Lindbergh Kidnapping - Masonic Jewish Retribution?
September 22, 2015
Direct Link to Latest News
September 22, 2015
Linda LS said (September 24, 2015):
I am a lurker on your site. I wanted to respond to the Lindbergh kidnapping piece because it is a topic that interests me very much. I have done some background reading on this. Like many, I believe that Bruno (Richard) Hauptmann was framed for this killing. I think the murder may have been done to side-line Lindbergh who would have had tremendous following had he chose to run for public office (eventually possibly the Presidency). Henry Ford was ready to back him financially. I believe that Lindbergh was considered dangerous by the elite cabal because of his father's strong opposition to the Federal Reserve. Lindbergh's father was a stanch opponent of the Federal Reserve being formed and in fact wrote a book on this topic. His offices were broken into by government agents and the plates for his book destroyed (although I think copies are now obtainable online.)
Lindbergh Senior: "This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President Woodrow Wilson signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
I think it is possible that the Lindbergh baby was killed to side-line Lindbergh and as a way to protect the financial interests of the bankers.
An interesting side-note is that the prosecutor in the Hauptmann case, David Wilentz, went on to become a very influential figure in the Democratic Party, eventually serving on the Democratic National Committee. His methods during the trial are considered by many to have been heavy-handed and manipulative. There are many loose threads in the case and much disagreement on the topic of Hauptmann's guilt. I think it would have been impossible for one person to have done the kidnapping and subsequent extortion on their own.
I agree that Lindbergh was not pro-Nazi, but that is a smear often used to damage his reputation. Two summers ago I visited the Museum of Flight in Seattle. I was shocked to discover that the accomplishments of Charles Lindbergh (Jr.) have essentially been scrubbed. He is referenced only as a "Mail pilot" and there is one small photo included along with photos of other mail pilots. If you read any documentation from the period, Lindbergh was a major hero and instrumental in developing air travel.
I am not sure if his being ignored by the Museum of Flight is related to his perceived "Nazi" views, or if something more sinister is afoot. The fact that Lindbergh and his accomplishments are ignored, however, makes it clear that history is being recast to suit an agenda. (Not a surprise for many who follow your blog.) Two years later, I am still enraged when I think about this blatant effort to bury the truth.
Dan said (September 24, 2015):
Just one problem with the notion that the Lindbergh baby murder was due to his his speeches for American neutrality.
The kidnapping happened in 1932 before Roosevelt and Hitler were even elected. The public had no expectation of another war until Roosevelt's second term. In 1932 the world public's only concern was the Great Depression.
In 1932 there was no Jewish boycott of German goods yet. That didn't happen till Spring of 1933 in reaction to Hitler's election as Chancellor. It doesn't add up.
Lindbergh was not pro-Nazi. He was pro-neutrality. His key speech line was "these wars in Europe are not our wars".
He didn't found the American isolationist movement. He didn't have to -- it was the overwhelmingly prevailing view of the American Public until the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor.
---
Thanks Dan, The timeline bothered me too. So why did they kill his boy and pin it on a German? I expect this war was planned decades in advance. Lindbergh who was a Mason refused to obey instructions.
Henry, I need to retract my comment below because it's incomplete. It's a bit more complicated. Yes, the kidnapping probably was to warn him never to run for office - his Congressman father had fought hard against the act that established the Fed Reserve and IRS.
Though the kidnapping couldn't have been to silence Lindbergh's isolationist tours which were in the late 1930's, the crime remained unsolved till 1935, so perhaps the German was framed later to drum up anti-German sentiment. But who can say.
If that was the case, I tend to believe that it only steeled Lindbergh's resolve to put his own life on the line for what he believe in.
Pedro said (September 24, 2015):
Last week I finished reading his father's book on the Money Trust, aka the London Money Kings. It was a very intelligent appraisal of the problems of America in the lead up to the Fed, the coup de gras for the Jewish Elites, nail in the coffin for America. Like Hitler's reforms , it proposed a more reality based money system. Like Hitler too he didn't know enough or go far enough. For instance, saying that socialism would be a better alternative to the unbridled and monopolistic capitalism. We now have the internet and over a hundred years of study and history of how all that pans out under a Hijacked world.
Tony B said (September 23, 2015):
The Lindbergh baby being "ritually sacrificed" of course means it was bled out while alive, which that tiny sect continues to do to this day as they satanically believe that "the life" is in the most innocent of blood which they drink or mix with their ritual matzos.
Hans said (September 23, 2015):
Henry, It is a revealing article and it should not be forgotten that the case had two murdered victims, the baby and the appearantly innocent patsy, Hauptman. Is it a coincidence that Hauptman was a carpenter and Jesus was seen as a carpenters' son? (Matthew 13:55)
What i dislike is the antibiblical undercurrant running through the end of the article, by mentioning Genesis 22:2, as if it would condone human sacrifice in any way. First it was Abraham, and his own beloved son, Isaac, not a kidnapped victim. Secondly, God provided a solution, Isaac was not killed. Third it was an isolated event, an example for all time to come, and fourth, the suggestion that orthodox Judaism is the religion of the Bible is also wrong.
Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at
Anonymous said (September 24, 2015):
James did a great job of due diligence. However, what he found about the ladder, the money, and the pistol remain circumstantial evidence.
It only proves my speculation yesterday was wrong: that Hauptmann may have been framed after the fact. With Perloff's facts, if Hauptmann were framed he had to have been the chosen patsy before the crime was committed.
I think the case remains open.
Jim replies:
The gun was not a Smith & Wesson, it was a .25 caliber German-made Lilliput, the perfect tiny gun to waste a baby with in the woods (less noise and mess), and a good match to the hole in the baby’s skull (cremation had made exact comparison impossible by the time of the trial). This does not at all prove it was the murder weapon; what was damning to me was the fact that Hauptmann concealed that gun (which he admitted was his), along with the ransom money in a cleverly drilled hole in his garage. No other item was hidden with the ransom money except that gun. If a gun is for self-protection, you don’t hide it away in a garage hole, you keep it handy.
As to the wood, it was far more than the type of wood; there were many unique “fingerprints†(planing marks, etc.) that conclusively matched it to what was known as “rail 16†of the kidnap ladder.
No one wanted Hauptmann to be innocent more than myself. I argued bitterly for his innocence for a long time. He was a little man fighting a big system, and it’s always tempting to root for the underdog. But on the night of March 1, 1932, the real underdog was that baby. As much as I despise the Zionist bankers, and as much as I love what the Lindberghs stood for, in the final analysis I had to follow the juror’s rule, and let the facts—not my likes and dislikes--decide the case for me.
I should add that in 1932, Lindy was still consumed with flying, not politics; and at age 30 was still 5 years too young to run for President. And the baby was not just his son, but the grandson of Dwight Morrow, one of the country’s top banksters.