From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Deleted 2 Non-partisan sources 3 Freedman audio 4 Page structure 5 Fact tags 6 Birth and Death 7 Problems with this Article 8 Text for Helping Further Individual Study and References 8.1 Mr. Bernard Baruch 8.2 Mr. Henry Morgenthau, Sr 9 Answer 10 back to blackbay 11 Samhook response 12 back to blackbay 13 OED on History of the word "Jew" 14 Samhook response 14.1 Tags added 15 Conde McGinley 15.1 Anti-Semitic people 16 Anti-Zionists and Antisemites 16.1 Samhook asks 16.2 back to Theblackbay 16.3 samhook asks 16.4 back to Theblackbay 16.5 Samhook comments 17 The Problem of Freedman Texts 17.1 Samhook Questions 17.2 lets look at how B H Freedman believed people should be judged on their actions 17.3 which i supose takes us to the point 18 New category 19 On the Veracity of Benjamin Harrison Freedman 19.1 Germany’s return to unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1, 1917 Sussex Pledge

[edit] Deleted

Why is this article about "Benjamin H. Freedman" removed? It's an important person!

So far I've found nothing here that tells any truth of this Benjamin H. Freedman or if he actually existed. There is no mention of birth parents or if he was actually Jewish. I have found a lot of work done by the White Supremacists, quotes from their websites, leaders and other assorted Jew haters. I guess they have to vent their spleen some where. Too bad it's not in their own lives.

See: http://crashrecovery.org/freedman/

Contrary to claims on the ANI page, I strongly feel that it is indeed possible to determine whether a person named Benjamin Freedman existed or not. It just takes a little genealogical research. If the persons making this claim can CITE other WP:RS which state that this is a hoax, they should do so. If this is a hoax, then it *passes* not fails notability, as a notable hoax. Either way the article should stay and be worked on. Wjhonson 17:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to keep this talk page on for now while Theblackbay is still disputing it, but I deleted the article because the subject was already deleted per AfD. If you want to dispute this, you can bring it up in Wikipedia:Deletion review (WP:ANI isn't the place for it), but please keep your complaint/description short. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But was it really a speedy? You said yourself it wasn't a repost. So what's the speedy criteria it met? Wjhonson 17:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted per AfD, because the AfD itself looked at the subject, with the AfD !voters also doing some checking into the subject. I'm actually all ready to restore the history of this if it gets DRVed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The AfD has been closed for a long time. This was a recreation right? And it wasn't a repost of the same content, but rather a reworking, as I understand it from the ANI page. So shouldn't it go through another AfD or something? Wjhonson 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a case could be made for this article to be AfDed instead. I'll ask on the ANI page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Restored. I'm not going to nominate this for AfD, though there's no stopping others from nominating it if they so choose. --Deathphoenix

I also agree with Samhook that this article should be deleted. There is litttle point in pretending that there is real truth on Wikipedia, and I would like to get any pathetic "battle for truth" over with as soon as possible. --Marc Lincoln

[edit] Non-partisan sources

Undent. I would like to remind the original author, that we need to find NON-PARTISAN sources to describe the situation. And we need to use WP:NPOV language on this page. For example, I have found a WP:RS that states, that yes, there was a person named Benjamin or Ben Freedman, who did indeed have a hand in the "John H Woodbury Laboratories" and was a wealthy New Yorker. Of course that doesn't prove every contention in this article, but at least it proves that such a person existed. The source is a government hearing document, so it's fairly unimpeachable that such a person existed. Whether or not he was *this* person of course, requires further research... which I'm doing, and hopefully some others can help. It would help, for example, if we can figure out whether the John H Woodbury Lab is the same as Woodbury Soap Company. Wjhonson 20:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

theblackbay. I will certainly try to use WP:NPOV language on this and all articals , in relation to the "NON-PARTISAN sources" as you may discover there is very little on "the net" with regard to alternative sources i may also note that i did in fact link to the Jewish_Council_for_Public_Affairs, what i believe you may and will find is that in your research you will have to venture further than the broad information base that is this wonderful "internet", why there is so little information on Mr Freedman is for you and i to guess at, We may also wonder why there is so little info into the intimate history of the first world war, the lead up and the economic collapses of many counties.-Theblackbay 12:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I will be independently researching B H Freedman on and offline, I believe he was the Son of one the founders of Jewish_Council_for_Public_Affairs, further to that i will get back to you.-Theblackbay 12:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I removed your "greatest book ever writen" as I'm sure you understand such a claim requires probably more than one citation to a WP:RS, and again a source for a claim like that has to be a neutral voice. I think one useful avenue for research would be to look into who Anna Rosenberg was. She doesn't appear to have an article, and filling out her article, might help in this one as well. Also it appears there may be copies of Common Sense somewhere and the ADL I'm sure is somewhere. I just haven't researched where yet. Wjhonson 16:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I understand I will keep reasearching -Theblackbay 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way I fixed the link to Untermyer, as there was more than one person named Samuel Untermyer, and I fixed the redirect to John Rankin to point at the right one. This history is interesting. It leads right into the McCarthy era. I think fleshing out the details of these peoples lives would add to what wikipedia has to offer. I also worked up the history of the Soap company and fixed a cite to what company Freedman actually ran. In his own words, from the Rosenberg hearing. I suppose someone at some point mixed up the companies, and other people just keep copying it. The patent case in Findlaw might be useful for figuring out exactly what went down between Jergens and Woodbury... but anyway you're probably not interested in that. It would be interesting to see if Freedman appears in, for example the Dictionary of American Biography or some other standard biographical reference like Who's Who of say 1952 or 1945 or maybe Who Was Who. Those could be other avenues to explore. Wjhonson 03:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Samuel D Leidesdorf is even more interesting. This guy was a rather famous accountant I would say. Do a search on him... it's eye-opening. Wjhonson 04:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedman audio

Thank you Wjhonson for all your help, have you listened to the B H Freedman Audio? it is very interesting the misquote in regard to the soap company, thank you very much. I have a Question for you I don't want to turn this into an us and them thing but now the Image is up for deletion i'm only new at Wikipedia I have never created an Artical before and this is the first. The image is almost certainly not copyrighted i don't mind if it gets deleted, I will find one through my research I can quote and get permission for. for me what is important is that B H Freedman gets the place in history he deserves, think of the little work we do to find this mans history, it does not even come close to dedicating you life to a cause, but then being deleted "communist style" from history. many people probably think different things about that place, in reference to the dictionary of american biography, what would you think if he does not appear there or in anyoer place you mention.

would it be reasonable to assume that the "free" nations we thought we grew up in were "free" as long as we done it "thier" way, in terms of history and free speech?

