One man's perspective on US involvement in World War I

[Mark Wilson]

This article came from Rense.com.As I read it, i could only think deja vu all over again in regards to the current war the US is involved in.The more things change the more they stay the same.

The Amazing Warnings

Of Benjamin Freedman

A Jewish Defector Warns America

1-21-7

Introductory Note

Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Born in 1890, he was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City at one time principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us -- his warning to the West -- is more urgent than ever before. -- K.A.S.

Benjamin Freedman Speaks:

Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.

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

Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that -- seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make -- they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war."

In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally.

I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

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

The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.

That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know.

Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.

That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout."

It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth."

Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their statements -- that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema 'Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat.

And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.

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

Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything.

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

The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.

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

In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business."

And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "Made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.

At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "Made in Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth.

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

Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.

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

Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that "Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.

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

What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.

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

Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was "confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.

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

What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as "Jews". I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as "so-called Jews", because I know what they are). The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves "Jews", were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.

They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call "Jews".

There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews."

But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today "Jews".

Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you. That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.

Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/facts2.htm#Kol Nidre Kol Nidre.

In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/facts1.ht...arim23a-23b> Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.

[John Simkin]

Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Born in 1890, he was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City at one time principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

What "Judeo-Communist victory" are you talking about. The Soviet Union played an important role in the defeat of fascism but are really saying that the rest of the allies represented "Judeo"?

[John Simkin]

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

Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

This is nonsense. There was a complete stalemate in 1916. That is why some people in Britain and France considered negotiating with Germany. However, they were overruled and the governments of the two countries rejected the idea of a negotiated peace agreement. This resulted in the resignation of Arthur Henderson. See below:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUhenderson.htm

[John Simkin]

I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

It is true that some bankers and arms manufacturers in the US were very keen for the country to get involved in the war. Some of these people were Jews. However, most of them were not. Religion had nothing to do with it. It was just about making profits out of war.

For a look at this subject take a look at this page and this forum thread:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MDbushPR.htm

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5799

[John Simkin]

Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth."

This is straight out of Mein Kampf. Benjamin Freedman seems to have learnt nothing from history.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERmein.htm

[Mark Wilson]

Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Born in 1890, he was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City at one time principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

What "Judeo-Communist victory" are you talking about. The Soviet Union played an important role in the defeat of fascism but are really saying that the rest of the allies represented "Judeo"?

Hi John.I'm not sure what the author of the info meant by the phrase "Judeo-Communist victory" either.

[Mike Tribe]

Whilst I am not usually in favor of any sort of censorship, this sort of rubbish is a clear incitement to racial hatred and should be removed from the forum brfore it destroys its credibility.

[Sid Walker]

Whilst I am not usually in favor of any sort of censorship, this sort of rubbish is a clear incitement to racial hatred and should be removed from the forum brfore it destroys its credibility.

Mike

I realise the view you have expressed is not unusual. What's more, it's been gaining the backing of more and more governments in recent years, under pressure from (especially but not exclusively) organizations representing some Jewish interests.

I believe, however, it is profoundly mistaken.

Do you really believe that someone reading this material is likely to be incited to "racial hatred"?

Woud you ban Mein Kampf also? How about the "Protocoals of the Elders of Z"? How about the Old Testament?

Perhaps you need reminding that in the latter case, there are unmistakable exhortations to 'smite' and 'destroy' enemies of different tribal origins. How about this, for example, from Samuel Chapter 15:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Amazing, really, that it's popularly known as the 'Good Book', available in all good motels and hospitals.

The fallacy, in my opinion, is the notion that people are safer not being exposed to mateial, historical or otherwise, as it may incite them to act offensively.

As we all know, that's just not how human beings work.

If you Mike - or I, for that matter - read Freedman's artcile (or that ugly section from the Torah / Old Testament, for that matter), it is not likely to incite us to violence. Why should it? We treat both as historical texts. We read them, seek to understand them and place them in context. We do not assign to these texts inherent magical powers... do we?

