Ahmadinejad: The Holocaust Idol Smashed

AFP, 2012.02.11: Iran has broken the "idol" of the Holocaust underpinning the creation of the Kike-State & US hegemony.


Antifa: Racists Have No Chance


An “Antifa” gang-house called “Hausprojekt Scherer 8″ is in an immigrant ghetto in Berlin, across the street from the HQ of a Kurd drug-gang called "The Street Fighters.”

The Kurdish gang demanded protection money from the Antifa gang. The Antifas refused.

During a big Antifa party, 30 members of the Kurdish gang stormed the Antifa house, wielding baseball bats, and began brutally beating the Anti-White Anti-Racists -- smashing windows, and destroying furniture and a bar.

The following night, two members of a band that performs at the Antifa gang-house were attacked by Kurds.

Police say that all members of the Kurd gang have been arrested for violent crimes in the past, and that the leader, Ahmed A., was recently beaten up by the Berlin chapter of the Hells Angels.

Antifas are uncharacteristically quiet about the incident, but the Süddeutsche Zeitung writes that the Antifa website is urging members to stay away from the Berlin gang-house. A White female “with dreadlocks” is quoted as saying she is leaving the area for fear of “the Kurdish and Arab mafia.”

"Antifas" have no chance in Muz neighborhoods.

From The Council of Conservative Citizens:







Masonic Iglesia ni Cristo (INC): Logo

Masonic Iglesia ni Cristo (INC): Temple

Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) is one of the Freemasons' Religious rackets in The Phillipines

Iglesia ni Cristo

The Iglesia ni Cristo (Tagalog, "Church of Christ") claims to be the true Church established by Christ. Felix Manalo, its founder, proclaimed himself God’s prophet. Many tiny sects today claim to be the true Church, and many individuals claim to be God’s prophet. What makes Iglesia ni Cristo different is that it is not as tiny as others.

Since it was founded in the Philippines in 1914, it has grown to more than two hundred congregations in sixty-seven countries outside the Philippines, including an expanding United States contingent. The Iglesia keeps the exact number of members secret, but it is estimated to be between three million and ten million worldwide. It is larger than the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a better known sect (which also claims to be Christ’s true Church). Iglesia is not better known, despite its numbers, because the majority of Iglesia’s members are Filipino. Virtually the only exceptions are a few non-Filipinos who have married into Iglesia families.

The organization publishes two magazines, Pasugo and God’s Message, which devote most of their energies toward condemning other Christian churches, especially the Catholic Church. The majority of the Iglesia’s members are ex-Catholics. The Philippines is the only dominantly Catholic nation in the Far East, with eighty-four percent of its population belonging to the Church. Since this is its largest potential source of converts, Iglesia relies on anti-Catholic scare tactics as support for its own doctrines, which cannot withstand biblical scrutiny. The Iglesia tries to convince people of its doctrines not by proving they are right, but by attempting to prove the Catholic Church’s teachings are wrong.

Is Christ God?

The Catholic teaching that most draws Iglesia’s fire is Christ’s divinity. Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Iglesia claims that Jesus Christ is not God but a created being.

Yet the Bible is clear: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). We know Jesus is the Word because John 1:14 tells us, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." God the Father was not made flesh; it was Jesus, as even Iglesia admits. Jesus is the Word, the Word is God, therefore Jesus is God. Simple, yet Iglesia won’t accept it.

In Deuteronomy 10:17 and 1 Timothy 6:15, God the Father is called the "Lord of lords," yet in other New Testament passages this divine title is applied directly to Jesus. In Revelation 17:14 we read, "They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings." And in Revelation 19:13–16, John sees Jesus "clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. . . . On his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords."

The fact that Jesus is God is indicated in numerous places in the New Testament. John 5:18 states that Jewish leaders sought to kill Jesus "because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God." Paul also states that Jesus was equal with God (Phil. 2:6). But if Jesus is equal with the Father, and the Father is a God, then Jesus is a God. Since there is only one God, Jesus and the Father must both be one God—one God in at least two persons (the Holy Spirit, of course, is the third person of the Trinity).

The same is shown in John 8:56–59, where Jesus directly claims to be Yahweh ("I AM"). "‘Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.’ The Jews then said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.’ So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." Jesus’ audience understood exactly what he was claiming; that is why they picked up rocks to stone him. They considered him to be b.aspheming God by claiming to be Yahweh.

The same truth is emphasized elsewhere. Paul stated that we are to live "awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). And Peter addressed his second epistle to "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:1).

Jesus is shown to be God most dramatically when Thomas, finally convinced that Jesus has risen, falls down and exclaims, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)—an event many in Iglesia have difficulty dealing with. When confronted with this passage in a debate with Catholic Answers founder Karl Keating, Iglesia apologist Jose Ventilacion replied with a straight face, "Thomas was wrong."

God’s Messenger?

A litmus test for any religious group is the credibility of its founder in making his claims. Felix Manalo’s credibility and, consequently, his claims, are impossible to take seriously. He claimed to be "God’s messenger," divinely chosen to re-establish the true Church which, according to Manalo, disappeared in the first century due to apostasy. It was his role to restore numerous doctrines that the Church had abandoned. A quick look at Manalo’s background shows where these doctrines came from: Manalo stole them from other quasi-Christian religious sects.

Manalo was baptized a Catholic, but he left the Church as a teen. He became a Protestant, going through five different denominations, including the Seventh-Day Adventists. Finally, Manalo started his own church in 1914. In 1919, he left the Philippines because he wanted to learn more about religion. He came to America, to study with Protestants, whom Iglesia would later declare to be apostates, just like Catholics. Why, five years after being called by God to be his "last messenger," did Manalo go to the U.S. to learn from apostates? What could God’s messenger learn from a group that, according to Iglesia, had departed from the true faith?

The explanation is that, contrary to his later claims, Manalo did not believe himself to be God’s final messenger in 1914. He didn’t use the last messenger doctrine until 1922. He appears to have adopted the messenger doctrine in response to a schism in the Iglesia movement. The schism was led by Teogilo Ora, one of its early ministers. Manalo appears to have developed the messenger doctrine to accumulate power and re-assert his leadership in the church.

This poses a problem for Iglesia, because if Manalo had been the new messenger called by God in 1914, why didn’t he tell anybody prior to 1922? Because he didn’t think of it until 1922. His situation in this respect parallels that of Mormonism’s founder Joseph Smith, who claimed that when he was a boy, God appeared to him in a vision and told him all existing churches were corrupt and he was not to join them, that he would lead a movement to restore God’s true Church. But historical records show that Smith did join an inquirer’s class at an established Protestant church after his supposed vision from God. It was only in later years that Smith came up with his version of the "true messenger" doctrine, proving as much of an embarrassment for the Mormon church as Manalo’s similar doctrine does for Iglesia.

Iglesia Prophesied?

A pillar of Iglesia belief is that its emergence in the Philippines was prophesied in the Bible. This idea is supposedly found in Isaiah 43:5–6, which states, "Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you; I will say to the north, ‘Give up,’ and the south, ‘Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth.’"

Iglesia argues that in this verse, Isaiah is referring to the "far east" and that this is the place where the "Church of Christ" will emerge in the last days. This point is constantly repeated in Iglesia literature: "The prophecy stated that God’s children shall come from the far east" (Pasugo, March 1975, 6).

But the phrase "far east" is not in the text. In fact, in the Tagalog (Filipino) translation, as well as in the original Hebrew, the words "far" and "east" are not even found in the same verse, yet the Iglesia recklessly combine the two verses to translate "far east." Using this fallacious technique, Iglesia claims that the far east refers to the Philippines.

Iglesia is so determined to convince its followers of this "fact" that it quotes Isaiah 43:5 from an inexact paraphrase by Protestant Bible scholar James Moffatt that reads, "From the far east will I bring your offspring." Citing this mistranslation, one Iglesia work states, "Is it not clear that you can read the words ‘far east’? Clear! Why does not the Tagalog Bible show them? That is not our fault, but that of those who translated the Tagalog Bible from English—the Catholics and Protestants" (Isang Pagbubunyag Sa Iglesia ni Cristo, 1964:131). The Iglesia accuses everyone else of mistranslating the Bible, when it is Iglesia that is taking liberties with the original language.

The Name Game

Iglesia points to its name as proof it is the true Church. They argue, "What is the name of Christ’s Church, as given in the Bible? It is the ‘Church of Christ.’ Our church is called the ‘Church of Christ.’ Therefore, ours is the Church Christ founded."

Whether or not the exact words "Church of Christ" appear in the Bible is irrelevant, but since Iglesia makes it an issue, it is important to note that the phrase "Church of Christ" never once appears in the Bible.

The verse Iglesia most often quotes on this issue is Romans 16:16: "Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you " (Pasugo, November 1973, 6). But the phrase in this verse is "churches of Christ." And it’s not a technical name. Paul is referring to a collection of local churches, not giving an organizational name.

To get further "proof" of its name, Iglesia cites Acts 20:28: "Take heed therefore . . . to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood" (Lamsa translation; cited in Pasugo, April 1978). But the Lamsa translation is not based on the original Greek, the language in which the book of Acts was written. In Greek, the phrase is "the church of God" (tan ekklasian tou Theou) not "the church of Christ" (tan ekklasian tou Christou). Iglesia knows this, yet it continues to mislead its members.

Even if the phrase "church of Christ" did appear in the Bible, it would not help Iglesia’s case. Before Manalo started his church, there were already groups calling themselves "the Church of Christ." There are several Protestant denominations that call themselves Church of Christ and use exactly the same argument. Of course, they aren’t the true Church for the same reason Iglesia isn’t—because they were not founded by Christ.

Did Christ’s Church Apostatize?

The doctrines upon which all Iglesia’s other doctrines depend is its teaching that Christ’s Church apostatized in the early centuries. Like Mormonism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other fringe groups, Iglesia asserts that the early Christian Church suffered a total apostasy. It believes in "the complete disappearance of the first-century Church of Christ and the emergence of the Catholic Church" (Pasugo, July-Aug. 1979, 8).

But Jesus promised that his Church would never apostatize. He told Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). If his Church had apostatized, then the gates of hell would have prevailed against it, making Christ a liar.

In other passages, Christ teaches the same truth. In Matthew 28:20 he said, "I am with you always even until the end of the world." And in John 14:16, 18 he said, "And I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever ... I will not leave you desolate."

If Iglesia members accept the apostasy doctrine, they make Christ a liar. Since they believe Jesus Christ is not a liar, they are ignoring what Christ promised, and their doctrine contradicts Scripture.

They are, however, fulfilling Scripture. While Jesus taught that his Church would never apostatize, the Bible does teach that there will be a great apostasy, or falling away from the Church. Paul prophesies: "[Do not] be quickly shaken in mind or excited . . . to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [Greek: apostasia] comes first" (2 Thess. 2:2–3); "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (1 Tim. 4:1); and, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own liking, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths" (2 Tim. 4:3–4). By falling away from the Church, members of Iglesia are committing precisely the kind of apostasy of which they accuse the Catholic Church.

The Bible tells us in 1 John 4:1: "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world." Was Felix Manalo a true prophet? Is his church the "true Church?" If we test the claims of Iglesia ni Cristo, the answer is apparent. His total apostasy doctrine is in flat contradiction to Christ’s teaching. There is no way that Iglesia ni Cristo can be the true Church of Christ.


  • I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
  • Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

  • In accord with 1983 CIC 827, permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
  • +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

From an ex-INC-Member:

What About The Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) Church
Republic of the Philippines
Let a native who has witnessed the delusion speak

Members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, unlike the rest of us Filipinos, are not allowed to think for themselves when it comes to interpretation of the Bible. They must submit to the official interpretation of Scripture from the Central Administration of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. If any member disagrees with the interpretation of the Scriptures as taught by the Central Administration of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, they are cast out and told they are damned into the flames of hell. This is a frightening and extremely traumatic experience, so devastating to a person's life, employment, and careers, few can escape and live a normal life.

The force by which members of INC are intimidated to stay in the membership is tremendous, especially those who are second, third, and fourth generation. By now they are brainwashed in the cult's teachings and convinced they are in the true Church of Christ. Membership in this group has increased in recent years due to the lack of public information that would exposed the INC as a cult group and its doctrine and teachings nonbiblical. The internet may serve as the only means a person can find information about the cult they are in and doctrinal information that may set their minds free from the religious bondage associated with INC. Many feel scared and threatened by the manner the group is held so tightly in the grip of such few men and women of power. Add to this religious fear that there may be a hit squad (religious mafia), authorized to enact the death penalty upon those who depart, and members become prisoners of conscience in a nation where there is supposed to be freedom of religion by all citizens protected by the government.

In the Philippines it is well known that different levels of government have given the INC use of military, police, and other enforcement bodies the power to persecute, arrest, and abuse anyone who openly opposes INC. The infiltration of the Philippine government by INC members on all levels makes it dangerous to confront the false doctrines being taught in INC churches. Even the Catholic church and its priest and bishops are intimidated by the power of the INC in the Philippine offices of government. Eventually, there may be open conflict where Catholics and INC members battle it out. Only time will tell if there will be great bloodshed. Does the Philippine Republic already have a shadow government in the hands of Erdy son of Felix angel? Many think so! Why do so many politicians and presidents go to this group and lobby for the millions of votes in their block balloting, and then once in office seek counsel at INC headquarters before making serious national decisions? Is this not evidence of a shadow government?

What is the solution of protecting the future civil rights of Philippine citizens and freedom of religious expression including making converts? Government reports seem to say all is well in the Philippines except for the Islamic unrest and a few Communist still trying to level the economic playing field between the poor and the rich. INC does not like other religious groups trying to convert its members. Splinter groups of INC and their leaders are constantly harassed, threatened, and openly abused by government agencies. The national government in the Philippines must enact and enforce laws that prohibits officials of the government from discriminating against and abusing religious groups. Any religious group whose members carry out directives using government offices and police powers must be denied existence in the Republic. Such individuals and religious groups should upon indictment and found guilty, be denied property ownership and all existing property subject to taxation commencing the year in which such acts or violations occurred. Any employee or official on any level of government, from the President down to the Barangay Council, who in any way allow any religious leader to persuade them to perform any act not authorized by a court order, should be removed from office or employment immediately. Any denial of any civil right of a Citizen or Guest (those legally in the country by visa), because of religious expression should be guilty of a crime. Such should be removed from employment or office and banned the rest of their life from all government employment or political positions. Any government contracts held by any business entity guilty of complicity in such activity should be canceled and such business closed down.

It is wrong for any religious group to have preference over others and given the right to execute vigilantism using employees and political office holders of the Philippine government on all levels. It is reported that the INC has infiltrated employment positions containing power and authority on all levels of the Philippine government. It is reported that these employees have used their positions for the benefit and power of INC staff and leaders. It is also reported that INC has also infiltrated all levels of Government and these public servants have used their offices and power for the benefit of the INC and its staff and leaders. While there may not be wide-spread executions and death squads searching for fleeing members of INC or those who publicly disagree with INC policy and doctrines, just one such case of torture, beheading, burning and killing, the knowledge of which is spread from province to province, is enough to keep members and dissenters not question practices of INC or its doctrines. Anyone who challenges the INC is currently in danger of limb, body, and life! That is why such writings as this must be done anonymously so as to escape retaliation and maybe death. This kind of religious power should not be enjoyed by any religion upon the earth in any nation. When any religion has a licence to eradicate whom it will, the world is not safe and there will be no people who have a free conscience and the liberty of free speech. Such religion deserves to be wiped out and all property confiscated. When any religion needs or uses the power of civil government to enact penalties against dissenters, it is no longer religious.

Unbiblical Beliefs of Felix angel and INC:

  • Believe Jesus returned in some manner to set up his endtime church on July 27, 1914, the INC was founded as the Church of Christ. If asked by an INC member what other Church was born on the day Jesus returned, the answer will be none. Aha they will say, this proves Felix angel is the last messenger and the Iglesia Ni Cristo is the true Church. But wait! Did Jesus return on July 27, 1914?
  • Believe that the Jehovah's Witnesses were right, Jesus returned to earth in 1914, and this is the year Jesus re-activated his Church, the Iglesia Ni Cristo by the agency of Felix angel, the angel of Rev. 7:2-3.
  • Believe Jesus is not God only a man created by God: Manalo said Jesus was no more God then he was.
  • Believe that Jesus being a man needed salvation also and saved himself by the merits of his own death, the same merits that saved others.
  • Believe the Holy Spirit is not God, but a created spirit-being sent by God.
  • Believes the Word of John 1:1 and 1:14 is the mind or foreknowledge of God about Jesus but when it says "God was the Word, or the Word was God" this is false.
  • Believes Jesus, a created man, must be worshiped as God, because the Father said so.
  • Believes the Church of Matthew 16:18 is the Iglesia Ni Cristo denomination which Felix Manalo allegedly restored because he discovered the Catholic Church and all other Protestant groups were of the devil.
  • Believe a person must hear the Gospel from Central Administration and an INC minister only.
  • Believe a person must be a member of only an INC church, membership in any other will send a soul to the flames of hell.
  • Believe a person must accept and believe what is preached in an INC church, or they cannot be saved.
  • Believe salvation is only found in the INC denomination.
  • Believe the INC churches can save just as much as Christ saves.
  • Believe the INC church is the only one with the Holy Spirit in it, which Holy Spirit is not God but some other created spirit being sent to help members understand the Bible.
  • Believe the Biblical name of the Christian Church is "Iglesia Ni Cristo" while other names are false.
  • Believes the official Biblical name of the church is "Iglesia ni Cristo" while other names are not (did not know the words "Iglesia Ni Cristo" are not Aramaic or Hebrew and cannot be the ORIGINAL words or name of the New Testament Church).
  • Believes baptisms are only valid if performed by a minister of INC.
  • Believes baptisms can be performed invoking the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  • Believes in Acts 2:38 baptism for the remission of sins, but denies baptisms are to be into the name of Jesus Christ, rather interpreting "in" (EIS) to mean by the authority of Jesus Christ.
  • Believe in "no name" baptismal formula: meaning they do not believe it is essential to invoke the titles Father, Son, or Holy Spirit; or the name of Jesus Christ over a baptismal candidate for the act to be valid. Baptism can be done with nothing said or repeated to or over the baptismal candidate.
  • Believe a person must obey all church rules. Church rules have the effect of being the Word of God by being an abridgment to the New Testament Cannon, and commanded of God for salvation because Felix angel said so. INC officials have the authority to make God accept their adopted or revised rules as essential elements of salvation (they can make up salvation as they go along).
  • Believe Church members should not belong to labor unions.
  • Believe it is ok for members and officials to have membership in secret societies such as the Masonic lodge.
  • Believe Church attendance is compulsory and if a person is not faithful they should be excluded from Communion.
  • Believe all members should give demanded offerings or be excluded from church activities and religious worship.
  • Believe good deeds and works specified by the NIC are salvational and add to ones safety and chance to have eternal life. Those who refuse to do these INC good deeds and works are damned into the flames of hell.
  • Believe members should not eat "dinuguan" (pork blood stew with pork meat and other spices). They cite no scripture.
  • Believe Christmas is pagan, more so because of being anti-Catholic, but celebrate the pagan new years eve with great ceremony, pomp, and parade. INC never tells its members that it was Pope Gregory who changed the date of the New Year from the month of March to the first day of the month named after the Roman god Janus (god of time and opener and closer of doors).
  • Believe members should avoid court actions against other members, but court actions against non member is acceptable.
  • Believe the Church has the right to tell its members how to vote and members are expected to vote exactly how the Church tells them (block voting to control elections and election outcome).
  • Believe a person can take Communion only if they are paid up. If a person is not paid up they can buy their salvation and the ransom of their souls by putting cash into the Church in those offerings they have missed. With these cash offerings they are allowed to take Communion and buy their salvation.
  • Believes Felix Y. Manalo is the fulfillment of Isaiah 43:5-7 (bring thy seed from the east is not the Israelites to whom Isaiah wrote, but Manalo claims this is the Philippine people in his Iglesia Ni Cristo Church; those called by "my name" Manalo means the name "Christian" although God was speaking of his own name); 46:11 (the ravenous (unclean) bird is Manalo, and "east" here is said to mean the "far east" or the Philippine Islands); and Rev. 7:2-3 prophecies (the angel ascending is Felix Y. Manalo and he, by the preaching and acceptance of his doctrine are sealed in their forehead, that is their mind. Thus the members of the INC churches are sealed by Manalo to be the people of God saved out of the tribulation time). Yet Manalo was a pre-trib rapture believer, holding that the church, his Iglesia Ni Cristo, will not see or suffer tribulation but will be quick-snatched as taught in the dispensationalism of John Darby, Clarence Larkin, and C.I. Scofield.
  • Believes in a pre-trib any second rapture (this false doctrine scares INC members to stay in their cult, being told there is salvation no where else).
  • Believes the millennial as found in Revelation 20 as a literal 1,000 years is false. Manalo and INC do not believe in the millennial. They spiritualize the millennial to be the church age of Iglesia Ni Cristo.
  • Believe in soul sleep when a person dies: that is a person's soul upon death dies and there is no consciousness, and the soul is resurrected with the body at the coming of Jesus (stolen from the doctrine of the Seventh Day Adventists Church and women preacher Ellen G. White).
  • Believe the modern receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues is of the devil.
  • Believe speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance as in Acts 2:4, ceased in the life-time of the Apostles and is not to be continued after the first century.
  • Believe all the gifts of the Spirit are abolished and ended as a result of the finish writing of the Bible and the collection of such into one volume called the Cannon of Scripture.
  • Believe the casting out of demons is not possible or available today and those who practice casting out demons are of the devil.
  • Believe miracles of healing and deliverance are all of the devil, that these ceased and ended when the Bible was fully a completed book.
  • Believe Felix Manalo is the Shepherd of John 10:16. He is the one to go bring sheep not of the fold and bring them in. These sheep not of the fold are the philippine people and those the INC will win from different Gentile nations.
  • Believe Felix Manalo is the seven (angel) church age messenger of Revelation 10:7. It would be Felix Manalo then who would finalize all doctrine, faith, and practice and after his finished work no one would have authority in matters of salvation but the Iglesia Ni Cristo church.
  • Believe Felix Manalo is the messenger of the covenant of Malachi 3:1.
  • Believe in several forced offerings and object to tithing, claiming tithing was under the law and a person is obligated to give more under the New Testament.
  • Believe the name of the Church according to the New Testament is "Iglesia Ni Cristo" when in fact this name is not found in the Bible at all! The nearest a person will find to this is in Romans 16:16 "Churches of Christ". Here "Churches" is plural and is the collective group of congregations and not one organization. This "Churches of Christ" was never intended to mean or was used by the Apostles to be the name of the New Testament Church. Elsewhere the Church is called the "Church of God" (Acts 20:28); "My Church" (Matthew 16:18); "Church of the living God"(1 Tim 3:15); "Church of the firstborn" (Heb 12:23); "Church of the Laodiceans" (Col 4:16, Rev 3:14); "Church of the Thessalonians" (1Thes 1:1); and "Church of Ephesus" (Rev 2:1). Manalo was a deceiver about the name of the New Testament Church. The word "Church" is the Greek "ekklesia" Strongs 1577 and means: "called out ones, a congregation, a synagogue, an assembly, and a community of members." In Romans 16:16 the word "Churches" refers to the congregations plural with whom Paul was Minister and Apostle. These were the Gentile Churches who saluted the Roman Gentile Church, all being grafted branches into the Olive Tree original Jewish Church. These Gentile branch Churches were NOT THE ORIGINAL JEWISH CHURCH of Jerusalem, but of the same body by grafting in. Manalo thinks he can deceive the Philippine people that his Iglesia Ni Cristo is the original Jewish Church and he has restored that: when in fact, he has a Gentile Philippine Church that has no connection to the New Testament Olive Tree body at all. He is not connected to it by doctrine of salvation, by water baptism, or by name! His false doctrines on salvation, the name of the Church, the formula and practice of baptism, his denial of Holy Spirit baptism as the first Church had in Acts 2:4, his claim of being the Christ-Shepherd of John 10:16, a Messias (according to court records of his fornication with girls and women), a prophet like unto the old prophets, and the ravenous unclean bird, all go to expose him as a charlton, a fraud, a wolf-man who has deceived many sheep; and last, ...he is a Judas! He betrayed his own people for their cash and deceived them to believe Jesus was no more God then he was.
  • Believe Manalo's private interpretations and accept his rejection of the King James Version being authoritative, seeking out any perversion translation that might prove his heresies true.
  • Believe the Catholic Church is of the devil and the pope is the antichrist, yet Manalo did not see himself as a quasi-pope of INC.
  • Believe the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA) Church is of the devil and Ellen G. White was false on Sabbath keeping (The Great Controversy).
  • Believe the Church of Christ (USA doctrine type) and the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) are of the devil. Manalo was however successful to take the large number of Christ of Christ (American style) and members of the Disciples of Christ and convert them to his antichrist religion. This allowed him fast growth not needing to make converts of sinners to enlarge his organization. By conversion of Ministers of these groups he there was no need to educate, train, or financially support new ones. His conversions gave him a ready income source of medium to wealthy individuals who pumped in the pesos by the billions. With insider connections and power, faithful church members were selected and given employments by other Iglesisa Ni Cristo members in positions where they refused to hire non Iglesia Ni Cristo candidates. This practice is used even in governmental hiring where there are individuals in power position who make policy and final decisions on hiring. When two people are candidates of equal education and experience, the job will fall to the one who is a member of the Iglesia Ni Cristo Church. This not only allows members jobs and positions others do not have available to them, it guarantees the church bigger offerings and enormous cash flow increases. Many Filipinos know this and so they join the Church for the financial doors that will be opened to them. Business owners join to expand their influence and capture more market share, even to obtain loans from banks where other Iglesia Ni Cristo members hold positions and authority to float business opportunity loans.
  • Believe Felix Manalo was ordained to subdue kings and with a sword turn them to dust (Iglesia claims Manalo fulfills Isaiah 41:2). No one shows he did this.
  • Believe God took hold of Manalo's hand as found in Isaiah 41:13.
  • Believe Manalo was to thresh the mountains and crush them and reduce them to chaff as found in Isaiah 41:15
  • Believe the fifth angel crying to the first four angels and rising from the east in Revelation 7:2-3 is Felix Manalo rising to power in a restored Church in the Philippines.
  • Believe Manalo as the fifth angel is the one to seal the servants of God, his new cadre of Ministers with the seal of God and these Ministers will in turn seal other converts and members of Iglesia Ni Cristo. Actually the fifth angel does have a seal but tells the first four angels not to hurt the earth til "WE HAVE SEALED THE SERVANTS OF GOD IN THEIR FOREHEAD. We can now uncover the deception of Manalo, when he claims it is the ordained Ministers of INC who will do the sealing of the servants. The text says five angels will do the sealing. As we read further we discover the sealing is of 144,000 of the tribes of Israel and not of a Gentile Philippine Church membership. Manalo never did prove the 144,000 were servants of Iglesia Ni Cristo and these Philippine sealed could trace their ancestry back to the twelve tribes.
  • Believe the words "angel and angels" in the Revelation text refers to a man or men, and not spirit beings of the heavenly realm. Their argument is that the word is symbolic and that not all angels wear wings. Of course we know this, there being two angels who came to the tent of Abraham with Adonai, they did not have wings. There are other visitations of angels without wings. To claim these were men and not heavenly beings borders in insanity. For ministers and members of INC to make this argument shows they are not honest and they are willing to pervert to have it their way.
  • Believe the appearance of Felix Manalo at the time of World War I was predicted by prophecy: They quote Matthew 24:6-7 and piggyback this to Revelation 6:12-15, claiming the troops hiding in fox holes was the prediction of men hiding in caves and the rocks of the mountains. How devious and lying can a man get. The Revelation 6:15 text concerns the actions of men at the appearing of our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ at his second advent. This text has nothing to do with war and men hiding in fox holes to escape enemy bullets. Manalo and his followers then try to piggyback Revelation 7:2-3 and Manalo as the fifth angel to their erroneous interpretation.
  • Believe that since Christ is the head of the Church in Eph 5:23, the Church should then be named Christ, thus Church of Christ or Iglesia Ni Cristo. Fact of the matter is, Christ is a title and an office of Jesus in Messianic prophecy concerning the seed of David (Daniel 9:25). To be scriptually correct Jesus was never called the Greek title Christ in his life time. This was applied when the Hebrew word Messieh was translated into Greek. Manalo did not recover the name of Christ for that name is JESUS! We know this because this is the name given to him at birth and carried down from heaven on the lips of an angel (Luke 1:31). To be scriptually correct the name of Christ is Jesus and this is the name of his body. Felix angel was a little nuts to claim the name of the body was the Greek Christ without reference to his name Jesus. Should we apply the name of the body (Jesus), to the Church we would then have its name as Church of Jesus Christ or Iglesia Ni Hesus Cristo, or something on that order. We can say, the Church was not named after a Greek title that was not the name of Jesus during his life time when he set up and established the Church. In the name on the churches of Iglesia Ni Cristo the saving name JESUS is never ADVERTISED. No Iglesia Ni Cristo Church has the name of JESUS upon the body of it on the inside or the outside as its identity. Manalo again used deception and his followers and ministers continue that evil. Felix angel was blind as a bat and the succussion of leaders are following the blind and all will fall into the ditch of destruction.
  • Believe in Acts 20:28 the words "Church of God" should be translated "Church of Christ" or Iglesia Ni Cristo. Manalo and other INC ministers cannot document this "Church of Christ" from the original Greek text, so they found salvation for their false doctrine and perversion of the Greek text by claiming the translation of George M. Lamasa of the Aramaic is correct. The fact is, Lamasa claims the New Testament was completely written in Aramaic and he was wrong. Scholars believe Matthew was written in Hebrew, Mark was written in Greek or Hebrew, John was written in Greek or Hebrew, but Luke, Acts Corinthians and the Greek letters are in Greek, Romans in Latin, and so forth. Lamasa's claim of Aramaic is simply false. It is possible all the Gospels but Matthew were written in Greek. Acts was written by a Greek named Luke and we have no proof he could even read or speak Hebrew. The text then in Acts 20:28 should carry its weight in Greek and not as Lamasa renders from the Peshitta Aramaic. Now what are the variant renderings according to true textual criticism? Here is a look: Acts 20:28: "the church of God which he purchased with [his] own blood." [COMMENTS (edited): While it is possible that the phrase "the church of the Lord" (found nowhere else in the New Testament) was replaced with the more familiar "the church of God" (found eleven times in the writings of Paul), it is more likely that "church of God" is original but copyists took offense at "[his] own blood" and changed "God" to "the Lord" in an attempt to show the blood of Jesus came from his body and not God prepared and created in the body. When the two words God and Lord are abbreviated, as they often were in manuscripts, there is only one letter's difference between them. The reading "the church of the Lord and God" is a combination of the two readings, as is "the church of the Lord God" which is read by many of the Byzantine manuscripts. There is not a single MSS that has Church of Christ. Such Church of Christ renderings are a fraud and Lamasa's translation of the Peshitta Syriac Aramaic is not translation of first century Aramaic, and no evidence it is a correct copy. Thus, the doctrine of Manalo and INC ministers that Iglesia Ni Cristo is the correct name of the Church in Acts 20:28 is false. The Peshitta is hardly the MSS on which we claim infallibility!]

Now we ask the question: is there a Christ or Jesus in the Iglesia Ni Cristo denomination? The answer is no! The name of Jesus is missing on the building. What is substituted there? The title "Christ" or "Cristo" is written upon the building. Since Felix angel claimed he was the messias, as contained in the 1941 court action ruling, then the title "Cristo" would have been a code to mean Felix angel in his role as messias. Thus, in 1914 when Jesus was alleged to have returned, and Felix angel took the identity of Jesus upon himself, hailing himself to be the messias, Church of Christ or Iglesia Ni Cristo is really in code Iglesia Ni Felix Messias! There are thousands in the Philippines who will never accept Felix angel and his perversions. That is why millions of Filipinos translate INC to "IGLESIA NO CRISTO." Felix Manalo is worshiped and venerated in the place of Jesus Christ. Examine the following words of Ka Erdy, son of Felix angel: "We must have fellowship with the messenger (FELIX MANALO)...in these last days. We must have faith in...Brother Felix Manalo..." Ka Erdy's father Felix angel is the center worship of INC. What do we have here? We have the son of the angel telling the world that faith in his father produces some kind of saving grace. What faith are followers to have in the Felix angel? They are to believe he is just as much a god as Jesus was, and to believe the Felix angel and his message is just as important as believing anything Jesus said. In fact, laying stress on predestination, INC and Ka Erdy must conclude that Felix angel is just as much the Word of John 1:1 as Jesus was. After all, is it possible that Jesus was in the mind of God as the Logos, the Word (John1:1) as INC ministers interpret John 1:1, and Felix angel was not? Felix angel is greater then Jesus in INC. He got to do something Jesus did not get the favor of God to do and that is seal 144,000 in their foreheads and ordain them to be INC ministers.

Will it be possible to convert many INC members away from the falsehood of Felix angel's false doctrines? My personal opinion is that there will not be many conversions. Why? Because the Word of God tells us many will believe lies and be damned. Most members of the INC have the mentality of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and are there because they want to believe Felix angel's lies and they do not care to prove he was a false prophet and an immoral fornicator and rapist. These are those who love the ritual of religion and INC gives them an alternative to the Catholic Church. It does not matter to them which deceptions they follow, they are not going to live holy with either choice. INC in its holiness is no better then the Catholic Church. There is no difference in the worldly mindset of members of INC then there is in the mindset of a Hindu or Buddhist. Once a person trods underfoot the Word of God and brings Christ to an open shame, they have crucified to themselves the Son of God afresh and there is no salvation for them. Why then is this page on the internet? It is for the elect, the true Church of the Living God who want information on cults and religious disorders who have perverted the right ways of God. With this information we will be able to keep our own family members, sons and daughters, from falling down before the chair of Felix angel and giving him the glory, the power, the honor, and the kingdom. Yes, it is written so that our Filipino family will not be led into the abyss where Felix angel awaits with the rich man and Judas for the day of judgment.

To my family and friends, do not bow to Felix angel for he is the false god of the INC and its members. Worship Jesus Christ for he is God! (John 1:1).

Would God use a man who was a fornicator, a rapist, an adulterer, and use him to set up his "restored Church?" Would God use a man who perverts the Word of God to make himself into an angel from heaven? Would God use a man whose interpretation of Scripture was primarily self-serving and for self-glory and exaltation? Would God use a man who claimed he was the messias and like Solomon he had the right to have unlimited sexual partners? Would God use a man that the high courts of our nation rebuked for his deceiving of women to have relationships with him? Felix angel is in the same genre as Joseph Smith, both were philanderers and panty chasers. Both religious groups pervert the Word of God to make it testify for their own sexual predator leader.

May God save the Republic and grant many Philippine citizens the beauty of true Bible salvation. It is not in Felix angel or the INC, it is all in Jesus, the one who died on the Cross. Is Felix angel equal to Jesus>? INC wishes, but Felix died and is dead, his body rotted and saw corruption. But the tomb of Jesus is empty. Felix angel just as much God as Jesus? Felix did not raise himself from the dead, Jesus did! Skin worms ate the body of Felix angel, Jesus saw no corruption. Felix angel is still in his hole in the ground whereas Jesus resurrected and sits on his throne in heaven. Those who are clean will escape from INC bondage and those seek Christ will never find him in an Iglesia Ni Cristo church. He is not there. Never was in one. And every Iglesia Ni Cristo structure is full of every foul spirit and sinful abomination. Not one of the INC churches is a holy place.

Acts 2:38 is the plan of grace-faith salvation, and remember the promise is to as many as the Lord (Jesus) our God shall call!

Masonic Iglesia ni Cristo (INC): Satan

[Yes, yes, the last picture is photoshopped, to express the truth.]


Anything But iPod


This site is especially useful since the Kikes moved in on Apple before rigor mortis had even begun to set in on Armenian (?) Steve Jobs' body.

Many non-Apple "mp3 players" also play lossless and patent-free files such as FLAC and ogg.

Apple also (I'm sure) keeps many other players out of the market, no doubt through monopolistic pressure on retailers. Often you have to look in the back of the store or even ask staff to show you non-Apple music/video-players.

For example, I see that Samsung has its YP-P3 in 8 GB, 16 GB and 32 GB versions in Asia, but only 4 GB and 8 GB versions in North America. Since Apple has also discontinued its large-capacity (formerly max 160 GB Classic) iPods, I guess they have something to do with that.

Apple wants to limit storage capacity to prevent people from using iPods as portable HDs to share files with your friends.

BTW, I once had a computer crash, but had 160 GB of music stored on an iPod. I went to an Apple dealer and asked if there was some way of getting the files off the player (they don't normally show up on a computer). The guy there said "No, it's impossible," but I could tell he was lying. I found a software program that allows you to copy the files even on a Mac (though the files had just code-names, such as XFYR, etc); but anyway I installed Linux and the files just show up there no problem.

Apple doesn't want their customers to know about such things, because they also make money off of iTunes.

In general, I'd stick to Linux OS (Ubuntu is the best I've used), avoid Microsoft like the plague, and only buy Japanese and Korean electronics products (but keep track to make sure the companies haven't been forced to partner with Kike outfits or aren't just fronts for Kike outfits) -- with the exception of the Mac Mini, which is the best and longest-lasting and quitest-running computer I've found for the money. (You can annoy Apple customer service by constantly referring to it as "The Mini-Mac" -- they'll correct you every time, but just keep saying it.)

I usually avoid buying anything "American" since The Kike will either own the company outright, or more than likely gets a cut out of the sale at some point along the line of production, advertising, distribution and sales.

(BTW, I got a very basic Samsung cell-phone about 6 years ago, and it still works perfectly, even though I've dropped it 1000 times.)

+ + +

FLAC & Ogg Vorbis Players

+ + +


I don't know if this companiy's products are any good, but here's some info related to Apple's near-monopoly:

Creative Technology Ltd. is a Singapore-based global company headquartered in Jurong East, Singapore.

It began in 1981 as a computer repair shop, where Sim Wong Hoo -- 沈望傅 -- developed an add-on memory board for the Apple II computer.

In 1987, they released a 12-voice sound generator sound card for the IBM PC architecture, the Creative Music System (C/MS), featuring two Philips SAA 1099 chips.

Sim personally went from Singapore to Silicon Valley and managed to get RadioShack's Tandy division to market the C/MS. The card was, however, unsuccessful and lost to AdLib. Creative produced the first Sound Blaster, which included the prior CM/S hardware but also incorporated the Yamaha YM3812 chip (also known as OPL2) that was found on the AdLib card, as well as adding a component for playing and recording digital samples. It put AdLib out of business, in spite of Quebec corporate-welfare for AdLib. The Sound Blaster sound card was among the first dedicated audio processing cards to be made widely available to the general consumer.

In April 1999, Creative launched the NOMAD line of digital audio players that would later introduce the MuVo and ZEN series of portable media players. Creative remains a serious competitor in the portable audio player market, a market which they dominated until the entry of Apple Computer with the iPod.

The firm applied for U.S. Patent 6,928,433 on in January 2001. and was awarded the patent in August 2005.

The ZEN Patent was awarded to the firm for the invention of user interface for portable media players. This opened the way for potential legal action against Apple's iPod and the other competing players. The firm took legal actions against Apple in May 2006. In August, 2006, Creative and Apple entered into a broad settlement, with Apple paying Creative $100 million for the license to use the Zen patent. Creative then joined the "Made for iPod" program.

