Marco de Wit March 26, 2021


Nowadays in America John Brown is considered to be a saint who helped the free the slaves.


Actually he was a mad murdering terrorist full of blood lust who was supported by Jewish Marxists.


The best source on the Marxist background are two books: Lincoln’s Marxists and The Secret Six.







Excerpt from the Jewish Geopolitical Master Plan. Part III: 1814-1918


1860-65 The War of Northern Aggression

The most striking example of liberty was in America. The constitution had created a monster state but the culture of liberty and the new economic science was keeping it at check. Even the central bank had been eliminated. In the 1840′ and 50’s America was truly becoming the land of the free. South had slavery but both culture and technology was making it redundant. North had corporatism but free competition was breaking it. But there was one problem. The constitution created an especially efficient machinery to collect taxes. Not surprisingly tariffs kept increasing. This created a conflict with the free trading South and the corporatist North. With the election of Abraham Lincoln this conflict turned into a War of Northern Aggression.

Lincoln was supported in his bid for the presidency by the rich industrialists of the North. He was their man and he had long been their lawyer. At the heart of his platform was a return to high import taxes, reminiscent of the “tariff of abomination” of 1828. No sooner had Congress assembled in 1861 than the high tariff was passed into law and signed by President Buchanan before Lincoln was inaugurated. The Morrill Tariff, as it was called, was the highest tariff in history, doubling the rates of the 1857 tariff to an average of 47 percent of the value of imports. Iron products were taxed over 50 percent.

This was the Republicans’ big victory, and their supporters were jubilant. They had fulfilled their IOUs to the industrialists and commercial men of the North. But by this outrageous tariff for the South, the doors of reconciliation were closed. In Lincoln’s inaugural address he had committed himself to collect customs in the South even if there was a secession. With slavery, he was conciliatory; with the import taxes, he was threatening.

Fort Sumter was at the entrance to the Charleston Harbor, filled with federal troops to support U.S. Customs officers. It wasn’t too difficult for angry South Carolinians to fire the first shot. (Impact of Taxes, p. 337)


The Jews had long supported slave trade and slavery in the Southern United States. The Democratic Party therefore had strong Jewish support even if Andrew Jackson had destroyed the Jewish backed central bank of America. The Rothschilds could not give up. America was the fastest growing market. Jews had to dominate it one way or another. At the eve of the Civil War the chairman of the Democratic Party was the Rothschild representative, August Belmont. Therefore the Confederacy was confident that the Jews would support secession or at least keep neutral.

But then Jews stabbed the Confederacy in the back. Belmont and part of the Northern Democratic Party sided with the Union. Why? Because the Confederate Constitution was far too libertarian. It did allow slavery but otherwise left hardly any role for the government. It made impossible major bank cartels or even major internal improvements that would have required the state to loan money from the banks. The Southern Confederate constitution practically forbid high taxes to finance those loans. Rothschilds could not accept such economic libertarianism. Belmont and the Rothschilds wanted both slavery and big government. The state should grant many monopolies and cartels to big businessmen, take big loans from the big banks and pay back by collecting high taxes and tariffs. This support for the big government is also why many slave states joined the Union.



Southerners knew that economic science was on their side. If they would secede and free trade then the living standards in South would greatly increase. The South would become by far the richest country in the world.

At the time the Republicans were pushing a high tariff through the Congress, the Southerners were doing just the opposite. Their new constitution was adopted, patterned after the U.S. Constitution, with a unique provision banning high import taxation. The Confederate Congress couldn’t create a high tariff even if it wanted to. Jefferson Davis, the first president of the Confederacy, justified secession in his inaugural address by making reference to the Declaration of Independence, then emphasizing the import tax issue Duties and customs and trade restrictions would be held to an absolute minimum, he said.

