THE RIDDLE OF THE JEW’S SUCCESS : II – Jewish Methods in the Economic Life

 

The Riddle of the Jew’s Success

Chapter II

 

F. RODERICH-STOLTHEIM

 

THE RIDDLE

OF

THE JEW’S SUCCESS

Translated from the German by Capel Pownall

HAMMER-VERLAG / LEIPZIG

1927

 

 

—————–

 

 

From Metapedia

 

[http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Fritsch]

 

Theodor Emil Fritsch (October 28, 1852 near Leipzig – September 8, 1933) was a German antijudaist whose views did much to influence popular opposition to Jewish supremacism in Germany during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

 

A believer in the absolute superiority of the Aryan race, Fritsch was upset by the changes brought on by rapid industrialization and urbanization, and called for a return to the traditional peasant values and customs of the distant past, which he believed exemplified the essence of the Volk.

 

In 1883 he founded the Hammer Publishing House.

 

One of Fritsch’s major goals was to unite all Jew-resister political parties under a single banner; he wished for opposition to Jewish supremacism to permeate the agenda of every German social and political organization. This effort proved largely to be a failure, as by 1890 there were over 190 various patriotic parties in Germany. He also had a powerful rival for the leadership of the patriots in Otto Böckel, with whom he had a strong personal rivalry.

 

In 1893, Fritsch published his most famous work, The Handbook of the Jewish Question also known as the Anti-Semitic Catechism which criticed the Jews and called upon Germans to refrain from intermingling with them. Vastly popular, the book was read by millions and was in its 49th edition by 1944 (330,000 copies). The ideas espoused by the work greatly influenced Hitler and his party during their rise to power after World War I. Fritsch also founded a journal – the Hammer (in 1902) and this became the basis of a movement, the Reichshammerbund, in 1912.

 

His better known book, The Riddle of the Jew’s Success was published in English in 1927 under the pseudonym F. Roderich-Stoltheim, and dealt with the negative impact that Jewish values and the centralization of the German economy in Jewish hands had on the German people. This book was recently republished by Noontide Press, and was the subject of a media controversy after it was banned by Amazon.com and other online book sellers.

 

Fritsch held the publication rights to the German edition of Henry Ford’s work The International Jew.

 


 

 

Contents.

[Note: Clicking on the Chapter heading will take you to that post]

Chapter …………………………………………………………..……………………………………. Page

 

I Preface ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

II Jewish Methods in the Economic Life …………………………………………………. 10

III Particular Business Tactics of the Jew ……………………………………………….. 29

IV The International Connection and Secret League of the Hebrews ………… 39

V The Peculiar Morality of Jewdom ………………………………………………………….. 53

VI An Explanation with Sombart …………………………………………………………….. 68

VII Jewish Successes in Modern Times …………………………………………………… 72

VIII The Stock-Exchange …………………………………………………………………………. 84

IX How Sound Business Methods are Forced Out of the Field by the Jews … 98

X Jewish Trade Specialities ……………………………………………………………………… 111

XI Moral Principles in Trade …………………………………………………………………….. 141

XII The Hebrews as Supporters of Capitalism …………………………………………. 154

XIII Business and Religion ……………………………………………………………………… 183

XIV The Race Problem ………………………………………………………………………….. 200

XV Origin of the Jewish Entity ……………………………………………………………….. 220

XVI The Influence of the Jew Upon Womankind …………………………………….. 242

XVII The Jews and the World-War ………………………………………………………….. 277

Concluding Words ………………………………………………………………………… 283

Errata …………………………………………………………………………………………… 290

 

 

 

 

II.

 

Jewish Methods In the Economic Life.

 

The question, why the economic life flourishes wherever the Jews direct their footsteps, has not been answered by Sombart in a way which satisfies us. He is under obligation to us for important disclosures. We shall, to the best of our ability, present these as follow. The facts and phenomena, upon which light must be thrown, can be separated into groups, according to the points of observation:

 

1. The Hebrew enhances and accelerates the circulation of Money.

2. He mobilises slumbering values: lets loose balanced and reposing forces.

3. He practises “Raubbau”, (Predatory culture)* at the expense of the stored-up forces of Nature and Mankind.

At this juncture must also be taken into consideration:

4. The “Playing into one another’s hands” (secret understanding) of the Hebrews.

5. The strange Morality.

 

1. The Hebrew enhances the circulation of Money, enlivens business.

 

The sound merchant of the old school held the opinion that his duty was satisfactorily discharged, by satisfying the actual purchase-requirements of his customers. He allowed the latter to approach him of their own accord, and waited until they called upon him, believing that he had conformed in all respects to his business obligations, by procuring for the customer, at a suitable price, the goods which the latter required.

 

  • Translator’s note. It is very difficult to find in English a concise equivalent for the admirable German expression “Raubbau”. “Predatory Culture” is, perhaps, the best.

 

[Page 10]

 

He regarded it as beneath his dignity to run after customers, or to entice them, by all manner of tricks, to buy from him; in fact, in olden times, conduct of this kind was regarded as unbecoming and quite unworthy of an honourable trader. Far less did it ever occur to him to talk a customer into buying some article, which the latter would not have bought of his own accord. Thus trade remained a peaceful, and not unduly exciting occupation, and still the customer got what he wanted.

 

The Hebrew introduced into these relations, a new tendency and a violent revolution. Wherever he invaded trade, he refused to adopt this quiet and peaceful method of satisfying requirements. He endeavoured to entice the customers by advantageous offers and promises of all kinds. Above all, he emphasised the cheapness of his goods, and knew well how to delude the purchaser, by suggestion, into imagining that, in this cheapness, the latter would find an enormous advantage.

 

He recommended his goods, loudly and publicly, by methods, which were formerly known and forbidden as being those of a mountebank, and which are now called advertising, and very soon brought the practice almost to the verge of an art.

 

Yes, and when all these means of attracting customers proved of no avail, he went and looked for them, not only by sending out circulars and price-lists, but personally, by pedlars, agents and travellers. Thus, he did not wait until the requirement arose, and the demand set in of its own accord; he created an artificial demand; he aroused requirement by persuasion, and by other means. In this manner, a new and alien trait was introduced into all business life. Commercial business activity now became a wild hunt for customers, for each tradesman sought to tear away the buyer from his rival.

 

Certainly all this resulted in a violent application of the spur to business life, and the exchange of commodities was accelerated and increased thereby, but this kind of activity was of less service to political economy, in its higher sense, than it was to another purpose. If it was the aim of sound economy solely to satisfy a genuine want, and to direct goods wherever the same were really required, the new way of proceeding aimed mainly at gathering up or “assembling” actual money.

 

[Page 11]

 

Trade, according to the new perception, was no longer a useful link in the chain of calm, constant economic development, but was rather a means to direct the circulating money as quickly as possible again into the hands of the trader.

 

It was not the transfer of goods, which was so important, but the fact that the transfer of goods gave the opportunity for getting hold of money.

 

Thus, extraction of money from the pockets of customers instead of satisfactorily meeting the need for commodities, now became the main purpose of trade. But trade forfeited thereby its proper and honourable character, and its former reputation as an important contributor to the well-being of the community.

 

One can only learn to understand correctly this particular tendency of the Hebrews, by considering their peculiar relations to their environment. The old-fashioned merchant was not particularly envious of his trade-competitors; his motto was, “Live and let live”; and he knew that if he conducted his business, honestly and conscientiously, that if he served his customers honourably and fairly, a portion of the universal volume of trade would fall to his share, through which his individual existence would be assured. The merchants of olden times did not feel themselves competitors with one another, to the extent which the modern ones do. They were not so numerous; and, through the guild privilege, each was assured of his particular market or sphere of activity. The mania to supplant one another did not force its way to the front, and was kept within bounds by the respect felt for the vocation.

 

A feeling of goodwill and of mutual tolerance — an attitude corresponding to the Christian view of life — prevailed amongst merchants and tradesmen, just as it did in other circles.

 

The attitude of the Hebrew towards this state of affairs was quite different. He came as a stranger into this kind of existence, which was a new world to him, as a supernumerary, whom nobody had summoned, and whom nobody desired to see. Moreover, he was not united to the native inhabitants of the land, either by the tie of blood, or by a common history, or by patriotism, or by religious and social views.

 

[Page 12]

 

He felt himself to be an alien, and regarded the others as strangers, who did not interest him; but he desired to force a place for himself amongst them by any and every means. He did not look upon other competitors, striving all around him, as being either entitled to live, or as compatriots. His view of life, derived from his religion, had taught him that his nation was something out of the ordinary, that it had been “chosen”, and its holy books contained the promise that he should possess himself of all the riches in the world in order to rule over all other peoples. The “Nations of the World” were represented in the law of the Hebrew as strangers and as enemies. He had neither respect nor tolerance for them. All he cared about was to dispossess them, and to make them tributary to him. This is simply what stands written in the books of the Old Testament, which we also have accepted as “sacred books”; and it stands written still more distinctly in the laws, which Hebrewdom teaches within itself, but prudently conceals from the rest of humanity.

 

We shall return to these facts later on.

 

At all events, the Hebrew was not content to keep step with the other merchants, and to confine his attentions to those customers, who came to him of their own free will. He considered it as his right — yes, even as his duty towards himself and to his nation, to seize for himself as much as possible out of the total volume of trade, and to deprive his nonJewish competitors of as many customers as he could. He also recognised what a great advantage it was, to attract to himself as much as possible of the money in circulation, in order to obtain, by this means, power and mastery over the economic life.

 

This assiduity grew out of his natural disposition, for the sense of gain and the impulse towards self-enrichment have always been very pronounced in the Hebrews. The greed for Gold is an ancient and hereditary evil in the tribe of Judah. But one only half understands the situation, if one forms the opinion, that the Jew is actuated in his business operations solely by the desire for gain, or by the love of money.

 

[Page 13]

 

Certainly the Hebrew is fond of money; but the mere possession of the metal is not enough for him; he knows that behind the glittering gold lurks the secret also that the precious metal gives him power over others. In his case, the possession of money is not solely a means for leading an independent and luxurious existence, but is, at the same time, a means for exercising power; he will, by means of money, rule and oppress.

 

And, through his intense — one might almost say, artificially forced — business activity, by which he strives to bring back all the circulating money quickly into his hands again, he achieves something further. By gathering up money on all sides, by every means in his power, and by retaining it in his possession and allowing it to accumulate, the Hebrew knows how to cause a scarcity of money in the nation; and the scarcity of money brings him fresh custom — not indeed as a merchant, but as a money-lender.

 

If anybody understands how to bring back the money, which is circulating amongst the people, quickly into his own hands again, by enticing, for instance, in his capacity as merchant or tradesman, his customers to make purchases, for which there is no immediate necessity, he withdraws money from the “market”, and money at once becomes scarce if unforeseen wants put in an appearance. Whoever then finds himself in monetary difficulties, is compelled to apply to those, who have known how to attract all the money into their own hands.

 

And, in this way, commercial activity, which had been so violently stimulated, became simultaneously an auxiliary to the loan-monger and usurer. It was not chance, nor was it by any means the pressure of circumstances in former times, which made a money-lender of the Jew, but a carefully thought out system. Money is a very peculiar commodity, and whoever trades in money has a tighter grip on the economic life than he who trades in ordinary goods. For this reason, all trade, as far as Jews are concerned, is, strictly speaking, merely a means for gathering together or “assembling” money, again and again.

 

[Page 14]

 

For the Hebrew follows the money, which has been lent on loan, also with ever-watchful eyes, and knows well what precautionary measures to take, to ensure that it will soon find its way back into Jewish safes.

 

It is not disputed that the Jewish method of doing business produces a showy splendour, both in trade and traffic, in which everybody appears to be prospering. We often stand still, absolutely dazed by the precipitate development, which has overtaken all trade and traffic arrangements during the last few decades. But, — and we labour under no delusion in this respect — this blossom of external life, dazzling in all its splendour, is only produced by heavy sacrifice on the other side.

 

2. The Hebrew mobilises slumbering values, lets loose balanced and reposing forces.

 

I once knew a man, who could not behold any stately tree, either in garden or park, without indulging in an outburst, somewhat on the following lines;

How crazy the people must be to allow a tree like that still to be standing! What an amount of capital is lying there locked up! What fine beams and planks could be sawn out of it!

 

The man had Jewish blood in his veins, and gave vent to a feeling, which must be keenly alive in many Hebrews, although they do not venture to express it in such a barefaced manner. The Hebrew is incapable of allowing anything to rest in calm peace, which can be turned to some economic use. Instilled into his mind is the urgent impulse to make everything “liquid”, to convert everything into money, to “mobilise” everything.

 

And, on all sides, we see Hebrewdom, driven by this impulse, hard at work in order to scoop up with greedy hands the treasures of Nature and of Human Life. Certainly existence is enriched and broadened thereby, and civilisation is enlivened.

From the common economic point of view it has the appearance of being highly meritorious, when a forest, which has been standing for a hundred years in peace, slowly and laboriously growing up by virtue of the creative power in Nature, and has become a great potential source of value, that somebody should set to work with axes and circular saws to liquidate the reposing capital.

 

[Page 15]

 

Hundreds of men are employed to lay the trees low, and to cut up and transport the timber, and thus life springs up in the district; wages are paid, and sales are effected. Regarded from this point of view, the man, who “mobilises” these sleeping values, may well appear to be a benefactor to the neighbourhood where he provides useful work for so many hands. But, not only will the lover of nature be saddened by what has taken place; the serious economist will also be of a very different opinion. Certainly the forest is there, reduced at last to a form, in which it can be utilised by the community as building-timber and fire-wood.

 

The wise forester, however, goes to work with care and restraint, and does not fell any timber without making provision for afforesting an area equivalent to that, which has been cleared.

 

Or, at any rate, he only allows the mature trunks to be felled, and spares all the younger timber. The Hebrew obeys an entirely different principle — his true commercial principle: he clears the ground to the last sapling; the afforestation he leaves to others.

 

The above is an example of reality rather than of symbolism.

 

The Hebrews have actually laid low enormous stretches of primeval forest, not only in our Fatherland, but also in Russia and in Poland; by doing so, they have certainly given a stimulus to business and commercial intercourse, and have caused money to circulate, but the reverse side of this activity will perhaps only be appreciated to its full and disastrous extent by future generations. The cut-down forest certainly brings profit for the moment, but, for the more or less distant future, it means nothing less than impoverishment of the district — in many cases, actual devastation. The springs dry up all over the now bare surface; permanent drought sets in, and when heavy rains do come, they simply sweep away the valuable upper layers of soil. The extirpation of great forests means, accordingly, nothing less than the exhaustion of fertility, and the conversion into desert land of vast tracts of country. Italy and the Balkan States furnish a grave enough warning.

 

[Page 16]

 

As in the case of the forest, so does the Hebrew comport himself in other spheres of activity.

 

He is for ever intent upon mobilising or stirring up sleeping values, and bringing them into circulation, in order to derive an ostentatious and momentary benefit therefrom; but organic breadth of vision is completely wanting in this individual. He does not trouble to consider what the further consequence of this reckless and predatory method of proceeding on his part will be. This is quite in accordance with his nomadic nature. He does not feel himself in any manner linked to the soil; he forsakes the devastated territories, and seeks fresh profit elsewhere in the world. The conception of the Fatherland is altogether foreign to him, and, in this respect, he is true to his nature as a member of a desert and nomadic race.

 

3. The Hebrew piles his Predatory Culture at the expense of natural and human resources.

 

Once more, as in the case of the forest, the same fate befalls the treasures contained in the bosom of the earth. What has here been slowly formed in Nature’s laboratory by processes, which have taken hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years, are dragged to the light of day with insatiable greed; it must take its part in enriching and adorning life. At first this sounds very plausible — but how long can it last? Careful economists are already asking uneasily how much longer the world’s supply of coal will suffice to shield the human race against the ever-menacing forces of the cosmic cold. Certain geologists have spoken reassuring words: the world’s coal supply is plentiful, and will suffice, at any rate, for many centuries, perhaps, even for three or four thousand years. The foresight of humanity ought to enable it to project its conscience across this span of time, for it will be our descendants, who will — even if it is after the lapse of thousands of years — raise bitter reproaches against us because we have squandered the irreplaceable treasures of the earth, greedily and blindly.

 

[Page 17]

 

And there are other treasures of the earth as well, which are not so plentiful as coal. The world’s supplies of iron ore, which are nearly all known, as they can be discovered and marked down by means of the magnetic needle, have been subjected to close calculation with regard to their extent and richness; and the result is, that if we continue to use up iron in the same way, as we have been doing for the last few decades, all the iron-ore fields of the world will be exhausted in from 50— 60 years. And then what?

 

Whether such calculations prove true or not, they provide us with a glance into the future, which must arouse apprehension, and cause us to regard the lordly culture, of which we boast so readily today, in a very questionable light.

 

The Hebrews are certainly not the only ones who practise Predatory Culture at the expense of the treasures of the earth, but it can be maintained with justice, that it was that class of men, who introduced the principle of ruthless mobilisation of values and of pitiless money-making into our economic life.

 

And it is precisely that which Sombart wishes to demonstrate, or actually does demonstrate, whether he does so intentionally or not; the Hebrew has made the principle of pitilessly carried out capitalisation supreme in the economic life, and it is not to be wondered at if others try to copy him — or rather, are compelled to do the same, in order to withstand the Jewish competition.

 

Not only do we squander these natural treasures, but we are dissipating another treasure as well, which finally is the most important of all, as far as culture is concerned. The mobilisation of the treasures of the earth, and the tremendous activity of economic life, which has risen to an almost morbid degree, impose a terrible strain upon man and his creative powers.

 

He may, perhaps, feel a pride in the results of his work, in the thousands of roaring and clattering machines, in the boldly executed constructions, with which he spans rivers, estuaries and mountain ravines, and in the ingenious technical appliances, which convey him with the speed of the wind across the face of the earth. But what does he run down and secure as booty or prize at the end of this wild pursuit? Generally only the loss of his best powers, and an early end to his days.

 

[Page 18]

 

Who can now refuse to recognise the fact that the harassing hunt after business, which characterises modern economic life, is rapidly leading to an exhaustion of mankind, and that the race itself, in spite of all the technical perfections of the external world, is slowly sinking, as far as its personal constitution and powers of accomplishment are concerned, i.e., is decaying steadily both physically and spiritually?

 

In this respect also, the modern economy is carrying on ruthlessly another method of Predatory Culture. Industrialism entices men from the country into the town, and consumes them. It is a well-known fact that the families, born in the towns, very soon fade away, and that they seldom extend to more than three generations, and that the large towns and the industrial areas can only maintain themselves by a constant influx of human beings from the rural districts. But even the reserve of human strength in the country, taken as a whole, is not inexhaustible. It already shows an alarming retrogression.

 

Sixty years ago, two thirds of the inhabitants of Germany lived in the country, and derived their livelihood from agriculture and from forestry, and only a third of the population lived in the towns. Today, the proportion is almost reversed. The rural population has now shrunk to 37 per cent of the total, and will no longer be able to make up the deficiency in the births amongst the 63 per cent of the population, who now dwell in the large towns, and in the industrial districts.

 

We see accordingly how the magnificence of modern culture can only be produced by the expenditure of powers, which cannot be revived. It requires but a few more decades of this mode of existence, and the German Nation will have used itself up; foreign national and racial elements will stream in from all sides, and make themselves comfortable in the bed, which we, in our excessive and suicidal diligence, have so carefully prepared for them.

 

A typical example of the fanatical pressure, which impels the Hebrew to mobilise all values, is furnished by his attack upon the “Fidei-Kommisse”, namely the indivisible family estates.

 

[Page 19]

 

The land-owning nobility, in particular, has frequently made the arrangement that the family estate shall descend undivided to the heir, in order to guard against the breaking-up and dispersion of the estate. It is of incalculable value, both for state and community, if, in this manner, strong, independent existences can be maintained; moreover, the community cannot suffer any detriment thereby. Notwithstanding this, the Jewish Press has, for years past, fiercely attacked this arrangement, as if it were an offence and an injury against the majority, and Parliament is overwhelmed, from the Jewish side, with motions to do away with the “Fidei-Kommisse”, as if the eternal happiness of the whole nation depended upon this. The innate hatred felt by the Jew towards the nobility plays, in this respect, no small part. The Jew wishes to see this nobility destroyed, which presumes, both by breeding and tradition, to be something out of the ordinary, while the “chosen people”, according to his opinion, alone possess a claim to pretensions of this kind. Do not the Jews, with predilection, refer to themselves as the “natural aristocracy of mankind”?

 

Moreover, this aversion to the “Fidei-Kommisse”, (the indivisible family estates) is only the old Hebrew urgency to mobilise values expressing itself afresh: there must not be anything durable or constant: everything must be cut up and handed over to speculation. — The new revolutionary government, directed by Jews, has no more urgent policy than that of breaking up all the “FideiKommisse”, and of prohibiting the formation of any new family estates. Who can compute today the harm which will be caused by such a policy? The undermining of the economic foundations must also make itself felt in the social and intellectual structure of society. Genuine men of nobility will become scarcer and scarcer: the nobility has already, in many respects, degenerated, and become degraded by the intrusion of the Jewish money- and business-spirit. The Jewish principle of life drags mankind back from the heights, which it has scaled. The final result is: universal vulgarisation.

 

[Page 20]

 

We hear the ready answer: but wealth has increased enormously!

 

Have we not collected huge quantities of capital, which are a sufficient guarantee for the future? In this respect also the modern idea of economy arrives at a fateful and most erroneous conclusion. Even Sombart represents the situation as if the Hebrews brought riches with them wherever they went, and were continually producing new wealth. Even if we understand under the expression “wealth”, merely the gold and silver treasure of the earth, it certainly cannot be maintained that these are increased by the Hebrew and his economic activity.

 

We have already seen that his art consists in collecting and re-collecting these treasures into his own hands, as quickly as he can. But the Gold and the Silver in their totality form only an insignificant portion of the riches of the nation. What we call capital does not generally consist of coined metal.

