WAR! WAR! WAR! CINCINNATUS

WORLD JEWRY IS AN ORGANIZED NATIONALITY

“THE MAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY BY EDWARD EVERETT HALE “Let us all recognize that we Jews are a Distinct Na­tionality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief is necessarily a member * * * “Organize, Organize, Organize — until every Jew in America must stand up and be counted — counted with us — or prove himself, wittingly or unwittingly, of the few who are against their own people.”

From an address delivered in June, 1915, before the Eastern Council of the Central Conference of Reform Rabbis, by Justice Louis D. Brandeis.

The Red Torch of Internationalism has been thrown to Dr. Nahum Goldmann, a British Rabbi, Chairman of the Administrative Committee of the World Jewish Congress, who was invited to address that Congress at Washington, in February, 1940. He said that his ideas were “of a radical and revolutionary character”, and proceeded to state:

“But either Europe will be recognized on a revolutionary basis or it will not survive. Once the sovereign State is no longer recognized, once international moral laws control and limit the sovereignty of the States, the way will be paved for real safeguards of citizens’ rights and of the rights of minority groups. The whole conception of majorities and minorities may get a different aspect.” * * *

"You are not only the strongest Jewry of the world numerically, not only the most powerful Jewry of the world politically, socially and economically. * * *

“The same applies to American Jewry within the more limited field of its possibilities and tasks, if it will be dominated by the feeling of solidarity with European Jewry, realizing that its future is linked up with the future of European Jewry because we are one people. ”

New York Times, February 11,1940.

Study carefully these two quotations from recognized and accepted leaders in World Jewry. They disclosed a perilous truth. Their declarations have not and will not be repudiated by American Jewry. They clearly

mean: That the Jew, in whatever country he lives, whatever his posi­tion in life may be, whether he is a professing Jew, Christian, Atheist, or Agnostic, capitalist, millionaire, or peddler, Communist or Anarchist, permanently retains a Distinct Nationality of his own, and does not become a true American, an Englishman, a German, etc.; that the Jews do not honestly accept citizenship in the United States, but remain Distinct Jewish Nationals, one people, organized and solid.

JEWS AND THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR

SHYLOCK

‘‘You may as well go stand upon the beach,

And bid the main flood bate his usual height;

You may as well use question with the wolf,

Why he hath made the ewe bleat for the lamb;

* * * * *

You may as well do anything most hard,

As seek to soften that—than which what's harder?—

His Jewish heart;”

‘‘The Merchant of Venice”—Shakespeare.

In the darkest hours of the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin was sent to Europe to raise funds for the struggling Colonies. The efforts of the patriots to throw off the British yoke were sabo­taged at every turn. The Tidewater blue-bloods of Virginia, the rich and aristocratic Philadelphians, the merchants, bankers and traders of New York and the purse-and-dass-proud Bostonians were working and plotting for England against their middle-class fellow- countrymen. Writing from Passy to John Adams regarding his efforts to obtain a loan through a Jewish banker in Holland, Franklin said:

November 26, 1781

“It seems to me that it is principally with Mr. Neufville we have to do; and tho’ I believe him to be as much a Jew as any in Jerusalem, I did not expect that with so many and such constant Professions of Friendship for the United States with which he loads all his Letters, he would have attempted to inforce his Demands (which I doubt not will be extrava­gant enough) by a Proceeding so abominable.”

“The Writings of Benjamin Franklin”

Vol. 8. The MacMillan Co. P. 332.

December 14. 1781

“By this time, I fancy, your Excellency is satisfy‘d that I was wrong in supposing J. de Neufville as much a Jew as any in Jerusalem, since Jacob was not content with any per cents, but took the whole of his Brother Esau’s Birthright, and his Posterity did the same by the Canaanites, and cut their Throats into the Bargain; which, in my Conscience, I do not think Mr. J. de Neufville has the least Inclination to do by us.—while he can get anything by our being alive.” Ibid. P. 345.

The complaint which Franklin made of de Neufville was "Shylockery”, since de Neufville demanded as security for the pro­posed loan not only the Thirteen Colonies themselves, but all their "income, revenue and produce" until the loan was repaid, with interest. In his Pulitzer Prize biography, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Van Doren is at great pains to deny the existence of the oft-discussed Pinckney notes of what Franklin is supposed to have said at the Constitutional Convention, allegedly containing a denunciation of the Jews, but Van Doren ignored the above letters and subsequent poem. We do not publish the Pinckney notes because we have no proof of their authenticity.

In another letter from Franklin to Lafayette (see The Works of Benjamin Franklin, compiled by John Bigelow. Vol. 8, P. 234), Franklin discusses Benedict Arnold’s treachery and compares him with Judas. He encloses a poem (Ibid. P. 240), which describes Arnold as:

“Enleagu’d with friends of that detested tribe,

Whose god is gold, whose savior is a bribe,

Could basely join, his country to betray.”

Benedict Arnold’s aide was Major David Solesbury Franks, a young Jewish merchant of Montreal. Arnold’s dealings with the British were investigated in Philadelphia before he was given com­mand at West Point. Franks is described in Benedict Arnold, by Charles Sellers, (P. 197) in the following words:

"Behind its pretentious white portals, guarded by a smartly presented musket of a Continental soldier, a new commercial establishment came into being. Franks and his chief had already agreed on a partnership, and Franks had been the first in the city, bearing unsigned instructions from Arnold for the purchase of European and East India goods to any amount, a promise to see to the payment, and a strict charge that he preserve the greatest secrecy in the matter.”

“Of the General’s staff, Franks was wisely noncommittal.” P. 208.

