudendyke, the representative of the Netherlands Government in St. Petersburg, who was in charge of British interests in Russia after the liquidation of our Embassy by the bolsheviks.
So important indeed was this report of Mr. Oudendyke’s held to be by Mr. Balfour, to whom it was addressed, that it was set out in a British government white paper on bolshevism issued in April 1919. (Russia No. 1.) In it I have read the following passage:
“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 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.”
A still clearer light is thrown on these happenings by an article written on
12th April, 1919, in a paper called The Communist
, at Kharkov, by one M.
“The great Russian revolution was indeed accomplished by the hands of
Jews. There are no Jews in the ranks of the Red Army as far as privates are
concerned, but in the Committees, and in the Soviet organization as Commissars,
the Jews are gallantly leading the masses. The symbol of Jewry has become
the symbol of the Russian proletariat, which can be seen in the fact of the
adoption of the five-pointed star, which in former times was the symbol of
Zionism and Jewry.”
Mr. Fahey, in his important and authenticated work, The Rulers of Russia
is more specific, stating that in 1917 of the 52 persons who took over the
direction in Russia, all but Lenin were Jews.
So thorough was the mass liquidation of all but hewers of wood and
drawers of water in Russia, that this Jewish grip remained unaltered. Dr. Fahey
tells us that in 1935 the Central Executive of the Third international, which ruled
Russia “consisted of 59 men, of which 56 were Jews. The other three, including
Stalin, were married to Jewesses. Of 17 principal Soviet ambassadors, 4 were
Jews.” (Rulers of Russia
, pages 8 and 9.)
The Rev. George Simons, who was Superintendent of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in St. Petersburg from 1907 to October 1918, appeared before
a Committee of the United States Senate on the 12th February, 1919, and gave
them a report of his personal knowledge of the happenings in Russia up to the
time he left. Dr. Fahey quotes him as saying during this evidence:
“In December, 1918, out of 388 members of the revolutionary government,
only 16 happened to be real Russians; all the rest were Jews with the exception
of one U.S. Negro. Two hundred and sixty-five of the Jews come from the Lower
East Side of New York.”
Such has been the condition of affairs in the U.S.S.R. from that day to this.
Though a number of Jews were liquidated in the so-called “Moscow
Purge,” this affected the situation in no way. It merely signified that one Jewish
faction had triumphed over, and liquidated, another. There has never been
anything in the nature of a Gentile revolt against the Jewish domination.
The fact that some Jews were liquidated by winning factions behind
the iron curtain could be used to deceive the world outside into thinking that this
was the result of an anti-Semitic revolt, and from time to time a hoax of this kind
has been systematically propaganded.
As world opinion gradually turned hostile to the U.S.S.R. important Jews
began to fear, that this feeling, combined with a gradual realization that
bolshevism is Jewish, might have unpleasant reactions for them. About 1945,
therefore, a further powerful campaign was organized from influential Jewish
circles, notably in the U.S.A., to put out the story once again that Russia had
turned on the Jews. They evidently failed, however, to advise their lesser
brethren of this move; and indignant and informed denials were soon
forthcoming. A journal called Bulletin
, the organ of the Glasgow Discussion
Group, wrote in June 1945:
“Such rubbish as is now being spread as to the growth of anti-Semitism in
Russia is nothing but malicious lies and pure invention.”
On 1st February, 1949, the Daily Worker
carried an article in which a Mr.
Parker gave a few names and figures of Jews in high office in the U.S.S.R., from
which he had evidently recently returned, for he wrote:
“I never heard a breath of criticism over this state of affairs,” and stated
later in the same article “anti-Semitism would render a Soviet official liable to
prosecution in the same way that a private citizen may be brought before the
courts for anti-Semitism.”
On the 10th November, 1949, the Daily Worker
, that constant and burning
champion of the Jews, printed an article by Mr D. Kartun, entitled “Stamping
Out Anti-Semitism,” which shows the complete Jewish control behind the iron
curtain when he writes:
“In Poland and the other people’s democracies anti-Semitism in word or
deed is most heavily punished.”
Between 1945 and 1949 the propaganda to convince Gentiles outside
the iron curtain, that within that area anti-Semitism was rampant, and the Jews
driven from high office everywhere was energetically pursued. It began to be
believed by quite a number of people, who would have known better; so much
so, that in the autumn of the latter year I thought it worth while to get out a list
showing the number of vital positions held by Jews behind the iron curtain. Here
is an extract from those lists.
Premier—Stalin Married to a Jewess
Ministry of State Control—Mekhlis Jew
Military & Naval Construction—Ginsburg Jew
Minister Cominform Organ—Yudin Jew
Chief Publicist Abroad for U.S.S.R.—Ilya Eherenburg ...Jew
Ministry of Building Enterprises Machinery—Yudin Jew
Foreign Minister—Molotoff Married to a Jewess
Virtual Ruler—Jacob Bergman Jew
Public Prosecutor—T. Cyprian Jew
O.C. Youth Movements—Dr. Braniewsky Jew
Virtual Ruler—Mathias Rakosi Jew
Virtual Ruler—Anna Pauker Jewess
(Since removed for “deviationism” but replaced by another Jew.)
Virtual Ruler—Moishe Pyjede Jew
In May 1949, the Daily Worker
, which is, of course, consistently and
ardently pro-Jewish, printed an article by Mr A. Rothstein praising the U.S.S.R.
to the skies; and about the same time another article on similar lines about
the paradise behind the iron curtain by Mr Sam Aronvitch.
On the 10th November the same paper printed an article in which D.
Kartun, writing of the “People’s Democracies” and the stamping out of anti-Semitism there, wrote:
“No one could dream of making an anti-semitic speech or writing an
anti-semitic article in any of these countries. If they did their jail sentence
would be both immediate and lengthy.”
In the last few years we have been supplied with further dramatic proof of
the vital inter-relation between Jews and the U.S.S.R. From the Canadian spy
trials, which focused the spotlight on atom spying for the U.S.S.R., with the
conviction and imprisonment of Frank Rosenberg (alias Rose), the Canadian
Jew Communist Member of Parliament, and several Jews, to the conviction and
imprisonment of many others of the same gang in Britain and the U.S.A.,
including Fuchs, Professor Weinbaum, Judith Coplon, Harry Gold, David
Greenglass, Julius Rosenberg, Miriam Moskewitz, Abraham Brothanz, and
Raymond Boyer, who, though a Gentile by birth, married a Jewess and, I
believe, adopted the Jewish creed on that occasion.
Finally, we had the flight to the U.S.S.R. with atom secrets also of the Jew
Professor Pontecorvo, who had been working in close association with Fuchs.
No doubt we shall continue to be regaled with plausible stories proving that
Russia has gone anti-semitic; but it is not hard to realise that such a Jewish grip
backed by the most elaborate spy and liquidation squads known to man, would
cause a convulsion which would shake the world before its grip could be
4. DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE
Four revolutions in history merit our special attention. The study and
comparison of the methods employed therein will reveal on the one hand a basic
similarity between them: and on the other an interesting advance in technique,
with each succeeding upheaval.
It is as if we studied the various stages in the evolution of the modern rifle
from the original old “brown Bess.”
The revolutions in question are firstly the Cromwellian, secondly the
French, thirdly the Russian, and lastly the Spanish revolution of 1936. All four
can be proved to have been the work of international Jewry. The first three
succeeded, and secured the murder of the reigning monarch and the liquidation
of his supporters.
In each case Jewish finance, and underground intrigue, are clearly
traceable; and the earliest measures passed by the revolutionaries have been
“emancipation” for the Jews.
Cromwell was financed by various Jews, notably Manasseh Ben Israel and
Carvajal “the Great Jew,” contractor to his army.
On this occasion Jewish influence remained financial and commercial,
while the propaganda weapons and medium were semi-religious, all the
Cromwellians being soaked in Old Testament Judaism
; some, such as General
Harrison, even carried their Judaism to the length of advocating the adoption of
the Mosaic Law as the law of England, and the substitution of Saturday as the
Sabbath in place of the Christian Sunday.
We are all familiar with the absurd Old Testament passages which the
Roundhead rank and file adopted as names, such as Sergeant Obadiah, “Bind
their Kings in chains and their nobles in fetters of iron.”
The Cromwellian revolution was short-lived. The work of destruction had
not been sufficiently thorough to frustrate counter-revolution, and restoration of
the old regime.
A second revolution, the so-called “Glorious Revolution” of 1689, was
necessary. This again was financed by Jews, notably Solomon Medina, Suasso,
Moses Machado and others.
By the French revolution of 1789 the technique had been notably
improved. Secret societies had been developed throughout France on a grand
scale in the preceding years. The plans for the liquidation of the former regime
are by this time far more drastic. The judicial murder of a kindly and well
intentioned King and a few nobles is replaced by mass murders in prisons and in
private houses of the whole of the nobility, clergy, gentry and bourgeoisie,
regardless of sex.
The Cromwellian damage and desecration of a few churches by their
temporary use as stables is developed into a general wrecking of Christian
churches, or their conversion into public lavatories, brothels, and markets; and
the banning of the practice of the Christian religion and even the ringing of
Civil war is not allowed to develop. The army is side-tracked, and kept
apart from its King by his seizure at an early stage. So powerful is the unseen
control by 1789 that apparently, the dregs of the French population victoriously
liquidate all their natural leaders, in itself a most unnatural and suspicious
More suspicious still is the sudden appearance of strong bands of armed
hooligans, who march on Paris from Lyons and Marseilles; and are recorded as
being obviously foreigners. Here we have the first formations of alien
mercenary and criminal elements, forcing revolutions upon a country not their
own, which were to have their finished and expanded prototype in the
International Brigades, which attempted to force Marxism on Spain 150 years
England in the 17th century had not been dismembered and hideously
remoulded on alien lines; but all familiar land marks in 18th century France
were destroyed. The splendid and historic names and titles of counties,
departments and families were scrapped, and France divided into numbered
squares occupied merely by “citizens.” Even the months of the calendar were
changed. The national flag of France with its lilies and its glories was banned.
