Captain RAMSAY:

The Nameless War

 

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, 1 944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament in 1945.

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 [photo] 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 4+ years, for ‘reasons’ so preposterous that those who framed them dared not submit them to a court of law.”

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)

 

CONTENTS

PROLOGUE

l. 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?

EPILOGUE
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 3
APPENDIX 4
APPENDIX 5

Dedication

To the memory of those [English] Patriots who in 1215 at
Runnymede signed Magna Carta, and those who in
1320, at Arbroath, signed the [Scottish] Declaration of
Independence, this book is dedicated.

27th July 1952.

Narrator’s note (henceforth “NN”)

This Scottish Declaration of Independence was a significant document, signed by 53 leading Scottish citizens and nobles, and sent to the Pope, who sometimes mediated disputes between countries, stating that Scotland, in its conflict with the king of England, could not live without the freedom to choose its own ruler. Its most famous line was:

“As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never  on any conditions will we be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom “ for that alone which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

Captain RAMSAY : The Nameless War

PROLOGUE

Edward I [painting] 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 the Jewry,” enacted by his Parliament in 1275, with the Commons [the lower part of the British parliament] playing a prominent part.

NN: In 1275 The Statute of Jewry restricted Jews in many ways. It confined Jews to certain areas of England, forbade usury to them, as well as any ownership of English land and contact with the English people, and compelled them to wear a yellow badge to warn others who they were because of their dishonesty, rapacious money lending, and a record of ritual murder of English children. Also, they lied about their dark appearance and claimed they were just Welsh! Now back to the book.

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, France, 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 [King] Ferdinand and [Queen] Isabella. Many Jews were by then enrolled as Christians, but, remaining secretly Jews, were working to destroy the Christian church in Spain.

NN: This was the famous Queen Isabella who in the year 1492 sent Columbus out successfully to discover America, who 2)  expelled the muslims from Spain and 3) also threw the jews out. Back to the book.

So grave became the menace finally, that the Inquisition was instituted [in 1478 by Ferdinand and Isabella]  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.

NN: As the History of Christianity by the esteemed author Paul Johnson points out, this was a decision by the government of Spain, not the Catholic Church, which was far more subject to the kings than to the popes at that time. The Jews were seen as a separate and hostile people living in the kingdom and as a threat to national security just as much as they were to the Church. The kings of Spain supervised the Inquisition.

Despite the propaganda against it, it killed about ten people a month at its height, whereas when bolsheviks Jews seized power in Russia, they killed thousands of Christians every month. When Stalin took over, he killed tens of thousands a month, and eight of the ten death camps in the gulag were run by Jews.

This was revealed by Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his monumental 2002 book Two Hundred Years Together, which is available in German and French but still has not come out in English, but my translation of a 55-page summary of it is available. Back to the book.

Trekking eastwards, these Jews who had been expelled from England and Spain 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 [painting], was a rising naval power, which [see Appendix 2] 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 between Protestant and Catholic.

NN: Who was King James? Well, after the famous Queen Elizabeth of the time of Shakespeare, Sir Walter Raleigh, and the Spanish Armada, died in 1603 — and the American state of Virginia was named after her because she was said to be a virgin, and so she had no offspring — the Parliament, to avoid war among the nobles, brought in an outside king, they asked the king of Scotland in, James VI of Scotland, to also be James I of England, so he was king fo two different, neighboring countries.

Thus began the Scottish Stuart Dynasty in England.  King James, as the name suggests, commissioned the most famous Bible translation ever into English, long called the King James Bible. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version]

When he died in 1625, his son, Charles I, born in Fife, Scoland, took over, and that is when the Jews made their big move to get back into England, by promoting a civil war where one side would promise the Jews what they wanted in return for money and military supplies.

Charles I, born in Fife, Scotland, was absolutely right about not bringing the Jews back into England, but his personality was both shy and yet off-putting, and he believed in the divine right of kings, that is, that a proper kings should rule with no interference from Parliament, which outraged many, and broke a custom going back four hundred years to Magna Carta. Charles said bluntly:  “Kings are not bound to give an account of their actions but to God alone,” and in fact when angry at Parliament sent it home for 11 years.

He then raised unusual taxes to pay for things without Parliament, and his marriage to a Catholic Frenchwoman led to criticism. When he entered Parliament with troops looking for those MPs who had criticized her, at that point, many lost all respect for him and saw him as a tyrant.

This king, though full of flaws in handling people, was at least an enemy of the Jews, but now he was very unpopular with many in Scotland and England, a fact which big Jews such as Fernandez Carvajal in London, and also Menassah Ben Israel [drawing] over in Holland, saw as their opportunity.

Now, Appendix 2 of the Ramsay book is short, and I think it would be beneficial to just read it out right now.

***

APPENDIX 2

THE JEWS IN BRITAIN

1215 Magna Carta

1255 Ritual murder of St. Hugh of Lincoln. Henry III personally ordered trial and 18 culprits were executed ” all Jews.

1275 The Statute of Jewry passed ; confined Jews to certain areas, forbade usury to them and also ownership of land and contact with the people: compelled them to wear a yellow badge.

1290 Edward I banished the Jews from England.

1657 Oliver Cromwell, having been financed by Manasseh Ben Israel and Moses Carvajal, allows Jews to return to England, though the order of banishment [by Edward I] was never rescinded by Parliament.

1689 Amsterdam Jews financed the rebellion against King James II. The chief of these ” Solomon Medina ” follows William of Orange to England.

William of Orange with the interesting hooked nose

1694 The Bank of “England” set up and the National Debt instituted, securing for the Jew moneylenders a first charge on the taxes of England for interest on their loans. The right to print money transferred from the Crown to this “Bank of England”.

1707 Economic and political union forced upon Scotland against the vote of every county and borough; the national debt was foisted upon Scotland, and the royal mint in Edinburgh was suppressed. [NN: You can see from this that Ramsay was a patriotic Scot and since England was financially controlled by Jews, he did not want the same to happen to Scotland but in 1707 it did. Before that, England and Scotland were separate kingdoms. Now they were one kingdom, and the Jews took over the Scottish economy too. Bavk to the book.]

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 [painting], after executing the King according to plan, was to allow the Jews free access to England once more.

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 [the Jewish writer] Isaac Disraeli [drawing], father of Benjamin, Earl of Beaconsfield, [NN: and, as all Britons knew, prime minister of England for many years under Queen Victoria] commenced his two-volume work, The Life and Reign of Charles I, 1828.

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, ( 2 ) 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.

[NN: Ramsay has a footnote here: “At a B’nai B’rith meeting in Paris [and B’nai B’rit was the Jewish Freemasons], as reported in Catholic Gazette in Feb. 1936, [[Calvin]] was claimed to be of Jewish extraction.

Captain Ramsay does not assert as a fact that Calvin was Jewish, but suggests that is possible. I concur that it is indeed possible, and perhaps probable.

Calvin taught, just like the Jewish Talmud, that God creates some souls to be damned, and others to be saved, an extremely un-Christian concept. Jesus was known for talking to, preaching to, admonishing or even eating with sinners such as adulterers, prostitutes, tax collectors, and other despised individuals, and famously said “a physician goes to the sick, not the healthy.”

Calvin also endorsed usury (money-lending at interest), which was a radical rupture with long Christian tradition, and also for that matter muslim tradition, but his new teaching was in agreement with the Jews. 

As for Calvin’s name, which is French was “Cauvin,” c-a-u-v-i-n, in French it is indeed pronounced similarly to “Cohen,” and when Jews change their names, they often do so to a name similar to the original. So a Rothstein can become a Redstone, or a Koenigsberg a Kingsbury.