"It was the particular duty of Franks to act as escort and guard of honor for Mrs. Arnold. He came to be known among the intimates of the family as 'the nurse.’ ” P. 217. "There was every reason to believe that the goods brought from Egg Harbor had come by sea from New York, and the pursuers believed they had discovered evidence of a treasonable correspondence. A Miss Levy, suspected of being an emissary of the enemy, had gone through the lines on a pass from Arnold. Arnold was asked to explain, and refused.” P. 209.

Franks was living and dining in Army headquarters at West Point, with Arnold and his wife, while Arnold was engaged in treasonable activities with General Sir Henry Clinton, through his aide, Major Andre. P. 240.

After Arnold’s escape on board the British man-of-war, the Vulture, he wrote General Washington absolving Major Franks of complicity in his treason. P. 244. Franks was tried, among others, for sharing in the conspiracy "but proof could not be found.” P. 246.

While the soldiers of Washington were starving and naked at Valley Forge, while such patriots as Gen. Washington, Col. Thomas Marshall, and his great son Capt. John Marshall, were resolutely throwing their all into the cause of the people, Rebecca Franks was enjoying herself in the lush atmosphere of Philadelphia about twenty miles away. Writing to the wife of an American patriot she says,

“You can have no idea of the life of continued amuse­ment I Hue in. I can scarce have a moment to myself. I spent Tuesday evening at Sir William Houte’s, where we had a concert and dance.”

Life of John Marshall P. 109, Beveridge, Vol. I.

Sol Bloom, Jewish millionaire Chairman of the powerful House Foreign Relations Committee, who got his start in America exhibit­ing a "hoochy-coochy” dancer at the World’s Fair in Chicago, belittles Washington’s Farewell Address, and his memory, by the following statement:

"But he was planning on quitting all the time. He wrote on that Farewell Address for four years. By the end of his second term he was so unpopular he couldn’t have been elected dog-catcher, if he wanted the job, which he didn’t.” Washington Times-Herald, February 20, 1940.

HAYM SALOMON—JEW BROKER—SAVIOUR
OF THE REVOLUTION?

Numerous attempts have been made in the past hundred years to collect—through Congress—large sums said to be due Haym Salomon for monies which, the claimants contended, Salomon had advanced the Colonial Government to finance the Revolution. Prin­cipal spokesmen for these claimants in recent years have been the Federation of Polish Jews in America, headed by Benjamin Winter and Z. Tygel. So potent was this group that they "misled” Presi­dent Franklin D. Roosevelt, former Mayor James J. Walker of New York, Governor Herbert H. Lehman, President Wilson, President Taft, Chief Justice Hughes, Senators McKellar, Copeland, Wagner,

Caraway, Davis and Vandenberg, Congressmen Perlman, Dickstein and Sirovich, Ralph Pulitzer, Adolph Lewisohn, Samuel Untermyer, Gov. Nathan Miller, George Medalie, President William Green of the A. F. of L., Rev. S. Parkes Cadman, Dr. Henry Moskowitz, Herman Bernstein and numerous others into endorsing their claims either directly or indirectly. It was proposed to erect ‘fitting’ mem­orials, magnificent monuments to Haym Salomon in New York City.

So vigorous was their campaign before the public and the Con­gressional Claims Committee, that certain other American Jews, aware of the true nature of Haym Salomon’s services to the Revolu­tion, actively opposed their claims. On February 26, 1931, Max James Kohler, prominent Jewish lawyer, official of various Jewish bodies and vice-president of the American Jewish Historical Society, wrote Congressman Emanuel Celler of New York a long and detailed report in what was intended to be an open letter on the subject of the claims made in behalf of Salomon.

Alarmed at the imminent possibility that investigation would prove the claims to be unjustified to the point of being fraudulent, Kohler cited a mass of evidence showing that Salomon, far from having been ‘the Financier of the Revolution’ was little more than a broker for Robert Morris, the true financial genius of the Revolution, and that, for his services, Salomon had been paid as brokers are usually paid — by a commission on all transactions in which he had a hand.

Stating that he had in his possession information which would "put an end, once and for all, to efforts to collect * * * hundreds of thousands of dollars claimed by the descendants of Haym Salomon, as due them from an 'ungrateful’ country”, Kohler thoroughly de­molished the claims made by the Federation of Polish Jews.

Says Kohler:

"Salomon’s financial connection with the U. S. Govern­ment began only a few months before the Battle of Yorktown on Oct. 19th, 1781 in effect ended the War in our favor * * While we were in sore financial straits in 1781, the War would nevertheless have been won by us, had Haym Salomon never lived, and Russell’s (Charles Edward Russell, Socialist writer who did a laudatory biography of Salomon) effort to depict him as practically the saviour of our country is absurd * * * ”

Kohler’s conclusions, based on the evidence, are that:

"Haym Salomon never lent the Government a substantial sum, probably not even one cent, despite the claims to the contrary advanced by certain of his descendants, in their own interest * * *”

and that:

“The favorable reports of Committees of Congress have—I regret to say — rested on misinformation, and I fear de­liberate concealment, if not worse, on the part of Haym M. Salomon (a son of Haym Salomon, who first tried to make good the claims), or His agents, who misled the Congres­sional Committees.”

Kohler adds:

“President Coolidge was even recently misled into saying

• * * that he (Haym Salomor.) negotiated for Robert Morris all the loans raised in France and Holland (for our struggling country) * * * The fact is that Haym Salomon as broker ‘negotiated’ the drafts representing a fraction of these loans
• * * and someone cleverly confused the words ‘loans' and ‘drafts’ in one of the Congressional reports in question in order to give an entirely erroneous and exaggerated impression of what Haym Salomon actually did.”

Haym Salomon was a Polish Jew. He arrived in America in about 1772 and married Rachel Franks, a daughter of Moses Franks of New York. Rachel Franks was related to Jacob Franks, com­missary to the British during the French and Indian War, David Franks of Philadelphia, and the latter’s daughter Rebecca, who mar­ried General Sir Henry Johnson. Other relatives were the aforemen­tioned David Solesbury Franks and Colonel Issaac Franks.

