Saturday, January 03, 2009

Benjamin Freedman

From http://bluwiki.com/go/The_Benjamin_Freedman_Speech


 


The Benjamin Freedman Speech



From BluWiki



Twenty Five Lies of Benjamin Freedman


NOTE to BlackBay: I don't debate here. I debate at rodoh.us -- come there and offer your counterarguments, OK?


Daryl Bradford Smith makes a big deal out of this speech on his Web site. Here are twenty-five lies told by Freedman -- and repeated by Daryl Bradford Smith:


(1) "In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes."


In the forty-six years since this speech was delivered, not one U.S. soldier has fought in Israel or the Palestinian territories.


(2) "[T]he United States will trigger World War III."


Hasn't happened yet.


(3) "[T]he Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists."


There was never a Palestinian government to resurrect. Nominal political control over the Palestinian people had been exercised by Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, but this was during the period that Palestine was still a British colony. That mandate expired on May 15, 1948, and the same day, Israel declared its statehood. The Palestinians, by contrast, when the war was over, were occupied by either Egypt (in the Gaza strip) or Jordan (in the West Bank and East Jerusalem). Neither power offerered the Palestinians autonomy, much less statehoof. King Abdullah of Jordan never even entertained the idea. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt made moves toward an "All-Palestine Government," but didn't act against Israel militarily until 1967 -- six years after Freedman gave this speech.


(4) "Within two years Germany had won that war [World War I]: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually."


Freedman claims that before August 1, 1916, Germany had won the World War I. This is simply not true.


Germany was fighting a two-front war during World War I. Plus it had soldiers deployed in the Middle East to assist the Ottoman Turks, who were losing badly and would continue to lose until all their territory was gone. During the period that Freedman is discussing, Germany was fighting the combined forces of France and the British Empire (Canadian, Indian, South African, and ANZAC troops were there also) at the Battle of the Somme. The battle went from July 1, 1916, to November 18, 1916, and was declared a stalemate. Losses for both sides were about equal, which means Germany actually lost more troops because it was fighting alone on its own side. At the same time, beginning before the Battle of the Somme and ending afterwards, the Germans lost to the French at Verdun, though they sustained fewer casualties. The losses for Germany were so severe that she changed her position on the Western front from offensive to defensive, which remained the case until surrender in November 1918.


Germany did rather better on the Eastern Front, driving into Poland and ultimately leading to the tsar's overthrow in March 1917. But Germany was still fighting Russia in the summer of 1916, as well as in the Middle East with the Turks.


(5) "At that time, the French army had mutinied. They 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."


Neither the French troops nor the Russian troops had mutinied at the time Freedman says they did. French losses at Verdun were around 150,000 -- not 600,000, as Freedman claims. If the Italian army had collapses, that would be a surprise to the Italian soldiers at the Battle or Gorizia, where the Italians defeated Austria-Hungary in eleven days.


(6) "[T]he Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and 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.'"


There's a staggering amount of disinformation in here. First, there was no German peace offer, and if there were, it would have been coming from a position of weakness to better fight on their Eastern Front.


(7) "They [Zionists] 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.'"


This is very interesting given the actual state of affairs in the Middle East at that time. England and France had already divided up the Ottoman holdings in the Middle East. In fact, they had done so the previous year -- with the Sykes-Picot Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement). It hadn't promised Palestine to anyone -- it had left it an issue to be decided in the future.


(8) "However, they [the British] made that promise, in October of 1916"


I have no idea where Freedman gets this date, given that the Sykes-Picot Agreement had been signed in May 1916, and it contravened the only other possible offer on the table at the time, which was the promise by Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, to Sharif Hussein of Mecca (father of Abdullah I of Jordan) that Arab nationalism would be realized with the defeat of the Turks. However, none of McMahon's correspondence ever promises him Palestine.


(9) "Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany."


