The Jewish Ritual Murder of Andreas Youshinsky.

The RODOH Lounge is a place for general discussion, preferably non-Holocaust. The Lounge is only lightly moderated but please keep this a friendly place to chat with and get to know your fellow board participants.
Post Reply
Posts: 11153
Joined: 10 Oct 2014, 06:38

The Jewish Ritual Murder of Andreas Youshinsky.

Post by Werd »

The author Philip De Vier of the otherwise decent book "Blood Ritual" ruined his book by saying that the Youshinsky case was NOT a ritual murder. All jury members agreed it was but they couldn't finger Mendel Beilis as the man who made the kill. Even though child witnesses reported seeing him drag the boy away. In fact, some of the child witnesses were poisoned by a corrupted cop. World Jewry PANICKED when this case was taken to court. They didn't want the truth to get out. In fact, some modern philo-smites or shabbos goy historians are so disgusting, that they had to resort to LYING about certain facts of the case. They claimed there were more stab wounds in the head than there actually was in the photo. They ignored the Hebrew letter "shin" clearly marked in the boy's head, and I remember one historian even going so far as to CONCOCT an exchange in the courtroom that NEVER HAPPENED ONCE THE RUSSIAN ORIGINALS WERE CHECKED. One author in his pro Beilis book claimed that Justin Pranaitis who wrote "The Talmud Unmasked" and was a witness in the case on the stand, didn't understand basic Hebrew and even was even tricked on the stand.
This is when things start to get interesting. Maddison provides a quote from Maurice Samuel's Blood Accusation: The Strange History of the Beiliss Case, which is really the crux of the page. The quote purports to be a description of a severe humiliation which happened during Pranaitis' interrogation during the trial (I omit the comments, not present in the book; punctuation partially revised):

Q: What is the meaning of the word Hullin?
A: I don't know.
Q: What is the meaning of the word Erubin?
A: I don't know.
Q: What is the meaning of the word Yevamot?
A: I don't know.


"- When did Baba Bathra live and what was her activity?" - "I don't know."

The last "clever" question was supposed to spring the trap - Pranaitis was supposed to confuse the name of the Talmudic tractate with the Russian word "baba", "old woman".

The problem here is that this exchange never happened.

3 volumes of trial transcripts are available for download here. Interrogation of Pranaitis took two days (Oct. 20 and 21, 1913) and is on pp. 317-353 of the second volume. Further comments by Pranaitis are on pp. 433-436.[1, 2, 3]

When one examines these pages, one can find only one place that vaguely resembles Maurice Samuel's description. It's on pp. 434-435:

Karabchevskij: In your expert opinion you refer to some sources from which you make conclusions. I think you mentioned tractate Hullin. Is there such [a tractate -SR]?
Pranaitis: I don't remember.
Karabchevskij: How so, you don't remember you own expert opinion?
Pranaitis: I can't remember when I have read something.
Karabchevskij: But you know about Hullin tractate? How do you translare this name, what's it about?
Pranaitis: silent.
Karabchevskij: You can't tell?
Pranaitis: silent.
Karabchevskij: Then there's something about Makhshirim. What does that mean?
Pranaitis: This is liquid. Are you testing me?
Karabchevskij: No, it's for myself, because you have Hebrew words here.
Shmakov: Defence is testing... This cannot be done.
President: Defence is interested in translation of these words and has a right to ask the expert about this.
Shmakov: It is hardly permissible to ask such questions. He doesn't have to remember. This is a test.
President: An expert is a knowledgeable person and under no circumstance he should be tested.
Shmakov: After all, he cannot remember each tractate.
Karabchevskij: You, Mr. Shmakov, don't like it when I ask expert Pranaitis; I can refrain from it.
Zarudnyj: And I think that I have a right to ask an expert for a translation, on which he relies, and I think I have a right to know the meaning of the name of the tractate on which expert relies in his expert opinion. You, by the way, refer to tractate Yevotojt [sic]?
Pranaitis: I refuse to answer.
President: If an expert doesn't wish to reply, he cannot be asked.
Zarudnyj: I obey. Maybe you would like to translate the name of the work Midrash.
Pranaitis: silent.
Zarudnyj: What about tractate Shaalot Uteshubot?
Pranaitis: silent.
Zarudnyj: I want you to write in the protocol that when asked about the meaning of names to which the expert referred, he said that he doesn't know.
President: He said that he doesn't wish to answer.
Zarudnyj: No, he said that he doesn't know. And if he knows, let him translate.
President: This is not necessary for him.
Zarudnyj: I asked him with your permission, and I wish it to be entered in the protocol that I didn't test him in any way, but just asked him a question, and received an answer that he doesn't know. And concerning the following names: Yevomojt [sic], Keseres Gagoyle[sic], Shalot-Utenubot [sic], I wish it to be entered in the protocol that he refused to translate.
Shmakov (to Zarudnyj): You cannot even read.
Zarudnyj: That's why I'm asking the expert, because I can't read Hebrew.

The real exchange wasn't as "clever" as the fake one in Samuel's book, and by itself didn't show Pranaitis' ignorance - whether he didn't know (or remember) how most words were translated, or whether he really didn't wish to be "tested" (it was a weird rule in that court that experts, as "knowledgeable people", couldn't be "tested" akin to schoolboys, but the court would decide whether they were credible) cannot be determined from the quoted excerpt.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... aitis.html
The fact that we constantly have Jews and Shabbos Goys lying about the case, should give one pause and wonder what is really going on. Let's see this again:
Zarudnyj: And I think that I have a right to ask an expert for a translation, on which he relies, and I think I have a right to know the meaning of the name of the tractate on which expert relies in his expert opinion. You, by the way, refer to tractate Yevotojt [sic]?
Pranaitis: I refuse to answer.
President: If an expert doesn't wish to reply, he cannot be asked.
Zarudnyj: I obey. Maybe you would like to translate the name of the work Midrash.
Pranaitis: silent.
Zarudnyj: What about tractate Shaalot Uteshubot?
Pranaitis: silent.
Midrash is NOT a title of a book or "name of a work." Midrash is an ancient commentary on part of the Hebrew scriptures, attached to the biblical text. The earliest Midrashim come from the 2nd century AD. Midrash is biblical exegesis by ancient Judaic authorities, using a mode of interpretation prominent in the Talmud. So in other words Midrash is a style or a technique. Not a title. Also "Shaalot Uteshubot" is actually rendered in English as She'elot uTeshubot or She'elot Teshubot. Second of all, that is not a tractate, because it is NOT the name of any tractate (book) in the Talmud, which is comprised of 63 books.
SHE'ELOT U-TESHUBOT ("questions and answers," or "interpellations and decisions"):
By: Wilhelm Bacher, Jacob Zallel Lauterbach ... u-teshubot
The only thing that comes close is this:
Some of the responsa that have survived are in their original form, while others survive only in extracts. The first collection appeared, together with brief geonic rulings, at Constantinople in 1516 under the title Halakot Pesukot min ha-Geonim ("Brief Rulings of the Geonim"), and in 1575 another corpus, titled She'elot u-Teshubot me ha-Geonim, was published in the same city.
The leader of the Spanish school in the same century was Isaac Alfasi, who left many responsa, an entire collection being printed at Livorno in 1780, under the title "She'elot u-Teshubot ha-RIF" (Rabbi Isaac Alfasi). These decisions were written in Arabic, and were translated into Hebrew at an early date, being extant only in this version.[2] ... in_Judaism
In other words, Pranaitis ignored these questions not because of his lack of ability in Hebrew. Pranaitis knew these were intentionally dumb questions, and as an expert, he refused to dignify a stupid question from a slimeball layer that was obviously being given "trick questions" by Jews he was representing.