 

Today we reckon also as capital, landed property, such as cultivated fields, forests, buildings etc. But the Hebrews certainly do not increase this kind of property either.

 

There is, however, another kind of capital, which plays the most important role of all in modern political economy: this is the Loan Capital those sums, which are lent out in return for the payment of fixed rates of interest. And it cannot be denied that the Hebrew possesses an extraordinary talent for increasing this particular kind of capital.

 

Let us, first of all, make it quite clear to ourselves of what such capital really consists. Whoever owns a million marks, which brings him in interest, does not possess this million marks in the form of gold and silver coins, lying in his safe, but has lent the million marks out on loan. But even the borrower— the debtor to the man who owns the money — no longer holds the actual money; he has passed it on further in the course of his business. All that is left to him of it is — the obligation to pay interest. He has taken over for himself — and generally also for his descendants for illimitable time — the duty of paying to the creditor, certain sums of money as interest, at certain stated intervals.

 

[Page 21]

 

Out of all this the fact next emerges, that an equally great debt, on the other side, faces this sum of Loan Capital. Whoever is in a position to call his own a million marks of Loan Capital, and draws interest from the same, must hold other people as his debtors to the extent of a million marks. And thus arises the peculiar equation: the more Loan Capital there is here, the more Debts there are there. An increase of capital of this nature means, in reality, nothing else than an increase of debt.

 

Loan Capital thus consists of acknowledgment of debt, and of obligation to pay. It takes visible shape in the form of mortgage-deeds, bonds, shares, original or founder-shares, rent charges and similar devices. And, if we boast today that the number of rich people has increased enormously, that millions and thousands of millions are accumulated in the hands of single individuals, we must not forget that the debts and obligations of other people have increased in equal measure.

 

It is accordingly a bold assumption to maintain, that the general welfare of the nations is promoted by the increase of capital of this kind, i.e. Loan Capital. Whoever speaks of modern Wealth ought, if he is conscientious, to speak at the same time of the monstrous nature of the modern system of creating indebtedness. In whatever direction we look, we see an enormous development of this creation of debt; in the kingdom, in the province, in the parish, in the business, in the family — all are carried on by means of debts. The registered mortgages on land throughout the German Empire are computed at 60 – 70 thousand million marks* (three thousand to three thousand five hundred million pounds sterling).

 

It is a very remarkable and significant fact that we have n o statistics whatever concerning this so important question of political economy, while we are overwhelmed with statistics on all other matters.

 


  • According to Jewish computation (v. Gwinner in the Prussian Upper House) the capital value of the land in the German Empire amounts to close upon 300 thousand million marks (Fifteen thousand million pounds sterling) and, according to other authorities, 220—250 thousand million marks (eleven thousand to twelve thousand five hundred million pounds sterling). Certainly, in most districts, the debts on the land are higher than 25 p.c.

 

[Page 22]

 

If the above-mentioned sum of debt is approximately correct, it simply means that the nation has to find something like 3000 million marks (one hundred and fifty million pounds sterling) every year in order to pay the burden of interest, placed upon the ground, composing the Fatherland. Who, in the last analysis, provides this sum of money? It is simply the working and productive class of the citizens: the peasant, the craftsman and the workman. These are the powers, which create productive values, and who must, by the excess of their labour, produce the burdens of interest in order to satisfy the owners of Loan Capital.

 

If we reckon that there are 15 million working-men in the German Empire capable of production, a yearly impost of 200 marks (ten pounds sterling) is laid upon each of them in order to satisfy the owners of Loan Capital. That this crushing impost is not consciously perceived, is simply due to the fact that it is split up and distributed in such a way, that it is almost impossible to check or trace it, and that all kinds of roundabout ways and tricks are utilised, which make it quite impossible for the ordinary man to discover the source of his misery. The Loan Capital, which burdens our land, sucks in its interest by raising the rents of tenements, workshops and business premises, by increasing the price of food-stuffs and other necessary commodities, and by other similar indirect methods. Thus, the productive worker is not directly conscious of this impost, but feels only an inexplicable pressure on all his business activity. He sees that, in spite of all his effort and industry, the fruits of his toil disappear out of his hands, without his being able, at the same time, to discover any satisfactory explanation of this. In spite of all his toil, he cannot make any advance and prosper, becomes discontented with his lot, and vents his resentment in all directions, mostly against those, who are quite innocent of his hard fate. He complains about the high taxes and rates, which form only an insignificant particle when compared with that impost — the interest on Loan Capital.

 

[Page 23]

 

He grumbles about the increasing cost of living, of rent, of food, of clothing, and of other things, including “bread-usurers” and bad government, and does not seem to have even the faintest idea, that it is just this invisible impost of the interest on Loan Capital, which is oppressing him by making everything dear.

 

Thus, this modern system of creating capital, by casting an intolerable burden on the entire national life, produces universal oppression and consequently discontent, which is causing an ever-growing resentment between the various classes, which compose the community, without the oppressed people being at all clear as to where the source of the oppression really is.

 

***

 

It is not very probable that the Hebrews invented that work of art — the loaning-out of capital against interest; it is quite likely that it was known and practised before their time.

 

It is quite certain, however, that they first introduced this branch of business to us in Germany, and, supported by the prohibition against practising usury, enforced by the Christian Church against its members, promoted and developed it to an extraordinary extent. Owing to their peculiar dexterity in always attracting to themselves again the money, which is in circulation, they know how to produce a constant shortage of money amongst the people. In this manner they compel the productive classes to borrow, and to continue borrowing.

 

The money, which has been gradually collected by commerce and other means, leaves the hands of the Hebrew, for the most part, only as Loan Capital, and continuously creates for him fresh circles of people, pledged to pay him tribute.

 

Is it then really such a great blessing for a nation if it can be shown, that the Hebrews, living in their midst, possess thousands of millions of marks in the shape of Loan Capital, for which the productive class have to find the interest? What does the saying now mean: wherever the Jews turn, there appear new riches, new capital? Should one not, before all other things, state emphatically: there arise, to a terrifying extent, fresh debts?

 

[Page 24]

 

It is not the real wealth of the nations, which is increased by the Jews, but their debts and obligations, which, under the deceitful name of “mobile capital”, accumulate until they amount to sums of incredible magnitude, but which are in reality, only a phantom possession — an imaginary value.

 

We read, with aversion, the descriptions of the persecutions of the Jews, which are said to have taken place in the Middle Ages: if these were, in all cases, as many people imagine, can be left an open question; at any rate, one ought to explain conscientiously, what led up to these persecutions, and what was the real cause of the same. We can read, in every record, that it was by no means a religious hatred, which incensed the citizens against the Jews, because at all times and in all countries, a remarkable tolerance has been displayed towards the religious rites of the Jews, some of which rites are of a very peculiar nature. No one has prohibited their noisy method of praying; no one has disturbed their Sabbath and Passover festivals. Nobody has prohibited even their Purim, their festival of revenge, which they still celebrate annually, with unquenchable thirst for revenge, in recollection of the massacre of 75,000 Persian enemies of the Jews, by the direction of the minister Mordecai more than 2,000 years ago. What really incensed the people against the Jews were the insatiable hunger for interest, and the unchristian like usury of the latter; by reason of this diabolical greed for money, which stopped at nothing, this slinking, alien race became so repugnant to the ordinary German man, that he considered the Jews capable of anything.

 

As has been already stated, during the time when the influence of the Church was predominant (from the 11th till the 18th century) Christians were forbidden to practise usury; only the Hebrew was allowed to do this. Thus it naturally came about that everyone, who wanted to borrow money, was obliged to go to the Jews. According to the law, the Hebrews were aliens and on sufferance, and their sojourn, in either town or district, was only permitted when a tax (“Jew-tribute”) had been paid to the ruling prince or potentate; but it was precisely this arrangement, whereby the mild or stern treatment of the Jews depended essentially on the attitude of the ruling house, which relieved the situation to an extraordinary degree for the Jews living in the Empire, which was, at that time, split up politically to an endless extent.

 

[Page 25]

 

Generally speaking, the legislation was very considerate, and allowed the Hebrew to devote himself wholeheartedly to his favourite occupation, viz traffic in Money, and to claim unheard-of rates of interest for his loans. A rate of interest of 30 — yes, even of 50 and 60 per cent per annum, was already known from the 12th to the 15th century, and was so well-established during the 16th and 17th centuries, that it was regarded as nothing out-of-the-way.
This arrangement, whereby the mild or stern treatment of the Jews depended essentially on the attitude of the ruling house, which relieved the situation to an extraordinary degree for the Jews living in the Empire, which was, at that time, split up politically to an endless extent.
Under these circumstances, and owing to the scarcity as well as to the extraordinary fluctuations in the value of money throughout that period, it was an easy matter for the Hebrew always to collect all the money again into their hands, and to force the remaining citizens to raise fresh loans.* A particular trick facilitated the obtaining of an exorbitant rate of interest. Even when the rate of interest was moderate, the debtor had, for the most part, to pledge himself to pay back his debt on a fixed date by weekly or monthly payments of interest.

 

——————–

 

* “At the end of the 14th century, the social position of the Jews deteriorated, chiefly on account of their arrogance and usuriousness. Up till then, they had been respected, were qualified to own landed property, and were appreciated as being necessary for the development of the towns. They had, in some instances, even found an entry into the municipal bodies, for instance at Cologne and Worms. In many towns, the highest admissible rate of interest reached 86-2/3 per cent for the year! Ludwig of Bavaria (1314-1347) decided, as a particular favour for the citizens of Frankfort, that the Jewish rate of interest was to be restricted to 32½ per cent. Since the canonical prohibition against the lending of money for interest was enforced sternly and universally against Christians, and the cloisters no longer loaned out money, the money-business remained almost exclusively in the hands of the Jews for a long period.” (Dürr and Klett) History of the World II, page 139) — “Thus a regular monopoly of usury by the Jews established itself, which was only broken into in the 18th century, to the extent that, towards the close of that century, it was permitted to charge generally a 5% rate of interest.” (Rich. Schröder: “Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte” II, 15, [German History of Law II, 15].

 

———————

 

[Page 26]

 

In case he was unable to keep to the appointed date, he was bound by the terms of his bond, to pay double the rate of interest from that time onward; often indeed, the whole debt was doubled. The well-meaning debtor, who had the best intention of paying off his debt at the appointed time, entered into such contracts with a light heart, in the certainty that, at the appointed date, money, from other quarters, would be at his disposal. The Hebrew, however, who had a complete understanding with his fellow-tribesmen, and knew accurately what call there was for money, and how much there was in circulation, took good care that his debtor did not get the expected money at the appointed time, and thus he compelled the latter to accept the new and still more onerous conditions. The Hebrew only granted an extension of the term on the condition that his claims, both with regard to interest and capital, should be increased, and as, thanks to the cooperation of Jewish friends, of which we have already spoken, delay in the repayment of the debt was frequently repeated, the Jew was more successful then, than now, in entangling, by means of a comparatively small loan, a whole family in the bondage of debt throughout their lives, or even in expelling them from their house and land.

 

Thus there is nothing strange in the fact that, already from the time of Charlemagne, unceasing complaints about the Jewish usurer were directed both to the civil and clerical authorities.

 

The earlier peasant-insurrections also, were not due to the “Priests” and to the Nobility, but to money-lending Jewry; for example, the Peasants’ Rising at Gotha in 1391, and the Peasants’ Rising at Worms in 1431. Later — when the Jews had drained the extravagant and quarrelsome nobility of their riches, and the latter had made an alliance with the clergy to oppress poor “Hans Karst” *, with tithes and compulsory labour, the peasants turned against all three tormentors.

 


  • The German Peasant.

 

[Page 27]

 

In 1450 the cup-bearer, Erasmus von Erbach, an ancestor of the present Princes von Erbach (in the Odenwald), who personally was quite prosperous, raised his voice thus against the Jews:

The poor man is robbed and flayed by the Jews to such an extent that it has become intolerable, and may God have mercy on him. The Jewish usurers settle down, even in the smallest villages, and when they lend five gulden, they take six-fold security and take interest upon interest, and yet again interest, so that the poor man loses all that he possesses.

 

How well founded this complaint was, is proved by the testimony of all contemporaries.

 

Elsewhere it is stated that;

Jewdom sits on the necks of the citizen and of the poor man, and is the cause of the rapidly increasing poverty”.

 

The Jews are referred to as “vultures”, who;

do not desist until they have consumed the marrow in the bones, and reduced the citizen to beggary”. (Petition of the Frankfort citizens June 10th 1612).

 

Sombart also mentions in his conscientiously collected material a number of similar expressions of opinion, taken from the same period, which confirm what has been said above.

 

Thus, it was not religious hatred, which incensed the people against the Jews, but the actual plundering of the masses by a system of charging an immoderate rate of interest. The wealth which the Jews “brought into a land”, was thus of very doubtful value. It was a kind of wealth, which had a dazzling appearance in certain places, whilst everywhere else it produced only poverty and misery.

 

Thus: the Hebrews did not create new values in the shape of goods, and consequently, actual new wealth; they merely understood, in a masterly fashion, how to obtain possession of the prosperity of other people; they did not produce any new possession, but only brought about a change of possession.

 

What they produced was merely an appearance of wealth, which in reality consisted only of the debts of those people, who were not Jews.

 

[Page 28]

 

 

======================================

 

Click to go to >>

I – Preface

II – Jewish Methods in the Economic Life

III – Particular Business Tactics of the Jew

IV – The International Connection and Secret League of the Hebrews

V – The Peculiar Morality of Jewdom

VI – An Explanation with Sombart

VII – Jewish Successes in Modern Times

VIII – The Stock-Exchange

IX – How Sound Business Methods are Forced Out of the Field by the Jews

X – Jewish Trade Specialities

XI – Moral Principles in Trade

XII – The Hebrews as Supporters of Capitalism

XIII – Business and Religion

XIV – The Race Problem

XV – Origin of the Jewish Entity

XVI – The Influence of the Jew Upon Womankind

XVII – The Jews and the World-War; Concluding Words

________________________

 

PDF of this blog post. Click to view or download.

 

>> THE RIDDLE OF THE JEW’S SUCCESS – Part 02

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 4: Feb 11, 2017 — Improved formatting.

 

Version 3: Added chapter links and new cover image – Sep 27, 2014

 

Version 2: Added PDF file – May 12, 2014

 

Version 1: Published May 8, 2014
Posted in Bk - Riddle of Jew's Success, Jews, The International Jew | Tagged , | 4 Comments

THE RIDDLE OF THE JEW’S SUCCESS : I – Preface

The Riddle of the Jew’s Success

Chapter I

 

F. RODERICH-STOLTHEIM

 

THE RIDDLE

OF

THE JEW’S SUCCESS

Translated from the German by Capel Pownall

HAMMER-VERLAG / LEIPZIG

1927

 

 

—————–

 

From Metapedia

 

[http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Fritsch]

 

Theodor Emil Fritsch (October 28, 1852 near Leipzig – September 8, 1933) was a German antijudaist whose views did much to influence popular opposition to Jewish supremacism in Germany during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

 

A believer in the absolute superiority of the Aryan race, Fritsch was upset by the changes brought on by rapid industrialization and urbanization, and called for a return to the traditional peasant values and customs of the distant past, which he believed exemplified the essence of the Volk.

 

In 1883 he founded the Hammer Publishing House.

 

One of Fritsch’s major goals was to unite all Jew-resister political parties under a single banner; he wished for opposition to Jewish supremacism to permeate the agenda of every German social and political organization. This effort proved largely to be a failure, as by 1890 there were over 190 various patriotic parties in Germany. He also had a powerful rival for the leadership of the patriots in Otto Böckel, with whom he had a strong personal rivalry.

 

In 1893, Fritsch published his most famous work, The Handbook of the Jewish Question also known as the Anti-Semitic Catechism which criticed the Jews and called upon Germans to refrain from intermingling with them. Vastly popular, the book was read by millions and was in its 49th edition by 1944 (330,000 copies). The ideas espoused by the work greatly influenced Hitler and his party during their rise to power after World War I. Fritsch also founded a journal – the Hammer (in 1902) and this became the basis of a movement, the Reichshammerbund, in 1912.

 

His better known book, The Riddle of the Jew’s Success was published in English in 1927 under the pseudonym F. Roderich-Stoltheim, and dealt with the negative impact that Jewish values and the centralization of the German economy in Jewish hands had on the German people. This book was recently republished by Noontide Press, and was the subject of a media controversy after it was banned by Amazon.com and other online book sellers.

 

Fritsch held the publication rights to the German edition of Henry Ford’s work The International Jew.

 


 

 

Amazon Reviews

 

5 Stars

The power of Jewishness

By Gabriel Parra Ramirez on February 26, 2015

Impressive, revealing, the amazing power of conviction and self confidence of an entire people.

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful

 

5 Stars

Five Stars

By Ralph Brandt on December 6, 2014

The book was a fascinating description of a controversial subject.

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful

 

5 Stars

The best book on the Jewish Question

By Ulf Larsen on May 31, 2011

This is one of the great classics on the Jewish Question. It is especially insightful about the psychology of Jews.

5 of 28 people found the following review helpful

 

1 Star

If you like reading lies and misconceptions about Jews, and believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, then this is for you

By Allyson Rowen Taylor “Allyson Rowen Taylor” on October 11, 2009

This book was banned in the USA and was suppossed to be banned by Amazon. It is a lie, a hate filled book that was used by White Nazi’s and anti Semites to make them feel superior and justify their hatred of the the Jewish people. It is a sick, hate filled book, that inflames blood libel and hatred of a people. It is a book that should be destroyed, as it has no place on the shelves of a library, unless you idolize Adolf Hitler , and the KKK.

2 comments

HolyRomanEmpire 2.0  3 years ago

“It is a book that should be destroyed, as it has no place on the shelves of a library”

Wait, who’s the Nazi here again?

Mark S. Edwards 3 years ago

Lies are all around us; why be discriminating?

Freedom of Speech still exists — though at a great price — in the USA.

11 of 11 people found the following review helpful

 

5 Stars

Part of the Riddle…

By Michael Santomauro “What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?” on June 19, 2007

Part of the Riddle:

I think the strongest anti-Semitism sometimes exists among Jews. To this day a German Jew often hates Russian or Polish Jews. There are German-Jewish clubs around this country that did not allow Russian or Polish Jews when they first started. Some have relented a little, but not all. I’m sure that when Hitler started, many German Jews didn’t mind what he did to other Jews. They didn’t expect him to turn on them. Isn’t it ridiculous? But if anti-Semitism can exist among Jews, why shouldn’t it exist among others?” — actor Kirk Douglas (neé Issur Danielovitch, son of Russian-Jewish immigrants), The Ragman’s Son – An Autobiography, p. 23 (Pocket Books: New York, 1989)

A Classic book you should read for research:

The Riddle of the Jew’s Success F. Roderich-Stoltheim (Theodor Fritsch)

Hitler’s Favorite book? Maybe! But definitely one of Hitler’s favorite writers. This author influenced the psyche of MILLIONS of people from the 1890s thru 1945. ESPECIALLY THE NAZI PARTY… He died in 1934. The book was sanctioned in Nazi schools. This book is translated from German by Capel Pownall in 1927.

Oddly, it was published in English in Germany!

THEN over 99% of this book’s inventory was burned by the allies after the war. Proof enough, of its power in making people think on the “Jewish Question”.

Needless to say, this book is extremely scarce. You will find the remaining copies at all the Ivy League Colleges and some major universities. It is too taboo to find it in a public library. One of the most politically incorrect research books you will ever read. Extremely well written…

Excerpt:

From the Preface:

If there are riddles in the history of the nations, then the Jews most certainly present one of the chief instances; and, whoever has occupied himself with the problems of humanity, without advancing so far as the great problem of the Jews, has, so far as knowledge and experience of life are concerned, merely skimmed the surface of the subject. There is scarcely a field, from Art and Literature to Religion and Political Economy, from Politics to the most secret domains of sensuality and criminality, in which the influence of the Jewish spirit and of the Jewish entity cannot be clearly traced, and has not imparted a peculiar warp or trend to the affairs in question.

39 of 44 people found the following review helpful

5 Stars

Excellent reading

ByAmazon Customer on October 12, 2005

This book is simply a godsend to the historian.

It helps illuminate the Third Reich’s rise to power, and the underlying beliefs held by many in that era.

Theodor Fritsch was among those writers in Germany who held beliefs that were popular by the National Socialists; and, perhaps for the first time ever, readers get to see a glimpse of the thought-train that led to the National Socialists’ ascension.

The translator did an excellent job in helping the curious understand the mindset that was perpetuated in Germany’s past.

Some people–perhaps, those who are a bit overly traumatized from being exposed to incessant propaganda relating to that time frame, living in the past instead of the modern age–may be unduly concerned about this book.

However, there is truly no need for one to be paranoid, as any rational person would treat this book as the intriguing historical curiosity that it is — and an extremely illuminating one too.

___________________

 

 

Contents.

[Note: Clicking on the Chapter heading will take you to that post]

 
Chapter  …………………………………………………………..……………………………………. Page

 

I Preface ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

II Jewish Methods in the Economic Life …………………………………………………. 10

III Particular Business Tactics of the Jew ……………………………………………….. 29

IV The International Connection and Secret League of the Hebrews ………… 39

V The Peculiar Morality of Jewdom ………………………………………………………….. 53

VI An Explanation with Sombart …………………………………………………………….. 68

VII Jewish Successes in Modern Times …………………………………………………… 72

VIII The Stock-Exchange …………………………………………………………………………. 84

IX How Sound Business Methods are Forced Out of the Field by the Jews … 98

X Jewish Trade Specialities ……………………………………………………………………… 111

XI Moral Principles in Trade …………………………………………………………………….. 141

XII The Hebrews as Supporters of Capitalism …………………………………………. 154

XIII Business and Religion ……………………………………………………………………… 183

XIV The Race Problem ………………………………………………………………………….. 200

XV Origin of the Jewish Entity ……………………………………………………………….. 220

XVI The Influence of the Jew Upon Womankind …………………………………….. 242

XVII The Jews and the World-War ………………………………………………………….. 277

Concluding Words ………………………………………………………………………… 283

Errata …………………………………………………………………………………………… 290

 

 

 

I

 

Preface  

 

If there are riddles in the history of the nations, then the Jews most certainly present one of the chief instances; and, whoever has occupied himself with the problems of humanity, without advancing so far as the great problem of the Jews, has, so far as knowledge and experience of life are concerned, merely skimmed the surface of the subject. There is scarcely a field, from Art and Literature to Religion and Political Economy, from Politics to the most secret domains of sensuality and criminality, in which the influence of the Jewish spirit and of the Jewish entity cannot be clearly traced, and has not imparted a peculiar warp or trend to the affairs in question.

