Billionaire globalist warns Americans against resisting new global financial system
China has to own the New World Order
An orderly decline of the dollar is desirable and necessary we need a new global currency Soros says.
Related to above... read very carefully! "THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE!! We are witnessing a take over of our country and we have been warned time and time again... ignore it or read on and see the parallels of the perils we are facing today."
Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very
frightening speech. This speech is an explanation of the plans now
being laid to throw the United States into a third world war. It was
made a short time ago before a large group in the Congressional `Room of
the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. Both the speech and the question
and answer period later so electrified the audience that a group of patriots
has transferred it to two long-playing records which you may
buy to play for friends, clubs, and your
church group in your community. The speaker is Mr. Benjamin Freedman, noted
authority on Zionism and all of its schemes. Mr. Freedman is a former Jew,
and Imean a FORMER Jew. He has fought the Communist world conspiracy
tooth and nail, and stands today as a leading American patriot. We now take
you to the speaker's platform to present Benjamin Freedman.
What I intend to tell you tonight
is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source,
and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the
survival of this country and Christianity. I'm not here just to dish
up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I'm here to tell you things
that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the
world: the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians,
where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things
that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians.
Now, first of all, I'd like to tell
you that on August 25th 1960 -- that was shortly before elections -- Senator
Kennedy, who is now the President of the United States, went to New York,
and delivered an address to the Zionist Organization of America. In
that address, to reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would
use the armed forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the
regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that
In other words, Christian boys are going
to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad
to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want
to return to their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked
to shoot to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want
to follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the last
twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to return to
Now, when United States troops
appear in the Middle East to fight with the Zionists as their allies to prevent
the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948
armed insurrection by the Zionists whowere transplanted there from
Eastern Europe... when that happens, the United States will trigger World
You say, when will that take
place? The answer is, as soon as the difficulty between France and
Algeria has been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and
Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria
have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has
no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move these people
back into their homes, and when they do that and President kennedy sends
your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they stole
from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War III; and
when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that war a victor.
We are going to lose that war because there is not one nation in the world
that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a cause.
Iknow and speak to these
ambassadors in Washington and the United Nations -- and of the ninety-nine
nations there, I've consulted with maybe seventy of them --and when
we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves retain possession of what they
have stolen from these innocent people we're not going to have a man there
to fight with us as our ally.
And who willthese people
have supporting them, you ask. Well, four days after President Kennedy
-- or he was then Senator Kennedy -- made that statement on August 28, 1960,
the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect,
or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or
less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.
Not only that... they ordered
the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are now drilling maybe a half
a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead these people back to
theirhomeland. With them, they have as their
allies all the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group.
That includes the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite. It
includes Red China; it includes every independent country in Asia and Africa;
or eighty percent of the world's total population. Eighty percent of
the world's population. Four out of five human beings on the face of
the earth will be our enemies at war with us. And not alone are they
four out of five human beings now on the face of this earth, but they are
the non-Christian population of the world and they are the non-Caucasians...
the non-white nations of the world, and that's what we face.
And what is the reason? The reason
is that here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists
have complete control of our government. For many reasons too many
and too complex to go into here at this -- time I'll be glad to answer questions,
however, to support that statement -- the Zionists and their co-religionists
rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this
Now, you say, 'well, that's
a very broad statement to make', but let me show what happened while you
were -- I don't want to wear that out --- let me show what happened while
WE were all asleep. I'm including myself with you. We were all
asleep. What happened?
World War I broke out in the
summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which
World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember
that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia;
and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?
Within two years Germany had
won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The
German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the
convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition
for her soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her
-- and after that, starvation.
At that time, the French army
had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the
defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They
were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore,
they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had
Now Germany -- not a shot had
been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the
border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace
terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers
call a status quo ante basis. That means: Let's call the war
off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.
Well, England, in the summer of 1916
was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It
was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously
offering them, or going on with the war and being totally
While that was going on, the
Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went
to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because this is
a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I
make if anyone here is curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying
is at all possible -- the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet
and they said: Look here. You can yet win this war. You
don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace
offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States
will come in as your ally.
The United States was not in the war
at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful.
They [Zionists] told England: We will guarantee to bring the
United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side,
if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.
In other words, they made this
deal: We will get the United States into this war as your ally.
The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and
defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Now England had as much
right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to
promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely
absurd that Great Britain -- that never had any connection or any interest
or any right in what is known as Palestine -- should offer it as coin of
the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.
However, they made that
promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen.
And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it -- the United
States, which was almost totally pro-German -- totally pro-German -- because
the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the
media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and
they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came
from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.
The Jews didn't like
the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German
bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in
the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one
dollar. They stood aside and they said: As long as France and
England are tied up with Russia, not one cent! But they poured
money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick
the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they
saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made
this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light
that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all
pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that
Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects,
all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains.
They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting
off babies' hands. And they were no good.
Well, shortly after that, Mr.
Wilson declared war on Germany.
The Zionists in London sent these
cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: Go to work on President
Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to
work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into
the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into
the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be
in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.
