Paul McCartney's son says Paul died in 1966
Published on 27 Jul 2016
Slides, testimonies, simple objections met and witness warning click here: http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.c...
A seven-year-old youngster from Liverpool was informed by his mum that his father was not the man to whom she was marred, but was James Paul McCartney. He simply did not believe her, but she was insistent that he should know. She told him that yes, Paul was dead, when he began to figure it out from a clue.
A few months later, in 1975, he was playing marbles in the street, when he found himself surrounded by five adults, Ringo, George, John, Bill (renamed Sir Paul McCartney), who was the replacement for Paul, nicknamed "Billy Shears", and Bill's mother. The youngster's own mother died very soon afterward. He has provided a legal document and DNA samples. He does not trust that regular channels would test the DNA honestly.
He appeals to all other people who know of Paul's death in any way, and to his likely half-brothers and half-sisters of the original Paul McCartney, to come forward carefully. This is a fascinating development for the long-held belief that Paul is dead (PID), since late 1966.
A seven-year-old youngster from Liverpool was informed by his mum that his father was not the man to whom she was marred, but was James Paul McCartney. He simply did not believe her, but she was insistent that he should know. She told him that yes, Paul was dead, when he began to figure it out from a clue.
A few months later, in 1975, he was playing marbles in the street, when he found himself surrounded by five adults, Ringo, George, John, Bill (renamed Sir Paul McCartney), who was the replacement for Paul, nicknamed "Billy Shears", and Bill's mother. The youngster's own mother died very soon afterward. He has provided a legal document and DNA samples. He does not trust that regular channels would test the DNA honestly.
He appeals to all other people who know of Paul's death in any way, and to his likely half-brothers and half-sisters of the original Paul McCartney, to come forward carefully. This is a fascinating development for the long-held belief that Paul is dead (PID), since late 1966.
The Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show (32) Dr. James Fetzer – 9/11, JFK, And The Death Of Paul McCartney
Click Here To Listen To The Show
Click Here To Visit Dr. Fetzer’s Website
Click Here To Buy Dr. Fetzer’s Books
Click Here For The Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show Archive Where You Can Listen To Or
Download All My Shows
Next week Dr. Fetzer will be returning to discuss Sandy Hook, the Boston Bombing and other false flag events. As a primer for this show you may want to watch Dr. Fetzer’s “sampler” of conspiracy theories from his presentation in Seattle, February 20, 2016, at the University Friends Center.
Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Jon Rappoport: Vampire technocrats fly to Jekyll Island to stop Trump
March 10, 2016
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
It’s such a secret place, only heavy hitters and big shots can fly in, from private airports—which, by the way, have no TSA security. So they could have been packing heat for all we know. Or bags of blood for nighttime drink fests.
Sea Island is where they met. It’s in the same Georgia gaggle as the infamous Jekyll Island, where the Federal Reserve was born many moons ago. But now the goal was narrow: stop the crazy cowboy; stop Trump.
Were secret effigy-burning rituals held? Hard to say. Did one of the tech giants unveil a new algorithm that would suddenly direct all Trump remarks to a new Hitler Facebook page?
Here are some of the Island attendees, according to the Huffington Post (“At Secretive Meeting, Tech CEOs And Top Republicans Commiserate, Plot To Stop Trump,” 3/7/2016). Get this:
“Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended. So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he ‘cannot support Donald Trump.’
“Along with Ryan, the House was represented by Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.), Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas) and almost-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), sources said, along with leadership figure Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.), Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Diane Black (Tenn.).
“Philp Anschutz, the billionaire GOP donor whose company owns a stake in Sea Island, was also there, along with Democratic Rep. John Delaney, who represents Maryland. Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, was there, too, a Times spokeswoman confirmed.”
Quite a collection. And they all have hernias and a major case of red-ass about the crazy cowboy running for President.
At the confab, Karl Rove, the old grubby prince of darkness, opined that stopping Trump was a matter of emphasizing how un-Presidential he is. Karl’s come a long way down since his glory days with George W. I’m told he’s about to launch his own Daily Racing Form.
Henry Miller, the American writer who, in his time, in his own way, was as reviled and infamous as Trump is now, once wrote (paraphrasing): People say America needs a President who will restore sanity to the country. That’s wrong. What American needs is a President who’ll drive everybody crazy.
Well, here he is. Trump. The gilded, self-inflating hustler who’s never met a success story (of his own) he didn’t love. Trump. The master of off-the-cuff. The ham-fisted swaggering hair stylist’s nightmare who pushes open the swinging doors to The Secret Club bar and strides in, bat-shit angry, to lecture snooty tight-ass titans on how to make America great again.
“I was telling my wife the other day I should buy Alaska. And by the way, we’re going to dump Common Core, and vaccines cause autism.”
What’s the algorithm that stops that?
Regardless of what happens from this point on, Trump’s major contribution to Presidential elections is smashing standard political rhetoric; and that’s no small accomplishment. Next to him, Hillary and Obama and Mitt and Marco are 100% pharmaceutical-grade Thorazine on a slow Sunday afternoon.
Hillary, in particular, can make bloodthirsty war-mongering with torn bodies lying everywhere come across like row-row-row-your-boat at a picnic in the park, in between her coughing fits.
But here’s the thing, Donald. You haven’t gone far enough.
To destroy the walking-dead politicians of our time, you need to get a lot crazier—on your own live-streaming webcasts, night and day, to five million, 10 million, 20 million people around the world. From your car, by your fireplace in Trump Tower, in a Burger King, in the men’s room at the Pierre Hotel, in a homeless encampment in San Diego, on a lonely snowy street in Cleveland at 3 in the morning. Ramp it up.
You’re standing in the field of a family farm in the Midwest with a hollow-faced man whose life has been blown away by Monsanto, with its GMO crops and cancer-causing Roundup. There you are talking to him, the farmer, destitute, his family destitute, near a giant acre of weeds eight feet high that resisted Roundup and didn’t die. His crop yield shrank. His expenses, courtesy of Monsanto, grew. He went down. Talk to the man. Listen to his story. Beam it out to 20 million people. Tell him how you’re going to help him put himself back together. Lay out a plan to resurrect the small farmer in America.
Stand inside a building in Chicago where people have built their own urban farm and grow vegetables for the local poor community, for themselves. Show what a success it is. Listen to these people. Tell them how you’re going help them build 5000 of these urban farms in poverty-stricken inner cities across America. People are going to rise up. They’re not going to be a permanent underclass eating government cheese for the rest of their lives.
Sit in a homeless camp with veterans of wars and listen to their stories, listen to how the VA threw them in the garbage heap, after they served their time. Get busy, Donald. These vets are all over America. They have something to say. Don’t hold back. Tell them what’s happened in Iraq and Afghanistan since they were there. Some of them already know. Let them tell you how those countries have gone down the toilet. Raise hell.
In a trailer park, talk to a few former members of the American middle-class, who were shoved down into debt and unemployment by the fanatic Globalist export of jobs to faraway hell holes where workers slave for 3 cents an hour. In fact, under heavy guard, visit a few of those overseas hell holes and expose what they look like and feel like and are. Go the distance.
Travel the southern border of America. Live-stream what’s happening. Talk to US border personnel. Listen to their stories. Emphasize that the US already has 60 million immigrants living here, which makes it the most generous country, per capita, in the world. Talk to Mexican corn farmers coming up into America. Let them describe how 1.5 million of them were put into bankruptcy, because the NAFTA trade treaty allowed US companies to flood Mexico with cheap corn.
Crack the egg of slumber in the Big Cocoon. With your live webcasts, pull in more viewers than NCIS and CSI. Drive your former employer, NBC, crazy.
Talk to truckers and limo drivers and shoe salesmen and working wives and newly minted PhDs who can’t find work. Talk to people on the street, people in bars, people coming out churches and strip clubs and malls.
Tear down the walls between politicians and people.
You’re starting to sound a bit mainstream these days. You’re not going to “work with Congress.” Congress isn’t going to work with you. Get off that horse. Okay, you want to sound like a “unifier” who “likes people”? Do that for a day. But then get back to doing what you were before. Mangling politicians and media buffoons.
People talk like robots because they are robots. That’s your opening, Donald. Keep pressing it. Destroy political-speak. Rake it over the coals. Offend more human androids. Your numbers will keep rising.
Improvise.
I keep writing about the Trump phenomenon because it’s explosive. It intrudes on so much business-as-usual political life in America. I really want to drive home this point. People, so many people, are so timid and scared and provincial and tight—and they think that the usual parade of ghouls who run for office in this country is acceptable because the candidates mouth empty dead words. People expect the walking smiling dead to run for office. Big grins, empty words. That’s considered safe, despite the fact that these hideous creatures are perfectly ready and willing to send planes anywhere to drop bombs on populations for no goddamn good reason. But as long as the candidate has a wan shit-eating grin, and as long as says he’s caring, it’s all right. Then Trump comes along and he’s suddenly the Dangerous One. He’s suddenly a threat. You mean all those other ghouls weren’t? He’s Hitler, and they were messiahs? Are you kidding? All of a sudden we have a dangerous Presidential candidate where there were none before? REALLY? People are getting so worked up about the first dangerous candidate in recent memory? REALLY?
I see. Building a wall is the worst idea ever to occur in America? Nothing like it? Ever? What about Vietnam? 1.4 million dead bodies, countless wounded, and even more suffering cancers and birth defects from Agent Orange. That was nothing compared to the suggestion of building a wall on the southern border? What about bombing Libya, ripping that country to shreds? Might have been a mistake, but it was nothing compared with the suggestion to build a wall? Putting in economic sanctions between the two wars in Iraq and thereby killing 500,000 children? Sad, but nothing compared to the suggestion of building a wall?
The White House funding, backing, creating, arming ISIS in conjunction with US allies? Yes, perhaps a regrettable error in judgment, but nothing compared to the suggestion of building a wall?
Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama? Angels from heaven.
Trump? The anti-Christ.
Well, that settles that.
Get busy, Donald, push harder. Do a webcast to 20 million people from a bar off Wall Street, where you chat with an ex-broker about the giant ongoing con called investment banking, the astonishing ripoffs, the real details of the bailout.
Visit a half-deserted town where a factory closed and went to Asia to make their products on the cheap. Talk to the people of that town as they sit and wait for something to happen that’s never going to happen.
Assemble a group of media people who were drummed out of their profession for speaking the truth about vital scandals and let them talk. Have a conversation about what lies under the surface of American life, about the themes the stuffed media shirts who still have their jobs are concealing, as they attack you around the clock. Break open the whole stinking mess and show it to the American people, and reveal what their robot-talking politicians have been doing to them.
For a long, long time.
Coda—I realize I’m branching out into an area where the actual Donald Trump doesn’t exist. The disruptive force that he is may have, behind it all, severe limits. He may only want to upset a few apple carts. He’s only a moon rising, and never goes full. On the other hand, we’ve never seen a politician who is what he should be. And we need to flesh out a better idea about who that is, as an intensely disruptive radical force, in the best and original sense of that word.
“Radical” equals “root.”
Politics as it never was. But could be.
Not the skunk-ridden Leftist hideous mask of “we care,” behind which commissars try to drive us all into a shit heap of senseless lowest-common-denominator equality. Not the Rightest pork-fat scumbags pushing predatory corporations to make more weapons and take over more countries in the name of fatuous democracy. Not the Centrists who work both sides against the middle.
No.
Instead, radical.
The root.
The place where the individual has a vision and follows it. The place where such individuals come together and make futures of freedom.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his freeNoMoreFakeNews emails here or his freeOutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
It’s such a secret place, only heavy hitters and big shots can fly in, from private airports—which, by the way, have no TSA security. So they could have been packing heat for all we know. Or bags of blood for nighttime drink fests.
Sea Island is where they met. It’s in the same Georgia gaggle as the infamous Jekyll Island, where the Federal Reserve was born many moons ago. But now the goal was narrow: stop the crazy cowboy; stop Trump.
Were secret effigy-burning rituals held? Hard to say. Did one of the tech giants unveil a new algorithm that would suddenly direct all Trump remarks to a new Hitler Facebook page?
Here are some of the Island attendees, according to the Huffington Post (“At Secretive Meeting, Tech CEOs And Top Republicans Commiserate, Plot To Stop Trump,” 3/7/2016). Get this:
“Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended. So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he ‘cannot support Donald Trump.’
“Along with Ryan, the House was represented by Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.), Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas) and almost-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), sources said, along with leadership figure Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.), Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Diane Black (Tenn.).
“Philp Anschutz, the billionaire GOP donor whose company owns a stake in Sea Island, was also there, along with Democratic Rep. John Delaney, who represents Maryland. Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, was there, too, a Times spokeswoman confirmed.”
Quite a collection. And they all have hernias and a major case of red-ass about the crazy cowboy running for President.
At the confab, Karl Rove, the old grubby prince of darkness, opined that stopping Trump was a matter of emphasizing how un-Presidential he is. Karl’s come a long way down since his glory days with George W. I’m told he’s about to launch his own Daily Racing Form.
Henry Miller, the American writer who, in his time, in his own way, was as reviled and infamous as Trump is now, once wrote (paraphrasing): People say America needs a President who will restore sanity to the country. That’s wrong. What American needs is a President who’ll drive everybody crazy.
Well, here he is. Trump. The gilded, self-inflating hustler who’s never met a success story (of his own) he didn’t love. Trump. The master of off-the-cuff. The ham-fisted swaggering hair stylist’s nightmare who pushes open the swinging doors to The Secret Club bar and strides in, bat-shit angry, to lecture snooty tight-ass titans on how to make America great again.
“I was telling my wife the other day I should buy Alaska. And by the way, we’re going to dump Common Core, and vaccines cause autism.”
What’s the algorithm that stops that?
Regardless of what happens from this point on, Trump’s major contribution to Presidential elections is smashing standard political rhetoric; and that’s no small accomplishment. Next to him, Hillary and Obama and Mitt and Marco are 100% pharmaceutical-grade Thorazine on a slow Sunday afternoon.
Hillary, in particular, can make bloodthirsty war-mongering with torn bodies lying everywhere come across like row-row-row-your-boat at a picnic in the park, in between her coughing fits.
But here’s the thing, Donald. You haven’t gone far enough.
To destroy the walking-dead politicians of our time, you need to get a lot crazier—on your own live-streaming webcasts, night and day, to five million, 10 million, 20 million people around the world. From your car, by your fireplace in Trump Tower, in a Burger King, in the men’s room at the Pierre Hotel, in a homeless encampment in San Diego, on a lonely snowy street in Cleveland at 3 in the morning. Ramp it up.
You’re standing in the field of a family farm in the Midwest with a hollow-faced man whose life has been blown away by Monsanto, with its GMO crops and cancer-causing Roundup. There you are talking to him, the farmer, destitute, his family destitute, near a giant acre of weeds eight feet high that resisted Roundup and didn’t die. His crop yield shrank. His expenses, courtesy of Monsanto, grew. He went down. Talk to the man. Listen to his story. Beam it out to 20 million people. Tell him how you’re going to help him put himself back together. Lay out a plan to resurrect the small farmer in America.
Stand inside a building in Chicago where people have built their own urban farm and grow vegetables for the local poor community, for themselves. Show what a success it is. Listen to these people. Tell them how you’re going help them build 5000 of these urban farms in poverty-stricken inner cities across America. People are going to rise up. They’re not going to be a permanent underclass eating government cheese for the rest of their lives.
Sit in a homeless camp with veterans of wars and listen to their stories, listen to how the VA threw them in the garbage heap, after they served their time. Get busy, Donald. These vets are all over America. They have something to say. Don’t hold back. Tell them what’s happened in Iraq and Afghanistan since they were there. Some of them already know. Let them tell you how those countries have gone down the toilet. Raise hell.
In a trailer park, talk to a few former members of the American middle-class, who were shoved down into debt and unemployment by the fanatic Globalist export of jobs to faraway hell holes where workers slave for 3 cents an hour. In fact, under heavy guard, visit a few of those overseas hell holes and expose what they look like and feel like and are. Go the distance.
Travel the southern border of America. Live-stream what’s happening. Talk to US border personnel. Listen to their stories. Emphasize that the US already has 60 million immigrants living here, which makes it the most generous country, per capita, in the world. Talk to Mexican corn farmers coming up into America. Let them describe how 1.5 million of them were put into bankruptcy, because the NAFTA trade treaty allowed US companies to flood Mexico with cheap corn.
Crack the egg of slumber in the Big Cocoon. With your live webcasts, pull in more viewers than NCIS and CSI. Drive your former employer, NBC, crazy.
Talk to truckers and limo drivers and shoe salesmen and working wives and newly minted PhDs who can’t find work. Talk to people on the street, people in bars, people coming out churches and strip clubs and malls.
Tear down the walls between politicians and people.
You’re starting to sound a bit mainstream these days. You’re not going to “work with Congress.” Congress isn’t going to work with you. Get off that horse. Okay, you want to sound like a “unifier” who “likes people”? Do that for a day. But then get back to doing what you were before. Mangling politicians and media buffoons.
People talk like robots because they are robots. That’s your opening, Donald. Keep pressing it. Destroy political-speak. Rake it over the coals. Offend more human androids. Your numbers will keep rising.
Improvise.
I keep writing about the Trump phenomenon because it’s explosive. It intrudes on so much business-as-usual political life in America. I really want to drive home this point. People, so many people, are so timid and scared and provincial and tight—and they think that the usual parade of ghouls who run for office in this country is acceptable because the candidates mouth empty dead words. People expect the walking smiling dead to run for office. Big grins, empty words. That’s considered safe, despite the fact that these hideous creatures are perfectly ready and willing to send planes anywhere to drop bombs on populations for no goddamn good reason. But as long as the candidate has a wan shit-eating grin, and as long as says he’s caring, it’s all right. Then Trump comes along and he’s suddenly the Dangerous One. He’s suddenly a threat. You mean all those other ghouls weren’t? He’s Hitler, and they were messiahs? Are you kidding? All of a sudden we have a dangerous Presidential candidate where there were none before? REALLY? People are getting so worked up about the first dangerous candidate in recent memory? REALLY?
I see. Building a wall is the worst idea ever to occur in America? Nothing like it? Ever? What about Vietnam? 1.4 million dead bodies, countless wounded, and even more suffering cancers and birth defects from Agent Orange. That was nothing compared to the suggestion of building a wall on the southern border? What about bombing Libya, ripping that country to shreds? Might have been a mistake, but it was nothing compared with the suggestion to build a wall? Putting in economic sanctions between the two wars in Iraq and thereby killing 500,000 children? Sad, but nothing compared to the suggestion of building a wall?
The White House funding, backing, creating, arming ISIS in conjunction with US allies? Yes, perhaps a regrettable error in judgment, but nothing compared to the suggestion of building a wall?
Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama? Angels from heaven.
Trump? The anti-Christ.
Well, that settles that.
Get busy, Donald, push harder. Do a webcast to 20 million people from a bar off Wall Street, where you chat with an ex-broker about the giant ongoing con called investment banking, the astonishing ripoffs, the real details of the bailout.
Visit a half-deserted town where a factory closed and went to Asia to make their products on the cheap. Talk to the people of that town as they sit and wait for something to happen that’s never going to happen.
Assemble a group of media people who were drummed out of their profession for speaking the truth about vital scandals and let them talk. Have a conversation about what lies under the surface of American life, about the themes the stuffed media shirts who still have their jobs are concealing, as they attack you around the clock. Break open the whole stinking mess and show it to the American people, and reveal what their robot-talking politicians have been doing to them.
For a long, long time.
Coda—I realize I’m branching out into an area where the actual Donald Trump doesn’t exist. The disruptive force that he is may have, behind it all, severe limits. He may only want to upset a few apple carts. He’s only a moon rising, and never goes full. On the other hand, we’ve never seen a politician who is what he should be. And we need to flesh out a better idea about who that is, as an intensely disruptive radical force, in the best and original sense of that word.
“Radical” equals “root.”
Politics as it never was. But could be.
Not the skunk-ridden Leftist hideous mask of “we care,” behind which commissars try to drive us all into a shit heap of senseless lowest-common-denominator equality. Not the Rightest pork-fat scumbags pushing predatory corporations to make more weapons and take over more countries in the name of fatuous democracy. Not the Centrists who work both sides against the middle.
No.
Instead, radical.
The root.
The place where the individual has a vision and follows it. The place where such individuals come together and make futures of freedom.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his freeNoMoreFakeNews emails here or his freeOutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
FW: Open letter to Donald Trump
Mar 16 at 11:38 PM
Humans of New York’s Open Letter to Donald Trump Is Going Viral
Brendon
Stanton, the photographer behind the wildly popular Humans of New York
Facebook page has written an open letter to Donald Trump that has gone
widely viral — the post has received about 200,000 shares as of now,
about an hour and a half after he published the open letter on the HONY
Facebook page.
Brendon
Stanton takes the entire first paragraph to note how hard he tries to
be nonpartisan in his work, and indeed, Stanton photographs his subjects
and presents them with little-to-no editorializing, a feature which has
made his work so popular for allowing the subject to speak their own
story.
But Stanton also offers a powerful rationale that opposing Trump “is no longer a political decision. It is a moral one.”
Below is Stanton’s open letter in full:
An Open Letter to Donald Trump:
Mr. Trump,
I
try my hardest not to be political. I’ve refused to interview several
of your fellow candidates. I didn’t want to risk any personal goodwill
by appearing to take sides in a contentious election. I thought: ‘Maybe
the timing is not right.’ But I realize now that there is no correct
time to oppose violence and prejudice. The time is always now. Because
along with millions of Americans, I’ve come to realize that opposing you
is no longer a political decision. It is a moral one.
I’ve
watched you retweet racist images. I’ve watched you retweet racist
lies. I’ve watched you take 48 hours to disavow white supremacy. I’ve
watched you joyfully encourage violence, and promise to ‘pay the legal
fees’ of those who commit violence on your behalf. I’ve watched you
advocate the use of torture and the murder of terrorists’ families. I’ve
watched you gleefully tell stories of executing Muslims with bullets
dipped in pig blood. I’ve watched you compare refugees to ‘snakes,’ and
claim that ‘Islam hates us.’
I
am a journalist, Mr. Trump. And over the last two years I have
conducted extensive interviews with hundreds of Muslims, chosen at
random, on the streets of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. I’ve also
interviewed hundreds of Syrian and Iraqi refugees across seven different
countries. And I can confirm— the hateful one is you.
Those
of us who have been paying attention will not allow you to rebrand
yourself. You are not a ‘unifier.’ You are not ‘presidential.’ You are
not a ‘victim’ of the very anger that you’ve joyfully enflamed for
months. You are a man who has encouraged prejudice and violence in the
pursuit of personal power. And though your words will no doubt change
over the next few months, you will always remain who you are.
Sincerely, Brandon Stanton
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
Who Is ‘Islam’? Questions for Trump and His Islamophobic Followers
Is “Islam” a person? If so, I would like to know where “Islam” resides so I can go visit he, she, hir, or s/he. Hopefully, “Islam” lives in the United States - preferably in Texas, where I am based - so I will not have to rack up travel expenses to visit he, she, hir, or s/he. I also wonder if Trump has ever met “Islam”? That would be an interesting exchange. If they have met before, I wonder where and in what context.
Take another glance at Trump’s comment and you might question if “Islam” is actually a thing. Or perhaps “Islam” is an object or place. It is not entirely clear.
As someone who teaches a college course on Islam and engages with Muslim Americans, I am interested in hearing how Trump describes “Islam”. Is “Islam” tall or short, big or small, light or dark, liberal or conservative? Where does “Islam” live? In a tiny little house or in a big mansion in a far away land? In light of Trump’s comment, one also might wonder about the values that “Islam” stands for. How does one measure “Islam’s” values? What are the issues that make “Islam” tick? Has “Islam” changed over the years?
My sarcasm aside, Trump treats Islam as a monolith. According to him, it is a single bloc, static, and unresponsive to new realities. In five words (“I think Islam hates us”), Trump captured the essence of Islamophobia; “Islam” is separate, inferior, barbaric, irrational, primitive, violent, aggressive, and threatening. These five words have made him the most Islamophobic candidate ever to run for the highest office of the United States. That is the sad reality. That is un-American.
In short, there is absolutely no validity in Trump’s comment. Islam in America has produced some of the best citizens that serve as doctors, lawyers, politicians, business executives, soldiers, and scientists. This is Islam - service, compassion, knowledge, and sacrifice.
Open your mind, Trump. Stop dumbing down America. Be a true leader and honor your fellow citizens who do so much for the country you claim to love so much.
Vickie Jacobs shared a link.
Pentagon: US Marines Heading to Iraq for Ground Combat | Weekend death of Marine fuels escalation
news.antiwar.com
Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus So, even after they have executed Hitler Saddam (God knows how many times!) the US vampires still want more Iraqi blood!
Vickie Jacobs Hope the military wakes up. At least the good ones there.
Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus Vickie Jacobs
When the good ones of the US military wake up they will take over the
US first! But, this is not likely to happen! The military is
brainwashed 100%!
Like · Reply · 1 · 25 March at 13:41
Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus There
is something inhuman and very scary in western military training. The
aim is to DESTROY YOUR HUMANITY! How did the US-UK-SOVIET-FRENCH
military managed to rape so many GERMAN girls and women? Or the Serbs
military so many Bosnian and Serbian girls and women? Or in Iraq?
John Wayne The
problem is O'bummer pulled out all of our troops and left Iraq
vulnerable to the ISIS takeover after Operation New Dawn. All to make
himself look good. And, also, part of his (the) master plan. If he would
have listened to his military advisors (whom
he has since purged if they didn't agree with him) they would have left
a large contingent of US soldiers there to oversee the transition and
things wouldn't be as bad as they are now. Of course, if Bush wouldn't
have gone in there in the first place Saddam would be keeping the
radicals in line right now.
Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus John
Wayne - "left Iraq vulnerable to the ISIS takeover" - There has never
been any ISIS takeover of Iraq, none at all! With all this western
propaganda we forget the Iraqi people in the equation! Bush promised to
pull out of Iraq (the same old lies!)
BUT LEAVE THERE AN ENTIRE REGIMENT OF CUT THROATS, RAPISTS, ASSASSINS
UNDER mercenary BLACKWATERXE MANAGEMENt! When BlackwaterXe came under
judicial attack, the US-ISRAEL quicky changed its name to ISIS and other
similar entities always blaming Islam and Muslims fot it! So, there
has never been any pull out of US assassin troops (US military +
mercenaries) from Iraq! Stop reading the "news"!
Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus US
Americans quicky forgot that in a similar manner the illegal Zionist
American Council quickly changed its name after participation in the
murder of JFK and became the ILLEGAL AIPAC worshiped by the entire USA
ever since!
John Wayne Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus
I try to get my information from places other than the mainstream
media, but I am aware of the fact that I really don't know the actual
facts of many things because the way the information is so controlled. I
am totally open to...See more
Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus John Wayne
I too really do not know the facts of so many things if not to most of
them. For sure, I almost never believe anything, but always try my
very best to do my own research and it is time and money consuming.
What I discovered was that the truth
always stares you in the eye, but even when we recognise the truth it is
very hard or almost impossible for most of us to admit me. Even when
some of us finally admits it, it is also very hard and also almost
impossible to act upon it because so many factors are involved. In many
cases, we put our career, our family and our own life at risk by simply
telling the truth. And this is perfectly comprehensible. But, only a
small group or small groups can make that huge sacrifice of self and
fight tyranny and obtain positive results even at the cost of their own
lives. They exist as individuals but not as groups and not united
enough to make a difference.
In Europe, and some other Western countries, the Judaics are so powerful that they have had laws passed (Jewish Socialist-Communist) to prevent free speech, but only when it concerns their own lies, criminality and Israel.
If I have all the answers? Far from it! No one has all the answers and ever will.
That you would really like to know the truth is already a great beginning. Without this there is no point going any further.
That you are actually totally open to obtaining the actual facts is also the right way forward. But, first thing first. It has to do with WORDS and their many meanings. English is a modern language and because it started as a very poor language it had to borrow from various sources. But, this is where one concept is missing in the English tradition, culture, mind set: to acknowledge all its most ancient sources and not only a few like Sanskrit, Greek and Latin because of racism.
For example, the "Sense of "something that is true" is first recorded in mid-14 century. Meaning "accuracy, correctness" is from 1560s. Old English records the word truth linked with "faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant,". (Online Etymology Dictionary)
- What I will write now is not The Truth, but what I understood (after 70 years) to be the truth or its foundation: a very ancient belief that God is The Truth! The Ancient Vedantists ("Hindus"), the Egyptians, the Arabs, "Jews", Greeks, Christians, and Muslims founded their religion on it. I deliberately omitted the Romans. Even the Atheists and the Godless takes their "faith" in Truth from the Ancient wise men (and women?). One of the 99 Attributes of God is AL-Haqq - The Eternal Truth.
Pr Richard Dawkins, the Pope of militant Atheism, is unable to explain why an evolved ape (into a human!) would ever bother about the truth, a divine concept.
So, once this Godly concept is well understood, only then can we see correctly (truthfully, honestly, sincerely...) through what is happening in the world , to the world, and to us. All concepts, religious or ideological, founded on falsehood, lies, dishonesty, hypocrisy, double standards, treachery, materialism, or even misunderstanding will not survive. Evil survived and dominates because it is 100 % truthful to itself: IT DOES EVIL NO MATTER WHAT OR TO WHOM! God keeps dying in the hearts of humans because they are to various degrees not truthful to themselves!
So, the meaning of words are the basics of honest research. For this reason I admire both Dr Kevin Barrett and Pr James Henry Fetzer and others like Michael Hoffman, Anthony Lawson, etc. But, blind faith in one's religion has been detrimental to the truth all along. If I say, for example, that there were two Jesuses and Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus the revolutionary Messiah King of the Jews, but saved Jesus the Son of Mary (and Joseph!) or the Son of the Father or BAR ABBAS, what will be your reaction as a Christian, if you are one?
Where do I get my information? Life experience; five decades of research! Spending and losing a lot of money; losing personal comfort, friends, family - all for the sake of Freedom, Truth, Justice and a Moral Way of Life!
Yet, the facts speak for themselves: THERE WERE TWO JESUSES
1. Jesus, the Anointed King of the Jews (CHRIST) who was said to have been crucified.
2. Jesus, the Son of Mary (and Joseph), one of the many Sons of God, the Son of the Father, BAR ABBAS who was said to have been saved after being condemned to death by the Pharisees!
Thank you for asking because the way you responded helps to "straighten" me up too!
Regards
Basheer
P.S. Your real name would be more appropriate than "John Wayne", and this too is the truth!
In Europe, and some other Western countries, the Judaics are so powerful that they have had laws passed (Jewish Socialist-Communist) to prevent free speech, but only when it concerns their own lies, criminality and Israel.
If I have all the answers? Far from it! No one has all the answers and ever will.
That you would really like to know the truth is already a great beginning. Without this there is no point going any further.
That you are actually totally open to obtaining the actual facts is also the right way forward. But, first thing first. It has to do with WORDS and their many meanings. English is a modern language and because it started as a very poor language it had to borrow from various sources. But, this is where one concept is missing in the English tradition, culture, mind set: to acknowledge all its most ancient sources and not only a few like Sanskrit, Greek and Latin because of racism.
For example, the "Sense of "something that is true" is first recorded in mid-14 century. Meaning "accuracy, correctness" is from 1560s. Old English records the word truth linked with "faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant,". (Online Etymology Dictionary)
- What I will write now is not The Truth, but what I understood (after 70 years) to be the truth or its foundation: a very ancient belief that God is The Truth! The Ancient Vedantists ("Hindus"), the Egyptians, the Arabs, "Jews", Greeks, Christians, and Muslims founded their religion on it. I deliberately omitted the Romans. Even the Atheists and the Godless takes their "faith" in Truth from the Ancient wise men (and women?). One of the 99 Attributes of God is AL-Haqq - The Eternal Truth.
Pr Richard Dawkins, the Pope of militant Atheism, is unable to explain why an evolved ape (into a human!) would ever bother about the truth, a divine concept.
So, once this Godly concept is well understood, only then can we see correctly (truthfully, honestly, sincerely...) through what is happening in the world , to the world, and to us. All concepts, religious or ideological, founded on falsehood, lies, dishonesty, hypocrisy, double standards, treachery, materialism, or even misunderstanding will not survive. Evil survived and dominates because it is 100 % truthful to itself: IT DOES EVIL NO MATTER WHAT OR TO WHOM! God keeps dying in the hearts of humans because they are to various degrees not truthful to themselves!
So, the meaning of words are the basics of honest research. For this reason I admire both Dr Kevin Barrett and Pr James Henry Fetzer and others like Michael Hoffman, Anthony Lawson, etc. But, blind faith in one's religion has been detrimental to the truth all along. If I say, for example, that there were two Jesuses and Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus the revolutionary Messiah King of the Jews, but saved Jesus the Son of Mary (and Joseph!) or the Son of the Father or BAR ABBAS, what will be your reaction as a Christian, if you are one?
Where do I get my information? Life experience; five decades of research! Spending and losing a lot of money; losing personal comfort, friends, family - all for the sake of Freedom, Truth, Justice and a Moral Way of Life!
Yet, the facts speak for themselves: THERE WERE TWO JESUSES
1. Jesus, the Anointed King of the Jews (CHRIST) who was said to have been crucified.
2. Jesus, the Son of Mary (and Joseph), one of the many Sons of God, the Son of the Father, BAR ABBAS who was said to have been saved after being condemned to death by the Pharisees!
Thank you for asking because the way you responded helps to "straighten" me up too!
Regards
Basheer
P.S. Your real name would be more appropriate than "John Wayne", and this too is the truth!
John Wayne Great wisdom from a great man! Thanks for your insight Basheer. Regards, Perry
Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus John Wayne Perry, Vickie made this exchange possible and I am thankful to her. Good luck in your search. Regards. Basheer
Like · Reply · 7 hrs
The legal testimony of Stephen Dickinson and the supporting Paul death case presented by Clare Kuehn are not constructed to personally attack the replacement, out of many people. However, too many excuses made for any one person in a moral and legal crime are also not acceptable, in the end. Clare prefers amnesty for all the participants -- direct and indirect -- but amnesty (except for egregious legal wrongs) is not the same thing as shirking honest blame, as such.
This effort is not merely for Mr. Dickinson. His paternity is not even necessary to prove, to assist him and others to affirm what his mother told him -- that Paul died, a fact which I already understand from other evidence as well.
Irene Mottram Dickinson did say that Paul had died.
His mother affirmed what others must now. Mr. Dickinson emphasized on air only how clever he was as a child, working with the dials on a record machine, to listen to a supposed (a likely) clue in a song by John Lennon. But his mother shortly after said to him that Paul had died, and lied to John Lennon on the street, later, by saying, "I never told him, John," unless she was referring to something else.
The fact that Stephen's mother told him is in the testimony. Stephen likes to emphasize -- and did, only, state on air-- how he had *first* figured it out, to his own shock, and never got to how his mother did affirm that it was true that Paul had died.
But yes, Irene did say Paul died. Now others ought to help show that, for public awareness. I already get it, of course.
--------------------------------------------------
NOTES for those who have run into general works on the subject, but not the key facts of Paul's death case:
a) "Last Testament of George Harrison: Paul Really Is Dead" film, 2009, is disinformation. More comments on that follow, in section 7.
b) "The Memoirs of Billy Shears" book, 2009, is also disinformation, in key ways, though the idea that it is fake in its claim to be by the replacement for Paul is likely true. The disinformation comes in as confusion of the issues. The author was most likely the replacement for Paul McCartney, with a ghost writer who fleshed in the material and language.
The author behind the listed author is determinable as the replacement for Paul (that is, as Sir Paul McCartney himself), by using many lines of reasoning, which we do not have space for here. These reasons can be summarized as: how it divulges nothing important which is new, while including so many things little known in 2009; how it was constructed and published with reference to McCartney (the replacement) in the corporation it uses, the timing of its release, the claim in its narrative itself (that it is sourced from the replacement); how it has clever word games, which suit some aspects of the mind of the replacement of Paul, although mostly constructed by the named author; how it covers over exactly the areas where the real author is least likely telling the truth (the cause and circumstances of the death itself, the motivation and extent of support by intelligence services and others in maintaining the replacement).
The book pins the blame for the replacement on the Beatles' dedicated (though embezzling) manager, Brian Epstein, which is beyond unlikely, though he would have to have helped promote the idea, perhaps under pressure and shock. It also glorifies the replacement as the saviour of the band after a presumably innocent cause of death for Paul (no murder). It also is filled with occult positive and negative ruminations, which fits what is known of some of the replacement's spiritual and intellectual interests. It even dares to suggest that not only did Paul guess at and dream of his own death, but *wanted this man to replace him*. The brazen self aggrandizement of and likely by the replacement is partly hidden in how many mistakes are made and filler concepts are included.
-----------------------------------------------
Objections regarding Stephen Dickinson are met below, with full slides and legal testimonies (one uploaded currently) --- then General Objections, then Table of Content for slides, testimonies, etc. --- after Witness Warning.