As for the obviously phony exchange that Maurice Samuel either concocted out of thin air, or was based on a perverted rendering of the trial printed by corrupted Jewish newspapers during the trial...
Q: What is the meaning of the word Yevamot?
A: I don't know.
Oh really? Then why does it say this in Pranaitis' book The Talmud Unmasked:
III. NASCHIM. Contains seven Books or Masechtoth.

1. JEBBAMOTH—Sisters in Law. Treats of Levirate marriage.
2. KETHUBOTH—Marriage Deeds. Treats of dower and marriage settlements.
3. KIDDUSCHIN—Betrothals.
4. GITTIN—booklet on Divorces.
5. NEDARIM—Vows. Treats of vows and their annulment.
6. NAZIR—the Nazarite. Treats of the laws concerning the Nazarites and those who separate themselves from the world and consecrate themselves to God.
7. SOTAH—the Woman suspected of adultery.
Clearly Pranaitis would know what the hell it is. As for Pranaitis not knowing Hullin, let's see his book ONCE AGAIN!
V. KODASCHIM. Contains eleven Books or Masechtoth.

1. ZEBBACHIM—Sacrifices. Treats of animal sacrifices and the mode of their offering.
2. CHULIN—Profane Things. Treats of the traditional manner of slaughtering animals for ordinary use.
3. MENACHOTH—Meat-offerings. Treats of meat-and-drink offerings.
4. BEKHOROTH—the First Born. Treats of the laws concerning the first born of man and animals.
5. ERAKHIN—Estimations. Treats of the mode in which persons dedicated to the Lord by a vow are legally appraised in order to be redeemed.
6. TEMURAH—Exchange. Treats of the laws concerning sanctified things having been exchanged.
7. MEILAH—Trespass, Sacrilege. Treats of the sins of violating or profaning sacred things.
8. KERITHUTH—Excisions. Treats of the sins subject to the punishment of excision, and their expiation by sacrifices.
9. TAMID—the Daily Sacrifice. Describes the Temple services connected with the daily morning and evening offerings.
10. MIDDOTH—Measurements. Describes the measurements and description of the Temple.
11. KINNIM—the Birds' Nests. Treats of the sacrifices consisting of fowls, the offerings of the poor, etc.
In other words, Pranaitis probably had a basic grip of Hebrew and could translate well enough out of many European published Talmuds.
Last edited by Werd on 19 Feb 2020, 03:27, edited 4 times in total.
Posts: 11153
Joined: 10 Oct 2014, 06:38

Re: The Jewish Ritual Murder of Andreas Youshinsky.

Post by Werd »

Helmutt Schramm's "Jewish Ritual Murder" has a very interesting section on this case. Here is how the chapter starts:
Immediately after announcement of the crime, the Jewish press displayed an extremely suspicious activity; the Kiev Jewish paper Kievskaya Mysl never grew tired of continually labeling for the court new, naturally non-Jewish persons as the indubitable murderers. In fact, they managed,
merely on the basis of information from a press-Jew, to accuse the mother of the murdered boy of the gruesome crime and to put her under lock and key -- she was not allowed to take part even in the burial of her child! We are reminded by this of the entirely similar kind of events in Polna! -- After some time the tormented mother was again set free, since not the slightest suspicion for her guilt had resulted. Then again, suspicion was directed upon the step-father, who was supposed to have committed the murder in order to free himself from his obligation to support [the child], and then, finally, upon other relatives of the murdered boy. This all happened at the instigation of the press-Jew Borchevsky, who had a compliant instrument in the corrupted police chief Mischtschuk. As then later emerged from the speech of the prosecutor, "Mischtschuk had been ordered to believe, and he did believe; he believed that the mother (339) inflicted 47 stab wounds on her child and got rid of him in a sack (2). . .
So to take the heat off of the radical Hasidic Jews, they accused the child's own mother. Oh it didn't stop there!
On the edge of the city of Kiev was located the brickyard of the Jew Zaitsev, with the clay quarry belonging to it. A Jewish hospital, whose dining hall had been converted into a 'prayer room' by getting around legal restrictions, was later erected on the property in 1910. Frequently rabbis were observed there, the whole place -- as the "religious center" of the Jews of Kiev -- was enveloped with a mystery, according to the words of the prosecutor. The Jew Mendel Beilis had been appointed as "guard and attendant." The inhabitants of the territory around the brickyard could be counted on the fingers; only two non-Jews lived at some distance from the kiln; in its vicinity lived a circle of seven Jewish families.

Although the property could have been cordoned off and searched very easily without a large police team immediately after the discovery of the body in the clay pit, nothing of the sort happened. It was striking that on the day of the murder, the 12th of March, no work was performed in the brickyard. The property there was deserted. Work was taken up again just afterwards. The inner walls of a shed of the brickyard were suddenly given a new coat of whitewash.

The people knew for a long time where the murderers were to be found -- in spite of the tactics of confusion of the Jewish press. Quite striking, if not to say incriminating, was the behavior of the baptized Jew Breitmann, the publisher of the Jewish paper Poslyednich novostyey, which sought to divert the ever thickening suspicion from the brickyard, to gypsies who were travelling nearby. In his nervous activity, one mistake slipped by him: he accused the gypsies of the blood-superstition! The populace had a sharp ear and asked ironically -- according to the words of the prosecutor -- "How can you believe in the use of blood by the Jews, while a former Jew points at the gypsies, among whom a blood-superstition is supposed to exist? Let one note: no Russian is pointing at them, but a baptized Jew!"
OOPS! LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG! WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A RITUAL MURDER CENTERED AROUND BLOOD SUPERSTITION SO SOON AFTER IT HAPPENED? TURNS OUT IT WAS THE JEWS THEMSELVES! Let's get to the corrupted police officer likely playing a roll in silencing child witnesses who saw what actually happened.
The Cheberyakov family belonged to the few non-Jews who lived in the vicinity of this miserable property: the (345) husband, by trade a telegraph official, industrious, of unblemished reputation, as husband a pitiful figure -- his wife all the more resolute and dubious -- who also maintained close relations with the Jews. She invited her Jewish friends to small household entertainments, at which her husband was made drunk for the enjoyment of those present -- so much for this family Idyll! In any case, in their press, the Jews called this remarkable woman a "Lady MacBeth" but treated her otherwise very considerately, in conspicuous contrast to the other non-Jewish witnesses. One got the impression as if they were not entirely certain whether it might not finally occur to Mrs. Cheberyakov to say what she knew.

This woman was the mother of three children, a young boy (Zhenya) and two girls (Valya and Ludmilla); early on the day of the murder, these three were awakened in the absence of their mother by Andrusha; they should go play with him in the clay pit. Having arrived there, they were approached from behind by the attendant Mendel Beilis. He seized the small Zhenya, who was able to tear himself loose, however, and Andrusha. Meanwhile, two more Jews, among them the young Beilis, were added to the group -- they had been stalking the children according to a plan! The little Valya still saw how Andrusha was dragged to the brickyard. This happened on the day of the murder, the 20th of March. These statements of the children leaked out, although press and commissars had made an effort to take no notice of this! The student Golubov had then questioned the children once again and recorded their statements. On 22 July (old calendar) Beilis was finally arrested together with Mrs. Cheberkov; her children were from that time on for the most part entrusted to the care of strange people. After one week the little ones fell critically ill with symptoms of poisoning, after the "secret commissar" Krasovskihad "visited" them and brought them "pies"! Two children, Zhenya and Valya, died in quick succession, while Ludmilla slowly recovered only after many weeks -- according to reports by the press, the children died of "dysentery"!
Let's see about this child's testimony. The one that survived!
The high point of these 20 days of testimony, however, was shaped by the questioning of the little ten-year-old Ludmilla Cheberyakov, whose younger sister had succumbed to the murder attack of the Jewish Feme [The Feme court was a type of unofficial, secret tribunal held in Westphalia during the 14th and 15th centuries, and the analogy is a fitting one, although rabbinical courts -- particularly the Hassidic variety -- were and are potentially far more sinister.]. She was the single witness who was able to tell about something [she had] observed about the disappearance of her companion at play, Andrusha. Her testimony shall be reproduced here verbatim:

"Tell me, my child" -- so inquired the presiding judge Baldgrov -- "what you know of the case!" And the girl related in the hushed courtroom: "Mama went out up to the market. We were sleeping, Zhenya was sleeping, I was sleeping, and Valyawas sleeping. Then we heard someone call from the street: '
Zhenya, Zhenya!' It was Andrusha, he was calling Zhenya, [telling him that] he should go with him. Zhenya wanted to go and said I was supposed to look after the room, but I said [that] Valya would cry. Then we all got dressed, locked the room, and went playing on the broken clay. There were still other children there. Then Mendel Beilis came running up behind us; we ran away from [him]. Mendel caught Zhenya and Andrusha; Zhenya tore and tore, and tore himself loose, but Andrusha didn't; Mendel and one other Jew held him by the hands. Also, the young Mendel was there. Valya was scared and didn't run with us, but toward the other side; she saw how they were dragging Andrusha to the kiln. I didn't see that, I saw how they were dragging him off; that they were dragging him to the kiln, Valya told me that."(360)

The Prosecutor: "Do you remember how Andrusha was found?" -- "I remember." Prosecutor: "Why didn't you tell right away, what you are saying now?" -- "I was at my grandma's, and later on they didn't ask me." Prosecutor: "How did you get into the quarry?" -- "There was a hole in the fence." -- Prosecutor: "Were you chased away from there sometimes?" -- "They chased us away because we did damage; sometimes we ran through the bricks." Prosecutor: "Was Andrusha always along?" -- "May God keep him, but this time he did come along." Prosecutor: "And where was your father?" -- "He had to work." Prosecutor: "Were you [children] in the habit of sometimes going to Beilis? " -- "We went with Zhenya after milk. There were Jews there who were praying, or were doing some such thing -- I don't know." The defense counsel for Beilis, Grusenberg, asked: "When Mama returned, did you tell her what had happened?" -- "Yes, I told her." -- Karabatschevski asked: "Did somebody give you a pie?" -- "Yes!" -- "And did you become sick from it?" -- "We all became sick." -- "When did Valya die?" -- "One week after my brother."

Ludmilla screwed her face up, tears were in her eyes. The presiding judge: "Why are you crying?" -- "I'm scared," replied the girl! The representative of the civil plaintiff: "Who brought you the pies?" -- "Vygranov and Krasovski." -- "Do you know them both?" -- "I know them." -- "Who threatened you?" --
Poleschtschuk."(28) -- "And what did Krasnovski say?" -- "He said that I was supposed to say only two or three words!" -- "Turn around and say whether you don't see Poleschtschuk?" -- "Yes, Poleschtschuk is here!" -- "Point him out to me!" -- The girl walks up to Poleschtschuk, points at him, he
gazes at her threateningly, and she begins to cry. "Why are you crying?" asks the presiding judge, "no one will do anything to harm you here!" The girl cannot calm down and replies: "I'm afraid, I'm scared. . .They threatened, (361) if we would testify, then the same thing would happen to us as with Yustschinsky. . ."
Funny how after the allegedly non Jewish bolshevik Revolution gripped Russia, suddenly many people connected with the prosecution of Beilis and/or the publication of the REAL facts of the case ended up dead.
After the collapse of Russia, there began a genuine round-up against, first and foremost, those persons who somehow or other stood suspected of harboring anti-Jewish tendencies; it is now very instructive to discover that nearly all accusers, witnesses and expert witnesses, who during the Beilis
trial in Kiev had spoken out against Jewry, fell as victims to the Jewish-Bolshevist Terror. Thus, in 1919, the Professor of Psychiatry, J. Sikorski, was shot under martial law in Kiev, together with a series of nationally-minded professors, while one of his chief opponents in the Kiev trial, Bechterev, who appeared at the request of the defense in the trial with a denial of the possibility of ritual-murder, received a leading scientific administrative post, thanks to Jewish protection.(41) Naturally, the Kiev judges also bled to death under their Jewish executioners; but even the Russian Justice Minister Cheglovitov, who remained completely indifferent during the trial, whose single "crime" had consisted of having finally, after a period of a year (in the
middle of 1912), taken the trial -- which was threatening to become disastrously entangled in Jewish snares, away from the authority of corrupt local officials and getting it underway. . .even he went the same way [as the judges, etc.]. . .

"The murder of the boy Yustschinsky provided the occasion for the Minister Cheglovitov and other enemies of the Jews, to initiate the famous ritual-murder trial against Beilis. But this trial did not have the expected result, its ramifications were, rather, very unpleasant for its originators," confirmed a knowing Jew.(42)
Let's read a comment from Arnold Leese:
After the Jewish Bolshevik revolution, the Cheka shot the Judge, the Public Prosecutor and many of the witnesses, including Father Pranaitis, the medical expert Kozoratov, and Professor Sikorski. Professor Pawlow, who was a witness for the defence, became a leading scientist in Bolshevik Russia!

The ex-General Alexandre Netchvoldov of the Russian Imperial Army, tells us the rest in an article, "La Russie et les Juifs," in Le Front Unique, published at Oran, 1927, p. 59: Quoting Evrijskaja Tribuna of 24th August, 1922, he says "that at a visit of the Rabbi of Moscow to Lenin, the first word Lenin said to his visitor was to ask him it the Jews were satisfied with the Soviet tribunal which had annulled, the Beiliss verdict, saying that Joutchinksy had been killed by a Christian!"

Yes, Bolshevism is Jewish!
Let's see what Arnold Lesse also said:
(1) On 17th October, 1913, the presiding Judge had to warn the Jewish pressmen against persisting in reporting perverted renderings of the evidence, and said that if they continued in this practice, they would be refused permission to attend the Court.

(2) Two children, Gcnia and Valentine Tcheberiak, who were important witnesses against Beiliss, died suddenly shortly after his arrest. This was after they had eaten sweetmeats given to them by a degraded police agent called Krassowsky. They were examined by two Jewish doctors at the hospital and were certified to be suffering from dysentery, the bacilli of that disease having been found in them according to the report. Next, it was discovered that their mother had been offered (and refused) a bribe of 40,000 roubles by a Jew lawyer to take upon herself the guilt for the murder of the stabbed boy Joutchinski.

Finally, the Jews actually suggested she had poisoned the two children, the Jews having characteristically forgotten for the moment those dysentery bacilli that had been reported to have been discovered !
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive! Let's talk about that one liar who claimed there were NOT 13 stab wounds in the head of the child. An obvious lying Jew!
A minor sensation was produced when the testimony dealt with the number thirteen, a number which was supposed to have great significance when used in a Jewish context. The prosecution insisted that the thirteen wounds which Professor Sikorsky had discovered on Andriusha's body proved that they had been inflicted in accordance with "Jewish ritual." When it was discovered afterwards that there were actually fourteen wounds, the ritual murder charge lost even more credibility.

David S. Maddison ... aitis.html
Let's see that picture again:


Yep. That's 13. Not 14. Seems we have a lot of modern day liars writing about this case in the 20th and 21st centuries. What are they trying to hide? Let's see something about that Hebrew letter Shin:
In the Sefer Yetzirah the letter Shin is King over Fire, Formed Heaven in the Universe, Hot in the Year, and the Head in the Soul.
Funny how that was marked right in the top of the little boy's head. Funny how these kabbalistic connections keep turning up. Beilis was connected to the Hasidic Schneerson line which was associated with many unsolved ritual murders. Quite of a bit of detail about this family in the old judician-inc supplement at the top of my next post...
Last edited by Werd on 19 Feb 2020, 01:37, edited 2 times in total.
Posts: 11153
Joined: 10 Oct 2014, 06:38

Re: The Jewish Ritual Murder of Andreas Youshinsky.

