.

.
Library of Professor Richard A. Macksey in Baltimore

POSTS BY SUBJECT

Labels

Sunday, July 22, 2012

A.H.M. RAMSAY-THE NAMELESS WAR- A


THE NAMELESS WAR
     This book, first published in 1952 is a small (5' X 7') format, of only 120 pages.  One of the 'little gems' that has been suppressed and gives us a side of history that has NEVER been included in the history books for all to see. Captain Ramsay, WWI veteran, former member of His Majesty's Scottish Guard, and finally a Member of Parliament, was arrested and imprisoned for nearly three years under an Orwellian law in England, without formal charges or a trial, because he had discovered and was attempting to expose the orchestrators of WWII.
     In this book he gives us details of the British, French, Russian and foiled (thanks to Mussolini and Hitler) Spanish Revolutions, proving that the same 'unseen hand' was behind, under, over, and around all of the unrest and bloodshed throughout the centuries, in lockstep with their Plan for World Dominion. When he began naming the perpetrators, that was it: off to prison went this Member of Parliament who had evidently been held in high enough esteem to have been in H.M. Guard. When the war ended, he was released from Brixton Prison and allowed to return to his seat in Parliament as though nothing had happened.
  
P.S. A chapter titled "The Revolution Extends", from Douglas Reed's book, Controversy of Zion, explains the World Revolution, with details on WWII. You can read [NEXT POST]
THE NAMELESS WAR
By
CAPTAIN A.H.M. RAMSAY
[On the back cover - a photo of the author and the following bio]:
THE AUTHOR:
Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay was educated at Eton and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and served with the 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916 - thereafter at Regimental H.Q. and the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of the war.
From 1920 he became a Member of H.M. Scottish Bodyguard. In 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire.
Arrested under Regulation 18b on the 23rd May, 1940, he was detained, without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th September, 1944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament in 1945).
Inside front cover:
THE NAMELESS WAR
Here is the story that people have said would never be written in our time -- the true history of events leading up to the Second World War, told by one who enjoyed the friendship and confidence of Mr. Neville Chamberlain during the critical months between Munich and September, 1939.
There has long been an unofficial ban on books dealing with what Captain Ramsay calls "The Nameless War", the conflict which has been waged from behind the political scene for centuries, which is still being waged and of which very few are aware.
The publishers of "The Nameless War" believe this latest exposure will do more than any previous attempt to break the conspiracy of silence.
The present work, with much additional evidence and a fuller historical background, is the outcome of the personal experiences of a public figure who in the course of duty has discovered at first-hand the existence of a centuries old conspiracy against Britain, Europe, and the whole of Christendom.
"The Nameless War" reveals an unsuspected link between all the major revolutions in Europe -- from King Charles I's time to the abortive attempt against Spain in 1936. One source of inspiration, design and supply is shown to be common to all of them. These revolutions and the World War of 1939 are seen to be integral parts of one and the same master plan.
After a brief review of the forces behind the declaration of war and the world wide arrests of many who endeavoured to oppose them, the author describes the anatomy of the Revolutionary International machine -- the machine which today continues the plan for supranational world power, the age-old Messianic dream of International Jewry.
It is the author's belief that the machine would break down without the support of its unwilling Jews and unsuspecting Gentiles and he puts forward suggestions for detaching these elements.
Christians say . . .
"Captain Ramsay, a Christian gentleman of unflagging courage, believed that the war with Germany was not conceived in the interests of Britain and could lead only to the extension of Communist and Jewish power. Because he warned his fellow countrymen of the forces at work, he was put in prison without trial for four and a half years, for 'reasons' so preposterous that those who framed them dared not submit them to a court of law."  Truth
"For years Captain Ramsay had been a member of the British Parliament. His book is an analysis of the Jewish-Zionist war against Christian civilization."   The Cross and the Flag
Jews say . . .
"There is no limit to the depths of human depravity, Captain Maule Ramsay . . . seems to have made a very determined attempt to plumb those depths."  The Jewish Chronicle
"The publication of such a book, at this time, underlines the urgent need for the law to be reformed so as to make it a crime to preach racial hatred or publish libels on groups in the community."  The Daily Worker
Copyright 1952; First Edition October 1952;
Second Popular Edition 1956;
Third Popular Edition 1956;
Fourth Popular Edition 1962;
Made and Printed in Great Britain by
The B.P.S. Printing Co.
and Published by the Britons Publishing Company
111a Westbourne Grove, London, W.2

CONTENTS
PROLOGUE
1.THE BRITISH REVOLUTION
2. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
3. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION
4. DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE
5. GERMANY BELLS THE CAT
6. 1933: JEWRY DECLARES WAR
7. "PHONEY WAR" ENDED BY CIVILIAN BOMBING
8. DUNKIRK AND AFTER
9. THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
10. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S ROLE
11. REGULATION 18B
12. WHO DARES?
13. EPILOGUE
14. CAPT. RAMSAY'S STATEMENT FROM PRISON TO PARLIAMENT
15. PARTICULARS - REASONS GIVEN FOR ARREST
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 3
APPENDIX 4
APPENDIX 5
APPENDIX 6 (added by us for further elucidation of Captain Ramsey's statements)
Dedication
To the memory of those Patriots who in 1215 at Runnymede signed Magna Carta and those who in 1320 at Arbroath signed the Declaration of Independence this book is dedicated. 27th July 1952.
PROLOGUE
     Edward I banished the Jews from England for many grave offences endangering the welfare of his realm and lieges, which were to a great extent indicated in the Statutes of Jewry*, enacted by his Parliament in 1290, the Commons playing a prominent part.
See Appendix 2 (Appendices follow the last chapter)
     The King of France very shortly followed suit, as did other Rulers in Christian Europe. So grave did the situation for the Jews in Europe become, that an urgent appeal for help and advice was addressed by them to the Sanhedrin, then located at Constantinople.
     This appeal was sent over the signature of Chemor, Rabbi of Arles in Provence, on the 13th January, 1489. The reply came in November, 1489, which was issued over the signature of V.S.S. V.F.F. Prince of the Jews.
     It advised the Jews of Europe to adopt the tactics of the Trojan Horse; to make their sons Christian priests, lawyers, doctors, etc., and work to destroy the Christian structure from within.
     The first notable repercussion to this advice occurred in Spain in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella. Many Jews were by then enrolled as Christians, but remaining secretly Jews were working to destroy the Christian church in Spain.
     So grave became the menace finally, that the Inquisition was instituted in an endeavour to cleanse the country from these conspirators. Once again the Jews were compelled to commence an exodus from yet another country, whose hospitality they had abused.
     Trekking eastwards, these Jews joined other Jewish communities in western Europe; considerable numbers flowed on to Holland and Switzerland.
     From now on these two countries were to become active centres of Jewish intrigue. Jewry, however, has always needed a powerful seafaring nation to which to attach itself.
     Great Britain, newly united under James I, was a rising naval power, which was already beginning to sway the four corners of the discovered world. Here also there existed a wonderful field for disruptive criticism; for although it was a Christian kingdom, yet it was one most sharply divided as between Protestant and Catholic.
     A campaign for exploiting this division and fanning hatreds between the Christian communities was soon in process of organization. How well the Jews succeeded in this campaign in Britain may be judged from the fact that one of the earliest acts of their creature and hireling Oliver Cromwell -- after executing the King according to plan -- was to allow the Jews free access to England once more.
---------------------------------



