Jewish Ritual Murder Chapters 11-20
My Irrelevant Defence being Meditations Inside Gaol
and Out on
Jewish Ritual Murder
by ARNOLD LEESE
- 11. Introduction & Chapters 1 – 10
19. What of These?
THE best known of these is the Beiliss case at Kiev, 1911-13. It will be noticed that there are several cases also in Germany at the time when the Jews were the supreme power there previous to Hitler’s success.
1900. Konitz, West Prussia. A 19-year-old youth, Ernst Winter, was murdered in March. His body had been dismembered and parts of it were found in different localities. The culprits were never discovered, but two Jewish agents were sentenced to imprisonment for false witness and for the subornation of witnesses during the enquiry! The post mortem examination was said to have shown death due to suffocation, but the county physician had previously pronounced death to have occurred from loss of blood. A large assembly of foreign Jews visited the town the night of the murder and left next day. This case aroused the country against the Jews, and its description occupied 2 pages of the Jewish Encyclopedia.
1911-13. Kiev,Russia. This is by far the most important proved ritual murder case of the 20th century and is generally known as the Beiliss Case.
In 1911, a 13-year-old boy’s body was found at Kiev with curious wounds and drained of blood. A Jew named Beiliss was arrested on suspicion.
It was proved that the murder took place inside the premises of a Jewish brick factory to which only Jews had access. This factory contained a Jewish hospice with a secret synagogue attached.
After long-drawn-out preliminaries, Beiliss, who was proprietor of the factory, was tried; the jury found that there was no proof that he himself was the culprit, although half of them considered he was; the verdict therefore having to be unanimous, he was declared Not Guilty. But the jury agreed as to the cause of the boy’s death; their verdict about this was as follows:
The boy “after being gagged, was wounded with a perforating instrument in the nape of the neck, temples and neck, which wounds severed the cerebral vein, the left temporal and jugular arteries, producing thus profuse hemorrhage; and afterwards, when Joutchinski (the boy’s name) had lost about five glasses of blood. his body was pierced with the same instrument, lacerating thus the lungs, the liver, the right kidney and the heart, where the last wounds were inflicted, in all 47 wounds, causing acute suffering to the victim and the loss of practically all the blood of the body, and finally death.”
Thus, although the murder could not be fixed upon any particular individual, its ritual character was quite certain, the boy being first bled and then killed.
There were many strange features about this trial, viz.:
(1) On 17th October, 1913, the presiding Judge had to warn the Jewish pressmen against persisting in reporting perverted renderings of the evidence, and said that if they continued in this practice, then would be refused permission to attend the Court.
(2) Two children, Genia and Valentine Tcheberiak, who were important witnesses against Beiliss, died suddenly shortly after his arrest. This was after they had eaten sweetmeats given to them by a degraded police agent called Krassowsky. They were examined by two Jewish doctors at the hospital and were certified to be suffering from dysentery the bacilli of that disease having been found in them according to the report.
Next, it was discovered that their mother had been offered (and had refused) a bribe of 40,000 roubles by a Jew lawyer to take upon herself the guilt for the murder of the stabbed boy Joutchinski.
Finally, the Jews actually suggested she had poisoned the two children, the Jews having characteristically forgotten for the moment those dysentery bacilli that had been reported to have been discovered!
(3) Several important witnesses gave expert opinion that the Jews use Christian blood to mix with the unleavened bread at certain feasts, and that Christian children are killed by Jews for the purpose.
One of these was Father Pranaitis, theologian and Hebraist, who considered that the evidence showed every sign of it being a Jewish ritual murder. Father Pranaitis said that the Zohar, the cabbalistic book of the Chassidim sect of Jews, described the ritual of murder, prescribing thirteen stabs in the right temple seven in the left one, which is exactly how the head of the murdered boy had been treated. Another expert witness was Professor Sikorski of Kiev University, a medical psychologist, who also regarded the case as one of Ritual Murder.
After the Jewish Bolshevik revolution, the Cheka shot the Judge, the Public Prosecutor and many of the witnesses, including Father Pranaitis, the medical expert Kozoratov, and Professor Sikorski. Professor Pawlow, who was a witness for the defence, became a leading scientist in Bolshevik Russia!
The ex-General Alexandre Netchvoldov of the Russian Imperial Army, tells us the rest in an article, “La Russie et les Juifs,” in Le Front Unique, published at Oran, 1927, p. 59: Quoting Evrijskaja Tribuna of 24th August, 1922, he says “that at a visit of the Rabbi of Moscow to Lenin, the first word Lenin said to his visitor was to ask him it the Jews were satisfied with the Soviet tribunal which had annulled, the Beiliss verdict, saying that Joutchinksy had been killed by a Christian!”
Yes, Bolshevism is Jewish!
(4) A “British protest,” published in The Times, dated 6th May, 1912, signed by the usual Archbishops and bishops, together with dukes (such as the late Duke of Norfolk who had been married to a Jewish woman), earls (such as Rosebery, married to a Rothschild), and people like the late Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, fulminated against the “revival” of the Ritual Murder charge; the “Blood Accusation” was described in this protest as “a relic of the days of witchcraft and black magic, a cruel and utterly baseless libel on Judaism.”
Is it not amazing that where Jewish interests are concerned, Englishmen of standing will try to influence the course of justice by thus interfering before Beiliss had even been tried?
Beiliss died in America in 1934, and his funeral was made that of. Jewish national hero.
1928. Gladbeck, Germany. This occurred at the time of Purim; twenty-year-old lad called Helmuth Daube was found dead in front of his home, with his throat cut, his genital organs missing, whilst there were wounds on the hands and stabs in the abdomen. There was no blood about where the body was found and it was bloodless. Experts said in Court that the throat showed the Jewish ritual cut. The Jews set to work and eventually a young Gentile called Huszmann was accused of the murder, unnatural lust being alleged as a feature in the crime. The case was conducted against Huszmann by a Jew called Rosenbaum, and special police had been sent from Berlin to enquire about the circumstances; the President of the Police at Berlin was the Jew Bernhard Weiss. These special police did what they could to convince the Court that it was a “lust-murder,” but Huszmann was acquitted. The Bochumer Abendblatt and Der Sturmer both gave their opinion that it was a Ritual Murder by Jews, and the latter paper was suppressed for a time, and its editor imprisoned.
1929. Manan, Germany. A five-year-old boy named Kessler disappeared on 17th March. The body was found in a wood, with throat cut from ear to ear superficially whilst there was a deep stab in the neck cutting the main vessels. The body was bloodless and there was no blood found near it. It was just before Passover, and the local Jewish butcher had suddenly disappeared. Dr. Burgel, the Court doctor, said it was a case of Ritual Murder. The Jew Money Power got to work to influence the authorities and public opinion. Before the official inquiry, the Public Prosecutor announced that it was not a case of Ritual Murder. The Judge decided the boy had met with an accidental stab from the branch of a tree or from an animal’s horn, and the case was dropped. No one was ever arrested for the crime.
1932. Paderborn, Germany. Martha Kaspar was the Gentile servant in the household of a Jewish butcher named Meyer. This man had a son Kurt, and this Kurt had had sexual relations with the servant who became pregnant. She demanded that he should marry her, and the father and son promised that this should happen, but secretly decided to make away with the girl. On 18th March, near Purim, she disappeared. Two days later some human flesh was found on the road, and the Jewish Press began to spread the idea that there had been a “lust-murder.” Investigation revealed blood on Kurt’s clothes and in a hayloft of Meyer’s, and both the Meyers were arrested. Dr. Frank, a Jewish lawyer, succeeded in getting the father certified as a lunatic and sent to an asylum, but he was soon freed and fled the country. The son, Kurt, said he had attempted to procure abortion, and that he had cut the girl’s body up and distributed it in various places; a doctor told the Court that some litres of blood must have been taken. Later, Kurt said he had killed the girl in a fit of temper. The Court brought in a verdict of manslaughter, and sentenced Kurt Meyer to 15 years’ imprisonment. The general newspapers did not report the case; Der Sturmer said it was Ritual Murder, and was suppressed for a time. These circumstances cause me to include this case among the “well-authenticated” ones.