Post by Werd »

Video one. Video two.

Archive of Judicial-inc supplement. ... lement.htm
This is basically a long extract from Helmutt Schramm's book on Jewish Ritual Murder.

There is also this consulate letter.
In some places, there are two dates—for instance, in the beginning, where it says “March 12/25, 1911.” This is because, at the time, the Russian calendar was behind the rest of the world’s calendar by 13 days for reasons unknown, which changed to be concurrent with other nations after the Jewish Bolshevik revolution.

The following is what the letter promulgated:

“Odessa, Russia.
“November 13, 1913.
“Subject: Ritualistic murder at Kiev.
“The Honorable Secretary of State, Washington, D.C.


“Recently, there has occurred within this consular district a murder and trial which not only has assumed political proportions and engaged and stirred the whole of Russia, but also abroad wherever the press and telegraph reach. I refer to what is ordinarily known as the 'Ritualistic Murder' trial at Kiev. Up to now I have abstained from sending in a report upon the subject, desiring to wait until the conclusion in order to send the case complete. That time has now arrived, and I have the honor to present the following for the Department's consideration and as a matter of record:

“On March 12/25th, 1911, a boy of Christian parentage, 13 years of age, named Andreas Youshchinsky, was missing in the city of Kiev. Eight days later his body was found in one of the many caves existing in the city. Part of his clothing was missing and the remainder showed stains of blood and clay. A post mortem examination revealed upon his body 47 wounds, all having evidently been inflicted with an awl or chisel-like instrument and with every indication of system in order to draw the greatest amount of blood. The wounds were mostly grouped about the head and neck. A wound upon one of his thighs was apparently aimless, while two entering the heart had evidently been given to quickly cause death. For these last wounds, the shirt had been raised; and they had been inflicted upon the bare body. The boy was healthy, strong, and active but there was nothing to show that he had attempted resistance. It seemed as though he had been scared or hypnotized into submission to his treatment. At least two persons must have taken part in his murder, and one of these appears to have held something over his mouth and nostrils, possibly to prevent his crying out, and possibly also to produce through suffocation and a more copious flow of blood. The murder attracted great attention and excitement. The governor general of the province and the Ministry of Justice ordered a search for the murderers.

The Ministry placed the case in the hands of a reputable examining magistrate who, however, for some reason or other, indolence being chiefly attributed, seems to have neglected it, leaving all to accident and the efforts of a detective named Mishchuk. Mishchuk has had the reputation of being unusually clever and active, but reasons which remain undisclosed would show that he deliberately gave to his search a false direction so as to attack the mother and stepfather of the murdered boy. While under arrest, these two were made to experience great hardships, both mentally and bodily. Eventually, their innocence was so clearly shown that they were set free.

Mishchuk was tried for criminal misconduct in the case and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. It was alleged that he had been bribed by parties having an interest in not having the truth leak out. Another and still more efficient detective named Krasovsky was placed upon the case and seems to have obtained capital results, which, however, he kept to himself--it is thought for venal purposes--for he suddenly became inactive and tried to direct the search in false directions, principally aiming at the incrimination of well-known thieves and receivers. There seems to be good ground for suspicion in the minds of many that the detective received a handsome bribe. His misconduct, however, was not clear enough to warrant bringing a criminal charge against him. Many months of valuable time were thus lost and eventually the case was taken out of Krasovsky's hands and the examining magistrate was superseded by one sent out from St. Petersburg.

From that time forward the real case begins. Unfortunately, however, during the four months that had passed most of the possible evidence had been lost or deliberately done away with by the two dishonest detectives. It was now tried to show that this was one of the so-called Jewish ritualistic murders which are periodically alleged to take place principally before Easter, and for which only male youths are said to be chosen. Literature shows no clear causes for these murders, but among those nations upon which the Jew has the greatest economic hold, and who feel themselves being gradually strangled out of existence, the belief exists that the blood obtained at these murders is mixed with the unleavened Easter bread of the Jews, called 'Matzoh.' This is not supposed to have anything to do with cannibalism, nor can it be shown that anything in the public Hebrew religion calls for it. But it is thought here by many to be a mere symbol in a secret and cabalistic process to unite all Jews against non-Jews and to keep alive in the minds of Jews the idea that they are the chosen race: that all others are food for them and can only have an existence as far as they can be made to serve and further the ends of Jews.

“This report is not made or intended to prove the whole or any part of the fearful charge made here against Jews, nor is such an allegation easily disproved. The principal cause for this very possible erroneous belief in these cruel symbolical murders must be sought in the peculiar solidarity of the Jews, who keep better together than any known race, past or present, so that those who have suffered at their hands, or who fear to suffer, suspect a terrible secret tie among them. It must be kept in mind that the Jews are a strong race. While the Russians double their numbers, Jews about quadruple them. While the Russian nation doubles its financial wealth, the Jews increase theirs eight-fold. They gain what the Russian loses. This is the Russian version, but I do not believe that it can be readily proved that this increase in wealth is exactly as alleged, or solely due to dishonest dealings and unfair ways.

“Russia is not rich, and it has a percentage of Jews far in excess of that of any other country. And many Russians of all political parties hold that millions more of Jews must leave Russia so that other nations shall bear the burden alike.

“The Kiev investigators found, or thought they found, that the murder of the Youshchinsky boy had been committed in the brick factory of Zaitsev, and that a Jew living there named Mendel Beiliss had caught the boy and dragged him into a kiln, after which the child was not seen again alive. It is a matter of record that those witnesses who had stated that they saw Beiliss catch the boy have since died.

“The evidence was not complete, consisting, in part, as follows: That there were secret proceedings carried on at the brick factory; that well-known fanatical leaders of Jews from places in Russia and abroad had secretly resided there about the time of the murder; that in a very short time all those who died who had professed knowledge of the case likely to be injurious to the cause of the Jewish side, two children who were supposed to have been with the boy when he was caught by his murderers; that before the examining magistrate sent out from St. Petersburg could possibly inspect the dwelling of Beiliss it was consumed by fire, the cause still remaining a mystery; that from the very beginning of the investigation, Jews and their close friends endeavored to direct the search to some false trail; that the whole and numerous Jewish press had heaped ridicule and ignominy upon all who did not readily accept the theory of innocence of Beiliss and of his fanatical friends, both known and undiscovered; [and] that the Jewish press attacked with the greatest acumen all persons who conducted the case against Beiliss and endeavored to gain credence for Detectives Mishchuk and Krasovsky.

“All of the above taken together does not amount to clear evidence, and I do not believe that in any other country, where Jews are better thought of than in Russia, a case would have been brought against Beiliss.

“Here in Russia the underlying idea seemed to have been that facts would leak out during the investigation and the trial. Nothing of this kind, however, happened.

“On October 28/10 November Inst.[?], after the trial had lasted a month, the jury gave its verdict 'that a certain boy found cruelly murdered in Kiev had been killed by fanatical Jews and that Jews, for occult purposes, had carefully drawn all blood from the dying child; that it was an instance of Jewish ritualistic murder; that Beiliss was not guilty.'

“As a result of the above trial, opinions vary very materially. The Jews say that the trial proves that there was nothing to come out; that the man Beiliss was innocent and all talk about ritualistic murders is nonsense.

“Russians say the trial proves the great solidarity of the Jews, whose combined efforts have obliterated all traces [of evidence].

“The Jews say the trial will be productive or good for us, as it will open the eyes of Russians to the fact that there is no danger in us.

“The Russians say this trial will do good for us; it will open our eyes to the fact that we have all been walking upon the brink of a precipice which is at all times and places striving to engulf us.

