Jude Suss is a German classic movie made in the 1930s and based on historical fact. It deals with Jewish manipulation of finance and has English captions. Jude Suss can be ordered from Patriotic Suppliers, P.O. Box 2222, Harrison, AR 72601, for $19.95.

In Stuttgart, Germany, Karl Alexander is sworn in as the new duke by the Estates which is a body of civic leaders. Alexander swears to uphold all customs, enforce the constitution of the land, the Holy Roman Empire and the best interests of the people. The story about Alexander parallels that of America’s office-holders today who swear to obey the US Constitution but eventually sell themselves to the Jews for personal gain and betray the people whom they have pledged to support. Alexander resided in Wurttemberg. He sent a representative to find a gift for his duchess. The representative goes to Isaac Oppenheim, AKA Jude Suss. Jude Suss insists on dealing with the duke in Stuttgart where the Jew knows that Jews are not allowed. A special pass is arranged by the duke. The Jew’s coach overturns en route to Stuttgart and Dorothea, the daughter of an Estates member named Sturm, gives the Jew a ride into Stuttgart. The Jew takes an instant liking to Dorothea but later, Dorothea’s fiance takes an instant disliking to the Jew. The duke buys a necklace of pearls for his duchess from the Jew and complains to the Jew that the Estates will not allow him (the duke) money to have a ballet at the duke’s palace. The Jew gives the duke his own money and tells the duke not to worry about paying money back but that he would gladly take a position as administrator of the roads for 10 years, during which time the Jew will get his money back by charging a toll on all roads and bridges. The duke agrees.

The farmers and merchants complained that they paid so much money in tolls that they could not sell their goods at a reasonable price to cover their toll expenses. The prices of their goods increased and inflation ensued throughout the area of the roads. Everybody started to become discontented with the situation, not to mention that the people knew the Jew was behind the problem. The duke did nothing because he always got whatever money lie wanted from the Jew despite the Jew’s charging interest, and both always had their sex orgies with teenage ballet performers. The people of Wurttemberg became incensed that their daughters and wives were treated as commodities by the Jew and duke. Because of the duke’s financial situation, he eventually appointed the Jew in charge of the treasury, coinage and food commodities. To ensure that nothing upset the duke’s money flow and sex life, the Jew insisted that he be given a letter patent which gave him the authority to do as he wished without retaliation from the citizens and that Jews be allowed to reside in Stuttgart. When the Estates objected, the Jew advised the duke to kill all members of that body and to hire a new assembly. The duke also rejected all petitions, bypassed the constitution and broke his oath of office. (Doesn’t this sound familiar?)

Once the Jew was given the liberty to do as he liked, he did just that. He framed people for treason who stood in his way. He had Herr Sturm, an opponent of the Jew and member of the Estates, arrested for supposedly attempting a plot on the duke’s life because Sturm allowed his daughter to marry Faber, another Estates member. The Jew set up Faber to be arrested and tortured. With both her father and newly wed husband imprisoned, the Jew thought Dorothea would give in to his sexual desires as did many other young Christian women. Dorothea resisted him as long as she could but the Jew eventually forced her into sex, after which he ordered the releases of her father and husband. Before Faber reached Dorothea, Dorothea had already jumped into the river in suicide. Open rebellion was at hand, and the Jew wanted to arrange an army from another city to protect the duke – for a price and with interest. The army was never arranged because the duke went into a drunken rage, lamented of the problems which the Jew had caused him, raged against the Estates and died of a heart attack. Protocol dictated that power was turned over to the Estates until a new duke was appointed. Herren Sturm and Faber ordered the arrest of the Jew and charged him with blackmail, usury, immorality and high treason, along with causing suffering of mind and body. As the Jew was about to be hanged, he yelled out, “I am nothing but the loyal servant of my duke! It is not my fault that the duke was a traitor! I’ll make amends – take my houses, my money, but give me my life! I’m just a poor Jew! Spare my life! I want to live!” After the execution of Jude Suss, all Jews were expelled from Stuttgart and the situation returned to normal.

