The International Jew_ the world_s foremost problem [volume I] _ being a reprint of a series of articles appearing in the Dearborn Independent from May 22 to October 2_ 1920 Henry

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The International Jew, the
world's foremost problem [volume I]

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: The International Jew, the world's foremost problem [volume I]
being a reprint of a series of articles appearing in the Dearborn
Independent from May 22 to October 2, 1920

Author: William John Cameron

Creator: Henry Ford

Release date: October 14, 2011 [eBook #37539]

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37539

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
INTERNATIONAL JEW, THE WORLD'S FOREMOST PROBLEM
[VOLUME I] ***

THE INTERNATIONAL JEW

The World's Foremost Problem

Being a Reprint of a Series of Articles Appearing in The Dearborn
Independent from May 22 to October 2, 1920

November, 1920

Preface

Why discuss the Jewish Question? Because it is here, and because its
emergence into American thought should contribute to its solution, and not
to a continuance of those bad conditions which surround the Question in
other countries.

The Jewish Question has existed in the United States for a long time.
Jews themselves have known this, even if Gentiles have not. There have
been periods in our own country when it has broken forth with a sullen sort
of strength which presaged darker things to come. Many signs portend that
it is approaching an acute stage.

Not only does the Jewish Question touch those matters that are of
common knowledge, such as financial and commercial control, usurpation
of political power, monopoly of necessities, and autocratic direction of the
very news that the American people read; but it reaches into cultural regions
and so touches the very heart of American life.

This question reaches down into South America and threatens to become
an important factor in Pan-American relations. It is interwoven with much
of the menace of organized and calculated disorder which troubles the
nations today. It is not of recent growth, but its roots go deep, and the long
Past of this Problem is counterbalanced by prophetic hopes and programs
which involve a very deliberate and creative view of the Future.

This little book is the partial record of an investigation of the Jewish
Question. It is printed to enable interested readers to inform themselves on
the data published in The Dearborn Independent prior to Oct. 1, 1920. The
demand for back copies of the paper was so great that the supply was
exhausted early, as was also a large edition of a booklet containing the first
nine articles of the series. The investigation still proceeds, and the articles
will continue to appear as heretofore until the work is done.

The motive of this work is simply a desire to make facts known to the
people. Other motives have, of course, been ascribed to it. But the motive of
prejudice or any form of antagonism is hardly strong enough to support
such an investigation as this. Moreover, had an unworthy motive existed,
some sign of it would inevitably appear in the work itself. We confidently
call the reader to witness that the tone of these articles is all that it should
be. The International Jew and his satellites, as the conscious enemies of all
that Anglo-Saxons mean by civilization, are not spared, nor is that
unthinking mass which defends anything that a Jew does, simply because it
has been taught to believe that what Jewish leaders do is Jewish. Neither do

these articles proceed upon a false emotion of brotherhood and apology, as
if this stream of doubtful tendency in the world were only accidentally
Jewish. We give the facts as we find them; that of itself is sufficient
protection against prejudice or passion.

This volume does not complete the case by any means. But it brings the
reader along one step. In future compilations of these and subsequent
articles the entire scope of the inquiry will more clearly appear.

October, 1920.

Contents

I. The Jew in Character and Business

II. Germany's Reaction Against the Jew

III. Jewish History in the U. S.

IV. The Jewish Question—Fact or Fancy?

V. Anti-Semitism—Will It Appear In the U. S.

VI. Jewish Question Breaks Into the Magazines

VII. Arthur Brisbane to the Help of Jewry

VIII. Does a Definite Jewish World Program Exist?

IX. The Historic Basis of Jewish Imperialism

X. An Introduction to the "Jewish Protocols"

XI. "Jewish" Estimate of Gentile Human Nature

XII. "Jewish Protocols" Claim Partial Fulfillment

XIII. "Jewish" Plan to Split Society by "Ideas"

XIV. Did the Jews Foresee the World War?

XV. Is the Jewish "Kahal" the Modern "Soviet"?

XVI. How the "Jewish Question" Touches the Farm

XVII. Does Jewish Power Control the World Press?

XVIII. Does this Explain Jewish Political Power?

XIX. The All-Jewish Mark on "Red Russia"

XX. Jewish Testimony in Favor of Bolshevism

"Among the distinguishing mental and moral traits of the Jews may be
mentioned: distaste for hard or violent physical labor; a strong family sense
and philoprogenitiveness; a marked religious instinct; the courage of the
prophet and martyr rather than of the pioneer and soldier; remarkable power
to survive in adverse environments, combined with great ability to retain
racial solidarity; capacity for exploitation, both individual and social;
shrewdness and astuteness in speculation and money matters generally; an
Oriental love of display and a full appreciation of the power and pleasure of
social position; a very high average of intellectual ability."

—The New International Encyclopedia.

I.

The Jew in Character and Business

The Jew is again being singled out for critical attention throughout the
world. His emergence in the financial, political and social spheres has been
so complete and spectacular since the war, that his place, power and
purpose in the world are being given a new scrutiny, much of it unfriendly.
Persecution is not a new experience to the Jew, but intensive scrutiny of his
nature and super-nationality is. He has suffered for more than 2,000 years
from what may be called the instinctive anti-Semitism of the other races,
but this antagonism has never been intelligent nor has it been able to make
itself intelligible. Nowadays, however, the Jew is being placed, as it were,
under the microscope of economic observation that the reasons for his
power, the reasons for his separateness, the reasons for his suffering may be
defined and understood.

In Russia he is charged with being the source of Bolshevism, an
accusation which is serious or not according to the circle in which it is
made; we in America, hearing the fervid eloquence and perceiving the
prophetic ardor of young Jewish apostles of social and industrial reform,
can calmly estimate how it may be. In Germany he is charged with being
the cause of the Empire's collapse and a very considerable literature has
sprung up, bearing with it a mass of circumstantial evidence that gives the
thinker pause. In England he is charged with being the real world ruler, who
rules as a super-nation over the nations, rules by the power of gold, and who
plays nation against nation for his own purposes, remaining himself
discreetly in the background. In America it is pointed out to what extent the
elder Jews of wealth and the younger Jews of ambition swarmed through

the war organizations—principally those departments which dealt with the
commercial and industrial business of war, and also the extent to which they
have clung to the advantage which their experience as agents of the
government gave them.

In simple words, the question of the Jews has come to the fore, but like
other questions which lend themselves to prejudice, efforts will be made to
hush it up as impolitic for open discussion. If, however, experience has
taught us anything it is that questions thus suppressed will sooner or later
break out in undesirable and unprofitable forms.

The Jew is the world's enigma. Poor in his masses, he yet controls the
world's finances. Scattered abroad without country or government, he yet
presents a unity of race continuity which no other people has achieved.
Living under legal disabilities in almost every land, he has become the
power behind many a throne. There are ancient prophecies to the effect that
the Jew will return to his own land and from that center rule the world,
though not until he has undergone an assault by the united nations of
mankind.

The single description which will include a larger percentage of Jews
than members of any other race is this: he is in business. It may be only
gathering rags and selling them, but he is in business. From the sale of old
clothes to the control of international trade and finance, the Jew is
supremely gifted for business. More than any other race he exhibits a
decided aversion to industrial employment, which he balances by an equally
decided adaptability to trade. The Gentile boy works his way up, taking
employment in the productive or technical departments; but the Jewish boy
prefers to begin as messenger, salesman or clerk—anything—so long as it is
connected with the commercial side of the business. An early Prussian
census illustrates this characteristic: of a total population of 269,400, the

Jews comprised six per cent or 16,164. Of these, 12,000 were traders and
4,164 were workmen. Of the Gentile population, the other 94 per cent, or
153,236 people, there were only 17,000 traders.

A modern census would show a large professional and literary class
added to the traders, but no diminution of the percentage of traders and not
much if any increase in the number of wage toilers. In America alone most
of the big business, the trusts and the banks, the natural resources and the
chief agricultural products, especially tobacco, cotton and sugar, are in the
control of Jewish financiers or their agents. Jewish journalists are a large
and powerful group here. "Large numbers of department stores are held by
Jewish firms," says the Jewish Encyclopedia, and many if not most of them
are run under Gentile names. Jews are the largest and most numerous
landlords of residence property in the country. They are supreme in the
theatrical world. They absolutely control the circulation of publications
throughout the country. Fewer than any race whose presence among us is
noticeable, they receive daily an amount of favorable publicity which would
be impossible did they not have the facilities for creating and distributing it
themselves. Werner Sombart, in his "Jew and Modern Capitalism" says, "If
the conditions in America continue to develop along the same lines as in the
last generation, if the immigration statistics and the proportion of births
among all the nationalities remain the same, our imagination may picture
the United States of fifty or a hundred years hence as a land inhabited only
by Slavs, Negroes and Jews, wherein the Jews will naturally occupy the
position of economic leadership." Sombart is a pro-Jewish writer.