May I put it to you that IF documents such as Ben Freedman's are NOT open for discussion in a forum like this, folk who find the material credible and/or persuasive would be much more likely to believe they are the victims of a conspiracy as described in the text.

After all, in that event, they'd be less able to evaluate the subject matter - because they would not have been exposed to cogent, well-documented critiques of the material (of the type you, for example, could doubtless write if you put your mind to it).

I have a very tentative view about the rather mysterious Mr Freedman and the agenda behind the material attributed to him... but I think I'll hold fire a little and see whether other folk provide more information and views.

One point made by John , I think, is not quite on the mark.

He asks if Freedman has learn anything from history, complaining that a paragraph he's wrote sounds like its straight out of Mein Kampf.

Well, if one is to believe Mr Freedman's account of himself and his life, he and Hitler were roughly contemporaneous.

Some of the events that Hitler complains about in Mein Kampf - such as the way Germany was treated after WW1 - are events in which Freedman claims to have participated directly.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Sid Walker

[John Simkin]

Whilst I am not usually in favor of any sort of censorship, this sort of rubbish is a clear incitement to racial hatred and should be removed from the forum brfore it destroys its credibility.

The problem is that it gets much of its credibility from the fact that people do try to censor it. The best way of dealing with this nonsense is by arguing against it as I have done.

I have a very tentative view about the rather mysterious Mr Freedman and the agenda behind the material attributed to him... but I think I'll hold fire a little and see whether other folk provide more information and views.

One point made by John , I think, is not quite on the mark.

He asks if Freedman has learn anything from history, complaining that a paragraph he's wrote sounds like its straight out of Mein Kampf.

Well, if one is to believe Mr Freedman's account of himself and his life, he and Hitler were roughly contemporaneous.

Some of the events that Hitler complains about in Mein Kampf - such as the way Germany was treated after WW1 - are events in which Freedman claims to have participated directly.

What I meant was that it was the same argument that was used in Mein Kampf. In fact it was a common view of those on the right who were also anti-Semitic. It is true that there were a lot of Jews involved in the revolutions that took place in Russia (1917) and Germany (1919). It is understandable that people who faced prejudice and discrimination should be attracted to a left-wing ideology that preached equality and justice. However, to go onto argue that these revolutions were therefore part of a Jewish conspiracy is ridiculous. The ruling elite encouraged the publication of these views as they knew it would play on people’s prejudices and could be used to undermine the solidarity of the working classes.

This is especially true when capitalism is in crisis. In the early 1930s Germany had probably the most powerful left-wing movements in Europe. Without the support of Hitler and the Nazis by the ruling class in Germany, there was a good chance that a Marxist revolution would have been successful. The ruling classes in the rest of the world were aware of this and that is why Hitler was allowed to develop. This was the political motivation behind appeasement. Hitler was seen as someone who not only destroy the left in Germany but create a counter-balance to communism in the Soviet Union.

When I was researching my books on Hitler and Stalin I was shocked to discover the way the British media covered these two men. Hitler was given a great deal of praise for the way he dealt left-wing activists. Remember, they were the first to enter Hitler’s concentration camps. What was even more surprising was the praise that Stalin received for purging the Soviet Union of the left. By this time Stalin was promoting the idea of “communism in one country” and was eliminating those still arguing for world revolution. Interestingly, a large percentage of those being executed by Stalin were Jews. Why? They believed in world revolution because they wanted to remove prejudice, injustice and inequality in all countries.

Over the centuries Jews have a tremendous record for taking part in the struggle against inequality and injustice. Look at the role they played in the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. The white racists in the Deep South were also anti-Semites and as a result Jewish civil rights workers were more likely to be murdered. Take the Mississippi Burning case. It was no coincidence that two of the three young civil rights workers who were murdered were Jewish (the other one was black).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAburning.htm

It is a common tactic of anti-Semites to quote Jews in order to support their racist views. You will always get people so full of self-hatred that they willing to betray their race. Others do it for financial reasons. For example, see the role played by the Warburgs in the growth of Nazi Germany. The fact that the message is coming from a Jew like Benjamin Freedman is irrelevant. It has to be judged by what it says. At it is is politically illiterate nonsense.