The Nameless War
CHAPTER 1
THE BRITISH REVOLUTION
"It was fated that England should be the first of a series of Revolutions, which is not yet finished."
     With these cryptic words Isaac Disraeli, father of Benjamin Earl of Beaconsfield, commenced his two volume life of Charles I published in 1851. A work of astonishing detail and insight, much information for which, he states, was obtained from the records of one Melchior de Salom, French envoy in England during that period.
     The scene opens with distant glimpses of the British Kingdom based upon Christianity, and its own ancient traditions; these sanctions binding Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and the people in one solemn bond on the one hand; on the other hand, the ominous rumblings of Calvinism.
     Calvin, who came to Geneva from France, where his name was spelt Cauin, *possibly a French effort to spell Cohen, organized great numbers of revolutionary orators, not a few of whom were inflicted upon England and Scotland. Thus was laid the groundwork for revolution under a cloak of religious fervour.
*Note. At a B'nai B'rith meeting in Paris reported in 'Catholic Gazette' in Feb 1936 he was claimed to be of Jewish extraction.
     On both sides of the Tweed these demagogues contracted all religion into rigid observance of the "Sabbath." To use the words of Isaac Disraeli,
"The nation was artfully divided into Sabbatarians and Sabbath breakers.""Calvin deemed the Sabbath to have been a Jewish ordinance, limited to the sacred people."
He goes on to say that when these Calvinists held the country in their power,
"it seemed that religion chiefly consisted of Sabbatarian rigours; and that a British senate had been transformed into a company of Hebrew Rabbins":
and later
"In 1650, after the execution of the King, an Act was passed inflicting penalties for a breach of the Sabbath."
    Buckingham, Strafford and Laud are the three chief figures round the King in these early stages: Men on whose loyalty to himself, the nation, and the ancient tradition Charles can rely.
     Buckingham, the trusted friend of King James I, and of those who had saved his life at the time of the Gowrie Conspiracy (of ominous cabalistic associations) was assassinated in the early years of King Charles' reign under mysterious circumstances.
     Strafford, who had been in his early days inclined to follow the opposite faction, later left them; and became a staunch and devoted adherent of the King.
     This opposition faction became steadily more hostile to Charles and by the time that they were led by Pym and decided to impeach Strafford. "The King," writes Disraeli, "regarded this faction as his enemies"; and he states that the head of this faction was the Earl of Bedford.
     Walsh, the eminent Catholic historian, states that a Jew wine merchant named Roussel was the founder of this family in Tudor times. With the impeachment and execution of Strafford, the powers behind the rising Calvinist, or Cohenist, Conspiracy began to reveal themselves, and their focus, the City of London.
     At this time there suddenly began to appear from the City armed mobs of "Operatives" (the medieval equivalent for "workers" no doubt). Let me quote Disraeli:
"They were said to amount to ten thousand ...with war-like weapons. It was a militia for insurgency at all seasons, and might be depended upon for any work of destruction at the cheapest rate ...
as these sallied forth with daggers and bludgeons (from the city) the inference is obvious that this train of explosion must have been long laid."
     It must indeed; and we must recollect here, that at this time Strafford was still unexecuted, and civil war in the minds of none but of those behind the scenes, who evidently had long since resolved upon and planned it.
     These armed mobs of "workers" intimidated all and sundry, including both Houses of Parliament and the Palace at critical moments, exactly on the model employed later by the "Sacred Bands" and the "Marseillais" in the French Revolution.
     Isaac Disraeli draws again and again startling parallels between this and the French Revolution; Notably in his passages on the Press, "no longer under restraint," and the deluge of revolutionary pamphlets and leaflets. He writes:
"From 1640 to 1660, about 30,000 appear to have started up."
And later,
"the collection of French revolutionary pamphlets now stands by the side of the French tracts of the age of Charles I, as abundant in number and as fierce in passion. . .
Whose hand behind the curtain played the strings  . . .
could post up a correct list of 59 commoners, branding them with the odious title of 'Straffordians or betrayers of their country'."
     Whose hand indeed? But Disraeli who knew so much, now discreetly draws a veil over that iron curtain; and it is left to us to complete the revelation.
     To do so we must turn to such other works as the Jewish Encyclopedia, Sombart's work, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, and others. From these we learn that Cromwell, the chief figure of the revolution, was in close contact with the powerful Jew financiers in Holland; and was in fact paid large sums of money by Manasseh Ben Israel; whilst Fernandez Carvajal, "The Great Jew" as he was called, was the chief contractor of the New Model Army.
In The Jews in England we read:
"1643 brought a large contingent of Jews to England, their rallying point was the house of the Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew). Prominent among them was Fernandez Carvajal, a great financier and army contractor."
     In January of the previous year, the attempted arrest of the five members had set in violent motion the armed gangs of "Operatives" already mentioned, from the city. Revolutionary pamphlets were broadcasted on this occasion, as Disraeli tells us:
"Bearing the ominous insurrectionary cry of 'To your tents, O Israel'."
     Shortly after this the King and the Royal Family left the Palace of Whitehall.
     The five members with armed mobs and banners accompanying them, were given a triumphal return to Westminster. The stage was now set for the advent of Carvajal and his Jews and the rise of their creature Cromwell.
     The scene now changes. The Civil War has taken its course. The year is 1647: Naseby has been won and lost. The King is virtually a prisoner, while treated as an honoured guest at Holmby House.
     According to a letter published in Plain English (a weekly review published by the North British Publishing Co. and edited by the late Lord Alfred Douglas.) on 3rd September, 1921:
     "The Learned Elders have been in existence for a much longer period than they have perhaps suspected.     My friend, Mr. L. D. van Valckert, of Amsterdam, has recently sent me a letter containing two extracts from the Synagogue at Mulheim. The volume in which they are contained was lost at some period during the Napoleonic Wars, and has recently come into Mr. van Valckert's possession.
     It is written in German, and contains extracts of letters sent and received by the authorities of the Mulheim Synagogue. The first entry he sends me is of a letter received:
16th June, 1647From O.C. (i.e. Oliver Cromwell), by Ebenezer Pratt.
     In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living.Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.
     In reply was dispatched the following:
12th July, 1647
To O.C. by E. Pratt.
     Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape:  His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences."
     With this information now at our disposal, the subsequent moves on the part of the regicides stand out with a new clearness. On 4th June, 1647, Cornet Joyce, acting on secret orders from Cromwell himself, and, according to Disraeli, unknown even to General-in-Chief Fairfax, descended upon Holmby House with 500 picked revolutionary troopers, and seized the King. According to Disraeli,
"The plan was arranged on May 30th at a secret meeting held at Cromwell's house, though later Cromwell pretending that it was without his concurrence."
     This move coincided with a sudden development in the army; the rise of the 'Levelers" and "Rationalists." Their doctrines were those of the French revolutionaries; in fact, what we know today as Communism. These were the regicides, who four times "purged" Parliament, till there was left finally 50 members, Communist-like themselves, known later as the Rump.
     To return to the letter from Mulheim Synagogue of the 12th June, 1647, and its cunning suggestion that attempted escape should be used as a pretext for execution. Just such an event took place, on 12th November of that year. Hollis and Ludlow consider the flight as a stratagem of Cromwell's. Isaac Disraeli states:
"Contemporary historians have decided that the King from the day of his deportation from Holmby to his escape to the Isle of Wight was throughout the dupe of Cromwell."
     Little more remains to be said. Cromwell had carried out the orders from the Synagogue, and now it only remained to stage the mock trial.
     Maneuvering for position continued for some time. And it became apparent that the House of Commons, even in their partially "purged" condition, were in favour of coming to an agreement with the King. On 5th December, 1648, the House sat all night; and finally carried the question, "That the King's concessions were satisfactory to a settlement."
     Should such agreement have been reached, of course, Cromwell would not have received the large sums of money which he was hoping to get from the Jews. He struck again. On the night of December 6th, Colonel Pryde, on his instructions, carried out the last and most famous "purge" of the House of Commons, known as "Pryde's Purge."
     On 4th January, the Communist remnant of 50 members, the Rump, invested themselves with "the supreme authority."
     On 9th January "a High Court of Justice" to try the King was proclaimed. Two-thirds of its members were Levelers from the Army. Algernon Sidney warned Cromwell:
"First, the King can be tried by no court. Second, no man can be tried by this court."
So writes Hugh Ross Williamson in his Charles and Cromwell; and he adds a finishing touch to the effect that
"no English lawyer could be found to draw up the charge, which was eventually entrusted to an accommodating alien, Isaac Dorislaus."
     Needless to say, Isaac Dorislaus was exactly the same sort of alien as Carvajal and Manasseh Ben Israel and the other financiers who paid the "Protector" his blood money.
     The Jews were once again permitted to land freely in England in spite of strong protests by the sub-committee of the Council of State, which declared that they would be a grave menace to the State and the Christian religion. Perhaps it is due to their protests that the actual act of banishment has never to this day been repealed.
"The English Revolution under Charles I was unlike any preceding one ...From that time and event we contemplate in our history the phases of revolution." Isaac Disraeli
     There were many more to follow on similar lines, notably in France.
     In 1897 a further important clue to these mysterious happenings fell into Gentile hands in the shape of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In that document we read this remarkable sentence:
"Remember the French Revolution, the secrets of its preparation are well known to us for it was entirely the work of our hands."[Protocol No.3]
     The Elders might have made the passage even fuller, and written,
"Remember the British and French revolutions, the secrets of which are well known to us for they were entirely the work of our hands."
     The difficult problem of the subjugation of both Kingdoms was still however unsolved. Scotland was Royalist before everything else; and she had proclaimed Charles II King. Cromwell's armies marched round Scotland, aided by their Geneva sympathizers, dispensing Judaic barbarity; but Scotland still called Charles II King. He moreover accepted the Presbyterian form of Christianity for Scotland; and slowly but steadily the feeling in England began to come round to the Scottish point of view.
     Finally upon the death of Cromwell, all Britain welcomed the King's restoration to the throne of England.
     In 1660 Charles II returned; but there was an important difference between the Kingdom he had fled from as a boy, and the one to which he returned as King. The enemies of Kingship were entrenched within his kingdom now, and as soon as the stage should be set for renewing the propaganda against the papacy and so, dividing once more persons, all of whom considered themselves as part of Christ's Church, the next attack would develop.
     The next attack would aim at placing the control of the finances of both Kingdoms in the hands of the Jews, who were now firmly ensconced within.
     Charles evidently had no consciousness of the Jewish problem or plans, or the menace they held for his peoples. The wisdom and experience of Edward I had become lost in the centuries of segregation from the Jewish virus. A consciousness of the danger to the Crown in placing his enemies in possession of the weapon of a "Popish Plot" cry he did retain.
     With James II's accession, the crisis could not be long delayed. The most unscrupulous pamphleteering and propaganda was soon in full swing against him, and it is no surprise to find that many of the vilest pamphlets were actually printed in Holland. This country was now quite openly the focus for all disaffected persons; and considerable comings and goings took place during these years.
     Stories were brought to the King that his own brother-in-law had joined those who plotted against him; but he utterly refused to credit them, or take any action till news came that the expedition against himself was actually under way.
     The chief figure amongst those who deserted James at that crucial juncture was John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough. It is interesting to read in the Jewish Encyclopedia that this Duke for many years received not less than 6,000 pounds a year from the Dutch Jew Solomon Medina.
     The real objective of the "Glorious Revolution" was achieved a few years later in 1694, when the Royal consent was given for the setting up of the "Bank of England" and the institution of the National Debt.
     This charter handed over to an anonymous committee the Royal prerogative of minting money; converted the basis of wealth to gold; and enabled the international money lenders to secure their loans on the taxes of the country, instead of the doubtful undertaking of some ruler or potentate which was all the security they could previously obtain.
     From that time economic machinery was set in motion which ultimately reduced all wealth to the fictitious terms of gold which the Jews control; and drained away the life blood of the land, the real wealth which was the birthright of the British peoples.
[Note: Germany's most successful economic system was NOT backed by gold. He eluded the blood-sucking grip of the Zionist Jew Money Masters, therefore "Germany must be destroyed!" and Adolf Hitler vilified down through ages so the uninformed will DEMAND their government return to the gold standard. -- jackie]
     The political and economic union of England and Scotland was shortly afterwards forced upon Scotland with wholesale corruption, and in defiance of formal protests from every county and borough. The main objects of the Union were to suppress the Royal Mint in Scotland, and to force upon her, too, responsibility for the "National Debt."
     The grip of the moneylender was now complete throughout Britain. The danger was that the members of the new joint Parliament would sooner or later, in the spirit of their ancestors, challenge this state of affairs. To provide against this, therefore, the party system was now brought into being, frustrating true national reaction and enabling the wire-pullers to divide and rule; using their newly-established financial power to ensure that their own men and their own policies should secure the limelight, and sufficient support from their newspapers, pamphlets, and banking accounts to carry the day.
