Jewish Ritual Murder

by Arnold Leese 1938

Source:https://archive.org/details/jewishritualmurderarnoldleese/page/n13/mode/2up

My Irrelevant Defence

being

Meditations Inside Gaol and Out

on

Jewish Ritual Murder

by

Arnold S. Leese

Dedicated without permission to

Mr. Oliver Locker-Lampson, M.P.,

and

Hon. Mr. Justice Greaves-Lord.

London:

The I.F.L. Printing & Publishing Co.,

30, Craven Street, W.C.2.

1938.

“Soul had they none, nor lineage;
“Nor wit, nor headmen,
“Nor crafts, nor letters,
“Nor e’en a glimpse of God.”
British Edda.

“Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning….” — St. John, viii, 44.

“In order to destroy the prestige of heroism for political crime, we shall send it for trial in the category of thieving, murder, and every abominable and filthy crime. Public opinion will then confuse in its conception this category of crime with the disgrace attaching to every other and will brand it with the same contempt.” — Protocol 19, Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

“If I am killing a rat with a stick and have him in a comer, I am not indignant if he tries to bite me and squeals and gibbers with rage. My job is, not to get angry, but to keep cool, to attend to my footwork and to keep on hitting him where it will do the most good.” — A. S. Leese, speaking at Reception, 17th Feb., 1937, on his return from prison.

Contents

Introduction……..

1. HUMAN SACRIFICE A SEMITIC TRADITION
2. THE RACIAL URGE
3. HUMAN SACRIFICE AND THE JEWISH RELIGION
4. THE MOTIVE AND NATURE OF JEWISH RITUAL MURDER
5. “A RELIC OF THE DAYS OF WITCHCRAFT AND BLACK MAGIC”
6. “IT COULDN’T HAPPEN NOW”
7. JEWISH RITUAL MURDER IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE EXPULSION OF 1290
8. WELL AUTHENTICATED CASES IN EARLY AND MEDIAEVAL TIMES, 1171 TO 1510
9. WELL AUTHENTICATED CASES IN SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES
10. WELL AUTHENTICATED CASES IN NINETEENTH CENTURY
11. WELL AUTHENTICATED CASES IN THE PRESENT CENTURY
12. THE JEWISH DEFENCE
13. EVIDENCE OF CONVERTED JEWS
14. CASES CONFIRMED BY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY
15. THE ATTITUDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TOWARDS JEWISH RITUAL MURDER
16. THE ATTITUDE OF THE PROTESTANT CHURCH
17. OTHER CASES WORTHY OF CREDENCE
18. TWO QUEER HAPPENINGS
19. WHAT OF THESE?
20. IRRELEVANT MEDITATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS SUPPORTING THE BLOOD ACCUSATION

Introduction

On 15th July, 1936, Mr. Oliver Locker-Lampson, M.P., a childhood friend of the Rothschild family, asked in the House of Commons whether the Attorney-General proposed to institute legal proceedings against the authors or publishers of The Fascist, the issue of that paper for July containing allegations against the Jews of the practice of ritual murder. The Attorney-General replied that the matter was under consideration.

As an ultimate result of this “consideration,” I was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment among criminals on 21st September, 1936, the Judge in the case being a 31st Degree Mason of the Scottish Rite. But it is important to note that the conviction was obtained, not on the ritual murder issue alone, which was not relied upon by the Prosecution for the purpose of silencing me, but on the whole contents of the July Fascist, and particularly on words used by me with reference to the disposal of the Jews.

Under the law of libel, the truth of my statements with reference to Ritual Murder could not be used as an argument in my defence; it was deemed sufficient under the law that the statements had been written, and that they “rendered His Majesty’s subjects of Jewish faith liable to suspicion, affront and boycott” and so amounted to a Public Mischief.

I came to Court very fully prepared, if the truth of my statements was challenged, to justify the statements I had made in The Fascist, and was even ready to demand that “Rex,” the prosecutor, should produce from the Public Records Office certain Close and Patent Rolls of the State wherein Jewish Ritual Murder is recorded as an established fact in this country! But I was forbidden by the Judge to use this line of defence; it did not matter who else had charged the Jews with ritual murder, or how often, or what historic facts proved it, or how many convictions there had been under proper juridical authority; thus, when I asked Inspector Kitchener, the only witness who appeared against me, “When you brought this case, were you under the impression that Ritual Murder was a thing of the past?” and he replied “Yes,” the Judge intervened with the remark “The truth of a libel is no defense, I must point out again.”

Again, the Attorney-General, who was acting as Prosecuting Counsel, interrupted another question of mine to the same witness, by the remark: “In my submission, it is correctly laid down that the defendant is in no case allowed to prove the truth of a seditious libel as a justification for having published it.” The Judge then said, “That is the law as I understand it.” He made it clear to me that to proceed further in such a line of defence would be contempt of court, as the “truth” of the “libel” was “irrelevant” to the issue of the trial! Such may be the law, but it is not justice!

The last thing the Judaso-Masonic Hidden Hand wanted was the truth about Ritual Murder!

Since I came out of prison on 6th February, 1937,1 have, until recently, been too busy to write on the subject of Ritual Murder; but finding that there are, even among anti-Jewish workers, people who, never having investigated the matter for themselves, still imagine that Jewish Ritual Murder not only has not existed and does not exist, but is a fiction invented by crazy anti-Jewish fanatics, and as such, exploited by me, in my campaign against the Jews, it becomes necessary for me to take steps to defend my own reputation as a man of good faith by compiling and publishing this book.

What the court procedure prevented me from doing in my own defence, 1 do now in these pages, and I have no anxiety concerning the conclusions at which my readers will arrive on the matter.

The subject of Ritual Murder has always been one that the Jewish Money Power, which controls this country as well as most others, has taken all possible steps to suppress. The reason is that Ritual Murder was the dynamite which finally blew the Jew out of England in 1290, out of Spain in 1492, and out of Germany in our time. The Jews know it; and I know it too!

But there is no British law, and no 11th Commandment, which makes Ritual Murder by Jews a forbidden topic in this country. Sir Richard Burton’s book about it was published shortly after his death near the end of the last century; Stack’s book, defending the Jews against the accusation, was translated and published in England in 1909; whilst the Jew, C. Roth, published his Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew in 1935. In France, as in Germany, there is free speech on the subject.

I challenge and defy the Judaso-Masonic Power, which rules this country, by publishing the present work in 1938, not only in my own defence, but in the public interest to break the attack on Free Speech that is rapidly developing wherever any criticism of the past or present conduct of Jews is concerned, an attack which relies for its success upon the ridiculous charge that a breach of the peace is likely if the truth about them is spoken! I do so in order that the Jews shall not escape simply through the power of Money and Masonry from bearing the burden of a charge which, in my opinion, has been proved against some of them through the ages. My object is, and always has been, in spite of what my Masonic Judge had to say about it, to alter “a matter of State established,” namely the status of Jews in this country on an equality with Britons, a condition which is imperilling our civilization, and to enlighten the public on their true nature as beings possessing instincts utterly incompatible with our own, so that they may be removed, legally and peacefully, to a National Home in which they will be required to live together. In this aim, I keep troth with the greatest of English kings, Edward I, who expelled the Jews from these shores in 1290.

The maintenance of Free Speech demands that Jewish Ritual Murder shall be a subject for open discussion, like Suttee and Thuggee and the sacrifices of Aztec Mexico, all of which were ritual murders which, like the Jewish variety, would be practised to-day if the Aryan had not interfered to prevent them. If the world thinks that I have not, in this book, proved my case, let it laugh! I can bear it! But can the Jews? The Jewish Chronicle (25th September, 1936) complained after my trial was over that there had been no opportunity for the Jews to refute the charge of Ritual

Murder. Well, they have one now!

Arnold Leese.
1st March, 1938.

In compiling this work I have received the most valuable assistance from certain members of the Imperial Fascist League, who require no thanks for that help. I should like to acknowledge the guidance I have received in private letters from Mr. G., of Bristol, and from the work, Le Crime Rituel chez les Juifs, by Mr. A. Monniot; also from the articles contained in Mr. A. Arcand’s now defunct paper, Le Miroir, of Montreal.

For a full account of the trial of Arnold Leese in 1936 on six trumped-up charges of “libel” against the Jews, see The Fascist for September, 1936, and May, 1937, obtainable from the Imperial Fascist League, 30, Craven Street, W.C.2, for 3d. post free.

Chapter I.

HUMAN SACRIFICE A SEMITIC TRADITION.

IT is incontestable that the ancient “Semites” manifested a peculiar leaning towards the practice of bloody sacrifices to their gods.

Typical is the Jewish story of Abraham offering to slay with a knife his first-bom, Isaac, as an offering to Yahweh who had commanded him so to do. More typical still is the Semitic idea that his god would require such a murder to be done.

In Excavations at Gezer, R. A. S. Macalister tells us that the bodies of sacrificed young children were found in all Semitic strata; this work describes the remains of these victims of which pictures are given.

Isaiah charges the Jews with “enflaming themselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clifts of the rocks” (lvii, 5). There are many other Old Testament references to the practice of sacrificing children to Moloch.

Says the Rev. J. Kitto in the Cvclopcedia of Biblical Literature, 1895, “their altars smoked with human blood from the time of Abraham to the fall of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel.”

G. A. Dorsey writes in Civilization (Hamish Hamilton): “Historically their temple at Jerusalem, like a Hindu or Aztec temple, was a shambles — one sacrifice after another.”

The Jewish Encyclopcedia (1904, Vol. VIII, p. 653) says: “The fact, therefore, now generally accepted by critical scholars, is that in the last days of the kingdom human sacrifices were offered to Yhwh as King or Counsellor of the Nation and that the Prophets disapproved of it….”

Jesus Himself speaking to the Pharisees (St. John, viii, 44) charges them with being hereditary murderers, which term can have no other meaning than ritual murderers. “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do; he was a murderer from the beginning.” This is in the Book on which “witnesses” are sworn when they give evidence against “anti-semites” who expose the murder of Christian children by Jews!

“Rabbinism was but an unfolding of Pharisaism, the full and swelling stream of corrupt doctrines, views and practices, of which the rivulets run up to the days of Christ and stretch back to those of Ezra until they are lost in the fountain-head, the Religious Philosophy of a debased Zoroastrianism.” (Rev. J. Kitto, Cvclopcedia of Biblical Literature)

The trail of the tradition, then, is complete and leads to Rabbinism.

Chapter II.

THE RACIAL URGE.

SOME people say that it is the Talmud that made the Jew what he is. I take another view. I say that it is the Jew that made the Talmud.

1 believe that the urge for human sacrifice comes not through religion but through race; the idea is, I think, an original one, and came to me from observation on one race in particular, that known as the Armenoid or Hither Asiatic race, which I consider has a decided instinct towards sadism.

It is, I believe, the strong Armenoid or Hither Asiatic strain which exists in the Jewish Nation upon which we have to lay the responsibility for many unpleasant Jewish traits and practices, among them Ritual Murder.

