The Truth will stand on its own merit - Part 8

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Part 7 of Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman's 1961 speech in Washington, D.C. concluded

with:

 

[Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing unnecessary purchases

to 'buy more stuff', play golf, etc., and use the money to keep " Common Sense "

going. He explains that the paper is going in debt; could be closed down and he

(Freedman) no longer has the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt

to bring the information to the American public and elected officials. He then

asks for questions from the audience.]

 

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm/freedman.htm

 

Here now is the concluding Part 8, in which Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman answers

questions. Lets remember that this Question and Answer session took place in

1961, when there was not the political correctness that we have now. Mr.

Freedman's main thrust is to get out the truth to the best of his knowledge, he,

having been in the Inner Circle and therefore feeling compelled to speak about

these things.

 

violet

 

 

 

The Truth will stand on its own merit - Concluding Part 8 (Q & A)

 

[Question inaudible]

 

Freedman: All right, I'll comment on that. This is rather deep, but you all have

a very high degree of intelligence, so I'm going to make an attempt. In the time

of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea. Judea was a

province of the Roman Empire. Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a

Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius. Those are the two

words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.

 

Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as 'j', and the first syllable

of Judaeus and Judaius starts 'ghu'. Now, when the Bible was written, it was

first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic... all those languages.

Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn't exist. Judea was

the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a

Judean. I've seen those early... the earliest scripts available.

 

In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to

translate the Bible into English. There was no English edition of the Bible

because who the Devil could read? It was only the educated church people who

could read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages. Anyhow,

Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. But in it, he had to look around for

some words for Judaeas and Judaius.

 

There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was

no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he

used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', " jew " . At the time, there was no

printing press.

 

Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word

passed through so many changes... I have them all here. If you want I can read

them to you. I will. That word 'gyu' which was in the Wycliffe Bible became. . .

first it was 'gyu', then 'giu', then 'iu' (because the 'i' in Latin is

pronounced like the 'j'. Julius Caesar is 'Iul' because there is no 'j' in

Latin) then 'iuw', then 'ieuu', then 'ieuy', then 'iwe', then 'iow', then

'iewe', all in Bibles as time went on. Then 'ieue', then 'iue', then 'ive', and

then 'ivw', and finally in the 18th century... 'jew'. Jew.

 

All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin. Now,

there was no such thing as 'Jew', and any theologian -- I've lectured in maybe

20 of the most prominent theological seminaries in this country, and two in

Europe -- there was no such word as Jew. There only was Judea, and Jesus was a

Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him

was 'gyu' -- Jew. A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as

we call a laboratory a 'lab', and gasoline 'gas'... a tendency to short up.

 

So, in England there were no public schools; people didn't know how to read; it

looked like a scrambled alphabet so they made a short word out of it. Now for a

theologian to say that you can't harm the Jews, is just ridiculous. I'd like to

know where in the scriptures it says that. I'd like to know the text.

 

Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews. What would you, as a citizen

of the United States, do to people who did to you what the so-called Jews -- the

Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers -- they weren't Jews, as I just explained to

you. They were Eastern Europeans who'd been converted to Talmudism. There was no

such thing as Judaism. Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion

known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible]. No Jew or no educated person ever

heard of Judaism. It didn't exist. They pulled it out of the air. . . a

meaningless word.

 

Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about

people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs

anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew

who's a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern European Jews.

So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this reverend

who told you these things, I'll convince him and it'll be one step in the right

direction. I'll go wherever I have to go to meet him.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Yes, ma'am. Well... I can answer that. First of all, your first premise is

wrong. Your first premise that all the Jews are loyal to each other is wrong.

Because, the Eastern European Jews outnumber all the rest by so many that they

create the impression that they are the Jewish 'race'; that they are the Jewish

nation; that they are the Jewish people. . . and the Christians swallow it like

a cream puff.

 

But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from all over the

world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of Atonement

religious ceremony. In Brunswick, Germany, where that conference was held in

1844, there was almost a terrific riot. A civil war.