[Mike Tribe]

Whilst I am not usually in favor of any sort of censorship, this sort of rubbish is a clear incitement to racial hatred and should be removed from the forum brfore it destroys its credibility.

The problem is that it gets much of its credibility from the fact that people do try to censor it. The best way of dealing with this nonsense is by arguing against it as I have done.

Which why I am usually against censorship, but some things do go beyond the pale. To post this sort of drivel right before Holocaust Day seems to put this in that category. This person seems to be of the view that all the evils of the world can be blamed on a Jewish conspiracy -- as you observed yourself, that's straight out of Mein Kampf. The point I made about credibility is that it's difficult for the ill-informed to take seriously posts made by bona fide educators like you and Andy when they're right alongside this sort of poison.

And yes, Sid, I WOULD ban Mein Kampf and the Protocol of the Elders of Zion from an "education" forum. These documents are widely available on "specialized" sites should serious researchers wish to consult them, or on a myriad of neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial sites for those who believe in that stuff. They have no place on a site which is purportedly for those involved in education.

[Sid Walker]

Whilst I am not usually in favor of any sort of censorship, this sort of rubbish is a clear incitement to racial hatred and should be removed from the forum brfore it destroys its credibility.

The problem is that it gets much of its credibility from the fact that people do try to censor it. The best way of dealing with this nonsense is by arguing against it as I have done.

Which why I am usually against censorship, but some things do go beyond the pale. To post this sort of drivel right before Holocaust Day seems to put this in that category. This person seems to be of the view that all the evils of the world can be blamed on a Jewish conspiracy -- as you observed yourself, that's straight out of Mein Kampf. The point I made about credibility is that it's difficult for the ill-informed to take seriously posts made by bona fide educators like you and Andy when they're right alongside this sort of poison.

And yes, Sid, I WOULD ban Mein Kampf and the Protocol of the Elders of Zion from an "education" forum. These documents are widely available on "specialized" sites should serious researchers wish to consult them, or on a myriad of neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial sites for those who believe in that stuff. They have no place on a site which is purportedly for those involved in education.

Mike,

You refer to important historical documents that have influenced a lot of people.

Do you really believe it is a good idea to ban those documents, so they can be viewed only in fringe media?

Do you really believe major historical documents that you find offensive should never be discussed rationally in open dialogue, where all views may be voiced and tested?

An Educational Forum with a focus on history is, surely, an ideal place to discuss such material! It’s where one expects to find intelligent folk searching for the truth (in the case of ‘history’ I take ‘truth’ to mean the most accurate account possible at any given time of past events).

What on earth is there to fear through open debate? Absurd and irrational views are most likely to be exposed through such a process and in this kind of forum. This is not a bar-room brawl. It’s well-moderated discussion between literate and sentient human beings.

Mike, I notice you declined to comment on my biblical quotation. Should I infer that The Bible would survive your censorship regime? If so, on what basis, given it contains such egregious and violent material?

Where would your censorship end, once you got started?

Would you ban the Magna Carta? It's first edition contains material that has provoked fierce discussion over at Wikipedia, whose ever-vigilent editors discovered that some of its contents are, to a modern ear, highly offensive. Perhaps only later editions of this classic document should be permitted?

How about Marx’s ‘On The Jewish Question’? Full ban? Or pre-selected, selective quotations only?

Really, Mike, the censorship you advocate is not the way to go - unless you actually want suspicions festering that there IS a malevolent conspiracy in which all Jewish people are partcipants (something I most emphatically do not believe).

John’s earlier post is a thoughtful contribuition to an important debate.

I’d like to reply to it later, time allowing.