With low duties the trade of North America would shift from New York, Boston, and Philadelphia to Savannah, Charleston, and New Orleans. This would compel the North to set up a chain of customs stations and border patrols from the Atlantic Ocean to the Missouri River, and then some. Northerners would clamor to buy duty-free goods from the South. (Impact of Taxes, p. 337)


Many abolitionists were also overjoyed by the secession because it meant that in the long run slavery would be doomed. First, the raising living standards and culture of liberty would make slavery ever more anachronistic. Second, the Union would not anymore defend slavery and uphold the fugitive slave laws. With the break-up of the Union it would be much more easier for slaves to escape to the North. This is one important reason why the libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner supported the Southern secession. He believed that secession would increase liberty for both the Whites and Blacks while at the same time destroy the Northern cartel-loving corporatist bankers and industrialists who had bribed the American government with their blood money. Spooner made it clear that Lincoln was not trying to help the blacks but the corporatists.

Lincoln, following his mentor Henry Clay, favored a nationalist economic program of which high tariffs, a national bank, and governmentally financed “internal improvements” were key elements. This program, he thought, would promote not only the interests of the wealthy industrial and financial powers he always faithfully served but would benefit white labor as well. ..

DiLorenzo’s interpretation of Lincoln resolves our paradox, and he finds additional support for it in the views of a leading abolitionist, none other than the great libertarian theorist Lysander Spooner. To Spooner, the primary motive of Lincoln and the war party was to preserve and consolidate Northern control of the Southern economy. The Southern states could not be allowed to evade the tariff, a key element of the mercantilist American system that Lincoln favored. “He wrote that the war ‘erupted for a purely pecuniary consideration,’ and not for any moral reason. He labeled the economic lifeblood of the Republican Party, Northern bankers, manufacturers, and railroad corporations, ‘lenders of blood money’ …

To Spooner the Northern financiers of the war who had lent money to the Lincoln government did so not for ‘any love of liberty or justice,’ but for the control of [Southern] markets’ through ‘tariff extortion.’ … Spooner interpreted the crushing of the Southern secessionists … as suggesting that Southerners should ‘Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have your peace'” (pp. 57–59). (David Gordon. Who Was This “Great Liberator”?)


Virtually all Jews – North and South – seem to have abhorred the abolitionists. Not even those Jews who had immigrated to America after the failed 1848 revolutions seem to have supported the anti-slavery campaign. This was also noted by abolitionists themselves.

Surveying the views on slavery of American religious groups in 1853, the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society had reported that Jews “deem it their policy to have every one choose whichever side he may deem best to promote his own interest and the welfare of his country…They do not interfere in any discussion which is not material to their religion.”

Yet the report concluded with a sly taunt, implying that the question of slavery was perhaps not as immaterial to Judaism as many of its American adherents preferred to admit. “The objects of so much mean prejudice and unrighteous oppression as the Jews have been for ages,” the report lamented, “surely they, it would seem, more than any other denomination, ought to be the enemies of caste and the friends of universal freedom.” (Richard Kreitner. The Powerful Example Of The Jewish Abolitionists We Forgot)


Jews provided the intellectual defense for the slavery by emphasizing that The Old Testament allowed and regulated slavery. The most prominent Jews in America were in virtual intellectual war with the abolitionists.

American Jewish leaders of the mid-19th century were concerned, above all, with expediency. The most prominent Jew in the United States, Mordecai Manuel Noah …  became such an outspoken opponent of emancipation that the first-ever black newspaper in America, Freedom’s Journal, was specifically founded to counter Noah’s venom, and William Lloyd Garrison was moved to describe him as a “Shylock” and a “lineal descendant of the monsters who nailed Jesus to the cross.” (Richard Kreitner. The Powerful Example Of The Jewish Abolitionists We Forgot)


There were a handful of Jewish abolitionists. But they were part of Lincoln’s marxists, the revolutionary Forty-Eighters network with direct connections to Karl Marx and other European socialists. These Jews actively supported the socialist terror organization led by John Brown who was practically hacking innocent Southerners to pieces.

During the mini-Civil-War known as “Bleeding Kansas” in the mid-1850s, three Jews accompanied John Brown on his raids against pro-slavery settlers. The archives of the American Jewish Historical Society contain a 1903 letter in which one of them, the Viennese-born August Bondi (another veteran of the 1848 revolution), recalled an exchange between himself and Theodore Wiener during one of the posse’s first attacks.