Actually it was six months later, on April 6, 1917, and it was Congress that declared war, the President not being allowed by the Constitution of the United States to do so. The U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary in December, with less than a year left in the war. Notably, the U.S. never declared war on the Ottomans? Why not? Because they were finished by then. Given that it was the Ottomans who controlled Palestine up to this point, how could U.S. entry have secured this if it came so late?


The answer is that it couldn't.


Moreover, Freedman completely ignores the importance of the Zimmermann Telegram, a communique sent by the German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmermann, to Mexico, urging it to form an alliance against the U.S. This was the smoking gun that led the U.S. into the war. Interventionism was the result of the fear of the Germans (who, remember, were not winning the war -- the telegram dates from January 1917) that the U.S. would enter to stake territory for its Allies. There was, after all, already an Allied Expeditionary Force of American soldiers fighting in Europe.


(10) "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.” Because 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, and it 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."


So according to Freedman's chronology, in October 1916, the British promise the Zionists Palestine, it takes them six months to get us into the war, but the Balfour Declaration still wasn't issued until seven months after we declared war on Germany. This doesn't add up.


(11) "Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to 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."


Well, Bernard Baruch was certainly at the Paris Peace Conference, but where this figure of 116 other Jews as a separate delegation (Baruch was with the American delegation; after all, he was head of the War Industries Board). As for Freedman being there, I have yet to see a single independent source that verifies he was there. Not one.


(12) "The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, 'How about Palestine for us?'"


Well, first of all, the land that was cut out of Germany was land that was, with very few exceptions, populated by non-German people, e.g., Poland. Austria ceded Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, these being Slavic nations whereas Austria was and is a Germanic nation.


But the real kicker is that the "Jewish delegation" demanded Palestine at this point. While it is true that an important agreement on Palestine was made at this point, it was not made between Bernard Baruch and the British government, as Freedman would have us believe. Rather, the agreement was made between Chaim Weizmann and the leader of the Arab delegation. Weizmann was of course a Zionist but a British citizen -- not one of these virtually nonexistent German Zionists that we're told about.


Freedman doesn't tell us about the Arab delegation, but it was led by Sharif Hussein's other son, Faisal, who would become the first King of Iraq. You can read the agreement here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/faisaltext.html


So Britain didn't hand Palestine over to the Zionists. Ultimately, it was Faisal that did.


(13) "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, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war.' And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost."


Given that the New York Times published news of the Balfour Declaration a mere twelve days after the declaration was issued, it was a known agreement by the time of the Paris Peace Conference. (There were two more stories in the Times alone before the Peace Conference began.) In other words, Freedman was lying.


Notably, it is on the basis of this lie that Freedman then argues that the Germans were justified in their hatred of Jews. He ignores all evidence of German anti-Semitism between 1871 and 1919.


(14) "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 who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition."


In 1933, the only people in concentration camps were political prisoners and not Jews. More on this below.


(15) "They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time."


That's an exaggeration obviously, but even more so for 1933 in Germany. The KPD (Communist Party) in Germany was led by Ernst Thaelmann, a Gentile. He was arrested and put in Dachau in 1933 and kept in solitary confinement until Hitler had him shot in 1944. But Jews in Germany tended not to vote for the KPD, despite its quite excellent returns in the elections between 1929 and 1932 (it always polled in the top three parties). Most Jews in Germany voted instead for the SPD, the Social-Democratic Party of Germany. This was not a communist party.


An illustrative example can be made with the situation in the Soviet Union, where far more leaders of the Communist Party there were Jews. Even conceding that this is the case, the vast majority of Jews in Russia between March 1917 and November 1917, when the Bolsheviks seized power, were not in communist parties. They tended to be either in Zionist parties or in the Jewish Bund or the PSR (social democrats). These latter two parties were the only parties in the USSR condemn the Bolshevik coup in the Congress of Deputies that had been established after the tsar had been overthrown.