what are your thoughts on the speech Audio?-Theblackbay 15:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Samuel D Leidesdorf - will do could you give me some reference in which direction i.e. ww1, ww2, white papers?

thank you-Theblackbay 15:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't listened to it no. I'm not sure I really want to hear it In regards to Leidesdorf, it appears like Untermyer, that there may be two different people named Samuel Leidesdorf, but the one mentioned here I would say must be the same person who had the accounting company. There is an article where a section of a street in New York City is named for him, and apparently there is some connection with the firm Ernst & Young. He is mentioned in the BGMI (Biography and Genealogy Master Index). I can't find his name in connection with Freedman, but perhaps there is, as you suggest, some other reason for that. I just don't know yet. I would expect the New York Times Index would be a good source also. You have to search on "Samuel D", on "Samuel" and also on "Sam" to get all the details, and check Google Books. I added the quote from the hearing on exactly when Leidesdorf and Freedman were in business together. It's interesting that there is such a *huge* gap in Freedman's bio, basically from his birth until 1950. Wjhonson 16:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You should take the plunge, can I quote Winston Churchill "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on." you should stop a while and listen at very least you will know another point of view don't be afraid it won't change your life. but i do understand from where you come. such varying views one would feel he was "crazy" of course if it was not for the fact that no one i know can adequately challenge his many views. i will chase up Samuel D i did find the right individual but still looking.

thak you i have joined the group you are in User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech i note you do very good work protecting the freedom of information, all information. -Theblackbay 09:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page structure

I’m thinking when the is a little more info we could maybe put some things into some sub headings - your more experienced with these obviously what are your thoughts, maybe one for the speech? one for the literacy? early life? -Theblackbay 09:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Page Structure Help and the "League for Peace With Justice in Palestine" link to whomever that was Great Work! -Theblackbay 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Bunker Ref I have moved it to an appropriate place under the new heading, also I have moved the critical opinion from the opening heading to the criticisms. someone as loved and hated it seems need not have opinions (for or against) in the opening paragraph otherwise it will end up being bigger than the article.-Theblackbay 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tags

Samhook, I removed two of your fact tags, since I had already posted the citation link to these facts. The two links right next to where you put the fact tags, state the facts you are questioning. Wjhonson 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just takes a Google Book search :) I've pasted a additional citation where it is stated that he was the founder. Wjhonson 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Both citations are necessary together. One says he founded it, the other says it existed in 1946. If he founded it, then he must have founded it at least by 1946. That's why you need both citations. Wjhonson 05:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth and Death

When I started this article on B H Freedman I thought i would find it rather hard to find a lot of information, but particularly it has been hard to find his death date and other things I believe i have done this i have a death date of April 1984 at the age of 94. I’m trying to verify it further but that is it i believe. (sigh) -Theblackbay 11:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you can provide no documentation for either birth or death you ought to remove both.

-User:Samhook

Kudos to you blackbay, very high-minded of you to save that text to talk so the anon editor can correct and cite it if they choose. Wjhonson 07:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"When the war began England enforced a naval blockade of Germany in the hopes of cutting off supplies. Germany responded by unleashing the U Boats. U Boats were submarines capable of staying submerged for long periods of time. They would sneak up upon their victims, often at night, an torpedo them. The Germans did not limit their attacks to military vessels. Any ship sailing in the war zone was considered an enemy. This became known as unrestricted submarine warfare. On May 7th 1915 the British cruise ship Lusitania

It was not a cruise ship but a liner between New York and Liverpool. Samhook 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

was sunk off the coast of England.

Not England, but Ireland. Off the Old Head of Kinsale.

Samhook 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Over 1,198 passengers including 128 Americans were killed. America was furious at the brutality and demanded a stop to this type of attack. In 1916, after the sinking of the passenger liner Sussex,

It was not sunk; damaged, towed into Boulogne; see NYT, Match 26, 1916 - Samhook 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Germany agreed to end unrestricted submarine warfare in the "Sussex pledge.""

From http://www.socialstudieshelp.com

So lets evaluate the Process

• B H Freedman claimed Unrestricted U boat warfare:

"When the war began England enforced a naval blockade of Germany in the hopes of cutting off supplies. Germany responded by unleashing the U Boats. U Boats were submarines capable of staying submerged for long periods of time. They would sneak up upon their victims, often at night, an torpedo them. The Germans did not limit their attacks to military vessels. Any ship sailing in the war zone was considered an enemy. This became known as unrestricted submarine warfare."

• correct.

• the Lusitania is sunk in 7th 1915 , (the claim most use for the reason of war as answer on the History channel web site) yet no war entry yet, by the USA?

It hardly matters why most people might have said on a TV website. The United States did not enter the war until two years after the Lusitannia was sunk, and when it did. the Lusitania had no place in the statement of casus belli. Samhook 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

*"In 1916, after the sinking of the passenger liner Sussex, Germany agreed to end unrestricted submarine warfare in the "Sussex pledge."

• B H Freedman is correct the only contention is what was said to whom after March 24, 1916 about whom was killed.

• April 6, 1917 USA enters war. -Theblackbay 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with this Article

Benjamin Freedman as a character is doubtless not without interest, although not necessarily an admirable person. But his very obscurity makes him a difficult subject for Wikipedia.

There is just enough evidence from reputable, non-partisan sources to make it likely that such a person existed.

• Evidence??? You have got to be kidding... How about this mountain of evidence or why not ask someone who knew him personally, like Eustace Mullins ? Please, erase your unworthy notation and stop pretending as if Benjamin H. Freedman, Jesus Christ and other people that makes you feel uncomfortable did not exist. They did. Get over it!

Doubts about this probably arise because of such widely-distributed hoaxes as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the speech of “Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich.”

But when you get past that problem, almost all of the substantive details, especially the texts of what Freedman is supposed to have said, derive from highly partisan sources, principally Kevin Alfred Strom, once a leader of the quasi-Nazi National Alliance, and now a leader of its clone the National Vanguard.

I daresay that someone with a few weeks to spend on the dreaded Original Research could learn a good deal more about Freedman than is now on the Web, but that would, for good and sufficient reasons, require publication before it could be used here.

Moreover, the article as it stands is terribly written. Its illiteracies and tortured syntax would not—or should not—get by in English 101. Any competent copy editor could correct these problems quickly. This one, at least, is not inclined to spend much time improving the surface of something flawed at the core.

I’m not suggesting that the article should be deleted, merely that there is a serious question of whether one can write an article on Freedman that meets minimum standards here. There may be an article on antisemitic hoaxes in which Freedman would figure. I may write it.