-----------------------------------------------
WITNESS WARNING:
If you heard credibly that this was true, know directly anything about this case (Paul's death), of course you may feel that coming out *together* is safer. It is ... only if you all do not know of each other's efforts. That way, no-one can know who might come out.
Also, since courts do not function always in cases like these, not as we would like, where questions are cut short, judges replaced, and worse happens, we suggest all efforts be entirely secret until revealed. This is also true of DNA tests for parentage between siblings, but especially true of comparison formally with the replacement for Paul. It is true definitely of aspects of the events around Paul's death and replacement, as well.
All witness materials must be kept entirely secret until they have been compiled, for individuals and together with other people's; also do not tell parents, children, friends, colleagues you may do this. This must be utterly secret; the togetherness is when it is compiled with others. I personally would not tell, for example; you should not.
The way it should be brought out, would be all together, with *most things redacted,* but enough to show *other insiders* that we are serious, and only a reference to each testifier's profession or some other generality, to show a variety of testimonies have been received.
- socialite
- surgeon
- reporter / press
- lighting technician
- police officer
- secretary
- writer
- political official
- bartender
- housekeeper / homemaker (housewife) ... etc.
This is not a court-only effort. In fact, courts look for very limited sorts of proof for criminality and blame. Not only that, but courts can be corrupted in a myriad of ways, inside and outside the process, with whatever does make it to the hearings also sometimes struck from the record or classified, which undoes the actual public purpose we have in mind in this instance.
And I will not tell of what I receive until such time as others corroborate, or flesh out the issues as well, in any testimony. That is, this is what I would do if anyone comes out to me *personally*. I cannot speak for others, including some I work with, but if they would act like that, I applaud them.
I warned Mr. Dickinson not to name names on air, though he did, so please consider that I would tell no one. Aside: Stephen has no more knowledge than he stated. No-one (of course, including Stephen) wants people harmed, but talking in public right now is unwise, and to friends and family, as well. I am on Twitter and Facebook with my name, Clare Kuehn.
My accounts have been passed also to others. Several others are prepared to take over my accounts in the event I become unable to continue the effort.
DNA tests should be done in secret, as should evidence compilation.
We recommend not speaking about this video (support for it or that you have viewed it, etc., except in general terms, if someone mentions it). We also recommend preparing your testimonies and any physical supports fully without anyone except your signing witness knowing -- who does not have to read the document you prepare, but does have to witness your signing and initial every page. You can use the documents below (in text and slides) as templates. They also contain instructions as part of the affidavits themselves.
We also recommend your not keeping your materials (testimony copies and/or supportive materials, which should all be numbered and described in your testimony), or sending them only to friends. They should be collected and saved, with an absolute plan from the person collecting that they will be released when more than one is ready. They can be redacted, per arrangements. No part of recollections, relevant materials, descriptions (no matter how detailed or seemingly irrelevant), names and even hearsay with as much back up as possible (as leads) should be left out. This allows for future leads to be followed, and cross-correspondence in people's recollections.
This effort is for public education as well as kind but sure pressure on others -- so that they may do even better than you. It might possibly (though unlikely) help court action, but actually, court action is *least* desirable, since court cases limit what can be presented, sometimes not well. In principle, of course, they are supposed to be paragons of virtue and reason.
The idea for doing your own disclosure effort, safely, would be to help the actual issue gain traction with the public and with other embarrassed or afraid witnesses, of whatever level they are.
That is the form of "coming out together" which is safest. This goes for any open secret (conspiracy plot and cover-up for whatever reason, small or large). In large-scale situations, police, etc., are obviously initially incredulous (disbelieving), taken off the case, or told to keep quiet, documents lost, etc.
Thank you for understanding.
______________________________________________________________________
0. Part 2: A few general (ignorant and partially knowledgeable) objections met about the Paul death case overall
1. The broadcast of Stephen Dickinson, Clare Kuehn and Dr. Jim Fetzer.
2. John Lennon's song, "Now and Then" has been linked, below, in a clear copy.
3. Uploads of the text of the three legal testimonies, though currently, only Stephen's redacted text is published here. (Bob's and Clare's redacted texts will be published here, too -- soon.) They are given in text format for easy automatic translator services to help foreign language speakers and for copying and pasting. Also, right now, Stephen's testimony text is not properly formatted.
4. The slides which were interspersed through the video. They are summaries, visually and verbally, of the situation Stephen's case brings forward personally and about Paul's death in 1966.
5. The 61 photos of the testimonies and the implications of some of them. These were shown together, about 3/4 of the way through the broadcast.
6. Short video clips of Magical Mystery Tour film, 1967, of possibly Irene (Stephen's mother) and Stephen (as baby -- he is less likely than Irene).
7. A note about "Last Testament of George Harrison: Paul Really Is Dead" film, 2009, as disinformation.
______________________________________________________________________
The broadcast itself ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvtIGhh7gxI ):
______________________________________________________________________
The song of John Lennon, dedicated to Paul, a late or last song, with the lines (at 2:26 to 2:44) "I want it out eternally / I know they [the public] turn to me" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yYRWnzKow8 ).
Two helpful, reminder slides follow:
In case that Youtube file of the song gets removed for any reason, here is an uploaded file:
______________________________________________________________________
1)
STEPHEN'S TESTAMENT, redacted for privacy.
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 1 of 12.
AFFIDAVIT TESTAMENT OF STEPHEN JOHN DICKINSON
Signed on the (spell out) ____________________ day of the month of _________________ ,
in the year ___________ , at the city of ______________________________ , in the region/
province/state/county ________________________________ , in the country of
______________________________________ .
My name is Stephen John Dickinson. I was born on the 10th of July, 1967, in Liverpool, England. The address where I lived until just before my eighth birthday and where the events I will describe took place, was 7 Ettington Road, Liverpool, England.
My mother’s birth name was Irene M. Mottram, born on the 13th of October, 1932, in Sefton Park, at Sefton Park General Hospital, Smithdown Road. My father’s name was James Paul McCartney, the “Beatle,” born on the 18th of June, 1942. I was conceived just before he died in 1966. After my father’s death my mother met a man named George John Dickinson and married him. She didn't tell me who my biological Father was until just after my seventh birthday. For a long time, I thought it was when I was six. I gauged it by her death, the year of which I didn't know until recently. It was the birthday before she died. Anyway, when I turned seven, she told me James Paul McCartney was my father. I remember George Dickinson had originally found my mother wandering around the streets of Liverpool, alone and upset like she was in a state of shock from some terrible experience. I believe this was in late 1966, when she was pregnant with me. He took care of her and became close to her and they soon married, even though he knew he was not the father of her child. They later had another boy, [name withheld from public copy ---] Dickinson, who is my half brother. George was very good to me in many ways and years later, I quit my business and nursed him when he was dying of lung cancer in Liverpool, England.
Even at a young age, when I was only seven years old, coming from Liverpool, I knew who James Paul McCartney was. I was surprised by what my mother had told me and at first thought she was joking with me. After a short exchange of words, which started with me expressing my disbelief and ended with my mother stating in no uncertain terms that J. Paul was my father and it was important that I knew it, I asked her how she knew him and how they had met. My mother told me that she had worked in and managed a typing pool – maybe as an executive secretary – opposite Brian Epstein’s office in the NEMS (North End Music Stores) building. I believe this was in the Whitechapel area of Liverpool town. She went on to say that Paul used to come and see her on her dinner break. They both had a keen interest in music. My mum’s interest was in classical, mostly, going by her record collection. She said Paul also was interested in classical music. According to Mum, they became friends first and, later on, their friendship led to my conception. She also said she waited to have me.
After Mum told me this, I must have looked at her in a way that made her exclaim, “I never threw myself at him, Stephen.” I know my mother was a proper, virtuous woman and didn’t
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 2 of 12.
take having relations with a man outside of marriage lightly. George Dickinson was not home when our first conversation happened and she broke off the discussion when he arrived.
My mum and Paul were very close and spent much time together. She usually called him “Jamie,” instead of Paul. I know other people have told me that Paul was not called Jamie, but I guess it was an unusual or love term, or it was actually used by his friends sometimes. She told me she was 100% sure Paul was my dad and was always adamant when I asked about it. As I got used to the idea over the following couple of months, it became something I was curious about.
After my mother met Paul, he took her to a grand hotel in Vienna, Austria. I have a memory of Mum saying Paul took her to Vienna. She also showed me a picture of her looking out from a very fancy balcony at the fancy hotel where they stayed and I assume the person taking the picture was Paul, because she said she was there with him. She was on that balcony and it was overlooking water. I now know the Beatles were in Innsbruck, Austria for the filming of “Help!” in 1965, and never did a public concert in Austria, but they did do a small concert during the filming of “Help!” in Innsbruck. I don’t know if that was around the time she met him, or if she was seeing him already. I don't know if she went to Austria around the time of the filming, arriving before, during, or after – if she did go around then. I don’t know when the photo was taken, or when their friendship and romance started. She never mentioned if they were secretly married at some point, but I sometimes thought about it. That trip almost seemed like a secret honeymoon to me, but she never said that. I know that my mum was older than Paul. He used to call her his older woman, according to my mum. He had lost his mother and my mum was a local woman and good looking. She was interested in his interests and would have been a friend first, as she said to me.
I also know that if he died in September, it was a long pregnancy for me and October or November would work more easily. I have since learned that births weren’t forced (induced) as often, back then. Some people say it was never done, except for C (Caesarian) Sections in emergencies. Second, some women would not have known when they got pregnant. Third, even more would not be believed sometimes. (More prejudice to listening to women happened then, I think). Fourth, there were no early pregnancy tests. So, though I am not sure of when my dad died, statistics of there being extremely few 10-10 ½ month babies could be off. Obviously, 9 months is the norm, but it may not be quite as high a norm as we think. Fifth, it turns out that pregnancy is counted usually from date of implantation of the embryo and the older a woman is, the longer it can be, up to a week. Sixth, a period can be miscounted. So … it’s not impossible I was born about 10 months or just a bit more than that, from September 11 or so. I have believed my father died in November and I still think it, as I will say again later, but I am aware many others do not. I got the November 9 date from the US rumour from 1969. It may be wrong, for many reasons. If I was conceived in September, it is likely that I was conceived right around the time he died, maybe in the same trip to Liverpool, if he was killed there. I know it seems odd, but I will not likely know.
I never owned any photographs of my mum with my father, because I was so young when she died in 1975. I do know that George Dickinson had taken photographs of Mum, me, and other people, starting from when he met her. The only one that I have now is one of him and her,
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 3 of 12.
when she was pregnant with their son, [---]. She doesn't look her best in it, but she was stunning in the pictures I remember of her when she was younger. George later claimed that he had lost the photos of the family, so I have only my memories to rely on. I don't know if we had photos of Paul and Mum.
After learning that my real father had died, I told a few of my friends that Paul was dead. To my surprise, one of my friends, Kevin, already knew. I was on my front step and said to him, “Paul’s dead, you know.” He said, “I know, Dicko.” That was my nickname. Though he may have been brushing me off, his comment made me think Mum must have had friends who knew, and they told their kids. I think that Paul's death may have been well known in some circles in Liverpool. Later, the same boy witnessed my meeting with the Beatles. I don't remember his last name, unfortunately.
I figured that Paul was dead by myself and my mum confirmed it. Something must have given me the general idea at first. I think I remember hearing something about it and the clues about it on the radio as well, but I’m not 100% sure on that. I remember playing the “Blue Album” that George had bought for me. It was the only Beatles album from after 1966 that I had. When I played the song “Strawberry Fields”, something strange, not music, was at the end of the song. It sounded like someone talking slowed down, so I turned the player from 33 rpm to 45 rpm, not backward. When you do this, you hear John Lennon say in real time, “I buried Paul.” I felt sure of the ending to “Strawberry Fields” and on finding it, I remember proclaiming from the front room, "Oh no! He's dead!" Kids sometimes are very emotional and this was my feeling. George rushed in from the kitchen and said, “Who’s dead, son?” I remember saying, “Oh, nobody,” but then telling him that Paul McCartney was dead. I can’t remember George’s exact reaction to this, but he did not deny it. After I realized Paul was dead, from what I was sure I heard, I asked Mum when George was not around. She told me Paul had died. I remember doubting her a bit and saying, “Paul wasn't really my father, was he, Mum?” and her getting upset and saying, “Paul was your father, Stephen.” As I will tell in a moment, I do remember Mum saying to John Lennon, "I never told him, John." I’d found the statement by John Lennon in “Strawberry Fields”, so in a way, my mum told the truth: she had only confirmed what I’d already figured out. I was quite a clever kid. That’s why Ringo called me a “little Jeremy”. John must have asked my mum not to tell me Paul died. I believe he – and any others originally in the know – swore to the Official Secrets Act. I know I would have asked, “What happens if I don't lie?” With other suspicious deaths, probable bribery, threats and, what's most important, basic loyalty and having no direct evidence; there, you have the coverup. The name “McCartney” would have been a superficial legal change, though the thrust is terribly illegal and deeply immoral, no matter for what reasons the Beatles agreed to it.
All the main parts of my testament’s events happened in a short time. There was Mum telling me who my father was, me finding out he was dead, the Beatles visit and then Mum's dying. The next thing, the Beatles' visit, will sound strange to some people, but I remember it as well as can be. It was a surprise to me, but now I’m thinking it was not a surprise to my mum.
In 1975, or thereabouts, when I was seven going on eight years old, I was by myself, playing marbles in front of my house. I was approached outside my home by John Lennon, George Harrison, Richard Starkey (Ringo) and by the man who replaced my father in the public eye
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 4 of 12.
and his mother. I was told it was his mother. They all came walking up as if they had got out of a car somewhere down the street. I remember John had a sheepskin waist coat on. I remember George having a longer coat above the knees, but still long. It’s a bit vague, but I think Ringo was in a two piece suit, with a shirt with a collar and maybe a tie. The man who was supposed to be Paul had a two piece suit with a crew neck t-shirt. I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, I think. I must have had a coat on, but if I did, I don't remember it. The neighbourhood street was quiet and deserted. My mother had come to the front door as soon as they approached me. She stood on the top step of the house and said, "I never told him, John!" and then walked back in. She must have been getting ready, expecting them to follow her in.
The Paul replacement’s mum was giving me a bad look from the second they walked up to me, a look that made me feel uncomfortable. She was wearing a long dress and a headscarf, with her greying hair tied back. She had a severe, pinched look, a sort of long face and left a real impression on me. She was not wearing makeup and looked like an angry Scotswoman. The dress was of a dark colour. She never said a word. From the second they walked up to me, the replacement's mum looked at me with a hard look. She was intimidating, but I had a lot of bravado as a child and she lost her temper with me. Some people think Nancy Cooke de Herrera, who was with the Beatles in 1968, in India, was the replacement's mother. That would mean the replacement was with his mum and the Beatles in India in 1968. Cooke de Herrera certainly looks like the mum, both having thin faces, but the woman I met came across as the type who wouldn't wear makeup: a very religious, proper woman, stern and hard as nails. Think of a gritty Scot. I’ve always thought John's 1968 song “Bungalow Bill” was about the replacement for my father, who seems to be named Bill something. So the idea might have been not only of de Herrera’s safari with her son Richard Cooke in India, while the Beatles were there, but the replacement’s mother also might have been on John’s mind. There is the line, “In case of accidents, he always took his Ma.” I was looking up the lyrics to that song only a few days ago and I’m sure the song says, "Hey bungalow Bill, who did ya kill? Was it yer gil?" “Your girl” in Scouse (Liverpudlian accent) is “Yer gil.” But when you Google the lyrics on every site, there's no sign of the words “Was it yer gil?” I think it means that John wrote the song to expose the replacement and his murderous ways, or his mother’s too, not just the Cookes' safari. If so, it was about the replacement and his mum killing someone, but probably not my father. The new man had a different nature than Paul, anyway. People aren't really fooled, I think; the certain something the others had in abundance isn't there in him. Something was missing in the new man, not just drug induced or aged in Paul.
I asked John Lennon who the woman was, saying, “Who’s she?” He nodded toward the replacement and said, “His mum.” I didn’t recognize Paul in him and knew Paul had died. The replacement and his mum never said a word to me. I looked at each of them and turned to John Lennon. I was mainly focused on John. He was wearing his glasses. You could hardly make out John’s eyes beneath those glasses. I said, “Where’s Paul?” I had already figured out in a kid’s way and been told by my mum afterward that Paul had died, but I wanted the Beatles to know that I knew what had happened. I said, “Where’s Paul?” to let them know I knew and to get them to tell me what had happened to Paul.
I knew the replacement was standing trying to look like Paul. I looked through him, didn’t give
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 5 of 12.
him acknowledgment and said I wanted to know where Paul was, by turning to John and saying, “Where’s Paul?” This made John and George smile, and Ringo laughed. The replacement rolled his eyes and his mum’s stare became more intense. I knew this man was pretending to be Paul, but I wanted to know what had happened, so the first words out my mouth were, “Where’s Paul.” I suppose I was hoping John would explain. That didn't happen. (Things just deteriorated to the point where the replacement’s mum tried to strangle me – and she wasn't messing around. Something hit her emotions and she went for me, as I will tell in a moment. If the others hadn’t been there, I felt then that I would be dead now.) I remember peering into John’s eyes as he said, “We’re letting it be, Dicko,” my nickname, and rolled his eyes towards the man who had replaced my father. I never thought about how he knew my nickname. I guess John not only knew my mum from before, but knew my nickname. Other things about my experiences may mean my mum was in touch with the Beatles and they were visiting for her, really, and not for me. When John said, “We’re letting it be, Dicko,” my nickname, and rolled his eyes towards the man who had replaced my father, he even seemed to be emphasizing “it”, as if the word referred to the replacement too, not just the situation. I replied, “You can’t just let it be! You'll never get away with it." John looked at me and said, "We already have."
A few more words were exchanged between us. I was a kid, so in spite of the seriousness of the Paul topic which came up, I asked them what meeting the Queen was like and made fun of Ringo a bit. I even told Ringo that he would be the last Beatle. I don’t know why I said that. This resulted in Ringo's turning to the others and saying, “He’s another little Jeremy." I don’t know what that means. Ringo liked messing with language, so maybe it meant a perceptive joker like “Jamie”, as in James Paul McCartney, or I misheard for “Jamie”. In the time we were talking, my friend Kevin walked up and stood by my side. My not accepting her son as Paul upset the replacement's mother and resulted in her grabbing me very intensely around the neck. I actually feared she would kill me. One of the other adults (I don’t remember who) intervened and pulled her off me. After the replacement's mum attacked me, Kevin ran off and I don't remember speaking with him after that. Right after Mum’s death, we moved two miles away, to Newsham Drive.
A few more words were exchanged and I told the lady outside that she was crazy. After that, the adults started to walk away, towards the end of the road. Maybe they were as ruffled by the events as I was, so they left maybe more quickly than planned. As they were walking away, I shouted after them a final try. I said, basically, “Was Paul’s death an accident or murder?” My actual words were quick and a child’s. I asked about Paul this way: “Paul ... was it God or the Meanies?” I wasn’t asking the replacement the question and calling him Paul. I just started my last quick question with the topic I was heading for. “Meanies” was a reference to the bad guys in the animated Beatles film, “Yellow Submarine”, from 1968, where the mean people were called the “Blue Meanies”. George Harrison turned around, lifted his finger, as if to suggest they had heard enough from me and replied, “We have our suspicions.”
I don’t know for sure that Paul was murdered. Yes, I was young and people have every right to ask me anything they feel about how “strange” it would be that a kid would wonder if there is murder. I’m not offended. I knew I would have to face questioning. It’s only natural. You can’t just make a claim like what I have and expect everyone to take it at face value. But I got
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 6 of 12.
the point then and I know now that his death was never investigated or revealed, which makes me wonder. As a child, I did too, so I asked. “Bad guys”, or “Meanies” occurred to me. That’s all. Kids aren’t dumb. I don’t conclude something for sure, without being told something is true, but that’s not what was happening here. I asked and George answered, impulsively. I was a very clever, outgoing child. Some may find what I say to be hard to believe, but I can only say what happened to me. It has stuck with me. I would love to know what happened. Sometimes I feel strongly it was murder. Also, I don't remember my mum saying anything about that visit. I think she was upset by everything that had happened.
This visit from the Beatles was probably intended for my mother and interrupted by the replacement’s mother’s reaction to me, as I said. Not long after (a couple of weeks), I came home from school and my mother wasn’t there. When I asked George Dickinson where she was, he said she was in hospital – supposedly with lung cancer. The fact that George Dickinson suddenly said my mum was in hospital has always seemed very strange to me, because I remember her doing everything a housewife did: making the dinner, washing the clothes and keeping a clean house. She seemed fine, no cough. It was incomprehensible in any normal way, to come home from school one day only a few weeks after the Beatles’ visit, to find that she was in the hospital and then dead only two to three weeks after that, supposedly of lung cancer. She wasn’t a smoker, had no signs of being sick at all and died so quickly after being admitted. Yes, again I was young and did not put it all into words. But the basic timing and experience were what they were. Along with my grief, it did begin to give me some suspicions. Only three weeks after she went into hospital, I came home from school and George John Dickinson had my younger half brother [---] Dickinson on his lap. George was crying. I asked him what was wrong and he replied, “Your mum’s dead, Stephen.” I was told my mother had died of lung cancer and wondered why she hadn’t asked for me. I asked George and he said, “She did ask for you son, but she was too ill for you too see her." I had so many questions for her. I feel like she was snatched away because of that meeting with John, the imposter “Paul” who some people call “Faul” (meaning “False Paul”), and the group, along with “Faul’s” mother. I also know my mum would have asked for me. George even told me she did, but he had made the decision not to take me, because she was too sick. I always resented that. My mother died on the 23rd of April, 1975. I don't remember the funeral. Maybe George sent me to his mum's. She is buried in Anfield cemetery, in the family plot. I didn't visit until recently, partly because life went on, it had been a traumatic event I avoided and I didn't know her death date exactly, to look her up.
The strange visit described above occurred not long before her death, so I estimate it was February or March, 1975, based on her death and the clothing they were wearing. The doctor who treated my mother, her local GP, was Dr Ian Bogle. Later he became head of the BMA at BMA House, on Tavistock Square, London. (Charles Dickens’ former home, called Tavistock House, was demolished in 1901, but the area is honouring his house.) Whether the BMA location is linked to, or the same as, the Tavistock Institute, I am not sure. I have read about Tavistock Institute and the propaganda role they have played in our music and culture. This and the fact that my mother seemed perfectly well leading up to her hospitalisation, plus the timing of the visit and her rapid death, have made me even more suspicious about her death. I have always felt that the trouble I had with my father’s replacement and his mother at the meeting led to my mother’s death. When I said that I had caused her death, George replied,
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 7 of 12.
“Don’t be silly, son.”
I never had any material proof of my mother’s relationship to James Paul McCartney, since no photos or keepsakes from him were passed on to me, and I was too young and upset when she died, to think about asking about them or looking for them. I did have her record albums, and they may have been material proof, maybe. They were all classical albums, except for three Beatles albums: “A Hard Day’s Night”, “Help!” and “Rubber Soul”, which makes sense if she knew him around that period, from about 1965-1966 at least. Sadly, in 1995, years after I was a kid, when I had an argument with the mother of my two youngest children, she destroyed my albums in a rage after I had gone out for a bit. Losing my vinyl broke my heart. When I realized what she had done, I sank to my knees and sobbed. I threw the damaged albums out, never thinking to look for a hand written note or card from my father, which may have been slipped into their sleeves. That’s how upset I was.
Not long after my mother died, I overheard George Dickinson and other family members arguing. I heard one of them say, “You don’t have to have him, George,” meaning to keep me. On hearing this, I started to walk away from my home, but by the time I had reached the end of the short road I lived on, George ran after me, asking what I was doing. I told him I didn’t want to be with them either, but George insisted I go home with him. He knew he wasn’t my biological father, but I don’t think he knew that James Paul McCartney was. I asked him about it before he died on the 28th of July, 2014. He said, “I knew you were not my son, but I didn’t know whose son you were.” I don’t know whether to believe that. I've thought about this issue a lot, since I always felt I knew my mother was telling the truth about Paul’s death. I saw that someone else, the other “Paul” person I had met, had taken my father’s place in the mass media. History was changed, not only about music, but about intelligence service activity.
I don’t know if we received some small money from the Beatles for me over time – from my birth, or forward from the visit. I also don’t know if there were phone calls from the Beatles to my home, after the visit I had. I didn’t have much time to find out anything and I didn’t think about asking, because I was young and overwhelmed. There was an illegitimate son of Paul McCartney in Liverpool, named Philip Cochrane, according to his mother Anita. Anita got some small payment, she said. Erika Hubers also got some. She was a German who had a daughter named Bettina. Bettina has become famous, because without knowing or saying that Paul died, she challenged the DNA findings of the German paternity court, twice. Her mother and she not only got money from court despite the DNA findings -- because it was the replacement’s DNA used, I believe -- but also got Epstein payments in the 1960s. This is not usually known, but it is the testimony of Peter Brown, with helping author Steven Gaines, in Brown's book “The Love You Make” (2002). Another mother from Liverpool, named Alice Doyle, also got money from Epstein. Her son was Mark Paul Doyle, according to the same book. Hubers and Doyle are discussed in chapter 5.
Here is a post summarizing the Bettina case, but I have added short comments using “SJD” to show and remind people which “McCartney” we are actually talking about in the summary:
Post by “stavros” [sic], the 25th of March, 2014, at 5:49 p.m.
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 8 of 12.
This was a big story back in the 1980s and I'd all but forgotten about it until stumbling upon it again by accident.
This paternity case against Paul seemingly dragged on into the 21st century and is one of those slightly uncomfortable and stranger parts of Beatle history.
Bettina was born in December [SJD: ,] 1962. Her mother Erika claimed McCartney asked her to abort the baby and sought alimony at the time. McCartney denied the accusations and also that he was the baby's father. But he did pay her a sum of money. [SJD: Let us say also that Paul could deny it or could be sure it wasn't his and still pay something, though that’s unlikely. It is not my main point here, anyway.]
In 1966 the Beatles were about to embark on a European tour. McCartney was informed by the German courts that a matter of maintenance had to be settled [SJD: with Bettina's mother,] before he set foot in Germany. Lawsuits continued until Bettina turned 18. In 1983, she and her mother went to court yet again to ask for maintenance payments.
[SJD: The replacement for] McCartney apparently took a blood test that came back negative. But for some reason, the courts rejected the results and made him pay maintenance anyway. Four years later, working in Berlin as a hairdresser, Bettina lost her court cases on [SJD: the replacement's] appeal and was liable to pay legal costs of £60,000. [SJD: The replacement for] McCartney’s lawyer advised [SJD: him, as] Paul to pay it so as not to bankrupt Hubers [SJD: maybe to quell the story].
The story did not go away but was kept well under the radar here in the UK (unlike the Heather Mills divorce).
[SJD: Whether or not Bettina was the illegitimate daughter of McCartney himself, the following happened:]
In 2007 [SJD: Bettina] Hubers claimed that [SJD: that the] McCartney [SJD: in front of her had] sent a stand in to take the paternity test and wanted a new one conducted. She also claimed the signature was a false one in the original 1980s documents and was written by a right handed person. However [SJD: ,] after further investigations [SJD: or cover-up,] the case was dropped.
[SJD: Source of quotation, general thread: http://abbeyrd.proboards.com/thread/4904/paternity-paul-bettina-huberscase . For post in thread: http://abbeyrd.proboards.com/post/69693/thread . (For post only, drop "thread".)]
The DNA the replacement submitted did not match Bettina's DNA, whether she was Paul's daughter or not. I put this post about Bettina into my testament in order to give context about payments and the situation facing other likely Paul children. Again, I do not know if my family received money. Unlike me, the replacement, now knighted, must have received state help of different kinds, no matter how many tend to believe the hoax anyway. Plus, I've learned, Prime Minister Wilson used revenue and economic activity closely and generally related to
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 9 of 12.
the Beatles, to stave off devaluing the pound at all during 1964-1966. Devaluation began after my father's death, but the revenue still helped a lot. The hoax would likely go up to the royals. (Sources: https://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2014 /08/28/how-beatles-saved-uk-from-its-foreign-exchange-crisis-in-1960s-some-lessons-forind ia-too, based on article “Live music’s debut as a big export earner”, by Simon Willson, in “Sound Money” section of Finance & Development [the International Monetary Fund (IMF) journal], September 2014, Vol. 51, No. 3, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/picture.htm.)
After I heard “I buried Paul” and my mum said Paul had died, I wondered if there were other things in the songs that related to my father’s death. Around this time or a little after, a song lyric in “A Day In The Life” (1967) struck me. It said that “Wednesday morning papers didn’t come.” This led me to asking neighbours on my road, “Do you remember the morning the local paper didn’t come?” I was taking the lyric literally. Many people think the line is only an artistic way to say news media cover up things in general, or Paul’s death specifically, but what is interesting is that I got results by taking this lyric literally – for Liverpool.
Everyone had the papers delivered back then and some of the people I asked remembered this event, where there was a day when no one got their paper. One was Mrs Kirby. She lived next door to me at 5 Ettington Road. The publication is the Liverpool “Echo and Post”, the only newspaper in Liverpool. I find it interesting that because there was only one newspaper in Liverpool, it may have made it easier to superficially contain the news, if Paul died in or around Liverpool, maybe visiting family and my mum. To have no paper come, London had too many newspapers. That does not mean other major events cannot be contained, but it is easier if there is one newspaper. I believe the date is Wednesday the 9th of November, 1966, but I am not sure. It could be Wednesday the 14th of September, 1966, or even not really a Wednesday. Even after all these years, of course, I still don’t know the exact date of my father’s death, or his burial place. I have never been able to pay my respects to him.
George John Dickinson raised me and my half brother on his own. I had no one else. Most in Liverpool have some Irish heritage. There are a lot of “Mac”/“Mc” names here as well. George's own mum was a McNamara. She was the eldest of 11. I never married, but had two long term relationships. I had 4 children. With [---], we had my eldest child, [---], who has a daughter. My granddaughter is now eight years old. My next is [---], my only boy, who looks more like his mum’s dad than mine. With [---], I had [---] and my youngest daughter, [---]. All my children are brown eyed, like me, my mum and Paul.
My first “wife”’s mother was named [---], and she is in the photo of me as a young man which I have posted on Facebook. I call her my mother-in-law. I have also posted another photo of me around the same age, sitting on a bed, and photos of two daughters and a son. I am left handed and my four children and granddaughter are, too, just like Paul. I don’t know if left handedness is higher in some families genetically or not. I really see Paul’s looks in my eldest daughter, though it’s there in my other daughters too. It's less there in me, I feel. Some say that when I was younger I had a soft quality of face, manner and dark hair, all like Paul.
My mum’s family home, where I think she lived when she met Paul, was my granddad’s place until the year 2000. I never visited, but I asked George, “Where did Mum live?” George said, “A road off Pinehurst Road.” Pinehurst is close to Ettington Road, where everything happened. A little while back, I Googled “Dewsbury Road”, which is what Paul says in a
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 10 of 12.
strange statement put into “Magical Mystery Tour” film. I was confirming if Dewsbury Road was in Greater Manchester. (Dewsbury city is 30 miles away from Manchester.) The map result also showed a road off Priory Road, Liverpool. Priory almost joins to where Ettington is and joins to Dewsbury Road. Dewsbury joins to Pinehurst. So my mum’s family home in Liverpool was near Dewsbury, or on Dewsbury, all fairly close to me. I wasn't allowed to go far as a kid, across busy streets, so I didn't remember Dewsbury. I was not close with the Mottrams, but I remember meeting Mum's brothers. I saw a lot of one uncle, Uncle Ronnie. When I was orphaned, the Mottrams were mostly not around. George was pretty good to me, but I had a rough time with family life in my teens and moved on later. I helped George for about two years, when he was ill. I knew some of George’s family, but a lot of them moved away, some to Toronto, Canada, where George had lived for a while before I was born. He died back in Liverpool, UK, but we traveled to Toronto, while he was ill.
As time went by and I came across more later Beatles material, I noticed many references to my father’s death. There are well documented “clues” in the music, videos and album art. Other artists have made reference to my father’s death in their work. Over the years I have seen the man who replaced my father in the public eye and have wondered about the details of my father’s death. The fact that my father died in 1966 is more known now. I have searched for information lots of times. I read forums and blogs concerning this issue and saw comments saying, “If this is true, why haven’t his family spoken out?” Reading this made me think more about talking. I feel a responsibility to speak out about who my father was and that he was replaced in the public eye in 1966 by someone whose identity I still don’t know. At least one among my children said she believes me, but I really don’t know if that is true. Other people have heard me a few times over the years say I’m his son, but now is the time I’m really coming forward. Right now, my personal backup is my word: that I’m Paul’s son, that he died and that the Beatles thought it may have been murder. But I hope that it helps people to know that some family member is talking, daring to talk.
For a long time, I never thought this testimony would make much impact on anyone. I told some people and some believed me, some not. I lived my life as I could. I worked, had kids, helped George Dickinson. Then in 2014, he died in Liverpool, from cancer. As I said, I began to look more into this issue after that. I did think I would have some impact, when I was young. I’ve seen the world change so much that I’m not sure most people will care anymore about Paul's death. But I think maybe Paul’s legacy is being tarnished in some ways by the replacement and biographers, and so on. I know some of the people in the groups of PID (Paul is Dead) discussions care about my father, but does the world care? They care about the fun early 60s sometimes, but maybe not the secret. I’m a private person, quite shy as well. I’m a bit worried about getting too much attention. But, in for a penny, in for a pound: if it is out, maybe it will do some good. I’m rather excited.
It’s hard to decide to put this out. I did post sometimes in the last while on Tina Foster’s “Plastic Macca” Blog and on Facebook. Lately, I’ve been feeling that I should do more. On Facebook, I met people and was contacted by Clare Kuehn, who mentioned that if I’m really believing what I say, I should put it all down once and for all, in some formal way. She said if
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 11 of 12.
I’m not Paul’s son, I should at least tell what I remember of my experiences, which includes the Beatles' visit. I think the Beatles seem to have known my mum and believed I was possibly Paul’s son at least. I agreed I should put down my full recollections in a serious way. So I am putting things down here, fully and completely. She and some others helped me with grammar and spelling errors. They asked, “Who, where, what next?” This testament is mostly in my exact words, with some grammar help. I feel like I'm resolving things that have been on my mind since I was a child.
She mentioned that it might help any kind of other witnesses who may come forward, to have an example of what to do. I agree. So I suggest that people do their own full, properly formatted testament and attach supporting items in secret first. It's good not to say anything at that time to others, whatever and wherever you already had spoken before. Don't feel you are immediately safer because I came out, but please do come out quickly ... with these precautions. Original copies of my document are safe and photographed, with other relevant items. The full set of photos will come out with me. I have no more significant things hidden, to tell or to keep. There's less overall risk this way. I know my own risk and want to help. Justice for my father's estate and legacy is my main concern, not money, plus justice for history, not only music history.
The following paragraph was composed based on things I have said, but actually written by a man who was helping me, who wishes to remain anonymous for now. It expresses my feelings extremely well. It is better than I would have put the sentences and I fully endorse it as my concluding statement:
My only purpose in writing this testament is to make my children and my future descendants aware of my story and of my true parentage, not to gain attention or to profit from it. I am also determined that the many people who have loved my father, James Paul McCartney, finally know the truth of his death and replacement in 1966. Another man assumed his name and used Paul's fame to enhance his own career. Many who knew my father have kept quiet about his death and replacement, even until this very day, either out of fear, shame, profit, laziness, or for kicks – I really don’t know why, but probably from a combination of all of these. Now that the world finally knows my story, I hope and pray that at least some of those who hid this secret from the world will come forward and set things right, in good legal format and with a witness to the signature. This effort and avowal gives more credibility, even if this issue does not get into a court. I encourage the others to do so with full disclosure, in multiple original copies, to trusted researchers and other people, for their own safety and for the sake of the original Paul McCartney’s true musical genius. This died with him in 1966. I come forward for the sake of all, but especially for myself and any other blood children of his, whose family legacy has been denied by a partly state-aided conspiracy of silence and deception.
SIGNATURE OF TESTIFIER
I, Stephen John Dickinson, by my signature below, swear and attest that the events described in this testimony are true and took place, to the best of my recollection, exactly as described, with no more to add that I know of.
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 12 of 12.
I have initialed each page of the document. I numbered all original copies in the presence of a witness or witnesses listed below, who also initialed each page of original copies.
______________________________________ . ________________________________ . Signed, Stephen John Dickinson Date
_____________________________________ , _________________________________ , Currently residing at In the city of
_______________________________ . Region/ Country
WITNESS CERTIFICATE FOR TESTIFIER’S SIGNING OF INSTRUMENT (DOCUMENT)
Signing witness:
I hereby sign and date that I witnessed the signing of this document. I have initialed each page of the document as well, on every original copy.
I may or may not have read the document in full, but I attest that the testifier was of sound mind at the time of the signing: as far I could tell, the testifier was able to know that the document was his own. I was personally present and did see the person known to me to be STEPHEN JOHN DICKINSON, and the same as in the instrument (document), sign the instrument. The instrument was signed at:
City/Town of _________________________________ , in ___________________________.