Instead the French received the Tricolour, badge of murder and rapine. Here,
however, the planners made a mistake.
The tricolour might not be the honoured and famous flag of France. It
might be dripping with the blood of massacre, regicide and villainy. It might be
stinking with the slime of the Jewish criminals who designed and foisted it upon
the French people; but it was proclaimed the national flag, and the national flag
it became; and with the national flag came the national army, and a national
. It was not long before this great Frenchman ran up against the
secret powers, who up till then controlled the armies of France. They had
planned to use these armies to revolutionise all European states, one after
another; to overthrow all leadership, and establish rule of the mob, apparently,
in reality of course their own.
Just in this manner do the Jews today plan to use the Red Army
. Such a
policy directed by aliens of this type could not long continue once a national
army had thrown up a real national leader; their outlook and policy must
inevitably be poles apart. It was not long before the First Consul challenged and
overthrew these aliens and their puppets.
By the year 1804 Napoleon had come to recognise the Jew and his
plans as a menace to France and all that the revolution had swept away he
systematically restored. From this time onwards Jewish money financed every
coalition against him; and Jews today boast that it was Rothschild rather than
Wellington who defeated Napoleon. Knowing these things, Hitler, on his
occupation of Paris, immediately ordered a permanent guard of honour to be
mounted over Napoleon’s tomb at the Invalides; and had the body of L’Aiglon
(Napoleon’s son by Maria Louisa) brought from Austria, and buried at last in his
proper place at the side of his father.
When we come to examine the Russian revolution we find that the
technique is still bolder and far more drastic. On this occasion no national flag,
army, or anthem is permitted. After the dregs of the community have apparently
accomplished the impossible, and liquidated every other class down to and
including the kulak (a man with three cows), they are herded into a polyglot force
called the Red Army; over them waves an international red flag, not a Russian
flag; their anthem is the Internationale.
The technique of revolution in Russia was so perfected that to this day it
has secured the Jewish regime established there against all counter strokes.
The next revolution to merit our attention is the one that broke out in Spain
in 1936. Fortunately for Europe, it was frustrated by General Franco and a
number of gallant men, who instantly took the field in opposition to the
revolutionary forces, and succeeded in a long struggle in crushing them.
This achievement is all the more remarkable in view of the latest
development in revolutionary organisation, which was then revealed in the
shape of the International Brigades. These International Brigades, besides
representing the very latest novelty in revolutionary technique, were a
remarkable production. They were recruited from criminals, adventurers and
dupes, mostly communists, from 52 different countries, mysteriously transported
and assembled in formations in Spain within a few weeks of the outbreak of
disorder, uniformed in a garb closely related to our battle dress, and armed with
weapons bearing the Jewish five-pointed star. This star and the Seal of Solomon
were upon the signet rings of N.C.O.s and Officers in this communist horde of
ill-disciplined ruffians. I have seen them myself in wear.
By October 1936 these International Brigades were already assembled in
Spain in considerable numbers. Undisciplined and blackguardly though they
were, the mere fact of a large and well-armed political army, intervening
suddenly on one side in the early stages of a civil war, might reasonably have
been counted upon to achieve a decision before the patriotic and decent element
in the country could have time to create an adequate fighting machine.
Though the British public were kept in total ignorance as to the true
significance of what was taking place in Spain two countries in Europe were
alive to the situation. Germany and Italy had each in their turn experienced the
throes of communist revolution, and emerged victorious over this foulest of
earthly plagues. They knew who had financed and organised the International
Brigades; and with what fell purpose Barcelona had been declared in October
1936 the Capital of the Soviet States of Western Europe. At the critical moment
they intervened in just sufficient strength to counter the International Brigade,
and enable the Spanish people to organise their own army, which, in due course,
easily settled the matter. Settled the matter, that is to say, as far as Spain was
concerned. There was, however, another settlement to come. International Jewry
had been seriously thwarted. They would not rest henceforward until they could
have their revenge; until they could by hook or crook turn the guns of the
rest of the world against these two States, which in addition to thwarting their
designs in Spain were in the process of placing Europe upon a system
independent of gold and usury, which, if permitted to develop, would break the
Jewish power for ever.
5. GERMANY BELLS THE CAT
The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter to Mr.
Balfour, denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan, which if not checked by the
combined action of the European Powers, would engulf Europe and the world,
was no exaggeration. By the end of that year the red flag was being hoisted in
most of the great cities of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kun organised and
maintained for some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in
Russia. In Germany, the Jews Liebknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa
Luxemburg, etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar
convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just frustrated the
In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in an endeavour to
expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one, however, did a political leader
and group arise, who grasped to the full the significance of these happenings,
and perceived behind the mobs of native hooligans the organisation and driving
power of world Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler, and his group the National
Socialist Party of Germany.
Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organised
revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact. We need not
wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded over these men and
their leader; nor should we make the mistake of supposing that Jewry would
stick at any lie to deter honest men everywhere from making a thorough
investigation of the facts for themselves. Nevertheless, if any value liberty,
and set out to seek truth and defend it, this duty of personal investigation is one
which they cannot shirk.
To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentations of a Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer idleness, if for no worse reason. To act on such unverified a basis is to sin against the Light. In the case of Germany and Hitler the task of research is not difficult. We have it on many authorities that Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf
, stated fully and accurately the
author’s observations and conclusions concerning all these vital matters. Quite
false pictures have been propagated deliberately about this book, by quoting
passages out of their context, distorting meanings, and downright
misrepresentation. Having read many of these unscrupulous diatribes, it was
with no little surprise that I read this book for myself not so very long ago.
From many conversations I had heard and taken part in, I now realise that
most members of the public were as ignorant as I of the real nature of this
remarkable book. I propose, therefore, to try and give a true picture of its spirit
and purport by quotations from its two main themes: Firstly realisation and
exposure of the Jewish scheme for world Marxism; and secondly, admiration
of, and longing for friendship with Great Britain.
Writing of the days before 1914, Hitler states:
“I still saw Jewry as a religion ... Of the existence of deliberate Jewish
hostility I had no conception ... I gradually realised that the Social Democratic
Press was preponderantly controlled by Jews ... There was not a single paper
with which Jews were connected which could be described as genuinely national
... I seized all the Social Democratic pamphlets I could get hold of, and looked up
the names of their authors—nothing but Jews.”
As he pursued the study of these questions, Hitler began to perceive the
main outlines of the truth:
“I made also a deep study of the relation between Judaism and
Marxism ... The Jewish State never had boundaries as far as space was
concerned; it was unlimited as regards space, but bound down by its conception
of itself as a race. That people, therefore, was always a State within a State ...
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle in nature...
denies the value of the individual among men, combats the importance of
nationality and race, thereby depriving humanity of the whole meaning of
“Democracy in the west today is the forerunner of Marxism, which would
be inconceivable without Democracy.”
“If the Jew, with the help of his Marxian
creed, conquers the nations of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of
the human race ...”
“Thus did I now believe,”
he writes of the days of 1918, “that
by defending myself against the Jews I am doing the Lord’s work.”
At the end of 1918 there came the revolution in Germany organised behind
the unbroken army in the field. Concerning this Hitler wrote:-
“In November sailors arrived in lorries, and called on us all to revolt, a few
Jewish youths being the leaders in that struggle for the ‘freedom, beauty and
dignity of our national life’. Not one of them had ever been to the Front.”
“The real organiser of the revolution and its actual wire-puller the
International Jew ... The revolution was not made by the forces of peace and
order; but by those of riot, robbery and plunder.”
“I was beginning to learn afresh, and only now (1919) came to a right
comprehension of the teachings and intentions of the Jew Karl Marx. Only now
did I properly understand his Kapital; and equally also the struggle of Social
Democracy against the economics of the nation; and that its aim is to prepare the
ground for the domination of the truly international Kapital.”
*********************** Emperor to offer the hand of friendship to the leaders of Marxism ...
While they held the Imperial hand in theirs the other hand was already feeling
for the dagger.”
“With the Jew there is no bargaining; there is merely the hard
Later on Hitler gives in great detail the outlines of the Jewish disruptive
“By means of the Trades Unions which might have been the saving of the
nation, the Jew actually destroys the nation’s economics.”
“By creating a press which is on the intellectual level of the least educated,
the political and labour organisation obtains force of compulsion enabling it to
make the lowest strata of the nation ready for the most hazardous enterprises.”
“The Jewish press ... tears down all which may be regarded as the prop of a
nation’s independence, civilisation and its economic autonomy. It roars especially
against characters who refuse to bow the knee to Jewish domination, or whose
intellectual capacity appears to the Jew in the light of a menace to himself.”
“The ignorance displayed by the mass ... and the lack of instinctive
perception of our upper class make the people easy dupes of this campaign of
“But the present day is working its own ruin; it introduces universal
suffrage, chatters about equal rights, and can give no reason for so thinking. In its
eyes material rewards are the expression of a man’s worth, thus shattering the
basis for the noblest equality that could possibly exist.”
“It is one of the tasks of our Movement to hold out prospects of a time
when the individual will be given what he needs in order to live; but also to
maintain the principle that man does not live for material enjoyment alone.”
“The political life of today alone has persistently turned its back on this
principle of nature” (i.e. quality) ... “
“Human civilisation is but the outcome of the creative force of personality
in the community as a whole, and especially among its leaders ... the principle of
the dignity of the majority is beginning to poison all life below it; and in
fact to break it up.”