The question is, If the Jew is in control, how did it happen? This is a free
country. The Jew comprises only about three per cent of the population; to
every Jew there are 97 Gentiles; to the 3,000,000 Jews in the United States
there are 97,000,000 Gentiles. If the Jew is in control, is it because of his

superior ability, or is it because of the inferiority and don't-care attitude of
the Gentiles?

It would be very simple to answer that the Jews came to America, took
their chances like other people and proved more successful in the
competitive struggle. But that would not include all the facts. And before a
more adequate answer can be given, two points should be made clear. This
first is this: all Jews are not rich controllers of wealth. There are poor Jews
aplenty, though most of them even in their poverty are their own masters.
While it may be true that the chief financial controllers of the country are
Jews, it is not true that every Jew is one of the financial controllers of the
country. The classes must be kept distinct for a reason which will appear
when the methods of the rich Jews and the methods of the poor Jews to gain
power are differentiated. Secondly, the fact of Jewish solidarity renders it
difficult to measure Gentile and Jewish achievements by the same standard.
When a great block of wealth in America was made possible by the lavish
use of another block of wealth from across the seas; that is to say, when
certain Jewish immigrants came to the United States with the financial
backing of European Jewry behind them, it would be unfair to explain the
rise of that class of immigration by the same rules which account for the
rise of, say, the Germans or the Poles who came here with no resource but
their ambition and strength. To be sure, many individual Jews come in that
way, too, with no dependence but themselves, but it would not be true to
say that the massive control of affairs which is exercised by Jewish wealth
was won by individual initiative; it was rather the extension of financial
control across the sea.

That, indeed, is where any explanation of Jewish control must begin.
Here is a race whose entire period of national history saw them peasants on
the land, whose ancient genius was spiritual rather than material, bucolic
rather than commercial, yet today, when they have no country, no

government, and are persecuted in one way or another everywhere they go,
they are declared to be the principal though unofficial rulers of the earth.
How does so strange a charge arise, and why do so many circumstances
seem to justify it?

Begin at the beginning. During the formative period of their national
character the Jews lived under a law which made plutocracy and pauperism
equally impossible among them. Modern reformers who are constructing
model social systems on paper would do well to look into the social system
under which the early Jews were organized. The Law of Moses made a
"money aristocracy," such as Jewish financiers form today, impossible
because it forbade the taking of interest. It made impossible also the
continuous enjoyment of profit wrung out of another's distress. Profiteering
and sheer speculation were not favored under the Jewish system. There
could be no land-hogging; the land was apportioned among the people, and
though it might be lost by debt or sold under stress, it was returned every 50
years to its original family ownership, at which time, called "The Year of
Jubilee," there was practically a new social beginning. The rise of great
landlords and a moneyed class was impossible under such a system,
although the interim of 50 years gave ample scope for individual initiative
to assert itself under fair competitive conditions.

If, therefore, the Jews had retained their status as a nation, and had
remained in Palestine under the Law of Moses, they would hardly have
achieved the financial distinction which they have since won. Jews never
got rich out of one another. Even in modern times they have not become
rich out of each other but out of the nations among whom they dwelt.
Jewish law permitted the Jew to do business with a Gentile on a different
basis than that on which he did business with a brother Jew. What is called
"the Law of the Stranger" was defined thus: "unto a stranger thou mayest
lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury."

Being dispersed among the nations, but never merging themselves with
the nations and never losing a very distinctive identity, the Jew has had the
opportunity to practice "the ethics of the stranger" for many centuries.
Being strangers among strangers, and often among cruelly hostile strangers,
they have found this law a compensating advantage. Still, this alone would
not account for the Jew's preeminence in finance. The explanation of that
must be sought in the Jew himself, his vigor, resourcefulness and special
proclivities.

Very early in the Jewish story we discover the tendency of Israel to be a
master nation, with other nations as its vassals. Notwithstanding the fact
that the whole prophetic purpose with reference to Israel seems to have
been the moral enlightenment of the world through its agency, Israel's "will
to mastery" apparently hindered that purpose. At least such would seem to
be the tone of the Old Testament. Divinely ordered to drive out the
Canaanites that their corrupt ideas might not contaminate Israel, the Jews
did not obey, according to the old record. They looked over the Canaanitish
people and perceived what great amount of man-power would be wasted if
they were expelled, and so Israel enslaved them—"And it came to pass,
when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not
utterly drive them out." It was this form of disobedience, this preference of
material mastery over spiritual leadership, that marked the beginning of
Israel's age-long disciplinary distress.

The Jews' dispersion among the nations temporarily (that is, for more
than 25 centuries now) changed the program which their scriptures declare
was divinely planned, and that dispersion continues until today. There are
spiritual leaders in modern Judaism who still claim that Israel's mission to
the nations is spiritual, but their assertions that Israel is today fulfilling that
mission are not as convincing as they might be if accompanied by more
evidence. Israel throughout the modern centuries is still looking at the

Gentile world and estimating what its man-power can be made to yield. But
the discipline upon Israel still holds; he is an exile from his own land,
condemned to be discriminated against wherever he goes, until the time
when exile and homelessness shall end in a re-established Palestine, and
Jerusalem again the moral center of the earth, even as the elder prophets
have declared.

Had the Jew become an employe, a worker for other men, his dispersion
would not probably have been so wide. But becoming a trader, his instincts
drew him round the habitable earth. There were Jews in China at an early
date. They appeared as traders in England at the time of the Saxons. Jewish
traders were in South America 100 years before the Pilgrim Fathers landed
at Plymouth Rock. Jews established the sugar industry in the Island of St.
Thomas in 1492. They were well established in Brazil when only a few
villages dotted the eastern coast of what is now the United States. And how
far they penetrated when once they came here is indicated by the fact that
the first white child born in Georgia was a Jew—Isaac Minis. The Jew's
presence round the earth, his clannishness with his own people, made him a
nation scattered among the nations, a corporation with agents everywhere.

Another talent, however, contributed greatly to his rise in financial power
—his ability to invent new devices for doing business. Until the Jew was
pitted against the world, business was very crudely done. And when we
trace the origins of many of the business methods which simplify and
facilitate trade today, more likely than not we find a Jewish name at the end
of the clue. Many of the indispensable instruments of credit and exchange
were thought out by Jewish merchants, not only for use between
themselves, but to check and hold the Gentiles with whom they dealt. The
oldest bill of exchange extant was drawn by a Jew—one Simon Rubens.
The promissory note was a Jewish invention, as was also the check
"payable to bearer."

An interesting bit of history attaches to the "payable to bearer"
instrument. The Jews' enemies were always stripping them of their last
ounce of wealth, yet strangely, the Jews recovered very quickly and were
soon rich again. How this sudden recovery from looting and poverty? Their
assets were concealed under "bearer" and so a goodly portion was always
saved. In an age when it was lawful for any pirate to seize goods consigned
to Jews, the Jews were able to protect themselves by consigning goods on
policies that bore no names.

The influence of the Jew was to center business around goods instead of
persons. Previously all claims had been against persons; the Jew knew that
the goods were more reliable than the persons with whom he dealt, and so
he contrived to have claims laid against goods. Besides, this device enabled
him to keep himself out of sight as much as possible. This introduced an
element of hardness into business, inasmuch as it was goods which were
being dealt in rather than men being dealt with, and this hardness remains.
Another tendency which survives and which is of advantage in veiling the
very large control which Jews have attained, is of the same origin as
"bearer" bills; it permits a business dominated by Jewish capital to appear
under a name that gives no hint of Jewish control.

The Jew is the only and original international capitalist, but as a rule he
prefers not to emblazon that fact upon the skies; he prefers to use Gentile
banks and trust companies as his agents and instruments. The suggestive
term "Gentile front" often appears in connection with this practice.

The invention of the stock exchange is also credited to Jewish financial
talent. In Berlin, Paris, London, Frankfort and Hamburg, Jews were in
control of the first stock exchanges, while Venice and Genoa were openly
referred to in the talk of the day as "Jew cities" where great trading and
banking facilities might be found. The Bank of England was established

upon the counsel and assistance of Jewish emigrants from Holland. The
Bank of Amsterdam and the Bank of Hamburg both arose through Jewish
influence.