______________________________________ . ________________________________ . Name of witness to signing (print) Date
_____________________________________ , _________________________________ , Currently residing at In the city of
_______________________________ . ______________________________________ . Region/ Country Signature of witness to signing
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
______________________________________________________________________
The following are the slides which were placed around the broadcast, as appropriate. (Right now, they appear in alphabetical order, mostly, but that will be changed.)
The testimonies in PDF (redacted) and in blogger direct text (copyable easily into translation services) will all come shortly.
Thank you for your patience.
______________________________________________________________________
Photographs of the testaments and slides about the implications:
______________________________________________________________________
Magical Mystery Tour (1967): woman with baby, who could be Irene (Stephen's mother) and he (Stephen himself) -- though this is unlikely, since the baby in the beach scene at least, is older than 2 months old. Stephen was a long pregnancy, but the baby on the beach probably cannot be he. The other scene on the road seems to be the same woman, but the baby is unclear.
Even if Irene and Stephen were only implied in the film, why include them? The film is largely in honour of dead Paul, in so many ways, and she, as his real main love or last love and friend and baby, might well have been asked to participate. Over 10 hours of footage were filmed, and in these two clips, if it is she, she was deliberately left in the much, much shorter film. -- Below are the two film clips, slowed down (roadside scene is looped, so you see it twice; love and marriage scene on beach plays once, not twice):
These clips which might be Irene (Stephen's mother), or meant to convey her, in honour of Paul, are included because Stephen wondered about them. Since the film's resurrection and many Paul death and life themes are interwoven in the film, and that film was the first done after Paul's death, as a feature length film, it contains a eulogy theme for Paul. It is unlikely that the baby could be Stephen, however (at least in the close-up shot on the beach), since the baby (at least the one on the beach) is older than 2-3 months, even though Stephen was a long-term pregnancy.
______________________________________________________________________
"Last Testament of George Harrison: Paul Really Is Dead" film, 2009, is disinformation. This means it is something deliberately misleading, to make a joke or knowingly deflect from a truth. It is a fairly well known film. Presented as a serious film yet as a complete joke -- it seems to have been intended to catch both sides of the public (create confusion and allow total denial).
The film's significant flaws include things which few would realize, so the joke side is lost and the confusion reigns. These flaws include that Heather Mills, the second wife of the replacement for Paul, was somehow present as a young woman at the scene of Paul's death, when she would not have been born yet. An excellent article on the film's deceptions is at http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2013/07/expose-of-disinfo-hit-piece-paul-really_19.html .
(The blog overall has major flaws also, but not in the same way as the film. It has picked up on confusion and disinformation about the death date, and how many died / were replaced in the band. However, it is also a great compilation of some of the basic ideas about Paul's death and some good photographic comparisons.) The article is included below, for education purposes. I include the article for those who cannot click on a live link but copy this text, for example, to an e-mail, but incorrectly, where the link is lost, or in print. I do not own the copyright and make no such claim.
Though copied in entirety, it is here, below, for the benefit of those who are new to this issue and people who are not reaching this material for the first time through the computer. As such (education, new audience and special audience), and as a factual summary of the problems in the film (not intensely personal creative work), I contend that it counts as fair use to include it here, and hope that the author herself agrees. These considerations are meant to be taken together, unless there is a major breach of only several, and are described at http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr280b.shtml . We are both working for the purpose of righting an injustice done to the dead in this case, and to right the unjust state the living are in, that is, those who participate in the lie in this case -- for they, too, are bound by the lie until they unravel it publicly.
I include it for education purposes and thank the author, Tina Foster, for having compiled the errors in the film:
____________________________
Thursday, 28 July 2016
Stephen Dickinson
and 3 other legal testimonies,
with (embedded) 1 more, attested
-- and 4 more not-yet-legal testimonies included as legal leads
DISCLAIMER
The legal testimony of Stephen Dickinson and the supporting Paul death case presented by Clare Kuehn are not constructed to personally attack the replacement, out of many people. However, too many excuses made for any one person in a moral and legal crime are also not acceptable, in the end. Clare prefers amnesty for all the participants -- direct and indirect -- but amnesty (except for egregious legal wrongs) is not the same thing as shirking honest blame, as such.
This effort is not merely for Mr. Dickinson. His paternity is not even necessary to prove, to assist him and others to affirm what his mother told him -- that Paul died, a fact which I already understand from other evidence as well.
Irene Mottram Dickinson did say that Paul had died.
His mother affirmed what others must now. Mr. Dickinson emphasized on air only how clever he was as a child, working with the dials on a record machine, to listen to a supposed (a likely) clue in a song by John Lennon. But his mother shortly after said to him that Paul had died, and lied to John Lennon on the street, later, by saying, "I never told him, John," unless she was referring to something else.
The fact that Stephen's mother told him is in the testimony. Stephen likes to emphasize -- and did, only, state on air-- how he had *first* figured it out, to his own shock, and never got to how his mother did affirm that it was true that Paul had died.
But yes, Irene did say Paul died. Now others ought to help show that, for public awareness. I already get it, of course.
--------------------------------------------------
NOTES for those who have run into general works on the subject, but not the key facts of Paul's death case:
a) "Last Testament of George Harrison: Paul Really Is Dead" film, 2009, is disinformation. More comments on that follow, in section 7.
b) "The Memoirs of Billy Shears" book, 2009, is also disinformation, in key ways, though the idea that it is fake in its claim to be by the replacement for Paul is likely true. The disinformation comes in as confusion of the issues. The author was most likely the replacement for Paul McCartney, with a ghost writer who fleshed in the material and language.
The author behind the listed author is determinable as the replacement for Paul (that is, as Sir Paul McCartney himself), by using many lines of reasoning, which we do not have space for here. These reasons can be summarized as: how it divulges nothing important which is new, while including so many things little known in 2009; how it was constructed and published with reference to McCartney (the replacement) in the corporation it uses, the timing of its release, the claim in its narrative itself (that it is sourced from the replacement); how it has clever word games, which suit some aspects of the mind of the replacement of Paul, although mostly constructed by the named author; how it covers over exactly the areas where the real author is least likely telling the truth (the cause and circumstances of the death itself, the motivation and extent of support by intelligence services and others in maintaining the replacement).
The book pins the blame for the replacement on the Beatles' dedicated (though embezzling) manager, Brian Epstein, which is beyond unlikely, though he would have to have helped promote the idea, perhaps under pressure and shock. It also glorifies the replacement as the saviour of the band after a presumably innocent cause of death for Paul (no murder). It also is filled with occult positive and negative ruminations, which fits what is known of some of the replacement's spiritual and intellectual interests. It even dares to suggest that not only did Paul guess at and dream of his own death, but *wanted this man to replace him*. The brazen self aggrandizement of and likely by the replacement is partly hidden in how many mistakes are made and filler concepts are included.
-----------------------------------------------
Objections regarding Stephen Dickinson are met below, with full slides and legal testimonies (one uploaded currently) --- then General Objections, then Table of Content for slides, testimonies, etc. --- after Witness Warning.
-----------------------------------------------
WITNESS WARNING:
If you heard credibly that this was true, know directly anything about this case (Paul's death), of course you may feel that coming out *together* is safer. It is ... only if you all do not know of each other's efforts. That way, no-one can know who might come out.
Also, since courts do not function always in cases like these, not as we would like, where questions are cut short, judges replaced, and worse happens, we suggest all efforts be entirely secret until revealed. This is also true of DNA tests for parentage between siblings, but especially true of comparison formally with the replacement for Paul. It is true definitely of aspects of the events around Paul's death and replacement, as well.
All witness materials must be kept entirely secret until they have been compiled, for individuals and together with other people's; also do not tell parents, children, friends, colleagues you may do this. This must be utterly secret; the togetherness is when it is compiled with others. I personally would not tell, for example; you should not.
The way it should be brought out, would be all together, with *most things redacted,* but enough to show *other insiders* that we are serious, and only a reference to each testifier's profession or some other generality, to show a variety of testimonies have been received.
- socialite
- surgeon
- reporter / press
- lighting technician
- police officer
- secretary
- writer
- political official
- bartender
- housekeeper / homemaker (housewife) ... etc.
This is not a court-only effort. In fact, courts look for very limited sorts of proof for criminality and blame. Not only that, but courts can be corrupted in a myriad of ways, inside and outside the process, with whatever does make it to the hearings also sometimes struck from the record or classified, which undoes the actual public purpose we have in mind in this instance.
And I will not tell of what I receive until such time as others corroborate, or flesh out the issues as well, in any testimony. That is, this is what I would do if anyone comes out to me *personally*. I cannot speak for others, including some I work with, but if they would act like that, I applaud them.
I warned Mr. Dickinson not to name names on air, though he did, so please consider that I would tell no one. Aside: Stephen has no more knowledge than he stated. No-one (of course, including Stephen) wants people harmed, but talking in public right now is unwise, and to friends and family, as well. I am on Twitter and Facebook with my name, Clare Kuehn.
My accounts have been passed also to others. Several others are prepared to take over my accounts in the event I become unable to continue the effort.
DNA tests should be done in secret, as should evidence compilation.
We recommend not speaking about this video (support for it or that you have viewed it, etc., except in general terms, if someone mentions it). We also recommend preparing your testimonies and any physical supports fully without anyone except your signing witness knowing -- who does not have to read the document you prepare, but does have to witness your signing and initial every page. You can use the documents below (in text and slides) as templates. They also contain instructions as part of the affidavits themselves.
We also recommend your not keeping your materials (testimony copies and/or supportive materials, which should all be numbered and described in your testimony), or sending them only to friends. They should be collected and saved, with an absolute plan from the person collecting that they will be released when more than one is ready. They can be redacted, per arrangements. No part of recollections, relevant materials, descriptions (no matter how detailed or seemingly irrelevant), names and even hearsay with as much back up as possible (as leads) should be left out. This allows for future leads to be followed, and cross-correspondence in people's recollections.
This effort is for public education as well as kind but sure pressure on others -- so that they may do even better than you. It might possibly (though unlikely) help court action, but actually, court action is *least* desirable, since court cases limit what can be presented, sometimes not well. In principle, of course, they are supposed to be paragons of virtue and reason.
The idea for doing your own disclosure effort, safely, would be to help the actual issue gain traction with the public and with other embarrassed or afraid witnesses, of whatever level they are.
That is the form of "coming out together" which is safest. This goes for any open secret (conspiracy plot and cover-up for whatever reason, small or large). In large-scale situations, police, etc., are obviously initially incredulous (disbelieving), taken off the case, or told to keep quiet, documents lost, etc.
Thank you for understanding.
______________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS:
0. Part 1: A few simple (ignorant) objections met, before people are familiar with the claims of Stephen Dickinson0. Part 2: A few general (ignorant and partially knowledgeable) objections met about the Paul death case overall
1. The broadcast of Stephen Dickinson, Clare Kuehn and Dr. Jim Fetzer.
2. John Lennon's song, "Now and Then" has been linked, below, in a clear copy.
3. Uploads of the text of the three legal testimonies, though currently, only Stephen's redacted text is published here. (Bob's and Clare's redacted texts will be published here, too -- soon.) They are given in text format for easy automatic translator services to help foreign language speakers and for copying and pasting. Also, right now, Stephen's testimony text is not properly formatted.
4. The slides which were interspersed through the video. They are summaries, visually and verbally, of the situation Stephen's case brings forward personally and about Paul's death in 1966.
5. The 61 photos of the testimonies and the implications of some of them. These were shown together, about 3/4 of the way through the broadcast.
6. Short video clips of Magical Mystery Tour film, 1967, of possibly Irene (Stephen's mother) and Stephen (as baby -- he is less likely than Irene).
7. A note about "Last Testament of George Harrison: Paul Really Is Dead" film, 2009, as disinformation.
______________________________________________________________________
0. PART 1 OF 2: OBJECTIONS FROM IGNORANCE OF THE
TESTIMONIAL CLAIMS:
10. Stephen's language about the murder idea, which he recounted in the broadcast as adult language and said so, was in the formal testimony in the original kid (childhood) language: "Was it God [natural death] or the Meanies [killers, as in, the bad characters in Yellow Submarine Beatles film, 1968]".
11. Maybe it is not Irene Mottram Dickinson, Stephen's mother, in the movie Magical Mystery Tour Beatles film, 1967. But if Irene, Stephen's mother, was on set during, it also does not mean the baby she held was Stephen (since the baby looks like a strong 4 months or older). She could have left Stephen at home for a busy film set, or Stephen could be wrong that it was she, or he could have been a *very* strong, long-term pregnancy child, at 2 1/2 months of age and able like a 3 1/2 month old child though I doubt it personally.
12. Moreover, the idea that the Beatles wouldn't have come to see here -- which they could have -- the house they lived was only 3-4 houses from the end of the street, not attracting much attention from neighbours who might mostly have been working (and if they were seen, so would they have had too much trouble, if Irene had refused to come to see *them* instead? No. Only John would have a problem in denying he was in the area, but if he was protected enough to come to England at the time, local knowledge of his visit could have been smoothed over. Nothing eliminates Stephen's statements nor exactly proves them, except internal consistencies and earnestness at this point.
13. Stephen did not "forget" who pulled the mother of the replacement away, but rather that he held back the information, which was unwise. He was advised by me and others to tell *all* that he remembered; a belief that because some would not believe him anyway, it would not matter, but then to tell later in the broadcast only increases some people's doubts, yet here is the answer: he was concerned (and always has expressed to me) that he did not want to harm people's reputations more than need be in his coming forward, and this affected his wanting to say who pulled the woman off. So we may note for all people (and for witnesses especially), this exchange this morning, August 2nd, 2016 Post link is at https://www.facebook.com/groups/paulisdeadworkgroup/permalink/1631664420457569 ) :
Stephen Dickinson: I wasn't sure whether to tell anyone about his mum trying to strangle me because i thought shes not her to defend herself and its quite a heavy thing to strangle a seven year old child in broad daylight. Its the only part of what happened to me that i was unsure about reveling. After i did tell about it i didn't want to make George and John out as bad people because Ringo was the one who helped. I didn't want people to think John and George would have just let her kill me, so i said one of them pulled her off me. I always knew it was Ringo and decided to just tell everything that happened and not worry about his mum being dead. She shouldn't go around strangling kids if she doesn't want to be talked about. I would do the same even if she was still alive.
Clare Kuehn: Stephen Dickinson -- remember I said SAY EVERYTHING you remember. This is why. People now doubt you could have the damned memory because how could you forget who pulled her off. This was unwise and though you were always saying you were embarrassed for her -- that is not a witness' job.
14. The fact the Liverpool newspapers did not come one day, mentioned in the testament, is not only coming from the next door neighbour of Stephen as it is in the testament. Post link is at https://www.facebook.com/groups/paulisdeadworkgroup/permalink/1632616167029061
MUSIC / VOICE:
Music as an issue people wonder about (or don't wonder enough), from an exchange on Youtube recently:
The mish mash at 1967, and some maturity over time, were mixed in people's minds as "great" but the electricity of love and feeling are gone. Anyway, Paul died.
SaxFreak01: Drivel. You're obviously not a musician, and certainly not a bass player. The way a musician plays their instrument is as unique as a fingerprint. Melodic/harmonic language, tone etc. Listen to any of McCartney's recorded bass parts from 1962 to the current date - it's clearly the same guy on all the recordings.
PEOPLE TALKED (JUST NOT IN EASY, OFFICIAL WAYS -- and this is normal in conspiracy cases):
Taken mostly as verbal "jokes", or, when in artforms, taken as "just art", people have spoken, to relieve their consciences; other times, they lied or played on the name "Paul", that "he" didn't die because "he" (the replacement renamed Paul) lived.
THE FAMILY OF PAUL HIMSELF KNEW, AND OTHER WIVES AND SOME FRIENDS KNEW AND APPROVED:
Mourning privately, not telling everyone, overwhelmed by others' decisions and the huge cachet (power) of Beatles legacy and career and maybe with the odd threat, explain the closer persons' participation. For others, knowing at a distance, focus on their own lives, not having exact evidence, knowing that this was too big to bother to speak of directly to the public, explains the circles of people in the know. (This is normal in big or little conspiracies, deceptions by two or more persons, and crimes, at all levels -- not just political ones, which this one really is ... a socio-political issue.) With no police listening, the normal avenues for justice break down; this happens in lower (ordinary) crime cases at times, too.
______________________________________________________________________TESTIMONIAL CLAIMS:
Though objections can be held throughout a study of an issue, either
willfully or just because there is some room for doubt until one decides
on all things together, the following objections are somewhat common
but from ignorance, and can be mostly cleared up with a few simple
points.
*** Please read the testimony (testimonies) in full, before making simple dismissive points. ***
1. The comparison of Stephen with Mike McGear's nose, and Paul's overall bone structure, and his eldest daughter's eyes compared with Paul's (which are very like Paul's, as are his other daughters, not shown), and the son claimant from Seattle, 1966 (as I was told) are in a slide which is left out of the video, by mistake, right now. It will be added soon. Stephen's teenage photo compared to Paul and his brother, Mike McCartney, and Stephen's daughter compared with Paul shows *plausibility*, while his testimony states that all his children have brown eyes and are left handed (not a necessity, for paternity by Paul, but interesting). Plausibility of looks (appearance) is all we need at this point. Stephen has a sort of rounded head, pointy face, brown contrasty hair and eyes, and nose somewhat like Mike, Paul's brother. Mike, Paul's brother, by the way, looks very *not* like Paul in some ways, though as kids they did. (If Mike is Paul's half brother or was adopted, is another question, though he could be fully Paul's brother and not seem much like him, remember.) So looks for children are a bit less stringent an argument than for a double (a replacement) being a replacement. Here is the comparison of Stephen, younger, his eldest daughter, another Paul son claimant (the man from Seattle, younger, I believe) and Mike, Paul's brother:
1. The comparison of Stephen with Mike McGear's nose, and Paul's overall bone structure, and his eldest daughter's eyes compared with Paul's (which are very like Paul's, as are his other daughters, not shown), and the son claimant from Seattle, 1966 (as I was told) are in a slide which is left out of the video, by mistake, right now. It will be added soon. Stephen's teenage photo compared to Paul and his brother, Mike McCartney, and Stephen's daughter compared with Paul shows *plausibility*, while his testimony states that all his children have brown eyes and are left handed (not a necessity, for paternity by Paul, but interesting). Plausibility of looks (appearance) is all we need at this point. Stephen has a sort of rounded head, pointy face, brown contrasty hair and eyes, and nose somewhat like Mike, Paul's brother. Mike, Paul's brother, by the way, looks very *not* like Paul in some ways, though as kids they did. (If Mike is Paul's half brother or was adopted, is another question, though he could be fully Paul's brother and not seem much like him, remember.) So looks for children are a bit less stringent an argument than for a double (a replacement) being a replacement. Here is the comparison of Stephen, younger, his eldest daughter, another Paul son claimant (the man from Seattle, younger, I believe) and Mike, Paul's brother:
2. a) Stephen claims that Kevin (his friend) came up to him during the
visit and walked away before it was over. His home was 3-4 houses from
the end of the street and his attention taken up first with his marbles
game and then the visit from the Beatles (if it occurred, for those who
are still deciding on the issue). So the statement that the road was
empty or mostly empty and is a tiny road is basically accurate and
relevant and plausible.
2. b) Regarding: Gut6string1 August 2016 at 09:18 [...] I note in Stephens written testimony he doesn't know who rescued him from Faul's mother's attack. In the verbal testimony he's clear it was Richard, a glaring discrepancy which seems unlikely to me. Even if memory is off, I'd expect consistency. [Grammar points corrected.]
Answer: He remembered specifically who pulled her off, a few weeks before the broadcast. He had been so shocked for years and remembering the shock of it, that who pulled her off was not foremost in his mind. The testimony copies and DNA bags were already signed and in the mail.
Stephen has posted this in a group I run, today (August 2nd, 2016, in the a.m., North America time:
I wasn't sure whether to tell anyone about his mum trying to strangle me because i thought shes not her to defend herself and its quite a heavy thing to strangle a seven year old child in broad daylight. Its the only part of what happened to me that i was unsure about reveling. After i did tell about it i didn't want to make George and John out as bad people because Ringo was the one who helped. I didn't want people to think John and George would have just let her kill me, so i said one of them pulled her off me. I always knew it was Ringo and decided to just tell everything that happened and not worry about his mum being dead. She shouldn't go around strangling kids if she doesn't want to be talked about. I would do the same even if she was still alive.
2. b) Regarding: Gut6string1 August 2016 at 09:18 [...] I note in Stephens written testimony he doesn't know who rescued him from Faul's mother's attack. In the verbal testimony he's clear it was Richard, a glaring discrepancy which seems unlikely to me. Even if memory is off, I'd expect consistency. [Grammar points corrected.]
Answer: He remembered specifically who pulled her off, a few weeks before the broadcast. He had been so shocked for years and remembering the shock of it, that who pulled her off was not foremost in his mind. The testimony copies and DNA bags were already signed and in the mail.
Stephen has posted this in a group I run, today (August 2nd, 2016, in the a.m., North America time:
I wasn't sure whether to tell anyone about his mum trying to strangle me because i thought shes not her to defend herself and its quite a heavy thing to strangle a seven year old child in broad daylight. Its the only part of what happened to me that i was unsure about reveling. After i did tell about it i didn't want to make George and John out as bad people because Ringo was the one who helped. I didn't want people to think John and George would have just let her kill me, so i said one of them pulled her off me. I always knew it was Ringo and decided to just tell everything that happened and not worry about his mum being dead. She shouldn't go around strangling kids if she doesn't want to be talked about. I would do the same even if she was still alive.
3. The Beatles' visit *to Stephen* may have been to Irene, really. She
may have said she was not going to them and they buckled. Arranging
money for Irene as a possibility is covered in the testament, as is the
idea it was to shut him up that they stopped by, or some other reason.
They may well have have even been to shut Stephen up, or may have been
on a side trip to Irene and Stephen. In fact, the Beatles must have had legal or other business in England and/ or in Liverpool.
Either way on that, the Beatles would *not* have all convened on
Liverpool just to meet with a kid for 10 minutes. Since Irene did come
out at that point, when they came, and adults don't just drop by on kids
in these circumstances, she was likely expecting them and went inside
to finish what she was doing.
4. Irene (Stephen's mother) *did* tell Stephen that Paul died, after he figured it out from a clue (thought it was true, from a clue). She half lied to John Lennon, when he arrived, saying, "I didn't tell him, John." She did not *originally* tell him, but yes, she did tell him; it is a defensive word choice for her to use.
5. Stephen's self perception and Dr Fetzer's perception are likely true only up to a point, about why the Beatles were there: they would have been there for Irene and/or Stephen, on a specific day and time, but to be in England (and Liverpool), the four together must have had other business in the country and/or the city, if/when they visited (until you decide they visited).
4. Irene (Stephen's mother) *did* tell Stephen that Paul died, after he figured it out from a clue (thought it was true, from a clue). She half lied to John Lennon, when he arrived, saying, "I didn't tell him, John." She did not *originally* tell him, but yes, she did tell him; it is a defensive word choice for her to use.
5. Stephen's self perception and Dr Fetzer's perception are likely true only up to a point, about why the Beatles were there: they would have been there for Irene and/or Stephen, on a specific day and time, but to be in England (and Liverpool), the four together must have had other business in the country and/or the city, if/when they visited (until you decide they visited).
6. Stephen's birth month was July (10th), 1967, and the typical death
dates proposed for Paul are 1966 in November (inaccurate, by several
lines of evidence, but often repeated) or September (much more likely,
despite a cover-up of events at the Melody Maker awards, which may not
have had a party at all, or not on the date later claimed). For those
not familiar with these issues, the issue around the birth is this: if
you doubt that Paul could have survived September 13 (Tuesday), then
Stephen was the result of a long pregnancy. But for those who realize
that even nine (9) month pregnancies actually are longer: 40 weeks on
average (more than 9 months), 280 days from last menstruation (when that
is known, since women sometimes did not and do not know they are
pregnant, when there is spotting). You can actually ovulate after the
sex which later makes you pregnant.
Also, some doctors discount what women say, hence they can throw the
statistics off. And pregnancy is rarely able to be counted from the sex,
or even the implantation of the embryo. Plus, women were induced
(forced) into labour almost never in those days, and women's menstrual
period can be spotty after pregnancies, so they can be confused, and
older women's implantation dates can vary quite a bit more often than
younger women, and reach up to one week. Thus, not only does Stephen's
birth remain a possibility as an "outside possibility" with a death for
Paul in September, but actually, a careful understanding of the
statistics on birth times and mistakes in the data or the way it is
represented, also can have contributed to the idea that "nine months" is
so much a "norm", makes it even more of a possibility. Of course it is a
higher number of pregnancies at 9 months, but 10-to-10 1/2 months may
have been technically speaking (from actual sex) a bit more common than
we thought, and always anyway does remain a possibility, no matter what.
7. Stephen's neighbour told him there was a day when the Liverpool newspapers didn't come. He had asked about John Lennon's line in "A Day in the Life" song (Sergeant Pepper album, mid-1967), saying "newspapers didn't come". He moved from his original home, shortly after, in Spring-Summer 1975. This is in the testament.
8. Irene died of a very fast acting cancer, mestastized from bowel or (as he was told) from lungs, but settling in bowel. This is in the testimony.
9. Given that the Liverpool Oratorio has no normal sense to it except a tiny love story, yet was supposed to be "autobiographical" for the replacement as Paul McCartney (a slide about this is in the broadcast and below), it is worth noting that the book seemingly by the replacement, the book named "Memoirs of Billy Shears" (2009) references a Dickinson woman linked to Paul McCartney and telling his story. The book has "encoding" (word games for hidden messages) and ghostwriting by "Thomas E. Uharriet", has a special "new" song from (supposedly) the replacement. It is mentioned as a "song writing contest", for people to have extra "fun" writing tunes for the songs. The song lyrics are at a separate place, on line. One of those is about Emily (meaning Irene Mottram Dickinson?) *Dickinson* linked to dead Paul. "This makes little sense, given that the Dickinson woman is named as the American 19th-century poet of love and death (that being the only other interpretation). The author (who is in the group where the post is), has lauded the find and said, "I had no idea why there is a song about Dickinson in a book about Paul & William. It seemed kind of odd to me; but the insights above seem to explain it. I did not know any of that interesting background. It's funny how often the book provides the missing puzzle pieces that I know nothing about. I am more of an encoder of information handed to me than a researcher," and, a little while later, "Likewise, in all of my other books, it is not my own brilliant material, but is my re-shaping of it--such as presenting ancient ideas on haiku." A post on this on Facebook is from this morning, August 2nd, 2016, at https://www.facebook.com/groups/paulisdeadworkgroup/permalink/1631799973777347
7. Stephen's neighbour told him there was a day when the Liverpool newspapers didn't come. He had asked about John Lennon's line in "A Day in the Life" song (Sergeant Pepper album, mid-1967), saying "newspapers didn't come". He moved from his original home, shortly after, in Spring-Summer 1975. This is in the testament.
8. Irene died of a very fast acting cancer, mestastized from bowel or (as he was told) from lungs, but settling in bowel. This is in the testimony.
9. Given that the Liverpool Oratorio has no normal sense to it except a tiny love story, yet was supposed to be "autobiographical" for the replacement as Paul McCartney (a slide about this is in the broadcast and below), it is worth noting that the book seemingly by the replacement, the book named "Memoirs of Billy Shears" (2009) references a Dickinson woman linked to Paul McCartney and telling his story. The book has "encoding" (word games for hidden messages) and ghostwriting by "Thomas E. Uharriet", has a special "new" song from (supposedly) the replacement. It is mentioned as a "song writing contest", for people to have extra "fun" writing tunes for the songs. The song lyrics are at a separate place, on line. One of those is about Emily (meaning Irene Mottram Dickinson?) *Dickinson* linked to dead Paul. "This makes little sense, given that the Dickinson woman is named as the American 19th-century poet of love and death (that being the only other interpretation). The author (who is in the group where the post is), has lauded the find and said, "I had no idea why there is a song about Dickinson in a book about Paul & William. It seemed kind of odd to me; but the insights above seem to explain it. I did not know any of that interesting background. It's funny how often the book provides the missing puzzle pieces that I know nothing about. I am more of an encoder of information handed to me than a researcher," and, a little while later, "Likewise, in all of my other books, it is not my own brilliant material, but is my re-shaping of it--such as presenting ancient ideas on haiku." A post on this on Facebook is from this morning, August 2nd, 2016, at https://www.facebook.com/groups/paulisdeadworkgroup/permalink/1631799973777347
10. Stephen's language about the murder idea, which he recounted in the broadcast as adult language and said so, was in the formal testimony in the original kid (childhood) language: "Was it God [natural death] or the Meanies [killers, as in, the bad characters in Yellow Submarine Beatles film, 1968]".
11. Maybe it is not Irene Mottram Dickinson, Stephen's mother, in the movie Magical Mystery Tour Beatles film, 1967. But if Irene, Stephen's mother, was on set during, it also does not mean the baby she held was Stephen (since the baby looks like a strong 4 months or older). She could have left Stephen at home for a busy film set, or Stephen could be wrong that it was she, or he could have been a *very* strong, long-term pregnancy child, at 2 1/2 months of age and able like a 3 1/2 month old child though I doubt it personally.
12. Moreover, the idea that the Beatles wouldn't have come to see here -- which they could have -- the house they lived was only 3-4 houses from the end of the street, not attracting much attention from neighbours who might mostly have been working (and if they were seen, so would they have had too much trouble, if Irene had refused to come to see *them* instead? No. Only John would have a problem in denying he was in the area, but if he was protected enough to come to England at the time, local knowledge of his visit could have been smoothed over. Nothing eliminates Stephen's statements nor exactly proves them, except internal consistencies and earnestness at this point.
13. Stephen did not "forget" who pulled the mother of the replacement away, but rather that he held back the information, which was unwise. He was advised by me and others to tell *all* that he remembered; a belief that because some would not believe him anyway, it would not matter, but then to tell later in the broadcast only increases some people's doubts, yet here is the answer: he was concerned (and always has expressed to me) that he did not want to harm people's reputations more than need be in his coming forward, and this affected his wanting to say who pulled the woman off. So we may note for all people (and for witnesses especially), this exchange this morning, August 2nd, 2016 Post link is at https://www.facebook.com/groups/paulisdeadworkgroup/permalink/1631664420457569 ) :
Stephen Dickinson: I wasn't sure whether to tell anyone about his mum trying to strangle me because i thought shes not her to defend herself and its quite a heavy thing to strangle a seven year old child in broad daylight. Its the only part of what happened to me that i was unsure about reveling. After i did tell about it i didn't want to make George and John out as bad people because Ringo was the one who helped. I didn't want people to think John and George would have just let her kill me, so i said one of them pulled her off me. I always knew it was Ringo and decided to just tell everything that happened and not worry about his mum being dead. She shouldn't go around strangling kids if she doesn't want to be talked about. I would do the same even if she was still alive.
Clare Kuehn: Stephen Dickinson -- remember I said SAY EVERYTHING you remember. This is why. People now doubt you could have the damned memory because how could you forget who pulled her off. This was unwise and though you were always saying you were embarrassed for her -- that is not a witness' job.
14. The fact the Liverpool newspapers did not come one day, mentioned in the testament, is not only coming from the next door neighbour of Stephen as it is in the testament. Post link is at https://www.facebook.com/groups/paulisdeadworkgroup/permalink/1632616167029061
Robert Shortz: They're
alluding to the lines in "Lady Madonna" [by Paul's replacement, 1969,
Let It Be album] that go "Tuesday afternoon is never ending [/] Wednesday morning papers didn't come". It seems to have been a real event.
Clare Kuehn: In Liverpool.There were only 2 [newspapers] at the time (they've now merged).
Stephen Dickinson: The
news went out it was very early Wednesday morning, it was to late to
change the front page and write an article to report it but they managed
to do it. They changed the front of the Liverpool Morning Post and Echo
and quickly put an article together.
After all their rushing around they were informed that it was a mistake
or their had been a crash but he was unharmed. They were stuck with a
copy they couldn't put out with no time to change it, hence that
Wednesday morning nobody got their newspaper. :) Peace For Paul [...] I asked quite a few neighbors Clare, they nearly all remembered this. :)
0. PART 2 OF 2: GENERAL OBJECTIONS FROM IGNORANCE AND PARTIAL KNOWLEDGE:
MUSIC / VOICE:
Music as an issue people wonder about (or don't wonder enough), from an exchange on Youtube recently:
The mish mash at 1967, and some maturity over time, were mixed in people's minds as "great" but the electricity of love and feeling are gone. Anyway, Paul died.
SaxFreak01: Drivel. You're obviously not a musician, and certainly not a bass player. The way a musician plays their instrument is as unique as a fingerprint. Melodic/harmonic language, tone etc. Listen to any of McCartney's recorded bass parts from 1962 to the current date - it's clearly the same guy on all the recordings.
Clare
Kuehn: No,
it clearly -- IF you know what to separate out -- is not, but "clearly"
is after you know more: informed common sense not your hopes and the
confusions they made you hear. -------- Yes, voice analysis was done by
Dr Henry Truby, of Florida State University, USA, in 1970, and he found 3
different voices. He didn't say if he counted
doctoring in his factors and he never published his methods, plus he
shut up about it quickly. More material is available now but some old
songs were sped
up, etc., and voice harmonics (prints) are only court admissible from
spoken word. -- I have been a musician, though not professionally. On
the other hand, there are many bassists and singers who can tell the
difference, talk of the alterations, and who do not understand why
people like you are so enamoured of the bells and whistles and mish-mash
(and lack of emotional electricity, love, whatever you want to call it)
in the later albums in many places.
SaxFreak01: And
there are a number of reasons why The Beatles'music changed as the '60s
wore on. a) Their growing maturity as songwriters and musicians
(starting well before McCartney is supposed to have "died" - in fact
evident from 1965 onwards). b) the ever-changing, turbulent times that
they were living through, ie. the 1960s, which the Beatles both
reflected in their music and in some ways even helped to instigate. c)
DRUGS. Lots and lots and lots of drugs.
Clare Kuehn: And those reasons are insufficient, Sax. I already mentioned them. They are insufficient: like sand in a DNA test. They're there, they contribute to findings, but they interfere with the point. [Other groups were not in the same position, exactly, when they lost a member: the connection between John and Paul and the intensity of Beatlemania socially and economically was unique.] Do you seriously not understand that if (when) Paul died, there would be disaster emotionally, musically, and you can learn where to tell? You say "drivel", sure, because you don't want to conceive what's being written, and that happens to anyone at times. Your big worry is the music. The music is different and you have to look at where it is, and specific areas of difference, and then move on to other issues; heck, even if they had used all old Paul songs with Paul singing, the man would still be different. So you have to widen your search, if you cannot get one area to work for a side of a case. Go through this in full, before you make up your mind -- like a jury member.
Clare Kuehn: And those reasons are insufficient, Sax. I already mentioned them. They are insufficient: like sand in a DNA test. They're there, they contribute to findings, but they interfere with the point. [Other groups were not in the same position, exactly, when they lost a member: the connection between John and Paul and the intensity of Beatlemania socially and economically was unique.] Do you seriously not understand that if (when) Paul died, there would be disaster emotionally, musically, and you can learn where to tell? You say "drivel", sure, because you don't want to conceive what's being written, and that happens to anyone at times. Your big worry is the music. The music is different and you have to look at where it is, and specific areas of difference, and then move on to other issues; heck, even if they had used all old Paul songs with Paul singing, the man would still be different. So you have to widen your search, if you cannot get one area to work for a side of a case. Go through this in full, before you make up your mind -- like a jury member.
PEOPLE TALKED (JUST NOT IN EASY, OFFICIAL WAYS -- and this is normal in conspiracy cases):
Taken mostly as verbal "jokes", or, when in artforms, taken as "just art", people have spoken, to relieve their consciences; other times, they lied or played on the name "Paul", that "he" didn't die because "he" (the replacement renamed Paul) lived.
THE FAMILY OF PAUL HIMSELF KNEW, AND OTHER WIVES AND SOME FRIENDS KNEW AND APPROVED:
Mourning privately, not telling everyone, overwhelmed by others' decisions and the huge cachet (power) of Beatles legacy and career and maybe with the odd threat, explain the closer persons' participation. For others, knowing at a distance, focus on their own lives, not having exact evidence, knowing that this was too big to bother to speak of directly to the public, explains the circles of people in the know. (This is normal in big or little conspiracies, deceptions by two or more persons, and crimes, at all levels -- not just political ones, which this one really is ... a socio-political issue.) With no police listening, the normal avenues for justice break down; this happens in lower (ordinary) crime cases at times, too.
Now, on to the evidence materials themselves:
1. THE BROADCAST:
The broadcast itself ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvtIGhh7gxI ):
2. THE SONG BY LENNON
The song of John Lennon, dedicated to Paul, a late or last song, with the lines (at 2:26 to 2:44) "I want it out eternally / I know they [the public] turn to me" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yYRWnzKow8 ).
