On Jewish 'Traitors': Benjamin Freedman

Benjamin Freedman is perhaps the archetypal example of the jewish 'traitor' in so far that he asserts that he spent most of his life working for the cause of international jewry and then all of sudden circa 1945 - at the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the occupation of Germany - he had a revelation.

Whereby he jumped ship from being one of the most avid proponents of jewry to being one of its most avid of opponents for reasons that seem to escape us.

Although the reason seems ostensibly to do with Christianity. This doesn't itself seem wholly satisfying for such a radical turn of allegiance if Freedman was being truthful.

Since one simply does not 'jump ship' from an apparently very powerful conspiracy, which is willing to cause world wars, to its not very powerful opposition and hope to maintain one's own life in any meaningful form let alone one's wealth.

In this article we will focus on one of the two notable pieces of work that Freedman has bequeathed to us. (1) As well as look at Freedman as an individual to see what he claimed he had done on behalf of jewry, which is really the crux of his commentary.

Since if Freedman is who he says he is. Then his words have some weight, which cannot simply be overlooked. Since if he is telling the truth about his connections and work on behalf of jewry. It places him in an ideal position to give testimony about a conspiracy involving jews at the centre of the governing elite of the United States, but if Freedman is not telling us the truth then it places grave doubts as to anything involving his 'personal experience’/’knowledge' that he informs us of.

Freedman does - in fact - cover quite a few topics that are quite academic now, but his main claims in terms regarding jews themselves are in his 'Facts are Facts' pamphlet. (2)

Some of these claims first brought up in 'Facts are Facts' were reproduced in the last third of 'A Jewish Defector Warns America', with a brief summation of Freedman's claims that the jews are in fact descended from the Khazars. This theme also dominates the question and answer session after the speech, which is reproduced in the transcript.

We will focus here on Freedman's claims as to who he was and the conspiratorial element to his claims here: since that is the most relevant part to his jewish 'traitor' status.

Freedman - rather than dealing in 'facts' as he claims he is doing - seems to have been simply repeating a lot of then current anti-jewish material, especially notorious being Justinas Pranaitis’ 'The Talmud Unmasked' (3) which Freedman reproduces almost verbatim - (4) but being a jew and having lived for quite a few years as an apparently observant - presumably Orthodox - jew. Freedman should have known a lot more about some of the debates and specialist material that most anti-Semites wouldn't want to spend the time looking through, because much effort is involved for rewards, which may not come and may not be what is wished for. He should also have known better than to simply reproduce Pranaitis' work.

It is also worth observing that Freedman doesn't split jewry into sects and specific religious groups - noting here that when Freedman uses jew he is talking in terms of religion not in terms of race - (5) despite having ostensibly been an observant jew and as said above talking in terms of a jew being a follower of Judaism and not a biological creature. (6)

This means Freedman should at the very least know that the authority of certain texts - such as the Zohar - is only accepted by some and not other parts of Judaism.

The Talmud is indeed largely accepted by jews - except Karaite jews - but what Freedman notably again doesn't cite - which having been an observant jew of some rank he should be well aware of - is the more recent debates as to the interpretation of the Talmud's interpretation of the (Written) Torah/Tanakh.

This isn't applying an unrealistic standard to Freedman. In that as an observant jew - much like as an observant Catholic - one is expected to keep up a little with the current issues surrounding theology even if only in very general terms.

Freedman hasn't seemed to have done so, since he didn’t - for example - talk of the new vogue in Reform Judaism enacted by Isaac Mayer Wise and its drastic contrast to Orthodox Judaism. Let alone the prominence of Hasidic Judaism, which was and is a common feature of modern Diaspora jewish communities.

This brings into question Freedman's ipso facto claim to having been a loyal jew and presumably - using Freedman's definition of jew as being a follower of the Judaic religion rather than a definition in terms of race - that he was an observant jew of what we may presume was Orthodox Judaism.

