Friday, 22 August 2014


According to Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz Chief Rabbi of the British Empirechild sacrifice was actually "rife among the Semitic peoples," and suggests that "in that age, it was astounding that Abraham's God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it." Hertz interprets the Akedah as demonstrating to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent. "Unlike the cruel heathen deities, it was the spiritual surrender alone that God required." In Jeremiah 32:35, God states that the later Israelite practice of child sacrifice to the deity Molech "had entered My mind that they should do this abomination."

The more civilized Islamic version differs in Islamic sources, when Abraham tells his son about the vision, his son accepted to be sacrificed for fulfillment of God's command, and no binding to the altar occurred.The Quran states that when Abraham asked for a righteous son, God granted him a son possessing forbearance. The son is not however named directly in the Quran. When the son was able to walk and work with him, Abraham saw a vision about sacrificing his son. When he told his son about it, his son accepted to fulfill the command of God in the vision. When they both had submitted their will to God and were ready for the sacrifice, God told Abraham he had fulfilled the vision, and provided him with a ram to sacrifice instead. God promised to reward Abraham.The next two verses state God also granted Abraham the righteous son Isaac, and promised more rewards.
When did Jews stop offering sacrifices, and why?
For the most part, the practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered. The practice was briefly resumed during the Jewish War of 132-135 C.E., but was ended permanently after that war was lost. There were also a few communities that continued sacrifices for a while after that time.
We stopped offering sacrifices because we do not have a proper place to offer them. The Torah specifically commands us not to offer sacrifices wherever we feel like it; we are only permitted to offer sacrifices in the place that G-d has chosen for that purpose. Deut. 12:13-14. It would be a sin to offer sacrifices in any other place, akin to stealing candles and wine to observe Shabbat.
The last place appointed by G-d for this purpose was the Temple in Jerusalem, but the Temple has been destroyed and a mosque has been erected in the place where it stood. Until G-d provides us with another place, we cannot offer sacrifices. There was at one time an opinion that in the absence of an assigned place, we could offer sacrifices anywhere. Based on that opinion, certain communities made their own sacrificial places. However, the majority ultimately ruled against this practice, and all sacrifice ceased.
Orthodox Jews believe that when the messiah comes, a place will be provided for sacrificial purposes.
Do Jews want to resume sacrifices?
Orthodox Jews do. There are several places in our daily prayer services where we pray for the restoration of the Temple and the resumption of its rituals, including the rituals of sacrifice. The Orthodox Yom Kippur service includes a lengthy recollection of the Temple service, mourns its loss and longs for its restoration. Other movements of Judaism have removed these portions from the liturgy.
News, ISRAELI, INHUMANITY,  CHILD, SACRIFICE, Israel, Gaza,#GazaUnderAttack #BoycottIsrael

Thursday, 21 August 2014


"The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irish woman.  The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities of all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority in the past."  - 1916 Proclamation of the Irish Republic"

How the Irish Became White,
Michael O'Meara

Part 3 of 3

A propos of Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (New York and London: Routledge, 1995)

Nativism, Ignatiev writes, ‘lost out not to the vision of a nonracial society, but to a society polarized between black and white’. In the process, the Irish allegedly ‘became white’. He is wrong on both counts.

‘Became white’: what could this possibly mean? Did the Irish become white in the way Northern Anglo-Protestants or Southerners were ‘white’? Was there some other category of white for them? Peter Quinn claims the more interesting question is: How did the Irish stay Irish? (Peter Quinn, Looking for Jimmy: A Search for Irish America [2007].)

These questions, suggesting a certain cultural chasm between the whiteness of Kathleen Ni Houlihan and that of Uncle Sam, interest the whiteness historians not in the least, as they ideologically assume that whites are something of a homogenized monolith and that when the Hibernian ‘interlopers’ ‘became white’ they did so in a way that had little cultural significance, except racially – it was all a matter of black or white. The historians accordingly ignore or demote the significance of rival Gaelo-Catholic and Anglo-Protestant conceptions of Americanism (or whiteness) and thus the larger cultural/religious differences (that were actually quite small compared to non-white races and peoples) that have always separated whites of one national family from another – especially in America.

The anti-essentialists may claim whiteness has no cultural depth – Mick or Yank, same difference. But if the Irish became ‘white’, why did they continue to oppose the Saxons or see themselves as Celts? And why did no one tell the KKK in 1928 that Al Smith was ‘white’? The fact is that there was no ‘smooth, self-propelled passage into whiteness’ for the Irish, who refused to abandon their culture, religion, and identity in order to assimilate the Republic’s middle-class, highly Judaicized, Anglo-Protestant culture.