It will be noted that the last three cases occurred at a time when the Jews were supreme in Germany just before the Hitler revolution, when it was easy to suppress all expression of opinion as to the true nature or the murders.
THE Jews and their advocates use sundry arguments whereby they seem to have successfully camouflaged and almost obliterated in this country the trail of historic fact concerning the practice of Ritual Murder. When the author was proceeded against in 1936 for daring to mention Jewish Ritual Murder, the trial was reported in some newspapers under the heading “Amazing Story,” as though he had invented it! Let us list the Jewish “arguments” and answer them:
1. That the confessions made by the accused Jews were extracted by torture.
This is true of many medieval cases; it is unlikely that the Jews would confess without such aids to memory, because of the certain dire consequences that would follow the confession.
But I have shown in Chapter 13 (which see) that many confessions of the practice of Ritual Murder by Jews have been made by those who have been converted to the Christian faith and made freely; many confessions have been made by accused Jews without torture, or by their relations without torture; whilst at Damascus, where the bastinado was used to aid the memory of the accused, it inspired them to reveal where the fragments of the bodies of the murdered men were to be found, and they were found in the indicated spots; I take it that Jews do not allege that the bastinado endowed the culprits with telepathic second sight?
There is thus nothing in the argument.
2. That the Jewish laws not only do not sanction the practice of Ritual Murder, but forbid the use of blood.
In other words, John Smith cannot be guilty of theft from William Brown because the Eighth Commandment says ‘Thou shalt not steal.’
There is nothing in this argument, dealt with in Chapter III.
3. That the Blood Accusation is the result of mediaval and ignorant superstition.
In Chapter V, I show that there were, according to the Jews themselves, more Blood Accusations in the 19th century than in any previous one.
There is therefore nothing in this argument.
4. That the guilt of the Jews was not juridically established.
The emptiness of this statement is shown in Chapter XIV, where a number of cases are quoted in which, through the centuries, competent and full authority decided the guilt of the accused or approved the verdict.
There is nothing in this argument
5. That it couldn’t happen now.
Chapter VI is devoted to meeting this objection.
It will be seen that there is nothing in the objection.
The objection appeals to the good-nature of the Aryan mind which cannot conceive anything so alien as a desire to commit Ritual Murder. It is the false teaching of Equality of Race, spread by Masonry, perverted religion and democracy, that is responsible for this attitude of mind.
6. That Papal Bulls refuse credence to the charge of Ritual Murder.
This matter is dealt with in Chapter XV.
There are Popes who obviously wished to register their disbelief in the practice of Ritual Murder by Jews, and did so.
There are other Popes who equally registered by their actions and Bulls that they did believe in the charge.
So there is nothing in the argument.
7. That Pope Gregory XIV’s report of 1758 (made when he was Cardinal Ganganelli) is a final and incontrovertible refutation of the charge.
In Chapter XV, I have shown how actually this report by the Cardinal is proved utterly unreliable as he says in it that “he endeavoured to demonstrate the non-existence of the crime,” which shows that he did not endeavour to demonstrate the truth, which is all that an investigator has any right to do; whilst he specifically admits that St. Simon of Trent and St. Andreas of Rinn were killed by Jews in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ. Thus, Pope Gregory XIV is that most valuable witness in the support of the Blood Accusation–the unwilling witness.
8. The charges are unworthy of credence because they have been brought by anti-semites.
This is an argument used by the Jew, Israel Abrahams, in his article on Ritual Murder in the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in which he writes: “The literature on the other side is entirely anti-semitic and in no instance has it survived the ordeal of criticism.”
How strangely the Jewish mind works! How could anyone fail to be “anti-semitic” if they believed that that Jews commit ritual murder of Gentile children?
If there is not a glut of literature on the subject in English, it is not any ordeal of criticism which has brought about the scarcity, but the Jewish Money Power which has been brought to bear on that literature, making it so scarce that no one can get hold of it. Instance, Sir Richard Burton’s The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam, by an author of unimpeachable integrity and illustrious fame, a book the fate of which has been described on page 28, which see.
So much for the Jews’ methods of defence by argument. Now let us see what other methods of defence they adopt. These are:
1. The killing of authors or witnesses, or of others with knowledge of the subject.
On page 27 are recorded the circumstances surrounding the death of Gougenot des Mousseaux, author of Le Juif, le Judaisme et la Judaisation, etc.; on page 32 is registered the fact of the death of child witnesses in the Kiev case, 1911-13; on p. 33 is given the fate of the Judge, counsel and expert witnesses in the same case, all murdered by the Jewish Bolsheviks.
2. Violent abuse of lawyers, witnesses for the prosecution or accusers.
This is a modern development since the Jews obtained control over the Gentile press. It was marked in cases of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The Jewish Press in this country has succeeded in so reviling the name of Herr Julius Streicher, editor of Der Sturmer, that many decent citizens take it for granted that Herr Streicher is a kind of crazy and sadistic devil instead of (as we know him to be) a gallant and faithful German officer.
3. Disappearance of books containing evidence of Ritual Murders.
Under the description of the 1840 Damascus case, I give particulars of the fate of the Official Dossier, and of Gougenot des Mousseaux’s and Sir Richard Burton’s books.
The suppression of reports of trials has been noted in pre-Hitler Jew-controlled Germany in the 20th century.
4. The silencing of reference to Ritual Murder
The penal laws are stretched in the Jew-run countries to secure the imprisonment of anyone daring to break the Jew-imposed silence on the subject of Ritual Murder. Herr Julius Streicher was imprisoned in 1928 for this “offence,” and the author of the present work was sentenced by a 31st degree Scottish Rite Masonic Judge in 1936 to six months imprisonment among criminals on a trumped-up charge of the same nature.
Nevertheless there is no law in England forbidding reference to Ritual Murder.
5. Deliberate misrepresentation of the statements of athoritative people.
A good example of this is described on p.p. 43-44, where the late Baron Rothschild endeavoured to use Cardinal Merry del Val’s confirmation of the authenticity of a certain Papal letter as a confirmation of a false interpretation of the contents of that letter made by Baron Rothschild himself. Another example is in the case of the Jewish Encyclopedia, Hyamson’s History of the Jews in England and Lucien Wolf’s Essays in Jewish History, all of which assert that the Khedive of Egypt declared the condemned Jews in the Damascus murder to be innocent; he simply released them contemptuously for spot cash, without any such declaration.
6. Bribery of the witnesses for the prosecution, the officials of the courts, or the Potentates who could overrule those courts.
Examples of this are the cases of Rhodes and of Damascus in 1840, Tisza Eszlar in 1882, Konitz in 1900, and Kiev, 1911-13.
7. False accusations of innocent people.
As in the cases of Kiev and of Gladbeck.
8. The production of a corpse supposed to be that of the missing victim, but actually that of someone who died from a cause other than Ritual Murder; this was done in the Tisza Eszlar case.
9. Refusal or threatened refusal of loans to governments.
From Jewish sources, I give on p. 27 an instance where Rothschild influence in the matter of loans clearly governed the attitude of the Austrian consul at Damascus through the Chancellor Metternich, in the 1840 case.