 

The Eastern Europeans said, " What the hell. We should give up Kol Nidre? That

gives us our grip on our people. We give them a franchise so they can tell the

Christians, 'Go to hell. We'll make any deal you want', but they don't have to

carry it out. That gives us our grip on our people " . So, they're not so united,

and if you knew the feeling that exists. . .

 

Now, I'll also show you from an official document by the man responsible for. .

.. uh, who baptized this race. Here is a paper that we obtained from the archives

of the Zionist organization in New York City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir

James A. Malcolm, who -- on behalf of the British Cabinet -- negotiated the deal

with these Zionists.

 

And in here he says that all the Jews in England were against it. The Jews who

had been there for years, the [inaudible - probably Sephardim], those who had

Portuguese and Spanish and Dutch ancestry... who were monotheists and believed

in that religious belief. That was while the Eastern European Jews were still

running around in the heart of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no

more to do with them than. . . can we talk about a Christian 'race'? or a

Christian religion?... or are the Christians united?

 

So the same disunity is among the Jews. And I'll show you in this same document

that when they went to France to try and get the French government to back that

Zionist venture, there was only one Jew in France who was for it. That was

Rothschild, and they did it because they were interested in the oil and the Suez

Canal.

 

---------------

 

[Question inaudible] Freedman: You know why? Because if they don't, they're

decked up. They come around and they tell you how much you must give, and if you

don't . . . oh, you're anti-Semitic. Then none of their friends will have

anything to do with them, and they start a smear campaign. . . and you have got

to give.

 

In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve manufacturers in the

building. And when the drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United Jewish

Drive, they put a big scoreboard with the names of the firms and opposite them,

as you make the amount they put you down for, they put a gold star after the

name. Then, the buyers are told, " When you come into that building to call on

someone and they haven't got a gold star, tell them that you won't buy from them

until they have the gold star " . BLACKMAIL. I don't know what else you can call

it.

 

Then what do they do? They tell you it's for 'humanitarian purposes' and they

send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible. So if they

hadn't sent that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have

gone into the U.S. Treasury as income tax. So what happens? That seven billion

dollars deficit -- that air pocket -- the gullible Christians have to make up.

 

They put a bigger tax on gas or bread or corporation tax. Somebody has to pay

the housekeeping expenses for the government. So why do you let these people

send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their ancient

homeland? And you say, " Oh, well. The poor Jews. They have no place to go and

they've been persecuted all their lives " . They've never been persecuted for

their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never

once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.

 

Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England? King Edward the First in

1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the Cromwell Revolution

which was financed by the Rothschilds. For four-hundred years there wasn't a

Jew. But do you know why they were driven out? Because in the Christian faith

and the Moslem faith it's a sin to charge 'rent' for the use of money. In other

words - what we call interest [usury] is a sin.

 

So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much interest, and

when the Lords and Dukes couldn't pay, they [Jews] foreclosed. And they were

creating so much trouble that the king of England finally made himself their

partner, because when they they came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped

off the Jews. . . the money-lenders. So the king finally said -- and this is all

in history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the Jews in

England; two books you can find in your library. When the king found out what

the trouble was all about, and how much money they were making, he declared

himself a fifty-percent partner of the money lenders. Edward the First. And for

many years, one-third of the revenues of the British Treasury came from the

fifty-percent interest in money-lending by the Jews.

 

But it got worse and worse. So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes kept

killing the money-lenders, the King then said, " I declare myself the heir of all

the money-lenders. If they're killed you have to pay me, because I'm his sole

heir " . That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out and collect the

money with an army, so he told the Jews to get out. There were 15,000 of them,

and they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland, and that's how Ireland

got to be part of the United Kingdom.