So Creative invented the technology that iPod used, and by the time its patent was recognized, Creative had to enter into a partenership with Apple and "join the 'Made for iPod' program" in order to compete in the market.

2010 Revenue: $275 million
2010 Profit/Loss: Minus $38 million


Shah of Iran: US Nuclear Energy


The Shah of Iran is sitting on top of one the largest reservoirs of oil in the world.

Yet he's building two nuclear plants and planning two more to provide electricity for his country.

He knows the oil is running out--and time with it.

But he wouldn't build the plants now if he doubted their safety. He'd wait. As many Americans want to do.

The Shah knows that nuclear energy is not only economical, it has enjoyed a remarkable 30-year safety record. A record that was good enough for the citizens of Plymouth, Massachusetts, too. They've approved their second nuclear power plant by a vote of almost 4 to 1. Which shows you don't have to go as far as Iran for an endorsement of nuclear power.




President Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.

Dick Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff.

Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense.

The Kike Kissinger was Secretary of State. That Kike said: "I don't think the issue of proliferation came up."

They all ignored a CIA report warning that Iran would "no doubt" have nuclear weapons by the mid-1980s, if India did (and India is now Nuclear-armed with assistance from the American Kikestan).

Now we're all supposed to freak out because Iran may have nukes one day -- not because that is rightly a global security concern, but because it would challenge The Kike's Middle East monopoly.

What matters is who controls the media, and that is Kikes.

Just like most Americans are retards about Iran, likewise they believe twisted fairy tales about THE HOLOLOCO$T, even though anybody can easily find out for themselves that it's just a sick Kike fantasy.

That's the result of Kike brainwashing.


One problem with the writer Taanstafl is that he talks about "Jews", not Kikes.

Talk of Kikes and Kikery, instead of "Jews", "Judaism", "Zionism", "Talmudism", et kikera, simplifies matters a lot.

A White Guide to the Jewish Narrative

By Taanstafl, Age of Reason


jewish morality

To most Whites morality is an entirely universalist notion. This means that, with some exceptions, if something is right or wrong then it is assumed to be right or wrong for everyone, everywhere, all the time. This notion of morality is reflected in Christian ethics as The Golden Rule. Universalist morality is one of the tenets of Western-style liberalism.

Jews have a more particularist notion of morality: Is it good or bad for the jews? If something is good for jews then it is right, otherwise it is wrong. Jews are also well aware that universalist-sounding rhetoric can bamboozle Whites into serving or at least acceding to jewish particularist interests.

It is this particularist morality that enables jews to unselfconsciously assert that Israel is for the jews but White countries are for everybody. Likewise that the jews are a people, but White is just a meaningless skin color or social construct.

Criticism of jews along these lines is often mistaken, sometimes intentionally, as an accusation of dual loyalty. As Joe Sobran once observed, dual loyalty would be an improvement (from either a liberal universalist or White particularist point of view).

the hate narrative

Jews tend to identify people they hate for specifically jewish reasons as jew-haters.

According to jews, anyone who comes into conflict with the jews must be to blame. Entirely. This blame cannot be explained in any way that leaves blame unassigned, because then some portion might be ascribed, even if only implicitly, to the jews. Thus the tendency to characterize anyone who vexes them as simply mentally or morally defective, driven to hate jews solely for the sake of hating.

the jewish version of history

A one-sided version of history entirely sympathetic to jews. This means that for any historic conflict with other groups or individuals, the non-jews are and always have been entirely to blame. In a nutshell: jews have always been the victims of horrible persecution and oppression at the hands of stupid, crazy, evil haters.

A corollary of this is the anti-White version of history: Whites have always been stupid, crazy, evil haters, persecuting and oppressing everyone else, and specifically jews.

the jewish guilt-trip

The use of any portion of the jewish and/or anti-White versions of history as an accusation, assigning collective responsibility and guilt to Whites. This is a form of psychological aggression - an attack on White self-worth and self-confidence, placing Whites on the defensive.

The purpose of such aggression is to gain concessions benefiting their own group - to promote or defend jewish power and interests.

the blood libel narrative

One specific jewish anti-White libel/story in the larger jewish version of history. This is the jewish claim that on multiple occasions Europeans killed jews who were accused of kidnapping and killing European children for their blood. Since the idea that jews could be guilty of anything is unthinkable, the Europeans must be the ones who were, and still are, guilty.

Oddly enough, according to jews themselves these accusations of bloody kidnap-killing recur across time and space, following jews wherever they go.

the holocaust narrative

Another jewish anti-White libel/story, the most prominent of all. This is the jewish claim that Whites killed (or otherwise aided and abetted the killing of) six million jews in gas chambers between 1939 and 1945. Today this narrative almost completely overshadows anything else that occurred before during or after World War II.

Over time the target of jewish accusations and guilt-tripping has broadened from the Nazis, to Germans (for not stopping the Nazis), to Europeans in general (for not more effectively opposing the Germans), to Whites in general (for restricting immigration, not joining the war in Europe against Germany soon enough, not making the bombing or liberating of prison camps a higher priority). Meanwhile, in an increasing number of Western countries, open dispute of the holocaust narrative is considered a violation of the law, punishable by fine or imprisonment.

the nation of immigrants narrative

Jews in diaspora are the archetypical nation of immigrants, thriving for millenia while regularly migrating from one host country to another. Well aware of this history, jews overwhelmingly favor open borders for all countries, except Israel. Virtually every jew has a story to tell about how their own family benefited from immigration, or was harmed because they couldn't migrate freely.

In common use the term is an oxymoron used to idealize unrelated, hostile alien tribes colonizing countries founded and formerly controlled by Whites.

the jewish narrative

All together, the phenomena and attitudes described above, and more, constitute the jewish narrative, which is now the dominant narrative in Western society. The pervasiveness of the jewish narrative is a consequence of jewish influence in media, culture, and politics. This is in turn a consequence of jewish wealth and activism.

the jewish question

Prior to the Enlightenment Europe and Christendom were seen, by Europeans, as synonymous. Jews were seen primarily as members of an ancient religious sect who hadn't yet gotten around to converting to Christianity.

In the late 18th century, with the fig leaf of religion shriveling, European intellectuals began to wonder aloud - Who are these rude, uncivilized, aliens who call themselves The Jews? Why do they behave as a nation within a nation? Whatever shall we do with them?

jewish emancipation

The jewish question was eventually answered by fiat, imposed from above by European political leaders who were sympathetic to and already in the process of assimilating with the jews. These leaders declared jews equal citizens and granted them full political equality. This process occurred in fits and starts, at various times and places in Europe, during the first half of the 19th century. In exchange jews were expected to drop their particularist identity, to stop being jews and assimilate.

Debate on the jewish question dragged on however. Europeans did not generally accept jews as social or racial equals, and jews did not generally abandon their jewish identity. As partially assimilated jewish intellectuals joined the debate, they turned it more and more into an indictment of Europeans.

Today this portion of European history is taboo. Only the jewish version and their guilt-tripping remain in the mainstream. Calling the process jewish emancipation is itself a sign of deference to jewish sensibilities. It was, in retrospect, more of a slow-motion jewish putsch. In the end, jews were free to operate as a particularist team inside a larger, universalist society.

the jewish template and the minority narrative

The struggle for dominance over Western society came to a head in the middle of the 20th century. Whites waged a cataclysmic, fratricidal war on each other and lost. Long before that war, even while Whites still dominated the US politically, jews were already helping blacks found the NAACP and pathologizing White racial identity.

Now, in the 21st century, jewish power and influence increase essentially unchecked. For the last six decades the jews have gone into overdrive, generalizing and adapting elements of their narrative to other "minorities". Slowly but surely this is what has turned European-founded societies inside out and upside down. When jews and other diversities exclaim, "Diversity is our greatest strength", they are exactly right.


The Kike Hates Us for Our Freedoms

I say that. Michael Scheuer hasn't said that, and is far too soft on The Kike and on Kikery to say it. And he misses the convergence between Kike and Globalist and CFR (and "The Foundations", and the WCC, etc) and Devout Muslim goals.
  • They all want the US bled dry.
  • They all want the US flooded with non-White, non-Christian immigrants (legal and illegal).
  • They are all Anti-Christian, Anti-White. and Anti-Nationalist
  • They all want the US drawn into and inextricably involved in every conflict around the goal.

And he makes the same mistake many critics of America make -- he concludes that the USA is led by idiots who are destroying America with their stupid beliefs and policies, and not that the USA is led by elites whose goals are either to parsitically suck the life out of America with no regard to the welfare of the American people, or to simply to destroy America as a necessary step towards The Global State.

He also makes too much of the "Islamist" complaints about the US and the Kikes supporting Muz tyrannies. They do indeed support Muz tyrannies, but Muz states are naturally brutal and tyrannical. Scheuer says, repeatedly, that the US support for Muz tyrannies is perhaps a bigger problem than the US's kowtowing to The Kike. However, the Muz-tyranny-support is mostly influenced by the kowtowing to Kikery (including the influence of the Kike-Media, and the brainwashing caused by The Kike's HOLOLOCO$T conditioning and paranoia, and the examples set by the US's Kike-led participation in two world wars.)

Still, he's a very interesting writer and speaker.

He was popular with the Kike-Media until they realized he is as critical of the Kike's Dem whores as he is of their Rep whores, and he said that the Kike-State means fuck all to American patriots.

+ + +

Michael Scheuer, Speech, Dickinson College, Clarke Forum for Contemporary Issues, 2009.02.12

Kiked US Leaders Addicted to Global Intervention, Americans Unable To Even Defend Themselves, US Not Independent, and War With Iran For Kikes Would Be Insane

"Michael Scheuer, author and former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, discusses what policies the Obama administration could pursue in regard to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Iran in the war against terrorism."

A monologue from someone connected to Scheuer who seems to have finally "gotten it" just in time to get fired: Judge Napolitano, 2011: "What If" I Get Fired?

Scheuer to Napolitano, 2011: Kikestan & Saudis Are US's Worst External Enemies

Michael Scheuer, 2010, C-Span: "No Country Has A Right To Exist"

Michael Scheuer, 2009.08.25: CIA Rendition Program, from Clinton to Obama

Michael Scheuer, 2008.03.12: "Conversations With History", on his career, and his book, Road To Hell: America and Islam After Iraq

Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq

By Michael Scheuer

Free Press, 2009.02.10

When Michael Scheuer first questioned the goals of the Iraq War in his 2004 bestseller Imperial Hubris, policymakers and ordinary citizens alike stood up and took notice. Now, Scheuer offers a scathing and frightening look at how the Iraq War has … + read moreWhen Michael Scheuer first questioned the goals of the Iraq War in his 2004 bestseller Imperial Hubris, policymakers and ordinary citizens alike stood up and took notice. Now, Scheuer offers a scathing and frightening look at how the Iraq War has been a huge setback to America's War on Terror, making our enemy stronger and altering the geopolitical landscape in ways that are profoundly harmful to U.S. interests and security concerns.

Marching Toward Hell is not just another attack on the Bush administration. Rather, it sounds a critical alarm that must be heard in order to preserve the nation's security. Scheuer outlines the ways that America's foreign policy since the end of the Cold War has undermined the very goals for which we are fighting and played right into bin Laden's hands. The ongoing instability in Iraq, for example, has provided al Qaeda and its allies with the one thing they want most: a safe haven from which to launch operations across borders into countries that were previously difficult for them to reach. With U.S. forces and resources spread thinner every day, the war has depleted our strength and brought al Qaeda a kind of success that it could not have achieved on its own.

A twenty-plus-year CIA veteran, Scheuer headed the agency's Osama bin Laden unit, managed its covert-action operations, and authored its rendition program. Scheuer spent his career developing strategies to keep America safe, by any means deemed necessary by the presidents he served. It was his job to take available intelligence and devise plans to protect Americans, without considering bias, position, or even existing alliances. In Marching Toward Hell, Scheuer takes on the questions of "What went wrong?" and "How can we fix this?" and proposes a plan to cauterize the damage that has already been done and get American strategy back on track. He lists a number of painful recommendations for how we must shift our ideological, military, and political views in order to survive, even if that means disagreeing with Israeli policy or launching more brutal campaigns against terrorists.

America holds its destiny in its hands, Scheuer says, yet not nearly enough has been done to defend America and destroy its Islamist enemies. This is an eye-opening, alarming, contentious, and ultimately fascinating examination of how far off track the War on Terror has gone, and a critical read in understanding what we must do to save it.



Kike Oriental Dreamworks

[Kike] Dreamworks Animation heads to China [i.e., the kiked PRC]

By [Kike] Lisa Richwine, [Kike] Reuters

[Kike Spielberg, Kike Geffen & Kike Katzenberg's] Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc plans to build a production studio in Shanghai with some of China's biggest media companies, a landmark deal that gives the company a foothold in one of the largest untapped markets for [Kike] Hollywood.

The California-based [Kike] animation studio agreed to form a joint venture with China Media Capital, Shanghai Media Group and Shanghai Alliance Investment Ltd. The [Kike] deal was announced while Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping was visiting [Kike] Los Angeles and wrapping up a [Kike] U.S. visit.

The new family entertainment company will develop and produce [Kike-]Chinese animated and live-action content for distribution within China and around the globe, [Kike] Dreamworks said.

The [Kike] company also will pursue live [Kike] entertainment, [Kike] theme parks, mobile, online, interactive [Kike] games and [Kike] consumer products, a model similar to [Kike] media giant Walt Disney Co.

"Our goal is, for five or 10 years from now, to have the leading family-branded [Kike] entertainment company in China," [Kike] Dreamworks Animation Chief Executive [Kike] Jeffrey Katzenberg said.

"It's a pretty significant opportunity for us [Kikes]" given the vast Chinese market for entertainment, he added.

The agreement gives [Kike] Dreamworks Animation far greater access to audiences in China, where foreign-made films are now limited.

The Chinese companies will hold about 55 percent of the new studio, and [Kike] Dreamworks Animation will own about 45 percent [for now, though the Kike stake in the "Chinese" compnies surely brings the Kike stake up to more than 50%].

The new [Kike] studio will be called Oriental Dreamworks and will launch business operations in Shanghai later this year.

The [Kike] venture's first animated feature film is planned for 2016, [Kike] Katzenberg said. The [Kike] studio likely will release one animated feature per year in 2016 through 2018 with the goal of increasing to two per year. A live-action movie could come out within two years.

[Kike] Consumer products and [Kike] live entertainment also could provide "short-term revenue opportunities" as soon as this year, Katzenberg said.

The [Kike] Dreamworks Animation [Kike] film "Kung Fu Panda 2," [starring Kike Jack Black] released last year, was the highest-grossing animated movie in China with ticket sales of about $100 million.

Other [Kike] film studios, including Relativity Media and Legendary Entertainment, have also made deals to establish [Kike] operations in China to reach the country's large market.


Night #1 and Night #2: What Changes were Made, and Why?

Part One

By Carolyn Yeager

Elie Wiesel Cons The World, 2012.02.17

On January 17, 2006, Amazon.com announced that it was changing the categorization of a new translation of Elie Wiesel’s Night from "Novel" to "Memoir".

Amazon would also revise the editorial description of the original edition to make clear that they consider the book a memoir, not a...;novel. “We hope to make these changes as quickly as possible,” said Jani Strand, a spokeswoman for the online retailer. The day before, Oprah Winfrey had announced that Night was her latest Book Club choice, displacing her previous selection, James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces.

Oprah Winfrey and Elie Wiesel pose together at the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Award Dinner at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel on May 20, 2007. Winfrey was honored with the Humanitarian Award for “positively impacting people all over the world, especially children." One year earlier, she had selected Wiesel’s "Night" for her popular book club “pick”, which sent it immediately to the top of the national bestseller lists.

The sudden switch from Fiction to Non-Fiction caused some discussion and questions, which Strand brushed away by saying, “Amazon.com’s data source for the Oprah Book Club edition of Night inaccurately classified the book as fiction.” She declined to offer details. The book, re-classified as “Autobiography” and blessed by Oprah, was Amazon's No. 3 seller that very afternoon!

Wiesel, interviewed later with his literary agent Georges Borchardt, insisted they had never portrayed it as a novel. But the publisher did. [1]

There has been confusion about this metter for so long that even Wiesel’s defenders have had to admit it. Ruth Franklin, in her 2011 book, A Thousand Darknesses, wrote:

“Unfortunately, Night is an imperfect ambassador for the infallibility of the memoir, owing to the fact that it has been treated very often as a novel—by journalists, by scholars, and even by its publishers.” [2]

On the Wikipedia entry for Night, the book has long been described as autobiography, memoir, novel -- yes, all three. How long will that continue? As long as there are editions of Night that still sport those labels, one assumes.

As for Wiesel and Borchardt, they answered questions about differences in the text of the new edition by saying they were not significant enough to justify raising questions. The next day, Wiesel’s wife Marion, the translator of the new edition of Night, said in an interview that among the changes was a reference to the age of the book’s narrator when he arrives in 1944 at Birkenau, the entry point for Auschwitz: “At no point did this change the meaning and the fact of anything in the book."

The narrator tells a fellow prisoner that he is "not quite 15.” But the scene takes place in Spring 1944. Mr. Wiesel, born on Sept. 30, 1928, would have already been 15, going on 16. So in the new edition, she changed it to “15.”

Whaaaa? She changed the age as it was written in the Yiddish to fit Elie Wiesel, who was fifteen and a half at that time and would not have written “not quite 15.” What is written in the Yiddish original, Un di velt hot geshvign, we also find in the original edition of Night.

I will add that if your birthday is still four months away, you don’t say you are “not quite” your next age, especially when you are young.

Marion tried to joke it away, telling reporters “I kidded Elie and told him, ‘I don’t think you can add.’”

But that particular change, rather than insignificant, was one of the major reasons that a new translation was undertaken. There are other quite significant changes in the new edition that will be enumerated in this article. When you learn what they are, you can decide for yourself if you think they are insignificant.

Wiesel wrote a "Preface" to the New Translation, something he didn’t have in the original La Nuit or Night.

In his Preface, Wiesel begins: “Why did I write it? ... so as not to go mad or, on the contrary, to go mad in order to understand the nature of madness...”

He continues in this vein -- the typical Wiesel mystical-religious style. However, in his only description of the writing process of this book -- the typing of the 862 pages which he titled Un di velt hot geshvign, according to his later memoir -- it is hard to believe that he was in such a state of mind. He writes in All Rivers Run to the Sea that during this time in Paris he was busy with his newspaper job and contacts; and also involved in a love affair with a woman named Hanna. He embarks on a major journalistic assignment in Brazil, sent by his editor, taking along a friend to keep him company on the ship’s crossing. They both get free tickets from a “resourceful Israeli...friend” -- these benefactors are usually unnamed. As the voyage begins, he says his mind is dwelling on Hanna and whether he should take the marriage step that she had asked for.<

I can’t imagine an atmosphere less conducive to writing about what he describes as “the immense, terrifying madness that had erupted in history.” But he continues very matter-of-factly in All Rivers Run to the Sea, “During the crossing I wrote my testimony...” and in one short paragraph he tells us all that he had thought important to say about it. Moreover, he has never since elaborated on this!

In the new Preface, Wiesel writes that, in retrospect, he doesn’t know what he wanted to achieve with his words; but then he comes up with something: “I knew that I must bear witness. I also knew that, while I had many things to say, I did not have the words to say them.” He needed to “invent a new language.” He is not speaking of an actual language, like German, French or English -- but a language of survivors, or for survivors. Wiesel writes that common words like “hunger—thirst—fear—transport—selection—fire—chimney ... all have intrinsic meaning, but in those times, they meant something else.” ... Really? He does not explain how that is so. But Wiesel has tried to create the idea of holocaust survivors as a special class, set apart, who know things others do not know, and can never understand -- ”Only those who experienced Auschwitz know what it was. Others will never know.”

Wiesel describes his writing as slow! -- “Writing in my mother tongue (Yiddish) ... I would pause at every sentence, and start over and over again. I would conjure up other verbs, other images, other silent cries. It still was not right.” This contrasts totally with his description in his memoir All Rivers Run to the Sea (p. 238-40) that he wrote the original Yiddish manuscript fast and feverishly without re-reading!

Why a new translation of Night after 45 years of success with the old one?

Here again, Wiesel hedges in the preface and doesn’t have a convincing answer. He says his wife Marion has translated other books for him, and “knows his voice better than anyone else.” He says he didn’t pay enough attention to the original English translation by Stella Rodway—after his first reading of Night from the publisher, he never read it again. As for Mrs. Wiesel: “Fluent in French, she had never read the English version,” she said. But good news! Elie Wiesel Cons The World has found a translator and now has large portions of the Yiddish book translated into English.

We can compare the real 245-page original to both the 1960 English translation from the French by Stella Rodway and the 2006 English translation done by Marion Wiesel. In doing so, we have made two important discoveries.

First, Stella Rodway’s 1960 English translation of Night is an accurate rendition of the French text of La Nuit, as originally published in 1958. That means that if there are any “errors” in the Night story, they weren’t put there by Stella Rodway.

Second, when we compare the three texts—the original version of Night, as translated by Rodway, the “corrected” 2006 translation by Marion Wiesel, and the 1955 Yiddish original of Un di velt hot geshvign, we find that the “errors” brought up by Marion Wiesel are for the greater part what was actually written in the original Yiddish book, though usually in more detail there.

In other words, the 1955 Yiddish version, the 1958 French version, and the 1960 English version generally agree—only the “corrected” 2006 translation is different. So, are these really errors of translation that Marion Wiesel is fixing for us? Or are they not simply problems for Elie Wiesel? Under close scrutiny, the Elie Wiesel narrative has huge holes which bring up embarrassing questions, and this is what Marion Wiesel’s new translation was meant to head off.

A Comparison of the 1960 English Edition with the 2006 Edition:

Original Night cover, 1960, features the title, while the author’s name is exceptionally small and insignificant. Francois Mauriac’s forward is featured.

In 2006, the author becomes the “title,” i.e. the main selling point, and Mauriac is no longer mentioned, although his forward remains in the book.

Following are the most “significant” differences I have found between the Stella Rodway 1960 translation and the Marion Wiesel 2006 translation. Number one has already been written about in When Did Elie Wiesel Arrive at Auschwitz?
  • UdiV = Un di velt hot geshvign, the Yiddish text
  • LN = La Nuit: The French translation of Un di velt hot geshvign
  • SR = Night, Stella Rodway's English translation
  • MW = Night, Marion Wiesel’s revised English translation

1. Saturday Before Pentecost vs Two Weeks Before Pentecost

UdiV, page 22: "Geshen iz dos Shbth far Shbw’wth. A friling-zun hot oysgegosn ir likht un varemkeyt iber der gorer velt un oykh iber geto..." ["It happened Saturday [Sabbath] before Shavuot. The springtime sun had spread its light and warmth over the whole world, and even over the ghetto...."]

LN, page 29: "Le samedi précédant la Pentecôte [the Saturday preceding Pentecost], sous un soleil printanier, les gens se promenaient insouciants à travers les rues grouillantes de monde ..."

SR, page 23: "On the Saturday before Pentecost, in the Spring sunshine, people strolled carefree and unheeding, through the swarming streets."

MW, page 12: " Some two weeks before Shavuot (Pentecost). A sunny spring day, people strolled seemingly carefree through the crowded streets."

The Yiddish, the French and the original English versions agree -- it was the Saturday before the festival of Pentecost/Shavuot. But Marion Wiesel’s new edition sets that date back by two whole weeks. This is important because, as the story continues, it was later on the following day that the Jews of Sighet were forced to leave their homes in preparation for their eventual deportation: “The ghetto was to be liquidated entirely. We were to leave street by street, starting the following day.”

So Mrs. Wiesel was NOT correcting errors in the English translation, but changing the text to fit the reality of when the Hungarians from Sighet arrived at Birkenau. Pentecost was on Sunday, May 28, 1944. The “Saturday before Pentecost” is thus May 27. Some two weeks before is May 14.

Un di velt hot geshvign, La Nuit and the Rodway translation all have Eliezer’s family leaving on the final journey to Auschwitz around June 2nd, six days after Pentecost/Shavuot, which was a Friday. However, they also agree that “Saturday, the day of rest, was chosen for our expulsion.” So it’s necessary for us to add another day to the family’s stay in the small ghetto to make the chronology work. On Saturday, then, the Jews are marched to the synagogue and spend the night there; in the morning, Sunday June 4, they board the train: “The following morning [Sunday], we marched to the station, where a convoy of cattle wagons was waiting. [...] We were on our way.” Four days on the train makes their arrival date June 6, 1944, around midnight.

But this is not only long after the prisoner number A7713—which Elie Wiesel supposedly received at Auschwitz, and still (again, supposedly!) has tattooed on his left arm—had been given out, but also long after the last transport left from Sighet. Indeed, there were no transports from the town after May, according to official records.

Marion Wiesel did not mention this one to the reporters; nor did Elie speak of it in his preface to his wife’s translation. But it was discovered by our translator. Marion Wiesel’s arbitrary “correction” allows Eliezer’s family to leave on May 21 and to arrive by May 24 (just before midnight!) thus making it possible for Eliezer to receive the registration number A7713. This is a very significant change, probably the most significant in her entire new English translation

An added note: This interesting passage is on page 27 of Un di velt hot geshvign, but is not included in the shorter French or English Night:

We had opportunities and possibilities to hide with regular goyim and with prominent personalities. Many non-Jews from the surrounding villages had begged us, that we would come to them. There were bunkers available for us in villages or in the mountains. But we had cast aside all proposals. Why? Quite simple: the calendar showed April 1944 and we, the Jews of Sighet, still knew nothing about Treblinka, Buchenwald and Auschwitz.

Now we have April as the general time of deportation! So according to the timeline we find in Un di velt hot geshvign, Eliezer and his family left Sighet some time in June, while the calendar on their wall still said April; and in the meantime, we know from official Auschwitz records that the deportations actually occured in the last two weeks of May. The person who wrote this knew nothing about the real deportation dates for the Sighet Jews.

2. Copulation vs Some Clumsy Touching vs Erotoc Fantasies

UdV, page 47:

"Tsulib der engshaft hobn a sakh instinktn zikh dervekt in kerper... Erotishe instinktn, un untern forhang fun der nakht hobn yungeleyt un froyen zikh gelozn bahersht durkh di oyfgereytste chwshym zeyere.

"Ot der ershter rezultat fun umglik: erotishe freyheyt. Di shpanung fun di letste teg hot itst gezukht a veg vi oystsulodn zikh un der leychtster iz geven – an erotisher.

"Di erotishe stsenes hobn nisht dervekt keyn protestn mtsd di eltere Yidn. Zey hobn farmakht oyern un oygn, zikh gemakht nisht zen un nisht hern. In moment fun schnh faln avek di keytn fun der konventsioneler moral. Mentshn hobn zikh getrakht: ver veys vos der morgn iz “lwl tsu brengen? Zol yugnt oysnutsn dem heynt, oystsapn fun im dem letstn hn’h-tropn..."

["Because of the crowding, a host of instincts awoke in [people’s] bodies. Erotic instincts – and beneath the curtain of night young men and women let themselves be ruled by their aroused senses.

"And so the first result of misfortune: erotic freedom.

The stress of the last days now sought a way to discharge itself, and the easiest was – an erotic one.

"The erotic scenes did not arouse any protests from the older Jews. They closed their ears and eyes, and forced themselves not to see and hear. In the moment of danger, the chains of conventional morality fall away. People thought to themselves: who knows what the morning is likely to bring? Youth must seize the day, squeeze from it the last drops of pleasure."]

LN, page 45: "Libérés de toute censure sociale, les jeunes se laissaient aller ouvertement à leurs instincts et à la faveur de la nuit, s’accouplaient au milieu de nous, sans se préoccuper de qui que ce fût, seuls dans le monde. Les autres faisaient semblant de ne rien voir."

SR, page 34: "Free from all social constraint, the young people gave way openly to instinct, taking advantage of the darkness to copulate in our midst, without caring about anyone else, as though they were alone in the world. The rest pretended not to notice anything.”

MW, page 23: "Freed of normal constraints, some of the young let go of their inhibitions and, under cover of darkness, caressed one another, without any thought of others, alone in the world. The others pretended not to notice.”

Elie Wiesel did not mention this change in his preface to the new English translation by his wife, but he did give quite a lengthy explanation (humorous to us) in the preface he wrote for the new French edition. This is what he said there:

"Thanks to her, it was possible for me to correct an incorrect expression or impression here and there. An example: I describe the first night-time voyage in the sealed cars, and I mention that certain persons had taken advantage of the darkness to commit sexual acts. That’s false. In the Yiddish text, I say that “young boys and girls allowed themselves to be mastered by their excited erotic instincts.” I have checked among many absolutely trustworthy sources. In the train, all the families were still together. A few weeks of the ghetto could not have degraded our behavior to the point of violating customs, mores and ancient laws. That there may have been some clumsy touching, that is possible. But that was all. Nothing went any further. But then, why did I say that in Yiddish, and allow it to be translated into French and English? The only possible explanation: it is myself I am speaking of. It is myself that I condemn. I imagine that the adolescent that I was then, in the throes of puberty even if profoundly pious, could not resist such erotic imaginings, enriched by the physical proximity between men and women."

The original French:

"Grâce à elle, il me fut permis de corriger çà et là une expression ou une impression erronées. Exemple : j’évoque le premier voyage nocturne dans les wagons plombés et je mentionne que certaines personnes avaient profité de l’obscurité pour commettre des actes sexuels. C’est faux. Dans le texte yiddish je dis que « des jeunes garçons et filles se sont laissés maîtriser par leurs instincts érotiques excités. » J’ai vérifié auprès de plusieurs sources absolument sûres. Dans le train toutes les familles étaient encore réunies. Quelques semaines de ghetto n’ont pas pu dégrader notre comportement au point de violer coutumes, moeurs et lois anciennes. Qu’il y ait eu des attouchements maladroits, c’est possible. Ce fut tout. Nul n’est allé plus loin. Mais alors, pourquoi l’ai-je dit en yiddish et permis de le traduire en français et en anglais? La seule explication possible: c’est de moi-même que je parle. C’est moi-même que je condamne. J’imagine que l’adolescent que j’étais, en pleine puberté bien que profondément pieux, ne pouvait résister à l’imaginaire érotique enrichi par la proximité physique entre hommes et femmes."

Is this convincing, dear readers? Consider that the narrator of Un di velt hot geshvign says exactly the opposite of what Wiesel tries to present in his new French preface: the first result of a few weeks in the ghetto was erotic freedom, which was acted out in front of everyone in the train. And the “erotic instincts” that the youths let themselves be “ruled by” clearly must have involved sexual intercourse -- why else would everyone have needed to shut their eyes and ears so tightly?

Ruth Franklin, senior editor at The New Republic

The Elie Wiesel of 2006 (and perhaps the Hasidic rebbes had something to do with this?) wants us to believe in the inviolable sanctity of the Jews’ “customs, mores and ancient laws,” and also in their innate respect for their elders and one another, but he is directly contradicted by what are, we are told, his own words of fifty years ago : “In the moment of danger, the chains of conventional morality fall away.” Which Wiesel do we believe?

And Ruth Franklin, senior editor at The New Republic, has the temerity to insist (in her 2006 review article) that “his [Elie’s] original suggestion that couples “copulated” in the cattle cars on the way to Auschwitz was always a gross mistranslation of the original Yiddish.” We’ve shown you here that it isn’t.

3. Fourteen vs Fifteen

UdiV, page 63: "Yingl, vi alt bistu? fregt mir a heftling. Zeyn pnym iz geven in der fintster, ober zeyn kol iz geven a mids, a varems. Nokh nisht keyn 15 yor, hob ikh geentfert." ["Kid, how old are you?” a prisoner asked me. His face was in darkness, but his voice was tired and warm. “Not yet 15 years,” I answered."]

LN, page 54: "'Hé, le gosse, quel âge as-tu?' C’était un détenu qui m’interrogeait....; Je ne voyais pas son visage, mais sa voix était lasse et chaude. 'Pas encore quinze ans. [Not yet 15 years.]'"

SR, page 39: "'Here, kid, how old are you?' It was one of the prisoners who asked me this. I could not see his face, but his voice was tense and weary. 'I’m not quite fifteen yet.'"

MW, page 30: "'Hey, kid, how old are you?' The man interrogating me was an inmate. I could not see his face, but his voice was weary and warm. "'Fifteen'"

This very important passage was discussed above. I think the reader would agree that "not yet 15" can mean even farther from the age of 15 than "not quite fifteen." It can mean 14 ½. However, it is a minor point that I will not emphasize. What we can clearly see is that Marion Wiesel has changed the author’s original words to fit them to her husband’s age in Spring 1944.

4. April vs May

UdiV, page 83: "A sheyner April-tog iz es geven. A frilings-rich in der luft." ["It was a beautiful April day. A scent of spring in the air."]

LN, page 69: "C’était une belle journee d’avril. Des parfums de printemps flottaient dans l’air. Le soleil baissait vers l’ouest."

SR, page 49: "It was a beautiful April day. The fragrance of spring was in the air. The sun was setting in the west."

MW, page 40: "It was a beautiful day in May. The fragrances of spring were in the air. The sun was setting."

(See: When Did Wiesel Arrive?)

Once more, the original Night as translated by Stella Rodway agrees with the Yiddish and the French; Marion Wiesel arbitrarily changed April to May, yet said her translation...;did not "change the meaning or the fact of anything in the book" -- what she calls a “significant change." Well, this is a significant change, and for the same reason as given in number 1 above.

5. Himmler vs Reichsfuerher Himmler vs Reichsführer SS Himmler

UdV, pages 124-5: "In nomen fun Himler...der heftling num' ... hot gegnbet ... bsh”thn luft-alarm ... loytn gezets, paragraf ... iz der heftling num' ... farurteylt tsum toyt! Zol dos zeyn a lere un a beyshpil far ale heftlingen." ["In the name of Himmler... prisoner number...stole...during the air raid... according to the law, paragraph ... prisoner number...is condemned to death. May this be a lesson and an example for all prisoners."]

LN, page 100: "Au nom de Himmler ... Le détenu No… a dérobé pendant l’alerte…"

SR, page 68: ""In the name of Himmler... prisoner Number...stole during the alert … According to the law … paragraph ... prisoner Number...is condemned to death. May this be a warning and an example to all prisoners."

MW, page 62: "In the name of Reichsfuehrer Himmler … prisoner number … stole during the air raid … according to the law … prisoner number … is condemned to death. Let this be a warning...."

Again, the Yiddish and the original Night agree. However, no trained member of the SS, or even the Wehrmacht, would ever have shown such disrespect as to use Himmler’s name in such a formal context without his full title: Reichsfuehrer SS Heinrich Himmler. Marion Wiesel tried to fix the error by adding “Reichsfuehrer,” but she still gets it wrong: you don’t drop the “SS.” On its own, this tells us that the speech was an imaginary one, invented by the author (whoever that is); someone who was never present at such a scene. Indeed, lack of knowledge about how the SS functioned in the camps is evident throughout the book. For example, the SS did not normally go inside the barracks; everything inside was handled by the kapos.

6. Ten Days, Ten Nights vs Days and Nights

UdiV, page 207: "Tsen teg un tsen nekht hot gedoyert di reyze." ["Ten days and ten nights the trip lasted."]

LN, page 155: "Dix jours, dix nuits de voyage.... Il nous arrivait de traverser des localités allemandes."

SR, page 101: "Ten days, ten nights of traveling.... Sometimes we would pass through German townships."

MW, page 100: "There followed days and nights of traveling. Occasionally we would pass through German towns."

In January of 1945, as the advancing Red Army approached Auschwitz, a decision was made to evacuate, sending the prisoners to other camps in Germany. Evacuation of the Monowitz (Auschwitz III) camp, to which Eliezer and Father had previously been transferred, began at 6 p.m. on January 18. The prisoners were given extra clothing and food -- bread to carry with them. They also had whatever food they had saved up. After marching all night during a snowfall, they rested in the morning in an old brick factory. In late afternoon, they began again and reached Gleiwitz camp in a few hours [night, Jan. 19]; they then remained in Gleiwitz barracks for three days. On the 22nd, they went to the train stop and waited until evening. They were brought bread for the journey. The convoy set out.

From there, as we see above, the Yiddish, the 1958 French and 1960 English versions agree on the trip lasting ten days and nights. But Marion Wiesel removes the number ten because it makes Eliezer’s timeline for the death of his father on Jan. 28/29 completely impossible. Another very significant change. Ten days and nights from the night of Jan. 22nd is the night of Feb 1, 1945.

This shows that the author of Un di velt hot geshvign knew nothing about the transport that arrived at Buchenwald on January 26 with 3000 prisoners from Auschwitz. This is the transport that, according to existing official records, brought Lazar and Abraham Wiesel to Buchenwald, who were registered at the camp there on January 26, 1945!

(See Buchenwald Archivist Cannot ID Elie Wiesel, How True to Life is Wiesel’s description of Buchenwald, and Gigantic Fraud Carried Out.)

7. Fifteen vs Sixteen

UdV, page 213: "I was fifteen years old then. Do you understand -- fifteen? Is it any wonder that I, along with my generation, do not believe either in God or in man; in the feelings of a son, in the love of a father. Is it any wonder that I cannot realize that I myself experienced this thing, that my childish eyes had witnessed it?" (This passage from Moshe Spiegel’s stand-alone translation of Chapter Six of Un di velt hot geshvign, published as “The Death Train” in the 1968 volume Anthology of Holocaust Literature.)

LN, page 158: "J’avais quinze ans." ["I was fifteen."]

SR, page 103: "I was fifteen years old."

MW, page 102: "I was sixteen."

In the original versions, Eliezer repeats that he is fifteen years old in January 1945. Elie Wiesel’s birthday is Sept. 30, 1928; so on that day in 1944 he became sixteen years old, making him 16 years and 4 months old when this particular event on the train to Buchenwald occurred, in late January 1945. Once again, Marion Wiesel simply changes the age as she did before -- if Elie was actually sixteen at that time, then Eliezer, the character in the book, must be too!

In Part Two, I will construct the timeline of the events in Buchenwald following the arrival of Eliezer and his father, and other details about Buchenwald. What will we find out? -- Stay tuned.


1. On the back cover of the original hardcover edition of Night (the edition pictured above, with the black and white striped jacket), the book is classified as "Literature”.

2. Ruth Franklin, A Thousand Darknesses: Lies and Truth in Holocaust Fiction, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp 71-72:

Unfortunately, Night is an imperfect ambassador for the infallibility of the memoir, owing to the fact that it has been treated very often as a novel—by journalists, by scholars, and even by its publishers....; Lawrence Langer, in his landmark study The Holocaust and the Literary Imagination, notes that Night “continues to be classified and critically acclaimed as a novel, and not without reason.”

[. . .]

Nonetheless, in 1997 Publishers Weekly columnist Paul Nathan had to issue a correction apologizing for referring to the book as an “autobiographical novel”; he had been misled, he said, by the entry on Wiesel in The International Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Biography. In response, the correction itself was challenged by the director of Penguin Reference Books, publishers of the biography dictionary, who cited half a dozen sources to the effect that Night was in fact a novel. Together with most critics, Gary Weissman, who recounted the above history in his book Fantasies of Witnessing: Postwar Efforts to Experience the Holocaust, seems to concur with Ernst Pawel’s remark in an early magazine survey of Holocaust fiction, that “the line between fact and fiction, tenuous at best, tends to vanish altogether in autobiographical novels such as Night.” The hybrid terms used to describe it include "novel/autobiography", "non-fictional novel", “semi-fictional memoir,” “fictional-autobiographical memoir,” “fictionalized autobiographical memoir,” and “memoir-novel.