Since Freedman exhibits little understanding of Judaism as a religion in his 'Facts are Facts' and 'A Jewish Defector Warns America' as well as his critique of it being one common to anti-jewish literature. Rather than a critique based on Freedman's own reading of the jewish literature. It is reasonable for us presume that Freedman was not the loyal jew he asserts he was, but rather that this a pose he has adopted for the sake of the authority of the character he is playing to his intended audience and his own argument that jews are a religion alone.

This latter part of Freedman's argument - i.e., that jews are a religion and not a race and/or biological group - is something we will come back to, because it is very important in beginning to form a realistic interpretation of Freedman. Since it points firstly to what Freedman argues against and secondly, it fits with what we may reasonably expect ethnocentric jewish behaviour to be when facing an anti-Semitic audience or seeking personal - and hence racial - survival by joining the enemies apparent of jewry.

This however brings us back to a very important point to repeat.

This point - that often gets lost in anti-jewish discussion of and unfortunate genuflection before - (7) Freedman is that he was a jew: first, last and always. We cannot as discussed above simply dismiss this fact, because the sword works both ways and if we did so. We would simply repeat the mistake of assuming a baptism washes away ones race and natural racial inclinations, which are the basis for all rational study of humanity and in particular so unique a race as the jews.

If Freedman's evidence is to be admitted as plausible: he must be admitted to be a jew - not a 'former jew' - (8) as he is introduced in 'A Jewish Defector Warns America'. For he was a jew, but as stated if he is a jew then we must treat him - because he was a jew in terms of race - as a jew and not as simply trustworthy, because he has something to say - and a claim of 'insider' authority = that supports some popular - especially at the time - anti-jewish positions and theories.

Therefore we must treat Freedman's work as we would that of Alan Dershowitz by suspending belief and looking at it with a highly critical eye in the light of what can be said to be known, possible and unknown about jewry.

Freedman's 'A Jewish Defector Warns America' starts off with Freedman asserting a series of facts largely about the course of events surrounding America's entry into World War One, where-by there does seem to be a case to answer about the events surrounding the Zimmerman telegram and the sinking of the United States 'passenger' ship the Lusitania. (9) As well as issues surrounding the Paris Peace Conference and the accords of Versailles, for in Freedman's account of the ‘behind the scenes’ proceedings. Freedman seems to rely heavily on Dillon's widely-read 1919-1920 account (10) and subsequent anti-jewish interpretation of it.

This is itself is noteworthy, because it would either indicate that Dillon was very accurate in what he asserted to be the case or as would seem to be more likely as we shall see is that Freedman is merely copying these themes and incorporating them into his 'inside knowledge'.

Freedman asserts that the conference was largely in the thrall of jews - when Dillon comments on the jewish presence there-of - but this was and has subsequently been taken in anti-jewish literature to transliterate as: jewry controlled it. (11)

This is the interpretation Freedman is using when he states as follows:

‘When the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know.' (12)

This reads remarkably like Dillon's oft-cited statement:

'Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, from Poland, Russia....but the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States.' (13)

If we look at this further we note that Freedman claims a specific number of 117 jews having been present at the Conference, which he asserts were part of a jewish delegation. Freedman means this in the literal rather than a metaphorical sense, because of the logic of his assertions concerning this and other matters where-by there is an organised jewish conspiracy at work (and this is a well known fact to 'insiders') and not simply a series of jews working together.

This specific interpretation is also alluded to by Freedman's statement that said delegation was 'headed by Bernard Baruch'. Since if this is a metaphor then a statement that there was a head of the delegation would be redundant, but if it is not and Freedman is asserting that there was a specific jewish delegation at the Versailles peace conference then it would be logical to state whom it was headed by: in this case Bernard Baruch.

If we notice further that Freedman's statement of a jewish delegation headed by Baruch has likely been directly derived from Dillon's statement that 'the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States'. This has been taken literally by Freedman: who has placed at the contingents head a jew who is well known in popular 'conspiracy' literature - both in Freedman's time and at the present - as a leading 'conspirator'. Baruch was also identified quite strongly - and not unreasonably - as being a high ranking international financier and hence part of what, then as now, is termed jewish high finance. (14)

Hence Baruch would be a natural jew to place in charge of such a delegation considering that he was influential and was well known to have attended the Paris Peace Conference at Versailles.