 

When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to take Ireland for

himself before someone else did. He sent Robert Southgard with a mercenary army

and conquered Ireland. So, show me one time where a Jew was persecuted in any

country because of his religion. It has never happened. It's always their impact

on the political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community in

which they settle.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Question inaudible] Freedman: Yes, sir. Well, they say most of those things

themselves. It was unnecessary for Benjamin Franklin to say it. Most of those

things they say themselves. But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay

understood, what was happening in Europe.

 

When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the Khazar Kingdom, and

absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled to Western Europe and brought

with them the very things to which you object and I object and a lot of other

people object. The customs, the habits, the instincts with which they were

endowed.

 

When Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that's the name that

they went by, and when the Christians first heard that these people who were

fleeing from Russia -- who they were -- that they had practiced this Talmudic

faith -- the Christians in Western Europe said, " They must be the remnants of

the lost ten tribes! "

 

And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that -- and he's

probably as good an authority on that subject as there is. So when Ben Franklin

came to Europe in the 18th century, he already saw the results of what these

people had done after they left their homeland. And every word of it is true...

they say it themselves. I can give you half a dozen books they've written in

which they say the same thing: When they have money they become tyrants. And

when they become defeated, they become ruthless. They're only barbarians.

They're the descendants of Asiatic Mongols and they will do anything to

accomplish their purpose.

 

What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did? The Czar had

abdicated nine or ten months before that. There was no need for them. . . they

were going to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn't want that. When

the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they mowed them all

down and established the Soviet Union.

 

There was no need for that. But they thought, " Now is the time " , and if you you

will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word 'Bolshevism', you'll

find the five laws there that Lenin put down for a successful revolution. One of

them is, " Wait for the right time, and then give them everything you've got " . It

would pay you to read that.

 

You'd also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article for the

Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and created and

cultivated the Communist movement. And that their energy made them the spearhead

of the movement. Harold Blacktree wrote it and no one knew more about Communism

than he. And the Encyclopedia Britannica for 25 years has been printing it.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Question inaudible] Freedman: Well, I can't advocate that you do anything

that's criminal, but I can tell you this. You can start what I call an endless

chain. If you can get your friends to write, objectively, here is the statement:

Mr. Kennedy's office gave me this himself. Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr. Kennedy,

took over his office -- was in his office -- and gave me this. He delivered this

on the 25th, and it says here:

 

" For release to AM (that means morning papers), August 25th " . " Israel is here to

stay. It is a national commitment, special obligation of the Democratic Party.

The White House must take the lead. American intervention. We will act promptly

and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor.

I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab states our guarantee

that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any

aggression by any nation " .

 

Well, do you call the return of people to their homeland [the Arab Palestinians]

aggression? Is Mr. Kennedy going to do that? Suppose three million Mexicans came

into Texas and drove the six million Texans into the deserts of Arizona and New

Mexico. Suppose these Mexicans were slipped in there armed -- the Texans were

disarmed -- and one night they drove them all out of Texas and declared

themselves the Republic of the Alamo. What would the United States say?

 

Would we say it's aggression for these Texans to try to get their homes back

from the Mexican thieves? Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly armed by

the Soviets and overnight they rose up and drove all the whites into the swamps

of Mississippi and Georgia and Florida. . . drove them out completely, and

declared themselves the Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other.

Would we call it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go

back to their homes?

 

Would we. . . what would we think if the soviet Union said, " No, those Negroes

now occupy them! Leave them there! " , or " No, those Mexicans are in Texas. They

declared themselves a sovereign state. Leave them there. You have plenty of room

in Utah and Nevada. Settle somewhere else " .

 

Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to go

back to their homes? So now, you've got to write to President Kennedy and say,

" We do not consider it aggression in the sense that you use the word, if these

people want to return to their homes as the United Nations -- fifteen times in

the last twelve years -- called upon the Zionists in occupation of Palestine to

allow the Arab Palestinians to return to their former homes and farms " .

 

[End of transcript of Benjamin Freedman speech, given in 1961 at the Willard

Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of

that time, Common Sense.]

 

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm/freedman.htm