3. Wikiipedia: "Night": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_(book)


Revolutionary Irish Chop-Suey

By 耀, 2010.09.27

Some Curiosities of Irish History

In January 1913, Ulster Unionists, represented mainly by the Ulster Unionist Party and backed by the sub-Masonic Orange Order, established the paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force to oppose the British government. The UVF grew to around 90,000 members. It was led by retired officers of the British army, under the command of Lieutenant-General Sir George Richardson, KCB, a veteran of the Afghan Wars. The UVF threatened to resist the British implementation of Irish Home Rule. One of their mottoes was “Home Rule equals Rome Rule.”

The Nationalists in turn raised the Irish Volunteers from late 1913 to support Britain. The Irish Volunteers included members of the Gaelic League, the Ancient Order of Hibernians and Sinn Féin, and, secretly, the IRB. They were later joined by the Irish Citizen Army, Cumann na mBan and Fianna Éireann to form the IRA.

In April 1914, the Ulster Volunteers smuggled in 216 tons of guns and ammunition Major Frederick H. Crawford had purchased from the Jewish gun-runner Bruno Spiro. Included in this cache was 11,000 Mannlicher rifles brought from the Steyr works in Austria, 9,000 ex-German army Mausers, 4,600 Italian Vetterli-Vitali rifles, and 5 million rounds of ammunition.  Mal Crawford and Captain Wilfrid Spender of the Ulster Unionist Council ran the operation. The shipments landing in Larne, Donaghadee, and Bangor on the 24th and 25th.

Bruno Spiro, the sole proprietor of the firm Benny Spiro, was described as, “a member of a society of international Jewish arms dealers” (“eines der Mitglieder ener international juedischen Waffenschiebergeselschaft“), in court documents related to his arreste by the Gestapo in 1936 for illegal arms sales (to Ireland, Palestine, Czechoslovakia, &c.). In the course of their investigation, it was discovered that Spiro had also engaged in illegal financial transactions. The National Socialist authorities therefore petitioned the courts for access to 99,600 Reichmarks held in Herr Spiro’s account at the Norddeutsche Kredit-Bank, to cover his fines and to compensate the state for income lost when Spiro sold Swiss securities without repatriating the profits, as required by German law. The District Court (Landgericht) of Hamburg, in 1936, rejected the government’s petition, on the grounds that it would negatively affect Spiro’s Jewish wife, who had not been involved in his business dealings, and should therefore not be expected to pay for his crimes. On 2008.12.18, Spiro’s grandson was awarded 189,250 Swiss Francs by The Claims Resolution Tribunal (Case No. CV96-4849), in compensation for Bruno Spiro having been “a victim of Nazi persecution.”

In July 1914, British intelligence operative Robert Erskine Childers smuggled 900 German rifles into Ireland, on his yacht, for the use of the Irish Volunteers.

In mid-July Padraig Pearse complained that John Redmond, who had assumed leadership of the Volunteers, wanted to arm them, “not against England, but against the Orangemen.”

[Redmond -- also leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party (formerly known as The Nationalist Party) from 1900 to 1918 -- urged the Volunteers to join the 10th and 16th (Irish) Divisions of the British New Army ("Jennifers Army", "Kitchener's Mob") to fight against German tyranny. The death of his brother Willie at the Battle of Messines offensive in Flanders, left his parliamentary seat in East Clare vacant. It was won in July by Eamon de Valera. Redmond was beaten on the street by a gang of Sinn Feiners, including the teenage C.S. "Todd" Andrews. Redmond's funeral service was held at Westminster Cathedral, and his remains were interred, in the family vault at the old Knights' Templars' chapel yard of Saint John's Cemetery, Wexford town.]

Both cases of arms-smuggling were coordinated by the Elder of Zion Max Warburg. His brother and fellow Elder Paul Warburg was the chief architect of the Federal Reserve Board, which was designed to suck the economic life blood out of Americans for the benefit of the Jew-Agenda. Max Warburg also supported and supplied the Bolsheviks, in their destruction of the Russian Empire. From 1933 he served on the board of the Reichsbank under governor Hjalmar Schacht, until emigrating to Zionist America in 1938. Max Warburg’s son Eric Warburg founded E.M. Warburg & Co, later known as Warburg Pincus.

Robert Erskine Childers was the son of Robert Caesar Childers, a noted Hebraist and Palist, and Anna Barton of Glendalough House. The Bartons were a very wealthy and respected family in Irish farming and politics. R.C. Childers was employed in the Ceylon civil service and the India Office.

Robert Erskine Childers was a loyal imperialist and Unionist. He was born in Mayfair, London. His parents died when he was young, and from his teens he lived with his uncle in County Wicklow. At the recommendation of his grandfather, Canon Charles Childers, he was sent to Haileybury College, a school founded to train young men for colonial service in India. There he won an exhibition to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was the editor of Cambridge Review, for which he wrote some detective stories. In spite of his unattractive voice and poor debating skills, he became president of the Trinity College Debating Society (the “Magpie and Stump” society), and spoke vehemently against Irish Home Rule in college debates. After gaining a degree in law, he joined the Liberal Party and became a parliamentary clerk.

In 1898, negotiations over the voting rights of British settlers in the Boer territories of Transvaal and Orange Free State failed and the Boer War broke out. R. Erskine Childers volunteered for Honourable Artillery Company of the City Imperial Volunteers, an ad-hoc force comprising soldiers from different territorial regiments, funded by City of London institutions.

He was classed as a “driver”, caring for a pair of horses and riding them in the gun train. After seeing combat in July and August of 1900, he was evacuated from the front line, not as the result of a wound but from a type of trench foot, to hospital in Pretoria. After a chance meeting with his brother Henry, also suffering from a foot injury, he rejoined his unit just in time for it to be despatched back to England.

His first book was In the Ranks of the C. I. V., an account of his experiences in the Boer War, based on letters he had written home from South Africa. The print proofs were waiting for Childers to approve on his return from the war in October 1900. In 1903, Childers completed Basil Williams’ The HAC in South Africa, which was intended to be the official history of the regiment’s part in the campaign.

In 1903 he also finished his novel The Riddle in the Sands, about an attempted German invasion of Britain, launched from the Frisian Islands. Winston Churchill later credited it as a major reason that the Admiralty decided to establish naval bases at Invergordon, Rosyth on the Firth of Forth and Scapa Flow in Orkney.

In 1903, Childers was promoted to the position of parliamentary Clerk of Petitions.

In Autumn 1903, Childers travelled to the United States as part of a reciprocal visit between the Honourable Artillery Company of London and the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts. There he met Mary Alden (“Molly”) Osgood, a Boston Blueblood, descended from Mayflower colonialists. They were married at Boston’s Trinity Church on 5 January 1904. Childers’ father-in-law, Dr Hamilton Osgood, had a 28-ton yacht, Asgard, built for the couple as a wedding gift.

Childers returned to London with his new wife and resumed his position in the House of Commons. His republican American heiress wife developed a strong admiration for Britain, and for its selfless willingness to go to war in the interests of smaller nations.

The editor of The Times’ History of the War in South Africa was the Jew Leo Amery, a neighbour of Childers’. The Jew Amery enlisted Childers to prepare volume five, which was published in 1907. Motivated by his expectation of forthcoming war with Germany, Childers wrote two books on cavalry warfare: War and the Arme Blanche (1910) and The German Influence on British Cavalry (1911).

In the autumn of 1910 Childers resigned his post as Clerk of Petitions, and in May 1912 ran in Devonport as a Liberal Party candidate for parliament. As a prospective Liberal Party candidate for Parliament that Childers wrote his last major book: The Framework for Home Rule (1911). It represented a major change from the opinions he had previously held, but Irish home rule was at the time a mainstream policy that had received endorsement in the General Election of 1906 and was the official line of his party, which neededIrish support to maintain a majority. His principal argument for home rule was an economic one: that an Irish parliament would be responsible for making fiscal policy, to the benefit of the country, and would hold “dominion” status, in the same way that the Dominion of Canada managed its affairs. His arguments were based in part on the findings of the “Childers Commission” of the 1890s that had been chaired by his cousin, Hugh Childers. When the Liberals dropped their intention to implement self-government in Ireland, in response to threats from Ulster Unionists, Childers abandoned his candidacy and left the party. There was a large-scale landing of German arms at Larne. The organisers of the Unionists’ gun running were influential men, and in the interests of political expediency they were not prosecuted. The Third Home Rule Act was shelved for the duration of the First World War and then never implemented.

In May 1914 a committee of Anglo-Irish nationalists was set up to raise funds to obtain arms for the Irish Volunteers, with Alice Stopford Green as treasurer and Molly Childers as secretary. Sir Roger Casement was appointed as the link with the Volunteers’ leadership and Darrell Figgis, who was able to offer introductions to various arms dealers, was co-opted at Casement’s suggestion. At the end of May, Childers and Figgis travelled to the Hamburg arms firm of Moritz Magnus der Jüngere and bought a consignment of 900 rifles and 29,000 rounds of ammunition, for delivery at sea. On 12 July 1914, off the mouth of the River Scheldt, the arms were transferred from a German tugboat to Childers’s Asgard and to Conor O’Brien’s Kelpie. Childers sailed into Howth, Co. Dublin, shortly after noon on 26 July, and the weapons were handed over, in public, to uniformed columns of Irish Volunteers. Childers later described his arms shipment as a symbolic gesture.

+ + +

Somehow the police got wind of the shipment and attempted to intercept the weapons as they were being marched towards Dublin. A small detachment from The King’s Own Scottish Borderers was called to assist the police, but the Volunteers had dispersed, with most of the weapons. The troops found themselves at the centre of a hostile demonstration and opened fire on the crowd, killing three people.

The Irish Volunteers organiser at Howth was Bro. Bulmer Hobson, assisted by Queer Sir Roger and The O’Rahilly.

Bro. Hobson, a Quaker, was a founding member of the Masonic Irish Republican Brotherhood, having been sworn in by Bro. Denis McCullough in 1904. Bro. Hobson was a key IRB figure in Ulster, along with Bro. Sean MacDermott, Bro. Patrick McCartan and Bro. Ernest Blythe. In August 1909, with Sinn Fein’s Countess Markiewicz, he founded Na Fianna Éireann. He was elevated to the IRB’s Supreme Council in 1911. In 1913 he was elevated to the chairman of the Dublin Centres Board of the IRB, and was one of the founding organizers of the Irish Volunteers. Bro. Hobson was instrumental in allowing Parliamentary leader John Redmond to gain control of the Volunteers. Along with the Volunteers chief-of-staff Eoin MacNeill, he was kept unaware of the plans for the Rising. When told by Volunteers officers J. J. O’Connell and Éimer Duffy that the Volunteers had received orders for the Rising, timed for Easter Sunday, he subsequently alerted MacNeill, who issued a countermanding order, which meant that most Volunteers did not take part. Bro. Hobson was then kidnapped by the organisers of the rising to stop him from spreading news of MacNeill’s order to abort. Hobson was later given a civil service job in the Free State’s Department of Post and Telegraphs.

Bro. Sir Roger — a great admirer of Dusky Predators — was also kept in the dark about the Easter Rising. In April 1916, Sir Roger had arranged for  the Germans to deliver 20,000 rifles, and 10 machine guns, with ammunition, to Ireland. The ship transporting them, a German cargo vessel called the Libau, was intercepted, even though it had been thoroughly disguised as a Norwegian vessel, Aud Norge. All the crew’s clothes and effects, even the charts and books on the bridge, were Norwegian. The British though, naturally, apprehended the ship on the late afternoon of Good Friday. About to be escorted into Queenstown (now Cobh, Co. Cork) on the morning of Saturday, 22 April, after surrendering, the Aud Norge was scuttled by pre-set explosive charges, and her crew became prisoners of war.

On Easter, the Anti-Christian Brotherhood used the “Howth Mausers” to mount the Easter Rising. At that time, Sir Roger was under arrest. The uprising was crushed, of course, and was followed by a strict imposition of martial law, of course. Sixteen of the leaders of the rising were executed, include the main agitator of the rebellion, the Communist and Esperantist, Bro. Comrade James Connoly.

Bro. Connolly had come to Ireland at age 28. Prior to that he had been the secretary of the Scottish Socialist Federation, a founding editor of The Socialist newspaper, and was among the founders of the Socialist Labour Party. In 1896 he arrived in Dublin to lead the Dublin Socialist Society, which he soon transformed into the Irish Socialist Republican Party (ISRP). He left for New York, where he lived from 1906 to 1909, joining the Socialist Labor Party of America, the Socialist Party of America, and the Industrial Workers of the World, and founding the Irish Socialist Federation. On his return to Ireland he was right hand man to Bro. James Larkin in the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. He stood twice for election in the Wood Quay ward of Dublin Corporation but was unsuccessful.

He founded the Irish Labour Party in 1912 and was a member of its National Executive. In 1913, along with an ex-British officer, Bro. Jack White, he founded the Irish Citizen Army (ICA). Bro. Connolly had contempt for the Irish Volunteers, whom he viewed as too bourgeois.

Comrade Captain Jack White, D.S.O. — a Sandhurst grad — was one of the co-founders of the Irish Citizen Army. His father was Field Marshal Sir George Stuart White, the Governor of Gibraltar, and a hero of the siege of Ladysmith. His mother, Amelia Baly, was the daughter of Joseph Baly, the Archdeacon of Calcutta. One of his sisters was Lady Napier (wife of Sir Albert Edward Alexander Napier). His father died in 1912, and he thenceforth lived off the rent and sale of the lands attached to the family estate (White Hall, Broughshane, Co. Antrim), but had to wait until his mum kicked the bucket in 1935 before he could take up residence there.

After a stint with First Gordon Highlanders in South Africa, putting down the uppity Boers, civil service work in Gibralter, and some military service in India and Scotland, Cap’n Jack flirted with Libertarian Socialism in Bohemia, and spent some time in a Tolstoyan commune in England. Returning to Ireland, he was converted to the Jews’ form of socialism by Comrade Connolly. White spoke on union platforms with luminaries as Francis Sheehy-Skeffington [the pacifist vice-chairman of the Irish Citizens Army until he realized that the army had became a military entity; he was arrested Easter 1916 after trying to form a militia], and “Big Bill” Haywood [a founding member and leader of the IWW; member of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of America; tried for the murder of Frank Steunenberg -- lawyer Clarence Darrow -- and acquitted; convicted of violating US Espionage Act; while out of prison on appeal, fled to the Russian Soviet Republic where he lived the rest his life; labor advisory to Lenin's junta; later lonely and depressed and wanting to return to US], and Connolly, and the sociopath George Bernard Shaw.

After Easter 1916, Comrade White was jailed in Wales for trying to get the miners to strike for Comrade Connolly. In England he was involved with Sylvia Pankhurst’s Workers Socialist Federation, which became “The Communist Party (British Section of the Third International)”. [Pankhurst was a great supporter of the Ethiopian tyrant Haile Selassie. After decades of advising him from London, in 1956 she moved to Addis Ababa at The Conquering Lion of Judah's invitation. In 1960 she was given a state funeral attended by Prince Jah Jah Rasta Far-I, and was buried in front of Holy Trinity Cathedral.]

After a series of arrests and prison terms for agitating (Dublin 1920, Edinburgh 1921) he was proposed as a candidate “in the interests of the Workers’ Republic” for Donegal in the1922 Free State elections, but soon withdrew his candidature, declaring he was a Christian Communist. He wrote for many publications including An Phoblacht, and in 1930, his autobiography, Misfit, was published.

Cap’n Jack was active in the Revolutionary Workers Party in Belfast in the early 30s. In 1931, he was involved in a riot on the Newtownards Road, was found guilty and imprisoned, then served with an exclusion order under the 1922 Special Powers Act (NI), prohibiting him from residing in any part of N.I. besides the district of Limavady, until 1935. White went to Spain during the Spanish Civil War as a medic with the Red Cross, and supported the Anarchist CNT-FAI and the Trotskyite-cum-Anarchist POUM outfits.

He relished the murder and rapes of Roman Catholic nuns and priests in Spain, and opined that Christ would be happy to see His Church burnt to the ground and occupied by Communists and Anarchists parroting the works of the Satanist Marx:

From “First Spanish Impressions,” by Capt. J.R.White, 1936.11.11

“It is a fact that the Barcelona churches were burnt, and many of them, where roof and walls are still standing, are used to house medical or commissariat stores instead of, as previously, being used by the fascists as fortresses. I suspect their present function is nearer the purpose of a religion based by its founder on the love of God and the Neighbour.”


I come of an Ulster Protestant family. There is a saying in Ulster (the north-east province of Ireland) “Rome is a lamb in adversity, a snake in equality and a lion in prosperity”. I am glad that in Cataluña you have made Rome into a lamb. In Ireland Rome is still a lion, or rather a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

From “The Church: Fascism’s Ally: An Interpretation of Christianity”, by Capt. J.R.White, 1937.03.05

I should like to discuss this subject from the standpoint of a Christian Anarchist [...]. From that standpoint I define my conception of Christianity as perfect Freedom, which coincides with my conception of Anarchy. In my opinion there are two conceptions of spirituality: the one that only in the fullest attainment and expression of his freedom can man attain to the spiritual life, individual and social. And the other that he must seek the high goal of his spirit not by self-expression and freedom, but by self-repression and obedience to external authority.

I believe the first conception to be that of Christ, and the Gospels read with any intelligence, and the second to be so foreign to the whole sprit of Christ that it is not only un-Chrisitian, but positively anti-Christian. It follows that any Church which bases itself on the second, that of obedience to the external authority and denial of the individual’s right to experiment and judge for himself, above all in those realms of faith and morals where his own soul must find its own unique path, is not, in my opinion, a Christian Church, even though it arrogantly claims the monopoly of Christian inspiration.


The Satanist White left Spain for England, where he associated with the Jewish Communistic Anarchist Albert Meltzer.

The Jew Meltzer, on Cap’n Jack:

“He told me once he had originally accepted the principle of libertarian socialism in Bohemia, but had been ‘re-introduced’ to socialism, as syndicalism and as Marxism, in Dublin. He was always more of a syndicalist than a Marxian Socialist and described himself at the time as a guild socialist.”

Cap’n Jack despised the Roman Catholic Church, but married two papists. For some reason he ended up in numerous bitter fights with his wives, usually over religion. In 1938, the anarchist returned to White Hall, the family estate, in Country Antrim. In the 1945 General Election he ran as a republican socialist candidate for the Antrim constituency, campaigning against Hitler, the Pope, Lord Brookborough and De Valera. He died from cancer in 1946 and was buried in the White family plot in the First Presbyterian Church in Broughshane.

Bro. Connolly’s secretary, Winnie Carney, of the Cumann na mBan, was the only wee doll in the initial occupation of the Dublin General Post Office during the Easter Rising. She entered armed with a typewriter and a Webley revolver, and was she was given the “rank” of adjutant. She was held in jail with Nell Ryan and Helena Moloney, and all three requested that their internee status, and the privileges it brought, be revoked so that they would be held as common criminals with the Countess Markiewicz. After the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the formation of the Irish Free State, Carney sided with the Anti-Treaty forces. She stood for Parliament as a Sinn Féin candidate for Belfast Victoria in the 1918 General Election, and got 4.05% of the vote. In 1928 she married fellow socialist George McBride, an Orangeman and ex UVF activist.

Bro. “Big Jim” Larkin was a Communist from Liverpool. Appropriate to his character, his grave is marked by one of the ugliest gravestones ever made; and a horrendous statue of him pollutes Connolly Street in Dublin. He lived in Ireland from 1907-1914, and from 1923-1947. In 1914 he headed to the United States, where he joined the Socialist Party of America, and was involved in the syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World union. He became an enthusiastic supporter of the Jews’ Soviet Union and was expelled from the Socialist Party of America in 1919 along with numerous other sympathisers of the Bolsheviks. He associated with founding members of the American Communist Party. Bro. Larkin was reported as having helped disrupt Allied munitions shipments in New York during World War I, before Elder Schiff gave the go-ahead to support Britain, following the British promise to get Palestine for the Jews. After Hitler became the chancellor of Germany, Bro. Larkin voluntarily assisted US lawyers investigating the Black Tom Explosion by providing a sworn affidavit for Bro. John J. McCloy from his home in Dublin. According to British Army Intelligence officer, Henry Landau: “Larkin testified that he himself never took part in the actual sabotage campaign but, rather,confined himself to the organizing of strikes…to prevent the shipment of munitions to the Allies.” In 1920, Bro. Larkin was jailed for ‘criminal anarchy’ and was sentenced to five to ten years in Sing Sing. In 1923, he was pardoned and deported by New York’s Governor Smith. Back in Ireland, Bro. Larkin formed the Irish Worker League (IWL) in 1923, which was soon afterwards recognised by the Jews’ Comintern as the Irish section of the world communist movement. The League’s most prominent activity in its first year was to raise funds for imprisoned members of the IRA. In 1924 Larkin attended the Jews’ Comintern congress and was elected to its executive committee. While he was getting instructions from his Jew masters in Moscow, his brother Peter took his supporters out of the ITGWU, forming the Workers’ Union of Ireland (WUI), which quickly grew, and became affiliated to the pro-Soviet Red International of Labour Unions. In January 1925, the Comintern sent Bro. Bob Stewart, a Communist Party of Great Britain activist, to Ireland to establish a communist party in cooperation with Larkin. A formal founding conference of the Irish Worker League, which was to take up this role, was set for May 1925, but was cancelled due to petty squabbling and jockeying for position. In the September 1927 general election, Larkin was elected in North Dublin, but due to a libel award against him won by William O’Brien, which he had refused to pay, he was an undischarged bankrupt and therefore was not permitted to take up his seat. Larkin then attempted, unsuccesfully, to obtain a position as a commercial agent in Ireland for the Soviet Union. The Soviets were increasingly impatient with his incompetence. In the 1932 general election he stood without success as a Communist. He died in 1947. His funeral mass was celebrated by the Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, and thousands lined the streets of the city as the hearse passed by.

Bro. Harry Boland, a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, infiltrated the Irish Volunteers along with his brothers and took an active part in the Easter Rising, Bro. Boland was named by De Valera as special envoy to the United States, and accompanied De Valera there as part of a campaign to raise support and cash for “The Cause” in America. The moron Boland then loaned $25,000 from the Irish Republic to the Soviet Republic through Ludwig Martens, the head of the Soviet Bureau (who had accompanied the Jew Bronstein/”Trotsky” from NY to Russia, having received clearance from Elder Jacob Schiff and Sir William Wiseman), in exchange for phony “treasures” that the idiot Boland was told were the Romanov’s Crown Jewels. In 1922, this asshole was shot by Irish Free State soldiers and died several days later in hospital. His mummy hid “the jewels” until 1938. The Irish government tried selling them, and announced that they would be available at public auction, until they realized they were just trash. In order to avoid embarrassment, they therefore returned them to “their rightful owners” in the Communist Kremlin, in exchange for their $25,000 loan, without interest.

The O’Rahilly was not an IRB member so had been kept out of the planning for the Easter Rising. Nevertheless, after finding out about it, he took part and was killed.

William Butler Yeats:

Sing of the O’Rahilly,
Do not deny his right;
Sing a ‘the’ before his name;
Allow that he, despite
All those learned historians,
Established it for good;
He wrote out that word himself,
He christened himself with blood.
How goes the weather

+ + +

Following his 1914 “symbolic” gunrunning operation, Childers received an official telegram from the Royal Navy — sent to the Dublin headquarters of the Irish Volunteers — recalling him to naval service.

He took up a reserve commission in the intelligence arm of the Royal Navy. Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty, was instrumental in securing Childers’s recall, and later gave Childers credit for having, with his book The Riddle of the Sands, persuaded public opinion to fund vital measures against the German naval threat.

Childers’ first task was a reversal of his plot for The Riddle of the Sands. He was ordered to draw up a plan for the invasion of Germany by way of the Frisian Islands. He flew as a navigator and observer, including in a sortie in the Cuxhaven Raid of Christmas Day, 1914.

In 1915 he was transferred to HMS Ben-my-Chree, in which he served in the Gallipoli Campaign and the eastern Mediterranean, earning a Distinguished Service Cross. He was sent back to London in April 1916 to receive his decoration from George V, and he was honoured for his service in the Admiralty. This period in his life is relatively undocumented since he was engaged in intelligence work.

In July 1917, Sir Horace Plunkett had Childers assigned to the secretariat of Prime Minister Lloyd George’s Home Rule Convention initiative in Dublin Castle. On his return to London in April 1918, Childers was transferred into the newly created Royal Air Force, and was attached to Hugh Trenchard’s Independent Bomber Command as a group intelligence officer to prepare navigational briefings for attacks on Berlin. The raids were forestalled by the Armistice and Childers’s last assignment was to provide an intelligence assessment of the effects of bombing raids in Belgium.

Childers then became a fanatic Sinn Feiner, an IRA man, and a zealous Irish Nationalist so opposed to compromise that he is blamedby some for bringing about the Irish Civil War.

In March 1919, he joined his cousin Robert Barton in Glendalough. Barton, who had also previously been an ardent Unionist, had joined Sinn Féin, and he introduced Childers to Mason Michael Collins, who in turn introduced him to Éamon de Valera.

Childers returned to his revolutionary Republican firebrand heiress wife in Chelsea/ A month later he received an invitation to meet the Sinn Féin leadership. He rushed to Dublin, anticipating an offer of a major role in the Republican movemet, but apart from Collins the Nationalist leadership was wary, or even hostile. Arthur Griffith viewed Childers as at best a renegade and traitor to Britain, or at worst as a British spy. He was asked to join the unofficial Irish delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, to advance the cause of Irish self rule at that conference that was sold as the fulfillment of the War to Make the World Safe for Democracy. The British and Americans and Jews and French were all for independence for nations broken off from the Ottoman, Austrian and Russian Empires, but weren’t so keen on Irish (or Vietnamese or Kenyan or Algerian or Hawaiian) self-determination. From France, Childers returned to London. He rented a house in Dublin. Molly argued that they could best serve “The Cause” by influencing opinion in London, but they ended up in Dublin at the end of 1919, and Childers was made Director of Publicity for the First Irish Parliament.

In 1920, Childers published Military Rule in Ireland, an attack on British policy. In 1921 he was elected, unopposed, to the Second Dáil as the Sinn Féin member for Wicklow. In the same yer he published the pamphlet “Is Ireland a Danger to England?”, in which he attacked David Lloyd George. He then became editor of the Irish Bulletin after the arrest of Desmond FitzGerald.

Childers was then secretary-general of the Irish delegation that negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty between October 11 and December 6, 1921. Childers vehemently opposed the final draft of the agreement, particularly the clauses that required Irish leaders to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. The Treaty was approved by a Dáil vote of 64 to 57 in January 1922, but in the course of the debates, Childers claimed that he had been insulted by Arthur Griffith, and the matter was again debated in June. The treaty continued to divide Sinn Féin and the IRA, and civil war broke out on June 28, 1922.

Said to be the inspiration behind the propaganda of the republican movement, Childers was hunted by National Army soldiers. Michael Collins was killed in an ambush on August 22, 1922. In September 1922 the Dáil introduced Emergency Powers legislation, establishing martial law powers and new capital offences for the carrying of firearms without a licence. According to the author Frank O’Connor, Childers was then ostracised from the anti-treaty forces, was referred to as “that bloody Englishman”, and was put to work addressing letters.

In November, Childers was arrested by Free State forces at his home in Glendalough, County Wicklow, while travelling to meet De Valera. He was tried by a military court on the charge of possessing a Spanish-made “Destroyer” .32 calibre semi-automatic pistol on his person, in violation of the Emergency Powers Resolution. The pistol had been a gift from Michael Collins, before Collins became head of the pro-treaty Provisional Government. Childers was sentenced to death, and executed by firing squad at the Beggar’s Bush Barracks in Dublin. His last words were, “Take a step or two forward, lads. It will be easier that way.”

Winston Churchill said of his dead countryman:

“No man has done more harm or done more genuine malice or endeavoured to bring a greater curse upon the common people of Ireland than this strange being, actuated by a deadly and malignant hatred for the land of his birth.”

When his wife died in 1964, she left instructions that any documents relating to his involvement with the Irish struggles of the 1920s be locked away until 1972, 50 years after his death. In 1974, Andrew Boyle, the biographer of Brendan Bracken, Lord Reith, and others, was hired to write Childers’ official biography, which was published in 1977.

Robert Erskine Childers’ son, Erskine Hamilton Childers, was born in Ireland and attended Trinity College, Oxford. He became a naturalized Irish citizen in 1938. With his striking British upper class accent, he served as a Teachta Dála (TD) from 1938 until 1973. He was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (1951–1954, 1959–1961, 1966–1969), Minister for Lands (1957–1959), Minister for Transport and Power (1959–1969), and Minister for Health (1969–1973). He was appointed Tánaiste in 1969. He was elected the fourth President of the Republic of Ireland in May 1973, and died in office, in November 1974.

Erskine Hamilton Childers’ son, Erskine Barton Childers, attended Stanford University, where he was actively involved with the American National Student Association and rose to Vice President of the organisation by 1949. He was one of the first Western mainstream writers to systematically challenge the Jews’ ridiculous lie that Palestinian Arabs had fled their homes in 1948 in response to evacuation orders broadcast from neighboring Arab nations, rather than having been driven out of their homeland by genocidal Jews. He served as a U.N. consultant, including in a special mission in the Congo for Secretary-General U Thant. In 1967, under the leadership of Henry Richardson Labouisse, Jr.; Childers was hired to lead a United Nations, UNICEF & UNDP programme called Development Support Communication; or DSCS. In 1968 Childers co-authored a paper with United Nations colleague Mallica Vajrathon called “Project Support Communication”. From 1975 to 1988, Childers was based in New York as Director of Information for UNDP. By his retirement in 1989 as Senior Advisor to the UN Director General for Development and International Economic Co-operation, after 22 years of service; he had worked with most of the organisations of the UN system, at all levels and in all regions. After his retirement, he continued to strive relentlessly for the ideals for which he had worked so hard. He co-authored several books for the Ford Foundation and the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation on the reform of the United Nations with his colleague and equally devoted United Nations civil servant, Sir Brian Urquhart. The best known of these publications is A World in Need of Leadership. He continued writing on United Nations matters whilst travelling constantly; lecturing on the Organisation. In 1995, he co-authored a paper with his international law colleague Marjolijn Snippe called “The Agenda for Peace and the Law of the Sea”, for Pacem in Maribus XXIII, the Annual Conference of the International Ocean Institute, that was held in Costa Rica, December 1995. He became Secretary General of the World Federation of United Nations Associations from March 1996 until his death in August, 1996. E.B. Childers: “We need a worldwide campaign to get our governments to establish a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly.”

+ + +

The ravings of Cap’n Jack White should help explain why the Regime has succeeded in keeping Ireland divided until today, by hijacking a simple desire for local and national autonomy with Jew-Masonic madness.

The Significance of Sinn Fein

Psychological, Political, and Economic.

By J R White

Published Martin Lester, Ltd, Dublin 1919.

(Written c. Christmas, 1918)


PSYCHOLOGY is the science of the soul. The soul for the purposes of the present article means the sum of the powers and faculties in a human being, by which he feels and thinks and acts. Can we get some grasp of the relation of these faculties to each other in an individual and then apply them to present conditions in Ireland in such a way that both the race and individuals may understand themselves and their inter-connection better? I think we can.

The most elementary psychological division in an individual is between his sub-consciousness and surface consciousness. By the former I mean here not so much those freakish powers of memory and prevision, which are manifested in mediumistic or hypnotic trance, as the whole sum of instincts and tendencies which are inherited, or, at any rate, inborn in the individual, which are so much part of him that he may be quite unconscious of them, and is certainly unconscious of how they arose. By the latter I mean those beliefs, opinions, tendencies, and habits of reasoning which are formed by contact with outer environment, which depend on outer experience and observation, and may be in direct opposition to inner instinctive emotion.

Happy and rare is the man in whom the two consciousness are reconciled and harmonious, who finds, or makes, his outer environment the expression of his deepest instincts and desires. As the world is now, indeed, any such complete reconciliation is impossible for any man or woman in whose sub-consciousness there well up deep and creative emotions.

The sub-conscious soul life is checked and thwarted by environment. People of strong feeling must try to remould it nearer to the heart’s desire. Immovable, by the effort of a few solitary individuals, the best of these are forced to compromise, or, failing that, shatter to bits, not the world, but themselves. The revolt against environment to be effective must be collective.

We see to-day two main kinds of collective revolt, that of subject races and subject classes. They may be (indeed, generally are) quite distinct. A class may revolt against the pressure of a social system, although the race of which it forms part has evolved that system as part of its character and culture. Or a race may revolt without formulating any distinct class protest. The race revolt corresponds to the subconsciousness, drawing its impetus from inborn racial instinct. The class revolt is an affair of the surface consciousness, concerned with the modification or reconstruction of external conditions. Where the two revolts unite in one the whole National Being is engaged.

But what is the relation between the two aspects of revolt thus fused, differing as they do in their motive and inspiration. W. H. Myers has defined genius as a “subliminal uprush,” that is to say, the emergence of elements which remain latent below the threshold of consciousness in less gifted men into harmonious fusion with the reasoning and expressive powers of the surface personality. Where such harmonious fusion is absent we have not genius, but madness or hysteria. It would seem, therefore, that the inborn race-inspiration of Ireland, which Sinn Fein represents, has got to be harmonised with the conclusion and demands of Irish Labour, drawn from and directed towards external environment. Failing that, Labour’s efforts will lack the subliminal element of genius, and Sinn Fein be in danger of lapsing into hysteria.

The Irish race is pre-eminently intuitive, that is to say, it feels its conclusions rather than thinks them, and often proceeds direct from feeling to action, which subsequent events fully justify, though reasoned calculation would have condemned. Its genius in this respect rests on a radical difference of psychology, a sealed book to John Bull, and to all peoples devoid of the education of untamed suffering necessary to read it.

In civilised life, as we know it, it is usual to base mental conclusions on actually observable facts or their easily predictable consequences. Practical men and nations sneer at the colouring of thought by emotion, and consider that practical thought should confine itself to hard external facts. The conflict of this outlook with the Christian teaching that the Kingdom of Heaven is within and cometh not by observation should be obvious; but to those who resent the implication that Christianity is concerned with practical affairs or that it is man’s business to establish the kingdom without as well as within, it may be well to point out that the teaching of elementary psychology is equally plain. The limitation of thought to the data of external experience implies stagnation. Mere knowledge taken alone is a matter of receiving, not of initiating. Feeling makes the movement with which knowledge deals. The intellect by itself moves nothing, and the quest of reality, though it may be greatly assisted thereby, would never be undertaken by the intellect alone. Without emotion, will would he dormant and the intellect lapse into a mere calculating machine. The whole of man’s environment is built up, however short it fall of the mark, at the spur of emotion in search of his happiness and well being. To deny the place of emotion, therefore, as an element in constructive thought is to cut off the stream of life from its source. Consciousness is always trying to run ahead of the data of reason as given in the past and present. The soul of Man, while it feels there is more to love and more to know, can never be satisfied by turning over all possible rearrangements and combinations of its effort up to date. It must make a new effort, to create by its own intensity something nearer to the heart’s desire, To deny the reasonableness of emotion is to give no rational sanction for the condition of progress. So much for the criticism sometimes seen in the English press that Sinn Fein is an emotion not a policy. What has already been said and what follows is an attempt to show in its true light the vast significance of Sinn Fein’s function in re-introducing pure emotion as a factor in Western world-politics.

The longer dwelt on, the deeper does that significance become. It will be more fully unfolded in the political and economic sections of this paper. Before leaving the psychological, however, some aspects of national emotion as a cohesive force as well as a driving force may be noted. The individual can only trace the roots of his own tendencies in the past history of the race to which he belongs. Sinn Fein and the Gaelic League, therefore, in isolating the national spirit from foreign influences and reviving the national past, not only enhance the consciousness of each individual, but bring to bear a great combining force to weld individuals together. Quot hommes tot sententiae may be roughly translated “as many opinions as there are minds to form them.” The intellectual element can neither initiate nor spontaneously combine. This is the explanation why anti-militarists and international socialists, however clear their intellectual grasp of their tenets, succumbed and fell into line with the predatory emotions of the few in their respective countries. The binding-force of a common emotion was too weak until the opening of the great dynamo in Russia. For good or ill, not intellect but emotion is the element of agreement and combination among men, whether their combination is that of wolves who hunt their prey, or of bees who make their honey in common.

Two great emotional forces make for this unity in Ireland, her nationality and her religion, and since they are neither of them aggressive and predatory, and both of them dependent on attraction rather than compulsion, her unity is spontaneous, and so proof against external force, and her influence is the great bulwark against the dominance of the brute combination resting on compulsion in the Western world.

In conclusion of this section: the functions of Sinn Fein and Irish Labour have been compared to the dual functions of the mind, receiving its material from the inner or sub-consciousness on the one hand and external environment on the other. Sinn Fein seeks to restore the soul, Labour to recreate the body. Will soul and body fit? Whitman’s line springs to my pen. “I swear to you the body is the soul.” Irish Labour is in tune with that great uncompromising movement of the world’s workers, which prepares a freer body for all and each of the nations of the world. In the past the soul has assumed an air of some superiority to the body, in dogma, in untested moral dictation, in the subordination of economics to politics But this is the day of the resurrection of the flesh, the uprising of the despised mass of humanity condemned to bodily labour and denied a self-directing soul. In freeing their bodies so shall they free the souls of themselves and all of us who were pitiably less in that we thought ourselves greater than they. Let the seekers for the soul of Ireland observe this new up-heaving body of Labour with deference, for in it lies a new world soul, and Ireland’s own.


The connection between politics and economics is so close that the division between them must be one of careful definition to avoid being one of loose thinking. In treating, therefore, of the political aspect of Sinn Fein, as distinct from the economic, I propose to call politics all movements based on the tacit acceptance of the continuance of the basis of Government with which we are at present familiar. This may be described as Parliamentarianism, democratic in form, in that the opinions of the people, or a great majority of them are nominally reflected in the legislation imposed on them, or, at least, in the election of the legislators. Whether the present method is or can be democratic in substance may transpire as I proceed, and the relation of Ireland to politics, her great and growing disabilities may serve to point the distinction between “democratic” politics and economics in the sense I employ the word. If political forms, as I hold, are dissolving for lack of economic substance, observation of the process of dissolution will serve to clear the issue, and help to reveal economics as the basis of the politics of the future. It is not, of course, to be inferred that there has been no economic basis to politics as we have known them; far from it. But the instability of that basis has been the cause of the instability of the whole world-order and the terrific upheaval which it has just undergone. That things cannot resettle on the old basis would seem to be a sufficiently obvious, even respectable, opinion, for has not Mr. Lloyd George told us to look for “fundamental reconstruction.” But the principle of the new foundation, and wherein it differs from the old, is far to seek in the utterances of English politicians. Ireland’s aloofness from the recent World War has certainly not been imputed to her for righteousness outside her own borders. Yet, perhaps, this aloofness may be explicable by other reasons than callous indifference to the rights of small nations other than her own. She may have felt herself planted on the new foundation which Mr. Lloyd George omits to define, and been wisely, even altruistically, anxious to conserve it for the benefit of society at large. “Fundamental reconstruction” is handicapped if all the foundations are in the melting pot together. In the general collapse of those built upon the sand, any house with even a partial foundation of rock has the more need to stand.