There is a curious fact to be noted in connection with the persecution and
consequent wanderings of the Jews about Europe and that is: wherever they
wandered, the center of business seemed to go with them. When the Jews
were free in Spain, there was the world's gold center. When Spain drove out
the Jews, Spain lost financial leadership and has never regained it. Students
of the economic history of Europe have always been puzzled to discover
why the center of trade should have shifted from Spain, Portugal and Italy,
up to the northern countries of Holland, Germany, and England. They have
sought for the cause in many things, but none has proved completely
explanatory. When, however, it is known that the change was coincident
with the expulsion of the Jews from the South and their flight to the North,
when it is known that upon the Jews' arrival the northern countries began a
commercial life which has flourished until our day, the explanation does not
seem difficult. Time and again it has proved to be the fact that when the
Jews were forced to move, the center of the world's precious metals moved
with them.

This distribution of the Jews over Europe and the world, each Jewish
community linked in a fellowship of blood, faith and suffering with every
other group, made it possible for the Jew to be international in the sense that
no other race or group of merchants could be at that time. Not only were
they everywhere (Americans and Russians are everywhere, too) but they
were in touch. They were organized before the days of conscious
international commercial organizations, they were bound together by the
sinews of a common life. It was observed by many writers in the Middle
Ages that the Jews knew more of what was transpiring in Europe than the
governments did. They also had better knowledge of what was likely to

occur. They knew more about conditions than the statesmen did. This
information they imparted by letter from group to group, country to country.
Indeed, they may be said thus to have originated unconsciously the
financial news-letter. Certainly the information they were able to obtain and
thus distribute was invaluable to them in their speculative enterprises.
Advance knowledge was an immense advantage in the days when news was
scarce, slow and unreliable.

This enabled Jewish financiers to become the agents of national loans, a
form of business which they encouraged wherever possible. The Jew has
always desired to have nations for his customers. National loans were
facilitated by the presence of members of the same family of financiers in
various countries, thus making an interlocking directorate by which king
could be played against king, government against government, and the
shrewdest use made of national prejudices and fears, all to the no small
profit of the fiscal agent.

One of the charges most commonly made against Jewish financiers today
is that they still favor this larger field of finance. Indeed, in all the criticism
that is heard regarding the Jew as a business man, there is comparatively
little said against him as an individual merchant serving individual
customers. Thousands of small Jewish merchants are highly respected by
their trade, just as tens of thousands of Jewish families are respected as our
neighbors. The criticism, insofar as it respects the more important
financiers, is not racial at all. Unfortunately the element of race, which so
easily lends itself to misinterpretation as racial prejudice, is injected into the
question by the mere fact that the chain of international finance as it is
traced around the world discloses at every link a Jewish capitalist, financial
family, or a Jewish-controlled banking system. Many have professed to see
in this circumstance a conscious organization of Jewish power for Gentile
control, while others have attributed the circumstance to Jewish racial

sympathies, to the continuity of their family affairs down the line of
descent, and to the increase of collateral branches. In the old Scriptural
phrase, Israel grows as the vine grows, ever shooting out new branches and
deepening old roots, but always part of the one vine.

The Jew's aptitude for dealing with governments may also be traced to
the years of his persecution. He early learned the power of gold in dealing
with mercenary enemies. Wherever he went there followed him like a curse
the aroused antipathy of other peoples. The Jew was never popular as a
race; even the most fervid Jew will not deny that, howsoever he may
explain it. Individuals have been popular, of course; many phases of Jewish
nature are found to be very lovable when known; but nevertheless one of
the burdens the Jews have had to bear as a race is this burden of racial
unpopularity. Even in modern times, in civilized countries, in conditions
which render persecution absolutely impossible, this unpopularity exists.
And what is more, the Jew has not seemed to care to cultivate the friendship
of the Gentile masses, due perhaps to the failures of experience, but due
more likely to his inborn persuasion that he belongs to a superior race.
Whatever the true reason, he has always placed his main dependence on
cultivating friendship with kings and nobles. What cared the Jew if the
people gnashed their teeth against him, so long as the king and the court
were his friends? Thus there was always, even through most of the severely
trying times, "a court Jew," one who had bought by loans and held by the
strangle-hold of debt an entrance to the king's chamber. The policy of the
Jews has always been to "go to headquarters." They never tried to placate
the Russian people, but they did endeavor to enlist the Russian court. They
never tried to placate the German people, but they did succeed in
permeating the German court. In England they shrug their shoulders at the
outspoken anti-Jew reactions of the British populace—what care they?
Have they not all of lorddom at their heels, do they not hold the strings of
Britain's purse?

Through this ability of theirs to "go to headquarters" it is possible to
account for the stronghold they got upon various governments and nations.
Added to this ability was, of course, the ability to produce what the
governments wanted. If a government wanted a loan, the Jew at court could
arrange it through Jews at other financial centers and political capitals. If
one government wanted to pay another government a debt without risking
the precious metal to a mule train through a robber-infested country, the
Jew at court arranged that too. He transferred a piece of paper and the debt
was paid by the banking house at the foreign capital. The first time an army
was ever fed in the modern commissary way, it was done by a Jew—he had
the capital and he had the system; moreover he had the delight of having a
nation for his customer.

And this tendency, which served the race so well throughout the
troublous centuries, shows no sign of abatement. Certainly, seeing to what
an extent a race numerically so unimportant influences the various
governments of the world today, the Jew who reflects upon the disparity
between his people's numbers and their power may be pardoned if he sees
in that fact a proof of their racial superiority.

It may be said also that Jewish inventiveness in business devices
continues to the present time, as well as Jewish adaptability to changing
conditions. The Jew is credited with being the first to establish branch
houses in foreign countries in order that responsible representatives of the
home office might be on the ground taking instant advantage of every
opening. During the war a great deal was said about the "peaceful
penetration" which the "German Government" had effected in the United
States by establishing here branch offices and factories of German firms.
The fact that there were many German branch houses here is
unquestionable. It should be known, however, that they were not the
evidence of German enterprise but of Jewish enterprise. The old German

business houses were too conservative to "run after customers" even in the
hustling United States, but the Jewish firms were not, and they came
straight to America and hustled. In due time the competition forced the
more conservative German firms to follow suit. But the idea was Jewish in
its origin, not German.

Another modern business method whose origin is credited to Jewish
financiers is that by which related industries are brought together, as for
example, if an electrical power company is acquired, then the street railway
company using the electricity would be acquired too, one purpose being in
this way to conserve all the profit accruing along the line, from the
origination of the power down to the delivery of the street car ride; but
perhaps the main purpose being that, by the control of the power house the
price of current could be increased to the car company, and by the control of
the car company the cost of a ride could be increased to the public, the
controllers thus receiving an additional profit all down the line. There is
much of this going on in the world today, and in the United States
particularly. The portion of the business immediately next to the ultimate
consumer explains that its costs have risen, but it does not explain that the
costs were increased by the owners and not by outsiders who were forced to
do so by economic pressure.

There is apparently in the world today a central financial force which is
playing a vast and closely organized game, with the world for its table and
universal control for its stakes. The people of civilized countries have lost
all confidence in the explanation that "economic conditions" are responsible
for all the changes that occur. Under the camouflage of "economic law" a
great many phenomena have been accounted for which were not due to any
law whatever except the law of the selfish human will as operated by a few
men who have the purpose and the power to work on a wide scale with
nations as their vassals.

Whatever else may be national, no one today believes that finance is
national. Finance is international. Nobody today believes that international
finance is in any way competitive. There are some independent banking
houses, but few strong independent ones. The great masters, the few whose
minds see clearly the entire play of the plan, control numerous banking
houses and trust companies, and one is used for this while another is used
for that, but there is no disharmony between them, no correction of each
other's methods, no competition in the interests of the business world. There
is as much unity of policy between the principal banking houses of every
country as there is between the various branches of the United States Post
Office—and for the same reason, namely, they are all operated from the
same source and for the same purpose.

Just before the war Germany bought very heavily in American cotton and
had huge quantities of it tied up here for export. When war came, the
ownership of that mountainous mass of cotton wealth changed in one night
from Jewish names in Hamburg to Jewish names in London. At this writing
cotton is selling in England for less than it is selling in the United States,
and the effect of that is to lower the American price. When the price lowers
sufficiently, the market is cleared of cotton by buyers previously prepared,
and then the price soars to high figures again. In the meantime, the same
powers that have engineered the apparently causeless strengthening and
weakening of the cotton market, have seized upon stricken Germany to be
the sweatshop of the world. Certain groups control the cotton, lend it to
Germany to be manufactured, leave a pittance of it there in payment for the
labor that was used, and then profiteer the length and breadth of the world
on the lie that "cotton is scarce." And when, tracing all these anti-social and
colossally unfair methods to their source, it is found that the responsible
parties all have a common characteristic, is it any wonder that the warning
which comes across the sea—"Wait until America becomes awake to the
Jew!"—has a new meaning?