     Gold was soon to become the basis of loans, ten times the size of the amount deposited. In other words, 100 pounds in gold would be legal security for 1,000 pounds of loan; at 3% therefore 100 pounds in gold could earn 30 pounds interest annually with no more trouble to the lender than the keeping of a few ledger entries.
     The owner of 100 pounds of land, however, still must work every hour of daylight in order to make perhaps 4%. The end of the process must only be a matter of time. The moneylenders must become millionaires; those who own and work the land, the Englishman and the Scotsman, must be ruined. The process has continued inexorably till now, when it is nearly completed.
     It has been hypocritically camouflaged by clever propaganda as helping the poor by mulcting the rich. It has been in reality nothing of the kind. It has been in the main the deliberate ruination of the landed classes, the leaders among the Gentiles, and their supplanting by the Jew financiers and their hangers-on.
------------------------------
CHAPTER 2
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
     The French Revolution of 1789 was the most startling event in the history of Europe since the fall of Rome.
     A new phenomenon then appeared before the world. Never before had a mob apparently organized successful revolution against all other classes in the state, under high sounding, but quite nonsensical slogans, and with methods bearing not a trace of the principles enshrined in those slogans.
     Never before had any one section of any nation conquered all other sections; and still less swept away every feature of the national life and tradition, from King, religion, nobles, clergy, constitution, flag, calendar, and place names, to coinage.
     Such a phenomenon merits the closest attention; especially in view of the fact that it has been followed by identical outbreaks in many countries.
    The main discovery that such an examination will reveal is this fact:
the revolution was not the work of Frenchmen to improve France. It was the work of aliens, whose object was to destroy everything, which had been France.
     This conclusion is borne out by the references to "foreigners" in high places in the Revolutionary Councils, not only by Sir Walter Scott, but by Robes Pierre himself.
     We have the names of several of them, and it is clear that they were not British, or Germans, or Italians, or any other nationals; they were, of course, Jews.
     Let us see what the Jews themselves have to say about it :
"Remember the French Revolution to which it was we who gave the name of 'Great.' The secrets of its preparation are well known to us for it was wholly the work of our hands." Protocols of Zion No. 7.
"We were the first to cry among the masses of the people the words 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.' The stupid Gentile poll parrots flew down from all sides on to these baits, and with them carried away the well-being of the world.The would-be-wise men of the Gentiles were so stupid that they could not see that in nature there is no equality, and there cannot be freedom (meaning, of course, freedom as understood by Socialists and Communists, freedom to wreck your own country)." Protocols of Zion-No. 1.
     With this knowledge in our possession we shall find we possess a master key to the intricate happenings of the French Revolution. The somewhat confused picture of characters and events moving across the screen, which our history books have shown us, will suddenly become a concerted and connected human drama.
     When we begin to draw parallels between France of 1789, Britain of 1640, Russia of 1917, Germany and Hungary of 1918-19, and Spain of 1936, we shall feel that drama grip us with a new and personal sense of reality.
"Revolution is a blow struck at a paralytic."
     Even so, however, it must be obvious that immense organization, and vast resources, as well as cunning and secrecy far above the ordinary are necessary for its successful preparation.
     It is amazing indeed that people should suppose that "mobs" or "the people" ever have, or ever could, undertake such a complicated and costly operation. No mistake more-over could be more dangerous; for it will result in total inability to recognize the true significance of events, or the source and focus of a revolutionary movement.
     The process or organizing revolution is seen to be firstly the infliction of paralysis; and secondly, the striking of the blow or blows.
     It is for the first process, the production of paralysis, that the secrecy is essential. Its outward signs are debt, loss of publicity control, and the existence ofalien-influenced secret organizations in the doomed state.
     Debt, particularly international debt, is the first and over-mastering grip. Through it men in high places are suborned, and alien powers and influences are introduced into the body politic. When the debt grip has been firmly established, control of every form of publicity and political activity soon follows, together with a full grip on industrialists.
     The stage for the revolutionary blow is then set. The grip of the right hand of finance established the paralysis; while it is the revolutionary left that holds the dagger and deals the fatal blow. Moral corruption facilitates the whole process.
     By 1780 financial paralysis was making its appearance in France. The world's big financiers were firmly established.
"They possessed so large a share of the world's gold and silver stocks, that they had most of Europe in their debt, certainly France."
So writes Mr McNair Wilson in his Life of Napoleon, and continues on page 38:
"A change of a fundamental kind had taken place in the economic structure of Europe whereby the old basis had ceased to be wealth and had become debt. In the old Europe wealth had been measured in lands, crops, herds and minerals; but a new standard had now been introduced, namely, a form of money to which the title 'credit' had been given."
     The debts of the French Kingdom though substantial were by no means insurmountable, except in terms of gold: and had the King's advisers decided to issue money on the security of the lands and real wealth of France, the position could have been fairly easily righted. As it was the situation was firmly gripped by one financier after another, who either could not or would not break with the system imposed by the international usurers.
     Under such weakness, or villainy, the bonds of usury could only grow heavier and more terrible, for debts were in terms of gold or silver, neither of which France produced.
     And who were the potentates of the new debt machine; these manipulators of gold and silver, who had succeeded in turning upside down the finances of Europe, and replacing real wealth by millions upon millions of usurious loans?
    The late Lady Queensborough, in her important work Occult Theocracy gives us certain outstanding names, taking her facts from L'Anti-Semitisme by the Jew Bernard Lazare, 1894.
     In London she gives the names of Benjamin Goldsmid and his brother Abraham Goldsmid, Moses Mocatta their partner, and his nephew Sir Moses Montifiore, as being directly concerned in financing the French Revolution, along with Daniel Itsig of Berlin and his son-in-law David Friedlander, and Herz Cerfbeer of Alsace. These names recall the Protocols of Zion, and turning up Number 20 we read:
"The gold standard has been the ruin of States which adopted it, for it has not been able to satisfy the demands for money, the more so as we have removed gold from circulation as far as possible."
And Again:-
"Loans hang like a Sword of Damocles over the heads of rulers who . . . come begging with outstretched palm."
     No words could describe more aptly what was overtaking France. Sir Walter Scott in his Life of Napoleon, Vol. 1, thus describes the situation:-
"These financiers used the government as bankrupt prodigals are treated by usurious moneylenders, who feeding their extravagance with the one hand, with the other wring out of their ruined fortunes the most unreasonable recompenses for their advances.By a long succession of these ruinous loans, and the various rights granted to guarantee them, the whole finances of France were brought to total confusion."
     King Louis' chief finance minister during these last years of growing confusion was Necker, "a Swiss" of German extraction, son of a German professor of whom McNair Wilson writes:
"Necker had forced his way into the King's Treasury as a representative of the debt system owning allegiance to that system."
     We can easily imagine what policy that allegiance inspired in Necker; and when we add to this the fact that his previous record was that of a daring and unscrupulous speculator, we can understand why the national finances of France under his baneful aegis rapidly worsened, so that after four years of his manipulations, the unfortunate King's government had contracted an additional and far more serious debt of 170,000,000 pounds.
     By 1730 Freemasonry had been introduced into France from England. By 1771 the movement had attained such proportions that Phillipe Duc de Chartres afterwards d'Orleans became Grand Master. This type of freemasonry was largely innocent, both in policy and personnel in its early days; but as events proved, the real moving spirits were ruthless and unscrupulous men of blood.
     The Duc d'Orleans was not one of these latter. Though a man of little principle, and an extravagant, vain and ambitious libertine, he had no motives beyond the ousting of the King, and the establishing of a democratic monarchy with himself as that monarch. Having in addition but little intelligence, he made the ideal stalking horse for the first and most moderate stage of revolution, and a willing tool of men whom he probably scarcely knew; and who sent him to the guillotine soon after his base and ignominious role had been played.
     The Marquis de Mirabeau who succeeded him as the leading figure of the Revolution was cast in much the same role. He was a much abler man than d'Orleans, but so foul a libertine that he was shunned by all his own class, and imprisoned more than once at the instance of his own father.
     He is known to have been financed by Moses Mendelssohn, head of the Jewish Illuminati, and to have been more in the company of the Jewess Mrs. Herz than was her husband. He was not only an early figure-head in French Freemasonry in the respectable years, but introduced Illuminism into France.
[Note: Moses Mendelssohn is the 'learned Jew' who is quoted as saying that: "Judaism is not a religion. It is a law religionized".
To my mind, that is the same as saying that "Judaism is a political program (for World Dominion) wrapped in a cloak of religion". - jackie]
     This Illuminism was a secret revolutionary society behind freemasonry. The Illuminati penetrated into all the lodges of Grand Orient Freemasonry, and were backed and organized by cabalistic Jews.
     It is interesting to note that the Duc D'Orleans and Talleyrand were both initiated into Illuminism by Mirabeau shortly after the latter had introduced it into France, from Frankfurt, where its headquarters had been established in 1782 under Adam Weishaupt.
     In 1785 there happened a strange event, which makes it seem as though the heavenly powers themselves made a last moment attempt to warn France and Europe against these massing powers of evil:
Lightning struck dead a messenger of the Illuminati at Ratisbon.The police found on the body papers dealing with plans for world revolution.
Thereupon the Bavarian Government had the headquarters of the Illuminati searched, and much further evidence was discovered.
French authorities were informed, but the process of paralysis was too far advanced, and no action resulted.
     By 1789 there were more than two thousand Lodges in France affiliated to the Grand Orient, the direct tool of international revolution; and their adepts numbered over 100,000.
     Thus we get Jewish Illuminism under Moses Mendelssohn and Masonic Illuminism under Weishaupt established as the inner controls of a strong secret organization covering the whole of France.
     Under the Illuminati worked Grand Orient Freemasonry, and under that again the Blue, or National, Masonry had operated until it was converted over-night into Grand Orient Masonry by Phillipe d'Orleans in 1773. Little did Egalite suspect the satanic powers that he was invoking, when he took that action, and satanic they certainly were. The name Lucifer means "Light Bearer"; and Illuminati those who were lit by that light.
     By the time the Estates General met at Versailles on 5th May, 1789, the paralysis of the executive authority by the secret organizations was complete.
     Paralysis by control of public opinion and publicity was well advanced by then also.
     This was the manner of its accomplishment.
     By 1780 d'Orleans' entire income of 800,000 livres, thanks to his reckless gambling and extravagance, was mortgaged to the moneylenders.
     In 1781, in return for accommodation, he signed papers handing over his palace, estates, and house the Palais Royal, to his creditors, with powers to form there a centre of politics, printing, pamphleteering, gambling, lectures, brothels, wine-shops, theatres, art galleries, athletics, and any other uses, which subsequently took the form of every variety of public debauchery.
     In fact, Egalite's financial masters used his name and property to install a colossal organism for publicity and corruption, which appealed to every lowest instinct in human nature; and deluged the enormous crowds so gathered with the filthy, defamatory and revolutionary output of its printing presses and debating clubs.
As Scudder writes in A Prince of the Blood:
"It gave the police more to do than all the other parts of the city."
     It is interesting to note that the general manager installed by the creditors at the Palais royal was one de Laclos, a political adventurer of alien origin, author of Liaisons Dangereuses, and other pornographic works, who was said "to study the politics of love because of his love for politics."
     This steady stream of corruption and destructive propaganda was linked with a series of systematic personal attacks of the vilest and most unscrupulous nature upon any public characters whom the Jacobins thought likely to stand in their way. This process was known as "L'infamie."
     Marie Antoinette herself was one of the chief targets for this typically Jewish form of attack. No lie or abuse was too vile to level at her. More intelligent, alert, and vigorous than the weak and indolent Louis, Marie Antoinette presented a considerable obstacle to the revolution. She had, more-over, received many warnings regarding freemasonry from her sister in Austria; and no doubt was by this time more awake to its significance than when she had written to her sister some years previously:
"I believe that as far as France is concerned, you worry too much about freemasonry. Here it is far from having the significance that it may have elsewhere in Europe. Here everything is open and one knows all. Then where could the danger be?One might well be worried if it were a question of a political secret society. But on the contrary the government lets it spread, and it is only that which it seems, an association the objects of which are union and charity.
One dines, one sings, one talks, which has given the King occasion to say that people who drink and sing are not suspect of organizing plots. Nor is it a society of atheists, for we are told God is on the lips of all. They are very charitable. They bring up the children of their poor and dead members. They endow their daughters. What harm is there in all that?"