What, then, is the justification for the attitude expressed in the phrase: “It is not Ireland’s war.” When the outbreak of the war violently threw society off its balance, the sluice gates built by democracy for its own protection were destroyed, and the current of the people’s force was guided into the various streams of bellicose nationalism. Despite an intellectual realisation of the seeds of World War contained in the Capitalistic system, the great majority of International Socialists succumbed at the first blast of the trumpet, and the Internationale ceased to be anything but a name. The psychological reason for this collapse has already been given, that the combining power of emotion was on the side of race and overbore the intellectual grasp of a doctrine not yet ingrained in the subconsciousness. But why did Ireland’s racial emotion enable her to stand firm? In the answer to this question lies the key of the door between Anglo Irish politics and world-economics. It was not necessary for Ireland to have so much as heard the word Socialism to have a healthy distrust of Imperialism and pierce the disguise of its blandishments. And Imperialism is at once the father and the child of Capitalism. So Ireland fought without talking for the ideals which most of the Socialists talked about while fighting for their opposite. But since this Section sets out to deal with the political significance of Sinn Fein, let us get to the point and say at once that Sinn Fein’s political function can only be not only to break the political link with Westminster, but to abrogate politics on the basis with which we are familiar. And since the formation of the new basis can hardly lie with other than industrial organisation in the first place, we believe the function of Sinn Fein to be to encourage and co-ordinate such organisation. There are half a dozen insuperable reasons why Ireland’s united emancipation as a nation must attend a programme world-wide and man-deep in its appeal, disintegrating from within the enemies that are invincible from without, and welding into one the separate elements of her own being in a manner that Sinn Fein alone can never achieve. Take the question of Ulster. Speaking as an Ulsterman with up-to-date knowledge of Ulster conditions, I assert that the only chance of combining the two racially distinct sections of Ireland is a programme which will make the liberation of Ireland arise automatically from the emancipation of the Irish workers. It is necessary to find something to unite the soul of Ireland, North and South, to prevent the partition of her body. National emancipation arising .out of human emancipation was the ideal which worked the combination in ’98, and it must be the same again. But if any are sanguine enough to believe that a population of somewhat unimaginative Scotch Protestants will embrace the ideals of Celtic nationality simply because it is Celtic, let them do so. Let us follow the recent development of that nationality itself in its struggle for freedom, and see if any but the explanations of two Socialists, Connolly and Karl Marx, will fit the past and present facts or provide for the conquest of future obstacles. What is the position of Ireland today? To quote the Belfast Newsletter – “With regard to Ireland, the election has cleared the air. It is now an open issue between the maintenance of the Union and an Independent Irish Republic.” And in the new Westminster Parliament there is now a clear majority of Unionists over every other Party. There are also, I am informed, 8o,ooo British troops in Ireland. Glancing abroad we find Mr. Daniels proclaiming the need of a supreme American navy, M. Clemencean declaring himself a realist and planning that the war to end war shall in no way disturb the old game of military preparedness; not to mention the unanimous intention to make Germany pay, after an armistice signed on the basis of no annexations and no indemnities, to the tune of something approaching the total national debts of the principal allied belligerents. These facts are worth mention, as indicating that the temper of the world’s present rulers and their aims are not such as depend on moral persuasion themselves, or offer rosy prospects for its success as the sole weapon of their opponents. Nevertheless, no man is more convinced than the writer that an Independent Irish Republic has got to be and will be, the present English Government’s refusal, notwithstanding. But how? How was Ireland solidified into the Western bulwark against servile Imperialism? By a rising, of which the driving force was the Labour Citizen Army. How was the great Capitalistic menace of conscription defeated? By a strike of Irish Labour. I have no wish to minimise the part played by other sections of the community, but I believe I give honour where honour is due to the class that has been and must continue to be the corner-stone of Ireland’s resistance and liberation. The facts, so far, fit Connolly’s theory that in the struggle for liberty of any subject nation the owning and employing class are forced by economic pressure to make terms with the oppressor with whom and whose system they become linked by a hundred golden threads of investments and the like. Thus, the onus of the struggle is thrown more and more on the working class. But what of Sinn Fein? I reply the vast majority of Sinn Fein do belong to the working class in the widest sense of the term, and that in so far as they are unable to exercise alone a force greater than aeroplanes and machine guns they will be compelled to unite with the workers who can exercise such a force or relinquish their object. Ireland has in the recent election disavowed the class that has made terms with the oppressor. Sinn Fein stands for the principle of no compromise in their stead. But assuming the disappointment of hopes in President Wilson, where shall Sinn Fein look for the accomplishment of that principle in practice? Sinn Fein must buy its Socialistic education, but any instructed Socialist could foretell that Ireland has nothing to hope from President Wilson, granting him, for the sake of argument, the best intentions in the world. Mr. Wilson is not a divine being, but the President of a Capitalistic Republic, and any League of Nations under the patronage of Capitalistic Governments can only be a league of exploiting rulers against exploited peoples, from which Ireland can expect nothing but reinforced coercion, for, to quote Connolly again, the cause of oppressed nations and oppressed classes is one and the same.

Thus it is that the really instructed International Socialist is the best and only practical Nationalist. Karl Marx declares that the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, though international in substance, must first be national in form, as the proletariat must first settle accounts with the bourgeoisie each in its own country. Lucky for Ireland, she has settled that account with the ballot box instead of the bayonet. She now is near presenting an united front against the English bourgeoisie, with their eternally irreconcilable ideas. Here a remark attributed to Jaures is apposite: La classe ouvrire Brillanique c’est une classe bourgeoise (The English working class is a bourgeois class), and so as long as they are fed with the crumbs of their master’s exploitations, the mass of them seems likely to remain. But the crumbs will run out, and there is a small but virile minority, not the Pacifists, who are tired of crumbs already.

To return to my statement that Sinn Fein’s function was transitional. The policy of abstention from Westminster is excellent as far as it goes. The question is, can it go any further in the direction of setting up any form of “Parliamentary” Government in College Green, and would it be in the line of progress if it could? I answer both in the negative. It is as little to be supposed that the British Government, as at present constituted, will hesitate to suppress by force a rival assembly in Dublin, as that the Irish people will be overawed or thwarted by that force. They will simply be driven to other means against which The force is powerless, less invitingly simple, but infinitely more stable than a Parliament on the bourgeois model A true self-determination of a whole people cannot be achieved under the forms of Government that have heretofore passed for democracy.

Parliamentarianism, as it has been spoke, is as obsolete as a wooden plough. Democracy was the watchword with which the bourgeoisie obtained power. By the same watchword they seek to hold it. They mean by democracy that the people should vote, and work, and pay for them; their democracy is far more outraged by its concrete fulfilment as in Russia than by its abstract denial as in the old Germany. Even were Sinn Fein bourgeois in feeling or aim, as it emphatically is not, nothing but concrete democracy can possess the attractive or resisting power to realise Sinn Fein’s undoubted aim of an Independent Ireland. Concrete democracy means the abolition of wage-slavery, which in Ireland, more even than in most countries, because of the numerical weakness of Labour, would be postponed, sine die, by any Parliament. The abolition of wage slavery, the workers’ independence, can no more be achieved through an Irish Parliament in the first place than Irish Independence could have been achieved through an English one. The only education for liberty is liberty, taken possession of and practised. Sinn Fein intends rightly to deny the substance of English rule by refusing to pay taxes. So must the workers deny the substance of Capitalist rule by refusing to pay profits. And so far from this refusal to pay profits being a separate issue from Ireland’s national independence, it is on that refusal that her united freedom must depend. The ascendancy caste in Ulster are the fortified outposts of England’s rule in Ireland, and well are they rewarded for their position of honour. Ulster is the profiteer’s paradise. Labour, except in Belfast, and largely even there, is almost unorganised. There are engineers in Ballymena today getting 31s a week, when the Belfast rate where this trade is organised is £3 12S. So intense has been the ignorance and bigotry, that not long since in Ballymena Labour organisers had to get police protection back to the station after attempting to address a meeting on purely Labour matters. But this very abnormal backwardness is the very factor making for revolutionary progress. Psychology is a science as exact or more exact than physics. If water accumulates to a certain level in a reservoir and is excluded from a dammed off area it will rush in with redoubled force when the dam is removed, and the level of the water in the excluded area will rise temporarily above the remainder. The emancipation of Labour has reached a certain level in all the world except Ulster. Ulster is becoming aware of the fact slowly but surely. Her workers have not yet realised that they have dammed themselves off from the twentieth century b their concentration on damning the Pope, but, then, they have not yet fully realised the existence of the 20th century any more than the non-existence of the Pontiff of their imagination. I submit that the actuality of the former must oust from their consciousness the phantasm of the latter, that this realisation of injurious illusion must come with a sudden impetus in proportion to their distance below the level of the time spirit. Their very lack of organisation combined with the force of belated indignation, will tend to make them skip the stage of trade-union organisation for sops and assert the reality which their Protestant spirit has been perverted to obscure and deny, the self-acting freedom of each individual in the collectivity. In other words, the abolition of a wage-slave class, and the control of industry by its creators.

Ireland has a greater task than the setting up of a bourgeois democracy on the English model, for she herself is the scene of the exposure of that democracy’s deep-rooted fraudulence. Under it, the gang possessing economic and political control abrogate democracy as soon as they see their control threatened, and prepare to throw machine-gun bullets when they can no longer throw dust in the people’s eyes. It should not be necessary to offer further proof of this to Irishmen. The Lame gun-running, the Curragh mutiny, the wholesale arrest of Sinn Fein leaders, and their imprisonment at this moment are proof enough.

The continuance of subject classes and nations is too necessary to bourgeois society for Governments representing that society to permit their genuinely democratic emancipation. In Ireland they have repeatedly abrogated it themselves and supported and rewarded its abrogation by their “fortified outposts.” In Russia they demand and are endeavouring to enforce that the working class should withdraw from the concrete democracy they have conquered to reconquer it by abstract democratic means. The Bolsheviks are tyrants and anarchists who suppressed the constituent assembly, and Russia must be rescued for democracy, which means the restoration of Capitalistic industry and the recovery of their interest for a host of cosmopolitan fundholders. We all know the force of habit, and a social order is infinitely more tenacious of its habits than an individual. The forms of Government reflect the social habits of life. Any fundamental change in the economic order of a State must create for itself a new form of Government, and insistence on the old form is a subtle but utterly disingenuous means of smothering the new order at birth, of spoiling the new wine by pouring it into old bottles.

So much for the sacredness of constituent assemblies, called into being before a fundamental and progressive change has had time to leaven the habits of a people and create a governmental form to express itself.

We thank, therefore, both Sinn Fein for separating Ireland from the form of Parliamentarianism which has hitherto blessed us, and the British Government for its determination to prevent us saddling ourselves with a native version of the same blessing. Between them they help us to build better than they know. They keep open the field and compel the preparation of some form of Government based on the sure foundation of contact with the actual lives of the people, and expressive of their needs. And if such Government should develop on the lines of the Russian Soviets, it will be from no unreflective imitation, but because the said Soviets are the natural means for co-ordinating the social activities of free men and supplying their common necessities.


At the commencement of the “political” section of this paper, I defined as politics all movements based on the tacit acceptance of the continuance of the basis of politics with which we are at present familiar. Throughout the section in question I attempted to show the instability of that basis, and to indicate the subsidence on to a new foundation already in progress. But the representatives of the unstable equilibrium who did not shrink from the war are not likely to shrink from maintaining it if they can by means of the peace. A Capitalistic peace is indeed a far greater menace than a Capitalistic war, for the latter separates its authors into hostile camps, and promotes enquiry among their victims as to the causes for which they are asked to die. Whereas the former bids fair to substitute for the unstable balance of power between Capitalistic States a League of Governments foisted by armed force on the bewildered and unrepresented peoples of the world. The discredited secret diplomacies of Europe, or such of them as have not been overthrown by revolution, band themselves together to prevent the revolution of their own States and promote counter-revolution in the others. This amiable intention is advanced to within measurable distance of realisation under a thickening screen of camouflage about brotherhood and altruism, amid the plaudits of all the Broadbents of Anglo-Saxondom on both sides the Atlantic. When an indiscreet Latin gives the show away by advocating the old militarism pure and simple, they drown his words with their hosannas and go on diverting the troops from the Eastern battleground to Russia. It is high time for Ireland to realise that the stupefied people are entrusting the old gang of their overpaid and under-controlled servants with an enormously enhanced power to enforce their will and instead of becoming infected with that stupefaction, to consider what she is going to do about it.

It is no longer with England alone that Ireland has to reckon, but with a League of Allied Nations, banded to defend and continue the Capitalistic system. Ireland must restate her national position in international terms, and she has only to think it out to be able to do so in a way which will at once integrate her nationhood and disintegrate the national and inter-national cohesion of her foes. In pointing to England as the sole enemy, Sinn Fein may be said to be right for the past, but wrong for the future, for there are two Englands rapidly separating into hostile camps along economic lines. Ireland suffered in the past at England’s hands the simplest form of economic subjection – the conquest and confiscation of her land. By the superimposition of the feudal system of land tenure on the Irish clan system of communal ownership, the land passed into the hands of the few and with it the basis of all the means of subsistence. The dispossession of the many is the first step in their enslavement, and the worldwide exploitation of Labour to day is the logical outcome of the system of private ownership and hereditary lordship of land. By victory in the Land War the Irish farmers may be said to have pulled out the roots of the feudal system, but not to have destroyed its poisonous fruits. The restoration of the land to those who work it is only the first round in the contest between Capital and Labour, and there is a danger that the winning of the first round may be a positive handicap to success in the second, if the comparative prosperity of the farmers tends to make them unite to enforce the status quo on the labourers. Here we have an example of the way in which material prosperity can militate against spiritual freedom, and it may be well to clear our minds on the subject. The spiritual life of a nation is not something apart from its material welfare.

Just the reverse. It is that form of self-expression which ensures the vital and material well being of the whole of a nation. Materialism means the assertion by a part of interests incompatible with those of the whole. From this definition we may pass to see how spiritual in the fullest sense of the word is Ireland’s destiny, for her national emancipation has awaited through the centuries the dawn of the day of liberation for the whole of Europe, perhaps for the whole world. Sinn Fein points rightly to England as the introducer of a disease foreign to Irish life. But does Sinn Fein realise that since the disease has become worldwide the cure must be worldwide, too. In Russia the disease has been diagnosed as a cancer of worldwide extension, and so far as the authority of the Bolshevik Government extends the cancer has been cut out. That authority is steadily extending till we have a leader in the Times, headed “Bolshevik Imperialism.” The uprising of the workers of the world against that very Capitalism which is the underlying cause of England’s stranglehold on Ireland, both for strategic and economic reasons, moves on apace. Did Sinn Fein grasp this, we believe it would look less to the President of a Capitalistic Republic and more to the principles which alone have power to dissolve Ireland’s chains.

The war after the war is in full blast, and it is in very truth the war to end war by removing the tension of unstable social equilibrium in every country which is transmitted to their external relations. Abolish commercial competition, and you will thereby abolish the race of competitive armaments, which is its reflection.

Let us examine the special position of Ireland in view of the present paramount influence of the Sinn Fein Party with regard to the world class-war. The class-war is a reality which cannot be conjured away by denial or asserting, what is true, that it is morally deplorable. Its removal must attend first its recognition by the social mind and then the elimination of the perfectly definite facts which give it being. These facts in the main are three: (i) The private possession of land, factories, and raw material; (ii) the increment to private persons, directly or indirectly of the profits of what is privately owned, in the shape of rent or interest, and (iii) the confused mind and incomplete organisation of the workers, which keeps them in subjection as wage slaves, and unable to demand and distribute for themselves among themselves their full share of the profits they create.

In most industries to-day the industrial side is sufficiently in the hands of the workers for its actual operation, to enable them, were they sufficiently awake, to assume control and run it themselves. But the industrial is only one aspect. There is also the clerical and administrative. In a country where the clerical and official classes make common cause with the industrial workers, the inauguration of production for general use as opposed to production for profit would be far easier than in a country where as, so far, in England the clerks and officials throw in their lot with the owners and employers. Given, then, that close alliance between Sinn Fein and Irish Labour, which seems obligatory in face of the common enemy, unless each wishes to be defeated in detail, the number of clerks and civil servants in Sinn Fein are a factor making for the mitigation of the class-war by throwing weight enough to win a bloodless victory on to one side. And the confusion inseparable from a purely proletarian revolution with the class of trained administrative ability in the other camp might well be avoided.

This point may be further illustrated by reference to the controversy now raging in England around the Whitley Councils. For the benefit of the uninformed, these Councils are being set up for the meeting of employers and workers round one table to discuss jointly the conditions of employment of the latter. Such questions as hours of labour, appointment of foremen, and even introduction of machinery are covered by their terms of reference, which, however, exclude any admission of the workers’ representatives to the counting-house side of the business, such as the obtaining of raw material, the making of contracts, distribution of goods, or allotment of profits. The advanced wing of English Labour is opposed to the whole Whitley scheme, holding, not without reason, that the contact of the workers’ representatives with the employers on the Councils would result in the sapping of their class loyalty in exactly the same manner as has already been notorious among Trades Union officials. Men like the Shop Steward leaders argue that to accept the limitation of the Council’s reference to conditions of wage-slavery is to compromise the principle of demand for full control. No doubt, the Councils will be accepted by the great body of English workers and the result, which the clear-sighted foresee will ensue, that the workers will thereby assist in riveting the chains of wage-slavery on themselves. Unless the administrative and manual sides of industry make a joint effort for control, the admission of the manual workers to a share in the regulation of their toil is calculated only to secure their consent to their own subjection.

Sinn Fein is rejecting the principle of the Whitley Councils as applied to Anglo-Irish relations. It refuses to sit around the same table at Westminster with the “bosses,” and it does well. But does it realise that attached to the centre of English Government is the great part of the economic fabric of Ireland, and that the more complete the severance from England, the more pressing is the need to organise Ireland on an alternative economic base. We predict for Sinn Fein a testing by fire of its leaders and supporters. Those that emerge true to the principle of independence will do so convinced of the need to found that independence with its roots in the soil of Ireland’s emancipated and co-ordinated agriculture and industry. The soil is not yet prepared. Ireland cannot be independent while she is still dependent on English and West British capital. But for success, the success that is surely coming, Ireland’s independence must rest four-square on the overthrow of Capitalism, native or foreign, co-operative production in agriculture and industry, co-ordinated distribution, and such local and central Government as will facilitate production and distribution at home and regulate exchanges abroad.

+ + +

Note that Erskine Childers was a hard-core Zionist who was opposed to the Kike-State

The Other Exodus

By Erskine Barton Childers

The Spectator
, London, 1961.05.12

The Palestine Arab refugees wait, and multiply, and are debated at the United Nations. In thirteen years, their numbers have increased from 650,000 to 1,145,000. Most of them survive only on rations from the U.N. agency, UNRWA. Their subsistence has already cost L.S. 110,000,000. Each year, UNRWA has to plead at New York for the funds to carry on, against widespread and especially Western lack of sympathy. There is one reason for, this impatience: the attitude created towards these refugees by Israeli argument. For over ten years, Israeli spokesmen have claimed that:
Unless we understand how this problem was caused we cannot rightly judge how it should be solved.... The responsibility of the Arab Governments is threefold. Theirs is the initiative for its creation. Theirs is the onus for its endurance. Above all-theirs is the capacity for its solution.

(Abba Eban to the U.N. 1957)

In this inquiry, I propose only briefly to examine the last two of these three claims. The last, about a "solution," is that if the Arab host governments were willing, they could resettle the refugees quite easily outside Palestine-where, as Israel claims and as President Kennedy's 1960 election platform also had it, "there is room and-opportunity for them." This is not even remotely true. UNRWA's new chief, Dr. John Davis, has now bluntly and bravely warned against "facile assumptions that it rests with the host governments to solve the problem ... the simple truth is that the jobs ... do not exist today within the host countries." Nor can the jobs be created, Dr. Davis reports, because most of the refugees are unskilled peasants-precisely the host countries' worst problem among their own rapidly expanding populations.

These Arabs, in short, are displaced persons in the fullest, most tragic meaning of the term-an economic truth cruelly different from the myth. But there is also the political myth, and it too has been soothing our highly pragmatic Western conscience for thirteen years. This is the Israeli charge, solemnly made every year and then reproduced around the world, that these refugees are-to quote a character in Leon Uris's Exodus-"kept caged like animals in suffering as a deliberate political weapon."

This, again, Dr. Davis has now bravely called a "misconception." The reality here is that the refugees themselves fanatically oppose any resettlement outside Palestine. UNRWA even had to persuade them that concrete huts, even in the U.N. camps, replacing their squalid tents and hovels, would not be the thin end of a resettlement wedge. Unlike other refugees, these refuse to move; they insist on going home.

Why? The answer, I believe, lies in the third of the three issues Israel argues-in the cause itself of the mass exodus. The very fact that cause is argued by both sides is significant. Israel claims that the Arabs left because they were ordered to, and deliberately incited into panic, by their own leaders who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war. It is also argued that there would today be no Arab refugees if the Arab States had not attacked the new Jewish State on May 15, 1948 (though 800,000 had already fled before that date). The Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists.

Examining every official Israeli statement about the Arab exodus, I was struck by the fact that no primary evidence of evacuation orders was ever produced. The charge, Israel claimed, was "documented"; but where were the documents? There had allegedly been Arab radio broadcasts ordering the evacuation; but no dates„ names of stations, or texts of messages were ever cited. In Israel in 1958, as a guest of the Foreign Office and therefore doubly hopeful of serious assistance, I asked to be shown the proofs, I was assured they existed, and was promised them. None had been offered when I left, but I was again assured. I asked to have the material sent on to me. I am still waiting.

While in Israel, however, I met Dr. Leo Kohn, professor of political science at Hebrew University and an ambassador-rank adviser to the Israeli Foreign Office. He had written one of the first official pamphlets on the Arab refugees. I asked him for concrete evidence of the Arab evacuation orders. Agitatedly, Dr. Kohn replied: "Evidence? Evidence? What more could you want than this?" and he took up his own pamphlet. "Look at this `Economist' report," and he pointed to a quotation. "You will surely not suggest that the `Economist' is a Zionist journal?"

The quotation is one of about five that appear in every Israeli speech and pamphlet, and are in turn used by every sympathetic analysis. It seemed very impressive: it referred to the exodus from Haifa, and to an Arab broadcast order as one major reason for that exodus.

I decided to turn up the relevant (October 2) 1948 issue of the Economist. The passage that as literally, gone around the world was certainly there, but I had already noticed one curious word in it. This was a description of the massacre at Deir Yassin as an "incident." No impartial observer of Palestine in 1948 calls what happened at this avowedly nonbelligerent, unarmed Arab village in April, 1948, an "incident"-any more than Lidice is called an "incident." Over 250 old men, women and children were deliberately butchered, stripped and mutilated or thrown into a well, by men of the Zionist Irgun Zvai Leumi.

Seen in its place in the full `Economist' article, it was at once clear that Dr. Kohn's quotation was a second-hand account, inserted as that of an eye-witness at Haifa, by the journal's own correspondent who had not been in that city at the time. And in the rest of the same article, written by the Economist correspondent himself, but never quoted by Israel, the second great wave of refugees were described as "all destitute, as the Jewish troops gave them an hour, in which to quit, but simultaneously requisitioned all transport."

It was now essential to check all other, even secondary, Israeli "evidence." Another stock quotation down the years has been that, supposedly, of the Greek-Catholic Archbishop of Galilee. For example, Israel's Abba Eban told the U.N. Special Political Committee in 1957 that the Archbishop had "fully confirmed'." that the Arabs were urged to flee by their own leaders.

I wrote to His Grace, asking for his evidence of such orders. I hold signed letters from him, with permission to publish, in which he has categorically denied ever alleging Arab evacuation orders; he states that no such orders were ever given. He says that his name has been abused for years; and that the Arabs fled through panic and forcible eviction by Jewish troops.

As none of the other stock quotations in Israeli propaganda are worth comment, I next decided to test the undocumented charge that the Arab evacuation orders were broadcast by Arab radio-which could be done thoroughly because the BBC monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by a U.S. monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum.

There was nova single order, or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put. To select only two examples: on April 4, as the first great wave of flight began, Damascus Radio broadcast an appeal to everyone to stay at their homes and jobs. On April 24, with the exodus now a flood, Palestine Arab leaders warned that:
Certain elements and Jewish agents are spreading defeatist news to create chaos and panic among the peaceful population. Some cowards are deserting their houses, villages or cities. . . Zionist agents and corrupt cowards will be severely punished
(Al-Inqaz, the Arab Liberation Radio, at 12:00 hours)

Even Jewish broadcasts (in Hebrew) mentioned such Arab appeals to stay put. Zionist newspapers in Palestine reported the same: none so much as hinted at any Arab evacuation orders.

The fact is that Israel's official charges, which have vitally influenced the last ten years of Western thought about the refugees, are demonstrably and totally hollow. And from this alone, suspicion is justified. Why make such charges at all? On the face of it, this mass exodus might have been entirely the result of "normal" panic and wartime dislocation.

We need not even -touch upon Arab evidence that panic was quite deliberately incited. The evidence is there, on the Zionist record. For example, on March 27, four days before the big offensive against Arab centres by the official Zionist (Haganah) forces, the Irgun's radio unit broadcast in Arabic. Irgun, a terrorist organisation like the Stern Gang, was officially disowned by Ben Gurion and the Haganah. Yet just four days before the Haganah offensive Irgun warned "Arabs in urban agglomerations" that typhus, cholera and similar diseases would break out, "heavily" among. them "in April and May."

The effect may be imagined. Two weeks later, it was this same Irgun, apparently so solicitous of Arab welfare, that butchered the people of Deir Yassin. Irgun then called a press conference to announce the deed; paraded other captured Arabs through Jewish quarters of Jerusalem to be spat upon; then released them to tell their kin of the experience. Arthur Koestler called the "bloodbath" of Deir Yassin "the psychologically decisive factor in this spectacular exodus." But this was only Irgun, it may be said. Is there evidence that official Zionist forces-the Haganah under Ben Gurion and the Jewish Agency-were inciting panic? An Israeli Government pamphlet of 1958 states that "the Jews tried, by every means open to them, to stop the Arab evacuation" (this same 1958 pamphlet has diluted Deir Yassin to "the one and only instance of Jewish high-handed [sic] action in this war").

There is one recorded instance of such an appeal. It is beyond dispute even by Arabs, that in Haifa the late gentle Mayor, Shabeitai Levi, with the tears streaming down his face, implored the city's Arabs to stay. But elsewhere in Haifa, Arthur Koestler wrote in his book that Haganah loudspeaker vans and the Haganah radio promised that city's Arabs escort to "Arab territory," and "hinted at terrible consequences if their warning were disregarded." There are many witnesses of this loudspeaker method elsewhere. In Jerusalem the Arabic warning from the vans was, "The road to Jericho is open! Fly from Jerusalem before you are all killed!" (Meyer Levin in Jerusalem Embattled). Bertha Vester, a Christian missionary, reported that another theme was, "Unless you leave your homes, the fate of Deir Yassin will be your fate." The Haganah radio station also broadcast, in Arabic, repeated news of Arabs fleeing "in terror and fear" from named places.

Still, however, we have plumbed this exodus only so far as panic is concerned. There are U.N. and Economist reports of forcible expulsion, which is something else. How much evidence is there for this? And were only the "unofficial" Irgun and Stern forces responsible? This is what Nathan Chofshi, one of the original Jewish pioneers in Palestine, wrote in an ashamed rebuttal of an American Zionist rabbi's charges of evacuation orders:
If Rabbi Kaplan really wanted to know what happened, we old Jewish settlers in Palestine who witnessed the fight could tell him how and in what manner we, Jews, forced the Arabs to leave cities and villages ... some of them were driven out by force of arms; others were made to leave by deceit, lying and false promises. It is enough to cite the cities of Jaffa, Lydda, Ramleh, Beersheba, Acre from among numberless others.

(In Jewish Newsletter, New York, February 9, 1959)

Were official Zionist troops involved at any of these places? I propose to select, for the sake of brevity, only the Lydda-Ramleh area. It was about the exodus from this area, among others, that the Economist reported. "Jewish troops gave them an hour to quit."

In their latest book, which has been publicly endorsed by Ben Gurion, Jon Kimche and his brother devoted considerable detail to the Zionist offensive against Lydda and Ramich. It was undertaken by official Israeli forces under Yigael Alon. And the immediately responsible officer was Moshe Dayan, commander of the 1956 Sinai attack, now a Cabinet Minister. Kimche has described how, on July 11, 1948, Dayan with his columns:
... drove at full speed into Lydda, shooting up the town and creating confusion and a degree of terror among the population . . . its Arab population of 30,000 either fled or were herded on the road to Ramallah. The next day Ramleh also surrendered and its Arab population suffered the same fate. Both towns were sacked by the victorious Israelis.

Ramallah, on the road to which these particular Arabs-numbering over 60,000 from this one area alone-were herded, was up in the Judean hills, outside Zionist-held territory. The "road to Jericho," which Arabs in Jerusalem were warned to take, brought them into the Jordan Valley. Some 85,000 are still there in one U.N. camp alone, under the Mount of Temptation. The Arab population of Acre, mentioned by Chofshi, exceeded 45,000: Acre was attacked by official Zionist troops.

From this analysis of only some of the sources of the Arab exodus, then, it is clear beyond all doubt that official Zionist forces were responsible for expulsion of thousands upon thousands of Arabs, and for deliberate incitement to panic. Seen from the viewpoint of the Arab refugees themselves, little more would need to be said. And needless to say, even those Arabs expelled or who fled through "unofficially" incited panic can hardly be asked to look differently on the Israeli Government today. It pays former Irgunists and Sternists the same war pensions as former Haganah troops; its denial of expulsion is total.

But is it conceivable that Ben Gurion and his colleagues could have deliberately contemplated an "emptying" of Palestine? That a motive existed is beyond doubt. The U.N. partition scheme had in no way solved the "Arab problem" that a Jewish State would face. It would have given Zionism what its leaders publicly called the "irreducible minimum" of territory in a Palestine they claimed should entirely belong to them. And we know that the official Zionist movement had in fact no intention of accepting the U.N. territorial award. Six weeks before the British Mandate ended, before the Israeli State was proclaimed, and before the Arab States sent in their armies, an all-out Zionist military offensive was launched. Later, Ben Gurion publicly said of this offensive:
As fighting spread, the (Arab) exodus was joined by Bedouin and fellahin (peasants), but not the remotest Jewish homestead was abandoned and nothing a tottering (British) administration could unkindly do stopped us from reaching our goal on May 14, 1948, in a State made larger and Jewish by the Haganah

(cf. Rebirth and Destiny of Israel)

The Jewish State envisaged by the U.N. would have contained a 45 per cent Arab population: the extra territory attacked by the Zionists before May 14 would have increased that ratio-for example, by more than 80,000 Arabs in Jaffa alone. But it was not just a question of numbers. The Arabs owned and occupied far too much of the territory's productive and social facilities to enable anything like the mass Jewish immigration of which Zionists dreamed.

What this meant in terms of motive can be seen in the statistics that followed the Arab exodus. More than 80 per cent of the entire land area of Israel is land abandoned by the Arab refugees. Nearly a quarter of all the standing buildings in Israel had been occupied by those Arabs. Ten thousand shops, stores and other firms inside new Israel had been Arab. Half of all the citrus fruit holdings in the new State had belonged to the Arabs now made refugees. By 1954, more than one-third of the entire Jewish population of Israel was living on "absentee property"--most of it now "absorbed" into the Israeli economy, and unilaterally sequestered by Israeli legislation against a "global" compensation offer.

It is, then, little wonder that old Chaim Weizmann, Israel's first President, described the Arab exodus as a "miraculous simplification of Israel's tasks." But was it "miraculous"? Unexpected? In no way part of combined military and economic planning of nascent Israel's leaders?

We come to perhaps the most grave evidence of all. The mass exodus began in April, 1948. By June, the U.N. Mediator was fully seized of it. He formally demanded a statement of policy from the new Israeli Government about the refugees. At first, he could get no satisfaction. Then, in an official letter dated: August 1, 1948, Israeli's Foreign Minister replied.

It was only four months since the first waves of flight; only eleven weeks since Israel had been proclaimed, ostensibly calling on the Arabs to "play their part in the development of the State." And it was at this time that a Government since claiming that this whole exodus was unexpected and despite its implorings, formally denied the refugees the right of return. Israel did not merely plead "security," but told the United Nations:

On the economic side, the reintegration of the returning Arabs into normal life, and even their mere sustenance, would present an insuperable problem. The difficulties of accommodation, employment, and ordinary livelihood would be insuperable.

The case rests. This is not the place to discuss a "solution," and no summary conclusion is needed, save perhaps to recall the words of an official Israeli spokesman, though in rather different import:

Unless we understand how this problem was caused, we cannot rightly judge how it should be solved.

The Arabs of Palestine now enter their fourteenth year of exile. If you go among them in the hills of Judea, they will take you by the arm to a crest of land and point downwards, across the rusty skeins of barbed wire. "Can you see it-over there beside those trees? That is my home."

It is shaming beyond all brief descriptions to move among these million people, as a Westerner. It is shaming for many Jews, and some speak out as Nathan Chofshi has bravely done:
We came and turned the native Arabs into tragic refugees. And still we dare to slander and malign them, to besmirch their name. Instead of being deeply ashamed of what we did and trying to undo some of the evil we committed ... we justify our terrible acts and even attempt to glorify them.


Oliver J. Flanagan (Independent, Leix–Offaly), Dáil Éireann, 1943.07.01, re Election of Taoiseach:

Mr. Flanagan: As the only representative in this House of the Irish Monetary Reform Association, I should like to express my views on the issue at present before the House. I will not support Deputy de Valera. I would not dream of supporting Deputy Cosgrave. I do not agree with the policy of Fianna Fáil; I do not agree with the Fine Gael Party; and I do not agree either with Labour or with Clann na Talmhan. So far as I can see, they are all only trying to whip a dead horse. It does not matter what Government is elected to-day. We have had two Governments in the past -- a Cumann na nGaedheal and a Fianna Fáil Government -- and both of them failed. Deputy MacEoin and Deputy Dillon spoke of a national Government. What sort of a failure will it be if they both unite?

Mr. (James) Dillon (Independent, Monaghan): Suppose we brought you in?

Mr. Flanagan: I do not intend to come in. It is all the same what government is elected; that government will fail as the two governments in the past failed. Mr. Rothschild, a great banker, once said: “Let me control a people's credit and I care not who makes its laws.” We are elected to make laws. So far as I can see it is all the same what laws we make as there is a super-government over us -- the people who control money. Until such time as we take over the control of money we cannot do anything for the people; we are only wiping the people's eyes by being here at all. I am only a new member of the House; I am one of the youngest members and I am not used to the procedure. But I should like to express my views. I will not keep the House very long.

An Ceann Comhairle ('Head of the Council': Frank Fahy (Galway East)): The Deputy may not, on this motion, give his views on the question of monetary reform.

Mr. Flanagan: No, I am just giving my views on the motion before the House. I will not support Deputy de Valera, nor will I support Deputy Cosgrave, because one is bad and the other is worse. Whatever government is elected here to-day they will be just mere pawns and tools for the crowd who control money. Until such time as we take over the control of money we cannot do anything for the people. We might as well be whistling jigs to tombstones. What I am elected for is to see that whatever government is elected will take over the control of money, because until we have that we cannot do anything for the people.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy may not pursue further the question of credit. The motion before the House is the nomination of a Taoiseach, to which matter the Deputy must confine his remarks.

Mr. Flanagan: So far as the motion before the House is concerned, I should like to make it quite clear that I do not agree with either of the political Parties, because they are all one. I do not intend to vote for Deputy de Valera or Deputy Cosgrave, because one was bad and the other was worse. I want to make that position clear to the House.

Oliver J. Flanagan (1920-1987)

Oliver Flanagan served in Dáil Éireann for 43 years and was Minister for Defence for six months. He was elected to the Dáil fourteen times between 1943 and 1982, topping the poll on almost every occasion. He was Father of the Dáil from 1981 until his retirement in 1987, and he remains one of the longest-serving members in the history of the Dáil.

Flanagan famously claimed that "there was no sex in Ireland before television". He used his maiden speech in the Dáil, on 194307.09, to urge the government to "rout the Jews out of this country".

He was consistently popular in his own constituency, largely because of the attention he paid to individual voters' petitions and concerns. He has been described as "one of the cutest of cute hoors in the history of the Dáil".

He was first elected to Dáil Éireann in the 1943 general election as a Teachta Dála for the Laois–Offaly constituency — the second youngest person ever to have been elected to the Dáil until that time. He had stood for election on the Monetary Reform Party ticket, a Social Credit party confined to his own constituency which proposed reducing the Jewish stranglehold on the financial system.

During the campaign, Flanagan wrote to Fr Denis Fahey: "Just a line letting you know we are going ahead with the Election campaign in Laoighis-Offaly against the Jew-Masonic System which is imposed on us. The people are coming to us — but it's hard to get the people to understand how they are held down by the Jews and Masons who control their very lives."

He used his maiden speech in the Dáil to inform the government that,

"Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair's breadth what orders you make. Where the bees are there is the honey, and where the Jews are there is the money. ”

[Full debate reproduced below.]

He was re-elected to the Dáil in the 1944 general election with more than twice as many votes as he had won the previous year.

In 1947 he caused a controversy when he levelled accusations of corruption against members of the Fianna Fáil government, including Taoiseach Éamon de Valera, Minister for Justice Gerald Boland and Minister for Industry and Commerce Seán Lemass. A tribunal of inquiry comprising three judges investigated his allegations and found them to be "untrue". Flanagan's vote increased by 45% in the 1948 general election.

Flanagan joined Fine Gael in 1954. He served in government as a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture from 1954 to 1957. In 1958, Fine Gael returned to opposition and Flanagan became front bench spokesperson for Lands. In 1975, he was named Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence. In 1976, Flanagan served as Minister for Defence in Liam Cosgrave's government, until Fine Gael lost power in the 1977 general election. He was a representative on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from 1977 to 1987.

For reasons of ill-health, Flanagan did not contest the 1987 general election. His son, Charles Flanagan, was elected to his seat. Oliver Flanagan died two months after the election.

James Hickey (Labour, Cork Borough), Dáil Éireann, 1951.11.27:

The Taoiseach indulged in giving me and the House a very lengthy lecture. He told me that I had very false ideas about finance; that I had not given these matters the study they deserved; and that I was more or less guided by formulae and by phrases. I want to say to the Taoiseach that I have not the slightest animosity in regard to anything he said to me on that matter and anything I shall say on this Bill will be free from any kind of animosity and prejudice. I am anxious to get down to some understanding of this important problem of the control of our money and credit. I would like to tell the Taoiseach that when the Central Bank Bill was going through this House nine years ago, I had very strong views then as to who should control our money and credit and I was somewhat alarmed at the time that the Taoiseach had such conservative views. Having regard to the speeches made by the Taoiseach on that occasion, I have given much thought to this all-important question. I may say that I have read what the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. MacKenzie King, said. One of the statements he made was as follows:—

Until the control of the issue of money and credit is restored to the Government and recognised as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.

That gentleman had some basis for making that grave statement. I also studied the report of the International Labour Office in Geneva which says:—

If the depression has shown one thing more clearly than anything else, it is that economic prosperity and social security depend more on monetary policy than on any other single factor.

I have also studied, since then, the writings of one of the Rothschild brothers, who says:—

The great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the banking system will bear the burden without complaint and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.

We should all take a lesson from that statement, because many thousands of our people are not yet able to pierce the clouds which are set around this question of money and the control of credit.

I have also read what Philip A. Benson, President of the American Bankers' Association, said:—

There is no more direct way to capture control of a nation than through its credit system.