 

Indisputable as these facts are, it is nevertheless equally certain that Science, Literature and the Press, which concern themselves, not only in Germany, but all the world over, with all manner of valuable knowledge, display the utmost anxiety to avoid casting any light into the secret and mysterious sphere of Jewish influence. It is, as if a silent mandate had been issued, that the essential relations of life with Jewdom are on no account to be disturbed — that the Jews, in fact, are not to be discussed. And thus, one is entitled to maintain, that in no department of knowledge is the ignorance of our learned men so pronounced, as it is in everything, which is connected with the Jews.

 

If, however, the influences and activities, which the Hebrews exert upon the spiritual and political destinies of the nations, are of an extraordinary nature, one must finally supplement this recognised fact by the further recognition, that Hebrewdom avails itself of extraordinary powers and means to produce such results.

 

It is, in this respect, that the present book furnishes disclosures.

 

To start with, one point must be made perfectly clear: religious views and religious motives are excluded from this work.

 

[Page 5]

 

The author is completely neutral to the religious parties, and cannot subscribe unconditionally to any one of the same.

 

When Jews are spoken of in the course of this book, we are not thinking of a religious community, but rather of a particular people, a nation, a race. Consequently, whenever it would be advisable to avoid the use of the word “Jew”, on account of the unpleasant flavour or taint which invariably accompanies that expression, use has been made, to a great extent, of the names “Hebrew”, or “Semite”.

 

That the Jews, however, in spite of their dispersion amongst the nations, still feel, at the present day, that they are a special people and a special race, and that they feel themselves united more by their common blood and race than by their religious creed, is testified to by one of the most illustrious amongst the people of Israel.

 

Disraeli, who later on became Prime Minister of England, and was created Lord Beaconsfield, makes, in his novel “Endymion”, which was published in London in 1844, an influential, elderly Jew speak to a young man as follows:

 

No one must treat the racial principle, the racial question, with indifference. It is the key to the history of the world; and history is only so frequently confused because it is written by people, who are unacquainted with the racial question, and ignorant of everything which has a bearing upon it. Wherever you find the same in operation, whether amongst communities, or, in the case of individuals, it has to be reckoned with. But, on the other side, there is no other subject again, which demands such a fine power of discrimination, or, where the principle, if it is not completely understood, may show itself to be as misleading as an Ignis Fatuus.

 

I find in Europe three great races with pronounced characters — the Germans, the Slavs and the Celts, and their behaviour is determined precisely by these distinguishing characteristics. There is, however, yet another great race, which influences the world — the Semitic. The Semites are, without question, a great race, for, amongst all the things in this world which appear to be true, nothing is more certain than the fact that they invented our alphabet.”*

* This has long been shown to be erroneous (The author.)

 

[Page 6]

 

But the Semites, at the present moment, exert through their smallest but most peculiar family, the Jews, an extraordinarily great influence upon all affairs. There is no other race, which has been endowed to such a degree with obstinacy and talent for organisation. These qualities have secured for them untold possessions and immeasurable credit. As you advance in life and acquire a more extensive knowledge of business and affairs in general, you will find that the Jews cross your path and frustrate your plans, wherever you go. Long ago they stole their way into our secret diplomacy, and have become almost complete masters of it; in another 25 years they will openly claim their share in the government of the country. Now here we are dealing with races: men and cliques of men who are guided in their behaviour by their peculiar organisation, and a statesman must reckon with this situation. On the other hand — what do you understand by the Latin race? Language and Religion do not make race — blood makes it”.

 

At this juncture we shall only occupy ourselves with the signification and importance of the Jews in trade, that domain where they have laid the foundation of their power, and over which they are always extending their influence and authority in the endeavour to make a Jewish monopoly of it.

 

In his meritorious book: “Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben”, (The Jews and the Economic Life) Professor Werner Sombart is at pains to prove nothing less than that the economic destinies of states and nations stand in immediate relation to the wanderings of the Jews. What further conclusions he then proceeds to attach to this theory, can best be summed up as follows: to whatever spot the Jews turn their footsteps, there trade and culture at once blossom forth; but, if they withdraw, commerce decays and prosperity disappears.

 

If this fact also, as a fact, is not to be disputed, it still seems to me that the reasons, adduced by Sombart, to account for this phenomenon, do not satisfy. And, as his conclusions also appear to me to be unsound, I consider it necessary to supplement the work of this scholar, who depends almost entirely upon literary and documentary evidence, by examples and experiences taken from practical, everyday life.

 

According to the impression, which is left upon one after reading Sombart’s book, one might almost fancy that proof had been actually produced that the Hebrews were the real supporters of modern culture.

 

[Page 7]

 

Sombart speaks of the “Culture of Capitalism”, and endeavours to show how this culture rests preponderantly, or almost exclusively on the shoulders of the Jews. The perception, that humanity is extraordinarily indebted to the Jews with regard to Culture, has been vigorously and continuously propagated in more modern times, and may well have given rise to the opinion, which is widely held, that Culture and Religion have come to us mainly from the Hebrews, and consequently that the other nations owe an everlasting debt of gratitude to this Oriental people. In fact, in many quarters, it is actually maintained that all progress proceeds from the Jews, and that Culture without Jews is unthinkable. Such notions are, however, no longer tenable at the present day, by reason of our extended insight into the most remote periods of national history. One must remember that highly developed systems of culture have come into being in lands, in which a Jew has never set foot; that great systems of culture even existed at a time when no such thing as a Jewish nation had put in an appearance in the history of the world. The discoveries, made at the ancient seats of the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Assyrian nations, testify to this. The Aztecs, and the Incas in Peru as well, attained to a high degree of culture, and yet they knew nothing about the Hebrews. The culture of the Chinese and the Japanese gradually unfolded itself for thousands of years without the Hebrews contributing in the slightest degree thereto, for even at the present day, the Jew is only to be found as an isolated individual in China and Japan.

 

The strongly developed racial feeling of these nations knows how to keep him at an arm’s length. But, above all, what may perhaps be regarded as the highest and most exquisite blossom of culture, which humanity has ever brought to maturity — Grecian culture — developed at a time when Jewish influence was quite out of the question.

 

Thus, to hold up the Hebrew to universal admiration as the supporter of culture, is simply not admissible. On the other hand, it is conceded, that that, what is so commonly called “Culture”, at once acquires an acceleration in pace, as soon as the Hebrews lay hands on it, and that, under the influence of this singular people, the external appearances of Culture develop in an astonishing manner. 

 

[Page 8]

 

Only, at this stage, we ought to make a finer distinction, and not call “Culture”, i.e., constructive work, what is really “Civilisation”, i.e., a refinement or polishing-up of the mode of living. The increase and enhancement of the forms of life, which proceed under Jewish influence, affect preponderantly the externals of life. Trade and business increase, production receives a powerful stimulation, the circulation of money and the amassing of capital become more conspicuous than was formerly the case. Life seems to assume a richer and more luxurious aspect, and an impression of universal prosperity and augmentation of real property is created. All this, however, must be included in the conception of civilisation, whilst real culture, which is the cultivation and encouragement of the highest human capabilities, the improvement of organic and moral arrangement, and the deepening of religious feeling, is more or less disregarded. In fact, it appears that these deeper, cultural values actually suffer injury by the externalization of all existence.

 

The dynamic conformity to law throughout Nature is not to be evaded even in human life; too much on one side always causes a deficiency on the other. It is not possible to develop extraordinary powers externally, without incurring a loss in internal values. We shall therefore be obliged, in order to treat this matter conscientiously, to throw light upon the highly praised enhancement of culture by Hebrewdom from other points than Sombart has done, so that this obvious phenomenon can be viewed and comprehended as a whole.

 

[Page 9]

 

 

======================================

 

Click to go to >>

 

I – Preface

II – Jewish Methods in the Economic Life

III – Particular Business Tactics of the Jew

IV – The International Connection and Secret League of the Hebrews

V – The Peculiar Morality of Jewdom

VI – An Explanation with Sombart

VII – Jewish Successes in Modern Times

VIII – The Stock-Exchange

IX – How Sound Business Methods are Forced Out of the Field by the Jews

X – Jewish Trade Specialities

XI – Moral Principles in Trade

XII – The Hebrews as Supporters of Capitalism

XIII – Business and Religion

XIV – The Race Problem

XV – Origin of the Jewish Entity

XVI – The Influence of the Jew Upon Womankind

XVII – The Jews and the World-War; Concluding Words

 


 

PDF of this blog post. Click to view or download.

>>  THE RIDDLE OF THE JEW’S SUCCESS – Part 01

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 4: Feb 11, 2017 — Improved formatting.

 

Version 3: Added Amazon Reviews – May 28, 2015

 

Version 2: Added PDF file – May 12, 2014

 

Version 1: Published May 7, 2014
Posted in Bk - Riddle of Jew's Success, Bk - The Riddle of the Jew's Success, Jews, Jews - Naming, Race, The International Jew | Tagged , | 7 Comments

My Holocaust Problems

My Holocaust Problems

 

By Giuseppe Furioso

 

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3103

 

By Giuseppe Furioso
GiuseppeFurioso@aol.com
3-21-6

 

The Holocaust consists of three basic elements:

 

(1) Approximately six million Jews were deliberately killed.

 

(2) These killings were part of a state sponsored program on the part of the Third Reich whose ultimate goal was the total eradication of the Jewish people.

 

(3) The bulk of these murders took place in special death camps where the principal mechanism of execution was the homicidal gas chamber that utilized Zyclon B, a commercial pesticide whose active ingredient was hydrogen cyanide.

 

That the Third Reich possessed the technological and administrative means to carry out such a vast amount of killing there is little doubt. The Soviet Union with significantly inferior assets in these areas was able to kill far greater numbers of human beings. Furthermore, the armies of the Third Reich succeeded in killing at least ten million of its heavily armed military opponents in the course of World War II. Hence the killing of six million unarmed civilians should not have presented any unique problems to such an industrially advanced and bureaucratically efficient state as Nazi Germany, on the contrary, it would have been far easier.

 

My doubts about the Holocaust are not centered on whether it could have happened but whether it did happen. In fact many of the doubts that I have are a direct consequence of the fact that I have no doubt that it actually could have happened … but certainly not in the ways that have been described thus far in the “official” literature.

 

It is part of the Western tradition in legal, scientific and intellectual matters that those asserting something have the burden of proof and that those who disagree are not required to provide evidence. This tradition however has been turned on its head regarding the holocaust since the “historical truth” of the holocaust has been posited in advance. Furthermore, even to express doubts can result in criminal penalties in at least 11 so-called democratic countries and the ruining of lives and careers in numerous others.

 

Listed below are some of the “problems” I have with the Holocaust.

 

Should these be cleared up it would go a long way toward my accepting it — they are in no particular order.

 

1) Why did Elie Wiesel and countless other Jews survive the Holocaust if it was the intention of the Third Reich to eliminate every Jew they got there hands on? Elie was a prisoner for several years; other Jews survived even longer. Most of these “survivors” were ordinary people who did not have any unique expertise that the Germans could have exploited for their war effort. There was no logical reason for them to be kept alive. The very existence of more than a million survivors even today, some sixty years later, contradicts one of the basic components of the holocaust i.e. that the Germans had a policy to eliminate every Jew they got their hands on.

 

2) Why is their no mention of the Holocaust in Churchill’s six volume History of the Second World War or the wartime memoirs of either De Gaulle or Eisenhower or any of the other lesser luminaries who wrote about the Second World War. Keep in mind all these were written years after the war ended and thus after the holocaust had been allegedly proven by the Nuremberg Trials? With regard to the Holocaust, the silence of these “cognoscenti” is deafening!

 

 20121130 - WordWeb 0636

[Image] Churchill’s six volume History of the Second World War.

 

3) What was an inmate infirmary (and a brothel) doing in Auschwitz if in fact it was a death camp?

 

4) Why would the Germans round up Jews from their far flung empire, thereby tying up large numbers of personnel and rolling stock, while fighting a world war on two fronts to deliver people to “death camps” hundreds of miles away who were then executed upon arrival — wouldn’t a bullet on the spot have appealed to legendary German sense of efficiency?

 

5) Why after sixty years have historians been unable to come up with a single German document that points to a holocaust? Should we believe the likes of Raul Hilburg that in the place of written orders there was an “incredible meeting of the minds” by the literally tens of thousands of people who would have had to coordinate their actions in order to carry out an undertaking of this magnitude.

 

6) How come it is still insisted upon that six million Jews were killed when the official Jewish death toll at Auschwitz, the flagship of the Holocaust gulag, has been reduced from an immediate post war figure of 3 million, to a figure of somewhat less than one million? Why do many respond to this observation by saying, “what’s the difference whether it’s six million or one million”. The answer is that the difference is five million. Another difference is that saying so can get you three years in an Austrian jail … just ask David Irving!

 

20121130 - WordWeb 0639

 [Image] Dr Elmar Kresbach, the defense attorney watches (top left) as police remove the manacles from writer David Irving at his trial in Austria on February 20, 2005. Accused under a catch-all Stalin-era law of “reviving National Socialism,” Mr Irving was sentenced to a three-year jail term. On December 20, 2006 the court of appeal ordered his release.

 

7) All of Germany’s wartime codes were compromised including the one used to send daily reports from Auschwitz to Berlin. The transcripts of these messages make no mention of mass executions or even remotely suggest a genocidal program in progress. Furthermore it has been insisted that the Germans used a kind of euphemistic code when discussing their extermination program of the Jews e.g. final solution, special treatment, resettlement, etc. Why was it necessary for them to use such coded euphemisms when talking to one another unless they thought their codes had been cracked by the Allies?

 

8) The water table at Auschwitz lies a mere 18 inches below the surface which makes claims of huge burning pits for the disposal of tens of thousands of victims untenable.

 

9) Initially claims were made that mass executions in homicidal gas chambers had taken place in camps located within the boundaries of the old Reich e.g. Dachau, Bergen-Belsen. “Evidence” to that effect was every bit as compelling as what was offered for other camps, located in occupied Poland, yet without explanation in the early sixties we were told that this was not the case and that all the “death camps” were located in the East i.e. Poland outside (some would say conveniently) of the probing eyes of western scholars.

 

10) No one has been able to reconcile the eyewitness accounts that personnel entered the gas chambers after twenty minutes without any protective gear and the fact that Zyclon B was a “time release” fumigant that would have had a lethal capability for at least another twenty-four hours. And that even after twenty-four hours the corpses would have themselves remained sufficiently contaminated by the hydrogen cyanide gas that they would have had the capacity to kill anyone who touched them who were not wearing protective gear.

 

11) Why do we no longer hear claims that the Germans manufactured soap, lamp shades and riding britches from the bodies of dead Jews — could it be that in the light of modern forensics and DNA knowledge these claims are totally untenable?

 

12) Why do we no longer hear claims that huge numbers of Jews were exterminated in massive steam chambers or electrocuted on special grids — “evidence” of this was presented at Nuremberg — evidence that sent men to the gallows.

 

13) Elie Wiesel has been described as “the Apostle of Remembrance” yet in his memoir, “Night” which deals his stay at Auschwitz he makes no mention of the now infamous homicidal gas chambers. Isn’t this a bit like one of the Gospels making no mention of the Cross?

 

20121130 - WordWeb 0635      20121130 - WordWeb 0634

[Image] WIESEL, Elie and his book Night. New York: Hill and Wang, 1960.

 

14) Virtually every survivor who was examined at Auschwitz says that he or she was examined by the infamous Dr. Mengele.

 20121130 - WordWeb 0637

[Image] Josef Mengele (16 March 1911 – 7 February 1979) was a German Schutzstaffel (SS) officer and physician in Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II.

 

15) According to survivor testimony, hundreds of thousands of Jews were executed at Treblinka and then buried in mass graves in the surrounding area. Why is it that extensive sonar probing of these burial grounds reveals that this alleged final resting place for Holocaust victims has remained undisturbed since at least the last ice age?

 

16)Proof” of the holocaust rest primarily on survivor testimony; there little if any hard evidence. The best of this has been described by Jean Claude Pressac as merely “criminal traces”. Even Judge Grey who presided at the Irving-Lipstadt Trial commented that he was surprised the evidence pointing to the Holocaust was “extremely thin”. To paraphrase Arthur Butz, “a crime of this magnitude would have left a mountain of evidence” — where is it? There was more hard evidence against OJ Simpson at his trial and he was FOUND INNOCENT!

 

17) Why has Holocaust Revisionism been criminalized in at least eleven countries — what other historic truth needs the threat of prison or the destruction of one’s career to maintain itself. Should someone be sent to prison for expressing skepticism about the official Chinese claim that they suffered thirty-five million dead in World War II.

 

18) Why do the court historians insist that “denying the Holocaust” is like denying slavery or saying the earth is flat when it is nothing of the sort. The leading Revisionists are first rate scholars who hold advanced degrees from the world’s leading universities. Is there anyone comparable among those who say the world is flat or that slavery never existed?

 

19) Promoters of the Holocaust have expressed concerns about the remembering the holocaust once the last survivors die. Why haven’t Civil War historians expressed similar concerns since the last survivor of that conflict died in 1959.

 

20) Survivors of the holocaust have testified that smoke billowed from the crematoriums as they consumed the bodies of murdered victims — some eyewitnesses even claimed they could detect national origins by the color of the smoke. How can this be reconciled with the fact that properly operating crematoriums do not produce smoke of any color?

 

21) According to the official version of the Holocaust hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were rounded up in mid 1944 and sent to Auschwitz where most were gassed immediately upon arrival and their bodies were disposed of by burning in huge open air pits using railroad ties and gasoline. Why is that there is no evidence of these huge funerary pyres in the high resolution surveillance photos taken by Allied aircraft who were over flying the camp on a daily basis during this time period. Furthermore, why have no remains been found, since open pit burning, even when gasoline is used, generates insufficient heat to totally consume a body?

 

22) All of the liberated camps were littered with corpses; is there a single autopsy report or any other forensic evidence that shows that even a single one of these deaths was a consequence of poison gas?

 

23) The death toll for the Holocaust relies exclusively on population statistics provided by Jewish sources; has any independent demographic study been produced that shows that approximately six million Jews were “missing” at the end of the war.

 

24) Why do the wartime inspection reports of camps made by the International Red Cross contain no references to mass executions — it strains credulity that such monumental crimes could be hidden. The only explanations are that either these crimes were not occurring or that the Red Cross was complicit in a cover up.

 

25) Why has there been no effort to respond to the Leuchter Reports? [http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/16-tlr.pdf]

 

20121130 - WordWeb 0641

[Image] Fred A. Leuchter, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf: The Leuchter Reports—Critical Edition (3rd revised edition). Leuchter changed the course of history when he concluded in his report that the locations investigated “could not have then been, or now, be utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers.

 

26)The Holocaust was technologically possible because it happened.” Why is this intellectually bankrupt argument, which turns scholarship on its head, considered by the promoters of the Holocaust as historical truth, considered a sufficient response to the mounting Revisionist evidence to the contrary?

 

27) What other historical truths rely to the extent that the holocaust does on so-called “eye witness” testimony — and why have none of these witnesses ever been cross examined?

According to the official version of the Holocaust, the Jews remained ignorant of their fate until the very end so skillful were their Nazis murderers in deceiving their victims. How can this ignorance be reconciled with the fact that the Jews have historically been as a group, the most literate and highly informed people on the planet with legendary access to the highest echelons of government.

 

 

————————————-

 

 

REPLY by Barrington James

 

Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:43 pm

 

Hi Guiseppe — Nice summary on the holocaust. After having debated this topic on this website and with some of my friends during the last few years I would like to add the arguments that I have gradually learned to have worked best for me.

 

Warning: I think that if anyone gets into a discussion about the holocaust one should make it perfectly clear that one acknowledges that:

 

(1) the Jews were persecuted in Nazi Germany and Europe.

(2) That as many as a million Jews in total, maybe more, probably less, died in the camps, on the Eastern front as reprisals, shot as saboteurs, partisans, and soldiers and so on. If you do not make these two points absolutely clear, perfectly clear and totally clear people will think are you crazy, a Nazi, or both.

The Zionists have done a fantastic job creating this myth, especially in some countries, and to rush into your reasons why you know it is a myth without heeding my warning will just bring you grief.

 

If you immediately start listing your favourite hundred reasons why you no longer believe the myths without taking heed of this warning you might be: (1) shot, (2) arrested (3) punched out and/or (4) dismissed a fool or lunatic.

 

 

In any case here are some of my most successful arguments.

 

(1) Despite dozens of eyewitness reports, the confessions of Nazi camp directors, the claims of the British and American soldiers and worldwide newspaper reports, the reports of gassing of Jews in Germany were relatively quickly proven to be just silly stories, camp rumours, an attempt to whitewash the real horrors of the war, to cover up the real reasons of a totally unnecessary war, and to bring billions to Israel. What makes us believe for a single second that the same claims of gassing in the so-called Polish death camps are not just as silly? It makes no sense to think the stories of Poland would be true when the same stories of Germany were proven to be silly. Don’t get too hung up or sidetracked on the “reasons” for the holocaust. Keep it simple: No German gas, no Polish gas.

 

(2) The pictures of the dead and dying, as horrible as they are, taken in Germany and not Poland by the way, are obviously not pictures of gas victims. These pictures of the dead and dying, many of whom were dug up from their graves by the British, show all the signs of disease, and are obviously not pictures of recently healthy people just gassed.