Samhook 15:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Persons of historical note are quite often obscure. I agree that Google is flooded with the same things about him which drown out the useful bits. That's why it took me a while to find what I did and I'm not completely satisfied as you said. Wjhonson 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It is worth comparing the problem of Freedman with Revilo P. Oliver. Oliver is abundantly documented in many meutral sources. and although most of his work was published in highly partisan sources, there can be little doubt from these about what he said.

As it happens, my contempt for these two men is about equal, but when I came across the article on Oliver here, I could find only trivial issues of tone and style to correct, all of which, I think, have beem sustained by the editorship.

But as I say, I think the article on Freedman is a disaster area.

Samhook 19:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's what happens when you do all your research with internet sources only. Sites tend to duplicate outrageous articles and drown out the details. The original claim that he was fictional only shows that people tend to do superficial research. Also I discount the notion that he is badly documented. I think the problem is more likely to be that he is forgotten except for certain notorious statements. However, I believe he is probably documented in certain standard references, which don't happen to be on the net. A person does not go into business with Leidesdorf for ten years and not generate some sort of notoriety. I just don't believe that. Just the fact that I had to be the one to create the Leidesdorf article when he was at one time one of the richest men in the country speaks for itself. Wikipedia is drowned out by people writing pokemon articles Wjhonson 06:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Be Bold" or the like, is that not the Wikipedia motto?, Samhook you claim the article has many English and syntax flaws, but in the spirit of Wikipedia you choose not to correct them? yet instead you find the document "flawed at the core" I steadfastly will undertake that mission to find out more outside the information scope of the net, as long as there will always be people who would rather delete an article instead of being included in it or because they disagree with what it says.

I don't propose to delete the article. I just don't propose to improve the propose of an article that is contains many undocumented assertions and a number of claims that are contrary to standard sources. Samhook 22:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

People individuals in theory could be taken out of many reference books in many countries all over the world because we disagree with them, most famously one could delete a whole person in the USSR at one time just because we considered them the enemy, but it is the people that will never give up a on the free transfer of information that will shape the future, because you see they will always have the most direct path to any destination. In fact i would say these people own the future.-Theblackbay 11:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text for Helping Further Individual Study and References

• Hello a good artical stands on it's facts anybody wishing to help study further into B H Freedman Please:

1. Past text from a page of interest.
2. Reference page from which the text came.
3. Put a heading for a focus.
4. Try to bullet point the main aspects to reference for study:

[edit] Mr. Bernard Baruch

"They ganged up in New York, to get rid of Taft. I was a protégé of Mr. Bernard Baruch - a name that I think you are all familiar with. His father was a doctor, Dr. Simon Baruch, who had brought me into the world, and Bernard Baruch was a visitor at our home all the time. He courted my sister; one of my sisters. So the stage was set to get rid of the Republican Party and the Republican President and put in their own party and their own President. But it was very difficult, because, after the Cleveland depression (President Cleveland was a Democrat, we had Free Trade) we had the worst depression ever seen anywhere. And that swept the Republican Party into power, because they advocated tariff, protective tariff to protect the working man against the cheap labor of Europe and to protect the infant industries, in the United States against foreign competition."

Baruch Text

To Study:

• I was a protégé of Mr. Bernard Baruch
• His father was a doctor (B Baruch's)
• Dr. Simon Baruch, who had brought me into the world
• He (B Baruch) courted my sister; one of my sisters.

something to look at there indeed.? -Theblackbay 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Henry Morgenthau, Sr

Mr. Schiff went down there and had this conversation, came back to New York and the stage was set. And I, as a young man, got into the act. What I am telling you now, I saw with my own eyes, heard with my own ears, but I make it brief. The stage was set: "How can we get rid of the Republican Party; how can we get rid of Taft" - and Mr. Baruch was picked out as the leg man. He was a smart man!

They set up the National Democratic Headquarters at 200 Fifth Avenue, which was the site of the old Fifth Avenue Hotel, now an office building, and Mr. Henry Morgenthau, Sr., the old man, the father of the one you all know, was made chairman of the Finance Committee. I was made his confidential assistant in liaison with the Treasurer, who was Mr. Rollo Wells of St. Louis, - the Andrew Mellon of his time. And I was right in the middle! I saw everything that went on, because I handled all the books that had the cash contributions in them. Mr. Jacob Schiff and the Jews (use that word as I told you, with reservations) put up the money to launch this Party, and they looked around for a man to put up as President. To make a long story short, because the details aren't very interesting, they got Woodrow Wilson, a rascal who wasn't worth the powder to blow him to hell!

Henry Morgenthau Sr

to study:

• Mr. Henry Morgenthau, Sr was chairman of the Finance Committee sometime from 1905 onwards?.
• I (B H Freedman) was made his confidential assistant in liaison with the Treasurer.
• "They" (Jacob H. Schiff, Mr. Bernard Baruch etc) set up the National Democratic Headquarters at 200 Fifth Avenue, which was the site of the old Fifth Avenue Hotel, now an office building.

[edit] Answer

Samhook you are a smart person no?, did you read what i said at the beginning of that heading?, the point(s) are for individuals that wish to research further perhaps outside the net, so i give them statements such as :

"He courted my sister" you see, we now know he claims to have a sister and B Baruch courted her, good start to research.

You obviously did or have not read a lot of B H Freedman,

not "Jew" with a J. so basically he is correct,

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have found no evidence that Freedman was trained in philology or linguistics. I have studied both. You might want to look at the article here English alphabet Basically, the Romans alphabet lacked letters to distinguish between the sounds we now spell with "u" and "v" and with "i" and "j." For nearly a thousand years, "u" was used for both "u" and "v" amd "i" was used for both "i" and "j." Readers knew which was which precisely as now you know that "c" spells one sound in "cat" amd another in "certain." Ib the 16th century, when printing exploded, the printers devised the "u/v" pair and the "i/j" pair. Freedman's preposterous theory is that in 1800 the word was pronounced "yew" and in 1900 "jew." Samhook 15:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

the realisation that the School history books of WW1 were distorted or incorrect or lies.. as i believe they were.

Why dp you believe this? Freedman aside, of course. Samhook 01:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How much time have you got?

I've got enough time for you to make an excellent start in documenting why you believe this about the histories of WWI. On my own talk page, please. Samhook 16:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you choose to discount the most powerful people

Evidence? Samhook 01:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You see i don't believe a man that claims to attend the treaty of Versailles and that among other things Bernard Baruch courted his sister and that Dr Baruch (his father) birthed him, would be that hard to study, we would soon find he is either completely insane or telling the truth as he saw it, and that my friend is history.