The Irish would eventually acculturate, but they never fully assimilated (for they were caught between two cultural worlds and were forced to forge a new identity from this cultural clash). Not coincidently, Gaelo-Americans and Anglo-Americans remained divided until the 1960s, even after the former had ‘made it’ – particularly over issues of racial integration and birth control. Then, after the Sixties and the final transition from ghetto to suburb, there was no more Irish America or WASP America – only the abominations of Transamerica. (John T. McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom: A History[2003]; Everett H. Akam, Transnational America: Cultural Pluralist Thought in the Twentieth Century [2002].)

From an arguably more explanatory perspective, US history can be seen as a history of intra-racial strife between different kinds of whites over religion, section, and class rather than as a strict interracial polarization between whites and blacks, as the whiteness historians (along with not a few white nationalists) contend. These historians also snub the fact that, from the beginning, America was a highly ‘segmented’ society – with few overarching standards and numerous divergent traditions – all of which further divided whites and retarded their ethnogenesis. (Robert H. Wiebe, The Segmented Society: An Historical Preface to the Meaning of America [1975].) Given its fuzziness, the social construct of so-called whiteness cannot but slight the complexities that come with meaningful differences created by nature, history, and culture – differences that effectively resist the formlessness of a truly egalitarian world.

(As an aside, I might mention that the WASPs were not exactly ‘white Anglo-Saxon Protestants’ nor were they the caste-like ruling class Digby Baltzell made them out to be, but rather a motley bunch, with almost as many ‘savage Ulstermen’ and ‘boorish Palatinate Germans’ in their ranks as Anglo-Saxons – along with some Jews and even a few Catholics – and though they (the WASPs) were all ‘old money’, listed in the Social Register, and sent their sons to elite New England boarding schools, they were never exclusively Anglo-Saxon and never totally exclusionary toward other white ethnic groups, with the possible exception of Catholics. It was actually something of an ‘open admissions aristocracy’ (in the spirit of the country’s historic Protestant pluralism). The WASP as a social designation was also broader than what is called the ‘American East Coast Establishment’ – led by Wall Street international bankers – constituting the ‘ruling class’ in the Marxist sense. In a country, though, where class realities were not readily acknowledged and where status was confused with power, class realities often assumed ethnic form, with the ‘elites’ identified as WASP [actually, ‘Yankee’ or ‘American’] and the working class as Irish [later ‘ethnic’]. [Robert C. Christopher, Crashing the Gates: The De-WASPing of America’s Power Elite (1989)].)


However disoriented in passing from their pre-modern peasant world to the great bustling metropolitan centers of the New World (New York City preeminently), the Irish didn’t take long to figure out the difference between whites and blacks, and which side was theirs. Given their history and identity, though, they spurned the Anglo-Saxonist notion of whiteness, and instead defined themselves as ‘Celts’ – a branch of the white race spiritually opposed to the profanities of the ‘sourfaced Saxons’ and their North American cousins. For however dispossessed and cut off from the main sources of American social advancement and power, the Irish treated middle class Protestant morality with the cynicism ‘it deserved’.

They also felt a certain Catholic disdain for Anglo-Protestants — heretics and gombeen men that they were. As the Australian historian, Patrick O’Farrell, writes: ‘The English raised up against themselves a people who were as convinced of their superiority in the spiritual realm as the English were in the temporal’. Given also their distrust of Protestant institutions and the Republican Party’s Social Darwinian theory of ‘free labor’ that prevented working people from organizing and making collective demands on industrialists, it would be clan and community that counted most with the Irish, not the American Dream of success (whose pursuit entailed sacrificing one’s identity).

Instead, the Irish would stand or fall together. ‘Unlike other immigrants’, Bill Williams observes, ‘the Irish had to succeed as a people, not just as individuals’. Later, with Father Coughlin and Senator McCarthy, the Irish (along with the Germans) would show that they were even ‘better’ Americans than the Anglo-Protestant elites of the New Deal coalition, eager collaborators with Jews, Communists, and degenerates. (Patrick O’Farrell, Ireland’s English Question: Anglo-Irish Relations 1534–1970 [1971]; Matthew Frye Jacobson, Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race [1998]; William H. A. Williams, ‘Twas Only an Irishman’s Dream’: The Image of Ireland and the Irish in American Popular Songs Lyrics, 1800–1920 [1996].)

If the Irish implicitly rejected aspects of America’s Anglo-Protestant heritage, especially those that demonized Catholicism or reduced human relations to the cash nexus, they nevertheless whole-heartedly embraced the liberty and opportunity of this thriving Protestant country – free of Carthaginian landlords and their oppression. Indeed, their nationalist dream of a liberated Ireland was modeled on the American Republic – itself born in struggle against English imperialism. (Wasn’t George Washington, ‘whose very name evoked images of the empire on its head’, the idol of the last Gaelic bards?)