Finally, it is a fact that it was the Calvinists of Holland who took in the Jews of Spain when they were expelled in 1492, and that Calvinists and Jews were closely allied for centuries against the Catholic Church, and still are to this day in France. In fact, Alsace, in eastern France, whose capital is Strasbourg, was and is heavily Jewish and Calvinist both. The European Union’s parliament is located in that city now.

Yes, the Jews and Calvinists did have a common enemy, but I think there is more to the story, and that Captain Ramsay may be correct in his suggestion that Calvin was a crypto-Jew.

We do know that when the Jews of Spain were ordered in 1492 to convert to Christianity or leave the country, the Jewish “Prince of Constantinople” advised them to either leave as the king ordered, and stay Jewish, or stay in Spain, merely pretend to convert, and then infiltrate and as secret Jews, called marranos, take over all levels of Christian Spanish society, religion and government.

As I have written (https://johndenugent.com/the-jewish-war-on-the-kennedys/lyndon-johnsons-jewish-mother-and-the-1967-israeli-attack-on-the-uss-liberty/), there is strong evidence that Lyndon Johnson, his mother Rachelle Baines, and his wife, Lady Bird, who all three had jet-black hair and jet-black eyes, were in fact marranos whose ancestors had fled the Spanish Inquisition to the then-Spanish colony of Mexico, and when the Inquisition came to Mexico City, they then moved to the then-Spanish-controlled Texas to continue practicing Judaism in secret.

 

And as I have also written, I believe firmly that Lyndon Johnson was the architect of the murder of President John Kennedy (https://johndenugent.com/the-jewish-war-on-the-kennedys/), one, because Kennedy was blocking Israel from getting nuclear weapons, and two, Johnson had a psychopathic obsession with becoming president, he hated the Kennedys personally, he felt jealous of their huge charisma and good looks, and he felt they looked down on him as an especially vulgar hick, which he was.

Johnson was infamous for lifting his beagle dog up by the ears, and for lifting his shirt up to reporters and showing them his gall bladder surgery scar, which many felt demeaned the dignity of the presidency.

And LBJ understood that he was not popular and could become president only by first becoming vice-president, and then by John Kennedy dying in office.  

This is why the Spanish Inquisition was instituted, and it was started by the king of Spain, not the Catholic church, and stood under his close royal supervision and authority, because the Jews were viewed as hostile infiltrators, and were known to have betrayed the capital of Spain, Toledo, in the year 719, to the invading Muslim Moors, and the Jews indirectly admit it.

In 1492, Chemor, Chief Rabbi of Spain, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin, which had its seat in Constantinople, for advice, when a Spanish law threatened expulsion. This was the reply:

‘Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves.

The advice of the Grand Satraps and the Rabbis is the following:

1. As for what you say that the King of Spain³ obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise.

2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs.

3. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives.

4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.

5. As for the other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix in affairs of State, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.

6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power.

(Signed) Prince of the Jews of Constantinople'”

 

 ]

On both sides of the Tweed[NN: the river that forms part of the border between England and Scotland; see photo] 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.” [NN: The Sabbath was the sacred day of rest and religion for Jews in the Old Testament. The New Testament does not command that Christians observe it.]

“Calvin,” states Disraeli, “deemed the Sabbath to have been a Jewish ordinance, limited to the sacred people.” He goes on to say that when these Calvinists [however] held the country in their power, “it seemed that religion chiefly consisted of Sabbatarian rigours ; and that a British senate had been transformed [12] into a company of Hebrew Rabbis”: 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 [equestrian painting], 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 [NN: this was murky but apparently an attempt on the life of the king) and was assassinated in the early years of King Charles’ reign under mysterious circumstances.

Strafford [painting below], 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.
Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford

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.

[NN: Captain Ramsay is referring to the growing power of the Puritans, who were strict Calvinists, under general Oliver Cromwell. They took over Parliament, got Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford, executed, and eventually went to war against the king, Charles I, and after a rigged trial executed him. After that, Cromwell ruled as dictator for nine years. A few years after he died, tired of the Calvinist Puritans, the English returned to having kings.]

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 [13] 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. [NN: Pamphlets and leaflets, handed out free on the street, were a major way of riling the masses up, and spreading rumors, attacks and criticism.] “From 1640 to 1660,” he writes, “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.”

He goes on, “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, Werner 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.

[NN: This was the Puritan army and was the first modern army with professional soldiers and officers, highly trained at war, sendable anywhere, and promoted based on ability, not noble blood.]

In The Jews in England we read :

“1643 brought a large [14] contingent of Jews to England. Their rallying point was the house of the Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marrano (= a secret Jew). Prominent among them was Fernandez Carvajal, a great financier and army contractor.”

NN: An “army contractor” is a merchant who sells cannons, uniforms, bullets, tents, food, etc., to an army or navy. The expression goes: “Wars are the Jews’ harvest.” Why? In the old days, Jews literally swarmed out over battlefields, taking everything dead soldiers had on them. In modern times, they get rich off selling things to armies, lending money to governments that have to pay for these armies, and their whole agenda of taking countries over advances becausd the best and brightest men are drafted, sent to the front and killed off there; the cowardly, sick and stupid are left behind to breed. Back to the book.

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Fernandez_Carvajal] and the rise of their creature Cromwell.

NN: As even Wikipedia, controlled by the Jew Jimmy Wales, admits, Carvajal was an army contractor and living in London, defying the ban on Jews. He became so cheeky that at the end of the article we read this: “According to Lucien Wolf, in 1658 a cargo of logwood belonging to Carvajal was seized by the customs officers. He assembled his servants and friends, broke open the government warehouses, and carried off his merchandise.”

The 1645 Battle of Naseby, where Cromwell’s professional army of Calvinist Puritans crushed the royalist army.

“And when did you last see your father?” A famous painting by William Frederick Yeames – in which the little son of an escaped Royalist is interrogated by fanatical Puritans during the English Civil War, who demand he betray his father’s location. Note the same style of hat as was worn in Puritan Massachusetts.

The scene now changes. The English Civil War has taken its course. The year is 1647: The Puritans have won at Naseby. The King is virtually a prisoner, while treated as an honoured guest at Holmby House.

According to a letter published in the magazine Plain English 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, 1647.

From 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.

[NN: In other words, Charles I was totally opposed to letting the Jews back into England, as any good ruler would be. So he had to be killed.] [15]

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.

[NN: A little note about Mülheim, France. I was married in 2002-05 to a Frenchwoman with ancestors from Alsace, France, which was actually a German-speaking area, or bilingual now, which had belonged to the Fatherland for 1200 years. Mülheim is a city in this province of Alsace.

Then in the 1600s Louis XIV, the Sun King, ruler of France, treacherously seized it from Germany it and Poland were  very busy fighting, in the common interest of all Europeans, DESPERATELY to stop the Turkish invasion of 1683.

Not surprisingly, this German-speaking area is to this day the cleanest, neatest, wealthiest and most crime-free area of France, and Germany fought several times to get it back.

Four things I learned when my then spouse and I visited her native Alsace:

1. Alsace was and is full of Jews, and Mühlheim, whence the letter from the synagogue, as I just stated, is a city in Alsace. When Lousi XIV seized Alsace, the then jew-free France, which had thrown the Jews out 300 years before (in 1394), and had then experienced a golden age, suddenly once again, by this illegal act, seizing German territory, had a ton of Jews in it. And these Jews in Alsace, 100 years later, were the undoing of France and the Bourbon dynasty and the literal death of his great-grandson, Louis XVI and of his wife, Marie Antoinette. That was the Sun King’s  karma for seizing Alsace while Germany, a fellow white and Christian nation, was fighting with all its troops to stop the muslim Turks.
   

The evil European Parliament is located in Strasbourg, Alsace in a cold, steely building.  Note how the building looks “unfinished” and half-built at the top? There is an evil reason for that.