 

Just as 2/3 of all the 650,000 soldiers who died in the American civil war and probably every war ever fought, before or after, until the discovery of penicillin and anti-biotics, were victims of disease, the great majority of camp victims died of disease. The rest were shot for one reason or another, were murdered by their fellow prisoners or committed suicide. Most people do not realize how even the great Napoleon lost most of his army in Russia due to disease, not guns. During the British Boer War the Brits put 125, 000 Boer women and children in camps and within a short time 25, 000 died. Every one knows just how fast the people starting dying in New Orleans just after hurricane Katrina.
Finally two of the worst holocausts in the history of mankind were the flu after WW1, which killed almost 20,000,000, spread by soldiers returning home with a new type of flu from foreign lands, and of course the near total destruction of the North and South American Native populations which killed at least 50 million and probably a lot more due to every disease from syphilis, and gonorrhoea to measles, typhus, small pox and dysentery. People die very quickly when they live in unsanitary conditions. How many people do you know who have died or are dying of cancer, for example, which as you know, is caused by pollution, DU and so on.

 

(3) There is no scientific explanation how the gas got into or out of the gas chambers. Zyklon B gas is just a little lighter than air and so to suddenly release so much gas from the chamber that has just killed as may as 2,000 people at a time every hour upon hour would surely have created, at times, huge deadly gas clouds that would have killed hundreds, if not thousands of guards, workers, administrators and prisoners from time to time throughout the entire camps. Recall, according to the Cole video, the Auschwitz gas chamber, actually the SS bomb shelter, was a mere 50 m from the guard’s barracks and in full view of the camp. What would a gas cloud have done to the guards and others on many a down cast day in that camp?
Getting the gas into the rooms is also a huge problem for the myth makers now that we have dismissed all their silly stories of showers and holes in the roof. How does one get the gas into and out of the room? Think about it. No gas, no gas holocaust.

 

(4) A single human body, with all due respect to the late and never found Jimmy Hoffa, is all but impossible to get rid of without leaving a trace behind; getting rid of six million bodies would be six million times impossible.
Cremation does not turn a body into dust. Even after at least two hours of cremation in a modern crematorium the bones of a single body must then be pulverized to turn the larger bones into “dust” so as not to leave any of the remains of the departed one in a recognizable form. Even then in a modern cremation system, even after pulverizing the bones, many large fragments remain. It is for this reason that the dust then must be filtered before putting it into the family urn. Of course 60 years ago these small bones parts and dust would have remained a huge problem. They wouldn’t just float away in a river since bones sink, and they won’t just blow away with the wind. Where did the bones go?
On the average a human body creates 5 pounds of bone fragments. 5 pounds of bones per body times up to 25,000 victims a day, as claimed in some of the camps, means the disposal of 125, 000 pounds of bones a day. Can you imagine 62.5 tons of traceable, DNA recognizable human remains, every day during the holocaust drifting around the camp? Where did it go? Not one camp has shown any evidence of mass graves or bones. No bones, no gas holocaust.

 

(5) The cremation process itself has other with major scientific problems. Human bodies do not burn because the water content in a human body is from 60% to 90%. It would take about 500 pounds of wood or 50 pounds of coal to cremate a body under the best of 1943 conditions. Moreover if they tried to cremate the bodies in open pits, as has been suggested by the myth makers — barbecue style — try it with a pound of meat this summer — the amount of wood required to cremate 25,000 bodies a day would have taken the entire black forest. Have you ever read about huge trainloads of coal going to Auschwitz every day? No fuel, no cremation, no holocaust.

 

(6) The lies of Babi Yar. After claiming in the book Babi Yar that as many as 100,000 Jews, maybe more, were machined gunned and buried in huge pits at Babi Yar, we have been unable to find the remains of a single body or single bullet at Babi Yar. No bullets, no bodies, no Babi Yar, no holocaust, what liars.

 

(7) Treblinka. After claiming the prisoners were gassed using huge truck or tank engines, it turns out that these engines are diesel. Diesel engines produce carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide, the killer gas. It would have been impossible to mass kill with diesel engines. And no one would even try it. Moreover no one has been unable to find any mass graves near Treblinka, or anywhere else, that contain the bodies of 900, 000 dead, as claimed. No Treblinka, no holocaust.

 

(8) Finally it is well documented that the Nazis and the Zionists worked together to remove the Jews from Europe to Palestine. The Zionist went to great lengths to prevent the Jews from escaping to anywhere but Palestine. America, Canada, South America, Australia as a matter of fact all were “persuaded” by the Zionists to bring forth laws preventing Jewish entry. In any case, does this Nazi/Zionist cooperation sound like an extermination plot to you? Nazi/Zionist cooperation, no holocaust.

 

(9) So where the 6 million go? First of all there is no proof what so ever that there were 6 million Jews in Europe in 1939. Nobody knows how many Jews there are in the USA right now: 6 million? 10 million? 12 million? 15 million? It has been claimed for example that there were 3 million Jews in Poland before the war. Who knows?

 

Without re-reading Butz or Sanning again I would say that most of the Jews of Poland started to leave Poland in the 30’s and the majority of them fled East to Russia during the course of the war. Of course a couple of hundred thousand were in the Warsaw Ghetto where most of them had hoped to rest out the war in peace — who could blame them — and many of these Jews did die of disease in the camps. Millions of “Russian” Jews have left Israel, on their way to America, in the last 10 years. Where were they before they went to Russia? The Germans thought that they had as many as 5 million Jews in their conquered countries during the war. 4.3 million Jews claimed compensation after the war. What more do you have to know? How many were there? 5 million subtract 4.3 million is not 6 million.

 

That’s it for now. I enjoyed your reasons. Barrington James

 

——

You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

 

======================================

 

PDF of this blog post. Click to view or download.

>> My Holocaust Problems – Ver 1.0

 

 

Version History

 

Version 2: Nov 3, 2016 — Improved formatting.

 

Version 1: Published Mar 27, 2014
Posted in Auschwitz, Brainwashing, Churchill, Elie Wiesel, Europe, Germany, Hitler, Holocaust, Holohoax, Israel, Jews, Jews - Lying, National Socialism, Nuremberg, Propaganda - Anti-German, Revisionism, Winston Churchill | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Jonathan Bowden on Revisionism

Jonathan Bowden on Revisionism

Counter-Currents Radio

 

 

20121130 - WordWeb 0609

[Image] Jonathan David Anthony Bowden (12 April 1962 – 29 March 2012) was a British political figure who had been involved with a number of political parties and groups, and a leading speaker on the nationalist circuit. His great influence was the novelist, Bill Hopkins, who had been one of the Angry Young Men of the 1950s.

57:20 / 8,634 words

To download the mp3, go to: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/03/jonathan-bowden-on-revisionism/

Editor’s Note: The following is a transcript by Davied E. Clarke of Jonathan Bowden’s speech at the 12th meeting of the New Right in London on November 3, 2007.

Now this talk which I’m going to give on Revisionism, Left and Right, hard and soft, could be construed in the future as a dangerous talk, because the Chancellor of contemporary Federal Germany would like to extend, as a particular remit of the constitution/treaty which is being negotiated at the present time, the idea that revisionist laws — or more accurately, anti-revisionist laws — that exist in certain Continental societies which have allegedly “known Fascism” at a particular period, be extended to this society and to all other EU access states, including a great wave of Eastern European countries who of course have acceded to the Union in recent years.

Now, one of the ways round this of course is to speak methodologically and in such a way as you talk about an area, and you interpret what people have said, and you put forward what very mainstream and counter-propositional and non-revisionist historians and others have said. And if you keep it within that box and within that framework, to be frank, you will be “alright.” Don’t forget, my father’s generation was told they’d fought in the Second World War for freedom of speech. And now we have to attenuate what we say before we even get down to saying it, so that we will not fall liable to particular laws that haven’t even been introduced yet.

Now the concept of Revisionism: there are several different meanings.

One comes from Marxist-Leninist theory. Whenever you have within communism, say Georgi Plekhanov teaching Lenin quite a bit of the Marxism that he actually knew and some of its materialist theory. When you then had later on a reinterpretation of theory, either for reasons of brutal state power or statecraft or genuine ideological split, it was called a revision. You were revising the prior theory, and it is true that certain Right-wing writers, academics, fringe academics, people who will have been expelled from the academies, and so on have used the term “revisionism” as a counter-propositional term, as an “enemy” term. They’ve shot an arrow back at former political and ideological opponents by using this term.

There’s also, as the President of Iran [1] said quite recently in a German magazine, a genuine element within historiography — which is the writing of history, history as texts over time ramifying with each other — whereby different interpretations are revised over time and statements which were considered normative and absolute and beyond comparison later get changed and attenuated and repositioned and looked at in a different light.

Before I get on to the most controversial areas of Revisionism let’s just have a few, more minor and less emotionally charged examples.

Sir Winston Churchill: In the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s, biographies which were not hagiographies, in other words biographies which weren’t enormous tributes to the man’s internal and external excellence, would not have been permitted. He was in some ways a secular sort of sacral figure. When these revisionist biographers — Ben Pimlott a little bit on the Left, John Charmley on the Center-Right to Right as a dissentient Cambridge don, and David Irving’s two volumes known as Churchill’s War — when these books occurred, they occurred in an era when Churchill was already dipping down. Charmley’s biography has Graham Sutherland’s portrait of Churchill on the front, which of course the Churchill family destroyed because they didn’t like that particular image of him. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0610

[Image] Churchill: The End of Glory – A Political Biography by John Charmley.

So to revise something is to change the cultural shift, is to change the way in which something has been perceived that otherwise was uncritically received.

There are many examples. One key one in recent Anglo-Irish historiography is Cromwell and the massacres in Wexford and Drogheda. He was believed to have massacred, with the English New Model Army, two whole Irish towns, and Irish people have been taught this for centuries. Indeed in popular Irish culture the word “Cromwell” is worse than the “c” word in traditional usage because he killed everybody in those towns and all the women and all the children and all the animals! 

20121130 - WordWeb 0611

[Image] A 1656 Samuel Cooper portrait of Cromwell. Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) was an English military and political leader and later Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Now there was a book published by Tom Reilly, a Trinity College Dublin university professor (similar to an Oxbridge level professor over here), called Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy and building on the partially revisionist essay by Thomas Carlyle about Cromwell in the 19th century which forced, particularly within Protestant discourse, a re-evaluation of our only military dictator in English/British history. The idea began to creep forward. There’s a little echo of it even in Churchill’s History of the English-Speaking Peoples, where there’s a little bit of congratulations to Cromwell for being at least a man of will, of honor, of courage, and of decision, even though he was in turn a hateful regicide. So Cromwell has been revisited and has been turned around and has been revived. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0612

[Image] Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy by Tom Reilly (2008)

It now appears that in Wexford and Drogheda, the Catholic parishional and diocesan records state that nearly everybody in that area who lived before his army passed through lived after his army passed through. That the number of people killed may have been a thousand combatants who were slaughtered at the high point of a battle when they themselves had surrendered and probably put up the white flag to draw people in before they used arms, which in most forms of war does result in such an event.

That event occurred in the context of Protestants being massacred in 1641. It’s taken four centuries. And this is just historical events between different peoples in these islands, for a slightly more judicious, a slightly more rounded, a less emotive, and more temperate view of massacres and events which are believed to have occurred, to be rewritten and entered into mainstream historical record.

Now when you’re dealing with events like the First World War and the Second World War, which are climaxes, which were the sort of the industrialization of the principle of death in relation to the First World War; many who went through that experience saw a sort of factory-type killing established in battlefields in Europe, whereby the surface of the Earth became lunar and looked like the surface of the moon. Millions of men slaughtered each other in mud and filth and barbed wire. These were extraordinarily savage events, almost sort of revolutions in consciousness for the generation that went through them. Therefore, even to have revised views about the circumstances that led to that war has been very controversial.

20121130 - WordWeb 0613

[Image] Harry Elmer Barnes (1889-1968), historian and sociologist, was one of the most influential American scholars of the twentieth century. He was a major figure in developing the school of history writing known as “revisionism,” that is, the critical, scholarly examination of official or orthodox history, especially of the origins and consequences of the two world wars.

One of the earliest American revisionists was Harry Elmer Barnes, and he really concentrated on the First World War and the currents that led to it, both at a micro level, looking at the Lusitania sinking, and at a macro level, looking at the power politics that came out of that war and that many believe led to the Second World War, because many do see the second war as a postscript to the first. Many see it actually almost beginning in a stage one before war is actually announced in ’39 to ’40, because it was partly unfinished business and we were partly into a cycle. Much of the hedonism of the ’20s in Europe, and much of the despair of the Depression in the ’30s in Europe, was that generation sensing an enormous revisitation of the bloodbath was coming.

Most of the writers and intellectuals during that period realized they were living between two explosions and between two wars. We in 2007 are living in the after effects of the Second European Civil War, which is really what the Second World War in Europe amounted to. And the First World War was the First European Civil War.

There is a dissentient notion within political history that the American Civil War, which of course is different and distinct, has echoes of some of the conflicts that will follow. The use of mass artillery and early machine guns of a sort against massed forms of cavalry and infantry, leading to massacre on one side and a very defensive warfare on the other. And the fact that you have two regimes: a white racialist, aristocratic, slave-owning regime against an industrial, liberal, bourgeois regime which preaches radical democracy, which tries to lead us on the other side to a degree, which puts a client government into the defeated South after it’s all over. There are echoes. But this is inevitable because in cycles of war and history you will have echoes before, and you will have echoes afterwards. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0614

[Image] The Boer Wars were two wars fought during 1880–1881 and 1899–1902 by the British Empire against the settlers of two independent Boer republics, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal Republic. The Boers were well tuned to fighting in African conditions, often carefully trapping British forces in the open under the blistering summer sun, keeping them pinned down with withering fire from cool and shady heights.

Even the Boer War and its origins in 1899 through 1902 between ourselves (the British) and the Afrikaners has been revised and looked at again, even by liberals. But that is a war about which the controversial heat and the gas flare of intensity is much lower down.

When you’re dealing with much more incisive and explosive matters these things are much nearer the edge. And it’s not “talk”! You’ll lose your career; you’ll lose your reputation; you’ll lose your respect; you’ll be put in prison for having certain counter-propositional views about historical events.

In several major European societies at least 10,000 people, in one category or another, have been arraigned for these “crimes” of thought, including many major historians. Many historians, if you read them today, know that this is a minefield they will not go near. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0615

[Image] The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia by Richard Overy.

If you take a very contemporaneous book like Richard Overy’s history of Hitler’s and Stalin’s regimes [2] (as he calls them), the Soviet death total and the Soviet camps he’s infinitely cautious with. He’s prepared to draw an enormous amount of criminological and empirical evidence to prove that the Stalinist genocide maybe claimed a quarter of the lives that somebody like Robert Conquest writing in the ’50s and ’60s with The Great Terror and The Harvest of Sorrow said. And he’s extremely careful and very judicious; very, very mainstream; very, very obliging to fact or presumed fact. Don’t forget many of the KGB archives have been opened up since 1990.

But when he comes to the Germans in the Second World War, there is a gap, and there is a statement whereby he said, “Some of what I’m going to say in this section may be refuted by future research.” And then he goes on to give a new version of the official version of the issue that most generations of schoolchildren have been indoctrinated with now for 40 to 50 to 60 years.

In the town that I live in, a selection of sixth formers from all schools were recently taken on an Auschwitz tour paid for by the local authority and its taxpayers to prove the evil of racism, to prove that voting for certain tendencies is regarded as a priori illegitimate and immoral, and also to look at a crime against humanity leading to the need for universal constructions of law and of morality. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0616

[Image] Chester MP joins Chester Students visiting former “Nazi Death Camps

And leading to trials whereby political leaders in conflicts that have little to do with what happened in Europe and beyond between ’39 and ’45 of the last century, can themselves be arraigned! The trial and death of Saddam Hussein involving procedures very close to the Nuremberg ones, very close to a similar ideology that was applied to post-war Yugoslavia, very close to an ideology that was applied to some of the fallen militarist leaders from Imperial Japan, very close to trials that people have wanted to enact but have held back.

20121130 - WordWeb 0617

[Image] The execution of Saddam Hussein took place on Saturday 30 December 2006. Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging, after being found guilty and convicted of crimes against humanity by the Iraqi Special Tribunal for the murder of 148 Iraqi Shi’ite in the town of Dujail in 1982, in retaliation for an assassination attempt against him.

Now, what’s happened in modernity is that the ability to kill large numbers of people has become an ideological weapon on all sides. During the Cold War, one part of the human race learnt a view of history. Few people know that there was a massacre of communists in Indonesia in the middle 1960s. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0618

[Image] The 1965 Massacre in Indonesia and Its Legacy. Relative of the massacre sorting out skulls.

I’ve met an Australian who saw a pyramid of bodies on one side of an airport in that society. Whereas other crimes would be on the media almost every other night. And the reason for this is that one of the legitimizations of human rights and civil rights rhetoric is the belief that certain tendencies are evil and unregenerate and that other tendencies “make mistakes” and “have excesses” and “commit blunders” or are “not opportune.

Even in relation to the Iraq War 2 there is a mass debate within our contemporary establishment. The Lancet, which is the journal of our doctors, has said (methodologically) that 670,000 Iraqis, and more, have perished since the invasion, and Blair and Bush say, “It’s a lie! We refute their figures, we refute the methodology upon which those figures are based. The actual figure is 150 to 170,000.

Why would they bother about that?

They bother about it because in the war of position and the crucible of political struggle the numbers matter and are of crucial importance, because they enable you to demonize one side and extol another. They enable you to excuse one thing as deviation or error (subject to revisionism of one sort or another). Or you actually say that one tendency, by virtue of these actions, is beyond even what it is to be political, is a species of Satanism, is that which you have nothing to do with.

One of the reasons we have a Left-wing society, a liberal society, is partly because conservatism, that which is supposed to “conserve,” is brain-dead in the West, and is terrified, and is afraid. But one of the reasons it’s afraid is because of this area of secular demonology. Because when you have to think in an illiberal way you will “go over there.” You will have to go “over there.” You will have to touch certain thinkers who actually are in that proximity, and that is demonic, and you have to remain in the Center. And if you remain in the Center, you can’t oppose the liberal Left. You can’t oppose the world as it now is inside Western societies. We’re now in the position that we’re invading other societies to impose what exists here (or variants of same) on them!

Of course there are a lot of people inside the West who do not agree with the dispensation that exists here.

Now, Germany was divided at the end of the Second World War into two occupation regimes. In contemporary history and journalistic writing the Eastern regime of Walter Ulbricht and Erich Honecker was in some ways described as it was, a country that built a wall to keep its citizenry in and shot them if they got over the barbed wire in an attempt to get over that wall. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0619

[Image] Erich Honecker (left) with Walter Ulbricht. Erich Honecker (1912 – 1994) was a German communist politician who, as the General Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party, led East Germany from 1971 until the weeks preceding the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Walter Ulbricht (1893 – 1973) was a German communist politician. He played a leading role in the creation of the Weimar-era Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and later (spending the years of Nazi rule in exile in the Soviet Union) in the early development and establishment of East Germany.

The Western Zone though, was never said to be “occupied.” It had been “freed.” It had been “liberated” by Western power and liberal jurisprudence, French, British, and American. We had set up a zone there that later became the Federal Republic of Western Germany. Since then, the German political elite and beyond it — Central European political elites — have been terrified of any reversal in the demonic fortunes of the parties that fought the wars that brought them to power. Any change, any shift, any relativism even, any minor factual amendment (which always will happen in history) becomes decisive. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0620

[Image] David Lloyd George (1863 – 26 March 1945) was a British Liberal politician and statesman. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 7 December 1916 – 22 October 1922.

In the First World War, Lloyd George and others invented a large strand of German atrocity story which was revealed in 1928 in the House of Lords. This is the idea that the Germans committed bestial atrocities in Belgium; the Germans ran around with babies on spikes; they committed atrocities against prisoners that were outside of the European consciousness and form of civility. It was later realized that it was complete propaganda, although in a society with a mass media that was far less refined and pervasive than it is now. You go out there and look at that screen out there, it’s enormous! [3] It covers the whole room ideologically and sort of in terms of its system of signs.

Now media understanding was much less cynical in 1914–1918. There’s a degree to which a large number of white people were stimulated by propagandistic elites to loathe and detest each other and to kill not just hundreds of thousands but millions of each other right across Europe. In accordance with actually predated forms of alliance politics which in an era of mechanized and mass politics meant less and less.

Now the First World War’s dipped down, there’s hardly anyone left. But the Second World War is still alive and still real in human consciousness today.

Mussolini and Franco have largely been historicized. Their dictatorial regimes, their traditionalist, European, socially authoritarian governments have largely entered into a process that acclimatizes them to the memory of Caesar, never mind Cromwell and Napoleon. They are seen as regrettable but normal European dictatorships.

The National Socialist one is not and remains in a sort of shadow, outside. And while we have the present dispensation that we have in Europe, that will have to be so. So you have to understand that what appears to be historical research is historical and is research. It isn’t about historical research as power perceives it.

If somebody says that Zionist terrorists blew up a hotel in Jerusalem in 1948, and Menachem Begin said, “There was a warning, but no-one else heard it.” That’s one view of history. Zionist militants say to this day that MI6 had its headquarters in that hotel, and therefore it was a “legitimate act of struggle.” Struggle! And those are two perspectives.

But that is for historians and for minor debate and for articles in The Times and The Jewish Chronicle. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0621

[Image] Menachem Begin (1913 – 1992) was an Israeli politician, founder of Likud and the sixth Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Before the creation of the state of Israel, he was the leader of the Zionist militant group Irgun, the Revisionist breakaway from the larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah.

What happened in the middle of Europe in the 20th century is cardinal to certainly a definition of white or Caucasian identity today.

