If we don’t rebel, if we’re not physically in an active rebellion, then it’s spiritual death.” ― Chris Hedges

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Jewish Ritual Murder in England Before 1290 and modern yiddish blood rituals: Substantial text and a vid.

Jews offering a child to molech!
The first known case occurred in 1144; after that, cases cropped up from time to time until the Jews were expelled from the realm by Edward I. The most famous of these incidents was that of Little St. Hugh of Lincoln in 1255. I record these cases in chronological order; the case of St. Hugh, particularly, was juridically decided, and the Close and Patent Rolls of the Realm record definitely cases at London, Winchester and Oxford. There seems no reason to doubt that many cases of ritual murder have been unsuspected and even undiscovered. 

Why the ancient carving in stone if it is not true?
1144, Norwich. A twelve year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew, called Theobald of Cambridge, confessed that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever obtain their freedom and return to Palestine; and that it was their custom to draw lots to decide whence the blood was to be supplied; Theobald said that last year the lot fell to Narbonne, but in this year to Norwich. The boy was locally beatified and has ever since been known as St. William. The Sheriff, probably bribed, refused to bring the Jews to trial.

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

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

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

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

Ancient wood-cut, why? It's not real though huh?
1192, Winchester. A boy crucified. Mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopaedia as being a false charge. Details lacking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No-one questions the historical facts in this case; but Jews and Judaized Gentiles alike unite in denying the fact of ritual murder. 

Strack, in his The Jew and Human Sacrifice, written in defence of the Jews against the Blood Accusation, omits all mention of this famous case, which is the subject of the Prioress's Tale in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and is referred to in Marlowe's Jew of Malta. Hyamson's History of the Jews in England devotes the whole of Chapter IX to "Little St. Hugh of Lincoln," showing the importance of the ritual murder issue in the Jewish mind today. (The following Close Rolls of the Realm refer to the case of St. Hugh: Henry III, 39, m.2, 7.10.1255; 39, m.2, 14.10.1255; 40, m.20, 24.11.1255; 40, m.13, 13.3.1256; 42, m.6, 19.6.1258. And the Patent Rolls, Henry III, 40, m.20, 26.11.1255; 40, m.19, 9.12.1255; 40, 27.3.1256; and 40, m.5, 20.8.1256.) 

1257, London. A child sacrificed. (Authority: Cluverius, Epitome Historiae p. 541.) Details lacking. 

1276, London. Boy crucified. (Authority: The Close Roll of the Realm, 4, Edward I, m.14, 3.3.1276.) 

1279, Northampton. A child crucified. Haydn's Dictionary of Dates, 1847, says of this case: "They [the Jews] crucify a child at Northampton for which fifty are drawn at horses' tails and hanged." (Further authorities: Reiley, Memorials of London, p. 15; H. Desportes, Le Mystére du Sang.) 

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

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

A similar ritual case was one of the main stimulants to the King and Queen of Spain to expel professing Jews from that country in 1492 (Leese: Jewish Ritual Murder, p. 20). 

The Jews, in attempting to escape responsibility for these deaths by ritual murder, do not hesitate to impugn the probity of two of the Kings of England, against whose moral character no-one else has dared to cast a slur. Here are some examples. Firstly the Jew Hyamson (in History of the Jews in England, 1928 edition, p. 21) wrote: "It has also been pointed out that the Blood Accusation was as a rule made at a time at which the Royal Treasury needed replenishing." This foul accusation against men of upright character was repeated in the Jewish Chronicle Supplement, April 1936, p. 8 (speaking of the Lincoln case in the reign of Henry III): "Henceforth and especially under the zealously Christian Edward I, the Crown and its officers became almost a worse peril to the Jews than mobs intent on loot and led on by fanatic priests and knightly spendthrifts who had borrowed Jewish money. When 18th century writers of history began to examine the old records in a new sceptical temper some may be found venturing on such unkind surmises as that the alleged crucifixions of Christian children only seemed to happen when kings were short of money." 