The Irish were determined to be part of this ‘first new nation’ – determined to become American. But however fiercely (and naively) loyal to their new homeland (representing the foremost exemplar of modern liberal society, heir to the British Empire, with its Judeo-capitalist aversion to Catholicism and the other anti-liberal forces obstructing money’s meaningless reign (what Continentals refer to as ‘Anglo-Saxon Civilization’) — they would become American in their own way, negotiating their ‘acculturation’, so that by the early twentieth century, after the ‘new’ immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe helped Yankees discover a certain racial/cultural affinity with the former ape men, the Irish became increasingly acceptable to them. Even the Nordic supremacist, Madison Grant (whose ‘racialism’ was more Protestant than scientific), designated the Irish as ‘Nordic’, unlike earlier generations of Anglo-Americans. (Jonathan Spiro, Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant [2009]; Joseph P. O’Grady, How the Irish Became American [1973].)

Similarly, the image of the ‘wild, rowdy, and undisciplined’ Irish in much of nineteenth-century popular American songs and entertainment had become, by the advent of the new century, almost ‘conservative and old-fashioned’, having been gradually transformed into an image of ‘a grand people from a grand country . . . [that] had successfully established itself in America’. (Today, this image/caricature has again changed, as the cultural vanguard depicts them as ‘racist, reactionary Republicans’ – though Irish-America, like the insula sacra, no longer actually exists today, being now dead and in the grave with O’Leary – having succumbed to a horror greater than anything the English ever devised: the American way of life, whose Dionysian excesses demand the most extreme human sacrifices.) (E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior [1993].)

As to race, the Irish needed no instruction from Americans, for their Gaelic racial consciousness had been forged in a thousand years fighting Vikings, Normans, Saxons, Lowlanders, and Britons (not to mention one another) – war, of course, being the preeminent shaper of destiny and identity. In any case the Irish were not going to be instructed, in matters of blood or anything else, by Protestant heretics.


The God-given supremacy of America’s New World project (steeped in the Hebraic heritage of Puritan New England, and the fundamentalist conviction that they should rule the earth) were at one time expressed in explicitly racial terms. But this was not always the case. Long before modern biology, the English colonists (in their ‘perennial attraction to things Jewish’) saw themselves as a chosen people, superior not only to those they encountered in the wilds of North America, but in the civilizational centers of Catholic Europe. Thus it was that the nineteenth-century Indian doomed by the scientific laws of evolution was the same Indian religiously condemned in the seventeenth-century as a savage incapable of Protestant redemption (which, of course, implies nothing about the justice of either judgment).

The American sense of superiority (its supremacism) has assumed different forms historically. It was initially expressed in civilizational, and especially Protestant religious terms, then, after the revolution, democratic/republican, then again, in the second half of the laissez-faire nineteenth century, Darwinian, and finally, today, military, financial, and hyperreal ideological ones. Supremacism is arguably inbuilt to the idea of America: for the country’s Anglo-Saxon liberal heritage dismissed everything unlike itself as inherently ‘inferior’ (‘the pharisaism which worships itself and is unable to perceive any goodness apart from itself’).

Supremacism (or ‘racism’) in this sense is an offshoot of the liberal idea of progress animating America’s national saga, with certain peoples and nations seen as representing a higher state of progress or evolution than others. In this vein, indifferent to the past and bound for a rootless (i.e., destiny-less) future, Herman Melville characterized America in preeminently Hebraic, hence globalist terms – the ‘Israel of our time’ – the ‘ark of liberties’ — the political messiah of the New World. America, in a word, would not be like the ‘nations’ of the Old World – but instead the ‘exception’, whose God-given mission (even in today’s godless world) elevates it above the non-chosen. (Alexander Dugin, The Fourth Political Theory [2012]; Sacvan Bercovitch, The America Jeremiad [1978].)

Since 1945, the older racial expressions of American supremacism have been conscientiously replaced by non-racial ones, whose color-blind market view of the world better fits the multicultural Reign of Quantity that is today America’s New World Order. Claiming ‘there is no alternative’ to it, this supremacist system, whose policies of exploitation and enslavement are promoted in the name of ‘development’, now terrorizes the planet with what Vladimir Putin calls its ‘bomb and rocket democracy’ – in which abstract democratic rights are empowered to subvert the rights of nations – just as, domestically, this system now threatens those whose ancestors, Saxon or Celt, created and settled the United States, for their North European stock no longer matches ‘the United Colors of Benetton’. Again Melville: ‘We are not a nation, so much as a world’ – a world beyond time and history, whose anti-traditional ‘empire of liberty’, born of what James Kurth calls the Protestant Deformation, resists all that is rooted and ordered, all that stands against its inherent leveling individualism and the manic sensate materialism of its capitalist Utopianism. (D. H. Lawrence, Studies in Classic American Literature[1923].)