The above quoted statement is where we can suggest Freedman is deriving his jewish delegation from in that the contingent mentioned by Dillon has become a delegation as Dillon directly suggests that the contingent from the United States has the most jews and therefore is significantly jewish.

Therefore - because the jews are part of an organised jewish conspiracy in Freedman's mind - they must be representing their own interests primarily and hence logically be part of a separate delegation (even if presumably unofficially).

This is a simple inference we can make from the direction of Freedman's assertions. In that he is arguing there is a jewish - specifically a Zionist - conspiracy at work, which in his alleged experience has its powerbase in the United States. Therefore if jews - specifically those influential jews of a Zionist persuasion - indeed forced the United States into World War One for their objective of attaining agreement for a jewish homeland in Palestine. (15)

Then it would logical for them to be at the Versailles peace treaty in force in order to enforce that agreement with the victorious and defeated powers. This is logical position that Freedman is asserting as we are told he - and the other jews - were there to do just that. It also what Dillon inferred occurred when he states that jews were the most resourceful and influential exponents of their collective cause. (16)

It is worth noting that the Zionist jews that Freedman is discussing were not in fact as wildly successful as he seems to imply, but rather even with significant jewish representation at the Paris Peace Conference.

All that had been achieved is a promise to fulfil the British part of the bargain, but little to no action and almost a backward step had occurred in the enactment of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 rather than the terms of the Balfour declaration of 1917.

Freedman's narrative suggests the benefit of hindsight in that it presumes that all the goals of the Zionist jews - who attended the Paris Peace Conference - were ipso facto achieved, because Israel was created in 1948. (17)

When in fact - as I have just stated - the Zionist jewish goals were not ostensibly achieved as they did not manage to force the implementation of the Balfour agreement, which presumably they should have been able to do had they wielded the kind of power and been part of a highly-organised jewish bloc that Freedman asserts was the case. (18)

This is further evidenced by that in 1948 when it took a vicious multi-pronged and co-ordinated jewish terrorist, public relations and media assault to get the jewish homeland that the Zionist jews dreamed of. (19)

Had what Freedman stated been in the case then it should simply have not required any kind of assault - on the powers that were - to achieve, but rather been a case of behind doors enforcing of agreements made to the jews by the powers concerned and that this enforcing of the agreement should have occurred in 1919 rather than twenty-nine years later and only then by butchering and libelling any non-jew who opposed them they could possibly lay their hands on.

Freedman also asserts that there 117 jews present at the Paris Peace Conference, but I have been unable to confirm or debunk this assertion per se, but jews were certainly present in significant numbers but whether it was 117 jews and whether Bernard Baruch - who was present but ostensibly as part of the Paris Economic Council rather than a jewish delegation - was at their head cannot be reasonably - if ever - confirmed, because we are unsure as to whom Freedman is including and not including in said count of 117 jews present.

It is also worth asking the question of how Freedman 'knew' there were 117 jews at the Paris Peace Conference. Since surely Freedman did not count them all himself?

It seems a rather arbitrary number to be using, unless one presumes Freedman had access to a list where the number of jews present was mentioned or he counted them all on said list himself.

If there was a list then we come back to Freedman's assertion that he was a member of an organised jewish conspiracy: since no such list to my knowledge exists or been referred to either in Dillon or elsewhere.

This doesn't make it impossible, but it seems very unlikely that such an official list would not be referred to at some stage or come up in direct reference in any historic or modern work on the matter.

It is far more likely that Freedman's number of 117 jews was derived from an anti-jewish speculation - which I have similarly been unable to find - (20) or a rough estimate on his own part. (21)

This brings us again on to a key point in Freedman's string of assertions.

This point being that he is supposedly a 'former insider' in the organised jewish conspiracy, which we have already somewhat discussed above. Freedman's assertions about the Paris Peace Conference are predicated on his having been there and presumably part of the 'jewish delegation' he talks of.

Therefore the logic follows that, because he was there he therefore 'ought to know'.

That then raises an important question in our minds: was Freedman there?

We have has written assertion that he was but in order to go any further with his authority we need to establish if he was in fact present. Since if there is no evidence of him having been present then how can we presume he was present?