Two helpful, reminder slides follow:
In case that Youtube file of the song gets removed for any reason, here is an uploaded file:
______________________________________________________________________
3. WRITTEN TESTAMENTS:
Only one testament of 3 is presently published to this blogsite. Two more will be up soon.
1)
STEPHEN'S TESTAMENT, redacted for privacy.
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 1 of 12.
AFFIDAVIT TESTAMENT OF STEPHEN JOHN DICKINSON
Signed on the (spell out) ____________________ day of the month of _________________ ,
in the year ___________ , at the city of ______________________________ , in the region/
province/state/county ________________________________ , in the country of
______________________________________ .
My name is Stephen John Dickinson. I was born on the 10th of July, 1967, in Liverpool, England. The address where I lived until just before my eighth birthday and where the events I will describe took place, was 7 Ettington Road, Liverpool, England.
My mother’s birth name was Irene M. Mottram, born on the 13th of October, 1932, in Sefton Park, at Sefton Park General Hospital, Smithdown Road. My father’s name was James Paul McCartney, the “Beatle,” born on the 18th of June, 1942. I was conceived just before he died in 1966. After my father’s death my mother met a man named George John Dickinson and married him. She didn't tell me who my biological Father was until just after my seventh birthday. For a long time, I thought it was when I was six. I gauged it by her death, the year of which I didn't know until recently. It was the birthday before she died. Anyway, when I turned seven, she told me James Paul McCartney was my father. I remember George Dickinson had originally found my mother wandering around the streets of Liverpool, alone and upset like she was in a state of shock from some terrible experience. I believe this was in late 1966, when she was pregnant with me. He took care of her and became close to her and they soon married, even though he knew he was not the father of her child. They later had another boy, [name withheld from public copy ---] Dickinson, who is my half brother. George was very good to me in many ways and years later, I quit my business and nursed him when he was dying of lung cancer in Liverpool, England.
Even at a young age, when I was only seven years old, coming from Liverpool, I knew who James Paul McCartney was. I was surprised by what my mother had told me and at first thought she was joking with me. After a short exchange of words, which started with me expressing my disbelief and ended with my mother stating in no uncertain terms that J. Paul was my father and it was important that I knew it, I asked her how she knew him and how they had met. My mother told me that she had worked in and managed a typing pool – maybe as an executive secretary – opposite Brian Epstein’s office in the NEMS (North End Music Stores) building. I believe this was in the Whitechapel area of Liverpool town. She went on to say that Paul used to come and see her on her dinner break. They both had a keen interest in music. My mum’s interest was in classical, mostly, going by her record collection. She said Paul also was interested in classical music. According to Mum, they became friends first and, later on, their friendship led to my conception. She also said she waited to have me.
After Mum told me this, I must have looked at her in a way that made her exclaim, “I never threw myself at him, Stephen.” I know my mother was a proper, virtuous woman and didn’t
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 2 of 12.
take having relations with a man outside of marriage lightly. George Dickinson was not home when our first conversation happened and she broke off the discussion when he arrived.
My mum and Paul were very close and spent much time together. She usually called him “Jamie,” instead of Paul. I know other people have told me that Paul was not called Jamie, but I guess it was an unusual or love term, or it was actually used by his friends sometimes. She told me she was 100% sure Paul was my dad and was always adamant when I asked about it. As I got used to the idea over the following couple of months, it became something I was curious about.
After my mother met Paul, he took her to a grand hotel in Vienna, Austria. I have a memory of Mum saying Paul took her to Vienna. She also showed me a picture of her looking out from a very fancy balcony at the fancy hotel where they stayed and I assume the person taking the picture was Paul, because she said she was there with him. She was on that balcony and it was overlooking water. I now know the Beatles were in Innsbruck, Austria for the filming of “Help!” in 1965, and never did a public concert in Austria, but they did do a small concert during the filming of “Help!” in Innsbruck. I don’t know if that was around the time she met him, or if she was seeing him already. I don't know if she went to Austria around the time of the filming, arriving before, during, or after – if she did go around then. I don’t know when the photo was taken, or when their friendship and romance started. She never mentioned if they were secretly married at some point, but I sometimes thought about it. That trip almost seemed like a secret honeymoon to me, but she never said that. I know that my mum was older than Paul. He used to call her his older woman, according to my mum. He had lost his mother and my mum was a local woman and good looking. She was interested in his interests and would have been a friend first, as she said to me.
I also know that if he died in September, it was a long pregnancy for me and October or November would work more easily. I have since learned that births weren’t forced (induced) as often, back then. Some people say it was never done, except for C (Caesarian) Sections in emergencies. Second, some women would not have known when they got pregnant. Third, even more would not be believed sometimes. (More prejudice to listening to women happened then, I think). Fourth, there were no early pregnancy tests. So, though I am not sure of when my dad died, statistics of there being extremely few 10-10 ½ month babies could be off. Obviously, 9 months is the norm, but it may not be quite as high a norm as we think. Fifth, it turns out that pregnancy is counted usually from date of implantation of the embryo and the older a woman is, the longer it can be, up to a week. Sixth, a period can be miscounted. So … it’s not impossible I was born about 10 months or just a bit more than that, from September 11 or so. I have believed my father died in November and I still think it, as I will say again later, but I am aware many others do not. I got the November 9 date from the US rumour from 1969. It may be wrong, for many reasons. If I was conceived in September, it is likely that I was conceived right around the time he died, maybe in the same trip to Liverpool, if he was killed there. I know it seems odd, but I will not likely know.
I never owned any photographs of my mum with my father, because I was so young when she died in 1975. I do know that George Dickinson had taken photographs of Mum, me, and other people, starting from when he met her. The only one that I have now is one of him and her,
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 3 of 12.
when she was pregnant with their son, [---]. She doesn't look her best in it, but she was stunning in the pictures I remember of her when she was younger. George later claimed that he had lost the photos of the family, so I have only my memories to rely on. I don't know if we had photos of Paul and Mum.
After learning that my real father had died, I told a few of my friends that Paul was dead. To my surprise, one of my friends, Kevin, already knew. I was on my front step and said to him, “Paul’s dead, you know.” He said, “I know, Dicko.” That was my nickname. Though he may have been brushing me off, his comment made me think Mum must have had friends who knew, and they told their kids. I think that Paul's death may have been well known in some circles in Liverpool. Later, the same boy witnessed my meeting with the Beatles. I don't remember his last name, unfortunately.
I figured that Paul was dead by myself and my mum confirmed it. Something must have given me the general idea at first. I think I remember hearing something about it and the clues about it on the radio as well, but I’m not 100% sure on that. I remember playing the “Blue Album” that George had bought for me. It was the only Beatles album from after 1966 that I had. When I played the song “Strawberry Fields”, something strange, not music, was at the end of the song. It sounded like someone talking slowed down, so I turned the player from 33 rpm to 45 rpm, not backward. When you do this, you hear John Lennon say in real time, “I buried Paul.” I felt sure of the ending to “Strawberry Fields” and on finding it, I remember proclaiming from the front room, "Oh no! He's dead!" Kids sometimes are very emotional and this was my feeling. George rushed in from the kitchen and said, “Who’s dead, son?” I remember saying, “Oh, nobody,” but then telling him that Paul McCartney was dead. I can’t remember George’s exact reaction to this, but he did not deny it. After I realized Paul was dead, from what I was sure I heard, I asked Mum when George was not around. She told me Paul had died. I remember doubting her a bit and saying, “Paul wasn't really my father, was he, Mum?” and her getting upset and saying, “Paul was your father, Stephen.” As I will tell in a moment, I do remember Mum saying to John Lennon, "I never told him, John." I’d found the statement by John Lennon in “Strawberry Fields”, so in a way, my mum told the truth: she had only confirmed what I’d already figured out. I was quite a clever kid. That’s why Ringo called me a “little Jeremy”. John must have asked my mum not to tell me Paul died. I believe he – and any others originally in the know – swore to the Official Secrets Act. I know I would have asked, “What happens if I don't lie?” With other suspicious deaths, probable bribery, threats and, what's most important, basic loyalty and having no direct evidence; there, you have the coverup. The name “McCartney” would have been a superficial legal change, though the thrust is terribly illegal and deeply immoral, no matter for what reasons the Beatles agreed to it.
All the main parts of my testament’s events happened in a short time. There was Mum telling me who my father was, me finding out he was dead, the Beatles visit and then Mum's dying. The next thing, the Beatles' visit, will sound strange to some people, but I remember it as well as can be. It was a surprise to me, but now I’m thinking it was not a surprise to my mum.
In 1975, or thereabouts, when I was seven going on eight years old, I was by myself, playing marbles in front of my house. I was approached outside my home by John Lennon, George Harrison, Richard Starkey (Ringo) and by the man who replaced my father in the public eye
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 4 of 12.
and his mother. I was told it was his mother. They all came walking up as if they had got out of a car somewhere down the street. I remember John had a sheepskin waist coat on. I remember George having a longer coat above the knees, but still long. It’s a bit vague, but I think Ringo was in a two piece suit, with a shirt with a collar and maybe a tie. The man who was supposed to be Paul had a two piece suit with a crew neck t-shirt. I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, I think. I must have had a coat on, but if I did, I don't remember it. The neighbourhood street was quiet and deserted. My mother had come to the front door as soon as they approached me. She stood on the top step of the house and said, "I never told him, John!" and then walked back in. She must have been getting ready, expecting them to follow her in.
The Paul replacement’s mum was giving me a bad look from the second they walked up to me, a look that made me feel uncomfortable. She was wearing a long dress and a headscarf, with her greying hair tied back. She had a severe, pinched look, a sort of long face and left a real impression on me. She was not wearing makeup and looked like an angry Scotswoman. The dress was of a dark colour. She never said a word. From the second they walked up to me, the replacement's mum looked at me with a hard look. She was intimidating, but I had a lot of bravado as a child and she lost her temper with me. Some people think Nancy Cooke de Herrera, who was with the Beatles in 1968, in India, was the replacement's mother. That would mean the replacement was with his mum and the Beatles in India in 1968. Cooke de Herrera certainly looks like the mum, both having thin faces, but the woman I met came across as the type who wouldn't wear makeup: a very religious, proper woman, stern and hard as nails. Think of a gritty Scot. I’ve always thought John's 1968 song “Bungalow Bill” was about the replacement for my father, who seems to be named Bill something. So the idea might have been not only of de Herrera’s safari with her son Richard Cooke in India, while the Beatles were there, but the replacement’s mother also might have been on John’s mind. There is the line, “In case of accidents, he always took his Ma.” I was looking up the lyrics to that song only a few days ago and I’m sure the song says, "Hey bungalow Bill, who did ya kill? Was it yer gil?" “Your girl” in Scouse (Liverpudlian accent) is “Yer gil.” But when you Google the lyrics on every site, there's no sign of the words “Was it yer gil?” I think it means that John wrote the song to expose the replacement and his murderous ways, or his mother’s too, not just the Cookes' safari. If so, it was about the replacement and his mum killing someone, but probably not my father. The new man had a different nature than Paul, anyway. People aren't really fooled, I think; the certain something the others had in abundance isn't there in him. Something was missing in the new man, not just drug induced or aged in Paul.
I asked John Lennon who the woman was, saying, “Who’s she?” He nodded toward the replacement and said, “His mum.” I didn’t recognize Paul in him and knew Paul had died. The replacement and his mum never said a word to me. I looked at each of them and turned to John Lennon. I was mainly focused on John. He was wearing his glasses. You could hardly make out John’s eyes beneath those glasses. I said, “Where’s Paul?” I had already figured out in a kid’s way and been told by my mum afterward that Paul had died, but I wanted the Beatles to know that I knew what had happened. I said, “Where’s Paul?” to let them know I knew and to get them to tell me what had happened to Paul.
I knew the replacement was standing trying to look like Paul. I looked through him, didn’t give
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 5 of 12.
him acknowledgment and said I wanted to know where Paul was, by turning to John and saying, “Where’s Paul?” This made John and George smile, and Ringo laughed. The replacement rolled his eyes and his mum’s stare became more intense. I knew this man was pretending to be Paul, but I wanted to know what had happened, so the first words out my mouth were, “Where’s Paul.” I suppose I was hoping John would explain. That didn't happen. (Things just deteriorated to the point where the replacement’s mum tried to strangle me – and she wasn't messing around. Something hit her emotions and she went for me, as I will tell in a moment. If the others hadn’t been there, I felt then that I would be dead now.) I remember peering into John’s eyes as he said, “We’re letting it be, Dicko,” my nickname, and rolled his eyes towards the man who had replaced my father. I never thought about how he knew my nickname. I guess John not only knew my mum from before, but knew my nickname. Other things about my experiences may mean my mum was in touch with the Beatles and they were visiting for her, really, and not for me. When John said, “We’re letting it be, Dicko,” my nickname, and rolled his eyes towards the man who had replaced my father, he even seemed to be emphasizing “it”, as if the word referred to the replacement too, not just the situation. I replied, “You can’t just let it be! You'll never get away with it." John looked at me and said, "We already have."
A few more words were exchanged between us. I was a kid, so in spite of the seriousness of the Paul topic which came up, I asked them what meeting the Queen was like and made fun of Ringo a bit. I even told Ringo that he would be the last Beatle. I don’t know why I said that. This resulted in Ringo's turning to the others and saying, “He’s another little Jeremy." I don’t know what that means. Ringo liked messing with language, so maybe it meant a perceptive joker like “Jamie”, as in James Paul McCartney, or I misheard for “Jamie”. In the time we were talking, my friend Kevin walked up and stood by my side. My not accepting her son as Paul upset the replacement's mother and resulted in her grabbing me very intensely around the neck. I actually feared she would kill me. One of the other adults (I don’t remember who) intervened and pulled her off me. After the replacement's mum attacked me, Kevin ran off and I don't remember speaking with him after that. Right after Mum’s death, we moved two miles away, to Newsham Drive.
A few more words were exchanged and I told the lady outside that she was crazy. After that, the adults started to walk away, towards the end of the road. Maybe they were as ruffled by the events as I was, so they left maybe more quickly than planned. As they were walking away, I shouted after them a final try. I said, basically, “Was Paul’s death an accident or murder?” My actual words were quick and a child’s. I asked about Paul this way: “Paul ... was it God or the Meanies?” I wasn’t asking the replacement the question and calling him Paul. I just started my last quick question with the topic I was heading for. “Meanies” was a reference to the bad guys in the animated Beatles film, “Yellow Submarine”, from 1968, where the mean people were called the “Blue Meanies”. George Harrison turned around, lifted his finger, as if to suggest they had heard enough from me and replied, “We have our suspicions.”
I don’t know for sure that Paul was murdered. Yes, I was young and people have every right to ask me anything they feel about how “strange” it would be that a kid would wonder if there is murder. I’m not offended. I knew I would have to face questioning. It’s only natural. You can’t just make a claim like what I have and expect everyone to take it at face value. But I got
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 6 of 12.
the point then and I know now that his death was never investigated or revealed, which makes me wonder. As a child, I did too, so I asked. “Bad guys”, or “Meanies” occurred to me. That’s all. Kids aren’t dumb. I don’t conclude something for sure, without being told something is true, but that’s not what was happening here. I asked and George answered, impulsively. I was a very clever, outgoing child. Some may find what I say to be hard to believe, but I can only say what happened to me. It has stuck with me. I would love to know what happened. Sometimes I feel strongly it was murder. Also, I don't remember my mum saying anything about that visit. I think she was upset by everything that had happened.
This visit from the Beatles was probably intended for my mother and interrupted by the replacement’s mother’s reaction to me, as I said. Not long after (a couple of weeks), I came home from school and my mother wasn’t there. When I asked George Dickinson where she was, he said she was in hospital – supposedly with lung cancer. The fact that George Dickinson suddenly said my mum was in hospital has always seemed very strange to me, because I remember her doing everything a housewife did: making the dinner, washing the clothes and keeping a clean house. She seemed fine, no cough. It was incomprehensible in any normal way, to come home from school one day only a few weeks after the Beatles’ visit, to find that she was in the hospital and then dead only two to three weeks after that, supposedly of lung cancer. She wasn’t a smoker, had no signs of being sick at all and died so quickly after being admitted. Yes, again I was young and did not put it all into words. But the basic timing and experience were what they were. Along with my grief, it did begin to give me some suspicions. Only three weeks after she went into hospital, I came home from school and George John Dickinson had my younger half brother [---] Dickinson on his lap. George was crying. I asked him what was wrong and he replied, “Your mum’s dead, Stephen.” I was told my mother had died of lung cancer and wondered why she hadn’t asked for me. I asked George and he said, “She did ask for you son, but she was too ill for you too see her." I had so many questions for her. I feel like she was snatched away because of that meeting with John, the imposter “Paul” who some people call “Faul” (meaning “False Paul”), and the group, along with “Faul’s” mother. I also know my mum would have asked for me. George even told me she did, but he had made the decision not to take me, because she was too sick. I always resented that. My mother died on the 23rd of April, 1975. I don't remember the funeral. Maybe George sent me to his mum's. She is buried in Anfield cemetery, in the family plot. I didn't visit until recently, partly because life went on, it had been a traumatic event I avoided and I didn't know her death date exactly, to look her up.
The strange visit described above occurred not long before her death, so I estimate it was February or March, 1975, based on her death and the clothing they were wearing. The doctor who treated my mother, her local GP, was Dr Ian Bogle. Later he became head of the BMA at BMA House, on Tavistock Square, London. (Charles Dickens’ former home, called Tavistock House, was demolished in 1901, but the area is honouring his house.) Whether the BMA location is linked to, or the same as, the Tavistock Institute, I am not sure. I have read about Tavistock Institute and the propaganda role they have played in our music and culture. This and the fact that my mother seemed perfectly well leading up to her hospitalisation, plus the timing of the visit and her rapid death, have made me even more suspicious about her death. I have always felt that the trouble I had with my father’s replacement and his mother at the meeting led to my mother’s death. When I said that I had caused her death, George replied,
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 7 of 12.
“Don’t be silly, son.”
I never had any material proof of my mother’s relationship to James Paul McCartney, since no photos or keepsakes from him were passed on to me, and I was too young and upset when she died, to think about asking about them or looking for them. I did have her record albums, and they may have been material proof, maybe. They were all classical albums, except for three Beatles albums: “A Hard Day’s Night”, “Help!” and “Rubber Soul”, which makes sense if she knew him around that period, from about 1965-1966 at least. Sadly, in 1995, years after I was a kid, when I had an argument with the mother of my two youngest children, she destroyed my albums in a rage after I had gone out for a bit. Losing my vinyl broke my heart. When I realized what she had done, I sank to my knees and sobbed. I threw the damaged albums out, never thinking to look for a hand written note or card from my father, which may have been slipped into their sleeves. That’s how upset I was.
Not long after my mother died, I overheard George Dickinson and other family members arguing. I heard one of them say, “You don’t have to have him, George,” meaning to keep me. On hearing this, I started to walk away from my home, but by the time I had reached the end of the short road I lived on, George ran after me, asking what I was doing. I told him I didn’t want to be with them either, but George insisted I go home with him. He knew he wasn’t my biological father, but I don’t think he knew that James Paul McCartney was. I asked him about it before he died on the 28th of July, 2014. He said, “I knew you were not my son, but I didn’t know whose son you were.” I don’t know whether to believe that. I've thought about this issue a lot, since I always felt I knew my mother was telling the truth about Paul’s death. I saw that someone else, the other “Paul” person I had met, had taken my father’s place in the mass media. History was changed, not only about music, but about intelligence service activity.
I don’t know if we received some small money from the Beatles for me over time – from my birth, or forward from the visit. I also don’t know if there were phone calls from the Beatles to my home, after the visit I had. I didn’t have much time to find out anything and I didn’t think about asking, because I was young and overwhelmed. There was an illegitimate son of Paul McCartney in Liverpool, named Philip Cochrane, according to his mother Anita. Anita got some small payment, she said. Erika Hubers also got some. She was a German who had a daughter named Bettina. Bettina has become famous, because without knowing or saying that Paul died, she challenged the DNA findings of the German paternity court, twice. Her mother and she not only got money from court despite the DNA findings -- because it was the replacement’s DNA used, I believe -- but also got Epstein payments in the 1960s. This is not usually known, but it is the testimony of Peter Brown, with helping author Steven Gaines, in Brown's book “The Love You Make” (2002). Another mother from Liverpool, named Alice Doyle, also got money from Epstein. Her son was Mark Paul Doyle, according to the same book. Hubers and Doyle are discussed in chapter 5.
Here is a post summarizing the Bettina case, but I have added short comments using “SJD” to show and remind people which “McCartney” we are actually talking about in the summary:
Post by “stavros” [sic], the 25th of March, 2014, at 5:49 p.m.
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 8 of 12.
This was a big story back in the 1980s and I'd all but forgotten about it until stumbling upon it again by accident.
This paternity case against Paul seemingly dragged on into the 21st century and is one of those slightly uncomfortable and stranger parts of Beatle history.
Bettina was born in December [SJD: ,] 1962. Her mother Erika claimed McCartney asked her to abort the baby and sought alimony at the time. McCartney denied the accusations and also that he was the baby's father. But he did pay her a sum of money. [SJD: Let us say also that Paul could deny it or could be sure it wasn't his and still pay something, though that’s unlikely. It is not my main point here, anyway.]
In 1966 the Beatles were about to embark on a European tour. McCartney was informed by the German courts that a matter of maintenance had to be settled [SJD: with Bettina's mother,] before he set foot in Germany. Lawsuits continued until Bettina turned 18. In 1983, she and her mother went to court yet again to ask for maintenance payments.
[SJD: The replacement for] McCartney apparently took a blood test that came back negative. But for some reason, the courts rejected the results and made him pay maintenance anyway. Four years later, working in Berlin as a hairdresser, Bettina lost her court cases on [SJD: the replacement's] appeal and was liable to pay legal costs of £60,000. [SJD: The replacement for] McCartney’s lawyer advised [SJD: him, as] Paul to pay it so as not to bankrupt Hubers [SJD: maybe to quell the story].
The story did not go away but was kept well under the radar here in the UK (unlike the Heather Mills divorce).
[SJD: Whether or not Bettina was the illegitimate daughter of McCartney himself, the following happened:]
In 2007 [SJD: Bettina] Hubers claimed that [SJD: that the] McCartney [SJD: in front of her had] sent a stand in to take the paternity test and wanted a new one conducted. She also claimed the signature was a false one in the original 1980s documents and was written by a right handed person. However [SJD: ,] after further investigations [SJD: or cover-up,] the case was dropped.
[SJD: Source of quotation, general thread: http://abbeyrd.proboards.com/thread/4904/paternity-paul-bettina-huberscase . For post in thread: http://abbeyrd.proboards.com/post/69693/thread . (For post only, drop "thread".)]
The DNA the replacement submitted did not match Bettina's DNA, whether she was Paul's daughter or not. I put this post about Bettina into my testament in order to give context about payments and the situation facing other likely Paul children. Again, I do not know if my family received money. Unlike me, the replacement, now knighted, must have received state help of different kinds, no matter how many tend to believe the hoax anyway. Plus, I've learned, Prime Minister Wilson used revenue and economic activity closely and generally related to
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 9 of 12.
the Beatles, to stave off devaluing the pound at all during 1964-1966. Devaluation began after my father's death, but the revenue still helped a lot. The hoax would likely go up to the royals. (Sources: https://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2014 /08/28/how-beatles-saved-uk-from-its-foreign-exchange-crisis-in-1960s-some-lessons-forind ia-too, based on article “Live music’s debut as a big export earner”, by Simon Willson, in “Sound Money” section of Finance & Development [the International Monetary Fund (IMF) journal], September 2014, Vol. 51, No. 3, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/picture.htm.)
After I heard “I buried Paul” and my mum said Paul had died, I wondered if there were other things in the songs that related to my father’s death. Around this time or a little after, a song lyric in “A Day In The Life” (1967) struck me. It said that “Wednesday morning papers didn’t come.” This led me to asking neighbours on my road, “Do you remember the morning the local paper didn’t come?” I was taking the lyric literally. Many people think the line is only an artistic way to say news media cover up things in general, or Paul’s death specifically, but what is interesting is that I got results by taking this lyric literally – for Liverpool.
Everyone had the papers delivered back then and some of the people I asked remembered this event, where there was a day when no one got their paper. One was Mrs Kirby. She lived next door to me at 5 Ettington Road. The publication is the Liverpool “Echo and Post”, the only newspaper in Liverpool. I find it interesting that because there was only one newspaper in Liverpool, it may have made it easier to superficially contain the news, if Paul died in or around Liverpool, maybe visiting family and my mum. To have no paper come, London had too many newspapers. That does not mean other major events cannot be contained, but it is easier if there is one newspaper. I believe the date is Wednesday the 9th of November, 1966, but I am not sure. It could be Wednesday the 14th of September, 1966, or even not really a Wednesday. Even after all these years, of course, I still don’t know the exact date of my father’s death, or his burial place. I have never been able to pay my respects to him.
George John Dickinson raised me and my half brother on his own. I had no one else. Most in Liverpool have some Irish heritage. There are a lot of “Mac”/“Mc” names here as well. George's own mum was a McNamara. She was the eldest of 11. I never married, but had two long term relationships. I had 4 children. With [---], we had my eldest child, [---], who has a daughter. My granddaughter is now eight years old. My next is [---], my only boy, who looks more like his mum’s dad than mine. With [---], I had [---] and my youngest daughter, [---]. All my children are brown eyed, like me, my mum and Paul.
My first “wife”’s mother was named [---], and she is in the photo of me as a young man which I have posted on Facebook. I call her my mother-in-law. I have also posted another photo of me around the same age, sitting on a bed, and photos of two daughters and a son. I am left handed and my four children and granddaughter are, too, just like Paul. I don’t know if left handedness is higher in some families genetically or not. I really see Paul’s looks in my eldest daughter, though it’s there in my other daughters too. It's less there in me, I feel. Some say that when I was younger I had a soft quality of face, manner and dark hair, all like Paul.
My mum’s family home, where I think she lived when she met Paul, was my granddad’s place until the year 2000. I never visited, but I asked George, “Where did Mum live?” George said, “A road off Pinehurst Road.” Pinehurst is close to Ettington Road, where everything happened. A little while back, I Googled “Dewsbury Road”, which is what Paul says in a
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 10 of 12.
strange statement put into “Magical Mystery Tour” film. I was confirming if Dewsbury Road was in Greater Manchester. (Dewsbury city is 30 miles away from Manchester.) The map result also showed a road off Priory Road, Liverpool. Priory almost joins to where Ettington is and joins to Dewsbury Road. Dewsbury joins to Pinehurst. So my mum’s family home in Liverpool was near Dewsbury, or on Dewsbury, all fairly close to me. I wasn't allowed to go far as a kid, across busy streets, so I didn't remember Dewsbury. I was not close with the Mottrams, but I remember meeting Mum's brothers. I saw a lot of one uncle, Uncle Ronnie. When I was orphaned, the Mottrams were mostly not around. George was pretty good to me, but I had a rough time with family life in my teens and moved on later. I helped George for about two years, when he was ill. I knew some of George’s family, but a lot of them moved away, some to Toronto, Canada, where George had lived for a while before I was born. He died back in Liverpool, UK, but we traveled to Toronto, while he was ill.
As time went by and I came across more later Beatles material, I noticed many references to my father’s death. There are well documented “clues” in the music, videos and album art. Other artists have made reference to my father’s death in their work. Over the years I have seen the man who replaced my father in the public eye and have wondered about the details of my father’s death. The fact that my father died in 1966 is more known now. I have searched for information lots of times. I read forums and blogs concerning this issue and saw comments saying, “If this is true, why haven’t his family spoken out?” Reading this made me think more about talking. I feel a responsibility to speak out about who my father was and that he was replaced in the public eye in 1966 by someone whose identity I still don’t know. At least one among my children said she believes me, but I really don’t know if that is true. Other people have heard me a few times over the years say I’m his son, but now is the time I’m really coming forward. Right now, my personal backup is my word: that I’m Paul’s son, that he died and that the Beatles thought it may have been murder. But I hope that it helps people to know that some family member is talking, daring to talk.
For a long time, I never thought this testimony would make much impact on anyone. I told some people and some believed me, some not. I lived my life as I could. I worked, had kids, helped George Dickinson. Then in 2014, he died in Liverpool, from cancer. As I said, I began to look more into this issue after that. I did think I would have some impact, when I was young. I’ve seen the world change so much that I’m not sure most people will care anymore about Paul's death. But I think maybe Paul’s legacy is being tarnished in some ways by the replacement and biographers, and so on. I know some of the people in the groups of PID (Paul is Dead) discussions care about my father, but does the world care? They care about the fun early 60s sometimes, but maybe not the secret. I’m a private person, quite shy as well. I’m a bit worried about getting too much attention. But, in for a penny, in for a pound: if it is out, maybe it will do some good. I’m rather excited.
It’s hard to decide to put this out. I did post sometimes in the last while on Tina Foster’s “Plastic Macca” Blog and on Facebook. Lately, I’ve been feeling that I should do more. On Facebook, I met people and was contacted by Clare Kuehn, who mentioned that if I’m really believing what I say, I should put it all down once and for all, in some formal way. She said if
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 11 of 12.
I’m not Paul’s son, I should at least tell what I remember of my experiences, which includes the Beatles' visit. I think the Beatles seem to have known my mum and believed I was possibly Paul’s son at least. I agreed I should put down my full recollections in a serious way. So I am putting things down here, fully and completely. She and some others helped me with grammar and spelling errors. They asked, “Who, where, what next?” This testament is mostly in my exact words, with some grammar help. I feel like I'm resolving things that have been on my mind since I was a child.
She mentioned that it might help any kind of other witnesses who may come forward, to have an example of what to do. I agree. So I suggest that people do their own full, properly formatted testament and attach supporting items in secret first. It's good not to say anything at that time to others, whatever and wherever you already had spoken before. Don't feel you are immediately safer because I came out, but please do come out quickly ... with these precautions. Original copies of my document are safe and photographed, with other relevant items. The full set of photos will come out with me. I have no more significant things hidden, to tell or to keep. There's less overall risk this way. I know my own risk and want to help. Justice for my father's estate and legacy is my main concern, not money, plus justice for history, not only music history.
The following paragraph was composed based on things I have said, but actually written by a man who was helping me, who wishes to remain anonymous for now. It expresses my feelings extremely well. It is better than I would have put the sentences and I fully endorse it as my concluding statement:
My only purpose in writing this testament is to make my children and my future descendants aware of my story and of my true parentage, not to gain attention or to profit from it. I am also determined that the many people who have loved my father, James Paul McCartney, finally know the truth of his death and replacement in 1966. Another man assumed his name and used Paul's fame to enhance his own career. Many who knew my father have kept quiet about his death and replacement, even until this very day, either out of fear, shame, profit, laziness, or for kicks – I really don’t know why, but probably from a combination of all of these. Now that the world finally knows my story, I hope and pray that at least some of those who hid this secret from the world will come forward and set things right, in good legal format and with a witness to the signature. This effort and avowal gives more credibility, even if this issue does not get into a court. I encourage the others to do so with full disclosure, in multiple original copies, to trusted researchers and other people, for their own safety and for the sake of the original Paul McCartney’s true musical genius. This died with him in 1966. I come forward for the sake of all, but especially for myself and any other blood children of his, whose family legacy has been denied by a partly state-aided conspiracy of silence and deception.
SIGNATURE OF TESTIFIER
I, Stephen John Dickinson, by my signature below, swear and attest that the events described in this testimony are true and took place, to the best of my recollection, exactly as described, with no more to add that I know of.
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
Affidavit of Stephen John Dickinson. DATE: _____________________ . Pg 12 of 12.
I have initialed each page of the document. I numbered all original copies in the presence of a witness or witnesses listed below, who also initialed each page of original copies.
______________________________________ . ________________________________ . Signed, Stephen John Dickinson Date
_____________________________________ , _________________________________ , Currently residing at In the city of
_______________________________ . Region/ Country
WITNESS CERTIFICATE FOR TESTIFIER’S SIGNING OF INSTRUMENT (DOCUMENT)
Signing witness:
I hereby sign and date that I witnessed the signing of this document. I have initialed each page of the document as well, on every original copy.
I may or may not have read the document in full, but I attest that the testifier was of sound mind at the time of the signing: as far I could tell, the testifier was able to know that the document was his own. I was personally present and did see the person known to me to be STEPHEN JOHN DICKINSON, and the same as in the instrument (document), sign the instrument. The instrument was signed at:
City/Town of _________________________________ , in ___________________________.
______________________________________ . ________________________________ . Name of witness to signing (print) Date
_____________________________________ , _________________________________ , Currently residing at In the city of
_______________________________ . ______________________________________ . Region/ Country Signature of witness to signing
Copy ___ of ___ . This page initialed by testifier and witness: ________ , _______ .
______________________________________________________________________
4. SUMMARY SLIDES WHICH WERE THROUGHOUT THE BROADCAST
The following are the slides which were placed around the broadcast, as appropriate. (Right now, they appear in alphabetical order, mostly, but that will be changed.)
The testimonies in PDF (redacted) and in blogger direct text (copyable easily into translation services) will all come shortly.
Thank you for your patience.
______________________________________________________________________
5. THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF TESTIMONIES, STEPHEN'S DNA BAGS AND SLIDES ABOUT SOME IMPLICATIONS
Photographs of the testaments and slides about the implications:
______________________________________________________________________
6. THE FILM CLIPS FROM "MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR" FILM (1967), POSSIBLY WITH IRENE MOTTRAM DICKINSON AS AN EXTRA
Magical Mystery Tour (1967): woman with baby, who could be Irene (Stephen's mother) and he (Stephen himself) -- though this is unlikely, since the baby in the beach scene at least, is older than 2 months old. Stephen was a long pregnancy, but the baby on the beach probably cannot be he. The other scene on the road seems to be the same woman, but the baby is unclear.
Even if Irene and Stephen were only implied in the film, why include them? The film is largely in honour of dead Paul, in so many ways, and she, as his real main love or last love and friend and baby, might well have been asked to participate. Over 10 hours of footage were filmed, and in these two clips, if it is she, she was deliberately left in the much, much shorter film. -- Below are the two film clips, slowed down (roadside scene is looped, so you see it twice; love and marriage scene on beach plays once, not twice):
These clips which might be Irene (Stephen's mother), or meant to convey her, in honour of Paul, are included because Stephen wondered about them. Since the film's resurrection and many Paul death and life themes are interwoven in the film, and that film was the first done after Paul's death, as a feature length film, it contains a eulogy theme for Paul. It is unlikely that the baby could be Stephen, however (at least in the close-up shot on the beach), since the baby (at least the one on the beach) is older than 2-3 months, even though Stephen was a long-term pregnancy.
______________________________________________________________________
7. THE FILM PRETENDING TO BE GEORGE HARRISON'S TESTAMENT ABOUT PAUL'S DEATH IS NOT AN EXPOSE AT ALL:
"Last Testament of George Harrison: Paul Really Is Dead" film, 2009, is disinformation. This means it is something deliberately misleading, to make a joke or knowingly deflect from a truth. It is a fairly well known film. Presented as a serious film yet as a complete joke -- it seems to have been intended to catch both sides of the public (create confusion and allow total denial).
The film's significant flaws include things which few would realize, so the joke side is lost and the confusion reigns. These flaws include that Heather Mills, the second wife of the replacement for Paul, was somehow present as a young woman at the scene of Paul's death, when she would not have been born yet. An excellent article on the film's deceptions is at http://plasticmacca.blogspot.ca/2013/07/expose-of-disinfo-hit-piece-paul-really_19.html .
(The blog overall has major flaws also, but not in the same way as the film. It has picked up on confusion and disinformation about the death date, and how many died / were replaced in the band. However, it is also a great compilation of some of the basic ideas about Paul's death and some good photographic comparisons.) The article is included below, for education purposes. I include the article for those who cannot click on a live link but copy this text, for example, to an e-mail, but incorrectly, where the link is lost, or in print. I do not own the copyright and make no such claim.
Though copied in entirety, it is here, below, for the benefit of those who are new to this issue and people who are not reaching this material for the first time through the computer. As such (education, new audience and special audience), and as a factual summary of the problems in the film (not intensely personal creative work), I contend that it counts as fair use to include it here, and hope that the author herself agrees. These considerations are meant to be taken together, unless there is a major breach of only several, and are described at http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr280b.shtml . We are both working for the purpose of righting an injustice done to the dead in this case, and to right the unjust state the living are in, that is, those who participate in the lie in this case -- for they, too, are bound by the lie until they unravel it publicly.
I include it for education purposes and thank the author, Tina Foster, for having compiled the errors in the film:
Friday, July 19, 2013
Exposé of Disinfo Hit Piece “Paul Really is Dead: the Last Testament of George Harrison”
Despite
its promising title, “Paul Really is Dead: the Last Testament of George
Harrison” (PRID) is a disinfo hit piece of the poorest quality. Change
in belief comes about when good information is presented in a
believable manner. To convince people they have been duped by a double
of Paul McCartney requires compelling evidence, such as forensic
analysis. This movie contains the poorest so-called “evidence” available
out there on the Internet. The people behind Paul’s assassination have
seeded the Internet with much disinformation regarding the Beatles and
especially PID (Paul is Dead conspiracy theory). A modest amount of
investigation reveals PRID to be a vehicle for presenting PID in the
worst possible light.