I am amazed by some of the conservative statements the Taoiseach made on both this and the Central Bank Bill when it was going through. Not so long ago, I had an opportunity of reading and studying a very important book, entitled Economic Tribulation, by Mr. B. C. Vickers, who was for nine years Governor of the Bank of England, for 22 years a director of Vickers, Limited, a director of the London Assurance and Deputy Lieutenant of the City of London. That book was published for the first time in 1941 and I want to quote a sentence or two from it for the information of the Taoiseach and every member of the House:—

I, who write this, need no proof of the importance of the money system upon the lives of the people and even to the future existence of the British race, so long as that system fills the position which it now holds in our national economy. Ever since that day in 1926 when, not in arrogance but with humility, I felt it my duty to explain to the Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Montagu Norman, that henceforth I was going to fight him and the gold standard and the Bank of England policy until I died....

He went on:—

Not more than one-tenth of my income is earned. The rest comes from investments in banks, Bank of England stocks, American and Canadian securities, etc., and mainly from British industrial securities. I am, therefore, a capitalist....

So that it is not Deputy Hickey who is making the statement:—

...In 15 years nothing whatever has occurred to make me alter my views. I still believe that the existing system is actively harmful to the State, creates poverty and unemployment and is the root cause of war.

I claim that our policy is responsible for the evils from which we suffer at the moment. He went on:—

This personal confession is merely to demonstrate that I have seen both sides of the picture. My opinions are based upon my own experience and knowledge and I am to-day in the unique position of being absolutely and entirely devoid of animosity and wholly disinterested. I feel myself no longer under any restrictions whatever except to guard against doing harm to my country and giving offence to anyone.

It is then rather lighthearted for anybody here to say that, when we talk about the need for change and for control of our money and credit, we are guided by formula and phrases and have foolish ideas about finance. I want to tell the Taoiseach and anybody else who thinks like him that whatever views or convictions I hold on this question are derived from Catholic writers and not from people who sneer at and make little of anybody who speaks about the change needed in our financial policy, or the so-called experts about whom we hear so much from day to day.

In order to bring conviction to the minds of those who doubt, let me quote what Pope Pius XI had to say about money and credit:—

Control of financial policy is control of the very life-blood of the entire economic body.... Immense power and despotic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few.... This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that very reason, supplying, so to speak, the very life-blood of the entire economic body and grasping as it were in their hands the very soul of production so that no one dare breathe against their will.

These are severe but understanding words and I gladly echo them here.

I have often followed the Taoiseach and studied his speeches both inside and outside the House and I remember him making a statement here on 19th December, 1934, at column 1748 of Volume 54. He then said:—

I said that it would be possible, with the resources of this country, for 17,000,000 people to live here in a higher standard of comfort than that in which the present people were living. I stand up to that. I believe it is a fact that the resources of this country, with proper organisation, are sufficient to give to 17,000,000 people a higher standard of living than the present people are getting.

Éamon de Valera, Geneva, 1955.07.12:

"[I]t would [be] most unwise for our people to enter into a political federation which would mean that you had a European parliament deciding the economic circumstances, for example, of our life here."

[Éamon de Valera: Fianna Fáil TD for Clare in 1955; President of the Executive Council, 1932-1937; Taoiseach, 1937-1948; President of the Republic of Ireland, 1959-1973]

Denis Allen (Fianna Fáil, Wexford), Dáil Éireann, 1956.06.13:

Deputy McGilligan was like King Midas of old who was reputed to have been able to turn everything to gold. According to the Taoiseach he was the principal financial genius of the Fine Gael Party; he was a Rothschild and a Reginald McKenna and all the other financial geniuses of the world in the past 100 years rolled into one.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild:

"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I do not give a damn who makes the laws."

Articles 41 & 45 of The Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hÉireann)

[Replaced the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann), 1922. Enacted by the People 1937.07.01. In operation as from 1937.12.29.]

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial ... Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.



Personal Rights.


The Family.

Article 41.


1o The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2o The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.


1o In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2o The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


1o The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2o No law shall be enacted providing for the grant of a dissolution of marriage


2º A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that—

i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years,

ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,

iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3o No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.



Article 45.

The principles of social policy set forth in this Article are intended for the general guidance of the Oireachtas. The application of those principles in the making of laws shall be the care of the Oireachtas exclusively, and shall not be cognisable by any Court under any of the provisions of this Constitution.

1. The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the whole people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice and charity shall inform all the institutions of the national life.

2. The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing

i. That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.

ii. That the ownership and control of the material resources of the community may be so distributed amongst private individuals and the various classes as best to subserve the common good.

iii. That, especially, the operation of free competition shall not be allowed so to develop as to result in the concentration of the ownership or control of essential commodities in a few individuals to the common detriment.

iv. That in what pertains to the control of credit the constant and predominant aim shall be the welfare of the people as a whole.

v. That there may be established on the land in economic security as many families as in the circumstances shall be practicable.


1o The State shall favour and, where necessary, supplement private initiative in industry and commerce.

2o The State shall endeavour to secure that private enterprise shall be so conducted as to ensure reasonable efficiency in the production and distribution of goods and as to protect the public against unjust exploitation.


1o The State pledges itself to safeguard with especial care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, and, where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan, and the aged.

2o The State shall endeavour to ensure that the strength and health of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children shall not be abused and that citizens shall not be forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their sex, age or strength.

Dáil Debates - Díospóireachtaí Dála

Bunreacht na hEireann (Dréacht)—Dara Céim.

Dáil Éireann, Volume 67, 1937.05.11

"The President" refers to Éamon de Valera (Fianna Fáil, Clare), President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State (Uachtarán ar Ard-Chomhairle Shaorstát Éireann) 1932-1937. "Mr. Costello" refers to John Aloysius Costello (Cumann na nGaedhael, Dublin South), who later, as Taoiseach, submitted Ireland to the United Nations in 1955. (Ireland had prior to that been "punished" by the Rockefellers for de Valera's having refused to declare war against Free Germany.) "Mr. MacEntee" is Seán MacEntee (Fianna Fáil, Dublin County). "Mr. Morrissey" is Daniel Morrissey (Labour, Tipperary), and "Mr. McGuire" is James McGuire (Cumann na nGaedhael, Dublin South).


The President: I am not completely burnt out yet.

Mr. Costello: The fire is being prepared.

The President: Let us consider this whole question of women's rights. I seem to have got a bad reputation. I do not think I deserve it. I myself was not conscious at any time of having deserved all those terrible things that I am told I am where women's rights are concerned. So far as I know, whenever there was a question of working to ensure that women would have equal rights, I have worked for it, and there is nothing in this Constitution which in any way detracts from the rights which women have possessed here. I took out that phrase and I make no apology for this any more than I did for the other phrase about the inviolability of the person. I consider it is a phrase which meant nothing in the context, could not mean anything because it was patently untrue, so I took out that phrase “without distinction of sex.” Why? Because I considered it altogether unnecessary. Since we have begun to make laws in any sense for ourselves we have made no distinctions as citizens between men and women, as far as political rights are concerned. There is none suggested here. Citizens are mentioned a number of times, and our citizen law clearly indicates what we understand to be citizens. There is no distinction made in this Constitution, in regard to political rights, between men and women. I took out that phrase “without distinction of sex” because it had no meaning in the context of the Constitution, and in the general atmosphere in which we have been the whole time as far as women's rights politically are concerned. Somebody wants to put it back.

They want to have the reminder that at one time there was a distinction made. If they would take my advice they would let things alone. In Geneva and elsewhere, when women's organisations wanted to make representations to get certain things done, it was to the Irish delegation that they generally came. They came to it when they wanted to have any question moved in regard to their rights. Their attitude all the time was that they did not want to be put in any position other than that of equality, and they have got equality right through this document. There is nothing in it to suggest that they cannot vote for and become members of the Dáil, that they cannot vote for and be Senators, or that they cannot vote for and become President. There is nothing in this Constitution which will debar them from being President of the Supreme Court, from being Chief Justice or from holding any single office in the State. There is no distinction made whatever between men and women as far as the vote, the franchise, office or anything else is concerned. Therefore, I am wondering how it is that they should have been led after that hare which Deputy Costello very nicely started.

Mr. Costello: The President has not caught it yet.

The President: I would like the Deputy to show it to me.

Mr. Costello: The President will hear of it shortly.

The President: I am sure the Deputy will be highly amusing when he tries to make me a whole burnt offering, but I assure him that I have not any fears whatever about it. There seems to be something in this that I have not seen, and I would be glad if the Deputy would point it out. Our Citizenship Act, which has been admitted by women's organisations all over the world to be the one which probably of all others most nearly accords with their ideals, remains, and has not been changed. Of course, Deputy Costello says that we are making no special provision for women —that women should have the same rights as men. One can say in answer to that, that we are making no special provision that men should have the same rights as women.

Mr. Costello: I made no such point.

The President: That is the point, as far as I can see. I read the Deputy's statement because I wanted to make sure about it. I was very anxious about it, and read his statement so that there could be no mistake.

Mr. Costello: The President got a fright.

The President: Not a bit. The Deputy is making a terrible mistake if he thinks that I am afraid of this particular thing. I am not, because I believe that 99 per cent. of the women of this country will agree with every line of this.

Mr. Costello: If I convince the President on it, will he put it specifically into the Constitution?

The President: If I am convinced that the Deputy has made a good case, I will have no hesitation, because if there is anything omitted that should have been put in, I am quite ready that it, with anything else, should go in. My anxiety is that we should agree on this fundamental law to the greatest extent possible. That is why it has been introduced in the Dáil for full discussion and for full amendment before it is submitted to the people by way of plebiscite. I would not like to think for a moment that I could not be convinced by truth. I think I can, and if the Deputy makes something that is a real point —and we have a fairly good jury here—and if he is able to make a case that will convince the jury against the case that I make, I am quite willing to let the jury decide.

Mr. Costello: This is a packed jury.

The President: Oh! What is the Deputy trying to rely on now? That is a very bad beginning for him to make: to declare himself lost before he makes his case. The Deputy tried to frighten us before with threats.

Mr. Costello: I never did.

The President: If the Deputy will read up some of the debates that we had here he will find instances where he threatened all sorts of terrible things, but his threats did not come right.

Mr. Costello:
Some of them did.

The President: Except when they became a threat to himself—when he went along and tried, as an advocate, to undo what he had done as Attorney-General. That is the only time that I remember that many threats of his were likely to come true, and I forget what was the result in those cases. The Deputy's threats are no longer terrifying, but at one time I was innocent enough to think, when he spoke here, that he was speaking as a lawyer, strictly as such. He has not his wig on here, and therefore I expect that he feels at liberty to make a case that he would not dare to make elsewhere.

With regard to women, they are mentioned in two Articles. But why are they mentioned? They are mentioned to give the protection which, I think, is necessary as part of our social programme, and I am prepared to go with that programme before the country. I do not care what criticism comes from anybody on the basis of it. We state here that mothers in their homes give to the State a support which is essential. Is there anybody who denies it? Is it not a tribute to the work that is done by women in the homes as mothers? Is there any woman who is a mother who will say that it is right that when her husband is idle or otherwise when she has the care of her children that she should be forced by economic necessity—she is not forced by law and is not prevented by law from doing these things—and by our social system to go and earn what is necessary to maintain the household? In regard to labour and in regard to work, our aim ought to be—we may be too slow in arriving at it, but no country has apparently done it yet—that the breadwinner, who is normally and naturally in these cases when he is alive, the father of the family, should be able by his work to bring in enough to maintain the whole household, and that women ought not to be forced by economic necessity to go out and either supplement his wages or become the breadwinners themselves.

This has reference to mothers, and there is no use in bringing into this context young girls and people who are not married. This has reference to mothers whose duties are in the home. By the performance of their duties in the home they give to the State support which is vital and essential. What is wrong in trying to work for a social system in which it will not be necessary for those people, who by the very fact that they are married and have undertaken those duties, and may be assumed to have a preference for performing those home duties, to labour outside? I would like to know from any women's organisation or from any woman what is wrong in saying that we should strive for a social system which will be such as will not compel women to go out and work to supplement either the wages of their husbands or otherwise to maintain the household? It is against the social system that this is directed—to try to remedy it if we can, and to try to work in that direction. We may not succeed, it is true. It is a very difficult thing to bring about. But the present social system, inasmuch as it compels mothers to leave their natural duties as mothers and go out and become breadwinners when their husbands are idle and cannot get work, is a system which we ought to try to reform. One of the reforms should be in the direction of enabling a man, if it is a man, to earn sufficient to cover all his domestic needs; and, if it is a widow who has young children, to enable the State to come to her aid and contribute to such an extent as will not necessitate her leaving her duties as a mother and engaging in outside labour. I do not mind being a whole burnt offering in working for that. I do not care what women's organisations there are or what ex-Attorney-General leads them, I am going, as long as I live, to try and work for that. I do not care a thraneen who says I am reactionary if I work for that, because it is not reactionary. It is very easy for people to use words and, by the use of these words, to try to buttress up a case which, without them, would fall and collapse.

The next place that we have women is in connection with the social directives. With regard to these social directives, some people say: “They cannot be taken cognisance of by the court; why have them there then? They are pious aspirations; they cannot be any more. Why put them there?” My answer to that is that they will be there as a constant headline, something by which the people as a whole can judge of their progress in a certain direction; something by which the representatives of the people can be judged as well as the people judge themselves as a whole. We will judge of our progress in a certain direction by asking ourselves how far we have advanced in this direction. They are intended to be directive to the Legislature. They are not to be determined by the courts for this reason—that it is the Legislature that must determine how far it can go from time to time, in the set of circumstances, in trying to secure these ideals and aims and objectives. It would be clearly absurd that a court should come in and say: “The Dáil has not done this which it might do; it has not gone as far as it could go,” and that the determination of that should be left to the court. That determination clearly has to be left to the representatives of the people. The people themselves will have to advance in this direction. They will have to be led by their representatives in this direction; their representatives will have to put up policies to them leading in this direction. If they are to be judged from time to time, it is right that they should be judged by their actions in the Legislature and not that some body like the Supreme Court should become the judge. The people as a whole will have to judge the Legislature in that matter, and the Legislature will have to be its own judge in regard to the set of circumstances and the advances which are to be made.

In that section there is reference to women. From memory I think the reference is that care shall be taken by the State, so far as the State can do it through its laws, that the inadequate strength of women and children shall not be abused. What is wrong about that? Is it not right that we should see that the inadequate strength of women and children should not be abused? Is it not the duty of the State to see that the free exercise of the right of industry shall not be conducted in such a way as is going to make for that? Are we to go back to the beginning of the industrial era? Are we, through our laws, and through the regulations made under these laws, to make certain that the inadequate strength of women shall not be abused? Where is the derogation from the rights of women in that? Is it not a fact that the inadequate strength of women has been abused? Is it not right that the Parliament, on behalf of the people as a whole, in the interests of social order and the good of the community, should see to it that the inadequate strength of women should not be abused or that they should not be exploited in that particular way?

Mr. Morrissey: Who said it was not right?

The President: I am speaking of places where women are referred to in this Constitution. This Constitution has been attacked on the ground that it is taking away women's rights. What it is doing where women are concerned is that, where their rights are, they are equal. Therefore, where they are referred to here, they are referred to by way of protection and the protection which the State is bound to give. We say, therefore, that the inadequate strength of women or the tender age of children should not be abused. We also say that women and children ought not to be forced by the necessity of the economic system as it operates, that we ought to try and prevent this economic compulsion driving women into avocations unsuited to their sex or strength or age. What is wrong about that, I should like to know?

Mr. J.I. McGuire: Why not put in the Book of Proverbs? We all agree with it.

The President: If you do all agree, is it not a good thing to have it there as a headline?

Mr. McGuire: Why not put in the Book of Proverbs?

The President: The Book of Proverbs is not quite as germane to our work here as social objectives which we should try to reach. The social system at present, as the Deputy must know, is not anything like what it ought to be; it is not like what it ought to be anywhere in the world. It ought to be our constant endeavour to try to remedy it. One of the best ways of remedying it is to set out definitely objectives which you should try to reach.

Mr. Morrissey: Pious resolutions.

The President: It is not going to be done by pious resolutions. I am not suggesting that pious resolutions would settle it. The Deputy knows well that I am not suggesting it. I say it is a good thing to have the Dáil and the people as a whole to agree upon and state: “These are the aims towards which we should work.” If you have anything against it, do at least with us, who are strongly in favour of it, what I do in regard to matters about which other people are indifferent. You may be indifferent whether this is here or not; we are not. We believe it should be here. I think it should be here as a constant reminder to the Legislature of the direction in which it should work. I will bet that, once it is there, there will be nobody in the House who will make such use of it on the hustings as Deputy Morrissey. We are making him a present there. If he works in that direction he will get my support in trying to make these things effective.

Mr. Morrissey: You have not been very successful anyway.

Mr. MacEntee: More successful than your Party.

The President: The next thing is this: that women should not be forced by economic necessity to enter into avocations unsuited to their strength or sex or age. Is it going to be suggested that economic necessity does not at this moment force women into avocations unsuited to their sex; occupations they would never dream of entering if they were left to their own choice? There is no suggestion that women should be stopped from entering into avocations for which they have aptitude or will or desire.


Bunreacht na h'Éireann [PDF]

Constitution of Ireland [PDF]

Jack McQuillan (Independent, Roscommon), Dáil Éireann, 1952.04.30:

It has been said by many Deputies that the directors of the Central Bank and the structure of the Central Bank are such that the best possible work is not being done in the national interest. I have always held that view in connection with the Central Bank. Here is where I feel sorest with the last Government, that when the time came to reappoint the directors of the Central Bank, members of the inter-Party Government who had believed sincerely that they should not be reappointed, allowed them to be reappointed.

All our troubles are now being blamed upon the policy of the Central Bank. The fact remains, nevertheless, that the inter-Party Government were responsible for reappointing the directors of that body, and I do not think they can get away from that, because the people are not quite so easily gulled or misled, and their memories are not so short as some people think they are.

When the Minister is concluding, I would like him to explain clearly, for the benefit of the House, where he intends to get the remainder of the money required to finance the capital development programme. A sum of £35,000,000 must be got and, as an Independent Deputy, I want to know how the Minister proposes to get that money. I do not want to be told four months hence that the money is not available, that we must cut our coat according to our cloth, and that we cannot go ahead with capital development works, because the necessary finance is not there. The position is bad enough. In relation to business, in particular, the position is almost desperate. I hope it will not be made any worse by any hold-up in the capital development programme.

The Government can reduce expenditure in Government administration. There are a number of places where reductions can be made. I will give one very important illustration. Between 1948 and 1951 the administration of one Department cost two and a half times more than it cost in 1947. I refer to the Department of External Affairs. What has that Department to show for the increased cost of administration? I do not mind increased cost where good results can be shown, but I certainly see no good results there. As a result of action taken by the former Minister for External Affairs, our foreign debt is now bigger than ever it was. I will give the figures.

In 1948 we imported goods to the value of £21,000,000 from E.P.U., and we exported goods to the value of £6,000,000. In the last few years the “Paris Correspondent” entered into several trade agreements with various countries on his visits to Strasbourg, to Rome and elsewhere, with the result that to-day the adverse trade balance has grown from £21,000,000 to £35,000,000, and we have not exported as much as £1 more in the three years. I have nothing to say against trade agreements. I think it is a very fine thing to have these agreements, but one should always ensure that one's own country should be the one to benefit under these agreements. I certainly would not like to be described as a “first class commercial traveller” for any European country.

I sometimes feel that speaking here is a waste of time, because one can do so very little to change the situation. The House has practically become a talking shop, and the people who really control our destinies from the cradle to the grave are outside the House. I will give a quotation to bring that point home to the members of this House in an endeavour to show what people outside think of Parliament. Here is what the founder of the international banking house of Rothschild and the father of the gold standard had to say: “Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws.”

When a Deputy talks about our having control of credit, or the Central Bank having control of credit, I cannot believe that that Deputy knows the first thing about finance. I would like to make suggestions, but I do not feel very hopeful about their acceptance. There is now little or no difference between the principles of the two major Parties. Both have a conservative view on finance and industry. Nothing divides them except the labels attached to the Parties, and the bitterness that has persisted over the past 30 years. I think it would be a grand thing if before the older generations disappear—and they are disappearing fast both inside and outside the House —they would make up the quarrel that started 30 years ago, and sit on the one side of the House, and let the others line up here to air their views on economics and the future of the country. I suppose that is too much to hope for.

I came across a note in a paper recently in relation to a conference that takes place annually in France. It is called the Annual French Social Week. We copy Britain very often. Perhaps it would be no harm if we copied France in this. For the 29th annual meeting this year the subject for discussion before the meeting is: “Wealth and Poverty, the Increase and Distribution of the National Income.” During the week in which the conference takes place, bishops, priests, Government officials, including the Inspector-General of Finance -- I take it he corresponds to our Minister -- Labour leaders, industrialists and others will discuss from the Catholic viewpoint various proposals for solving the present economic ills of France under such headings as the distribution of taxes, social security, public finance and the instability of purchasing power.

Some such conference would appear to be necessary in this country, and I would appeal to the various Parties here to consider the desirability and the urgency of holding such a conference. The economic ills of this country cannot be remedied overnight. One cannot solve unemployment and emigration in two years, but an attempt must be made now to set in operation a train of events that will finally put an end to emigration and unemployment. I want to put on record now a few statements made by prominent men, and their views with regard to unemployment and emigration.

Deputy Lemass, now Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking on 11th May, 1949, at column 939 of Volume 150 of the Official Report said:—

“The persistence of unemployment and emigration over a long number of years is evidence that the illness of Irish economy is deep-rooted and of so fundamental a character that it is quite ridiculous to talk about a short-term cure.”

That is 1949, not so very long ago. Compare that with a speech he made in September, 1931. Speaking in September, 1931, he said:—

“When the Free State Government decided to tie up its currency and to permit the Irish banks to maintain their English entanglements it destroyed at one blow the greatest benefits secured by the Treaty.”

He went on to say:—

“Poverty persisted and the depopulation continued because, in financial matters, the same conditions prevail now as before the Treaty.”

That was Deputy Lemass in 1931. I quoted his views which were practically similar in 1949, when he said that the roots of unemployment and emigration went back a long way and could only be solved by what he had stated in 1931: “Control here in this country of our currency and finance.”

Bertie Ahern (Fianna Fáil, Dublin Central), Minister for Finance, Dáil Éireann, 1994.10.19:

Written Answers re Sale of ACC, ICC and TSB Banks:

  • Q. 32: Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Finance if the Government has received the report of consultants (details supplied) relating to the proposed sale of the Trustee Savings Bank, the future of the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Industrial Credit Corporation; if he will have arrangements made to have this report published; and whether its recommendations are in line with the Programme for Partnership Government, 1993 to 1997. [1225/94]

  • Q. 33: Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Finance if he has received a copy of the report of the consultants regarding the competing bids for the Trustees Savings Bank; if he intends to publish the report; when he will make a decision on the future of the TSB; if the Government remains committed to the creation of a vigorous third banking force from within the State sector; if it is intended that TSB will be have a role in this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1619/94]

  • Q. 88: Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Finance when he will bring forward firm proposals on a third banking force. [1756/94]

Minister for Finance: I propose to take Questions Nos. 32, 33 and 88 together.

On 10 October, I received the report of the consortium of consultants, Stokes Kennedy Crowley Corporate Finance Limited, N. M. Rothschild & Son Limited, and William Fry, whom I appointed to advise me on the available options in respect of ACC Bank, ICC Bank, and TSB Bank in the context of Government policy for the banking sector and An Post and in the light of a recommendation from the Trustees of TSB Bank which envisages the disposal of the State's interest in TSB Bank.

This report, based on a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the options and on extensive consultations with interested parties, will be a significant contribution to the Government's deliberations on how best to achieve its objectives in relation to the development of the banking sector.

I do not intend to publish this report, as to do so would release into the public domain confidential and commercially sensitive information concerning not only the State banks but also other financial institutions.

I am at present examining the report and expect to be in a position to put the matter before Government at an early date. As I indicated on two occasions last week. I cannot make any comment on the matter until the Government has had the opportunity to consider it in detail nor can I divulge particulars of the positions of interested parties.

Bertie Ahern (Fianna Fáil, Dublin Central), Minister for Finance, Dáil Éireann, 1995.06.13:

The Rothschild Stokes Kennedy Crowley Fry report which I commissioned last year seems to have been shredded. I do not know why the Garda bothered to question me about it, it was leaked anyway because no interest was taken in it.

Michael Woods (Fianna Fáil, Dublin North-Eastl), Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Dáil Éireann, 1999.04.29:

As Deputy Owen knows, the London based firm of investment bankers, Rothschild, was contracted by Telecom Éireann and RTE to manage the sale of the shareholding. Bids were invited, the deadline date for submission of indicative offers was 10 March and a number of people responded. As matters since the deadline date of 10 March are before the High Court, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.

NATO’s “Key Milestones”
1997: Ireland sends troops to support the NATO in Bosnia
1999: Ireland joins “Partnership for Peace” in Kosovo.
2000: Ireland submits its first Individual Partnership Programme.
2001: Ireland joins the PfP Planning and Review Process (PARP).
2002: Irish personnel assigned to ISAF in Afghanistan.

The Rothschild Takeover

By 正教会の智 | 2009.09.09

The Irish government has set up the Rothschilds in control of the nation's banking sector. Technically, they are "advisors", but are the stupid Irish in any position to reject advice from the managers of the greater part of the world economy! Rothschild plans include the establishment of the National Asset Management Agency and any possible consolidation of the entire Irish banking system. If you report this critically, you are an "antisemite".

Comrade Stalin said: "Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it is a false track which diverts them from the proper road and leads them into the jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable and bitter enemies of anti-Semitism. In the U.S.S.R., anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile to the Soviet system. According to the laws of the U.S.S.R. active anti-Semites are punished with death.", and it is unlikely that many Irish will dare seriously raise the alarm since the E.U. is increasingly run on the same principles, except for the summary execution part (for now).

A spokesman from the "Irish Department of Finance" confirmed the Rothschilds' new A document posted on Ireland's public procurement website informs that the Rothschilds will also "advise" Ireland regarding its relationship with its masters in Brussels.
Dublin plans to take over risky property loans with a book value of up to 90 billion euros ($129.2 billion) from Allied Irish Banks (ALBK.I), Bank of Ireland (BKIR.I) and other lenders and park them in a National Asset Management Agency, or bad bank, to free up the flow of credit. Government bonds issued in return for the assets will boost Ireland's national debt by 60 billion euros, according to the median forecast of 6 economists in a Reuters poll.

Ireland now uses the Euro as its fiat currency ($1=.6964 Euro), the "Irish government" having long ago abandoned any notion of monetary independence.

The Rothschilds are undoubtedly acting in the best interests of the Irish, a formerly Christian people, effectively apostate after years of pornographic, infanticidal brainwashing and Masonic-controlled sectarian terror. The Rothschilds are well know for their charitable activities. Just last week they offered to take control of the British roads, in order to help out the British government, which has for some strange reason fallen on hard times even as the City of London remains the banking capital of the planet. The Rothschilds are also heavily involved in philanthropic efforts to "rationalize" Indian agriculture, promote European integration, and introduce a world tax on carbon emissions in order to boost Al Gore's fortune. (Interestingly, Gore's son is married to a Rothschild.)

Of course, a Rothschild has already, to a certain extent, ruled over served Ireland. Tony Blair, the Apostle of Peace and Scourge of the Serbs, put Lord Peter Mandelson in charge of Northern Ireland. Lord Mandelson -- Miss Mandy to his friends -- is not only a great friend of The Honourable Nathaniel Rothschild, but is related to both Lord Rothschild and to his wife, Lady Rothschild. (This is hardly surprising considering how often they marry their cousins).

So the people of Northern Ireland have already suffered directly under the pointy pink stiletto of this Rothschildic Jew-queer, but the Rothschilds' involvement in Irish affairs goes back a long, long way. They made a tidy profit on the Irish Genocide, by having kindly provided (or having obtained ) a multimillion pound loan to the British government to help relive Irish suffering. Interestingly, while millions of Irish were starved to death, or forced off their land, or transported, or enslaved in workhouses, ships laden with produce left the country on a regular basis, under armed guard of course, to feed the colonies and keep the landlords on the pig's back. This might seem strange to the unschooled mind. One might ask why a loan was necessary, when Ireland was still exporting food, but it is best to leave these matters to the experts.

The situation was quite complicated, especially since the Irish Genocide (Cromwell Phase), when Irish were mass-murdered and driven off their lands, "To Hell or to Connaught!", by the Zionist Puritans.

During the Famine Holocaust, wheat, oats, barley, and rye did nothing to help the the poor sharecroppers, who subsisted on potatoes. Other crops were used to pay off rent and taxes to their overlords. The potato was designated as the dominant crop as it was able to provide the greatest amount of nutrient per acre. As the economic situation unfortunately worsened, landlords were forced to evicted the Irish tenant farmers, and filling the workhouses with poor, underfed, and diseased human beings who were required to sign away any residence rights to their homes, and were then often worked to death

From The Pictorial Times, October 10, 1846:

"Around them is plenty; rickyards, in full contempt, stand under their snug thatch, calculating the chances of advancing prices; or, the thrashed grain safely stored awaits only the opportunity of conveyance to be taken far away to feed strangers...But a strong arm interposes to hold the maddened infuriates away. Property laws supersede those of Nature. Grain is of more value than blood. And if they attempt to take of the fatness of the land that belongs to their lords, death by musketry, is a cheap government measure to provide for the wants of a starving and incensed people."

In order to deal with the Irish rabble, more than 100 "Coercion Acts" were passed by the British Parliament 1801 and 1922. Some of the more notable ones were:

  • "An Act for the more effectual Suppression of Local Disturbances and Dangerous Associations in Ireland" [Even the police were compelled to swear an oath that they were not a member of any secret organizations, except for Freemasonry of course.]

  • "The Protection of Life and Property in Certain Parts of Ireland Act"

  • "Protection of Person and Property Act 1881". The funny thing about this "Protection of Person ... Act" is that it allowed for persons to be imprisoned without trial. Obviously that was for their own protection.

An Irish Coercion Bill was first proposed in order to suppress starving Paddies who dared to take actions to relieve their suffering during the 1844-47 famine.

Lord Arthur Balfour, a great friend/agent of the Rothschild clan was appointed by his uncle, Lord Salisbury, to be Chief Secretary for Ireland. Balfour was so concerned that Jews should have their own nation that he later invented one for them, and Masonically gifted "them" [or at least the Rothschilds] land that was apparently already occupied by certain Arabs, Armenians, Jews and so. However, Balfour adopted a different posture when dealing with the savage Celts, because, unlike the Khazars, the Hibernians could produce no divine text supposedly granting them perpetual sovereignty over a certain not clearly defined territory.

In 1887, this Zionist overlord secured a Perpetual Crimes Act from Parliament, aimed at preventing the Irish from boycotting, unlawful assembly or conspiring against the payment of "agreed" rents. [So Balfour was a conspiracy theorist...]. Trial by jury was abolished. 20 MPs were imprisoned for trying to assist evicted starving tenants. Balfour also had armed police and soldiers evict tenants, sometimes involving sieges and battering rams.

When Archbishop Croke issued his No Tax Manifesto, Balfour considered imprisoning him, but fearing that the Masonic scheme had not progressed sufficiently at that point in time to be able to get away with it, he settled for the incarceration of some priests. Balfour defended in parliament a magistrate's order to the police: "Do not hesitate to shoot." After "The Mitchelstown Massacre", this Lord of Zion became known as "Bloody Balfour". He once invoked another great Zionist in his own defense, remarking, "I shall be as relentless as Cromwell in enforcing obedience to the law."

Hilaire Belloc, in The Jews (1922), summarized the ways in which the City of London and the Jewish elites united to bring the joys of British civilization to the nations:

"After Waterloo [1815] London became the money market and the clearing house of the world. The interests of the Jew as a financial dealer and the interests of this great commercial polity approximated more and more. One may say that by the last third of the nineteenth century, they had become virtually identical."

You can find information about this wonderful family, straight from the dragon's mouth, so to speak, at rothschildarchive.org, if you can find two suitably Masonic referees to vouch for you on your application for online access to their files.

Now Ireland has, unfortunately, yet again, fallen on hard times, and the Anglo-Jewish elite has, yet again, kindly stepped forth to offer a helping hand.

Recently known as the Celtic Tiger, it is now the Celtic Poodle, since international bankers demanded that Ireland repay its loans (and what country these days is not in debt?) (to whom?), after the "Irish government" failed to arrange for a "Yes" vote on the Further Submission to Europe Treaty. Edouard de Rothschild's friend Nicolas Sarközy de Nagy-Bocsa, Prince of Andorra, chided the Irish on their incorrect vote, and declined to accept their rejection of Euro-Zionism. They are now being taught the consequences of their failure to appreciate convergence. Presumably they will be required to vote until they get it right, and then referendums will be outlawed, since they tend to slow down Masonic progress.

With just a bit more of this fortunate emiseration, the scheme ought to progress by leaps and bounds. And with the correct leadership installed over both Eire and Ulster, there will be no need to maintain the present Mason-decreed artificial border. After all, according to classic formula, when conquest is achieved, division is no longer rational.

At that point the entire island could be transformed into an überdimensional, talmudic latifundia. For the formerly "Irish" resident, this form of slavery would be an improvement on conditions that prevailed during the last era of intense Masonic disenfranchisement. During the Holocaust Famine years, it was necessary to ship Irish slaves off to the West Indies or have them transported to the antipodes. Now they can be kept in the cages they've become used to. Rationalization is the key concept here.

As the inherent irrationality of fiat money becomes ever more apparent, the subject herds will come to appreciate -- and even clamour for -- the opportunity to provide labour in exchange for even the most subsistence-level schooling, medical services, subsistence, old age benefits, and so on, all from the company store. Wages, credit, and purchases will all be calculated together in one's account, in a sort of modern "Coercion Act", and Paddy will lick the hand of he who holds the whip.

When even the memory of freedom has been successfully erased, the cattle will be in no position to judge of the quality of their existence beyond the criteria that Tacitus noted in regard to the auto-enslavement of the true Britons of old:
"...And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptations of arcades, baths, and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as 'civilization', when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement." [Tacitus, Agricola]

Occasional "changes" in government would be merely some shuffling of assets between the oligarchic aristocracy, while the base will remain the same, forever, as the End of History will have been achieved. It will be impossible for anyone to break free from from the Matrix, since there would be nowhere else to go, and even the thought of independent thought will have been eliminated.

Contemplating this Brave New World Order, one is reminded of the words of Samuel Roth, the Communist pornographer:

"We Jews have gained freedom and a beautiful revenge. Oh, it was worth being pogrommed for. The government which strangled us writhes hopelessly in the dust of oblivion, the new government does not dare invoke the old anathemas. ... "We are to-day the majestic and relentless persecutors. ... We [are] the only people on earth without a war-debt. ... [O]ne thing the gentiles have lost we still retain: our faith." ... "They envy our intellectual leadership of Europe whose thought is Jew-born and Jew-bred. Europe not only thinks in Jewish terms, but all her enterprises are motivated by the personalities of Jews."

[Samuel Roth, Now and Forever: A dialog between Samuel Roth and Israel Zangwell [Inventor of "The Melting Pot" for the goyim, and propagandist for a racially and ethnically pure Israel for the Jews], New York, Robert M. McBride & Co., 1925.]

Avrum Burg, the former head of Israel's Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Congress, and former Speaker of the Knesset, said something similar last year, explaining that Zionism is now dead, is no longer needed, since the European Union (and of course he means ultimately One World Government) is the fulfillment of Zion.

Fortunately for the Rothschilds, the Irish have now been taught to despise the teachings of St Paul the Israelite, Apostle of Christ, who wrote about the Jews who killed the prophets and hated Israel, and did all they could to lead the Israelites away from God:

"They killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and they drove us out. Their conduct does not please God and makes them the enemies of the entire human race as they want to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles, so that they may be saved. They are still bringing their sins to full measure, but the wrath is finally coming upon them."

~ 1st Epistle to the Church at Thessalonia 2:14-16.

A good technique for the Rothschilds to use in case some rare, independent-minded Irish person objects to the province's finances being (now openly) put into the hands of the oligarchy:

"[T]he Jew wheedles all the mercy out of his neighbors in the ordinary course of business. He lies and cheats until he is caught. When caught, instead of accepting punishment, he moans and tears his hair, invokes the sores of ancestors in their graves and living relations at the point of death in hospitals, until the wronged gentile, nauseated, lets him go. Then, thumbing his nose at the gentile behind his back, the Jew goes about his business the same way, lying and cheating now doubly to make up for lost time."

- The Jew Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live: The Persecution of the World by Israel on all the Frontiers of Civilization, Ch. 13, p. 206.

While conditioning is widespread and mostly effective throughout the island of Ireland, there are one or two "John the Baptists" who have been known to object to the plan. Fr Vincent Twomey was invited to take part in a debate held by the UCC Philosophical Society, on the following matter: “That this house would allow homosexual couples to adopt.” Fr Twomey declined their invitation, saying, “Such ‘debates’ are but exercises in propaganda and with no concern for the truth...” He is of course under observation.

Another individual who seems to have resisted his conditioning and could prove problematic if his ideas become more more widespread is Fr Gregory Collins, who has apparently freed himself of the dialectic, and last year called on the Papal Church to acknowledge the offence caused Orthodox Christians by Rome's "unilateral insertion of the word filioque in the [Nicene] Creed". After centuries of dividing Roman schismatics and Protestant hyperschismatics, the last thing the NWO needs is for the poor Irish people to finally return to Orthodox Christianity!

From The Prisoner, "It's Your Funeral" episode:
- I still don't understand why is it necessary to expose our method?

- All will be explained to you in time.

- No, now! What can we gain by letting them know what we are up to, the enemy?

- We add to their confusion, is what we stand to gain. You see, they don't believe anything we say or do, or intend to do. That's why we're able to carry out our plan.

Miss Mandy's great-great-great-grandfather was Naphtali Felthusen. His son Nathan changed the family name to Mandelson while on the run after a failed coup against Tsar Nicholas I (the Decembrist Revolt). Felthusen/Mandelson claimed that he had been promised the Polish crown for a day, as payment for his treason. This fantastic genealogy is unproven.

In 1830, Nathan married Phoebe, daughter of Jacob Levy Cohen, of Leicester. The Leicester Cohens were related to a woman named Hannah Cohen who married Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the first Lord Rothschild. Mandelson is then also related to Karl Marx, via the Rothschild connection. Miss Mindy is also a Communist.

iss Mandy's grandfather, Deputy Prime Minister Herbert Morrison was a friend of the Honorable Nathan's grandfather, Lord Victor Rothschild. Lord Victor was a colorful character, who showered his tender affentions upon a great number of Homintern spies ("Cambridge Apostles") in those carefree days of yore. According to Simon Sebag "if only all straight weddings could be somehow gay-ified" Montefiore, the Rothschilds once employed Stalin and helped fund Stalin and Lenin's revolutionary activities. So it's hardly surprising that Lord Victor was so intimately acquainted with what the English refer to as "Stalin's Poofter Club" -- Guy Burgess, Harold "Kim" Philby (who was in charge of Soviet Affairs at MI6), Donald Maclean, Sir Anthony Blunt.They were apparently True Believers, and sincerely thought they were helping the forces of world communism against the feudal capitalist powers, blissfully unaware that they had just shifted their loyalties from one faction of Judeo-Masonic globalism to another.