With these connections plus “a knowledge of languages and a flair for business”, says Kohler, Salomon was able to float about $200,000 worth of securities for Robert Morris, Superintendent of Finance of the Colonial Government. Morris allowed Salomon to call himself "Broker to the Office of Finance” and so records in his diary.

Salomon was arrested by the British after the capture of New York in 1776, but was released at the request of the Hessian-British service in August 1778. He made his way to Philadelphia where, shortly, his association with Robert Morris began.

Despite the Kohler report—which, it must be said, is exceedingly difficult to find in our usually well-stocked libraries (there is a copy in the Congressional Library)—persistent and loud-mouthed efforts to persuade the American people that Haym Salomon was the 'Finan­cier of the Revolution’, and that the services of the Jews to the Colonial cause were uniqme and beyond ordinary value, continue unabated to this very day. As recently as in April, 1940, the Jewish comedian, Jack Pearl, celebrated his debut as a dramatic artist by appearing on a radio program in the role of Haym Salomon and portraying the magnitude of his achievements as ‘Financier of the Revolution’.

Not a word about the Kohler disclosures. As usual, the unsus­pecting American has fallen for the Savior Salomon legend as the result of a deluge of blatant propaganda in the press, magazines and over the radio.

Though Kohler does not press the point, his alarm at the prospect that Haym Salomon would be ‘deflated’ by any investiga­tion worthy of the name, seems to have influenced the writing of his intended open letter to Congressman Celler. Such ‘deflation’ un­doubtedly would injure the cause of those Jews who wish to argue that their race has always been transcendently American and patriotic. If Congressman Celler has ever divulged this letter we have been unable to discover it.

In COLLIER’S of May 11, 1940, Dr. D. H. Dubrovsky, him­self a Trotskyite Jew and one-time intimate brother-revolutionary of Lenin, Trotsky, Zinovieff and the group of Communist Jews who overthrew the Romanoffs and murdered the Czar and his family, describes the efforts of the Stalinist Communists to persuade him to collect from the American Government several million dollars alleg­edly due the heirs of one Haym Salomon, celebrated by American Jews to-day as the "Financier of the Revolution.” At that time, Dubrovsky v/as head of the Soviet Red Cross in the United States. He subsequently quarreled with his superiors in Moscow and is now conducting a wordy warfare with Stalin.

As Werner Sombart, himself a Jew, shows in The Jew and Modern Capitalism, Wars are the Jew’s Harvests. They are invari­ably represented in the camps of enemy and friend alike and due to their dose blood and world community, are able to traffic at will with each other and without regard for national interest.

ill.

AMERICAN TORIES IN THE WAR OF 1812

"O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave—

O’er the land of the free

and the home of the brave.”

Francis Scott Key.

The propaganda for getting us into war is no new thing. It wasn’t new in 1915-16. As a matter of fact the American people got their first dose of it several years before the War of 1812. It is surprising how much the British propaganda of those days resembles that which is now bombarding us.

England was fighting France in those days—from 1802 and after—and Napoleon, not Hitler, was the bugaboo. John Adams wrote:

"Our Gazettes and Pamphlets tell us that Bonaparte . . . will conquer England, and command all the British Navy, and send I know not how many hundred thousand soldiers here and conquer from New Orleans to Passamaquoddy. Though every one of these bugbears is an empty Phantom yet the People seem to believe every article of this bombastical Creed and tremble and shudder in Consequence. Who shall touch these blind eyes?"

“Life of John Marshall” by Beveridge, Vol. 4. ps. 15-16.

”They were sure that Napoleon intended to subjugate the world; and that Great Britain was our only bulwark against the aggressions of the Conquerer ...” Ibid. p. 2. There was the same wild talk those days about how necessary an English victory was to American interests. "Great Britain is fighting our battles and the battles of mankind, and France is combatting for the power to enslave and plunder us and all the world.” Ibid. p. 5. So wrote Fisher Ames in November 1803.

According to Beveridge, in his Life of John Marshall, the Ameri­can pro-British propagandists were saying:

“If that Power (France) 'swayed’ by that satanic genius, Napoleon, should win, would she not take Nova Scotia, Canada, Louisiana, the Antilles, Florida, South America? After these conquests, would not the United States, ‘the only remaining republic', be conquered." Ibid. p. 46.

In harmony with their consistent conduct, the Tories, wealth, society, big business and finance of New England and New York sought to tie our destinies with England.

Thomas Jefferson and those patriots who put the interests of America first did not fall for this British propaganda. They had a sounder judgment, a truer patriotism and a wider knowledge of European politics than do today the Anglophiles on the Atlantic Sea­board. He saw what England was trying to do.

"The English,” he said, "being equally tyrannical at sea as he (Bonaparte) is on land, and that tyranny bearing on us in every point of either honor or interest, I say, 'down with England,' and as for what Bonaparte is then to do to us, let us trust to the chapter of accidents. I cannot, with the Anglomen, prefer a certain present evil to a future hypothetical one.” Jefferson’s Works, Ford. ps. 483-484.

By 1812, the British, who a few years before, had begged and plotted to draw us into their war against Napoleon and failed, were, to quote Professor Channing: “Inciting the Indians to rebellion, impressing American seamen and making them serve on British war­ships, closing the ports of Europe to American commerce ...” and Henry Adams said: "The United States had a superfluity of only too good causes for war with Great Britain.”

When at last we got our fill of such business and began to pre­pare to fight, the pro-British Americans were guilty of everything they are doing today. There was talk of rebellion against the Federal Government, and, says Beveridge, ‘ Withdrawal from the Union was openly advocated.” New England, in particular, fought for the British interests and talk of secession was steadily growing.

