CAPTAIN A. H. M. RAMSAY: THE NAMELESS WAR

This is a version of Ramsay’s Nameless War, his guide to the Jewish Question.   In my opinion, Ramsay accepted the myth of Hitler, standing alone, and being Jew-aware; Ramsay did not understand the pervasive nature of Jews. See for example his comments on Dunkirk.   Probably he was regarded as a variety of 'useful idiot'.   I’ve designed this for Internet reading.   MY NOTES are at the end of this page. There are some errors.

Another online version (heavily illustrated, including recent photos) is John de Nugent's nameless-war-ramsay-john-de-nugent-online.pdf which includes the Appendices (but has irrelevant Christian material).
 

CONTENTS

PROLOGUE   [England, Statutes of Jewry, 1290 | 'Sanhedrin' in Constantinople to Arles 1489 | 'Marano' advice | Spain, Inquisition, expulsion | Netherlands, Switzerland | UK 1603 | Cromwell, regicide 1649]
l. THE BRITISH REVOLUTION   [Calvin, Reformation | Puritanism, Sabbath | Gangs of thugs | 1643 Carjaval in England | 1647 Jewish money promise on Charles execution & Jews admittance to England | 1694 William of Orange, 'Glorious Revolution' | Two stages in Jewish control of England | Union of England and Scotland 1707, National Debt | Controlled Party System]
2. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION   [Mythical idea of mob causation | Debt overcomes land assets | Consequences of gold repayments | Government tempted into debt | Freemasonry throughout France | Illuminism within Freemasonry | Bavarian evidence | Duc d'Orleans's estate mortgaged & corrupted | M Antoinette, diamond necklace | increasing violence | 1789 | Danton, Marat, Robespierre | Committees of Public Safety, and of General Security | 1794 terror]
3. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION   [Schiff financed Japan against Russia & followed with failed 1905 revolution | 1918 Jews 'revolutionary government' | 1945-49 pretence of rampant anti-semitism in Russia]
4. DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE   [Four Jew revolutions: England (Cromwell, then 'Glorious Revolution') | France (then Napoleon) | Russia | Spain | Increasing violence and extremes shown by examples]
5. GERMANY BELLS THE CAT   [Mein Kampf | Hitler as war hero | as pro-Christian | as anti-trade union | as pro-British Empire]
6. 1933: JEWRY DECLARES WAR   [Versailles Treaty intended to lead to war by Jew 'advisors' | Untermeyer and meeting on war against Germany | War between European powers funded and in debt to Jewish bankers | USSR secretly funded by non-USSR Jews to step in | Poland arranged as a war pretext]
7. “PHONEY WAR” ENDED BY CIVILIAN BOMBING   [Jew warmongers frantic over absence of war | Campaign to start bombing Germans | blame attached to Chamberlain so that Churchill could be inserted]
8. DUNKIRK AND AFTER   [Liddell Hart's evidence that Hitler permitted Dunkirk flight]
9. THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME     [Roosevelt as Jew or Jew puppet | Ambition to destroy British Empire | Supposed Free Trade | Churchill as hanger-on]
10. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S ROLE   ['Unimpeachable' then-new books expose Roosevelt as liar and warmonger]
11. REGULATION 18B   [Churchill within two weeks arrests opponents | IRA used as a pretext]
12. WHO DARES?   ['Red Book' of members of the Right Club | Forrestal death]
EPILOGUE   [Post-1945 | Jew revolutions and wars and boasts | Decline of British honour | Need for Truth]

PROLOGUE
[Top]
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 and Catholic.
      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 more.

1. THE BRITISH REVOLUTION
[Top]
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 religious fervour.
      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 Hebrew Rabbins”: and later “In 1650, after the execution of the King, an Act was passed inflicting penalties for a breach of the Sabbath.”

Buckingham, Strafford and Laud are the three chief figures round the King in these early stages: Men on whose loyalty to himself, the nation, and the ancient tradition Charles can rely.
      Buckingham, the trusted friend of King James I, and of those who had saved his life at the time of the Gowrie Conspiracy (of ominous cabalistic associations) was assassinated in the early years of King Charles’ reign under mysterious circumstances.
      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 Revolution.