Since in order to presume this we would need to presume that Freedman is what he says he is: no longer a jew. (22)

However, because a jew - in this sense - is a biological group and not simply a follower of the religion of Judaism as Freedman attempts to argue. We have to treat Freedman with the same scepticism as we would treat the work of Alan Dershowitz or Israel Shamir (23) because he is a jew. (24)

However - perhaps predictably - there is no evidence of Freedman attending the Paris Peace Conference and it would seem unlikely that he did so given that we have no evidence of him holding significant position in - or even being a member of - either jewish organisations, which presumably would be a requisite to being in such a jewish delegation or a significant (or even any) position in the United States’ government, which would be likely be requisite to being in a diplomatic delegation of such importance.

Freedman never provided proof of this and nor did he prove or show evidence of his claimed connections to such high-ranking members of the United States government as President Woodrow Wilson, Bernard Baruch, Edward House (25) and/or Henry Morgenthau, Sr. (26)

Hence although it is impossible to discount the possibility that Freedman did in fact attend the Paris Peace Conference: it seems on the basis of what evidence we have rather unlikely. Since had Freedman been in attendance it should have been noted and should appear somewhere in the literature on the conference confirming that in fact he had attended preferably with some direct evidence of this being the case.

Since this is not the case it throws Freedman's assertions into extreme doubt.

If combined with the fact that Freedman seems to be adapting Dillon's work on the Paris Peace Conference in the manner that anti-jewish individuals and groups had been doing for many years and that Freedman narrates as if from hindsight making the mistake of alleging the organised jewish conspiracy was successful in achieving its objective at Versailles and that this objective was the creation of the jewish state of Israel in 1948.

Since if Freedman was taking his account from his own knowledge/experiences and made such elementary mistakes concerning the timeline of this organised jewish conspiracy then it is rather unlikely he in fact attended the Paris Peace Conference let alone as part of a jewish delegation. Since if he had done so he should have known better and explained accordingly.

This would seem to indicate he is drawing his account from secondary sources since that is where such mistakes would be likely to creep in and since we know he has read much anti-jewish literature it seems probable that this is the source of his account as we have outlined above.

Since Freedman had not been part of any jewish delegation: he used what literature was available and was current in the social group - presumably that surrounding Conde McGinley's 'Common Sense' - in which he was most active. Since that would have given him the kind of picture of a organised jewish conspiracy and what it had achieved when that he in fact describes in his 'A Jewish Defector Warns America'.

In essence we can say that Freedman's comments only makes sense if we see them as a jew spouting what he has read about jews in anti-jewish literature with a few personal opinions added in for variety and personal benefit.

It is pertinent to add to this discussion that Freedman when notes on the murder of the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in Paris by the jew Herschel Grynszpan in his 'A Jewish Defector Warns America' - indirectly condemns himself as lacking 'insider knowledge' - when he says:

'That continued for some time, and it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany.

And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.'(27)

This might not seem obvious at first: however what Freedman has done here is to believe hook, line and sinker the officialstory of the night of broken glass, commonly known in the German as Kristallnacht, in 1938 without noting on theinvolvement of a Revisionist Zionist[28] organisation known as LICA[29].

LICA was heavily bound up with the murderer ofvom Rath, Grynszpan, as well as with the killing of Wilhelm Gustloff by the jew, David Frankfurter, in 1936. Now evenwithout the 'inside knowledge' of a conspiracy, Ingrid Weckert[30], has placed a lot of facts and a potential interpretation ofthem in the public area, which point quite literally to a conspiracy against Germany and secondly, perhaps moreimportantly for Freedman, to provoke retribution from the German authorities and/or start a riot by using fakeorders/uniforms[31] that would force the remaining jews to emigrate to Palestine[32].Yet Freedman simply glides over this potentially large well of evidence for his case and accepts the standard line of eventsas told both my foreign media and a very embarrassed German government[33]. Yet if he had been an insider in any kindof organised jewish Zionist conspiracy then he should have known of at least the possibility of this and given his use ofloose 'facts' through 'A Jewish Defector Warns America'[34], it should have been mentioned at least in passing. However itwas not, and notably the night of broken glass was discussed by Freedman in the manner common to non-Revisionist anti-jewish literature. In that Freedman takes the position that the jews had provoked the Germans so much, especially by wayof Samuel Untermeyer's declaration of war against Germany on behalf of world jewry in 1933, that the political murder ofvom Rath sparked spontaneous anti-jewish outrage leading to a 'pogrom'.So why didn't Freedman know about LICA's potential involvement and use such a valuable piece of evidence for his assertions?