The Prime Minister of England selected, as British Minister to the United States an overbearing Britisher, Francis James Jackson. Jackson regarded our President Madison as plain and rather “mean looking”. To him Americans were all alike, except that some were "less knaves than others”. The American mob, according to His Majesty’s Minister, was “by many degrees more blackguard and ferocious than the mob in other countries.” He charged our Secretary of State with lying. Bailey’s Diplomatic History of the American People, ps. 126, 127.

After the war with England of 1812 was declared, the Boston papers declared that it was not the "duty of an American to shed his blood * * * for Madison or Jefferson and that host of ruffians in Con­gress, * * * New England defiantly withheld her troops from service, sold an enormous quantity of provisions to the British invader, and in other ways hampered the American Cause."

Ibid. P. 141.

England and France were engaged in a war of claw and fang. His Royal Majesty's frigate, the Leopard, before any declaration of war, made a treacherous and murderous attack on our ship, the Chesapeake, in June, 1807, ten miles off the Virginia Coast.

“When the bloody hulk that was the Chesapeake limped back to Norfolk with a tale of humiliation, an unparalleled wave of indignation swept over America. * * The Wash­ington Federalist was similarly impressed: ‘We have never,

• * witnessed the spirit of the people excited to so great a degree of indignation * * on hearing of the * * unexampled outrage * * . All parties, ranks, and professions were unan­imous in their detestation of the dastardly deed, and all cried aloud for revenge. * * The chauvinistic press of England,
• * applauded the Leopard’s treatment of what it called the cowardly Yankees.’ ”

Ibid. ps. 116, 117.

The British by force removed our seamen from our ships and cast thousands of them into English prisons. In the infamous English penitentiary at Dartmouth, from 1812 to 1816, thousands of them were incarcerated and they suffered through dreadful winters for want of sufficient food and clothing. An American representative was accused by these prisoners of buying for them clothing “of a Jew merchant of London far below the value to enrich himself". See Appendix to The Scene Changes, by Sir Basil Thomson.

After the battle of Bladensburg the British burned the Capitol, the President’s house, the Congressional Library, the Navy Yard, and other public buildings. They destroyed private property, includ­ing houses built for General Washington on the brow of Capitol Hill, property belonging to Daniel Carroll of Duddington, the library, types and printing presses of a newspaper, and other private property. They maliciously mutilated and defaced a monument that had been erected to our heroes in the war with Tripoli. His Majesty’s Admiral Cockburn exhibited in the streets a gross levity of manner, displaying sundry articles of trifling value which he had taken from the Presi-1 dent’s house, and repeated many coarse jests and reproaches respect­ing our President. “The Invasion and Capture of Washington", by Williams, pages 265 to 270, inclusive.

Surgeon-General Richard Rush stated:

“ * * * The memory of the burning of Washington can not be obliterated. The subject is inseparable from great international principles and usages. It never can be thought of by an American, and ought not to be thought of by an enlightened Englishman, but in conjunction with the deplor­able and reprehensible scenes I recall. It was no trophy of war for a great nation. History can not so record it. Our infant metropolis at that time had the aspect of merely a straggling village but for the size and beauty of its public buildings. Its scattered population scarcely numbered eight thousand: it had no fortresses or sign of any; not a cannon was mounted.”

Ibid., 276, 277.

There is now on an active campaign by the Jews, through press, radio and publishing houses, to substitute “God Bless America”, composed by Irving Berlin, a Jew born in Russia under the name of Baline, for “The Star Spangled Banner”. As a part of the campaign to destroy our faith in the Founding Fathers and their institutions, especially non-intervention in European wars, there have been re­cently published and extolled at least three books, by Tory con­trolled publishing houses, which slander Washington, Franklin, Adams and other Revolutionary patriots, and praise Benedict Arnold and Conway, of the infamous Conway cabal. These vilifications of our noble dead are essential to the consummation of the New York City, New England, Anglophile, Jewish plot:—"Union Now” with England.

THE CHINESE OPIUM WARS AND BRITISH-JEWS

“A hell-hound that doth hunt us all to death:

That dog, that had his teeth before his eyes,

To worry lambs and lap their gentle blood,

That foul defacer of God’s handiwork.

That excellent grand tyrant of the earth,

That reigns in galled eyes of weeping souls,

Thy womb let loose, to chase us to our graves."

Richard III, Act IV, Scene IV.

In Shanghai: City for Sale, ps. 6-7, published in 1940 by Har- court-Brace 61 Co., New York, we read:

"This British desire for a wider sphere of operations precipitated Britain’s first war with China” (in 1842). "It was called the ‘Opium War’ because the British urge to swamp China with India-grown opium and Chinese refusal to take it were its tangible cause.

"There is no doubt about the wanton aggression that marked the beginning of this undeclared war, nor about the singular brutality with which the British soldiers sacked peaceful cities, burned public buildings, looted, plundered and murdered . . . There was much ruthless bayoneting. Sacred temple quarters were soiled, exquisite wood carvings were used for camp fires. And British soldiers watched old men, women and even children cutting each other’s throats in utter despair, or drowning themselves. ‘The lament of the father­less, the anarchy, the starvation, and the misery of the home­less wanderers’, says the East India Committee of the Co­lonial Society in London in 1843, ‘are the theme of a fright­ful triumph.’ ”

The famous Sassoon family, probably the most influential Jewish family in England today and one of the few intimate with the last three generations of the Royal Family, established their wealth and power in the Opium Wars.

"* * * David Sassoon began with a rug factory and banking establishment, but he soon recognized the opportu nities in opium . . . deft maneuvering netted him the most valuable prize an Indian merchant could strive for—a monop­oly of the opium trade.” * * *

‘‘David’s sons were bright. There was Elias, the first Sassoon to go out to the China Seas. He went over as early as 1844, in the wake of the Opium War which had given British traders the right to dump into China all the opium India and the Near East could grow. Selling the drug to 400,000,000 customers, Elias was spectacularly successful.” American Mercury, January 1940, p. 61.