Since the WASPs’ anti-fascist crusade of 1937–45, American supremacism is no longer about Anglo-Saxon racial pride (or arrogance or white superiority of any kind), but about what it has always been about: the supremacy of its own self-interests – of its particularsystem, its Creed or grand récit, and, above all, its usurious capitalism, whose bureaucratic-economic empire, in supplanting earlier forms of self-rule, takes the lead in imposing its principles of equality, pluralism, and multiculturalism on the whole world. But however changed, American supremacism still confuses its particularism with universalism – only here legitimized by the Low Church ‘genetics’ of its redemptive ‘shock capitalism’.

Conceiving of ‘man’ as a ‘naked animal’, without history, culture, or place, America’s world-destroying system today destroys everything impeding its one-world alienations – such as authority and sovereignty, and more specifically traditional Christianity, family-based communities, and those shared beliefs and identities that went into the country’s founding. What at one time was a racially expressed supremacism (i.e., ‘white supremacy’) – bearing the mantle of ‘Anglo-Saxonism’ or ‘Americanism’ or ‘Manifest Destiny’ – has since been transformed into an anti-racist supremacism, buttressed by democratic and human rights opposing everything, high and low, impeding the endless, senseless circulations of capital sustaining its world-market empire. (Colin Kidd, The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600–2000 [2006]; Carla Pestana, Protestant Empire: Religion and the Making of the British Atlantic World[2009]; William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order [2004].)


In contrast to the supremacists of ‘Calvin’s gang’, with their secularized evangelism, economic individualism, and cult of progress, Ireland’s pre-modern exiles – ensconced in urban villages spiritually centered on the Catholic church, and, civilly, on the parallel societies (schools, hospitals, charities, benevolent associations, saving banks, newspapers, etc.) constituting their counter-hegemony to the purely instrumentalist and relativist forces of the WASPs’ pluralistic Gesellschaft – created in its stead a working-class America in which family, parish, union, and flag, rather than wealth and self-realization, were the high marks of American citizenship. The religious, class, and ethnic character of Irish America (with the exception, of course, of the ‘lace curtain’) actually developed largely in opposition to the Anglo-Protestant culture of New England – rejecting the haughty Yankees, with their Paddy stereotype and profane manias (abolitionism among others).

For Protestants, whose country it originally was, Irish Catholicism (inherently authoritarian and subversive) posed an imminent threat to their republic and liberties. The Irish (who had been in America since its inception) threw the argument back at the Protestants, offering a counter-narrative emphasizing a communal rather than an egoistic understanding of liberty (‘the common good over individual rights’) that made character and virtue more important than wealth and respectability. (Lawrence McCaffrey, The Irish Catholic Diaspora in America [1997]; Denis Clark, Erin’s Heirs: Irish Bonds of Community[1991]; Mary Doyle Curran, The Parish and the Hill [1948].)

A ‘creeping fascism’ — resistant to the state’s social-engineering schemes, contemptuous of liberal reformers, and actively hostile to the liberal, i.e., WASP and Jew, intelligentsia — Twentieth-century Irish America horrified ‘Marxist’ Jews like Ignatiev, as much as they did the Big State progressives, who took the helm under Franklin Roosevelt. For this ethnic, urban America shared the Catholic corporatist traditions of interwar Europe: of de Valera’s Free State, Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, and other Continental, largely Catholic and Orthodox peoples rejecting the secular Anglo-Saxon model of liberal capitalist ‘civilization’ and its blood-thirsty system of ‘state supported usury’. (See the 2011 edition of F. P. Yockey’s Proclamation of London.)

Thus it was that after 1945, the Authoritarian Personality, the Slaughter of the Cities, and suburbanization were introduced by American planners to break up and disperse the urban Catholic communities opposing the Judeo-WASP designs of the New Deal/War Deal state (whose coalition of interests had converged in opposition to America First). (E. Michael Jones, The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing [2004].)


Mexicans today do the hard labor the Irish once did, and they too are forming communities outside the American mainstream, which in time will significantly alter its course.

The story of Irish America, in this sense, is the story of America itself, as each new demographic wave of immigrants sweeps away the previous one – in the frantic, leveling spirit distinct to the country’s ‘New World’ ideology.