On p. 30 is shown how the same Rothschild family were able to threaten the Government of Hungary so as to induce it to cause the acquittal of the accused Jews in the 1882 case at Tisza Eszlar.
In all methods of propaganda, the Jew Money Power ends ready allies among the gullible Gentiles, particularly among Archbishops, politicians, and even with Royalty. These rely chiefly on the idea that the Blood Accusation is a relic of the dark and wicked ages of the past, an idea which I have shown to have no foundation in fact.
How is it that influential Gentiles so readily lend themselves in support of the Jews against the Blood Accusation? The answer to this question deserves a short chapter to itself. (See Chapter XX.)
There have been a number of books published from time to time refuting the Blood Accusation; some of these are written by Jews, others by Gentiles. Among such, the best known are those of Strack and Cecil Roth. The works of Drs. Loeb and Lea are proved worthless; these concerned the Toledo case of 1490.
The Jew and Human Sacrifice, by H. L. Strack, Regius Professor of Theology at Berlin, went through eight editions before it was published in English in 1909. Strack was a Gentile, but his French edition was prefaced by the Jew Theodore Reinach, who was both son-in-law and nephew to Baron Jacques Reinach, who was found dead in bed after a warrant for his arrest had been issued in connection with the Panama Canal scandal.
The English edition is a book of 289 pages, of which only pp. 160 to 274 are relevant to the issue. The book is damned because
- there is no mention of the case of St. Hugh of Lincoln;
- no mention of Benedict XIV’s Bull in which that Pope beatifies St. Simon of Trent, a victim of ritual murder, whilst the Bulls of other Popes are freely quoted as an argument against the Blood Accusation;
- in describing the Damascus case, no mention is made that the flogging of the accused Jews caused them actually to reveal where the remains of the two murdered men were to be found; and
- the authorities quoted by Strack with regard to the La Guardia, Toledo, ritual murder have been proved by Walsh utterly unreliable.
The Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, 1935, by the Jew, Cecil Roth, is adequately dealt with on page 45, which see.
Jews who have professed conversion to Christianity have sometimes denied that there is any practice of Ritual Murder of Christians among people of the Jewish faith. On the other hand, many “converts” have confessed that Jews practice Ritual Murder.
When one considers that the history of the Marrano (“converted” Jew) community has conclusively shown that the conversion of these Jews was simply a ruse and as false as the Jew himself, and that the establishment of the Inquisition of Spain was almost entirely due to the fact that the pretended converts could be dealt with in no other way, they practising Jewish rites secretly whilst outwardly pretending to be devout followers of the Church, one will naturally place more credence on those “converts” who admit that Jewish Ritual Murder is practised than on those who deny it.
It would be interesting to know whether those converts, who have admitted the fact of Ritual Murder, were people with a mixture of either the Aryan or of the Alpine racial strain in their blood. But that knowledge is denied to us.
The cases which have come to light in which Jewish converts to Christianity or to Mahomedanism have confessed that: Ritual Murder is practiced by Jews are chronologically arranged below:
1144. Theobald, a monk and a Jewish convert, of Cambridge, came forward at the time when enquiry was being made into the death of St. William of Norwich, and said that as a Jew in Norwich he himself had known that a child was to be sacrificed at that place in 1144. He said that the custom of the Jews was to draw lots as to where the deed should be done, and that it fell to Norwich to supply the blood which was required by them in the year 1144; the Jews believed that without the shedding of human blood, they could never gain their freedom and return to Palestine.
1468. Bishop Jean d’Avila, himself the son of a converted Jew, actually investigated the Ritual Murder case in Segovia, Spain, and himself found the Jews guilty, who were afterwards executed (see page 18).
1475 Hans Vayol, converted Jew, charged the Rabbi of Ratisbon with Ritual Murder for the sake of the blood. Authority: Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 16 (1903).
1475 Wolfkan of Rutisban, Jewish convert to Christianity, charged the Jews with the Ritual Murder of St. Simon of Trent for the sake of the blood they required for their Passover celebrations. Authority: Ibid, Vol. XII, p. 554 (1906).
1475. A converted Jew, Jean de Feltro, described to the officer investigating the Ritual Murder of St. Simon of Trent, how his father had told him that the Jews of his town had killed a child at Passover to get the blood for their Passover bread.
1490. Torquemada, himself of Jewish blood (Roth, History of the Marranos, 1931, p. 39), must have confirmed the sentence of death against the Jews responsible for the Toledo ritual murder, and it would be through him that Ferdinand and Isabella would learn about it. The Ritual Murder case was one of the main factors which disposed the King and Queen to expel the Jews from Spain.
1494. Alonzo de Spina, stated by a Jew historian to have been of Jewish blood (History of the Marranos, Roth, 1932, p. 34) accused the Jews of murdering children for ritual purposes. He occupied the high position of Rector of Salamanca University, and his accusation was made in his work Fortalitium Fidei.
1555. Hananel di Foligno, of Rome, Jewish convert to Christianity, accused the Jews before Pope Marcellus 11 of the Ritual Murder of a boy. Enquiry under the auspices of a Cardinal resulted in a Mahomedan apostate, guardian of the murdered boy, being charged with the crucifixion of his ward “for the sake of getting possession of some property.” This sounds like the usual cock-and-bull story which, under the powerful influence of Jew Money, is resorted to when Courts are faced with the difficult job of shielding Jews from “the Blood Accusation.” Why on earth should the man crucify the boy instead of quietly getting rid of him in a more usual manner? Authority: Jewish Encyclopedia (1903), Vol. V, p. 423.
1614. Samuel Friedrich Brenz, a Jew, who was converted in I610, wrote a book revealing the Ritual Murder practice of the Jews. It was called Judischer Abgestreifter Schlangenbalg and was published at Nuremberg. The title translated is The Jewish Serpent’s Skin Stripped. The Jewish Encyclopedia’s description of the author speaks of his “crass ignorance, hatred, falsehood and pernicious fanaticism.” The book was republished in 1680 and again in 1715.
1720. Paul Christian Kirchner, converted Jew, admitted in his Judisches Ceremoniel, Frankfurt, that dried Christian blood was considered useful as a remedy for certain diseases of women.
18–. Paulus Meyer, converted Jew, accused the Jews of Ritual Murder in his Wolfe in Schafsfell, Schafe in Wolfspelz (Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing, etc.). He had a libel action brought against him by the Jews he accused of being involved in a case of alleged ritual murder, and was sentenced to four months’ arrest.
The Jewish Encyclopedia describes all these last three authors as “malicious and ignorant enemies of their people.”
17–. A converted Jew, Serafinovicz, wrote a book admitting Ritual Murder as a Jewish practice. Authority: The Jew, C. Roth Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, 1935, p. 24.
1759. A converted Jew, J. J. Frank, formed a sect called the Frankists at Lemberg. These people were all Jews who had become Christians in revolt against the evils taught in the Talmud. They said that it was the Talmud which was the root of all the troubles between Jews and Gentiles. Prince Etienne de Mikoulissky, administrator of the archidiocese of Lemberg, instituted public debates between the Frankists and the Talmudic Jews. A debate held in July took place in which various matters were dealt with point by point until six points had been settled; the seventh one was the Frankists’ declaration that “the Talmud teaches the employment of Christian blood and he who believes in the Talmud ought to make use of this blood.” The Frankists said they had learned this in their youth as Jews. Under the heading Baruch Yavan, the Jewish Encyclopedia, 1903) Vol. II, p. 563, admits that the Frankists brought the blood accusation against the Talmudists; also in Vol. VII, p. 579, under Judah Lob ben Nathan Krysa.
The Frankists completely defeated their opponents in these debates. Ultimately they became assimilated into the Christian community.