Now the war --
World War One
-- in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be
our war. We went in there -- we were railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar,
we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world
could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in
the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into
World War One. Now, what happened?
After we got into the war, the Zionists
went to Great Britain and they said: Well, we performed our part of
the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you
are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the
war. Because they didn't know whether the war would last another
year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt.
The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic
language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about.
And that was called the
The Balfour Declaration was merely
Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as
a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this
great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony
as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic
Now, that is where all the trouble
started. The United States went in the war. The United States
crushed Germany. We went in there, and it's history. You know what
happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris,
to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation
representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought
to know. Now what happened?
The Jews at that peace conference,
when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations
that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said,
How about Palestine for us? And they produced, for the
first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration.
So the Germans, for the first time realized, Oh, that was the
game! That's why the United States
came into the war. And the Germans for the first time realized
that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was
slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined
to get it at any cost.
Now, that brings us to another
very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally
resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in
any country in the world than they had been in Germany.
You had Mr. Rathenau there,
who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard
Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship
lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr.
Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had
the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest
in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question
about that. Now, the Germans felt: Well, that was quite a
It was a sellout that I can best
compare -- suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union.
And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: Well,
let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole
thing. And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of
the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our
defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's
imagination cannot encompass.
Imagine, then, after that defeat,
if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens,
who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were
selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red
China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United
States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show
his face on any street. There wouldn't be lampposts enough, convenient,
to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.
Well, that's how the Germans
felt towards these Jews. "We've been so nice to them"; and from 1905
on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had
to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave
them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they
sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine
as a so-called Jewish commonwealth.
Now, Nahum Sokolow -- all the great
leaders, the big names that you read about in connection with Zionism today
-- they, in 1919, 1920, '21, '22, and '23, they wrote in all their papers
-- and the press was filled with their statements -- that "the feeling against
the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great
defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the United States
into the war against them."
The Jews themselves admitted that.
It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish
blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no
religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on
account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic.
It was anything but religious.
Nobody cared in Germany whether
a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said Shema' Yisrael
or Our Father. No one cared in Germany any more than they
do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany
was due to one thing: that the Germans held the Jews responsible for their
crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because World War One was started
against Germany for no reason for which they [Germans] were responsible.
They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built
up a big navy. They built up world trade.
You must remember, Germany, at the
time of Napoleon, at the time of the French Revolution, what was the German
Reichconsisted of 300 -- three hundred! -- small city-states,
principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred little separate
political entities. And between that time, between the period of. . . between
Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within
50 years after that time they became one of the world's great powers. Their
navy was rivalling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the
world, they could undersell anybody and make better products. And what
happened? What happenedas a result of that?
There was a conspiracy between
England, France, and Russia that: "We must slap down Germany", because there
isn't one historian in the world that can find a valid reason why those three
countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened
When Germany realized that the
Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it.
But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair.
Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all
the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted
from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell
Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political
prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.
They were in excellent shape; everybody
treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of
them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the
Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there,
and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international
Now, the Jews sort of tried
to keep the lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really
understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented
So they did take appropriate
action against them [against the Jews]. They. . . shall I say,
discriminated against them wherever they could? They shunned them.
The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics,
or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about
Now, after a while, the Jews
of the world didn't know what to do, so they called a meeting in Amsterdam.
Jews from every country in the world attended in July 1933. And
they said to Germany: You fire Hitler! And you put every Jew
back into his former position, whether he was a Communist, no matter what
he was. You can't treat us that way! And we, the Jews of the
world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you.
Well, the Germans told them. . . you can imagine. So what did
they [the Jews] do?
They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer,
if the name means anything to people here. . . (You want to ask a question?
--- Uh, there were no Communists in Germany at that time. they were
called 'Social Democrats.)
Well, I don't want to go by
what they were called. We're now using English words,
and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were
Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days.
Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took
over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended
the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going
to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the
same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for
safety and for security.
Now, at that time, when the
Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working,
still trying to get back into their former -- their status -- and the Germans
fought them in every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone's head.
The same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were
interested in liquor, and they didn't fight one another with pistols, they
did it every way they could.
Well, that's the way they were
fighting the Jews in Germany. And, at that time, mind you, there were
80 to 90 million Germans and there were only 460,000 Jews. . . less than
one half of one percent of Germany were Jews. And yet, they controlled
all of the press, they controlled most of the economy, because they had come
in and with cheap money -- you know the way the Mark was devalued -- they
bought up practically everything.
Well, in 1933 when Germany refused
to surrender, mind you, to the World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they
broke up and Mr.
came back to the United States -- who was the head of the American delegation
and the president of the whole conference -- and he went from the steamer
to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he
"The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against
Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans.
And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going
to use a world-wide boycott against them, that will destroy them because
they are dependent upon their export business."
And it is a fact that two thirds
of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported
with the proceeds of what they exported. Their labor. So if Germany
could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve.
There just was not enough food for more than one third of the population.