In the second volume of Democracy in America, Tocqueville observed that the ever bustling character of the new republic meant that ‘the tie that unites one generation to another is relaxed or broken [and that] every man there readily loses all trace of the ideas of his forefathers or takes no care about them’. Hence, the larger narrative of America’s perpetual self-destruction and re-invention, driven by something in its founding that subordinated the Yankees’ Judeo-Calvinist identity to the caprices of a deracinating and deculturating Mammon, whose culmination today privileges the presentist, history-less, pleasure-oriented character foremost in the American Negro, now the official model of our postmodern, post-European world.

The result: the Irish who overran the WASPs were overrun by the ‘new immigrants’ from Eastern and Southern Europe, and they in turn are today being overrun by the Third World tide – because America’s market society and its Low Church oligarchs care nothing about the country’s ethno-cultural identity – only its global system of usurious capitalism.

The ongoing destruction of the nation’s flesh and blood (archive of its spirit) has long imbued Americans with those ‘negative’ freedoms corrosive of organic attachments, as ‘all fixed, fast-frozen relations’ were swept away in the swirling consumerist paradise that is their Synagogue of Satan. Such a liberation has since stripped American life of the significance of family, community, church, tradition, authority – in the name of progress – all the while closing off any possibility of a meaningful transmission from one generation to the next, and thus to any possibility of reproducing the people as a ‘people’ – or even ‘reproducing the species’.

This identity-destroying, nation-dissolving, destiny-denying project will not go on much longer, for the empire of consummate meaninglessness has entered its late Winter phase (especially evident in the disorders inherent in its unraveling nomos). Collapse is in the cards, however they are dealt. (Guillaume Corvus [Faye], La Convergence des catastrophes [2004]; Robert A. Hall, The Coming Collapse of the American Republic[2011].)

The big question today (besides the possibility of America’s muddling disposition, in its decline, to provoke World War III) is: what will follow? Will it be the miscegenation, Brazilization, and/or extinction of European life in a ‘third-worldized’ America run by international usurers led by the Rothchilds and Rockefellers, or – fantasy that it may be, given the absence of a Celtic-Saxon or White Nationalist consciousness – will it be a revolution that overthrows the ‘universal nation’, forges an elite of blood and spirit, and founds a breakaway White Republic, free of the utterly perverse and inherently ethnocidal United States?

Wednesday, 20 August 2014


New laws attack free speech and political expression in Ireland

desdalton_sinnfeinStatement by the President of Republican Sinn Féin, Des Dalton
The announcement by the 26-County Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald of draconian new laws marks a direct attack on the right to hold or communicate political opinions and ideas as set out in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. With the centenary of the 1916 Rising fast approaching it is obvious that the 26 –County administration is attempting to silence Irish Republicanism and to drive it underground. Such coercive methods have failed in the past as this present effort will also fail.
The proposed new laws incorporated into the 26-County Criminal Justice (Terrorist) Offences Act 2005 are intended to silence those who refuse to accept the normalisation of British rule in Ireland and the continued partition of our nation.. However these measures can also be extended to cover all forms of political dissent, be that political, social or economic. People need to be awake to this fact and speak out now. Civil and political rights bodies need to protest this gratuitous attack on the human rights of Irish citizens. Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Almost 100 years ago at the grave of the Fenian O’Donnovan Rossa Pádraig Mac Piarais warned the predecessors of today’s political class: “They think that they have pacified Ireland. They think that they have purchased half of us and intimidated the other half. They think that they have foreseen everything, think that they have provided against everything; but the fools, the fools, the fools! — they have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace.”
It is evident that the political establishemnt have not absorbed the lessons of history. They think that they can imprison an idea, that by locking up Republicans they can suppress the desire for a free and independent Ireland. Irish Republicanism has withstood centuries of repression at the hands of both the 26-County and British states. It has endured and will continue to do so because it lives in the hearts and minds of the Irish people.

4th Annual International POW-Day 2014 on October 24/25/26
The 4th Annual International Day in Support of the Irish Prisoners of War held in Maghaberry, Portlaoise, Hydebank, and Magilligan jails will be held on October 24, 25, and 26. Since 2011, the International POW-Day for Irish Republican prisoners is held annually on the last weekend of October. As last year, the POW-Day is organised by the independent “International Committee to Support the Irish Prisoners of War.”