The Jews are a nation without a home, not a race; they are a mixture of races, and the racial constituent which is most frequently to be found among them is the Armenoid, or, as it is sometimes called. Hither Asiatic. The other races which have contributed most to the Jewish types, whether Ashkenazim or Sephardim, are the Mongoloid, Negroid, Oriental and (White) Alpine.

The Armenoid race seems to have concentrated in Asia Minor, where it predominates not only in Jews, but in Armenians, and affects the blood of many “Turks,” “Syrians,” “Georgians” and even Kurds. From this Asiatic centre, a veritable plague of Armenoid blood has spread in every direction.

Northward, in the early centuries A.D., it advanced through the Khazar Empire which flourished about 730 A.D., the ruler becoming a converted Jew and forcing his people to do the same. Southward, the race spread over the territories of Arabia, Egypt, the Sahara and Southern Algeria. Westward, it has poisoned the populations of the Balkan States and Greece, Crete, Southern Italy, Sicily and Spain. Eastward, it has penetrated into Afghanistan and the Punjab.

Through the Jewish nation, as everyone knows, it has contaminated almost every country in the world.

The Armenoid Race has the following physical characters: Height and build, medium; head short from back to front, with large and fleshy nose turned down towards the tip. The lips are rather prominent. The hair is black and curly, the skin is of the swarthy colour, and the eyes are black or brown. It is a marked feature of this race that the skull goes straight up at the back; in other words, the Armenoid has “no back to his head.” There is also a tendency for the eyebrows to “meet” over the nose. The chin is usually poorly developed.

In temperament, the Armenoid is the reverse of candid. He excels in low cunning, as his expression often denotes. He is good at business because of his flair for detailed meanness, and his knowledge of the lowest aspects of human nature. He is not usually endowed with much courage, but deliberate cruelty is only too often manifested in his nature. The spirit of revenge, and the nursing of hatred against anyone who opposes him, is very marked in people of the Armenoid type.

Every nation which contains a considerable proportion of people of Armenoid Race soon establishes for itself a reputation for cruelty, treachery, dishonesty and delight in power for the sake of power. That is why such nations never flourish for long in their own territory. They are not allowed to by their neighbours.

I hold that it is not primarily the Jewish Religion which makes the Jewish Nation hated all the world over; it is the strong dose of Armenoid racial blood in their veins. The Afghan is just as cruel, an Armenoid Muslim; the Abyssinian just as treacherous, an Armenoid Christian; the Armenian just as mean, another Armenoid Christian.

A characteristic of the religions which appeal to Armenoid people (Jews, Mahommedans and Yezedis) is that the initiation ceremonial usually involves some sort of mutilation, such as circumcision. The religious laws governing the slaughter of animals for food are framed and practised without consideration for the unnecessary pain inflicted on the animals by the methods prescribed.

The ancient Assyrians were Armenoids by race, and were notorious for their wanton cruelty.

Wherever the Hither Asiatic or Armenoid Race predominates, there is organised cruelty to prisoners of war; in Afghanistan, the women come out after a battle to search for the enemy wounded on whom they practise horrible mutilations; in Southern Algeria, there is a similar practice against French wounded, whilst recent operations in Abyssinia prove that there is a craving for the same sort of thing. The Turks of Armenoid race seem to revel in cold-blooded cruelty, whilst the Bolshevik Jews of Russia, Hungary, Spain and elsewhere have established the twentieth century as being as barbarous as the twelfth… simply because of the racial instincts possessed by imported Armenoids.

According to the Jewish Encyclopcedia, 1903, Vol. IV, p. 99, when performing the operation of circumcision on children, the mohel (operator) “takes some wine in his mouth and applies his lips to the part involved in the operation, and exerts suction, after which he expels the mixture of wine and blood into a receptacle provided.”

Surely this “religious rite” stamps the Armenoid as something basically different from ourselves?

All is Race; there is no other truth.

The Aryan mind grasps with difficulty the idea that any human race can have an instinct towards sadistic sacrifice, for the Aryan has himself no such instinct. The Englishman does not realise that the Jew, the Afghan, and the Armenian are differently constituted from himself, and it is his own good-nature which has largely been responsible for the Judaisation of mind which he himself has acquired by allowing Jews to control him for so long.

I am convinced that it is to the Race rather than to the Talmud or the Kabbala that we must look before we can understand the urge for Ritual Murder and the love of torture which crops up in individuals in all countries into which the Hither Asiatic or Armenoid Race has penetrated.

Chapter III.

HUMAN SACRIFICE AND THE JEWISH RELIGION.

I am not a student of the Talmud. I have no intention of becoming one. For the same reason, I shall not become a student of Occultism or of Drainage Systems. I smell the bad smells and remain aloof.

Nevertheless, because the advocates of Jewry use a certain line of argument in denying that there has ever been any such thing as Ritual Murder of Christians by Jews, I am obliged to quote a few unimpeachable authorities on the subject.

This “argument” is that the Jewish religious law not only does not sanction the practice of Ritual Murder, but forbids the consumption of blood altogether. It is an argument that has been used throughout the ages, and is used now, and has even been the foundation for the verdict “Not Guilty,” in cases where Jews have been on trial for ritual murder!

It was the argument used by the Sultan of Turkey when, for money bribes, he issued a firman (1840) saying that the Ritual Murder Accusations against Jews were calumnies. (Described in later chapters in more detail).

But it is known that there have always been two methods of instruction among the Jews: one Exoteric, which openly taught the Laws of Moses and the Rabbinical traditions; the other Esoteric, or mysteries confided only to certain persons bound to secrecy. This latter, the Esoteric teaching, is associated with Occultism and what is known as Black Magic, and the Mystical Cabbala is its source, for certain rites and ceremonies blood is necessary; and secret rites exist which are known only to the few.

Even if the written Jewish Laws do not sanction the practice it does not prove that Jews have not done Murder in accordance with some Occult Ritual. Let a Jew speak for us here: —

Bernard Lazare, a Jew who was stated (.Jewish Encyclopcedia, 1904, Vol. VII, p. 650) to be “without any religious convictions,” wrote what he himself described as “an impartial study of the history and sociology of the Jews,” calling his book L’Antisemitisme ; in the 1934 edition of this, Vol. II, p. 215, he writes, after mentioning the accusations against the Jews of Ritual Murder:

“To this general belief are added the suspicions, often justified, against the Jews addicted to magical practices. Actually, in the Middle Ages, the Jew was considered by the people as the magician par excellence’, one finds many formula of exorcism in the Talmud, and the Talmudic and Cabbalistic demonology is very complicated. Now one knows the position that blood always occupies in the operations of sorcery. In Chaldean magic it had a very great importance…. Now, it is very probable, even certain, that Jewish magicians must have sacrificed children; hence the origin of the legend of ritual sacrifice.”

It is well known, as will be shown in Chapter VI, that Occult Rituals exist in which all sorts of abominable practices are carried out, and that they arise from the Jewish Cabbala.

How ridiculous then is the “argument” that because the Mosaic Laws and the Talmud do not demand Ritual Murder, and even forbid the use of blood, Isaac Abrahams cannot be guilty of any sort of Ritual Murder!

Take an analogous case. The Eighth Commandment forbids stealing. Have you ever heard that fact brought up in the defence of a Christian on trial for that crime? Can you imagine prisoner’s counsel arguing that John Smith could not have stolen a purse from William Brown because the Christian religion forbids such a thing? More, can you imagine counsel getting away with such an argument? But that is what the Jews have often succeeded in doing.

So stupid is this hysterical shriek, “Our Laws do not permit it,” that I, as a scientific investigator, would be willing to concede it as a fact, without further investigation of the Jewish laws, that Ritual Murder is contrary to these laws. I would concede it because the point is of no importance whatever to my case against the Jew. If the point were established what difference does it make to the verdict of the Trent affair, the Damascus affair, or to the scores of cases I am going to bring before you in later chapters?

Another point. Is it likely that we should find clear sanction for such a crime as Ritual Murder in the Jewish Laws? Why, if such a thing were to be found, I venture to say that not a Jew would be left alive, so great would be the popular indignation against the Jewish nation. We should treat them exactly as Sir W. H. Sleeman treated the Thugs, the ritual murderers of India, when he stamped them out of existence as hereditary criminals in the last century.

Dr. Erich Bischoff, the chief German authority on Jewish law and religion, claims to have laid his finger on a passage authorising Ritual Murder in the Thikunne Zohar (Edition Berdiwetsch, 88 b), a book of cabbalistic theosophy. The passage runs:

“Furthermore, there is a commandment pertaining to the killing of strangers, who are like beasts. This killing has to be done in the lawful method. Those who do not ascribe themselves to the Jewish religious law must be offered up as sacrifices to the High God.”

Dr. Bischoff may be right. I venture no opinion.

Nevertheless, the Jewish Laws do tell us something; without any direct sanctioning of Ritual Murder, they show us without any possibility of doubt, that the Jew is normally at war spiritually with the rest of mankind, and upon this argument I base my statement that Jewish Laws show ample foundation for the scientific investigator to take the view that there is nothing improbable in the reality of Jewish Ritual Murder.

I am not going to take the same line as other anti-Jewish investigators have done about this matter; I am not going to quote any Mosaic Laws nor any Talmudic tenets. I am simply going to quote the great explorer and orientalist, Sir Richard Burton, a Briton who made it his business to study the Talmud closely and recorded his conclusions on the relations it revealed as existing between Jew and Gentile. I quote now from his ‘The Jew, the Gvpsy and El Islam’, edited by W. H. Wilkins, and published by Messrs. Hutchinson in 1898.

Page 73. “The most important and pregnant tenet of modem Jewish belief is that the Ger, or stranger, in fact all those who do not belong to their religion, are brute beasts, having no more rights than the fauna of the field.”

I have long known this to be the Key of International Politics; and it shows that what would be Murder to an Aryan is only Slaughter to a Talmudic Jew.

Page 81. “The Talmud declares that there are two kinds of blood pleasing to the Lord, viz: (1) that of the Paschal holocaust; (2) that of circumcision.”

(The Paschal holocaust is the Easter sacrifice.)

I suppose every nation has the God it deserves and admires. What sort of a people is this whose God finds the blood obtained from mutilations of human genital organs as “pleasing”?

Sir Richard Burton comments:

Page 115. “Obviously such cruel and vindictive teaching as that recounted in the previous chapter must bear fruit in crime and atrocities.”

The Jewish Schulchan Aruch, which codified the teachings of the Talmud, goes much further in sanctioning shameful practices against the Gentile; I do not quote it because my object is not to excite retaliation, but to mark down the Jews as having been responsible, either collectively or individually, for ritual murders. I want the Gentile to take steps to remove the Jews from our midst by expulsion to a National Home of their own, and by legal means.

There is good reason to think that it is the “Chassidim” sect to which most recent Jewish Ritual Murders can be traced; the Chassidim is sometimes considered to be a modem sect which arose in Poland only in the 18th century; but the Jewish Encyclopcedia (1905), Vol. IX, p. 661, says that the Pharisees were originally identical with the Chassidim; the Chassidim are fanatical to a degree, and soaked in mysticism.

Chapter IV.

THE MOTIVE AND NATURE OF JEWISH RITUAL MURDER.