Now in this declaration, which
I have here, it was printed on page -- a whole page -- in the
Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that:
this economic boycott is our
means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in
the NRA" . [National Recovery Administration] -- which some of you
may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless they followed the
rules laid down by the New Deal, which of course was declared unconstitutional
by the Supreme Court at that time.
Nevertheless, the Jews of the
world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you
couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words
"made in Germany" on it.
In fact, an executive of the
Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth
of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted.
If anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were
picketed with signs: "Hitler", "murderer", and so forth, and
like -- something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.
R. H. Macy, which is controlled
by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews. . . a woman found
stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany". Well,
they were cotton stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since
I've been observing women's legs in the last twenty years, I haven't seen
a pair with cotton stockings on them. So Macy! I saw Macy boycotted,
with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "MURDERS" and
"HITLERITES", and so forth.
Now up to that time, not one
hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no
suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was
Now, that. . . naturally, the
Germans said, "Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us
and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill?
Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it.
Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews.
Why should a German go in and
give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going
to starve Germany into surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going
to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was
That continued for some time,
and it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German
embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the
Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you
found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so
Now, for anyone to say that
-- I don't like to use the word 'anti-Semitism' because it's meaningless,
but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it -- the only reason
that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were
responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide
boycott, and number three -- did I say for World War One, they were responsible?
For the boycott -- and also for World War II, because after this thing got
out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock
horns in a war to see which one was going to
In the meanwhile, I had lived
in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided [that] Europe is going
to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. It's going to be Christian
or it's going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: "We're going to keep
it Christian if possible". And they started to re-arm.
And there intention was -- by
that time the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, which they did
in November, 1933 -- the Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany
realized: "Well, our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong."
The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going
to come soon, unless we are strong."
And our government is spending
83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for defense, they
say. Defense against whom? Defense
against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in
their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the
Now, for this country to now
be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor,
is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs
are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe
one million tons of TNT. One million tons of TNT is a megaton. Now,
our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT.
That was when they were first developed five or six years ago. Now,
the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons,
and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union
So, what do we face now?
If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is
finished. And why will it take place? It will take place because
Act III. . . the curtain goes up on Act III. Act I was World War I.
Act II was World War II. Act III is going to be World War III.
The Jews of the world, the Zionists
and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going
to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine
as their foothold for their world government. Now, that is just as
true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here
have read it, and it's known all over the world.
Now, what are we going to do?
The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their
way to that war tonight; and you you don't know it any more than you knew
that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet
to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time?
Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted
to know it.
Who knew it? President
Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other 's knew it. Did
I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was
liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson
was elected, and there was talk around the office there.
I was 'confidential man' to
Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was
liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these
meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others,
and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income
tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with
the Zionist movement.
Justice Brandeis and President
Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President
Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was
going on as a newborn baby. And that's how they got us into World War
I, while we all slept.
Now, at this moment... at this
moment they may be planning this World War III, in which we don't stand a
chance even if they don't use nuclear bombs. How can the United States
-- about five percent of the world -- go out and fight eighty to ninety percent
of the world on their home ground? How can we do it... send our boys
over there to be slaughtered? For what? So the Jews can have
Palestine as their 'commonwealth'? They've fooled you so much that
you don't know whether you're coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges
a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness that you find has told a single lie,
you can disregard all his testimony." That is correct.
I don't know from what state you come, but in New York state
that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness said one
lie, disregard his testimony.
Now, what are the facts about
The Jews -- I call them Jews
to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews. I refer
to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was
a Jew, there isn't a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews,
certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.
Now what happened? The
eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of
those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.
They were a warlike tribe that
lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even
the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe -- and to reduce
this so you don't get too confused about the history of Eastern Europe --
they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles. Only, there
was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was
the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the
other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers.
That's how big and powerful they were.
Now, they were phallic worshippers,
which is filthy. I don't want to go into the details of that now. It
was their religion the way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians
elsewhere in the world.
Now, the [Khazar] king became
so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt
a so-called monotheistic faith -- either Christianity, Islam -- the
Moslem faith -- or what is known today as Judaism -- really Talmudism. So,
like spinning a top and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe,"
he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion.
He sent down to the Talmudic
schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of these rabbis with
their teachings, and opened up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000
people -- 800,000 thousand square miles -- and maybe ten to twenty million
people; and they became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them
that had an ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old
Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them!
And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their
armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:
"Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God's
chosen people to their Promised Land, their ancestral homeland, It's
your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior.
You now go to church on Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and
Well, they were pagan Khazars
who were converted just the same as the Irish [were converted]. And
it's just as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would
be. . . there are 54 million Chinese Moslems. Fifty four million!
And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that time, 54 million Chinese
have accepted Islam as their religious belief.
Now imagine, in China, 2,000
miles away from Arabia, where the city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed
was born. . . imagine if the 54 million Chinese called themselves 'Arabs'.
Imagine! Why, you'd say they're lunatics. Anyone who believes
that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did
was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in
The same as the Irish. When
the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported
from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants that were Christians. They weren't
different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted
Christianity as a religious faith.
Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics,
these Turko-Finns. . . they were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of
Asia into eastern Europe. They likewise, because their king took the
faith -- Talmudic faith -- they had no choice. Just the same as in
Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If
not, you had to get out of Spain. So everybody -- they lived on the
land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land
under their feudal system -- so they [Khazars] all became what we call today,
Now imagine how silly it was
for the Christians. . . for the great Christian countries of the world to
say, "We're going to use our power, our prestige to repatriate God's chosen
people to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land."
Now, could there be a bigger
lie than that? Could there be a bigger lie than
And because they control the
newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing
business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians
on the soap boxes talking the same language . . . so naturally you'd believe
black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black
black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And nobody could
Now, that is one of the great
lies. . . that is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the
world. Because after two wars fought in Europe -- World War I and World
War II -- if it wasn't possible for them to live in peace and harmony with
the people in Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States,
what were the two wars fought for? Did they have to -- like you flush
the toilet -- because they couldn't get along, did theyhave to
say, "Well, we're going back to our homeland and you Christians can help
I can't understand yet how the
Christians in Europe could have been that dumb because every theologian,
every history teacher, knew the things that I'm telling you. But, they
naturally bribed them, shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with
money, and now. . . I don't care whether you know all this or not. It
doesn't make any difference to me whether you know all these facts or not,
but it does make a difference to me. I've got, in my family, boys that
will have to be in the next war, and I don't want them to go and fight and
die... like they died in Korea. Like they died in Japan. Like they've
died all over the world. For what?
To help crooks hold on to what
they stole from innocent people who had been in peaceful possession of that
land, those farms, those homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years?
Is that why the United States must go to war? Because the Democratic
Party wants New York State -- the electoral vote? Illinois, the electoral
vote? And Pennsylvania, the electoral vote?... which are controlled by the
Zionists and their co-religionists?. . . the balance of power?
In New York City there are 400,000
members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists. And
New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes. Now, I don't blame
Mr. Kennedy. I'm fond of Mr. Kennedy. I think he's a great man.
I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts
to him. And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments
indicate he knows. He's playing with the enemy. Like when you
go fishing, you've got to play with the fish. Let 'em out and pull
'em in. Let 'em out and pull 'em in. But knowing Mr. Kennedy's
father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close
Kennedy is to his father, I don't think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.
But I do think that it is the
duty of every mother, every loyal Christian , every person that regards the
defense of this country as a sacred right, that they communicate -- not with
their congressman, not with theirsenator, but with President Kennedy.
And tell him, "I do not think you should send my boy, or our boys,
wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and under the flag that
you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the
hands of these that which they have stolen". I think everyone should
not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends to
Now, I could go on endlessly,
and tell you these things to support what I have just asked you to do. But
I don't think it's necessary to do that. You're above the average group
in intelligence and I don't think it's necessary to impress this any more.
But. . . I want to tell you
one more thing. You talk about... "Oh, the Jews. Why the Jews?
Christianity. Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and the
Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion". But do you
know that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that
on that day... and I was one of them! This is not hearsay. I'm
not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts.
When, on the Day of Atonement,
you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand
-- and it's the only prayer for which you stand -- and you repeat three times
a short prayer.
Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty
that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months
-- any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months
shall be null and void.
The oath shall not be an oath;
the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall
have no force and effect, and so forth and so on.
And further than that, the Talmud
teaches: "Don't forget -- whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge -- remember
the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts
you from fulfilling that".
How much can you depend on their
loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended
upon it in 1916.
And we're going to suffer the
same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason. You can't depend
upon something as insecure as the leadership that is not obliged to respect
an oath, vow or pledge. Now I could go on and recite many other things
to you, but I would have a little respect for your time, and you want to
really, uh, get through with all of this. Tomorrow's going to be a
Now I want to say one thing.
You ask me. . . well, you think to yourself: "well how did this fellow get
mixed up in this the way he got mixed up in it." Well, I opened my
mouth in 1945, and I took big pages in newspapers and tried to tell the American
people what I'm telling you. And one newspaper after another refused
the advertisement. And when I couldn't find a newspaper to take them
-- I paid cash, not credit -- what happened? My lawyer told me, "There's
an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take your announcement".
So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and that's how I met
So somebody told me the lawyer
who introduced me, who was the son of the Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he
said: "Well, I think he's a little anti-Semitic. I don't know whether
I can get him over here. So he brought him over to my apartment and
we hit it off wonderfully, and have since then.
Now, I say this, and I say it
without any qualifications. I say it without any reservations. And
I say it without any hesitation. . . if it wasn't for the work that Mr. Conley
McGinley did with "Common Sense" -- he's been sending out from 1,800,000
to 2,000,000 every year -- if it wasn't for the work he's been doing sending
those outfor fifteen years now, we would already be a communist country.
Nobody has done what he did to light fires. Many of the other active
persons in this fight learned all about if for the first time through "Common
Now, I have been very active
in helping him all I could. I'm not as flush as I was. I cannot
go on spending the money. . . I'm not going to take up a collection. Don't
worry. I see five people getting up to leave.