Doing so requires considerably more thought than a routine defence of the rationale underlying Article 19.of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[John Simkin]

Whilst I am not usually in favor of any sort of censorship, this sort of rubbish is a clear incitement to racial hatred and should be removed from the forum brfore it destroys its credibility.

The problem is that it gets much of its credibility from the fact that people do try to censor it. The best way of dealing with this nonsense is by arguing against it as I have done.

Which why I am usually against censorship, but some things do go beyond the pale. To post this sort of drivel right before Holocaust Day seems to put this in that category. This person seems to be of the view that all the evils of the world can be blamed on a Jewish conspiracy -- as you observed yourself, that's straight out of Mein Kampf. The point I made about credibility is that it's difficult for the ill-informed to take seriously posts made by bona fide educators like you and Andy when they're right alongside this sort of poison.

I believe it is far better to engage in debate with these people. I am confident that the vast majority of people reading this thread will grasp that I am right and Benjamin Freedman is wrong. I tend to agree with Timothy Garton Ash who wrote this in the Guardian last week:

Thursday January 18, 2007

The Guardian

The German justice minister has proposed that all EU states should criminalise Holocaust denial and ban the public display of Nazi insignia, as Germany itself does. The EU's justice commissioner has apparently supported her. No reasonable person will doubt their good intentions, but this would be a big mistake. I hope and trust that other EU members will put a stop to this deeply unwise proposal, as they have to similar ones in the past.

Let me be clear about my starting-point. The Nazi Holocaust of the European Jews was unique. The main historical facts about it should be known by every contemporary European. Trying to ensure that nothing like that ever again happens here in Europe (or anywhere else in the world, insofar as that is in our power) should be one of the fundamental aims of the EU. As someone who came to European affairs through the study of Nazi Germany, I can say that this was a major reason for my personal commitment to what we call the European project.

That a measure is well-intended does not, however, make it wise. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And this proposal is very unwise. First of all, if passed, it would further curtail free expression - at a time when that is under threat from many quarters. Free expression is a unique and primary good in free societies; it's the oxygen that sustains other freedoms. You must therefore have very good reasons for restricting it by law.

The German justice minister, Brigitte Zypries, argues that she has such reasons. Recalling the way in which the anti-semitic words of Hitler and others paved the way for the horrors of Nazism, she says: "This historical experience puts Germany under a permanent obligation to combat systematically every form of racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia. And we should not wait until it comes to deeds. We must act already against the intellectual pathbreakers of the crime" (I translate from a speech posted on the German justice ministry's website). So this additional restriction on free expression - an EU-wide ban on Holocaust denial and Nazi insignia - is justified because it will make a significant difference to combating racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia today.

But what is the evidence for that? Nine EU member states currently have laws against Holocaust denial: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. That happens to be a list of countries with some of the strongest rightwing xenophobic parties in the EU, from France's National Front and the Vlaams Belang in Belgium to the NPD in Germany and the Greater Romania party. Self-evidently those parties don't exist as a result of Holocaust denial laws. Indeed, the existence of such parties is one of the reasons given for having the laws, but the laws have obviously not prevented their vigorous and dangerous growth. If anything, the bans and resulting court cases have given them a nimbus of persecution, that far-right populists love to exploit.

The same thing has happened with the imprisonment of David Irving in Austria. Six years ago Irving lost, in the British high court, a spectacular libel case that he had himself initiated against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt, who had described him as "one of the most prominent and dangerous Holocaust deniers". Mr Justice Gray concluded that Irving was "an active Holocaust denier". The last shreds of his reputation as a serious historian were torn apart - in a country that does not ban Holocaust denial. Now, having served time in Austria for statements he made there 16 years before, he can pose as a martyr for free speech and receives renewed publicity for his calumnies. At a press conference after his release, he reportedly endorsed the drunken anti-semitic comment of Mel Gibson that "the Jews" are responsible for all the wars in the world.