One of the many reasons why our people find it so difficult to assert themselves — even to think about the prospect that they might! — is because of these events and how they’ve been interpreted. Because, as soon as they say “This is the English flag behind; this is the British flag, the Swedish flag; this is the German flag”: “No! No! He’s got the English flag! He’s gone over there!

You are entering into proximity to moral danger, to what some philosophers call “moral hazard.” You’re tiptoeing towards what the first thing a liberal journalist will ask you. I was once representative of an organization called “Western Goals” (it was a Cold War organization). The second question the journalist asked me on mainstream media was, “What’s your view of the Holocaust?

That’s the second issue, because they actually had — and he had it on his paper there — two lines. One is, “Treat them like a negative barrister. They’re hostile to your case, and you rag them and you try and take them down.” That’s the first mental proposition for the interviewer.

The second is: “National Socialism — Shoah.” Get them squirming on that, and what they’ve got to say about what Enoch Powell said, or what they’ve got to say about the European Union, or what they’ve got to say about contemporary crime is of no significance at all, because you have them there! In the pit, squirming! And that pit is pre-programmed. It’s pre-programmed! And quite deliberately so. It’s irony piled upon irony, because, of course, many of the people who use these weapons partly don’t care about the truth itself, indeed deeply, often cynically have no interest in it at all! It is a weapon that’s used, a grenade; it’s a spear that is used. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0622

[Image] Maurice Bardèche (1907 – 1998) was a French essayist, literary and art critic, journalist, and one of the leading exponents of neo-fascism in post–World War II Europe. Bardèche also became a leading “Holocaust denier” and wrote extensively on the subject in his later life.

Now a series of historians, often privately funded, often researching themselves, often people beyond even fringe academic life, have published a series of books since Maurice Bardèche in the late 1940s, questioning the veracity of some of these events, including people who’ve used other names which are not their own. Whether or not Alain de Benoist ever published a particular revisionist article using another name, he has never admitted to it. He has never said he didn’t do it. No-one knows, because you have to understand that this was extreme and deep thought criminality.

An intellectual rather similar to Bardèche was executed by the French Resistance and its occupation/liberation authorities in France just after the war: Robert Brasillach. So there is a degree to which certain people have paid with their lives for having certain ideas or living through them. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0623

[Image] Robert Brasillach (31 March 1909 – 6 February 1945) was a French author and journalist. Brasillach was executed for advocating collaborationism, denunciation and incitement to murder. The execution remains a subject of some controversy, because Brasillach was executed for “intellectual crimes,” rather than military or political actions.

The French film director Truffaut knew Lucien Rebatet very well, because certain fascist theorists in France were obsessed with cinema; because that is mass ideology and mass visualization; if you have an authoritarian view of society you will want to communicate not with just the small elite but with the masses; you communicate with the elite before you communicate with the mass. And Truffaut once said, vis-à-vis his friendship with this old French National Socialist — which is what Rebatet was, he was beyond the Vichyite! — nevertheless he said, “You can respect men who are put to death for daring to adumbrate an idea.” [4]

This is in the land of Voltaire, don’t forget, where ideas are supposed to be free and set us free in pursuit of the truth.

Now, a range of writers, normally they’re in the United States. Why in the United States? Because they at least have (strangely) the covering of First Amendment rights and can publish freely, which is why an enormous amount of this material of course has come back; it’s come back into Europe; it’s come back even beyond Europe into the Arab and Muslim world in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It’s come back from often German Americans or expatriate Germans in America doing this sort of thing.

Tony Hancock said to me years ago, “What should happen to this material?” — by which he meant revisionist material — and I said, “Well, the internet will solve all that for you, but one way to do it, just one of many, is to give it to the Muslim world. Because it will then come back into the West in a way which does not seem congruent with the radical Right within the West. That’s one of the ways in order to do this.” 

20121130 - WordWeb 0606

[Image] Anthony (Tony) Hancock (5 May 1947 – 11 June 2012) was a member of various far right organizations in the United Kingdom and as a publisher, produced literature for British far right groups.

Now many of these revisionist historians of course are historians, who do not agree with each other and have different lines. Paul Rassinier is a social democrat of a sort who was actually imprisoned in a camp himself. Others may well be dissentient Jews like Friedrich Berg and Alexander Baron and others. Others are radical neo-fascists and ultra-conservatives. Others are Germans who believe that the use of the Shoah is a form of racism against them, that it is used to demonize German people and people of German ancestry all over the world. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0624

[Image] Paul Rassinier (1906 – 1967) was a French pacifist, political activist, and author. He was also an anti-Nazi French Resistance fighter, and a prisoner of the German concentration camps at Buchenwald and Mittelbau-Dora. A journalist and editor, he wrote hundreds of articles on political and economic subjects. He is viewed as the father of “Holocaust denial”.

The interesting thing about these “crimes” and the memory and the historical narrative through which they are institutionalized, is that they began affecting a particular nation-state and its warrior elite at a particular time. Then it extended to some of the allied nationalities. Then it extended out to (reflexively) the nationalities of people who destroyed that country! Now if somebody who’s English asserts themselves in an ethnic manner, with a little bit too much militancy, they will be accused of spiritually being aligned to those forces, when they are descended from men who flew planes that obliterated the cities of that government.

What has happened is that it has become a generic form of thought criminality which extends out to almost all Caucasians, and then beyond, including in the victor and successor states! So it’s become a generalized negative propaganda against all of us stretching from Iceland to Australia. No-one is immune from the taint of this retrospective “criminality.”

So it’s been used as an extraordinarily effective thought weapon and ideological buttress. And in societies where you can’t read Arthur Butz or Robert Faurisson or Michael Hoffman or Paul Rassinier or Wilhelm Stäglich or [unintelligible] or Walter Sanning or Jügen Graf or Germar Rudolf or Carlo Mattogno or any of these people. The irony is that people actually know what they say. The Daily Telegraph had a poll about four years ago in which they said — to the average Briton, this is the average Radio Four Briton:

Do you believe the Shoah occurred?

Yes.

Do you believe that the numbers that are used in contemporary historical record are right?

No!”   

20121130 - WordWeb 0626

[Image] Arthur R. Butz (left) is an associate professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University, and author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, a book denying the Holocaust. He achieved tenure in 1974 and currently teaches classes in control system theory and digital signal processing.

[Image] Germar Rudolf (middle) (born 29 October 1964) is a German chemist and Holocaust revisionist. He became first known in the early 1990s for writing an expert report about the alleged extermination of Jews in the infamous German wartime concentration camp at Auschwitz. He later expanded his publishing activities and became one of the most prolific revisionist writers, editors and publishers worldwide — until his arrest in 2005. He subsequently spent 44 months in prison for his peaceful writings.

[Image] Robert Faurisson (right) (born January 25, 1929) is a French academic and a Holocaust revisionist. After the passage of the Gayssot Act against Holocaust denial in 1990, Faurisson was prosecuted and fined. In 1991, he was dismissed from his academic post. Since late 2008, Faurisson has become close to the comedian and political activist Dieudonné M’bala M’bala. Dieudonné awarded Robert Faurisson an “insolent outcast” prize. The award was presented by one of Dieudonné’s assistants, Jacky, dressed in a concentration camp uniform with a yellow badge. This earned Dieudonné another court conviction in a long series.

That is interesting. That is Joe Public, who’ve had nothing but one view, are prepared to accept that the figures are exaggerated, which of course if you put it in a certain way will get you imprisoned in certain contemporary Western societies. The irony is that because we have a conflict between state law and power and the desire to crush dissent and historical research, all sorts of little people, nerdy academics — people who don’t look both ways before they cross — get smashed down in the middle, because it’s a doctrine and an ideology of power against power in terms of memory.

If you’re a German citizen and you say what the Israeli state says occurred, you can be imprisoned! 

20121130 - WordWeb 0627

[Image] Yad Vashem is Israel’s official memorial to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, established in 1953 through the Yad Vashem Law passed by the Knesset, Israel’s parliament.

This is a fact, because Yad Vashem says that the number of victims for the Shoah is a half of the number that you’re supposed to use. Therefore we have a situation that European countries will imprison their nationals for saying what the Israeli President can say openly!

But that’s because it’s about power. It’s not about truth! The view is that the significant proportion of the European population believe that the post-war settlement was unjust, that it was victor’s justice, that the government in 1948 — although Adenauer may have genuine sides to him and was broadly speaking conservative in difficult circumstances — nevertheless his regime was a partly illegitimate one. That there is unfinished business there, that America’s domination of half of the Continent was a different version of Soviet domination of the other half of the Continent. That the endless laws of memory, and trace of memory, are an endless vilification of German people and people of Germanic ancestry.

During the 1970s and ’80s there was an enormous split in Germany between the generations, and there was an enormous amount of intergenerational hatred, and far-Left terrorism grew out of that: a rebellion against everything German, a rebellion against everything that had gone before, a destruction and a hostility towards everything that was prior. You had very great oddities, though because some of these revolutionary Left groups ended up fighting against Israel with the Palestinians: fanatically anti-Zionist but would kill anyone for a scintilla of what they deemed anti-Semitism. So you get these strange combinations as you always do within a crucible of history.

But nevertheless, the extraordinary damage psychologically and sort of intestinally, that was done to modern Germany by the self-hatred and loathing that has been institutionalized there as a result of the discourse of the Shoah, is incalculable.

The Jewish-American novelist Norman Mailer said that the real victims of the Second World War were the Germans. A revolutionary statement, and in many ways a truthful one. What he means by that is that the people have been partly spiritually destroyed, morally destroyed. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0628

[Image] Norman Kingsley Mailer (1923 – 2007) was an American novelist, journalist, essayist, playwright, film maker, actor and political candidate. His first novel was The Naked and the Dead, published in 1948.

Because before you take a structure down, you take it down spiritually and morally and in terms of its ethical sense of itself. You take down that which is above the top consciousness of the rational mind. You take down that which leads to a morally efficacious sense of self. If you grew up believing that you’re descended from murderers and your nationality is worthless, and the most extreme form that your nationality took has no value — and even the communist states have an element of that — you will end up with a self-loathing population as Benoist has described it, which characterizes a large number of Western individuals at the present time.

It’s a sort of moral and psychological form of cancer, and almost everybody who doesn’t like the changes in Western societies has had this moment. Almost everybody who’s thought “I might in the 1970s vote National Front . . .

No you don’t!

What do you mean?

No you don’t!

Because you’re going to be linked to a trajectory that links you to this, and a lot of Caucasian people feel, “Oh my God, you know, to sort of assert myself in a minor and nationalist way, I will be re-routing my sensibility through what is presented as ‘the dungeon’; the sort of Fred and Rosemary West writ large.

Your average Western person says, “No! No I’m not going there. I’m not going there. A bit of conservatism’s alright. But I’m not going there!” And this means that we are, or have been left partly mentally defenseless in relation to many of the changes which have occurred. It’s a sort of secular version of a fall, in a way, and there is within contemporary liberalism the belief that there’s a denied God that needs a Devil, an extraordinary parallelism in the use of this idea.

People who hold these sorts of ideas, these sorts of historians including Serge Thion, who’s a Leftist, including Noam Chomsky who wrote an introduction to Faurisson’s book saying he should be given at least freedom of speech, for which he was vilified by neo-conservative lobbies in the United States. Everybody who’s gone into this area faces demonization. Not just white people either. Anyone who touches this area faces it, and it’s created a sort of paralysis and a double reflex in our entire population. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0629

[Image] Serge Thion (born 1942) is a French sociologist. A former researcher at the French National Center for Scientific Research, he was dismissed from his position there for “Holocaust denial” activities.

It means that the most Right-wing view that’s allowed in our society is virtually President Bush and those around him. That’s where you can go and remain within the spectrum of the non-demonic within secular modernity. You go outside that, you are morally other.

And it is not nonsense that I’m speaking. Almost every self-conscious generation that’s come up since the war has this moment, irrespective of education, of class, and of everything else. There’s this moment when people will say, “You’re one of them, and it leads to that, and I don’t want to know!

And the problem is that we as a European civility will gradually disappear, because the generations that fought in that particular war and came after will disappear, but the memory and the ideological reinterpretation of these events will not.

Blair was asked in 1999 why the Second World War was fought, and he said it was to protect the Jewish race from extermination. Which is an extraordinary remark and an extraordinarily illiterate remark! This is what you get. Because many Western politicians never inform their population about normative historical truth, an enormous number of people are totally miseducated now.

The fact that the Second World War resulted from a confluence of parallel institutions of power, and the idea that great powers in Europe balanced stable alliances with each other, so that Germany could have one area but not another, and Britain would give guarantee to another state in order to invade, which in the minds of some of the people who made these decisions was the cause of war.

It’s all out of the window with Blair. Blair views the whole of that war — and the present intellectual clerisy and academic and intellectual life; turn on the media that isn’t sport over there and they all agree with this view — this war was fought from the retrospective outcome of ovens at its end. It had nothing to do with rivalry between states, nothing to do with ideological conflict! It had to do with some of the victims of that particular conflict and its aftermath.

So why has this event become so crucial?

It’s become so crucial because it justifies the post-war age.

It justifies Western multiculturalism. It justifies Western multi-racialism. It justifies mass immigration by virtue of reverse. It justifies forms of liberal and attenuated European integration, because separate nationalism is a bad thing. Therefore you integrate to overcome the memory and legacy of events which have occurred. This isn’t theory. No-one’s interested in the European Union, let alone most Europeans, but there is a degree to which whenever they get a chance to vote on these things, a certain mania of consciousness intrudes.

We had a referendum recently in two Continental countries that were before then thought to be very pro-EU. One politician from one of those countries went to stand in the demarcated fields of Auschwitz and said on mass European and world television if people vote “No” in this very minor, methodological referendum/poll they are “voting for the Shoah; they are voting for this!” He later revised — a bit of revisionism on the spot — he later “revised” that sort of remark. Jack Straw said that the rejection of those treaties “would be a moral disaster for Europe.” He later said that he’d said no such thing or meant something completely different. Because a vote before it happens is crucial, and then afterwards you think, “Well, who cares about that?

So there’s a degree to which the post-war world is based upon this. And one of the most crucial reasons for this is the domination of the whole of the Western self-conception by the United States, and the domination of Mid-East politics by Israel and Israel’s conception of itself in relation to the United States, and America’s conception of its own self-interest as almost being aligned with Israel to the degree that maybe there is a little bit of separation, maybe there is a distinct chink of light between the contemporary American nationalist/neo-imperialists and Zionism. But it is so fine a difference and you have radical Protestantism as the cultural discourse in the background that forces — even if there was any difference — a virtual merger between the two.

And this means that European countries, whether they like it or not, in the First and the Second Gulf Wars, were dragged along to fight essentially an Israeli war pursued by American power, whether they wanted to or not. And all the muteness and the partial semi-surrender, and the very weak and rather corrupt French president daring to stand up to the United States and its colossal power, with Germany hiding, literally hiding — contemporary Germany — behind the French, was an attempt at a minor neutralism and which is an attempt not to go along with that.

Britain? We’re in with America, and we go where they go. And any war or adventure they want, we go in as well. We’ve spent six-and-a-half billion of our cash in Iraq. We’ve lost 200 men. We’ve achieved absolutely nothing! Absolutely nothing. And we have done so because in 1956 we attempted a very minor independent move with the Israelis and with the French and earned American disapproval. And that was a very cold burst. And the British establishment doesn’t like cold bursts. And American power faced internally within the West is awesome, even though they have very little idea what to do with it.

And yet, in a strange way, they do know exactly what they’re doing, and what they’re doing is imposing the logic of an attenuated French Revolution, of the American Revolution, on the whole planet. Equality, indeterminacy, aspiritualism, materialism, the right to shop, the right to vote (parts of it are the same), human rights, civil rights, Israel always safe. This is the agenda that’s being pushed all over the world in Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East, in Central and Latin America, which they virtually regard as a dominion and an extension of their own state power, from the Monroe Doctrine onwards.

Now, this means that when you tack against certain historical verities, even in relation to numbers, you are pushing against the nature of the modern world as it’s become, as it’s been constructed. So in a way you are chipping away at the foundations of an enormous edifice.

An element of the emotion around these issues is semi-religious! There are many people who regard blasphemy in relation to this orthodoxy in the way that atheism would have been treated in this country before 1800. It is: you are outside if you posit this. And this is a crucial thing that Right-wing and Europeanist discourse has to confront and has to, in a sense, overcome. The past won’t do it. To just say, “Time will pass, a century will pass. In 40 years from now it’s a century from me to them! People will forget.

No! Because these things will be put before them always and present and forever and a day. They’ll even be used against assertion by the new Russia, a country which can only be fitted into the schema in a sort of strange way, but a power that fought might and main against fascism and has achieved an element of national sense of itself under communism in that war. It has to go along with the feelings of guilt and moral reparation as well, certainly if it’s ever to join the rest of the West in a wholehearted way. And if you are perceived as a country that links at all with the ideas of the regimes that fell in flames and have been demonized by trial, even if you fought against them in the past, you are part of that trajectory of guilt and that solidarity of lost innocence.

Now, the figures that were adumbrated immediately after the war of seven-and-a-half million have come down to six, have come down to four-and-a-half according to Norman Stone. Raul Hilberg, for instance, would push that much further down. So we have a sort of collapse in some of the paraphernalia of this particular historical narrative. But what’s really happened is that the political use of this has partly separated off from revisionism and counter-revisionism, because it’s become an ideological arrow, bludgeon, weapon, independent of the facts.

So there is a degree to which, even if there is a sort of conceptual shift — like your computer goes down, “clunk” and then you reboot it, and it comes up again — and Western ideology in the next 50 years, from the top down, recomposes itself to say, “Well there was an error about these figures, and there was Communist post-war exaggeration particularly from Poland, and we’re now revising it all for you, maybe for a lesser figure.

But the impact of the moral statement will in a sense be the same or different. Indeed, to say that because the figure may well be less, that less of a moral crime is imputed, will be made to be worse than the prior discourse, because it’s not really about those who suffered and those who died and those who didn’t in a particular way. It’s about who rules the West, and who rules Britain, and who rules the United States, and what the future of the world will be.

At the moment we have an enormous “clash of civilizations” as it’s called, and much of the Western world is now convulsed by the idea that we are pitched headlong into an antithetical struggle with the Islamic world. You only have to turn on the news broadcast to see that. And many ordinary Westerners internalize this and cannot at all understand, in many ways, what is going on. Has communism been replaced by a new bloc in secular Western terms that we need to oppose?

But in actual fact, of course, although cultures and civilizations will clash and will often clash violently with each other, the reason for these wars and the reason for this contestation began in 1945, began in 1939, began in 1914 and is a continuation of these processes that may even predate that. We are always in a situation whereby if we were to chart an independent course we would have to overthrow American foreign policy in the last 50 years.

I was once asked on a platform for a party [5] that I used to be a member of — that changed its opinions about some of these matters several years ago — what my view of Israel was, and I said — and everyone else on the platform had refuted what I’d said before I’d said it, which is an interesting conceit — and I said, “Israel is a terrorist state, and is not a morally legitimate one.

Horror! But he’s posh, and he’s got a bow tie on, so we’ll let him say it. But there was moral horror. And this is a group that is regarded as fascistic, don’t forget. This is a group that is regarded as a far-Right group by the media. The Guardian would say they’ve just changed their lines to accommodate themselves to new realities. It’s just cynicism.

In actual fact it’s not quite that actually. It’s cynicism and other things as well, all combined. But, there’s a degree to which we will be dragged into war after war in relation to the Third World, in relation to American power politics over the Gulf and their need for oil, but also we will be systemically dragged in to the radical and increasingly radical consequences of the post-war dispensation. The fact that in a way the governments and opportunities of white people in Europe that were occupied twice over after 1945 by communism and American capitalism and by a particular world view which is not a European one, and that the occupation of the West was subtler and deeper and more invasive and more destructive than the occupation of the East.

Communism killed and chopped off the arms and behaved like you’re on a Procrustean bed. “You want more sympathy? We’ll cut another finger off!

But American domination was subtler, more deconstructive. It’s broken down people in the West far more than people, though physically savage, were broken in the East, because it’s destroyed elements of their self-respect. Peter Hain was asked recently, “What has Western civilization achieved?” He said, “Nothing! . . . Nothing at all!

He said “Nothing at all!” 

20121130 - WordWeb 0630

[Image] Peter Gerald Hain (born 16 February 1950) is a British Labour Party politician, who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Neath since 1991, and served in the Cabinets of both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

These are the people,” he said with his finger in the air, “these are the people,” he was then negotiating the peace deal in Northern Ireland, “these are the people who gave us Stalin,” interesting as he’s a Leftist, “Stalin and Hitler, these are the people who gave us that!

It’s interesting isn’t it? This is his own civilization as he allegedly perceives it, and all we’ve done is that!

We’ve created no millennial civilization. There have been no libraries. There’s been no classical or neo-classical sculpture. There’s been no Beethoven. There’s just death and pillage and authoritarianism. This is allegedly what we are responsible for. And this is a man in our government! As though we’re beasts without mind and without wit and without intelligence.

There’s an irony here. When somebody’s uncultured, when somebody’s boorish or doesn’t know anything about art and those kind of things, they’re called a philistine. There are certain archaeologists who have actually dug down and looked at the Philistine culture. And the Philistine culture, such as it was, was not quite as barren, not quite as stupid, not quite as archaic as one might suppose, or their enemies supposed. And there’s an important lesson there, and that is that civilization and barbarism — often in a Western, Faustian context — are interwoven with each other.

We believe in the ferocious remaking of reality, moment by moment and layer by layer. Our previous speaker partly touched on some of the dynamics in our very complicated, fluid, but also hard civilization. When you ask a contemporary liberal what do they believe, they don’t really know, and they fear that if they authenticate themselves they will be revisiting the after-effects of the Shoah. That’s the truth. That is the mental construction that people face. It’s almost tendentious, if somebody says a bit too militantly, “I like the music of Richard Wagner!” That implication is only just under the surface. And it’s only just under the surface of being under the surface if you say Beethoven and Mozart instead of Wagner. It’s there! Any white self-assertion is regarded as an act of semi-criminality now, and it is because we cannot face certain facts, certain misreading of facts.