Well, as a matter of fact, what some wacko saw as the truth is not history. It's a lot more complex than that and i you don't know that, why on the earth are you writing for an encylopedia. But to return to the main point. If extravagant claims made one worthy of study, then every lunatic who thought he was Napoleon would be in Wikipedia. Samhook 01:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not sure if you have written for an encyclopaedia or not? and I’m not sure if you are the person to be editing this one? if this is how you structure your responses. If extravagant claims are made and they are proven to be correct did reality shift? or could we prove motive to cover up a crime a very un-extravagant and normal thing for a criminal to do, criminals do it everyday. cover up crimes that is.

oh but I want to be your friend. -Theblackbay 09:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] back to blackbay

If he is not real then We should inform Curtis B. Dall's son and tell him to stick with the name!. if he's real maybe he can change it back. -Theblackbay 13:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samhook response

The evidence appears clear that there was a Benjamin Harrison Freedman. It is also strongly suggestive that he was a demented liar. I doubt that Curtis Roosevelt's name change was based on the existence or not of Benjamin Harrison Freedman.

Sam try to respond in the way that we all do, the way you're doing it above is making me crazier than Freedman ;) Wjhonson 02:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As to your argument, that every lunatic would be in wikipedia. No. Actually, every *notable* lunatic. Not everyone who thinks they are Napoleon is notable, but every lunatic who kills John Lennon is notable. There's a vast difference. Wjhonson 02:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] back to blackbay

By the Way people, as a real student of Psychology i need to tell you that you need to use the word "Loonies" less to degrade a source or reference, it is not a word i would use it has no conscious connection to a demographic you wish to connect to, you should be pushing the Nazi connection like Samhook, although it must be said that it is proven that in the under 20's this is also slipping away at a fast rate, you know a Famous Zulu elder believes that when humans first existed they could not speak and they transferred thought through a "third eye"? Supposedly?

This he reasons freed the humans and language he says trapped them, now I am not one to comment on his thoughts but would it not be stupid of me, not to note that I see a technological "Third eye" rising and it is global it is connecting people all across the earth.

What will happen when we go digitalradio, totally wireless? -Theblackbay 13:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

“Now, I want to explain that Dr. Samuel Johnson wrote the first English Dictionary in 1797. Johnson’s dictionary was published in 1755: A Dictionary of the English Language It was not the first dictionary of English language, but certainly the first of great scope and scholarship. Presumably, Freedman bought a copy of the 1797 reprint and mistook it for a first edition.

[snip]

In that book, in those two volumes, the first English dictionary ever published by Dr. Samuel Johnson, (about whom, many of you know) the word, Jew, does not appear! The word, Jew, does not appear! That word was coined, forced on you, stuffed down your throats by control of all the media by the people who are interested in leading you to slaughter. The word, Jew, did not appear. They say Shakespeare used it. They cite all the people who used it. It did not exist.”

At the moment, my own copy of the 1784 reprint is in storage, but I am not at the moment inclined to head for the library to test Freedman’s assertion. For the moment, I will content myself by citing the title of a play by Christopher Marlowe: The Jew of Malta (c. 1589) and referring to a fairly well-known play by Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice. This contains a celebrated speech by Shylock, a Jew:

Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

Act III, scene I

[edit] OED on History of the word "Jew"

The Oxford English Dictionary is the authoritative history of English words. Here is its entry for "Jew":

c1275 Passion our Lord 351 in O.E. Misc. 47 Pilates hym onswerede, am ich Gyv enne? a1300 Cursor M. 3944 (Cott.) O sinnu etes neuer Iuu [v.rr. ieuu, iew]. Ibid. 11072 (Cott.) It halus bath Iu and sarzine. c1310 in Wright Lyric P. (Percy Soc.) 100 Ich holde me vilore then a Gyw [rimes bowe, trowe, now]. c1340 Cursor M. 4532 (Trin.) erynne a iewes childe we fonde. Ibid. 18579 (Trin.) And namely leue herof no iwe For al us dud ei wi ihesu. 1387 TREVISA Higden (Rolls) VI. 385 Charles Grossus was i-poysoned of a Iewe [v.r. Iuw]. a1400 Pistill of Susan 2 at was a Ieu ientil, and Ioachin he hiht. c1440 Promp. Parv. 266/2 Ive, judeus. 1530 PALSGR. 235/1 Jue a man of jurye, jvif. 1572 Satir. Poems Reform. xxxi. 173 Mair nor in Jurie dois the Jow. 1596 SHAKES. Merch. V. III. i. 61 What is the reason? I am a Iewe; Hath not a Iew eyes? 1615 G. SANDYS Trav. 52 His mother a Iew both by birth and religion. 1775 SHERIDAN Rivals II. i, She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew. 1820 BYRON Blues I. 77 You forget Lady Lilac's as rich as a Jew. 1940 AUDEN Another Time 116 He [sc. Sigmund Freud] Was taken away from his old interest To go back to the earth in London, An important Jew who died in exile. 1956 I. MURDOCH Flight from Enchanter ix. 126 ‘Of course, you realize that I could rescue you with my little finger,’ said Mrs Wingfield. ‘I'm as rich as a Jew!’ 1970 R. D. ABRAHAMS Positively Black iii. 76 The Englishman is arrogant and overbearing, the American is a check-writing millionaire who doesn't mind the cost, the Jew tries to push down the entry price into heaven. 1970 Times 28 Jan. 10/4 At the heart of the matter lies the rabbinical definition of a Jew: a person born of a Jewish mother, or a person who has converted to Judaism according to rabbinical law. 1974 J. R. BAKER Race xiv. 234 From the traditional religious point of view, a Jew was a person born of a Jewish mother, but this formula suffers from the defect that the defined word is included in adjectival form in the definition. The same flaw occurs in part of the new definition enacted by the Israeli Parliament in..1970, according to which a person is a Jew if he or she is the offspring of a Jewish mother or has been converted to the Jewish faith by the Orthodox Rabbinate or by the Rabbis of the Jewish Reform Movement or by the Rabbis of the Jewish Conservative Movement. plural. c1175 Lamb. Hom. 9 Alswa hefden e giwis heore sinagoge. c1250 Old Kent. Serm. in O.E. Misc. 26 Hi..askede wer was se king of gyus et was i-bore. Ibid., King of geus. a1300 Cursor M. 142 O e Iuus [v.rr. iewes] and moyses. Ibid. 19129 (Gött.) ar badd ai iuen suld aim eme. a1340 HAMPOLE Psalter xxvii. 5 e iowes sloghe crist. 1387 TREVISA Higden (Rolls) VIII. 53 at he schulde doo e Iewes [v.r. Iuwes] out of Engelond. 1482 CAXTON Trevisa's Higden (Rolls) IV. 369 e Iuwes accused Pilatus to Tiberius. 1533 GAU Richt Vay 30 Ve prech Iesu Christ crucifeit, sclander to the Iowis and folie to the gentils. 1548-9 (Mar.) Bk. Comm. Prayer (Coll. Good Friday), Haue mercy upon all Iewes, Turkes, Infidels, and heretikes. 1611 BIBLE 2 Kings xvi. 6 At that time Rezin king of Syria..draue the Iews from Elath. 1619 SANDERSON Twelve Serm. (1632) 2 In Rome there lived in the Apostles times many Iewes. 1710 etc. [see FALASHA]. 1776 GIBBON Decl. & F. xv, The same..abhorrence for idolatry which had distinguished the Jews from the other nations of the ancient world. 1968 L. ROSTEN Joys of Yiddish 142 Relentless persecution of Jews, century after century, in nation after nation, left a legacy of bitter sayings: ‘Dos ken nor a goy.’ (‘That, only a goy is capable of doing’). 1971 B. MALAMUD Tenants 50 The Jews got to keep us bloods stayin weak. 1974 J. R. BAKER Race xiv. 232 In various parts of the world today there are communities that practise the Jewish faith in one form or another, but are ethnically distinct from the Jews of Europe and North America.