There is a large bibliography with reference to the Frankist community, of which the following two works may receive mention here: La malfaisance juive, by Pikulski, Lvov, 1760; and Materiaux sur la question relative aux accusations portees contre les Juifs a propos des crimes rituels, by J. O. Kouzmine, St. Petersburg, 1914.
1803. A converted ex-Rabbi wrote a book in the Moldavian language in I803 which was published again in Greek in I834 by Giovanni de Georgio under the title Rain of the Hebraic Religion. This converted Rabbi called himself by the name Neophyte. Extracts from his book were quoted in Achille Laurent’s Relation Historique des Affaires de Syrie depuis 1840 a 1842, a book described on p. 24 under the Damascus case. This extract gives very full information, confirms the murder, crucifixion and bleeding of Christians by Jews for Ritual purposes and the use of the blood for mixing with the Passover bread; and says that the practice is handed down by oral tradition and that nothing appears about it in writing in the Jewish religious books. Monniot in his Le Crime Ritual chez les Juifs copies long extracts from Laurent’s quotations from Neophyte.
1826. Paul Louis Bernard Drach, ex-Grand Rabbi of Strasburg, published a Deuxieme lettre d’un rabbin converti, Paris, 1827. On page 7 he said: “The zeal of these Rabbis goes as far as dedicating to death all those who follow the doctrine of the Trinity, and consequently all Christian Israelites.”
1840. Ex-Rabbi Mousa Abou-el-Afieh, who became a Mahommedan during the Damascus Ritual Murder trial, gave evidence that the blood of the murdered Father Thomas had been ordered by the Grand Rabbi Yakoub el Entabi, and was required for the use of zealous persons who sent Yakoub their flour for Passover, in which he mixed the Christian’s blood. The employment of the blood was a secret of the Grand Rabbis.
1913. A converted Jew, Cesare Algranati, enumerated a number of ritual murders for a book Cahiers Romains, 1913, a Catholic publication of Rome. Its date was 29th November, 1913. Over 100 cases are cited, of which 27 were in the 19th century. Authority: A. Arcand, in Le Miroir, Montreal, September, 1932, p. 12.
THE Jews are wont to pretend that the Blood Accusation, as they call it, is the product of medieval superstition and credulity, and anti-Jewish prejudice. They bring forward as examples cases where Jews have been wrongfully charged with Ritual Murder or against whom there was insufficient evidence, the mob taking the initiative and lynching every Jew it could lay hands on.
Such things have occurred, but they are quite useless in support of the Jewish claim of innocence of Ritual Murders.
There is an exact analogy in more modern times in the case of the negroes of the Southern States of the U.S.A. Everyone knows that lynching has been resorted to where negroes have been suspected of certain outrages against white women and children. Everyone knows also that sometimes the mob, in its racial thirst for vengeance, and in its impatience of the slow and corrupt legal procedure, has lynched innocent men. But no one will argue on such grounds that negroes guilty of such offences have not frequently met with the rough justice they deserved at the hands of the mob, or that negroes never attack white women and children! Yet the Jews bring forward this same rotten argument to shield themselves from the charge of Ritual Murder! Because innocent Jews have been lynched, no Jew ever does a Ritual Murder!
We have, fortunately, many cases on record in which constituted authority has duly tried the Jewish murderers and found them guilty, or has, sometimes without finding the culprit, given a verdict concerning the cause of death which leaves no doubt as to its ritual character. Let me enumerate some of these:
1192. Jews convicted after personal investigation by Philip Augustus, a sagacious man of good judgment.
1255. The case of “Little St. Hugh” at Lincoln, duly tried by proper authority and the judgment approved of by King Henry III.
1288. Jews tried by proper authority for ritual murder at Troyes.
1468. Jews tried by the Bishop of Segovia, himself son of a converted Jew.
1475. Jews tried at Trent by proper authority.
1480. Jews tried at Venice by proper authority.
1485. Jews tried at Padua by proper authority.
1490. Jews tried for the Toiedo ritual murder by the most learned men of the Universities of Salamanca and of Avila, under proper authority.
1494. Jews tried by proper authority for ritual murder at Hungary.
1670. Jew tried by proper authority at Metz. Sentenced by order of Parliament.
1698. Jew tried by the highest tribunal of the land for a ritual murder at Sandomir, Poland.
1748. Jews tried for ritual murder at Duniagrod, Poland, by Episcopal Court.
1753. Jews tried by Episcopal Court at Kiev for a ritual murder at Zhytomir.
1753. Jews tried by Episcopal Court for ritual murder at Pavalochi, Poland.
1831. Jews tried by proper authority at St. Petersburg for ritual murder.
1840. Jews tried by proper authority at Damascus for the ritual murder of Father Thomas and his servant.
1852 and 1853. Jews tried for two ritual murders at Saratov. Actual trial eight years after the murder.
1899. Jew convicted of the Polna murder by proper authority.
1911-13. Verdict of the Court in the Kiev case that the victim had been first bled and then killed; murderer not identified. See p. 32.
Finally we may also mention the case at Breslau in 1888 (see Chapter XVIII) where a rabbinical student was found guilty of extracting blood from a Christian boy without intention to cause fatal injury.
It is interesting to note that when the Jew, Jacob Selig, made his appeal to the Pope in 1758 complaining of “persecution” of Jews in Poland by means of the blood accusation, he admitted that the cases he complained of had been brought before the Courts!
In pre-Hitler Jew-controlled Germany, there were several cases in which the Courts were obviously made use of for the smothering of the Ritual Murder Accusation, just as the Old Bailey was made use of in 1936 in an endeavour to silence me on the same matter.
THE Jew, Cecil Roth, in Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, 1935, p. 20, says: “The Catholic Church never gave the slightest countenance to the calumny” (the blood accusation). This seems to be very inaccurate, as we shall demonstrate.
The Jews say that the Popes Innocent IV, Gregory X, Martin V, Nicholas V, Paul III, Clement XII and Clement XIV have all expressed disbelief in the Ritual Murder practice of Jews.
Let us first take the case of Innocent IV, who has issued Bulls about the matter on 28th May and 5th July, 1247, and again on 25th September, 1253. Now the first of these simply demands that no action should be taken against Jews on a Ritual Murder charge unless they have been tried and found guilty; the Bull of 1253 defended the Jews against the charge of Ritual Murder because the Old Testament did not sanction that practice!
But the views of Innocent IV are dealt with in the Catholic Bulletin, Dublin, August, 1916, pp. 435-8, from which I shall quote. The late Lord Rothschild was greatly perturbed about a Ritual Murder trial which; was going on at Kiev in 1913, and which we describe fully in this book (see p. 32). He wrote a letter to Cardinal Merry del Val, asking him to state whether the Bull of Innocent IV dated 5th July, 1247, was authentic; Lord Rothschild said that this Bull declared that Ritual Murder was “an unfounded and perfidious invention.” When the Cardinal replied that the letter was authentic, this was taken to mean that Innocent IV had denied the existence of ritual murder by Jews! But note that no such statement as Baron Rothschild imputed to Innocent IV was contained in the Bull!
Let the Catholic Bulletin deal with the matter in its own words:
“The document [the Bull] consists of two parts, one part sums up the case as presented by the Jews themselves. The Pope states that he has received a complaint that the Jews are being oppressed and pillaged by both ecclesiastical and secular princes, that they are being cast into prison, and even put to death, without trial or confession of guilt, that they are being falsely accused of ritual crime which they assert is manifestly opposed to their law, namely the Divine Scriptures. The second part, which alone expresses the Pope’s mind, is as follows:
“not wishing, therefore, that the said Jews be unjustly harassed, whose conversion God expects in his mercy . . . we wish that you should show yourselves benign and favourable towards them. Restore to their proper state those of the mentioned matters that you find to have been rashly attempted by the said Nobles against the Jews, and do not permit that in the future they should be for those or similar pretexts unjustly molested by anyone.”