Here is a poster for the European Union, and note the baphomet stars pointing downward, symbolizing Satan, and in the background you clearly see the Tower of Babel, partly built, signifying a great, wicked plan to unite mankind against God. You just cannot get any more open about it than that, can you?

The Star of Baphomet, who is the goat god, symbolizing the obsession with sex.

Satan even has a Jewish NOSE in this statue!

2) Jews allied with the Protestants for centuries against the common foe, the Catholics, the form of Christianity Jews seem to fear and hate most. Also, the Calvinists, the Protestants who ran Alsace, believed in usury, that is, lending money at interest, just like the Jews. So the two groups got along fine, both lending money, revering wealth, and hating the Catholics.

3) As a final note, my then wife and I traveled around France in a motor home, and the mobile home park where we parked our vehicle in Strasbourg, the capital of Alsace, was right next to a Jewish cemetery. 

I went for a walk in the neighborhood and spotted, lo and behold, a Jewish cemetery. To my shock, since the Jews are wealthy, the cemetery was in terrible condition. Many tombstones were leaning sideways, covered with moss, and high weeds grew between the rows. Remember, this was in a big city in France, with a wealthy Jewish community, not in some area of Poland where there are no more Jews.

I suddenly recalled what Hitler had said in Mein Kampf, how the Jews have no doctrine of an afterlife. When you are dead, your body for them is just a dead carcass. No more sex, money and vengeance for you! Why spend money on some dead meat? It was such a constrast with Chistrian cemeteries, which expres love and reverence for the dead and the hope of the resurrection — in short, the belief in immortality, which the Jews do not have.

In 2004, on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition,” correspondent Nina Totenberg declared, “Jews do not believe in an afterlife.” 80% of American Christians do and 65% of non-Christian Americans do. But only 19% of Jews did, in a poll taken in the 1970s. The Jewish Encyclopedia states http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8092-immortality-of-the-soul

The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture [meaning in the Old Testament]. As long as the soul was conceived to be merely a breath (“nefesh”; “neshamah”; comp. “anima”), and inseparably connected, if not identified, with the life-blood (Gen. ix. 4, comp. iv. 11; Lev. xvii. 11; see Soul), no real substance could be ascribed to it.

As soon as the spirit or breath of God (“nishmat” or “ruaḥ ḥayyim”), which was believed to keep body and soul together, both in man and in beast (Gen. ii. 7, vi. 17, vii. 22; Job xxvii. 3), is taken away (Ps. cxlvi. 4) or returns to God (Eccl. xii. 7; Job xxxiv. 14), the soul goes down to Sheol or Hades, there to lead a shadowy existence without life and consciousness (Job xiv. 21; Ps. vi. 6 [A. V. 5], cxv. 17; Isa. xxxviii. 18; Eccl. ix. 5, 10).

The belief in a continuous life of the soul, which underlies primitive Ancestor Worship and the rites of necromancy, practised also in ancient Israel (I Sam. xxviii. 13 et seq.; Isa. viii. 19; see Necromancy), was discouraged and suppressed by prophet and lawgiver as antagonistic to the belief in Yhwh, the God of life, the Ruler of heaven and earth, whose reign was not extended over Sheol until post-exilic times (Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8).

As a matter of fact, eternal life was ascribed exclusively to God and to celestial beings who “eat of the tree of life and live forever” (Gen. iii. 22, Hebr.),

So Adolf Hitler was absolutely right when he wrote, in Mein Kampf, that Judaism is a non-religion, a mere philosophy or attitude that is pure materialism, an ideology that preaches that one specific race or people should stick together like a mafia to get money, power, big houses, big cars, servants, sex, and vengeance, and all that in this world, the only one the average Jews believes to exist.

He wrote:

(Mein Kampf) “Due to his own original, special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him. 

And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world.

And now, back to the Ramsay book.

On 4th June, 1647, Cornet Joyce, acting on secret orders from Cromwell himself, and, according to D’israeli, unknown even to General-in-Chief Fairfax, descended upon Holmby House [where the king was under comfortable house arrest] 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 [NN, that is, king killers], who four times “purged” Parliament, till there was left finally 50 members, Communist-like themselves, known later as the Rump.

[NN: This refers to the so-called Rump Parliament and a notorious and outrageous incident, where Puritan troops threw members of Parliament out who were against trying and executing the king for treason. Once all that disagreed were brutally expelled, the rest voted to indict the king.]

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 [16] 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 lews. 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 lanuary, 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 [NN: that is, invented out of thin air.] Two-thirds of its members were Levelers from the Army.

Algernon Sidney [NN: a leading politician], warned Cromwell, as he wrote later:

First, the King can be tried by no court; secondly, no man can be tried by this court.

This being alleged in vain, and Cromwell using these formal words “I tell you, we will cut off his head with the crown upon it,” I immediately went out of the room, and never returned.

So tells us author 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.

NN: In January 1649 Charles I was beheaded in public. The crowd was dead-silent and many women fainted. He actually gave an excellent, brave little speech before his head was chopped off, where he forgave his enemies and as for pariament ruling the country, he put in this line: “As for the people, truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody, but I must tell you that their liberty and their freedom consists in having a government; those laws by which their life and their goods may most be their own.” Twenty-one years later, his son, Charles II, ascended the throne after Cromwell had died and his weak brother had proved a poor successor. The Charles River in Boston and the colonies, now states, of North and South Carolina honor this executed king whom the Jews got rid of so they could reenter England.

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 [17] 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.

NN: In Michael Jones’s huge and magisterial The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, the author offers much evidence that what happened was Jews began sneaking in, hiding their Jewishness and the police not asking 0too many questions.

He also states that Cromwell himself got cold feet about letting the Jews back in.   

Cromwell had some sort of fanaticizing personal religious experience around 1628, after seeking  treatment for depression from a very famous London doctor who had treated James I for various ailments and later would treat Charles II.

Whatever happened, Cromwell got in a violent fight over a town charter, which caused the Privy Council, the advisors to the king, to summon him to explain himself. Not long after, he became a rigid Puritan.

Cromwell actually imagined that he as ruler of England 1) would let the Jews into England, 2) that they would be grateful and open-hearted, and then 3) he would convert them to Christianity.

The Jew in turn were certainly stunned he had had the king’s head chopped off, since he had been their enemy, and thought Cromwell maybe was a closet Jew himself and might even be the Messiah.

But when Cromwell made it clear to the wealthy Jewish leader Menassah Ben Israel in Holland (which is of course across the North Sea from England), who was a major rabbi, author and even a printer, that the Jews would have to attend church and become Christians, the party was over. 

While they did begin trickling in in 1655, what put the big chill on large numbers of Jews getting in was a key pamphlet against the Jews written in December of that same year by the then well-known author William Prynne [drawing], whom, btw, Cromwell had thrown in prison without charges for three years for advocating that no one pay taxes to the Cromwell dictatorship.

Prynne wrote in his pamphlet, called “A Short Demurrer,” that the Jews had been a curse on England, that Edward I, called Longshanks, had had good reasons to expel them, and that if they returned they would destroy Christianity, take over England, and make themselves rich and the English poor.

He noted that the Jews had been so hated before their expulsion in 1290 that they were allotted only one cemetery in all of England, to which all the bodies of dead jews around the country had to be carted, because no one even wanted their bodies in English soil.

It was not just their economic takeover of England via money-lending, or their coin-clipping, which was slicing slivers of gold off coins and keeping it.

Prynne wrote extensively of Jewish ritual murder of Christian children. All this confirms the accusations of ritual murder finally made in 2007 by Ariel Toaff, referred to earlier, who was profesor of Italian Jewish studies at Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv, Israel and son of the Grand Rabbi of Rome. 