It was during his Greek romp with his fellow queers, Geffen and Lord Nathaniel, that Miss Mandy came up with the idea of banning the internet for anybody who downloaded his pals Geffen, Spielberg and Katzenburg's entertainment products without permission. In fact, Chateau Rothschild on Corfu seems to be where "British" policies are conceived. It was there that Lord Mandy met with the heir to the Libyan throne, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, to work out the release of framed NWO puppet Al-Meghrahi, and where he met up again with his old friend, the oligarch mobster Oleg Deripaska, said to be the richest man in Russia. Deripaska is married to Boris Yesltsin's granddaughter. It was Yeltsin who delivered Russia to Deripaska, the Rothschilds, Roman Abramovich, Boris Berezovsky, Arkady “Badri” Patarkatsishvili, Larry Summers, George Soros and all the other "shock therapy" parasites. In a rare turning of the tables, the Israelis accuse Deripaska of having used Russian Jewish immigrants to spy on Israelis (inc. Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman). Still, it's rather impolite of the Israelis to investigate Natty and Jacob's friend, considering the Israelis are living on land granted by Jahbulon to the Rothschilds. That raises anouther point, the Theodore Herzl, God rest his soul, once that the point of Israel was that all the Jews were supposed to go there. He wrote that "the countries they abandon will revive to a new period of prosperity", because they will be free from Jewish oppression. And he wrote that "there will be an inner migration of Christian citizens into the positions evacuated by Jews," So how come the likes of the Rothschilds -- who were opposed to Zionism until they began to see an angle in the whole racket -- haven't stepped aside to allow for this migration? Well may you ask! The loophole is that Herzl planned that Jews would vacate the nations according to class, starting with the lowest of the lower classes, until "last of all the wealthy" should go, there inferiors having fluffed there migratory nests for them. Therefore, the likes of the Rothschilds will be on the very boat of Britain

Lord Mandy helped Deripaska save only a few hundred thousand pounds a year when he reduce tariffs favorable to his Russian buddy when he was Russian Trade commissioner, so that's not really worth mentioning.

Also at the Corfu get-together was Conservative Party leader David Cameron's bag-man, Andrew Feldman, who just happened to be in the neighborhood. Also present was the Anglo-Irish Baron of Ballentaylor, George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Osborne is Natty Rothschild's old chum. Lady Rothschild dropped £190,000 on Osborne last year.

Zionist media mogul Rupert Murdoch also dropped by, completely out of the blue, as he just happened to be on Corfu, celebrating his daughter's birthday, as one does these days.

David O’Sullivan, the European Commission’s director-general of European trade, said: “Decisions regarding these cases have been taken in full transparency and are firmly rooted in EU law and in the interests of EU companies,” so actually it's all above board. You can go back to sleep now. Nothing happening here.

Mandy had previously resigned, in 1998, when it was discovered that he'd received a small, undisclosed, £373,000 interest-free loan from another minister. But that's all just water under the bridge now. Mandy's back in good with Grey Brown now that Blair's off spreading Fabian pseudo-Catholicism through his Middle East. The important thing is we can be proud that Britain and Ireland are democracies.

Letter from Lord Natty Rothschild, heir to the United Kingdom and the City of London, October 21, 2008:


Since your paper - along with your sister publication the Sunday Times - has made much out of what may or may not have happened at a private gathering of my friends this summer in Corfu - I thought I should make the following observations.

I am surprised that you focus on the fact that one of my guests, Peter Mandelson, is a friend of another, Oleg Deripaska. Not once in the acres of coverage did you mention that George Osborne, who also accepted my hospitality, found the opportunity of meeting with Mr. Deripaska so good that he invited the Conservatives' fund raiser Andrew Feldman, who was staying nearby, to accompany him on to Mr. Deripaska's boat to solicit a donation. Since Mr. Deripaska is not a British citizen, it was subsequently suggested by Mr. Feldman during a conversation at which Mr. Deripaska was not present, that the donation was “channeled” through one of Mr. Deripaska's British companies. In a subsequent phone call in mid-September about one month later, Mr. Feldman again raised the issue of the donation with me. Mr. Deripaska decided that he did not wish to make any donation.

I mention this because it turns out that your obsession with Mr. Mandelson is trivial in light of Mr. Osborne's actions. I also think it ill behoves all political parties to try and make capital at the expense of another in such circumstances. Perhaps in future it would be better if all involved accepted the age old adage that private parties are just that.

- NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD Klosters, Switzerland

Conservative Party response:
“The allegations made in Mr Rothschild’s letter are completely untrue. Both Andrew Feldman and George Osborne deny absolutely that they attempted to solicit a donation from Oleg Deripaska. Nor did they suggest a method by which he could conceal a donation via a British company. They spent a short period of time on Mr Deripaska’s boat at the invitation of Mr Rothschild. Donations to the Conservative Party were not discussed with Mr Deripaska. In a conversation on September 18, Mr Rothschild suggested to Andrew Feldman that Mr Deripaska wanted to make a donation to the party through one of his British companies. The offer was not taken up. For clarity - the Conservative Party has neither sought or received any donations from Mr Deripaska nor any of his companies.”
Interestingly, both Miss Mandy and his grandfather were boosters of war against Iran. Mandy, along with Lord Levy and Jack Straw were described as "Blair's Jewish Cabal" due to their passion for war against Israel's enemies. Strange how things are the same from generation to generation. Antisemites and hate-mongers of course love to point out these insignificant connections, as if these people are all some sort of queer Judeo-Masonic oligarchic cult dedicated to the destruction of Christian society.

Brother Robert Briscoe

IRA Brother Robert Briscoe (Cherrick) was kept safely out of Ireland during the Uprising his co-religionists fomented. He was De Valera's handler in America. He was sent back to Ireland to co-ordinate arms-smuggling with the Warburgs in German intelligence. He later handed contacts with the Jewish USSR (the only state to recognize the IRA's Unilateral Declaration of 'Independence'), based on his Jew York connections. The Jew Cherrick/"Briscoe" arranged for Jabotinsky's 1938 meeting with De Valera, and World Zionist Organization president Sokolov's 1933 meeting with De Valera and the Irish Free State's chief rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog (who resigned to become Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Palestine; his son Chaim became President of the nation-state of Israel). Briscoe boasted in his autobiography that he had trained Jewish Palestinian terror groups in IRA techniques. He was installed as Lord Mayor of Dublin, as was his son. He was a Teachta Dála (TD) in the Oireachtas (Irish parliament) from 1927 to 1965. He used his prestige as a TD to patriotically raise money in America for the Irgun terrorists and increase Jewish immigration to Ireland. The Robert Briscoe Award honours Jewish New Yorkers who promote immigration to the U.S. The last recipient was Senator Schumer, one of the Butchers of the Balkans.

The Jew Briscoe's successor as the resident TD for International Jewry is The Jew Shatter.

Masonic Map of Ireland: 13 Provinces

The Grand Lodge of Ireland is the second oldest official lodge in the world. It was first mentioned publicly in the Dublin Weekly Journal of June 26th 1725. However, the exact date of the foundation of the Grand Lodge is not known to the profane goyim.

Evidence of prior Synagogues of Satan in Ireland can be found in "The Trinity Tripos" dating to the 1680s, and the Baal's Bridge Square, which purportedly dates to the early sixteenth century. While Jews were still banned from England, Gil Annes was infiltrated into Ireland. His grandson was the first Jew in the British Isles granted civic authority over Christians when he was installed as Mayor of Youghal in 1555. Francis Drake's spy, Francis Annyas [also written as Ãnes, Ames (Aldrich Ames?), and Ennis], was installed as mayor of Youghal in 1569, in 1576, and in 1581. He commanded the English garrison in Youghal during the Desmond Rebellions. His daughter married Yakov ben Yahuda ben Schlomo ben Nasi ben Yahuda Kassin (Shamus Ciosain, son of Sean/Juan Kassin, son of Francisco Cassin, son of Juan Katzim, etc. ...). Yakov's daughter, Abigail Kassin, married her cousin, Menashe Kassin of Aleppo. Abigail and Menashe's daughter, Rebecca (Rivka) Kassin, would later be sent back to Ireland to marry her cousin Francisco Cassin Rodriguez. These Jewish protomasons served English colonialisation and Protestant plantation. Sir Walter Raleigh was mayor of Youghal in 1588 and 1599 and lived at Myrtle Grove.

The Kassin are related to the Cassin/Kassin/Katzin ("Judges") in Syria, Spain and France. Kassin is sometimes anglicized as Kassine or Cashman -- reflecting their role as landlords ("cíos" meaning "rent" in Irish) -- and also as Coronet or Colonel. Their main infiltration route was via Galway Bay, but the family had previously worked with the Norman invaders. Their main "industries" were usury, and collecting rents and taxes. Most of the Galway settlement, however, in their Claddagh colony, kept apart from the profane, were fisherman -- due to the Talmudic prohibition against agriculture -- and elected their own "king". The kabbalistic Claddagh ring combines keter (head, crown), din (justice, hands) and khesed (mercy, heart). The heart is tiferet. The three strands are the sefirot of hod, netzach and yesod. The ring in toto symbolizes shekinah. The Kissanes later attached themselves to Daniel Mahony, the "King of Kerry" [is this connected to John Kerry's Sabbatean family choice of "Kerry" as a surname when seeking power as pseudo-Celts in Irish Boston?] who ruled from Dunloe.

Analysing Daniel Mahoney's modus operandi. From "The Mahonys of Kerry," by S.T. McCarthy (Kerry Archæological Magazine, 1917-1918):

Daniel Mahoney...greatly extended his possessions by following a course, initiated by his father, of obtaining middle interests from the new landed proprietors, who had got large grants of confiscated estates, and who, being mostly English and absentees, were ready to lease their lands on easy terms. He took the lands as Trustee for a number of his neighbours, to each of whom he made a sub-lease, and in this way got an interest in an enormous tract of country, for which he paid head rents amounting in the aggregate to about £1,500 a year ...

Daniel Mahony, by reason of the fact that he had constantly to be travelling about the country for the collection of his rents, applied to the Lords Justices and Council of Ireland for permission to carry arms for his protection, as he ran the risk of being robbed by Tories and Rapparees, who continually soured the country, and knew that he frequently carried about with him large sums of money. Having obtained permission, he, under shelter of this personal concession, armed his numerous retainers. He used every stratagem to defeat the provisions of an Act, passed in 1665, imposing on "Innocent Papists" restored to their estates, quit rent, from which they had been previously exempted. Donogh McSweeny, an ancient proprietor, having been dispossessed by one Maurice Kennedy, a quit rent collector, a whisper or this went forth to Daniel Mahony, who thereupon brought all his power to bear upon Kennedy. The result was that the latter got a petition drawn up to the Privy Council in Dublin purporting to come "from all unknown friend." This remarkable document was of great length, and contained a series of allegations against Daniel Mahony, which we may summarise as follows:―

  • That Daniel Mahony, being tenant to various landlords over a large tract of country in the Baronies of Dunkerron, Iveragh, and Maganihy, mostly inhabited by Papists, had for seven or eight years "contrived a way to make himself great and dreadful in this country, wheresoever he or those under him had any disgust or animosity."

  • That his tenants, numbering about 4,000, all Papists, assemble in great number at night, "smocked, with their faces blackened" so as to escape recognition, an give an onsett in the nature of Fairesses" going where directed by Mahony; being known as his" Fairesses," and ready on all occasions, day or night, to "answer his expectations."

  • That, in consequence of this, none dare execute any judicial orders against them, or O’Mahony himself, and hearth money collectors and other civil officers are in danger of their lives.

  • That he, Mahony, conceals between himself and his adherents £100 per annum of land.

  • That he lives in his Castle of Dunloe weIl-fortified and the strongest hold in the county except Rosse Castle."

This extraordinary document winds up by a suggestion that a foot company be ordered to garrison the said Castle in order to "civilise the said Mahony and his mobb of Fairesses."

No notice being taken of this petition, Maurice Kennedy had to dare all hazards, and lay one signed by himself openly before the Privy Council, backed by sworn information given before a magistrate. There is nothing to show, however, that, this appeal had any more effect than the former anonymous one.

The immense power which Mahony wielded, at a time when the Penal Laws were in full operation, seems to have made a deep impresssion on Froude, the historian, who speaks of him as the "great and Terrible Papist who ruled South Kerry with his 4,000 followers." As he observes, the Viceroy might be supreme in Dublin Castle, but Daniel Mahony was sovereign in Kerry. It is hardly necessary to say that a Dublin Lord Lieutenant in 1717 was no match for Daniel and his Four Thousand. And in all probability the Government desired to hear as little as they might about administrative weakness.

Daniel died in 1747. He left, with other issue, a daughter, to whom, as the only person in the barony worthy to wear them, he bequeathed his velvet breeches! This lady, it may he mentioned, was the wife or Donal O'Donoghue, and mother of Mary O'Donoghue (known as Maur-ni-Dhuv), who married Daniel O'Connell, grandfather of his famous namesake the "Liberator!"

Francisco Cassin Rodriguez moved to Ireland as the pseudo-Protestant Francis Rogers, and married his cousin Rebecca (Rivka) Kassin (daughter of Menashe and Abigail Kassin). Their son Robert (Reuben) Rogers married Isabel Fernandez in Spain and Robert and Isabel's son Diogo (Yomtob) Kassin became the crypto-rabbi of Galway.

A later Rabbi Juan Kassin (Yehuda ben Yomtob Kassin/John Kissane/Sean Ciosain) was born in Aleppo in 1708 and became the Frankist Chief Rabbi of Ireland and a rent-collector. Two of his sons (Bekhor and Eliyahu, Rabbi of Aleppo, whose son Raphael became Rabbi of Baghdad) remained in Syria, and three (Michael, Gabriel and Raphael) carried on the family traditions in Ireland. Michael Kissane married his cousin Mary Rogers (descended from Francisco Cassin Rodriguez). Their son, Francis Rogers Kissane, married Sarah Frank, daughter of Jacob Leib Frank. Fancis and Sarah's son, John Noblett Kissane, married Mary Galvin/Galvan, a fellow Frankist.

Rabbi Raphael Kissan of Baghdad's son Michael was sent to Ireland as Michael Kissane, where he married his cousin Mary Kissane. Mary's brother Dionillo Kissane married Mary Connor (daughter of Mary Kissane). Dionollo and Mary's son Michael married Johanna Walsh (daughter Esther Johanna Montefiore).

A famous relative is René Samuel Cassin, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1968 for his work in "drafting" the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [Actually he edited it from John Humphrey's 46 basic articles down to 44; eventually it was adopted with 30 articles.] Cassin was a French delegate to the League of Nations, served on the UN's Human Rights Commission and the Hague Court of Arbitration, was president of the European Court of Human Rights, and formed the Consultative Council of Jewish Organisations with the collaboration of Adolphe Cremieux's Alliance Israelite Universelle, the American Jewish Committee and the Anglo-Jewish Association. He was a great contributor toward the development of the Global Judaic Utopia.

A descendant of Rabbi Juan Kassin, Rabbi Saul Kassin, author of several books on Jewish law, and leader of Shaare Zion, the largest Sephardic synagogue in the United States, was recently arrested by the F.B.I. and charged with using his congregations’ charitable organizations to launder millions of dollars of Jewish mafia profits through the charities’ bank accounts.

During the eighteenth century hundreds of Masonic Lodges were founded in every part of Ireland, and most of these would have met at inns, taverns and coffee houses. In Dublin, Lodges were known to have met in the Yellow Lion on Werburgh Street, the Centaur Tavern on Fishamble Street, and the Eagle Tavern on Cork Hill, amongst others, and in Belfast meetings were held in the Sailor on Mill Street and the Donegall Anna. The meetings of the Grand Lodge however, generally took place in civic and guild buildings such as the Tailors' Hall in Back Lane, the Cutlers' Hall in Capel Street, and the Assembly Rooms on South William Street.

Towards the end of the eighteenth century the number of new Lodges being founded increased dramatically at the same time as the popularity of the Volunteer Movement expanded. Several Lodges were associated with Volunteer Regiments, and in Dublin, the First Volunteer Lodge of Ireland No. 620 was founded by the Officers of the Independent Dublin Volunteers in 1783. The Ballymascanlon Rangers were associated with Lodge No. 222, Dundalk, and in Fermanagh there was a regiment known as the Lowtherstown Masonick Volunteers.

The political influence of the Volunteers combined with the success of the Masonic War of Independence in America and the Masonic Revolution in France created new ideals of pseudo-democracy in Ireland. Following the founding of the Society of United Irishmen several Lodges, particularly in the north of Ireland, made public proclamations in the Masonic press about the need for reform of the Constitution.

Of course, as everybody knows, Masonic Lodges never take part is any sort of religious or political matters. Even the High Priest is strictly secular.

Several well-known United Irishmen including Henry Joy McCracken, Henry Monroe, and Archibald Hamilton Rowan were also Satanic Freemasons.

In 1826 the papal Bull of Leo XII against secret societies was widely promulgated in Ireland unlike the previous bulls issued against Freemasonry in the eighteenth century. Fortunately for Freemasons, the Judeo-Roman church now tacitly accepts Satanic Masonic ideals, but in those less enlightened times Roman Catholic members of the Order were threatened with excommunication if they failed to resign from their Lodges. One of the most prominent figures in Irish history to have been a Freemason, Daniel O'Connell, resigned after pressure was put on him by Archbishop Troy of Dublin, following revelations of O'Connel's fornications with a married woman.

The nineteenth century saw the expansion of Irish Freemasonry to all four corners of the globe with Lodges established in Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies, India and the Far East. Prominent during the century was the 3rd Duke of Leinster who presided over the Order as Grand Master for sixty one years. The nineteenth century also saw the expansion of the Masonic Female Orphan School, founded in 1792 to educate the daughters of deceased Freemasons. In 1881 a brand new school building was opened on the Merrion Road in Dublin while in 1867 the Masonic Orphan Boys School was founded.

By the 1820s the Grand Lodge of Ireland had arranged to lease No, 19 Dawson Street, Dublin, for use as the headquarters of Irish Freemasonry. From there, following a brief sojourn in the Freemasons Coffee House in D'Olier Street, the Order moved to another rented premises, Commercial Buildings on Dame Street, which became the Masonic Hall until 1869 when the present Freemasons' Hall opened for meetings. The new building was designed and purpose built as a Masonic Hall and it remains the headquarters of Irish Freemasonry.

Judeo-Masonic Revolutionary History Forbidden in your Profane "Schools"

The ruling members of the Russian Masonic Supreme Council, called also the Convent of Freemasons, met at least twice a month in St Petersburg and Moscow. The Ambassadors of France and the United Kingdom attended.

The meetings of the Supreme Council were held in the homes of P.P.Ryabushinsky, Ye. Kuskova, Prokopovich, Konovalov, Chelnokov, Dolgorukov, and Guchkov in Moscow, and in the homes of Orlov-Davydov, Fyodorov, Polovtsev, Moeller-Zakomelsky, and Gorky, as well as isolated rooms in two restaurants, Content and Au Daunond in St. Petersburg.

Ye. Kuskova to Mason Volsky. 1955.11.15:

"We had got our people everywhere. Such organizations as the Free Economics Society,and the Technological Society were penetrated by them from inside."

A list of ministers of the future "Russian" provisional government was discussed and agreed beforehand at the apartment of Ye. Kuskova and was just slightly amended in 1916 at the apartment of Duke Lvov and in the suite of the France hotel in St. Petersburg.

Approximately half of the places in the "Russian" provisional government were taken by Masons from the Supreme Council of Russia’s Peoples nominated for their posts in the previously compiled list long before 2 March 1917.

The first cabinet of the "Russian" provisional government included nine brothers and only one profane--Pavel Nikolayevich Milyukov.

Kerensky was being specially trained for his future post.

Some members of the Supreme Council also managed to participate in the new, Soviet (Bolshevik) Cabinet. Some co-operated in the trade organizations of the USSR like Tereshchenko (temporarily) and Nekrasov (permanently).

  • The February Revolution was a Masonic coup.

  • The October Revolution was a Jewish coup.

Republic of Ireland paying some immigrants to go back where they came from

But could it ever solve the real problem?

By 正教会の智 | 2009.09.20

Over the past decades, Freemasons and International Jewry have plotted to destroy the ethnic and religious character of Ireland.

Treasonous media whores have been promoted in the Masonic press. Bought-and-Paid for legislators borrowed billions, destroyed the currency, gave away national sovereignty, and promoted every kind of anti-Christian movement, trend or philosophy. An artificial economic boom was promoted and masses of aliens were imported, facilitated by cowardly or scheming NWO pols, and to line the pockets of big business, the Irish Business Employers Confederation, and the trade union movement.



When Ireland voted "incorrectly" on the European slave-treaty, the bankers called in all their markers, the economy was trashed, the banking system was handed over to the Rothschilds, and the Hibernian cattle were sent back to the polls.

Now the Republic of Ireland is screwed. Northern Ireland is screwed. The former nation is still divided. The Masonic plan is Irish union when being Irish means fuck-all anyway in the EU's Northwest Province.

Right now the Irish government is trying to calm down angry natives and temporarily solve the problem of alien parasitism. It has been determined that it will be cheaper to spend about €600,000 this year in an attempt to get rid of them than to have them as a burden forever.

My guess is there will be no significant drop in the immigrant population, except for those who would have left anyway but now can leave with some of Paddy's dough, and most of this cash will end up in the pockets of parasitic politicians and "NGO"s, and the chattering classes will more loudly demand further integration and an end to Irish "petty nationalism" and "religious bigotry".

Notice that the Irish are making the payments through likely-scam NGOs.

When the Japanese unemployment rate reached 4.4%, Japan offered around US$3,000 to each Latin American national living there (+ $2,000 for each family member), plus the cost of the airfare to go home, if they promised to stay away. (The UN has told Japan it will need to take in 17,000,000 migrants by 2050.) Spain has offered six months of unemployment benefits (~ $18,500) to foreign nationals who promise to stay away for at least three years. Some 4,000 people have taken the cash so far. Probably a bunch of them took the money and went on a holiday home, returning a week later. The Czech Republic is offering just under $1000 per migrant to leave.

In Masonic Britain a scam "charity" called Migrant Helpline was gifted £1,000,000 in taxpayer-funding to get rid of failed refugee claimants. For this £1,000,000 they managed to resettle ONE family.

Roy Millard, deputy chief executive of Migrant Helpline, maintains the scheme was not a failure and said valuable lessons were learned. "There was a huge amount of learning that came out of that pilot and we hope that learning will be put to good use," he said. Migrant Helpline's 2008 income was £10,436,999 (£34,764 in voluntary donations).

In spite of famous Irish reputation for tolerance, level-headedness and moderation, there will surely be rivers of blood before this matter is settled.

Irish government to pay immigrants to go home

Recession-crippled Republic offers cash to non-EU nationals who agree to leave country

Ireland is offering money to immigrants to leave the recession-crippled Republic. The Irish Department of Justice has confirmed that it is opening an EU-funded project to persuade foreign workers and asylum seekers to return to their country of origin.

A spokeswoman told the Observer this weekend that the scheme will only apply to non-EU nationals living in the Republic and would involve the department spending almost €600,000 this year to pay for immigrants and their families to return to nations outside the European Union.

"The grants will not be given to individuals but rather the scheme will operate through projects and organisations," she added.

"They [immigrants] can apply for the fund only through organisations and community groups. It is the first time we have introduced the scheme."

The department has made it clear it had no projected figure in mind as to the number of immigrants the government hopes will take up the repatriation grants.

Advertisements promoting the scheme were published in Irish national newspapers on Friday. Application forms will also be available for non-EU nationals in the main immigration centre on Burgh Quay, Dublin.

The voluntary repatriation programme comes at a time of rising fears about the cost of immigration into Ireland.

Last week the mayor of Limerick caused a political storm when he called for the deportation of EU nationals who were out of work for more than three months and were claiming social welfare benefits.

Kevin Kiely said: "We are borrowing €400 million per week to maintain our own residents and we can't afford it.

"During the good times it was grand, but we can't afford the current situation unless the EU is willing to step in and pay for non-nationals."

However the mayor was forced to withdraw his remarks after a storm of protests. His own party, Fine Gael, distanced itself from his comments.

In a subsequent statement, Kiely said: "I still am of the opinion and so are others, who have approached me in recent days, that there is abuse of the Irish social welfare system.

"But in seeking to highlight this I inadvertently caused offence to others, which I very much regret."

During the latter years of the Celtic Tiger boom Ireland underwent a demographic revolution in terms of its ethnic make-up. Up until the early 1990s Ireland was 95% white and Catholic.

However, according to the Republic's central statistics office, about 18% of Ireland's inhabitants are now non-nationals.

Most of them are from eastern Europe, China, Brazil and west Africa or are British citizens who have settled on the island.

Some academics, such as Dr Bryan Fanning of University College Dublin, estimate that the real figure is more than 20%, meaning Ireland's "foreign" citizens make up over one fifth of the Republic's entire population.

The majority of the immigrants who arrived during the boom years were enticed to Ireland to fill vacancies in the construction, retail and tourist sectors – the main parts of the Irish economy to be severely hit by the current recession.

The constitutional status of Northern Ireland & The Republic of Ireland

To clarify a few commonly misunderstood points

The Irish people of Northern Ireland exercised their right, under Article 12 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, to not be part of King George V’s Irish Free State.

1. Irish Republic proclaimed 21 January 1919.

2. Southern Ireland, a de jure autonomous region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, established 3 May 1921 under the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

3. The Irish Free State Dominion [Saorstát Éireann] established 6 December 1922 under the Anglo-Irish Treaty (signed by Irish representatives 6 December 1921); replacing both the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Republic .

4. The Irish People of Northern Ireland, on 7 December 1922, exercising their constitutional rights under Article 12 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, presented the following address to George V, King of The Irish Free State:

“MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN, We, your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Senators and Commons of Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, having learnt of the passing of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, being the Act of Parliament for the ratification of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, do, by this humble Address, pray your Majesty that the powers of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland.”

5. On 13 December 1922, George V, King of Great Britain and of Ireland, granted the people of Northern Ireland their liberty from the government of his Irish Free State:
“I have received the Address presented to me by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in pursuance of Article 12 of the Articles of Agreement set forth in the Schedule to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and of Section 5 of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, and I have caused my Ministers and the Irish Free State Government to be so informed.”

6. In 1936 George VI was declared “King of Ireland” by the government of the Irish Free State; and in The Irish Free State’s External Relations Act of 1936, the Dublin government empowered Ireland’s King George VI to represent the Irish Free State in its foreign affairs. King George VI, as Head of State of the Irish Free State signed treaties as The King of Ireland, accredited ambassadors to Dublin, and received letters of credence from foreign diplomats.

7. The Irish Free State was abolished on 29 December 1937, with the enactment of the presumptuous Constitution of so-called “Ireland” [Bunreacht na hÉireann].

8. In 1949, the state presuming to call itself “Ireland” officially declared that it could henceforth describe itself as a republic.

Ireland (North & South) is at War with Serbia

Why do the Irish (at least those ruled from the bankers' puppet government in Dublin) try to maintain the fiction that they are a militarily neutral country?

A spokesman for the Defence Forces, Cmdt Gavin Young, said the 300 Irish troops based in Kosovo were on "high alert" .

The Irish troops are in Kosovo as part of the multinational 16,000-strong, NATO-led military force.

Ireland's Brig Gen Gerry Hegarty commands a multinational taskforce of 1,500 troops.

[The Irish Times]

So the Republic of Ireland is willing to fight for a predominantly Muslim province's "right" to secede on religious grounds, but doesn't recognize a predominantly Protestant province's "right" to do so closer to home?

Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern is to recommend that Ireland formally recognise Kosovo's independence. "We are faced with a decision to recognise Kosovo. My intention is to do so."

1972.07.22: British considered transferring by force 1/3 of population of Northern Ireland

From The Future of Northern Ireland: A Paper for Discussion (1972)

The plan was rejected only due to practical difficulties.

UK 1972.07.22 Expulsion of RC third of NI population 01

UK 1972.07.22 Expulsion of RC third of NI population 02

UK 1972.07.22 Expulsion of RC third of NI population 03

UK 1972.07.22 Expulsion of RC third of NI population 04

UK 1972.07.22 Expulsion of RC third of NI population 05

UK 1972.07.22 Expulsion of RC third of NI population 06

UK 1972.07.22 Expulsion of RC third of NI population 07

UK 1972.07.22 Expulsion of RC third of NI population 08

+ + +

British Prime Minister Edward Heath considered arbitrarily redefining the Irish border, forcibly expelling hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics to the Republic, and ceding Protestant populated land to the Republic and shifting hundreds of thousands of Protestant inhabitants northward. The scheme would have involving the shifting of approximately 500,000 human cattle, one third of the populace.

The genocidal document was presented to the PM by Sir Burke Trend, and was written by the British secretary for Northern Ireland, representatives of the foreign secretary, the defense secretary, and others, without consulting any Irish politician in either Northern Ireland or the Republic.

“We have, as requested, considered the possibility of redrawing the border with the republic and effecting compulsory transfers of population within Northern Ireland or from Northern Ireland to the republic.”

 ... "Military planning is well in hand”

Genocide is defined as acts with "the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.”

No British official have faced (or will face) prosecution for this Conspiracy to commit Crimes Against Humanity.

Perhaps they are too busy persecuting Serbs (with help from Irish soldiers) for fictitious population transfers?

Czech Documentary: Stolen Kosovo

NWO: Bosnia Kosovo Georgia 01

NWO Bosnia Kosovo Georgia 02

It Began With A Lie ~ Es begann mit einer luge

Albanian Theft of Decani Monastery Territory

NATO Colony Proclaims Pretend Constitution

Ireland at War with Serbia


+ + +

Dáil Éireann, 1943.07.09.

Re: "Emergency Powers (Continuance) Bill, 1943" -- Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Roddy: I can assure the Taoiseach that I am not going to hold up the business of the House very long. I want to point out to the Minister that his Order has caused quite a lot of unemployment. It has hit the private lorry business, and in addition it has created unemployment in local garages in Sligo. There is a danger that, if the Minister insists on the Order remaining in force, some of the fuel merchants in Sligo will also be driven out of business, with consequent addition to unemployment in the town. I do appeal to the Minister to exclude the very small portion of Sligo covered by the scheme. If the Minister cannot see his way to do that, he should at least agree to allow private lorries in Sligo—lorries which draw for fuel merchants, and other private lorries if necessary—to transfer turf from Dromore West to Sligo town, so as to prevent the possibility of a fuel famine in the coming winter and spring.

There were a few other matters that I wanted to raise, but, in view of the Taoiseach's statement, I will not hold up the business of the House. With regard to the regulations made by the Minister under the Emergency Powers Act, I would appeal to him to impress on his officials the importance of administering those regulations a little more sympathetically than they have been doing it up to the present. I know of cases where shopkeepers and traders have been hauled before the courts on the trivial charge of failing to fill in the correct form.

Mr. Lemass: I want to emphasise that that is not a trivial charge. It is the natural cover-up for black market activities.

Mr. Roddy: I have known intimately for a number of years one particular merchant who was hauled before the courts for failure to fill up the correct form, and I know that that merchant did and was doing his utmost to carry out, in the letter and in the spirit, the regulations made by the Minister. I know that he had no intention whatsoever of causing any trouble to one of the Minister's officials. Nevertheless, because he failed to fill in the correct form, he was brought before the courts. Fortunately, the district justice took a charitable view of the case, and let him off, I think, under the First Offenders Act; I forget at the moment what the actual sentence was. There have been a few cases of that type. I know one case where an inspector visited a shop in a certain area in my constituency seven times in one day. I realise perfectly well that, during the war, it is essential that an Emergency Powers Act of this description should be enforced. I realise also that it is essential that the Government and the Minister should have extraordinary powers. I realise too that it is the duty of citizens to co-operate to the best of their ability with the Government and the Minister in carrying out the provisions of the Act. But I would appeal to the Minister to impress on his officials the importance of administering those regulations as sympathetically as possible. From my knowledge of traders and merchants, I believe that they are anxious to co-operate to the best of their ability with the Minister and his officials. It must be remembered, however, that the difficulties which traders and merchants have to face at the present time are very great. Their problems are not by any means easy ones, but I do think that at least 95 or perhaps 99 per cent. of the merchants and traders in this country are quite honest in the manner in which they are carrying on their business, and I do not think it is necessary for officials rigidly to apply the system of inspection which they are carrying out in so many cases.

Mr. Cogan: Speaking for myself, and not for this Party, I feel that there is no member of this House who can seriously object to the Government seeking the powers which are embodied in this Emergency Powers Act. We all have had very vivid experience of the manner in which those powers have been abused in various ways during the past couple of years. Nevertheless, the preservation of the democratic institutions of this country, the preservation of the very existence of the nation, depends upon whatever Government is in office being vested with powers sufficient to enable them to deal with any attempt that may be made upon the authority of the State. The very fact that the present Government is in a minority position in this House places a heavier responsibility upon every individual Deputy here than would, perhaps, otherwise be the case. If the Government had a clear majority over all Parties, it might be possible for minority Parties here, or for individual Deputies, as a gesture of protest against some of the things that have been done under the Emergency Powers Act, to vote against the continuation of that Act, but, in the present circumstances, I think no Deputy in this House who seriously realises his responsibility to the nation would take the risk of depriving the Government of the powers which are so necessary for the preservation of the authority of the State.

A fairly reasoned case was put up by Deputy Connolly in regard to certain matters under this Emergency Powers Act, but I do not think that he did really attempt to establish a case against the continuation of the Act. He certainly indicated that many of the powers which are embodied in the Act, particularly in regard to the internment of persons suspected of endeavouring to upset the authority of the State, would be utilised by him if he were exercising governmental authority. At any rate, he made it clear that there are certain types of suspects, particularly suspects with Fascist leanings, against whom he would be prepared rigidly to enforce the law, because he would not allow them to upset the authority of democratic institutions in this country. Therefore, we may take it that the general principle of internment is accepted by him, and it is only a question of considering whether the number of persons interned by the State could be reduced by a revaluation or a reinvestigation of the circumstances of each individual internee. I think that is a fairly reasonable request, and I think it is one which the Government would be prepared to meet. It is really only a matter of finding out the most desirable method of investigating the future intentions of those who have had to be interned. On general principles, therefore, I think the necessity for internment of certain citizens of this State for the protection of governmental authority is accepted.

In other matters, very strong protests have been made by citizens of this country against the manner in which some of the Orders under the Emergency Powers Act have been enforced, and particularly the Order which enforces the cancellation of the licences of traders.

Here we have the position in which people who have been tried by a court and sentenced to the most severe penalty which the court considers necessary to meet the case are, in addition, subjected to a much more severe penalty, imposed not by any tribunal, but by an official of the Department of Supplies. I think there should be some assurance from the Government that in future some adequate protection will be afforded to citizens who are brought before the courts for offences against the various emergency regulations. At any rate, no citizen of this State should be deprived completely of his means of livelihood—for that is what is implied in the cancellation of his licence. Not only is the trader deprived of his means of livelihood, but he is also deprived of means of collecting debts which are due to him by his customers. We all know what a delicate and difficult thing it is for a trader to build up a connection with his customers and secure a definite patronage. If he loses that support for even a matter of a few months he may lose his trade permanently. I think that that aspect of the matter should command the earnest attention of the Government, and that in future some provision should be made for some form of tribunal to which a person can appeal if it is proposed to cancel his licence to carry on business.

Another matter which intimately concerns my constituency, and I suppose every other constituency, is the power of the State to take over turbary rights from citizens in this country. We have very serious complaints from many counties as to the basis on which compensation has been awarded to bog owners. We have also serious complaints as to the manner in which these turbary rights have been distributed amongst prospective turf cutters. This is a very serious matter as our turf supply is one of the most important considerations at the moment and it is absolutely necessary that the turbary rights of private citizens should be respected. Turbary owners are, and have always been, the poorer sections of the community. If, in this time of emergency, it is proposed to take over their property in the national interest and thereby deprive them of property which might be very valuable to them and their children in after years, it is absolutely essential that full and adequate compensation should be paid and that all consequential loss or damage inflicted on those small property owners should be taken into consideration. I think the House would be prepared, while protesting against some of the extreme and unwise measures taken under this Emergency Powers Act, to support this Bill.

Mr. Flanagan: I should like to co-operate with the Government or with any Party that I believed was going to introduce legislation in the best interests of the Irish nation. I should like very much to be in a position to support any measure brought forward in this House with that object, but I am very sorry that I cannot associate myself with this Bill or with anything relating to the public safety measures introduced by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government or by the present Fianna Fáil Government because I have seen that most of these Emergency Acts were always directed against Republicanism. How is it that we do not see any of these Acts directed against the Jews, who crucified Our Saviour nineteen hundred years ago, and who are crucifying us every day in the week? How is it that we do not see them directed against the Masonic Order? How is it that the I.R.A. is considered an illegal organisation while the Masonic Order is not considered an illegal organisation? You do not hear one word in these Acts against the banks who are robbing the people, right, left and centre. I told the electors in Leix-Offaly that the banks were robbers. The police were listening to me. Does the Minister for Justice think that, if the banks were not robbers, the police would have allowed me to make that statement in public without attempting to make me prove it? This Government is introducing an Emergency Powers Bill now to prevent the suffering masses of the Irish people from ridding themselves or the poverty, emigration, debt, seizures and a thousand and one other national ills which I could continue to enumerate in this House until this day-week, but I do not propose to waste your precious time doing so.

All that I have to say is that my heart goes out to the men who are on hunger strike to-day. I made a request to the Minister the other night to release these prisoners. I am sorry I made such a request. I had a right to demand it on behalf of the people who sent me here as a republican. I am demanding it now. Seán Mac Cumhaill sent me a telegram last night asking me to deny a certain statement made by the Minister. Perhaps you, Sir, would tell me if it would be in order to read this telegram to the Minister since he did not think it worth while——

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Lynch): I think the Deputy had better read it outside. He can read it to the Minister in his room.

Mr. Flanagan: Thank you very much. I should like to say that I cannot support any of these Bills because Our Holy Father the Pope stated that all nations, strong and weak, had a right to life and independence, and if I am a Christian, I must obey the teachings of the Church. Is the Minister a Christian? He says he is, but nothing Christian has come from Fianna Fáil or from Fine Gael. That old Christian saying: “Do unto men as you would like men to do unto you”, is forgotten and their policy is: “Do a man before he does you.” That is the position as I see it. I want to make my position clear. I am associated with no Party in this House. I am expressing the views of the republican organisation and the people of Leix-Offaly who sent me here because I got no support from Fianna Fáil, from Fine Gael, Labour or Farmers. I got support only from the republicans of Leix-Offaly who sent me here, and it is on behalf of these people that I am demanding the release of Seán Mac Cumhaill and these other men in the interests of Christianity and in accordance with the teachings of the Pope that all nations strong and weak have the right to life and independence. Does the Minister remember the words of the late Dr. O'Dwyer, that great Bishop of Limerick, who said in 1916 that “While grass grows and water flows there will be men found in Ireland to dare and die for it”? You will not be here in years to come, not one of us will be here in years to come, but I hope a better lot than we are will replace us. When you are gone out of this House there will be men daring and dying for Ireland. They will have to wait for the republic and perhaps die for the republic if they are waiting for us to get it. I cannot see anything in these Acts about the republic. It is completely forgotten.

Acting-Chairman: The Deputy must confine himself to the measure before the House.

Mr. Flanagan: I am confining myself to it.

Acting-Chairman: The Deputy is not. Republicanism or anti-Republicanism is not in question in this measure.

Mr. Flanagan: Agreed, Sir.

Acting-Chairman: The Deputy must deal with realities or else sit down.