Note that the earliest entry is 1275. Looks sort of like Freedman is not a reliable source, eh?

I am stretching a point in accepting this speech by Freedman as an authentic statement of his claims; his use of “media” in the contemporary sense is a little odd.

" c1275 Passion our Lord 351 in O.E. Misc. 47 Pilates hym onswerede, am ich Gyv enne? a1300 Cursor M. 3944 (Cott.) O sinnu etes neuer Iuu [v.rr. ieuu, iew]. Ibid. 11072 (Cott.) "

Well .. No in fact that is exactly what he said, his theory being the letter J did not exist, so i must say it's looking more (sort of like) B H Freedman is a reliable source. -Theblackbay 21:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) on with the important stuff now.

[edit] Samhook response

Well, first of all, his "theory" was that the letter "j" did not exist before the 18th century. This is nonense. It was developed in the 16th century. But the letter has nothing to do with the sound. You will note that in the 1275 citation above, "Jew" begins with a "G." Ever known anyone named George?

Freedman, having become a Catholic, appears to have been desperate to prove that he was never a Jew. In the entirety of "Facts are Facts," he always uses the terms "self-styled Jew" or "so-called Jew" or "Talmudist." If there are no Jews, than BHF can never have been one, right?

Rather than confucting a reat-guard action in defense of Freedman, you might wander whether this paranoid conspiracy theory that grips you is really the product of lunactics and liars.

---

But you can’t use Freedman as a source to document Freedman’s claims. Try seeing whether either Baruch or Morgenthau Sr. published memoirs and see whether they mentioned Freedman. I once met a woman who claimed to the bastard daughter of Woodrow Wilsom. The dates were plausible and she actually had a $20 gold piece she said her papa had given her. On the other hand, she also claimed to have known both Horace and Vergil. People sometimes inflate their resumés, On the strength of one paragraph alone, Freedman’s needs checking.

P.S. I used to work with Curtis B. Dall’s son. He had for many years used his grandfather’s surname of Roosevelt because of his father’s notorious neo-Nazism.

Samhook 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can use Freedman to document what Freedman said and thought.

[edit] Tags added

Aside from the illiterate bits of prose sprinkled throughout this article, the first few pages of the results of Google-ing Benjamin Freedman are filled with anti-Semitic and conspiracy theorist websites. Given that, I have a low degree of confidence in the notability or accuracy of much of the information presented here. I will attempt to find someone versed in this sort of stuff to deal with it. - Quietvoice 00:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to see anything from some source other than loonsites. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So out of the 11 footnotes, you think they are all loonsites? Wjhonson 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see.

1. An ad in Scribners showing that there was a John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute. Not sure what the importance is one way or another. (Though I do notice that the institute was shut down for practicing medicine without a license[1].)
2. Freedman as a source about himself. What's the rest of his testimony, I wonder?
3. Not at all useful; it's a membership-only site; do we even allow those as references?
4. Yes, loonsite.
5. Yes, loonsite.
6. Not necessarily a loonsite, but it's only peripherally a mention of Freedman
7. Not sure why the link is there; it mentions that an organization called "League for Peace with Justice in Palestine", but makes no other mention of it
8. OK, he exists; I suppose the USGO isn't a loonsite
9. Minor, not importantly about Freedman, just acknowledges him
10. Well, it keeps being the same reference, so there aren't really 11 here, are there?
11. OK, not a loonsite

So I guess I should have said "I'd like to see anything substantial from some source other than loonsites". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well see that's because you're coming in during the intermission, you missed the first half of the movie. The original AfD and conflict was on whether this person actually ever existed or was entirely fictional (redundant aren't I?) So clearly documentating sources which name him, even if peripherally is only the first step. I have only *just* determined the name of his wife, I mean we're really only scratching the surface here. We still need more details about all the other people swirling around him. I mean he was a (perhaps minor) advisor to Hunt one of the richest men in the world? That kinda came out of left-field at me, wasn't expecting it at all. But there it is, an entirely trivial and incidental mention, almost in passing, in Hunt's biography. But that trivial mention opens up a whole new avenue for research. I would certainly welcome other people attempting to document him. Even if he is a loon. In fact that makes him more interesting. Wjhonson 04:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh by the way, John H Woodbury wasn't shut-down in the permanent sense. They do exist in case law regarding "corporate practice of medicine", however they continued to exist after this case. Freedman states he was a co-owner right up into the late 30s which was several decades after the case.Wjhonson 04:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I just noticed you're saying note 10 Svonkin is the same as what? Above you say it's the same reference... as what? Svonkin is an independent Jewish historian. Wjhonson 04:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you have the wrong link in the reference? Currently it points to [2]. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The books link, number 10, is to a book BY Svonkin. What are you seeing? Did you go to the link? Wjhonson 05:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops somehow the refs got mixed around. I fixed it now, look again. Wjhonson 05:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conde McGinley

I found a source on him Preliminary Report on Neo-Fascist and Hate Groups (PDF file, 3 Meg), Committee on Un-American Activities, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 1954 from which I will give a quote that can hopefully lead to his own article perhaps:

"Growth of the hate group in recent years is exemplified by the publishing endeavors of Conde J. McGinley and his son, C.J. McGinley, in Union, N.J. The McGinleys, senior and junior, operate as the Christian Educational Association, for the purpose of publishing a semimonthly paper, Common Sense, as well as a mass of individual printed matter.

"Common Sense represents itself as the "Nation's anti-Communist paper." Subscriptions are sought from "loyal and patriotic Americans" in order to "help save our Republic."