I haven't got the money that
I used to spend. I used to print a quarter of a million of them out
of my own pocket and send them out. Mr. McGinley, when I first met
him, had maybe 5,000 printed and circulated them locally. So I said,
"With what you know and what I know, we can really do a good job". So
I started printing in outside shops of big newspaper companies, aquarter
of a million, and paid for them. Well, there's always a bottom to the
barrel. I suppose we've all reached that at times.
I'm not so poor that I can't
live without working and that's what worries the Anti-Defamation League.
I can just get by without going and asking for a job or getting on
the bread line. But Mr. McGinley is working. He's sick and he's
going at this stronger than ever. And all I want to say is that they
want to close up "Common Sense" more than any other single thing in the whole
world, as a death-blow to the fight Christians are making to survive.
So I just want to tell you this.
All they do is circulate rumors: "Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman is the wealthy
backer of 'Common Sense'." The reason they do that is to discourage
the people in the United States: don't send any money to Common Sense. They
don't need it. The've got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as a backer. That
all has strategy. They don't want to advertise me so that people that
have real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me. They just
want people to lay off "Common Sense". And all I'm telling you is, I do try
to help him, but I haven't been able to. And I will be very honest.
One thing I won't do is lie. In the last year I've had so much sickness
in my family that I could not give him one dollar.
How he's managed to survive,
I don't know. God alone knows. And he must be in God's care because
how he's pulled through his sickness and with his financial troubles, I don't
know. But that press is working. . . and every two weeks about a hundred
or a hundred-fifty-thousand of "Common Sense" go out with a new message.
And if that information could be multiplied. . . if people that now
get it could buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them around. Plow
that field. Sow those seeds, you don't know which will take root, but
for God's sake, this is our last chance.
[Freedman then discusses the importance
of people forgoing unnecessary purchases to 'buy more stuff', play golf,
etc., and use the money to keep "Common Sense" going. He explains that
the paper is going in debt; could be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer
has the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the
information to the American public and elected officials. He then asks
for questions from the audience.)
Freedman: All right, I'll comment on that.
This is rather deep, but you all have a very high degree of intelligence,
so I'm going to make an attempt. In the time of Bible history, there
was a geographic area known as Judea. Judea was a province of the Roman
Empire. Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and
in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius. Those are the two
words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.
Now, in Latin and Greek there
is no such letter as 'j', and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts
'ghu'. Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek,
Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic... all those languages. Never Was
the word Jew in any of them because the word didn't exist. Judea was
the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only
as a Judean. I've seen those early... the earliest scripts available.
In 1345, a man by the name of
Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to translate the Bible into
English. There was no English edition of the Bible because who the
Devil could read? It was only the educated church people who could
read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages. Anyhow,
Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. But in it, he had to look
around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius.
There was no English word because
Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People
had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the
word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', "jew". At the time, there was
no printing press.
Then, between 1345 and the 17th
century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many
changes... I have them all here. If you want I can read them to you.
I will. That word 'gyu' which was in the Wycliffe Bible became.
. . first it was ' gyu ', then ' giu ', then ' iu ' (because
the ' i ' in Latin is pronounced like the ' j '. Julius Caesar
is ' Iul 'because there is no 'j' in Latin) then ' iuw
', then ' ieuu ', then ' ieuy ', then ' iwe ', then
' iow ', then ' iewe ', all in Bibles as time went on. Then '
ieue ', then ' iue ', then ' ive ', and then ' ivw ', and
finally in the 18th century... ' jew '. Jew.
All the corrupt and contracted
forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin. Now, there was no such thing
as 'Jew', and any theologian -- I've lectured in maybe 20 of the most prominent
theological seminaries in this country, and two in Europe -- there was no
such word as Jew. There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and
the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was 'gyu'
-- Jew. A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the
same as we call a laboratory a 'lab', and gasoline 'gas'... a tendency to
So, in England there were no
public schools; people didn't know how to read; it looked like a scrambled
alphabet so they made a short word out of it. Now for a theologian
to say that you can't harm the Jews, is just ridiculous. I'd like to
know where in the scriptures it says that. I'd like to know the text.
Look at what happened to Germany for
touching Jews. What would you, as a citizen of the United States, do
to people who did to you what the so-called Jews -- the Pollacks and Litvaks
and Litzianers -- they weren't Jews, as I just explained to you. They
were Eastern Europeans who'd been converted to Talmudism. There was
no such thing as Judaism. Judaism was a name given in recent years
to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible]. No Jew
or no educated person ever heard of Judaism. It didn't exist.
They pulled it out of the air. . . a meaningless word.
Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The
Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don't like
Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The
only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew who's
a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european
Jews. So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to
meet this reverend who told you these things, I'll convince him and it'll
be one step in the right direction. I'll go wherever I have to go to
Yes, ma'am. Well... I can answer that.
First of all, your first premise is wrong. Your first premise
that all the Jews are loyal to each other is wrong. Because, the Eastern
European Jews outnumber all the rest by so many that they create the impression
that they are the Jewish 'race'; that they are the Jewish nation; that
they are the Jewish people. . . and the Christians swallow it like a cream
But in 1844 the German rabbis
called a conference of rabbis from all over the world for the purpose of
abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of Atonement religious ceremony. In
Brunswick, Germany, where that conference was held in 1844, there was almost
a terrific riot. A civil war.