THE motive of Ritual Murder of Christians by Jews is almost certainly hate. It is in fact the same motive that Disraeli admitted to be the cause of revolutionary activities against Gentile governments; to use his words (from Life of Lord George Bentinck, 1852): “The people of God co¬ operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen Race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.”

Hatred of Christianity is a tradition among the Jews: just as hate of England is a sort of perverted religion among an inferior class of Irishmen. It must be remembered that the Hymn of Hate which was debited to the Germans during the war was actually written by the Jew Lissauer.

One of the principal Jewish feast-days is that of Purim. This feast is an orgy of hate against Haman, the story of whom is found in the Book of Esther of the Old Testament. The story, which is probably a myth, is that Xerxes, King of Persia, became enamoured of a Jewess, Esther, and made her Queen in place of his rightful wife. Haman, the King’s minister, complained to him of the conduct of the Jews who, he said, did not keep the laws, and obtained from the King an order to slay them. Esther pleaded with the King and prevailed upon him to summon Haman to a banquet. There, Queen Esther further prevailed upon the King to spare the Jews and hang Haman on a gallows prepared for the execution of her guardian. Instead of the Jews being destroyed, their enemies were slaughtered, including Haman’s ten sons, who were hanged.

This feast is often celebrated by an exhibition of gluttony, intoxication, and curses on the memory of Haman; and even to this day in London, the Jewish bakers make cakes in the shape of human ears which are eaten by the Jews on this day, and are called “Haman’s Ears,” revealing once again the inherent hate and barbarism of the Jew in our midst.

The two principal feast-days associated with Ritual Murder have been (1) Purim, and (2) Passover, the latter at Easter and the former about one month before it. When a Ritual Murder occurred at Purim, it was usually that of an adult Christian who was murdered for his blood; it is said that the blood was dried and the powder mixed into triangular cakes for eating; it is possible that the dried blood of a Purim murder might sometimes be used for the following Passover.

When a Ritual Murder was done at Passover, it was usually that of a child under seven years old, as perfect a specimen as possible, who was not only bled white, but crucified, sometimes circumcised and crowned with thorns, tortured, beaten, stabbed, and sometimes finished off by wounding in the side in imitation of the murder of Christ. The blood taken from the child was mixed either in the powdered state or otherwise into the Passover bread.

Another festival at which it is thought that Ritual Murder has sometimes been indulged in is Chanucah, which occurs in December, commemorating the recovery of Jerusalem under the Maccabees inB.C. 165.

Examples of Purim murders are those of Damascus, Rhodes, Xanten, Polna, Gladbeck and Paderbom.

Although hate is the principal motive, superstitious traditions are also involved, one being the association of blood-sacrifices with the idea of atonement; some Jews have confessed that Jewry cannot be saved or return to Zion unless every year the blood of a Christian is obtained for the purpose of ritual consumption.

Political murders, such as the Jewish murder of the Tsar and his family and of other Russians, have sometimes been accompanied by features suggestive of ritual, but I do not wish to complicate this book by guessing at the meaning of signs left symbolically by the murderers.

Chapter V.

“A RELIC OF THE DAYS OF WITCHCRAFT AND BLACK MAGIC.”

ON 6th May, 1912, The Times published a letter, signed by many men of authority, protesting against what they called the revival of “the hideous charge of Ritual Murder” which was being brought against a Jew at Kiev. “The Blood Accusation,” they said, “is a relic of the days of Witchcraft and Black Magic.”

Unfortunately for the signatories of this letter, who numbered among them the Archbishops of Canterbury, York and Armagh, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Bishops galore, Dukes, Earls, Justices, Masters of Colleges and Editors, of that period, the Blood Accusation has nothing mediaeval about it at all; it was more rife in the 19th century than it was in mediaeval times!

Unfortunately also, Black Magic is in the same category. It is not mediaeval either; there never was a wider cult of Black Magic than there is in the year of Our Lord 1938!

How extraordinary it is that influential men can be induced to sign such a statement as I have quoted! And how strange it is that, where Jewish interests are at stake, these same influential Christian men will see nothing improper in attempting to prejudice the course of the criminal trial of the Jew Beiliss at Kiev, a course which they would never pursue in any other cause!

Let us confound the signatories of The Times letter out of the mouths of Jews themselves. The Jewish Encyclopcedia, 1903, Vol. Ill, pp. 266-7, gives a list of Accusations of Ritual Murder made against the Jews through the centuries; 122 cases are listed in chronological order, and no less than 39 of them were made in the 19th century! There were far more than double the number of Blood Accusations made in the 19th century than in any previous century, according to this authoritative Jewish list.

Let us examine the list of Ritual Murder Accusations made by a converted Jew, Cesare Algranati, in 1913, and published in Cahiers Romains ; here are listed 101 accusations, of which 28 were made in the 19th century and only 73 for all the eight preceding centuries! Even the Jew Roth gives the argument away, for he says (p. 16 of his Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, 1935), “The nineteenth century proved little less credulous than those which preceded it.”

“Anti-semitic” authors’ lists of Blood Accusations agree in this respect with the lists made by Jews; Der Stunner, the paper of Julius Streicher, in a special Ritual Murder issue published in 1934, shows that in the 19th century 32 charges of ritual murder were made, which is ten more than in any other century in European history recorded by it.

The fact that the charges increase in number as the age becomes more and more enlightened is particularly significant, because the Jewish Money Power and its silencing activities are more developed than ever before and might have been expected to reduce the number of charges.

Sufficient has now been said to expose the absurdity of any attempt to consign the Blood Accusation to any mediaeval limbo.

It lives to-day; I may say with the great Sir Richard Burton (The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam, 1898, p. 129): “At any rate, sufficient has been advanced in these pages to open the eyes of the student and the ethnographer; it will stand on record until Elijah.”

Chapter VI.

“IT COULDN’T HAPPEN NOW.”

THIS argument, “It couldn’t happen now,” seems quite good enough for a lot of people when it is applied to the matter of Jewish Ritual Murder. It is, perhaps, comforting to the democratic mind to think that “Progress” ensures that such an evil practice, even if it occurred in unenlightened days, could not have survived to-day.

I wish I could see any comfort in this argument, but I don’t. There are no facts to support it.

That the Aryan peoples have progressed I do not deny; but I do not think there is any evidence to show any like progress among some of the other races.

Compare the following two happenings, noting the dates:

A.D. 117. From the account of Dio Cassius in 78th Book of his history, Chapter 32:

“Then the Jews in Cyrene (on the modem Tripoli coast of North Africa) choosing as their leader one Andreas, slew the Romans and Greeks, and devoured their bodies, drank the blood, clothed themselves in the flayed skins, and sawed many in half from the head downwards; some they threw to wild beasts and others were compelled to fight in single combat, so that in all 220,000 were killed. In Egypt they did many similar things, also in Cyprus, led by one of them named Artemion; and there another 240,000 were slain.”

A.D. 1936. From Daily Mail, 17th September (describing the horrors of the Red Revolution in Spain):

“Baena (Cordoba Province): Ninety-one assassinations, mostly by shooting, hatchet blows, or strangling. Others were burned alive. Two nuns who had been dragged from the convent of the Mother of God, had their religious medals with the figure of the Virgin, nailed into the sockets of their eyes.

“La Campana (Seville): Reds, led by a woman, Concepcion Velarde Caraballo, who either killed or was responsible for killing 11 persons in prison. The prisoners were fired on until they fell, covered with petrol, and set on fire. Some were still writhing in the flames when the city was entered.

“Lore del Rio (Seville): 138 assassinated. They were dragged to the cemetery, lined up, and shot in the legs, being buried alive as they fell in a trench. When the town was entered hands could still be seen writhing above the ground.”

I cannot see much difference in outlook between the Jewish devils responsible for both these massacres, even though there are 18 centuries between them!

In view of that, why boggle at the idea of Jewish Ritual Murder still surviving?

Why make such a fuss when Jews are charged with the practice of Ritual Murder? Other Asiatics are known to have practised it until 1850, and, if left to themselves, would doubtless have maintained the custom.

In India, from 10,000 to 50,000 murders were peipetrated every year by a religious body known as the Thugs. They were mostly people of Mahommedan extraction, but a number of Hindus were also involved. They used to worship Kali, the Hindu goddess of destruction. Their custom was to club together, generally as travellers, when they would slowly gain the confidence of some innocent person, and at a given signal, would strangle him in a prescribed manner, which they regarded as a religious duty; then they would rob him if he had anything to be robbed of, and bury the body with such skill as to leave no trace. The Thugs actually received the protection of some of the native princes and chiefs who were thoroughly frightened of their power as a secret religious sect. How this reminds us of the attitude of the influential men in this country who adopt the same view of Masonry and Jewry!

Then the British Government decided the thing must stop. After many years of investigation, Sir W. H. Sleeman stamped out the Thug sect, and no Thuggee murders are on record since 1850. He found that Thuggee was hereditary among male members of a family, and he achieved his object by confining in segregation for life all male members of Thug families.

Now my point is that Thuggee happened ; and happened in the 19th century until the British put an end to it under Sleeman. It was a long time before the British administration learned of the existence of Thuggee, so carefully was it concealed; another analogy with Jewish Ritual Murder!

“It couldn’t happen now.” Why not?

And on 13th September, 1937, a telegram was sent to The Times from Delhi reporting the sacrifice of a 17-year-old youth to propitiate the rain-god, in Sirmoor State. The youth was led through the village of Gunpur by a crowd of people headed by a priest and the village headman, and beheaded on a special altar to the accompaniment of devotional songs. The head was found by the police at the foot of the deity in the village temple.

As Aryan rule over India relaxes, Thuggee and other human sacrifices will re-appear.

“It couldn’t happen now.” Why not, again?

Here is an extract from Magick by the “Master Therion”, published in 1929 by the Lecram Press, 26 Rue d’Hautpool, Paris, pp. 94-5:

“… it was the theory of the ancient magicians that any living being is a storehouse of energy varying in quantity according to the size and health of the animal, and in quality according to its mental and moral character. At the death of the animal this energy is liberated suddenly. The animal should therefore be killed within the Circle, or Triangle, as the case may be, so that its energy cannot escape…. For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable. ”

A footnote on p. 95 says “(4) It appears from the Magical Records of Frater Perdurabo that he made this particular sacrifice on an average about 150 times every> year between 1912 e.v. and 1928 e.v.”

This footnote refers to the last sentence in the paragraph quoted above. The italics are all mine. “It couldn’t happen now.” Why not, in the Devil’s name?

Sir Richard Burton shows that the disappearance of children at Passover was talked of in Rome and in the other towns of Italy throughout the early part of the 19th century when efficient policing was unknown, as also throughout the century at Smyrna and other places in the Levant and in Turkey.

It couldn’t happen now? But the Jewish method of cattle slaughter happens now and is specially exempted from the objects of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, which Act orders that all cattle for Gentile food must be stunned with a mechanically-operated instrument before the throat is cut. The Jewish method is cutting the throat from ear to ear without any previous stunning. It has been condemned by a Government Commission held in 1904 as failing in rapidity, freedom from unnecessary pain and instantaneous loss of sensibility. Yet it “happens now” and is protected in this our England, by an English Law, and remains unattacked by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Why couldn’t it happen now?