Isaac Disraeli draws again and again startling parallels between this and the French Revolution: Notably in his passages on the Press, “no longer under restraint,” and the deluge of revolutionary pamphlets and leaflets. “From 1640 to 1660,” 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 passion.”
      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 we read: In January of the previous year, the attempted arrest of the five members had set in violent motion the armed gangs of “Operatives” already mentioned, from the city. Revolutionary pamphlets were broadcasted on this occasion, as Disraeli tells us: “Bearing the ominous insurrectionary cry of ‘To your tents, O Israel’.” Shortly after this the King and the Royal Family left the Palace of Whitehall. The five members with armed mobs and banners accompanying them, were given a triumphal return to Westminster. The stage was now set for the advent of Carvajal and his Jews and the rise of their creature Cromwell.
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:
With this information now at our disposal, the subsequent moves on the part of the regicides stand out with a new clearness. On 4th June, 1647, Cornet Joyce, acting on secret orders from Cromwell himself, and, according to Disraeli, unknown even to General-in-Chief Fairfax, descended upon Holmby House with 500 picked revolutionary troopers, and seized the King. According to Disraeli, “The plan was arranged on May 30th at a secret meeting held at Cromwell’s house, though later Cromwell pretending that it was without his concurrence.”
      This move coincided with a sudden development in the army; the rise of the “Levelers” and “Rationalists”. Their doctrines were those of the French revolutionaries; in fact, what we know today as Communism. These were the regicides, who four times “purged” Parliament, till there was left finally 50 members, Communist-like themselves, known later as the Rump.
      To return to the letter from Mulheim Synagogue of the 12th June, 1647, and its cunning suggestion that attempted escape should be used as a pretext for execution. Just such an event took place, on 12th November of that year. Hollis and Ludlow consider the flight as a stratagem of Cromwell’s. Isaac Disraeli states:
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 these years.
      Stories were brought to the King that his own brother-in-law had joined those who plotted against him; but he utterly refused to credit them, or take any action till news came that the expedition against himself was actually under way.
      The chief figure amongst those who deserted James at that crucial juncture was John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough. It is interesting to read in the Jewish Encyclopedia that this Duke for many years received not less than 6,000 pounds a year from the Dutch Jew Solomon Medina.

The real objective of the “Glorious Revolution” was achieved a few years later in 1694, when the Royal consent was given for the setting up of the “Bank of England” and the institution of the National Debt. This charter handed over to an anonymous committee the Royal prerogative of minting money; converted the basis of wealth to gold; and enabled the international money lenders to secure their loans on the taxes of the country, instead of the doubtful undertaking of some ruler or potentate which was all the security they could previously obtain.
      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 being, 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
[Top]
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.
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 human drama.

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, certainly France.” So writes Mr McNair Wilson in his Life of Napoleon, and continues on page 38:
      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 by 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: And Again: No words could describe more aptly what was overtaking France. Sir Walter Scott in his Life of Napoleon, Vol. 1, thus describes the situation:
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 light.

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 then also.
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.”
      It is 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 Dangereuses, 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: 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.

Mirabeau 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 Diamond Necklace writes: “Louis was not ignorant that Mirabeau had been poisoned.”

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: And again: As Mr E. Scudder writes in his Life of Mirabeau:
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 sealed.

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, Vol.2.)
      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 the power.”
      “On the 28th July, 1794,” to quote Mr. Renier again, 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.
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 War.

3. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION
[Top]
Monsieur Francois Coty, the celebrated scent manufacturer, wrote in Figaro on 20th February, 1932: 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 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:
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. Cohen:
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: 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: 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: 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:
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.

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:
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 broken.

4. DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE
[Top]
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 church bells.
      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 phenomenon.
      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 later.
      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 leader, Napoleon. 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
[Top]
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 onslaughts.

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:
As he pursued the study of these questions, Hitler began to perceive the main outlines of the truth: 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:-
Later on Hitler gives in great detail the outlines of the Jewish disruptive machine.

On the last page and in almost the last paragraph of Mein Kampf is the following:
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.” And again:- 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.]

Mein Kampf 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 if necessary.

6. 1933: JEWRY DECLARES WAR
[Top]
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: 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: 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 Aniles 1934.
      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 doctrine, 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 design (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: 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:
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.] Let 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, or of 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 question.