Germany had even fewer Jews and, given the explanation already given that their living standard was better in Germany and that they fled there from Russia in 1905, it is not unreasonable to conclude that fewer Jews were communists in Germany than in Russia, particularly in 1933.


(16) "Well, I don't want to go by what they were called. We're now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days."


As already demonstrated, the KPD existed in Germany, as did the SPD, and their platforms were so different, in fact, that the KPD refused to join SPD-led governments.


(17) "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."


The Untermeyer boycott was so incredibly ineffective that Germany had experienced complete economic recovery by 1937.


(18) "The Jews -- I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn't a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that."


The largest Christian organization in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. In his 1965 encyclical Nostra Aetate, Pope Paul VI wrote, "The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people."


I think the Pope probably can speak on greater authority on these matters than Freedman.


(19) "The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars."


While there is no doubt that the Khazarian Empire adopted Judaism as its official religion and that this empire stretched into parts of Eastern Europe, there was still a settlement of Jews along the Rhine Valley that pre-dated the Khazars. They did not emigrate to Poland and points east of there until the 16th century, long after the Khazars were gone. These Jews spoke Yiddish, which is based on German, whereas the Khazars spoke a Turkish language.


Furthermore, genetic tests conducted in the last two years indicate that the vast majority of Jews derive from only four women, and that the priestly tribe of Jews, the kohenim, share a Middle Eastern common ancestor.


(20) "When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand -- and it's the only prayer for which you stand -- and you repeat three times a short prayer. 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 -- any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void."


The Kol Nidrey nullifies only vows made to God. This is one of the oldest libels against Judaism and has been disproven repeatedly.


(21) "And further than that, the Talmud teaches: 'Don't forget -- whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge -- remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that.'"


The Talmud says no such thing and I challenge any person to prove otherwise.


(22) "There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', 'jew'. At the time, there was no printing press."


Freedman's linguistic analysis of the word "Jew" is so terrible it would make a real linguist laugh in hysterics. Suffice it to say that, yes, there was no letter J in the Roman alphabet, but they did not pronounce their word for Jew (Iudean) with the /j/ phoneme at the beginning.


(23) "Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew who's a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews."


Well, Jews are Semites, but that's beside the point. The word coined by Wilhelm Marr nearly a century before Freedman's speech was Antisemitismus and it was coined to apply to Jews only -- not to Arabs.


(24) "They've never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion."


Jews were consistently persecuted only on religious grounds until the 19th century. Before then, the charge was "Christ-killer." That is a religious basis.


(25) "But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe."


Freedman is referring to a hoax of an anti-Semitic quote attributed to Ben Franklin that was actually created by William Dudley Pelley in 1933.


 


 


 


______________________________


From http://bluwiki.com/go/The_Other_Benjamin_Freedman_Speech


The Other Benjamin Freedman Speech



From BluWiki



Twenty-Five More Lies of Benjamin Freedman


(1) "I am very honored to be here. I don't know how to start to thank Col. Dall for making it possible for me to address you. But I hope that things work out so that you will feel grateful to him."


Just to be clear on who "Colonel Dall" was. He was retired at the time of this speech, but he had been an army colonel. He also had been the son-in-law of FDR. At the time of this speech, he was a close associate with Willis Carto and the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, and extreme far-right, racist, nativist organization. Willis Carto founded the Holocaust denial "think-tank" the Institute for Historical Review.


(2) "In that book, in those two volumes, the first English dictionary ever published by Dr. Samuel Johnson, (about whom, many of you know) the word, Jew, does not appear!"


That's because it appears under the listing "IEW," with an "I" at the beginning instead of a "J." J was the last addition the English alphabet (Shakespeare's folio and quarto editions do not use the letter "J" in The Merchant of Venice, where there are prominent Jewish characters, or in the final lines of Othello, where it is unclear of Othello is speaking of an "Indian" or a "Iudean" because of the reversal of the letter "n" or "u" in the second position in the word.