To this day, we learn from Jewish sources (B’nai B’rith Messenger, California, 3rd April, 1936) that the Samaritans, an unorthodox Jewish sect who keep Passover by solar computation, indulge in bloody sacrifices of animals on that feast-day; an account is given of a visit to the scene of sacrifice on Mount Gerizim in the 20th century, and these words are used:

“I have heard the wild, primitive scream of triumph as the knife is withdrawn from the neck of the lamb of sacrifice.”

Here is a paragraph from a periodical which shall be unnamed, of 1936, showing that the urge to the “Mysteries” is not dead:

“The sophisticated Pharisee of the 20th century unceasingly gives thanks that he has outgrown the fables and rituals of the Ancients. The worldly-wise man loves the evident and is exasperated by that which is not evident. Plutocrat and proletarian alike regard themselves as victimised by that person whose words or actions they do not understand. We love the obvious because it flatters us, and hate the mysterious because it damns our intelligence with faint praise. Riddles are irksome. The modem cry is for facts. Yet, with facts for his fetish, the modernist is more foolish than his forebears. Decrying superstition, he is most superstitious; rejecting fancies, he is the fanciful product of a fictitious age. The modem world is bored with its own importance; life itself has become a botheration. Suffering from chronic ennui, how can a world ever become interested in anything but itself? Smothered in their self-complacency, these all-sufficient ones ask for facts. But what facts are there that fools can understand? How can the helpless superficial grasp the hopelessly profound, for are not realities reserved for the wise?”

Alongside this clotted nonsense was a picture of a ritual murder, with the victim crucified, below it, a portrait of the author, an obvious Jew.

I take it that “it would happen now” if this Jew had his way!

Chapter VII.

JEWISH RITUAL MURDER IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE EXPULSION OF 1290.

THE first known case happened in 1144; after that, cases cropped up from time to time until the Jews were expelled from the realm by Edward I. The most famous of these cases was that of Little St. Hugh of Lincoln in 1255. I record these cases in chronological order; and I do not deny the possibility of some of them in which details are lacking, being “trumped-up” ones, where death may have been due to causes other than ritual murder and the Jews blamed for it; but the case of St. Hugh, particularly, was juridically decided, and the Close and Patent Rolls of the Realm record definitely cases at London, Winchester and Oxford. There seems no reason to doubt that many cases of ritual murder have been unsuspected and even undiscovered.

1144. Norwich. A twelve-year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew, called Theobald of Cambridge, confessed that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever obtain their freedom and return to Palestine, and that it was their custom to draw lots to decide whence the blood was to be supplied; Theobald said that last year the lot fell to Narbonne but in this year to Norwich. The boy was locally beatified and has ever since been known as St. William. The Sheriff, probably bribed, refused to bring the Jews to trial.

In J. C. Cox’s Norfolk Churches, Vol. II, p. 47, as also in the Victoria Country History> of Norfolk, 1906, Vol. II, is an illustration of an old painted rood-screen depicting the Ritual Murder of St. William, the screen itself is in Loddon Church, Norfolk, unless the Power of Jewish Money has had it removed. No one denies this case as a historical event, but the Jews of course say it was not a Ritual Murder. The Jew, C. Roth, in his The Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew (1935) says: “Modem enquirers, after careful examination of the facts, have concluded that the child probably lost consciousness in consequence of a cataleptic fit, and was buried prematurely by his relatives.” How these modem enquiries arrived at a conclusion like that after all these years, Mr. Roth does not say; nor is it a compliment to the Church to suggest that its ministers would allow the boy’s death to be celebrated as a martyrdom of a saint without having satisfied themselves that wounds on the body confirmed the crucifixion and the piercing of the side. And why the relatives should bury the boy in a sack and then dig it up and hang it in a tree would puzzle even a Jew to explain.

John Foxe’s Acts and Monuments of the Church records this ritual murder, as did the Bollandists and other historians. The Prior, William Turbe, who afterwards became Bishop of Norwich, was the leading light in insisting that the crime was one of Jewish Ritual Murder; in the Dictionary of National Biography (edited by a Jew!) it is made clear that his career, quite apart from this Ritual Murder case, is that of a man of great strength of character and moral courage.

1160. Gloucester. The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the usual wounds of crucifixion. Sometimes wrongly dated 1168. Recorded in Monumenta Germanice Historica, Vol. VI (Erfurt Annals); Polychronicon, R. Higdon; Chronicles, R. Grafton, p. 46.

1181. Bury! St. Edmunds. A child called Robert was sacrificed at Passover. The child was buried in the church and its presence there was supposed to cause ‘miracles.’ Authority: Rohrbacher, from the Chronicle of Gervase of Canterbury.

1192. Winchester. A boy crucified. Mentioned in Jewish Encyclopcedia as being a false charge. Details lacking.

1232. Winchester. Boy crucified. Details lacking. Mentioned in Hyamson’s History! of the Jews in England ; also in Annals of Winchester, and conclusively in the Close Roll 16, Henry III, membrane 8, 26.6.1232.

1235. Norwich. In this case, the Jews stole a child and hid him with a view to crucifying him. Haydn’s Dictionary> of Dates of date 1847, says of this case, “They (the Jews) circumcise and attempt to crucify a child at Norwich; the offenders are condemned in a fine of 20,000 marks.” Further authority Huillard Breolles Grande Chronique, III, 86. Also Close Roll, 19 Henry III, m. 23.

1244. London. A child’s body found unburied in the cemetery of St. Benedict, with ritual cuts. Buried with great pomp in St. Paul’s. Authority: Social England, Vol. I, p. 407, edited by H. D. Traill.

1255. Lincoln. A boy called Hugh was kidnapped by the Jews and crucified and tortured in hatred of Jesus Christ. The boy’s mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew called Joppin or Copinus. This Jew, promised by the judge his life if he confessed, did so, and 91 Jews were arrested; eventually 18 were hanged for the crime. King Henry III himself personally ordered the juridical investigation of the case five weeks after the discovery of the body, and refused to allow mercy to be shown to the Jew Copinus, who was executed.

Hugh was locally beatified, and his tomb may still be seen in Lincoln Cathedral, but the Jewish Money Power has evidently been at work, for between 1910 and 1930, a notice was fixed above the shrine as follows: “The body of Hugh was given burial in the Cathedral and treated as that of a martyr. When the Minster was repaved, the skeleton of a small child was found beneath the present tombstone. There are many incidents in the story which tend to throw doubt upon it, and the existence of similar stories in England and elsewhere points to their origin in the fanatical hatred of the Jews of the Middle Ages and the common superstition, now wholly discredited, that ritual murder was a factor of Jewish Paschal Rites. Attempts were made as early as the 13th century by the Church to protect the Jews against the hatred of the populace and against this particular accusation.”

At a recent visit to Lincoln of the Jewish Historical Society, in 1934, the Mayor, Mr. G. Deer, said to them: “That he (St. Hugh) was done to death by Jews for ritual purposes cannot be other than a libel based upon the prejudices and ignorance of an unenlightened age.” The Chancellor on the same occasion said: “It was quite obviously one of the very many cases of slander spread about the Jews from time to time. No doubt, the child died or fell down the well.”

These people, Jews and Gentiles, bring no evidence whatever for their statements; it couldn’t have happened, they say. Why not?

Was Henry III, weak in character as we know him to have been, ever charged with being an immoral man? Did the judges not examine the body, which was only four weeks dead? Is Haydn’s Dictionary of Dates (1847 edition) mediaeval and superstitious when it said of this case “They (the Jews) crucify a child at Lincoln, for which 18 are hanged”? There are no ‘ifs’ and ‘huts’ here! Or does Copinus’s confession not tally with that of Theobald, quoted above in the first Norwich case? Copinus said, “Lor the death of this child, nearly all the Jews in England had come together and every town had sent deputies to assist in the sacrifice.”

No one questions the historical facts in this case; but Jews and Judaised Gentiles unite in denying the fact of Ritual Murder.

Strack, in his The Jew and Human Sacrifice, written in defence of the Jews against the Blood Accusation, omits all mention of this famous case, which is the subject of the Prioress’s Tale (Canterbury Tales) of Chaucer and is referred to in Marlowe’s Jew of Malta. Hyamson’s History of the Jews in England devotes the whole of Chapter IX to “Little St. Hugh of Lincoln,” showing the importance of the Ritual Murder issue in the Jewish mind to-day.

The following Close Rolls of the Realm refer to the case of St. Hugh: Henry III, 39, m. 2, 7.10.1255; 39, m. 2, 14.10.1255; 40, m. 20, 24.11.1255; 40, m.13, 13.3.1256; 42, m. 6; 19.6.1258. And the Patent Rolls, Henry III, 40, m.20, 26.11.1255; 40, m.19, 9.12.1255; 40, 27.3.1256; and 40, m.5, 20.8.1256.

1257. London. A child sacrificed. Authority: Cluverius, Epitome Historice, p. 541. Details lacking.

1276. London. Boy crucified. Authority: The Close Roll of the Realm, 4, Edward I, membrane 14,

3.3.1276.

1279. Northampton. A child crucified. Haydn’s Dictionary of Dates, 1847, says of this case: “They

(the Jews) crucify a child at Northampton for which 50 are drawn at horses’ tails and hanged.”

further authorities: Reiley, Memorials of London, p. 15; H. Desportes, Le Mystere du Sang.

1290. Oxford. The Patent Roll 18 Edward I, mem. 21, 21st June, 1290, contains an order for the gaol delivery of a Jew, Isaac de Pulet, detained for the murder of a Christian boy at Oxford.

Only one month after this, King Edward issued his decree expelling the Jews from the Kingdom. There is, then, every reason to believe that it was the Oxford murder which proved the last straw in toleration.

The reader will see (p. 20) that it was a similar ritual case which was one of the main stimulants to the King and Queen of Spain to expel professing Jews from that country in 1492.

The Jews, in attempting to escape responsibility for these deaths by Ritual Murder, do not hesitate to impugn the probity of two of the Kings of England, against whose moral character no one else has dared to cast a slur. Here are some examples. From the Jewish Chronicle Supplement, April, 1936, p. 8 (speaking of the Lincoln case in the reign of Henry III):

“Henceforth and especially under the zealously Christian Edward I, the Crown and its officers became almost a worse peril to the Jews than mobs intent on loot and led on by fanatic priests and money. When 18th century writers of history began to examine the old records in a new sceptical temper, some may be found venturing on such unkind surmises as that the alleged crucifixions of Christian children only seemed to happen when kings were short of money.” The foul accusation against men of upright character is repeated by the Jew Hyamson (History of the Jews in England, 1928 edition, p. 21), who writes: “It has also been pointed out that the Blood Accusation was as a rule made at a time at which the Royal Treasury needed replenishing.”

To deny that the cases of St. William of Norwich and St. Hugh of Lincoln were Jewish Ritual Murders is to accuse certain English Kings, certain English Clergy, and certain English administrators, known to be men of good morals, of murdering and torturing Jews to get their money, after accusing them of horrible crimes. In the case of St. Hugh, the sentence was juridical; in the case of St. William, the mob took the matter into their own hands because the Sheriff would take no action himself.