ENGLAND: In previous NSV Report issues of Jan/Mar ‘92 and Jul/Sep ‘94, we reported on the illegal court proceedings against the Dowager Lady Jane Birdwood. In March 1995, the Jul/Sep ‘94 NSV Report was sent in a staggered manner over a 1-week period to all members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons as well as various reporters for all the major newspapers in England. Additionally, a copy of the report was sent to many Jewish organizations since they seem to be in need of help and we want to help them face their situation since they obviously have trouble keeping their place in the world and understanding why other peoples have occasionally expelled them from their respective countries. Also, this report was sent to a motley assortment of complainers, whiners, bellyachers, misfits, paranoiacs and others who, we believe, will make a lot of noise and further gain attention to Lady Birdwood’s case and help our English kinsman understand why King Edward I expelled the Jews from England in the first place. Our English associates were asked to monitor the newsmedia in their country and inform us of any newspaper, television or radio reports which they may find regarding the above-mentioned mailing. There was never any mass media coverage of the NSV Report mailing but indirect attention was given to Lady Birdwood’s case from a rather subversive source – Braveheart, a Hollywood movie.

The movie Braveheart was reported as being “fantastic” with excellent battle scenes by a Portland associate of the American Front who also happens to be a Scot. The start of the movie was in 1280 AD during the reign of King Edward the First of England. During this time in history, Scotland was fighting for its independence from England. It must have been evident to even the most unbiased person that the character Edward I was slandered heavily, and the Scots were made to appear to be without fault and to be the innocent victims (and they were to an extent) of a tyrannical English king. Throughout the movie, the King of England was never referred to as “Edward I,” “King Edward,” “King Edward I” or with any such title of respect but was always referred to using his birth name – Edward Longshanks.

King Edward I was shown to be ruthless and cruel to both friend and foe. He was made to appear to not have a kind bone in his body. He lied and deceived Scots and then he was killed them in horrible ways. He threw his homosexual son’s (King Edward the Second’s) male lover out a Tower of London window (but not because the future king was an ass bandit). When the homosexual Prince Edward indicated reluctance to impregnate his teenage wife, Isabella, the Princess of Wales, King Edward I muttered something to the effect that he might have to do that himself. To add insult to injury, King Edward, in the final battle of the movie, ordered his archers to shoot arrows into the mass of Scots and the Irish who were fighting for him, saying to his shocked field officer that this was okay because backup was available! Certainly, any movie being produced in Jew-controlled, queer-controlled Hollywood will not promote a person unfriendly to Jewish interests such as Adolf Hitler or King Edward I. Thus, King Edward I was given the “Hitler treatment” by the Hollywood movie producers of Braveheart. With the influence the Hollywood movie industry has on the minds of the public, we suspect that if the public were to be convinced that King Edward I was crazy, then there would he no public protest regarding England’s obvious disobeyance of King Edward l’s Royal Edict of 1290 which bans all Jews from England (and Aquitania, a former English territory which the English no longer have). Although the mass mailing of the Jul/Sep ‘94 NSV Report to the English newsmedia and Parliament did not generate any response to date regarding Lady Birdwood’s trial or the illegal proceedings against her, the timing of the production of the movie Braveheart indicates to us that world Jewry is very much concerned about Lady Birdwood’s case.

Edward the First by T. F. Tout (Twelve English Statesmen, Macmillan & Company, Ltd., London, 1893, 229 pages) is a rare book and no longer in print. The Micropaedia Brittanica on page 375 in summing up the life of Edward I states, “Tout’s Edward the First (1893) is still the best biography of the king.” The Micropaedia Brittanica serves as a brief guide to subjects which are reviewed in detail in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. The king’s life is discussed in 13 chapters: I – Early years (1239-1258); II – Edward and the Barons’ Wars (1258-1267); III – Edward as a Crusader (1268-1272); IV – The King and His Work (1272-1307); V – Edward’s Continental Policy (1272-1289); VI – The Conquest and Settlement of the Principality of Wales (1274-1301); VII – Edward’s Legislation (1275-1290); VIII – Edward and the Three Estates – The Development of the Parliamentary System; IX – Edward and the Church (1272-1294); X – The Scottish Overlordship (1286-1292); XI – The Years of Crisis (1293-1297); XII – The Conquest of Scotland (1297-1305); XIII – The End of the Reign (1305-1307). In no medieval country were things any better than in the England of Edward I because of the rampant corruption everywhere else. The book Edward the First appears to have some bias but the historical facts appear to be in order. After one reads Edward the First, it can be clearly determined that the movie Braveheart is grossly inaccurate because the number of inaccuracies is too many, only the major inaccuracies in the movie Braveheart will be detailed.