Sir Edward Sassoon, the second baronet (Albert Abdul­lah’s son, born in Bombay in 1856) married Baron Gustave de Rothschild’s daughter. He resided in London and be­came a major in the Duke of Cambridge’s Hussars Yeomanry; his daughter Sybil married the fifth Marquis of Cholmon- dely; King Edward VII considered him a friend; and the burghers of Hythe sent him into the House of Commons.” Ibid. p. 63.

‘‘It was the time of the great opium trade. The poppy fields of India and the Near East yielded a golden harvest, and British ships brought the sweet-smelling product to China’s distant ports. David Sassoon was rich and power­ful." Shanghai; City for Sale, p. 275.

‘‘Most of the immense Sassoon fortune, in fact, had been made in the opium trade. They had shipped the precious drug from India to Shanghai, and they had cleared millions of pounds. The old firm of E. D. Sassoon had been promi­nent in Shanghai's famous opium combine. Sbanghai- landers were familiar with the name. The Sassoons had drawn much money out of Shanghai; if Sir Victor was to bring all that money back to the Settlement, there was a certain measure of retributive justice in his move.” Ibid, ps. 274-275.

"No one knew how much money Sir Victor carried in his hip pocket when he landed in Shanghai (1931). Some said eighty-five million: others, three hundred * * * He in­vested. He bought. He bought everything that could be had for money and plenty could be had for money, in Shanghai. * * * He took over the vast Nanking Road holdings of Silas Aaron Hardoon. * * * He accepted the chairmanship in his family’s old establishment, E. D. Sassoon 0 Co., Ltd., bankers, merchants, industrialists. He controlled the Yang­tze Finance Company and the International Investment Trust.” Ibid., p. 277.

“The Sassoon pedigree goes back to King David,” and “Sir Victor was the white boss of Shanghai,” says the American Mercury of January 1940.

This Sir Victor Sassoon recently arrived in the United States with eclat, issued a series of belligerent challenges to the Japanese,

and indicated a strong desire to involve the United States in a pro­gram, which could not fail to protect his Far Eastern interests, while simultaneously endangering our peace and that of China. The New York Sun of February 2, 1940, gives an interesting account of the Sassoon family and of Sir Victor Sassoon in particular:

* * This old-established firm also has been deep in the swirl of international politics and knows its way around the world and down through the centuries. Sir Victor Sassoon, British financier, arriving in San Francisco from the Orient, says, ‘You Americans have got Japan absolutely cold, and all business people in Japan know it.’ He was talking about the voiding of the trade treaty and Japan’s dependence on Ameri­can imports.

“During most of the nineteenth century, the Sassoons built a vast fortune in India, principally in cotton, jute, tex­tiles and shellac. In 1929, political unrest in India caused Sir Victor to shift base, as the family has done, through the centuries, in Toledo, Venice, Salonika, Constantinople, Jeru­salem, Safed and Bagdad. He put over some big, fast deals in silver, branched out in real estate and is now known as the wealthiest white man in the Far East. His interests in­clude banks, mills, textiles, hotels, wharves, liquor-import­ing companies, laundries, bus lines and night clubs.”

During the recent Municipal elections in Shanghai, when the Japanese attempted to increase their membership on the Governing Council, a "mysterious” individual possessed of enormous real estate holdings in Shanghai, effected a coup by breaking up his hold­ings into 1,200 component parts, thus increasing the British domi­nance of the Council. No one but Sir Victor Sassoon owned enough Shanghai real estate to accomplish this.

Considering the recent revival of interventionist talk on the Far Eastern problem, let us regard the words of Boake Carter and Thomas Healy in their book, Why Meddle in the Orient, (ps. 17 to 28, inc.)

Dr. Thomas Healy is a distinguished scholar, teacher and Dean of the Foreign Service School of the old and noted Georgetown Uni­versity in the Nation’s Capital.

"They demanded not only more trade on terms more ad­vantageous to themselves, but demanded even a vicious con­traband trade. Thus we come to the most sordid of historic narratives—the Opium War of 1839—as a result of which the Western World first forced its will and desires upon China and, over her prostrate form, extracted those ‘sacred’ treaty rights, about which the statesmen have said so much lately.

"Few Americans realize that, while opium is always as- 24 sociated with the Chinese, actually China used little or no opium until its use was forced upon them in huge quantities by the British Government and its agents in India.

“The growing and sale of Indian opium was a British Government monopoly, which poured a golden stream of profits into the British Treasury. The British agents fore­saw even greater profits if the defenceless Chinese were made to absorb more Indian opium. The Chinese Government, fully realizing the degenerative qualities of this drug, bitterly protested. It attempted to bar its importation, sale and use. The British ignored the ban, whereupon the Chinese Gov­ernment, in desperation, seized large quantities of British opium stored in Canton warehouses. Promptly Britain’s Royal Navy went into action and the Opium War was on.

“Cries of indignation have rent the air over recent events in the Far East, with most of the crying being done by London and Washington. * * * There was no declaration of war by the British Government. There was no official explanation given to the public, other than that the Chinese had flaunted the British prestige, property and flag. * * *

"Dictating the Treaty of Nanking, 1842, closing the Opium War, Great Britain compelled the Chinese to pay an indemnity of $21,000,000, of which $6,000,000 was reim­bursement for the destroyed opium — destroyed by the Chi­nese when the British insisted on forcing it into China against the latter’s will. * * *

“It was only through the debauchery of China in the Opium War that Britain directly, and the United States indirectly, obtained their ‘sacred’ treaty rights to establish themselves in the great port of Shanghai against the wishes of the Chinese people.