The Oxford English Dictionary dates the word "IEW" to Shakespeare's usage of the term in the Merchant of Venice (1596). The first apperance of the word "Jew" according to the OED is Richard B. Sheridan's The Rivals (1775). Johnson's non-inclusion of the word in his dictionary, which was first published in 1755 -- not 1797, is obviously because of the differing dates of publication. The next significant use of the word is in an 1820 work of Lord Byron, Johnson had died sixteen years earlier.


All of this is really beside the point, however. There has existed a word in languages other than English to refer to Jews since, at least, the composition of the books of Kings in the Bible, where the term first appears in Hebrew. That, according to the OED, the word did not take on its current spelling in common until 1775 is meaningless. There existed words before then to refer to Jews, and everyone knew who was meant, because language is primary a spoken phenomenon and not a written one. To wit:


(3) "They say Shakespeare used it. They cite all the people who used it. It did not exist."


Shakespeare *did* use it. See above. He just spelled it according to the alphabet that was used in his time.


(4) "Now, in the Middle East, you know the situation. The United States has been supplying, since the end of World War II, 32 billion dollars of the taxpayer's money. 95% of that 32 billion dollars was used by the Congress of the United States, after you paid that money into the Treasury, to make the United States the accomplice, the ally, of thieves and murderers; to aid and abet them to hold on to their stolen loot -territory that they acquired by invading Palestine and driving the indigenous population out of the country that they had inhabited for 2,000 years!"


This is a terrible exaggeration. First of all, when this speech was given, we had only began really monetarily supporting Israel the previous year, during the Yom Kippur War. We did not aid Israel in the 1967 war -- in fact, we had explicitly warned Israel via Robert McNamara that any escalation of the conflict by Israel would have serious repercussions to the American-Israeli relationship.


Anyway, let's accept Freedman's figures for the moment: $32 billion dollars over twenty-nine years (1945-1974). That comes to an average of about $1.1 billion per year in aid to Zionists or Israel or what have you. Now the peak aid given to Israel was during the Reagan-Bush years, and that came to, at most, $5 billion per year. If Nixon had given the greatest amount of aid ever given to Israel in the year prior to this Freedman speech, Freedman would still be $28 billion off the mark. Certainly we provided some aid to Israel, but there is no way that it amounted to $32 billion in twenty-nine years. The relationship between the U.S. and Israel was far too volatile earlier for us to be funding them. We nearly went to war against Israel in 1956 over the Suez crisis and, as already noted, we were very angry about their actions in 1967.


Given a close reading of history, Freedman's figure simply isn't possible.


(5) "You have been told that by every media of mass information, including the pulpit, including every other means by which they can shape your thinking: "That it is your Christian duty to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their promised land."


What's funny about this statement is that between 1969 and 1985, I was a Roman Catholic, attending mass every Sunday. I don't recall the priests every talking about Israel in church. And Catholicism is the single largest Christian denomination in not only the U.S., but the entire world.


(6) "But you will find that the Khazars were an Asian nation; they were a Mongoloid, Turko-Finn tribal nation in Asia. And they had so much trouble with the other nations there, who finally succeeded in driving them out of Asia, across the border, into what is known today as Russia, in the area of the Ukraine. They found, there, a lot of peaceful agricultural people, mostly Slavic, and they conquered them. They did the same thing then as they are still doing in the Middle East! They took them, for no reason at all, except the people weren't trained to fight! They established there, the Khazar Kingdom."


This is directly at variance with what Arthur Koestler, who Daryl Bradford Smith so shamelessly promotes on his Web site, writes in The Thirteen Tribe. Read Part IV of the book here: http://198.62.75.1/www2/koestler/k113.html


What Koestler says is that Khazars requested the right to settle within the Russian Empire and were granted that permission. Nowhere does it say that they "conquered" the Slavic peoples there. And there was no Khazar Kingdom in Eastern Europe. According to Koestler and most other people, the Khazar Kingdom was in the Caucasus, between Russia and Turkey.