Let’s have a few facts. Hundreds of thousands of Germans who were pushed out of Slavic countries they’d been in for centuries, decimation of German cities by British terror bombing (let’s face it), total destruction of those cities. A friend of mine called Bill Hopkins once told me that if you went to Hamburg — and I believe he was in the RAF there in ’48 — the stench in summer of all the bodies under the buildings was unbearable, unbearable in the height of summer. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0607

[Image] Bill Hopkins (5 May 1928 – 6 May 2011) was a Welsh novelist and journalist, and has been grouped with the Angry Young Men. His father was Ted Hopkins, a popular stage performer; his mother Violet Brodrick. He is survived by his German-born wife.

Let’s have a few other facts: massacres of large numbers of white Russian prisoners who fought on the Axis side because they had become “enemies of the people.” When we decamped them back to Yugoslavia, and they went before people’s courts to receive the summary justice of the masses.

The large number of death squads who roamed French towns and villages after the Liberation with white sort of things on their sleeves and they said, “We’re with the Free Forces of the French Interior.” And you had a book by Charles Maurras on your shelf, and they drag you out, and shoot you in the back of the head, and put your body in a ditch. “Purification” it was called, the purging of those who had collaborated in a corps, against the interests of the French masses and humanity, and so on and so on. 

20121130 - WordWeb 0631

[Image] Charles-Marie-Photius Maurras (1868 – 1952) was a French author, poet, and critic. He was a leader and principal thinker of Action Française, a political movement that was monarchist, anti-parliamentarist, and counter-revolutionary.

You see there are facts and facts. And there are those that are used one way and those that are used another. When America bombed Serbian positions in the 1990s, they said they were doing it to “stop ethnic cleansing.” But Israel is based on ethnic cleansing. So one standard for one and one standard for another.

But that’s life, and that’s power, and that’s the reality and the vortex of power. What we have to do is to understand that things have been used against us for ideological reasons, irrespective of the facts, and only when we have the courage to do that will we revive.

So it’s really only when a leader of revivalist opinion is asked, “Well what’s your view of the Shoah then?

And they say, “We’ve stepped over that.

What do you mean you’ve ‘stepped over’ that? Are you minimizing its importance to humanity?

You say, “We are minimizing its importance to our form of humanity!

At the present the United States Congress is trying to push through a sort of moral “statement,” if you like, and they’re always very keen on this, saying the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians at the end of the Great War. This is causing great contravention, because they need Turkish support given the situation in northern Iraq. As we speak, the Turks have massed a large part of their army on the north Kurdish border to invade, to attack a Marxist group that’s attacking Turkish territory.

The Turkish state has put out what would be regarded as revisionist ideology for most of the 20th century actually. You can get it from quite a lot of Turkish embassies and so on. And yet they also would contextualize much of the violence: as many Turks died as Armenians, different groups were involved in the slaughter, marches by one were met by hostility and massacres by another.

When Saddam Hussein was arraigned and tried, he was tried for gassing a Kurdish village. But don’t forget they were fighting a war which was called by some a First World War-type war often with gas, which was used by both sides in the Great War in the West of course. The Kurds fought on both sides simultaneously. The Iranians and the Iraqis both used gas. In the vortex of a war and the context of such struggle, to abstract one line of events and one series of interpretations and to arraign those who are responsible as criminals before humanity — a bit like Mafia leaders who are to be strung up on butcher’s hooks — this is part of the discourse of power, not of history. But history is about power, and that’s the situation that we find ourselves in!

So I do advise people, before these books are banned and before various people fish around under their beds looking for this book: “Sanning? What on Earth’s that? And why has it got such a cheap cover?” “What’s inside it?” And this sort of thing. Well this book called The Hoax of the Twentieth Century or another book called Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence. Or some of the ones that Germar Rudolf’s presently incarcerated for are up-to-date versions of some of these things.  

One of the interesting counter-methodologies is that as the death totals in the most notorious camp of all have gone down and down and down, the burden of guilt/proof has been shifted to other camps (many of which don’t even exist now). Because you have to keep the primary figure, because propagandistically the great fear and the great threat is that it will be destroyed.

I’ll end with one quote.

There is a minor political historian who was at the University of Bath in the West Country of England. And he wrote a book about Fascism in the last ten years. [6] And he was asked about Revisionism, and he was asked particularly about Holocaust Day and the Shoah and its use in schools, and its use in primary schools, as a weapon of . . . as a “means of moral instruction.

And he said: “I’m worried about it.

And the researcher said, “You’re worried? Why are you worried?

And he said, “There’re two problems with it.  One, there’s too many Muslims in British schools, and some of them will stand up and say ‘I don’t believe in it,’ and then the propagandistic effect dips with white children.” And the second thing, he said, is, “There are too many lies that have been told about it after the war, too many lies, and it’s becoming dangerous propagandistically!” And this chap said, “Well if that’s the case, what do we do?

He said, “Ah, ah, ah! I’ve got an answer. What we do is we conflate that in with all other crimes, so we have a ‘Genocide Day’ to deny the self-affirmation of all groups!

Because ultimately, you see, the logic that applies to us will apply to everyone. Because identity, if it leads to the consequence through history of massacre, will affect all groups. So all groups partially de-scale or de-escalate all of their rival and competing identities. So we have One World for us all. That is in some ways what is proposed.

That is why, although radical Right people are thought by others to be full of hate against other groups and so on, it’s actually a philosophical position of extreme conservatism: about structures from the past and how they relate to where we are now, and also how we can live on this planet together without losing identity which gives life meaning. Because without it, there is no context for art or beauty or philosophy or science or knowledge or progress of any sort. Because if somebody says to you “Who are you and what are you?” and you have no answer, all civilization will have come to an end.

Right-wing views are about difference, they’re about inequality, they’re about distinction, and they’re about meaning. So I advise you to have a look at a few of these texts on the internet before Mrs. Merkel drags you away!

Thank you very much.

———————————-

Notes

1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2. Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004).

3. Referring, apparently, to a big-screen television in an adjacent room

4. Rebatet was not put to death. Bowden seems to be referring to Brasillach here.

5. The British National Party 6. Roger Eatwell, Fascism: A History (London: Chatto & Windus, 1995).

———————————-

These two books can be freely downloaded from this website:

https://archive.org/details/HoaxOfTheTwentiethCentury

and

https://archive.org/details/Auschwitz-AJudgeLooksAtTheEvidence

20121130 - WordWeb 0632      20121130 - WordWeb 0608

Arthur R. Butz: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century—The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry
3rd, revised and expanded edition  First published in 1976, this slightly revised and enhanced edition of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century is the seminal work of “Holocaust” revisionism and still the most widely read on the subject.

In 502 pages of penetrating study and lucid commentary, Dr. Butz gives the reader a graduate course on the subject of the Jews of World War Two Europe – concluding not only that they were not virtually wiped out, but what’s more, that no evidence exists to date to confirm that there was ever any Hitler attempt to do so.

Chapter by solidly referenced chapter, Dr. Butz applies the scientist’s rigorous clinical technique to every cornerstone of the legend. He focuses on the post-war crimes trials where the prosecution’s false “evidence” was secured by coercion and even torture. He re-examines the very German records so long misrepresented; he critiques the European demographics, which do not allow for the loss of the “Six Million”; he re-evaluates the concept and technical feasibility of the “gas chambers” with some startling conclusions; and he separates the cold facts from the sheer tonnage of disinformation that has served as a formidable barrier to the truth since the end of WWII.

This is the book that has caused unprecedented shockwaves throughout the academic and political world. Its open sale has been banned in an increasing number of countries including Germany and Canada. It is a book violently denounced by those unable to refute its thesis – the most hysterical reactions to it coming from those whose own historical views cannot withstand the light of honest review.

Now in its third edition, five major supplements have been added to bring the reader up-to-date on the continuing “Holocaust” controversy and its impact almost everywhere World War Two is discussed. A best-seller by any meaningful standard, yet still ignored and maligned by the people who have known of it but have never even made the effort to read it, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century is a book you must read if you want a clear picture of the scope and magnitude of the historical cover-up of our age, who is behind it, and what can be done to put an end to it.

We have known about it [The Hoax of the Twentieth Century] for some time. But we didn’t want to give it any publicity and help the sales. Now it’s too late; it’s out in the open and we have to face it squarely.” —Abbot A. Rosen, Chicago Executive Director, ADL, Pittsburgh Press, Jan. 26, 1977

 

======================================

PDF of this blog post. Click to view or download.

>>  Jonathan Bowden on Revisionism

 

Version History
Version 1: Published Mar 26, 2014
Posted in Holocaust, Jews, Johnathan Bowden, Revisionism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Nameless War : Appendixes

The Nameless War ~ Appendixes

 

 

by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay

1952

THE NAMELESS WAR

by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay

Britons Publishing Company

London

1952

Reprinted 1956, 1977. Other reprints in Australia and elsewhere.

Sometimes with abridgements

Internet

AAARGH

2009

COMPLETE TEXT SIMILAR TO THE PRINTED EDITION.

 

 

THE AUTHOR:  Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay was educated at Eton and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and served with the 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916 — thereafter at Regimental H.Q. and the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of the war.

 

From 1920 he became a Member of H.M. Scottish Bodyguard.

 

In 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire.

 

Arrested under Regulation 18b on the 23rd May, 1940, he was detained, without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th September, 1944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament in 1945.
 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

PROLOGUE

1. THE BRITISH REVOLUTION

2. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

3. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

4. DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE

5. GERMANY BELLS THE CAT

6. 1933: JEWRY DECLARES WAR

7. “PHONEY WAR” ENDED BY CIVILIAN BOMBING

8. DUNKIRK AND AFTER

9. THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

10. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S ROLE

11. REGULATION 18B

12. WHO DARES?

EPILOGUE

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4

APPENDIX 5

 


APPENDIX 1

 

 

Les Estatutz de la Jeuerie 1275.

From The Statues of The Realm. Vol. 1, page 221.

 

THE STATUTES OF JEWRY

 

Usury forbidden to the Jews.

Forasmuch as the King hath seen that divers evils and the disinheriting of good men of his land have happened by the usuries which the Jews have made in time past, and that divers sins have followed thereupon albeit that he and his ancestors have received much benefit from the Jewish people in all times past, nevertheless, for the honour of God and the common benefit of the people the King hath ordained and established, that from henceforth no Jew shall lend anything at usury either upon land, or upon rent or upon other thing.

Distress for Jews.

And that the distress for debts due unto the Jews from henceforth shall not be so grievous but that the moiety of lands and chattels of the Christians shall remain for their maintenance: and that no distress shall be made for a Jewry debt upon the heir of the debtor named in the Jew’s deed, nor upon any other person holding the land that was the debtor’s before that the debt be put in suit and allowed in court.

Valuing lands taken for a Jew’s debt.

And if the sheriff or other bailiff by the King’s command hath to give Saisin (possession) to a Jew be it one or more, for their debt, the chattels shall be valued by the oaths of good men and be delivered to the Jew or Jews or to their proxy to the amount of the debt; and if the chattels be not sufficient, the lands shall be extended by the same oath before the delivery of Saisin to the Jew or Jews, to each in his due proportion, so that it may be certainly known that the debt is quit, and the Christian may have his land again; saving always to the Christian the moiety of his land and chattels for his maintenance as aforesaid, and the chief mansion.

Warranty to Jews.

And if any moveable hereafter be found in possession of a Jew, and any man shall sue him the Jew shall be allowed his warranty if he may have it; and if not let him answer therefore so that he be not therein otherwise privileged than a Christian.

Abode of Jews.

And that all Jews shall dwell in the King’s own cities and boroughs where the chests of the chirographs of Jews are wont to be.

Their badge.

And that each Jew after he shall be seven years old, shall wear a badge on his outer garment that is to say in the form of two tables joined of yellow felt of the length of six inches and of the breadth of three inches.

Their tax.

And that each one, after he shall be twelve years old pay three pence yearly at Easter of tax to the King whose bond-man he is; and this shall hold place as well for a woman as for a man.

Conveyance of land, etc., by Jews.

And that no Jew shall have the power to infeoff (take possession of) another whether Jew or Christian of houses, rents, or tenements, that he now hath, nor to alien in any other manner, nor to make acquittance to any Christian of his debt without the special license of the King, until the King shall have otherwise ordained therein.

Privileges of the Jews.

And forasmuch as it is the will and sufferance of Holy Church that they may live and be preserved, the King taketh them under his protection, and granteth them his peace; and willeth that they be safely preserved and defended by his sherriffs and other bailiffs and by his liege men, and commandeth that none shall do them harm or damage, or wrong in their bodies or in their goods, moveable or immovable, and they shall neither plead nor be impleaded in any court nor be challenged or troubled in any court except in the court of the King whose bondmen they are; and that none shall owe obedience, or service or rent except to the King or his bailiffs in his name unless it be for their dwelling which they now hold by paying rent; saving the right of Holy Church.

Intercourse between Jews and Christians.

And the King granteth unto them that they may gain their living by lawful merchandise and their labour, and that they may have intercourse with Christians in order to carry on lawful trade by selling and buying. But that no Christian for this cause or any other shall dwell among them. And the King willeth that they shall not by reason of their merchandise be put to lot and soot nor in taxes with the men of the cities and boroughs where they abide; for that they are taxable to the King as his bondmen and to none other but the King.

Holding houses and farms. etc.

Moreover the King granteth unto them that they may buy houses and castilages in the cities and boroughs where thg abide, so that they hold them in chief of the King; saving unto the lords of the fee their services due and accustomed. And that they may take and buy farms or land for the term of ten years or less without taking homages or fealties or such sort of obedience from Christians and without having advowsons of churches, and that they may be able to gain their living in the world, if they have not the means of trading or cannot labour; and this licence to take land to farm shall endure to them for fifteen years from this time forward.

Note: The Parliament which passed this Statute included representatives of the Commons, and this was probably the first Statute in the enactment of which the Commons had any part. It is significant that the first evidence of the feelings and wishes of the commoners should have expressed itself in such a form as in these Statues of Jewry, in face of the fact, clearly evident in the script, that the Kings owed much to Jewish activities having demanded monies from the Jews regularly and permitted them in turn to recoup themselves from the people.

 

 

 

APPENDIX 2

 

 

THE JEWS IN BRITAIN

 

1215 Magna Carta

1255 Ritual murder of St. Hugh of Lincoln. Henry III personally ordered trial and 18 culprits were executed — all Jews.

1275 The Statute of Jewry passed; confined Jews to certain areas, forbade usury to them and also ownership of land and contact with the people: compelled them to wear a yellow badge.

1290 Edward I banished the Jews from England.

1657 Oliver Cromwell, having been financed by Manasseh Ben Israel and Moses Carvajal, allows Jews to return to England, though order of banishment never rescinded by Parliament.

1689 Amsterdam Jews financed the rebellion against King James II. The chief of these — Solomon Medina — follows William of Orange to England.

1694 The Bank of “England” set up and the National Debt instituted, securing for the Jew moneylenders a first charge on the taxes of England for interest on their loans. The right to print money transferred from the Crown to this “Bank of England”.

1707 Economic and political union forced upon Scotland against the vote of every county and borough; the national debt foisted upon Scotland, and the royal mint in Edinburgh suppressed.

 

 

 

APPENDIX 3

 

 

FAMOUS MEN ON THE JEWS

Seneca B.C. 4 to A.D. 5

The customs of this accursed people have grown so strong, that they have spread through every land.

St Justin 116 A.D.

The Jews were behind all the persecutions of the Christians. They wandered through the country everywhere hating and undermining the Christian faith.

Mohammed 570

It is incomprehensible to me, why one has not long ago expelled these death-breathing beasts … are these Jews anything else but devourers of men?

Martin Luther 1483

How the Jews love the book of Esther, which is so suitable to their bloodthirsty, revengeful, murderous appetite and hope. The sun has never shone on such a bloodthirsty and vindictive people, who cherish the idea of murdering and strangling the heathen. No other men under the sun are more greedy than they have been, and always will be, as one can see from their accursed usury.

They console themselves that when their Messiah comes he will collect all the gold and silver in the world and divide it among them.

Clement VIII Pope 1592

All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate peoples into a state of poverty, especially farmers, working-class people, and the very poor.

Voltaire 1694

The Jews are nothing but an ignorant and barbaric people, which have for a long time combined the most loathsome avarice with the most abominable superstition and inextinguishable hated of all peoples by whom they are tolerated, and through whom they are enriched.

Napoleon

I decided to improve the Jews: but I do not want any more of them in my Kingdom: indeed, I have done all to prove my scorn of the vilest nation in the world.

Benjamin Franklin 1789

Statement in the Convention, concerning Jewish Immigration:

There is a great danger for the United States of America, this great danger is the Jew. Gentlemen, in every land which the Jews have settled, they have depressed the normal level and lowered the degree of commercial honesty. They have remained apart and unassimilated — they have created a state within a state, and when they are opposed they attempt to strangle the nation financially as in the case of Portugal and Spain. For more than 1700 years, they have lamented their sorrowful fate — namely, that they were driven out of their motherland, but gentlemen, if the civilized world today should give them back Palestine and their property, they would immediately find pressing reasons for not returning there. Why? Because they are vampires — they cannot live among themselves; they must live among Christians and others who do not belong to their race.

“If they are not excluded from the United States by the Constitution, within less than 100 years, they will stream into this country in such numbers they will rule and destroy us and change our form of Government for which we Americans shed our blood and sacrificed life, property and personal freedom. If the Jews are not excluded, within 200 years our children will be working in the fields to feed the Jews while they remain in the Counting House gleefully rubbing their hands.

I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude the Jews forever, your children’s children will curse you in your graves. Their ideas are not those of Americans even when they have lived among us for ten generations. The leopard cannot change its spots. The Jews are a danger to this land and if they are allowed to enter they will imperil our institutions — they should be excluded by the Constitution.

[As far as we know, this is a hoax — B. Franklin never uttered these words. aaargh]

Copy of leaflet designed by the Author after the Munich Agreement: 

Are you Aware that . . .

MR. CHAMBERLAIN was Burnt in Effigy in Moscow as soon as it was known that he had secured Peace, showing very clearly WHO WANTED WAR and who are still working ceaselessly to stir up strife all the world over?

————————————————

Issued by the MILITANT CHRISTIAN PATRIOTS, 93 Chancery Lane, W.C. 1 (HOLborn 2137), and printed by W. Whitchead, 22 Lisle st, W.C.2

 

 

 

APPENDIX 5

 

Reprinted from Free Britain June 1954

THE OFFICIAL GAG

Lord Jowitt, either with a belated desire to do Justice to Captain Ramsay or now cautious of repeating the fabrications of the past, has admitted in his memoirs of the War Trials, published in the London Evening Standard of May 13th, that the defendants in the Tyler Kent affair were all along acting in good faith.

Lord Jowitt, in order to publish these memoirs at all, has been forced to make a point which neither Captain Ramsay nor Anna Wolkoff are even yet permitted to make in their own defense, the nature of the documents concerned in the case having been declared an Official Secret which they may not divulge.

Others, however, are now free to state what they have known from the beginning, namely, that Captain Ramsay was never at any time endeavouring to communicate with Germany but was trying to communicate certain information to the then Prime Minister, Mr Chamberlain, with Mr. Chamberlain was expecting and which, because of Captain Ramsay’s arrest, never reached him.

Something of this information later reached Mr. Chamberlain by other channels, however, for it was disclosed in the Forestall Diaries that Mr. Chamberlain had become convinced, and actually told Mr. Forestall, that powerful Jewish circles in New York were solely responsible for maneuvering Britain into the war, unsuspected by him at the time although he was Prime Minister and ought to have been informed of what was going on.

The wedge that was driven between Mr. Chamberlain and Captain Ramsay was the lock-up and the abuse of the Official Secrets Act, followed by the elaborate dissemination of the complete fabrication by the Home Office that “the said Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay, M.P. . . had expressed his desire to co-operate with the German Government in the conquest and subsequent government of Great Britain.” Later the Lord Marley added further to this fabrication by stating in the House of Lords that he had it on good authority that Captain Ramsay had agreed to become Gauliter of Scotland under a German occupation of Great Britain. He ignored the challenge of Captain Ramsay’s lawyers to repeat the charge outside the House.

For fourteen years Lord Jowitt must have been well aware that Captain Ramsay was conducting an investigation in order to satisfy Mr. Chamberlain that there was documentary evidence for the facts already disclosed to him by Captain Ramsay, and that Captain Ramsay’s arrest was made to prevent that documentary evidence from being presented to the Prime Minister. But it has taken all these years for Lord Jowitt to concede that Captain Ramsay is an honest man who “would never have countenanced any act which he recognized as being against the interests of his country.

C.P.

—————- END —————-

 

 

 

BEWARE

The reader should avoid to download a copy of this book from http: //www.biblebelievers.org.au/ as it is severely truncated and heavily censored.

We have been using a printed (but undated) copy to which we have imposed some slight corrections. aaargh

AAARGH The website was founded in 1996 by an international team

http: //vho.org/aaargh http: //aaargh.com.mx

We work in French, English, German, Spanish, Italian, Rumenian, Russian, Chech, Danish, Indonesian, Portuguese, Dutch, Hungarian, Arabic, Polish, Swedish, Greek, Turkish…

The Yearlies of AAARGH http: //revurevi.net

Conseils de révision Gaette du Golfe et des banlieues The Revisionist Clarion Il resto del siclo El Paso del Ebro Das kausale Nexusblatt O revisionismo em lengua português Arménichantage

New additions on AAARGH http: //aaargh.com.mx/fran/nouv.html http: //vho.org/aaargh/fran/nouv.html

Books (380) published by AAARGH on Internet http: //vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/livres.html http: //aaargh.com.mx/fran/livres/livres.html

Documents, compilations, AAARGH Reprints http: //aaargh.com.mx/fran/livres/reprints.html http: //vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/reprints.html

Free subscribe: (e-mail)

revclar

yahoo.com.au elrevisionista

yahoo.com.ar Captain RAMSAY; The Nameless War — 106 —

Mail:

aaarghinternational

hotmail.com

We claim to be protected by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; http: //www.un.org/Overview/rights.html AAARGH, TO AVOID DYING STUPID.