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
[Top]
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 war.”
      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 to gain.
      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 in Russia.
      Accordingly, on 15th February, 1940, 1 put down the following question to the Prime Minister: Mr Chamberlain himself replied in outspoken terms: 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:
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 bombing himself.

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 downfall.
      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 responsible.

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
[Top]
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: Von Kleist decided to ignore the order, the author tells us. To quote him again:
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:

Captain Liddell Hart comments on the above as follows: “This conviction of Hitler’s deeper motive,” he continues, “was confirmed by his strangely dilatory attitude over the subsequent plans for the invasion of England.” The author continues:
And later he goes on to say: 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 possible rate.

In any event, I would urge my countrymen to ponder most earnestly the following facts.

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
[Top]
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 “freed.”
      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:
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 Christian civilisation.

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 Empire.”
      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
[Top]
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:

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 issues.
      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: and on December 29th: 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 President’s.
      Representative U. Burdick, of North Dakota, said: Representative Hugh Paterson, of Georgia, said: Representative Dewey Short, of Missouri, said: Representative Philip Bennett, of Missouri, declared:
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. writes Professor Beard, and goes on to say: and again later:

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:
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 Berlin.

To quote again from Professor Beard: In conclusion, Professor Beard condenses the many indictments of the President set forth in his book, into 12 major counts, and declares:
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
[Top]
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 suspended.
      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 particular.
      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 not.
      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?
[Top]
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 membership.
      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 Appendix I.)

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): 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): After a short note by the Editor of the Diaries the entry for the 3rd Feb., 1948, continues (page 364):
      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.

EPILOGUE
[Top]
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 specific account.
      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 history.”
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, the U.S.S.R.
      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 degree.
      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 Jewish Jacobs.
      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.
[Top]

---

ENDNOTES by RAE WEST ('REREVISIONIST')
[Top]
Ramsay’s 12 chapters, plus prologue and epilogue, are given in full. Page numbering is omitted. 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.
      Appendices, and cover blurb, are omitted, unfortunately; the typefaces are small and somewhat broken, and I couldn't face the tasks of scanning and tidying. But there's interesting material:

• Ramsay's Statement about 18B (see above) shows how Jews in Ireland were used to plant explosions attributed to the I R A, if indeed it existed, as what are now known as 'false flags', to set up laws to be used against Jew-aware people, as of course 18B was used in Britain against Ramsay and others.
• Ramsay gives three periods of his awareness: (1) Soon after the Russian Revolution till about 1935, he believed Russia was behind Bolshevism; (2) 1935-1938, international; (3) realised them to be Jewish.
• Ramsay's statement lists his political actions, e.g. Zinoviev Letter; Russian Trade Committee; various Christian groups; war in Spain; documents on Jews in Russia; a 'wealthy and patriotic Peer' unable to stand against organized Jews, in 1938, concerned with shares in the Daily Mail;
• by January 1040 nearly 30 subversive societies identified. Six names stood out clearly—Prof Harold Laski, Israel Moses Sieff, Prof Herman [?Hyman] Levy, Victor Gollancz, D N Pritt MP, G R Strauss MP. Important note: Ramsay did not try to identify the individual parts of the Jewish attack.
• Other names given by Ramsay as opposing his Bills are: Rothschild, T. Levy, A M Lyons, Sir F Harris, W Gallacher, Dr Haden Guest, Dr Summerskill, Schuster, Shinwell, Cazalet, Sir A Sinclair, Gluckstein, Mr Samuel Storey
• Federal Union of Europe; the scheme of Political and Economic Planning (P E P) was Israel Moses Sieff who among other things 'is Grand Commander of the Order of Maccabeans)
• Autumn 1938 Ramsay saw a British Govt White Paper printed in two versions, the replacement abridgement having had an extract from Mr Oudendyke, the Netherlands Minister in Petrograd, removed.
• Tyler Kent (coding officer at the US Embassy) and Anna Wolkoff 'in opposition to the interests of Great Britain'-they were trying to show how USA and UK were being drawn into war by Jews, and were jailed

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'.

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

    BOOKS
Jewish Encyclopedia
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 A few added notes 2018-03-22 Slight formatting change and canonical November 2021
[Top]