The simple answer must be because Freedman was not part of an 'organised jewish conspiracy' and that his assertions in this regard.

Freedman seems to have got from reading anti-jewish and general conspiracy literature, whilst adding somenew twists to make the material seem new, yet confirm common anti-jewish theories at the time when he wrote andlectured (which would create maximum laurels and acceptance for him and what he claimed). Freedman hasn't, and no oneelse to my knowledge has, produced a scrap of reasonable evidence to suggest Freedman is who he claimed to be beyonda jewish millionaire soap manufacturer who late in life became a baptised jew and tried to 'fight jewry', allegedly spendingmost of his fortune to do so.Freedman as a proof of a jewish conspiracy thus must be abandoned, because although apparently being a jewish 'traitor'he was still remained very much a stereotypical jew to the last: a born liar. (35)

The target for his lies?

Anti-Semites.

References

(1) Benjamin Freedman, 1961, 'A Jewish Defector Warns America'. This is available at the following address: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

(2) Benjamin Freedman, 1954, 'Facts are Facts: The Truth about the Khazars'. This is available at the following address: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/factindx.htm

(3) Justinas Pranaitis, Trans: E. Sanctuary, 1939, [1892], 'The Talmud Unmasked: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians', 1st Edition, E. N. Sanctuary: New York. This is available at the following address: http://www.talmudunmasked.com/.

(4) Freedman, 'Facts are Facts', Op. Cit.

(5) Since Freedman in both 'A Jewish Defector Warns America' and 'Facts are Facts' assumes both in his language and his thesis that jews by enlarge equal Khazars that jews are not a biological group. Freedman also repeatedly refers to himself as a Christian/Catholic and does not refer to himself as a jew only in allusions/terms like 'former jew' much like those in which he was introduced to the audience before he gives his speech in 'A Jewish Defector Warns America'.

(6) This would suggest he should certainly split jews into religious sub-divisions for if his definition of jews is based onreligion, which it is, then he should know and recognise the importance of the splits and differences between the various sects and cults in Judaism in his critique. Otherwise it is a bit like critiquing Christianity by quoting Calvin and then quoting Loyola without making distinction of their widely differing theological beliefs and that they were opposed to each other.

(7) This was discussed in the first part of this article. This is available at the following address:http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/09/on-jewish-traitors.html.

(8) Freedman, 'A Jewish Defector Warns America', Op. Cit.

(9) Some brief, but highly interesting, notes in this regard can be found in Revilo Oliver, 2006, 'America's Decline: The Education of a Conservative', 1st Edition, Historical Review Press: Uckfield, pp. 37-42

(10) Emile Joseph Dillon, 1920, 'The Inside Story of the Peace Conference', 1st Edition, Harper & Brothers: New York

(11) This was a common theme in anti-Semitic propaganda around this time and it was picked up across the globe, particularly in Germany and Austria. It also enjoyed some prominence in France and increasingly so in the Middle East. It only really came to real prominence as an anti-Semitic point of view in North America after the Second World War and the creation of Israel as a 'homeland for the jews'. One oft-cited example of this can be found in Douglas Reed, 1985, 'The Controversy of Zion', 2nd Edition, Veritas: Bullsbrook, pp. 283-290. Notably Reed doesn't cite many sources specifically and although most of his sources seem to be comments in the official minutes of the Houses of Parliament and the United States Congress/Senate. This hardly can be said to qualify for evidence for what Reed is asserting.

(12) Freedman, 'A Jewish Defector Warns America', Op. Cit.

(13) Dillon, Op. Cit., p. 10.