Certainly, economic reasons no longer explain the condition in which the
world finds itself today. Neither does the ordinary explanation of "the
heartlessness of capital." Capital has endeavored as never before to meet the
demands of labor, and labor has gone to extremes in leading capital to new
concessions—but what has it advantaged either of them? Labor has
heretofore thought that capital was the sky over it, and it made the sky
yield, but behold, there was yet an higher sky which neither capital nor
labor had seen in their struggles one with another. That sky is so far
unyielding.

That which we call capital here in America is usually money used in
production, and we mistakenly refer to the manufacturer, the manager of
work, the provider of tools and jobs—we refer to him as the "capitalist."
Oh, no. He is not the capitalist in the real sense. Why, he himself must go to
capitalists for the money with which to finance his plans. There is a power
yet above him—a power which treats him far more callously and holds him
in a more ruthless hand than he would ever dare display to labor. That,
indeed, is one of the tragedies of these times, that "labor" and "capital" are
fighting each other, when the conditions against which each one of them
protests, and from which each one of them suffers, is not within their power
to remedy at all, unless they find a way to wrest world control from that
group of international financiers who create and control both these
conditions.

There is a super-capitalism which is supported wholly by the fiction that
gold is wealth. There is a super-government which is allied to no
government, which is free from them all, and yet which has its hand in them
all. There is a race, a part of humanity, which has never yet been received as
a welcome part, and which has succeeded in raising itself to a power that
the proudest Gentile race has never claimed—not even Rome in the days of
her proudest power. It is becoming more and more the conviction of men all

over the world that the labor question, the wage question, the land question
cannot be settled until first of all this matter of an international super-
capitalistic government is settled.

"To the victor belongs the spoils" is an old saying. And in a sense it is
true that if all this power of control has been gained and held by a few men
of a long-despised race, then either they are super-men whom it is
powerless to resist, or they are ordinary men whom the rest of the world has
permitted to obtain an undue and unsafe degree of power. Unless the Jews
are super-men, the Gentiles will have themselves to blame for what has
transpired, and they can look for rectification in a new scrutiny of the
situation and a candid examination of the experiences of other countries.

[Issue of May 22, 1920.]

II.

Germany's Reaction Against the Jew

Humanity has become wise enough to discuss those forms of physical
sickness over which it formerly drew the veil of shame and secrecy, but
political hygiene is not so far advanced. The main source of the sickness of
the German national body is charged to be the influence of the Jews, and
although this was apparent to acute minds years ago, it is now said to have
gone so far as to be apparent to the least observing. The eruption has broken
out on the surface of the body politic, and no further concealment of this
fact is possible. It is the belief of all classes of the German people that the
collapse which has come since the armistice, and the revolution from which
they are being prevented a recovery, are the result of Jewish intrigue and
purpose. They declare it with assurance; they offer a mass of facts to
confirm it; they believe that history will provide the fullest proof.

The Jew in Germany is regarded as only a guest of the people; he has
offended by trying to turn himself into the host. There are no stronger
contrasts in the world than the pure Germanic and pure Semitic races;
therefore, there has been no harmony between the two in Germany; the
German has regarded the Jew strictly as a guest, while the Jew, indignant at
not being given the privileges of the nation-family, has cherished animosity
against his host. In other countries the Jew is permitted to mix more readily

with the people, he can amass his control unchallenged; but in Germany the
case was different. Therefore, the Jew hated the German people; therefore,
the countries of the world which were most dominated by the Jews showed
the greatest hatred of Germany during the recent regrettable war. Jewish
hands were in almost exclusive control of the engines of publicity by which
public opinion concerning the German people was molded. The sole
winners of the war were Jews.

But assertion is not enough; proof is wanted; therefore, consider the
evidence. What occurred immediately upon the change from the old regime
to the new? The cabinet composed of six men, which substituted the
Minister of State, was dominated by the Jews Haase and Landsberg. Haase
had control of foreign affairs; his assistant was the Jew Kautsky, a Czech,
who in 1918 was not even a German citizen. Also associated with Haase
were the Jews Cohn and Herzfeld. The Jew Schiffer was Financial Minister
of State, assisted by the Jew Bernstein. The Secretary of the Interior was the
Jew Preuss, with the Jew Dr. Freund for his assistant. The Jew Fritz Max
Cohen, who was correspondent of the Frankfurter Zeitung in Copenhagen,
was made government publicity agent.

The kingdom of Prussia duplicated this condition of affairs. The Jews
Hirsch and Rosenfeld dominated the cabinet, with Rosenfeld controlling
the Department of Justice, and Hirsch in the Department of the Interior.
The Jew Simon was in charge of the Treasury Department. The Prussian
Department of Justice was wholly manned and operated by Jews. The
Director of Education was the Jew Furtran with the assistance of the Jew
Arndt. The Director of the Colonial Office was the Jew Meyer-Gerhard.
The Jew Kastenberg was the director of the Department of Art. The War
Food Supply Department was directed by the Jew Wurm, while in the State
Food Department were the Jews Prof. Dr. Hirsch and the Geheimrat Dr.
Stadthagen. The Soldiers' and Workmen's Committee was directed by the

Jew Cohen, with the Jews Stern, Herz, Lowenberg, Frankel, Israelowicz,
Laubenheim, Seligsohn, Katzenstein, Laufenberg, Heimann, Schlesinger,
Merz and Weyl having control of various activities of that committee.

The Jew Ernst is chief of police at Berlin; in the same office at
Frankfurt is the Jew Sinzheimer; in Munich the Jew Steiner; in Essen the
Jew Levy. It will be remembered that the Jew Eisner was President of
Bavaria, his financial minister being the Jew Jaffe. Bavaria's trade,
commerce and industry were in control of the half-Jew Brentano. The Jews
Lipsinsky and Schwarz were active in the government of Saxony; the Jews
Thalheimer and Heiman in Wurtemberg; the Jew Fulda in Hessen.

Two delegates sent to the Peace Conference were Jews and a third was
notoriously the tool of Jewish purposes. In addition Jews swarmed through
the German delegation as experts and advisors—Max Warburg, Dr. Von
Strauss, Merton, Oskar Oppenheimer, Dr. Jaffe, Deutsch, Brentano,
Bernstein, Struck, Rathenau, Wassermann, and Mendelsohn-Bartholdi.

As to the part which Jews from other countries had in the Peace
Conference, German observers declare that any candid student may
discover by reading the accounts of impartial non-Jewish recorders of that
event. Only the non-Jewish historians seem to have been struck by the fact;
the multitude of Jewish writers apparently judged it wise to conceal it.

Jewish influence in German affairs came strongly to the front during the
war. It came with all the directness and attack of a flying wedge, as if
previously prepared. The Jews of Germany were not German patriots
during the war, and although this will not appear a crime in the eyes of the
nations who were opposed to Germany, it may throw some light on the
Jew's assertion of patriotic loyalty to the land where he lives. Thoughtful
Germans hold that it is impossible for the Jew to be a patriot, for reasons
which will presently be given.

The point to be considered is the general claim that the persons already
named would not have obtained the positions in which they were found had
it not been for the Revolution, and the Revolution would not have come had
not they brought it. It is true that there were unsatisfactory conditions in
Germany, but they could and would have been adjusted by the people
themselves; the conditions which destroyed the people's morale and were
made impossible of reform were in control of the Jews.

The principal Jewish influences which are charged with bringing about
the downfall of German order may be named under three heads: (a) the
spirit of Bolshevism which masqueraded under the name of German
Socialism; (b) Jewish ownership and control of the Press; (c) Jewish control
of the food supply and the industrial machinery of the country. There was a
fourth, "higher up," but these worked upon the German people directly.

As it is possible that German conclusions upon this matter may be
received doubtfully by peoples whose public opinion has been shaped by
Jewish influence, it may help to quote George Pitter-Wilson, of the London
Globe, who wrote early in April, 1919, "Bolshevism is the dispossession of
the Christian nations of the world to such an extent that no capital will
remain in the hands of the Christians, that all Jews may jointly hold the
world in their hands and reign wherever they choose." As early as the
second year of the war, German Jews were preaching that Germany's defeat
was necessary to the rise of the proletariat, at which time Strobel declared,
"I openly admit that a full victory of the country would not be in the interest
of the Social Democrats." Everywhere it was preached that "the exaltation
of the proletariat after a won victory is an impossibility." These instances,
out of many, are cited not to reopen the military question but to show how
the so-called German Jew forgot loyalty to the country in which he lived
and joined the outside Jews in accomplishing the collapse of Germany, and
not merely, as we shall see, to rid Germany of militarism, which every

thoughtful German desired, but to throw the country into such confusion as
to permit them to seize control.