“The crowning point * * * was the fact that the Treaty of Nanking never touched the immediate cause of the war— the illegal importation of opium! The Chinese were made to pay for the war, but the illicit imports of the deadly weed continued to flow unabated, to the moral and physical de­cay of millions of Chinese, and to the great financial profit of the British Government.

“This war nauseated most historians, including British men of letters. Justin McCarthy declared: ‘Reduced to plain words, the principle for which we fought in the China War was the right of Great Britain to force a peculiar trade upon a foreign people, in spite of the protestations of the Govern­ment, and all such public opinion as there was, of the nation.’ The great British statesman, Gladstone, declared: ‘A war more unjust in its origins, a war more calculated to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know and have not read of. The British flag is hoisted to protect an infamous traffic: and if it was never hoisted except as it is

now hoisted on the coast of China, we should recoil from its sight with horror’.

* * "Many American traders had a profitable role in the opium traffic. A group of American merchants formally peti­tioned Congress to assist Great Britain, France and Holland with a naval demonstration. Our merchant group discreetly refrained from endorsing the illicit, degenerating opium traffic, but nobly insisted that other Chinese ports should be ‘opened’, and their trade there protected!

“This was probably the first time that a formal request for military co-operation by the United States with Great Britain and other Western powers was proposed to achieve what was camouflaged as a common Far East objective. The same proposition has been made again in the past few months and doubtless will be made again.

“The merchants’ petition was discussed in Congress, March, 1840. The Hon. Caleb Cushing, who soon after negotiated our first treaty with China, declared: ‘But God forbid that I should entertain the idea of co-operating with the British Government in the purpose, if purpose it has, in upholding the base cupidity and violence and high-handed infraction of all law, human and divine, which have charac­terized the operations of the British, individually and col­lectively, in the Seas of China ... I trust the idea will no longer be entertained in England that she will receive aid or countenance from the United States in that nefarious enter­prise'.

"Thus was China 'opened' to the trade of the Western World. Thus were the ’rights’ to reside and trade in Shang­hai and other Chinese ports obtained. Thus was the first proposal for Anglo-American military co-operation in the Far East turned down by the United States."

"The first Opium War led to more wars. In 1857-58, Great Britain was again one of the belligerents. This time she was aided by France. This war was known as the Sec­ond Opium War or the Arrow War.” * *

"And, once again, as in the first Opium War, there grew up a persistent drive in the United States and in Britain to inveigle America to join Britain and France in military opera­tions in China.” Foster quotes from our own official docu­ments to show that the British were much disappointed when we made a compromise, peaceful settlement of a separate quarrel with the Chinese. The British secretly had hoped for U. S. aid in the war they were planning against the Chinese.”

(We are reminded here that London was much annoyed and disappointed—according to the New York Times—when the United

Mates settled the Panay incident without prior agreement with the ! -ritish Government.)

“The United States Government formally answered the British Government that military expeditions into Chinese territory could not be undertaken without consent of Con­gress; that U. S. relations with China did not warrant resort to war. Mr. Reed, United States Minister to China, in con­veying these advices to the Allies, officially reported their chagrin and dismay as they had been ‘encouraged in the most extravagant expectation of co-operation on our part, to the extent even of acquisition of territory. * * * and that the English were especially irritable at their inability to involve the United States in their unworthy quarrel.’ ’

Why Meddle in the Orient, p. 28.

“A word here as to the British role in our acquisition of the Philippines is necessary to get a rounded picture of what Bemis calls, ‘the greatest mistake in the history of American diplomacy.’

"The British were very much worried that Germany would take over the Philippine Islands. As Germany was becoming a stronger rival of Britain in all parts of the world, this was the last thing the British wanted to happen.

"Furthermore, the British wanted the United States to take a physical place in the Far East, where it might sup­port British policy to keep China open to Western trade, which was predominantly British trade. If the British could maneuver us into not only an increasing trade stake but actual territory in the Far East, it would be much easier for Britain to obtain American co-operation in helping Britain preserve her Far Eastern stake, which was becom­ing more and more menaced by Germany and others.

Ibid. p. 61.

". . . Simultaneously, Britain fought the Boer War. from 1899-1902, by which she annexed a large part of South Africa. War was narrowly averted between Great Britain and Germany, who favored the Boers. The Boer War was almost universally condemned throughout the world, except by the United States—the British reciprocated this friendly tolerance by being almost the only nation in the world that did not consider our war with Spain as an offense against civilization.” Ibid. p. 68.

Upon the same consideration and for the same reason the British favored our annexation of the Philippines.

"It is astounding, but, nevertheless true, that not until 1928, thirty years after the event, were the American people able to learn how the Hay notes were prepared. Documents recently published show that in substance these notes fol­lowed the draft of Mr. Alfred E. Hippisley (a British sub* ject formerly connected with the Chinese Customs Service) who worked through Hay’s confidential advisor on Far Eastern affairs, W. W. Rockhill. The same two gentlemen were instrumental in formulating the later notes of 1900, leading to the implication of preserving Chinese territorial and administrative entity.” (The Hay referred to was John Hay, American Secretary of State and father-in-law of Anglophile, war-mongering Congressman James Wadsworth, co-author of the Conscription Bill.)

‘‘This incident emphasizes two things which Americans as a whole have not known: First, the British initiative in establishing what was presumably an American policy: sec­ond, the failure (which is not unusual) to acquaint the American people with all the facts until many years after the event.” Ibid. ps. 77-78.

“* * Our troops have been kept in China under authority of an international agreement that was never submitted to the Senate or the Congress, or the people of the United States. * * They were put there and continued there largely through dictation of the Executive branch of the Government, even though Congress may not have raised the question and has passed general appropriations for our U. S. military forces without special comment.” Ibid. p. 87.

“When the Allies were hard pressed by the German sub­marine warfare, Japan obtained secret agreements from Great Britain (February, 1917), France (March, 1917), Russia (March, 1917), and later Italy, that they would support at the end of the war Japan’s claims to Shantung and certain German islands which are now Japanese ‘mandates’.