I quote Prynne now:

By this history we may perceive what a prevailing engine the Jews’ money is, both to insert them into Christian kingdoms, though the most bitter, inveterate, professed enemies of Christ himself, of Christians, and of Christianity, and also how their money can induce even Christian princes to perpetrate most un-Christian, and anti-Christian actions… And do not they still work by the self-same money engine today?

In the year of our Lord 1145, during the reign of King Stephen, the Jews grew so presumptuous in England that they crucified a child called William, in the city of Norwich, in derision of Christian religion. Not long after this, Anno 1160. (the 6th year of Henry the II.) they crucified another child at Gloucester, (in contempt of Christ and his Passion). And in the same king’s reign, Anno 1181, upon the same account, the Jews on the Feast of Easter itself martyred and cruci∣fied another child at St. Edmondsbury, called Robert.

King Henry in the year 1235, keeping his court and the Nativity [christmas] at Westminster, with many of his Bi∣shops and nNobles, there were brought before him; upon the complaint of Iohn Toly, 7 Jews, who had circumcised a certain Christian child in Norwich, whom they had stolen a∣way from his parents, and kept for a year, intending to crucify him on the Feast of Easter. But being convicted for this fact, they confessed the truth of the thing in the King’s presence: and some of them were drawn and hanged.

In the year of our Lord 1240 the Jews circumcised a Christian child at Norwich, and being circumcised, they called him Jurninus, but reserved him to be crucified in contumely of Jesus Christ crucified. But the father of the child, from whom the Jews had stolen him, diligently seeking after his son, at last found him shut up in the custody of the Jews; and with loud clamours declared that his son, whom he thought to have been lost, was wickedly kept up in the chamber of a certain Jew, which great premeditated wickednesse came to the knowledge of Bishop William Rele…. All the Jews of the city were apprehended… and four  of the Jews being convicted, ere first dragged at the tails of horses, and at last hanged on the gallows, lamentably breathing forth the remains of life.

The very next year the Jews in foreign parts, especially in Germany, believing that the Tartars were of their own nation [NN: the Tatars, as Mongols, were related to their ancestors, the Khazars, who had converted to Judaism] entred into a secret league with them to destroy the Christians, and subdue the whole world to themselves.

To this end they provided many hogsheads [barrels] filled with arms to be transported to the Tartars; pretending to the Christian princes that they were vessels filled only with poisoned wines, wherewith they intended to poison and destroy the Tartars, who would drink no wines but such as were made by the Jews.

But this their treachery being detected by the customers in Germany, who found these pretended vessels of wine to be fraught with arms for the Tartars wherewith to destroy the Christians of Germany; thereupon the Jews were delivered to tormentors, to be perpetually imprisoned –or slain with their own swords.

Interestingly, Prynne ends with a quote from Jesus about wine, saying the old wisdom, namely, keep the Jews out, was better than new ideas about letting them back in.

He concludes:

Luke 5:39. “No man having drunk old wine straightaway desireth new, for he saith “the old is better.”

 I have my own stories to tell of my family, in the 1600s, and the Puritans, and their Old Testament barbarism. My ancestor via both parents, Thomas Angell, came from England with Roger Williams to Salem, in Puritan Massachusetts, yes, to the very same town where, 60 years later, the Salem Witch Trials would be held and 24 innocent people were hanged, crushed to death under rocks or died in prison, including a baby.

Thomas Angell was a poor English lad and was given away by his starving parents, as was the custom with the poor, to a gentleman on the promise to teach him to read and write and learn a skill. The gentleman was Roger Williams,  who took him  to America and founded the first colony dedicated to religious freedom. Williams believed in freedom in general, and was close to the Baptists, who were against the baptism of infants for that reason, viewing the decision to join a church as one only a n adult can make. Williams and young Angell were appalled in Salem to see the Puritan, Calvinist attitude, which required six hours of mandatory attendance in a freezing church every Sunday — with the death penalty for frequent non-attendance.

No dancing, cards, plays, music or other wicked things were allowed. If you fell asleep in church they hit you on the head with a stick. Work, make money and pray. This was Puritanism. And my ancestral Rhode Island, which the Puritians labeled “Rogues’ Island,” began filling up with refugees from it. Back to the book.

“The English Revolution under Charles I,” writes Isaac Disraeli, “was unlike any preceding one … From that time and event we contemplate in our history the phases of revolution.” There were many more to follow on similar lines, notably in France.

*** JdN A hoard of coins and Cromwell truth

Adapted from a Daily Mail (UK) article of November 17, 2016  (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3944970/Buried-treasure-1-000-coins-English-Civil-War-dug-muddy-Lincolnshire-field.html)

Buried treasure! 1,000 coins from the English Civil War are dug up in a muddy Lincolnshire field

• The coins were found in a ploughed field in Ewerby, Lincolnshire
• It is the largest hoard that has been found from that time in the county
• The coins come from the reigns of various monarchs, including Edward VI, Elizabeth I, Mary, James I, and Charles I

By Shivali Best For Mailonline

Published: 07:08 EST, 17 November 2016 | Updated: 07:14 EST, 17 November 2016

A haul of 1,000 coins dating back to the English Civil War has been found in the village of Ewerby in Lincolnshire.

*** (Back to Ramsay)

 

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, point 14.]

The Elders might have made the passage even fuller, and written, “Remember the British and French revolutions [also], 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 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 [Calvinist] 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.

Charles II is presented the first pineapple grown in 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, [18] 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 [1290-1650] 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 [painting], 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 [painting], 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.

[NN: This amounts to 400 thousand pounds today annually, or $600 thousand dollars per year. This means the Churchill family’s rise to power was started with Jewish money 250 years before their descendant, prime minister Winston Churchill, got England into an unnecessary war with the anti-Jewish Hitler Germany.]

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 [19] 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 it drained away the life blood of the land, the real wealth which was the birthright of the British peoples.

[Narrator’s note: Under Adolf Hitler, from 1933-45, there was a very successful new economic system, and one that was not backed by gold. Hitler eluded the bloodsucking grip of the Zionist moneymasters. Therefore,  as the American Jew Theodore Kaufman preached in his 1941 bestseller, “Germany must be perish.” 

And Adolf Hitler has been vilified now for generations so that the uninformed will demand that their government return to the gold standard – because the jews control the gold.]

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, one hundred 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 [20] 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 [NN: which means, “ripping off”] 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.

[NN: In other words, the Jew earns seven times more, by doing nothing but moneylending, than the farmer who by toil produced an essential product, food.] 

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.

A silver écu coin of the Kingdom of France in 1781: Louis is (Latin texts) ”the king by the grace of God,” and ”may the name of the Lord be blessed”

In 1909, after a radical secularization, France is now “the French Republic” (no longer a nation but a republic, a subtle but important difference) and a rooster crows on the back about ”liberty, equality and fraternity.” God and nation are gone.

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 Robespierre himself [painting].

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 onto 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.”

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 the France of 1789, the Britain of 1640, the Russia of 1917, the Germany and the Hungary of 1918-19, and the 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, moreover, 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 [23] the secrecy is essential. Its outward signs are debt, loss of publicity control, and the existence of alien-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 entire 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 he 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.”

French peasants till the land, whose food harvest was their wealth.

The debts of the French Kingdom, though substantial [NN: partly through King Louis XVI generously financing the American Revolution and supporting it also with French troops and a fleet], 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 [24] 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 Queenborough, in her important work Occult Theocracy gives us certain outstanding names, taking her facts from L’Anti-Semitisme by the Jew Bernard Lazare, 1894.

[NN: This work, sometimes spelled Occult Theocracy, is a massive 700-page tome “exposing” secret societies like the Freemasons, and was originally published in the UK in 1933.

Edith Starr Miller, the author of this book, was the daughter of an American industrialist who married an British nobleman.