As they followed Brown up a hill to assault a Border Ruffian camp, Bondi wrote, “Wiener puffed like a steamboat, hurrying behind me. I called out to him, ‘Nu, was meinen Sie jetzt.’ [‘Now, what do you think of this?’] His answer, ‘Was soll ich meinen, sof odom muves.’ [‘What shall I think of it? The end of man is death.’]” (Richard Kreitner. The Powerful Example Of The Jewish Abolitionists We Forgot)


Despite supporting slavery many Jews and especially the Rothschilds must have been suspicious of the conservative wave that was sweeping the West after the failed revolutions of the 1848. European conservatives strongly defended the Confederacy and the new Habsburg Empire of Mexico. If the South had been allowed to secede then that would not only have saved the Habsburgs in Mexico but greatly increased the power of conservatives all over the world.

In France, Austria and even in Britain conservatives and aristocrats did their best to stop the Jewish instigated egalitarianism and democracy. Conservatives such as Thomas Carlyle, John Ruskin, Alfred Tennyson and Charles Dickens dominated the culture. The Jews were worried that the process of democratization and egalitarianism would stop and on its place would develop aristocratic culture of freedom where the aristocrats, kings and emperors would maintain their leadership positions but liberalize the economy by erasing cartels and protecting private property rights.

Alarmed by the betrayal of the Rothschilds the Confederacy appointed the Jew Judah Benjamin as the Secretary of War and then Secretary of State. Benjamin traveled to Europe to persuade the Rothschilds and European powers to join the war on the side of the Confederacy. The Rothschilds refused to help unlike the British aristocracy led by the secretary of state Lord Russell who wanted to save the confederacy together with Napoleon III. In fact, Napoleon had already conquered Mexico and made Maximilian, the brother of the Austrian Emperor into an emperor of Mexico. But just as Britain and France were joining the war on the side of the Confederacy the Tsar of Russia stopped them. He sent his fleet to New York and San Francisco to defend the Americans. The Tsar saved the Union.

This was an enormous mistake though understandable. The politically isolated Tsar did gain an ally against the British Empire but in the long run he helped egalitarianism and modernism defeat conservatism. Contemporaries were amazed that that the most conservative ruler saved the most modernist ruler. In time America would become the headquarters of the Jews, destroy the Tsar and help Bolsheviks take over Russia. The historian Allan Nevis (laudingly) explains how the Tsar changed the course of history:

It is hardly too much to say that the future of the world as we know it was at stake. A conflict between Great Britain and America would have crushed all hope of the mutual understanding and growing collaboration which led up to the practical alliance of 1917-18, and the outright alliance which began in 1941. …

Anglo-French intervention in the American conflict would probably have confirmed the splitting and consequent weakening of the United States; might have given French power in Mexico a long lease, with the ruin of the Monroe Doctrine; and would perhaps have led to the Northern conquest of Canada. The forces of political liberalism in the modern world would have received a disastrous setback. No battle, not Gettysburg, not the Wilderness, was more important than the context waged in the diplomatic arena and the forum of public opinion. The popular conception of this contest is at some points erroneous, and at a few grossly fallacious…. (Allan Nevins. War for the Union, II. 1960. p. 242)


Critical contemporary portrayal of the alliance between Lincoln and the Tsar


The Jews must have become highly alarmed. They realized that Lincoln had turned independent. Lincoln even bypassed the bankers by printing pure paper money, the greenbacks. This was a huge threat to the Rothschilds and other bankers. Moreover Lincoln seemed to have seriously planned to ship the blacks out of America to Africa or Central America. Would Jews be next?

Blacks, in his [Lincoln] opinion, would be better off outside the United States; and, throughout his life, Lincoln supported schemes for repatriation of blacks to Africa and elsewhere. If blacks left the country, they could not compete with whites, the primary objects of Lincoln’s concern. (Lincoln, by the way, did not see this program as in any way in contradiction to his professed belief that all men are created equal. Blacks, he thought, have human rights but not political rights).2 (David Gordon. Who Was This “Great Liberator”?)


As so often happens to independent minded presidents Lincoln was soon assassinated. It was an obvious conspiracy but for some reason all of the culprits that were caught were hanged very fast. We still do not know what really happened. Not one historian seems to have studied the possible Jewish angle of the assassination.



Leave a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*