Now suppose the ban on displaying Nazi insignia had already been in force EU-wide and the British courts had therefore been obliged to prosecute Prince Harry for (offensively and idiotically) sporting an Afrika Korps uniform and swastika armband at a friend's fancy dress party. What would that have done to combat Eurosceptic and xenophobic extremism in Britain? Nothing. Quite the reverse: it would have been worth thousands of votes to the British National party. And while we're on the subject of the swastika, Hindus across Europe are protesting against the proposed ban, on the grounds that for them the swastika is an ancient symbol of peace. Meanwhile, the German legal authorities have got themselves into a ridiculous tangle because a court in Stuttgart has convicted the manager of a mail-order company for selling T-shirts showing crossed-out and crushed swastikas. These might be anti-fascist T-shirts, you see, but they still showed swastikas and were therefore illegal. And so it goes on, and would go on even more if the whole EU adopted such measures.

The argument that these well-intentioned bans actually feed the flames they are meant to quench is, of course, ultimately unprovable, although circumstantial and anecdotal evidence points in that direction. But the burden of proof is on the proponents of the ban. In a free society, any restriction on free speech must have a compelling justification - and that is not available here.

Holocaust denial should be combated in our schools, our universities and our media, not in police stations and courts. It is, at most, a minor contributing factor to today's far-right racism and xenophobia, which now mainly targets Muslims, people of different skin colour, and migrants of all kinds. Nor will today's anti-semitism be countered most effectively by such bans; they may, at the margins, even stoke it up, feeding conspiracy theories about Jewish power and accusations of double-standards. Citizens of the Baltic states, who suffered so terribly under Stalin, will ask why only denial of the Holocaust should be criminalised and not denial of the gulag. Armenians will add: and why not the genocide that our ancestors experienced at the hands of the Turks? And Muslims: why not cartoons of Muhammad?

The approach advocated by the German justice minister also reeks of the nanny state. It speaks in the name of freedom but does not trust people to exercise freedom responsibly. Citizens are to be treated as children, guided and guarded at every turn. Indeed, the more I look at what Zypries does and says, the more she seems to me the personification of the contemporary European nanny state. It's no accident that she has also been closely involved in extending German law to allow more bugging of private homes. Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser (trust is good, control is better). Isn't that another mistake Germany made in the past?

Zypries is right: we must learn the lessons of history. But we must learn the right lessons of history, the ones relevant to a free, multicultural continent today. "Experience shows," writes the former attorney general of India, Soli Sorabjee, "that criminal laws prohibiting hate speech and expression will encourage intolerance, divisiveness and unreasonable interference with freedom of expression ... We need not more repressive laws but more free speech to combat bigotry and to promote tolerance." True for India and true for Europe.

http://www.timothygartonash.com/biography.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...1992760,00.html

[Sid Walker]

Whilst I am not usually in favor of any sort of censorship, this sort of rubbish is a clear incitement to racial hatred and should be removed from the forum brfore it destroys its credibility.

The problem is that it gets much of its credibility from the fact that people do try to censor it. The best way of dealing with this nonsense is by arguing against it as I have done.

I have a very tentative view about the rather mysterious Mr Freedman and the agenda behind the material attributed to him... but I think I'll hold fire a little and see whether other folk provide more information and views.

One point made by John , I think, is not quite on the mark.

He asks if Freedman has learn anything from history, complaining that a paragraph he's wrote sounds like its straight out of Mein Kampf.

Well, if one is to believe Mr Freedman's account of himself and his life, he and Hitler were roughly contemporaneous.

Some of the events that Hitler complains about in Mein Kampf - such as the way Germany was treated after WW1 - are events in which Freedman claims to have participated directly.