The press of Germany echoed this plan of the Jewish spokesmen, at first
faintly, then boldly. The Berliner Tageblatt and the Munchner Neuester
Nachrichten were during the whole war official and semi-official organs of
the government. They were owned and controlled by Jews, as was also the
Frankfurter Zeitung and a host of smaller papers that were their spiritual
dependents. These papers, it is charged, were really German editions of the
Jew-controlled press of the Allied countries, and their purpose was the
same. One of the great pieces of research that ought to be undertaken for the
purpose of showing the world how its thought is manufactured for it every
day, and for what ulterior purposes, is this union of the Jewish press, which
passes for the Public Press, throughout the world.

The food and supplies of the people quickly passed into Jewish hands as
soon as the war emergency came, and then began a period of dishonesty
which destroyed the confidence of the bravest. Like all other patriotic
people, the German people knew that war meant sacrifice and suffering, and
like other people they were willing to share the common lot. But they found
themselves preyed upon by a class of Jews who had prepared everything to
make profit out of the common distress. Immediately Jews appeared in
banks, war companies, distribution societies, and the ministries of supplies
—wherever the life of the people could be speculated in or taxed. Articles
that were plentiful disappeared, only to reappear again at high prices. The
war companies were exclusively Jewish, and although the government
attempted to regulate the outgo of food in the interests of all the people, it
became notorious that those with money could get all of anything they
wanted, regardless of the food cards. The Jews simply trebled the price of
the goods they let go without the cards, and so kept a stream of the nation's
gold flowing into their private treasuries. None of the government's

estimates of the food stocks could be depended on, because of the hidden
hoards on which these speculators drew. This began to disturb the morale of
the people, and complaints were made and prosecutions started; but as soon
as the cases came up it was discovered that the prosecutor appointed to
charge and the commissioner appointed to judge were also Jews, and so the
cases usually wore themselves out without results. When, however, a
German merchant was caught, great noise was made about it, and the
penalty placed upon him was equal to what all the others should have had.
Go the length and breadth of Germany today, say the reports, study the
temper of the people, and you will discover that the abuse of power by the
Jews has burned across Germany's memory like a hot iron.

While these influences were undermining the mass of the people, higher
influences of Jewish origin were operating upon the government. The
advisors of the Bethmann-Hollweg government were the great ship magnate
Ballin, a Jew; Theodor Wolff, of the Berliner Tageblatt and member of the
Pan-Jewish press; Von Gwinner, director of the German Bank who is
connected by marriage with the great Jew bankers, the Speyers; and
Rathenau, the leader of Jewish industrial-financial activities. These men
were at the source of things and were bending the government as the other
influences were bending the people.

The rich German Jew could buy the recognition he desired by acquiring
financial power over those interests which most directly affected the ruling
class of Germany, but how was the poor Jew to gain the recognition he
desired?—for all Jews are actuated by the same desire; it is in them; they
feel the spur to mastery. Having explored the conquest of the higher circles
by Jewish money-power, there is yet to explore the conquest of the body of
the nation by Jews who had no money except what they could seize in the
disorder which they caused. The analysis that is given, follows:

The Jew is not an anarchist. He is not a destructionist. All this is true,
notwithstanding he is the world's Bolshevist and preeminently Germany's
revolutionist. His anarchy is not ingrain, it is a device which he uses for a
purpose. The rich Jew is not an anarchist, because he can achieve what he
desires by more subtle methods. The poor Jew has no other recourse. But
rich and poor go jointly for a long stretch; the bond of sympathy between
them never breaks; for, if the anarchy is successful, then the poor Jew shall
take his place with the rich Jew; and if the anarchy is not successful, it has
nevertheless served to break up new fields in which the rich Jew may
operate.

In Germany it was possible for the poor Jew to thrust himself up through
the wall of Germanism above him only by breaking it up. In Russia the
same was true. The social system had encrusted around the Jew, keeping
him in a position where, as the nations knew by experience, he would be
less harmful. As nature encysts the harmful foreign element in the flesh,
building a wall around it, so nations have found it expedient to do with the
Jew. In modern times, however, the Jew has found a means of knocking
down the walls and throwing the whole national house into confusion, and
in the darkness and riot that follows, seize the place he has long coveted.
When Russia broke, who came first to light? Kerensky, who is a Jew. But
his plans were not radical enough, and then came Trotsky, another Jew.
Trotsky found the system too strong for him to break in America—he broke
through the weak spot in Russia and would extend that weakness round the
world. Every commissar in Russia today is a Jew. Publicists are accustomed
to speak of Russia as if it were in disorder. It may be that Russia is, but the
Jewish government of Russia is not. From a mass of underlings, the Jews of
Russia came up a perfect phalanx, a flying wedge through the superinduced
disorder, as if every man's place had been previously prepared for him.

That also is the way it was in Germany. The German ceiling had to be
broken, as it were, before the poor Jews could realize their ambition. When
the break was made they swarmed through and settled in places of control
above the nation.

This may explain why Jews the world over supply the energy of
disruptive movements. It is understood that the young Jews of the United
States are propagandists of an ideal that would practically abolish the
United States. The attack is aimed, of course, against "capitalism," which
means the present government of the world by the Gentile. The true
capitalists of the world are Jews, who are capitalists for capital's sake. It is
hard to believe that they wish to destroy capital; they wish to obtain sole
control of it, and their wish has long been in fair way to fulfillment.

In Germany, therefore, as in Russia, distinction is made between the
methods of the rich and of the poor Jews, because one method affects the
government and the other the morale of the people, but both converge on
the same objective. It is not only desire to escape oppression that actuates
the lower classes of Jews, but desire to gain control—for the spirit of
mastery pulses strong within them. German convictions on this question
have reached the place where they may be expressed thus: Revolution is the
expression of the Jews' will to power. Parties such as the socialists,
democrats and freethinkers are but tools for the Jewish plan to power. The
so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" is really and practically the
dictatorship of Jews.

So suddenly have German eyes been opened, so stormfully wrathful has
been the reaction, that the word has gone out through German Judaism to
retire to the second trench. There has been a sudden and concerted
abandonment of office wherever the office made direct contact with the
public; there has, however, been no abandonment of power. What will

happen in Germany is not now known. Some regrettable things have
already happened. But the Germans will doubtless prove themselves equal
to the situation by devising methods of control at once unobjectionable and
effective. But as to Russia, it is hardly doubtful any longer what will happen
there. When Russia turns, a shudder will run through the earth.

How Gentile Germany and Russia look at the entire question may be
summarized as follows:

Judaism is the most closely organized power on earth, even more than the
British Empire. It forms a State whose citizens are unconditionally loyal
wherever they may be and whether rich or poor.

The name which is given in Germany to this State which circulates
among all the states is "All-Judaan."

The means of power of the State of All-Judaan are capital and journalism,
or money and propaganda.

All-Judaan is the only State that exercises world government; all the
other States can and may exercise national government only.

The principal culture of All-Judaan is journalistic; the technical,
scientific, literary performances of the modern Jew are throughout
journalistic performances. They are due to the marvelous talent of the Jews
for receptivity of others' ideas. Capital and Journalism are joined in the
Press to create a political and spiritual medium of Jewish power.

The government of this state of All-Judaan is wonderfully organized.
Paris was its first seat, but has now been moved to third place. Before the
war London was its first, and New York its second capital. It remains to be

seen whether New York will now supplant London—the drift is toward
America.

As All-Judaan is not in a position to have a standing army and navy, other
states supply these for it. Its fleet is the British fleet, which guards from
hindrance the progress of all-Jewish world economy, or that part of it which
depends on the sea. In return, All-Judaan assures Britain an undisturbed
political and territorial world rule. All-Judaan has added Palestine to British
control. Wherever there was an All-Judaan land force (whatever national
uniform it might wear), it worked with the British navy.

All-Judaan is willing to entrust the government of various strips of the
world to the nationalistic governments; it only asks to control the
governments. Judaism is passionately in favor of perpetuating nationalistic
divisions for the Gentile world. For themselves, Jews never become
assimilated with any nation. They are a separate people, always were and
always will be.

All-Judaan's only quarrel with any nation occurs when that nation makes
it impossible for All-Judaan to control that nation's industrial and financial
profits. It can make war, it can make peace; it can command anarchy in
stubborn cases, it can restore order. It holds the sinews of world power in its
hand and it apportions them among the nations in such ways as will best
support All-Judaan's plan.