She understood occult religions and secret societies as she experienced them first-hand — her husband was the 1st Baron of Queensborough, treasurer of the League of Nations and member of British Union of Fascists. He had helped secure oil monopolies for John D. Rockefeller. Shortly after the book’s publication, Edith Starr Miller, age 45, died, as even as the occult Grand Lodge of Canada attested, “under suspicious circumstances.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Starr_Miller

Excerpts:

Edith Starr Miller, Lady Queenborough (July 16, 1887 – January 16, 1933) was a New York socialite, author and anti-Mormon agitator who in 1921 became the second wife of Almeric Hugh Paget, 1st Baron Queenborough. [His grandfather had commanded the British cavalry at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.]

[…]

Edith’s observations were outlined in her posthumously published Occult Theocrasy,^[9] and added to the discussion of the secret societies and their conspiracies. Her information was drawn from existing sources^{[citation needed]}, including the works of Dr. Karl Hacks and Léo Taxil ( pseudonym of Marie-Joseph Gabriel-Antoine Jogand-Pages; 1854-1907), Taxil’s supporter Abel Clarin de la Rive (1855-1914), Samuel Paul Rosen (1840-1907), theosophist Alice Bailey (1880-1949), Nesta Helen Webster (1876-1960), and esotericist Christina M. Stoddard, who wrote under the pseudonym “Inquire Within“. The Pagets later separated, and Edith sued in New York for legal separation on January 8, 1932, citing cruelty.^[10]

Death[edit]

She died in Paris a year later, on January 16, 1933.^[11]

https://archive.org/details/OccultTheocrasy

*** [back to Ramsay]

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 [https://archive.org/details/lifenapoleonbuo07unkngoog] :

“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 Jacques Necker, “a Swiss” of German [25] extraction, son of a German professor of whom McNair Wilson writes:

Finance minister Jacques Necker’s January 1781 budget report to his majesty, the king of France

“Necker had forced his way into the King’s Treasury as a representative of the debt system and 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 [painting], 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 out.

The Marquis de Mirabeau [painting] 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.

[26] He is known to have been financed by Moses Mendelssohn [photo], 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.

This Illuminism was a secret revolutionary

Adam Weishaupt

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 in France from Frankfurt, where its headquarters had been established in 1782 under Adam Weishaupt [drawing].

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 [ = today usually called by its German name, Regenbsburg].

Regensburg, once the seat of the ”Diet” or senate of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation”

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 masonic ”Lodges” in France affiliated to the Grand Orient, the direct tool of international revolution; and their adepts numbered over 100,000.

***Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Orient_de_France

The Grand Orient requires no belief in a supreme being, and thus has atheistic members, which is forbidden in other branches of Freemasonry.

Interior of the Grand Orient temple in Paris; this order has 50,000 members in France and is militantly anti-Christian. It promotes race-mixing, mass immigration and judeophilia.

***

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 [Philippe, the duke of Orleans, dubbed “Égalité” [NN: after the French word for “equality”] 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.

NN: The ”Estates General” was an ancient French institution, started back in the 1300s, a sort of parliament that consisted of three chambers that advised the king. One ”estate” was for the Catholic clergy,  one for the nobles, and the last for the commoners. They had no actual power except to advise and assist the king, unlike, for example, the British parliament. This institution was done away with in the French Revolution, and was replaced by one group, which still exists today, the National Assembly.

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 houses, such as 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, ”Égalité’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 Choderlos de Laclos [painting], a political adventurer of alien origin, author of The Liaisons Dangereuses, and other pornographic works …..who was said “to study the politics of love because of his love for politics.”

 

 

The 1989 Hollywood film ”Liaisons dangereuses” featured Glennn Close and John Malkovich

 

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 [28] way.

This process was known as “L’infamie.”

NN: This means a campaign to defame someone and make them ”infamous.”

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.

She was more intelligent, alert, and vigorous than the weak and indolent [King] Louis,

 

….so Marie Antoinette presented a considerable obstacle to the revolution.

.

She had, moreover, 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 suspected 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 bloodbaths of the guillotine.

In order to further the campaign of calumny against the Queen, an elaborate hoax was arranged at the time, when [29] 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.

 

Marie Antoinette

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 a forged letter the Cardinal Prince de Rohan was induced to meet this 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.

Louis René Edouard de Rohan-Guéméné before the Revolution

 

This event, needless to say, was immediately reported to the printing presses and pamphleteers, who started a further campaign containing the foulest innuendos that could be imagined concerning the whole affair.

The moving spirit behind the scene was Cagliostro [drawing], alias Joseph Balsamo, a Jew from Palermo, [Italy], 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 the year 1789, when the financiers forced the King to summon the Estates General [NN: like the French version of Parliament], the first portion of their plans for revolution (i.e. paralysis) were [30] 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.

NN: This is a reference to Joshua 9:23, where the Canaanites known as Gibeonites were condemned to serve as servants of the Jews and, to humiliate them, were assigned traditionally female occupations.

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.

Philippe Égalité, the Duke of 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.

[NN: Here Captain Ramsay is making a merely passing reference to this critical event, assuming the reader may know all about this “March of the Women to Versailles.” I think it would be wise to back up and explain the key events of 1789 and also about the normal nature of the French people, whom I know well and who are really not bloodthirsty at all.

In the year 1789, here in America, the various individual states of the United States were busy voting on ratifying the US Constitution, and establishing a stable government, one that had freedom and order, as intended by George Washington, the president of the convention which created the Constitution and then as the first president of the United States.

He was aided by highly respected men who were brilliant, idealistic, but also practical and level-headed, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

But the French Revolution, which many thought would cause France to peacefully evolve in the right direction, leading to a constitutional monarchy and a good constitution, was quickly taken over by violent mobs that were being stoked to extreme hatred and violence by evil masterminds lurking in the shadows.

Their real desire was to murder tens of thousands of people, and eventually they got to do just that during the so-called Terror, the guillotine phase, when tens of thousands of innocent people had their heads chopped off, just as ISIS does today.  

For Captain Ramsay, this level of hatred and violent mob action in itself was an indicator that some foreign element, not French at all, but Jewish, was steering things.

As for me, my own distant ancestry is French, Norman French. I minored in French at Georgetown University, they graduated me there with high honors, and I speak the language fluently. My second marriage was in fact to a Frenchwoman, and I lived in France with her in 2004-05, and made many friends there.

(Btw, unlike Barack Obama, I AM willing to release MY college transcript. I have dotted the French courses – one B and 4 A’s.)

Lavender fields

By coincidence or fate, I was even born on the 14th of July, Bastille Day, the day the French Revolution began, the day which is now the national holiday of that country, with a huge military parade in Paris being held, right through the Arc de Triomphe and down the Champs Elysées Boulevard. I always thought it cool all of France was celebrating my birthday. 😉

Students of the French Special Military School of Saint Cyr march down the Champs-Elysées Avenue during the annual Bastille Day military parade on July 14, 2014, in Paris, France.

So I can say, as a result of all this, that I know the French, and basically they are not a bloodthirsty people at all, nor are they cowards, and the fact of being beaten in war twice by the Germans is not really a disgrace.

The Germans are magnificent warriors who have beaten many people, including even the Roman Empire, 1,600 years ago. It was destroyed by the ancient ancestors of the Germans of today. 

And the Germans beat the British too, in 1940, after previously crushing Poland, Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Norway, and then the British Army fled from Dunkirk back over to England with just the shirts on their back. This happened only because Hitler let them go — rather than massacre them on the beach, because he wanted peace with England and not a bloodbath. 

So the French are neither cowards nor violent, just normal people.

In fact, French mobs never chopped peoples’ heads off before, especially not those of beautiful women 😉 or well-dressed, stylish men.

They hate vulgarity, drunkenness and peasant behavior. They hate mobs, sweat and garlic breath. Even fistfights are almost unheard of in French culture — and a sign that you are a dimwit and a moron.