It
appears that the filmmakers were handed the script and told to find a
George Harrison voice double to narrate. Even if they did receive the
tapes as they claim, they admit upfront that the recording could not be
authenticated as being from George Harrison. Despite this, they
continuously refer to the narrator as being George. This smacks of
purposeful dishonesty. The fact that it is not George Harrison’s voice
should be readily apparent with a simple comparison between the narrator
of the film and a recording of the real George Harrison.
Paul was killed in 1966,
yet many so-called “clues” from 1965 and early 1966 (pre-replacement)
are referenced in the film. Even if one does not consciously catch the
mistakes, one’s consciousness does register them. Even though the truth
is Paul was replaced, the resonance effect is somewhat over-ridden by
the false information. The viewer feels an initial realization that s/he
is being presented with Truth. This feeling is blotted out as the false
information accumulates, tipping the scales in the viewer’s mind. Once
this occurs, the mind that was once open to PID slams shut.
Careful
analysis of this movie reveals it to be a deliberate attempt to squash
any openness to PID as even a possibility. The narration by the voice
double is a constant bug in the ear whispering to the viewer that s/he
is being presented with false information. In other words, the initial
lie that George Harrison recorded the tapes already puts doubts in the
viewer’s mind, which is constantly reinforced. Apart from that, the
viewer is told that Paul is Faul, which the subconscious recognizes as
untrue. Other false information offsets the core truth that Paul was
replaced.
Dealing
with the opposition to the truth coming out about James Paul McCartney
(JPM) is no easy task. This author has attempted to point out some of
the problems with this film. I encourage you to add your own
observations in the comments. Below are some discrepancies in the film
that I have observed (in no particular order).
____________________________
1.
“George” says he met Paul when he was 14 and Paul was 16. Paul was only
8 months older, so how could he reckon that? Paul was born on June 18,
1942 and George was born on February
25, 1943. The date they met appears to be in February 6,1958
[http://www.beatlesbible.com/1958/02/06/george-harrison-meets-quarrymen].
At that point, George was 14, but Paul was still 15.
2.
“George” says Paul was killed on the night of November 9, 1966. The
next morning, MI5 informed the other Beatles, and they spent two days in
an MI5 safe house. The next day, the Beatles announced they would stop
touring.
In reality, Brian Epstein announced the Beatles would quit touring on September 11, 1966.
3.
“George” said there was a Paul lookalike contest in 1966, and claimed
there was no winner announced, but that “William Campbell” was the
secret winner. I believe the film makers did not realize that there was a Paul lookalike contest in 1965 in which Keith Allison won.
4.
“George” said John Lennon called Faul “False Paul.” A biography of John
Lennon (I believe by Ray Coleman) said that John actually called him
“Faux Paul.” This is more in keeping with John’s witty turns of phrase,
as this sounds like “faux pas,” which could be a double entendre.
5.
“George” references “visual clues on album covers” which were pre-death
and replacement. The filmmakers say Paul died in November 1966, so why
are they trying to use “clues” on the following that preceded Paul’s death?
Butcher Album / Release Date:1966-01-01 [http://www.sortmusic.com/_b/the-beatles-albums,id152101,len.html]
Rubber Soul / release date Dec. 3, 1965 http://www.thebeatles.com/#/albums/Rubber_Soul),
Revolver / Release Date August 5, 1966 [http://www.allmusic.com/album/revolver-mw0000189174])
6.
“George” says the record company the Beatles started was A Paul
Corporation, but really it was Apple Corps (a play on apple core or even
a Paul Corpse).
7.
“George” said he wrote a song “Taxidermist” as a clue, because Paul was
taken to one, but that the song was changed to “Taxman.” This makes no sense as taxidermy is “the
art of preparing, stuffing, and mounting the skins of animals and
especially vertebrates”
[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taxidermy] Paul may have had a
wax effigy made of him for Sgt. Pepper, but I highly doubt he was
mounted on someone’s wall as a trophy.
8. “George” said Paul’s "parents" attended Paul’s funeral, but Paul’s mom had died when he was 14. How could she have attended?
9. “George” said the album “Yesterday & Today” came out after "Revolver" but that is incorrect.
“Yesterday & Today” / Release Date:1966-01-01 [http://www.sortmusic.com/_b/the-beatles-albums,id152101,len.html])
Revolver / Release Date August 5, 1966 [http://www.allmusic.com/album/revolver-mw0000189174])
10.
“George” said “I’m Only Sleeping” was what Paul looked like dead. If
Paul had been decapitated, burned, and lost an eye in the supposed car
crash, why would he look like he was sleeping?
11. “George” claims John Lennon wrote “Yesterday” for Paul. “Yesterday” was released on “Help!” on 6 August 1965 (UK) [http://www.beatlesbible.com/songs/yesterday], more than a year before the narrator says Paul died.
12.
“George” claims a doll on the Sgt. Pepper album cover has a split head
to show Paul’s supposed head injury in the accident, yet at the
beginning of the film, he claimed Paul had been decapitated.
Interestingly, the filmmakers do not reference Jayne Mansfield, who
appears on the album cover and who was actually killed in a car crash.
13.
“George” claims he said “oh, bury my body, o untimely death” at the end
of “I am the Walrus.” In fact, “The voices at the end of the song came
from a BBC broadcast of the Shakespeare play King Lear...” [From Songfacts at http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=138]
14.
“George” says Faul’s picture on the White Album sleeve was Faul's
passport photo. However, one may not typically wear glasses in passport
photos.
15.
“George” says John puts open palm sign over Paul’s head on cover of
“Yellow Submarine,” when it was clearly the sign for Il Cornuto.
16.
“George” claims “Yellow Submarine” was a reference to Paul’s death in
that it symbolized coffins buried under a sea of green grass. This song,
too, was released prior to Paul’s replacement. It appeared on
“Revolver,” which was released on 5 August 1966 (UK) [http://www.beatlesbible.com/songs/yellow-submarine]
17.
“George” claims Russ Gibb announced on Oct. 12, 1969 that Paul was
dead, but in reality, Tom Zarski called in that night to “rap” about
Paul being dead. It was news to Russ Gibb at that point.
18.
“George” says John came up with the idea of the “Let It Be” album after
“Abbey Road.” The Beatles began recording “Let It Be” a year before
they started recording “Abbey Road.”
“Let It Be” Recording Date February 1968 - April 1970 [http://www.allmusic.com/album/let-it-be-mw0000192939]
“Abbey Road” Recording Date February 22, 1969 - August 20, 1969
19.
“George” claimed Faul had gone into hiding in “Central England,” when
in fact, Faul had moved to Scotland. Paul had bought the farmhouse in
Campbelltown on June 17, 1966 [source:
http://www.beatlesbible.com/1966/06/17/paul-mccartney-purchases-high-park-farm-kintyre-scotland.
20.
“George” claims John “latched onto” Yoko Ono in 1970, but in fact, he
met her on November 9, 1966 (the other 9.11.66
[http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/john-lennon30.htm]). Her
continuous presence in the recording studios has been blamed by some for
the Beatles breakup.
21.
“George” claims “Rita” - the passenger in the car the night of Nov. 9.
1966 - was Heather Mills. This is impossible, as Mills was not born
until 12 January [http://www.imdb.com/search/name?birth_monthday=01-12&refine=birth_monthday] 1968 [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1457728/bio]
Tina Foster
[Freedman's speech]
What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity. I'm not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I'm here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the world: the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians.
Now, first of all, I'd like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 — that was shortly before elections — Senator Kennedy, who is now the President of the United States, went to New York, and delivered an address to the Zionist Organization of America. In that address, to reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would use the armed forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that area.
In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want to follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the last twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to return to their homes.
Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight with the Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern Europe... when that happens, the United States will trigger World War III.
You say, when will that take place? The answer is, as soon as the difficulty between France and Algeria has been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move these people back into their homes, and when they do that and President kennedy sends your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a cause.
I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the United Nations — and of the ninety-nine nations there, I've consulted with maybe seventy of them — and when we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves retain possession of what they have stolen from these innocent people we're not going to have a man there to fight with us as our ally.
And who will these people have supporting them, you ask. Well, four days after President Kennedy — or he was then Senator Kennedy — made that statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.
Not only that... they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead these people back to their homeland. With them, they have as their allies all the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group. That includes the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite. It includes Red China; it includes every independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of the world's total population. Eighty percent of the world's population. Four out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our enemies at war with us. And not alone are they four out of five human beings now on the face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian population of the world and they are the non-Caucasians... the non-white nations of the world, and that's what we face.
And what is the reason? The reason is that here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons too many and too complex to go into here at this — time I'll be glad to answer questions, however, to support that statement — the Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country.
Now, you say, 'well, that's a very broad statement to make', but let me show what happened while you were — I don't want to wear that out — let me show what happened while WE were all asleep. I'm including myself with you. We were all asleep. What happened?
World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?
Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her — and after that, starvation.
At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
Now Germany — not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”
Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible — the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”
The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”
In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”
Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.
However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that — I don't know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German — totally pro-German — because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.
The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers — the German-Jews — Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.
Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.
The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.
Now the war — World War One — in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there — we were railroaded into it — if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into — that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.
Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it's history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?
The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.
Now, that brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany.
You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers — the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. Now, the Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.”
It was a sellout that I can best compare — suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass.
Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.
Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. "We've been so nice to them"; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.”
Now, Nahum Sokolow — all the great leaders, the big names that you read about in connection with Zionism today — they, in 1919, 1920, '21, '22, and '23, they wrote in all their papers — and the press was filled with their statements — that "the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the United States into the war against them."
The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious.
Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said “Shema' Yisrael” or “Our Father.” No one cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because World War One was started against Germany for no reason for which they [Germans] were responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade.
You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time of the French Revolution, what was the German Reich consisted of 300 — three hundred! — small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred little separate political entities. And between that time, between the period of. . . between Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years after that time they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivalling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody and make better products. And what happened? What happened as a result of that?
There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that: "We must slap down Germany", because there isn't one historian in the world that can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened after that?
When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.
They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international affiliations.
Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.
So they did take appropriate action against them [against the Jews]. They. . . shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could? They shunned them. The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.
Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn't know what to do, so they called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended in July 1933. And they said to Germany: “You fire Hitler! And you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist, no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way! And we, the Jews of the world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you.” Well, the Germans told them. . . you can imagine. So what did they [the Jews] do?
They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything to people here. . . (You want to ask a question? —- Uh, there were no Communists in Germany at that time. they were called 'Social Democrats.)
Well, I don't want to go by what they were called. We're now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for safety and for security.
Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back into their former — their status — and the Germans fought them in every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone's head. The same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were interested in liquor, and they didn't fight one another with pistols, they did it every way they could.
Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And, at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and there were only 460,000 Jews. . . less than one half of one percent of Germany were Jews. And yet, they controlled all of the press, they controlled most of the economy, because they had come in and with cheap money — you know the way the Mark was devalued — they bought up practically everything.
Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr. Untermeyer came back to the United States — who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference — and he went from the steamer to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he said:
Now in this
declaration, which I have here, it was printed on page — a whole page — in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel
Untermyer boldly stated that: “this economic boycott is our means of
self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the NRA" .
[National Recovery Administration] — which some of you may remember,
where everybody was to be boycotted unless they followed the rules laid down by
the New Deal, which of course was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court at that time.
Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it.
In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted. If anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs: "Hitler", "murderer", and so forth, and like — something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.
R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews. . . a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany". Well, they were cotton stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since I've been observing women's legs in the last twenty years, I haven't seen a pair with cotton stockings on them. So Macy! I saw Macy boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "MURDERS" and "HITLERITES", and so forth.
Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.
Now, that. . . naturally, the Germans said, "Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews.
Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.
That continued for some time, and it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.
Now, for anyone to say that — I don't like to use the word 'anti-Semitism' because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it — the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three — did I say for World War One, they were responsible? For the boycott — and also for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive.
In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. It's going to be Christian or it's going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: "We're going to keep it Christian if possible". And they started to re-arm.
And there intention was — by that time the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 — the Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: "Well, our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong."
And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for defense, they say. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world.
Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. One million tons of TNT is a megaton. Now, our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT. That was when they were first developed five or six years ago. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.
So, what do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. And why will it take place? It will take place because Act III. . . the curtain goes up on Act III. Act I was World War I. Act II was World War II. Act III is going to be World War III.
The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it, and it's known all over the world.
Now, what are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it.
Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other 's knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.
I was 'confidential man' to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.
Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. And that's how they got us into World War I, while we all slept.
Now, at this moment... at this moment they may be planning this World War III, in which we don't stand a chance even if they don't use nuclear bombs. How can the United States — about five percent of the world — go out and fight eighty to ninety percent of the world on their home ground? How can we do it... send our boys over there to be slaughtered? For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their 'commonwealth'? They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness that you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." That is correct. I don't know from what state you come, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness said one lie, disregard his testimony.
Now, what are the facts about the Jews?
The Jews — I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn't a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.
Now what happened? The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.
They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe — and to reduce this so you don't get too confused about the history of Eastern Europe — they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles. Only, there was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe — so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.
Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy. I don't want to go into the details of that now. It was their religion the way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere in the world.
Now, the [Khazar] king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith — either Christianity, Islam — the Moslem faith — or what is known today as Judaism — really Talmudism. So, like spinning a top and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion.
He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people — 800,000 thousand square miles — and maybe ten to twenty million people; and they became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them that had an ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:
Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born. . . imagine if the 54 million Chinese called themselves 'Arabs'. Imagine! Why, you'd say they're lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia.
The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants that were Christians. They weren't different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.
Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns. . . they were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. They likewise, because their king took the faith — Talmudic faith — they had no choice. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So everybody — they lived on the land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land under their feudal system — so they [Khazars] all became what we call today, Jews!
Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians. . . for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power, our prestige to repatriate God's chosen people to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land."
Now, could there be a bigger lie than that? Could there be a bigger lie than that?
And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language . . . so naturally you'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore — you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.
Now, that is one of the great lies. . . that is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world. Because after two wars fought in Europe — World War I and World War II — if it wasn't possible for them to live in peace and harmony with the people in Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States, what were the two wars fought for? Did they have to — like you flush the toilet — because they couldn't get along, did they have to say, "Well, we're going back to our homeland and you Christians can help us"?
I can't understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have been that dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew the things that I'm telling you. But, they naturally bribed them, shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with money, and now. . . I don't care whether you know all this or not. It doesn't make any difference to me whether you know all these facts or not, but it does make a difference to me. I've got, in my family, boys that will have to be in the next war, and I don't want them to go and fight and die... like they died in Korea. Like they died in Japan. Like they've died all over the world. For what?
To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people who had been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years? Is that why the United States must go to war? Because the Democratic Party wants New York State — the electoral vote? Illinois, the electoral vote? And Pennsylvania, the electoral vote?... which are controlled by the Zionists and their co-religionists?. . . the balance of power?
In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists. And New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes. Now, I don't blame Mr. Kennedy. I'm fond of Mr. Kennedy. I think he's a great man. I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him. And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows. He's playing with the enemy. Like when you go fishing, you've got to play with the fish. Let 'em out and pull 'em in. Let 'em out and pull 'em in. But knowing Mr. Kennedy's father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don't think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.
But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal Christian , every person that regards the defense of this country as a sacred right, that they communicate — not with their congressman, not with their senator, but with President Kennedy. And tell him, "I do not think you should send my boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and under the flag that you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the hands of these that which they have stolen". I think everyone should not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends to write.
Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to support what I have just asked you to do. But I don't think it's necessary to do that. You're above the average group in intelligence and I don't think it's necessary to impress this any more.
But. . . I want to tell you one more thing. You talk about... "Oh, the Jews. Why the Jews? Christianity. Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion". But do you know that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that on that day... and I was one of them! This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts.
When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand — and it's the only prayer for which you stand — and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months — any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void.
The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and so forth and so on.
And further than that, the Talmud teaches: "Don't forget — whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge — remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that".
How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.
And we're going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason. You can't depend upon something as insecure as the leadership that is not obliged to respect an oath, vow or pledge. Now I could go on and recite many other things to you, but I would have a little respect for your time, and you want to really, uh, get through with all of this. Tomorrow's going to be a long day.
Now I want to say one thing. You ask me. . . well, you think to yourself: "well how did this fellow get mixed up in this the way he got mixed up in it." Well, I opened my mouth in 1945, and I took big pages in newspapers and tried to tell the American people what I'm telling you. And one newspaper after another refused the advertisement. And when I couldn't find a newspaper to take them — I paid cash, not credit — what happened? My lawyer told me, "There's an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take your announcement". So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and that's how I met him.
So somebody told me the lawyer who introduced me, who was the son of the Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he said: "Well, I think he's a little anti-Semitic. I don't know whether I can get him over here. So he brought him over to my apartment and we hit it off wonderfully, and have since then.
Now, I say this, and I say it without any qualifications. I say it without any reservations. And I say it without any hesitation. . . if it wasn't for the work that Mr. Conley McGinley did with "Common Sense" — he's been sending out from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 every year — if it wasn't for the work he's been doing sending those out for fifteen years now, we would already be a communist country. Nobody has done what he did to light fires. Many of the other active persons in this fight learned all about if for the first time through "Common Sense".
Now, I have been very active in helping him all I could. I'm not as flush as I was. I cannot go on spending the money. . . I'm not going to take up a collection. Don't worry. I see five people getting up to leave. (laughter)
I haven't got the money that I used to spend. I used to print a quarter of a million of them out of my own pocket and send them out. Mr. McGinley, when I first met him, had maybe 5,000 printed and circulated them locally. So I said, "With what you know and what I know, we can really do a good job". So I started printing in outside shops of big newspaper companies, a quarter of a million, and paid for them. Well, there's always a bottom to the barrel. I suppose we've all reached that at times.
I'm not so poor that I can't live without working and that's what worries the Anti-Defamation League. I can just get by without going and asking for a job or getting on the bread line. But Mr. McGinley is working. He's sick and he's going at this stronger than ever. And all I want to say is that they want to close up "Common Sense" more than any other single thing in the whole world, as a death-blow to the fight Christians are making to survive.
So I just want to tell you this. All they do is circulate rumors: "Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman is the wealthy backer of 'Common Sense'." The reason they do that is to discourage the people in the United States: don't send any money to Common Sense. They don't need it. The've got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as a backer. That all has strategy. They don't want to advertise me so that people that have real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me. They just want people to lay off "Common Sense". And all I'm telling you is, I do try to help him, but I haven't been able to. And I will be very honest. One thing I won't do is lie. In the last year I've had so much sickness in my family that I could not give him one dollar.
How he's managed to survive, I don't know. God alone knows. And he must be in God's care because how he's pulled through his sickness and with his financial troubles, I don't know. But that press is working. . . and every two weeks about a hundred or a hundred-fifty-thousand of "Common Sense" go out with a new message. And if that information could be multiplied. . . if people that now get it could buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them around. Plow that field. Sow those seeds, you don't know which will take root, but for God's sake, this is our last chance.
(Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing unnecessary purchases to 'buy more stuff', play golf, etc., and use the money to keep "Common Sense" going. He explains that the paper is going in debt; could be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer has the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the information to the American public and elected officials. He then asks for questions from the audience.)
Freedman: All right, I'll comment on that. This is rather deep, but you all have a very high degree of intelligence, so I'm going to make an attempt. In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea. Judea was a province of the Roman Empire. Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius. Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.
Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as 'j', and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts 'ghu'. Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic... all those languages. Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn't exist. Judea was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean. I've seen those early... the earliest scripts available.
In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to translate the Bible into English. There was no English edition of the Bible because who the Devil could read? It was only the educated church people who could read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages. Anyhow, Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. But in it, he had to look around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius.
There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', "jew". At the time, there was no printing press.
Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many changes... I have them all here. If you want I can read them to you. I will. That word 'gyu' which was in the Wycliffe Bible became. . . first it was ' gyu ', then ' giu ', then ' iu ' (because the ' i ' in Latin is pronounced like the ' j '. Julius Caesar is ' Iul ' because there is no 'j' in Latin) then ' iuw ', then ' ieuu ', then ' ieuy ', then ' iwe ', then ' iow ', then ' iewe ', all in Bibles as time went on. Then ' ieue ', then ' iue ', then ' ive ', and then ' ivw ', and finally in the 18th century... ' jew '. Jew.
All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin. Now, there was no such thing as 'Jew', and any theologian — I've lectured in maybe 20 of the most prominent theological seminaries in this country, and two in Europe — there was no such word as Jew. There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was 'gyu' — Jew. A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a laboratory a 'lab', and gasoline 'gas'... a tendency to short up.
So, in England there were no public schools; people didn't know how to read; it looked like a scrambled alphabet so they made a short word out of it. Now for a theologian to say that you can't harm the Jews, is just ridiculous. I'd like to know where in the scriptures it says that. I'd like to know the text.
Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews. What would you, as a citizen of the United States, do to people who did to you what the so-called Jews — the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers — they weren't Jews, as I just explained to you. They were Eastern Europeans who'd been converted to Talmudism. There was no such thing as Judaism. Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible]. No Jew or no educated person ever heard of Judaism. It didn't exist. They pulled it out of the air. . . a meaningless word.
Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew who's a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews. So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this reverend who told you these things, I'll convince him and it'll be one step in the right direction. I'll go wherever I have to go to meet him.
But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from all over the world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of Atonement religious ceremony. In Brunswick, Germany, where that conference was held in 1844, there was almost a terrific riot. A civil war.
The Eastern Europeans said, "What the hell. We should give up Kol Nidre? That gives us our grip on our people. We give them a franchise so they can tell the Christians, 'Go to hell. We'll make any deal you want', but they don't have to carry it out. That gives us our grip on our people". So, they're not so united, and if you knew the feeling that exists. . .
Now, I'll also show you from an official document by the man responsible for. . . uh, who baptized this race. Here is a paper that we obtained from the archives of the Zionist organization in New York City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who — on behalf of the British Cabinet — negotiated the deal with these Zionists.
And in here he says that all the jews in England were against it. The Jews who had been there for years, the [inaudible - probably Sephardim], those who had Portuguese and Spanish ad Dutch ancestry... who were monotheists and believed in that religious belief. That was while the Eastern European Jews were still running around in the heart of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no more to do with them than. . . can we talk about a Christian 'race'? or a Christian religion?... or are the Christians united?
So the same disunity is among the Jews. And I'll show you in this same document that when they went to France to try and get the French government to back that Zionist venture, there was only one Jew in France who was for it. That was Rothschild, and they did it because they were interested in the oil and the Suez Canal
In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve manufacturers in the building. And when the drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United Jewish Drive, they put a big scoreboard with the names of the firms and opposite them, as you make the amount they put you down for, they put a gold star after the name. Then, the buyers are told, "When you come into that building to call on someone and they haven't got a gold star, tell them that you won't buy from them until they have the gold star". BLACKMAIL. I don't know what else you can call it.
Then what do they do? They tell you it's for 'humanitarian purposes' and they send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible. So if they hadn't sent that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have gone into the U.S. Treasury as income tax. So what happens? That seven billion dollars deficit — that air pocket — the gullible Christians have to make up.
They put a bigger tax on gasor bread or corporation tax. Somebody has to pay the housekeeping expenses for the government. So why do you let these people send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their ancient homeland? And you say, "Oh, well. The poor Jews. They have no place to go and they've been persecuted all their lives". They've never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.
Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England? King Edward the First in 1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the Cromwell Revolution which was financed by the Rothschilds. For four-hundred years there wasn't a Jew. But do you know why they were driven out? Because in the Christian faith and the Moslem faith it's a sin to charge 'rent' for the use of money. In other words - what we call interest [usury] is a sin.
So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much interest, and when the Lords and Dukes couldn't pay, they [Jews] foreclosed. And they were creating so much trouble that the king of England finally made himself their partner, because when they they came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped off the Jews. . . the money-lenders. So the king finally said — and this is all in history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the Jews in England; two books you can find in your library. When the king found out what the trouble was all about, and how much money they were making, he declared himself a fifty-percent partner of the money lenders. Edward the First. And for many years, one-third of the revenues of the British Treasury came from the fifty-percent interest in money-lending by the Jews.
But it got worse and worse. So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes kept killing the money-lenders, the King then said, "I declare myself the heir of all the money-lenders. If they're killed you have to pay me, because I'm his sole heir". That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out and collect the money with an army, so he told the Jews to get out. There were 15,000 of them, and they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland, and that's how Ireland got to be part of the United Kingdom.
When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to take Ireland for himself before someone else did. He sent Robert Southgard with a mercenary army and conquered Ireland. So, show me one time where a Jew was persecuted in any country because of his religion. It has never happened. It's always their impact on the political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community in which they settle.
When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the Khazar Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled to Western Europe and brought with them the very things to which you object and I object and a lot of other people object. The customs, the habits, the instincts with which they were endowed.
When Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that's the name that they went by, and when the Christians first heard that these people who were fleeing from Russia — who they were — that they had practiced this Talmudic faith — the Christians in Western Europe said, "They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!"
And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that — and he's probably as good an authority on that subject as there is. So when Ben Franklin came to Europe in the 18th century, he already saw the results of what these people had done after they left their homeland. And every word of it is true... they say it themselves. I can give you half a dozen books they've written in which they say the same thing: When they have money they become tyrants. And when they become defeated, they become ruthless. They're only barbarians. They're the descendants of Asiatic Mongols and they will do anything to accomplish their purpose.
What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did? The Czar had abdicated nine or ten months before that. There was no need for them. . . they were going to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn't want that. When the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they mowed them all down and established the Soviet Union.
There was no need for that. But they thought, "Now is the time", and if you you will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word 'Bolshevism', you'll find the five laws there that Lenin put down for a successful revolution. One of them is, "Wait for the right time, and then give them everything you've got". It would pay you to read that.
You'd also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and created and cultivated the Communist movement. And that their energy made them the spearhead of the movement. Harold Blacktree wrote it and no one knew more about Communism than he. And the Encyclopedia Britannica for 25 years has been printing it.
Would we say it's aggression for these Texans to try to get their homes back from the Mexican thieves? Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly armed by the Soviets and overnight they rose up and drove all the whites into the swamps of Mississippi and Georgia and Florida. . . drove them out completely, and declared themselves the Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other. Would we call it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go back to their homes?
Would we. . . what would we think if the soviet Union said, "No, those Negroes now occupy them! Leave them there!", or "No, those Mexicans are in Texas. they declared themselves a sovereign state. Leave them there. You have plenty of room in Utah and Nevada. Settle somewhere else".
Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to go back to their homes? So now, you've got to write to President Kennedy and say, "We do not consider it aggression in the sense that you use the word, if these people want to return to their homes as the United Nations — fifteen times in the last twelve years — called upon the Zionists in occupation of Palestine to allow the Arab Palestinians to return to their former homes and farms".
[End of transcript of Benjamin Freedman speech, given in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.]
A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE HOLOCAUST
 |
Willard
Hotel
|
Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very
frightening speech. This speech is an explanation of the plans now being
laid to throw the United States into a third world war. It was made a
short time ago before a large group in the Congressional Room of the Willard
Hotel in Washington, D.C. Both the speech and the question and answer
period later so electrified the audience that a group of patriots has
transferred it to two long-playing records which you may buy to play for
friends, clubs, and your church group in your community. The speaker is Mr.
Benjamin Freedman, noted authority on Zionism and all of its schemes. Mr.
Freedman is a former Jew, and I mean a FORMER Jew. He has fought the
Communist world conspiracy tooth and nail, and stands today as a leading
American patriot. We now take you to the speaker's platform to present Benjamin
Freedman.
(applause) [Freedman's speech]
 |
Benjamin H. Freedman
|
What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity. I'm not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I'm here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the world: the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians.
Now, first of all, I'd like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 — that was shortly before elections — Senator Kennedy, who is now the President of the United States, went to New York, and delivered an address to the Zionist Organization of America. In that address, to reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would use the armed forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that area.
In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want to follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the last twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to return to their homes.
Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight with the Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern Europe... when that happens, the United States will trigger World War III.
You say, when will that take place? The answer is, as soon as the difficulty between France and Algeria has been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move these people back into their homes, and when they do that and President kennedy sends your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a cause.
I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the United Nations — and of the ninety-nine nations there, I've consulted with maybe seventy of them — and when we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves retain possession of what they have stolen from these innocent people we're not going to have a man there to fight with us as our ally.
And who will these people have supporting them, you ask. Well, four days after President Kennedy — or he was then Senator Kennedy — made that statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.
Not only that... they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead these people back to their homeland. With them, they have as their allies all the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group. That includes the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite. It includes Red China; it includes every independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of the world's total population. Eighty percent of the world's population. Four out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our enemies at war with us. And not alone are they four out of five human beings now on the face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian population of the world and they are the non-Caucasians... the non-white nations of the world, and that's what we face.
And what is the reason? The reason is that here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons too many and too complex to go into here at this — time I'll be glad to answer questions, however, to support that statement — the Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country.
Now, you say, 'well, that's a very broad statement to make', but let me show what happened while you were — I don't want to wear that out — let me show what happened while WE were all asleep. I'm including myself with you. We were all asleep. What happened?
World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?
Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her — and after that, starvation.
At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
Now Germany — not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”
Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible — the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”
The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”
In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”
Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.
However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that — I don't know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German — totally pro-German — because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.
The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers — the German-Jews — Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.
Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.
The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.
Now the war — World War One — in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there — we were railroaded into it — if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into — that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.
Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it's history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?
The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.
Now, that brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany.
You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers — the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. Now, the Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.”
It was a sellout that I can best compare — suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass.
Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.
Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. "We've been so nice to them"; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.”
Now, Nahum Sokolow — all the great leaders, the big names that you read about in connection with Zionism today — they, in 1919, 1920, '21, '22, and '23, they wrote in all their papers — and the press was filled with their statements — that "the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the United States into the war against them."
The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious.
Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said “Shema' Yisrael” or “Our Father.” No one cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because World War One was started against Germany for no reason for which they [Germans] were responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade.
You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time of the French Revolution, what was the German Reich consisted of 300 — three hundred! — small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred little separate political entities. And between that time, between the period of. . . between Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years after that time they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivalling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody and make better products. And what happened? What happened as a result of that?
There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that: "We must slap down Germany", because there isn't one historian in the world that can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened after that?
When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.
They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international affiliations.
Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.
So they did take appropriate action against them [against the Jews]. They. . . shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could? They shunned them. The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.
Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn't know what to do, so they called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended in July 1933. And they said to Germany: “You fire Hitler! And you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist, no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way! And we, the Jews of the world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you.” Well, the Germans told them. . . you can imagine. So what did they [the Jews] do?
They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything to people here. . . (You want to ask a question? —- Uh, there were no Communists in Germany at that time. they were called 'Social Democrats.)
Well, I don't want to go by what they were called. We're now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for safety and for security.
Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back into their former — their status — and the Germans fought them in every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone's head. The same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were interested in liquor, and they didn't fight one another with pistols, they did it every way they could.
Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And, at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and there were only 460,000 Jews. . . less than one half of one percent of Germany were Jews. And yet, they controlled all of the press, they controlled most of the economy, because they had come in and with cheap money — you know the way the Mark was devalued — they bought up practically everything.
Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr. Untermeyer came back to the United States — who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference — and he went from the steamer to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he said:
"The Jews of the
world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a
sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into
surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them, that
will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business."
And it is a
fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could
only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. Their labor.
So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would
have to starve. There just was not enough food for more than one third of the
population.  |
Click to enlarge
|
Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it.
In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted. If anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs: "Hitler", "murderer", and so forth, and like — something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.
R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews. . . a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany". Well, they were cotton stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since I've been observing women's legs in the last twenty years, I haven't seen a pair with cotton stockings on them. So Macy! I saw Macy boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "MURDERS" and "HITLERITES", and so forth.
Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.
Now, that. . . naturally, the Germans said, "Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews.
Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.
That continued for some time, and it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.
Now, for anyone to say that — I don't like to use the word 'anti-Semitism' because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it — the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three — did I say for World War One, they were responsible? For the boycott — and also for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive.
In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. It's going to be Christian or it's going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: "We're going to keep it Christian if possible". And they started to re-arm.
And there intention was — by that time the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 — the Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: "Well, our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong."
And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for defense, they say. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world.
Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. One million tons of TNT is a megaton. Now, our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT. That was when they were first developed five or six years ago. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.
So, what do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. And why will it take place? It will take place because Act III. . . the curtain goes up on Act III. Act I was World War I. Act II was World War II. Act III is going to be World War III.
The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it, and it's known all over the world.
Now, what are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it.
Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other 's knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.
I was 'confidential man' to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.
Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. And that's how they got us into World War I, while we all slept.
Now, at this moment... at this moment they may be planning this World War III, in which we don't stand a chance even if they don't use nuclear bombs. How can the United States — about five percent of the world — go out and fight eighty to ninety percent of the world on their home ground? How can we do it... send our boys over there to be slaughtered? For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their 'commonwealth'? They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness that you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." That is correct. I don't know from what state you come, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness said one lie, disregard his testimony.
Now, what are the facts about the Jews?
The Jews — I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn't a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.
Now what happened? The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.
They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe — and to reduce this so you don't get too confused about the history of Eastern Europe — they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles. Only, there was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe — so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.
Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy. I don't want to go into the details of that now. It was their religion the way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere in the world.
Now, the [Khazar] king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith — either Christianity, Islam — the Moslem faith — or what is known today as Judaism — really Talmudism. So, like spinning a top and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion.
He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people — 800,000 thousand square miles — and maybe ten to twenty million people; and they became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them that had an ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:
"Well, you want to
certainly help repatriate God's chosen people to their Promised Land,
their ancestral homeland, It's your Christian duty. We gave you one
of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and
kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews."
Well, they
were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish [were
converted]. And it's just as ridiculous to call them "people of the
Holy Land," as it would be. . . there are 54 million Chinese Moslems.
Fifty four million! And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that
time, 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born. . . imagine if the 54 million Chinese called themselves 'Arabs'. Imagine! Why, you'd say they're lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia.
The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants that were Christians. They weren't different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.
Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns. . . they were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. They likewise, because their king took the faith — Talmudic faith — they had no choice. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So everybody — they lived on the land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land under their feudal system — so they [Khazars] all became what we call today, Jews!
Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians. . . for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power, our prestige to repatriate God's chosen people to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land."
Now, could there be a bigger lie than that? Could there be a bigger lie than that?
And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language . . . so naturally you'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore — you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.
Now, that is one of the great lies. . . that is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world. Because after two wars fought in Europe — World War I and World War II — if it wasn't possible for them to live in peace and harmony with the people in Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States, what were the two wars fought for? Did they have to — like you flush the toilet — because they couldn't get along, did they have to say, "Well, we're going back to our homeland and you Christians can help us"?
I can't understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have been that dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew the things that I'm telling you. But, they naturally bribed them, shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with money, and now. . . I don't care whether you know all this or not. It doesn't make any difference to me whether you know all these facts or not, but it does make a difference to me. I've got, in my family, boys that will have to be in the next war, and I don't want them to go and fight and die... like they died in Korea. Like they died in Japan. Like they've died all over the world. For what?
To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people who had been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years? Is that why the United States must go to war? Because the Democratic Party wants New York State — the electoral vote? Illinois, the electoral vote? And Pennsylvania, the electoral vote?... which are controlled by the Zionists and their co-religionists?. . . the balance of power?
In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists. And New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes. Now, I don't blame Mr. Kennedy. I'm fond of Mr. Kennedy. I think he's a great man. I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him. And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows. He's playing with the enemy. Like when you go fishing, you've got to play with the fish. Let 'em out and pull 'em in. Let 'em out and pull 'em in. But knowing Mr. Kennedy's father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don't think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.
But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal Christian , every person that regards the defense of this country as a sacred right, that they communicate — not with their congressman, not with their senator, but with President Kennedy. And tell him, "I do not think you should send my boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and under the flag that you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the hands of these that which they have stolen". I think everyone should not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends to write.
Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to support what I have just asked you to do. But I don't think it's necessary to do that. You're above the average group in intelligence and I don't think it's necessary to impress this any more.
But. . . I want to tell you one more thing. You talk about... "Oh, the Jews. Why the Jews? Christianity. Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion". But do you know that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that on that day... and I was one of them! This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts.
When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand — and it's the only prayer for which you stand — and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months — any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void.
The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and so forth and so on.
And further than that, the Talmud teaches: "Don't forget — whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge — remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that".
How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.
And we're going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason. You can't depend upon something as insecure as the leadership that is not obliged to respect an oath, vow or pledge. Now I could go on and recite many other things to you, but I would have a little respect for your time, and you want to really, uh, get through with all of this. Tomorrow's going to be a long day.