“Between the two stand the pro-Jew Russians, who are stoutly giving battle in the interests of the Jews.

“One thing is fairly certain: The relations between Jews and Russians will, henceforth, be more strained than ever and that a larger exodus of Jews from Russia will be anticipated. This emigration will, to a very large extent, be in the direction of countries having an Anglo-Saxon population.

“The main chance of the Jew in his struggle against the Russian, more correctly, against the Slav, lies in the fact that he knows the full value of money and makes the cleverest use of it, while the Slav is easy-going and thinks that money can only be gained for the sole purpose of spending it as quickly as possible. The Jew is never pleased unless he gets 100 percent out of his money, while the Russian smiles when he is shown that he is not even getting 50 percent. Under these circumstances, it cannot be surprising that so much property flees from the Russian hand and goes into that of a Jew. The Anglo-Saxon will probably give a better account of himself.

“Much of the above report is a resume of various opinions, an effort being made to keep it within the bounds of justice. Trusting that it will be of interest,
“I have the honor to be,
“Your obedient servant,
“John H. Grant [signature],
Posts: 11153
Joined: 10 Oct 2014, 06:38

Re: The Jewish Ritual Murder of Andreas Youshinsky.

Post by Werd »



Below is an excerpt, dealing with the reported ritual murder of Andrei Youshchinsky (a court-decided case), taken from the book -
The Jew as Criminal -
by J. Keller and Hanns Andersen
a translation by R. Belser of
Der Jude als Verbrecher
von J. Keller und Hanns Andersen
Nibelungen-Verlag, Berlin und Leipzig, 1937

[170] Bolshevist Soviet regime in 1919 made any clearing up of the murder and a prosecution of the perpetrators impossible at first. It was just in the Fall of 1919 that some of them were arrested. At the trial before the military divisional court in Budapest (02 August - 15 September 1920), the soldiers involved, Dobу and Sztanyikovsky, were condemned to death by the rope (Czernyбk, Horvбt-Szanovics and Pogбny had escaped abroad), at a following trial before the Budapest Criminal Court, proceedings were started against the civilian perpetrators (12 April - 05 October 1921). Kйri as the instigator of the crime was likewise sentenced to death by hanging, Gaertner as accomplice was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. Kйri was then later exchanged along with other Hungarian Communists for the Hungarian officers, prisoners of war, who had been held as hostages by the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately, a typical case; the Jewish murderer is treated as a "political" criminal and escapes his punishment. In this case it is all the more incomprehensible, when the connection between the murder of the Minister-President Tisza by the Jew Kйri has a direct connection with the establishment of the Judeo-Bolshevist regime of blood of Bela Kun (Aron Cohns) which followed it in Budapest. The Jewish crime of murder as prelude to the Judeo- Bolshevist overthrow of the government -- that is a legal sequence of events.

So it was, also, in Russia.

On 20 March 1911, the body of a boy was discovered by children playing on a plot of undeveloped land on the edge of the city of Kiev(1). It was found in the sitting position, the hands were bound behind the back with string. The body was dressed only in a shirt, underpants, and a single sock. The body showed wounds, without any kind of blood traces being found in the hole [The body was found in a excavated pit on grounds which had been used as a source of clay and which therefore had many clay pits; for a more detailed account of this and of other cases of alleged Jewish ritual-murder, see Hellmut Schramm: Der jьdische Ritualmord: Eine historische Untersuchung, 1943]. It soon turned out that the body was that of the student of the first class of the Kiev church school, Andrei Yuschinski. The forensic examination discovered the following wounds on the body of the child: 7 puncture wounds on the upper scalp and on the back of the head; 1 on the left temple, 13 on the right temple; on the right side of the neck, 7, on the larynx, 2; beneath the lower jaw, 1; on the right side beneath the armpit, 4; on the back, at the right side between ribs and pelvis, 4; on the left side of the chest, beneath the nipple, 7; on the sternum, 1: a total [171] of 47 stab wounds. The loss of blood from the inflicted wounds was so great that the body was nearly empty of blood.

The attempts of the Jews to mislead and cripple the investigation began immediately. The investigation was first in the hands of a certain Krassowski, who a year later was supposed to be arrested and brought before the Court on charges of offenses against his official duties. His predecessor, Mischtschuk, Director of the Kiev Criminal Police, likewise fell into the clutches of Jewry and later was convicted by the Senate on charges of forgeries and abuse of office.

Menachil-Mendel Beylis was arrested only on 22 July. Precious time had been lost during which the state organs had been systematically led astray by the Jews. Thus, for example, the murdered boy's own parents were arrested on 24 March on the basis of information from the Jew Barschewski. After 14 days, they had to be released again since their complete innocence could be proved. Directly after this, the boy's uncle, Theodor Neyinski was accused by another Jew. Here, too, the denunciation turned out to be totally without merit. During the trial proceedings, even the defense of Beylis, which was in the hands of the most celebrated attorneys of that time, had to frankly admit that the relatives of the murdered boy were completely innocent of any part in the crime.

Nevertheless, the Jews did not yet admit defeat. They regarded the accusation against Beylis, as always in such cases, as an accusation against Jewry as a whole, and pulled out all the stops to get Beylis off. An endless series of briberies, threats, denunciations, challenges, propaganda and interventions was put into play by them in order to set the investigating authorities, the jurors, the judges, the experts, but above all public opinion in Russia and in the entire world, in favor of Beylis and against his "anti-Semitic enemies."

The Jews invented ever newer versions. The unfortunate youngster was supposed to have been murdered by three characters of the Underworld in the residence of a woman, Vera Cheberak. This, too, was later shown to be a lie, although the Jews offered Vera Cheberak 4000 Rubels for a "voluntary confession."

It came out, namely through unimpeachable testimony, that on 12 March 1911, toward 8:15 A.M., i.e., perhaps an hour before the beginning of his matyrdom, the boy had been standing with some playmates at the entrance to the Sayzev factory, and then from there began to play with other playmates on the lot lying in front of it. The children were startled by Beylis and [172] two other Jews. They ran off in different directions; the boy Yuschinski, however, was seized by Beylis and dragged off in the direction of the factory. It seems extremely remarkable and suspicious that the two most important eyewitnesses for Yuschinski having been dragged away by Beylis, Schenya and Valya, died shortly after the arrest of Beylis. Beylis was arrested on 22 July: on 08 August Schenya died, and ten days later, Valya --

Menachil-Mendel Beylis, 39 years old, was an empolyee of the brick factory in whose ovenworks the crime almost certainly was committed. The brickyard had formerly belonged to a rich Jew, Ion Mordkovitch Sayzev, who had made his wealth, including the brickyard, over to the Jewish surgical clinic. Until the death of Sayzev in 1907, Beylis enjoyed his especial trust, since he, just like the old Jew, belonged to the sect of the Hassidim. On behalf of old Sayzev, each year Mendel Beylis baked about 3000 pounds of matzot on Sayzev's estate in the presence of a rabbi. Beylis belonged to the leading Jewish clique of rabbis and schдchter [= Jewish ritual-slaughterers] in Kiev. His friend, Feifel Schneerson, who, as later developed, had been stalking Yuschinski, also belonged to it. [The Schneerson dynasty of Hassidic rabbis produced no less than three individuals who came under strong suspicion and/or charges of ritual-murder over the course of two centuries. The late Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, revered as a messianic figure by the world-wide enclaves of his followers, died only recently -- around the turn of the 21st century -- and was a serious power broker to whom heads of state deferred and gave a constant stream of brotherhood and humanitarian awards, concessions, etc., etc., despite the rabbi's unequivocal position in support of Jewish supremacy.] After the murder, Schneerson disappeared without trace. Incidentally, he was a descendant of the famous Rabbi Salomon Schneerson, one of the founders of the Hassidic sect. His father was a schдchter and a relative of rabbis.