The French love their children, but are strict with them too, because they want to enjoy parenting, they want to enjoy their life, and just as the stereotypes go, they make love, they laugh, and they dine well, with good wine and cheese, loyal friends, and trying to be merry as much as possible. The French are not a nasty people, au contraire. 🙂

Here are three short anecdotes from my own experience showing what the French are like, and that is anything but heavy, or fanatic, and lacking a sense of humor. They also respect others, even their former enemies:

1) They are supposed to dislike the Germans, but ever since World War Two, to my astonishment, they eat sauerkraut and they drink beer. They love to buy German cars, and always say “German products are robuste.” Even Charles de Gaulle admitted in his memoirs that “in 1940, the armies of Germany swept us aside in six weeks — like a broom.”

Once I overheard a French friend scolding his teenage daughter for not cleaning her room up, and he concluded with “Now clean it and schnell!” I asked him: “Did you just say ‘schnell’? That’s the German word for ‘fast’!”

He replied: “Well, I could say the French word, vite, but she might ignore me. If I say schnell, she won’t!”

2) Another time, he, his wife and I went to the festive opening of a new business, a big wine-and-cheese party, and the local people were invited by flyers to attend and meet the owner. My friend already knew the owner but then did introductions. “Marcel, this is my wife, Sophie, and this, John de Nugent, is ‘er loverre!”

It was such an unexpected joke, and it came out with perfect timing.

You can see the French love to laugh and have a good time. They don’t nurse hatred, they don’t want to cut your throat off like ISIS, and the worst thing you can say to a Frenchman is “you are long-winded and boring.”

For example, if your story goes too long, a Frenchman will cock his head sideways, and scratch his fingers up his cheeks to see if, during your speech, he finds he needs to shave again!

I have a final anecdote, which is not from my own experience, but from the end of the French Revolution in 1792. Despite all the hatred injected by ”operatives” into the French people, an ire aggravated by seeing aristocrats sneer at them while going to the guillotine, the death of the humble and beautiful Madame du Barry totally broke the spell of hatred that had been cast over the people.

Her real name at birth was Jeanne Bécu. She was a beautiful, shapely girl and the daughter of a seamstress. Louis XV made her his official mistress, which meant, as with earlier French monarchs, having her own apartment and official rank.

Louis XV ruled from 1715-74, a reign of 59 years. Jeanne Bécu became his mistress when he was 58 and she was just 25.

Now, the French knew that royal marriages were arranged; they often were alliances between countries and dynasties, and royal marriages usually were not based on love or even very happy. (This was certainly the problem with England’s Prince Charles and Lady Diana, who in the best of times, at most, merely liked each other.)

The French knew their monarchs were human beings like anyone else, who needed real love and fun in their relationships, not just the duties of producing a royal heir.

They also did not want their kings being blackmailed via adultery scandals, or jumping from bed to bed with unknown women who could poison them, or make them talk about state secrets during ”pillow talk.” So the practical French (and also the Chinese and Japanese, btw) gave their kings for centuries an official, approved mistress.

So this Jeanne Bécu, later ennobled as the Countess du Barry, was the official mistress of the previous king of France, Louis XV, the one before the Louis XVI who was overthrown and executed during the French Revolution.

After King Louis XV died in 1774, Madame du Barry was no longer at the court and she had other lovers. The Duke de Brissac was one of them.

As Wikipedia relates,

“During the French Revolution, Brissac was captured while visiting Paris, and was slaughtered by a mob. Late one night, Jeanne heard the sound of a small drunken crowd approaching the Chà¢teau, and into the opened window where she looked out someone threw a blood-stained cloth. To Jeanne’s horror, it contained Brissac’s head, at which sight she fainted.

Madame du Barry, whose only crime was having been the mistress of the previous king of France, is dragged from jail to be taken

to the guillotine. She could not believe she had to die for that.

As Wikipedia relates:

In 1792, Madame du Barry was suspected of financially assisting émigrés who had fled the French Revolution, and in the following year she was finally arrested. When the Revolutionary Tribunal of Paris accused her of treason and condemned her to death, she vainly attempted to save herself by revealing the hiding places of some gems she had hidden.^[31]

On 8 December 1793, Madame du Barry was beheaded by means of the guillotine on the Place de la Révolution (nowadays, Place de la Concorde).

On the way to the guillotine, she collapsed in the cart and cried “You are going to do something awful to me! Why?!” Terrified, she screamed for mercy and begged the crowd for help. Her last words to the executioner were: “One more moment, Mr. Executioner, I beg you!”

Well, the Terror had finally gone too far even for the mob, hearing the screams of a beautiful and completely innocent woman. In a few months, Robespierre, the main villain of the Revolution, would himself be guillotined and the Terror was over. Later, Napoleon Bonaparte would come in, end the chaotic republic, restore law and order and make himself emperor.

So the French Revolution, which involved appalling viciousness, lies, defamation, hatred, violence, and cruelty, was out of character for the French, which implies someone else was guiding it, another people, a people who for millennia have been well known for these very traits of viciousness, lies, defamation, hatred, violence, and cruelty.

Maximilien Robespierre made France a land of executions

And the exact same thing applies to the Paris Commune of 1870, 81 years later. Somebody was pulling the strings and scientifically bringing out the worst in people.

And the Treaty of Versailles in 1920 was the same way. An observer said that the assistant of every minister of the Allied governments creating this cruel document was a Jew. It was designed to leave the Germans poor and defenseless for a hundred years — after they had surrendered in good faith, and gone home to Germany, unbeaten, and desiring only peace,

In sum, I would say that as long as the French are eating their long fresh sticks of bread, their baguettes, and making love three times a week and drinking their wine (which is cheap and very good over there, btw), they are among the nicest and funniest people on earth, and loyal friends who really care. They will invite you to a party even if you are broke, as long as you are polite, witty and interesting. And they stay friends even after a bad argument, and are there for you in your hour of need.

I would only say to my fellow Anglos — to stay on their good side, do try hard to speak French when in France, just as Frenchmen, when they come to us in England or America, speak our language and not theirs. A Frenchman would never walk into a Chevrolet dealership in the United States and expect to be waited on in French, nor would he point out that Chevrolet and Cadillac are both French names. Now, as for the Parisians, well…. they are rude even to other Frenchmen! Paris is like the New York of France.

Having said all that about the normal French character, which is not sinister at all, here are the suspicious details about the French Revolution from the get-go.

One, it starts when a huge and ugly mob suddenly forms on July 14 (that is, on my birthday) in 1789, and after months of huge and suspicious rises in food prices and mass hunger. This mob had already seized 29,000 muskets (ancient rifles) elsewhere in the city, but now they needed the gunpowder and bullets stored in the Bastille, a prison and armory with enormous walls, but containing, btw, just six prisoners.

This guy, with a big, hooked nose, calling himself Stanislas-Marie Maillard, 28, was a captain of the ”Bastille Volunteers.” As a national guardsman (thy were revolutionary troops), he participated in the attack on the Bastille.

The warden, Bernard de Launay, used rifle and cannon fire attempting to disperse the mob, killing about 98 of them, and could have blown the whole fortress sky-high with the 39,000 pounds of gunpowder located inside, and the surrounding neighborhood as well, but he finally offered to surrender, though that was refused, and came out with his men peacefully around 5 pm.

But his peace gesture was ignored, he was bayonetted and shot, then his head was cut off. The same happened to four of his officers and men, and all their heads were stuck onto pikes.

Others were lynched and murdered around the city for opposing the mob. A unit of the Royal French Army with 5,000 men that was located near the Bastille, very bizarrely, just watched all this — and did absolutely nothing.