“We now see that Marxism is the enunciated form of the Jewish attempt to
abolish the importance of personality in all departments of human life; and to set
up the mass of numbers in its place ...”
“The principle of decision by majorities has not always governed the human
race; on the contrary, it only appears during quite short periods of his tory, and
those are always periods of decadence in nations and States.”
“We must not forget that the international Jew, who continues to dominate
over Russia, does not regard Germany as an ally, but as a State destined to
undergo a similar fate.”
On the last page and in almost the last paragraph of Mein Kampf
“The party as such stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself
in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish
materialistic spirit within us and without us.”
Looking round the world for help in
the battle against this terrible menace of Jew-directed bolshevism, Hitler’s mind
constantly reverted to Britain and the British Empire. He always longed for their
friendship. Always declared Britain to be one of the greatest bulwarks against
chaos; and that her interests and those of Germany were complementary and not
contrary to one another.
“It was not a British interest,” he wrote, “but in the first place a Jewish one
to destroy Germany.”
“Even in England there is a continual struggle going on between the representatives of British state interests and the Jewish
“Whilst England is exhausting herself in maintaining her position in the
world, the Jew is organising his measures for its conquest ... Thus the Jew today
is a rebel in England, and the struggle against the Jewish world menace will be
started there also.”
“No sacrifice would have been too great in order to gain England’s alliance.
It would have meant renunciation of the colonies and importance at sea, and
refraining from interference with British industry by competition.”
In later years these two themes were ceaselessly expounded; viz., the
Jewish Marxist menace, and the eagerness for friendship with Britain. Even
down to, and including Dunkirk, Hitler pressed the latter idea on all and sundry;
even on his highest Generals, to their astonishment. Nor did he stop at words, as
will be shown later when, as Liddell Hart informs us, he saved the British Army
from annihilation by halting the Panzer Corps, informing his Generals the while,
that he regarded the British Empire and the Catholic Church as necessary
bulwarks of peace and order which must be safeguarded. [Note: The Other Side of the Hill, Chap. X, by Liddell Hart.]
was first published in October 1933. Before it had left the
printers, the floodgates of Jewish hatred and lies had been full-opened against
Hitler and the Third Reich all over the world. English-speaking people
everywhere were deluged with fabrications, distortions and atrocity stories,
which drowned the voices of the few who understood the real situation.
Forgotten in the turmoil was Marx’s slogan that before bolshevism could
triumph the British Empire must be destroyed; and totally suppressed as far as
the British people were concerned was Hitler’s repeated declaration of his
willingness to defend the British Empire if called upon to assist by force of arms
6. 1933: JEWRY DECLARES WAR
The English edition of Mein Kampf
was still in the process of printing and
publication when Jewry declared war on the national Socialist regime, and
started an intensive blockade against Germany.
The International Jewish Boycott Conference was assembled in Holland in
the summer of 1933
under the Presidency of Mr. Samuel Untermeyer, of the
U.S.A., who was elected President of the World Jewish Economic Federation
formed to combat the opposition to Jews in Germany. On his return to the
U.S.A., Mr. Untermeyer gave an address over Station W.A.B.C, the text of
which, as printed in the New York Times of August 7th, 1933, I have before me.
Mr Untermeyer referred in the opening phrases to: “The holy war in the cause
of humanity in which we are embarked”; and proceeded to develop the subject
at great length, describing the Jews as the aristocrats of the world. “Each of you,
Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do
so now and here.” Those Jews who did not join in he denounced, declaring:
“They are traitors to their race.”
In January 1934 Mr. Jabotinsky
, founder of Revisionist Zionism, wrote in Natcha Retch
“The fight against Germany has been carried out for months by every
Jewish community, conference, trade organisation, by every Jew in the world ...
we shall let loose a spiritual and a material war of the whole world against
This is perhaps the most confident assertion extant on the Jewish claim, set
out in the Protocols of Zion, that they can bring about war.
Protocol Number 7 states:
“We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by a State
by war with its neighbour. If these should venture to stand collectively, by
It should be remembered here that a copy of these Protocols was filed in
the British Museum in 1906.
By 1938 the Jewish war was in full swing; and already through their
influence or pressure many Gentile persons and groups were being drawn into
the vortex. Various members of the British Socialist Party were openly
advocating joining in this cold war; and a vigorous and uncompromising clique
was growing in all Parties under the leadership of Messrs. Churchill, Amery,
Duff Cooper and others. “Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced to it, not
this year, but later on,” screamed the Jew Emil Ludwig in the June copy of Les
On June 3rd, 1938, matters were carried a long step further by an article in
the American Hebrew
, the weekly organ of American Jewry. This article, which
opened by showing that Hitler never deviated from his Mein Kampf
went on to threaten the direst retaliation.
“It has become patent that a combination of Britain, France and Russia will
sooner or later bar the triumphant march (of Hitler) ... Either by accident or
(italics mine), a Jew has come to a position of foremost importance in each of these
nations. In the hands of non-Aryans lies the fate and the very lives of millions ...
In France the Jew of prominence is Leon Blum ... Leon Blum may yet be the
Moses who will lead ... Maxim Litvinoff, Soviet super salesman, is the Jew who
sits at the right hand of Stalin, the little tin soldier of communism ... The English
Jew of prominence is Leslie Hore-Belisha, Tommy Atkins’ new boss.”
Later in this article we read:
“So it may come to pass that these three sons of Israel will form the
combine that will send the frenzied Nazi dictator to hell. And when the smoke of battle clears ... and the man who played the swastikaed Christus ... is lowered into a hole in the ground ... as the trio of non-Aryans intone a ramified requiem ... a medley of the marseillaise, God Save the King, and the Internationale, blending with a proud and aggressive rendering of Eili Eili.”
Two points in the above extract are worthy of special note. Firstly, it is
taken for granted that these three Jews will not for one moment think or act as
anything but Jews; and can be relied upon to guide their Gentile dupes to ruin in
a plainly Jewish war; secondly, should be noted the contemptuous reference to
the “swastikaed Christus,” which Jewry looks forward to burying; and which
reveals by its classification the Jewish hatred of Christianity.
Meantime Jewish pressure was exerted to the utmost to incite clashes
between Sudeten, Czechs, Poles and Germans. By September of 1938 matters
had reached a desperate pass. Mr. Chamberlain himself flew out to Munich and
achieved the historic settlement with Hitler. It seemed as though the war
mongers had been frustrated, and Europe saved. Rarely had such scenes and
evidences of spontaneous delight and thankfulness been evoked as were
witnessed throughout Britain and Europe at that triumph.
Those who knew the power of the enemy, however, knew that Mr
Chamberlain’s work was certain to be swiftly sabotaged. I remember remarking,
on the very evening of his return from Munich, that within a week every
newspaper in this country and the war mongers in Parliament, would be
attacking Mr. Chamberlain for having secured peace; regardless of the fact that
in so doing they were contemptuously flouting the real wishes of the people.
This remark was only too true, as events proved.
Nowhere was the Jewish fury so obvious, of course, as in Moscow. I have
before me a leaflet of my own designing put out in October 1938. It runs:
“Are you aware that Mr. Chamberlain was burnt in effigy in Moscow
as soon as it was known that he had secured peace; Showing very clearly Who
Wanted War, and who are still ceaselessly working to stir up strife all the world
over.” [Note 6. See Appendix 4.]
The attempt to provoke war over Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia
having failed, there remained only the detonator in the Polish Corridor, that
monstrosity born of the unholy Versailles Conference, and denounced by honest
men from Marshal Foch and Arthur Henderson, from that time onwards.
One feature about the Versailles Conference
has been kept secret by those
who possess the power to keep things from the public or to proclaim things from
the house tops. It is this: All important decisions were taken by the “Big Four”—Britain, France, Italy and the U.S.A., represented respectively by Mr. Lloyd
George, M. Clemenceau, Baron Sonino and President Wilson. So much is
known. What is not known is that the secretary of Mr. Lloyd George was the
Jew Sassoon; of M. Clemenceau the Jew Mandel Rothschild, now known as
Mandel; Baron Sonino was himself half a Jew: and President Wilson had the
Jew Brandeis; the interpreter was another Jew named Mantoux; and the
Military Adviser yet another Jew called Kish.
It is known that Mr. Lloyd George and others were hazy about geography.
Their Jewish secretaries, however, were on the contrary very much on the spot
on such matters. These Jews met at 6 p.m. in the evenings; and mapped out the
decisions for the following day’s conference of the “Big Four.”
The results were disastrous from the point of view of all decent people,
who hoped for an honourable treaty, with terms which, though they might be
stringent, would at least be just and thereby secure lasting peace.
Foch himself loudly denounced the treaty; declaring that it contained
the certain makings of another war and deprecating in particular the provision
relating to Danzig and the Corridor. Arthur Henderson and many public men
joined in the denunciation; but all to no avail.
From the point of view of men planning another war, however, nothing
could have been better than this treaty. All sorts of glaring injustices were
ingrained in its text
. In addition to the Corridor, and the position at Danzig, a
bastard State was brought into being, in which Germans, Slovaks, etc., together
forming a majority of the country, were put under the tyrannical control of the
Czech minority, an element which had thrown in its lot with the bolshevik Jews
and fought against the Allies in 1918.
The design of this State was such geographically that it was styled, and
correctly styled, a dagger pointed at the heart of Germany. It received the
outlandish name of Czechoslovakia
. The whole of the industrial life from the
huge Skoda arsenal downwards was controlled by Jewish banking interests;
while we have it on the evidence of Lord Winterton that practically all the land
was mortgaged to the Jews (Hansard, October 1936). Under this Messianic
domination were enslaved huge sections of populations, belonging to other
nations, henceforward condemned to be held down by force until some country
should grow strong enough to champion them.