“For reasons of understandable delicacy, the Allies care­fully concealed these agreements from the United States, al­though they openly explained their secret agreements in refer­ence to the general reconstruction (?) of the map of Europe. As the Allies slyly intended to use us as the instrument for bringing China into the war on their side, they possibly thought it best not to embarrass us in advance with the knowledge that arrangements had already been made to give a part of the territory of one Ally, China, to another Ally, Japan . ..

“In April, 1917, the United States joined the Allies in the conflict in Europe. * * Soon after we entered the World War we persuaded the Chinese Republic—which was badly battered by internal strife among the Chinese—to do likewise.” Ibid. ps. 105-106.

Thus we see that the identification of British-Jewish foreign policy with our Anglophile statesmen is no new thing. It is not likely that the American people understood then—or, for that matter, understand today—that when we helped the British win the Opium Wars, defeat the Boers and implement their Far Eastern policy, and fought the World War, we were, in truth, pulling British-Jewish chestnuts out of the fire. That our miscalled "statesmen” must have suspected something of the sort, however, is evident in their efforts to conceal the truth from Congress and the people.

See: Why Meddle in the Orient, by Carter and Healy;

Far Eastern Policy of the United States., by Griswold: A Diplomatic History of the United States, by Bemis. American Diplomacy in the Orient, by Foster.

Propaganda in the Next War by Sidney Rogerson, published in England under the auspices of the British Government and edited by the noted military expert, Captain Liddell Flart, contains instructions as to how England can win this war and involve the United States. He states:

* * To persuade her (America) to take our part will be much more difficult, so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed. It will need a definite threat to America, a threat, moreover, which will have to be brought home by propaganda to every citizen, before the republic will again take arms in an exter­nal quarrel. THE POSITION WILL NATURALLY BE CONSIDERABLY EASED IF JAPAN WERE IN­VOLVED AND THIS MIGHT AND PROBABLY WOULD BRING AMERICA. IN WITHOUT FURTHER ADO. At any rate, it would be a natural and obvious object of our propagandists to achieve this, just as during the Great War they succeeded in embroiling the United States with Germany.

(p. 148)

Quoting a high government official in Amsterdam, Frazier Hunt, the famous correspondent says:

"We are victims of our own busybody friends,” he told me, "England would like nothing better than to drag America into the war through the back door. If the Allies are able to involve America in the Far East against Japan it would remove from the Allies the responsibility for checking Japan in China and fighting her in the event she should decide to join up with Ger­many. Feeding America the idea that Japan is planning an invasion of the Dutch East Indies fans bitterness which might break into flames.”

JEWS AND OUR CIVIL WAR
— ABRAHAiM LINCOLN —

"Thou art the ruins of the noblest man That ever lived in the tide of the times.

Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!

Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,—

Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips,

To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue,—”

Shakespeare’s "Julius Caesar”.

The most prominent Jew on either side during our Civil War, was Judah P. Benjamin, born in the West Indies, a brilliant lawyer, Attorney General, Secretary of War and Secretary of State of the Confederacy. Writing about Benjamin's days as a student at Yale, Burton J. Hendrick in his Statesmen of the Lost Cause (1939) says:

"All that we can say with any definiteness, at this late date, is that Benjamin left Yale, not of his own volition and not because of financial stringency: that his offense was so serious that the authorities declined to consider his request for a re­hearing: that he himself misstated the reason for the separa­tion: that the charge was made, in a responsible journal and by a college mate of standing, that he had been caught steal­ing from his fellow students: that Benjamin made no public; denial of this charge; that all his life he showed a constant apprehension of a biography and destroyed all papers and documents that would facilitate inquiries into his past.” P. 164.

John Slidell, one-time fellow Senator of Judah P. Benjamin from Louisiana, became Confederate envoy to France soon after the Civil War began. Of him. Burton J. Hendrick says (Ibid. Ps. 292-

293) :

“Long before Slidell attained the Senate, * * in 1853— the word “Slidellian” had taken on a well-defined meaning. * * In this proceeding, Judah P. Benjamin was his associate, as in politics generally: and, justly or unjustly, the standing of both men suffered severely. * * * Benjamin and Slidell's biographers have been unable to discover the truth or falsity of these accusations, any more than they have proved, or dis­proved, similar scandals involving the Tehuantepec Railway, in which both Benjamin and Slidell were concerned.” * * “His (Slidell’s) ancestry contained perhaps a Jewish strain; at any rate, in Paris he became an iritimate of leading

Jewish families. One to whom he was especially close was Emile Erlanger, head of the great French (Jewish) banking house of Erlanger et Cie. * * * Erlanger’s son * * * fell in love with Slidell’s daughter, the spirituelle Matilda, and, from that moment, Confederate and French relations present a romantic association of Hymen and haute finance. Erlanger was made the French intermediary in all Confederate trans­actions.”

Ibid. P. 220.

"* * * the E_rl_ang_Cr l_oan (to the Confederacy) only one party found profitable. That was the banking house of Erlanger et Cie. Matilda Slidell’s father-in-law emerged from the transaction with gains not far from $2,700,000. * * * It is a fair estimate that the Confederate Treasury obtained about $2,500,000 from a bond issue for which it had pledged payment * * * of $15,000,000 in capital and seven per cent in interest.”

Ibid. P. 231.

Edwin de Leon, another Jew, was appointed Confederate pub- city agent in Paris. Of him, Hendrick says (Ibid. P. 391) :

"On leaving Richmond, the Secretary of State had given de Leon extremely confidential letters from Benjamin to Sli­dell. * * * Beniamin sought to bribe Napoleon III. into recognizing the Confederacy and breaking the blockade. On the voyage to France, de Leon opened and read these com­munications: when he presented the documents, with broken seals, to Slidell, that diplomat’s anger knew no restraint.”