So the Revolution began with one side trying to be peaceful, trying to be reasonable and seeking to avoid bloodshed, but the mob was into betrayal and murder from Day One.

Later, the hook-nosed Maillard was involved in the outrageous “March of the Women” to the royal castle at Versailles, where Ramsay says many of the so-called women were actually men wearing women’s clothes. They invaded the bedroom of the queen….

…murdered two royal bodyguards, put their heads on pikes, a real obsession with those agitators, as with the Israeli-created ISIS right now, and forced the king, queen and their children to come with them to Paris.

The Marquis de Lafayette, who had been a hero in the American Revolution, helping George Washington and securing French help for the Americans, was then back in France and was the commander of the National Guard.

He was terrified to see agitators among his soldiers, telling them to kill him, Lafayette, if he did not lead them to the king’s castle at Versailles outside Paris and bring the king and queen back to the city to be put under the control of, quote, “the people.”

The people had been told the utter falsehood that Marie Antoinette, the queen, who was the blonde, blue-eyed, German-speaking daughter of the emperor of Austria, had been told that the people had no bread to eat and had merely responded, “then let them eat cake!”

This vicious lie is a classic example of seizing on a popular perception — in this case, that the queen supposedly did not care about the poor and the hungry — and strengthening it by inventing a rumor — a pure lie, in this case — which seemed to prove it, and this defamatory lie then fanned what had been a certain level of popular resentment into a fiery hatred.

The Marquis de Lafayette was shocked to hear his own soldiers calling the queen a “bitch” or a “whore” as he escorted the royal family back to Paris, and to see his own troops carrying the heads of two royal bodyguards on pikes.

Going back to the hook-nosed Maillard, Wikipedia reports:

While serving as president of the improvised tribunal at the Prison de l’Abbaye, Maillard released the Marquis Charles Franois de Virot de Sombreuil, who had been saved by his daughter Marie-Maurille, to whom legend confers the status of l’héroà¯ne au verre de sang. [ = ”the heroine of the glass of blood”]

This name refers to the legend that, in order to spare her father’s life, she was compelled to drink a glass of blood. Jules Claretie, the man who was second-in-command at the tribunal, gave an eyewitness account of the now Judge Maillard: “Maillard was a young man of thirty, large, dark, with matted hair.“^[4]

I can tell you from MY experience, speaking as John de Nugent,  that the French hate filthy clothes, nasty hair, and disrespect toward girls or women.

They would never ask a girl to drink a glass of blood in order to save her father.

The cruelty and the filthy, unshampood, black, matted hair suggest to me just one thing: Maillard was really an Orthodox Jew.

***

The Duke of 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 instead under the power of the ”Commune,” or Paris County Council, in which the [radical] Jacobins were supreme.

They continued to make use of Égalité 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.

The Marquis de Mirabeau [painting] played a similar role to that of Égalité. 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 was 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 very 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 Philippe Égalité, and later Danton….

Georges Danton

….and Robespierre, 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 ways that none save the brotherhood can even 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 [the Marquis] de Lafayette occupies the stage on several important occasions during these first revolutionary stages.

 

Lafayette at the battle of Brandywine, Pennsylvania, fighting for the Americans, where he was wounded

With General Washington at Valley Forge

In full dress uniform

With George Washington at Mount Vernon, Virginia

As commander of the Paris National Guard

He was one of those simple Freemasons, who are borne they know not whither, in a ship they have not fully explored, and by currents concerning which they are totally ignorant.

Above the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” is of course an eye and the pyramid of Masonry

Left side of the back of the US one-dollar bill

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” [of October 1789], during ”the Attack on the Tuileries [palace],” and then at the Champs de Mars …..

NN: The Champs de Mars, the “field of Mars,” that is, the drill field of the god of war, was the place where troops drilled in Paris. 

On July 17, 1991, Lafayette ordered his troops to fire on a wild crowd demanding the king abdicate; at least twelve were killed.

 

…and during the mob attack on the palace of the Tuileries [of August 10, 1792], when the mob seized the king and his family in Paris, thus ending the monarchy.

The standoff on the staircase that became a shootout; the Swiss Guard in red faced off for 45 minutes with the insurgents, but refused to surrender — and then someone opened fire. 

In the end, 700 of the 1,000 Swiss Guards were killed — or murdered after surrendering by the mob. 

The murder even of the female staff of the palace was only narrowly prevented. (I [JdN] can say that no Frenchman — in his right mind — would ever gun down a woman, especially not a good cook. 😉 )

The Marquis too desired the establishment of a democratic monarchy, and would countenance no threat to the King even from Philippe Égalité, whom he treated with the utmost hostility during and after ”the March of the Women to Versailles,” believing on that occasion that Égalité intended the assassination of the King and the usurpation of his crown.

[NN: Every time I have revisited the French Revolution by reading, I am struck at how often some mob shows up and how it then stays fired up, it marches all over Paris, and it wants blood for hours on end.

First of all, mobs tend to cool off, especially if the other side is compromising, and no one is hungry, starving or being hurt.

But with the French Revolution, one sort of gets used to reading about mobs arising, marching, attacking buildings, cutting peoples’ heads off and sticking them on pikes, and increasing their  demands all the time, as if it were somehow normal for French people or for anyone to just run around in a lather all day.

This is just not the case, and Ramsay is trying to say that professional instigators were behind this phenomenon.

The Marquis de Lafayette sensed this as well, and when he ordered his troops to fire on the mob, it was because he could see clearly in their faces and chants that this was now a wild beast and not something to be reasoned with.

And why? Because it was being incited to violence by professional agitators such as the hook-nosed Maillard and many, many others, who likely were being trained and paid to do so.

The Marquis had hoped the French Revolution would stay sane, as did the American Revolution which he had helped to succeed, and that revolution ended up in sensible reforms, not bloodbaths, massacres and the overthrowing of important traditions of the country.

But the storming of the Tuileries palace ended the moderate phase of the Revolution, or rather it meant that entirely different people eventually took over.

The monarchy was abolished, and so-called “committees of vigilance” formed and ordered mass arrests of nobles, priests and the middle class. All property of nobles was confiscated. Monasteries and all religious orders were closed. Opposition newspapers were shut down, and the most uneducated of the mob, the sans culottes, meaning “people without underwear,” began to rule.

The very next month, prisoners all over France were simply massacred in their jail cells in the “September [1792] Massacres” as “escape risks.”

 

Wikipedia reports:

The first instance of massacre occurred when 24 non-juring priests [NN: that is, priests who would not take an oath of loyalty to the anti-Christian government] were being transported to the prison of the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, which had become a national prison of the revolutionary government.

They were attacked by a mob that quickly killed them all as they were trying to escape into the prison, then mutilated the bodies, “with circumstances of barbarity too shocking to describe” according to the British diplomatic dispatch.

Of 284 prisoners, 135 were killed, 27 were transferred, 86 were set free, and 36 had uncertain fates.^[14] In the afternoon of 2 September 150 priests in the convent of Carmelites were massacred, mostly by sans-culottes.

[NN: Here you can see a sinister force, which had to be Freemasons or Jews, because the working class in most countries back then was devoutly Christian. Some intellectuals were atheists or agnostics, or perhaps deists, but the working class was not. So clearly there was some new and sinister force changing society.] 

On 3 and 4 September, groups broke into other Paris prisons, where they murdered the prisoners, who, some feared, were counter-revolutionaries who would aid the invading Prussians. From 2 to 7 September, summary trials took place in all Paris prisons. Almost 1,400 prisoners were condemned and executed […]. Among the victims were more than 200 priests, almost 100 Swiss guards, and many political prisoners and aristocrats,^[15] including the queen’s friend, the Princesse de Lamballe. [painting]

Wikipedia tells us of this princess that she fled to England after ”the March of the Women to Versailles,” but returned out of her deep friendship for the queen, Marie Antoinette, after writing her will, fearing death.