Again, all of this is beside the point, because the most recent genetic studies confirm that most Jews are not descended from the Khazars but are indeed Semites. Even the anti-Semitic "evolutionary psychologist" Kevin MacDonald says so in his book A People That Shall Dwell Alone: "Recent genetic studies have con-firmed the genetic integrity of Jewish groups discussed in Chapter 2 of PTSDA. These studies confirm the Middle Eastern origins of Jews and show that Jewish groups remained genetically separate from the peoples they lived among over the last 2000 years. Based on Y-chromosome data, Hammer et al. (2000) found, that various Jewish populations (Ashkenazi, North African, Kurdish, Yemenite, and Near Eastern) were not only closely related to each other, but also closely related to other Middle Eastern groups (Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians) and quite separate from European groups. On the assumption that there have been 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, the rate of genetic admixture with Europeans has been less than half a percent per generation. This level of genetic admixture is consistent with supposing that there has been essentially no conversion of Europeans to become mating members of the Ashkenazi gene pool. The very low levels of genetic admixture with Europeans may well have come from clandestine matings and rape. Two other recent Y-chromosome studies also found that Israeli Jews derive from the Middle Eastern gene pool (Nebel et al. 2000, 2001). Nebel (2000) found that 70% of the Y chromosomes of Jews and 82% of the Y chromosomes of Palestinians belong to the same chromosome pool, suggesting a common ancestry. However, Nebel et al. (2001) found evidence that Jews are even more closely related to the Kurds. Muslim Kurds were located near Kurdish Jews and between Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews. When compared with European populations, Ashkenazi Jews were more genetically distant from European populations than they were from Sephardic Jews, and they were also closer to Arab populations (e.g., Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese). Sephardic Jews were genetically distant from both Spaniards and North Africans despite having lived among them for centuries. Indeed, they remain very close to Kurdish Jews, a finding the authors attribute to genetic continuity with Jews exiled by the Assyrians in 723 B.C. and the Babylonians in 586 B.C. Kurdish Jews remained closer genetically to Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews than to Kurdish Muslims, a truly remarkable finding, since it indicates no detectable genetic admixture between Kurdish Jews and their hosts over approximately 2700 years. Finally, despite some differences, there is a great deal of genetic affinity between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish groups, confirming the findings of Hammer et al. (2000)."


Another point is that the Khazar kingdom became well known amongst jewish communities during that time as being the only jewish kingdom in the world. It became a safe haven for jews. Jews flooded into Khazaria from asia minor and the surrounding areas where they were fleeing from persecution. While the Khazar kingdom began as non-semetic it ended up with a large semetic population who then intermarried with the locals. This is why their descendents (majority of ashkenazi) are genetically related to other semetic groups. So it is totally false that descendents of Khazarian jews are not semetic, or not jewish by blood relation.


(7) "Now, those three pages in that Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 15, the 1911 Edition tells you who they are, how war-like, how savage, how barbarian they are, and that they succeeded in sweeping across Europe to the gates of Paris, and to Finland. They controlled all Europe - these Mongols known as Khazars! They did that from maybe the fourth century to the ninth century. And they were the most brutal people. They enslaved these people and exacted tribute from them, while holding them under their control - practically all Europe."


Here's a link to the 1911 edition of Britannica's article on Khazars: http://82.1911encyclopedia.org/K/KH/KHAZARS.htm


Does it say what Freedman says? Nope. Paris isn't mentioned in the article. Neither is Finland.They most certainly did not conquer all of Europe, consider the almost complete absence of Jews outside of Spain, France, and Germany in Europe during this period.