“Jews must consider Christians to be very uncritical and gullible if they think they can he induced to accept this document as a papal declaration that ritual crime does not exist. It is obvious that the Sovereign Pontiff merely gives instructions according to general principles, ordering that the Jews should not be unjustly oppressed or molested. He makes no pronouncement whatever regarding the truth or falsehood of the specific charges. Naturally, he must leave the decision regarding this point to the judgment of the bishops to whom he writes. Least of all was he likely to be impressed by the sophistry that ritual crime could not exist among the Jews because it was forbidden in the sacred Scriptures. None could know better than he that it was not the teaching of the Scriptures, but the infamous teachings of the Talmud that caused people to look upon Jews as a grave danger to society. Only three years before the appearance of his letter, namely in 1244, he showed plainly what he thought of the Talmud by pressing Louis IX to collect from his subjects all the copies he could obtain and consign them to the flames.”
Before leaving Innocent IV. I ask the reader to realise the typical Jewish cunning exhibited by Rothschild in exploiting the answer of Cardinal del Val regarding the authenticity of the letter as confirming an interpretation of that letter’s contents by Rothschild! How Jewish!
Gregory X in a Bull of 7th October, 1272, is a little more explicit than Innocent IV; the same exhortation is made for legal trial of all cases, but he says that they should “not be arrested again on such groundless charge unless (which we think impossible) they are captured in flagrant crime.” Gregory thus does not deny that the crime exists; he says he thinks it is impossible.
Pope Martin V, Nicholas V, Paul III and Clement XIII issued statements which show to my satisfaction, although not apparently to that of some anti-Jew writers, that they did not wish to support the opinion that the Ritual Murder charge was a true one against the Jews.
Then we come to Clement XIV. Before he became Pope, he was Cardinal Ganganelli. He was despatched by the Inquisition in 1759 to investigate Ritual Murder charges against the Jews in Poland, and he wrote a long report about it. This report is quoted in full in Roth’s Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew and is, indeed, the only “evidence” brought forward by Roth in that book, published in 1935.
From beginning to end of Ganganelli’s report, there is nothing that a scientific investigator would regard as evidence that Ritual Murder was not practised by Jews. The Polish cases he admits were juridically decided; and he brings forward examples of definitely false charges of Ritual Murder such as everyone knows have arisen, but which do not in the least affect the question as to whether Ritual Murder happens or not. He merely opposes his opinion to those of the men in authority on the spot.
But there is more. Definitely, and far from being able to refute the charge of Ritual Murder against Jews, Ganganelli admits the Ritual Murders of St. Simon of Trent and of St. Andreas of Rinn in these words:
“I admit then, as true, the fact of the Blessed Simon, a boy three years old, killed by the Jews in Trent in the year 1475 in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ”; and “I also admit the truth of another fact, which happened in the year 1462 in the village of Rinn, in the Diocese of Brixen, in the person of the Blessed Andreas, a boy barbarously murdered by the Jews in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ.”
One thing concerning Ganganelli’s report seems to have escaped the notice of other anti-Jewish workers, and to my mind it damns the report from the beginning; in undertaking an investigation such as that with which Ganganelli was confronted, one should surely start with an unbiased outlook? Read Ganganelli’s admission about his own outlook when he went to Poland to investigate:
“With my weak faculties, I endeavoured to demonstrate the non-existence of the crime which was imputed to the Jewish Nation in Poland.”
The Cardinal set forth, not to find out whether Ritual Murder existed in Poland or not, but “to demonstrate the non-existence of the crime”! And yet, he had to admit the crimes of Trent and of Rinn!
Thus, the book Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, by the Jew Roth, which relies entirely upon Ganganelli for its material, is valueless except to the anti-Jewish worker to whom it is a God-send! Yet, what a good “press” this book had when it was published in 1935! The Morning Post greeted it (16th January, 1935) with headlines “Ritual Murder: Jewish people absolved: striking denunciation,” and called the book “a final and incontrovertible refutation of the hideous Ritual Murder accusation.” It is clear that the critic had either never taken the trouble to read the book or was deliberately misleading the public as to its contents; it is no “incontrovertible refutation”; it is an unscientific conglomeration of irrelevant matter, with a confession of bias and of the truth of the Ritual Murder accusation itself. The Catholic Times (15th February, 1935) says: “The learned Cardinal completely refutes the persecutors of the Jews and conclusively shows the flimsiness of the charges against them and their inherent absurdity.” Ganganelli “completely refutes” nothing, and all that he “conclusively shows” is that Ritual Murders were a Jewish practice.
The Birmingham Mail, 22nd September, 1936, is typical of the attitude of the “British” critics of the book: “It is symptomatic of the unhealthy state of the Continental mind that credence can be given in certain parts of Europe to the atrocious libel in which it is alleged that Christian blood is a necessary concomitant of the Jewish Passover celebrations.”
Although the book was widely advertised when it came out, the Jews seem to have realised that it merely gives evidence in favour of Ritual Murder, for I found it difficult to get a copy in 1936, having ultimately to resort to a friend in the second-hand book trade to get one for me.
Thus Clement XIV, far from being a witness for the defence of the Jews, is an unwilling witness of the truth of the anti-Jewish accusation.
And what of the Popes who have supported the Ritual Murder accusation by their acts? There are many.
Sixtus IV approved in his Bull XII Kal. July, 1478, of the conduct of the Bishop who dealt with the Jews in the St. Simon case at Trent. The Jews endeavoured to enlist Sixtus IV on their side by pointing out that he had suspended the cult of St. Simon of Trent; this was done by Sixtus IV solely as a disciplinary measure, for Simon had not yet been beatified by papal authority, but was being made the centre of a local cult.
Gregory XIII recognised Simon as a martyr and himself visited the shrine.
Sixtus V ratified the cult of St. Simon in 1588, allowing the celebration of mass in his name. This is confirmed as a fact by Benedict XIV.
Benedict XIV himself in a Bull Beatus Andreas (1778, Venice, IV, p. 101 seq.), beatified both Simon and Andreas, two boys murdered by the Jews “in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ”; “the Jews,” he said, “used every means to escape the just punishment that they had merited and to escape the just anger of the Christians.”
How significant of the methods of the advocates for the Jew, to note that in Strack’s book, no mention whatever is made of Benedict XIV’s Bull, although the actions of Sixtus IV are wilfully misinterpreted!
Pius VII, 24th November, 1805, confirmed a decree of the Congregation of Rites of 31st August according to the Church at Saragossa the right to honour Dominiculus, killed by the Jews in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ (see p. 17). He also authorised for the church at Toledo the same privilege in respect to St. Christopher, the boy crucified by the Jews near that place in 1490 (see p. 20).
In 1867, the Congregation of Rites authorised the cult of Lorenzino, at Vicenza, Padua, ritually murdered by Jews.
Gregory XVI, also, gave his support to the anti-Jewish accusers when he honoured Gougenot des Mousseaux by making him a Chevalier of the Order of St. Gregory the Great, in reward for writing his book, Le Juif, le Judaisme et la Judaisation des Peuples Chretiens, in which Gougenot des Mousseaux devoted a chapter charging the Jews with Ritual Murder of Christians for the sake of their blood.
Pius IX refused to see the Jew Montefiore when the latter was returning from his visits to Egypt and to Constantinople, where he had bribed the Khedive and the Sultan so that the Jews at Damascus could escape the consequences of their guilt of the Ritual Murder of Father Thomas and his servant; this, in spite of a shameless Jewish persistence which has been fully described in Sir Moses Montefiore’s biography. That showed what Pius IX thought about it, and he himself was of Jewish blood.