The Eastern Europeans said,
"What the hell. We should give up Kol Nidre? That gives us our
grip on our people. We give them a franchise so they can tell the
Christians, 'Go to hell. We'll make any deal you want', but they don't
have to carry it out. That gives us our grip on our people". So,
they're not so united, and if you knew the feeling that exists. .
Now, I'll also show you from an official
document by the man responsible for. . . uh, who baptized this race. Here
is a paper that we obtained from the archives of the Zionist organization
in New York City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who
-- on behalf of the British Cabinet -- negotiated the deal with these Zionists.
And in here he says that all
the jews in England were against it. The Jews who had been there for
years, the [inaudible - probably Sephardim], those who had Portuguese and
Spanish ad Dutch ancestry... who were monotheists and believed in that religious
belief. That waswhile the Eastern European Jews were still running
around in the heart of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no more
to do with them than. . . can we talk about a Christian 'race'? or
a Christian religion?... or are the Christians united?
So the same disunity is among
the Jews. And I'll show you in this same document that when they went
to France to try and get the French government to back that Zionist venture,
there was only one Jew in France who was for it. That was Rothschild,
and they did it because they were interested in the oil and the Suez
[Question inaudible] Freedman: You know
why? Because if they don't, they're decked up. They come around
and they tell you how much you must give, and if you don't . . . oh, you're
anti-Semitic. Then none of their friends will have anything to do with them,
and they start a smear campaign. . . and you have got to give.
In New York city, in the garment
center, there are twelve manufacturers in the building. And when the
drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United Jewish Drive, they put a big
scoreboard with the names of the firms and opposite them, as you make the
amount they put you down for, they put a gold star after the name. Then,
the buyers are told, "When you come into that building to call on someone
and they haven't got a gold star, tell them that you won't buy from them
until they have the gold star". BLACKMAIL. I don't know what
else you can call it.
Then what do they do? They
tell you it's for 'humanitarian purposes' and they send maybe $8 billion
dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible. So if they hadn't sent
that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have gone
into the U.S. Treasury as income tax. So what happens? That seven billion
dollars deficit -- that air pocket -- the gullible Christians have to make
They put a bigger tax
on gasor bread or corporation tax. Somebody has to pay the
housekeeping expenses for the government. So why do you let these people
send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their ancient
homeland? And you say, "Oh, well. The poor Jews. They have
no place to go and they've been persecuted all their lives". They've
never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows
of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have
they been persecuted for their religion.
Do you know why the Jews were
driven out of England? King Edward the First in 1285 drove them out,
and they never came back until the Cromwell Revolution which was financed
by the Rothschilds. For four-hundred years there wasn't a Jew. But
do you know why they were driven out? Because in the Christian faith
and the Moslem faith it's a sin to charge 'rent' for the use of money. In
other words - what we call interest [usury] is a sin.
So the Jews had a monopoly in
England and they charged so much interest, and when the Lords and Dukes couldn't
pay, they [Jews] foreclosed. And they were creating so much trouble
that the king of England finally made himself their partner, because when
they they came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped off the Jews. . .
the money-lenders. So the king finally said -- and this is all in history,
look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the Jews in England;
two books you can find in your library. When the king found out what
the trouble was all about, and how much money they were making, he declared
himself a fifty-percent partner of the money lenders. Edward the First.
And for many years, one-third of the revenues of the British Treasury
came from the fifty-percent interest in money-lending by the Jews.
But it got worse and worse.
So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes kept killing the money-lenders,
the King then said, "I declare myself the heir of all the money-lenders.
If they're killed you have to pay me, because I'm his sole heir".
That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out and collect
the money with an army, so he told the Jews to get out. There were
15,000 of them, and they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland,
and that's how Ireland got to be part of the United Kingdom.
When King Edward found out what
they were doing, he decided to take Ireland for himself before someone else
did. He sent Robert Southgard with a mercenary army and conquered Ireland.
So, show me one time where a Jew was persecuted in any country because
of his religion. It has never happened. It's always their impact
on the political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community
in which they settle.
[Question inaudible] Freedman: Yes, sir.
Well, they say most of those things themselves. It was unnecessary
for Benjamin Franklin to say it. Most of those things they say themselves.
But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was
happening in Europe.
When Russia, in 920 was formed,
and gradually surrounded the Khazar Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the
well-to-do Khazars fled to Western Europe and brought with them the very
things to which you object and I object and a lot of other people object.
The customs, the habits, the instincts with which they were endowed.
When Benjamin Franklin referred
to them as Jews because that's the name that they went by, and when the
Christians first heard that these people who were fleeing from Russia --
who they were -- that they had practiced this Talmudic faith -- the Christians
in Western Europe said, "They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!"
And Mr. Grutz, the greatest
historian amongst the Jews, said that -- and he's probably as good an authority
on that subject as there is. So when Ben Franklin came to Europe in
the 18th century, he already saw the results of what these people had done
after they left their homeland. And every word of it is true... they
say it themselves. I can give you half a dozen books they've written
in which they say the same thing: When they have money they become
tyrants. And when they become defeated, they become ruthless.