(8) "Until in the 8th century, a man by the name of Rurik. a Varengian, who came from across the water, from what is known today as Sweden, - he organized these people. They were living as people interested in agriculture. They didn't want any politics, they didn't want nations or governments. But he saw what they were subject to, this treatment by their Khazar conquerors. And he organized the principality of Rokh, which became the Russian Empire. He organized them, and started to drive these Khazars back. And he finally succeeded to where they came into Europe for the first time, in the area of the Ukraine, where they continued their Khazar Kingdom."


Again, Freedman's account is rather different from Koester's: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/13trib03.htm


(9) "Now, they were Phallic Worshipers. Anyone who doesn't know what Phallic worship means, I am not going to go into detail, but they were Phallic worshipers and they were so degenerate that when the king, their ruler, heard that there were such things as monotheistic forms of religious belief, (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) he sent for representatives of the three of them, and asked them to tell him the merits of their faith."


Phallic worshippers are penis worshippers. Anyway, the Khazars were phallic worshippers. They were Tengriists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengriism


Note that a search for the words phallic, phallus, and penis in the text of The Thirteenth Tribe turned up no hits. Again, Freedman's account is entirely different from that of Koestler: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=phallic+phallus+penis+site%3Abiblebelievers.org.au&btnG=Google+Search


(10) "And after listening to them, like a child would play "Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Mo" to pick out the one that they favored, he listened to the three of them, and said, "I'm going to become a Jew and adopt the religion known today as Judaism."


This is not only against Koestler, again, but it's entirely wrong. The Kagan of the Khazars chose Judaism because it was neither Christianity, the religion of its northern neighbor, the Byzantine Empire; nor was it Islam, the religion of its southern neighbor, the Arabs and Turks. Knowing that the religion of Judaism received some respect from both religions, it seemed the neutral move to chose Judaism.


(11) "The Khazars are carriers of a disease that no other people in the world have. Here's the circular that they got out. It's called, "Kasak Disease" (The Jewish Disease - Tay-Sachs). I have known about it for years. The New York News newspaper had a full page on it, called "The Jewish Disease."


Actually, Jews are not the sole carriers of Tay-Sachs. It appears in surprisingly high numbers among French Canadians, Cajuns, and Irish-Americans. I can find no references whatsoever to Tay-Sachs ever being called "Kasak disease." Freedman's speech is the only document on the entire Internet that uses the term.


(12) "When one Khazar marries another Khazar: (I don't say so, Mt. Sinai Hospital, the Jewish Memorial Hospital, the Rockefeller Foundation, they've all done a lot of work on it. They published these figures and these statistics . . .) that one out of four children, when one Khazar marries another Khazar, or of that ancestry, that child can't live beyond three years. And the death that that child suffers is too miserable to describe to you. Out of the others, two of them become carriers, and one is clear."


One thing Benjamin Freedman was not was a scientist. One in 30 Ashkenazic Jews is a carrier of Tay-Sachs. Even if two carriers marry, there is still only a one in four chance that the child will get Tay-Sachs. There is a 50 percent chance the child will be a carrier, and a 25 percent chance that the child will be perfectly healthy. Freedman suggests that this is the case for all Jews. It is only the case for 1 in 30, or far less than 1 percent.


(13) "Now, you have these people, organized, and all of a sudden, something developed. The last revolt that they started was in 1905. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, under the word, Bolshevism, one of the five rules for their revolt was: Never start until the armies of the country are engaged otherwise. And in 1905, when Russia was at war with Japan, in the Far East, they started their last revolt, - and they were slapped down, like every other one since the 11th century."


Again, the 1911 Britannica is online. There is no listing for Bolshevism: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/index/BOK-BOR.htm


Furthermore, the 1905 Revolution was not a revolution by only the Bolsheviks. Several other parties took roles, some more prominently than the Bolsheviks, and in fact, it was a much more widespread revolution against the tsar than either of the 1917 revolutions. It was a genuine popular uprising.