Whom do you believe — the Jews or the English?

“It is difficult to refuse all credit to stories so circumstantial and so frequent.” So says Social England concerning Ritual Murders in England Vol. I, p. 407, 1893, edited by H. D. Traill.

A significant fact is that Haydn’s Dictionary of Dates, at least up to 1847, quoted the Ritual Murders in Norman and Plantagenet England as undisputed facts. In later editions in the sixties, all mention of them is extirpated! We may take it that the Jewish Money Power began to dictate to the Press in England somewhere in the fifties of the last century.

Chapter VIII.

WELL AUTHENTICATED CASES IN EARLY AND MEDIAEVAL TIMES.

1171 TO 1510.

In this, and subsequent chapters, I place descriptions of cases in chronological order, in which there seems to me to be no reason whatever to dispute the historical accuracy of the facts given.

In this Chapter, I record such cases between 1171 and 1510 inclusive; and I would point out to the reader the great importance of the murder of St. Simon of Trent in 1475 and of the Toledo case in 1490; in fact, should the reader be one of those who approach the subject as unbelievers, I recommend that he should read about these two cases first, and the others after.

The following abbreviations are used in this Chapter among the references to authorities:

Magd. Cent, for Magdeburg Centuries, a Protestant History of the Christian Church compiled at Magdeburg, sixteenth century.

Chron. Hirsaug. for Chronicon Hirsaugiense, a history produced by Abbot J. Trithemius, 1514. Cosm. Munst. for Sebastian Munster’s Cosmographia Universalis, 1544.

Spec. Vine, for Vincent of Beauvais’s Speculum Historiale, of 13th century.

1171. Blois, France. At Passover, a Christian child was crucified, his body drained of blood and thrown into the river. A number of Jews were executed. Authority: Monumenta Germanics Historica, VI, 520; Magd Cent., 12, c. 14 and 13, c. 14.

1179. Pontoise. The authorities for this case are the Bollandists {Acta, Vol. Ill, March, 591); Madg. Cent., 23, c. 14; Spec. Vine, 129, c. 25; and Cosm. Munst., 23, c. 14. A boy named Richard was tortured, crucified and bled white. Philip Augustus’s chaplains and historians, Rigord and Guillaume l’Armoricain, attested this case. The body of the boy was taken to the Church of the Holy Innocents in Paris and he was canonised as St. Richard.

Under date 1080, Haydn’s Dictionaiy of Dates, 1847, p. 282, says: “Thinking to invoke the divine mercy, at a solemnisation of the Passover, they (the Jews) sacrifice a youth, the son of a rich tradesman at Paris, for which all the criminals are executed and all Jews banished [from] France.”

1192. Braisne. Philip Augustus attended to this case personally, and had the criminals burnt. It was a case of the crucifixion of a Christian sold to the Jews by Agnes, Countess of Dreux, who considered him guilty of homicide and theft. Authority: Histoire des Dues et Comtes de Champagne, IV, 1st part, p. 72, Paris, 1865 by A. de Jubainville; Spec. Vine., 129, c. 25; Gaguin, L. 6, De Francis’, Magd. Cent., 12, c. 14, col. 1670.

1235. Fulda, Hesse-Nassau. Five children murdered; Jews confessed under torture, but said the blood was wanted for healing purposes. Frederick II exonerated the Jews from suspicion, but the Crusaders had already dealt with a number by putting them to death. Frederick II called together a number of converted Jews, who denied the existence of Jewish ritual murder. But Frederick’s bias is evident in his own words when, in publishing his decision, he gives his objects in calling these people together, “although our conscience regarded the innocence of the aforesaid Jews adequately proved on the ground of several writings.” Had Frederick II lived to¬ day, he would have relied little upon religious literature in deciding whether Jewish Ritual Murder exists or not. Authority: Chron. Hirsaug., and Magd. Cent., 13, c. 24.

1247. Valreas, France. Just before Easter, a two-year-old girl’s body was found in the town moat with wounds on forehead, hands and feet. Jews confessed under torture that they wanted the blood of the child, but did not say that it was for ceremonial purposes. Pope Innocent IV said that three of the Jews were executed without confessing, but the Jewish Encyclopcedia, 1903, Vol. Ill, p. 261, says they confessed.

1250. Saragossa. A boy crucified, afterwards canonised as St. Dominiculus. Pius VII, 24th Nov., 1805, confirmed a decree of the Congregation of Rites of 31st August, according this canonisation.

1261. Pforzheim, Baden. An old woman sold a seven-year-old girl to the Jews, who bled her, strangled her and threw the body into the river. The old woman was convicted on the evidence of her own daughter. A number of Jews were condemned to death, two committing suicide. Authorities: Bollandists, Acta, Vol. II, p. 838; Rohrbacher, L’ Histoire Universelle de VEglise Cathoiique, Vol. XVIII, pp. 697-700; Thos. Cantipranus, De ratione vitce Vol. II, xxix. The child was canonised as a saint.

1287. Berne. Rudolf, a boy, was murdered at Passover in the house of a rich Jew called Matler. Jews confessed that he had been crucified; many were put to death. The boy was canonised as a martyr, and his name can be found in several martyrologies. Documental authorities: Bollandists, Acta, Vol. II, April; Helvetia sancta (H. Murer); Karl Howald, Die Brunnen zu Bern, 1848, p. 250; Cosm. Munst., 13, p. 482. But a stone monument still exists in Berne commemorating the crime. It is called The Fountain of the Child-Devourer, and is now on the Kornhausplatz. It represents a monster, with a Jewish countenance, eating a child. The figure wears the Judenhut, the hat prescribed for the Jews to wear by decree of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. This monument was first placed in a street of the Jews’ quarter as a reminder of the monstrous crime and as a punishment for the whole of Berne Jewry. Later, it was removed to its present situation.

1288. Troyes, France. Some Jews were tried for a ritual murder and 13 were executed by burning. Authority: Jewish Encyclopcedia, 1906, Vol. XII, p. 267.

1286. Oberwesel, on the Rhine. A boy named Werner was tortured for three days at Passover, hanged by the legs and bled white. The body was found in the river. This boy was beatified in the diocese of Treves, and his anniversary is on 19th April. A sculptured representation of this ritual murder is still to be seen in the Oberwesel Church. Authorities: Aventinus, Annals of Bavaria, 1521, 17, p. 576; Chron. Hirsaug., Magd. Cent., 13, c. 14.

1462. Rinn, Innsbruck. A boy called Andreas Oxner was bought by the Jews and sacrificed for his blood on a stone in the forest. The body was found by his mother in a birch-tree. No Jew was apprehended because, the border being near, they had fled when the crime was made known. The Abbe Vacandard, defender of the Jews, says there was no trial. Well, of course there wasn’t. Even in 1937 there is no trial for a crime where the criminals have escaped! The boy has been sanctified by Pope Benedict XIV in his Bull Beatus Andreas, Venice, 1778, which says he was “cruelly assassinated by the Jews in hatred of the faith of Jesus Christ.” This last is admitted by Pope Clement XIV, who wrote his report on the investigation he made into the matter of Jewish Ritual Murder when, as Cardinal Ganganelli, he had been commissioned by Pope Benedict XIV to go into the matter; and in this report, he says “I 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.” No one questions the historical occurrence of this case. An engraving on wood representing the Ritual Murder still exists in the church.

1468. Sepulveda, Segovia, Spain. The Jews sacrificed a Christian child on a cross. The Bishop of Segovia investigated the crime, and ordered the culprits to Segovia, where they were executed. It is important to know that this Bishop was himself son of a converted Jew; Jean d’Avila was his name. Colmenares’s History of Segovia records the facts of the case, which was juridically decided by a man of Jewish blood. That may be the reason that one finds no mention of it in Strack’s book in defence of the Jews, The Jew and Human Sacrifice.

1475. The Case of St. Simon of Trent.

In 1475, a three-year-old boy named Simon disappeared in the Italian town of Trent; the circumstances were such that suspicion fell upon the Jews. Hoping to avert this suspicion, they themselves “found” the child’s body in a conduit where they afterwards confessed to having thrown it. Examination of the body, however, revealed that the boy had not been drowned; there were strange wounds on the body, of circumcision and crucifixion. About seven Jews were arrested; they were tortured and confessed that the boy had been ritually murdered for the purpose of obtaining Christian blood to mix with the ceremonial unleavened bread; these confessions were made separately and agreed in all essential details. The Jews were tried and were ultimately executed. The officer in charge of the investigation of the crime, Jean de Salis de Brescia, had before him a converted Jew, Jean de Feltro, who described how his father told him that Jews of his town, Lanzhat, had killed a child at Passover to get the blood of which they partook in wine and cakes.

No one has ever dared to try and deny the historical events of this case; only the Jews invent “reasons” why it was not Ritual Murder! But there is no escape from the opposite conclusion. In 1759 in answer to a Jewish appeal from Poland, the Inquisition sent Cardinal Ganganelli (later he became Pope Clement XIV) to investigate and report on the whole subject, with particular reference to the many cases then being reported in Poland; although this man went out with a biased mind in favour of the Jews (in his report, he says: “With my weak faculties I endeavoured to demonstrate the non-existence of the crime which was imputed to the Jewish nation in Poland,” hardly the spirit in which to enter upon such an investigation!), he actually says of this Trent case (see Report of Cardinal Ganganelli, in C. Roth’s The Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, 1935, p. 83): “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 (although it is disputed by Basnage and Wagenseil); for the celebrated Flaminio Comaro, a Venetian Senator, in his work On the Cult of the Child St. Simon of Trent (Venice, 1753) disposes of all the doubts raised by the above-mentioned critics.”

The Jews try to throw discredit on the judges who condemned the Jewish murderers by quoting Pope Sixtus IV who refused to sanction the cult of St. Simon; but the reason for this was that the cult was not then authorised by Rome, but was a popular movement without authority and contrary to Church discipline; this same Pope later expressed his approval of the verdict on the Jews in the Papal Bull XII Kal. July, 1478.

We have not only the testimony as to the correctitude of the proceedings from Sixtus IV; but also that of several other Popes; such as Sixtus V, who regularised the popular cult of St. Simon by ratifying it in 1588, as cited by Benedict XIV in Book I, Ch. xiv, No. 4 of his On the Canonisation of the Saints’, also by this same Pope Benedict XIV in his Bull Beatus Andreas of 22nd February, 1755, in which he confirm s Simon as a saint, a fact omitted from the arguments of that advocate for the Jews, Strack (The Jew and Human Sacrifice)’, Gregory XIII recognised Simon as a martyr, and even visited the shrine; and, as already stated, Clement XIV was obliged to recognise that it was a case of Jewish murder in hatred of Christianity.

St. Simon’s shrine is in the Church of St. Peter, Trent; relics of him are still shown, among them the sacrificial knife.

In short, the Ritual Murder of St. Simon at Trent is supported by such evidence that those who doubt it are thereby condemning without reason high juridical and ecclesiastical authorities whose probity and intelligence there is not the slightest excuse to deny.