The Confederacy fell and the men who had fought a valiant titfht for what they believed right were thrown into the even greater ' ravail of the Reconstruction. Judah P. Benjamin, almost alone of the leaders of the South, forsook immediately the suffering people who had honored and enriched him, fled to England and was soon ■ mbarked upon a new career of distinction and wealth, reminiscent of • >thers of his race dispossessed of their temporary cause and gains. I ike Slidell, he never again saw American soil.

“At that moment,” writes Hendrick (Ibid. P. 154), "another member of the Jewish race was rising to power in Great Britain. Benjamin Disraeli was rapidly advancing to the primacy of the British Cabinet—the same height to which his Secession compatriot reached in the Confederacy at an earlier day.”

Apparently the Jews from the North were a serious problem to die Union side during the Civil War. On Page 330 of Series One, Vol. XVII, Part 11, of the Official Records of the Union and Con­federate Armies, we find a communication from Major General U. S. Grant to Major General Hurlburt, then stationed at Jackson, Ten­nessee. Writing at La Grange, Tennessee, on November 9, 1862, General Grant said:

“Refuse all permits to come south of Jackson for the present. The Israelites especially should be kept out * * *”

And again, on November 10, 1862, this time to General Web­ster at Jackson, Grant wrote:

“Give orders to all the conductors on the road that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the railroad from any point. They may go north and be encouraged in it; but they are such an intolerable nuisance that the department must be purged of them.”

Writing — on December 17, 1862 — from Headquarters of the Thirteenth Army Corps at Oxford, Mississippi, to the Assistant Secretary of War, C. P. Wolcott, General Grant said:

“I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigi­lance that can be infused into post commanders, the specie regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the com­manding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton them­selves they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at a military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes, which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold.”

Apparently General Grant, a patient and tolerant individual, finally lost his patience. He issued General Order No. 11, as Com­mander of the 13th Army Corps, Department of the Tennessee:

“The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.

“Post commanders will see that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one return­ing after such notification will be arrested and held in con­finement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters.

‘‘No passes will be given these people to visit trade head­quarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits.

‘‘By order of Maj. Gen. U. S. Grant:

JNO. A. RAWLINS, Assistant Adjutant-General.”

The Jews, of course, protested and were influential enough even »t that time and in the face of the orders of a respected Corps Com­mander, to make their protest effective. On January 4, 1863, the ■cneral-in-Chief, H. W. Halleck, addressed General Grant as follows:

“A paper purporting to be General Order, No. 11, is­sued by you December 17, has been presented here. By its terms it expels all Jews from your department. If such an order has been issued, it will be immediately revoked.”

As a good soldier, there was nothing for Grant to do but obey, and on January 7, 1863, he revoked his order expelling the Jews from his department. At the same time other Union generals were complaining of the Jews.

“To Maj. Gen. John A. McClernand:

The cotton speculators are quite clamorous for aid in getting their cotton away from Middleburg, Hickory Valley, etc., and offer to pay liberally for the service. I think I can bring it away with safety, and make it pay to the Govern­ment. As some of the Jew owners have as good as stolen the cotton from the planters, I have no conscientious scruples in making them pay liberally to take it away.

1. F. ROSS, Brigadier General.”

In a letter written from Memphis, July 30, 1862, General W. T.

Sherman says, in part:

“I found so many Jews and speculators here trading in cotton, and secessionists had become so open in refusing any­thing but gold, that I have felt myself bound to stop it. The gold can have but one use—the purchase of arms and ammunition * * * Of course, I have respected all permits by yourself or the Secretary of the Treasury but in these new cases (swarms of Jews) I have stopped it.”

ABRAHAM LINCOLN ASSASSINATED BY
JOHN WILKES BOOTH, A JEW

"Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been So clear in his great office, that his virtues Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongu’d, against The deep damnation of his taking-off.”

"Macbeth”.

The plot of John Wilkes Booth, a Jew, involved not only the assassination of Lincoln, which was accomplished, but also the assas­sination on the same night of the Vice President, Andrew Johnson, of the Secretary of State, William H. Seward, and of General Ulysses

1. Grant. Seward, who was ill at his home, was stabbed, as was also his son, Frederick Seward, by David E. Herold, a co-conspirator with Booth, who was hanged. The Vice President Johnson escaped injury, but George A. Atzerodt was hanged for conspiring with Booth to kill him. General Grant, who was to have attended the theater with Lincoln that night, due to an unexpected departure for Burlington, New Jersey, was unharmed.

Writing of John Wilkes Booth’s ancestors, it is said in The Mad Booths of Maryland, page 16:

"John Booth, a Jewish silversmith” (in London) "whose ancestors had been exiled from Portugal because of their radical political views. In London the refugees had contin­ued their trade and free thinking, and John had married Wilkes’ cousin. This Wilkes was the ‘celebrated agitator John Wilkes of Westminster, London’”. Page 16. "John Wilkes Booth’s father was Junius Brutus Booth.” (Named after Julius Caesar's friendly assassin). Page 58.

Southern people, especially the aristocrats, real or imaginary, it is said, are preponderantly in favor of entering this war viz: bankrupt­ing this country and slaying our sons in Europe for "dear old Eng­land”, because they think she was sympathetic to them in the war between the States. The fact is that the ruling classes in England were, at the beginning of the war between the States, in favor of helping the South, not because of any fondness for the South, but because the United States was at that time rivalling Great Britain on the high seas, over which the British claim exclusive ownership, and they felt that by breaking up the Union they would destroy this rivalry. The South should recollect that it was a fair-weather friend­ship. After the battle of Antietam, England cold-shouldered the South, and after Vicksburg and Gettysburg, England used her in­fluence with France so that no further aid or comfort be given to the “Land of Dixie”.