(14) "Mr. Schiff, with two young men, went down to see Mr. Taft, and he said, "Mr. Taft, . . . (I am not telling you this out of my memory. I almost know this by heart, because the books are here, in the Congressional Library. The people who were in the room with President Taft, at that time, and President Taft were told by Jacob H. Schiff) . . . "We want you to cancel the Most Favored Nation Treaty with Czarist Russia, and we want you to recall our Ambassador." The President told them, "Mr. Schiff, things are not what you represent them to be. My ambassador tells me differently." So, Mr. Schiff told him, in so many words, "Is you is, or is you ain't - going to do it?" When the President said that he would not do it, Mr. Schiff said "We will put a political party and a president in Washington, to whom we can dictate what they should do.""


What's interesting is that the President in 1905 wasn't Taft -- it was Theodore Roosevelt. That point aside, let's assume this meeting took place, and that it took place during the Taft Administration (1909-1913). Let's give Freedman a large benefit of doubt and say they met Taft at the very beginning of his presidency. So they put the Democrat Woodrow Wilson into the White House to do their bidding. Keep that in mind.


(15) "They got Woodrow Wilson, the man who had more ego than any man I have ever read about, they got him to head the Democratic Party. And they got into difficulties! Because the Democrats only got the Electoral votes in the South; where the people in agriculture wanted cheap goods from Europe. But the North wanted the Republicans. They found out they could not elect a President in the United States. So, I handled the money; I was the leg man, the errand boy (I was only a boy then.) They trotted Theodore Roosevelt out of the political "moth-balls" (He was then an editor of a magazine). They told him, "You are the indispensable man. You are the only man who can save the United States." And with his ego they formed the "Bull Moose Party" and Mr. Jacob H. Schiff and the Jews throughout the world - they got plenty of money from England - they formed the Bull Moose Party. And in that way they split the Republican vote between Roosevelt and Taft, and Mr. Wilson walked in with a minority of the popular vote - the lowest man, (and I knew the inside of his private life, which I don't want to go into here)."


Actually, with 41.8 percent of the popular vote, Wilson had a plurality. No other candidate has as many votes. Roosevelt and Taft each took about 25 percent of the votes. If this would seem to make Wilson's election illegitimate, consider that the following presidents have all been elected not by majority but by plurality, and some not by popular vote at all: John Quincy Adams (actually elected by the House of Reps); Polk; Taylor; Buchanan; Lincoln (first time); Hayes (fewer popular votes, won by electoral college); Garfield; Cleveland (both times); B. Harrison (fewer popular votes, won by electoral college); Wilson (second time); Truman; Kennedy; Nixon (first time); Clinton (both times); G.W. Bush (first time, fewer popular votes, election decided by Supreme Court).


(16) "When a vacancy appeared on the Supreme Court, Mr. Untermeyer recommended Mr. Brandeis. Mr. Brandeis was the number one Zionist in the United States; the head of them all, and he became very friendly with Wilson. And when the war with Germany broke out, the war between England, France, Russia, and Germany and Austria, the United States had nothing to do with it."


A few things don't add up here. First, as per usual, Freedman can't actually prove any of what he says. He merely says, "I was there," and we're supposed to believe him.


Anyway, why wouldn't the Jews that were so concerned with getting Wilson into the White House begin leaning on him immediately to break trade ties with Russia?


(17) "The Germans had brought out the submarines, and the Irish gave them two bases on the coast of Ireland, and they were sinking everything that brought food and ammunition to England, which under International Law is correct. Now, when they saw that Great Britain was going to lose the war, the Jews were very much excited, because, up to that time, Germany was their best friend."


It's difficult to add it all up here, mainly because Freedman conveniently doesn't provide us with any dates. One thing we know for sure is that Germany did not turn to unlimited submarine warfare until January 1917, and even then they were deployed primarily against France. Yes, incidents such as the sinking of the Lusitania happened, but the key to winning on the Western Front, for the Germans, was not England but France.


All of Ireland was part of the U.K. in 1917. How it could have supplied bases for Germany, thus, is beyond me. It's possible Freedman is thinking of World War II.