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

Whom do you believe – the Jews or the English? 

"It is difficult to refuse all credit to stories so circumstantial and so frequent." So says Social England concerning ritual murders in England (vol. I, p. 407, 1893, edited by H. D. Traill). 
A significant fact is that Haydn's Dictionary of Dates, at least up to 1847, quoted the ritual murders in Norman and Plantagenet England as undisputed facts. In later editions in the sixties, all mention of them is extirpated! We may take it that the Jewish Money Power began to dictate to the Press in England somewhere in the fifties of the last century.
Author:  Arnold S. Leese
Here's one of the filthy chosen priests trying to bullshit his way around the disgusting blood ritual of mutilation and sexual assault upon a child, babbling some babylonian voodoo:

"The Hebrews killed the little boy Simon, in order to obey a rabbinical religious law; their motive being to serve a most wicked piety and devotion by obtaining Christian blood for the celebration of Passover." - From the Official Court Record- (Pre-Usurped) Vatican Archives




Genie said...

Hmm,a lesson on how kosher sausage is made?
They sure don't speaka my language.

Love the intro quote by the Italian minister!

Blammo said...

Here's a good video. I'm not sure what difference there is between the 'revisited' version and the other. I don't think it contains all of the info you have in your post, but is a good video for those unfamiliar with the history of Jewish ritual murder. You know, a good family movie.

Jewish Ritual Murder Revisited - Full version

Jewish Ritual Sacrifice

(btw, I haven't yet unearthed the dialogue I referred to elsewhere for want of time, but I intend to)

veritas6464 said...

Hey Genie,...Yeah, how they expect anyone to buy this shyte is obviously the reason they don't publish this shit in public!


veritas6464 said...

Hey Blammo,...I checked it out, there really is not the worth in differentiating between the two; the point is to make a show of this freak!

Cheers Blammo,


Timster said...

"Holy genitalia, and a Holy mouth". You can't make this stuff up.

This cult should have been destroyed thousands of years ago.

veritas6464 said...

hey Timster,...Yep, this freak-show should have been shut down a thousand years ago. But no, the do-gooders are always suckers for a sob-story and no-one can spin a bunch of shit into a tale of woe like the yiddish can.

No mercy, that's the only way we'll get shut of these fuckers, I mean, they have slaughtered hundreds of millions in a matter of a few years. We could be rid of every last one of these bastards in less time than it took them to trash 20 millions of goys and make a huge profit from WW1.

No justice, no quarter!


musique said...

Wussup Cuzzie! How's everything going? ☺

I saw somewhere that our govt. (sucha joke!) going to set up army base or something to keep you guys safe from the commie/red threat! Is that for real??

First came the Brits and the fucking yid queen (fuck monarchism!), now comes the US colonialism ...I'm speechless.

Dajjal yids should choke on their severed dicks instead of molesting goys.

Today is Thanksgiving Day in America, very ironic celebration - the real holocaust.

veritas6464 said...

Hey musique,...Yep, give thanks for wot? Poverty, bailouts for filthy yids, murder innocents all over the world/ Wot? Fuck yids, I HATE 'EM!

Let's build a gas chamber bigger'nuff ta fit the whole lot of 'em in at once, and use the gas that escapes to roast munchmellowz!


Free Palestine!


Blammo said...

ok Veritas, here are the Lawson comments I referred to;

"Read some of my other comments. Read the video notes, if you have that ability. Of course 9/11 had inside and almost certain foreign complicity, but just give me one piece of evidence that would stand up in a properly constituted court of law that would convict George W. Bush and Israel's Mossad. How am I supposed to know the inside details of what planes they were? The FBI is your country's rotten investigative agency, not mine. What are YOU doing about trying to fix THAT?"

"Please point me to one item of proof in that very long article with a load of videos. For example The Dancing Israelis indicate probable Israeli foreknowledge, but not PROOF that Israel was entirely responsible for 9/11. If your life were on the line, would you accept that mere innuendo could be used to send you to the death chamber? This "All the Proof" nonsense is just that: NONSENSE. Is there any item of proof that would stand up in a court of law? If so, point it out."