Make copies of the site. Join AAARGH. Broadcast AAARGH. Work for AAARGH. Let’s toil for our common freedom.

LET’S TRAMPLE THE CENSORS.

———————————————-

 

 

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 1 & 2

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 3 & 4

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 5 & 6

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 7 – 10

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 11 & 12

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Epilogue

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Appendixes

 

 

 

PDF of this blog post. Click to view or download.

>>THE NAMELESS WAR Appendix

 

Complete book (clean text PDF) 0.6 MB. >>

THE NAMELESS WAR by A M Ramsay (1952)

 

 

Version History

 

Version 5: Sep 5, 2019 – Re-uploaded images and PDFs for katana17.com version.

 

Version 4: Nov 25, 2014 – Added PDF of complete book.

 

Version 3: Entered missing text, formatting and added links – Sep 27, 2014

 

Version 2: Mon, Feb 17, 2014. Added PDF file.

 

Version 1: Published Feb 16 2014

Posted in Bk - The Nameless War, Jews, The International Jew | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

The Nameless War : Epilogue

The Nameless War

Epilogue

 

by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay

1952

THE NAMELESS WAR

by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay

Britons Publishing Company

London

1952

Reprinted 1956, 1977. Other reprints in Australia and elsewhere.

Sometimes with abridgements

Internet

AAARGH

2009

COMPLETE TEXT SIMILAR TO THE PRINTED EDITION.

 

 

THE AUTHOR:  Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay was educated at Eton and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and served with the 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916 — thereafter at Regimental H.Q. and the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of the war.

 

From 1920 he became a Member of H.M. Scottish Bodyguard.

 

In 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire.

 

Arrested under Regulation 18b on the 23rd May, 1940, he was detained, without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th September, 1944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament in 1945.
 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

PROLOGUE

1. THE BRITISH REVOLUTION

2. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

3. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

4. DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE

5. GERMANY BELLS THE CAT

6. 1933: JEWRY DECLARES WAR

7. “PHONEY WAR” ENDED BY CIVILIAN BOMBING

8. DUNKIRK AND AFTER

9. THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

10. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S ROLE

11. REGULATION 18B

12. WHO DARES?

EPILOGUE

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4

APPENDIX 5

 

 

EPILOGUE

 

 

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 [90] “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.

 

 

STATEMENT

 

Statement by Capt. Ramsey from Brixton Prison to the Speaker and Members of Parliament concerning his detention under Paragraph 18B of the Defence Regulations.

All the particulars alleged as grounds for my detention are based on charges that my attitude and activities in opposition to Communism, Bolshevism, and the policy of organised Jewry were not genuine, but merely a camouflage for anti-British designs.

In the following memorandum, which could be greatly expanded, I have given a minimum of facts, which prove that not only was my attitude genuine, open, and unvarying during the whole of my time in the House of Commons, but that in the course of my researches I had accumulated numerous and conclusive facts compelling such an attitude, and leading logically to the formation of the Right Club, an essentially patriotic organisation.

During the whole of my time as M.P. (since 1931) I have kept up an open and unremitting attack on Bolshevism and its allies. Indeed, I had already started this opposition long before I became an M.P.

The following survey will show this; and also the eventual formation of the Right Club as the logical outcome of my work.

This work falls into three phases.

During the first, dating from soon after the Russian Revolution till about 1935, I supposed the powers behind Bolshevism to be Russian: In the second (1935-38) I appreciated that they were International: By the third phase, I realised them to be Jewish.

 

PHASE I.

It was always a mystery to me in Phase I why Russians spent so much time and money on revolutionary activities in Britain.

My first active step was to speak in the election made famous by the publication in the Daily Mail of the letter written by Zinoviev alias Apfelbaum, calling for revolution in Britain. (I spoke against Bolshevism, and in the Northwich division.)

On being elected in 1931, I joined the Russian Trade Committee, which kept a watch on their activities here. I also joined the Council of the Christian Protest Movement, founded to protest against the outrages on priests, nuns, and the Christian churches committed by the Bolsheviks. Hansard will show that I asked many questions during this period, attacking their activities in this country.

 

PHASE II.

In Phase II, I recognised the forces behind Bolshevism not to be Russian, but international.

I tried to picture the composition of that mysterious body, the Comintern, over whom, according to the replies to my Parliamentary questions, the Soviet Government could exercise no control.

In the latter end of this phase I had made sufficient progress with this mental picture of the Comintern, that I made it the subject of a number of addresses, which I gave to Rotary Clubs and other societies in London, Edinburgh, and elsewhere, entitling them frequently, Red Wings Over Europe.

This second phase lasted well into the Spanish Civil War. Recognising almost at once the guilt of the Comintern in the whole affair, down to the International Brigade, I attacked them continuously by a stream of questions in the House.

The attitude of the entire British national Press at first amazed, and subsequently helped to enlighten me, as to the real powers behind World Revolution. The press presented General Franco’s enemies as liberal and Protestant reformers, instead of the anti-God international revolutionaries they were.

Officials of the Russian Cheka were actually in charge of the prisons on the Red side. McGovern established all the main facts in his pamphlet, Red Terror in Spain.

I organised parades of sandwich-men at this time to expose the Bolshevik guilt in Spain, assisted a paper called The Free Press, and did what propaganda I could. Some eighty or ninety M.P.s subscribed at one time or another to these efforts.

In September 1937 I accepted the Chairmanship of the United Christian Front Committee, on behalf of Sir Henry Lunn. Thereafter many thousands of letters were sent out over my signature to leading people in the Kingdom, appraising them of the true facts of the war in Spain, and urging Christians of all communities to join in combating the Godless Red Terror, that threatened Spain then, and thereafter all Europe, Britain included.

A number of patriotic societies now began to co-operate regularly with me in this work against Bolshevism, including the National Citizens’ Union, the British Empire League, the Liberty Restoration League, and the Economic League. We took to meeting regularly in a Committee Room of the House of Commons.

In May 1936, when I set out to oppose the entry into this country of agents of the Comintern for attending the so-called Godless Congress, we were joined by the British Bible Union, the Order of the Child, and the British Israel World Federation. From information given me by these societies, I realized that the previous Godless Congress, held at Prague, had brought under unified control all the National Free-Thinker societies, who were now under the authority of the Militant Godless of Russia, and were therefore a subtle and potent weapon for Bolshevik propaganda.

At our meetings to co-ordinate opposition, we all agreed that while it was perhaps the right of British men and women to hold a Congress on any subject, this liberty should not be construed into licence for international revolutionaries to develop their plans for the destruction of the religious, social and public life of our country.

On the 28th June, therefore, I introduced a Bill entitled the ALIENS’ RESTRICTION (BLASPHEMY) BILL, to prevent aliens from attending this Congress, or making it the occasion for the distribution of their blasphemous literature.

The Bill received a first reading by 165 votes to 134. In the No Lobby were Messrs. Rothschild, G.R. Strauss, T. Levy, A.M. Lyons, Sir F. Harris, D.N. Pritt, W. Gallacher, Dr. Haden Guest and Dr. Summerskill.

In the autumn of 1938 I was made acquainted with the fact that the power behind World Revolution was not just a vague body of internationalists, but organized World Jewry. The first document so convincing me was actually a British Government White Paper, of whose existence I had not been previously aware. This quoted verbatim an extract from a report received by Mr. Balfour on September 19th, 1918, from Mr. Oudendyke, the Netherlands Minister in Petrograd, who was at that time in charge of British interests there, as follows;

The danger is now so great, that I feel it my duty to call the attention of the British Government and all other Governments to the fact that if an end is not put to Bolshevism at once the civilization of the whole world will be threatened. This is not an exaggeration, but a matter of fact … I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless as above stated Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately it is bound to spread over Europe and the whole world in one form or another, as it is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object it is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things. The only manner in which this danger can be averted would be collective action on the part of all the Powers.

Almost as remarkable as the above quotation was the fact brought to my notice simultaneously, namely, that this White Paper had been immediately withdrawn, and replaced by an abridged edition, from which these vital passages had been eliminated. I was shown the two White papers — the original and the abridged issue, side by side. The second document which came to my notice at this time was the booklet entitled, The Rulers of Russia, written by Dr. Dennis Fahey, C.S.S.P., and bearing the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Dublin, dated the 26th March, 1938. In the opening sentence of this pamphlet Dr Fahey writes;

In this pamphlet I present to my readers a number of serious documents which go to show that the real forces behind Bolshevism are Jewish forces; and that Bolshevism is really an instrument in the hands of the Jews for the establishment of their future Messianic kingdom.

Dr. Fahey then adduces an interesting volume of evidence. On page 1 he gives also the following passage by Mr. Hilaire Belloc, taken from the latter’s Weekly, dated 4th February, 1937;

As for anyone who does not know that the present revolutionary Bolshevist movement in Russia is Jewish, I can only say that he must be a man who is taken in by the suppression of our deplorable Press.

Other authorities quoted in the pamphlet include Dr. Homer, D. Sc., Count Leon de Poncins in his Contre-Revolution, and evidence given on 12th February, 1919, before a Committee of the United States Senate by the Rev. George A. Simons, Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Petrograd from 1907 to October 6th 1918.

The Rev. Mr. Simons stated on this occasion with regard to the Bolshevik Government in Petrograd;

In December 1918 … under the Presidency of a man known as Apfelbaum (Zinoviev)… out of 388 members, only 16 happened to be real Russians, and all the rest (with the exception of one man, who is a Negro from North America) were Jews … and 265 of these Jews belonging to this Northern Commune Government that is sitting in the old Smolny Institute come from the Lower East Side of New York — 265 of them.

On page 8 Dr Fahey quotes figures showing that in the year 1936;

The Central Committee of the Communist Party in Moscow, the very centre of International Communism, consisted of 59 members, of whom 56 were Jews, and the other three were married to Jewesses …

Stalin, present ruler of Russia, is not a Jew, but he took as his second wife the twenty-one year old sister of the Jew L.M. Kaganovitch, his right-hand man, who has been spoken of as his probable or possible successor. Stalin’s every movement is made under Jewish eyes.

In addition to these documents there now reached me a quantity of evidence concerning Jewish activities in Great Britain in the shape of subversive organizations of every description, anti-religious, anti-moral, revolutionary, and those working to establish the Jewish system of financial and industrial monopoly.

Thus I became finally convinced of the fact that the Russian and Spanish revolutions, and the subversive societies in Britain, were part and parcel of the one and the same Plan, secretly operated and controlled by World Jewry, exactly on the lines laid down in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, filed in the British Museum in 1906 (which had been reproduced soon after the last war by The Morning Post, and from which this newspaper never recovered). These Protocols are no forgery, and I and others could supply evidence to that effect that would convince any impartial Tribunal.

At the next meeting of the patriotic and Christian societies, I felt in duty bound to broach the Jewish question; and realized, very soon, that there had come a parting of the ways. With very few exceptions our co-operation ceased. I realized that if anything was to be done, some special group would have to be formed which, while retaining the essential characteristics of the former one, would take up the task of opposing and exposing the Jewish menace. It was then that the idea of the Right Club originated, though the actual formation did not actually come about till some months later, in May 1939.

From the autumn of 1938 onwards, I spent many hours a week talking to back-benchers and members of the Government alike on these subjects.

The very magnitude of the issues involved put many off. One particular rejoinder typifies in my recollection this sort of attitude; [98]

Well, that is all very disturbing, awful, in fact: but what is one to do about it? I shall go off now and try and forget all about it as soon as possible.

About the end of 1938, news was brought to me that the control shares of the Daily Mail were for sale.

Knowing that a severe advertisement boycott had been put in operation against the paper following upon its having printed two or three articles giving what in Internationalist eyes had been a pro-Franco view of the Spanish War (in reality, the truth), the news was no great surprise to me.

Could I find a buyer? I decided to approach a certain very wealthy and patriotic peer, the head of a great business. A mutual friend arranged an interview.

On introduction I gave a survey of the activities and power of Organized Jewry in general, and of their secret publicity control in Britain in particular, as I saw it. When I ended after some 70 minutes, general concurrence in my views was expressed. Thereupon the mutual friend and I tried to persuade our hearer to buy the said shares and “tear the gag off the conspiracy of silence.” “I daren’t,” he replied, “they would bring me to a crust of bread. If it was only myself, I wouldn’t mind; I’d fight them. But many of my shares are held by the widow and the orphan, and for their sakes I must refuse.

On our expressing astonishment that Jewry could inflict such crushing retaliation on a man of his financial strength and industrial power, and so conspicuous a national figure, he gave us details of just such retaliation directed against him by Organized Jewry some years previously. He had refused to comply with some demands they had made of him affecting his works. After a final warning, which he ignored, a world boycott had been started against him, which had become effective in 24 hours, wherever he had agents or offices.

Fires and strikes also mysteriously occurred. The resulting losses had finally compelled him to give in.

Within 24 hours the boycott was lifted all over the world.

The consistent mis-reporting of important features in the Spanish Civil War had deeply impressed many M.P.s. They felt that a bias so extreme, so universal, and so consistent, always against Franco, indicated the existence of some deliberate plan, and though unwilling to agree my thesis, that the Jews were operating this control by [99] various means, and that the whole affair was part of their World Plan, nevertheless many felt that something was very wrong somewhere.

In the course of these conversations I obtained the support of Members of all parties to the Bill I was preparing in this connection.

On December 13th, 1938, I introduced the Bill entitled COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL, which made it compulsory for shares in Newspapers and News Agencies to be held in the actual names of the holders, instead of the names of nominees as is done now in the majority of cases.

The Bill received a First Reading by 151 votes to 104. In the Aye Lobby were Members of all parties, including 13 Right Hon. Gentlemen (8 of these Socialists).

In the No Lobby were messrs. Rothschild, Schuster, Shinwell, Cazalet, Gallacher, Sir A. Sinclair, Gluckstein, and Mr. Samuel Storey opposed, also blocked the Bill; and seemed suitable for that role.

I now took the decision to proceed at once with the formation of a group similar in character to the group of representatives of Christian and patriotic societies, which I had worked with up to the emergence of the Jewish problem; but this time a group which would place opposition to that menace in the forefront of its activities.

The group was finally inaugurated in May 1939, and was the Right Club.

Simultaneously, a Committee was formed with the dual purpose of co-ordinating the work of all the Patriotic Societies referred to on pp.—— and of being a recruiting ground for the Right Club. This group was called the Co-ordinating Committee.

Mr. Cross was the Secretary, and the late Duke of Wellington, President of the Liberty Restoration League, was the Chairman at most of the few meetings we held. The first object of the Right Club was to enlighten the Tory Party and clear it from any Jewish control.

Organized Jewry was now clearly out for World War. The failure of their International Brigade in Spain, and the growing exposure of themselves, and the consequent risk of total collapse of their plans rendered immediate war from their point of view imperative.

In July 1939 I had an interview with the Prime Minister. I dealt with the Russian Revolution, and the part Jewry had played in it; and with the Spanish Revolution, prepared and carried out on similar lines by much the same people; with the subversive societies in Britain, and the Press and news control existing in this country. I finally drew the Prime Minister’s attention to the underground work that was going on with object of overthrowing his peace policy and himself, and precipitating the war. Mr. Chamberlain considered that charges of so grave and far reaching a character would require very substantial documentary proof. I decided to collect documentary proof which would make it possible for action to be taken.

The outbreak of war enabled the Jews to give their activities the cloak of patriotism. Their press power enabled them to portray those opposing their designs and exposing them as pro-Nazi, and disloyal to Britain. The difficulty I was faced with was that while I was in duty bound to warn the country against the consequences of a policy influenced by Organized Jewry and opposed to British interests, I, at the same time, did not want to create difficulties for Mr. Chamberlain.

It was decided, therefore, that the Right Club should close down for the duration. The spirit of the Club naturally led the younger members to join the Services, wherein they have served with distinction on most fronts. It was in keeping with the same spirit that others, not so engaged, should continue to fight the internal enemy, no less formidable than the Axis Powers and in a way more dangerous, owing to his secret methods and the fact that he can work from within as well as from without.

To this end, therefore, I and others in an individual capacity disseminated on occasion some leaflets of mine called Do You Know? and Have You Noticed? ; my verses beginning “Land of dope and Jewry”, and some anti-Jewish stickers. This was with the idea of educating the public sufficiently to maintain the atmosphere in which the “phoney” war, as it was called, might be converted into an honourable peace.

It was certainly not defeatist, as Jewish propaganda tried to make out. It was not we of the Right Club who were holding back from the fighting Services in this war, any more than in the last; quite the contrary.

I was determined to make further efforts to convince Mr. Chamberlain, and even perhaps the 1922 Committee, of the truth of my case, and thus avert total war, and commenced reinforcing the documentary evidence already in my possession.

By January 1940, I had details of nearly thirty subversive societies working on various revolutionary and corrosive lines, and had completed a very large chart, showing the principal members of each.

Six names stood out clearly, as a sort of interlocking directorate. They were Prof. H. Laski, Mr. Israel Moses Sieff, Prof. Herman Levy, Mr. Victor Gollancz, Mr. D.N. Pritt, M.P., and Mr. G.R. Strauss, M.P.

In February 1940, on my arrival in London, I was handed the literature of a new group, who were advocating FEDERAL UNION. The list of supporters’ names was startling. It might have been copied from the chart I had just completed. There could be no mistake as to the source of this scheme. Later, when this group became active, I put down the following questions;

Captain Ramsay asked the Prime Minister whether he could assure the House that the creation of a Federal Union of the European States is not one of the war aims of H.M.’s Government.

Mr. Butler (on May 9th) gave a non-committal reply. To this I asked the following supplementary;

Captain Ramsay; Is my Right Hon. Friend aware that this plan, if adopted, will arouse hostility against us in almost the whole of Europe, who look upon it as the setting up of a Judæo-Masonic super-State?

[Note.— The Protocols of the Elders of Zion make it clear the World Jewry and Orient Masonry will set up just such a regime after the Gentile States have been reduced by War and Revolutions to hewers of wood and drawers of water.)

Mr. Butler; I would rather leave my Hon. Friend’s interpretation of this plan to him.

A virulent press campaign was now in full swing to suppress “Anti-Semitic” views and activities by declaring that “Anti-Semitism” was pro-Nazi.

Fearing less the Home Secretary might be inclined into this direction, which was a false direction, I asked him on May 9th, 1940;

Captain Ramsay; Whether he will give an assurance that care will be taken both in the administration of the present regulations, and in framing revised ones, that a distinction is made between anti-semitism and pro-Naeism?

Sir J. Anderson; I hope that any restrictive measures applied to organized propaganda may in practice be confined to such propaganda as is calculated to impede the war effort; and from that point of view I cannot recognise as relevant the distinction which My Hon. and Gallant Friend seeks to draw.

Captain Ramsay; While thanking by Right Hon. Friend for his reply, in view of the fact that he seems somewhat confused on this point, will he assure the House that he refuses to be stampeded into indentifying the two things by a ramp in our Jew ridden Press?

Sir J. Anderson; There is no question of my being stampeded into anything.

It was in the last weeks of Mr. Chamberlain’s Premiership that I was enabled to look through some of the U.S. Embassy papers at Mr. Kent’s flat.

This then was the position, and these were the considerations which led me to inspect them.

1. Together with many members of both Houses of Parliament, I was fully aware that among the agencies here and abroad, which had been actively engaged in promoting bad feeling between Great Britain and Germany, Organized Jewry, for obvious reasons, had played a leading part.

2. I knew the U.S.A. to be the headquarters of Jewry, and therefore the real, though not apparent, centre of their activity.

3. I was aware that Federal union was the complement in international affairs of the scheme of Political and Economic Planning (P.E.P.). The Chairman of P.E.P. is Mr. Israel Moses Sieff, who is also Vice-Chairman of the Zionist Federation and Grand Commander of the Order of Maccabeans, designed to bring about Bolshevism by stealth in the sphere of industry and commerce, and that it must be regarded as the Super-State, which is one of the principal objectives of International Jewry.

4. I recognized that plans for establishing Marxist Socialism under Jewish control in this country were far advanced. As to their intentions, there could be no doubt.

5. I knew that the technique of International Jewry is always to plan the overthrow at critical junctures of any national leader who seriously opposes some essential part of their designs, as for instance Mr. Chamberlain had done by adhering to his policy of pacification, and that in this case Mr. Chamberlain’s fall would precipitate total war.

6. I remembered that Mr. Lloyd George had said in the House of Commons, that if we were let in for a war over Poland without the help of Russia, we should be walking into a trap. We walked into that trap.

Further information as to its origin, design, and ultimate objective, would have strengthened Mr. Chamberlain’s hand, and would have enabled him to take the appropriate counter-measures.

As a Member of Parliament, still loyal to Mr. Chamberlain, considered it my duty to investigate.

About the 9th or 10th of May I went to Scotland for a fortnight’s rest, having seen only a part of the documents, and intending to resume my investigations on my return.

Before I could conclude them, however, Mr. Chamberlain had fallen from office, and I was arrested a few days later on the steps of my house, when 1 returned to London on the 23rd May, 1940.

I am appending the Particulars, alleged as Reasons for my detention, and my comments thereon.

(Signed) ARCHIBALD RAMSAY

Brixton Prison, August 23rd, 1943.

 

 

 

PARTICULARS ALLEGED AS REASONS FOR MY DETENTION.

There follows here a copy of the Particulars, which were alleged to be reasonable grounds for my detention for the last three years.

It will be seen that the whole basis of every one of them is, that my opposition to Communism, Bolshevism and World Jewry was but a sham; a disloyal ruse, in fact, adopted. to mask anti-British activities in relation to the war.

Anyone conversant with doings in the House of Commons will be more or less familiar with the anti-Bolshevik activities that I have kept up openly and consistently all through my time in the House since 1931; and which activities became anti-Jewish in 1938, when I realized that Bolshevism was Jewish and an integral part of their World Plan.