They're only barbarians. They're the descendants of Asiatic Mongols
and they will do anything to accomplish their purpose.
What right did they have to
take over Russia the way they did? The Czar had abdicated nine or ten
months before that. There was no need for them. . . they were going
to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn't want that. When
the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they mowed them
all down and established the Soviet Union.
There was no need for that.
But they thought, "Now is the time", and if you you will look in the
Encyclopedia Britannica under the word 'Bolshevism', you'll find the five
laws there that Lenin put down for a successful revolution. One of
them is, "Wait for the right time, and then give them everything you've got".
It would pay you to read that.
You'd also find that Mr. Harold
Blacktree, who wrote the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica states that
the Jews conceived and created and cultivated the Communist movement. And
that their energy made them the spearhead of the movement. Harold Blacktree
wrote it and no one knew more about Communism than he. And the Encyclopedia
Britannica for 25 years has been printing it.
[Question inaudible] Freedman: Well, I can't
advocate that you do anything that's criminal, but I can tell you this.
You can start what I call an endless chain. If you can get your
friends to write, objectively, here is the statement: Mr. Kennedy's
office gave me this himself. Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr. Kennedy,
took over his office -- was in his office -- and gave me this. He delivered
this on the 25th, and it says here:
"For release to AM (that means morning papers),
August 25th". "Israel is here to stay. It is a national commitment,
special obligation of the Democratic Party. The White House must take
the lead. American intervention. We will act promptly and decisively
against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I
propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab states our guarantee
that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any
aggression by any nation".
Well, do you call the return
of people to their homeland [the Arab Palestinians] aggression? Is
Mr. Kennedy going to do that? Suppose three million Mexicans came into
Texas and drove the six million Texans into the deserts of Arizona and New
Mexico. Suppose these Mexicans were slipped in there armed -- the Texans
were disarmed -- and one night they drove them all out of Texas and declared
themselves the Republic of the Alamo. What would the United States
Would we say it's aggression
for these Texans to try to get their homes back from the Mexican thieves?
Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly armed by the Soviets and
overnight they rose up and drove all the whites into the swamps of Mississippi
and Georgia and Florida. . . drove them out completely, and declared themselves
the Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other. Would we
call it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go back
to their homes?
Would we. . . what would we
think if the soviet Union said, "No, those Negroes now occupy them! Leave
them there!", or "No, those Mexicans are in Texas. they declared themselves
a sovereign state. Leave them there. You have plenty of room
in Utah and Nevada. Settle somewhere else".
Would we call it aggression
if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to go back to their homes? So
now, you've got to write to President Kennedy and say, "We do not consider
it aggression in the sense that you use the word, if these people want to
return to their homes as the United Nations -- fifteen times in the last
twelve years -- called upon the Zionists in occupation of Palestine to allow
the Arab Palestinians to return to their former homes and farms".
[End of transcript of Benjamin Freedman speech,
given in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde
McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common
This is Awesome, thanks to David Dees for bringing this to our attention
Kseniya Simonova is a Ukrainian artist who just won Ukraine's version of "America's Got Talent." She uses a giant light box, dramatic music, imagination and "sand painting" skills to interpret Germany's invasion and occupation of Ukraine during WWII.
Worldwide, industrial mono-culture farming has displaced traditional food production and farmers, wreaking havoc on food prices and food sovereignty. This is particularly true for the global south, where land has been concentrated for crops destined for biodiesel and animal feed. In response, peasants and small farmers organized actions in more than 53 countries on October 15 for International Food Day as an initiative of Via Campesina, one of the largest independent social movement organizations, representing nearly 150 million people globally. The National Indigenous Campesino Movement of Argentina joined the protests taking place on around the world by organizing a march in Buenos Aires for International Food Day. Argentina has often been described as South America?s bread basket because it once produced grain and beef for much of the region. But with the transgenetic soy boom the nation has shifted to a mono culture production for export, displacing traditional food production and farmers.
Hundreds of campesinos marked the day with protests against this agricultural model outside of Argentina?s Department of Agriculture. ?For the government, the countryside [is made up of] the landholding organizations and the agro-businesses, we practically don?t exist,? says Javier from the campesino movement in Cordoba, an organization that includes more than 1,500 families who have depended on traditional agriculture for generations.?We are also part of the countryside. We are the ones who live on the land and protect the land. We want to continue to live on our land, for future generations.?
According to Argentina?s 2008 agricultural census, more than 60,000 farms shut down between 2002 and 2008, while the average size of farms increased from 421 to 538 hectares. The shift to soy has replaced cultivation of many grains and vegetables and even the country?s beef production. Researcher at the nation?s social research institute CONICET, Tamara Peremulter outlines the affects of monoculture soy on food production. ?Soy historically hasn?t been grown in Argentina. Soy was brought in during the 1960?s during the Green Revolution. Transgenetic soy has been brought to lands where before cultivation wouldn?t have been possible. The low production cost of soy helped this process. Soy has replaced other crops, invading areas that were historically for cattle grazing and dairy production. Soy has also invaded indigenous and traditional farming communities. This model also implies deforestation and loss of biodiversity?