Pope Leo XIII bestowed distinctions on Edouard Drumont, author of La France luive, who accused the Jews of Ritual Murder therein. Authority: Jewish Encyclopedia (1905), Vol. X, p, 127.
To sum up: The Popes who have appeared to disbelieve the existence of the Ritual Murder crime have, with the exception of Clement XIII, been those who lived in the least enlightened times; many later Popes have given very clear evidence that they hold the opposite opinion. The reader has the facts before him and can judge for himself.
Remember that although other martyred boys, victims of Jewish Ritual Murder, have been regarded in many places as saints without papal authority, there is no record of papal disapproval of these cults except in the case of Sixtus IV, already mentioned, whose action was purely disciplinary and who himself specifically approved of the conduct of the Ritual Murder Case to which the matter referred. Such locally beatified “saints” or martyrs were St. William of Norwich (1144), St. Richard of Pontoise (1179), St. Hugh of Lincoln (1255), St. Werner of Oberwesel (1286) and St. Rudolph of Berne (1287). In every such case it is quite obvious that the cult had the full approval at least of the episcopal authorities over the places mentioned.
Those who condemn the Blood Accusation as a wicked invention for the purpose of persecuting Jews and robbing them, must at the same time condemn wholesale some of the highest dignitaries of the Catholic Church, men against whom nothing is known beyond that they had excellent characters, like William Turbe, Bishop of Norwich to give an English example.
When the reader peruses the details of the cases that I have cited in this book, he will realise that Episcopal Courts have dealt with many of them; in other words, the Jews were condemned by the existing religious authority of the day.
Many of the earliest records we have of these Ritual Murders come from the pens of Catholic historians, such as the Bollandists, a body of Belgian Jesuits; a list of the principal works on the subject will be found at the end of the book.
Father Creagh, Redemptorist, publicly accused Jews of the practice of Ritual Murder, on 11th January, 1904, in a speech in Limerick. Authority: Jewish Encyclopedia (1904), Vol. VIII. p. 89.
Perhaps I may best wind up this chapter by giving the names of the twelve members of juries who investigated, considered and condemned the Jews in the Ritual Murder case of La Guardia in Toledo, together with their qualifications:
(1) Maestre Fray Juan de Santispiritus, Professor of Hebrew, Salamanca University;
(2) Masetre Fray Diego de Bretonia, Professor of Scripture;
(3) Fray Antonio de la Pena, Prior;
(4) Dr. Anton Rodriguez Carnejo, Professor of Canon Law;
(5) Dt. Diego de Burgos, Professor of Civil Law;
(6) Dr. Juan de Covillas, Professor of Canon Law;
(7) Fray Sebastian de Hueta;
(8) Licentiate Alvaro de Sant Estevan, Queen Isabel’s corregidor for Avila;
(9) Ruy Garcia Manso, Bishop Talavera’s provisor;
(10) Fray Rodrigo Vela, head of the Franciscan Monastery, Avila;
(11) Dr. Tristan, Canon of Avila;
(12) Juna de Saint Estevan.
On the findings of such men of standing we surely have every right to rely.
THIS may be summed up very briefly. The Protestant Church appears to have allied itself to Jewry, if one may judge from the political views expressed by our Archbishops and most of our bishops. These views are almost invariably similar to those expressed by Masons, and are almost always pernicious.
However, there was a time when Protestants were Protestants, unaffected by Masonry or by the powerful propaganda of which Jewish money is the source.
Martin Luther seems to have had an inkling of the true nature of the Jew when he said: “How the Jews love the Book of Esther, which is so suitable to their bloodthirsty, revengeful, murderous appetite and hopes. The sun has never shone on such a bloodthirsty and revengeful people, who fancy themselves to be the chosen people so that they can murder and strangle the heathen.” (From the Erlangen edition of Luther’s Table Talks, Vol. XXXII, pp. 120.)
This seems plain speaking enough; but we find the Jew, C. Roth, Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, citing Martin Luther as having condemned the “libel” of Ritual Murder “in unqualified terms.”
However, the Jewish Encyclopedia (1904), Vol. VIII, p. 213, definitely states that Luther charged the Jews with Ritual Murders.
At Magdeburg in 1562, a Protestant History of the Christian Church was compiled, called the Magdeburg Centuries; it was compiled by a number of Lutheran theologians headed by M. Flacius, and was first published at Basle as the Historia Ecclesia Christi. This work records the ritual murders of Blois, Pontoise (Paris), Braisne, Fulda, Berne and Oberwesel.
John Foxe in his Acts and Monuments of the Church (1563) says: “For every year commonly their [the Jews'] custom was to get some Christian man’s child from his parents and on Good Friday to crucify him in despite of our religion.” He describes the ritual crucifixion of British children by Jews at Norwich and Lincoln, before the expulsion.
The learned and distinguished Puritan, William Prynne, a fearless fighter against evil, in his Short Demurrer to the Jewes long discontinued Remitter into England, 1656, gave details and references of the Ritual Murders at Norwich, Gloucester, and Bury St. Edmunds in England, and those of Blois, Braisne, Richard “of Paris,” Fulda, Prague, Werner of Oberwesel, Rudolph of Berne, Simon of Trent and others. In Book I p 67, he says: “The Jews . . . have ofttimes . . . maliciously acted it [crucifixion] over and again in representation; . . . by crucifying sundry Christian children on Good Friday or near Easter, on a Crosse, in a most barbarous manner, in derision of our Saviour’s death and passion.” On p. 68 he quotes several authorities “that the Jews in Paris did every year steal some Christian child, or another brought up in the King’s Court, and carrying him to a secret house or vault, did, on Good Friday or Easter-Day, in contempt and derision of Christ and Christian religion crucify him on a Crosse . . and that they have been frequently apprehended, persevering in this wickednesse; for which, upon Direction, they were usually murdered, stoned, burned, destroyed, hanged, by the furious multitude’s violence, or executed, imprisoned, banished by Christian Kings and Magistrates, yet such was their malice to Christ, that they would still persevere therein, and act it over again upon every opportunity.”
This book of Prynne’s, which ran into two editions, is in the British Museum and Guildhall Libraries, but is unobtainable, though stated by booksellers to be of no great rarity or value; in the London Library there is no copy, but there is a Jewish refutation of it!
Our nation has been so carefully schooled by the Jewish Money Power, which has been able to destroy or rarefy all sources of information on Ritual Murder, that the twentieth century Protestant Church has come to believe that the thing is a mere relic of medieval superstition.
THIS book is not intended to be an exhaustive history of Jewish Ritual Murder. In previous chapters I have described the cases which occurred before the Expulsion of the Jews from England, and also the cases which appear to me to be historical events admitting of no reasonable doubt as to their correct interpretation as Jewish Ritual Murders.
In this chapter, I am listing a number of reported cases of Ritual Murder which, whilst being in my opinion worthy of credence, are not supported by the same detail or authority that constitute authenticity.
There are many discoveries of bodies of children, thought to have been ritually murdered by Jews, which are not mentioned in this list, and since the Sultan issued his firman in 1840 denying that Ritual Murder existed among the Jews, it is not surprising that many of these cases happened in territories under Turkish rule.
The following reports of alleged Ritual Murder appear to me worthy of record:
A.D. 419. Socrates (Hist. Eccles., Lib. VII, Chap. XVI) gives an account of a case at Inmestar, a town between Chalcis and Antioch.
The Syrian Posidonius (135-51 B.C.), and the first century Greeks Apollonius Molon and Apion had previously reported that it was a Jewish custom to sacrifice annually a Greek boy, specially fattened for the occasion. The probable reason for the Ritual Murder accusation being made against Christians themselves in the early years of the Religion was that many of these Christians were of Jewish origin.