This eventuality was, in my opinion, visualised and actually fostered as we
know by the huge loans to Germany from international banking interests. [Note: All prior of course to the rise of Hitler.]
it not be forgotten that while Jewish bankers
were pouring money into Germany which was rebuilding the Wehrmacht on a bigger scale than ever, a colossal campaign for peace and disarmament was launched in this country. This not only succeeded in substantially disarming us; but in creating an atmosphere in which Mr. Baldwin had to admit that he dared not go to the country asking for more armaments, vital though he knew our needs in sea, air and land forces to be.
To anyone who made a study of the personalities and powers behind this so-called peace propaganda, as I did, there can be no doubt as to whence the real
drive and finance emanated. To anyone appreciating the attitude of the press at
that time, and realising that had this disarmament propaganda been distasteful to
those who influence our publicity services, there would have blared forth a
torrent of invective against our “peace ballotters”; there is additional proof that
this campaign had the support of international Jewry, as had the rearmament of
Germany. But why? the simple will ask.
The answer is fairly simple, if once the purpose behind the Jewish plan is
understood. “Out of the last war we brought the Soviet States of Russia; out of
the next war we will bring the Soviet States of Europe,” had been the
pronouncement at a world meeting of communist parties about 1932. To make
the next war possible, therefore, the see-saw must be balanced again; German
strength built up, and British strength whittled down. Then the Europeans can
fight each other to the death of one and complete exhaustion of the other. A
dramatic surprise is in store for both sides. Neither is to be the real winner. The
real winner is quite a different army. This army is the one that will receive the
real attention. For 25 years it will be built up under conditions of the greatest
secrecy. Its leaders will not show their strength until the conflict is well under
way. Not until a critical moment in the war will the European armies be
permitted to guess at the existence of the huge factories beyond the Urals,
the colossal proportions of the heavily mechanised hordes which will then
commence to roll westwards over Europe under the red flag of Marxism.
In March 1939 a British guarantee to Poland was given by Mr Chamberlain
on the strength of a false report to the effect that a 48-hour ultimatum had been
delivered by Germany to the Poles. This report subsequently turned out to
be quite untrue. The guarantee had been given, however, and the decision of
peace or war was now no longer in British hands. Jewry had the ball at its feet.
Can we doubt but that Poland was encouraged to ignore the German note of
March which set forth eminently reasonable suggestions for a peaceful solution
of the problem of the Corridor?
Month after month no reply was vouchsafed by Poland to the German note.
Meanwhile, insult and outrage occurred with suspicious frequency all along the
German frontier, similar to the technique to which the Jews later introduced the
British in Palestine
. Day after day the British public was deluged with war
propaganda and misrepresentation of the situation. Finally their minds were
closed against any further regard to the demands of justice or reason by a new
slogan, “You cannot trust Hitler’s word.” With this lie the British public was
finally stampeded into throwing all reason and judgement to the winds and
accepting at their face value the war propaganda in the press.
This slogan was founded upon a misrepresentation of Hitler’s assurance
given on more than one occasion after a “putsch” such as that into Sudetenland,
that he “intended to make no further demands.” The misrepresentation lay in the
fact that the press steadily obscured the major fact, that the “demands” to which
Hitler referred were all along five fold in character; and covered those five areas
taken from Germany by a dictated peace in which the population was
overwhelmingly German, i.e. Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia, parts of
Poland, the Corridor and Danzig.
As German troops occupied each successive section, it is, I believe,
accurate to say that Hitler declared, that he had no additional demands to make.
But here it must be clearly stated in the interests of justice that he never said that
this entailed reducing the demands which he had originally very clearly
delineated, and repeated on many occasions, namely, the five areas in
The British public was deluded by its press into supposing that when Hitler
said he had no further demands, that there had never been any statement of his
full demands, some of which were still unfulfilled. They were led to believe that
Hitler either never had any other demands, or that he had abandoned the rest as
soon as he had obtained some of them. When, therefore, the next instalment was
added, the press built on this misunderstanding the fallacy that Hitler’s word
could not be trusted. Honest dealing needs no such trickery and deception. Such
methods are only necessary to bolster up bad or unjust causes. Fortunately we
have the calm and dispassionate judgement in this matter by no less a person
than the late Lord Lothian, recently British Ambassador to the U.S.A. In his last
speech at Chatham House on this subject he remarked: “If the principle of self-determination had been applied in Germany’s favour, as it was applied against
her, it would have meant the return of Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, parts of
Poland, the Polish Corridor, and Danzig to the Reich.”
Here is a very different presentment of the case to the one which was
foisted upon the British public in 1939; and it is the true one. Small wonder that
these facts had to be withheld from the ordinary citizen.
Had the British public realised the truth, that each of these demands of
Hitler’s rested on a foundation of reasonable fairness, the people of this island
would have ruled out any question of war; and it was war, not truth or justice,
upon which international Jewry was resolved.
7. “PHONEY WAR” ENDED BY CIVILIAN BOMBING
Though a state of war was declared to exist between Britain and Germany
in September of 1939, it very soon became apparent that no war was being
conducted by Germany against this country. This was no surprise to those who
knew the facts of the case. Hitler had again and again made it clear, that he
never intended to attack or harm Great Britain or the British Empire. With the
Siegfried Line strongly held, and no German intention of appearing west of it,
stalemate in the west, or the “Phoney War,” as it came to be called, must, in the
absence of bombing of civilian populations ultimately peter out altogether. No
one was quicker to perceive this than the pro-Jewish war mongers; and they and
their friends inside and outside the House of Commons very soon began
exerting pressure for this form of bombing of Germany to be started.
On 14th January, 1940, The Sunday Times
gave prominence to a letter from
an anonymous correspondent, who demanded to know why we were not using
our air power “to increase the effect of the blockade.” “Scrutator,” in the same issue, commented on this letter as follows:
“Such an extension of the offensive would inevitably develop into
competitive frightfulness. It might be forced on us in reprisals for enemy action,
and we must be in a position to make reprisals if necessary. But the bombing of
industrial towns, with its unavoidable loss of life among the civilian population—that is what it would come to—would be inconsistent with the spirit, if not
the actual words of the pledges given from both sides
at the beginning of the
The above quotation is taken from a book entitled Bombing Vindicated
, which was published in 1944 by Mr. J. M. Spaight, C.B., C.B.E., who was the principal assistant secretary at the Air Ministry during the war. As its title suggests, this book is an attempt to justify the indiscriminate use of bombers
against the civil population. In it Mr. Spaight boasts that this form of bombing
“saved civilisation”: and reveals the startling fact that it was Britain that started
this ruthless form of war on the very evening of the day on which Mr. Churchill
became Prime Minister, May 11th, 1940.
On page 64 of his book, Mr. Spaight gives a further piece of information,
which renders this sudden change of British policy all the more astonishing; for
he states that a declaration was made by the British and French Governments on
2nd September, 1939, that “Only strictly military objectives in the narrowest
sense of the word would be bombarded.”
This declaration, of course, was made in the days of Mr Chamberlain’s
Premiership; and no single fact perhaps could demarcate and differentiate more
clearly the difference in the character and behaviour between Mr. Chamberlain
and Mr. Churchill.
On the 27th January, 1940, thirteen days after the letter in The Sunday Times
already quoted, The Daily Mail
endorsed editorially the views which had
been expressed in that issue by “Scrutator”; and it devoted a leading article,
writes Mr. Spaight, to combating the suggestion of Mr. Amery
and others that we should start the bombing of Germany. Sir Duff Cooper had written on the
previous day in the same paper that “there would appear to exist a kind of
unwritten truce between the two belligerents, according to the tacit terms of
which they do not bomb one another.”
In view of the declaration by Britain and France of September 2nd,
1939, that they would “only bomb military objectives in the narrowest sense of
the word,” Sir Duff Cooper’s verbiage about “a kind of unwritten truce,” seems to me gravely obscurantist, if honest.
Inside the House of Commons, the pro-Jewish war mongers were now
becoming more and more intransigent; and more and more set on sabotaging
the chances of turning the “phoney war” into a negotiated peace. This in spite of
the fact that Britain had nothing to gain by further and total war, and everything
to lose. The Jews, of course, had everything to lose by a peace which left the
German gold-free money system and Jew-free Government intact, and nothing
It seemed clearer to me every day that this struggle over the question of
civilian bombing was the crux of the whole matter; and that by this method of
warfare alone could the Jews and their allies cut the Gordian knot of stalemate
leading to peace; and probably later on to a joint attack on Jewish Bolshevism
Accordingly, on 15th February, 1940, 1 put down the following question to
the Prime Minister:
Captain Ramsay asked the Prime Minister: “Whether he will assure the
House that H.M. Government will not assent to the suggestions made to them, to
abandon those principles which led them to denounce the bombing of civilian
populations in Spain and elsewhere, and embark upon such a policy
Mr Chamberlain himself replied in outspoken terms:
“I am unaware of the suggestions to which my honourable and gallant
friend refers. The policy of H.M. Government in this matter was fully stated by
myself in answer to a question by the honourable Member for Bishop Auckland
(Mr Dalton) on 14th September last. In the course of that answer I said that
whatever be the length to which others may go, H.M. Government will never
resort to the deliberate attack on women and children, and other civilians,
for purposes of mere terrorism. I have nothing to add to that answer.”
Both this question and the reply were evidently distasteful in the extreme to
the war mongers, so I resolved to carry the matter a stage further.