"Such patriotic claims provide poor disguise, however, for some of the most vitriolic hate propaganda ever to come to the attention of the committee. Common Sense defines communism as "Judaism" and devotes its pages almost exclusively to attacks on the Jewish and to a lesser extent the Negro minorities in our Nation. Sympathy for the former Nazi regime in Germany also is injected into this propaganda, which is hardly distinguishable from that of the National Renaissance Party except for the latter's open appeal for a fascist government in the United States.

"Despite its patriotic claims, Common Sense has in fact employed and/or carried the writings of a number of individuals associated with the National Renaissance Party. Through the columns of Common Sense and innumerable booklets printed and offered for sale, the McGinleys appear to serve as a clearinghouse for hate propagandists throughout the country. Among these are many of the native fascists and hate racketeers who were active in the 1930’s.

"In contrast to the limited appeal of the openly fascist National Renaissance Party, the McGinley enterprise appears to be a shrewd and going business.

Wjhonson 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a very important article - it must be kept and translated into other languages.

[edit] Anti-Semitic people

There is a Category called Anti-Semitic people. It might be reasonable to attach it to Mr Freedman. Wjhonson 22:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Zionists and Antisemites

While I can clearly understand why this will happen Wjhonson, that is, B H Freedman will be added to that fictional list, let me explain why it is just silly, I’m not even arguing against him being added to such a Category because as I have explained previously the march is on in regard to education and many people have gained the insight to understand the term in it’s right context.

But I do as you do Sir I work within the political system that is as it is for the time.

let me explain this, now I’m not arrogantly stateing that others on here or anywhere are not educated on this or that matter, but i wish to give an example:

Zionist there is the explanation (oh the time saved! I like writing within an encyclopaedia!)

B H Freedman was quite clearly anti-Zionist I need to give an example:

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Now very clearly Jewish as it states also some claim a Zionist but let me show you who was very clearly an Anti-Zionist his Farther, yes that's right.

Henry Morgenthau, Sr. very clearly Jewish - let me Quote him:

“Henry Morgenthau, Sr., was a strong anti-Zionist. He clashed aggressively with various powerful, well-financed pro-Zionist groups here and abroad.”

My Exploited Father-in law- page 62.

"Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history. It is wrong in principle and impossible inrealization; it is unsound in its economics, fantastical in its politics and sterile in its spiritual ideals." (What Price Israel, Alfred M. Lilienthal, page 175.)

So there you have it. Jewish Anti-Zionist what is an anti-Semitic? -Theblackbay 11:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

also as a post note let me show you a strange and i'm sure unconnected thing :

Henry Morgenthau, Sr. U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire (and Anti-zionist) from 1913-1916; he had hoped for a cabinet post, but was not successful in gaining one. not succesful but wait a minute his son would play the game better:

[edit] Samhook asks

“Play the game?” Do Aryans play the game to get into the cabinet, or is this a Jewish specialty?

[edit] back to Theblackbay

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Henry Morgenthau, Jr., later became famous as Secretary of the Treasury, served in that post for an almost unprecedented eleven years. And samhook wants me to present evidence, for this corruption by Bankers?

[edit] samhook asks

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here. You’ve not asserted “corruption by Bankers,” but yes, I’d want evidence for assertions. So would Wikipedia. And most important of all, so should you. The important person here in forming opinions is Theblackbay, who ought to have strong evidence for every opinion he holds (and what’s more, propagates to others). On the evidence here, you just accept whatever rants on quasi-Nazi websites fit in to your prejudices. If you will allow me a bit of personal advice, you ought to be more careful about your mind.

[edit] back to Theblackbay

, we might well be here forever, if we undertook that maybe we could create another online encyclopaedia just dedicated to the subject, we could call it: "History of Central Bankers corruption of politics and how they create recessions and depressions by contracting the money supply-ipedia"

but you'd have to be Loonies to do that, a real Crazy conspiracy theorist in fact i hear Nazis are involved in such things right now......... sorry a little joke for our Subconscious. -Theblackbay 11:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samhook comments

I see. You are not inclined to supply evidence for what you believe and preach.

[edit] The Problem of Freedman Texts

It is not easy to establish an authentic text of what Benjamin H. Freedman said. With a single exception, all of the texts discussed in this article are verifiable only on the Web. Even the “source” of the 1961 speech is simply a digital image. a far cry from an actual audio tape.

And isn't the arm in front of your eye's just an interpretation of the signals from your brain, a far cry from me seeing your arm! how far do we take that path?

The fact is The man exists, and no one that i can find on the internet or otherwise challenges the source of the speeches, and considering the subject and the lets say "difficulty" the many have to just to express such an opinion throughout the world, I’d say that is a pretty good indication of weather the source is real or not?

Freedman does not appear in the Library of Congress catalog, which means that he never published a copyrighted work in the U.S.

So let me see.... to be a real person and to publish real documents you have to have done that in the U.S?

The exception is the pamphlet called “Facts are Facts.” I have recently acquired a copy of this work. The title page attributes it to CPA Book Publisher, of Boring [sic], Oregon 97009-0596, and it bears the legend:

A facsimile reproduction/reprinted and typeset to meet the many requests/for a copy of the letter addressed to/DR. DAVID GOLDSTEIN, LL.D.,/of Boston, Mass./by its author/BENJAMIN H. FREEDMAN/of New York City/Dated/October 10, 1954

It is not clear from this rubric when the pamphlet itself was published (presumably after 1986, with the introduction of nine-digit zipcodes), when the text was first published, by whom, or whether this publication is a photographic reproduction of the original or a reset.

Its authenticity is perhaps challenged because the head of the organization that published it—the Christian Patriot Association—is now doing federal time for bank and tax fraud:

http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv05070.htm

Yes and in some countries it's illegal to think a particular way as well, it's called "thought crime." so should we discredit any publication on the basis that the head of the company that published it was done for tax fraud? should we extend that to unpaid parking fines? or outstanding debts? you know i here Tom Cruise was fired from Paramount , we should we delete every movie he played in?

[edit] Samhook Questions

Sh- Why is "anti-semitic" the phrase fictional in regards to a context used to racially discriminate against jews and only jews.

Good question, firstly let me state, surely your not a stupid person Sh?, please look up the word Semitic actually i'll state what wikipedia says about it:

In linguistics and ethnology, Semitic (from the Biblical name "Shem") was first used to refer to a language family of largely Middle Eastern origin, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian, Akkadian, Hebrew, Maltese, Syriac, Tigrinya, etc.