     What harm indeed if these blameless pretensions masked no darker designs? Doubtless the agents of Weishaupt and Mendelssohn reported on to them the contents of the Queen's letter; and we can imagine them shaking with laughter, and rubbing their hands in satisfaction; hands that were itching to destroy the very life of France and her Queen; and which at the appropriate hour would give the signal that would convert secret conspiracy into the "massacres of September" and the blood baths of the guillotine.
     In order to further the campaign of calumny against the Queen, an elaborate hoax was arranged at the time, when the financiers and grain speculators were deliberately creating conditions of poverty and hunger in Paris.
     A diamond necklace valued at nearly a quarter of a million was ordered at the Court jewellers in the Queen's name by an agent of the Jacobins. The unfortunate Queen knew nothing of this affair until the necklace was brought round to her for acceptance, when she naturally disclaimed anything to do with the matter, pointing out that she would consider it wrong to order such a thing when France was in so bad a financial way.
     The printing presses of the Palais Royal, however, turned full blast on to the subject; and every kind of criticism leveled at the Queen.
     A further scandal was then engineered for the presses. Some prostitute from the Palais Royal was engaged to disguise herself as the Queen; and by the forged letter the Cardinal Prince de Rohan was induced to meet the supposed Queen about midnight at the Palais Royal, supposing he was being asked for advice and help by the Queen on the subject of the necklace.
     This event, needless to say, was immediately reported to the printing presses and pamphleteers, who started a further campaign containing the foulest innuendoes that could be imagined concerning the whole affair. The moving spirit behind the scene was Cagliostro, alias Joseph Balsamo, a Jew from Palermo, a doctor of the cabalistic art, and a member of the Illuminati, into which he was initiated at Frankfurt by Weishaupt in 1774.
     When the necklace had finally served its purpose, it was sent over to London, where most of the stones were retained by the Jew Eliason. Attacks of a similar nature were directed against many other decent people, who resisted the influence of the Jacobin clubs. After eight years of this work the process of paralysis by mastery of publicity was complete.
     In every respect therefore by 1789, when the financiers forced the King to summon the Estates General, the first portion of their plans for revolution (i.e. paralysis) were accomplished. It now only remained to strike the blow or series of blows, which were to rob France of her throne, her church, her constitution, her nobles, her clergy, her gentry, her bourgeoisie, her traditions, and her culture; leaving in their place, when the guillotine's work was done, citizen hewers of wood and drawers of water under an alien financial dictatorship.
     From 1789 onwards a succession of revolutionary acts were set in motion; each more violent than the one preceding it; each unmasking fresh demands and more violent and revolutionary leaders. In their turn each of these leaders, a puppet only of the real powers behind the revolution, is set aside; and his head rolls into the basket to join those of his victims of yesterday.
     Phillipe Egalite, Duc d'Orleans, was used to prepare the ground for the revolution; to protect with his name and influence the infancy of the revolutionary club; to popularize freemasonry and the Palais Royal; and to sponsor such acts as the march of the women to Versailles.
     The "women" on this occasion were mostly men in disguise. d'Orleans was under the impression that the King and Queen would be assassinated by this mob, and himself proclaimed a democratic King. The real planners of the march, however, had other schemes in view.
     One main objective was to secure the removal of the royal family to Paris, where they would be clear of protection from the army, and under the power of the Commune or Paris County Council in which the Jacobins were supreme.
     They continued to make use of Egalite right up to the time of the vote on the King's life, when he crowned his sordid career by leading the open vote in voting for the death of his cousin. His masters thereafter had no further use for his services; and he very shortly followed his cousin to the guillotine amidst the execrations of all classes.
     Mirabeau played a similar role to that of Egalite. He had intended that the revolution should cease with the setting up of Louis as a democratic monarch with himself as chief adviser. He had no desire to see violence done to the King. On the contrary, in the last days before he died mysteriously by poison, he exerted all his efforts to get the King removed from Paris, and placed in charge of loyal generals still commanding his army.
     He was the last of the moderates and monarchists to dominate the Jacobin club of Paris; that bloodthirsty focus of revolution, which had materialized out of the secret clubs of the Orient Masons and Illuminati. It was Mirabeau's voice, loud and resonant, that kept in check the growing rage of the murderous fanatics who swarmed therein.
     There is no doubt that he perceived at last the true nature and strength of the beast, which he had worked so long and so industriously to unchain. In his last attempt to save the royal family by getting them out of Paris, he actually succeeded in shouting down all opposition in the Jacobin club. That evening he died by a sudden and violent illness; and, as the author of The Diamond Necklace writes:
"Louis was not ignorant that Mirabeau had been poisoned."
     Thus, like Phillipe Egalite, and later Danton and Robes Pierre, Mirabeau too was removed from the stage when his role had been played. We are reminded of the passage in Number 15 of the Protocols of Zion:
"We execute masons in such wise that none save the brotherhood can ever have a suspicion of it."
And again:
"In this way we shall proceed with those goy masons who know too much."
As Mr E. Scudder writes in his Life of Mirabeau:
"He died at a moment when the revolution might still have been checked."
     The figure of Lafayette occupies the stage on several important occasions during these first revolutionary stages. He was one of those simple freemasons, who are borne they know not wither, in a ship they have not fully explored, and by currents concerning which they are totally ignorant.
     While a popular figure with the revolutionary crowds, he very severely handled several incipient outbreaks of revolutionary violence, notably in the march of the women to Versailles, during the attack on the Tuilleries, and at the Champs de Mars. He, too, desired the establishment of a democratic monarchy, and would countenance no threat to the King even from Phillipe Egalite, whom he treated with the utmost hostility during and after the march of the women to Versailles, believing on that occasion that Egalite intended the assassination of the King, and the usurpation of the Crown.
     He evidently became an obstacle to the powers behind the revolution, and was packed off to a war against Austria, which the Assembly forced Louis to declare. Once he did dash back to Paris in an effort to save the King; but he was packed off again to the war. Mirabeau's death followed, and Louis' fate was sealed.
     The wild figures of Danton, Marat, Robes Pierre, and the fanatics of the Jacobin club now dominated the scene.
     In September of 1792 were perpetrated the terrible "September massacres"; 8,000 persons being murdered in the prisons of Paris alone, and many more over the country.
     It should be noted here, that these victims were arrested and held till the time of the massacre in the prisons by one Manuel, Procurer of the Commune. Sir Walter Scott evidently understood much concerning the influences which were at work behind the scenes. In his Life of Napoleon, Vol. 2, he writes on page 30:
"The demand of the Communaute de Paris,now the Sanhedrin of the Jacobins, was, of course, for blood."
[*The Paris County Council, equivalent to the L.C.C. in London.] Again, on page 56 he writes:
"The power of the Jacobins was irresistible in Paris, where Robes Pierre, Danton and Marat shared the high places in the synagogue."
Writing of the Commune, Sir Walter Scott states in the same work:
"The principal leaders of the Commune seem to have been foreigners."
Some of the names of these "foreigners" are worthy of note:
     There was Chlodero de Laclos, manager of the Palais Royal, said to be of Spanish origin.     There was Manuel, the Procurer of the Commune, already mentioned. He it was who started the attack upon royalty in the Convention, which culminated with the execution of Louis and Marie Antoinette.
     There was David the painter, a leading member of the Committee of Public Security, which "tried" the victims. His voice was always raised calling for death. Sir Walter Scott writes that this fiend used to preface his "bloody work of the day with the professional phrase, 'let us grind enough of the Red'." David it was who inaugurated the Cult of the Supreme being; and organized
"the conducting of this heathen mummery, which was substituted for every external sign of rational devotion." (Sir Walter Scott, Life of Napoleon, Vol. 2.)
     There were Reubel and Gohir, two of the five "Directors," who with a Council of Elders became the government after the fall of Robes Pierre, being known as the Directoire.
     The terms "Directors" and "Elders" are, of course, characteristically Jewish.
     One other observation should be made here; it is that this important work by Sir Walter Scott in 9 volumes, revealing so much of the real truth, is practically unknown, is never reprinted with his other works, and is almost unobtainable.
     Those familiar with Jewish technique will appreciate the full significance of this fact; and the added importance it lends to Sir Walter Scott's evidence regarding the powers behind the French Revolution.
     To return to the scene in Paris. Robes Pierre now remains alone, and apparently master of the scenes; but this again was only appearance. Let us turn to theLife of Robes Pierre, by one G. Renier, who writes as though Jewish secrets were at his disposal. He writes:
"From April to July 1794 (the fall of Robes Pierre) the terror was at its height. It was never the dictatorship of a single man, least of all Robes Pierre. Some 20 men (the Committees of Public Safety and of General Security) shared the power."
To quote Mr. Renier again:
"On the 28th July, 1794," "Robes Pierre made a long speech before the Convention . . . a philippic against ultra-terrorists. . . uttering vague general accusations.
'I dare not name them at this moment and in this place. I cannot bring myself entirely to tear asunder the veil that covers this profound mystery of iniquity. But I can affirm most positively that among the authors of this plot are the agents of that system of corruption and extravagance, the most powerful of all the means invented by foreigners for the undoing of the Republic; I mean the impure apostles of atheism, and the immorality that is at its base'."
Mr Renier continues with all a Jew's satisfaction:
"Had he not spoken these words he might still have triumphed!"
     In this smug sentence Mr Renier unwittingly dots the i's and crosses the t's, which Robes Pierre had left uncompleted. Robes Pierre's allusion to the "corrupting and secret foreigners" was getting altogether too near the mark; a little more and the full truth would be out.
     At 2 a.m. that night Robes Pierre was shot in the jaw and early on the following day dragged to the guillotine.
     Again let us recall Protocol 15:
"In this way we shall proceed with goy masons who know too much."
Note: In a somewhat similar manner Abraham Lincoln was shot and killed by the Jew Booth on the evening of his pronouncement to his cabinet that he intended in future to finance U.S. loans on a debt free basis similar to the debt free money known as "Greenbacks," with which he had financed the Civil War.
-----------------------------------
CHAPTER 3
THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION
     Monsieur Francois Coty, the celebrated scent manufacturer, wrote in Figaro on 20th February, 1932:
"The subsidies granted to the Nihilists at this period (1905-1917) by Jacob Schiff, of Kuhn Loeb and Co., New York, were no longer acts of isolated generosity. A veritable Russian terrorist organization had been set up at his expense. It covered Russia with its emissaries."
     This creation of terrorist formations by Jews within a country marked down for revolution, whether they be called Nihilists or as in France in 1789, "Sacred Bands," or "Marseillais"; or "Operatives," as in the Britain of Charles I, now stands revealed as standard technique.
     Jacob Schiff also financed Japan in her war against Russia 1904-5, as we learn from the Jewish Encyclopedia.
     This war was immediately followed by an attempt at revolution on a considerable scale in Russia, which, however, proved abortive. The next attempt, during the Great War, met with complete success.
     On the 3rd January, 1906, the Russian Foreign Minister supplied to Emperor Nicholas II a report on this revolutionary outbreak, which, as revealed in the American Hebrew of July 13th, 1918, contained the following passages:
"The events which took place in Russia in 1905 . . . plainly indicate that the revolutionary movement . . . has a definite international character . . .the revolutionaries possess great quantities of arms imported from abroad and very considerable financial means . . .
one is bound to conclude that there are foreign capitalists' organizations interested in supporting our revolutionary movement. If we add to the above that, as has been proved beyond any doubt, a very considerable part is played by Jews . . .
as ring-leaders in other organizations as well as their own . . .
always the most bellicose element of the revolution . . .
we may feel entitled to assume that the above-mentioned foreign support of the Russian revolutionary movement comes from Jewish capitalist circles."
     The assumption in the foregoing report was indeed well justified. It was to be confirmed by an even more important official document penned at the height of the revolution itself, in 1918, by Mr. Oudendyke, the representative of the Netherlands Government in St. Petersburg, who was in charge of British interests in Russia after the liquidation of our Embassy by the bolsheviks.
     So important indeed was this report of Mr. Oudendyke's held to be by Mr. Balfour, to whom it was addressed, that it was set out in a British government white paper on bolshevism issued in April 1919. (Russia No. 1.)
     In it I have read the following passage: [Emphasis by author]
"I consider that the immediate suppression of bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe, and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
A still clearer light is thrown on these happenings by an article written on 12th April, 1919, in a paper called The Communist, at Kharkov, by one M. Cohen:
"The great Russian revolution was indeed accomplished by the hands of Jews. There are no Jews in the ranks of the Red Army as far as privates are concerned, but in the Committees, and in the Soviet organization as Commissars, the Jews are gallantly leading the masses.The symbol of Jewry has become the symbol of the Russian proletariat, which can be seen in the fact of the adoption of the five-pointed star, which in former times was the symbol of Zionism and Jewry."
     Mr. Fahey, in his important and authenticated work, The Rulers of Russia, is more specific, stating that in 1917 of the 52 persons who took over the direction in Russia, all but Lenin were Jews.
[Mr. Fahey must somehow have missed the fact that Lenin himself WAS a Jew. That would mean then that ALL who took over the direction in Russia were Jews.  - jackie]
     So thorough was the mass liquidation of all but hewers of wood and drawers of water in Russia, that this Jewish grip remained unaltered. Dr. Fahey tells us that in 1935 the Central Executive of the Third international, which ruled Russia