Now I want to say one thing. You ask me. . . well, you think to yourself: "well how did this fellow get mixed up in this the way he got mixed up in it." Well, I opened my mouth in 1945, and I took big pages in newspapers and tried to tell the American people what I'm telling you. And one newspaper after another refused the advertisement. And when I couldn't find a newspaper to take them — I paid cash, not credit — what happened? My lawyer told me, "There's an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take your announcement". So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and that's how I met him.
So somebody told me the lawyer who introduced me, who was the son of the Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he said: "Well, I think he's a little anti-Semitic. I don't know whether I can get him over here. So he brought him over to my apartment and we hit it off wonderfully, and have since then.
Now, I say this, and I say it without any qualifications. I say it without any reservations. And I say it without any hesitation. . . if it wasn't for the work that Mr. Conley McGinley did with "Common Sense" — he's been sending out from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 every year — if it wasn't for the work he's been doing sending those out for fifteen years now, we would already be a communist country. Nobody has done what he did to light fires. Many of the other active persons in this fight learned all about if for the first time through "Common Sense".
Now, I have been very active in helping him all I could. I'm not as flush as I was. I cannot go on spending the money. . . I'm not going to take up a collection. Don't worry. I see five people getting up to leave. (laughter)
I haven't got the money that I used to spend. I used to print a quarter of a million of them out of my own pocket and send them out. Mr. McGinley, when I first met him, had maybe 5,000 printed and circulated them locally. So I said, "With what you know and what I know, we can really do a good job". So I started printing in outside shops of big newspaper companies, a quarter of a million, and paid for them. Well, there's always a bottom to the barrel. I suppose we've all reached that at times.
I'm not so poor that I can't live without working and that's what worries the Anti-Defamation League. I can just get by without going and asking for a job or getting on the bread line. But Mr. McGinley is working. He's sick and he's going at this stronger than ever. And all I want to say is that they want to close up "Common Sense" more than any other single thing in the whole world, as a death-blow to the fight Christians are making to survive.
So I just want to tell you this. All they do is circulate rumors: "Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman is the wealthy backer of 'Common Sense'." The reason they do that is to discourage the people in the United States: don't send any money to Common Sense. They don't need it. The've got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as a backer. That all has strategy. They don't want to advertise me so that people that have real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me. They just want people to lay off "Common Sense". And all I'm telling you is, I do try to help him, but I haven't been able to. And I will be very honest. One thing I won't do is lie. In the last year I've had so much sickness in my family that I could not give him one dollar.
How he's managed to survive, I don't know. God alone knows. And he must be in God's care because how he's pulled through his sickness and with his financial troubles, I don't know. But that press is working. . . and every two weeks about a hundred or a hundred-fifty-thousand of "Common Sense" go out with a new message. And if that information could be multiplied. . . if people that now get it could buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them around. Plow that field. Sow those seeds, you don't know which will take root, but for God's sake, this is our last chance.
(Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing unnecessary purchases to 'buy more stuff', play golf, etc., and use the money to keep "Common Sense" going. He explains that the paper is going in debt; could be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer has the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the information to the American public and elected officials. He then asks for questions from the audience.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Question inaudible] Freedman: All right, I'll comment on that. This is rather deep, but you all have a very high degree of intelligence, so I'm going to make an attempt. In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea. Judea was a province of the Roman Empire. Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius. Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.
Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as 'j', and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts 'ghu'. Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic... all those languages. Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn't exist. Judea was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean. I've seen those early... the earliest scripts available.
In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to translate the Bible into English. There was no English edition of the Bible because who the Devil could read? It was only the educated church people who could read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages. Anyhow, Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. But in it, he had to look around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius.
There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', "jew". At the time, there was no printing press.
Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many changes... I have them all here. If you want I can read them to you. I will. That word 'gyu' which was in the Wycliffe Bible became. . . first it was ' gyu ', then ' giu ', then ' iu ' (because the ' i ' in Latin is pronounced like the ' j '. Julius Caesar is ' Iul ' because there is no 'j' in Latin) then ' iuw ', then ' ieuu ', then ' ieuy ', then ' iwe ', then ' iow ', then ' iewe ', all in Bibles as time went on. Then ' ieue ', then ' iue ', then ' ive ', and then ' ivw ', and finally in the 18th century... ' jew '. Jew.
All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin. Now, there was no such thing as 'Jew', and any theologian — I've lectured in maybe 20 of the most prominent theological seminaries in this country, and two in Europe — there was no such word as Jew. There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was 'gyu' — Jew. A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a laboratory a 'lab', and gasoline 'gas'... a tendency to short up.
So, in England there were no public schools; people didn't know how to read; it looked like a scrambled alphabet so they made a short word out of it. Now for a theologian to say that you can't harm the Jews, is just ridiculous. I'd like to know where in the scriptures it says that. I'd like to know the text.
Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews. What would you, as a citizen of the United States, do to people who did to you what the so-called Jews — the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers — they weren't Jews, as I just explained to you. They were Eastern Europeans who'd been converted to Talmudism. There was no such thing as Judaism. Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible]. No Jew or no educated person ever heard of Judaism. It didn't exist. They pulled it out of the air. . . a meaningless word.
Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew who's a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews. So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this reverend who told you these things, I'll convince him and it'll be one step in the right direction. I'll go wherever I have to go to meet him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, ma'am. Well... I can
answer that. First of all, your first premise is wrong. Your first
premise that all the Jews are loyal to each other is wrong. Because, the
Eastern European Jews outnumber all the rest by so many that they create the
impression that they are the Jewish 'race'; that they are the Jewish nation;
that they are the Jewish people. . . and the Christians swallow it like a
cream puff. But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from all over the world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of Atonement religious ceremony. In Brunswick, Germany, where that conference was held in 1844, there was almost a terrific riot. A civil war.
The Eastern Europeans said, "What the hell. We should give up Kol Nidre? That gives us our grip on our people. We give them a franchise so they can tell the Christians, 'Go to hell. We'll make any deal you want', but they don't have to carry it out. That gives us our grip on our people". So, they're not so united, and if you knew the feeling that exists. . .
Now, I'll also show you from an official document by the man responsible for. . . uh, who baptized this race. Here is a paper that we obtained from the archives of the Zionist organization in New York City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who — on behalf of the British Cabinet — negotiated the deal with these Zionists.
And in here he says that all the jews in England were against it. The Jews who had been there for years, the [inaudible - probably Sephardim], those who had Portuguese and Spanish ad Dutch ancestry... who were monotheists and believed in that religious belief. That was while the Eastern European Jews were still running around in the heart of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no more to do with them than. . . can we talk about a Christian 'race'? or a Christian religion?... or are the Christians united?
So the same disunity is among the Jews. And I'll show you in this same document that when they went to France to try and get the French government to back that Zionist venture, there was only one Jew in France who was for it. That was Rothschild, and they did it because they were interested in the oil and the Suez Canal
————————————————————————
[Question inaudible]
Freedman: You know why? Because if they don't, they're decked
up. They come around and they tell you how much you must give, and if you
don't . . . oh, you're anti-Semitic. Then none of their friends will have
anything to do with them, and they start a smear campaign. . . and you have got
to give. In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve manufacturers in the building. And when the drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United Jewish Drive, they put a big scoreboard with the names of the firms and opposite them, as you make the amount they put you down for, they put a gold star after the name. Then, the buyers are told, "When you come into that building to call on someone and they haven't got a gold star, tell them that you won't buy from them until they have the gold star". BLACKMAIL. I don't know what else you can call it.
Then what do they do? They tell you it's for 'humanitarian purposes' and they send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible. So if they hadn't sent that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have gone into the U.S. Treasury as income tax. So what happens? That seven billion dollars deficit — that air pocket — the gullible Christians have to make up.
They put a bigger tax on gasor bread or corporation tax. Somebody has to pay the housekeeping expenses for the government. So why do you let these people send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their ancient homeland? And you say, "Oh, well. The poor Jews. They have no place to go and they've been persecuted all their lives". They've never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.
Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England? King Edward the First in 1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the Cromwell Revolution which was financed by the Rothschilds. For four-hundred years there wasn't a Jew. But do you know why they were driven out? Because in the Christian faith and the Moslem faith it's a sin to charge 'rent' for the use of money. In other words - what we call interest [usury] is a sin.
So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much interest, and when the Lords and Dukes couldn't pay, they [Jews] foreclosed. And they were creating so much trouble that the king of England finally made himself their partner, because when they they came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped off the Jews. . . the money-lenders. So the king finally said — and this is all in history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the Jews in England; two books you can find in your library. When the king found out what the trouble was all about, and how much money they were making, he declared himself a fifty-percent partner of the money lenders. Edward the First. And for many years, one-third of the revenues of the British Treasury came from the fifty-percent interest in money-lending by the Jews.
But it got worse and worse. So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes kept killing the money-lenders, the King then said, "I declare myself the heir of all the money-lenders. If they're killed you have to pay me, because I'm his sole heir". That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out and collect the money with an army, so he told the Jews to get out. There were 15,000 of them, and they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland, and that's how Ireland got to be part of the United Kingdom.
When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to take Ireland for himself before someone else did. He sent Robert Southgard with a mercenary army and conquered Ireland. So, show me one time where a Jew was persecuted in any country because of his religion. It has never happened. It's always their impact on the political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community in which they settle.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Question inaudible] Freedman:
Yes, sir. Well, they say most of those things themselves. It
was unnecessary for Benjamin Franklin to say it. Most of those things
they say themselves. But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay
understood, what was happening in Europe. When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the Khazar Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled to Western Europe and brought with them the very things to which you object and I object and a lot of other people object. The customs, the habits, the instincts with which they were endowed.
When Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that's the name that they went by, and when the Christians first heard that these people who were fleeing from Russia — who they were — that they had practiced this Talmudic faith — the Christians in Western Europe said, "They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!"
And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that — and he's probably as good an authority on that subject as there is. So when Ben Franklin came to Europe in the 18th century, he already saw the results of what these people had done after they left their homeland. And every word of it is true... they say it themselves. I can give you half a dozen books they've written in which they say the same thing: When they have money they become tyrants. And when they become defeated, they become ruthless. They're only barbarians. They're the descendants of Asiatic Mongols and they will do anything to accomplish their purpose.
What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did? The Czar had abdicated nine or ten months before that. There was no need for them. . . they were going to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn't want that. When the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they mowed them all down and established the Soviet Union.
There was no need for that. But they thought, "Now is the time", and if you you will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word 'Bolshevism', you'll find the five laws there that Lenin put down for a successful revolution. One of them is, "Wait for the right time, and then give them everything you've got". It would pay you to read that.
You'd also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and created and cultivated the Communist movement. And that their energy made them the spearhead of the movement. Harold Blacktree wrote it and no one knew more about Communism than he. And the Encyclopedia Britannica for 25 years has been printing it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Question inaudible] Freedman:
Well, I can't advocate that you do anything that's criminal, but I can
tell you this. You can start what I call an endless chain. If you
can get your friends to write, objectively, here is the statement: Mr.
Kennedy's office gave me this himself. Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr.
Kennedy, took over his office — was in his office — and gave me this. He
delivered this on the 25th, and it says here:
"For release to
AM (that means morning papers), August 25th". "Israel is here
to stay. It is a national commitment, special obligation of the
Democratic Party. The White House must take the lead. American
intervention. We will act promptly and decisively against any nation in
the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear
to both Israel and the Arab states our guarantee that we will act with whatever
force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation".
Well, do
you call the return of people to their homeland [the Arab Palestinians]
aggression? Is Mr. Kennedy going to do that? Suppose three million
Mexicans came into Texas and drove the six million Texans into the deserts of
Arizona and New Mexico. Suppose these Mexicans were slipped in there
armed — the Texans were disarmed — and one night they drove them all out of
Texas and declared themselves the Republic of the Alamo. What would the
United States say? Would we say it's aggression for these Texans to try to get their homes back from the Mexican thieves? Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly armed by the Soviets and overnight they rose up and drove all the whites into the swamps of Mississippi and Georgia and Florida. . . drove them out completely, and declared themselves the Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other. Would we call it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go back to their homes?
Would we. . . what would we think if the soviet Union said, "No, those Negroes now occupy them! Leave them there!", or "No, those Mexicans are in Texas. they declared themselves a sovereign state. Leave them there. You have plenty of room in Utah and Nevada. Settle somewhere else".
Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to go back to their homes? So now, you've got to write to President Kennedy and say, "We do not consider it aggression in the sense that you use the word, if these people want to return to their homes as the United Nations — fifteen times in the last twelve years — called upon the Zionists in occupation of Palestine to allow the Arab Palestinians to return to their former homes and farms".
[End of transcript of Benjamin Freedman speech, given in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.]
The History of the House of Rothschild
by Andrew Hitchcock
Notes:
an
organization of Jews whose goal is to create a nation for Jews.
Definition of Judaism:
Jews
collectively who practice a religion based on the Torah and the Talmud.
|
 The Rothschilds have
been in control of the world for a very long time, their tentacles reaching
into many aspects of our daily lives, as is documented in the following
timeline. However, before you jump to the timeline, please read this
invaluable introduction which will tell you who the Rothschilds are as oppose
to who they claim to be. You will find that approximately 90% of people in the world today who call themselves Jews are actually Khazars, or as they like to be known, Ashkenazi Jews. These people knowingly lie to the world with their claims that the land of Israel is theirs by birthright, when in actual fact their real homeland is over 800 miles away in Georgia. So, next time you hear an Israeli Prime Minister bleating about the so-called persecution of the Jews, consider this, every Prime Minister of Israel has been an Ashkenazi Jew. Therefore when all these Prime Ministers have curried favour with the West for their re-establishment of a Jewish homeland, they have knowingly and deliberately lied to you, as they were never from that region, and they well know it, because it is they who call themselves Ashkenazi Jews. The Book of Revelation, Chapter 2, Verse 9, states the following which would appear to be about these Ashkenazi Jews:
"I know thy works, and
tribulation and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy
of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of
Satan."
The most wealthy bloodline in the world bar none and the
leader of the Ashkenazi Jews in the world today is the Rothschild
family. As you will see in the timeline, the Rothschilds have obtained
this position through lies, manipulation and murder. Their bloodline
also extends into the Royal Families of Europe, and the following family
names: Astor; Bundy; Collins; duPont; Freeman; Kennedy; Morgan;
Oppenheimer; Rockefeller; Sassoon; Schiff; Taft; and Van Duyn.
However, these are not the
only bloodlines to worry about. You are probably aware of the centuries
old pratice undertaken by many Ashkenazi Jews whereby they would change their
name, in order for them to appear part of the dominant race of the country in
which they lived, so as they could obtain influential positions in that
country, which they would then exploit to serve their real masters
elsewhere. There is plenty of evidence to prove the Rothschilds
continue that deceptive tradition. Furthermore the Rothschilds are known to sire many children secretly that they can put into positions of power when required. This started with the very first man who took the name Rothschild, who had a secret sixth son. Finally, remember the world is a diverse place, I could if I wanted change my name to Rothschild, or any of the names listed above, and that would not make me part of this family anymore than converting to Judaism in 740 A.D. will make these Ashkenazis Jewish. Please, therefore, do not automatically assume someone you see with the name Rothschild or any of the names listed above are part of the Rothschild criminal network. Furthermore and most importantly, the majority of Ashkenazi Jews are innocent and not part of this network. Check the facts out for yourself first, this article is designed to inform people who the enemy is, not single out people of a particular race or people with a particular surname, who may have nothing to do with this Rothschild criminal network. 1743: Mayer Amschel Bauer, an Ashkenazi Jew, is born in Frankfurt, Germany, the son of Moses Amschel Bauer, a money lender and the proprietor of a counting house. Moses Amschel Bauer places a red sign above the entrance door to his counting house. This sign is a red hexagram (which geometrically and numerically translates into the number 666) which under Rothschild instruction will end up on the Israeli flag some two centuries later. 1753: Gutle Schnaper, an Ashkenazi Jew (future wife of Mayer Amschel Bauer), born to respected merchant, Wolf Salomon Schnaper. 1760: During this decade Mayer Amschel Bauer works for a bank owned by the Oppenheimers' in Hanover, Germany. He is highly successful and becomes a junior partner. Whilst working at the bank he becomes acquainted with General von Estorff. Following his father's death, Bauer returns to Frankfurt to take over his father's business. Bauer recognises the significance of the red hexagram and changes his name from Bauer to Rothschild, after the red hexagram or sign signifying 666 hanging over the entrance door ("Rot," is German for, "Red," "Schild," is German for, "Sign"). Now Mayer Amschel Rothschild, he discovers that General von Estorff is now attached to the court of Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau, one of the richest royal houses in Europe, which gained its' wealth by the hiring out of Hessian soldiers to foreign countries for vast profits (a practice that continues today in the form of exporting, "peacekeeping," troops throughout the world). He therefore makes the General's re-acquaintance on the pretext of selling him valuable coins and trinkets at discounted prices. As he plans, Rothschild is subsequently introduced to Prince William himself who is more than pleased with discounted prices he charges for his rare coins and trinkets, and Rothschild offers him a bonus for any other business the Prince can direct his way. Rothschild subsequently becomes close associates with Prince William, and ends up doing business with him and members of the court. He soon discovers that loaning money to governments and royalty is more profitable than loaning to individuals, as the loans are bigger and are secured by the nation's taxes. 1769: Mayer Amschel Rothschild is given permission by Prince William to hang a sign on the front of his business premises declaring that he is, "M. A. Rothschild, by appointment court factor to his serene highness, Prince William of Hanau." 1770: Mayer Amschel Rothschild draws up plans for the creation of the Illuminati and entrusts Ashkenazi Jew, Adam Weishaupt, a Crypto-Jew who was outwardly Roman Catholic, with its organization and development. The Illuminati is to be based upon the teachings of the Talmud, which is in turn, the teachings of Rabbinical Jews. It was to be called the Illuminati as this is a Luciferian term which means, keepers of the light. Mayer Amschel Rothschild marries Gutle Schnaper. 1773: Amschel Mayer Rothschild born, the first of Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s sons. He like all his brothers who follow him, will enter the family business at the age of 12. 1774: Salomon Mayer Rothschild born. 1776: Adam Weishaupt officially completes his organisation of the Illuminati on May 1 of this year. The purpose of the Illuminati is to divide the goyim (all non-Jews) through political, economic, social, and religious means. The opposing sides were to be armed and incidents were to be provided in order for them to: fight amongst themselves; destroy national governments; destroy religious institutions; and eventually destroy each other. Weishaupt soon infiltrates the Continental Order of Freemasons with this Illuminati doctrine and establishes lodges of the Grand Orient to be their secret headquarters. This was all under the orders and finance of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and the concept has spread and is followed within Masonic Lodges worldwide to the present day. Weishaupt also recruits 2,000 paid followers including the most intelligent men in the field of arts and letters, education, science, finance,and industry. They were instructed to follow the following methods in order to control people.
1) Use monetary and sex
bribery to obtain control of men already in high places, in the various
levels of all governments and other fields of endeavour. Once influential
persons had fallen for the lies, deceits, and temptations of the Illuminati
they were to be held in bondage by application of political and other forms
of blackmail, threats of financial ruin, public exposure, and fiscal harm,
even death to themselves and loved members of their families.
2) The
faculties of colleges and universities were to cultivate students possessing
exceptional mental ability belonging to well-bred families with international
leanings, and recommend them for special training in internationalism, or
rather the notion that only a one-world government can put an end to
recurring wars and strife. Such training was to be provided by granting
scholarships to those selected by the Illuminati.
3) All
influential people trapped into coming under the control of the Illuminati,
plus the students who had been specially educated and trained, were to be
used as agents and placed behind the scenes of all governments as experts and
specialists. This was so they would advise the top executives to adopt
policies which would in the long-run serve the secret plans of the Illuminati
one-world conspiracy and bring about the destruction of the governments and
religions they were elected or appointed to serve.
4) To
obtain absolute-control of the press, at that time the only
mass-communications media which distributed information to the public, so
that all news and information could be slanted in order to make the masses
believe that a one-world government is the only solution to our many and
varied problems.
1777: Nathan Mayer Rothschild born.
1784: Adam Weishaupt issues his order
for the French Revolution to be started by by Maximilien Robespierre in book
form. This book was written by one of Weishaupt's associates, Xavier
Zwack, and sent by courier from Frankfurt to Paris. However en route
there, the courier is struck by lightning, the book detailing this plan
discovered by the police, and handed over to the Bavarian authorities. As a consequence, the Bavarian government orders the police to raid Weishaupt's masonic lodges of the Grand Orient, and the homes of his most influential associates. Clearly, the Bavarian authorities were convinced that the book that was discovered was a very real threat by a private group of influential people, to use wars and revolutions to achieve their political ends. 1785: The Bavarian government outlaw the Illuminati and close all the Bavarian lodges of the Grand Orient. Mayer Amschel Rothschild moves his family home to a five storey house in Frankfurt which he shares with the Schiff family. 1786: The Bavarian government publish the details of the Illuminati plot in a document entitled, "The Original Writings of The Order and Sect of The Illuminati." They then send this document to all the heads of church and state throughout Europe, but sadly their warning is ignored. 1788: Kalmann (Carl) Mayer Rothschild Born. 1789: Due to the European ignorance of the Bavarian government's warning, the Illuminati's plan for a French Revolution succeeded from this year to 1793. This revolution was a bankers' dream, it established a new constitution and passed laws that forbade the Roman Church from levying tithes (taxes) and also removed its exemption from taxation. 1790: Mayer Amschel Rothschild states,
"Let me issue and control
a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
1791: The Rothschilds get, "control of a
nation's money," through Alexander Hamilton (their agent in George
Washington’s cabinet) when they set up a central bank in the USA called the
First Bank of the United States. This is established with a 20 year charter.
1792: Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild born. 1796: Amschel Mayer Rothschild marries Eva Hanau. 1798: John Robison publishes a book entitled, "Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies." In this book, Professor Robison of the University of Edinburgh, one of the leading intellects of his time, who in 1783 was elected general secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, gave details of the whole Rothschild Illuminati plot. He advised how he had been a high degree mason in the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, and had been invited by Adam Weishaupt to Europe, where he had been given a revised copy of Weishaupt's conspiracy. However, although he pretended to go along with it, Professor Robison did not agree with it and therefore published his aforementioned book. The book included details of the Bavarian government's investigation into the Illuminati and the French Revolution. That same year on July 19th, David Pappen, President of Harvard University, lectured the graduating class on the influence illuminism was having on American politics and religion. At the age of 21, Nathan Mayer Rothschild leaves Frankfurt for England, where with a large sum of money given to him by his father, he sets up a banking house in London. 1800: Salomon Mayer Rothschild marries Caroline Stern. 1806: Napolean states that it is his,
"object to remove the
house of Hess-Cassel from rulership and to strike it out of the list of powers."
On hearing this, Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau, flees
Germany, goes to Denmark and entrusts his fortune valued at $3,000,000 at
that time to Mayer Amschel Rothschild for safekeeping.
Nathan Mayer Rothschild
marries Hannah Barent Cohen the daughter of a wealthy London merchant. 1808: Nathan Mayer Rothschild has his first son born Lionel Nathan de Rothschild. 1810: Sir Francis Baring and Abraham Goldsmid die. This leaves Nathan Mayer Rothschild as the remaining major banker in England. Salomon Mayer Rothschild goes to Vienna, Austria and sets up the bank, M. von Rothschild und Söhne. 1811: The charter for the Rothschilds Bank of the United States runs out and Congress votes against its renewal. Nathan Mayer Rothschild is not amused and he states,
"Either the application
for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself
involved in a most disastrous war."
However the United States stands firm and the Charter is
not renewed, which causes Nathan Mayer Rothschild to issue another threat,
"Teach those impudent
Americans a lesson. Bring them back to colonial status."
1812: Backed by Rothschild money, and Nathan Mayer
Rothschild's orders, the British declare war on the United States. The
Rothschilds plan was to cause the United States to build up such a debt in
fighting this war that they would have to surrender to the Rothschilds and
allow the charter for the Rothschild owned First Bank of the United States to
be renewed.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild dies. In his will he lays out specific laws that the House of Rothschild
were to follow: all key positions in the family business were only to be held
by family members; only male members of the family were allowed to
participate in the family business, this included a reported sixth secret
bastard son (It is important to note that Mayer Amschel Rothschild also has
five daughters, so today the spread of the Rothschild Zionist dynasty without
the Rothschild name is far and wide, and Jews believe the mixed offspring of
a Jewish mother is solely Jewish); the family was to intermarry with it’s
first and second cousins to preserve the family fortune (of the 18 marriages
by Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s grandchildren, 16 were between first cousins -
a practice known today as inbreeding); no public inventory of his estate was
to be published; no legal action was to be taken with regard to the value of
the inheritance; the eldest son of the eldest son was to become the head of
the family (this condition could only be overturned when the majority of the
family agreed otherwise). This was straightaway the case and Nathan Mayer Rothschild was elected head of the family following his father, Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s death. Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild goes to Paris, France to set up the bank, de Rothschild Frères. Nathaniel de Rothschild, the son in law of Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild, born. 1814: With regard to the $3,000,000 Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau had entrusted to Mayer Amschel Rothschild for safekeeping, for an account of what happened next we turn to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1905 edition, Volume 10, page 494, which states,
"According to legend this
money was hidden away in wine casks, and, escaping the search of Napoleon's
soldiers when they entered Frankfurt, was restored intact in the same casks
in 1814, when the elector (Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau) returned to the
electorate (Germany). The facts are somewhat less romantic, and more
businesslike."
This last line indicates the money was never returned by
Rothschild to Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau. The encyclopaedia goes on to
state,
"Nathan Mayer Rothschild
invested this $3,000,000 in, gold from the East India Company knowing that it
would be needed for Wellington's peninsula campaign."
On the stolen money Nathan made,
"no less than four
profits:
i) On the sale of Wellington's
paper which he bought at 50 cents on the dollar and collected at par;
ii) on the sale of gold to Wellington; iii) on its repurchase; and iv) on forwarding it to Portugal."
1815: The five Rothschild brothers work to supply
gold to both Wellington's army (through Nathan in England) and Napoleon's
army (through Jacob in France), and begin their policy of funding both sides
in wars. The Rothschilds love wars because they are massive generators of risk
free debt.
This is because they are
guaranteed by the government of a country, and therefore the efforts of the
population of that country, and it doesn't matter if that country loses
the war because the loans are given on the guarantee that the victor will
honour the debts of the vanquished. Whilst the Rothschilds are funding both sides in this war, they use the banks they have spread out across Europe to give them the opportunity to set up an unrivalled postal service network of secret routes and fast couriers. The post these couriers carried was to be opened up by these couriers and their details given to the Rothschilds so they always were one step ahead of current events. Furthermore, these Rothschild couriers were the only merchants allowed to pass through the English and French blockades. It was these couriers who also kept Nathan Mayer Rothschild up to date with how the war was going so he could use that intelligence to buy and sell from his position on the stock exchange in accordance with that intelligence. One of Rothschild's couriers was a man named Rothworth. When the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo was won by the British, Rothworth took off for the Channel and was able to deliver this news to Nathan Mayer Rothschild, a full 24 hours before Wellington's own courier. At that time British bonds were called consuls and they were traded on the floor of the stock exchange. Nathan Mayer Rothschild instructed all his workers on the floor to start selling consuls. The made all the other traders believe that the British had lost the war so they started selling frantically. Therefore the consuls plummeted in value which was when Nathan Mayer Rothschild discreetly instructed his workers to purchase all the consuls they could lay their hands on. When news came through that the British had actually won the war, the consuls went up to a level even higher than before the war ended leaving Nathan Mayer Rothschild with a return of approximately 20 to 1 on his investment. This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy, now the financial centre of the world following Napolean's defeat, and forced England to set up a new Bank of England, which Nathan Mayer Rothschild controlled. Interestingly 100 years later the New York Times would run a story stating that Nathan Mayer Rothschild's grandson had attempted to secure a court order to suppress publication of a book which had this insider trading story in it. The Rothschild family claimed the story was untrue and libellous, but the court denied the Rothschilds request and ordered the family to pay all court costs. Back to 1815, this is the year Nathan Mayer Rothschild makes his famous statement,
"I care not what puppet
is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun
never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British
Empire, and I control the British money supply."
He would go onto brag that in the 17 years he had been in
England he had increased the £20,000 stake given to him by his father, 2500
times to £50 million.
The Rothschilds also use
their control of the Bank of England to replace the method of shipping gold
from country to country and instead used their five banks spread across
Europe to set up a system of paper debits and credits, the banking system of
today. By the end of this century, a period of time that was known as the, "Age of the Rothschilds," it is estimated that the Rothschild family controlled half the wealth of the world. However something that did not go well for the Rothschilds this year was the Congress of Vienna, which started in September, 1814 and concluded in June of this year. The reason for this Congress of Vienna, was for the Rothschilds to create a form of world government, to give them complete political control over much of the civilized world. Many of the European governments were in debt to the Rothschilds, so they figured they could use that as a bargaining tool. However the Tsar Alexander I of Russia, who had not succumbed to a Rothschild central bank, would not go along with the plan, so the Rothschild world government plan failed. Enraged by this, Nathan Mayer Rothschild swore that some day he or his descendants would destroy the Tsar Alexander I's entire family and descendants. Unfortunately he was true to his word and 102 years later Rothschild funded Bolsheviks would act upon that promise. Interestingly, world government fanatic and Ashkenazi Jew, Henry Kissinger, did his doctoral dissertation on the Congress of Vienna. 1816: The American Congress passes a bill permitting yet another Rothschild dominated central bank, which gives the Rothschilds control of the American money supply again. This is called the Second Bank of the United States and is given a twenty year charter. The British war against the America therefore ends with the deaths of thousands of British and American soldiers, but the Rothschilds get their bank. 1818: Following the French securing massive loans in 1817 in order to help rebuild after their disastrous defeat at Waterloo, Rothschild agents bought vast amounts of French government bonds causing their value to increase. On November 5th they dumped the lot on the open market causing their value to plummet and France to go into a financial panic. The Rothschilds then stepped in to take control of the French money supply. This was the same year the Rothschilds were able to loan £5,000,000 to the Prussian government. 1821: Kalmann (Carl) Mayer Rothschild was sent to Naples, Italy. He would end up doing a lot of business with the Vatican and Pope Gregory XVI subsequently conferred upon him the Order of St. George. Also, whenever the Pope received Kalmann, he would give him his hand rather than the customary toe to kiss, which showed the extent of Kalmann's power over the Vatican. 1822: The emperor of Austria made the five Rothschild brothers Barons. Nathan Mayer Rothschild chose not to take up the title. 1823: The Rothschilds take over the financial operations of the Catholic Church, worldwide. 1827: Sir Walter Scott publishes his nine volume set, The life of Napolean and in volume two he states that the French Revolution was planned by the Illuminati (Adam Weishaupt) and was financed by the money changers of Europe (The Rothschilds). 1832: President Andrew Jackson (the 7th President of the United States from 1829 to 1837), runs the campaign for his second term in office under the slogan, "Jackson And No Bank!" This is in reference to his plan to take the control of the American money system to benefit the American people, not for the profiteering of the Rothschilds. 1833: President Andrew Jackson starts removing the government's deposits from the Rothschild controlled, Second Bank of the United States and instead deposits them into banks directed by democratic bankers. This causes the Rothschilds to panic and so they do what they do best, contract the money supply causing a depression. President Jackson knows what they are up to and later states,
"You are a den of thieves
vipers, and I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you
out."
1834: The Italian revolutionary leader,
Guiseppe Mazzini, is selected by the Illuminati to direct their revolutionary
program throughout the world and would serve in that capacity until he died
in 1872.
1835: On January 30, an assassin
tries to shoot President Jackson, but miraculously both of the assassin's
pistols misfired. President Jackson would later claim that he knew the
Rothschilds were responsible for that attempted assassination. He is
not the only one, the assassin, Richard Lawrence, who was found not guilty by
reason of insanity, later bragged that powerful people in Europe had hired
him and promised to protect him if he were caught. The Rothschilds acquire the rights in the Almadén quicksilver mines in Spain. This was at the time the biggest concession in the world and as quicksilver was a vital component in the refining of gold or silver this gave the Rothschilds a virtual world monopoly. 1836: Following his years of fighting against the Rothschilds and their central bank in America, President Andrew Jackson finally succeeds in throwing the Rothschilds central bank out of America, when the bank's charter is not renewed. It would not be until 1913 that the Rothschilds would be able to set up their third central bank in America, the Federal Reserve, and to ensure no mistakes are made, this time they will put one of their own bloodline, Jacob Schiff, in charge of the project. Nathan Mayer Rothschild dies and the control of his bank, N. M. Rothschild & Sons is passed on to his younger brother, James Mayer Rothschild. 1837: The Rothschilds send one of their own, August Belmont, an Ashkenazi Jew, to America to salvage their banking interests defeated by President Andrew Jackson. 1840: The Rothschilds become the Bank of England’s bullion brokers. They set up agencies in California and Australia. 1841: President John Tyler (the 10th President of the United States From 1841 to 1845) vetoed the act to renew the charter for the Bank of the United States. He goes on to receive hundreds of letters threatening him with assassination. 1844: Salomon Mayer Rothschild purchases the United Coal Mines of Vítkovice and Austro-Hungarian Blast Furnace Company that would go on to be one of the top ten global industrial concerns. Benjamin Disraeli, an Ashkenazi Jew (who would go on to become British Prime Minister twice - the only admitted Ashkenazi Jew to do so) publishes Coningsby, in which he characterises Nathan Mayer Rothschild as,
"the Lord and Master of
the money markets of the world, and of course virtually Lord and Master of
everything else. He literally held the revenues of Southern Italy in pawn,
and Monarchs and Ministers of all countries courted his advice and were
guided by his suggestions."
1845: The Great American Patriot, Andrew Jackson
(7th President of the United States) dies.
Before his death he is asked
what he regarded his as greatest achievement. He replies without
hesitation,
"I Killed The Bank,"
This is in reference to the fact he banished the
Rothschilds Second Bank of the United States in 1836.
Jacob (James) Mayer
Rothschild (who by now had married his niece, Betty, Salomon Mayer
Rothschild's daughter), now known as Baron James de Rothschild, wins the
contract to build the first major railway line across the country. This was called the Chemin De Fer Du Nord and ran initially from Paris to Valenciennes and then joined with the Austrian rail network built by his brother (and wife's father - all sounds a bit sordid doesn't it) Salomon Mayer Rothschild. 1847: Lionel De Rothschild now married to the daughter of his uncle, Kalmann (Carl) Mayer Rothschild, is elected to the parliamentary seat for the City of London. A requirement for entering parliament was to take an oath in the true faith of a Christian. Lionel De Rothschild refused to do this as he was Jewish and his seat in parliament remained empty for 11 years until new oaths were allowed. He must have been an invaluable representative for his constituency, bearing in mind he could never vote on any bill as he never entered parliament! I wonder how he managed to keep his parliamentary seat for 11 years? 1848: Karl Marx, an Ashkenazi Jew, publishes, "The Communist Manifesto." Interestingly at the same time as he is working on this, Karl Ritter of Frankfurt University was writing the antithesis which would form the basis for Freidrich Wilhelm Nietzsche's, "Nietzscheanism." This Nietzecheanism was later developed into Fascism and then into Nazism and was used to forment the first and second world wars. Marx, Ritter, and Nietzsche were all funded and under the instruction of the Rothschilds. The idea was that those who direct the overall conspiracy could use the differences in those two so-called ideologies to enable them to divide larger and larger factions of the human race into opposing camps so that they could be armed and then brainwashed into fighting and destroying each other, and particularly, to destroy all political and religious institutions. The same plan put forward by Weishaupt in 1776. Eva Hanau, Amschel Mayer Rothschild’s wife dies. 1849: Gutle Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife dies. Before her death she would nonchalantly state,
"If my sons did not want
wars, there would be none."
1850: Construction begins this decade on the manor
houses of Mentmore in England and Ferrières in France, more Rothschilds
Manors will follow throughout the world, all of them filled with works of
art.
Jacob (James) Rothschild in
France is said to be worth 600 million francs, which at the time was 150
million francs more than all the other bankers in France put together. 1852: N.M. Rothschild & Sons begins refining gold and silver for the Royal Mint and the Bank of England and other international customers. 1853: Nathaniel de Rothschild, the son in law of Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild, purchases Château Brane Mouton, the Bordeaux vineyard of Mouton, and renames it Château Mouton Rothschild. 1854: Caroline Stern, Salomon Mayer Rothschild’s wife, dies. 1855: Amschel Mayer Rothschild dies. Salomon Mayer Rothschild dies. Kalmann (Carl) Mayer Rothschild dies. 1858: Lionel De Rothschild finally takes his seat in parliament when the requirement to take an oath in the true faith of a Christian is broadened to include other oaths. He becomes the first Jewish member of the British parliament. 1861: President Abraham Lincoln (16th President of the United States from 1860 till his assassination in 1865) approaches the big banks in New York to try to obtain loans to support the ongoing American civil war. As these large banks were heavily under the influence of the Rothschilds, they offer him a deal they know he cannot accept, 24% to 36% interest on all monies loaned. Lincoln is very angry about this high level of interest and so he prints his own debt free money and informs the public that this is now legal tender for both public and private debts. 1862: By April $449,338,902 worth of Lincoln’s debt free money has been printed and distributed. He states of this,
“We gave the people of this
republic the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper money to pay
their own debts.”