1480. Venice. This case, as admitted in the Jewish Encyclopcedia, 1906, Vol. XII, p. 410, was settled by trial. Three Jews were executed.

1485. Padua, Italy. The victim in this case was canonised as St. Lorenzino, Pope Benedict XIV mentioning him as a martyr in his Bull Beatus Andreas. This case was attested by the Episcopal Court of Padua.

1490. Toledo. This is a most important case, the circumstances of which have been clarified for us by W. T. Walsh in his interesting book on Isabella of Spain, 1931 (Sheed & Ward), in which he devotes pp. 441 to 468 to his researches on this Ritual Murder charge. Had it not been for Mr. Walsh, 1 might have been influenced by the Jewish Encyclopcedia’s statement (1903, Vol. Ill, p. 262) that “Modem historians even deny that a child had disappeared at all” in this case! Strenuous efforts were made by Loeb and H. C. Lea to clear the Jews from guilt of this murder; as also by Abbe Vacandard. Walsh shows that on 17th October, 1490, a Jew named Yuce confessed to having been present at the crucifixion of a boy called Christopher at La Guardia, near Toledo. He made this confession without the “aid” of any torture; he was not even threatened with that for one year after his confession. On 19th July, 1491, Yuce was promised immunity from punishment for himself and described the whole crucifixion and gave the names of his accomplices. On 25th October, 1491, a jury of seven noted Renaissance scholars who occupied the Chairs at Salamanca University examined the case and were unanimous in finding Yuce guilty. Not until after this did Yuce undergo torture. This torture was applied to make him say for what reason the boy Christopher had been crucified instead of being killed in any other way; but no “leading” questions were employed in the examination. After this, the case went before a second jury of five learned men of Avila, who considered the evidence concerning Yuce’s accomplices, who had been arrested and under examination; they unanimously declared them guilty. Eight Jews (some of them Marranos, or pretended converts to Christianity) were executed.

Writing of the efforts made to discredit the trials in this case, Walsh says (p. 464): “Must we assume that they (the two learned juries) were all murderous fanatics, willing to sacrifice innocent men, and that Dr. Loeb, Dr. Lea, and on the Catholic side the somewhat too credulous Abbe Vacandard were better qualified to weigh the evidence after the lapse of four centuries?”

Walsh is not an “anti-semite.” He is a historian, and has not suggested that ritual murder is part of any official Jewish ceremony. But he says: “The historian, far from being obliged to make wholesale vindication of all Jews accused of murder, is free, in fact, bound to consider each individual case upon its merits.”

Walsh states (p. 441) that this case of Ritual Murder was “one of the chief factors, if not the decisive one, in the decision of Fernando and Isabel” (for the expulsion of the Jews from Spain). He shows that the complete record of testimony in the trial of one of the accused has been available since it was published in 1887 in the Bulletin of the Royal Academy at Madrid (Vol. XI, pp. 7-160), from the original manuscript. (This was, of course, before the Red revolution!)

Walsh charges Lea, the pro-Jewish author, of intellectual dishonesty (p. 628) in writing in his Inquisition in Spain decrying the influential men who were jurors in this case.

“If the Inquisitors sent eight men to a shameful death without being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of their guilt, the honest verdict of history cannot shrink from finding not only Torquemada and his judges, but King Fernando and Queen Isabel, Cardinal Mendoza and several of the most illustrious professors of Salamanca University guilty of complicity in one of the most brutal judicial murders on record.” (Walsh, p. 442.)

Those who shrink from charging the Jews with the practice of Ritual Murder thereby condemn some of the finest characters on the stage of European history.

Finally, we must record that the murdered boy was canonised as St. Christopher on the authority of Pope Pius VII.

1494. Tyrnau, Hungary. A boy was bled white and killed. The Jew culprits were betrayed by the confession of women, who were persuaded to do so by the sight of some instruments of torture, which however were not applied to them. The Jews, arrested after this confession, themselves confessed that this was the fourth child they had killed for the blood, but they said they wanted this for medical purposes. Authority: Bollandists, Acta, April, Vol. II, p. 838.

1510. Brandenberg. Several Jews were accused in Berlin of buying a small Christian boy, bleeding him and killing him. They confessed, and 41 were executed. Authorities: Richard Mun, Die Juden in Berlin ; Sir Richard Burton, The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam, 1898, p. 126.

Chapter IX.

WELL AUTHENTICATED CASES IN SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES.

Naturally, here we get a number of juridically decided cases, as might be expected.

1603. Verona. A Jew was tried on a charge of killing a child to get its blood for an infamous purpose. He was acquitted. The sentence of acquittal, dated 28th February, 1603, given in full in the Jew Roth’s The Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew (p. 78), released the accused “because the Hebraic rite abhors the shedding of blood” and “various Princes held this rumour of the use of blood to be vain and false.” We hold that such absurd reasoning as an excuse for acquittal is clear proof that the Court was bought.

1670. Metz. As this was a very strongly established case, one does not find any mention of it in Strack’s book in defence of the Jews! A three-year-old boy was lost by his mother on the way to a well. The boy was wearing a red cap, and witnesses had seen him carried away by a Jew mounted on a horse. This Jew was Raphael Levi. At first, the boy’s body could not be traced. The Jews, becoming frightened, spread the report that wolves must have killed him in the forest. The forest was searched and eventually the head, neck and ribs of a boy were found, together with clothes which were identified as the missing boy’s, red cap and all, by the boy’s father. But as these clothes were neither tom nor bloody, it was concluded that the wolf story was a “blind,” and then witnesses came forward who had seen Raphael Levi with the boy in such places and at such times as to remove all doubt of his guilt. Levi was sentenced to death by the order of the Parliament of Metz, and was burned alive. Authority: La France Juive, by Drumont.

1698. Sandomir, Poland. Authority: The Jew Cecil Roth, in Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, p. 24. The highest tribunal in the land, that of Lublin, condemned a Jew for Ritual Murder, the local court having exculpated him.

1748. Duniagrod, Poland. Jews condemned for Ritual Murder by Episcopal Court. Mentioned by Roth.

1753. Pavalochi, Poland. Jews condemned for Ritual Murder by Episcopal Court. Mentioned by Roth.

1753. Zhytomir, Poland. In this case, a three-year-old boy was murdered; Jews were tried by the Episcopal Court of Kiev and condemned to death. A painting supposed to commemorate this murder is even now visited by pilgrims to the Carthusian Monastery at Kalwarya near Cracow. Authority: The Jew Cecil Roth, in Ritual Murder Libel and the Jew, p. 25.

Of course, the Jew Roth denies that the cases quoted were Ritual Murders.

Chapter X.

WELL AUTHENTICATED CASES IN NINETEENTH CENTURY.

Among these are the famous cases at Damascus, 1840; Tisza Eszlar, 1882; and Polna, 1899. In this century, the Jewish Money Power had obtained control over the finances of many European countries, and the reader will see for himself how it was exerted on Rulers, Governments, Courts and “public opinion” whenever the Blood Accusation was brought against the Jews.

1823. Velisch, Russia. On Easter Sunday, a 2‘/ 2 -year-old boy disappeared. His body was found in a marsh one week later; there were punctured wounds all over the body and the skin was scarified. There were wounds of circumcision; the feet were bloody and a bandage had been tied around the legs. The body had been undressed, washed, and again dressed. No blood was found near the body, which was drained of blood. Doctors gave evidence on oath that the child had been tortured to death. Some years later, five Jews were arrested together with three Russian women who had become Jewesses; these three women confessed that they had, one week before Passover in 1823, been made drunk by a Jewess who kept an inn and that the latter had bribed one of them to procure a boy. One of these converted Jewesses described how the boy had been forcibly circumcised by the Jews and rolled about in a barrel until his skin was scraped all over. The boy had been taken to the school where a number of Jews were assembled, laid in a trough, and all present had made stabs with a nail in his side and temples. When the boy died under this torture, his body was taken to a wood by two of the converted Jewesses; and the third woman took a bottle of the blood of the boy to the Jewess innkeeper aforesaid. Next day, the Rabbi’s wife took the three women again to the school where the Jews were gathered; bottles were filled from the trough by means of a funnel, and the Rabbi dipped a nail into the blood and dropped a little onto a number of pieces of cloth, one piece of which was given to everyone present. The case went to the Imperial Council at St. Petersburg, all the lower courts which dealt with the case having found the Jews guilty. The Imperial Council reversed the verdict and, on 18th January, 1835, the three Russian Jewish convert women were sent to Siberia whilst all the Jews were acquitted of the crime! Authorities: Recorded in the Jewish Encyclopcedia, 1903, Vol. Ill, p. 267; described in Der Stunner, May, 1934.

1831. St. Petersburg. The daughter of a non-commissioned officer was the victim in this case. There were five judges, of whom four recognised the ritual character of the murder. The Jewish murderers were transported to Siberia. Monniot says the facts of this case are not contested.

1840. Rhodes. On the eve of Purim a small Greek boy was missed; he had been seen entering a house in the Jewish quarter; after that he was never seen again. It is interesting to note that the time of this event was the same as in the famous Damascus case, which see. Yusuf Pasha, Governor of the island, took depositions of witnesses and sent to Constantinople for instructions as to what to do next. Meanwhile, ” at the instigation of the Greek clergy and the European consuls” (admits the Jewish Encyclopcedia, 1905, Vol. X, p. 401) the Jewish quarter was blockaded and the leading Jews arrested. The Austrian Consul, however, supported the Jews, Austria being in need of loans from the Rothschilds. But “owing to the efforts of Count Camondo, Cremieux and Montefiore ” (to quote again from the Jewish Encyclopcedia) “a firman was obtained from the Sultan which declared all accusations of ritual murder null and void.” The Jews were released! Now Camondo, Cremieux and Montefiore were all rich Jews. Cremieux and Montefiore figure in the Damascus case, which see. Count Camondo “exercised so great an influence over the sultans Abd-al-Majid and Abd-al-Aziz and over the Ottoman Grand Viziers and ministers that his name became proverbial. He was banker to the Ottoman Government….” (All this is from the Jewish Encyclopedia, 1903, Vol. Ill, p. 521) There cannot be a shadow of doubt that the proceedings in this case were stopped by the force of the Jewish Money Power, in spite of all the efforts of “the Greek clergy and the European consuls.” Authorities: M. P.-N. Hamont in Egypt under Mehemet Ali, and the Jewish Encyclopcedia as cited.

1840. The Damascus Case.

This case, now almost completely forgotten by Democracy, convulsed Europe for a considerable time owing to the agitation induced by the Jewish Money Power which left no stone unturned to misrepresent and vilify the individuals responsible for bringing the Jews to justice.

Achille Laurent, a Member of the Societe Orientale, brought together the frill details of the trial of the culprits as reported in Arab newspapers at the time, and he published the whole facts of the case in Relation historique des Affaires de Syrie, 1840-1842 (Historic Account of Syrian Affairs, 1840- 1842), which was produced in France as a Yellow Book in two volumes, in 1846.