(14) This inference in Freedman's thought is made obvious when he talks about his own alleged past service and states as follows: 'So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.' Freedman, 'A Jewish Defector Warns America', Op. Cit. Here Freedman is talking directly about high finance and its relationship with the Federal Reserve, which often figures in discussion on high finance since it allows the public debt on the United States to be run as a profitable business in effect and jews are often suggested - not unjustly - to have been involved in the scheme to create this institution. Hence in Freedman - as it does in much North America anti-Semitic literature - this becomes part of the organised jewish conspiracy.

(15) Presumably in order to achieve something like the Balfour declaration of 1917, which Freedman confuses with theSykes-Picot agreement when he states that it was agreed in 1916.

(16) Dillon's precise statement is as follows: 'Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents.' Dillon, Op. Cit., p. 10.

(17) For example Freedman states: 'Now the war -- World War One -- in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there -- we were railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened? After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: 'Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.' Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.' Freedman, 'A Jewish Defector Warns America', Op. Cit. Notably this indicates that jewish power was able to get an agreement yet even with a jewish delegation they were unable to achieve any kind of leeway over the Sykes-Picot agreement, which according to Freedman would have been agreed after the Balfour declaration although not 'officially', which we may infer from his wording.

(18) Freedman styles this as follows: 'The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parcelling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, 'How about Palestine for us?'' Freedman, 'A Jewish Defector Warns America', Op. Cit. The question remains unanswered is why did these jewish power-brokers who Freedman tells us were acting as an organised conspiratorial bloc wait till 1948 to achieve their ambition when they had this apparent opportunity in 1919.

(19) For a standard pro-jewish account of this please see: Martin Gilbert, 1998, 'Israel: A History', 1st Edition, Doubleday: London.

(20) It may have come from Conde McGinley's anti-jewish publication 'Common Sense' which Freedman supported financially and who in return sponsored his speech, 'A Jewish Defector Warns America'. This would be very much in keeping with the line of anti-Semitic argument used by McGinley as well as the interests of one of his main writers: Eustace Mullins.

(21) Both of which would explain why no actual list has been offered.

(22) In Freedman, 'Facts are Facts', Op. Cit.

(23) Who incidentally bears far more than a passing resemblance to Freedman in that he has converted to Christianity, treats jews as a religion and is a vocal opponent of Zionism is oft-cited by anti-jewish individuals and groups and endorses an organised jewish conspiracy thesis.

(24) This was covered in the first part of the article. This is available at the following address:http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/09/on-jewish-traitors.html.

(25) Edward House is better known as Colonel House.

(26) Freedman states as follows: 'Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Others knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was 'confidential man' to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer.' Freedman, 'A Jewish Defector Warns America', Op. Cit.

(27) Freedman, 'A Jewish Defector Warns America', Op. Cit.

(28) This is the name given to the followers of the ideas of Ze'ev Jabotinsky. This is one of the most violent and vicious of all Zionist sub-divisions, which ultimately lead to the massacres, torture and genocides conducted by the jewish Stern gang and the Irgun.

(29) This stands for ‘Ligue Internationale Contra l'Anti-Semitisme’, which in English translates as the ‘International League against Anti-Semitism’.

(30) Cf. Ingrid Weckert,1991, 'Flashpoint: Kristallnacht 1938: Instigators, Victims and Beneficiaries', 1st Edition, Institute for Historical Review: California.

(31) Which let it be noted would have been easy enough to procure or convincingly imitate, especially for a reasonably well-moneyed organisation like LICA.

(32) Palestine was the favoured destination for German deportation at this point in time.

(33) Who would have been arguably far more damaged in terms of propaganda by letting it be known that the jews had managed to start anti-Semitic riots in Germany, by pretending to be SA and SS men and relaying false orders.

(34) Such as the following statement: 'Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world.' Freedman, 'A Jewish Defector Warns America', Op. Cit.

(35) Freedman is an excellent example of the apparent use of the 'Big Lie' propaganda technique that was first noted and pointed out as a key aspect in the understanding of jewish propaganda techniques by Adolf Hitler in 'Mein Kampf'.