Edward Longshanks (June 17, 1239 to July 7, 1307) was not a pagan but was raised in Christianity at a time when the Catholic Church in Rome was the only Christian religion in the world. Edward excelled in martial arts and won some jousting tournaments. King Edward’s era was the Age of Chivalry. He became a Crusader from 1268 to 1272 when the death of his father, the King of England, necessitated Edward’s return to England to assume responsibilities of king. The first thing which he did was surround himself with English advisors without undue influence from foreign interests and thus earned immediate grass-roots support from the English people. In 1277, after the conquest of Wales, Edward made null and void all Welsh laws and customs which were barbarous or in direct variance with the Ten Commandments. Edward was a skilled diplomat and only resorted to force as a last resort. As a legislator and legal codifier, he lived up to his reputation among lawyers, statesmen and other European royalty as the “English Justinian.” European royalty often called upon Edward to mediate disputes because he was highly respected. At one time, he created a great pacification in Europe among the bickering and warring royalty. In 1287, Edward wanted to lead another crusade to the Holy Land to free it from the infidels but he had to abandon that plan to resolve some feuding among European royalty. After proposing a treaty for the feuding royalty, they accepted Edward’s proposal but the Pope in Rome repudiated the treaty. In 1288, Edward again attempted to lead a Crusade into the Middle East but he had to return to England to deal with Scottish secessionists.

At one point in his life, Edward I faced a crisis – unsuccessful war abroad, sedition at home, rebellion in newly annexed districts and open war with the great power of the Church in Rome. He survived this, however. Never did Edward l’s affairs seem more flourishing than in the early part of 1306. Scotland remained subdued, the French were friendly, the Pope was the king’s creature, the barons and commoners alike were well disposed, and his baronial opposition had broken up. Now all the king had to do was concentrate on problems in England.

Edward II was king from 1307 to 1327 when he died or was murdered; nobody seems to know for sure. Edward II had many enemies and apparently no serious interests, wasted his time in gambling and rioting in low society, and cared for nothing but his horses, hounds, players and boon companions. After Edward I died on his last and final campaign into Scotland, his body was transported back to an immediate burial place at Westminster Abbey where it was placed under a plain monument of gray marble but little corresponding to his greatness as a king and upon which has been inscribed “EDWARDUS PRIMUS SCOTORUM MALLEUS HIC EST. PACTUM SERVA.” (Edward the First, the hammer of the Scots, is here. Serve the pact!) We would probably use the word “hammerer” today. The pact is in reference to a peace pact with the Scots.

The movie Braveheart dealt with the Scottish secessionists. Contrary to the movie, William Wallace was a medium landowner who was 6 feet and 7 inches tall, inspirational, dedicated and a natural leader. In September 1297, Wallace and his rebels put the English army to flight at Stirling Bridge. At Falkirk on July 22, 1298, the Scots lost the battle with heavy losses while the English lost two knights and a few “common folk.” In Braveheart, the English were shown to suffer heavy losses! Year after year for the following six years, Edward led campaigns into Scotland with little resistance and made only slight gains in control on each campaign. Wallace ran into hiding after the battle in Falkirk and he basically hid until one of his own associates betrayed his whereabouts to the English in 1305. Wallace was executed in the appropriate manner of the day for rebellion against the English king. At Bannockburn in 1314, the Scottish rebels did defeat the English and Robert Bruce eventually became King of Scotland. Although Edward I did not get along well with his son, Edward II, there was no mention that Edward II was a homosexual; there was no mention of any love affair between Edward Il’s wife, Isabella, and William Wallace; and there was no issue regarding the real father of Edward III but Edward III was the grandson of Edward I.