The forensic experts, the most outstanding experts in this field in pre-war Russia, made the following report concerning the murder(1):

The boy is pushed into the put in which clay is found. He receives some punctures through his cap; however, as yet he does not lose consciousness. He is seized and his hands held firmly. One of the murderers holds his head and plugs his nose and mouth, while the other murderer inflicts wounds in such places as are rich in blood supply. In particular, he receives a puncture in the left temple which strikes the artery and produces a fountain of blood. Directly after this his coat is pulled off and his shirt collar removed and he receives 7 puncture wounds in the neck, which strike veins as well as arteries. This again results in a forceful outward gush of blood. The body of the victim is at this point somewhat inclined to the left. There is now a pause of 5 to 8 minutes during which the boy is bleeding [173] to death. He loses 5Ѕ glasses of blood, i.e., about 1Ѕ kg. The victim then receives some further lethal punctures into the liver and kidneys and finally a stab into the heart.

Only the Petersburg surgeon Pavlov, who had obviously been bribed by the Jewish defense, gave a dissenting report. It suffices to indicate that Pavlov used the following expression in his expert opinion: "Herr Yuschinski, this young man -- had a somewhat comical wound inflicted in the region of his waist. . ." Of the theological experts, only the Catholic Prelate Pranaitis dared to speak of the fact that in the Jewish books on law ritual-murder is dealt with.

At the 34th session, on 28 October 1913, two questions were put to the jurors. The first question asked whether it was proven that on 12 March 1911 in Kiev, in a room of the brick factory which belonged to the Jewish surgical clinic, and which was under the management of the merchant Markus Sayzev, the thirteen-year-old boy Andrei Yuschinski first received a series of wounds, by which he lost five glasses of blood, and later new wounds, for a total of 47, which produced a nearly complete exsanguination and finally caused his death. The second question asked, if the above was proven, whether then the accused Menachil-Mendel Baylis, from motives of religious fanaticism, with forethought and deliberation, and with the participation of other persons who could not be discovered, had committed this crime.

The jurors said yes to the first question and no to the second. Thus ended the trial with the finding of tbe crime, but without determining the criminal.

The question concerning the perpetrator has remained unanswered to the present day. As with all ritual-murder trials of more recent times, the Jews have been not been able in this case, either, to produce proof of their innocence. That, in actuality, is a proof of their guilt, since at least in the case of Beylis they had unlimited means at their disposal, and beyond that, the sympathy of the entire misled public and also the full support of the police and the judicial investigative authorities, who regretably were only too little "anti-Semitic" in attitude.

Some years later, Jewry nevertheless subsequently furnished proof of its guilt and its evil conscience. All persons who had participated in the trial as judges, as officials of the state attorney's office, as members of the administration of justice or who otherwise acted in the trial against Beylis, were shot immediately after the seizure of power by the Bolshevists without any judicial procedure. While Menachil Beylis enjoyed his pension as "martyr of Jewry" in peace and quiet [174] in Palestine, the prosecuting attorneys Wipper and Schalpliski, the Kiev President of the Court, Boldyrev, the judges Yevashoff and Vigura and the Justice Minister Zheglovitov, fell to the bullets of the Jewish Cheka. The defense cousel of Beylis, the Jews Grusenberg and Sarudny, on the other hand, were appointed to the Senate by the government of the half-Jew Kerensky. Andrei Yuschinski, the martyr of the Russian people in its stuggle against Jewry, had been long forgotten. And who today thinks of this thirtenn-year-old Russian youngster, who bled out his life under unspeakable torture at the hands of the Jewish ritual-slaughterers?!

The Minister-President of the Russian Empire, Stolypin, fell as the first victim of the Jewish "revenge for Beylis."

Stolypin came to Kiew when the struggle over Beylis had reached its peak. In the eyes of the Jewish murderers, he was the most important obstacle which stood in the way of their criminal desires. He was "guilty" of the fact that the Russian government had dared to charge a Jew with murder. Stolypin had to die so that Beylis and the Jews could "live."

Up to the present day, the murder of Stolypin is been presented in a totally distorted manner. No one till now believes it necessary to call attention to the crucial fact that his murderer Dmitri Bogroff was in reality the Jew Mordko. Let us try to determine the true facts of the case(1).

On the evening of 01 September 1911, the victor of the Revolution of 1905, the creator of the revolutionary Russian peasant reforms, the Minister-President Peter Stolypin was murdered by two shots from a revolver while at the Czar's side, during a gala performance in the Kiev city theater. The assassin was arrested at the scene; it was the Jew Dmitri Bogroff.

The enormous Russian Empire was shaken to its foundations by this act. Stolypin was the great hope of the nation. He had found the way to lead the Empire between reaction and revolution, along the the road to reform, recovery and the national new order. He was a political personality [175] of the caliber of Bismarck, this powerful man with the broad shoulders, who seemed to be but lightly bowed from the burden of the huge historic responsibility. Three attempts to murder him had already been committed, the last on 12 August 1906, at which several dozen innocent bystanders had been killed. Revolutionaries incited by the Jews had thrown a bomb at his country house. The balcony on which the Minister-President was drinking tea with his family plunged far below. He himself remained unwounded, but two of his children were crippled from thence forward. But the constant threat to his life could not divert him from his path. He knew that he was a man consecrated to death and nonetheless did his duty.

How did this murder come about, why did it happen in Kiev in particular? The best explanation is furnished by some sobering figures.

The number of inhabitants of Kiev in the year 1874 amounted to 127,000, among which there were 14,000 Jews. In 1910, a year before the murder, the population figures for Kiev had grown to 470,000, of which 51,000 -- 11% -- were Jews. Then came the murder, the Revolution, and the breakthrough of the Jews into power. Until 1926, the total population figure for Kiev remained essentially stable (1926 = 493,873), but the number of Jews had climbed to approximately three times what it had been, to 140,256 -- i.e., 28.4%. Today [ca. 1937], accoding to official Soviet figures, the percentage of the populace which belongs to Jewry has climbed to 35%, but actually probably amounts to at least 50%(1).

These few numbers say it all. Jewry has beseiged and finally conquered Kiev. It has won the breakthrough-battle in Southern Russia and occupied the old capital of the Holy Russian Empire. Where are the approximately 100,000 non-Jews, whose places in Kiev have been taken by Jews? They have been supplanted, driven out, exiled, shot and starved to death. Then, in 1911, the national struggle against Jewry, the defense of the people against the incursions of the Jews, had reached its zenith. The Jews had already occupied the most important positions of power in public life and the economy in Kiev. The masses of the people put up ever more fierce resistance. The Jews responded with revolutionary agitation, with "exproriations," with terror, [176] with crime and murder. Beylis was the first Chekist, who fed on the torment of his helpless victim, the young Yuschinski. Later, the Checkist leaders LaziЯ, Schwarzmann and Luponitz followed; they no longer needed a "symbolic" victim of a ritual-murder; into the place of the "substitute" stepped the entire Russian and Ukranian people.

In the act of ritual-murder, the Jew kills his victim (as in hostage-murder) in "respresentation" of all non-Jews, over whom he does not yet have power; in the Cheka- murder [i.e., murder by the Soviet secret police], he makes real his "ritual." The murder of a hostage is a secularized ritual-murder; Cheka-murder is mass ritual-murder actualized, and the ritual-murder is an anticipated and vicariously enjoyed Checka-murder.

Thus it was in Kiev. The gate to the fortress had to be blown open -- that was taken care of by Mordko-Bogroff with the shots from his revolver.