Mr. O Cléirigh: The Deputy is a smart fool.

Mr. Flanagan: I appeal to the House——

Acting-Chairman: The Deputy will deal with the measure before the House.

Mr. Flanagan: I want to know if under all these Emergency Acts people are prevented from visiting prisoners or can I, as a representative of Leix-Offaly, get permission from the Minister to see two friends of mine in the Curragh -- one from Creenhill, Birr, and the other from Clara, Offaly. I wonder if I went to the Minister's office would he give me permission to see those constituents of mine who are internees in the Curragh.

Mr. O Cléirigh: Go and stay there for a month and you will come out with a different outlook.

Mr. Flanagan: I cannot hear the Deputy. I suppose he is a pensioner. That is the reason he is over there.

Mr. O Cléirigh: No, he is not.

Mr. Flanagan: I cannot for the life of me see why those men should be interned because of their views. Their views are the views of Wolfe Tone, or Pearse and of Connolly. Deputy Dillon, a member of this House, says that this nation should be at war with England—that it should join in with her. Senator MacDermot, a member of the Oireachtas, in a broadcast from the United States some time ago said: “Shame on Ireland because she is not in the war with England, her best friend and ally.” That man was one of the Taoiseach's nominees in the Seanad. I wonder will he appear on his list for the Seanad this time? There was no Act to intern Deputy Dillon, and no order to arrest Senator MacDermot the moment he arrived here. I am surprised to see Deputy Dillon free, because if I said the things that he has said I would have been in jail long ago. The Guards in Mountrath tried to put me in jail. They had no case against me or I would be there.

I want to ask that the Emergency Powers Order which prevents the division of land from taking place, be immediately lifted. The Minister for Lands wrote me some time ago to say that there was not sufficient staff in the Land Commission to deal with the division of land. How is it that there are thousands of well educated young men being forced to take the emigrant ship, not from Galway Bay or Cobh this time to take them to the greater Ireland beyond the Atlantic, but to take them from Dun Laoghaire and Rosslare to the land beyond the Irish Sea, the land of our traditional enemy, to help England in her war effort against Germany? There is one thing that Germany did, and that was to rout the Jews out of their country. Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair's breadth what orders you make. Where the bees are there is the honey, and where the Jews are there is the money. I do not propose to detain the House further. I propose to vote against such Orders and actions, and I am doing so on Christian principles. The Minister for Justice could not give me a straight answer a few moments ago. I am sorry that I interrupted him in the heat of the discussion. Of course, one needs great patience to listen to what is going on. I know very well that even the clergy in the Minister's constituency are up against him.

Father Keane, the parish priest of Athleague, is up against him, and when the clergy are up against him surely it will be hard for any of us to support him. I thank the Chair for allowing me to make my statement.

Acting-Chairman: I have given the Deputy far more latitude than he was entitled to.

Mr. Flanagan: I am not familiar with the procedure of the House, but as time goes on I will become better acquainted with it.

Acting-Chairman: As time goes on you will find, I think, that you will have to keep more to the subject under discussion.

Mr. Flanagan: I think I have said all that I want to say. I cannot associate myself with any of those emergency Acts because I do not agree with them. I think that in a Christian State we should have liberty and freedom for all. I know very well that there is a war on and that the Government must take precautions, but I cannot see why they are letting the banks go scot free and the Jews and the Masons. Surely, the Republicans are not worse than they are. They fought for freedom.

Acting-Chairman: I have already told the Deputy that he will have to cease referring to sections of the community who are not being dealt with under this Bill. He is entirely out of order. If he has nothing more to say, he had better sit down.

Mr. Flanagan: Will the Minister say whether the I.R.A. is an illegal organisation and whether the Masonic Order is an illegal organisation? I intend to vote solidly against all such measures as this which come up here.

Minister for Supplies (Seán F. Lemass): I would like to say a few words concerning the revocation of traders' licences to which reference was made by Deputy Cosgrave and by Deputy Cogan. There appears to be in the mind of Deputy Cosgrave, and also in the mind of Deputy Cogan, a misunderstanding in connection therewith. Apparently, they have the impression that the revocation of traders' licences is intended to be an additional penalty imposed administratively over and above that inflicted by the justices by whom a trader has been convicted for some offence under a rationing or price control Order. It is nothing of the kind. The requirement that a trader should have a licence before dealing in particular commodities is an essential to the administration of any rationing scheme. Licences are necessary for trading in a very large number of commodities which are in short supply, and the issue of those licences carried with it, and must carry with it, the power to withdraw them again. The aim of rationing is to ensure that every person in the community will get an equal right to a fair share of the available supplies. In administering our rationing scheme we have to work through our existing trade organisations, and have to ensure that these trade organisations work satisfactorily to achieve the primary aim of the rationing scheme. It is obvious that if the rationing scheme is jeopardised by reason of the inability or unwillingness of traders to conform to the regulations, then there rests upon the State either the obligation to devise some new method of distribution or to remedy the defects in the existing method.

The withdrawal of a trader's licence is a direct consequence of the evidence produced in court, following on his conviction, that he cannot be trusted to distribute fairly, or at a fair price, supplies of goods that are scarce, and that have been given to him for distribution. It is designed to protect his customers. It is not intended to be a penalty. There is no desire on the part of the Department of Supplies to add to the penalties which the court considered it appropriate to inflict, but there is on the Department of Supplies an obligation to see that no section of the people, and no number of customers are left dependent for their supplies of essential goods upon a trader who has shown himself to be incapable of being trusted to sell those goods at a fair price, or to distribute them evenly amongst his customers. This power to withdraw licences has been used only in cases where there was no doubt about the intention of the trader to break the law, to fleece his customers and to take from the poorer sections of the people supplies to which they were entitled for the purpose of selling them at excessive prices to richer customers. The impression has been created by statements made on this matter that a very large number of traders have been put out of business by the withdrawal of licences.

Mr. Larkin: Not half enough.

Mr. Lemass: That view is arguable. I think the figures that I am going to give to the House will support the view. There are 41,727 traders who have been licensed to sell tea and sugar. Of these 41,727 traders, 1,290 have been convicted of offences under price control and rationing orders. I think it is a matter of comment that of the total number of traders engaged in the sale of tea and sugar, more than 40,000 out of 41,727 have not been convicted of any such offence. Of the 1,290 traders who have been convicted, licences were withdrawn in 31 cases. It is true that notice of intention to withdraw licences had been issued in a number of other cases. I decided that it was desirable to wipe the slate clean and start again, because the only argument which had validity advanced in the past against the action taken by the Department in withdrawing these licences was that proper warning had not been given to traders that their conviction for offences under price control or rationing orders would involve this consequence. I felt there was some truth in that, that at any rate traders did not appear to appreciate properly what the consequences to themselves might be. I feel now that that situation cannot be said to exist in the future and that consequently we can decide that in the future any trader who is convicted of serious offences under these orders should and will lose his licence.

I want to say this also: failure to keep records or the keeping of inaccurate records is not and should not be regarded as a trivial offence. The traders who want to chisel a few ounces of tea or sugar from their poorer customers in order to sell in the black market will fail to keep records or fake their records. The natural cover-up for anybody engaged in black marketing activities is failure to keep records or the faking of records. These records are an essential part of the machinery for controlling the distribution of these goods. Traders cannot get away with the excuse that they regard it as a purely technical matter, nor is failure to keep records or the keeping of inaccurate records to be regarded as a trivial offence. There are a very large number of trades for the carrying on of which licences are required.

The suggestion has been made that the power to withdraw licences should not be exercisable unless it has been recommended by the court. We could not rely on the court to determine the circumstances of such cases. There are many traders who were convicted of offences under these Orders who would have lost their licences, but who were allowed to remain in business because they happened to be the only traders in isolated country districts, or because there were other circumstances relating to their trade which made it impossible for us to transfer their customers to other traders and the appropriate supplies along with them. It would be impossible for a district justice to decide the administrative problems which would arise in connection with cases of that kind, and consequently it is, I think, undesirable that the power to decide whether a particular trader should or should not lose his licence, following his conviction for some such offence, should be exercisable by a district justice. A district justice is neither in the position, nor is he the most suitable type of person to decide these questions.

Furthermore, if the amendment were adopted, it would apply to licences or permits which are required not merely for the carrying on of trade in tea and sugar, but a number of other commodities. I will give as an illustration the most obvious permit, with which all Deputies are familiar -- that required for the operation of a motor car. Permits for the operation of a motor car were withdrawn for no other reason than that supplies of petrol could not be made available, and it was necessary to limit the number of cars on the road. Clearly, that is not a matter for a district justice to decide. Whoever has the responsibility of administering the available supplies of these goods must have the power to determine the purposes for which the supplies will be utilised. If we get this year only half the quantity of petrol we got last year, there can be only half the number of cars operated, and somebody knowing all the facts must decide for what purpose permits to use cars will be given, and any permits in existence for cars utilisable for other purposes must be withdrawn. There is no question of an offence in these cases, but it would, I think, be foolish to suggest in all such cases that appeal should be made to the district court for an order to withdraw somebody's permit.

The impression has been created also that the action taken by the Government here is exceptionally harsh. It is not. Deputies will have read in the newspapers that in other countries far more drastic treatment is meted out to those who commit these offences. In Italy, according to newspaper reports, it is the common practice, when a trader is convicted of overcharging or of some offence under rationing orders, to close his establishment in addition to putting the proprietor in prison. In Germany, the penalty is death. In Great Britain, the practice is somewhat the same as here and perhaps it will help to round off my remarks if I read a statement issued by the British Minister of Food and published in the Sunday Times last Sunday. He said:—

There will be always a few people who respond to temptation in time of scarcity, and, when we find them out, we are ruthless. Every trader in food must be licensed, and, if he offends, we can withdraw his licence and put him out of business. That is a great deterrent and substantially we have driven the black marketeer out of business.

It was found in Great Britain that the power to withdraw licences was a necessary deterrent to the development of black-marketing and a means of ensuring compliance with the regulations necessary to produce effective rationing. We have found the same here. It would be impossible for any Minister for Supplies to carry on the rationing schemes in operation and exercise proper supervision over the sale of goods, unless he had that power to require traders in particular lines to have licences and the power to withdraw them, if his regulations were not complied with. We could not, therefore, at all agree to a withdrawal of that power, and it would, I think, be impracticable to make that power exercisable only subject to the approval of a district justice.

Mr. Norton: In the course of his remarks to-day, the Minister for Justice—I do not know whether consciously or unconsciously—accused the Labour Party of being responsible for the continuance of the hunger strike at the Curragh Camp.

Mr. Boland: Quite consciously.

Mr. Norton: I lake it then that the Minister said that the Labour Party was responsible for the continuance of the hunger strike?

Mr. Boland: I did it quite consciously.

Mr. Norton: The Minister quite consciously accuses the Labour Party of being responsible for the continuance of the hunger strike at the Curragh Camp. This hunger strike has been in operation for the past 46 days. A question about the hunger strike was submitted only on Wednesday last. No question was submitted last week or in previous weeks about it. Yet it did not bring about a termination of the hunger strike, and I can only characterise the statement of the Minister to-day as a deliberate perversion and a deliberate misrepresentation of the attitude of the Labour Party towards the hunger strikers. When I raised this matter by question on Wednesday last, and on the adjournment on Wednesday night, I made it perfectly clear that my purpose in raising the question was based on humanitarian and national grounds. I sought to take no Party advantage out of the fact that three unfortunate men were undergoing the torture of a hunger strike at the Curragh Camp. I appealed to the Minister then on humanitarian and national grounds to release these three men from the torture which they were undergoing, and I urged in favour of their release that these men had not been charged with any offence, had not been tried and were as guiltless as any other citizen in the absence of a trial and a charge against them.

I have had, like other Deputies, a telegram from Seán Mac Cumhaill, who is undergoing the hunger strike at the Curragh Camp, in which he says:—

Would be grateful for public contradiction to-day of G. Boland's statement that ‘he was going to persist in trying to involve this country in war’. British and American occupation of our Six Northern Counties; England's enforced partition of Irish territory and her denial of our full sovereignty constitute the only and real menace of Irish peace and neutrality in present world struggle.

There is a declaration by a man on hunger strike that he has no intention of trying to involve this country in war, a declaration that he does not desire to involve this country in war, a declaration on all fours with previous declarations which have been made by the Taoiseach when he protested against the occupation of any portion of our country by the armed forces of another country.

I think it is most unfair for the Minister to try to twist a plea for the release of these men, on humanitarian and national grounds, into an assertion that the Labour Party is responsible for the perpetuation of the hunger strike. We deplore the fact that these men have, apparently, found it necessary to resort to hunger strike as a protest against their detention. It is a challenge to statesmanship in this country if, in the face of the fact that three men have undertaken a hunger strike for 45 days, it is not possible to find some ways and means of creating a situation in which that protest against food will not end in tragedy in a country where, unfortunately, tragedies arising out of political convulsions follow tragedies in another sence.

I still hope some effort will be made to release these three men. I think there is a moral obligation on the Government to ensure that they do not die. I think it is a most unequal struggle for the Government, with all its powers and resources, on the one hand, to engage in a battle of death with these three helpless, emaciated and mentally tortured men on the other hand. Government strength will reside in the release of these men. Government strength will not be weakened by the release of these men. There will be very little satisfaction to the Government, very little satisfaction to the nation, if these three unfortunate men, untried and uncharged, are allowed to pay with their lives for the protest they are making to-day. I still urge the Government to find a way out of this impasse, to find a way of reconciling the State's authority with humanity, to find a way of avoiding these potential tragedies.

I refuse to believe that it is beyond the wit of Irish statesmanship to find a means of bringing to an end that unequal struggle, a struggle which promises nothing but bitterness and disunity for the whole nation at a time when unity is much to be desired and bitterness and evil to be avoided.

I want, Sir, on this Bill to call attention to the type of lopsided censorship which we have in this country, lopsided censorship which is used for the benefit of the Fianna Fáil Party. Some time ago the Labour Party tendered an advertisement to the daily papers. One statement in the advertisement was that, so far as the Labour Party was concerned, neutrality was the keystone of its policy. Is there anything wrong in that? Could anybody see anything wrong in that? The Labour Party was entitled to have any policy as the keystone of its policy, but even that simple statement of reaffirmation of our faith in neutrality was something which annoyed the censorship here and the Press were prohibited from publishing the statement. An advertisement of that kind and a declaration of that kind could only have one effect, to make it perfectly clear, that so far as the Labour Party was concerned, it was anchored to the policy of neutrality. Fianna Fáil wants to pretend to everybody that it alone is responsible for the maintenance of neutrality here—a hypocritical attitude which, of course, nobody believed. But, even a statement of that simple character as was tendered by the Labour Party was something to annoy the Press Censor. It could not be published and the Minister stood over the non-publication of an advertisement of that kind. Can anyone see any danger to neutrality in reaffirming our faith in neutrality? Can anybody see any menace to established institutions here in a declaration of that kind? Of course not. The only person who could see it was the Minister, and the Minister was jealous that anybody should attempt to affirm greater faith in neutrality than Fianna Fáil pretended to have.

Bear in mind the simple statement which was censored by the Press Censorship, which censorship was endorsed by the Minister, and compare that simple statement with what Fianna Fáil was allowed to get away with in the last election. I would like to hear from the Taoiseach whether or not he stands for this. I have here a copy of an advertisement, which appeared in the Evening Mail of Tuesday, 15th June: “Slaughter, Famine and Anarchy! From their recorded statements that is the only policy the Labour and Fine Gael Parties can give you.” Slaughter, famine and anarchy, say the four Fianna Fáil candidates for County Dublin, is the only policy the Labour and Fine Gael Parties can give you. Is not that a scandalous declaration for any political party to make?

Mr. Flanagan: Terrible!

Mr. Norton: And yet, the very Minister who would not allow the Labour Party to publish an advertisement saying that neutrality was the keystone of the Labour Party's policy permits an insulting—a grossly insulting—advertisement of that kind to appear in a paper and permits it to appear because it is used—I charge him—in trying to enhance the political reputation of four Fianna Fáil candidates in the County Dublin election.

When did the Labour Party stand for slaughter in this country? When did the Labour Party advocate or stand for a policy of slaughter in this country? I would like to hear the Fianna Fáil Deputies for any constituency trying to justify the statement that the Labour Party stands for slaughter.

The Taoiseach (Eamon de Valera): Somebody must have run amok. That is the only explanation I can see of it.

Mr. Larkin: They ran amok in Dublin City, did they not?

The Taoiseach: I do not know who was responsible.

Mr. Norton: Do I understand from the Taoiseach that, so far as he is concerned, he does not stand over that?

The Taoiseach: I do not.

Mr. Norton: I pass from it on the Taoiseach's repudiation of it and I do not propose to pursue the matter further. I hope in any case when this debate is over the Taoiseach will have a word with the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, who censored our simple advertisement and who permitted a dastardly advertisement of that kind to appear in a newspaper. I hope there will be no repetition of that kind of running amok.

Apart from the question to which I have referred, there is another aspect of this Bill which we are asked to continue to-day, that is, its bearing on the wage standards of the workers. I want on behalf of this Party to record our protest against this Bill and against the parent Act because of the manner in which it has been used to depress the standard of living of the workers of this country. When the Bill was passed originally in 1939, it was never contemplated that the Emergency Powers Bill would be used for the purpose of keeping wages low. From the discussion on the Bill at that stage it will be clearly seen that the general purport of it was to give the Government powers to deal with threatened invasion, threatened aggression, and with any attempt which might be made to undermine the liberties of the people of this country. But we have lived to see the powers contained in that Act abused in a most scandalous manner and used to depress the standard of living of the workers of this country.

Under the Emergency Powers Act certain wage Orders were made. It was stated that the purpose of these Orders was to peg down wages to a certain level. Of course, we had the assurance of the Minister for Finance that if wages were going to be controlled on the one hand, prices were going to be controlled on the other hand. We can see, in a few moments, the extent to which prices have been controlled. The case made at all events for the issue of these wage Orders—“Low Wage Orders” is a more applicable title—was that they were to keep the wages of workers low. The whole philosophy enshrined in these Orders appears to be based on a belief that low wages would bring prosperity and would avoid economic chaos here. If you concede that low wages, 1939 levels of wages, no matter how prices move upwards, will make a country prosperous, then lower wages still, or no wages at all, will make a country still more prosperous. The Government appear to have convinced themselves that the less wages you give the workers the more prosperity you will bring to the country. That, of course, has been found to be an economic fallacy in every country in the world.

If low wages could ever make Ireland prosperous, Ireland prior to 1914 would have been the most prosperous country in the world, because the wage standards of Irish workers then were appallingly low. Then the trade union movement found its strength in 1913 and gathered strength from year to year. After that, those appallingly low wage standards were raised, until such time as Irish workers could say that they had, in a large measure, shaken off the poverty-stricken outlook which was characteristic of the Irish-employing classes before 1914. It is now recognised in every enlightened country in the world that low wages are not a passport to prosperity. Low wages can only mean making less money available for spending, which means that less goods are in demand. When less goods are in demand, there is less employment available and the emigrant ship proceeds to take from our shores tens of thousands of men and women who ought to be working here creating goods, if our wage earners had the financial coupons necessary to purchase goods which could be produced here. I should like to know on what grounds these Orders can be justified. Were there any unreasonable demands made for wage increases? If there were, we have not been told what these demands were and the sources from which these demands originated. We can only conclude, therefore, in the absence of information that there were demands and as to the source of these demands, that in fact no unreasonable demands were made and that they are not able to disclose the source of the unreasonable demands because they know that no such demands were submitted.

What is the present position? In 1939, we gave the Government the Emergency Powers Act for the purpose of giving them powers to deal with any threatened invasion or threatened aggression from within or without against the liberties and established institutions of our people. We have seen that Act utilised for the purpose of invading the homes of our workers when ostensibly it was passed to defend the homes of our workers. It is being used for the purpose of depressing the standard of living of all classes of workers. Since 1939, when that Act was passed, the prices of commodities have risen by no less than 60 per cent., even according to the restricted yardstick used by the Department of Industry and Commerce to measure the increase in prices, while over the same period the wages of workers have increased on an average by not more than 10 per cent. Is it not obvious to everybody that if, on the one hand, prices rise by 60 per cent. and, on the other hand, wages rise only by 10 per cent., that that is equivalent to slashing the wages of the workers, because it debases their standard of living? They can buy less food, less clothes, the little luxuries of life are now but a fond memory, and, generally speaking, the standard of living has been driven down substantially below that of pre-war years. The Government must know that that is the only consequence of their low-wage policy and low-wage Orders, and yet they proceed to argue the matter as if they were bringing security and prosperity to the workers by giving them less food, less clothes, and less of the amenities of life.

But there are other people who are treated very differently. One has only to look at the balance sheets of public companies to realise the very substantial profits that are being made. Take up the balance sheet of any great drapery firm and have a look at the profits made, profits made, in many cases, by selling pre-war goods at wartime prices. If you take up die balance sheet of any public company and analyse it, you will find that, so far as those who invest money are concerned, they are allowed to get away with a good deal of swag. When the banks came to the Minister for Finance and said: “We want to increase our charges for keeping customers' accounts,” there was not the slightest difficulty in the banks getting all the authority they wanted. When the Electricity Supply Board came along and said: “We must get more money for electricity,” the Government said: “Of course, by all means get more money for electricity.” When the Gas Company came along and said: “We must get more money for our gas,” the Government said: “By all means, get more money for your gas.” The bacon curers, as has been pointed out, are rolling in wealth since the war commenced. Anybody reading the newspapers last year could see that even if you engage in the very prosaic task of making boot laces in Ennis, apparently you can get away with a good deal of swag. All these have been allowed to get away with well-filled bags of loot. But when it comes to regulating the wages of workers, they are kept down; their standard of living is forced down as low as it is possible for the Government to do it, as low as they dare. On the other hand, we find the well-to-do classes in this country permitted to get away with any swag they can under the eyes of the Government, and, judging by their inactivity, with the approbation of the Government.

Let us take some examples of the effect of this treatment, of the effect of this low-wage policy, in respect of certain classes of workers. Take for example—because they are typical of the position in every country—the county council road workers in Kildare. They had a wage of 32/- per week in 1943. A wage of 30/- per week on the Shannon Scheme was roundly condemned by the Fianna Fáil Party in 1925, 1923 and 1927, when the cost of living was very much lower than it is to-day. As I say, these workers in the County Kildare had 32/- per week. The county council sought to increase the wages to 37/6. That was done for the purpose of getting a unanimous decision from all Parties in the House. That proposal came before the Minister for Local Government. Of course, the Minister for Local Government crystallises in his outlook the whole wages policy of the Government, because he apparently considered that 37/6 per week was too high a wage for a road worker to enjoy. That 37/6 would give him an inordinately high standard of living which he was not entitled to, and the Minister therefore would only sanction a wage of 35/- a week. I wonder would any Deputy like to have to live on 35/- a week and keep a wife and four, five, or six children. Yet the Department of Local Government, acting in accordance with the low wage policy of the Government, thinks 35/- is the maximum wage which a county council road worker ought to have. That 35/- per week was only wrung out of the Government by frequent protests from the county council and numerous questions in this House.

Take the example of the agricultural workers. Everybody knows how vital it is to produce food to-day. Everybody knows that the agricultural worker is the most vital worker in the country, because it is on his ability and skill that we rely for food for the maintenance of our human and cattle population. What is the position? The Government have appointed an Agricultural Wages Board, over which presides a chairman who is paid £750 a year by the Minister for Agriculture, and apparently the function of that chairman and that board is to keep agricultural wages as low as possible. I think everybody must realise the vital work which agricultural workers perform. Acting under the directions of the chairman, who is just an appointee of the Minister, the maximum that the board will allow agricultural workers is 36/- a week, over the bulk of the country. Will anybody try to justify a wage of 36/- a week? Will any Minister who believes that wage is good enough, work out the quantity of food, clothes and rent an agricultural worker can pay out of it? If any Minister does work it out, I suggest that he will get a result which will be condemned by every medical officer in the country.

Anyone can visualise the standard of living possible for a family on such a low wage as 36/-, a sum which, I submit, is incapable of sustaining health and physical vigour in existing circumstances. The best proof of the adverse reactions of the Government's low wage policy is to be found in the fact that, although certain commodities are rationed, the rich can use their coupons in purchasing these rationed commodities but, if you go into the homes of the workers, you will find an abundance of these coupons for drapery and other goods because wages are so low and money, in consequence, is so scarce, the workers are unable to purchase anything of that nature.

Is it any wonder that large numbers of our people, as evidenced by the reports of the county medical officers of health, are suffering from malnutrition and actual poverty? Tuberculosis, a disease which has an economic inspiration, and which is due in a large measure to bad housing and bad economic conditions, is growing apace. It is growing apace because of the fact that people cannot buy food or get decent shelter, because they are not permitted, through lack of money, to enjoy the amenities of life, which are the best bulwark against tuberculosis and which are much better than all the lectures in the world on the treatment of tuberculosis. Malnutrition, poverty and tuberculosis abound to-day because of the fact that we have forced down the standard of living of the masses of the people to a level which makes it almost impossible to maintain bodily health.

All this chaos stands so nakedly before us that we cannot, dispute its existence: While we must realise that economic chaos abounds, we stand idly by and appear to be quite content with a situation in which tens of thousands of the finest of our men and women seek the emigrant ship as a relief from the workhouse conditions at home. In the past two years more than 100,000 of the flower of our manhood and the cream of our womanhood have been driven to Britain, there to seek the employment which they were once promised here. Fianna Fáil believed they could cure unemployment at home. I put it to those who may have a flair for examining economic conditions, would it not be much better to keep these people in some form of employment at home, earning a reasonable wage, instead of driving them into exile, to create wealth for another country, sending back here the financial coupons which give them a lien on Irish wealth, which they are unable to create at home?

An Ceann Comhairle (Frank Fahy): The Deputy has gone away from the subject before the House.

Mr. Norton: I suggest that I was never more in order.

An Ceann Comhairle: The general question of employment and economic development in this country hardly arises.

Mr. Norton: I do not intend to pursue that matter further. I suggest that it is very much better to keep our people in Ireland earning good wages rather than permit them to be attracted to Britain to earn higher wages. I suggest it is better to keep men and women earning good wages here, creating wealth which can be shared among the Irish people, rather than drive them into exile, through a system of low wages, to create wealth for another country, to earn in another country money which gives them a lien on Irish wealth, which they are not permitted to produce here. No one can blame these people for leaving their homes, their wives and their children. They are driven to do it by economic necessity. We ought to alter a policy which compels a relatively undeveloped country to send to another country the best of its manhood and womanhood, creating wealth there, while the vital need at home is to create wealth which will determine the standard of living which the people in Ireland can enjoy.

I think after four years' experience of this low wage policy, as exemplified through the Emergency Powers Act, the Government ought to recognise that the time is long overdue for lifting the present control of wages and providing for a reasonable increase in the standard of living of the workers. If we do not do that, then we had better continue to follow the road which leads to depression of the standard of living of the workers, which means that they must tighten their belts, have less food and clothes, and that the amenities of life usual in a civilised country are something beyond their reach. It is because of the pursuance of the present low wage policy, the authority for which is the Emergency Powers Act, that we are opposed to that Act. We are opposed to it on the ground that it is being used for the purpose of depressing the standard of living.

We would be false to every principle we hold dear if we were to give the Government authority to continue that Act, necessary though it may be in certain respects, if the Government continue to declare that it is their intention to use the Act to debase the standard of living of the masses of the people on whom we must rely if ever our liberties are threatened from any external sources.

Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures (Mr. Aiken): Unfortunately, when Deputy Connolly opened his speech, I was not in the House, but I understand he raised the question of an election address which was stopped by the censorship, an address issued by a candidate.

Mr. Connolly: An election advertisement.

Mr. Aiken: The Deputy also referred to the deletion of certain words issued by somebody else on behalf of a candidate. Deputy Norton spoke about the activities of the Censorship Department during the election. I want to say right at the beginning that on the day the President authorised the election—indeed, before it -- I gave instructions to the Controller of Censorship that nothing that any candidate said on an election platform, and no advertisement issued by a candidate, was to be interfered with in any way by the Censorship Department. The Censor did not interfere with, or stop, anything said by a candidate.

The Censorship Department was instructed not to interfere with advertisements issued by candidates. The particular advertisement to which Deputy Connolly alluded was issued by a person not known to the Controller of Censorship. I was not, unfortunately, consulted on the matter, or I would have recognised that it was a person who was acting as agent for a particular candidate, namely, Mr. McCool. When this question of censorship was raised in the Seanad I indicated, in reply to Senator Sir John Keane, that while we were not going to interfere with election propaganda of any description, we could not put the censorship out of commission altogether, because we wanted to make sure, if we could, that there would be a State here for whatever Government was to come in to control, and that it would not be blown up altogether by subversive activities during the course of the election. We did try to prevent activities of a treasonable nature being reported -- propaganda of a treasonable nature being published in the Press.

In regard to this particular advertisement, the Controller of Censorship thought that somebody whom he did not know was trying to couple with an appeal for funds for a candidate subversive propaganda against the State. The Government did not make any effort to hide the fact that eight men went on hunger strike in the Curragh of Kildare a few weeks before the election, for the purpose, as it seemed to us, of creating antagonism to the Government. That information was issued officially by the Government, so that it was up to anybody who wanted to see these men released to go ahead and vote for some of the Parties opposed to the Government Party. During some years, we have had to take certain steps not only to protect this country's neutrality, but to defend ourselves against people who were making war against this Dáil and the Government. I do not think that the three hunger strikers at the Curragh would thank Deputy Norton or Deputy Connolly for their interpretation of their attitude in the House to-day. I am sorry the men are on hunger strike. I do not approve of their policy, good, bad or indifferent, external or internal, but I think it is true to say that they would not deny that they deem themselves to be at war with England to-day, and that they insist on their right to make war on England or any other country in respect of which they so decide, without reference to Deputy Norton or the rest of us here, and without reference to the Irish people. Unfortunately during the election campaign, a number of people thought they could use both the international and the internal situation to make propaganda for their own purposes against the Government. Deputy Norton knows as well as any man here, that during my control of censorship my attitude has been to prevent neutrality being made an issue or a cause of division between our people. Whenever some Fianna Fáil supporter down the country, in a fit of enthusiasm, declared that Fianna Fáil was the sole bulwark of neutrality, the Press were not allowed to publish the statement. That was done until, in the fulfilment of the promise I gave in the Seanad, I could not deny a right to one candidate that we were giving to other candidates. I regret that any Fianna Fáil candidate should claim that Fianna Fáil was the sole bulwark of neutrality, but I had to allow the statement, when made, to be published. I do not believe that Fianna Fáil is the sole bulwark of neutrality. Notwithstanding what we did to make neutrality possible, I do not believe that we could have sustained that policy but for the cooperation of the other Parties in its defence.

Mr. Norton: Say that to the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Aiken: I want to come back to the Labour advertisement Deputy Norton adverted to and which he said was altered by the censorship. I discussed this advertisement with Deputy Norton.

Mr. Norton: After it had been banned.

Mr. Aiken: It had not been banned. This Labour advertisement was issued some time before the election -- at the time I was speaking of, when Fianna Fáil people down the country were saying we were the sole bulwark of neutrality. The Labour Party came along with this advertisement in connection, I think, with the million-shilling fund. In it, they referred to their policy and asked for subscriptions. The advertisement was not as Deputy Norton quoted it to-day. I am merely speaking from recollection but I will bet him 10 to 1 that I am right in my recollection.

Mr. Norton: You will lose your £10.

Mr. Aiken: The Deputy said that we stopped an advertisement saying that neutrality was the keystone of the Labour policy. In my recollection, that is not correct. What we did stop was an advertisement stating -- the Deputy will remember this -- that Labour was the keystone in the arch of neutrality. I pointed out to the Deputy that there was no keystone in this arch, that we were all in it together and that we should all be equal in it. The advertisement was changed. It finally ran this way: “Neutrality is item No. 1 in the Labour programme.” That was passed.

Mr. Norton: Was there anything sinister or likely to embroil us in war in the advertisement, no matter what interpretation you put upon it?

Mr. Aiken: There was not. It was in this friendly spirit I discussed the matter with Deputy Norton -- that we were all keystones in the arch and that we all had to combine to defend it, that it was wrong, and bad policy for Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour or anybody else to say that neutrality was dependent on them alone. I always believed that. I believe it now, and I said that during the election campaign, as Deputy Connolly will vouch, I hated to see the advertisement issued by some fool of a publicity agent in County Dublin about slaughter, famine and anarchy being the policy of the other Parties. I was down the country at the time. Owing to our general policy during the election, the Controller of Censorship had to pass it, as he had to pass some other advertisements by the Labour Party that I hated to see, and that Fine Gael would hate to see going through. The director of elections of the Fianna Fáil Party got some whimper that this advertisement was being issued in County Dublin. He got on to the County Dublin people and told them to withdraw the advertisement. The Deputy can check this up with the Evening Mail. The County Dublin authorities got on to the other newspapers and stopped the advertisement. They got on to the Evening Mail and the Evening Mail said they were not going to stop it: that it had been passed by the Censor. So far as anybody with authority in Fianna Fáil could do, the utmost was done to stop that advertisement.

It had, unfortunately, to he passed by Censor because owing to my general instructions to them that they were to stop nothing, it had to be passed. Now, if we had been stopping advertisements or speeches by political candidates in this election, there is one advertisement that should have been stopped. That was an advertisement issued by the Labour Party on the day of the election. I do not know that Deputy Norton is responsible for this, or that any authoritative persons in the Labour circle are responsible for this advertisement, but when we are talking about advertisements, let me say one thing:

We are, here in this country, in a very dangerous position. We are trying our utmost to get what supplies we can through the troubled waters of the Atlantic to sustain our people during the war. One of the things that has enabled us to get through these troubled waters is, as is well known to members of the Labour Party, that both belligerents recognise that we are honourably neutral, that we are not trying to help either one side or the other when our ships are on their lawful occasions in the Atlantic Ocean. Anybody who gives the impression to one belligerent or the other that we are not playing the game -- that while we are pretending to bring in supplies from abroad, we are actually scouting for one or other of the belligerents -- is doing a bad day's work for the country, and I think Deputy Norton himself will admit it. In that spirit. I hope he, too, will take the opportunity of condemning on some occasion the hand that wrote the advertisement that appeared on the 22nd of June, the day of the election, which condemned the “criminal conduct of the Fianna Fáil Government in sending brave men to their doom on the ‘Irish Oak’.” Deputy Norton and the other members of the Labour Party will admit that the “Irish Oak”, no matter by whom she was manned, behaved in a strictly neutral way before she was sunk, and was behaving in a strictly neutral way when she was attacked by a belligerent submarine, and that that belligerent submarine had no right in international or moral law to sink her——

Mr. Norton: Hear, hear. It was a criminal and cowardly act.

Mr. MacEntee: The first time you said that.

Mr. Aiken: I am glad to hear the Deputy saying that it was a criminal and cowardly act—an act in no way justified by anything the Irish Government did——

Mr. Norton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Aiken: ——and I hope that the Deputy will take steps sometime to deny that the Irish Government did anything which would in any way justify the criminal attack by that submarine.

Mr. Norton: Would the Minister advert for a moment to Mr. MacEntee's advertisement?

Mr. Aiken: I am dealing with the present advertisement and I am raising it only in a friendly spirit. I am not putting any responsibility on Deputy Norton, because I do not believe that if he sat down in cold blood, he would have written it or passed it. I think the sooner we forget some things said by both sides in the election the better. We are here now, during this disastrous war, to try to get the country safely through and the Government cannot do it alone. It has to have the co-operation of all Parties, and one of the things we have to make clear is that no one in this country stands for Irish ships or Irishmen interfering in this particular war.

Now, apart altogether from this question of our internal situation, I think the Labour Party know perfectly well that the men who are interned have a policy of making war upon one of the belligerents. They do not deny that, and I am perfectly certain that as soon as they see what Deputy Connolly said, they will deny the Deputies' denial. They are proud of the fact that they are at war.

Mr. Norton: I do not know the views of these three men.

Mr. Aiken: The Deputy should not pretend to express them here.

Mr. Norton: I did not pretend to interpret their views.

Mr. Aiken: You said they were for the non-involvement of this country in the war.

Mr. Norton: I merely read a telegram. I did not try to interpret their views.

Mr. Aiken: The Deputy did not understand. Deputy Connolly said they did not stand for involvement in the war.

Mr. Norton: That is what they said in the telegram that you permitted to come out of the Curragh.

Mr. Aiken: They say they are at war with England, that they are engaged in war, and they justify their engagement in war with England by the fact that British troops are in occupation of certain of our counties.

I disagree as much as they do with the British occupation of six of our North-Eastern counties. I do not believe that our people in these counties should be involved in this war, but I do not believe in the I.R.A. attitude of making war on their forces at the moment. As you know, we have declared our policy of trying to get a peaceful settlement of these difficulties between ourselves and the British. We do not believe that the re-union of this country is going to be helped by getting involved in this war, or by attacking the British forces in the Six Counties or elsewhere during the course of this war. We hoped that the development of the policy which was so successfully pursued over a number of years, and resulted in the freedom of 26 counties, would ultimately result in the freedom of the whole 32, bringing the six counties into union with this part of the country. There is one other matter.

These people would repudiate Deputy Connolly when he asked them to indicate in some way that they were prepared to accept the ordinary peaceful political method of settling their differences. They are not only involved in war against the British, and proud of it, but involved in war against this State, and proud of it. Deputy Connolly and other people should think of what happened in this country during the last number of years. I propose to give a few reminders. At the outbreak of the war, we interned some of these people in order to prevent them from getting us involved in the European catastrophe. What happened? A judge of the High Court released them and said we had no right, constitutionally, to hold them. We released them and what happened? Three weeks afterwards, the Magazine Fort was raided, and over a million rounds of ammunition were taken. That was no sport. It was not peaceful political activity. It was an act of war against this State.

That was not the last of it. We had great difficulty in rounding up that ammunition. Some of it we did not get. Fortunately, we got even more back over a period of years than was taken from the Magazine. We got Magazine ammunition—the numbers, plus a little more. But, over this last period of three years they have been carrying on active war against the State by shooting the servants of the State, the people paid to protect this country, and to create a situation in which we can meet here and discuss our differences. There were seven members of the Gárda shot dead— murdered—in 1940, 1941, and 1942, and there were 18 attempted murders. It is only the other day that one of these people who escaped—he was not released but escaped himself—was again on the wargath, and attempted to murder two or three other Gárdai not a hundred yards from our door outside. There is an active war by these people going on against this State, and I think the Labour Party are doing a very bad day's work in trying to ally themselves, or to depend in any way on the support of these particular people.

I have no enmity against the men in the Curragh. All I am sorry for is that these young men, men who are prepared to do 48 days without food, men prepared to spend three or four years in an internment camp, are not fighting for a better cause, for the cause we all have at heart, or not fighting for it along proper lines.

We know perfectly well that, if these people pursue a policy of making war on this State and of making war on Britain, what they are going to do is to create disruption internally and to get us involved in the major European catastrophe. We do not want that. I hope the young men on hunger strike will get off the hunger strike, that, generally speaking, all of them on the Curragh, will pull themselves together, that they will realise that no good can come to the country, and that no good can come to any good cause, social, economic or national, through their activities, in making war on this State or in doing anything that would get us into the European war. If they pull themselves together, and give some sign that, if released, they will not take up arms again, nobody will be better pleased than members of the Government. We regret, much more than any member of the Labour Party, the necessity for interning these people, because nearly every man on these benches fought for the cause that they say they have at heart. We have the cause of the freedom and the independence of this country as much at heart -- its social development, and its cultural development -- as any man on the Curragh or on the Labour Benches. All I say, both to the men on the Curragh and to any men on the Labour Benches who speak of their activities, is that, at the moment, they are doing a very bad day's work for the independence of this country.