"consisted of 59 men, of which 56 were Jews. The other three, including Stalin, were married to Jewesses. Of 17 principal Soviet ambassadors, 4 were Jews." (Rulers of Russia, pages 8 and 9.)
     The Rev. George Simons, who was Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in St. Petersburg from 1907 to October 1918, appeared before a Committee of the United States Senate on the 12th February, 1919, and gave them a report of his personal knowledge of the happenings in Russia up to the time he left. Dr. Fahey quotes him as saying during this evidence:
"In December, 1918, out of 388 members of the revolutionary government, only 16 happened to be real Russians; all the rest were Jews with the exception of one U.S. Negro. Two hundred and sixty-five of the Jews come from the Lower East Side of New York."
     Such has been the condition of affairs in the U.S.S.R. from that day to this.
     Though a number of Jews were liquidated in the so-called "Moscow Purge," this affected the situation in no way. It merely signified that one Jewish faction had triumphed over, and liquidated, another. There has never been anything in the nature of a Gentile revolt against the Jewish domination.
     The fact that some Jews were liquidated by winning factions behind the iron curtain could be used to deceive the world outside into thinking that this was the result of an anti-semitic revolt, and from time to time a hoax of this kind has been systematically propaganded.
     As world opinion gradually turned hostile to the U.S.S.R. important Jews began to fear that this feeling, combined with a gradual realization that bolshevism is Jewish, might have unpleasant reactions for them.
     About 1945, therefore, a further powerful campaign was organized from influential Jewish circles, notably in the U.S.A., to put out the story once again that Russia had turned on the Jews. They evidently failed, however, to advise their lesser brethren of this move; and indignant and informed denials were soon forthcoming.
     A journal called Bulletin, the organ of the Glasgow Discussion Group, wrote in June 1945:
"Such rubbish as is now being spread as to the growth of anti-Semitism in Russia is nothing but malicious lies and pure invention."
     On 1st February, 1949, the Daily Worker carried an article in which a Mr. Parker gave a few names and figures of Jews in high office in the U.S.S.R., from which he had evidently recently returned, for he wrote:
"I never heard a breath of criticism over this state of affairs. . .anti-Semitism would render a Soviet official liable to prosecution in the same way that a private citizen may be brought before the courts for anti-Semitism."
     On the 10th November, 1949, the Daily Worker, that constant and burning champion of the Jews, printed an article by Mr D. Kartun, entitled "Stamping Out Anti-Semitism," which shows the complete Jewish control behind the iron curtain when he writes:
"In Poland and the other people's democracies anti-Semitism in word or deed is most heavily punished."
     Between 1945 and 1949 the propaganda to convince Gentiles outside the iron curtain, that within that area anti-Semitism was rampant, and the Jews driven from high office everywhere was energetically pursued. It began to be believed by quite a number of people, who should have known better; so much so, that in the autumn of the latter year I thought it worth while to get out a list showing the number of vital positions held by Jews behind the iron curtain. Here is an extract from those lists.
U.S.S.R.:Premier -- Stalin  ..............................Married to a Jewess
Vice-Premier - Kaganovitch ............... Jew
[Note: "Kagan" or 'Khagan' is the Khazarian word for 'King'. More than 90% of Jews today are not Semitic, nor are their ancestors. They are of the Turko-Mongolian tribe of Khazars, whose Kagan adopted Talmudism around 740 A.D. - j]
Ministry of State Control -- Mekhlis  ....................  JewMilitary & Naval Construction -- Ginsburg   ........... Jew
Minister Cominform Organ -- Yudin   ................... Jew
Chief Publicist Abroad for U.S.S.R. -- Ilya Eherenburg ........Jew
Ministry of Building Enterprises Machinery -- Yudin ............Jew
Foreign Minister -- Molotoff   .....................Married to a Jewess
POLAND:
Virtual Ruler -- Jacob Bergman  ............................ Jew
Public Prosecutor -- T. Cyprian   ............................. Jew
O.C. Youth Movements -- Dr. Braniewsky   ............... Jew
HUNGARY:
Virtual Ruler -- Mathias Rakosi ................................. Jew
ROUMANIA:
Virtual Ruler -- Anna Pauker   ................................... Jewess (Since removed for "deviationism" but replaced by another Jew.)
YUGOSLAVIA:
Virtual Ruler -- Moishe Pyjede  ............................Jew
     In May 1949, the Daily Worker, which is, of course, consistently and ardently pro-Jewish, printed an article by Mr A. Rothstein praising the U.S.S.R. to the skies; and about the same time another article on similar lines about the paradise behind the iron curtain by Mr Sam Aronvitch.
     On the 10th November the same paper printed an article in which D. Kartun, writing of the "People's Democracies" and the stamping out of anti-Semitism there, wrote:
"No one could dream of making an anti-semitic speech or writing an anti-semitic article in any of these countries. If they did their jail sentence would be both immediate and lengthy."
     In the last few years we have been supplied with further dramatic proof of the vital inter-relation between Jews and the U.S.S.R.
     From the Canadian spy trials, which focused the spotlight on atom spying for the U.S.S.R., with the conviction and imprisonment of Frank Rosenberg (alias Rose), the Canadian Jew Communist Member of Parliament, and several Jews, to the conviction and imprisonment of many others of the same gang in Britain and the U.S.A., including Fuchs, Professor Weinbaum, Judith Coplon, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Julius Rosenberg, Miriam Moskewitz, Abraham Brothanz, and Raymond Boyer, who -- though a Gentile by birth -- married a Jewess and, I believe, adopted the Jewish creed on that occasion.
     Finally, we had the flight to the U.S.S.R. with atom secrets also of the Jew Professor Pontecorvo, who had been working in close association with Fuchs.
     No doubt we shall continue to be regaled with plausible stories proving that Russia has gone anti-semitic; but it is not hard to realise that such a Jewish grip backed by the most elaborate spy and liquidation squads known to man, would cause a convulsion which would shake the world before its grip could be broken.
------------------------------
The Nameless War
CHAPTER 4
DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE
     Four revolutions in history merit our special attention. The study and comparison of the methods employed therein will reveal on the one hand a basic similarity between them: and on the other an interesting advance in technique, with each succeeding upheaval. It is as if we studied the various stages in the evolution of the modern rifle from the original old "brown Bess."
    The revolutions in question are firstly the Cromwellian, secondly the French, thirdly the Russian, and lastly the Spanish revolution of 1936.
    All four can be proved to have been the work of international Jewry. The first three succeeded, and secured the murder of the reigning monarch and the liquidation of his supporters.
     In each case Jewish finance, and underground intrigue, are clearly traceable; and the earliest measures passed by the revolutionaries have been "emancipation" for the Jews.
     Cromwell was financed by various Jews, notably Manasseh Ben Israel and Carvajal "the Great Jew," contractor to his army.
     On this occasion Jewish influence remained financial and commercial, while the propaganda weapons and medium were semi-religious, all the Cromwellians being soaked in Old Testament Judaism; some, such as General Harrison, even carried their Judaism to the length of advocating the adoption of the Mosaic Law as the law of England, and the substitution of Saturday as the Sabbath in place of the Christian Sunday.
     We are all familiar with the absurd Old Testament passages which the Roundhead rank and file adopted as names, such as Sergeant Obadiah, "Bind their Kings in chains and their nobles in fetters of iron." The Cromwellian revolution was short-lived. The work of destruction had not been sufficiently thorough to frustrate counter-revolution, and restoration of the old regime.
     A second revolution, the so-called "Glorious Revolution" of 1689, was necessary. This again was financed by Jews, notably Solomon Medina, Suasso, Moses Machado and others.
     By the French revolution of 1789 the technique had been notably improved. Secret societies had been developed throughout France on a grand scale in the preceding years. The plans for the liquidation of the former regime are by this time far more drastic.
     The judicial murder of a kindly and well intentioned King and a few nobles is replaced by mass murders in prisons and in private houses of the whole of the nobility, clergy, gentry and bourgeoisie, regardless of sex.
     The Cromwellian damage and desecration of a few churches by their temporary use as stables is developed into a general wrecking of Christian churches, or their conversion into public lavatories, brothels, and markets; and the banning of the practice of the Christian religion and even the ringing of church bells.
     Civil war is not allowed to develop. The army is side-tracked, and kept apart from its King by his seizure at an early stage. So powerful is the unseen control by 1789 that apparently, the dregs of the French population victoriously liquidate all their natural leaders, in itself a most unnatural and suspicious phenomenon.
     More suspicious still is the sudden appearance of strong bands of armed hooligans, who march on Paris from Lyons and Marseilles; and are recorded as being obviously foreigners.
     Here we have the first formations of alien mercenary and criminal elements, forcing revolutions upon a country not their own, which were to have their finished and expanded prototype in the International Brigades, which attempted to force Marxism on Spain 150 years later.
     England in the 17th century had not been dismembered and hideously remoulded on alien lines; but all familiar land marks in 18th century France were destroyed.
     The splendid and historic names and titles of counties, departments and families were scrapped, and France divided into numbered squares occupied merely by "citizens."
     Even the months of the calendar were changed.
     The national flag of France with its lilies and its glories was banned. Instead the French received the Tricolour, badge of murder and rapine. Here, however, the planners made a mistake.
     The Tricolour might not be the honoured and famous flag of France. It might be dripping with the blood of massacre, regicide and villainy. It might be stinking with the slime of the Jewish criminals who designed and foisted it upon the French people; but it was proclaimed the national flag, and the national flag it became; and with the national flag came the national army, and a national leader, Napoleon.
     It was not long before this great Frenchman ran up against the secret powers, who up till then controlled the armies of France. They had planned to use these armies to revolutionise all European states, one after another; to overthrow all leadership, and establish rule of the mob, apparently, in reality of course their own.
     Just in this manner do the Jews today plan to use the Red Army. Such a policy directed by aliens of this type could not long continue once a national army had thrown up a real national leader; their outlook and policy must inevitably be poles apart. It was not long before the First Consul challenged and overthrew these aliens and their puppets.
     By the year 1804 Napoleon had come to recognise the Jew and his plans as a menace to France and all that the revolution had swept away he systematically restored. From this time onwards Jewish money financed every coalition against him; and Jews today boast that it was Rothschild rather than Wellington who defeated Napoleon.
     Knowing these things, Hitler, on his occupation of Paris, immediately ordered a permanent guard of honour to be mounted over Napoleon's tomb at the Invalides; and had the body of L'Aiglon (Napoleon's son by Maria Louisa) brought from Austria, and buried at last in his proper place at the side of his father.
     When we come to examine the Russian revolution we find that the technique is still bolder and far more drastic. On this occasion no national flag, army, or anthem is permitted. After the dregs of the community have apparently accomplished the impossible, and liquidated every other class down to and including the kulak (a man with three cows), they are herded into a polyglot force called the Red Army; over them waves an international red flag, not a Russian flag; their anthem is the Internationale.
     The technique of revolution in Russia was so perfected that to this day it has secured the Jewish regime established there against all counter strokes.
     The next revolution to merit our attention is the one that broke out in Spain in 1936. Fortunately for Europe, it was frustrated by General Franco and a number of gallant men, who instantly took the field in opposition to the revolutionary forces, and succeeded in a long struggle in crushing them.
     This achievement is all the more remarkable in view of the latest development in revolutionary organisation, which was then revealed in the shape of the International Brigades. These International Brigades, besides representing the very latest novelty in revolutionary technique, were a remarkable production.
     They were recruited from criminals, adventurers and dupes, mostly communists, from 52 different countries, mysteriously transported and assembled in formations in Spain within a few weeks of the outbreak of disorder, uniformed in a garb closely related to our battle dress, and armed with weapons bearing the Jewish five-pointed star.
     This star and the Seal of Solomon were upon the signet rings of N.C.O.s and Officers in this communist horde of ill-disciplined ruffians. I have seen them myself in wear.
     By October 1936 these International Brigades were already assembled in Spain in considerable numbers. Undisciplined and blackguardly though they were, the mere fact of a large and well-armed political army, intervening suddenly on one side in the early stages of a civil war, might reasonably have been counted upon to achieve a decision before the patriotic and decent element in the country could have time to create an adequate fighting machine.
     Though the British public were kept in total ignorance as to the true significance of what was taking place in Spain two countries in Europe were alive to the situation. Germany and Italy had each in their turn experienced the throes of communist revolution, and emerged victorious over this foulest of earthly plagues. They knew who had financed and organised the International Brigades; and with what fell purpose Barcelona had been declared in October 1936 the Capital of the Soviet States of Western Europe.
     At the critical moment they [Hitler and Mussolini] intervened in just sufficient strength to counter the International Brigade, and enable the Spanish people to organise their own army, which, in due course, easily settled the matter.
     Settled the matter, that is to say, as far as Spain was concerned.
     There was, however, another settlement to come. International Jewry had been seriously thwarted. They would not rest henceforward until they could have their revenge; until they could by hook or crook turn the guns of the rest of the world against these two States, which in addition to thwarting their designs in Spain were in the process of placing Europe upon a system independent of gold and usury, which, if permitted to develop, would break the Jewish power for ever.
================================