The last weekend of October is a historical date for Irish Republicans. On October 25, 1917, the Ard-Fheis of Sinn Féin adopted a Republican Constitution. Three years later, Sinn Féin’s Lord Mayor of Cork, Terence MacSwiney, died after 74 days on hunger strike. Furthermore, Joseph Murphy died on hunger strike in Cork prison on that day. On October 27, 1980, the first H-Block hunger strike began, and on October 26, 1976, Máire Drumm, Vice-President of Sinn Féin, was murdered in the Mater Hospital, Belfast, by a loyalist death squad. Finally, on the last day of October 1973, the helicopter escape from Mountjoy jail took place.
In 2014, to mark these historical events as well as highlighting the plight of today’s Irish Republican POW’s, protests, pickets, fundraisers, and lectures will be held in Ireland, England, Scotland, Continental Europe, Canada, USA, and Australia. If you want to add a city or country to that list, contact the Organising Committee. All international organisations, Irish republican activists and their supporters are invited to join preparations to make the 4th annual POW-Day a success.
Everyone who wants to support the Irish Republican POW’s on October 24, 25, and 26, contact us as soon as possible for organising protests in your area!

Liam Mellows and the Irish Revolution - History Ireland

The Blueshirts – fascism in Ireland?

This is a discussion on Near Fm’sHistory Show of the Blueshirts and fascism an anti-fascism in 1930s Ireland. Presented by Cathal Brennan and John Dorney and featuring historians Fearghal McGarry and Brian Hanley.
We discuss; The context of fascism and the collapse of democracies across Europe in the 1920s and 30s. The Irish Civil War and its legacy. Were the Blueshirts really fascists? How is the Blueshirt period remembered today?

Here is an introduction to the Blueshirts. By John Dorney.

“No Reds Here”

Pictures of Irish politics in the 1930s look disturbing. Seried ranks of the main opposition party, in quasi-military uniform, giving the fascist stiff-armed salute.
The election posters from the Irish Free State in this era also appear to show a country on the brink of another civil war – a repeat of 1922-23 conflict but this time with the European rhetoric of fascism versus of communism. Cumman na nGaedheal posters urge voters to keep out the supposedly dangerously radical Fianna Fail – “we want no red on our flag”.
Following Cumman na nGaedheal’s defeat in the 1933 election a section of the Pro-Treatyites formed the Army Comrades Association, later christened the Blueshirts – headed by charismatic former Garda commissioner Eoin O’Duffy – to uphold social order as they saw it from possible Republican terror. At the top of the organization, a number of its leadership notably O’Duffy himself, were avowed admirers of European fascism and vocal opponents of democracy.
This was at a time when European democracies, under the strain of the world economic crisis, class strife and conflict between right and left were falling like dominoes. Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party had come to power in Germany in the same year.
The IRA - at this time loosely aligned with Fianna Fail, and from whose ranks the party had largely emerged in 1926 – was legalized by the Eamon de Valera government and its members began attacking Cumman na nGaedheal and Blueshirt rallies under a slogan of, “no free speech for traitors”. It appeared as if physical revenge for the republicans’ defeat in the 1922-23 civil war was a real possibility.

Republicans, Farmers and Fascists

The mostly conservative militarist leadership of the IRA in 1919-1923 would have been surprised to see the organization accused of being communists, but by 1933 that generation of leaders were mostly dead (like Michael Collins, Liam Lynch and others killed in the revolutionary period) or at the centre of mainstream politics like Richard Mulcahy and Frank Aiken. In the intervening years an influential faction in the anti-Treaty IRA grouped around such people as Peadar O’Donnell had indeed shifted the organization to the left, believing that a fully independent Irish Republic would not emerge without the embrace of social revolution.
Fianna Fail itself built its political support based not only on undoing the remaining ties of the Irish Free State to Britain but also of house-building, job creation and setting up state-based Irish industries.
Another dimension to the tension came when Fianna Fail stopped paying Land Annuities to Britain – a long standing national debt based on the subsidies used to buy out the old Landlord class in the Wyndham Act of 1908. Britain in return placed heavy tariffs on imported Irish beef – thus hurting the strong farmers who had been the mainstay of pro-Treaty politics since 1922.
The funeral of Blueshirt Michael Patrick Lynch
The Blueshirts, who had in the region of 30,000 members, resisted paying local rates and the land annuities (which Fianna Fail continued to collect) to the de Valera government. O’Duffy also led violent resistance to the Fianna Fail’s government policy to seize unsold cattle and to distribute the meat to the poor. In one such confrontation in Cork, a young farmer’s son and Blueshirt, Michael Patrick Lynch was shot dead by Broy’s Harriers – a republican auxiliary to the police. His funeral was a spectacular Blueshirt show of strength, complete with Roman salutes and military drill.
There was no second civil war. The Army and Garda despite their roots in the Free State forces of 1922, obeyed the new government. Talk of a military coup in 1933 by O’Duffy and others in Cumman na nGaedheal and the National Army came to nothing. But there was extensive rioting around the country between the rival factions of the Blueshirts and the IRA and a number of deaths on both sides.
Initially at least, O’Duffy’s apparent ability to mobilise thousands of Pro-Treaty supporters made him wildly popular among demoralized Cumman na nGaedheal supporters and he was made head of the new party, Fine Gael, which was formed from a merger of Cumman na nGaedheal and the National Centre Party and the Blueshirts, or as they were calling themselves by then, the National Guard.