On 21st February I put down another question on the subject:
Captain Ramsay asked the Prime Minister: “Whether he is aware that the
Soviet aeroplanes are carrying on a campaign of bombing civil populations, and
whether H.M. Government have despatched protests on the subject similar to
those despatched during the Civil War in Spain in similar circumstances?”
Mr. Butler replied for the Prime Minister: “Yes, Sir. The Soviet Air Forces
have pursued a policy of indiscriminate bombing, which cannot be too strongly
condemned. H.M. Government have not, however, lodged any protest, since
there are unfortunately no grounds for supposing that such action would achieve
the result desired.”
There can be little doubt but that these two downright answers crystallised
the resolves of the war mongers to get rid of a Prime Minister whose adherence
to an upright and humane policy must inevitably frustrate their plans, seeing that
Hitler wished no war with Britain, and would therefore never start civilian
The machinery of intrigue and rebellion against Mr. Chamberlain was set in motion. Ultimately he was saddled with the blame for the Norway blunder;
and this pretext was used by the Churchillian-cum-Socialist caucus to secure his
It should be remembered in this connection that prior to and during the
Norway gamble, Mr. Churchill had been invested with full powers and
responsibilities for all Naval Military and Air operations; and if anyone
therefore deserved to be broken over that second Gallipoli (pursued in defiance
of high naval authority warning that, without control of the Cattegat and
Skaggerack it could not possibly succeed) it should have been the Minister
He however was not only unbroken, he was acclaimed Prime Minister. The
man who would tear up the British pledge of September 2nd, 1939, and start
bombing the civilians of Germany was the man for the war mongers who now
ruled the roost.
And so civilian bombing started on the evening that the architect of the
Norwegian fiasco became Prime Minister, viz., May 11th, 1940.
8. DUNKIRK AND AFTER
Captain Liddell Hart, the eminent military critic, wrote a book on the
military events of 1939-45, which was published in 1948, and entitled The Other
Side of the Hill
. Chapter 10—which deals with the German invasion of France
down to and including Dunkirk—bears the somewhat startling title, “How
Hitler beat France and saved Britain.” The reading of the chapter itself will
astound all propaganda-blinded people, even more than the title: for the author
therein proves that not only did Hitler save this country; but that this was not
the result of some unforeseen factor, or indecision, or folly, but was of set
purpose, based on his long enunciated and faithfully maintained principle.
Having given details of how Hitler peremptorily halted the Panzer Corps
on the 22nd May, and kept them inactive for the vital few days, till, in fact, the
British troops had got away from Dunkirk, Captain Liddell Hart quotes Hitler’s
telegram to Von Kleist:
“The armoured divisions are to remain at medium artillery range from
Dunkirk. Permission is only granted for reconnaissance and protective
Von Kleist decided to ignore the order, the author tells us. To quote him
“Then came a more emphatic order, that I was to withdraw behind the
canal. My tanks were kept halted there for three days.”
In the following words the author reports a conversation which took place
on May 24th (i.e. two days later) between Herr Hitler and Marshal Von
Runstedt, and two key men of his staff:
“He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire,
of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought
into the world ... He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church—
saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all
he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on
the continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable, but not
essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops, if she should be
involved in any difficulties anywhere. He concluded by saying that his aim was
to make peace with Britain, on a basis that she would regard compatible with her
honour to accept.”
Captain Liddell Hart comments on the above as follows:
“If the British Army had been captured at Dunkirk, the British people might
have felt that their honour had suffered a stain, which they must wipe out. By
letting it escape, Hitler hoped to conciliate them.”
“This conviction of Hitler’s deeper motive,” he continues, “was confirmed
by his strangely dilatory attitude over the subsequent plans for the invasion of
“He showed little interest in the plans,” Blumentritt said, “and made no
effort to speed up the preparation. That was utterly different to his usual
behaviour. Before the invasion of Poland, of France, and later of Russia, he
repeatedly spurred them on; but on this occasion he sat back.”
The author continues:
“Since the account of his conversation at Charleville, and subsequent
holding back, comes from a section of the Generals, who had long distrusted
Hitler’s policy, that makes their testimony all the more notable.”
And later he goes on to say:
“Significantly their account of Hitler’s thoughts about England at the
decisive hour before Dunkirk, fits in with much that he himself wrote earlier in
Mein Kampf; and it is remarkable how closely he followed his own Bible in
Anyone who has read Mein Kampf
will immediately appreciate the
accuracy of the above statement. It is indeed if anything an understatement.
Throughout that remarkable book runs two main themes, as I have shown in an
earlier chapter—the one, a detailed delineation and denunciation of the Jewish
Capitalist-Revolutionary machine; the other, admiration for and eagerness for
friendship with Britain and the Empire.
It is a pity, indeed, that so few persons in this island have read this book for
themselves; and it is a tragedy that they have instead swallowed wholesale, the
unscrupulous distortions and untrue propaganda on the subject, served up to
them by Jewish publicity machinery, operating through our press and radio. Let
these people but try and obtain a copy of that book; and when they find they
cannot, let them reflect, that if indeed its contents confirmed the lies that they
have been told concerning it and its author, the powers behind our publicity
would ensure that everyone should be able to secure a copy at the cheapest
In any event, I would urge my countrymen to ponder most earnestly the
The Jew Karl Marx laid it down, that Bolshevism could never really
succeed till the British Empire had been utterly destroyed.
Hitler laid it down, that the British Empire was an essential element of
stability in the world; and even declared himself ready to defend it with troops,
if it should be involved in difficulties anywhere.
By unscrupulous propaganda on an unprecedented scale this country was
led into destroying those who wished to be her friends, and offered their lives to
defend her; and exalting those, who proclaimed that her destruction was a
necessary preliminary to the success of their ideology, forfeiting her Empire and
her economic independence in the process.
9. THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
If the new-found knowledge of Hitler’s anxiety to preserve the British
Empire has come as a surprise recently to many people in this country, it must
surely have come as a real shock to them to learn that President Roosevelt, on
the other hand, was its inveterate enemy; that he was not only a pro-communist
of Jewish origin, but that before he brought America into the war he made it
clear that he wished to break up the British Empire.
His son, Colonel Elliot Roosevelt, makes this last point very clear in his
book, As He Saw It
, recently published in the U.S.A.
On pages 19 to 28 of this book, Colonel Roosevelt tells us that in August
1941, his Father, having given out to the American people that he was going off
on a fishing trip, actually proceeded to a meeting with Mr. Churchill on board a
warship in Argentia Bay. Lord Beaverbrook, Sir Edward Cadogan, and Lord
Cherwell (Professor Lindeman of doubtful race and nationality), and Mr. Averil
Harriman were present, he says. On page 35 he quotes his Father as saying,
“After the war ... there will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade ...
no artificial barriers.” Mr. Churchill referred to he British Empire Trade
Agreements, and Mr. Roosevelt replied, “Yes. Those Empire Trade Agreements
are a case in point. It’s because of them that the peoples of India, Africa, and of
all the Colonial Near East are still as backward as they are ... I can’t believe that
we can fight a war against Fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free
people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.” “The peace,”
said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism.”
This insolent talk against the British Empire became so pronounced that on
page 31 Colonel Roosevelt reports Mr. Churchill as saying, “Mr. President, I
believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire.” This comment was
very near the mark, as the President had been talking about India, Burma, Egypt,
Palestine, Indo-China, Indonesia, and all the African Colonies having to be
On page 115, the Colonel reports his Father as saying, “Don’t think for a
moment, Elliot, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight if it hadn’t
been for the short-sighted greed of the French, the British and the Dutch. Shall
we allow them to do it all over again?”
These were not at all the reasons, however, given for the war, and for
which Americans thought they were dying; nor indeed does the President make
any reference as to the pretexts given to his countrymen for the war.
The British, dying in greater numbers, have on the contrary been told that
they are dying to defend their Empire from Hitler’s wicked plans. Little do they
suspect, that it is their so-called ally who plans its destruction.
“When we’ve won the war,” the President is reported as saying on page
116, “I will see that the U.S.A. is not wheedled into any plans that will aid or
abet the British Empire in its Imperialist ambitions.”
And a few pages later:
“I have tried to make it clear to Winston and the others ... that they must
never get the idea that we are in it just to help them hang on to the archaic and
medieval Empire ideas.”
Those who sup with the devil need a long spoon. Mr. Churchill, the self-styled “constant architect of the Jews’ future,” now found himself playing second
fiddle to an even more trusted architect; so eminent, in fact, that he did not
make any silly pretensions of respect for the British Empire. The earlier Moses,
Karl Marx, had denounced the Empire long ago, and in the year 1941, it was
only foolish opponents of Judaism and Marxism, like Herr Hitler, who were
anxious to stand by that Empire, because they recognised it as a bulwark of
Although, as we have seen, Mr. Churchill is shown in this book as getting a
little petulant from time to time over the President’s pronouncements regarding
the liquidation of the Empire, this did not prevent him from announcing himself later to the House of Commons as “Roosevelt’s ardent lieutenant.” Under what
special circumstances the King’s Prime Minister could be an ardent lieutenant of
a Republican President, whose design it was to destroy that Monarch’s Empire,
Mr. Churchill did not explain; nor has he yet done so. On another occasion, Mr.
Churchill made an equally cryptic remark: “It is no part of my duties,” he
assured the House of Commons, “to preside over the liquidation of the British
No, indeed! Nor was it any part of his duties, on being told that it was to
be liquidated, to pronounce himself to be the ardent lieutenant of the would-be
liquidator. Nor, we might add, when Minister of Defence, with Admiralty and
other codes at his disposal, was it any part of his duties, as Mr. Chamberlain’s
lieutenant, albeit not very ardent, to conduct a personal correspondence of the
nature which he did conduct with President Roosevelt by means of the top secret
code of the American Foreign Office.