Now how can B H Freedman who founded the "League for Peace With Justice in Palestine" be anti-semitic?

now you may claim oh but the word means anti-jewish well then i would say go and read the latest "newspeak" dictionary again it's on the bookshelf near 1984.

but lets get to the point, you think B H Freedman was anti-jewish, when if you read the text or listen to what people say about him he was clearly only judging a very few people on their actions. these few people where "Zionists" in fact he believed the people that occupied the state of Israel were mostly decended from Khazars he even went so far as to say that the Germans also felt the same way in a famous quote:

[edit] lets look at how B H Freedman believed people should be judged on their actions

"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."

B H Freedman The Speech 1961 at the Willard Hotel.

"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."

B H Freedman The Speech 1961 at the Willard Hotel.

"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."

B H Freedman The Speech 1961 at the Willard Hotel.

Well oh my!, quick delete it! there you have it! gee suddenly everything becomes a bit clearer!

Guilty of being sucessful? hmmm

You see Samhook you obviously think I’m an Aryan and you are obviously a Jew , you obviously think i hold some prejudges against you or other Jewish people and my friend you couldn't be more wrong. you might as well say that i hate my own family now I’m not Jewish but it's that far from it, I wish people to be judged on only their actions i do not believe in equality it's a myth, but also i don't believe in superiority i can finally after many years of learning say that. some people are superior in some area's while others excel in other area's it just the way it works out.

Why superiority can not win, I will lay it our for you equal and opposite reaction, the Germans were brought together by Otto von Bismarck they were trading with many nations internationally growing then they were eliminated industrially and economically this superior action had the Equal and opposite reaction of the NAZI party, th reasoning being that the "Superior Zionist wish to Rule Us", "We need to be Superior".

It's everywhere look at it, Recently in Lebanon Now Israel violently destroyed homes and villages, this has the Equal and opposite reaction with the political growing of Hezbollah. also don't be surprised if in the future some elitist Arab government gains power once they believe that they have the upper hand, see equal and opposite reaction.? you picking up what I’m laying down here?

{My remark deleted because judged in appropriate for discussion page. Samhook 00:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

(wispers) hey Samhook just up there you said:

"Samhook asks “Play the game?” Do Aryans play the game to get into the cabinet, or is this a Jewish specialty?"

(wispers) which dosen't give heaps of credability to this one:

"Aryan" as a "racial" category is a silly Nazi invention, and I don't use it.

if you are going to say you are refering to "Aryan" the Religion show me which one?

why do you say that I am "obviously" a Jew? If it's obvious to you, then you must have many reasons. What are they?:

they are many and varying:

firstly your insistence without viewing all of the evidence that B H Freedman is a "Fraud", now let me say this is just a first reaction and a natural defensive one, i wish to show you that there is offence happening here, so you do not need to be defensive about it.

I' be grateful if you'd post (on my own page, please) amy evidence you think I have not viewed. That said, I don't know how this alleged failing shows that I am a Jew. </>

Samhook 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Secondly your instant insistence that I have a prejudice towards someone another defensive trait:

"On the evidence here, you just accept whatever rants on quasi-Nazi websites fit in to your prejudices. If you will allow me a bit of personal advice, you ought to be more careful about your mind."

Well I'm not sure what a quasi-nazi website is but I frequently view Haaretz.com and other news sites, in fact Haaretz is probably one of the most independent news sites I’ve seen, it has broken many a story that would find a journo inside a jail if posted in say... Germany.

I can't help if so called "Neo Nazis" find what B H Freedman say interesting but that said it does not mean it is not true, to a large degree.

So that is two defensive traits, that tells me you a offended by something the most obvious to me is a misinterpretation of B H Freedman's selective anti-Zionist stance based on judging people by their actions, so that you see it to be a general anti-Jewish stance based on.....well I’m not sure, maybe a distortion of your view of the matter. lets say. perhaps a strict school education, maybe a built in us and them offensive stance.

Have I got this right? Samhook is defensive, Jews are defensive, therefore Samhook is a Jew. Is this the syllogism? Please make any reponse to my own page.

This thread has gotten widely off course for a discussion of this article, and for my part in helping to make it so, I apologize to all and sundry. I will not add anything further to it beyond this:

No, I am not a Jew. I say this with no particular pride. If you wish to dispite that assertion, please do so on my own page.

Samhook 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

or i could be reading too much into it, in that case no problems, I’ll tell you I’m not Jewish but you know what if tomorrow Israel made a statement and it went something like this:

"We have reviewed our Political Stance in the World and we have decide that at it's cause a large problem in the world seems to stem from Fractional Reserve Banking and the Bonds system in which money is Created from nothing an then interest is paid on that, we have review and found this system to be inequitable and unfair, so Therefore and henceforth we have renounced this system, and have decided to raise an army to liberate the world of this system which is in every country on earth, we will start by requesting counties change that system then we will go from there"

and i believed it was true, I’d sign up and join in one second flat. I'd start waving the Israeli Flag out front of my house and eat Kosher food.

that's how i feel about the corruption in the system, and i hope that the Jewish people see it too, because they are being used I believe.

-Theblackbay 16:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] which i supose takes us to the point

And the point is this, B H Freedman felt that the Germans where being used and got used, you see he believe that was the reason for the first and second world War.

you see in the 1960's he thought the USA was being used and he thought that would lead to a World War we well could not afford, now if we look at the situation you might have reason if you were a religious person (which i'm not) to check out your bible (which i haven't) and see if it lists B H Freedman as a Prophet because I'll be damned Samhook he seems to be right on the money. to the word really. except he thought it would be the Cold war turned hot.

You see he thought this Third War would finish the Human race, can you blame him? where are we? but what you need to be able to do is see the bigger picture , and that is that We are all being used, not just the USA but most certainly Israel as well.

and well I think we are looking at some big changes coming and if I could quote “I feel well for Silver”.

He feared this so he spoke out, he was there as he says, he saw the plan or part of it at least.

-Theblackbay 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

it's been nice talking Samhook  :)

[edit] New category

I added two new cats for Anti-Zionists and Anti-Zionism. These should be focused not on Anti-Semites who already have their own cat, but rather on those people who have personally said things like "I don't hate all Jews, just those who control the World's banking system", etc. Whether or not Anti-Semitism is the same as Anti-Zionism, I am not taking a stand on that issue, I'm just seeking to clearly categorize people who themselves state they are not Anti-Semitic. I think for example Eustace Mullins WAS clearly Anti-Semitic. The more I read about him, the more I'm not sure that he hasn't moved away from that viewpoint. But he still deserves the label, from a historical perspective. Wjhonson 19:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Wjhonson and as usual great work, i just want to clarify the statement above for myself that to say I’d be counted as :

"I don't hate any single race, I disagree strongly with any person that says the World's banking system and all its pieces and main objective as it stands is sustainable and/or obtainable without the destruction of the human race".