The framer of these Particulars brushes aside the whole of that eight years’ record, and proceeds to fabricate and reiterate some new and disloyal purpose, for which slanders he offers no shred of substantiation.

Home Office.

Advisory Committee

(Defence Regulation 18B)

London, W. 1.

Telephone; REGent 4784

Ref.: RA

24th June, 1940.

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER MADE UNDER DEFENCE REGULATION 18B IN THE CASE OF CAPTAIN ARCHIBALD MAULE RAMSAY, M.P.

The Order under Defence Regulation 18B was made against Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay, M.P., because the Secretary of State had reasonable cause to believe that the said Captain Archibald Maule RAMSAY, M.P., had been recently concerned in acts prejuicial to the public safety or the defence of the Realm, or in the preparation or instigation of such acts, and that by reason thereof it as necessary to exercise control over him.

 

 

PARTICULARS

The said Captain Archibald Maule RAMSAY, M.P.

(i) In or about the month of May 1939, formed an Organisation under the name of the “Right Club,” which ostensibly directed its activities against Jews, Freemasons and Communists. This Organisation, in reality, was designed secretly to spread subversive and defeatist views among the civil population of Great Britain, to obstruct the war effort of Great Britain, and thus to endanger public safety and the defence of the Realm.

(ii) In furtherance of the real objects of the Organisation, the said RAMSAY allowed the names of the members of the Organisation to be known only to himself, and took great precautions to see that the register of members did not leave his possession or control; and stated that he had taken steps to mislead the Police and the Intelligence Branch of the War Office as to the real activities of the Organisation.

These steps were taken to prevent the real purposes of the Organisation being known.

(iii) Frequently expressed sympathy with the policy and aims of the German Government; and at times expressed his desire to co-operate with the German Government in the conquest and subsequent government of Great Britain.

(iv) After the formation of the Organisation, made efforts, on behalf of the Organisation, to introduce members of the Organisation into the Foreign Office, the Censorship, the Intelligence Branch of the War Office, and Government departments, in order to further the real objects of the Organisation as set out in (i) hereof.

(v) After the outbreak of war, associated with and made use of persons known to him to be active in opposition to the interests of Great Britain.

Among such persons were one, Anna Wolkoff, and one, Tyler Kent, a Coding Officer employed at the Embassy of the United States of America. With knowledge of the activities in which Wolkoff and Kent were engaged, he continued to associate with them and to make use of their activities on behalf of the “Right Club” and of himself. In particular, with knowledge that Kent had abstracted important documents, the property of the Embassy of the United States of America, he visited Kent’s flat at 47, Gloucester Place, where many of the said documents were kept, and inspected them for his own purposes. He further deposited with the said Kent the secret register of the members of the “Right Club,” of which Organisation Kent had become an important member, in order to try and keep the nature of the Organisation secret.

(vi) Permitted and authorized his wife to act on his behalf in associating with, and making use of, persons known to him to be active in opposing the interests of Great Britain. Among these persons were Anna Wolkoff, Tyler Kent, and Mrs. Christabel Nicholson.

 

 

PARTICULAR (i) 

In or about the month of May 1939 formed an Organization called the “Right Club,” which ostensibly directed its activities against Jews, Freemasons, and Communists. This Organization was secretly designed to spread subversive and defeatist views among the civil population of Great Britain, to obstruct the war effort of Great Britain, and thus to endanger public safety and the defence of the Realm.

Reply.

The formation of the Right Club, as the attached memorandum shows, was the logical outcome of many years of work against bolshevism, carried on both inside and outside the House of Commons, and well-known to all my political colleagues since 1931.

The main object of the Right Club was to oppose and expose the activities of Organized Jewry, in the light of the evidence which came into my possession in 1938, some of which is given in the memorandum.

Our first objective was to clear the Conservative Party of Jewish influence, and the character of our membership and meetings were strictly in keeping with this objective. There were no other and secret purposes.

Our hope was to avert war, which we considered to be mainly the work of Jewish intrigue centred in New York. Later, I and many others hoped to turn the “phoney” war into, not total war, but an honourable negotiated peace.

It is difficult to imagine a body of persons less capable of being “subversive” as this Particular suggests, and coupling this charge with the charge of being “defeatist” places this whole Particular in the realm of the ludicrous.

 

 

PARTICULAR (ii).

In furtherance of the real objects of the Organization the said RAMSAY allowed the names of the members of the Organization to be known only to himself, and took great precautions that the register of members did not leave his possession or control; and stated that he had taken steps to mislead the Police and the Intelligence Branch of the War Office as to the real activities of the Organization. These steps were taken to prevent the real purpose of the Organization being known.

Reply.

The real objects of the Right Club being the declared objects, and there being no other objects whatever, the latter part of this Particular is pure fabrication.

There was only one respect in which our aims differed from the Police and M.I., namely, the Jewish question.

Neither Police nor M.I. recognised the Jewish menace. Neither had any machinery for dealing with it, or for withholding information from Jewish members of their personnel.

If names of members of the Club had been placed at the disposal of either of these departments, they would have been seized upon by the Jewish members therein, and reported on to the very quarters from which many members wished them to be withheld.

 

 

PARTICULAR (iii).

Frequently expressed sympathy with the policy and aims of the German Government; and at times expressed his desire to co-operate with the German Government in the conquest and subsequent government of Great Britain.

Reply.

The latter half of this Particular is a fabrication so preposterous that I propose to treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Lord Marley embroidered this fiction in the Lords a few days after my arrest, insinuating that I had undertaken to be Gauleiter of Scotland.

My solicitors at once invited him to repeat his remarks outside. Needless to say, he did not do to, for there is not a shred of justification for either this Particular or his slanders.

The term “sympathy with the policy and aims of the German Government” is misleading to the verge of dishonesty. It suggests some general agreement or understanding.

Nothing of the kind existed.

I have never been to Germany, and beyond one formal luncheon at their Embassy knew no Germans. What little I had learned about the Nazi system did not appeal to me.

I have never approved of the idea of movements on distantly similar lines being formed in Britain. On the contrary, I disapproved.

My view was that the Unionist Party, once enlightened, was the body best suited to take the needful counter-measures to the Jewish plan, and that to do so successfully it did not even need to go outside the powers latent in our Constitution.

In a general way my views concerning German aspirations coincided exactly with those expressed by Lord Lothian in his speech at Chatham House on 29th June, 1937, when he said;

Now if the principle of self-determination were applied on behalf of Germany in the way in which it was applied against her, it would mean the re-entry of Austria into Germany, the union of the Sudeten- Deutsch, Danzig and possibly Memel with Germany, and certain adjustments with Poland in Silesia and the Corridor.

The only aspect of the Nazi policy which contacted in any special way with my views was the opposition to the disruptive activities of Organized World Jewry. No patriot-British, French, German or of any other nationality is justified in abandoning the defence of his country to that onslaught, once he has recognized its reality.

To confuse sympathy on this one and loyal point with sympathy with the whole Nazi policy and aims is dishonest; to develop this fallacy into a charge of preferring that system to our own, and being prepared to force that system (of which I disapproved) upon my own country, is the last word in infamy.

 

 

 

PARTICULAR (iv).

“After the formation of the Organization, made efforts on behalf of the Organization, to introduce members of the Organization into the Foreign Office, the Censorship, the Intelligence Branch of the War Office, and Government departments, in order to further the real objects of the Organization, as set out in (i) hereof!”

Reply.

Again we have here the fabrication of the wholly unjustifiable charge of a secret and disloyal purpose, already dealt with in Particular (i), and my Memorandum.

In regard to the matter of members of the Right Club and Government offices, I would say this:

The objects of the Club being to spread as rapidly as possible the truth concerning the Jewish danger, time was always a vital factor. From the outset we were in a race with the Jewish propagandists.

To counter them in as many different spheres as possible was obviously the quickest method. Ten members in ten different spheres would spread our information more widely, more quickly than ten members all in the same office or club.

Every political group must follow these lines; this method is the common practice of all political parties.

I never at any time made any effort to get any member a job in any Government Office.

If a member had a choice of two jobs, and didn’t mind which he or she took, and asked me about it, I should clearly have replied that as far as the Club was concerned. the sphere in which we had no member to preach the gospel was the one to choose.

For the knowledge to reach such places as the Foreign Office, War Office, etc., was obviously to achieve the enlightenment of influential persons most rapidly of all.

 

 

PARTICULAR (v).

After the outbreak of war. associated with and made use ot persons known by him to be active in opposition to the interests of Great Britain. Among such persons were one, Anna Wolkoff. and one, Tyler Kent, a Coding Officer employed at the Embassy of the U.S.A., with the knowledge of the activities in which Wolkoff and Kent were engaged, he continued to associate with them and to make use of their activities on behalf of the “Right Club” and of himself. In particular with knowledge that Kent had abstracted important documents, the property of the Embassy of the U.S.A., he visited Kent’s flat at 47, Gloucester Place, where many of the said documents were kept. and inspected them for his own purpose. He further deposited with the said Kent the secret register of the members of the ‘Right Club,’ of which Organization Kent had become an important member, in order to try and keep the nature of the Organization secret.

Reply.

I have never at any time of my life associated with persons whom I have known to be in opposition to the interests of Britain. On the contrary, my whole record proves that I have devoted more time and trouble than most people to fighting just such persons.

I certainly did not know, and do not now know, that either Mr. Kent or Miss Wolkoff were engaged in activities calculated or likely to harm the interests of Britain.

From my own acquaintance with them both, and conversations I have had during that period, I know they both recognized the activities of Organized Jewry to be one of the most evil forces in politics in general, and one of the most dangerous to the interests of Britain in particular.

All their actions will have been directed to countering those Powers and their designs, and most certainly not to anything that might injure the interests of Britain.

As for myself, I should like to add here most emphatically, in view of various mendacious allegations on the subject that have since reached my cars, that I have never, and of course could never centemplate communicating information to enemy quarters.

Having reasonable cause to believe that the Jewish International intrigues to bring about total war radiated from New York, and knowing that activities were being carried on to sabotage Mr. Chamberlain’s policy of pacification and to bring about his overthrow, it was my obvious duty as a Member of Parliament, and one still loyal to Mr. Chamberlain, to make any investigation I could.

I deposited the Red Book of names of the Right Club members at Mr. Kent’s flat for the period of my absence from London only.

I had heard of several persons who had had their papers (dealing with the same sort of subjects as mine) ransacked by persons unknown in their absence.

As I have stated already, 1 had given explicit assurance of privacy to some of the persons whose names were entered therein. Had their names even come into the hands of the British Secret Police, personated as this force is by Jews, their attitude vis-a-vis the Jewish menace would have become known at once in the very quarters from which they made a particular point of their being withheld, namely, Jewish quarters.

Political burglary is no new thing in this country, when one is suspected of possessing information relating to the activities of Organized Jewry.

Lord Craigmyle, when Lord of Appeal, had his whole house ransacked, every drawer broken open and every paper searched without anything being stolen, at a time when it was reasonable to suppose that his papers contained such matter.

The Chief Lieutenant of Police in Edinburgh declared at the time that it was a “political burglary”; the perpetrators were never traced.

(See the letter of Lord Craiginyle, dated 6th July, 1920, entitled “Edinburgh and Freedom,” published in Letters to Isabel.)

 

 

 

PARTICULAR (vi).

Permitted and authorised his wife to act on his behalf in association with, and making use of, persons known by him to be active in opposition to the interests of Great Britain. Among these were Anna WolkotT, Tyler Kent and Mrs. Christabel Nicholson.

Reply.

There is no truth whatever in this Particular and I propose to treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Needless to say, the Home Office Advisory Committee produced no evidence to support any of the slanders contained in any of the above Particulars

 

 

CONCLUSION

I submit this statement, and the comments on the Particulars, not for my own sake, but to enlighten the country.

When things reach a stage wherein a Lord of Appeal, whose papers are suspected of relating to the plans of Organized Jewry. can be “politically burgled.

When a White Paper containing vital passages on Jewish World- Bolshevism can be immediately withdrawn, and reprinted omitting the vital passages.

When a leading British Industrialist can be blackmailed by Organized Jewry, and coerced into submission by boycott, strikes, acts of sabotage and arson.

When a Member of Parliament, who dares to try and warn the country against this menace of Organized Jewry and their help-mates (the only Fifth Column that really exists in this country) is thereupon imprisoned for three years on false charges.

When these things can happen in Britain, then there must surely be something wrong somewhere.

At a time when Britain and the Empire are engaged in a life-and-death struggle. surely there can be no room for the foul teachings and activities which I have touched upon.

While our sailors. soldiers and airmen are winning victories over the external enemies, surely it is the duty of every patriot to fight this internal enemy at home.

The Prime Minister. in his speech at the Mansion House, stated that he had not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.

There are more ways than one of encompassing the liquidation of the British Empire today; and the National Leader who is determined to counter them all will not only need the utmost support of all patriots. but I believe it will be proved that his most formidable difficulties will emanate from just those very powers which I and other members of the Right Club have all along striven to oppose and expose.

 

 ———————————-

 

 

 

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 1 & 2

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 3 & 4

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 5 & 6

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 7 – 10

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 11 & 12

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Epilogue

Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Appendixes

 

 

 

 

PDF of this blog post. Click to view or download.

>>THE NAMELESS WAR Epilogue

 

PDF of entire book. Click to view or download.

THE NAMELESS WAR by A M Ramsay (1952)

 

Version History

 

Version 5: Sep 5, 2019 – Re-uploaded images and PDFs for katana17.com version.

 

Version 3; Entered missing text. Formatting, added links – Sep 27, 2014

 

Version 2: Mon, Feb 17, 2014. Added PDF file.

 

Version 1: Published Feb 7 2014

Posted in Bk - The Nameless War, Jews, The International Jew | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

The Nameless War : Ch 11, 12 – Regulation 18B; Who Dares?

The Nameless War ~ Chapters 11 & 12

 

Regulation 18B; Who Dares?

 

 

by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay

1952

THE NAMELESS WAR

by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay

Britons Publishing Company

London

1952

Reprinted 1956, 1977. Other reprints in Australia and elsewhere.

Sometimes with abridgements

Internet

AAARGH

2009

COMPLETE TEXT SIMILAR TO THE PRINTED EDITION.

 

 

THE AUTHOR:  Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay was educated at Eton and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and served with the 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916 — thereafter at Regimental H.Q. and the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of the war.

 

From 1920 he became a Member of H.M. Scottish Bodyguard.

 

In 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire.

 

Arrested under Regulation 18b on the 23rd May, 1940, he was detained, without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th September, 1944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament in 1945.
 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

PROLOGUE

1. THE BRITISH REVOLUTION

2. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

3. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

4. DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE

5. GERMANY BELLS THE CAT

6. 1933: JEWRY DECLARES WAR

7. “PHONEY WAR” ENDED BY CIVILIAN BOMBING

8. DUNKIRK AND AFTER

9. THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

10. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S ROLE

11. REGULATION 18B

12. WHO DARES?

EPILOGUE

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4

APPENDIX 5

 

11

 

REGULATION 18B

 

On the 23rd May, 1940, within the first fortnight of Mr Churchill’s Premiership, many hundreds of British subjects, a large proportion of them ex- Servicemen, were suddenly arrested and thrown into prison under Regulation 18B. For some days the entire press had been conducting a whirlwind campaign, in rising crescendo, against a supposed fifth column in this country, which was declared to be waiting to assist the Germans when they landed.

 

How untrue this campaign was, is proved by the fact that our most competent Intelligence Service never produced the flimsiest evidence of any such conspiracy, nor evidence of any plan or order relating to it, nor the complicity in such an undertaking of any single man arrested. Had such evidence been forthcoming, those implicated would undoubtedly have been charged and tried, and very properly so. But there was not one case of a man arrested under 18B being a British subject, who was so charged.

Continue reading

Posted in Bk - The Nameless War, Jews, The International Jew | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

The Nameless War : Ch 7-10 – “Phoney War” Ended by Civilian Bombing; Dunkirk and After; Shape of Things to Come; President Roosevelt’s Role

The Nameless War ~ Chapters 7 – 10

 

“Phoney War” Ended by Civilian Bombing; Dunkirk and After; Shape of Things to Come; President Roosevelt’s Role

 

 

by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay

1952

THE NAMELESS WAR

by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay

Britons Publishing Company

London

1952

Reprinted 1956, 1977. Other reprints in Australia and elsewhere.

Sometimes with abridgements

Internet

AAARGH

2009

COMPLETE TEXT SIMILAR TO THE PRINTED EDITION.

 

 

THE AUTHOR:  Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay was educated at Eton and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and served with the 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916 — thereafter at Regimental H.Q. and the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of the war.

 

From 1920 he became a Member of H.M. Scottish Bodyguard.

 

In 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire.

 

Arrested under Regulation 18b on the 23rd May, 1940, he was detained, without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th September, 1944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament in 1945.
 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

PROLOGUE

1. THE BRITISH REVOLUTION

2. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

3. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

4. DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE

5. GERMANY BELLS THE CAT

6. 1933: JEWRY DECLARES WAR

7. “PHONEY WAR” ENDED BY CIVILIAN BOMBING

8. DUNKIRK AND AFTER

9. THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

10. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S ROLE

11. REGULATION 18B

12. WHO DARES?

EPILOGUE

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4

APPENDIX 5

 

7

 

“PHONEY WAR” ENDED BY CIVILIAN BOMBING

 

Though a state of war was declared to exist between Britain and Germany in September of 1939, it very soon became apparent that no war was being conducted by Germany against this country. This was no surprise to those who knew the facts of the case. Hitler had again and again made it clear, that he never intended to attack or harm Great Britain or the British Empire. With the Siegfried Line strongly held, and no German intention of appearing west of it, stalemate in the west, or the “Phoney War,” as it came to be called, must, in the absence of bombing of civilian populations ultimately peter out altogether. No one was quicker to perceive this than the pro-Jewish war mongers; and they and their friends inside and outside the House of Commons very soon began exerting pressure for this form of bombing of Germany to be started.

 

Continue reading

Posted in Bk - The Nameless War, Jews, The International Jew | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

The Nameless War : Ch 5, 6 – Germany Bells the Cat; 1933 – Jewry Declares War

The Nameless War ~ Chapters 5 & 6

Germany Bells the Cat; 1933 – Jewry Declares War

by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay

1952

THE NAMELESS WAR

by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay

Britons Publishing Company

London

1952

Reprinted 1956, 1977. Other reprints in Australia and elsewhere.

Sometimes with abridgements

Internet

AAARGH

2009

COMPLETE TEXT SIMILAR TO THE PRINTED EDITION.

 

 

THE AUTHOR:  Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay was educated at Eton and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and served with the 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916 — thereafter at Regimental H.Q. and the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of the war.

 

From 1920 he became a Member of H.M. Scottish Bodyguard.

 

In 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire.

 

Arrested under Regulation 18b on the 23rd May, 1940, he was detained, without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th September, 1944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament in 1945.
 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

PROLOGUE

1. THE BRITISH REVOLUTION

2. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

3. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

4. DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE

5. GERMANY BELLS THE CAT

6. 1933: JEWRY DECLARES WAR

7. “PHONEY WAR” ENDED BY CIVILIAN BOMBING

8. DUNKIRK AND AFTER

9. THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

10. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S ROLE

11. REGULATION 18B

12. WHO DARES?

EPILOGUE

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4

APPENDIX 5

 

5

GERMANY BELLS THE CAT

 

 

The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter to Mr. Balfour, denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan, which if not checked by the combined action of the European Powers, would engulf Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of that year the red flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kun organised and maintained for some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in Russia. In Germany, the Jews Liebknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg, etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just frustrated the onslaughts.

 

Continue reading

Posted in Bk - The Nameless War, Jews, The International Jew | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

The Nameless War : Ch 3, 4 – The Russian Revolution; Development of Revolutionary Technique

The Nameless War ~ Chapters 3 & 4

 

The Russian Revolution; Development of Revolutionary Technique

 

 

by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay

1952

THE NAMELESS WAR

by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay

Britons Publishing Company

London

1952

Reprinted 1956, 1977. Other reprints in Australia and elsewhere.

Sometimes with abridgements

Internet

AAARGH

2009

COMPLETE TEXT SIMILAR TO THE PRINTED EDITION.

 

 

THE AUTHOR:  Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay was educated at Eton and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and served with the 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916 — thereafter at Regimental H.Q. and the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of the war.

 

From 1920 he became a Member of H.M. Scottish Bodyguard.

 

In 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire.

 

Arrested under Regulation 18b on the 23rd May, 1940, he was detained, without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th September, 1944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament in 1945.
 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

PROLOGUE

1. THE BRITISH REVOLUTION

2. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

3. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

4. DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE

5. GERMANY BELLS THE CAT

6. 1933: JEWRY DECLARES WAR

7. “PHONEY WAR” ENDED BY CIVILIAN BOMBING

8. DUNKIRK AND AFTER

9. THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

10. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S ROLE

11. REGULATION 18B

12. WHO DARES?

EPILOGUE

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4

APPENDIX 5

 

 

3

THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

 

 

Monsieur François Coty, the celebrated scent manufacturer, wrote in Figaro on 20th February, 1932;

 

“The subsidies granted to the Nihilists at this period (1905-1917) by Jacob Schiff, of Kuhn Loeb and Co., New York, were no longer acts of isolated generosity. A veritable Russian terrorist organization had been set up at his expense. It covered Russia with its emissaries.”

 

This creation of terrorist formations by Jews within a country marked down for revolution, whether they be called Nihilists or as in France in 1789, “Sacred Bands,” or “Marseillais”; or “Operatives,” as in the Britain of Charles I, now stands revealed as standard technique. Jacob Schiff also financed Japan in her war against Russia 1904-5, as we learn from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Continue reading

Posted in Bk - The Nameless War, Jews, The International Jew | Tagged , , | 3 Comments