The end of the Blueshirt crisis

However, his star was already waning. He backed down from a proposed March on Dublin (in imitation of Mussolini’s March on Rome in 1922) and his subsequent radical rhetoric – talking of bringing down Irish democracy but also invading Northern Ireland – saw him ousted as Fine Gael leader by more moderate voices led by WT Cosgrave – who subsequently reaffirmed the party’s loyalty to democratic and constitutional principles.
Some of ‘Broy’s Harriers’ – armed republicans drafted into the Garda Special Branch by the Fianna Fail government
By 1935, the most radical voices on both sides had been marginalized. De Valera banned both the Blueshirts and then the IRA. It soon became apparent that despite its populism, Fianna Fail was not in fact a vehicle for either social or Republican revolution. In 1935, de Valera worked out a deal with Britain to lower tariffs on Irish cattle and in 1938 agreed to pay off 10% of the remaining Land Annuities so that the trade in cattle could be resumed as before. In 1936, elements of both the left Republicans – by now the Republican Congress – and the Blueshirts under O’Duffy went to fight on opposite sides in the Spanish Civil War – that great symbolic battle between fascism and anti-fascism.
Today it seems barely credible that Fine Gael, today the centrist party of government, has its roots in a quasi-fascist movement or that Fianna Fail, who provided rather conservative government for most of the 20th century, could have been perceived as social revolutionaries.
The Blueshirt period was in some ways the last gasp of both the civil war and the tradition of political faction fighting in Ireland but it also had real anti-democratic menace
At one level, the Blueshirt scare of 1933-35, represented the last gasp of a traditionally Irish pattern of the 19th and early 20th century political faction fighting – Home Rulers, Sinn Feiners, All For Ireland Leaguers, Unionists and others had been brawling it out in the streets for decades at election times. It can also be seen as the last spasm of civil war violence left over from 1922-23. Some political heirs of the Blueshirts argue that they were simply defending free speech from republican intimidation, much as did the pro-Treatyites in 1922.
But Ireland was in European terms unusual in remaining democratic in the turbulent interwar period. The Blueshirts had, at their head some leaders with real anti-democratic convictions. Perhaps we should not take the peaceful resolution of Fianna Fail’s coming to power for granted.

Tuesday, 19 August 2014



Some of my best friends, mentors, intelligent 

and  talented friends are Jewish. Indeed I once 

had a girlfriend who is Jewish. 

I am not anti-semitic and it is very important, 

that the reader of the following article, 

distinguishes between Zionist and Jew. 

However having witnessed first hand, British 

repression injustice and war crimes against

humanity in my own country, I have come to 

recognize the barbaric ethnic cleansing in 

Palestine, which has captured world headlines 

incessantly, in my lifetime as a litany of war 

crimes and atrocities that dehumanize us all. I 

believe a universal boycott of Israel is the only 

peaceful way to bring it to a conclusion.