Already, after his sentencing, on 10 September Bogroff delivered to the Colonel of the Ochrana Ivanoff a "final confession" written by his own hand, in which he explained in detail that he had been active in service to the Ochrana for long years, and had played the role of a provacateur for a regular monthly payment of 100 Rubels; but this informant role of his had been discovered by the revolutionary Anarcho-Communists and he was given a deadline of 05 Spetember, after which the sentence of death was to be carried out on him by his comrades. In his desperation, he had wavered between suicide and a crime by which to rehabilitate himself, and at last decided to perform a sensational assassination; thanks to the favorable circumstance that he had received a card of admittance into the theater, he had carried out the murder of Stolypin. In other words, he had been for years a collaborator of the Ochrana and had committed the murder in this capacity.

This post-judicial "confession" of Bogroff had the effect that a storm of outrage over the criminal methods of the Ochrana swept through all of Russia and through the entire world, outrage over the "bloody Ochrana," which itself bred the criminals whom it pretended to fight. -- Opinion was and is "unanimous" in believing that Minister-Preseident Stolypin was killed by the Ochrana itself, for whatever dark and impenetrable reasons. The whole depravity and corruption of the Czarist system was thereby demonstrated for all time.

Considering all this, what does the truth about Bogroff appear to be?

Dmitri Bogroff was born on 29 January 1887, the son of a Jewish landlord and attorney, who had at his disposal assets of about 1 Million Marks and who played a considerable role in [177] Kiev society. The father belonged to the left wing of the Constitutional-Democratic Party. His son Dmitri received a very good education; In 1905 and 1906, he studied at the University of Munich. In 1908, Dmitri was in Meran, Leipzig and Paris, in February 1910 he took the final bar examination, travelled to the Riviera and then, in February 1911, began his practice in the office of the attorney Goldenweiser in Kiev.

It is clearly evident from this short biography that the Jew Bogroff hadn't the remotest thing to do either with the "working class" or with Socialism, that he led the life of a well-to-do Jewish intellectual. In the last period of his life, his father also transferred to him the management of the property in Kiev, so that Dmitri in no sense experienced any sort of material need. Nonetheless, as was proven and admitted, he entered the service of the Ochrana, which he justified in his later "confession" by the fact that he still wanted to have a "certain sum of money beyond" what he already had. From the Ochrana, he received 100 - 150 Rubels monthly. He worked for them for about 2Ѕ years, and under the names Alemsky and Mordko.

That is the first apparently unexplained contradiction in the behavior of the Jew Bogroff. He certainly was not in need of the money from the Ochrana. Why, then, did he enter its service?

Dmitri Bogroff descibed himself as a follower of the Anarcho-Communists, who took the position that the entire state and economic order must be wholly destroyed. He subscribed to the so-called "Platform of the London Congress of Anarchists" of 1881, which had announced the slogan of the "Propaganda of the Act."

"The Anarchists take the position that every means is permitted for attaining their goals, and the rejection of the law is their highest principle."(1) The Anarchist organ Die Freihiet [Freedom] in New York, 25 January 1885 (Nr. 4), declared the following guidelines for conduct, which were also applicable for Bogroff(2): "One must attack when and whereever possible! The more quietly the lackeys of the order can be liquidated, the less danger is connected to the [liquidation of the] more prominent members. The revolver is good, when extreme danger threatens; dynamite should be used only for the most serious political campaigns. Otherwise, the dagger and poison are very practical means of propaganda."

That was the Weltanschauung [world view] of the young Bogroff.

[178] He belonged to a group of Anarcho-Communists in Kiev, but soon decided to act completely alone and independently. Very remarkable is his statement of 02 September 1911, to the effect that those alleged Anarcho-Communists "in the main pursue purely predatory goals." In the same statement, Bogroff explains: "I decided to furnish made-up reports to the Petersburg Division of the Ochrana or to the police department, in order, out of revolutionary objectives, to have close contact with these authorities and to become familiar with their activities." The investigation made after the murder showed that Bogroff had in reality not performed any service of value whatsoever for the Ochrana, but rather only pretended to belong to it. He was an agent of the Ochrana in 1907 in Kiev, in Petersburg in 1910, and then again in Kiev in 1911.

The result of the aforesaid investigation, which was conducted by Senator Trussevitch, was:

"One can maintain with complete correctness, that Dmitri Bogroff, who was well-known to the Kiev division of the Ochrana as a revolutionary Anarchist, led Kulyapko (Director of the Kiev Ochrana) around by the nose and exploited the Ochrana for his own revolutionary aims."

Senator Trussevitch came to the conclusion that the persons who had been entrusted with the guarding of the Czar in Kiev, namely Kurloff, Colonel Spiridovitch, Councilor Verigin and Colonel-Lieutenant Kulyapko, were guilty of a criminal negligence in office and must be made to answer for it.

Without a doubt, Trussevitch was correct. Bogroff, as one of his own comrades, Sandomirski expressed it, was a "Provocateur without provocation," or, better said: the Jew Bogroff not only incited the Anarcho-Communists, he incited and also betrayed the Ochrana. He was a provocateur raised to the second power. Accordingly, Dmitri Bogroff was a second and still worse Asev, because he instigated, prepared and personally carried out the murder of Minister-President Stolypin. By so doing, he consciously renounced having his own "revolutionary role" come to light. Rather, he described himself as an agent of the Ochrana, in order to add a yet enormous propagandizing effect to the effect of the murder -- the total defamation of the Ochrana. Indeed, the result of this was that not only the Ochrana, but he himself had bad repute in the (non-Jewish!) world. But to his Tribe, he had the status of a "super-hero." For example, this is how his brother, W. Bogroff writes of him:

[179] "Dmitri Bogroff brought still more than his life as a sacrifice to his revolutionary ideas, as he understood them: he sacrificed his revolutionary name and his revolutionary honor."

So much for the brother. In reality, of course, it has turned out differently. Dmitri Bogroff did not act as a "Revolutionary" and did not sacrifice his life and his "honor" in any sense to a "revolutionary idea"; rather, he acted as a Jew and executive of the Jewish struggle for power. There is abundant evidence for this in the utterances of the murderer himself.

For example, from Munich Dmitri Bogroff writes a letter to his parents, in which he comes to speak of the defense of the people against Jewry in Russia, the so-called pogroms, and then adds that he "cannot remain calmly abroad while in Russia people are beaten" (in place of "people" the word "Jews" should be used). In a completely confidential talk with the revolutionary Jew Lasareff in Petersburg in 1910, Bogroff communicates his goal of killing Stolypin. He tries to make clear to his racial comrade that, logically, he must perform this action entirely by himself, so that no persecution of the Jews will be caused by it, but that he is counting upon the "understanding" of his racial comrades. He says, to wit(1): "I am a Jew, and permit me to remind you that today we are still living under the rule of the Black Hundreds (anti-Semites). The Jews will never forget the Kruschevanovs, Dubrovins, Purischkevitches and like malefactors. And Herzenstein? And where is Yollos? Where are the hundreds, the thousands, of Jews who have been torn to pieces -- men, women, and children with bellies slit open, with noses and ears cut off(?!) . . .To point out the truly guilty to the masses is the duty of the Socialist parties and the intelligentsia anyway. You know that the leader of violent reaction is Stolypin. I come to you and say to you, that I have resolved to eliminate him."

These words of Bogroff are not to be outdone in their frankness. There is only one statement yet which is worthy of a place beside it: the statement of the Jew David Frankfurter, the murderer of Wilhelm Gustloff in Davos. David Frankfurter, like Dmitri Bogroff, confesses openly that they have acted as Jews. Neither for Frankfurter nor for Bogroff is it a matter of being "Socialists," "Anarchists" or "Revolutionaries" -- it is a matter of being instruments of the Jewish war against humanity, of being Jewish murderers.

[180] In another, strictly secret talk shortly before the murder with the Anarchist Lyapkovski, likewise released from jail, Bogroff explains(1): "I am a Jew. With a murder of Nicolaus [the then Romanov Czar, Nicolas II], I would cause an enormous persecution of the Jews. Better yet to murder Stolypin. Thanks to his policies, the Revolution is suffocated and reaction has set in."