1285. Munich. Illustrated in Bavaria Sancta.
1270. Wissembourg. Monniot quotes on p. 148 of his Le Crime Rituel chez les Juifs a letter dated 19th November, 1913, from the cure of the town, in which the details of this case are quoted from the Alsatian historian Hertzog, who says the victim’s tomb was for many years in the church.
1303. Weissensee (Thuringia).
1305. Prague. The mob took the law into its own hands in a case of alleged crucifixion of a Christian at Passover.
1331. Lieberlingen. Child’s body found in well with wounds indicating that it had been sacrificed by Jews. The judges of the place had a number of Jews burned.
1345. Munich. Illustrated in Bavaria Sancta.
1347. Cologne. The sacrificial knife in this case is preserved at the Church of St. Sigbert.
1407. Cracow. A Polish priest, Budek, charged the Jews with murdering a boy at Easter.
1470. Endingen, Baden. Jews burned for killing eight years previously four Christians ritually.
1529. Posing, Hungary. Child murdered for its blood. Many Jews burned after confession by torture of some.
1598. Podolia. Jews tried and condemned, after a rabbi had confessed to killing four-year-old Albert at Passover and bleeding him.
1764. Orcuta, Hungary. Boy found dead, covered with wounds suggestive of Ritual Murder.
1791. Tasnad, Hungary. Jews condemned for murdering and bleeding a boy, on the evidence of the small son of one of them aged five years. Accused received the royal pardon.
1797. Galatz, Rumania. About this time “The Ritual Murder accusation became epidemic” (Jewish Encyclopedia, 1905, Vol. X, p. 513)
1812. Corfu. Three Jews were condemned for the murder of a Christian child. Monniot (Le Crime Rituel chez les Juifs) says the archives of the island report this case.
1847. Mount Lebanon. Mentioned by Sir Richard Burton in The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam, 1898, p. 128.
1935. Afghanistan. The White Russian paper Nasch Put of Harbin, 7th October, reports a case in Afghanistan where a Mahommedan child was robbed and riddled with stabs by Jews, the Court verdict being that this was done for ritual purposes.
I repeat that there are many other cases of Ritual Murder accusations not mentioned in this book; they are omitted because I have insufficient detail concerning them.
1839. A Remittance of Blood. During the Damascus Ritual Murder trial, the French Consul, Comte Ratti-Menton, by whose energy and determination the case was brought to light, received a letter from Comte de Suzannet, who wrote: “Nearly a year ago, a box arrived at the custom-house that a Jew came to claim on being asked to open it, he refused and offered first 100 piastres, then 200, then 300, then 1,000 and at last 10,000 piastres (2,500 francs). The custom-house official persisted, and opened the box, discovering therein a bottle of blood. On asking the Jew for an explanation, the latter said that they had the custom of preserving the blood of their Grand Rabbis or important men. He was allowed to go, and left for Jerusalem.”
Comte Ratti-Menton then looked for the chief of the customhouse, but found he had died! His successor, who had been associated with him, only vaguely recollected the affair; but he confirmed that the box had contained several bottles of red liquid and that he thought the Jew who came to claim it was Aaron Stambouli of Damascus who had told him that the substance was an efficacious drug.
The quick death of the chief custom-house officer is not surprising; witnesses of the crimes of the Jews are subject to a sudden demise. But the reader will perhaps be more impressed by the fact that this Aaron Stambouli was one of those subsequently found guilty of the Ritual Murder of Father Thomas at Damascus and condemned!
1888. Breslau, Germany. On 21st July, Max Bernstein, aged 24, a pupil at the Talmudic College, met an eight-year-old Christian boy, Severin Hacke, bought him some sweetmeats and took him to his (Bernstein’s) home. There, he stripped the boy of his clothing and with a knife made incisions in a certain part of the child’s body, collecting the blood that came from the cuts on a piece of blotting-paper. When the boy was naturally frightened, the Jew told him there was no need for fear as he only wanted a little blood.
The boy went home and said nothing about the matter; but his father, seeing the scars, questioned him and the truth came out.
Bernstein was arrested, and the prosecuting attorney after preventing a manoeuvre on the part of the defending counsel to have the case settled behind closed doors, maintained that this was a ritual case for the extraction of blood for the needs of a Jewish rite.
The Court, however, refused to recognise this, but sentenced Bernstein to three months’ imprisonment for having made incisions in the body of the child.
The facts of this case are not disputed by anyone. The Jews, of course, spread the rumour that Bernstein was a religious maniac. Dr. Edmond Lesser of Breslau wrote a report to that effect which the Royal Scientific Committee for the Medical Profession endorsed. This Professor was a Jew, of course. But the reader should note that the report was issued in 1890, and that the Court itself never had any such “expert” propaganda before it!
DURING my trial I asked the only witness brought against me, Inspector Kitchener, “Are you a Detective-Inspector?”
Leese: “Are there any cases of child-murder nowadays which cannot be solved?”
Leese: “Has it ever occurred to you that some of them may be cases of Ritual Murder by Jews?”
The Judge: “If it had, he would have acted without evidence, and he has no right to.”
In the belief that it is the business of the detective first to investigate and then to collect evidence, and then to act upon that evidence, I give here some facts on recent happenings which seem to me to open up the necessary field for investigation. They are, the Chorlton murder, the Lindbergh baby case, and a queer business in the Argentine.
1928. Chorlton, Manchester.
A school-boy named O’Donnell was murdered on 1st or 2nd December, just before the Jewish feast of Chanucah, which commemorates the recovery of Jerusalem by the Maccabees.
The throat had been cut; the body was drained of blood; it was found on some waste ground and it was remarkable that there was no blood on the boy’s clothes and hands. There was a pool of blood seven yards from the body. The wound was pronounced by experts as not being self-inflicted. A police witness said the body seemed to have been dragged along the grass; the Coroner suggested that someone had washed the boy’s hands.
The police were completely baffled; it was certain that the work was not that of any maniac, but that the crime was premeditated, and was in fact, “the perfect crime.” The verdict at the inquest was an open one.
The affair was reported in The Times, 3rd, 4th and 6th December 1928, and in the early edition only of that of 23rd February, 1929; also in the Manchester Evening papers, 6th to 13th December, 1928.
My only comment is that the murder could not have been done on the spot where the body was found, since the boy’s clothes and hands were not stained with blood, indicating that the boy must have been naked when the throat was cut; therefore, some blood was probably poured onto the ground a few yards away to mislead the detectives.
Ritual murders have several times been discovered by the fact that no blood has been found at the place where the corpse, bled white, has been recovered.
2. The Lindbergh Case.
Colonel Lindbergh’s son was missed on 1st March, 1932. The Jewish Feast of Purim was on 22nd March. A child’s body was found on 12th May, dead at least two months according to the experts, with the skull fractured in two places.
I cannot see that it has ever been proved that the body found was that of Colonel Lindbergh’s son. It is true that the child’s clothes were identified, but the ‘body’ was only a skeleton, and the ‘identification’ by the nursemaid, Betty Gow, was made by means of the clothes and a matter of ‘twisted toes.’ (We must remember that the Tisza Eszlar case, see p. 30, was conjured with by the finding and false identification of a body dressed in the murdered girl’s clothes.)
Chas. Lindbergh, the father, America’s air hero, appointed two Jews, Salvatore Spitale and Irving Bitz, as intermediaries between himself and a gang who pretended to know where his son was. The Purple Gang all-Jewish and headed by a Jew called Fleischer, was the object of the police search.