The Jewish Festival of Purim fell on 15th February, 1840. Father Thomas, a Catholic mo nk disappeared in Damascus on 5th February. His servant went to look for him and disappeared also.

The French Consul, Comte Ratti-Menton, began to make enquiries, and got the Sherif Pasha to investigate. After a while seven Jews were arrested. They confessed, some after receiving chastisement with the bastinado, to having murdered Father Thomas for the sake of his blood. Four of them were promised pardon if they would speak the truth; these were Mousa Abou-el-Afieh, who became a Mahomedan, explaining that that was necessary before he could confess about the crimes of other Jews; Aslan Farkhi; Suliman, a barber; and Mourad el Fathal. They confessed very fully. Sixteen Jews were found to have been involved, and all were arrested.

Several of the Jews, including Mourad el Fathal, Mousa Abou-el-Afieh, Isaac Arari and Aaron Arari, described how the blood was required and collected from the cut throat of the victim to send to a Rabbi for use in preparing ceremonial bread (pains azymes).

The Grand Rabbi was brought before the Court of Investigation; his name was Yakoub el Entabi. He was required to listen carefully to the examination of Mousa Abou-el-Afieh, and to the answers of that Jew, and to confirm or deny each statement made by Mousa. In this way, the Rabbi admitted that blood was required for the ceremonial bread. He also confessed to having received Father Thomas’s blood.

According to the Turkish custom, the bastinado was freely applied to make the Jews speak. The Jewish Money Power has endeavoured to make the world believe that it was only the torture which enforced confession from innocent men.

Unfortunately for the Jewish Money Power, one of the questions asked was about the place where the remains of Father Thomas had been disposed of; and the remains were found where the prisoners said they were — that is, in a covered conduit. These remains were identified by European doctors as being those of Father Thomas.

Further, the wretches confessed to serving Father Thomas’s servant in the same way, i.e., cutting his throat, collecting his blood, and disposing of the remains, this time in a latrine.

No amount of bastinado or torture could wring from an innocent man information as to the whereabouts of the remains of the victim of a murder.

We spare the reader the sickening details of the crime according to the confessions and admissions of the depraved Jewish murderers; long extracts from the trial’s proceedings can be obtained in the following French book: Le Crime Rituel chez les Juifs, by A. Monniot, prefaced by the celebrated Edouard Drumont, 1914, from P. Tequi, 82 Rue Bonaparte, Paris, price 10 francs. This book shows that the confessions made by the culprits agreed in every detail, and that the questions they had to answer were not “leading questions”.

Fourteen Jews were found guilty, and ten were condemned to death, two having died.

Our business is not to horrify; it is to expose the methods of Jewish intrigue and corruption which were used to conceal the guilt of the culprits in fear of the natural reaction of the Gentile to the facts if they became generally known.

As soon as the first reports of the case reached the West of Europe the Jewish Money Power rose like one man to try and cover the obvious tracks made by the obvious criminals. Money can, as we know only too well, accomplish wonders on a democracy as also on the findings and policy of Eastern (and alas! often also Western) potentates.

It will perhaps be best to deal with each of these matters separately:

1. The Press Agitation. This was on the usual Jewish lines; Ritual Murder was “a Gentile invention”; Comte Ratti-Menton, the French Consul, who had insisted on the investigation, was attacked from every angle; the Jews were being persecuted, and so on and so forth.

2. Agitation by Public Meetings. For example, in London, the gullible democracy was induced to flock to a big meeting at the Mansion House in London, there to denounce the Blood Accusation of which they knew nothing at all, and to offer the Jews the sympathy of the British Nation! Paris, New York, Philadelphia and other towns followed suit!

3. Briber)? of the Khedive of Egypt by Money. The rich Jews, Moses Montefiore in England, Cremieux and Munck in France, went off hotfoot to the East. They applied to the Khedive of Egypt, whose regime included Damascus, for a revision of the sentence. He was offered and accepted a huge sum of money and released the condemned Jews.

Note the result. The Jews proclaimed everywhere that the Khedive had reversed the verdict! He had done nothing of the kind. There was no reversal and no re-trial. The words of the Khedive’s firman which he issued to release the Jewish murderers give the whole thing away:

“From the account and demand of Messrs. Moses Montefiore and Cremieux, who came to us as delegates of all Europeans professing the religion of Moses, we have recognised that they desire the liberation and safety for the Jews who have been detained or who have taken flight in the case of the examination of the affair of Father Thomas, monk, missing in Damascus; he and his servant, Ibrahim.

“And as, because of their numerous population, it would not be convenient (convenable) to refuse their demand and request, we order that the Jew prisoners shall be released and that the fugitives be given safety for their return. And you will take all possible measures that none are badly treated and that they are left undisturbed everywhere. Such is our will. Mehemet Ali.”

He released the Jews therefore because of the numbers of Jews in the population… and undoubtedly for cash received. He knew their guilt, and never denied it. Yet the Jewish Encyclopcedia (1903, Vol. IV, p. 420) actually ventures to assert that the three rich Jews secured from the Khedive a “recognition of the innocence” of the condemned men. The Khedive’s price for releasing them is stated to have been half a million piastres. A converted Rabbi, Chevalier P. L. B. Drach, wrote in his The Harmony between the Church and the Synagogue (1844, Paris, p. 79): “Money played a great role in this business.”

4. Bribery! of the Sultan. Having won the first round with the Khedive, the Jew Montefiore went on to see the Sultan of Turkey, and secured from him a decree that the Blood Accusation was baseless and that the Jews henceforth were to be on the same footing in the Sultan’s dominions as other non-Muslims. The price of this was a huge bribe from the House of Rothschild.

The Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid’s firman said “that a thorough examination of the religious books of the Hebrews has demonstrated the absolute prohibition of the use of either human or animal blood in any of their religious rites. It follows from this defence that the charges against them and their religion are calumnies.” This, as shown in Chapter III, is mere sophistry, but even in 1936 a Miss C. M. Finn had the effrontery to bring forward the firman as “evidence” that the Blood Accusation is false; this was in a letter to the Jewish Chronicle, 2nd October, 1936.

The wording of the firman is quoted in the Jewish Encyclopcedia, Vol. I, p. 47 (1906).

On his way home, Montefiore tried to get an audience with the Pope, Gregory XVI, but was refused an audience.

5. Attempted Bribery! of the French Consul. Comte Ratti-Menton, the French Consul who had shown such determination in having the ritual murderers dealt with, and who was a most upright man, wrote to the Sherif Pasha on 22nd April to say that the Jews had, through the Austrian Consulate, offered him half a million piastres to have the evidence suppressed. Needless to say, when this honourable man was found incorruptible, the advocates of the Jews got busy as stated above to besmirch his reputation. Thiers, the French Foreign Secretary, replying to Jew-inspired attacks on the French Consul Ratti-Menton, stated in the Chamber of Deputies, 3rd June, 1840, “Let it be known to you, gentlemen, I repeat it, that in all the Chancellories the Israelites are in insistence for that affair and our Consul can lean only on the Minister of Foreign Affairs for France. A French agent who is in his right will always be protected against all influences, whatever they may be.” M. Thiers also said that the Comte’s superior officer, M. Cochelet, Consul for Egypt, approved of his subordinate’s action and that the English Consul was of the same mind.

6. Bribery of Austrian Diplomats. Throughout the proceedings, the Austrian Consul supported the Jews against the charge of ritual murder. Here, from a Jewish source, is the reason, duly confessed:

From The History of the Jews in Vienna, by the Jew, Max Grunwald, 1936 (Philadelphia), pp.228-9:

“Following the policy of the House [of Rothschild] in other countries, where it obtained privileges for the Jews in return for loans — in Rome, the abolition of the Ghetto, and in England, Jewish emancipation — Solomon [Rothschild] obtained from Metternich concessions to the Jews in legislation. It was he who influenced the Chancellor to take a favourable stand in the Damascus blood-accusation case of 1840.”

There you have it; Rothschild’s money power; the Austrian Chancellor, Metternich; the Austrian Consul at Damascus; the Consul’s attitude towards the Ritual Murder charge. A continuous chain of Jewish corruption by Money.

7. Suppression of the Reports of the Trial. We have already mentioned in the second paragraph of this description of the case the record of the trial published in Achille Laurent’s book. This book cannot now be obtained anywhere. Gougenot des Mousseaux, however, had printed a very full account of the trial (taken from Laurent) in his work Le Juif le Judaisme et la Judaisation des Peuples Chretiens, a work which earned for him the praise of Pope Pius IX who made him a Chevalier; and the writer has had a copy of this lent to him. But Gougenot des Mousseaux’s book is now very rare, and the Chevalier himself died suddenly in mysterious circumstances nine hours after receiving a warning letter. Monniot, in a work mentioned in the Bibliography (p. 56), has, however, made it easy for anyone who desires to read the details of the trial to do so.

But, the reader may ask, what about the official dossier of the affair? This naturally reposed in the archives of the French Foreign Office. But Desportes in his Mystere du Sang reported that under the Ministry of Cremieux (one of the Jews who went East to bribe the Khedive to release the ritual murderers of Damascus) it disappeared (in 1870)! As this report aroused comment, the Chancellerie made a declaration (5th May, 1892) that it was incorrect and that the dossier remained complete at the Ministry. However that may be, when Albert Monniot in 1913 desired to consult the documents themselves to assist him in writing his ‘Le Crime Rituel chez les Juifs’, he found that he was refused permission to peruse them. Whether they are still extant or not, therefore, we cannot tell; all we know is that the secrets of the Jew are well guarded. But not well enough, as I hope the reader will by now agree.

Sir Richard Burton, the great explorer and orientalist who was English Consul at Damascus 30 years after the Ritual Murder, studied the whole question of the Blood Accusation, and eventually wrote The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam, of which I have the edition edited by W. H. Wilkins and published by Hutchinson in 1898. This work contains a damning indictment of the Talmud, and a list of Jewish Ritual Murders, but Wilkins in his Preface (p. x) writes: “In the exercise of the discretion given to me, I have thought it better to hold over for the present the Appendix on the alleged rite of Human Sacrifice among the Sephardim and the murder of Padre Tomaso (Father Thomas); the only alternative was to publish it in a mutilated form.”

Let us follow therefore (1) the Book, (2) the Appendix on Ritual Murder.

(1) The Book. This is easy. It is well nigh unobtainable.

(2) The Appendix on Ritual Murder. What happened to it? This is what happened to it:

See D. L. Alexander versus Manners Sutton, King’s Bench Division, 27th March, 1911, reported in The Times the following day. Herein D. L. Alexander, a Jew and President of the Jewish Board of Deputies was able to show that he had obtained an assignment of the manuscript from the surviving executors of Sir Richard Burton. The executors had sold them to a bookseller, who, in turn, sold them to Manners Sutton; and he (Sutton), not knowing of any assignment, made arrangements for the publication of the Appendix. D. L. Alexander brought the action to stop this publication from taking place, claiming copyright and delivery to him of the manuscript. The Jew won his case.

It remains only to say that Father Thomas’s gravestone in the cemetery at Damascus bore (and presumably still bears) the inscription in Arabic and in Italian: “Here lie the remains of Father Thomas of Sardinia, Capuchin Missionary, assassinated by the Jews, 5th February, 1840.”