The following is taken verbatim from the book Edward the First regarding the Jews:

“The Jews held a strange position in England since the growth of trade, which attended the Norman Conquest, had first attracted them to settle in large numbers in the country. They had accumulated much wealth, owing to their practical monopoly of all banking business; but as usurers and as infidels, they had made themselves exceedingly unpopular. They were accused of foul crimes, such as murdering and crucifying Christian children, and occasional outbursts of Christian fanaticism had involved them in outrage and massacre. But the Jews had powerful friends. They were the special subjects of the Crown, and were nearly always protected in their usury by the royal officials, on the simple condition that a goad share of their spoil found its way to the king’s coffers. But as thirty and forty per cent were allowable and moderate rates of interest at this time, the Jews were able to pay great tallages to the king, and still live luxuriously and grow rich. Many of the greater nobles emulated the royal example, and formed an holy league with the Jews to ruin or buy out their smaller neighbours. During Henry III’s reign (1216-1272) the king’s necessities had forced him into constant dependence on the Jews, so that the religious zeal that might, if he had been a free man, have led him in the direction of persecution, found a sufficient outlet in building the Domus Conversorum (Home of the Converted), a home for converted Jews, on the site of the present Record Office, and in entertaining its few inmates with pensions. As a consequence of this alliance between the Jews and the Crown, the baronial opposition was always strongly opposed to the Jews. In 1215, and again in 1258, the baronial triumph involved the unlucky crown agents in much wanton spoliation and persecution.

“Edward disliked the Jews both on religious and economical grounds. The crusading spirit, that had almost lost hope of fighting against the Moslem, saw some satisfaction in wreaking its vengeance on the Israelites (sic). Edward held strongly the medieval belief in the sinfulness and harmfulness of usury. He was angry that the Jews fleeced his subjects, and saw with disgust that the lands of an impoverished and spendthrift nobility could hardly render him their due service, because they were mortgaged up to the hilt to Jewish usurers. His own embarrassed finances and constant burden of debt did not make him the more friendly to the money-lender. Early in his reign Edward drew up severe laws, forbidding Jews to hold real property, enjoining on them the wearing of the distinctive and degrading Jewish dress, which was bidding fair to become obsolete, and prohibiting usury altogether. [In the book, Edward the First, the Edict of 1275, the Statutem de Judeismo or Statute regarding Jewry, was never mentioned but this Royal Edict was meant to eliminate usury. Only about 10,000 Jews were expelled from English territories at that time.] The Jews knew no other way of living and turned in their distress to even less legitimate methods of earning a livelihood. They sweated and clipped the king’s coin so unsparingly that the prices of commodities became disorganized, and foreign merchants shunned a realm whose money standard fluctuated so widely and constantly. [Note: The term ‘clip joint’ is derived from this meaning of the word ‘clip.’ Also, if you look at the ridges on the edge of an American dime or quarter, you will see ridges. The ridges are there today only for decoration but this ridging was introduced to coinage in Europe hundreds of years ago in order to frustrate the coin-clippers.] In 1278, the royal vengeance came down upon the unlucky sweaters. Nearly three hundred Jews were imprisoned in the Tower on the charge of depreciating the coinage. More than two hundred of them were hanged and their goods confiscated to the Crown. But very few of the Christian goldsmiths and moneyers, who had been the partners of their guilt, were likewise partners in the punishment. Edward caused them to be arrested, but, with very few exceptions, they were released through the partiality of the Christian juries that tried them.

“The lot of the Jews became constantly more grievous. The old charges of murdering Christian children were revived and eagerly believed in. Archbishop Peckham added to the thunders of the State the thunders of the Church. He finally closed up the synagogues altogether, and sternly rebuked Queen Eleanor for suffering her love of money to lend her into unholy alliances with Jews against Christian landowners. But if Edward’s wife was lukewarm, his mother Eleanor of Provence, who now played at being a nun, urged on her son to harsh measures against the blasphemers. In 1267, during Edward’s long absence abroad, all the Jews from England were imprisoned, and only released on payment of a huge fine. A little later Edward banished the Jews from Guienne. On his return to England, he applied the same policy to his island kingdom. In 1290 he finally expelled the Jews from England. But he allowed them to take with them their movable property, and sternly punished the brutal sailors of the Cinque Ports who had robbed and murdered their Jewish passengers on their way over the Channel. The expulsion of the Jews was a popular act, and the parliament granted Edward a fifteenth as a thank-offering. The king was himself a heavy loser by the transaction, and was thought to have shown rare unselfishness and high religious principle in consenting to get rid of a race so profitable to the royal exchequer. But the Jews were no longer indispensable. Christian usurers from Cahors in Guienne and from northern Italy had deprived them of their monopoly. The Italian agents of Edward’s finances were soon as much hated as the Jews themselves had been.”