Land access and disputes over land titles has become one of the central issues for traditional farmers being replaced by machinery and high tech mono-culture farms. The National Indigenous Campesino Movement of Argentina (MNCI) reports that 82 percent of farmers live off of 13 percent of the nation?s land used for agriculture, while 4 percent of large land holders or ?growing pools? financial investors in the agro industry own more than 65 percent. The disparities in land titles have lead to violent evictions.
On October 12, 2009 a day on which indigenous communities commemorate the genocide of their people following Christopher Columbus?s arrival in 1492, an indigenous farmer, Javier Chacoba was murdered during a protest against the forced eviction of indigenous people off of lands. The 68-old farmer died of a gun shot wound to the abdomen by Dario Amín, a landowner. Members of the Chuschagasta community had been camping along a provincial highway bordering the lands to demand land recognition for the Chuschagasta when Amín and two ex-police officers showed up at the protest. ?On the day commemorating 519 years of genocide in Latin America, we suffered the loss of our brother (Javeri Chacobar) for simply standing up for his rights, defending his dignity and land that belongs to him,? said Margarita Mamaní, member of the Chuschagasta community.
?They have been evicting farmers and members of the indigenous community from lands. People have been killed in the evictions,? says Ricardo Ortiz is an indigenous representative from The Campesino Movement of Santiago del Estero (MOCASE).More than 9,000 families make up MOCASE, a grassroots movement of traditional farmers and indigenous groups. ?Now they killed a farmer in Tucuman, a brother. He was in a march to demand their rights and the man who bought the lands took out a gun and shot the man and injured four more. The government has been blind, deaf and mute; this is why we are worried.?
In 2008 alone more than 35 campesinos were arrested and arrest warrants issued for 95 more, in Mendoza, Formosa and Santiago del Estero, in communities rejecting the agro-industrial model. Santiago del Estero is a province once rich in forest land and untouched by soy. This changed as the boom in soy prices has made these remote areas now profitable for soy growers.
This is a ?witch hunt,? as the MNCI has described the situation for campesinos resisting land evictions, and defending traditional cultures.Local police enforce eviction orders and meet any resistance with police force, clubs and many times bullets. ?Campesinos resisting are suffering a violent political persecution. We demand that detained farmers are released, that officials, judges and police that violate human rights be investigated and that evictions are stopped,? declared the MNCI.
Agro Industry Creates Joblessness
The shift to mono-culture crops and land concentration has stretched into cultivations traditionally employing small farmers such as vineyards. Argentina?s wine industry has boomed in recent years, with the total value of Argentine wine in the US increasing from 75 million to 146 million dollars between 2006 and 2008. Mendoza is Argentina?s largest wine producing region, with a micro climate perfect for the Malbec grape. Access to water is a major issue for rural and indigenous communities there.
Marcelo Quieroga from the Union of Rural Workers (UST) says that much of the vineyards in Mendoza have been monopolized by French and Swiss investors, who buy land and mechanize wine production. ?They are using machinery to replace workers. By producing high quality wines for export the wineries have essentially monopolized the production. Who suffers is the rural worker who can?t find work, and ends up living in a shanty town due to rural unemployment.?
Rural displacement results in poverty and joblessness; the poorest provinces in Argentina have ironically hosted a boom in soy industry, with soy fields replacing forests and even cattle grazing land. The MNCI has reported that the soy model creates only one job post for every 500 hectares cultivated. Meanwhile, traditional agriculture provides 35 job posts for every 100 hectares cultivated, while also guaranteeing food diversity, production or local markets and sustainable use of resources such as land and water.
Industrialization and the globalization of Argentina?s food system has led to spikes in food prices, and increasing rural poverty. This has become a global trend. ?A billion people are without food because industrial monocultures robbed them of their livelihoods in agriculture and their food entitlements,? writes Vandana Shiva in the Nation Magazine.
Via Campesina does have an alternative to the agro industry, pushing for governments to promote local, traditional farming which provides communities with real food. ?It?s time for all civil society to recognize the gravity of this situation, global capital should not control our food, nor make decisions behind closed doors. The future of our food, the protection of our resources and especially our seeds, are the right of the people,? said Dena Hoff, coordinator of Via Campesina North America.
Food sovereignty as defined by Via Campesina is the peoples? right to define their agricultural and food policy, and the right of farmers and peasants to produce food. Worldwide communities are seeking an alternative to a model controlled by Cargill, Monsanto, General Foods, Nestle and Kraft foods. Starved by industrialization and concentration, citizens are now hungry for traditional production methods and diversity in the food system.
Marie Trigona is a writer, radio producer and filmmaker based in Argentina. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Fall of the Republic HQ full length version A must view
Audit the Fed The Fed's allies in Congress still have plenty of legislative tricks up their sleeve to water down or kill Audit the Fed outright. So the longer we wait, the more dangerous this fight becomes.
Please take a moment and sign the petition click here