That same year The Times of London publishes a story
containing the following statement,
"If that mischievous
financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should
become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own
money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have
all the money necessary to carry on its commerce.
It will become prosperous
beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The
brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That
government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the
globe."
1863: President Abraham Lincoln discovers the Tsar
of Russia, Alexander II (1855 – 1881), was having problems with the
Rothschilds as well as he was refusing their continual attempts to set up a
central bank in Russia. The Tsar then gives President Lincoln some
unexpected help.
The Tsar issued orders that
if either England or France actively intervened in the American Civil War,
and help the South, Russia would consider such action a declaration of war,
and take the side of President Lincoln. To show that he wasn't messing
about, he sent part of his Pacific Fleet to port in San Francisco and another
part to New York. The Rothschild banking house in Naples, Italy, C. M. de Rothschild e figli, closes following the unification of Italy. The Rothschilds use one of their own in America, John D. Rockefeller, to form an oil business called Standard Oil which eventually takes over all of its competition. 1864: Rothschild, August Belmont, who by now is the Democratic Party's National Chairman, supports General George McClellan as the Democratic nominee to run against President Abraham Lincoln in this year's election. Much to the anger of Belmont, President Lincoln wins the election. 1865: In a statement to Congress, President Abraham Lincoln states,
"I have two great
enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institutions in
the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe."
Later that year, on April 14, President Lincoln is
assassinated, less than two months before the end of the American Civil War.
Following a brief training
period in the Rothschilds London Bank, Jacob Schiff, a Rothschild, born in
their house in Frankfurt, arrives in America at the age of 18, with
instructions and the finance necessary to buy into a banking house
there. The purpose of this was to carry out the following tasks.
1. Gain control of
America's money system through the establishment of a central bank.
2. Find desirable men, who for a price, would be willing to serve as stooges for the Illuminati and promote them into high places in the federal government, the Congress, Supreme Court, and all the federal agencies. 3. Create minority group strife throughout the nations, particularly targeting the whites and blacks. 4. Create a movement to destroy religion in the United States, with Christianity as the main target.
Nathaniel de Rothschild becomes Member of Parliament for
Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire.
1868: Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild dies,
shortly after purchasing Château Lafite, one of the four great premier grand
cru estates of France. He is the last of Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s sons to
die. 1870: Nathaniel de Rothschild dies. 1871: An American General named, Albert Pike, who had been enticed into the Illuminati by Guissepe Mazzini, completes his military blueprint for three world wars and various revolutions throughout the world, culminating into moving this great conspiracy into its final stage. The first world war is to be fought for the purpose of destroying the Tsar in Russia,as promised by Nathan Mayer Rothschild in 1815. The Tsar is to be replaced with communism which is to be used to attack religions, predominantly Christianity. The differences between the British and German empires are to be used to forment this war. The second world war is to be used to forment the controversy between facism and political zionism with the slaughter of Jews in Germany a lynchpin in bringing hatred against the German people. This is designed to destroy fascism (which the Rothschilds created) and increase the power of political zionism. This war is also designed to increase the power of communism to the level that it equalled that of united Christendom. The third world war is to be played out by stirring up hatred of the Muslim world for the purposes of playing the Islamic world and the political zionists off against one another. Whilst this is going on, the remaining nations would be forced to fight themselves into a state of mental, physical, spiritual and economic exhaustion. On August 15th of this year, Albert Pike writes a letter (now catalogued in the British Museum) to Guiseppe Mazzini in which he states the following,
"We shall unleash the
nihilists and the atheists and we shall provoke a great social cataclysm
which in all its horror will show clearly to all nations the effect of
absolute atheism; the origins of savagery and of most bloody turmoil.
Then everywhere, the people
will be forced to defend themselves against the world minority of the world
revolutionaries and will exterminate those destroyers of civilization and the
multitudes disillusioned with Christianity whose spirits will be from that
moment without direction and leadership and anxious for an ideal, but without
knowledge where to send its adoration, will receive the true light through
the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer brought finally
out into public view.
A
manifestation which will result from a general reactionary movement which
will follow the destruction of Christianity and Atheism; both conquered and
exterminated at the same time."
Pike, who having been elected as Sovereign Grand Commander
of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry's Southern Jurisdiction in 1859, was the
most powerful Freemason in America. He would retain that post for 32
years until his death in 1891. He also published a book on the subject
in 1872 entitled, "Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish
Rite of Freemasonry," in which he candidly states the following,
"LUCIFER, the
Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darknesss!
Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its
splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls? Doubt it
not!"
1872: Prior to Guiseppe Mazzini's death this
year, he makes another revolutionary leader named Adrian Lemmy his
successor. Lemmy will be subsequently succeeded by Lenin and Trotsky,
then by Stalin. The revolutionary activities of all these men are
financed by the Rothschilds.
1873: The loss making Rio Tinto copper
mines in Spain, are purchased by a group of foreign financiers including the
Rothschilds. These mines represented Europe’s largest source of copper. 1875: On January 1 of this year Jacob Schiff, now Solomon Loeb's son-in-law after marrying his daughter, Teresa, takes control of the banking house, Kuhn, Loeb & Co. He goes on to finance John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company, Edward R. Harriman's Railroad Empire, and Andrew Carnegie's Steel Empire. This is all with Rothschild money. He then identifies the other largest bankers in America at that time. They are, J.P. Morgan who controls Wall Street, and the Drexels and the Biddles of Philadelphia. All the other financiers, big and little, danced to the music of those three houses. Schiff then gets the European Rothschilds to set up European branches of these three large banks on the understanding that Schiff, and therefore Rothschild, is to be the boss of banking in New York and therefore America. N M Rothschild & Sons undertake a share issue to raise capital for the first channel tunnel project to link France to England, with half of its capital coming from the Rothschild owned Compagnie du Chemin de Fer du Nord. This year Lionel De Rothschild also loans Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli the finance for the British government to purchase the shares in the Suez Canal, from Khedive Said of Egypt. This was done as the Rothschilds needed this access route to be held by a government they controlled, so they could use that government's military to protect their huge business interests in the Middle East. 1876: Otto von Bismarck states,
"The division of the
United States into two federations of equal force was decided long before the
civil war by the high financial power of Europe. These bankers were
afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one
nation, would attain economical and financial independence, which would upset
their financial domination over the world.
The voice of the Rothschilds
predominated. They foresaw the tremendous booty if they could substitute two
feeble democracies, indebted to the financiers, to the vigorous Republic,
confident and self-providing.
Therefore
they started their emissaries in order to exploit the question of slavery and
thus dig an abyss between the two parts of the Republic."
1879: Lionel de Rothschild dies.
1880: Rothschild agents begin
formenting a series of pogroms predominantly in Russia, but also in Poland,
Bulgaria and Romania. These pogroms resulted in the slaughter of
thousands of innocent Jews, causing approximately 2 million to flee, mainly
to New York, but also to Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and Los Angeles. The reason these pogroms were initiated, was to create a large Jewish base in America, who when they arrived, would be educated to register as Democrat voters. Some twenty years later, this would result in in a massive Democratic power base in the United States and be used to elect Rothschild front men such as Woodrow Wilson, to the Presidency, to carry out the bidding of the Rothschilds. 1881: President James A. Garfield (The 20th President of the United States who lasted only 100 Days) states two weeks before he is assassinated,
“Whoever controls the volume
of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and
when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or
another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how
periods of inflation and depression originate.”
Edmond James de Rothschild has a son Maurice de
Rothschild.
1883: After 6,000 feet of tunnel in the
channel tunnel project being excavated, the British government halt the
project citing the fact that it would be a threat to Britain’s security. 1885: Nathaniel Rothschild, son of Lionel De Rothschild, becomes the first Jewish peer and is takes the title of Lord Rothschild. 1886: The French Rothschild bank, de Rothschild Frères obtains substantial amounts of Russia's oil fields and forms the Caspian and Black Sea Petroleum Company, which quickly becomes the world's second largest oil producer. 1887: Opium trafficker in China, Edward Albert Sassoon, marries Aline Caroline de Rothschild, the grand-daughter of Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild. Aline Caroline's father, Gustave, together with his brother, Alphonse, took over the Rothschild's french arm following their father Jacob's death. The Rothschilds finance the amalgamation of the Kimberley diamond mines in South Africa. They subsequently become the biggest shareholders of this company, De Beers, and mine precious stones in Africa and India. 1888: Noémie Halphen, future wife of Maurice de Rothschild born. 1891: The British Labour Leader makes the following statement on the subject of the Rothschilds,
"This blood-sucking crew
has been the cause of untold mischief and misery in Europe during the present
century, and has piled up its prodigious wealth chiefly through fomenting
wars between States which ought never to have quarrelled.
Whenever
there is trouble in Europe, wherever rumours of war circulate and men’s minds
are distraught with fear of change and calamity you may be sure that a
hook-nosed Rothschild is at his games somewhere near the region of the
disturbance."
Comments like this worry the Rothschilds and towards the
end of the 1800’s they purchase Reuters news agency so they can have some
control of the media.
1895: Edmond James de Rothschild the
youngest son of Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild visits Palestine and
subsequently supplies the funds to found the first Jewish colonies there,
this is to further their long term objective of creating a Rothschild owned
country. 1897: The Rothschilds found the Zionist Congress to promote Zionism (a political movement with the sole aim of moving all Jews into a singularly Jewish nation state) and arrange its first meeting in Munich. However due to extreme opposition from local Jews, who are quite happy where they are, this meeting has to be moved to Basle, Switzerland and takes place on 29 August. The meeting is chaired by Ashkenazi Jew, Theodor Herzl, who would state in his diaries,
"It is essential that the
sufferings of Jews….become worse….this will assist in realization of our
plans….I have an excellent idea….I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate
Jewish wealth….The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen
the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best
friends."
Herzl is subsequently elected President of the Zionist
Organisation which adopts the, "Rothschild Red Hexagram or Sign,"
as the Zionist flag which 51 years later will end up as the flag of Israel.
Edward Henry Harriman becomes
a director of the Union Pacific Railroad and goes on to take control of the
Southern Pacific Railroad. This is all financed by the Rothschilds. 1898: Ferdinand de Rothschild dies. 1901: The Jews from the colonies set up in Palestine by Edmond James de Rothschild, send a delegation to him which tell him,
"If you wish to save the
Yishuv (The Jewish settlement) first take your hands from it, and…for once
permit the colonists to have the possibility of correcting for themselves
what needs correcting."
Edmond James de Rothschild is very angry about this and
states,
"I created the Yishuv, I
alone. Therefore no men, neither colonists nor organisations have the
right to interfere in my plans."
The Rothschild banking house in Frankfurt, Germany, M. A.
von Rothschild und Söhne, closes as there is no male Rothschild heir to take
it on.
1902: Philippe de Rothschild born. 1905: A group of Rothschild backed Zionist Jews led by Georgi Apollonovich Gapon attempt to overthrow the Tsar in Russia in a Communist Coup. They fail and are forced to flee Russia only to be given refuge in Germany. The Jewish Encyclopaedia (Vol. 2, p.497) states,
"It is a somewhat curious
sequel to the attempt to set up a Catholic competitor to the Rothschilds that
at the present time the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure."
1906: The Rothschilds claim that due to growing
instability in the region and increasing competition from Rockefeller (the
Rockefeller family are Rothschild descendants through a female bloodline)
owned Standard Oil, this is why they sell their Caspian and Black Sea
Petroleum Company to Royal Dutch and Shell. This is another example of
the Rothschilds trying to hide their true wealth.
1907: Rothschild, Jacob Schiff, the head of
Kuhn, Loeb and Co., in a speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce, warns
that,
"Unless we have a Central
Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to
undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history."
Suddenly America finds itself in the middle of another
typical run of the mill Rothschild engineered financial crisis, which ruins
as usual ruins the lives of millions of innocent people throughout America
and makes billions for the Rothschilds.
1909: Jacob Schiff founds the National
Advancement for the Association of the Coloured People (NAACP). This
was done to incite black people into roiting, looting and other forms of
disorder, in order to cause a rift between the black and white
communities. Jewish historian, Howard Sachar, states the following in
his book, "A History of the Jews in America,"
"In 1914, Professor
Emeritus Joel Spingarn of Columbia University became chairman of the NAACP
and recruited for its board such Jewish leaders as Jacob Schiff, Jacob
Billikopf, and Rabbi Stephen Wise."
Other Ashkenazi Jew co-founders included Julius Rosenthal,
Lillian Wald and Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch. It was not until 1920 that the
NAACP appointed its first black president, James Weldon Johnson.
Maurice de Rothschild marries
Ashkenazi Jew, Noémie Halphen. 1911: Werner Sombart, in his book, "The Jews and Modern Capitalism," stated that from 1820 on, it was the,
"Age of the
Rothschild," and concluded that there was, "Only one power in Europe,
and that is Rothschild."
1912: In the December issue of, "Truth,"
magazine, George R. Conroy states of banker Jacob Schiff,
"Mr Schiff is head of the
great private banking house of Kuhn, Loeb, and co, which represents the
Rothschilds interests on this side of the Atlantic.
He has been
described as financial strategist and has been for years the financial
minister of the great impersonal power known as Standard Oil.
He was hand in glove with the
Harrimans, the Goulds, and the Rockefellers in all their railroad enterprises
and has become the dominant power in the railroad and financial power of
America."
1913: On March 4, Woodrow Wilson is elected the
28th President of the United States. Shortly after he is inaugurated,
he is visited in the White House by Ashkenazi Jew, Samuel Untermyer, of law
firm, Guggenheim, Untermyer, and Marshall, who tries to blackmail him for the
sum of $40,000 in relation to an affair Wilson had whilst he was a professor
at Princeton University, with a fellow professor's wife.
President Wilson does not
have the money, so Untermyer volunteers to pay the $40,000 out of his own
pocket to the woman Wilson had had the affair with, on the condition that
Wilson promise to appoint to the first vacancy on the United States Supreme
Court a nominee to be recommended to President Wilson by Untermyer.
Wilson agrees to this. Jacob Schiff sets up the Anti Defamation League (ADL) in the United States. This organisation is formed to slander anyone who questions or challenges the Rothschild global conspiracy as, "anti-semitic." Strangely enough, the same year that they do this they also set up their last and current central bank in America, the Federal Reserve. Congressman Charles Lindbergh stated following the passing of the Federal Reserve Act on December 23,
"The Act establishes the
most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this Bill, the
invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized.......The
greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency
bill."
It is important to note that the Federal Reserve is a
private company, it is neither Federal nor does it have any Reserve. It is
conservatively estimated that profits exceed $150 billion per year and the
Federal Reserve has never once in its history published accounts.
1914: The start of World War I. In
this war, the German Rothschilds loan money to the Germans, the British
Rothschilds loan money to the British, and the French Rothschilds loan money
to the French. Futhermore, the Rothschilds have control of the three European news agencies, Wolff (est. 1849) in Germany, Reuters (est. 1851) in England, and Havas (est. 1835) in France. The Rothschilds use Wolff to manipulate the German people into a fervour for war. From around this time, the Rothschilds are rarely reported in the media, because they own the media. 1916: On June 4, Ashkenazi Jew, Louis Dembitz Brandeis is appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States by President Wilson as per his agreed blackmail payment to Samuel Untermyer some three years earlier. Justice Brandeis is also the elected leader of the Executive Committee for Zionist Affairs, a position he has held since 1914. The middle of World War II. Germany were winning the war as they were being financed by the Rothschilds to a greater extent than France, Italy and England, because Rothschilds, did not want to support the Tsar in Russia, and of course Russia was on the same side as France, Italy and England. Then a significant event occurred. Germany, although they were winning the war and not one foreign soldier had set foot on their soil, offered armistice to Britain with no requirement of reparations. The Rothschilds were anxious to make sure this didn't happen as they were expecting to make far more money off this war, so they played another card they had up their sleeve. Whilst the British were considering Germany's offer, Rothschild agent Louis Brandeis sends a Zionist delegation from America to Britain to promise to bring America into the war on the side of the British, provided the British agree to give the land of Palestine to the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds wanted Palestine for the following reason. They had great business interests in the far east and desired their own state in that area along with their own military which they could use as an aggressor to any state that threatened those interests. The British subsequently agree to the deal for Palestine and the Zionists in London contact their counterparts in America and inform them of this fact. Suddenly all the major newspapers in America that up to that point had been pro-German turned on Germany running propaganda pieces such as: German soldiers were killing Red Cross Nurses; German soldiers were cutting off babies hands, etc, in order to manipulate the American public against the Germans. This same year, President Woodrow Wilson, ran a re-election campaign under the slogan, "Re-Elect The Man Who Will Keep Your Sons Out Of The War." On December 12, Germany and her allies offer peace terms to end the war. 1917: As a result of Germany's offer of peace the Rothschild war machine goes into overdrive in America, spreading propaganda which leads to President Wilson under the instructions of American Zionist leader and Supreme Court Justice, Louis Dembitz Brandeis, reneging on his promise to the electorate and taking America into the first world war on April 6. As per the Rothschild Zionist promise to the British, to take America into the war, they decide they want something in writing from the British to prove that they will uphold their side of the bargain. The British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour therefore drafts a letter which is commonly known as the, "Balfour Declaration," which is reprinted below.
Foreign Office
November
2nd, 1917
Dear Lord
Rothschild,
I have much
pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the
following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has
been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
His
Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to
facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that
nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of
existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political
status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be
grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist
Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James
Balfour
The Rothschilds order the execution by the Bolsheviks they
control, of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family in Russia, even though the
Tsar had already abdicated on March 2. This is both to get control of
the country and an act of revenge for Tsar Alexander I blocking their world
government plan in 1815 at the Congress Of Vienna, and Tsar Alexander II
siding with President Abraham Lincoln in 1864.
It is extremely important for
them to slaughter the entire family including women and children in order to
make good on the promise to do so made by Nathan Mayer Rothschild in
1815. It is designed to show the world what happens if you ever attempt
to cross the Rothschilds. U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway informs Congress that J. P. Morgan is a Rothschild front and has taken control of the American media industry. He states,
"In March, 1915, the J.P.
Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their
subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world
and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United
States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the
daily press...
...They
found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest
papers...An agreement was reached. The policy of the papers was bought,
to be paid for by the month, an editor was furnished for each paper to
properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of
preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national
and international nature considered vital to the interests of the
purchasers."
1919: In January, Ashkenazi Jews, Karl
Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, are killed as they attempt to lead another
Rothschild funded Communist coup, this time in Berlin, Germany.
The Versailles peace
conference is held to decide reparations that the Germans need to pay to the
victors following the end of the first world war. A delegation of 117
Zionists headed up by Ashkenazi Jew, Bernard Baruch, bring up the subject of
the promise of Palestine for them. At this point the Germans realised
why America had turned on them and under whose influence, the Rothschilds. The Germans, naturally, felt they had been betrayed by the Zionists. This is because, at the time the Rothschilds made their deal with Britain for Palestine, in exchange for bringing America into the war, Germany was the most friendly country in the world towards the Jews, indeed the German Emancipation Edict of 1822 guaranteed Jews in Germany all civil rights enjoyed by Germans. Also, Germany was the only country in Europe which did not place restrictions on Jews, even giving them refuge when they had to flee from Russia after their first attempted Communist coup failed there in 1905. Nevertheless, the Rothschilds had held up their side of the bargain to spill the blood of millions of innocents and as a result, Palestine is confirmed as a Jewish homeland, and whilst its handover to the Rothschilds takes place it is to remain under the control of Britain as the Rothschilds control Britain. At that time less than one percent of the population of Palestine was Jewish. Interestingly, the host of the Versailles peace conference is its boss, Baron Edmond de Rothschild. The Versailles peace conference is also used as an attempt by the Rothschilds to set up a world government under the pretext of ending all wars (which they create). This was called the, "League of Nations." Fortunately not enough countries accepted it and so it soon died. On March 29th The Times of London reports on the Bolsheviks in Russia,
"One of the curious
features of the Bolshevist movement is the high percentage of non Russian
elements among its leaders. Of the twenty or thirty commissaries, or leaders,
who provide the central machinery of the Bolshevist movement, not less than
75% were Jews."
It is reported that the Rothschilds were angry with the
Russians because they were not prepared to allow them to form a central bank
within their nation. They therefore gathered groups of Jewish spies and
sent them into Russia to drum up a revolution for the benefit of the common
man, which was actually a takeover of Russia by a Rothschild controlled
satanic elite.
These Jewish spies were, in
age old deceptive Ashkenazi tradition, given Russian names, for example
Trotsky was a member of the first group and his original name was Bronstein.
These groups were sent to areas throughout Russia to incite riots and
rebellion. The Jewish Post International Edition, week ending January 24th 1991, confirms Vladimir Lenin was Jewish. Lenin is also on record as having stated,
“The establishment of a
central bank is 90% of communizing a nation.”
These Jewish, Rothschild funded Bolsheviks would go on in
the course of history to slaughter 60 million Christians and Non-Jews in
Soviet controlled territory. Indeed the author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his
work, “Gulag Archipelago, Vol 2,” affirms that Zionist Jews created and
administered the organized Soviet concentration camp system in which
these tens of millions of Christians and Non-Jews died.
On page 79 of this book he
even names the administrators of this the greatest killing machine in the
history of the world. They are Aron Solts, Yakov Rappoport, Lazar Kogan,
Matvei Berman, Genrikh Yagoda, and Naftaly Frenkel. All six are Zionist Jews.
In 1970 Solzhenitsyn would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for literature. N. M. Rothschild & Sons’ are given a permanent role to fix the world’s daily gold price. This takes place in the City of London offices, daily at 1100 hours, in the same room until 2004. 1920: Winston Churchill (whose mother, Jenny (Jacobson) Jerome, was Jewish – meaning he is Jewish under Ashkenazi law as he was born of a Jewish mother) writes in an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, dated February 8th,
"From the days of
Illuminati leader Weishaupt, to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, this
worldwide conspiracy has been steadily growing.
And now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the
great cities of Europe and America, have gripped the Russian people by the
hair of their heads and become the undisputed masters of that enormous
empire."
1921: Under the orders of Jacob Schiff the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is founded by Ashkenazi Jews, Bernard
Baruch and Colonel Edward Mandell House. Schiff gave his orders prior
to his death in 1920, as he knew an organisation in America needed to be set
up to select politicians to carry on the Rothschild conspiracy,and the formation
of the CFR was actually agreed in a meeting on May 30, 1919 at the Hotel
Majestic in Paris, France.
The CFR membership at the
start was approximately 1000 people in the United States. This
membership included the heads of virtually every industrial empire in
America, all the American based international bankers, and the heads of all
their tax free foundations. In essence all those people who would
provide the capital required for anyone who wished to run for Congress, the
Senate or the Presidency. The first job of the CFR was to gain control of the press. This task was given to John D. Rockefeller who set up a number of national news magazines such as Life, and Time. He financed Samuel Newhouse to buy up and establish a chain of newspapers all across the country, and Eugene Meyer also who would go on to buy up many publications such as the Washington Post, Newsweek, ant The Weekly Magazine. The CFR also needed to gate control of radio, television and the motion picture industry. This task was split amongst the international bankers from, Kuhn Loeb, Goldman Sachs, the Warburgs, and the Lehmanns. 1925: This year's Jewish Encyclopaedia, states of the existence of Ashkenazi Jews (who represent approximately 90% of so-called world Jewry), with the startling admission that the so called enemy of the Jews, Esau (also known as Edom, see Genesis 36:1), now actually represents the Jewish race, when on page 42 of Volume V it is stated,
"Edom is in modern
Jewry."
So what they're basically saying is that these Ashkenazi
Jews, who represent 90% of the so-called Jewish population, are actually
gentiles or goyim themselves.
1926: N. M. Rothschild & Sons refinance
the Underground Electric Railways Company of London Ltd which has a
controlling interest in the entire London Underground transport system. Maurice de Rothschild has a son, Edmond de Rothschild. 1929: The Rothschilds crash the United States economy by contracting the money supply. 1930: The first Rothschild world bank, the, "Bank for International Settlements (BIS)," is established in Basle, Switzerland. The same place as where 33 years earlier the first ever World Zionist Congress was held. 1933: On January 30, Adolf Hitler becomes Chancellor of Germany. He drives Jews, many of which were Communist out of Governmental positions within Germany. As a result of this, in July, the Jews hold a World Conference in Amsterdam during which they demand that Hitler re-instate every Jew back to his former position. Hitler refuses and as a result of this, Samuel Untermyer, the Ashkenazi Jew who blackmailed President Wilson,and is now the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, returns to the United States, and makes a speech on radio which was transcribed in the From the New York Times, Monday, August 7, 1933. In the speech he made the following statements,
"...the Jews are the
aristocrats of the world...Our campaign is...the economic boycott against all
German goods, shipping and services...What we are proposing...is to prosecute
a purely defensive economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and
bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on
which their very existence depends...
...Each of
you, Jew and Gentile alike...must refuse to deal with any merchant or
shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronizes German ships or
shipping."
As two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported,
and could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported, if
Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would starve, as
there would be not enough food for more than one third of the population.
As a result of this boycott,
Jews throughout America, would protest outside and damage any stores in which
they found any products with, "Made in Germany," printed on them,
causing stores to have to dump these products or risk bankruptcy. Once the effects of this boycott began to be felt in Germany, the Germans, who had demonstrated no violence towards the Jews up to this point, simply began boycotting Jewish stores in the same way the Jews had done to stores selling German products in America. Rothschild financed IBM, supply machines to the Nazis which produce punch cards to help organize and manage the initial identification and social expulsion of Jews, the confiscation of their property and their extermination. On November 16, President Roosevelt recognizes the Zionist regime of Stalin in Russia without consultation with Congress even as 8,000 Ukrainians march in protest in New York. Also this year, President Roosevelt, born of a Jewish mother, therefore satisfying Ashkenazi rules of being Jewish, orders the all-seeing eye to be placed upon all new dollar bills along with the motto, "Novus Ordo Seclorum." This is latin for, "A New Order of the Ages." 1934: Swiss banking secrecy laws are reformed and it becomes an offence resulting in imprisonment for any bank employee to violate bank secrecy. This is all in preparation for the Rothschild engineered Second World War in which as usual they will fund both sides. Edmond de Rothschild dies. 1936: With regard to the increase in anti-semitism in Germany, Samuel Landman (at the time, secretary to the World Zionist Organisation), in his 1936 book, Great Britain, The Jews, and Palestine states the following of the United States entry into World War 1,
"The fact that it was
Jewish help that brought USA into the War on the side of the Allies has
rankled ever since in German – especially Nazi – minds, and has contributed
in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the
Nazi programme."
1938: On 7th November, a Jew, Herschel Grynszpan,
assassinated Ernst vom Rath, a minor official at the German Embassy in
Paris. As a result of this German hostility towards Jews in Germany
started to turn violent.
The Rothschilds Austrian
banking house in Vienna, S. M. von Rothschild und Söhne, closes following the
Nazi occupation of Austria. 1939: I.G. Farben the leading producer of chemicals in the world and largest German producer of steel dramatically increases its production. This increased production is almost exclusively used to arm Germany for the Second World War. This company was controlled by the Rothschilds and would go on to use Jews and other disaffected peoples as slave labour in the concentration camps. I.G. Farben also created the lethal Zyklon B gas that was used to exterminate the Jews. On 1 September, the Second world war starts when Germany invades Poland. This was because the German leadership were a Christian leadership, who understood that Soviet Russia was led by Rothschild funded Communists, and they feared that as the Soviet Union grew in strength, these Jewish Communists would invade and wipe all the Christians off the map. 1940: Hansjurgen Koehler in his book, "Inside The Gestapo," states the following, of Maria Anna Schicklgruber, Adolf Hitler's grandmother,
"A little servant
girl…….came to Vienna and became a domestic servant…….at the Rothschild
mansion…….and Hitler’s unknown grandfather must be probably looked for in
this magnificent house."
This is backed up by Walter Langer in his book, "The
Mind Of Hitler," in which he states,
"Adolf’s father, Alois
Hitler, was the illegitimate son of Maria Anna Schicklgruber…….Maria Anna
Schicklgruber was living in Vienna at the time she conceived. At that time
she was employed as a servant in the home of Baron Rothschild. As soon as the
family discovered her pregnancy she was sent back home…….where Alois was
born."
On the surface, it would appear Hitler was unlikely to be
a Rothschild, but then again, when you discover the benefits that the
Rothschilds got out of this war, both financially and politically, a
Rothschild connection does not appear as outlandish as it may initially seem.
1941: President Roosevelt takes America into
the second world war by refusing to sell Japan any more steel scrap or oil.
Japan was in the midst of a war against China and without that scrap steel
and oil, Japan would be unable to continue that war. Japan was totally dependent
upon the United States for both steel scrap and oil. Roosevelt knew
this action would provoke the Japanese to attack America, which they
subsequently did at Pearl Harbor. 1942: Prescott Bush, father of future American Presidents’ George Herbert Walker and George W, has his company seized under the, “Trading With The Enemy,” Act. He was funding Hitler from America, whilst American soldiers were being killed by German soldiers. Jews are also being slaughtered by these same soldiers. Interestingly the ADL never criticizes any of the Bushes for this. 1943: February 18th, Zionist, Izaak Greenbaum, head of the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee, in a speech to the Zionist Executive Council states,
“If I am asked, could you give
from the UJA (United Jewish Appeal) monies to rescue Jews, I say, no and I
say again no!”
He would go onto state,
“One cow in Palestine is worth
more than all the Jews in Poland!”
This is not a surprise, the whole idea of Zionist support
for the slaughter of innocent Jews was to scare the survivors into believing
that their only place of safety was Israel. How else do you think the
Zionists could ensure Jews leave the beautiful European cities in which they
live, in order to settle in a desert!
1944: On 6 November Lord Moyne, British
Minister Resident in the Middle East was assassinated in Cairo by two members
of the Jewish terrorist group, the Stern Gang, led by future Prime Minister
of Israel, Yitzhak Shamir. He is also responsible for an
assassination attempt against Harold MacMichael, the High Commissioner of the
British Mandate of Palestine, this same year. Interestingly he also masterminds another successful assassination this year against the United Nations representative in the Middle East, Count Folke Bernadotte who, although he had secured the release of 21,000 prisoners from German camps during World War II, was seen by Yitzak Shamir and his terrorist collaborators as an anti-Zionist. In Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, two further Rothschild world banks are created. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. 1945: The end of the Second World War. It is reported that I.G. Farben plants were specifically not targeted in the bombing raids on Germany. Interestingly at the end of the war, they were found to have only sustained 15% damage. The tribunals held at the end of the Second World War, to investigate Nazi War Crimes, censored any materials recording Western assistance to Hitler. The Rothschilds take a giant step towards their goal of world domination when the second, "League of Nations," called the, "United Nations," was approved this year. 1946: On July 22 the future Prime Minister of Israel, Ashkenazi Jew, David Ben-Gurion, orders another future Prime Minister of Israel, Ashkenazi Jew, Menachem Begin, to carry out a terrorist attack on the King David Hotel in Palestine, to try and drive out the British. As a result of this 91 people were killed, most of them civilians: 28 British, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews, and 5 others. Around 45 people are injured. Menachem Begin went on to proudly proclaimed himself as, "the father of modern terrorism." Just to put the gravity of the attack on the King David Hotel into perspective, it was at the time the biggest death toll as a result of single terrorist action ever and was only surpassed over forty years later by the Bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. 1947: The British who prior to World War 2 declared that there would be no more immigration of Jews to Palestine in order to protect the Palestinians from their acts of terror against both them and British soldiers, transfer control of Palestine to the United Nations. The United Nations resolve to have Palestine partitioned into two states, one zionist and one arab, with Jerusalem to remain as an international zone to be enjoyed by all religious faiths. This transfer was scheduled to take place on May 15, 1948. The United Nations had no right to give Arab property to anyone, as indeed even thought the Jews owned 6% of Palestine at that time, resolution 181 granted the Jews 57% of the land leaving the Arabs who at that time had 94% with only 43%. Information collected by the ADL in its spy operations on US citizens is used by the House Select Committee on Unamerican Activities. Subcommittee Chair Clare Hoffman dismisses the ADL’s reports on suspected communists as "hearsay." 1948: In the Spring of this year, the Rothschilds bribe President Harry S. Truman (33rd President of the United States 1945 – 1953) to recognise Israel (Rothschild owned Zionist not Jewish territory) as a sovereign state with $2,000,000 which they give to him on his campaign train. They then declare Israel to be a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine and within half an hour President Truman declared the United States to be the first foreign nation to recognise it. The Flag of Israel is unveiled. Despite tremendous opposition the emblem on the flag is a blue coloured version of the Rothschild, "Red Hexagram or Sign." This angers many Jews who realise this Hexagram was used in the ancient mystery religions as the symbol of, "Moloch," (described as a demon of unwilling sacrifice and is also interestingly the name of the stone owl the elite worship at Bohemian Grove), and, "Astaroth," (described as the Lord Treasurer of Hell). The Hexagram was also used to represent Saturn, which has been identified as the esoteric name for, "Satan." This indicates that anyone killed in the name of Israel is actually a sacrifice to Satan. These dissenting Jews believe the, "Menorah," the oldest Jewish symbol should be used and pointed out that the Hexagram is not even a Jewish symbol, but of course as the Rothschild Zionists use it that is what ends up on the Rothschild, I mean Zionist, I mean Israeli flag. In the early hours of April 19, 132 Jewish terrorists from the Irgun gang, led by future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and the Stern gang, led by future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, brutally massacre 200 men, women and children as they are sleeping peacefully in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. Following the United Nations transfer of Palestine to an independent Jewish state and an independent Arab state on May 15, the Israelis launched a military assault on the Arabs with blaring loudspeakers on their trucks informing the Arabs that if they did not flee immediately, they would be slaughtered. 800,000 Arabs with the recent memory of the Deir Yassin massacre at the forefront of their minds, fled in panic. They asked for help from nighbouring Arab states, but those states did not get involved as they were no match for the Israelis whose up to date military hardware had been supplied by the Jewish Stalinist regime in Russia. Following this assault, the Jews now controlled 78% of the former Palestine as oppose to the 57% that had been given to them illegally by the United Nations. The Palestinians, many of them Christians, were never paid compensation for their homes, property and businesses stolen from them during this illegal Jewish assault, and these people ended up in slum refugee cities of tents. Futhermore at least half of the Palestinians in their hurry to flee, left their birth certificates behind. The State of Israel then passed a law that only those who could prove citizenship were allowed to return to Israel, thus meaning these 400,000 Palestinians could not return and lost all their property they had left there. Ashkenazi Jew, David Ben-Gurion, one of the father founders of Israel and its first Prime Minister, candidly describes Zionist aims in his diary (21 May 1948) as follows,
“The Achilles heel of the Arab
coalition is the Lebanon. Muslim supremacy in this country is artificial and
can easily be overthrown. A Christian State ought to be set up there, with
its southern frontier on the river Litani.
We would
sign a treaty of alliance with this State. Thus when we have broken the
strength of the Arab Legion and bombed Amman, we could wipe out Trans-Jordan,
after that Syria would fall. And if Egypt still dared to make war on us, we
would bomb Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo.
We should thus end the war and
would have but paid to Egypt, Assyria and Chaldea on behalf of our
ancestors.”
1949: On October 1, Mao Tse Tsung declares
the founding of the People's Republic Of China in Tiananmen Square,
Beijing. He is funded by Rothschild created Communism in Russia and
also the following Rothschild agents: Solomon Adler, a former United
States Treasury official who was a Soviet Spy; Israel Epstein, the son of a
Jewish Bolshevik imprisoned by the Tsar in Russia for trying to forment a
revolution there; and Frank Coe, a leading official of the Rothschild owned
IMF.
1950: Israel passes their law of return,
guaranteeing every Jew worldwide the right to dwell in the state of Israel,
however the Palestinians even though they had lived there for 1300 years,
were denied that right. John Davitt, former chief of the Justice Department's internal security section notes that the Israeli intelligence service is the second most active in the United States after the Soviets and of course both Israel and the Soviet Union are run by an Ashkenazi Jewish leadership. 1951: On 1 April the Israeli Secret Intelligence Agency the Mossad, which will go on to terrorize the world, is formed. The motto of the Mossad is probably the most disgusting secret service motto in the world, it is,
"By Way Of Deception,
1953: N. M. Rothschild & Sons found the
British Newfoundland Corporation Limited to develop 60,000 square miles of
land in Newfoundland, Canada, which comprised a power station to harness the
power of the Hamilton (later renamed Churchill) Falls. At the time this was
the largest construction project ever to be undertaken by a private company. Thou Shalt Do War." 1954: "The Lavon Affair." Israeli agents recruit Egyptian citizens of Jewish descent to bomb Western targets in Egypt, and plant evidence to frame Arabs, in an apparent attempt to upset American/Egyptian relations. Israeli defense minister, Ashkenazi Jew, Pinhas Lavon is eventually removed from office, though many think real responsibility lay with David Ben-Gurion. A hidden microphone planted by the Israelis is discovered in the Office of the US Ambassador in Tel Aviv. 1955: Edmond de Rothschild founds Compagnie Financiere, Paris. 1956: Telephone taps are found connected to two telephones in the residence of the US military attaché in Tel Aviv. 1957: James de Rothschild dies and it is reported (by the Rothschild owned media) that he bequeaths a large sum of money to the state of Israel to pay for the construction of their parliament building, the Knesset. He states that the Knesset should be,
"a symbol, in the eyes of
all men, of the permanence of the State of Israel."