Mr. Connolly: Will the Minister refer to the advertisement in which he said there was something subversive and illegal? Would he read it?

Mr. Aiken: I read it and the words stated by the Deputy were deleted but this much was left:—

“Republicans: Seán McCool is a candidate in Donegal; support his election campaign by sending a subscription now to Ned Gallen, Castlefin, Co. Donegal.”

That advertisement was passed and appeared in the Irish Independent of June 18th.

Mr. Connolly: What was deleted?

The Taoiseach: The moment the Deputy made the statement I got in touch with the Censorship Department and with others. The Minister for Justice did likewise and gave the House the information as he got it. Later, when the matter was further pursued, the Minister found, in fact, that the Deputy was right and that the words were omitted. Of course the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures could explain that to the House. That is why there was a difference between what the Minister for Justice and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures said. The Minister for Justice got earlier information and it was not accurate.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell: I find myself in somewhat of a difficulty in intervening at this stage of the debate. I had intended to talk on the subject of censorship. I still intend to say a few words on that subject, but there has been so much explanation by the Minister that I apologise for having to raise it again. An explanation was given of the attitude of the Government on censorship.

The Taoiseach: May I interrupt the Deputy to say that there was an agreement whereby I would get a certain time to reply. It is true that my colleague, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, came in on account of the censorship business, and cut off a considerable portion of my time, but I am asking to be given time now, because this matter of the hunger strike is very important. I have a few words to say that will take some time, unfortunately.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell: What I wanted to refer to was the question of censorship. In the election the censorship was only an incident. It was only a momentary matter. I want to say in respect to censorship that neither I nor my Party stand for any interference with the rights of this country as a neutral. We do not want anything to appear in any paper which would hinder or in any way hurt any action which this country was taking in pursuance of its own powers. In connection with the domestic aspect of the censorship, I should very seriously appeal to the Government to take a wider view. We are a comparatively young State as countries go. I am afraid that the censorship which we have established here is a dangerous precedent in a State as young as ours, and whilst I do not really accuse the Government of wishing to sabotage or to throttle discussion, it might be done by others who may follow them. It is a very dangerous precedent, and I ask Ministers to consider seriously whether the censorship could not be alleviated in the broadest interests of the country, especially in relation to domestic policy. I have not time now to go into the way in which the newspapers are at present suffering. If the newspapers are suffering from the domestic censorship, the ordinary citizen is suffering, too.

There is one other matter in connection with Emergency Powers Order 152 that I want to mention. The railway stock holders feel that they are labouring under a very legitimate grievance under that Order, as they have not been able to get publicity or to put their point of view before the public. They appealed to the Minister and got very little justice and, in fact, their claim has not been met. When I say “claim”, I mean their claim to be heard. These were the two matters that I wished to raise. I ask the Minister in all seriousness to keep before him the fact that censorship here has a very dangerous aspect.

The Taoiseach: We have been appealed to by the Labour Party to release the men who are on hunger strike. A similar appeal was made on the 9th November, 1939, by the Parliamentary Labour Party. The appeal was made to me and, on that occasion, I came to the House and made a statement. I think if I re-read it it will be as good as making a similar statement now. I got special leave from the House then and I said:—

“I am grateful to the House for giving me this opportunity of stating what the Government's attitude in regard to the prisoners at present on hunger strike is. Last night I got a letter containing a copy of a resolution which was passed by the Parliamentary Labour Party. As that Party is represented in this House, I felt it would be proper that I should give the Government's answer in the House rather than by letter. I have perhaps a further reason, and that is that the prisoners in question are in imminent danger of death, and I thought, therefore, that I should give that reply at once, or at the earliest possible opportunity.

“The Government's attitude in this matter is this. There are no means by which the Government can secure the safety of the people here except the powers of arrest and detention of those who are in a position to bring this country to disaster. The policy of the hunger strike is aimed at taking away these means from the Government, and once these means are taken away what is to happen is obvious. You are going to have organisation to such an extent that the only way in which ultimately the supremacy of the people can be established is by arms. We know perfectly well that if arms have to be used many lives are going to be lost, and that the only way that is left to prevent that from happening is to restrain—because that is what is being aimed at—those who are bent on courses which will undoubtedly lead to disaster.

“We all know that there is a body in this country with arms at its disposal. We know that in the last year....”

This was on the 9th November, 1939.

“We know that in the last year its activities have taken a new turn, that the body has definitely proclaimed itself as entitled to exercise the powers of government here, to act in the name of our people, even to commit our people to war. Now we are in a time of peril, we have a war being waged around us, the outcome of which no man can tell. We have seen already in this war nations, comparatively large nations, losing their freedom. Is the Government of this country to be deprived of the only power that it has to prevent things taking place here which are going, I firmly believe, if not prevented, to rob us of the independence which has been got, so far as this part of the country is concerned, and in so doing to rob us of the fruits of all the efforts that have been made for the last 25 years? That is what is at stake.

“We do not want to see any Irishman die. We do not want to be opposed to any group of Irishmen. We would wish, in this particular time of danger and anxiety, that every section of the people was with us, and heaven only knows before the end of this situation we may want every section to stand with us to try to maintain the rights of our people.

“It is not then in any spirit of vindictiveness that we have approached the consideration of this question. We have sat down and considered every alternative that was possible for us, and we see no alternative, because we have been placed in a position in which there is no alternative. The alternatives we are forced to face are the alternatives of two evils, one to see men die that we do not want to see die if we can save them, the other, to permit them to bring the State and the community as a whole to disaster. But they have put us in that position— it is not we who have done it—they have put us deliberately in that position. And I wish that one half of the efforts that are being made to try to get the Government to abdicate—because that is what it means —were used to induce these people to see reason and to see that, in this part of Ireland, every political body that wants to do so can go out and advocate any programme, with the single sole reservation that they must not resort to force in order to achieve their ends.

“I do not want to argue in this case. As I have said, the Government have been faced with the alter native of two evils. We have had to choose the lesser, and the lesser evil is to see men die rather than that the safety of the whole community should be endangered. We do not wish them to die. We would wish— Heaven knows I have prayed for it— that these men might change their minds, and that the people who are with them might change their minds, and realise what our obligations and our duties are. If we let these men out, we are going immediately afterwards to have every single man we have tried to detain and restrain going on hunger strike. Some of them have been detained in their own interest, because they have been subject to orders, and some of these orders might mean their death. It is in their interest, as well as in the interest of the community, that this restraint has been used; but we cannot use it if these men are let out and then immediately afterwards others go on hunger strike. We have had that experience. We are anxious to avoid what I would regard as a calamity, the calamity of death, if it can be avoided. We let one man out after 30 days' hunger strike. What happened? Next day, I think, half-a-dozen more went on hunger strike. If we let these men out now we are going to have to face a hunger strike by the remaining prisoners, perhaps. Unless it is at some stage decided by the Government that they will face the second evil, we cannot rule here, and not merely would we be abdicating as a Government, but we would be making it impossible for any other Government to govern. These are the considerations which have determined the Government not to release the prisoners. Therefore, the answer I have to give to the Labour Party is that we regret we cannot release them.”

Now, I made that statement in the House, and it explains fully the considered policy behind it. Within five or six days, I was informed that one of the men was actually dying, and that there was no chance of his recovery in any case. It was a question of his dying, not alone as a result of the hunger strike, but in physical agony unless an operation were performed, and, foolishly, as I see now, I urged upon my colleagues—I take full blame for it, because in the event it was very blameworthy—to have the man concerned transferred to a civil hospital. He was transferred there, and got out of prison, and within a year he was engaged with others in an attack upon the Gárdaí, in which two of the Gárdaí were killed, and he and another of the party engaged in that shooting had to be executed. That meant four deaths. Later on, we had two more: Two men who died on hunger strike because we had, at some stage, to stand absolutely firm.

Now, it has been one of the great regrets of my whole life, and will be until my death, that I allowed any consideration of any kind to get me to retract from the position I had taken up. It was one of the biggest mistakes that I have made in my life and, as I have said, I will regret it until my death, because, had it not been for my action, there would have been only one death, whereas, in the event, there were four deaths and two—six deaths in all. That is the position. We cannot carry on here unless we have powers of internment, powers of restraint and detention. It is absolutely necessary to have these powers. If we had not these powers, then we could not govern, and we are going to have a situation which will involve us again in another civil war.

That being the position, I can only state to everybody who comes to me that the last word on this has been said. We have to maintain our right to restrain people. If anybody goes on hunger strike, then we cannot let him go out as a result of that hunger strike. That is final. I have got—and I hope that by my example other people may learn—a lesson which is enough to teach me for the rest of my life. There are times when it is fatal, absolutely fatal, to give way to representations such as are being made at present. Now, with the example before me, the example which I have given, I have to say definitely, to prevent any other representations coming in, that we cannot release anybody who is on hunger strike. That is definite and final. Those who wish to save the lives of those men, if they have any influence with them, will tell them to get off that hunger strike.

I should like very much to have time to meet Deputy Connolly's speech. Generally, I think most of us can agree with the attitude behind it, except perhaps one thing. He speaks of the philosophy of force. I know as well as he does that there are occasions on which people will feel justified in resorting to force. Every one of us, as he has pointed out, has at one time or another resorted to force to right wrongs which we felt could be righted through no other method. That is not now compatible here with the duties which a Government has to carry out. No Government in charge here can admit that right for any group of citizens. It must be quite clear that that is so. If any group of citizens goes out on that basis, some time or other to use force against the State, then the Government must try to stop it. It must be stopped at the start, because otherwise it is going to mean a larger clash. That is a situation which I anticipated goodness knows how many years ago. It was because of that that I made certain statements which, at the time, were misunderstood and misrepresented. Once there is an organised Government here, the nature of its office and its duties to the community, compels it to prevent any organisation arising which is going to use force for political ends within its territory. I cannot see any way out of this.

What was the right thing for us to do? We have tried to do it on these benches. The inspiring motive of a lot of the work we have done has been to try to get a basis of unity here, to get an authoritative headship for our nation. Here is the only place where there can be such a headship for the nation, and it can tolerate no rival. By our Constitution, which was passed by the people—it is the people's Constitution—every section of the people is permitted to go out and advocate any policy it chooses. There is nobody being imprisoned or restrained at the present time because of his opinions. Anybody can go out and say that he wants a Republic for Twenty-Six Counties, or for 32 Counties, or anything of that sort. Nobody is against that. What we have to resist is any group organising to say: “We are going to achieve that object, by force, ourselves, irrespective of what the Parliament does.” If this Parliament were to decide to use force for the national ends, it would be within its right in doing so, but as long as it exists and claims to have rightful authority, as it does, based upon the will of the people, it cannot tolerate any other body setting out on its own with such an objective. There must be some one headship.

Under the Constitution the whole position has been cleared in such a way that any body of citizens who want so to advocate can go out and say: “Elect us. Give us a majority, and the day we have a majority in the Dáil we are going to use force to try to bring back the Six Counties.” They can do that. We do not think that that is the way it should be done, but there is nothing to prevent them from doing it. If they have got a majority, and the people are prepared to adopt that method, they can do it. But what we cannot permit them to do is to say: “We do not recognise at all that Assembly or the representatives who have been duly elected by the people”. I do not need to pursue the matter. I think our position is clear. On the other question I repeat we cannot give way, on any consideration whatever, to the release of those men on hunger-strike.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 81: Níl. 23.

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Bennett, George C.
Blaney, Neal.
Blowick, Joseph.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Patrick.
Bourke, Dan.
Brady, Brian.
Brady, Seán.
Breathnaeh, Cormac.
Breen, Daniel.
Brennan, Martin.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert. [Jew]
Bukley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick
Butler, Bernard.
Byrne, Christopher M.
Cafferky, Dominick.
Carter, Thomas.
Childers, Erskine H.
O'Cléirigh, Míeheál
Cogan, Patrick.
Corbett, Eamon.
Corry, Martin J.
Cosgrave, Liam (Junior).
Cosgrave, William T.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Daly, Francis J.
Derrig, Thaomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Fagan, Charles.
Fitzgerald, Séamus.
Flynn,, Stephen.
Fogarty, Andrew.
Fogarty, Patrick J.
Friel, John.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Healy, John B.
Hilliard, Michael.
Hughes, James.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kilroy, Séamus.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Lynch, Finian.
McCann, John.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
McFadden, Michael Og.
Mahony, Philip.
Moran, Michael.
Morrissey, Michael.
Moylan, Seán.
O'Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Ceallaigh, Seán T.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Ted.
Redmond, Brídget M.
Rice, Bridget M.
Roddy, Martin.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Jeremiah.
Ryan, Robert.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Sheridan, Michael.
Skinner, Leo B.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Ward, Conn


Beirne, John.
Burke, Thomas T.
Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
Connolly, Roderick J.
Corish, Richard.
Davin, William.
Donnellan, Míchael.
Everett, James.
Finucane, Patrick.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Hogan, Patrick.
Keyes, Michael.
Larkin, James.
Larkin, James (Junior).
Looney, Thomas D.
Meighan, John J.
Norton, William.
O'Leary, John.
O'Sullivan, Martin.
Pattison, James P.
Spring, Daniel.
Stapleton, Richard.
Tunney, James.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Connolly.

Motion declared carried.

+ + +

See how cowed the Irish government is these days regarding Jews.

They complain about the treatment of Jews, their not being free to emigrate, their lack of religious and cultural freedoms when ALL Soviet citizens were denied these rights; and no mention of the treatment of CHRISTIANS in the USSR! (A state invented by Masons & Jews)

+ + +

Dáil Éireann, 1987.03.24

Written Answers. - Persecution of Soviet Union Jews.

17. Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he proposes to raise, within the context of the Conference on Security Co-operation in Europe with the authorities of the Soviet Union, both in Ireland and Moscow, the continued persecutions, on religious and cultural grounds, of Jewish people who are Soviet citizens.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Brian Lenihan): The plight of the Jewish community in the Soviet Union is a matter of continuing concern to the Irish Government. We believe that their treatment by the Soviet authorities is contrary to the human rights provisions of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) and other international commitments entered into by the Soviet Union.

In my view, the most effective framework to voice the Government's concern about the record of the Soviet Union in this area is provided by meetings held within the context of follow-up to the CSCE. One such meeting opened in Vienna on 4 November 1986 and is still in session. Its purpose is to review the extent to which the 35 signatory States have put into effect the provisions of the Final Act and to develop new measures to improve and strengthen implementation.

The Irish delegation at Vienna has already availed of the opportunity to express concern at breaches of these provisions by the participating States. They have drawn particular attention to public and parliamentary concern in Ireland about the failure of the Soviet Union to permit Soviet Jews full freedom to pursue Jewish religious and cultural activities or to exercise their right to emigrate. The delegation will continue to press for full implementation of all of the CSCE commitments by the participating States, and, in particular, the provisions for human rights and fundamental freedoms and for human contacts.

+ + +

Dáil Éireann, 1987.12.08

Ceisteanna—Question. Oral Answers. - Soviet Jews.

4. Mr. Taylor asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make further representations to the Soviet Government to permit further emigration by Soviet Jews.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan): The most appropriate and effective framework in which to voice the Government's concern about Soviet policy in this area and to work for concrete improvements is provided by meetings held within the context of follow up to the CSCE. At the current Vienna CSCE follow up meeting the Irish delegation have drawn attention to public and parliamentary concern in Ireland about the treatment by the Soviet Union of their Jewish citizens, including the denial to them of their basic right to leave either temporarily or on a permanent basis and have joined in putting forward proposals on the right of freedom of movement, including the right to leave, and the elimination of abuses of restrictions on freedom of movement on grounds of national security. The Deputy may be assured that the delegation will continue to work to have these proposals adopted.

Mr. Taylor: May I express appreciation to the Minister for his reply which is, and will be, very much appreciated by the Jewish community in Ireland who ask him for his assurance — which I am sure will be forthcoming — that the Irish delegation and the Minister will continue to work towards securing reasonable rights for the Jewish citizens of the Soviet Union?

Mr. Lenihan: Thank you Deputy. We are very conscious of the need to continue in this direction.

Mr. Barry: Is it the Minister's opinion that the Soviet Government are in breach of the undertaking in the Helsinki Agreement?

Mr. Lenihan: The Vienna talks are a [987] continuation of the Helsinki Agreement and it is because of that agreement that we are able to make a case on behalf of Jewish citizens in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Barry: Does the Minister think they are in breach of their undertaking under the Helsinki Agreement?

Mr. Lenihan: I do not want to make a value judgment at this stage because the Vienna negotiations are at a very advanced stage and we hope to have this particular aspect of what is called the human dimension in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe concluded by the end of January.

Mr. Quinn: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the Irish delegation at Vienna will ensure, through the process of European political co-operation, that this issue is kept high on the agenda? Will he indicate to the House whether the position he has articulated as that of the Irish Government is shared by all other members of the Community? If not, would he indicate what steps the Irish delegation at Vienna, or through the EC generally, will be taking to try to make this a central issue?

Mr. Lenihan: Within the EC and CSCE we have made human rights and freedom of movement, and all that is incorporated in what is called the human dimension, a high priority. We very strongly believe that the conclusions now being reached in Vienna represent an admirable opportunity to have incorporated a very strong, affirmative commitment to human rights as well as a reduction in conventional arms and the other initiatives taken by the super powers.

Mr. Deasy: Is the Minister aware of the brutal treatment meted out to Russian Jews in Red Square in Moscow on Sunday last? Will he let the Soviet Government know of our Government's displeasure in regard to these unpleasant tactics?

An Ceann Comhairle (Seán Treacy): The Deputy is inserting a new matter.

Mr. Lenihan: There is a way of doing these things and we are going about this matter in the right way within the inter-governmental framework to which I referred.

+ + +

Nahum Goldmann, Ex-President of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), in his book "The Jewish Paradox", Athenäum, Frankfurt 1988, p. 77 :

"I hardly exaggerate. Jewish life consists of two elements: Extracting money and protesting."

+ + +

Dáil Éireann, 2004.10.07

Written Answers. - Jewish Community.

230. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to the fact that many young Irish Jews are emigrating to more vibrant Jewish communities around the world; if he intends to make it easier for young Jews from eastern Europe or Israel, for example, to move here and help rejuvenate this country’s Jewish community. [23933/04]

Mr. McDowell: Significant numbers of people from all over the world, including Eastern Europe and Israel, have legally migrated to the State for a variety of purposes, in particular for employment. Furthermore, EU citizens enjoy rights to free movement under the European treaties and many have exercised their right to work in Ireland. However, I am not aware of the religious or ethnic origin of these people.

The Irish immigration system does not make any distinction on the basis of religion or ethnic origin nor does any policy exist to encourage migration of persons of any religion or any ethnic origin to the State.

+ + +

"The Good Old Days"

Dáil Éireann, 1923.07.04

Mr. HOGAN: We are dealing with estates which are heavily encumbered; at least a very great proportion of the particular estates are heavily encumbered. If the landlord gets his purchase money, or £5,000 of these encumbrances attached to the purchase money, and if you take £100 of that purchase money which represents £100 owed by the landlord on foot of a mortgage, the position will be like this: On that £100 he gets 4½ per cent., whereas on that £100 he is liable for 6 or 7 percent.
Mr. GOREY: It must be a Jew he is dealing with.
Mr. HOGAN: He is liable for 6, or perhaps 7, per cent. to the ordinary Banking House, the ordinary Insurance Company or to the Jews if you like.

Dáil Éireann, 1921.08.18


DEPUTY GAVAN DUFFY declared he had not a good word to say for the report. It was vague and misleading. It might have been justifiable as a propagandist report— that was a matter for the House, but he considered the members should have a little inside knowledge of the actual facts. Their great difficulty abroad was that their communication was as bad as bad could be. If an urgent communication was sent from a continental city to Dublin, the methods of transmission were so slow that they could not be certain of an answer within any specified time. It sometimes took from one to two months. That was a matter in which improvement was very urgent. England opposed their propaganda everywhere abroad with all her power. She had collared all the important Press agencies which were run in conjunction with Jews and Freemasons from London. In Norway she threatened economic reprisals if the Government there did not shut up the writer of a review who had published articles in favour of Sinn Féin. In Spain during the inquest on the late Lord Mayor MacCurtain the British Embassy issued an official statement to the press saying this man was murdered by the extremists of his own party who had also sworn to murder Lloyd George and the prominent members of the British Cabinet. In Italy also word was given officially to the Press that they were not to speak of Ireland. He said he mentioned these matters to show the Members that the state of affairs abroad was not as rosy as pictured by the report.
He submitted very strongly that part of any terms they would come to with England should be that Ireland had separate representation abroad.
He alluded to his expulsion from France and protested against the sending of a friendly message by the President to France recently. He considered the French Government should first atone for the insult of having compelled their envoy to leave the country.
They could expect no help from France because on the one hand she was obsessed with the fear of Germany coming to attack her again in which case England, she thought, was the only country she could look to for assistance and on the other hand the country was in an acute stage of bankruptcy.
The position of their envoys abroad was a very difficult one as they alleged to represent a government which was not recognised by foreigners. Most of the people who mattered were afraid to be seen with them. There was also another objection; diplomatic work of that kind cost a lot of money and it was questionable if they got their money's worth. He thought it essential in future to concentrate on having press representatives rather than diplomatic envoys abroad who would supply the press and foreign writers with matter. Press work was the work that told.
Another matter he would like to mention, he said, in the case of certain Latin countries a woman who is serious and talks business is regarded as a disagreeable woman; therefore if a woman is head of affairs in any of these countries they could not get the best results for expenditure.
Everyone who had been abroad would tell them that what won publicity and sympathy abroad was the enormous interest created by the military events here at home. The deeds of daring done here had enormous effect on the Continent. People had said to him abroad that those at home were fighting a hopeless cause but they admired them, and later on when he met the same people their whole attitude was changed when they saw the things that were done here, and that was why in countries sympathetic to them it was recognised that the Irish Republic was on top.

Dáil Éireann, 1939.03.16

Mr. Fogarty: ... Another matter which I should like to mention is the operation of the hire-purchase system in this country. I think the Minister should consider this question of hire-purchase. In this country it is generally operated by Jews.

Mr. Ruttledge:
That has nothing to do with my Department.

Mr. Fogarty:
I also want to refer to the Moneylenders Act. Poor people are being fleeced right, left and centre by the operation of the hire-purchase system——
An Ceann Comhairle (Frank Fahy): I do not think the Minister has any responsibility there either.

Mr. Fogarty:
I seem to be completely out of order.

An Ceann Comhairle:
The fault is not with the Chair.
Mr. Fogarty: I think I am quite right anyway in referring to the Moneylenders Act.

Mr. Ruttledge:
Yes, but not on the Guards Vote.
Mr. Fogarty: I think some provision ought to be made in regard to the Moneylenders Act so that the Minister or his officials would have power to scrutinise the books of those moneylenders. They are fleecing people in all walks of life whom they find in difficulties and to whom they advance money. There are people who borrow £5, and at the end of a certain time they find they have paid £10 interest and still owe £5. That is happening to people in all walks of life who find themselves in difficulties and are forced to seek aid from those moneylenders. There should be some method whereby their books would be open to scrutiny so that any necessary action might be taken. Of course, the Minister will say that there are grounds for legal claims against those moneylenders, but no man likes to publish himself in the Press as having found it necessary to apply to those people for help. There ought to be some supervision of those moneylenders in the City of Dublin by the Department of Justice. I think I will confine myself to those few remarks. I have been ruled out on a number of matters, but will watch my opportunity of getting them in somewhere else.

Dáil Éireann, 1923.05.02

Mr. Gorey: We must work or, as the Minister for Home Affairs says, “we must go down in futility” or be replaced by the Jews.

Dáil Éireann, 1924.05.06

... The standpoint of the Jewman.
Mr. GOREY: It does not matter whether he is a Jewman or not. If we want to live in this country, and if we are not to be replaced absolutely by Jews, if we do not want to be driven out to starve and leave the country and allow it to become a Jewish colony, we ought to get down to work.

Dáil Éireann, 1925.05.20

Mr. GOREY: I have heard the Minister's explanation about old clothing, that it was going to be put up for auction. I suggest that this old clothing should be disposed of in the different towns where it happens to be found. It would save expense, and would give an opportunity to the local people, who have as much claim as Dublin has to it, to procure this material that might be very useful to the inhabitants. I believe it used to be the custom to sell it in one heap, and that the Jews are the people who get hold of it. It is said that one big Jew, who has been identified with army matters for some years, gets it. His name has been mentioned freely as the man who derives all the benefit with regard to this class of thing and some other classes of things. We have someone else to cater for in this country besides Jews. I suggest this clothing should be sold at the different Army depôts down the country, where it accumulates, and that it should not be brought up here and sold in one big heap to a big Jew.

Dáil Éireann, 1926.06.15

Mr. CONLAN: I want to say a word on this question from the point of view of the farmer. Hitherto there was at least a little competition between the distillers and the brewers. As is well known, the distillers purchased large quantities of home-grown barley and oats. The competition has to a great extent been done away with owing to the fact that the distilleries, handicapped, I believe, by the very high duties that are imposed on spirits, have nearly all gone out of action. I believe that only one distillery in the country is working at present. There was a distillery in the town of Monasterevan, in my own constituency, owned by a very old-established firm which employed about 100 men or over. That has been closed down and the whole place has been dismantled. The Jews bought the distilling apparatus, for what purpose I do not know, but at any rate the whole place is derelict and the relief of these 100 men has been put on the ratepayers of the county.

Dáil Éireann, 1931.03.06

Mr. Hogan: The machinery put in was purchased at £3,000. We valued it at £1,000.
Mr. Briscoe [Jew]: Would the Minister say £1,000 is a fair valuation?
Mr. Hogan: I am no judge, but I am well advised that it is.
Mr. Gorey: They got it at a Jewman's price.

Dáil Éireann, 1932.08.05

Mr. Briscoe: Deputy Byrne has spoken and again in the usual play-acting way he indulges in——
Mr. Byrne: I will not be accused of play-acting by a man who has run away from his own people in Palestine. Let him go back to Palestine and work for his own people.
Mr. S. Jordan: Remember the Eucharistic Week you talked about. Be consistent.
Mr. Gorey: There is plenty of room for Jews and Gentiles in this country.
Mr. Briscoe: I welcome that from Deputy Gorey; it being the first time I heard such from him.

Dáil Éireann, 1939.06.14

Mr. Davin: Banks operating here pay in dividends 12 per cent., 16 per cent., and up to 20 per cent. to the shareholders free of income-tax. Where is that money coming from? It is coming from the land, but the banks will not lend a brass farthing to those on the land, although the Minister for Agriculture and the Taoiseach say that it is necessary to do so. The rates of interest charged by these banks are prohibitive—they are next door to those charged by Jews...

Dáil Éireann, 1940.05.10

Captain Giles [Pádraig Mac Giolla Íosa]: For the last 10 or 15 years this country has gone in entirely for amusements of all sorts—horse racing, greyhound racing, picture houses and everything else. The Government must put a stop to that, because there is no return either spiritually, morally, or in any other way to our people from amusements of that kind. Our country to-day is living on the instalment system. Bicycles, motor cars, and other things are bought on that system and the finance of the country is in the hands of Jews and foreigners. People pay monthly instalments for a bicycle to bring them to amusements. I would rather see them paying 5s. for a spade and digging their gardens. It is time that the Government realised that there is general decay, nationally, economically and morally, and that they are responsible for it. There is one Minister on the front bench with a smile. I give every credit to that Minister, because he pulls his weight, whether he is on the Government Benches or on the platform. I have every respect for him, whether he says what is wrong or not. At any rate he speaks, while others never express an opinion until there is an election in the offing, and then all sorts of high-falutin' nonsense is talked. The Irish people are easily gulled but if they are to be gulled in the same way for another ten years then, I say, the devil mend them.

Dáil Éireann, 1931.06.18

Mr Byrne: We do not suggest that the landlord is not entitled to a reasonable return on his capital. No man will deny that when capital is invested there should be a reasonable return. But the investments of the landlords hitherto have been much more like the investments of the Jews, demanding their pound of flesh without any regard to humanity, or the ordinary rights of the citizen.

Dáil Éireann, 1933.07.14

Mr Davitt: Even if the purification tank is given to Howth, their industry will not be given back to the mussel men.
Mr. Belton: Surely the Jews have not got that industry.

Dáil Éireann, 1934.03.02

The President (Éamon de Valera): I know that originally they were God's people; that they turned against Him and that the punishment which their turning against God brought upon them made even Christ Himself weep.

+ + +

Irish Traitor fawns on Prudence Brown

Imagine being such a plonker that even after betraying Ireland to the International Tribe and their banksters, Taoiseach Brian Cowan -- the Big Ignorant Fecker From Offaly -- can't even get respect from a vile gobshite like Gordon Brown.


BSE Cowen drunk or hungover before his breakfast on RTÉ News' Morning Ireland

BSE Cowen in the midst of national economic collapse is yapping about the Children's Rights Referendum. Just like in debt-crisis Canada and Oz and the US -- kids have poor educational and employment prospects, but are sent home with assignments to get their parents to demand a kids' "rights" amendment, as if the con-stitution is somehow insufficient.

All designed to breakup families (contra 41.1.1 "The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society").

The amendment wording: "the provision of legal authority so that ALL children may be eligible for voluntary adoption"

From the Protocols: "by inculcating in all a sense of self-importance, we shall destroy among the goyim the importance of the family and its educational value and remove the possibility of individual minds splitting off"


Malevolent Troll: Jesus-Jew-Moham-One Mega-Wank


So The Bono Lama's dad is called Abraham?

+ + +

Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children

Orders of Reference

Clerk to the Committee: Ms. Anne-Maire Fahy

Houses of the Oireachtas
Leinster House
Kildare Street
Dublin 2

Phone: (01) 618 3045
Fax: (01) 618 4014
email: anne-marie.fahy@oireachtas.ie

Dáil Éireann on 22 November 2007 ordered:

“(1) That a Select Committee consisting of thirteen members of Dail Éireann be joined with a Select Committee to be appointed by Seanad Éireann to form the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children to:

(a) examine the Twenty-Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2007; and

(b) consider the text set out in the Schedule to that Bill with regard to the following:–

(i) the acknowledgement and affirmation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children;

(ii) the restatement and extension of the existing provision in relation to children and parents contained in Article 42.5 of the Constitution to include all children;

(iii) the provision of legal authority for the adoption of children who have been in care for a substantial period of time if it is in the best interests of those children;

(iv) the provision of legal authority so that all children may be eligible for voluntary adoption;

(v) the provision of legal authority so that the courts shall be enabled to secure the best interests of a child in any court proceedings relating to adoption, guardianship, custody or access of that child and to ensure that such interests are taken into account in all other court proceedings in relation to that child;

(vi) the provision of legal authority for the collection and exchange of information relating to the risk or actual occurrence of child sexual abuse;

(vii) that no provision in the Constitution should invalidate any law providing for absolute or strict liability in respect of sexual offences against or in connection with children;

(c) make such recommendations, including recommendations in relation to amendments to the text in Schedule 1 of the Bill, as shall to the Committee seem appropriate.

(2) The Committee shall report back to each House with recommendations in a final report four months from the date of establishment.

(3) The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister of State at the Departments of Health and Children, Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, with special responsibility for Children, shall be ex officio members of the Committee and shall be entitled to vote.

(4) The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be four, of whom at least one shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and one a Member of Seanad Éireann.

(5) The Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Orders 83(1) to (8) inclusive and 93(2).

(6) The Chairperson of the Joint Committee shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann.”

Seanad Éireann on 22 November 2007 ordered:

“(1) That a Select Committee consisting of four members of Seanad Éireann be joined with a Select Committee to be appointed by Dáil Éireann to form the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children to:

(a) examine the Twenty-Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2007; and

(b) consider the text set out in the Schedule to that Bill with regard to the following:–

(i) the acknowledgement and affirmation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children;

(ii) the restatement and extension of the existing provision in relation to children and parents contained in Article 42.5 of the Constitution to include all children;

(iii) the provision of legal authority for the adoption of children who have been in care for a substantial period of time if it is in the best interests of those children;

(iv) the provision of legal authority so that all children may be eligible for voluntary adoption;

(v) the provision of legal authority so that the courts shall be enabled to secure the best interests of a child in any court proceedings relating to adoption, guardianship, custody or access of that child and to ensure that such interests are taken into account in all other court proceedings in relation to that child;

(vi) the provision of legal authority for the collection and exchange of information relating to the risk or actual occurrence of child sexual abuse;

(vii) that no provision in the Constitution should invalidate any law providing for absolute or strict liability in respect of sexual offences against or in connection with children;

(c) make such recommendations, including recommendations in relation to amendments to the text in Schedule 1 of the Bill, as shall to the Committee seem appropriate.

(2) The Committee shall report back to each House with recommendations in a final report four months from the date of establishment.

(3) The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister of State at the Departments of Health and Children, Education and Science and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, with special responsibility for Children, shall be ex officio members of the Committee and shall be entitled to vote.

(4) The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be four, of whom at least one shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and one a Member of Seanad Éireann.

(5) The Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Orders 70(1) to (8) inclusive and 86(2).

(6) The Chairperson of the Joint Committee shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann.”


Kike Danny Libeskind's Kike Wheel, at Pier 21, Halifax



The Kike "Wheel of Conscience" memorial to the passengers of the MS St. Louis was plotzed down at Pier 21, Canada's national immigration museum, in Halifax

The thing was designed by Kike Daniel Libeskind with graphic design by Kike David Berman and Kike Trevor Johnston.

Produced by the Canadian Jewish Congress, the shiny Kike memorial design "reflects back the observers' feelings as they experience the focus of what led to the turning away of the passengers on the MS St. Louis," a pack of Jewbos who had no visas. Upon the back of the thing is the passenger list.

Symbolizing the "hateful and racist policies" that turned away more than 900 Jewbos, the wheel incorporates within it four gears, upon each of which a word is inscribed "to represent the transmission of influences that sped up the process that led to the turning away of the vessel and its passengers from sanctuary - antisemitism, xenophobia, racism, and then hatred."

Kike Mark Freiman was, unfortunately, welcomed at Pier 21. The national president of the Canadian Jewish Congress said the partnership between The Jew and the Canadian government that created the memorial would have been “unimaginable” in 1939. So true!


"In his book, While Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy, Arthur D. Morse claimed that the U.S. Coast Guard cutter CG-244 'shadowed the St. Louis, with orders to prevent any refugees from jumping overboard and swimming ashore.' In support of this claim, Morse cited contemporary newspaper accounts and two interviews. The first of these was with Cecilia Razovsky, a passenger on board St. Louis, the second was with Lawrence Berenson, the lawyer who negotiated with the Cuban government in Havana. These sources, however, could not possibly have known what CG-244’s orders were and therefore, Morse’s claims are fundamentally speculative and unsubstantiated by any official documentation. Despite this fact, Morse’s claims have been oft repeated in the subsequent secondary literature on the subject.

"Captain Schroeder, in his memoir Heimatlos auf hoher See, asserted that he intended to make an illegal landing along the Florida coast. He claimed, however, that when he attempted to do so Coast Guard vessels and planes arrived to prevent a landing. Faced with these purported measures, Schroeder decided to turn away. This assertion, however, is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the draft of St. Louis was 28 feet 4 inches. This would have significantly limited his options on where he could approach the shore. This is especially true as the maximum depth at high tide along most of the South Florida coast was only 6 fathoms (36 feet). This would have made any attempt to approach the shore hazardous at best. Second, without a port capable of handling a ship of that size, he would have to disembark the passengers via the lifeboats. Jumping overboard and swimming to shore was not a realistic option for the vast majority of passengers.


"Hans Herlin in his book, Kein gelobtes Land: Die Irrfahrt die “St. Louis”...claimed that the captain was ready to land the passengers when two U.S. Coast Guard vessels appeared. One was numbered 244. The ship was then ordered to move beyond U.S. territorial waters (3 miles). Despite Schroeder’s attempted ruse whereby he claimed that he had engine trouble, the order remained and the ship moved away from the coast.


"In the end the claims of Morse, Schroeder, and Herlin are largely unsubstantiated by any official documentation. Consultation of U.S. Coast Guard records, U.S. State Department records, and U.S. Treasury Department records in the National Archives do not substantiate any claim that CG-244 or any other Coast Guard vessels had standing orders to interdict St. Louis should she attempt to make a run toward the Florida coast in an attempt to disembark her passengers. Rather, official documentation provided by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park, N.Y. indicates that the status of the St. Louis and her passengers was of considerable concern to Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. [Kike]

"To wit, there were two conversations on the subject between [Kike] Morgenthau and Secretary of State Cordell Hull. In the first, 3:17 PM on 5 June 1939, Hull made it clear to [Kike] Morgenthau that the passengers could not legally be issued U.S. tourist visas as they had no return addresses. Furthermore, Hull made it clear to [Kike] Morgenthau that the issue at hand was between the Cuban government and the passengers. The U.S., in effect, had no role. In the second conversation at 3:54 PM on 6 June 1939, [Kike] Morgenthau said they did not know where the ship was and he inquired whether it was “proper to have the Coast Guard look for it.” Hull responded by saying that he didn’t see any reason why it could not. Hull then informed him that he did not think that [Kike] Morgenthau would want the search for the ship to get into the newspapers. [Kike] Morgethau said. 'Oh no. No, no. They would just—oh, they might send a plane to do patrol work…There would be nothing in the papers.' Hull responded, 'Oh, that would be all right.'

"Immediately afterward, at 3:59 PM, [Kike] Morgenthau contacted Commander Earl G. Rose at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC. In this conversation, Morgenthau inquired as to the position and status of St. Louis. Informed that the USCG vessel had lost contact with the ship, [Kike] Morgenthau wanted to know where the ship was. Furthermore, he wanted this information kept confidential, namely out of the newspapers. Rose gave his assurances that the instructions could be sent out in “a tight code” and safeguarded. He also made it clear that he wished to be notified immediately if the ship were found. Given these conversations it becomes quite apparent that there were no orders to interdict the ship and the US Coast Guard units were dispatched out of concern for those on board, not as is supposed by Morse, Schroeder, and Herlin, to interdict the refugees and prevent them from landing.

"With no realistic options of landing in South Florida, Schroeder again turned toward Cuba in the hopes of landing on the island. Negotiations with the Cuban government, however, had ended with the passengers not being allowed to enter the country. With few alternatives, Schroeder and the passenger committee on board St. Louis decided to return to Europe. A number of countries, namely France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Great Britain, accepted groups of the passengers after the ship docked in Antwerp, Belgium. Those on board finally disembarked, bound for new homes. Thus, ended the ill-fated odyssey of the St. Louis.

"For many of the passengers on St. Louis, unfortunately, refuge in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands provided only temporary relief from the Nazis. Within a year German armies invaded and conquered most of Western Europe. Many who had seemingly escaped the Nazis found themselves deported to concentration camps and ghettos in Eastern Europe. Most would perish in the Holocaust [sic]. [Oy Vey!]"


The Lesson: Kikes lie, Kikes expect special treatment, Kikes bitch and moan.







Whitney Houston (PBUH) was killed by the City of London's Fifth-Dimension Lizards' Fourth Amerikkkan Reich's Germanic Zionist Death Cult.





Search form
Latest Journals
Latest comments
Monthly archive
Friend Request Form

Want to be friends with this user.