10 PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S ROLE
In my Statement to the Speaker and Members of the House of Commons
concerning my detention (see Appendix 1) I summed up at the end of Part 1, the
considerations which led me to inspect the secret U.S. Embassy papers at Mr.
Tyler Kent’s flat in the last weeks of Mr. Chamberlain’s Premiership.
The first two of these six considerations were as follows:
1. Together with many members of both Houses of Parliament, I was fully
aware that among the agencies both here and abroad, which had been actively
engaged in promoting bad feeling between Great Britain and Germany, organised
Jewry, for obvious reasons, had played a leading part.
2. 1 knew the U.S.A. to be the headquarters of Jewry, and therefore the real,
though not apparent, centre of their activities.
It was not until 1948 that corroborative evidence of the foregoing from
unimpeachable American sources came into my hands; but when it did come,
however, the authentic and fully documented character of the work left nothing
to be desired. I refer to the book by Professor Charles Beard entitled President
Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941
, which was published by the Yale
University Press in April 1948.
This book, which comes with all the authority of its eminent author, is
nothing less than a tremendous indictment of President Roosevelt on three main
Firstly, that he got himself elected on the strength of repeated promises, to
the effect that he would keep the U.S.A. out of any European war;
secondly, that he incessantly and flagrantly disregarded not only his promises to
the American people, but all the laws of neutrality; thirdly, that at a
predetermined moment he deliberately converted this cold war, which he had
been conducting, into a shooting war, by sending the Japanese an ultimatum,
which no one could imagine could result in anything but immediate war.
From many instances given relating to the first issue, I quote one:—“At Boston on October 30th, 1940, he (F.D.R.) was even more emphatic, for there he declared:
‘I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your
boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars’;
and on December 29th:
‘You can therefore nail any talk about sending armies to Europe as
Professor Beard goes on to prove that while Mr. Roosevelt was making
these speeches, he was treating international laws of neutrality with total
disregard, and in the interests only of those who were fighting the Jews’ battles.
The two main forms of non-shooting intervention were the convoying of U.S.
ships of ammunition and supplies for the allies, and the Lend Lease Act.
Whatever be our sentiments in appreciating the help of the U.S. arsenals
and navy under these two cold war decisions of Mr Roosevelt, no one can
pretend that they were either in accordance with his pledges to the American
people, or the fundamentals of international law regarding neutrality.
Some very plain speaking went on in Congress over these acts of the
Representative U. Burdick, of North Dakota, said:
“All our aid to Britain may mean anything ... To sell her supplies is one
thing ... to sell her supplies and convoy them is another thing, to have actual
war is the last thing—the last thing is inevitable from the first thing!”
Representative Hugh Paterson, of Georgia, said:
“It is a measure of aggressive war.”
Representative Dewey Short, of Missouri, said:
“You cannot be half-way in war, and half-way out of war ... You can dress
this measure up all you please (Lend, Lease), you can sprinkle it with perfume
and pour powder on it ... but it is still foul and stinks to high heaven.”
Representative Philip Bennett, of Missouri, declared:
“This conclusion is inescapable, that the President is reconciled to active
military intervention if such intervention is needed to defeat the Axis in this war.
But our boys are not going to be sent abroad, says the President. Nonsense, Mr
Chairman; even now their berths are being built in our transport ships. Even now
the tags for identification of the dead and wounded are being printed by the firm
of William C. Ballantyne and Co., of Washington.”
Professor Beard proves the third point at great length, showing how at the
appropriate moment President Roosevelt forced the Japanese into war by an
ultimatum demanding instant compliance with terms, which could never have
been accepted by any country.
“The memorandum which Senator Hull, with the approval of President
Roosevelt, handed to Japan on 26th November, 1941 ... amounted to the
maximum terms of an American policy for the whole Orient. “
writes Professor Beard, and goes on to say:
“It required no profound knowledge of Japanese history, institutions, and
psychology to warrant ... first that no Japanese Cabinet liberal or reactionary,’
could have accepted the provisions.”
and again later:
“The Japanese agent regarded the American memorandum as a kind of
ultimatum. This much at least Secretary Hull knew on November 26th.”
Thus was the period of maximum intervention short of a shooting war
terminated, and a save-face forged for Roosevelt to ship U.S. boys overseas
without apparently breaking the spirit of his many promises.
As the war proceeded the real policy and sympathies of the President
became more and more apparent. His deception of the British and their Allies
was no less flagrant than his deception of the American people.
As Professor Beard points out on page 576:
“The noble principles of the Four Freedoms, and the Atlantic Charter were
for practical purposes discarded in the settlements, which accompanied the
progress and followed the conclusion of the war. To the validity of this statement
the treatment of the people of Esthonia, Lithuania, Poland, Roumania,
Yugoslavia, China, Indo-China, Indonesia, Italy, Germany and other places of
the earth bear witness.”
Some great driving force was clearly at work to induce a President of the
United States so to act. We have seen from a previous chapter that it was not the
preservation of the British Empire, nor the French Empire, nor the Dutch, that
swayed the President. On the contrary, he had advised his ardent lieutenant, Mr.
Churchill, at an early stage in the cold war that these must be liquidated. It was
not Europe, nor the countries of Europe, nor their liberties, nor rights under the
Atlantic Charter of Four Freedoms which weighed with him. We know now that
the British and American armies were actually halted by General Ike
Eisenhower under Mr. Roosevelt’s rulings at the Yalta Conference, so that the
Red Army of Jewish Bolshevism might overflow half Europe and occupy
To quote again from Professor Beard:
“As a consequence of the war called necessary to overthrow Hitler’s
despotism,’ another despotism was raised to a higher pitch of power.”
In conclusion, Professor Beard condenses the many indictments of the
President set forth in his book, into 12 major counts, and declares:
“If these precedents are to stand unimpeached, and to provide sanctions for
the continued conduct of America affairs—the Constitution may be nullified by
the President and officers who have taken the oath and are under moral
obligation to uphold it. For limited Government under supreme law they may
substitute personal and arbitrary government—the first principle of the
totalitarian system against which it has been alleged that World War II was
waged—while giving lip service to the principle of constitutional government.”
When we reflect upon the astounding contents of Professor Beard’s book,
and consider them in conjunction with the revelations in Colonel Roosevelt’s As
He Saw It
, the question arises: whom, and which interests did President
Roosevelt not betray. To this query I can only see one answer, namely, those
people and their interests who planned from the start the use of United States
arsenals and Forces to prosecute a war which would annihilate a Europe which
had freed itself from Jewish gold and revolutionary control: people who
planned to dissolve the British Empire, to forge chains of unrepayable debt,
wherewith to coerce Britain to this end; and to enable the Soviets to “bestride
Europe like a colossus,” [Note: These very words were used by General Smuts, who added words to the effect that he welcomed such a prospect. It should be remembered that General Smuts was formerly chief legal adviser to the Zionist Organisation in S. Africa.]
in other words, International Jewry.
11 REGULATION 18B
On the 23rd May, 1940, within the first fortnight of Mr Churchill’s
Premiership, many hundreds of British subjects, a large proportion of them ex-Servicemen, were suddenly arrested and thrown into prison under Regulation
18B. For some days the entire press had been conducting a whirlwind campaign,
in rising crescendo, against a supposed fifth column in this country, which was
declared to be waiting to assist the Germans when they landed.
How untrue this campaign was, is proved by the fact that our most
competent Intelligence Service never produced the flimsiest evidence of any
such conspiracy, nor evidence of any plan or order relating to it, nor the
complicity in such an undertaking of any single man arrested. Had such
evidence been forthcoming, those implicated would undoubtedly have been
charged and tried, and very properly so. But there was not one case of a man
arrested under 18B being a British subject, who was so charged.
Four charges were actually framed against one lady, the wife of a
distinguished Admiral, Mrs Nicholson. She was tried by a Judge and jury, and
acquitted on all counts. This however, did not prevent her being arrested as she
left the Law Courts, acquitted, and being thrown into Holloway Prison under
Regulation 18B, where she remained for years.
Regulation 18B was originally introduced to deal with certain members of
the I.R.A., who were committing a number of senseless minor outrages in
London. Without this Regulation, no liege of His Majesty in the United
Kingdom could be arrested and held in prison on suspicion. This practice
had long been abandoned in this country, except in short periods of grave
proven conspiracy, and on those occasions Habeas Corpus was always
18B enabled the medieval process of arrest and imprisonment on suspicion
to be revived without the suspension of Habeas Corpus. It was, in fact, a return
to the system of Lettres de Cachet, by which persons in pre-Revolutionary
France were consigned to the Bastille. Here, it should be remembered, that those
persons enjoyed full social intercourse with their families, and were allowed
their own servants, plate, linen, food and drink whilst in prison; a very different
treatment to that meted out to persons held under 18B, whose treatment for
some time was little different from ordinary criminals, and, in fact, worse than
any remand prisoner.
These I.R.A. outrages were so fatuous in themselves and so apparently
meaningless, at a time when there were no sharp differences between this
country and the Irish Free State, that I commenced making a number of
inquiries. I was not surprised to discover at length, that special members of the
I.R.A. had been enrolled for the committing of these outrages; and that they
were practically all Communists. I had it on excellent authority that the Left
Book Club of Dublin had been actively concerned in the matter; and finally the
names of 22 of these men were put into my hands; and again I was informed on
excellent authority that they were all Communists. Immediately on receipt of
this information I put down a question to the Home Secretary, and offered to
supply the necessary information if the matter were taken up. Nothing came of
my representations. From these Communist-inspired outrages, however, there
resulted Regulation 18B. Though the I.R.A. were pleaded as an excuse to the
House for a Regulation, hardly any of their members were ever arrested under
it; but in due course it was employed to arrest and hold for 4 or 5 years,
uncharged, very many hundreds of British subjects, whose one common
denominator was that they opposed the Jewish power over this country in
general; and its exertion to thrust her into a war in purely Jewish interests in
Now Communism is Jewish-controlled. If Marxist Jewry needed a device
for securing the assent of parliament to a regulation like 18B, what simpler
method could there be to achieve this object, without arousing suspicion as to
the real ulterior motive, than arranging for a few communist members of the
I.R.A. to plant bombs in the cloakrooms of London stations?