1852 and 1853. Saratov. Two ritual murders are involved this time; one, a 10-year-old boy in December, 1852; the other, 11-year-old, in January, 1853. After a flood, both bodies were found on the bank of the Volga, pierced with many wounds. Eight years afterwards, two Jews, Schiffermann and Zourloff, were duly tried for these murders and convicted. They were sentenced to 28 years’ labour in the mines, and they died during their imprisonment. This, being a juridically decided case, the sentence in which was passed for “killing two Christian boys and having made them endure marytrdom” by the Senate and submitted to the Russian Empire Council, is, of course, not mentioned in Strack’s book! Authority: Monniot’s Le Crime Rituel chez les Juifs, 1914, p. 257.

1880. Smyrna. Many Jews were massacred after a missing child’s body had been found on the beach covered with punctured wounds at Passover. Authority: Moniteur de Rome, 15th June, 1883.

1882. The Tisza Eszlar Case in Hungary.

This is a nineteenth century case, where the prisoners had duly confessed, and where, after long drawn out proceedings, they were all acquitted as the result of the Organised Power of Jewish Money.

Esther Solymosi, 14 years old, disappeared on 1st April; the five-year-old son of the Jewish sexton told some women that his mother had enticed the girl into their house, whence she had been slipped by some Jews into the synagogue premises. This report came to the ears of Mrs. Solymosi, Esther’s mother, who immediately reported to the police. An enquiry was set on foot, on 19th May, under Dr. Josef Bary, and it is largely from a book written 50 years later by Dr. Bary, who became President of the Supreme Court of Justice in Hungary, that the facts of the enquiry have come to light. This book is of over 600 pages, and is called A tiszaeszlari bunper (The Tisza Eszlar Murder Trial). These facts can also be checked from the diary of the Hungarian Minister for Justice of the period, Theodor Pauler, which diary had been kept in the Hungarian National Museum.

Another son of the Jewish sexton was Maurice Scharf, aged 14. He admitted that he had seen through the keyhole of the synagogue door that Esther had been murdered by certain Jews and bled white, her blood being collected in a vase. It was found by ocular view on the spot that the place where these events were said to have occurred was actually in sight to anyone looking through the keyhole. Witnesses also said they had heard cries from the synagogue on the day when the girl was first missing.

To test the veracity of the 14-year-old Maurice, the Judge told him that his tale could not be true as Esther was alive; the boy replied that “no one could be alive after being cut on the neck like that.”

A number of Jews were arrested, and confessed that they had taken part in the ritual murder of Esther to get her blood for the Passover.

One would think that there would be little more to report.

But no! All Israel got to work with its Money Power, and the Press of every country in Europe was employed to throw calumny on the Hungarian Court and on Hungarian Justice. The Public Prosecutors were bribed and set to work to discredit the honourable Judge who presided over the Court. No stone was left unturned, no filthy corrupting action left untried, to defeat the course of justice; and the Jews won. Here are some of the minor methods by which the Jews with their money tried to confuse the issue:

1. By paying the debts of, or bribing the officials.

2. By offering Esther’s mother a bribe to say that her daughter was alive and in a situation elsewhere. This was done by the Jew Reiszmann.

3. By trying to steal the Court records from the house of the Judge.

4. By altering the synagogue lock, so that it was no longer possible to see the place of the murder by looking through the keyhole.

5. By spreading reports that Esther had run away; or had been drowned. The Examining Judge caused the river to be dragged without result.

6. By arranging that a corpse should turn up and be “identified” as Esther’s. On 18th June, a girl’s body dressed in Esther’s clothes, which were far too small for the purpose, was drawn out of the River Theiss by Jewish raftsmen. The mother denied that the coipse was Esther’s although she recognised Esther’s clothes. A committee of experts examined the body, and found that the hair and eyebrows had been shaved off, obviously to conceal identity. They also found that the body was that of a girl 18 years old (Esther was only 14) and that death was due not to drowning but to tuberculosis. It became so obvious that the body had been “found” for a purpose, that the Jewish raftsmen were interrogated; and they confessed that the coipse had been taken over by them from a Jew called Herschko, that it had been dressed in Esther’s clothes, put in the river, and then “discovered” and landed.

It was found also that the body could not have been in the water over four days; that death could not have taken place more than 10 days previously. Esther had been missing for 78 days.

However, in spite of all this exposure of corruption, the Court found itself, as it were, an isolated unit in a hostile Europe; and the Jews were all acquitted!

Then it was found that on 21st July, 1883, Baron Bela Orczy, the Hungarian Minister, had visited Minister for Justice Pauler and had told him that Goldschmidt, the Budapest representative of Rothschild’s, had demanded that the charges be withdrawn! At this time, debt-conversion was a serious matter for Hungary, and chiefly depended on the Rothschild Money Power. Later, Baron Orczy told Pauler that Goldschmidt actually demanded that the two Public Prosecutors who had made condemnation of the prisoners impossible should be decorated!

The sort of thing that had been “worked” against all the evidence may be explained by giving one example: In November, 1882, a new Committee of Experts was formed to make a further examination of the body found in the river five months before, and this committee declared that the findings of the former committee had no scientific basis, that the body was Esther’s and that as the throat was not cut, it could not have been a case of ritual murder!

So ends a dismal tale of the foulest Jewish trickery to enable a few miserable degenerates to escape from well-merited punishment.

1891. Xanten, Prussia. A five-year-old boy called Hegmann was murdered, his threat cut and the body bloodless. “The Government did all in its power to suppress the rumour” of ritual murder {Jewish Encyclopcedia, Vol. I, p. 645). The doctor who examined the body said (29th June) that: “The trace of blood appears as an after-bleeding.” On 9th July, he retracted this and explained that his mistake was due to it being dark at the time of his examination! I think by this time the reader will guess what happened between 29th June and 9th July to his banking account. The Minister of Justice, de Schelling, was a Jew. The accused Jewish ritual slaughterer, who had been arrested, was acquitted.

1899. The Polna Case (Bohemia).

Agnes Hruza, 19 years of age, was murdered 29th March, 1899. On 1st April, her body was found in a wood with the head nearly severed from the body. In spite of this frightful wound, there was no blood about, although the body itself, of course, was almost bloodless.

A man called Peschak had seen a Jew Hilsner with two other Jews on the day of the murder on the spot where the body was found. Hilsner was arrested and tried; another witness testified that he had seen the prisoner very agitated on 29th March, coming from the spot where the body was found.

The Court, whilst recognising that Hilsner must have had accomplices, found him guilty and condemned him to death. He then confessed, and implicated two other Jews, but later retracted these statements, as also his confession. The two men produced satisfactory alibis.

By the Power of Jewish Money and the agitation it was able to raise, a new trial was ordered. Meanwhile Dr. Baxa, attorney for the murdered girl’s mother, had in a speech in the Bohemian Diet, 28th December, accused the Government of showing partiality to the Jews in the way they handled this case.

Then, another girl’s body was found, too decomposed to show the cause of death; this was the body of Maria Klima who had disappeared 17th July, 1898. Hilsner was charged with both murders when the case came on again in November. This time, a witness stated that at the time of the first murder, Hilsner had a ritual slaughterer’s knife.

Dr. Baxa insisted that it was a case of Ritual Murder. The Court found the prisoner guilty, without however alleging ritual reasons, and the prisoner was sentenced to death on 14th November, 1900. However, the Emperor intervened, and the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

The prisoner’s counsel at this trial was Masaryk, later President of Czecho-Slovakia, this work seems to have stood him in good stead in after life!

Hilsner was released from prison by the Marxists in the rioting of 1918; he died a few years later.

Chapter XL

WELL AUTHENTICATED CASES IN THE PRESENT CENTURY.

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 Vi pages of the Jewish Encyclopcedia.

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 haemorrhage; 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, they 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 if 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 a 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 Stunner 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. Manau, 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 Stunner 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 of the murders.

Chapter XII.

THE JEWISH DEFENCE.

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 mediaeval 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 mediceval 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 Encyclopcedia 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 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 Bolshev iks.

2.

Violent abuse of lawyers, witnesses for the prosecution or accusers. This is a modem 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 Stunner, 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 authoritative people.

A good example of this is described on pp. 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 Encyclopcedia, Hyamson’s Histoiy of the Jews in England and Lucien Wolfs 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 finds 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 (1) there is no mention of the case of St. Hugh of Lincoln; (2) 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; (3) 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 (4) 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.

Chapter XIII.

EVIDENCE OF CONVERTED JEWS.

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 mo nk 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 dAvila, 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 Encyclopcedia, Vol. II, p. 16 (1903).

1475. Wolfkan of Ratisbon, 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 (Histoty 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 II 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 Encyclopcedia (1903), Vol. V, p. 423.

1614. Samuel Friedrich Brenz, a Jew, who was converted in 1610, 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 Encyclopcedia’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 Encyclopcedia describes all these last three authors as “malicious and ignorant enemies of their people.”

17—. A converted Jew, Serafmovicz, 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 archdiocese of Lemberg, instituted public debates between the Fra nk ists 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 Encyclopcedia, 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 1803 which was published again in Greek in 1834 by Giovanni de Georgio under the title Ruin 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.

Chapter XIV.

CASES CONFIRMED BY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY.

THE Jews are wont to pretend that the Blood Accusation, as they call it, is the product of mediaeval 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 modem 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 Toledo 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.

Chapter XV.

THE ATTITUDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TOWARDS JEWISH RITUAL MURDER.

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 Juive, who accused the Jews of Ritual Murder therein. Authority: Jewish Encyclopcedia (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 Encyclopcedia (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) Maestre Fray Diego de Bretonia, Professor of Scripture; (3) Fray Antonio de la Pena, Prior; (4) Dr. Anton Rodriguez Camejo, Professor of Canon Law; (5) Dr. 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?

Chapter XVI.

THE ATTITUDE OF THE PROTESTANT CHURCH.

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, p. 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 Encyclopcedia (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 Ecclesice 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 mediaeval superstition.

Chapter XVII.

OTHER CASES WORTHY OF CREDENCE.

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.

1283. Mayence.

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.

1401. Diessenhofen.

1407. Cracow. A Polish priest, Budek, charged the Jews with murdering a boy at Easter.

1429. Ravensbourg.

1435. Palma.

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 Encyclopaedia, 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 Gvpsy 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.

Chapter XVIII.

TWO QUEER HAPPENINGS.

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!

Chapter XIX.

WHAT OF THESE?

DURING my trial I asked the only witness brought against me. Inspector Kitchener, “Are you a Detective-Inspector?”

Kitchener. “Yes.”

Leese : “Are there any cases of child-murder nowadays which cannot be solved?”

Kitchener. “Yes.”

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 coipse, bled white, has been recovered.

1932. 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 ha nks 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.

1937. Argentine.

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!

Chapter XX.

IRRELEVANT MEDITATIONS.

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 Jexves 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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS SUPPORTING THE BLOOD ACCUSATION.

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 VEnglise 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 lEglise et /’ 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 Morel, 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 Stunner, 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 Stunner. 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 W. 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)