And here we see again the vile influence of Freemasonry and Jewry, for we read in the Wikipedia article on the Princess de Lamballe:

[She] was by nature reserved, and there was never any gossip about her private life. However, in popular anti-monarchist propaganda of the time, she was regularly portrayed in pornographic pamphlets, showing her as the queen’s lesbian lover to undermine the public image of the monarchy.^[2] 

Death

On 19 August, she and the Marquise de Tourzel, governess to the royal children, were separated from the royal family and transferred to the La Force prison.^[6] On 3 September, she was brought before a hastily assembled tribunal which demanded she “take an oath to love liberty and equality and to swear hatred to the King and the Queen and to the monarchy”.^[7]

 

She agreed to the swear to liberty but refused to denounce the King, Queen, and monarchy, upon which her trial summarily ended with the words, “emmenez madame” (“Take madame away”). She was immediately taken to the street and thrown to a group of men who killed her within minutes.^[8][9]

Some reports allege that she was raped and that her breasts were cut off, in addition to other bodily mutilations,^[10][11] and that her head was cut off and stuck on a pike.

Other reports say that it was brought to a nearby café where it was laid in front of the customers, who were asked to drink in celebration of her death.^[10]

Other reports state that the head was taken to a barber in order to dress the hair to make it instantly recognizable,^[11] though this has been contested.^[9]

Following this, the head was replaced upon the pike and was paraded beneath Marie Antoinette’s window at the Temple.^[12]

Those who were carrying it wished the queen to kiss the lips of her favourite, as it was a frequent slander that the two had been lovers. The head was not allowed to be brought into the building.^[12]

In her historical biography, Marie Antoinette : The Journey, Antonia Fraser claims that the queen did not actually see the head of her long-time friend, but was aware of what was occurring, stating, “…the municipal officers had had the decency to close the shutters and the commissioners kept them away from the windows…one of these officers told the King ‘..they are trying to show you the head of Madame de Lamballe’…Mercifully, the Queen then fainted away”.^[12]

[Back to the book.]  

***

[Lafayette] 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, Robespierre, and the fanatics of the Jacobin club now dominated the scene.

Charlotte [de] Corday [d’Armont] avenged the victims of the Terror by stabbing Marat to death in his bathtub: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Corday

Being taken from her cell to the guillotine

In September of 1792 were perpetrated the terrible “September massacres”; eight thousand 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 their prisons by one Manuel, Procureur [ = Prosecutor] 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 Communauté de Paris, ( 4 ) now the Sanhedrin of the Jacobins, was, of course, for blood.”

Again, on page 56 Sir Walter Scott writes :

[33] “The power of the Jacobins was irresistible in Paris, where Robespierre, 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 Choderlos de Laclos, manager of the Palais Royal, said to be of ‘‘Spanish origin.”

There was Manuel, the Procureur 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 [Jacques-Louis] 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’.”

Jacques-Louis David, ”Self-Portrait”

The fanatic republican David later hypocritically made tons of money painting the emperor Napoleon

Napoleon crossing the Great Saint Bernard (Pass in Switzerland)

Coronation of Napoleon in 1804 at Notre Dame cathedral

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.”

The Cult  of the Supreme Being is celebrated in June of 1794 in the Tuileries Garden in Paris

([This is from] Sir Walter Scott, The Life of Napoleon Buonaparte, Emperor of the French. With a Preliminary View of the French Revolution. Edinburgh 1827, Vol.2.)

Sir Walter Scott of Edinburgh, Scotland was a bestselling author across Europe .

Sir Walter Scott’s mansion, Abbotsford 

Interior hallway 

There were Reubel and Gohir, two of the five “Directors,” who, with a ”Council of Elders,” became the government after the fall of Robespierre, 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 nine volumes, revealing so much of the real truth, is practically unknown, is never reprinted with his other works, and is almost unobtainable. [This was true in 1952.]

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.

[34] To return to the scene in Paris, Robespierre now remains alone, and apparently master of the scenes ; but this again was only appearance.

Let us turn to The Life of Robespierre, by one G. Renier, who writes as though Jewish secrets were at his disposal.

Maximilien de Robespierre

He writes :

“From April to July 1794 (the fall of Robespierre) the Terror was at its height. It was never the dictatorship of a single man, least of all Robespierre. Some 20 men (the Committees of Public Safety and of General Security) shared the power.”

“On the 28th July, 1794,” to quote Mr. Renier again,

“Robespierre 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 Robespierre had left uncompleted.

Robespierre’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 Robespierre was shot in the jaw, and early on the following day he was dragged to the guillotine.

Once again let us recall Protocol 15:

“In this way we shall proceed with goy masons who know too much.”

[35] Note : In a somewhat similar manner Abraham Lincoln was shot and killed by the Jew John Wilkes 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 American Civil War.

…THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

Monsieur Franois Coty, the celebrated scent manufacturer, wrote in Le Figaro on 20th February, 1932:

“The subsidies granted to the Nihilists at this period (1905-1917) by Jacob Schiff [photo], 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 that was 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 1904-05, 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution

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 [photo] ….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 that are 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 in 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 that 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.

 

St. Petersburg

So important indeed was this report of Mr. Oudendyke’s held to be by [British Foreign Secretary] Mr. Arthur Balfour [photo], 

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:

“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.

[NN: It has since come out that Lenin was one-quarter Jewish.]

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” [NN: by Stalin in the 1930s] 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.

[39] 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 some anti-Semitic revolt, and from time to time a hoax of this kind has been systematically propagated.

As world opinion gradually turned hostile to the USSR, 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 [called since 1966 the Morning Star: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Star_(British_newspaper)] 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,” and stated later in the same article “antisemitism would render a Soviet official liable to prosecution in the same way that a private citizen may be brought before the courts for antisemitism.”

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 antisemitism in word or deed is most heavily punished.”

Between 1945 and 1949 the propaganda to convince [40] Gentiles outside the Iron Curtain, that within that area antisemitism 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 would have known better ; so much so, that in the autumn of the latter year I thought it worthwhile 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.

USSR:

Premier ” Stalin Married to a Jewess

Vice-Premier ” Kaganovitch Jew

Stalin, Kalinin, Voroshilov and Kaganovitch at the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU, 1930

Ministry of State Control ” Mekhlis Jew

Military & Naval Construction ” Ginsburg Jew

Minister Cominform Organ ” Yudin, Jew

Chief Publicist Abroad for U.S.S.R. ” Ilya Ehrenburg , Jew

Ministry of Building Enterprises Machinery ” Yudin, Jew

Foreign Minister ” Molotoff, married to a Jew

.

POLAND:

Virtual Ruler ” Jacob Bergman Jew

Public Prosecutor ” T. Cyprian, Jew

O.C. Youth Movements ” Dr. Braniewsky, Jew

.

HUNGARY:

Virtual Ruler ” Mathias Rakosi Jew

ROMANIA:

Virtual Ruler ” Anna Pauker, Jewess (Since removed for “deviationism” but replaced by another Jew.)

 

.

YUGOSLAVIA:

Virtual Ruler ” Mosa Piyade, 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 USSR. to the skies ; and about [41] 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 antisemitism there, wrote :

“No one could dream of making an antisemitic speech or writing an antisemitic 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 [and Ethel] Rosenberg [see photo], 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.

JdN: the Jew Morton Sobell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Sobell) did 17 years for espionage — giving American atomic secrets to Stalin: the Jewish couple Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in 1953 for this crime.

Finally, we had the flight to the U.S.S.R. with atom secrets also of the Jew Professor Pontecorvo [photo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_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 antisemitic ; 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.

(Continued at https://johndenugent.com/the-nameless-war-by-captain-archibald-maule-ramsay-2-of-4/)