Therefore, here, as well: the dam against the Revolution of Jewry must be broken through. Stolypin, who stands in the way of the struggle for control by the Jews, must fall.

On 11 September 1911, Bogroff was hanged.

The escape plan, which he had layed out with the help of his racial comrades, had failed.

So much for the case of Bogroff, who dealt a lethal blow to the anti-Jewish Russian Empire. An instructive example of the complete ruthlessness, cruelty and deliberation of Judeo- Bolshevist criminality, an instructive example, also, of the myopia and superficiality of the state defense for warding off revolutionary-criminal efforts; a defense which marched on past the essential core of these efforts, the Jewish core, and believed that it could place Jews in the service of this defense, even as provocateurs. The Jew as a provocateur -- as shown by the cases of Asev and Bogroff --- is always a "Provocateur without provocation," a super-provocateur, whose provocation is directed not against the overthrow [of the state], but against order, law, and the freedom of the people.

The Jew as informer is as customary a phenomenon as the Jew as swindler, as fence or as spy.

Still one more historical example of this.

On 05 March 1917, among the first orders of business of the "Report of the Provisional Government," there was published in Russia a prescription for the establishment of an "Extra-ordinary Investigatory Committee for the Discovery of Unlawful Official Dealings of the former Minister and higher officials." The commission met in the just-captured Winter Palace. It questioned a total of 59 persons, among them nearly all of the former ministers, state secretaries, governors, generals, the directors of police departments, well-known politicians, and other personalities of the old regime(2).

[181] Two topics in particular occupied the investigatory commission, which, incidentally, "met" so long that they themselves were hunted down and themselves interrogated by the victorious Bolshevists: the case of Rasputin and the question of provocation as means of struggle against the revolutionary parties by the old Ochrana (political police). The origin, composition and activity of this commission puts it beyond any suspicion of enmity toward Jews. On the contrary, it was a "prosecuting authority" staged by the Jews against the anti-Semitic old regime. All the more potently incriminating and irrefutable was the evidence of criminal double-agentry and political murders of the Jews, which was unwillingly brought to light by the commission -- the devastating facts about such "outstanding" representatives of Jewry as the provocateur Asev, the informer and swindler Manassevitch Manuilov, the jeweler and gambling club owner Simanovitch, the Court banker and traitor Rubenstein, etc.

The commission deliberated long and broadly over the famous "instruction for the organization and performance of internal surveillance," the basis for the highly developed system of provocation at the Ochrana. This instruction begins with the sentence: "The single reliable means for securely informing the organs of investigation about revolutionary work, is the establishment of an interior agency. The entire efforts of political observation must be directed toward the object of discovering the center of revolutionary organizations and to liquidate it in the moment of the highest development of its activity."

Certainly the system of "trusted people" and agents is as old as the history of the state itself, since there is hardly any other means for [acquiring] information about opposing organizations and for fighting enemies of the state. The very well thought-out instruction of the old Ochraca had foreseen all eventualities, incorporated all security measures, to create a well-functioning system of surveillance. And yet, this instruction, with its system of highly-disciplined provocation, without a doubt played an essential part in the collapse of the czarist state. The reason is to be found in the fact that the instruction and the Ochrana had no sensitivity for or view of the one decisive fact: the basic criminality, the fundamental revolutionism of Jewry. There were no proscriptions against the use of Jews as agents and informers. Thus Jewry succeeded in penetrating the Ochrana, in corrupting it and misusing it for the Jewish efforts at overthrowing the state. The Ochrana thought that it [182] was using the Jews, but in actuality was itself being used by the Jews. [This is the entire story, played out over milennia, of the interaction between the state and the Jews!]

The "classical" figure of the revolutionary Ochrana-Jew will always remain Yevno Asev, a figure about which just as many legends have been spun as about the figure of Rasputin. All these legends are deliberately silent about the Jewish core and represent him intentionally as a "betrayer of the Revolution." In reality, Asev was definitely, to be sure, a traitor to the honorable revolutionaries, and equally as much a traitor to his task-masters at the Ochrana. He was "loyal" only to his Jewish mission and fully consistent in executing it. The mission of the Jew Asev consisted, just as did that of the other Jewish provocateurs, revolutionaries, journalists and bankers, of nothing other than the simultaneous misdirection and corruption of the revolutionary powers on the one hand, and the corruption and misleading of the state aparatus on the other. These Jews prevented the finding of any positive outcome of the conflict between people and state in Russia, and thus prepared the way for and brought about the Jewish-Bolshevist seizure of power.
User avatar
Posts: 10473
Joined: 20 Aug 2018, 04:56
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch

Re: The Jewish Ritual Murder of Andreas Youshinsky.

Post by Huntinger »

Thank you Werd this will take some reading. An interesting topic which I believe can link to the rituals of the ancient Khazars who now call themselves Ashkenazi Juden.

𝕸𝖊𝖎𝖓𝖊 𝕰𝖍𝖗𝖊 𝖍𝖊𝖎ß𝖙 𝕿𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊
Amt VI..Ausland-SD
Posts: 11153
Joined: 10 Oct 2014, 06:38

Re: The Jewish Ritual Murder of Andreas Youshinsky.

Post by Werd »

Check out this classic video called Jewish Ritual Murders Revisited: The Hidden Cult.

41:16 mentions the case. Only for a bit. Then it comes up again at 1:16:00. The last part shows the kabbalistic nature of the stab wounds. Some gentile robbers wouldn't know to stab him in that particular way. Secondly several child witnesses were poisoned. One testified in court that it was the Jews! The judge had to tell Jews who worked in newspapers to stop lying about the facts of the case or they would be barred from coming back to court to sit in the gallery! And everything else on top of it...
Posts: 11300
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44

Re: The Jewish Ritual Murder of Andreas Youshinsky.

Post by Turnagain »

Werd, it's no secret or conspiracy that the Jews are the world's leaders in degeneracy. Look no further than the pornography industry, pedophilia and sex trafficking aka "pimping". That they are willing to use their financial and political resources to aid their fellow degenerates isn't a secret either. Look no further than Leo Frank and his rape/murder of 13 year old Mary Phagan and the establishment of the ADL as the organization to defend Jew degenerates. That extremist Jews would indulge in the murder of goyim children for ritualistic purposes has enough historical evidence to take it out of the conspiracy theory category. You are making a drab discovery of the obvious. It hardly compares to Hitler being a homosexual Jew with one testicle.
Posts: 11153
Joined: 10 Oct 2014, 06:38

Re: The Jewish Ritual Murder of Andreas Youshinsky.

Post by Werd »

Turnagain wrote: 19 Feb 2020, 03:03 Werd, it's no secret or conspiracy that the Jews are the world's leaders in degeneracy.
You're thinking of the freemasons, satanic pedophiles and CATHOLIC ROMAN MAFIA, which have Jewish gophers.
Look no further than Leo Frank and his rape/murder of 13 year old Mary Phagan and the establishment of the ADL as the organization to defend Jew degenerates.
I think Frank was innocent. I'm siding with Carlos Porter on that one.
Posts: 11300
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44

Re: The Jewish Ritual Murder of Andreas Youshinsky.

Post by Turnagain »

Oh, bullshit, Werd. It's just Jews being Jews. Frank was guilty as sin and got his just desserts.
Posts: 11153
Joined: 10 Oct 2014, 06:38

Re: The Jewish Ritual Murder of Andreas Youshinsky.

Post by Werd »

Well the Nation of Islam wrote an entire book about it. Perhaps I will have to peruse it someday whilst simultaneously looking at Porter's arguments on the internet. Either way, I suggest we keep this topic about jewish ritual murder as a kabbalistic, hasidic practice.
Post Reply