Everyone is supposed to be entitled to their opinion in this country; and,
furthermore, where we cannot supply absolute proof, we can say with the Home
Secretary, as I do here, that I have “reasonable cause to believe” that this is the
real story behind Regulation 18B’s enactment.
When the Clause was first introduced into the House, the original wording
laid it down quite clearly that the Home Secretary should have the power to
detain persons of British birth and origin “If he was satisfied that” such
detention was necessary. This terminology was, at least, crystal clear. No other
opinion or check upon the Home Secretary’s personal and absolute discretion
was envisaged: a return, in fact and in very essence, to the Lettres de Cachet and
the Star Chamber.
The House of Commons refused absolutely to accept such a clause, or hand
away its powers of supervision, and its responsibilities as the guardian of the
rights and liberties of the citizen to any individual, be he Cabinet Minister or
The Government accordingly had to withdraw the offending sentence; and
brought forward a second draft for approval some days later. In this new draft,
drawn up, as Government spokesmen laboured to explain, in accordance with the express wishes of the House, the necessary safeguard from arbitrary
executive tyranny had been introduced.
For the words “Home Secretary is satisfied that
,” had been substituted,
“Has reasonable cause to believe that.
” The Government spokesmen explained
at length on this occasion that this wording gave the required safeguard.
Members of Parliament were led to believe that their wishes had prevailed, and
that they were to be the judges of what would or would not be “Reasonable
Cause” for continued detention (as was proved in subsequent debates), and a
rather uneasy House passed the Clause in this form, and on that understanding.
Two years later, when the Counsel of an 18B prisoner argued in Court
along these lines, and demanded some sort of ventilation of his client’s case
before Members of Parliament or a Court, no less a person than the Attorney-General himself pleaded on the Government’s behalf, that the words “Has
reasonable cause to believe that,” meant precisely the same as “Is satisfied that.”
There the matter had to rest as far as the Law Courts were concerned, though it
was the subject of the most scathing comment of a most eminent Law Lord.
I myself was arrested under this Regulation on 23rd May, 1940, and thrown
into Brixton Prison, where I remained in a cell until 26th September, 1944,
without any charge being preferred against me, receiving merely a curt
notification from the Home Office on the latter date that the order for my
detention had been “revoked.” A paper of “Particulars” alleged as the reasons for
my detention was supplied to me soon after my arrest.
I replied to them during a day’s interrogation by the so-called Advisory
Committee, before which body I could call no witnesses, did not know who
were my accusers, or the accusations they had made, and was not allowed the
assistance of a lawyer. These particulars, together with my detailed reply to
each, were set out in part II of a Statement I supplied later to the Speaker and
Members of the House of Commons; and will be found in the Appendix of this
book. They were based upon the untrue assertion that my anti-Communist
attitude was bogus, and a cloak for disloyal activities. How untrue this slander
was can be easily proved from my previous ten years’ record of unceasing
attacks on Communism, both by questions and speeches in the House of
Commons and outside.
12. WHO DARES?
On the morning following my release from Brixton Prison, I proceeded to
the House of Commons at my usual hour of 10.15 a.m.; an action which
appeared to cause no little surprise. It was not long before Jews and their friends
were on my trail, and that of the Right Club. A string of provocative questions
soon appeared on the Order Paper; but, like Gallio who, when the Jews took
Sosthenes, and beat him before the Judgement seat, “cared for none of these
things,” I gave no sign of interest.
The reporters in the Press Galleries were then turned on, to endeavour to
extract from me some, at least, of the names in ‘the Red Book’ of the Right Club
Now the names in the Red Book of members of the Right Club were, as the
newspapers have shrieked aloud, kept strictly private, with the sole object of
preventing the names becoming known to the Jews. The sole reason for this
privacy was the expressed wish of the members themselves. To me, personally,
the keeping of the names secret was only a disadvantage. It facilitated
misrepresentation of every kind by my enemies; the publication of the names
would have been of great assistance to me in every way. The sole reason for this
stipulation on joining by so many members was the well-grounded fear of
Jewish retaliation of a serious nature.
I remember in particular the conversation on this subject with one of these
reporters from the Press Gallery of the House of Commons. He was an engaging
young man, and particularly importunate. Would I not let him have just a few of the names?
“Supposing,” I said to him, “your name had been amongst those in the Red
Book; and supposing that in disregard of my promise to you not to reveal it, I
proceeded to communicate it to the press; and supply that definite evidence that
you were a member of a society to fight against Jewish domination over Britain:
you would not keep your job with your paper for six months.”
“I shouldn’t keep it for six minutes,” was the prompt reply.
“Exactly,” I answered. “Now you can see why I can’t give you the name of
even one member of the Right Club from the Red Book. You yourself confirm
their worst fears.”
Many hundreds of poor fellows find themselves in such a position today;
indeed, hundreds is merely a matter of expression. The real number must be
prodigious. How many, one might ask, can afford to run the risk to their
livelihood, which is involved in letting it be known that they are aware of the
Jewish grip and prepared to oppose it.
Even the wealthiest and most influential magnates of the land dare not
brave the wrath of organised Jewry as the story regarding the Daily Mail
controlling shares on pp. 6 and 7 of my statement to the Speaker shows. (See
Not only in Britain has this been the case, but perhaps even more
noticeably in the U.S.A., as the diaries of the late Mr James Forrestal prove.
The Forrestal Diaries
published by the Viking Press, New York, 1951,
only reach me as this book goes to press. Coming from a man of high integrity,
who was U.S. Navy Under Secretary from 1940, and Secretary for Defence from
1947 until his resignation and suspicious death a few days later in March 1949,
they are of the utmost significance.
The most important revelation therein is dated the 27th December,
1945 (pages 121 and 122):
“Played golf today with Joe Kennedy (Joseph P. Kennedy, who was
Roosevelt’s Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before the
war). I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that
England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war
with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any
later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s (William C. Bullitt, then
Ambassador to France) [Note 9: A half-Jew] urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the
Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British
would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant
needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the
Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun
Europe. Chamberlain, he said, stated that America and the world Jews had
forced England into the war.” [Author’s italics]
If Mr. Forrestal’s information regarding the impulses behind the recent war
needed any confirmation, they have already had it from the outspoken
statements of Mr. Oswald Pirow, former South African Defence Minister, who
told the Associated Press on the 14th January, 1952, in Johannesburg that
“Chamberlain had told him that he was under great pressure from World Jewry
not to accommodate Hitler.”
A second most important revelation in the Forrestal Diaries concerns
Zionism. It is clear from the entries, that by December, 1947, Mr. Forrestal was
becoming greatly concerned by the intervention of the Zionists into American
politics. He records conversations with Mr. Byrnes and Senator Vandenberg,
Governor Dewey and others, in attempts to lift the Palestine question out of
party politics. From this time on he would seem to have made continuous efforts
with that end in view.
The Diary records on the 3rd Feb., 1948 (pages 362 and 363):
“Visit today from Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr., who came in with strong
advocacy of a Jewish State in Palestine, that we should support the United
Nations ‘decision’, I pointed out that the United Nations had as yet taken no
‘decision’, that it was only a recommendation of the General Assembly and that I
thought the methods that had been used by people outside of the Executive
branch of the Government to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the
General Assembly bordered closely onto scandal ... I said I was merely directing
my efforts to lifting the question out of politics, that is, to have the two parties
agree that they would not compete for votes on this issue. He said this was
impossible, that the nation was too far committed and that, furthermore, the
Democratic Party would be bound to lose and the Republicans gain by such an
agreement. I said I was forced to repeat to him what I had said to Senator
McGrath in response to the latter’s observation that our failure to go along with
the Zionists might lose the states of New York, Pennsylvania and California—that I thought it was about time that somebody should pay some consideration to
whether we might not lose the United States.”
After a short note by the Editor of the Diaries the entry for the 3rd Feb.,
1948, continues (page 364):
“Had lunch with Mr. B. M. Baruch. After lunch raised the same question
with him. He took the line of advising me not to be active in this particular
matter, and that I was already identified, to a degree that was not in my own
interest, with opposition to the United Nations policy on Palestine.”
It was about this time that a campaign of unparalleled slander and calumny
was launched in the United States press and periodicals against Mr. Forrestal. So
greatly did this appear to have affected him that in March 1949, he resigned
from the U.S. Defence Secretaryship; and on the 22nd of that month was found
dead as a result of a fall from a very high window.
I shall always be grateful to the many Members who made my return to the
House very much easier than it might have been, by their immediate greetings
and friendly attitude. Many, I fear, whose actions in the Chamber itself and
outside were detected or reported to the press representatives, found themselves
the victims of a vendetta inside their constituencies and in the Press on that
When we reflect upon these bloody happenings from the time of King
Charles I to our own day, we can at long last find only one cause for
satisfaction, if such a word can be in any way appropriate. It is that for the first
time we can now trace the underlying influences, which explain these hideous
disfigurations in European history.