Edward I was engaged in an ongoing hassle with the Jews. On January 20, 1857, the Master of the Rolls submitted to the Treasury of England a proposal for the publication of materials for the History of England from the invasion of the Romans to the reign of Henry VIII. The Master of the Rolls suggested that these materials should be selected for publication under competent editors without reference to periodical or chronological arrangement, without mutilation or abridgement, preference being given in the first instance, to such materials as were most scarce and valuable. The following Latin quotes are derived from “Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores or Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland” and are translated by NSV Dir. Rick Cooper with little help.

Puer quidam apud Lincolniam crucifixus, pro cujus morte xviii. Judaei, die Sanctae Ceciliae, detracti sunt apud Londonias. (A certain boy at Lincoln is crucified to his death at 18.) Hugh comes to mind but this may not be Hugh because it is understood that Hugh was a lot younger than 18. (The Jews, on the day of Saint Cecilia, are taken out of London <i.e., arrested>.) This was in the year 1285. Eodem anno, pridie idus Augusti, Judaei destructi sunt apud Cantebrigge, et multi interfecti et exhaeredati. (In the same year <1266>, on the day before the ides of August, the Jews are destroyed at Cambridge, both killed and disinherited.) Medio quidem tempore, dictus comes, suorum quorumdam consilio nep hando, civitatis potentiores regi in aliquo clam vel aperte faventes incarceravit, eorumque bona penitus depraedando; Judaeis ad turrim in fugam versis, Judaismum pro parte majori destruxit. (In the middle of this time <1267>, indeed, an earl favoring he incarcerate, on his own, by means of an unspeakable plan, the more powerful of the citizenship of his region in some place secretly or openly, and about to be deprived totally of their goods; the Jews having been turned into flight towards Tower, he destroyed Judaism for the most part.) Et tres Christiani fuerunt tractati et suspensi; et ccxcii Judaei distracti et suspenci. (Both three Christians were tracted <stretched or expanded> and suspended <a form of hanging>); and 292 Jews tracted apart and suspended.) This was penalty for coin clipping. In Braveheart, William Wallace was shown to be first suspended, then tracted, castrated and finally publicly decapitated.)

Eodem anno, circa festum Decollationis Sancti Johannis Baptistae, factae fuerunt inquisitiones per regem Angliae at suum concilium, justiarios Salomonem de Roffa, Henricum La Waleis majorem Londoniarum, C. de Picthehore, J. de Berwyk, thesaurarium reginae Angliae: scilicet, prima inquisitio apud Westmonasterium in camera domini regis, secunda apud sanctum Martinum magnum; tertia apud Turrim Londuniarum; per xii Christianos et ii Judaeos, de hiis qui de bonis de catallis Judaeorum pro tonsura monetae suspensorum aliquid in custodia habuerent et retinebant post commune bannum regis per civitatem contra praeceptum ejusdem. Et irrectati fuerunt de praedictis bonis retentis, Petrus Cosyn, Thomas de Dunstaple, Phelipus Box, J. le Tapicer, Rute et burgensis frater ejus, at plures alii Lumbardi at Judaei. (In the same year <1294>, around the holiday of Decollation of Saint John the Baptist, there were hearings of facts through the King of England and his own council, justices Solomon of Rochester, Henry Waleis, mayor of the Londonians, Geoffrey of Picheford and John of Berwick, Treasurer of the Queen of England: of course, the first hearing at Westminster in the room of the Lord the King, the second at Saint Martin the Great, the third at the Tower of London; through twelve Christians and two Jews, regarding anyone of the hanged and those whom they have held and were retaining in custody concerning the goods and property of the Jews for clipping of money after the common ban of the King through the citizenship against his teaching. And the unrighteous were retained regarding the good teaching, Peter Cosyn, Thomas of Dunstaple, Phelipus Box, J. le Tapicer, Rute and a commoner, his father, and many other Lombards and Jews.