What I meant was that it was the same argument that was used in Mein Kampf. In fact it was a common view of those on the right who were also anti-Semitic. It is true that there were a lot of Jews involved in the revolutions that took place in Russia (1917) and Germany (1919). It is understandable that people who faced prejudice and discrimination should be attracted to a left-wing ideology that preached equality and justice. However, to go onto argue that these revolutions were therefore part of a Jewish conspiracy is ridiculous. The ruling elite encouraged the publication of these views as they knew it would play on people’s prejudices and could be used to undermine the solidarity of the working classes.

This is especially true when capitalism is in crisis. In the early 1930s Germany had probably the most powerful left-wing movements in Europe. Without the support of Hitler and the Nazis by the ruling class in Germany, there was a good chance that a Marxist revolution would have been successful. The ruling classes in the rest of the world were aware of this and that is why Hitler was allowed to develop. This was the political motivation behind appeasement. Hitler was seen as someone who not only destroy the left in Germany but create a counter-balance to communism in the Soviet Union.

When I was researching my books on Hitler and Stalin I was shocked to discover the way the British media covered these two men. Hitler was given a great deal of praise for the way he dealt left-wing activists. Remember, they were the first to enter Hitler’s concentration camps. What was even more surprising was the praise that Stalin received for purging the Soviet Union of the left. By this time Stalin was promoting the idea of “communism in one country” and was eliminating those still arguing for world revolution. Interestingly, a large percentage of those being executed by Stalin were Jews. Why? They believed in world revolution because they wanted to remove prejudice, injustice and inequality in all countries.

Over the centuries Jews have a tremendous record for taking part in the struggle against inequality and injustice. Look at the role they played in the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. The white racists in the Deep South were also anti-Semites and as a result Jewish civil rights workers were more likely to be murdered. Take the Mississippi Burning case. It was no coincidence that two of the three young civil rights workers who were murdered were Jewish (the other one was black).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAburning.htm

It is a common tactic of anti-Semites to quote Jews in order to support their racist views. You will always get people so full of self-hatred that they willing to betray their race. Others do it for financial reasons. For example, see the role played by the Warburgs in the growth of Nazi Germany. The fact that the message is coming from a Jew like Benjamin Freedman is irrelevant. It has to be judged by what it says. At it is is politically illiterate nonsense.

John,

I think this is a very interesting discussion and I'd like to take it a little further.

I agree with much of what you say.

Part of the confusion, I believe, is in any attempt to speak of 'the Jews' or 'the Jewish people' as though they (or it) is a single entity with a single purpose.

That's clearly nonsense, IMO - but it is a common view held traditionally by many right wingers who hold anti-Jewish views.

It is, more or less, the view that Hitler seems to have held.

It should be noted, however, that this same manner of speaking is common in much Jewish discourse – especially Zionist discourse. The notion that “Jews are One” is, unsurprisingly, very useful to Jewish nationalism.

Hitler (along with a lot of right wing Judeophobes in his time and since) had a rather unscientific view about 'race'. Mein Kampf doesn’t, as far as I'm aware, contain any references to genetics at all. There's talk of nation, of race, of people and of 'blood'. Blood, in this context, represnts the alleged biological basis for race.

Hitler had a tendency to view Jews as a unified racial group (something which, as I hope I’ve explained, I believe is irrational and misguided). Mein Kampf argues against the notion that ‘Jewishness’ is religious in essence. In that respect, of course, Hitler was again on the same side as the Zionist movement (and in conflict with most non-Zionist Jews).

Hitler appears to have disliked ‘Jews’ for various reasons. Some were quite irrational or based on cultural prejudice. Others had foundation in reality. Opposition to Jewish banking interests and practices, for example, scarcely originated with Hitler or within the 'right wing'. Read the speeches of Hyndman, first Socialist MP in the House of Commons - or Karl Marx for that matter.

It was significant, at the time, that 'Jewishness' was generally understood to be a religious phenomenon – more akin to Catholicism or Hinduism than to any ‘ethnic’ grouping.

The significance was profound for those in the Jewish community who feared the demise of Jewry as a separate and distinctive branch of humanity.