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Nathuram Godse Killed Mahatma Gandhi to Save Hindus and India!


Nathuram Godse Killed Mahatma Gandhi to Save Hindus and India?

by MTN

Most people know the name of Nathuram Godse as a killer of Mahatma Gandhi. This is how the whole world remembers him every year on death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi on 30th January. However, there has been lots of contradictions about why Godse had to kill Gandhi and what were the real reasons behind Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. Most of these reasons haven indeed been talked about in the past as well but not so openly. That is to only to make Godse always look like a accused and Gandhi as a mere victim. However, when the whole story and underlying reasons are seen with a different perspective, then it ofcourse leads to unearthing of newer facts and analysis. This is what which has been kept hidden from being talked openly so as to keep the image of Mahatma Gandhi and his ideology of non-violence unquestionable always. However, the very fact that lots of plays, dramas and even movies have been released on this controversial topic itself proves that there is indeed other side of story remained untold. Let us try to go through the who background, story and real motives behind Mahatma Gandhi’s murder by Nathuram Godse. Well, whole analysis is based upon the existing information on the topic as available in various online and offline resources.
why-Nathuram-godse-killed-mahatma-gandhi

NATHURAM GODSE – BACKGROUND, FAMILY, EARLY LIFE

Nathuram Godse’s full name was Nathuram Vinayak Godse and he was born on 19th May 1910 in the city of Pune, India and died on 15 November 1949. He was a Hindutva activist and journalist, who was the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi. Along with his brother Gopal Godse and six other co-conspirators, he executed a plot to assassinate Gandhi.
Nathuram Godse was born in Baramati बारामती, Pune District in a Chitpavan Brahmin family. His father, Vinayak Vamanrao Godse, was a post office employee and his mother was Lakshmii (née Godavari). At birth, he was named Ramachandra.

How Nathuran Godse Got His Name

There is quite an interesting story on how Nathuram Godse got his name. Nathuram was given his name because of an unfortunate incident. Before he was born, his parents had three sons and a daughter, with all three boys dying in their infancy. Fearing a curse that targeted male children, young Ramachandra was brought up as a girl for the first few years of his life, including having his nose pierced and being made to wear a nose-ring (“Nath” in Marathi). It was then that he earned the nickname “Nathuram” (literally “Ram with a nose-ring”). After his younger brother was born, they switched to treating him as a boy.