Ultimately, a German called Hauptmann was arrested, and the whole Jewish Press of America condemned him several score of times before his trial; actually he was ultimately found “guilty” on evidence which would not have hanged a dog, and met his death in the electric chair.
The condemned man said that Reilly, his lawyer, had brought about his fate by sabotaging his defence; Reilly went insane and committed suicide.
Hauptmann said that the receiver of the kidnap ransom was Isador Fisch, a Jew; but he had died.
The mob of people outside the death-house at Hauptmann’s execution, shouted and joked and laughed in the same obscene fashion as did the female furies over the victims of the guillotine in the French Revolution. It was commonly considered in America that Hitler, not Hauptmann, had been found guilty!
It is possible that Hauptmann was paid to steal the child, without knowing that it was going to be anything but an ordinary kidnapping; and that the boy was intended for Ritual Slaughter for Purim.
It was Chas. Lindbergh’s father who had strongly opposed the establishment of the Federal Reserve Banking System sponsored by powerful Jewish interests and had also brought to public notice the wicked circular letter of the American Banking Association which ordered the member banks to deflate “to make a monetary stringency among your Patrons.” This, it is thought, might determine the choice of the innocent child of Hon. Chas. Lindbergh’s famous son for a victim.
On 28th February the Sunday Pictorial (London) reported that the two-year-old Eugenio Iraola had been kidnapped and killed for ritual purposes; the heading under which this appeared was “Millionaire’s Baby as Human Sacrifice.” Eight arrests were made, including that of Ganceda Silva. The next (and last) we hear of this case is in the London Evening News of 24th March, which simply reports: “While awaiting trial for kidnapping and murder, Jose Gancedo has hanged himself in his cell at Dolores, Buenos Ayres.” That, of course, simplified matters! It will be noticed that the suggestive name of Silva had already been lost by the deceased!
I WRITE this chapter in an endeavour to try and account for the strange attitude adopted by Gentiles, often influential people, in rushing forward to shield the Jews, not only from the Ritual Murder charge, but from accusations concerning other activities hostile to Western Civilization.
Consider the Letter of Protest signed by archbishops, bishops, lords, justices, editors and professors, which was sent to The Times as stated on p. 8 against the “revival” of the Blood Accusation against a Jew at Kiev, 1911-13. Consider that the trial of the accused had not been made. Consider that none of the signatories would have thought it proper to intervene in the course of justice in a foreign country on behalf of anyone not a British subject. Yet they did it for the sake of a Jew. Why?
Here is another instance: Mr. J. Hall Richardson reports it on pp. 216-217 of his book, From the City to Fleet Street (S. Paul & Co., 1927). He is writing of the murders of Jack the Ripper, and he says:
“It would scarcely be believed that the Metropolitan Police held the clue to the identification of the murderer in their own hands and deliberately threw it away under the personal direction of the then Commissioner of Police, Sir Chas. Warren, who acted in the belief that an anti-Semitic riot might take place if a certain damning piece of writing were permitted to remain on the walls.”
Writing of the murderer: “Some freak of fancy had led him to write upon the wall this sentence: ‘The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing.’
“I have never learned that any photographic record was made of this inscription, and when the City Police came to hear of it, they were horrified that their colleagues in the Metropolitan Force had wiped away what might have been an important piece of circumstantial evidence as to the class to which the murderer belonged.”
That the Jack the Ripper murders were ritual I do not allege; but that they were Jewish seems to be established by the above-quoted paragraphs. Yet the clue was passed over and the murderer remained at large. In what other cause would such an important piece of evidence be ignored, and the whole community’s interests sacrificed for the sake of a Jew? It is significant, that Sir Chas. Warren was not only District Grand Master in Masonry, 1891-5, but was actually the founder of the first research Lodge–Quatuor Coronati.
Is it a sort of mass hypnotism worked upon people who have already either consciously or unconsciously accepted some sort of mental or spiritual subservience to Jewish influence? Is it cabbalistic?
I cannot answer the question, but I find no other explanation for the wholesale denunciation which is made by so many authoritative Britons against those who have the courage to come forward and state their conviction that the Jews have been responsible for the Ritual Murder of Christians. I know I shall be subjected to a long-continued typhoon of abuse and libel against which I shall have no defence except the contents of this book. I can only ask those who feel compelled to take part in the campaign against what is inaccurately called “anti-semitism” to pause and ask themselves whether they are really mentally free, or whether they are almost unconsciously directed in their intended action by alien tenets absorbed perhaps in their youth under Old Testament teachings, in adult life by Masonic influence, or by Jewish books.
Acta Sanctorum. This is the work of the Bollandists, who were a band of Jesuits devoting themselves to historical record between 1643 and 1883. The volumes in which they recorded various ritual murders by Jews are mainly those written in the seventeenth century.
Histoire Universelle de l’Englise Catholique, by Abbe Rohrbacher (Gaume et Freres, 1845).
Lives of the Saints, by Alban Butler.
Dizionario Ecclesiastico, Vol. 64-66 (Semenario Peo-scire, Venice, 1853-4).
Annales Ecclesiastici, ab 1198, p. 568, by O. Raynaldus, 1753. These two deal with the case of St. Simon of Trent.
Catholic Bulletin, August, 1916 (published at Dublin, M. H. Gill & Sons).
Cahiers Romains, Catholic publication in Rome, 29th November, 1913.
Acts and Monuments of the Church, by John Foxe, 1563.
A Short Demurrer to the Jewes long discontinued Remitter into England, by William Prynne, 1656.
Les Juifs devant l’Eglise et l’ Histoire, by Rev. Father Constant.
Meine Antworten an die Rabbiner: Funf Briefe uber den Talmudismus und das Blut-Ritual der Juden, by August Rohling (1883), Canon of Prague Cathedral.
La France Juive, by Edouard Drumont. Obtainable from M. Petit, 12 rue Laugier, Paris 17. 70 francs.
Le Juif, le Judaisme et la Judaisation des Peuples Chretiens, by Gougenot des Mousseaux, Chevalier, 1886. The whole of Chapter VI is devoted to Ritual Murders.
Le Mystere du Sang chez les Juifs de tous les Temps, by Henri Desportes, 1889 (Savine).
Le Crime Rituel chez les Juifs, by A. Monniot, 1914. Obtainable from M. Petit) 12 rue Laugier, Paris 17. 10 francs. An excellent general guide to the whole subject, with preface by Edouard Drumont. It was Drumont who exposed the Jewish Panama scandals.
Der Ritual Mord bei den Juden, by Eugen Brandt.
Ritual Morde, by Ottokar Stauf von der March (Hammer Verlag).
Judische Moral und Blut Mysterium, by A. Fern, 1927.
Der Ritual Mord, by G. Utikal. This book is recommended by the Reich Office for the Promotion of German Literature as “a truly national representation of Jewish Ritual Murder.”
Das Blut in Judischen Schriftum, by Dr. Bischoff, 1929.
Der Sturmer, Special Ritual Murder Issue, dated May, 1934, Nuremburg. The reader should not be prejudiced by the Jewish campaign of hate against the editor of Der Sturmer. The Ritual Murder issue is a valuable historical record.
The Jew, the Gypsy, and El Islam, by Sir Richard Burton, edited by W. H. Wilkins (Hutchinson, 1898).
Isabella of Spain, by ECU. T. Walsh, 1931 (Sheed & Ward), pp. 125, 439-468, and 628.
References to other authorities in particular cases of Ritual Murder are made in the text when describing these cases.
To the above list should be added a recent work intended to clear the Jews from the Blood Accusation, but which, at least in my own opinion, appears to support it: — The Ritual Murder Libel and the Jews, by C. Roth (Woburn Press, 1935)