During the 19th century and early 20th century, more and more Christians and Jews in Europe became influenced by rational and scientific thought – and moved in a secular direction in beliefs and lifestyle.

For many Christians and for many Jews, this was a great liberation. Israel Shahak describes the impact on the latter in Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years

Many Jews, in fact, were in the forefront of secularism and played important leadership roles in progressive and socialist movements, many of which were quite anti-religious.

All this posed a ‘danger’ for those concerned – for whatever reason – to retain the ‘unity’ of Jewry. Without a robust religious foundation, and given more and more inter-marriage with non-Jews, Jewry (that is, the ‘Jewish People’) must have appeared to be a phenomenon in decline, kept alive only by a shrinking rump of endogamous religious devotees.

Zionist history – and the remarkable apparent success of Zionism in the 20th century – is usually viewed as the history of a small but determined group of people achieving their objectives despite objections and resistance from a hostile mainly gentile world.

What is usually left out of the story is that arguably the greatest obstacle of all to achieving Zionist objectives – in those crucial decades leading up to the foundation of an Israeli State – was opposition within the ‘Jewish’ community itself.

This took various forms.

In the USA, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism were both generally skeptical of Zionism. There was also substantial opposition with Orthodox Judaism. As these were generally recognized as the three main branches of American Judaism, it was not a promising foundation for Zionist aspirations.

Then there was Russia. It's true a remarkable preponderence of the leadership of the Bolshevik Party (and some of the other revolutionary parties in pre-1917 Russia) were Jews by origin. A great deal was made of this point by Adolf Hitler and it features prominently in the speeches and writings of Freedman. Partly through the influence of those two men, this fact is regarded as highly significant to this day by many contemporary Judeophobic right-wingers.

However, while a lot of people with Jewish ancestory did participate in Russian revolutionary movements at high levels, what’s a lot less clear – at least to me – is that Jewish Bolshevik leaders from Trotsky down were part of any ‘Jewish conspiracy’ as such. That they were secular Jews helping forment a Communist revolution is clear - but there’s no strong evidence – as far as I’m aware – that they consciously caucused as Jews, pursued a specifically “Jewish” agenda or held Jewish supremacism as a goal. They didn't look down on Lenin because he was not Jewish. They revered him as a revolutionary leader. Like their gentile comrades, these were mainly idealists, generally universalist in outlook. They were aware of Zionism – and opposed it. These were Communists first and foremost.

Had the early leaders of Bolshevism truly been part of a conscious Jewish conspiracy – and given the high level of Jewish participation in the Bolshevik Party’s leadership at the time of Lenin’s death - I find it inconceivable that they could have muffed things so badly as to cede or lose power to a gentile supreme leader in the mid-1920s who moved, rather quickly, to execute, imprison or execute many of these original leaders of the revolution.

The notion that Communism was a ‘Jewish plot’ came into being early. British 'Intelligence' seems to have played a role. Winston Churchill was one of its early promoters. Hitler pushed the story along in Germany. Judeophobic elements with the American right wing took up the chorus – and many repeat the fable to this day.

I think they are wrong.

I also think that this malevolent story has been pushed along, right through to our own times, by a strange alliance of forces. Some of them may have been innocent dupe. Others were more devious.

Anthony Sutton has a take on this . I don't necessarily endorse Sutton's view, but it's of interest that in Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution he comments

The persistence with which the (International Bolshevik) Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes... What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?:

Back to Freedman.

I have no conclusive evidence for this, but if I were to take a guess, I’d put Freedman’s writings in the category of disinformation generated by a veteran Zionist insider who remained so throughout his life.

I gather that’s also the view of Eustace Mullins, although I haven’t heard his reasoning (and not, of course, to imply that his word should be taken as Gospel).

I'll give a little circumstantoial evidence for this in a future post - and make a connection to JFK (whom Freedman claimed to have known persoanlly over a long period of time)

Edited January 29, 2007 by Sid Walker