Nathuram Godse was a Homosexual?

However, other biographers dismiss the above story, together with claims that Godse was a homosexual, as a fabrication by the Congress Party of India, meant to exploit the prejudices against transvestites and homosexuals in conservative Indian society in order to demonize Godse.

Nathuram Godse Schooling and Education

Nathuram Godse attended the local school at Baramati through the fifth standard, after which he was sent to live with an aunt in Pune so that he could study at an English-language school. During his school days, he highly respected Gandhi. In 1930, Nathuram’s father was transferred to the town of Ratnagiri.

GODSE’S ENTRY TO POLITICS

Godse dropped out of high school and became an activist with Hindu nationalist organizations such as the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), although the RSS has claimed he left during the mid-1930s, almost 20 years prior to the assassination. They were particularly opposed to the separatist politics of the All India Muslim League. Godse started a Marathi newspaper for Hindu Mahasabha called Agrani, which some years later was renamed. Hindu Rashtra. The Hindu Mahasabha had initially backed Gandhi’s campaigns of civil disobedience against the British government.

WHAT MADE NATHURAM GODSE AGAINST MAHATMA GANDHI

Nathuram Godse rejected Gandhi, after what he saw as Gandhi’s repeated sabotage against the interests of Hindus by using the “fasting unto death” tactic on many issues. In Godse’s view, Gandhi was giving into Muslim interests in ways that seemed unfair and anti-national. He blamed Gandhi for the Partition of India, which left hundreds of thousands of people dead in the wake of religious unrest.

Gandhi’s Non-Violence Made Godse so Violent that He Killed Bapu

Godse was against Gandhi’s personal teachings of extreme or absolutist non violence. He thought that such non-violent ideology would lead to Hindus losing the will to fight against other religions, which he saw as a matter of self-defense, and thereby becoming permanently enslaved. This has been said to be one of the major reasons behind his decision to kill Gandhi.

ASSASSINATION OF MAHATMA GANDHI [HOW GODSE KILLED GANDHI]

Godse approached Gandhi on January 30, 1948 during the evening prayer and bowed. One of the girls flanking and supporting Gandhi, Abha Chattopadhyay, said to him, “Brother, Bapu is already late” and tried to put him off but he pushed her aside and shot Gandhi in the chest three times at point-blank range with a semi-automatic pistol. Gandhi died almost immediately. After shooting, Godse did not try to run or threaten anyone else. He was attacked and pinned to the ground by the crowd around him and was subsequently arrested when a small group of police officers arrived on the scene a few minutes later.
nathuram-godse-killing-mahatma-gandhi-photos

GODSE’S COURT TRIAL

Following the assassination of Mohandas Gandhi, he was put on trial beginning May 27, 1950 at Peterhoff, Shimla which housed the Punjab High Court.
On November 8 1950, Godse delivered his statements in court enunciating the reasons and motives for the assassination.

GODSE’S REPLY ON WHY HE KILLED GANDHI (AS ANSWERS TO THE CHARGE SHEET FILED)

Godse narrated all the reasons that led to killing of Mahatma Gandhi in the form of his answers to the charge sheet filed against him. Below are the excerpts from different but main sections of his answers to the charge sheet.
nathuram-godse-reply-speech-on-how-and-why-killed-gandhi

Nathuram Godse’s Answer to Charge Sheet (Excerpts from Para. 26, 27)

Below is an excerpt of Godse’s answer to the charge sheet filed against him on Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination.
As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus are of equal status as to rights, social and religious, and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Vaishyas, Kshatriyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other.
He listed Dadabhai Naoroji, Swami Vivekananda, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar Tilak as his influences, along with the ancient and modern histories of India, England, France, America and Russia, and the tenets of Socialism and Marxism.
Below is the para 28 of his answer to the charge sheet;
All this reading and thinking brought me to believe that above all it was my first duty to serve the Hindudom and the Hindu people, as a patriot and even as a humanitarian. For, is it not true that to secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores of Hindus constituted the freedom and the well-being of one fifth of human race ? This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the new Hindu Sanghatanist ideology and programme which alone I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindusthan, my Motherland and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.

Nathuram Godse Dismissed Gandhi’s Non-Violence Policy

He dismissed Gandhi’s policies of truth and non-violence as “nothing new or original” and considered them “implicit in every constitutional public movement”. He defended the use of righteous violence against aggression and quoted the examples of Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind Singh. He rebuked Gandhi for his “self-conceit” for condemning them as misguided patriots. However, Gandhi had referred to the issue in a completely different way.

He accused Gandhi of paradoxically being a “violent pacifist” who brought calamities to the country through non-violence. According to Godse, Gandhi developed a “subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong” and accused him of having too much power.

Nathuram Godse, Answer to the Charge Sheet (Excerpt from Para. 69)

Below is an excerpt from Para 69 of Godse’s answer to the charge sheet;
If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on in his own way. Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the judge of everyone and everything; he was the master brain guiding the Civil Disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin it and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, but that could make no difference to the Mahatma’s infallibility. ‘A Satyagrahi can never fail’ was his formula for his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.

Godse Accused Gandhi of Insane and Pro-Muslim Policies

Godse rebuked Gandhi’s “childish insanities and obstinacies”. According to Godse, Gandhi did not allow any room for people to disagree with his “irrational” policies. Thus, Godse held Gandhi’s irresponsibility as the cause of “blunder after blunder, failure after failure, and disaster after disaster”. He also accused Gandhi of having a blatant pro-Muslim policy and quoted Gandhi’s support for Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) (which was synonymous to Urdu) as the national language of India after the Muslims objected to Hindi and claimed that all of Gandhi’s experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.

Nathuram Godse, Answer to the Charge Sheet (Para. 35)

Gandhiji began to hold his prayer meetings in a Hindu temple in Bhangi Colony and persisted in reading passages from Quoran as a part of the prayer in that Hindu temple in spite of the protest of the Hindu worshippers there. Of course he dared not read the Geeta in a mosque in the teeth of Muslim opposition. He knew what a terrible Muslim reaction would have been if he had done so. But he could safely trample over the feelings of the tolerant Hindu. To this belief I was determined to prove to Gandhiji that the Hindu too could be intolerant when his honour was insulted.
He explained that Gandhi’s unfair treatment and hypocrisy was the cause of his anger.

Nathuram Godse, Answer to the Charge Sheet (Para. 48)

The fact that Gandhiji honoured the religious books of Hindus, Muslims and others or that he used to recite during his prayers verses from the Geeta, the Quoran and Bible never provoked any ill will in me towards him. To my mind it is not at all objectionable to study comparative religion. Indeed it is a merit.

Gandhi’s Bias towards Muslims, Pakistan and Support for Separation of Sind

He quoted numerous examples of Gandhi’s bias such as the fast for the payment of Rs. 55 crores to Pakistan, his support for the Khilafat movement and the invasion of India by the Amir of Afghanistan, his denunciation of the Arya Samaj which included several nationalist leaders, his silence over the subsequent murder of Swami Shraddhanand by a Muslim, his support for the separation of Sind, his placation of Jinnah and the Muslim League, his denial of slaughter and forced conversion of Hindus by Muslims in the Moplah Riots despite evidence to the contrary, opposition to the singing of Vande Mataram, his contrasting treatment of Hindu and Muslim princes, support for cow-slaughter, opposition to Shivaji’s Flag, his hypocrisy over the violent Quit India movement (by his call to “Do or Die”), among others. (Para. 69).
Godse firmly believed in a secular State and was opposed to the supremacist demands of the Muslim League (Para 51).
Godse accused Gandhi of infatuation with the Muslim League even after the massacre of Hindus by Muslims after Direct Action Day and despite their increasing disloyalty and treason to the Interim Government. He also denounced the Congress, which had boasted of its “nationalism and secularism”, of surrendering to Jinnah and accepting Pakistan at the “point of the bayonet”.

What Gandhi Called Non-Violence was the Most Violent Time in History

Godse accused Gandhi for much of the violence that happened in the country during 1960 and 1948 and tried to make a point that Gandhi’s non-violence policy was nothing more than a fake. This is what he answered in the charge sheet in Para 69w.
Nathuram Godse, Answer to the Charge Sheet (Para. 69w, 91, 140)
This is what Gandhiji had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what the Congress Party calls ‘Freedom’. Never in the history of the world has such slaughter been officially connived at or the result described as Freedom, and ‘Peaceful Transfer of power’ If what happened in India in 1946, 1947 and 1948 is to be called peaceful one wonders what would be the violent. Hindu Muslim Unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic and communal State dissociated from everything that smacked of United India was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called it `Freedom won by them at sacrifice’. Whose sacrifice?

Godse Accused Gandhi of being Father of Pakistan and not of India

According to Godse, Gandhi did not impose any conditions on Muslims because Jinnah and the Muslim League were not at all perturbed or influenced by his fasts and attached no value to his voice. He also criticized Gandhi’s epithet “The Father of India” for failing in his paternal duty as he consented to its partition. He claimed Gandhi failed in his duty and proved to be the father of Pakistan.
His inner-voice, his spiritual power, his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled against Jinnah’s iron will and proved to be powerless.
He criticized Gandhi’s non-violent policy during the communal clashes:
“We should with a cool mind reflect when we are being swept away. Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence. If they put all of us to the sword, we should court death bravely, may they, even rule the world, we, shall inhabit the world. At least we should never fear death. We are destined to be born and die; then why need we feel gloomy over it? If all of us die with a smile on our lips, we shall enter a new life. We shall originate a new Hindustan.”