Brian Clarke

A Jewish Defector Warns America

Benjamin Harrison Freedman
Benjamin Harrison Freedman
Benjamin Freedman’s warning is one of the most important documents of the 20th century.
by Benjamin H. Freedman
Introductory Note:
Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company.
He broke with organized Jewry after World War II, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish power structure which dominates the United States.
Mr. Freedman’s testimony is especially important because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.
This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley’s patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman’s essential message to us — his warning to the West — is more urgent than ever before. – Kevin Alfred Strom
a speech by Benjamin H. Freedman
From a letter by Benjamin Freedman in the Revilo Oliver archives
From a letter by Benjamin Freedman in the Revilo Oliver archives
HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.
The First World War
What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week’s food supply — and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let’s call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.” England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that — seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.
Stalemate in 1916; Zionists Offer to get USA into the War
Benjamin Freedman was attacked by the Jewish establishment, as in this issue of the American Jewish Committee's Commentary magazine
Benjamin Freedman was attacked by the Jewish establishment, as in this 1955 issue of the American Jewish Committee's magazine, Commentary
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because it’s a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make — they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don’t have to give up. You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”
The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”
In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”
1955  Commentary article mentioning Benjamin Freedman
1955 Commentary article mentioning Benjamin Freedman
Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that — I don’t know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain’s ally.
I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.
USA Railroaded into World War I; Balfour Declaration
Arthur Balfour, author of the infamous declaration
Arthur Balfour, author of the infamous declaration
The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying “Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.” That’s how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into — if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into — that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.
The Balfour Declaration
The Balfour Declaration
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” They didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that.
Propaganda to make us hate those whom the Zionists wish us to war against did not begin with Iraq: a poster from WW1, illustrating the common but utterly false characterization of Germans as so-called Huns threatening women
Propaganda to make us hate those whom the Zionists wish us to war against did not begin with Iraq: a poster from WW1, illustrating the common but utterly false characterization of Germans as so-called Huns threatening women
That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know.
Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, so that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.
Effect on Germans when they understood Jewish Activity
That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Ballin, [Albert Ballin - RW] who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd’s and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers — the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.”
Further demonization of those whom the Zionists wished us to hate: World War 1 poster
Further demonization of those whom the Zionists wished us to hate: World War 1 poster
It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let’s quit. We offer you peace terms. Let’s forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man’s imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don’t think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn’t be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.
Well, that’s how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They’d been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.”
Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers — and the press was filled with their statements — that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn’t that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said “Shema’ Yisroel” or “Our Father.” Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat.
Freedman says World War I was started against Germany
But it had nothing to do with home and country -- just as the current wars have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Click to see a larger version and note the emotional triggers: the wife fingering a cross, the child, the grisly souvenir of a dead man's helmet.
But it had nothing to do with home and country -- just as the current wars have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Click to see a larger version of this WW1 poster and note the emotional triggers: the wife fingering a cross, the child, the grisly souvenir of a dead man's helmet.
And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world’s great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain’s, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?
There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn’t one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.
German Camps in 1933
When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations.
Germans fought Jewish Control
Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht
Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht
Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security.
After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone’s head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn’t fight one another with pistols. Well, that’s the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything.
The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn’t want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.
The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.
1933: Jews Declare “Holy War” (and Trade War) on Germany
After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: “You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can’t treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you.” You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do?
In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, “The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business.”
And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany’s food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany’s population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population.
Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that “this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration,” which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time.
Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn’t find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words “made in Germany” on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked “made in Germany,” they were picketed with signs saying “Hitler,” “murderer,” and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.
At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked “made in Germany.” Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I’ve been observing women’s legs for many years and it’s been a long time since I’ve seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy’s boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying “murderers,” “Hitlerites,” and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.
Naturally, the Germans said, “Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?” They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.
“Kristallnacht” and Rearmament
The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn’t until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.
Now I don’t like to use the word “anti-Semitism” because it’s meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I’ll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that “Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong.” The same as we in this country are saying today, “Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.” Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.
Nuclear War for Israel?
For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.
What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.
Zionist wars can happen again
What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son’s. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don’t know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren’t permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.
Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was “confidential man” to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer.
So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby.
That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their “commonwealth.” They’ve fooled you so much that you don’t know whether you’re coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, “Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony.” I don’t know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony.
History of ‘Jews’
What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don’t call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world’s population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe — so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That’s how big and powerful they were.
They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith — either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out “eeny, meeny, miney, moe,” he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion.
He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call Jews. There wasn’t one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, “You want to help repatriate God’s Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don’t you? It’s your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we’re Jews.” But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted.
It is as ridiculous to call them “people of the Holy Land,” as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems “Arabs.” Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed’s birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves “Arabs.” You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn’t become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.
These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today Jews.
Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, “We’re going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God’s Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land.” Could there be a bigger lie than that?
Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You’d believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn’t call black black anymore — you’d start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.
That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.
Kol Nidre: Evidence of Disloyalty
Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them?
I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I’m not here to be a rabble-rouser. I’m here to give you facts.
When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect.
And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.
*   *   *
Subsequent research has shown that the “Khazar hypothesis,” i.e., Freedman’s and Arthur Koestler’s idea that Ashkenazi Jews are almost entirely of Khazar descent, is wildly exaggerated. For example, Science News for October 3, 1998 stated “Wider genetic studies of diverse present day Jewish communities show a remarkable genetic cohesiveness. Jews from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa and European Ashkenazim all cluster together with other Semitic groups, with their origin in the Middle East. A common geographical origin can be seen for all mainstream Jewish groups studied. This genetic research has clearly refuted the Khazar story — Khazars: a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism. Researchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazi Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence. …The DNA tests results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.”
The demise of the Khazar hypothesis doesn’t much vitiate Freedman’s argument that the “blood right” of Jews — who do show some degree of mixture with their host populations and who are probably less related to the original inhabitants of “Israel” than are the Palestinians — to take over Palestine is a sham. And, of course, it doesn’t at all affect his insider revelations of Zionist intrigue. – Kevin Alfred Strom
This article was transcribed and prepared for publication by Kevin Alfred Strom, with additional work by Rae West.