I find people that make simplistic "racist" statements either just confused people that have been half educated on issues or products of a well funded propaganda system.-Theblackbay 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Veracity of Benjamin Harrison Freedman

Let us assume what seems obvious in fact, that such a person actually existed. Let us also define “Freedman” as the author of the works attributed to the name of Benjamin H. Freedman and variants. (This is less obvious, but it makes a good working assumption.)

Let us test Freedman’s veracity against two of his claims that can be verified on the historical record.

Freedman: “Congress only declared war against Germany because President Wilson informed Congress that a German submarine had sunk the S.S. Sussex in the English Channel in violation of international law and that United States citizens aboard the S.S. Sussex had perished with the ship.” ‘The Hidden Tyranny” ^[1]

Fact: Wilson’s war message to Congress on April 2, 1917 ^[2] makes no mention of Sussex. Even had he claimed that it had been sunk with loss of American lives, the general reports of a year before (see NYT, March 26, 1916) would have given him the lie. But he made no such claim. He presented two casus belli: 1) Germany’s return to unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1, 1917, and 2) Germany’s attempt to secure an alliance with Mexico and the promise to restore the territories lost to the United States in 1848, including Texas and California. Freedman: “This author crossed the English Channel many times on the S.S. Sussex.” (‘The Hidden Tyranny’)

Fact: Freedman makes this claim in support of the notion that the Sussex was not sunk before April 2, 1917. But the evidence is clear that the torpedoing of March 24, 1916 took the Sussex out of cross-channel service and that it never returned. “SUSSEX built 1896 London Midland & S.Coast Railway co. Launched 30.4.1896 by Denny for London, Brighton & South Coast Railway, capacity for 750 passengers. Newhaven - Dieppe service. 1913-1914 Brighton - Dieppe summer service. Aug. 1914 became cross channel troopship, later transferred to the French flag and French crewed. 29.4.1916 chased and shelled by U-Boat 100 miles west of Ushant but escaped. 1.1.1917 torpedoed on passage Folkestone - Calais - bows blown off, beached and then towed into port - repaired at Havre. 1919 returned to Cie.de Chemins de Fer de l'Etat Francais (L. B.& S. C. R. managers). 1920 sold to D. Demetriades, Greece renamed AGHIA SOPHIA. 1921 damaged by fire and 1922 scrapped.” ^[3]

In short, Freedman could not have crossed the Channel on Sussex after March 24, 1916, and his claim to have done so is simply a lie. Freedman’s own standard here is clear:

“Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, ‘Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony.’ (‘A Jewish Defector Warns America’) ^[4]

I could go on at tiresome length detailing Freedman’s falsehoods, but absent popular demand, I will not do so, relying on his own standard that when someone lies once he is not to be trusted.

Samhook 07:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germany’s return to unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1, 1917 Sussex Pledge

Whomever posted the above unsigned piece obviously

My bad for not signing it. Signed now. I would have thought the authorship was obvious (and determinable from IP) but still my bad. Samhook 07:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

started well, they were very confident put a few facts in there and then came up with a nice little moral to the story at the end.

Well lets look at the facts.. I would like to look at the below refernce:

"1) Germany’s return to unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1, 1917, and 2) Germany’s attempt to secure an alliance with Mexico and the promise to restore the territories lost to the United States in 1848, including Texas and California. Freedman: “This author crossed the English Channel many times on the S.S. Sussex.” (‘The Hidden Tyranny’)"

Lets look at the first reason here so we must remember according to the text above the number one reason was:

"1) Germany’s return to unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1, 1917"

Well what was that return to unrestricted warfare called?

Breaking the SUSSEX PLEDGE The Sussex Pledge (1916)

you see long after in fact nearly one year after the Lusitania was sunk in May 1, 1915, there comes the Sussex Pledge on May 4th 1916.

How did this pledge come about:

"On March 24th 1916 a German submarine in the English Channel attacked what it thought was a minelaying ship. It was actually a French [British-owned but French-flagged]- Samhook 08:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC) passenger steamer called 'The Sussex' and, although it didn't sink and limped into port, fifty people were killed. Several Americans were injured and: ^{[citation needed]} - Samhook 08:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FACT: on April 19th, 1916 the US President (Woodrow Wilson) addressed Congress on the issue. He gave an ultimatum: Germany should end attacks on passenger vessels, or face America 'breaking off' diplomatic relations." ref1

How did Germany React?

With the SUSSEX PLEDGE when this was Broken then war was declared.

So in reference to B H Freedman and other Historians on the subject lets evaluate whom was closer to the truth , So in B H Freedmans statement he says the Sussex was sunk and that Americans were killed, well 50 people were killed and Americans injured, so on those details he was incorrect, but overall the first reason given by many good historians that don't just parrot the book they previously read state as to why America went to war, and that this was directly related to the SUSSEX PLEDGE The Sussex Pledge (1916).

And therefore, maybe based on the same theory from the above writer (if you get details wrong no one should listen to you, or the veracity of your statements should be considered not true) there is good reason for many of us to question those historians that do not mention the Sussex Pledge, perhaps we could say they are misrepresenting the truth when they say that it was the The Lusitania May 1, 1915 which was more than one year earlier than the Sussex pledge, that was the cause of the US entry to the war?

Anyone who says that the Lusitania was the cause of US emtry into the war is just silly. Samhook 07:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should disregard all historians that leave out the Sussex Pledge and Woodrow Wilson's address To Congress and the ultimatum he gave at that time. I mean why give an ultimatum if you have already decide that you are going to war based on the The Lusitania May 1, 1915 which was one year earlier?

I suggest you look at Wilsom's war message of April 2, 1917. Neilson and Freedman tell us that it contained a claim that Sussex had been sunk with loss of American lives. They were both writing decades later, at a time when the text of this message was available in any public library. As you will see, there is no such claim in the speech. Sussex is not even mentioned. They're both liars on this point. Liars are not proper sources for Wikipedia, IMHO. Samhook 07:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say though to the writer above that was a very "good Try".

and you get points for creativity. -Theblackbay 04:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also your basis that he Lied is baseless unfortunately my friend:

"This author crossed the English Channel many times on the S.S. Sussex.” where does it say at what year B H Freedman crossed the English Channel?

There is no point in his claim about the Sussex unless it covers time after April 2, 1917. when Freedman claims (falsely) that Wilsom told Congress that the Sussex had been sunk with loss of American life.

also it does not even state that B H Freedman says he crossed the Channel on the Sussex many times someone else

Who is this someone else? Samhook 07:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

sates this for him this is hearsay. also your refernce to "THE HIDDEN TYRANNY" directs me to the top of this page.