Godse Killed Gandhi to save Hindus

Had this act not been done by me, of course it would have been better for me. But circumstances were beyond my control. So strong was the impulse of my mind that I felt that this man should not be allowed to meet a natural death so that the world may know that he had to pay the penalty of his life for his unjust, anti-national and dangerous favouritism towards a fanatical section of the country. I decided to put an end to this matter and to the further massacre of lacs of Hindus for no fault of theirs. May God now pardon him for his egoistic nature which proved to be too disastrous for the beloved sons of this Holy Land.
— Nathuram Godse, Answer to the Charge Sheet (Para. 140)
Godse foresaw that he would be hated by the people, his future would be totally ruined, and that he would lose all his honour, which he held more valuable than his life, if he were to assassinate Gandhi. However, he considered that Indian politics in Gandhi’s absence would be practical, able to retaliate and be powerful with the armed forces, and that “the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan”.
He then confessed that he fired the shots at Gandhi on January 30 1950, on the prayer-grounds in Birla House.
I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually, but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.
— Nathuram Godse, Answer to the Charge Sheet (Excerpt from Para. 135)

Godse Accused Nehru as well for being Instrumental in creation of Pakistan

He then accused Prime Minister Nehru of hypocrisy with his speeches of secularism, because he was instrumental in creating the Islamic state of Pakistan along with Gandhi’s persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims.

GODSE’S CONFESSION OF GANDHI’S MURDER

This is what Godse said while confessing on why he killed Gandhi and denying any mercy or help for this from any one in this matter.
Finally, I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof someday in future.
— Nathuram Godse, Answer to the Charge Sheet (Para. 150)

COURT’S DECISION AND STATEMENT OVER GODSE’S TRIAL AND STATEMENTS (BY JUSTICE KHOSLA)

In the light of the statement, Justice Khosla commented :
The highlight of the appeal before us was the discourse delivered by Nathuram Godse in his defence. He spoke for several hours, discussing, in the first instance, the facts of the case and then the motive, which had prompted him to take Mahatma Gandhi’s life.
The audience was visibly and audibly moved. There was a deep silence when he ceased speaking. Many women were in tears and men coughing and searching for their handkerchiefs. The silence was accentuated and made deeper by the sound of an occasional subdued sniff or a muffled cough…
I have however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse’s appeal, they would have brought in a verdict of ‘not guilty’ by an over-whelming majority.’

EXECUTION – GODSE WAS HANGED ON 15 NOVEMBER 1949

On November 8, 1949, Godse was sentenced to death. Among those calling for commutation of the death sentence for the defendants were Jawaharlal Nehru, as well as Gandhi’s two sons, who felt that executing their father’s killers would dishonour his memory and legacy which included a staunch opposition to the death penalty. Godse was hanged at Ambala Jail on November 15, 1949 along with Narayan Apte, the other conspirator. Savarkar was also charged with conspiracy in the assassination of Gandhi, but was acquitted and subsequently released.

AFTERMATH – RSS BAN AND DENIAL ABOUT GODSE’S RSS MEMBERSHIP

Millions of Indians mourned Gandhi’s assassination. The Hindu Mahasabha was vilified and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the RSS, was temporarily banned. However, investigators could find no evidence that the RSS bureaucracy had formally sponsored or even knew of Godse’s plot. The RSS ban was lifted by Prime Minister Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in 1949.
The RSS, to this day denies any connection with Godse, and disputes the claim that he was a member.
After the assassination, many criticized the Indian government for not doing more to protect Gandhi who, earlier in the week, had been the target of a bomb plot by the same conspirators who later shot him. Of particular concern, was the fact that a Bombay detective had wired the names and descriptions of the assassins along with the fact that they were known to be in Delhi stalking Gandhi. On the other hand, Gandhi had repeatedly refused to cooperate with his own security and had resigned himself to a violent death which he accepted as an inevitable part of his destiny.

PLAYS, DRAMAS AND MOVIES ON MAHATMA GANDHI’S ASSASSINATION BY NATHURAM GODSE (FROM GODSE’S POINT OF VIEW)

Till date, there have been many instances when this topic has been dramatized in the form of plays and movies. Below are the some of the plays and movies which were created from the point of view of Godse again hinting that there indeed was the other side of the story.
A film, Nine Hours to Rama, was made in 1963 and was based on the events leading up to the assassination, seen mainly from Godse’s point of view. The film Hey Ram, made in 2000, also briefly touches upon events related to the assassination. The popular Marathi language play Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy (Marathi: मी नथुराम गोडसे बोलतोय)(“I am Nathuram Godse, Speaking”) was also made from Godse’s point of view.

BOOKS ON NATHURAM GODSE’S POINT OF VIEW [BUY AND DOWNLOAD]

Three books were based on Nathuram Godse in which the author narrated his life story and why he assassinated Gandhi. But the books were banned by government. The books were: 1. Why I assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, published by Surya Bharti, Delhi, India, 2003. ISBN 1-375-09979-6 2. May it Please your Honor!, published by Surya Bharti, India, 2003 3. Gandhi Vadh aur Main(Gandhi Hatya Aani Me) by his brother Gopal Godse in 1989.

Nathuram Godse’s Final Address to the Court.


Gandhiji’s assassin, Nathuram Godse’s Final Address to the Court.

WHY I KILLED GANDHI - Nathuram Godse's Final Address to the Court.
WHY I KILLED GANDHI - Nathuram Godse's Final Address to the Court.
Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinated Gandhiji, based on a F. I. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the Tughlak Road Police staton at Delhi . The trial, which was held in camera, began on May 27, 1948 and concluded on February 10, 1949. He was sentenced to death.
An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not find favour and the sentence was upheld. The statement that you are about to read is the last made by Godse before the Court on the May 5, 1949.
Such was the power and eloquence of this statement that one of the judges, G. D. Khosla, later wrote, “I have, however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse’s appeal, they would have brought a verdict of ‘not Guilty’ by an overwhelming majority”
WHY I KILLED GANDHI
Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession.
I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other. I have read the speeches and writings of Ravana, Chanakiya, Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England , France , America and Russia . Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.
All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well-being of all India , one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan , my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.
Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji’s influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them.. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day.
In fact, honour, duty and love of one’s own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita.. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.
In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India . It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history’s towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom they brought to them.
The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very good in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way.
Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma’s infallibility. ‘A Satyagrahi can never fail’ was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible.
Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster. Gandhi’s pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India . It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India , Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani.. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma’s sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India . His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.
From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi’s infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947.
Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls ‘freedom’ and ‘peaceful transfer of power’. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called ‘freedom won by them with sacrifice’ – whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country – which we consider a deity of worship – my mind was filled with direful anger.
One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan , there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.
Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah’s iron will and proved to be powerless. Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan . People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building.
After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.
I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi’s persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims. I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.

Was Mahatma Gandhi an Illuminati Pawn?


Was Mahatma Gandhi an Illuminati Pawn?

July 20, 2012

By Timothy Watson, Ph.D.

(henrymakow.comAs a Freemason employed by MI6, Gandhi's main role was to partition India in order to set it up for future conflict.
This would serve the future depopulation agenda by fomenting regional wars. It would also justify the New World Order plan to implement world government to restore the peace.
The Illuminati used the same M.O. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Kuwait, and a host of other divide-and-conquer national bifurcation schemes. The Illuminati relentlessly implement their motto ordo ab chao(order out of chaos). It is their teleology.
The Round Table was a world government body set up by Illuminati agent Cecil Rhodes. When Gandhi attended the Round Table Conference in 1931, Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald presented him with the Communal Award for partitioning India.
Gandhi gave a speech at the Round Table Conference promoting "Communitarianism", a buzz word used to disguise the Illuminati goal of establishing a worldwide socialist dictatorship under the cover of "communalism".




SERVANT OF EMPIRE

In the 1890's, the young Gandhi set off to London to study law. His London Diary recorded this period in his life, but all but 20 pages have mysteriously disappeared.
The surviving pages actually describe Gandhi's initiation to the Third Degree of Freemasonry in coded language, something only a Freemason scholar would notice.
The original 120-page volume would have been his Freemason diary. If the surviving 20 pages are any indication, it appears to be a record of his initiation through the various degrees of the Order.
Since he is known to have entrusted the Diary to a close family relation, the fact that it has gone missing is highly suspect. The more likely explanation is that it is being withheld from the public to conceal Gandhi's Freemason affiliations.
170px-Gandhi_Boer_War_1899.jpg(left, Gandhi in the Ambulance Corps)

Gandhi later became a sergeant major in the British Army. His ambulance team joined the British in their campaign to suppress a "Kaffir" uprising in South Africa. Gandhi acted as a recruitment officer for the British Army in the Boar War, WWI and WWII and as an apologist for the British Empire in his Indian Opinion newspaper. 
   
Gandhi was assassinated and Natharam Godse was arrested in the square before hordes of onlookers. He surrendered, compliantly raising his hands over his head and handed his weapon over to the authorities.
   
Gopal Godse, brother of Gandhi assassin, Natharam Godse, wrote a book called May It Please Your Honour based on the courtroom testimony of his brother, which the world never got to hear.
Natharam Godse conducted his own defense in order to present his true motivations. He conducted his own defense, but the Congress Party of India ensured that not a word was published in any of the Indian newspapers.
The police stole the notebooks out of the reporters' hands and destroyed them, issuing a stern warning that not a single word of his testimony be printed.
     
Godse's courtroom testimony brought tears to the eyes of the packed gallery. Sobs conveying the deep emotion of those present could be heard throughout the court. Godse testified that Gandhi was in regular correspondence with known terrorists, including the head of the Muslim League, a terrorist organization responsible for slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians, especially in Calcutta.
He also alleges that Gandhi conspired with the Amir of Afghanistan to front an invasion of India in order to found a Muslim caliphate, but that the plot was somehow thwarted. 
ng.jpegGandhi even promoted Hindustani as the lingua franca of India. Hindustani is Urdu under a different name. Godse, left, understood that this was subterfuge. It amounted to the Islamizing of India.
Forcing a foreign tongue upon a great nation like India was treasonous. Mr. Shastri, Mr. C.Y. Chintamani, the editor of Allahabad and even the Mahatma's lifelong friend, the late C.F. Andrews, confirmed that Gandhi's speeches and writings added up to an open invitation to the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India. It was de facto high treason. Is there another word for a leader plotting to have his country invaded by an alien power?
The Hindu-Muslim unity Gandhi claimed to covet so strongly was now a fleeting mirage. If Godse's defense were on public record, everyone would know the truth. If the press had not been muzzled, the word would be out.

Instead, the treasonous Congress Party suppressed the truth and prevented the face behind the mask of divinity from being revealed.
--

Timothy Watson is co-author with Col. G.B. Singh of Gandhi Under Cross-examination. Visit Tim's website www.shakesaspear.com or send him an email at apollospear@yahoo.com.