(18) "So, when I was in Germany, 50% of the pupils in German schools were Jews from all over Europe." Unless he's talking about universities, and even then it's a big stretch, education was compulsory for all citizens in Germany, and with a Jewish population of less than 1 percent before 1933, it's impossible for half of German students to have been Jewish.


(19) "Even the private bankers, the Hohenzollerns, were Jews."


Hohenzollern was the surname of the royal family of Germany. They were not Jews.


(20) "So, England was offered a Peace Treaty by Germany..."


I've already dealt with this, so I'm not going to belabor points already made, unless they're colossally stupid.


No peace treaties were offered. In fact, Germany changed its position to defensive in 1916. They were not doing well, withdrawing to the Hindenburg line within six months of when Freedman says they offered a peace treaty to England.


As noted elsewhere, England was already killing the Ottomans in the Mideast, and all the wartime correspondence indicates this.


(21) "Now, the United States got into World War I. How did they get in? They didn't know how to get us in, because the Germans leaned backwards."


Actually, they did no such thing. The Zimmermann Telegram, sent in January 1917, is proof of imminent attack by Germany via Mexico against the U.S.


(22) "A message was sent to Washington, that the S.S. Sussex, a ferry from Dover to Calais, had been torpedoed in the Channel and 38 Americans lost their lives! I'm not going to string this out, because I've got a lot of other things to tell you!"


Of course he's not going to string it out. Because it isn't true. Which he says a few minutes later. But where was this HMS Sussex thirteen years earlier, when Freedman addressed the American Nazi Party in Washington? He didn't mention it. Was it a new discovery? Maybe, but he never mentions the Zimmermann Telegram.


Furthermore, why get the U.S. into a war against Germany if the goal is to bring down Russia?


(23) "Pontius Pilate wrote on the crucifix on which our Lord and Savior was to be crucified, "Jesu Nasarenus Rex Iudoreum" which, translated, anybody that has had one year of Latin, knows that means "Jesus, the Nazarene, the Leader of the Judeans." "Leader of the Judeans," the genitive plural and "Rex" comes from "Rego" - "To lead."


No, Pilate wrote "Iesu Nasarenus Rex Iudoreum." There was no "J" in the Roman alphabet. "Rex" means "king," by the way, and "rego" means "I rule." The infinitive Latin form is "regere" -- "to rule."


(24) "Now, they were trying to "frame" our Lord and Savior, claiming that he was influencing the people not to pay taxes so that gold couldn't be shipped to Caesar. And that constituted rebellion. That's why the trial was held, and that's why Pontius Pilate put that up on the crucifix, "Leader of the Judeans" who were revolting against Rome."


See Mark 15:2


(25) "Now we all know everyone of you heard, hundreds of times, that at this trial, Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's."


Jesus didn't say this at his trial. He said it earlier in the week, to a Pharisee and a Herodian. See Matthew 22:21

2 Comments:

At 6:12 PM , Blogger Oddvar said...

Thank you for your very enlightening article. There is however one commentary made by Sir Winston Churchill I wonder about: America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War....

Is this not an evidence the entire war was a big mistake? Also refer to Mr. Neilson's book Makers of War (pp. 149-150), and undisclosed reasons for the outbreak of World War I in Europe in August 1914

Very happy for responses to clear this out.

 
At 7:00 PM , Blogger Timothy said...

WWI was definitely big mistake for numerous reasons. If the European nations peacefully handled their competition issues, WWI might of not existed in the first place.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

_____________________
 
src="http://www.prolifeblogs.com/prolifeblogs6.gif" border="0">
 
Vote For TruthSeeker24's anti-NWO corner
at Conspiracy Top Sites

TopSiteList
Custom EU Cookies Notice by this Blog: This site uses cookies to help deliver services. By using this site, you agree to the use of cookies. Got It! Learn More