Controlling the world's sources of news, All-Judaan can always prepare
the minds of the people for its next move. The greatest exposure yet to be
made is the way that news is manufactured and the way in which the mind
of whole nations is molded for a purpose. When the powerful Jew is at last
traced and his hand revealed, then comes the ready cry of persecution and it
echoes through the world press. The real causes of the persecution (which is

the oppression of the people by the financial practices of the Jews) are
never given publicity.

All-Judaan has its vice-governments in London and New York. Having
wreaked its revenge on Germany it will now go forth to conquer other
nations. Britain it already has. Russia it is struggling for, but the chances are
against it. The United States, with its good-natured tolerance of all races,
offers a promising field. The scene of operations changes, but the Jew is the
same throughout the centuries.

[Issue of May 29, 1920.]

"At first sight it would seem as if the economic system of North America
was the very one that developed independently of the Jews . . . .
Nevertheless I uphold my assertion that the United States (perhaps more
than any other land) are filled to the brim with the Jewish spirit. This is
recognized in many quarters, above all in those best capable of forming a
judgment on the subject . . . .

"In the face of this fact, is there not some justification for the opinion that
the United States owe their very existence to the Jews? And if this be so,
how much more can it be asserted that Jewish influence made the United
States just what they are—that is, American? For what we call Americanism
is nothing else, if we may say so, than the Jewish spirit distilled."

—Werner Sombart, "The Jews and Modern Capital," pp. 38, 43.

III.

Jewish History in the United States

The story of the Jews in America begins with Christopher Columbus. On
August 2, 1492, more than 300,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, with
which event Spain's prestige began its long decline, and on August 3, the
next day, Columbus set sail for the West, taking a group of Jews with him.
They were not, however, refugees, for the prophetic navigator's plans had
aroused the sympathy of influential Jews for a long period previously.
Columbus himself tells us that he consorted much with Jews. The first letter
he wrote detailing his discoveries was to a Jew. Indeed, the eventful voyage
itself which added to men's knowledge and wealth "the other half of the
earth" was made possible by Jews.

The pleasant story that it was Queen Isabella's jewels which financed the
voyage has disappeared under cool research. There were three Maranos or
"secret Jews" who wielded great influence at the Spanish court: Luis de
Santagel, who was an important merchant of Valencia and who was
"farmer" of the royal taxes; his relative, Gabriel Sanchez, who was the royal
treasurer; and their friend, the royal chamberlain, Juan Cabrero. These
worked unceasingly on Queen Isabella's imagination, picturing to her the
depletion of the royal treasury and the likelihood of Columbus discovering
the fabulous gold of the Indies, until the Queen was ready to offer her
jewels in pawn for the funds. But Santagel craved permission to advance
the money himself, which he did, 17,000 ducats in all, about $20,000,
perhaps equal to $160,000 today. It is probable that the loan exceeded the
expedition's cost.

Associated with Columbus in the voyage were at least five Jews: Luis de
Torres, interpreter; Marco, the surgeon; Bernal, the physician; Alonzo de la
Calle, and Gabriel Sanchez. The astronomical instruments and maps which
the navigators used were of Jewish origin. Luis de Torres was the first man
ashore, the first to discover the use of tobacco; he settled in Cuba and may

be said to be the father of Jewish control of the tobacco business as it exists
today.

Columbus' old patrons, Luis de Santagel and Gabriel Sanchez, received
many privileges for the part they played in the work, but Columbus himself
became the victim of a conspiracy fostered by Bernal, the ship's doctor, and
suffered injustice and imprisonment as his reward.

From that beginning, Jews looked more and more to America as a fruitful
field, and immigration set in strongly toward South America, principally
Brazil. But because of military participation in a disagreement between the
Brazilians and the Dutch, the Jews of Brazil found it necessary to emigrate,
which they did in the direction of the Dutch colony of what is now New
York. Peter Stuyvesant, the Dutch governor, did not entirely approve of
their settling among his people and ordered them to leave, but the Jews had
evidently taken the precaution to assure their being received even if not
welcomed, because upon revoking the order of Stuyvesant, the Directors
gave as one of the reasons for the Jews being received, "the large amount of
capital which they have invested in the shares of the Company."
Nevertheless they were forbidden to enter public service and to open retail
shops, which had the effect of driving them into foreign trade in which they
were soon exercising all but a monopoly because of their European
connections.

This is only one of the thousand illustrations which can be given of the
resourcefulness of the Jew. Forbid him in one direction, he will excel in
another. When he was forbidden to deal in new clothes, he sold old clothes
—that was the beginning of the organized traffic in secondhand clothing.
When he was forbidden to deal in merchandise, he dealt in waste—the Jew
is the originator of the waste product business of the world; he was the
originator of the salvage system; he found wealth in the debris of

civilization. He taught people how to use old rags, how to clean old
feathers, how to use gall nuts and rabbit skins. He has always had a taste for
the furrier trade, which he now controls, and to him is due the multitude of
common skins which now pass under various alluring trade names as furs
of high origin. The idea of renovation gained commercial value through the
Jew. In the "rag men" who blow tin horns through our cities and save the
old iron, old bottles, old paper and old fabrics, we have the commercial
descendants of those earlier Jews who turned adversity into success by
converting the rubbish of the earth into material of value.

Unwittingly, old Peter Stuyvesant compelled the Jew to make New York
the principal port of America, and though a majority of New York Jews had
fled to Philadelphia at the time of the American Revolution, most of them
returned to New York at the earliest opportunity, instinct seeming to make
them aware that in New York was to be their principal paradise of gain. And
so it has proved. New York is the greatest center of Jewish population in the
world. It is the gateway where the bulk of American imports and exports are
taxed, and where practically all the business done in America pays tribute to
the masters of money. The very land of the city is practically the holdings of
the Jews. A list of the property owners of the metropolis reveals only at rare
intervals a Gentile name. No wonder that Jewish writers, viewing this
unprecedented prosperity, this unchecked growth in wealth and power,
exclaim enthusiastically that the United States is the Promised Land
foretold by the prophets, and New York the New Jerusalem. Some have
gone even further and described the peaks of the Rockies as "the mountains
of Zion," and with reason, too, if the mining and coastal wealth of the Jews
is considered.

The new waterways proposal, which will make an ocean port of
practically every great city on the Great Lakes and take from New York the
prestige she has maintained by being the gateway toward which the

principal railways narrowed, is being strongly protested at this time. And
the strongest motive in opposing this most obvious betterment is that so
much wealth counted in New York is not wealth at all, but fictitious values
depending solely on New York remaining New York. When anything comes
which will make New York merely a city on the coast, and not the city
where the great taxers sit to levy their tribute, much Jewish wealth will
decrease. It was fabulous before the war. What it is now the statisticians
will hardly undertake to say.

In fifty years the increase in the Jewish population of the United States
has been from 50,000 to more than 3,300,000. In the British Isles there are
only 300,000, in Palestine only 100,000. It is fortunate for the Jew himself
that in Great Britain his numbers are not greater, for the large and evident
control he exercises in great matters would sometimes make it inconvenient
for the poorer Jew, if he were abroad in England in large numbers. An
unusually well-informed Briton says that anti-Semitism is always ready to
break out in England upon sufficient cause, but it cannot break out against
the inaccessible rich Jews who control in politics and international finance.
It us probably true that the commonest real cause of anti-Semitism is the
action of the international Jew who is often unknown and always secure,
but the innocent victim of it is the poor Jew. Anti-Semitism, however, will
be considered in the next article.

The figures representing Jewish population in Great Britain and the
United States indicate that the colossal power wielded by international
Jewish financiers is neither consequent nor dependent upon their number.
The arresting fact about the Jew is his world-wide unchallenged power,
coupled with comparative numerical inferiority. There are only about
14,000,000 Jews in the world; they are about as numerous as the Koreans.
This comparison of their numbers with the Koreans will illustrate still more
vividly the phenomenon of their power.

In the time of George Washington there were about 4,000 Jews in the
country, most of them well-to-do traders. For the most part they favored the
American side. Haym Salomon helped the Colonies out with the loan of his
entire fortune at a critical moment. But they never assimilated, they did not
take up the usual employments nor farming, they never seemed to care for
the worry of manufacturing things, but only for the selling of them after
they were made.

It is only of recent years the Jew has shown any capacity for
manufacturing, and most of what he now engages in has grown up as an
adjunct to his merchandising plans. By manufacturing, he saves a profit.
The result has not been a decrease in cost to the public, but an increase. It is
characteristic of Jewish business methods that economies are for the sake of
the business, not for the sake of the public. The commodities in which there
have been the most inexcusable and exorbitant increases in prices to the
public, and the lines of business which have been most quickly frightened
into lower prices without any explanatory change in the general situation,
have been those lines in which Jews exercise the widest control.