On page 219 of his book, "Tales of the British
Aristocracy," L.G. Pine, the Editor of Burke’s Peerage, states that the
Jews,
"have made themselves so
closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely
to suffer loss which is not mutual. So closely linked are the Jews and the
lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible
without injuring the aristocracy also."
Maurice de
Rothschild dies in Paris.
1962: de Rothschild Frères establishes
Imétal as an umbrella company for all their mineral mining interests. Frederic Morton publishes his book, The Rothschilds, in which he states,
"Though they control
scores of industrial, commercial, mining and tourist corporations, not one
bears the name Rothschild. Being private partnerships, the family houses
never need to, and never do, publish a single public balance sheet, or any
other report of their financial condition."
This attitude reveals the true aim of the Rothschilds, to
eliminate all competition and create their own worldwide monopoly.
1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy
(the 35th President of the United States 1961 – 1963) signs Executive Order
11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency,
without going through the Rosthchilds owned Federal Reserve. Less than 6 months later on November 22nd , president Kennedy is assassinated by the Rothschilds for the same reason as they assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, he wanted to print American money for the American people, as oppose to for the benefit of a money grabbing war mongering foreign elite. This Executive Order 11110, is rescinded by President Lyndon Baines Johnson (the 36th President of the United States 1963 to 1969) on Air Force One from Dallas to Washington, the same day as President Kennedy was assassinated. Another, and probably the primary, reason for Kennedy's assassination is however, the fact that he made it quite clear to Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, that under no circumstances would he agree to Israel becoming a nuclear state. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz on February 5, 1999, in a review of, Avner Cohen's book, "Israel and the Bomb," states the following,
"The murder of American
President John F. Kennedy brought to an abrupt end the massive pressure being
applied by the U.S. administration on the government of Israel to discontinue
the nuclear program...The book implied that, had Kennedy remained alive, it
is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option."
Edmond de Rothschild establishes La Compagnie Financière
Edmond de Rothschild (LCF), in Switzerland as a venture capital house. This
later develops into an investment bank and asset management company with many
affiliates. He also marries his wife Nadine and they have a son, Benjamin de
Rothschild.
1965: Israel illegally obtains enriched
uranium from NUMEC (Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation). 1967: The treatment of the Palestinians by the Zionist Jews, finally ignites enough anger in the Arab world for Egypt, Jordan and Syria to mobilise on Israel's borders. All of these three countries are suddenly attacked by Israel and as a result the Sinai which included Gaza was stolen from Egypt, and the West Bank and the Jordan River stolen from Jordan. As a result of this, on June 8, the Israelis launch an attack on the USS Liberty with Israeli aircraft and motor torpedo boats, in an effort to blame it on Egypt, to bring America into the war on their side, and of course follow to the letter, their Mossad motto,
"By Way Of Deception,
As a result of their attack,
34 American servicemen were killed and 174 wounded. Israel lies as
usual, claiming it mistook this warship that was flying a large United States
flag, for an ancient out-of-service Egyptian horse carrier El Quseir, that
was 180 feet shorter. They also claim the ship was in the war zone,
when it was actually in international waters, far from any fighting.
The Israeli's attack on this warship lasts for 75 minutes during which time
they shoot up one of the United States flags, resulting in the sailors
desperately raising another one. Thou Shalt Do War." In the aftermath of this attack, the American sailors who survived are warned by the United States military not to discuss the matter with anyone due to, "national security." This story gets no prominence in the Rothschild controlled mainstream media and as usual Israel is in no way even rebuked for their crimes by their subservient country of America. The following day, June 9th, Israel illegally occupies the Golan Heights which it seizes from Syria. This area goes on to provide Israel with one third of its fresh water. Israeli General Matityahu Peled, is quoted in Ha'aretz (19 March 1972) with the following statement,
"The thesis that the
danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was
fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and
developed after the war." Another sickening and deceptive
statement but again at least he's consistent with the Mossad motto, "By
Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War."
de Rothschild Frères is renamed Banque Rothschild.
1968: Noémie Halphen, wife of Maurice de
Rothschild dies. 1970: While working for Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Ashkenazi Jew, Richard Perle is caught by the FBI giving classified information to Israel. Nothing is done. British Prime Minister Edward Heath makes Lord Victor Rothschild the head of his policy unit. Whilst he is in that role Britain enters the European Community. 1973: In his book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Gary Allen states,
"One major reason for the
historical blackout on the role of the international bankers in political
history is the Rothschilds were Jewish…
….The Jewish
members of the conspiracy have used an organisation called The
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as an instrument to try and convince everyone
that any mention of the Rothschilds and their allies is an attack on all
Jews.
In this way
they have stifled almost all honest scholarship on international bankers and
made the subject taboo within universities.
Any
individual or book exploring this subject is immediately attacked by hundreds
of ADL communities all over the country. The ADL has never let the truth or
logic interfere with its highly professional smear jobs…
….Actually,
nobody has a right to be more angry at the Rothschild clique than their
fellow Jews…
….The
Rothschild empire helped finance Adolf Hitler."”
George J. Laurer an employee of the Rothschilds controlled
IBM, invents the UPC (Universal Product Code) barcode which will eventually
be placed upon every item traded worldwide and bear the number, 666.
The Book of Revelation, Chapter 13, Verse 17 through 18, states the following
in relation to this number,
"And that no man might
buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the
number of his name.
Here is
wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast:
for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred
threescore and six."
The whole Satanic aims of the Rothschilds are now in full
view of the world, everything bought or sold carries the mark of the beast,
666.
N. M. Rothschild & Sons
British Newfoundland Corporation, Churchill Falls project in Newfoundland,
Canada, is completed. N. M. Rothschild & Sons also create a new asset management part of the company which traded worldwide. This eventually became, Rothschild Private Management Limited. Edmond de Rothschild, a great-grandson of Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild, bought the cru bourgeois estate of Château Clarke in Bordeaux. 1976: Ashkenazi Jew, Harold Rosenthal, aide to Ashkenazi Jew, Senator Jacob Javits, states,
"Most Jews do not like to
admit it, but our god is Lucifer."
1978: Ashkenazi Jew, Stephen Bryen, then a Senate
Foreign Relations Committee staffer, is overheard in a Washington D.C. hotel
offering confidential documents to top Israeli military officials.
Bryen obtains a lawyer, Nathan
Lewin, and the case heads for the grand jury, but is mysteriously dropped.
Bryen later goes to work for Richard Perle. 1979: The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1979 was underwritten by United States aid which pledged $3 billion annually to Israel from the United States taxpayer (not even a drop in the ocean when you consider the amount they make off the Federal Reserve). Shin Bet (the Israeli internal security agency) tries to penetrate the US Consulate General in Jerusalem through a “Honey Trap”, using a clerical employee who was having an affair with a Jerusalem girl. Baron and Baroness Phillipi de Rothschild in a joint venture with Robert Mondavi, begin the construction of a pyramid in Napa Valley, California, where the leader/founder of the Church Of Satan, Ashkenazi Jew, Anton LaVey, was based. This is known as Opus 1 (which means, the first work), and the front for this temple is that it is a winery. 1980: The global phenomenon of privatisation starts. The Rothschilds are behind this from the very beginning in order to seize control of all publicly owned assets worldwide. 1981: Banque Rothschild is nationalised by the French government. The new bank is called, Compagnie Européenne de Banque. The Rothschilds subsequently set up a successor to this French bank, Rothschild & Cie Banque (RCB), which goes on to become a leading French investment house. 1982: From September 16 to 18, future Prime Minister of Israel and then Defence Minister, Ashkenazi Jew, Ariel Sharon, orchestrates Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which provided ariel lighting in order to facilitate the killing of between 1000 and 2000 men, women and children in the Sabra and Shatila massacres. 1985: Eustace Mullins publishes, "Who Owns The TV Networks," in which he reveals the Rothschilds have control of all three major U.S. Networks, which are: NBC; CBS; and ABC. The New York Times reports the FBI is aware of at least a dozen incidents in which American officials transferred classified information to the Israelis, quoting (former Assistant Director of the F.B.I.) Raymond Wannal. The Justice Department does not prosecute. Richard Smyth, the owner of MILCO, is indicted on charges of smuggling nuclear timing devices to Israel. N. M. Rothschild & Sons advise the British government on the privatisation of British Gas. They subsequently advise the British government on virtually all of their other privatisations of state owned assets including: British Steel; British Coal; all the British regional electricity boards; and all the British regional water boards. A British MP heavily involved in these privatisations is future Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, a former Rothschild banker. 1986: Mordechai Vanunu a technician at Dimona, Israel's nuclear installation, from 1976 to 1985, discovers that the plant was secretly producing nuclear weapons. His conscience made him speak out and in 1986 he provided the London Sunday Times with the facts and photos they used to tell the world about Israel's nuclear weapons programme. His evidence showed that Israel had stockpiled up to 200 nuclear warheads, with no debate or authorisation from it own citizens. On 30th September 1986, Vanunu was lured from London to Rome. There he was kidnapped, drugged and shipped to Israel. After a secret trial he was sentenced to 18 years for, "treason," and, "espionage," (something Israel are very familiar with) though he had received no payment and had communicated with no foreign power. He goes on to be held in complete isolation for 11 years, only allowed occasional visits from his family, lawyer and a priest, conducted through a metal screen. Although he completes his sentence, the Israeli government continues to hold him against his will. 1987: Edmond de Rothschild creates the World Conservation Bank which is designed to transfer debts from third world countries to this bank and in return those countries would give land to this bank. This is designed so the Rothschilds can gain control of the third world which represents 30% of the land surface of the Earth. On April 24 the Wall Street Journal reveals the, "Role of Israel in Iran-Contra Scandal Won't be Explored in Detail by Panels." 1988: The ADL initiate a nationwide competition for law students to draft anti-hate legislation for minority groups. That competition is won by a man named, Joseph Ribakoff, whose thesis proposes that not only must hate motivated violence be banned, but also any words which stimulate: supiscion; friction; hate; and possible violence, these must also be criminalised. This ADL prize-winning paper suggests that not only should state-agencies monitor and restrict free speech in general, but they should also censor all films that criticize identifiable groups. Furthermore, even if the person making the statement can justify it, for example Christians criticizing homosexuality because the bible expressly forbids it, Ribakoff asserts that the truth is to be no defence in court. The only proof a court will need in order to secure a conviction of hate speech is that something has been said, and a minority group or member of such group has felt emotionally damaged as a result of such criticism. Therefore, under these proposals which the ADL will have forced into law all over the world less than 15 years later, Jesus Christ would have been arrested as a hate criminal. This law is designed to protect the Rothschild conspiracy from being revealed in that if you criticize the Rothschilds criminal cabal, you will be targeted as anti-semitic, and thus risk imprisonment. Philippe de Rothschild dies. 1989: Many of the satellite states in Eastern Europe, through the influence of Glasnost, become more open in their demands of freedom from Communist governance in their Republics. Many revolutions happen in 1989, most of them involving the overthrow of their respective Communist governments and the replacement of them with Republics. Thus, the hold the Communists had over Eastern Europe (the Iron Curtain) becomes very weak. Eventually, as a result of Perestroika and Glasnost, Communism collapses, not only in the Soviet Union but also in Eastern Europe. In Russia, Boris Yeltsin (whose wife is the daughter of Joseph Stalin’s marriage to Rosa Kaganovich) and the Republican government takes steps to end the power of the Communist party by suspending and banning the party and seizing all their property. This symbolised the fall of Communism in Russia, and resulted in the start of a mass exodus of 700,000 Jews from the former Soviet Union to Israel. In the Israeli Journal, Hotam (24 November 1989), there is a report of a speech that then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, Ashkenazi Jew, Binyamin Netanyahu, gave to students at Bar Ilan University in which he states,
"Israel should have
exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention
focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the
territories."
The London and Paris Rothschilds announce the launch of a
new subsidiary, Rothschild GmbH, in Frankfurt, Germany.
1991: Following the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait on August 2, 1990, on January 16 of this year the United States and
Britain began an aerial bombing campaign of targets within Iraq. On 24
February the ground campaign commenced which was to last 100 hours until on
February 28 when a horrendous war crime occurred. This crime was the slaughter of 150,000 Iraqi troops with fuel air bombs. These Iraqis were fleeing on a crowded highway from Kuwait to Basra. President George Herbert Walker Bush ordered United States military aircraft and ground units to kill these surrendering troops, they were then bulldozed into mass unmarked graves in the desert, some still alive. President Bush then ordered a cessation of hostilities. What was the significance of this slaughter and President Bush declaring the war over on this day? Well it was the day the, "Day of Purim," fell on this year. This the day the Jews celebrate their victory over Ancient Babylon, now based within the borders of Iraq and a day when the Jews are encouraged to get bloody revenge against their perceived enemies. At the Bilderberg Conference on June 6 to 9 of this year, in Baden-Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller (a Rothschild) made the following statement,
"We are grateful to the
Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great
publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their
promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been
impossible for us to develop our plan for the world, if we had been subjected
to the lights of publicity during those years.
But the
world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world
government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and
world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination
practised in past centuries."
1992: In March, former Federal Reserve Board
Chairman, Paul A. Volker became Chairman of the European banking firm, J.
Rothschild, Wolfensohn and Co.
Stephen Bryen, caught
offering confidential documents to Israel in 1978, is serving on board of the
pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs while continuing
as a paid consultant, with security clearance, on exports of sensitive US
technology. “The Samson Option,” by Seymour M. Hersh reports,
“Illicitly obtained intelligence
was flying so voluminously from LAKAM (a secret Israeli intelligence unit, a
Hebrew acronym for Scientific Liaison Bureau) into Israeli intelligence that
a special code name, JUMBO, was added to the security markings already on the
documents. There were strict orders, Ari Ben-Menashe recalled, “Anything
marked JUMBO was not supposed to be discussed with your American
counterparts.”
The Wall Street Journal reports that Israeli agents
apparently tried to steal Recon Optical Inc's top-secret airborne spy-camera
system.
On September 16th Britain’s
pound collapses when currency speculators led by Rothschild agent, Ashkenazi
Jew, George Soros, borrow pounds and sell them for Deutsche Marks, in the
expectation of being able to repay the loan in devalued currency and to
pocket the difference. This results in the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, announcing a rise in interest rates of 5% in one day and as a result drives Britain into a recession which lasts many years as large numbers of businesses fail and the housing market crashes. This is right on cue for the Rothschilds, after they had privatised Britain’s state owned assets during the 1980’s, driven the share price up, and then collapsed the markets so they could buy them up for pennies on the pound, a carbon copy of what Nathan Mayer Rothschild did to the British economy 180 years before, in 1812. It cannot be overstated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, Norman Lamont, prior to becoming a MP, was a Merchant Banker with N. M. Rothschild and Sons, who he joined after reading Economics at Cambridge. 1993: Norman Lamont leaves the British government to return to N. M. Rothschild and Sons as a director, after his mission to collapse the British economy to profit the Rothschilds is accomplished. Former Congressman, Paul Findley publishes his seminal book, Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S. Israeli Relationship. In this book he lists the 65 United Nations Member Resolutions against Israel from the period 1955 to 1992, and the 30 United States vetoes on Israel’s behalf which if not made would have seen Israel have 95 resolutions against them at this point. No matter, even with Israel’s puppet the United States helping them terrorise others, the 65 Resolutions passed against Israel are more than all the Resolutions passed against all other countries combined. Not that Israel care too much about the views of the United Nations when you consider that less than two weeks after Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty (an attack designed to sink the Liberty and blame it on Egypt prompting the USA into a war with Egypt on behalf of Israeli Lies, remember the Mossad motto, “By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War”), the Israeli Foreign Minister, Aba Eban, stated of the United Nations,
"If the General Assembly
were to vote by 121 votes to 1 in favor of, "Israel," returning to
the armistice lines (pre June 1967 borders), "Israel," would refuse
to comply with the decision," New York Times – 19 June 1967.
The ADL is caught operating a massive spying operation on
critics of Israel, Arab-Americans, the San Francisco Labor Council, ILWU
Local 10, Oakland Educational Association, NAACP, Irish Northern Aid,
International Indian Treaty Council, the Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco
Police.
Data collected was sent to
Israel and in some cases to South Africa. Pressure from Jewish organizations
forces the city to drop the criminal case, but the ADL settles a civil
lawsuit for an undisclosed sum of cash. 1995: Former atomic energy scientist, Dr Kitty Little claims the Rothschilds now control 80% of the world’s uranium supplies giving them a monopoly over nuclear power. The Defense Investigative Service circulates a memo warning US military contractors that,
"Israel aggressively collects
(US) military and industrial technology."
The report stated that Israel obtains information using,
"ethnic targeting,
financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual
frailties," of US citizens.
1996: A General Accounting Office report,
"Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in US Security Arrangements
With Foreign-Owned Defense Contractors," found that according to
intelligence sources, "Country A," (identified by intelligence
sources as Israel, Washington Times, 22 February 1996),
"conducts the most
aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US
ally."
A pdf file of the report is here: www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96064.pdf
The Jerusalem Post (30 August 1996) quoted the report,
"“Classified military
information and sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for
the intelligence agencies of this country."
The report described, "An espionage operation run by
the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and
technologic information for (Israel) paid a US government employee to obtain
US classified military intelligence documents."
The Washington Report on
Middle East Affairs (Shawn L. Twing, April 1996) noted that this was,
"a reference to the 1985
arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian US naval intelligence analyst who
provided Israel's LAKAM espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of
classified US intelligence information."
www.washington-report.org/backissues/0496/9604014.htm The GAO report also noted that, "Several citizens of (Israel) were caught in the United States stealing sensitive technology used in manufacturing artillery gun tubes." An Office of Naval Intelligence document, "Worldwide Challenges to Naval Strike Warfare" reported that,
"US technology has been
acquired (by China) through Israel in the form of the Lavi fighter and
possibly SAM (surface-to-air) missile technology."
Jane's Defense Weekly (28 February 1996) noted that,
"until now, the intelligence community has not openly confirmed the
transfer of US technology (via Israel) to China." The report noted
that this, "represents a dramatic step forward for Chinese military
aviation." (Flight International, 13 March 1996).
Amschel Rothschild, 41, is
strangled with the heavy cord of his own towel robe in his hotel room in
Paris. French Prime Minister orders the French Police to close their
investigation, and, Rupert Murdoch, born of a Jewish mother and so a Jew by
Ashkenazi standards, instructs his editors and news managers around the world
to report it as a heart attack, if they need to report it at all. On 12 May United Nations Ambassador and Ashkenazi Jew, Madeleine Albright, when appearing on 60 Minutes, was asked the following by correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to the years of United States led economic sanctions against Iraq,
"We have heard that half
a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in
Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
To which Ambassador Albright replied,
"I think that is a very
hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it."
Her comments cause no public outcry. In fact, the
holocaust of half a million Iraqi children is positively admired by the
United States government when you consider less than 8 months later,
President Clinton appointed Albright as secretary of state. Whilst
appearing before the Senate Committee, who were considering her appointment,
Albright is literally chomping at the bit for the blood of more Iraqi
children and she states,
"We will insist on
maintaining tough UN sanctions against Iraq unless and until that regime
complies with relevant Security Council resolutions."
1997: An Army mechanical engineer, Ashkenazi Jew,
David A. Tenenbaum, "inadvertently," gives classified military information
on missile systems and armored vehicles to Israeli officials (New York Times,
20 February 1997).
The Washington Post reports
US intelligence has intercepted a conversation in which two Israeli officials
had discussed the possibility of getting a confidential letter that
then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher had written to Palestinian leader
Yasser Arafat. One of the Israelis, identified only as, “Dov,” had commented that they may get the letter from, “Mega,” the code name for Israel’s top agent inside the United States. US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, complains privately to the Israeli government about heavy-handed surveillance by Israeli intelligence agents. Israeli agents place a tap on Ashkenazi Jew and daughter of a Rabbi, Monica Lewinsky’s, phone at the Watergate and record phone sex sessions between her and President Bill Clinton. The Ken Starr report confirms that Clinton warned Lewinsky their conversations were being taped and ended the affair. Interestingly, at the same time, the FBI’s hunt for, "Mega," is called off. On 29 October Edmond de Rothschild dies in Geneva. Interestingly on the exact same day Anton Szandor LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan also dies, who in his book, "Satan Speaks," he states in relation to The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion,
"The first time I read
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, my instinctive reaction was, So what's
wrong with THAT? Isn't that the way any master plan should work? Doesn't the
public deserve - nay, demand - such despotism?"
Kofi Annan becomes Secretary General to the United
Nations. He is married to Nane Lagergren, a Rothschild, who he wed in 1984.
1998: The European Central Bank is set up
in Frankfurt, the city from which the Rothschilds originate. 2000: George W. Bush is elected (so they tell me) President of the United States. Bush and his family claim to be descendants of the House of Plantagenet which is descended from the Royal House of Judah. 2001: On September 11th the attack on the World Trade Center is orchestrated by Israel with the complicity of Britain and America, under the orders of the Rothschilds as a pretext for removing the liberty of people worldwide in exchange for security, just as happened with the Reichstag fire in Germany where the citizens were lied to in order to give up liberty for security. They also will use the attacks to gain control of the few nations in the world who don’t allow Rothschild central banks and so less than one month after these attacks, US forces attack Afghanistan, one of only 7 nations in the world who don’t have a Rothschild controlled central bank. Less than a week before the 9-11 attack on 5 September, the so-called lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and several other hijackers made a still-unexplained visit onboard one of Pro Israeli lobbyist, Ashkenazi Jew, Jack Abramoff’s casino boats. No investigation is undertook as to what they were doing there. It is discovered that US drug agents’ communications have been penetrated. Suspicion falls on two companies, AMDOCS and Comverse Infosys, both owned by Israelis. AMDOCS generates billing data for most US phone companies and is able to provide detailed logs of who is talking to whom. Comverse Infosys builds the tapping equipment used by law enforcement to eavesdrop on all American telephone calls, but suspicion forms that Comverse Infosys, which gets half of its research and development budget from the Israeli government, has built a back door into the system that is being exploited by Israeli intelligence and that the information gleaned on US drug interdiction efforts is finding its way to drug smugglers. The investigation by the FBI leads to the exposure of the largest foreign spy ring ever uncovered inside the United States, operated by Israel. Half of the suspected spies have been arrested when 9-11 happens. On 9-11, 5 Israelis are arrested for dancing and cheering while the World Trade Towers collapse. Supposedly employed by Urban Moving Systems, the Israelis are caught with multiple passports and a lot of cash. Two of them are later revealed to be Mossad. As witness reports track the activity of the Israelis, it emerges that they were seen at Liberty Park at the time of the first impact, suggesting a foreknowledge of what was to come. The Israelis are interrogated, and then eventually sent back to Israel. The owner of the moving company used as a cover by the Mossad agents abandons his business and flees to Israel. The United States Government then classifies all of the evidence related to the Israeli agents and their connections to 9-11. All of this is reported to the public via a four part story on Fox News by Carl Cameron. Pressure from Jewish groups, primarily AIPAC, forces Fox News to remove the story from their website. Two hours prior to the 9-11 attacks, Odigo, an Israeli company with offices just a few blocks from the World Trade Towers, receives an advance warning via the internet. The manager of the New York Office provides the FBI with the IP address of the sender of the message, but the FBI does not follow this up. The FBI is investigating 5 Israeli moving companies as possible fronts for Israeli intelligence. It is revealed that prior to the attack millions of dollars of put options on both American Airlines and United Airlines, were traded. The FBI have promised to followed the purchasers up, but have never revealed their findings. That is because this would lead directly to Israel, the state behind the 911 attacks. Following the World Trade Center attack, anonymous letters containing anthrax are sent to various politicians and media executives. Like the 9-11 attack this is immediately blamed on Al-Qaeda , until it is discovered that the anthrax contained within those letters is a specific type of weaponized anthrax made by a United States military laboratory. The FBI then discover that the main suspect for these anthrax letters is a Ashkenazi Jew, Dr. Philip Zack, who had been reprimanded several times by his employers due to offensive remarks he made about Arabs. Dr. Philip Zack, was caught on camera entering the storage area where he worked at Fort Detrick which is where the Anthrax was kept. At this point, both the FBI and the mainstream media stopped making any public comments on the case. Jewish Defence League Chairman since 1985, Ashkenazi Jew, Irv Rubin is jailed for allegedly plotting to bomb a mosque and the offices of a Arab-American congressman. He dies shortly after slitting his throat in a suicide attempt, before he can be brought to trial. One week prior to the WTC attack, the Zim Shipping Company moves out of its offices in the WTC, breaking its lease and costing the company $50,000. No reason has ever been given, but Zim Shipping Company is half owned by the State of Israel (The Rothschilds). On October 3, Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, makes the following statement to Ashkenazi Jew, Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
"Every time we do
something you tell me America will do this and will do that....I want to tell
you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on
Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know
it."
2002: Webster's Third New International Dictionary
(Unabridged), re-printed in 2002, provides a new definition of Anti Semitism
which has not been updated since 1956. It reads,
"Anti-Semitism: (1)
hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often
accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination (2) opposition to
Zionism (3) sympathy for the opponents of Israel."
It was definition (2) and (3) that were added in the 2002
edition, just before the USA decide to invade Iraq under orders from the
State of Rothschild, I mean Israel. Also this year, the Prime
Minister of Israel, war criminal, Ariel Sharon, orders the massacre in the
Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. Best get that definition updated
to protect these criminals.
The DEA issues a report that
Israeli spies, posing as art students, have been trying to penetrate US Government
offices. Police near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in southern
Washington State stop a suspicious truck and detain two Israelis, one of whom
is illegally in the United States. The two men were driving at high speed in
a Ryder rental truck, which they claimed had been used to, "deliver
furniture." The next day, police discovered traces of TNT and RDX military-grade plastic explosives inside the passenger cabin and on the steering wheel of the vehicle. The FBI then announces that the tests that showed explosives were, "false positived," by cigarette smoke, a claim test experts say is ridiculous. Based on an alibi provided by a woman, the case is closed and the Israelis are handed over to INS to be sent back to Israel. One week later, the woman who provided the alibi vanishes. 2003: The United States invade Iraq on 19 March, which this year is the holy, "Day of Purim," in the Jewish calendar. This, "Day of Purim," is a day the Jews celebrate their victory over Ancient Babylon, now based within the borders of Iraq, how interesting. What is also significant is that the previous U.S. led invasion of Iraq ended on the Day of Purim ten years earlier with the slaughter of 150,000 fleeing Iraqis under the current President's father, George Herbert Walker Bush. Purim is also the time when the Jews are encouraged to get bloody revenge against their perceived enemies. Ancient Babylon, I mean Iraq, is now one of six nations left in the world who don’t have a Rothschild controlled central bank. This war is mainly about stealing Iraq’s water supply for Israel and is being fought with the blood of the American military which the State of Rothschild, I mean Israel control. Israel has always struggled for water, it had to steal the Golan Heights from Syria which provided Israel with one third of its fresh water 36 years before, yet still in Israel water extraction has surpassed replacement by 2.5 billion metres in the last 25 years. This means the water is far more precious to them than the oil reserves which are the second largest reserves of oil on the planet. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed states in a speech,
"Jews rule the world by
proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."
The Police Chief of Cloudcroft stops a truck speeding
through a school zone. The drivers turn out to be Israelis with expired
passports. Claiming to be movers, the truck contains junk furniture and
several boxes.
The Israelis are handed over
to immigration. The contents of the boxers are not revealed to the public. Israel deploys assassination squads into other countries, including the United States. The US Government does not protest. 2004: Two years into an investigation of AIPAC’s (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee – the largest political lobbying group in the USA with over 65,000 members whose only purpose is to use the USA for the purposes of Israel) possible role as a spy front for Israel, Ashkenazi Jew, Larry Franklin, a mid-level Pentagon Analyst is observed by the FBI giving classified information to two officials of AIPAC suspected of being Israeli spies. AIPAC hires lawyer Nathan Lewin to handle their legal defense, the same lawyer who defended suspected Israeli spy Stephen Bryen in 1978. Larry Franklin worked in the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, run by Richard Perle, at the time Perle (who was caught giving classified information to Israel back in 1970) was insisting that Iraq was crawling with weapons of mass destruction requiring the United States to invade and conquer Iraq. There were no WMDs, of course, and Perle has dumped the blame for the, "bad intelligence," on George Tenet. But what is known is that the Pentagon Office of Special Plans was coordinating with a similar group in Israel, in Ariel Sharon’s office. With two suspected Israeli spies (at least) inside the office from which the lies that launched the war in Iraq originated, it appears that the people of the United States are the victims of a deadly hoax, a hoax that started a war using the blood and money of American citizens for the purposes of Israeli oppression. The leaking of the investigation of AIPAC to the media on August 28th, 2004 gave advance warning to other spies working with Franklin. The damage to the FBI’s investigation was completed when United States Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the FBI to stop all arrests in the case. Like the Stephen Bryen case and the hunt for, "Mega," this latest spy scandal seems destined by officials who have their own secret allegiances to protect, barring a massive public outcry. Police near the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in Tennessee stop a truck after a three mile chase, during which the driver throws a bottle containing a strange liquid from the cab. The drivers turn out to be Israelis using fake identifications. The FBI refuses to investigate and the Israelis are released. Two Israelis try to enter Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, home to eight Trident submarines. The truck tests positive for explosives. The National Director of the ADL, Abraham H. Foxman, publishes a book entitled, "Never Again? The Threat Of The New Anti-Semitism," in which he states that the New Testament's "lie," that the ancient Pharisees were responsible for the death of Christ, has been responsible for anti-semitism throughout the millennia and thus the New Testament of the bible is, "hate speech," and should be censored or banned. 2005: On January 20, President Bush makes the following statement as part of his second inaugural address, "When our Founders declared a new order of the ages." This is not true. The founders did not declare a, "new order of the ages," President Roosevelt did when in 1933, he put it's latin translation, "Novus Ordo Seclorum," on the dollar bill. On 7 July the London Underground Network is bombed. Israel’s Finance Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu is in London on the morning of the attacks in order to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the underground station where one of the blasts occurred, but stayed in his hotel room instead after he had been informed by Israeli intelligence officials attacks were expected. There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya. Physics Professor, Stephen E. Jones of Brigham Young University publishes a paper in which he proves the World Trade Center buildings could have only been brought down in the manner they were by explosives. He receives no coverage in the mainstream media for his scientific and provable claims. 2006: The Edmond De Rothschild Banque, a subsidiary of Europe's Edmond De Rothschild family bank group in France, becomes the first foreign family bank that has obtained approval of the China Banking Regulatory Commission and entered China's financial market. The ADL ruthlessly leans on governments throughout the world to pass hate crimes legislation, as they are scared that the criminal cabal that is Israel and the Rothschilds is being exposed more and more on a daily basis, predominantly on the internet. Their job is to protect this criminal network and what better way to do it than by passing laws in which anyone who exposes a Jewish criminal becomes a criminal. David Irving is sentenced to three years in jail in Austria, for denying the holocaust. It is important to note that the only historical event you can be arrested for questioning is the holocaust. This is because this has been the Rothschilds greatest weapon in brainwashing YOU, THE STUPID GOY! is that the Jews are so poor and persecuted when in actual fact they control the vast majority of international finance and international corporations throughout the world. Resources Here is a link to 6 pages of autographs from the 1929 Zionist congress with some very interesting names on it. Main page: www.historyforsale.com Sources Holy Bible - King James Version Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies - John Robison - 1798 The Life of Napolean - Sir Walter Scott - 1827 Coningsby - Benjamin Disraeli - 1844 The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Martin Malia - 1848 Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry - Albert Pike - 1872 The Rothschilds, Financial Rulers Of Nations - John Reeves - 1887 The Jews and Modern Capitalism - Werner Sombart - 1911 Great Britain, The Jews, and Palestine - Samuel Landman - 1936 Pawns In The Game - William Guy Carr - 1937 Inside The Gestapo - Hansjurgen Koehler - 1940 Barriers Down - Kent Cooper - 1942 The Mind Of Adolf Hitler - Walter Langer - 1943 The Empire Of The City - E. C. Knuth - 1946 The Jewish State - Theodor Herzl - 1946 The Curious History of the Six-Pointed Star - G. Scholem - 1949 Secrets Of The Federal Reserve - Eustace Mullins - 1952 Tales Of The British Aristocracy - L. G. Pine - 1957 Red Fog Over America - William Guy Carr - 1958 A Jewish Defector Warns America (Spoken Word Recording) - Benjamin H. Freedman - 1961 The Rothschilds - Frederic Morton - 1962 The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations (Spoken Word Recording) - Myron Fagan - 1967 Ben-Gurion: The Armed Prophet - Michael Bar-Zohar - 1967 The Hidden Tyranny - Benjamin Freedman - 1971 None Dare Call It Conspiracy - Gary Allen - 1972 The Gulag Archipelago, Vol. 2, Parts 3 and 4 - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - First English translation published 1975. Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler - Anthony C. Sutton - 1976 The Rosenthal Document - Walter White, Jr. - 1978 Two Rothschilds And The Land Of Israel - Simon Schama - 1978 The Six Pointed Star - Dr O. J. Graham - 1984 The Last Days In America - Bob Fraley - 1984 Who Owns The TV Networks - Eustace Mullins - 1985 The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy - Seymour M. Hersh - 1991 A History of the Jews in America - Howard M. Sachar - 1992 Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About the U.S. Israeli Relationship - Paul Findley - 1993 Descent Into Slavery - Des Griffin - 1994 Bloodlines Of The Illuminati - Fritz Springmeier - 1995 Jewish History, Jewish Religion - Israel Shahak - 1994 Satan Speaks - Anton Szandor LaVey - 1998 The Elite Serial Killers of Lincoln, JFK, RFK & MLK - Robert Gaylon Ross - 2001 Never Again? The Threat Of The New Anti-Semitism - Abraham H. Foxman - 2004 The Elite Don’t Dare Let Us Tell The People - Robert Gaylon Ross - 2004 Codex Magica - Texe Marrs - 2005 |
FW: Open letter to Donald Trump
ReplyDeletealmassari
To BAFS
Mar 16 at 11:38 PM
http://usuncut.com/politics/hony-open-letter/
Humans of New York’s Open Letter to Donald Trump Is Going Viral
Brendon Stanton, the photographer behind the wildly popular Humans of New York Facebook page has written an open letter to Donald Trump that has gone widely viral — the post has received about 200,000 shares as of now, about an hour and a half after he published the open letter on the HONY Facebook page.
Brendon Stanton takes the entire first paragraph to note how hard he tries to be nonpartisan in his work, and indeed, Stanton photographs his subjects and presents them with little-to-no editorializing, a feature which has made his work so popular for allowing the subject to speak their own story.
But Stanton also offers a powerful rationale that opposing Trump “is no longer a political decision. It is a moral one.”
Below is Stanton’s open letter in full:
An Open Letter to Donald Trump:
Mr. Trump,
I try my hardest not to be political. I’ve refused to interview several of your fellow candidates. I didn’t want to risk any personal goodwill by appearing to take sides in a contentious election. I thought: ‘Maybe the timing is not right.’ But I realize now that there is no correct time to oppose violence and prejudice. The time is always now. Because along with millions of Americans, I’ve come to realize that opposing you is no longer a political decision. It is a moral one.
I’ve watched you retweet racist images. I’ve watched you retweet racist lies. I’ve watched you take 48 hours to disavow white supremacy. I’ve watched you joyfully encourage violence, and promise to ‘pay the legal fees’ of those who commit violence on your behalf. I’ve watched you advocate the use of torture and the murder of terrorists’ families. I’ve watched you gleefully tell stories of executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pig blood. I’ve watched you compare refugees to ‘snakes,’ and claim that ‘Islam hates us.’
I am a journalist, Mr. Trump. And over the last two years I have conducted extensive interviews with hundreds of Muslims, chosen at random, on the streets of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. I’ve also interviewed hundreds of Syrian and Iraqi refugees across seven different countries. And I can confirm— the hateful one is you.
Those of us who have been paying attention will not allow you to rebrand yourself. You are not a ‘unifier.’ You are not ‘presidential.’ You are not a ‘victim’ of the very anger that you’ve joyfully enflamed for months. You are a man who has encouraged prejudice and violence in the pursuit of personal power. And though your words will no doubt change over the next few months, you will always remain who you are.
Sincerely, Brandon Stanton
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com