In the light of present-day knowledge, we can now recognise and
understand the true significance of these terrible happenings. Instead of mere
disconnected occurrences, we can now discern the merciless working of a
satanic plan; and seeing and understanding, we are in a position to take steps in
the future to safeguard all those values, which we love and stand for; and which
that plan clearly seeks to destroy.
We can at last begin to oppose the planners and operators of that plan,
knowing about it and their technique, which till now have been known to them
alone. In other words, being fore-warned, it is our fault if we are not fore-armed.
Let us not forget such words as those of the Jew Marcus Eli Ravage, who
wrote in the Century Magazine U.S.A. in January 1928:–
“We have stood back of, not only the last war, but all your wars; and not
only the Russian, but all of your revolutions worthy of mention in your
Nor should we forget those of Professor Harold Laski, writing in the New Statesman and Nation
on 11th January, 1942:
“For this war is in its essence merely an immense revolution in which the war of 1914, the Russian Revolution, and the counter revolutions on the
Continent are earlier phases.“
Nor the warning from that eminent Jewish American Attorney, publisher
and reporter, Henry Klein, issued only last year:
“The Protocols is the plan by which a handful of Jews, who compose the Sanhedrin, aim to rule the world by first destroying Christian civilisation.”
“Not only are the Protocols genuine, in my opinion, but they have been
almost entirely fulfilled.”
They have indeed been largely fulfilled; no small measure of Jewish
thanks being due to Mr. Roosevelt and his “ardent lieutenant,” the self-styled
“architect of the Jewish future.”
In the process, however, Britain and her Empire and, worse still, her good
name and honour have been brought down to the dust.
As Professor Beard wrote: “The noble principles of the Four Freedoms and
the Atlantic Charter were for practical purposes discarded in the settlements
which accompanied the progress and followed the conclusion of the war. In the
validity of this statement the treatment of the people of Esthonia, Lithuania,
Poland, Roumania, Yugoslavia, China, Indo-China, Indonesia, Italy, Germany
and other places of the earth bear witness.”
There appeared recently in the press the cry of Mrs. Chiang Kai Shek
calling Britain a “moral weakling” (in reference to China). “Britain has bartered
the soul of a nation for a few pieces of silver”, she is reported as saying; and
further: “One day these pieces of silver will bear interests in British blood,
toil, sweat and tears on the battleground of freedom”. It might be General
Sikorski himself speaking, might it not?
In the same paper I saw that Mr. Jackson Martindell, president of the
American Institute of Management, has declared that “an Englishman's word is
no longer his bond”. How often have I heard this from Arab sources since 1939?
“I hate to say this,” Mr. Martindell continued, “but Britain is becoming
poor morally as well as economically.”
From Poland to Palestine and to China these words are re-echoed, and be it said, reiterated by the Jew-wise section of this country for many years.
The reason is not far to seek. No man can serve two masters, more
especially when the principles and interests of these two masters are as widely
divergent as are those of Britain and her Empire, and Jewry and their Empire,
Ever since the fall of Mr. Chamberlain's Government, the interests of the
Jewish Empire have been advanced as prodigiously as those of Britain and her
Empire have been eclipsed.
Stranger than all this—should any dare to state the truth in plain terms—
the only response is an accusation of anti-Semitism.
As Mr. Douglas Reed has clearly shown, the term “anti-Semitism” is
meaningless rubbish—and as he suggests it might as well be called “anti-Semolina.”
The Arabs are Semites, and no so-called “anti-Semite” is anti-Arab.
It is not even correct to say that he is anti-Jew. On the contrary, he knows
better than the uninformed that a fair proportion of Jews are not engaged in this
conspiracy. The only correct term for the mis-called “anti-Semitic” is “Jew-wise.” It is indeed the only fair and honest term.
The phrase “anti-Semite” is merely a propaganda word used to stampede
the unthinking public into dismissing the whole subject from their minds
without examination: so long as that is tolerated these evils will not only
continue, but grow worse.
The “Jew-wise” know that we have in Britain a Jewish Imperium in
Imperio, which, in spite of all protestations and camouflage, is Jewish first and
foremost, and in complete unison with the remainder of World Jewry. If any
doubt this they need only read Unity in Dispersion
, issued in 1948 by the World
Jewish Congress, which proclaims Jewry to be one nation.
Not all Jews here wish to be railroaded into this narrow social tyranny; but
unless this country affords them some way of escape they dare not take the risks—very grave risks—of defying it: and so they perforce co-operate to some
Even worse, certain Gentiles with no good excuse support this united force,
which is in turn used to influence or control our political parties, home and foreign policies, press and public life.
This unholy united front must be exposed and frustrated. One step towards
this objective would seem to be firstly an enactment to prevent Gentile Esaus
from lending their hands for the carrying out of orders uttered by the voice of
Another, the detachment from the Jewish United Front of Jews, who do not
wish to subscribe to the dictates of the World Jewish Congress.
First and foremost however is the need to inform people of good will as to
the truth of this matter, particularly in regard to the real anatomy, aims, and
methods of the Marxist enemy.
It is to that end, that I humbly offer the contents of this book to all, who are
determined to fight Communism.
ENDNOTES by RAE WEST ('REREVISIONIST')
Ramsay’s 12 chapters, plus prologue and epilogue, are given in full. Appendices, and cover blurb, are omitted, as are page numbering details. I’ve moved footnotes into the text, in colour, and in square brackets. I've tried to tidy the quotations where Ramsay uses other people's words; many of them are clearly visually separated, and I've changed some of the spacing to try to clarify the text flow better, by subject matter, where the original spacing isn't clear. I've put some key words and key phrases in green; this may be helpful in relocating details. I've also used a sans-serif face for the chapter title links at the start, as it may be better for scanning and index, rather than continuous reading. I'm aware it looks a bit confused; the intention is to help readers relocate their interests.
I could find no facsimiles or photocopies or scans of the Britons Publications Society book, 5 by 7 inches, 116 (or 120?) pages, online. (If anyone has an original copy, or scanned pages, I'd be happy to put them online). My HTML was an online edition by AAARGH; this has a few OCR errors. I've checked it against an Omni Publications version, California, which appears to be a genuine photo version of the original, omitting publication details. Omni a 1954 document, and cannot have been made from a first edition. I've checked text and spacing, so far as this is possible without originals. I'm just making it clear clear that my effort is not based on an original.
Publication date certainly seems to be 1952 (with later reprints of 1956 and 1962—after Ramsay's death) and has a dedication of 27th July, 1952.
The [detail in small lettering] following the Chapter Contents is all my work; I tried to include the main items, e.g. (just one example) the invention of the 'party system'.
A rearranged, reset, and heavily illustrated version by John de Nugent is online as nameless-war-ramsay-john-de-nugent-online.pdf
1952 publication of The Nameless War of course pre-dates most US wars in south-east Asia. And predates the supposed USSR H-bomb: Ramsay of course believed in nuclear weapons, as did most non-Jews. Ramsay is Anglocentric: he seems to exaggerate the British 'ancient tradition'. Central and eastern Europe, and the USA, and the middle east, were not very familiar to him. He was influenced hugely, as would be expected of a participant, by both the First and Second World wars. Ramsay had no idea that Jews subverted both the Greco-Roman world with ‘Jesus’, and later, the Arab world with ‘Muhammad’. Nor did he seem to grasp that Anglosphere power—such as the British Empire—had been gained by collaboration with Jews; there is no mention of atrocities against China related to the opium wars, for example. Ramsay does not integrate his vision of Christianity with his findings on Jews: his post-Munich 'Mr. Chamberlain was Burnt in Effigy in Moscow' leaflet was issued by 'MILITANT CHRISTIAN PATRIOTS'.
WARNING: Ramsay no doubt includes unintentional errors; don't assume that all his assumptions will prove true. Remember he published in 1952! Ramsay's book is part of the modern revisionist movement, and is interesting for its account of Jewish activities as far as they had been discovered at that time by some westerners.
Some of the appendices refer to Ramsay's jailing and the dishonesty of British and American officials, which is very understandable; but I've concentrated on using his words as a handy introduction to Jewish history.
SOURCES used by Ramsay are stated to be
Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism
The Jews in England
Hugh Ross Williamson, Charles and Cromwell
Anonymous, Protocols of Zion Copy in the British Museum 1906 (this was before the 'British Library')
McNair Wilson, Life of Napoleon
Lady Queenborough, Occult Theocrasy
Bernard Lazare, L’Anti-Semitisme 1894
Sir Walter Scott, Life of Napoleon, Vol. 1 & vol 2
Scudder, A Prince of the Blood and Life of Mirabeau
[Choderlos de Laclos, a political adventurer of alien origin, author of Liaisons Dangereuses]
?Carlyle, The Diamond Necklace
G. Renier, Life of Robespierre
Mr. Fahey, The Rulers of Russia
A Hitler, Mein Kampf
Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill
J. M. Spaight, Bombing Vindicated 1944
Colonel Elliot Roosevelt, As He Saw It
Professor Charles Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941 1948
The Forrestal Diaries
Unity in Dispersion, issued in 1948 by the World Jewish Congress
NEWSPAPERS, PERIODICALS ETC
Plain English weekly
Figaro 28 Feb 1932
American Hebrew July 13th, 1918 & June 3rd, 1938
The Communist 12 April 1919
Bulletin, of the Glasgow Discussion Group, June 1945
1st February, 1949, the Daily Worker 10 Nov 1949 & May 1949
Natcha Retch, Jabotinsky January 1934
June copy of Les Aniles 1934
The Sunday Times 14 Jan 1940
The Daily Mail
The Daily Worker
New Statesman and Nation 11th January, 1942
Any historian or commentator now who omits Jews from his/her/their worldview is as outdated as a biologist ignorant of Wallace and Darwin.
HTML Rae West - First uploaded 2017-06-29