Business to the Jewish mind is money; what the successful Jew may do
with the money after he gets it is another matter, but in the getting of it he
never permits "idealistic slush" to interfere with the dollar. His dollar of
profit is never "clipped" by any of the voluntary reforms by which a few
men are trying to ameliorate the condition of the workers.

This is not by any means due to the hardness of the Jewish heart, but to
the hardness of the Jewish view of business. Business is to it a matter of
goods and money, not of people. If you are in distress and suffering, the
Jewish heart would have sympathy for you; but if your house were involved
in the matter, you and your house would be two separate entities; the Jew
would naturally find it difficult, in his theory of business, to humanize the

house; he would deal with it after a manner which other people would call
"hard," but he would not feel the charge to be just; he would say that it was
only "business."

It is probably this way that the Jewish "sweatshops" of New York may be
explained. When the susceptible people of the nation commiserated the
poor Jews of the New York sweatshops, they for the most part did not know
that the inventors and operators of the "sweatshop" method were themselves
Jews. Indeed, while it is the boast of our country that no race or color or
creed is persecuted here, but liberty is insured to all, still it is a fact which
every special investigator has noted that the only heartless treatment ever
accorded the Jew in the United States came from his own people, his
overseers and masters. And yet there is no evidence that either the "sweater"
or the "sweated" ever thought of it as inhumanity or as "heartless." It was
"business." The "sweated" lived in the hope of having a roomful of people
sewing for him or her some day. Their endlessly vital interest in "business"
and their unflagging ambition to get further up the ladder and become
masters in their own sweatshop, enabled them to work without the slightest
sense of oppression or injustice which, after all, is the sorest thing about
poverty. The Jews never regard work as a calamity, but neither do they
regard subordinate positions as permanently theirs. Thus, they spend their
energies in getting up and out rather than in lamenting the inconveniences
of the place where they are and trying to improve it.

All this is individually excellent but socially harmful. The result is that,
until recently, the lower ranges of employment were wholly unsupervised,
and the higher circles never felt the necessity of devising industrial reforms
and benefits. The record of the great Jews in charity is very noble; their
record in industrial reforms is nil. With commendable sympathy toward
their own people, they will donate a part of their profits to rectify some of
the human need resulting from the method by which they made their profits,

but as for reforming the method by which they get their profits in order that
the resulting need might be diminished or prevented, apparently it has never
occurred to them. At least, while there are many charitable names among
the wealthier Jews, there are no names that stand for an actual, practical
humanizing of industry, its methods and its returns.

This, of course, is unfortunate; but it is intelligible; more than that, it is
explanatory of many things for which the Jew is blamed by those who do
not understand his nature. The Jew will go part way in sharing the results of
his prosperity; he has not gone any length, save upon outer compulsion, in
sharing the processes, or sharing wealth in the making. And while the social
effect is the same as if this were done out of cruel insensibility and
inhumanity, still it must be said that mostly it is done not out of such
feelings, but out of the Jew's ingrain conception of the game of business.
Some proposals of industrial reform appear as crazy to him as would a
proposal to credit one baseball batter's hit to his opponent's score, just as a
matter of humanity.

The American Jew does not assimilate. This is stated, not to blame him,
but merely as a fact. The Jew could merge with the people of America if he
desired, but he doesn't. If there is any prejudice existing against him in
America, aside from the sense of inquiry which his colossal success
engenders, it is because of his aloofness. The Jew is not objectionable in his
person, creed, or race. His spiritual ideals are shared by the world. But still
he does not assimilate; he cultivates by his exclusiveness the feeling that he
does not "belong." This is his privilege, and from one point of view it may
indicate excellent judgement, but he must not make it one of the grounds of
his complaint against Gentiles in general, as he has a tendency to do. It is
better that he should make it clear to Gentiles once and for all where true
Jews stand in the matter, as when a young Jew said—"There is all the
difference in the world between an American Jew and a Jewish American. A

Jewish American is a mere amateur Gentile, doomed to be a parasite
forever."

The ghetto is not an American product but the Jews' own importation.
They have separated themselves into a distinct community. Speaking of this
matter the Jewish Encyclopedia says: "The social organization of the Jews
resident in America has differed little from that in other countries * * * in
the main, and without any compulsion, Jews preferred to live in close
proximity to one another, a peculiarity which still prevails."

To make a list of the lines of business controlled by the Jews of the
United States would be to touch most of the vital industries of the country
—those which are really vital, and those which cultivated habit has made to
seem vital. The theatrical business, of course, as everyone knows, is
exclusively Jewish. Play-producing, booking, theater operation are all in the
hands of Jews. This perhaps accounts for the fact that in almost every
production today can be detected propaganda, sometimes glaringly
commercial advertisement, which does not originate with playwrights, but
with producers.

The motion picture industry.

The sugar industry.

The tobacco industry.

Fifty per cent or more of the meat packing industry.

Upward of 60 per cent of the shoemaking industry.

Men's and women's ready-made clothing.

Most of the musical purveying done in the country.

Jewelry.

Grain.

More recently, cotton.

The Colorado smelting industry.

Magazine authorship.

News distribution.

The liquor business.

The loan business.

These, only to name the industries with national and international sweep,
are in control of the Jews of the United States, either alone or in association
with Jews overseas.

The American people would be vastly surprised if they could see a line-
up of some of the "American business men" who hold up our commercial
prestige overseas. They are mostly Jews. They have a keen sense of the
value of the American name, and when in a foreign port you stroll up to the
office which bears the sign, "American Importing Company," or "American
Commercial Company," or other similarly non-committal names, hoping to
find a countryman, an American, you usually find a Jew whose sojourn in
America appears to have been all too brief. This may throw a sidelight on
the regard in which "American business methods" are held in some parts of
the world. When 30 or 40 different races of people can carry on business
under the name "American," and do it legally, too, it is not surprising that
Americans do not recognize some of the descriptions of American methods
which appear in the foreign press. The Germans long ago complained that

the rest of the world was judging them by the German-speaking Jewish
commercial traveler.

Instances of Jewish prosperity in the United States are commonplace, but
prosperity, the just reward of foresight and application, is not to be
confounded with control. The prosperity of the Jews can be had by anyone
who is willing to pay the price which the Jews pay for it—a very, very high
price, as a rule, all things considered—but it would be impossible for any
Gentile coalition under similar circumstances to attain the control which the
Jews have won, for the reason that there is lacking in the Gentile a certain
quality of working-togetherness, a certain conspiracy of objective, and the
adhesiveness of intense raciality, which characterizes the Jew. It is nothing
to a Gentile that another man is a Gentile; it is next to everything to a Jew
that the man at his door is another Jew. So, if instances of Jewish prosperity
were needed, the case of the Temple Emmanu-el, New York, might be cited,
which in 1846 could scarcely raise $1,520 for its budget, but in 1868,
following the Civil War, raised $708,755 from the rental of 231 pews. And
the rise of the Jewish clothing monopoly as one of the results of the same
Civil War might be cited as an instance of prosperity plus national and
international control.

Indeed, it might be said that the Jew has succeeded in everything he has
attempted in the United States, except farming. The explanation usually
made in Jewish publications is that ordinary farming is far too simple to
engage the Jew's intellect and therefore he is not enough interested in it to
succeed, but that in dairy and cattle farming where the "brain" is more
necessary he has made a success. Numerous attempts have been made in
various parts of the United States to start Jewish farming colonies, but their
story is a series of failures. Some have blamed the failures on the Jew's lack
of knowledge of scientific farming, others on his distaste for manual labor,
others on the lack of the speculative element in agriculture. In any case, he

stands higher in the non-productive employments than in this basically
productive one. Some students of the question state that the Jew never was
a man of the land, but always a trader, for which assertion one of the proofs
offered is the Jews' selection of Palestine as their country, that strip of land
which formed a gateway between East and West and over which the
overland traffic of the world passed.

[Issue of June 5, 1920.]

"The Jewish Question still exists. It would be useless to deny it . . . . The
Jewish Question exists wherever Jews live in perceptible numbers. Where it
does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations. We
naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted, and there our
presence produces persecution . . . . The unfortunate Jews are now carrying
anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America."

—Theodore Herzl, "A Jewish State," p. 4.

IV.

The Jewish Question—Fact or Fancy?

The chief difficulty in writing about the Jewish Question is the
supersensitiveness of Jews and non-Jews concerning the whole matter.
There is a vague feeling that even to openly use the word "Jew," or to
expose it nakedly to print, is somehow improper. Polite evasions like
"Hebrew" and "Semite," both of which are subject to the criticism of
inaccuracy, are timidly essayed, and people pick their way gingerly as if the
whole subject were forbidden, until some courageous Jewish thinker comes

straight out with the good old word "Jew," and then the constraint is
relieved and the air cleared. The word "Jew" is not an epithet; it is a name,
ancient and honorable, with significance for every period of human history,
past, present and to come.