Eodem anno post festum Sancti Hillarii, Johannes filius Petri aldermannus at Willelmus de Bectone camararius Londoniarum, electi fuerent cirograffarii cujusdam novae archae ad imponendas obligationes Judaismi. Eodem anno in crastino apostolorum Philippi and Jacobi, per diem Venaris, omnes Judaei per Angliam capti fuerunt, et per carectas ducti Londonias. (In the same year <1287>, after the holiday of Saint Hillary, John, the son of Peter and an alderman, and William of Bectone, a room house operator of London, were elected cirographers whose new rulers imposed obligations of the Jews. In the same year, on the following morning of apostles Philip and Jacob, through the day of veneration, all Jews throughout England were captured and lead through Londonian sedgebushes.) It should be noted that sedgebushes or rushes grow only in water or very damp areas so apparently the Jews were forced to walk through marsh or swamp areas.

Hoc amino in vigilia Conceptiontis beatae Mariae omnes Judaei Londoniarum capti et incarcarati apud Gyhalam Londoniis. (In the year <1289>, on the vigil of Conception of Saint Maria, all Jews of London were captured and incarcerated amid the jail of London.) Eodem anno omnes Judaei, cum eorum bonis, filiis, at uxoribus, circa festum Omnium Sactorum, terram Angliae et Aquitaniae, concendente rege Edwardo, exulantur. (In time same year <1290>, all Jews with their goods, children and wives, around the holiday of All Saints, are expelled from the land of England and Aquitania, Edward the king having conceded.)

No human is perfect and King Edward I is no exception but the fact that King Edward I remained king for 35 years indicates that he was an able and firm ruler, the type of ruler necessary to deal with the problems of the day. The King did what he could in an attempt to get the Jews to become productive people by taking up a trade or craft such as carpentry, masonry, iron working, farming etc. but all was to no avail. King Edward’s Royal Edict of 1275 is arguably the world’s first “affirmative action” program and was meant to outlaw usury forever in England and is still the law to this day. He expelled about 10,000 of the most troublesome Jews in the hopes that this would solve the problem but it did not work. When Edward outlawed usury, the Jews began clipping and sweating coins. All reasonable avenues to get the Jews to change their ways had been exhausted. By 1290, Jewish children of 1275 were carrying on their parents’ pursuits. The Jewish males were once again engaging in usury and whatever else to support themselves except for productive work, and the Jewish females were giving birth to more Jews. Edward had no choice but to pull the weeds out by the roots and expel all Jews which he did with his Royal Edict of 1290.

One aspect of the Edict of Expulsion that the Jew does not hide is the fact that the law has never been rescinded. As Joan Comay states in Who’s Who in Jewish History After the Old Testament (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1974), under the entry for Manasseh ben Israel:

“Manasseh spent much of his life trying to find new places where the Jews might settle... In 1650 he published ‘The Hope of Israel’... the work... sparked off discussion on the possibility of the return of the Jews to England. In Manasseh’s view this would fulfil messianic prophecy. He therefore saw the success of the Puritan cause in England as a hopeful sign. He sent a petition to the Council of State in London. Cromwell favoured the petition, for practical rather than messianic reasons, and invited Manasseh to England. On 31 October 1655 he appeared before the Council of State, laying stress on the economic and social advantages to be gained from re-admitting the Jews. A conference on the subject was convened, but dissolved by Cromwell when it raised obstacles under popular pressure. The Jews who had accompanied Manasseh to London lost hope and returned to their homes on the Continent... Manasseh returned to Holland in October 1657, deeply distressed at what he considered the failure of his mission... Although Edward l’s 1290 Edict of Expulsion was not formally revoked as Manasseh had hoped, the resumption of open Jewish worship achieved the same practical result. The Edict has actually not been revoked to this day.”

In 1981, Comay^† wrote in another book, The Diaspora Story (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London):

“To this day the expulsion decree... has not been cancelled, nor has there been any formal enactment permitting Jews to return to England and live there...”

Enforcement or public discussion of the law does not contravene the Race Relations Act. To say that the Jew residing in England is an illegal alien is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. It is a point of law.