I don't know how to link directly to the comments, but they're in the first full-page of comments under "The Legend of 9/11 — 10 Years On".

Of course he's also made comments such as "Clearly, no Muslim nation benefited, quite the opposite, and bin Laden did not claim any credit. So the obvious suspect is Israel with the connivance of some sections of the U.S. administration in shutting down NORAD, for example."

So, what he appears to be saying is that no amount of circumstantial evidence can prove Israeli involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and that Israel was not the sole actor (which few, if any, allege), and for these reasons, he will not implicate Israel for involvement in 9/11.

veritas6464 said...

Hey Blammo,...You have me at a disadvantage currently, I am on a video conference call. I have put up your comment and I will check it out later and respond.



P.S. remind me again about the Lawson thing.

veritas6464 said...

Hey Blammo,...OK, I've read your comment post; here's the thing, if you put someone on the spot on a point of fact, they HAVE to defer to absolutes, where there is no absolute here, there is only conjecture "no amount of circumstantial evidence can prove Israeli involvement beyond a reasonable doubt", that is exactly what he inferred in his response, it is the only reasonable response. Me thinks you confuse the truisms and fraternally accepted assumptions of the guilt of israhell that most "truthers" - "know" and those genuine facts that are the result of the scientific method.

What we know as FACT is that 911 was a preplanned and wholly staged event, that the demolitions manifested various creative techniques and differing venues does not blur the scientific facts of the actual physical events.

Howevr, the accusations (and I am guilty of this also) of presumed guilt on the part of the jooSA et al and the evil yids of occupied Palestine are just semantic invective.

None the less "I" still insist that the circumstantial evidence and my gut feeling are sufficient to warrant a thorough open and fair investigation...culminating in the execution of every member of the Likud Party and the entire congress of the jooSa, sans possibly a half dozen incumbents.


John Friend said...

Hey veritas, no wonder the English kicked the Jews out (at least for a while!), huh? These sick SOBs man...

Re Lawson -- that guy is so weak-sauce to me anymore, I don't even bother checking out his stuff. Don't get me wrong, he's done some great work. But the BS that Blammo is pointing out proves why I'm done with him.

There is overwhelming evidence to suggest 9/11 was carried out by Israeli and Zionist Jews in the USA. I suggest Mr. Lawson take a look at the Gerald Shea Memo for starters. Here's an official memorandum submitted to the 9/11 Commission (ignored, of course) thoroughly detailing the massive Israeli spy ring operating in the US prior to and on 9/11, which was clearly and incontrovertibly connected to the attacks. This is not circumstantial evidence. It is hard, concrete proof of Israeli complicity, in my opinion.

veritas6464 said...

Hey John Friend,...I wouldn't be done with such a fine source of narrative and commentary as Mr Lawson's work, if I were you. There is more than one way to skin a rabbit. I take a bellicose and aggressive stance toward the filthy tribe of child-molesters and I KNOW that I have an impact on these fucking scum, however, the broader community needs a more palatable informer.

Don't fall into the trap of internecine rivalry, (you should know better, hello!) I have in the past and will not be caught out like that again - any enemy of my enemy, is a friend of mine.


John Friend said...

I hear you veritas, like I said, he has done some great work and likely will continue to do great work exposing Israeli war crimes and other issues important to us. No internecine rivalry, I just disagree with him on some important aspects of 9/11.

Noor al Haqiqa said...

I will read this in the morning. I just wanted to tell you that I just redid a posting that I makes me think of you. Enjoy and I will return when I wake up refreshed... got carried away on that one and it is like going on 4:30 am.

It is my Hanukkah piece... you have read it but the pix are all new....

veritas6464 said...

Hey Noor,...I am currently searching for an article I read some years ago about the slaughter that is celebrated by chanukkah however, it appears to have disappeared (go figure), there were also some vids out there to, all gone.