There is extreme sensitiveness about the public discussion of the Jewish
Question on the part of Gentiles. They would prefer to keep it in the hazy
borderlands of their thought, shrouded in silence. Their heritage of tolerance
has something to do with their attitude, but perhaps their instinctive sense of
the difficulty involved has more to do with it. The principal public Gentile
pronouncements upon the Jewish Question are in the manner of the
truckling politician or the pleasant after-dinner speaker; the great Jewish
names in philosophy, medicine, literature, music and finance are named
over, the energy, ability and thrift of the race are dwelt upon, and everyone
goes home feeling that a difficult place has been rather neatly negotiated.
But nothing is changed thereby. The Jew is not changed. The Gentile is not
changed. The Jew still remains the enigma of the world.

Gentile sensitiveness on this point is best expressed by the desire for
silence—"Why discuss it at all?" is the attitude. Such an attitude is itself a
proof that there is a problem which we would evade if we could. "Why
discuss it at all?"—the keen thinker clearly sees in the implications of such
a question, the existence of a problem whose discussion or suppression will
not always be within the choice of easy-going minds.

Is there a Jewish Question in Russia? Unquestionably, in its most virulent
form. Is it necessary to meet that Question in Russia? Undoubtedly, meet it
from every angle along which light and healing may come.

Well, the percentage of the Jewish population of Russia is just one per
cent more than it is in the United States. The majority of the Jews
themselves are not less well-behaved in Russia than they are here; they

lived under restrictions which do not exist here; yet in Russia their genius
has enabled them to attain a degree of power which has completely baffled
the Russian mind. Whether you go to Rumania, Russia, Austria or
Germany, or anywhere else that the Jewish Question has come to the
forefront as a vital issue, you will discover that the principal cause is the
outworking of the Jewish genius to achieve the power of control.

Here in the United States it is the fact of this remarkable minority—a
sparse Jewish ingredient of three per cent in a nation of 110,000,000—
attaining in 50 years a degree of control that would be impossible to a ten
times larger group of any other race, that creates the Jewish Question here.
Three per cent of any other people would scarcely occasion comment,
because we could not meet with a representative of them wherever we went
in high places—in the innermost secrecy of the councils of the Big Four at
Versailles; in the supreme court; in the councils of the White House; in the
vast dispositions of world finance—wherever there is power to get or use.
Yet we meet the Jew everywhere in the upper circles, literally everywhere
there is power. He has the brains, the initiative, the penetrative vision which
almost automatically project him to the top, and as a consequence he is
more marked than any other race.

And that is where the Jewish Question begins. It begins in very simple
terms—How does the Jew so habitually and so resistlessly gravitate to the
highest places? What puts him there? Why is he put there? What does he do
there? What does the fact of his being there mean to the world?

That is the Jewish Question in its origin. From these points it goes on to
others, and whether the trend becomes pro-Jewish or anti-Semitic depends
on the amount of prejudice brought to the inquiry, and whether it becomes
pro-Humanity depends on the amount of insight and intelligence.

The use of the word Humanity in connection with the word Jew usually
throws a side-meaning which may not be intended. In this connection it is
usually understood that the humanity ought to be shown toward the Jew.
There is just as great an obligation upon the Jew to show his humanity
toward the whole race. The Jew has been too long accustomed to think of
himself as exclusively the claimant on the humanitarianism of society;
society has a large claim against him that he cease his exclusiveness, that he
cease exploiting the world, that he cease making Jewish groups the end and
all of his gains, and that he begin to fulfill, in a sense his exclusiveness has
never yet enabled him to fulfill, the ancient prophecy that through him all
the nations of the earth should be blessed.

The Jew cannot go on forever filling the role of suppliant for the world's
humanitarianism; he must himself show that quality to a society which
seriously suspects his higher and more powerful groups of exploiting it with
a pitiless rapacity which in its wide-flung and long drawn-out distress may
be described as an economic pogrom against a rather helpless humanity. For
it is true that society is as helpless before the well-organized extortions of
certain financial groups, as huddled groups of Russian Jews were helpless
against the anti-Semitic mob. And as in Russia, so in America, it is the poor
Jew who suffers for the delinquencies of the rich exploiter of his race.

This series of articles is already being met by an organized barrage by
mail and wire and voice, every single item of which carries the wail of
persecution. One would think that a heartless and horrible attack were being
made on a most pitiable and helpless people—until one looks at the
letterheads of the magnates who write, and at the financial ratings of those
who protest, and at the membership of the organizations whose responsible
heads hysterically demand retraction. And always in the background there is
the threat of boycott, a threat which has practically sealed up the columns of

every publication in America against even the mildest discussion of the
Jewish Question.

The Jewish Question in America cannot be concealed forever by threats
against publications, nor by the propagandist publication of matter
extremely and invariably favorable to everything Jewish. It is here and it
cannot be twisted into something else by the adroit use of propaganda, nor
can it be forever silenced by threats. The Jews of the United States can best
serve themselves and their fellow-Jews all over the world by letting drop
their far too ready cry of "anti-Semitism," by adopting a franker tone than
that which befits a helpless victim, and by seeing what the Jewish Question
is and how it behooves every Jew who loves his people to help solve it.

There has been used in this series the term "International Jew." It is
susceptible of two interpretations: one, the Jew wherever he may be; the
other, the Jew who exercises international control. The real contention of
the world is with the latter and his satellites, whether Jew or Gentile.

Now, this international type of Jew, this grasper after world-control, this
actual possessor and wielder of world-control is a very unfortunate
connection for his race to have. The most unfortunate thing about the
international Jew, from the standpoint of the ordinary Jew, is that the
international type is also a Jew. And the significance of this is that the type
does not grow anywhere else than on a Jewish stem. There is no other racial
nor national type which puts forth this kind of person. It is not merely that
there are a few Jews among international financial controllers; it is that
these world controllers are exclusively Jews. That is the phenomenon which
creates an unfortunate situation for those Jews who are not and never shall
be world-controllers, who are the plain people of the Jewish race. If world-
control were mixed, like the control, say, of the biscuit business, then the
occasional Jews we might find in those higher financial altitudes would not

constitute the problem at all; the problem would then be limited to the
existence of world-control in the hands of a few men, of whatever race or
lineage they might be. But since world-control is an ambition which has
only been achieved by Jews, and not by any of the methods usually adopted
by would-be world conquerors, it becomes inevitable that the question
should center in that remarkable race.

This brings another difficulty: in discussing this group of world-
controllers under the name of Jews (and they are Jews), it is not always
possible to stop and distinguish the group of Jews that is meant. The candid
reader can usually determine that, but the Jew who is in a state of mind to
be injured is sometimes pained by reading as a charge against himself what
was intended for the upper group. "Then why not discuss the upper group as
financiers and not as Jews?" may be asked. Because they are Jews. It is not
to the point to insist that in any list of rich men there are more Gentiles than
Jews; we are not talking about merely rich men who have, many of them,
gained their riches by serving a System, we are talking about those who
Control—and it is perfectly apparent that merely to be rich is not to control.
The world-controlling Jew has riches, but he also has something much more
powerful than that.

The international Jew, as already defined, rules not because he is rich, but
because in a most marked degree he possesses the commercial and
masterful genius of his race, and avails himself of a racial loyalty and
solidarity the like of which exists in no other human group. In other words,
transfer today the world-control of the international Jew to the hands of the
highest commercially talented group of Gentiles, and the whole fabric of
world-control would eventually fall to pieces, because the Gentile lacks a
certain quality, be it human or divine, be it natural or acquired, that the Jew
possesses.

This, of course, the modern Jew denies. There is a new position taken by
the modernists among the Jews which constitutes a denial that the Jew
differs from any other man except in the matter of religion. "Jew" they say
is not a racial designation, but a religious designation like "Episcopalian,"
"Catholic," "Presbyterian." This is the argument used in newspaper offices
in the Jews' protests against giving the Jewish designation to those of their
people who are implicated in crime—"You don't give the religious
classification of other people who are arrested," the editor is told, "why
should you do it with Jews?" The appeal to religious tolerance always wins,
and is sometimes useful in diverting attention from other things.

Well, if the Jews are only religiously differentiated from the rest of the
world, the phenomenon grows stranger still. For the rest of the world is
interested less in the Jew's religion than in anything else that concerns him.
There is really nothing in his religion to differentiate the Jew from the rest
of mankind, as far as the moral content of that religion is concerned, and if
there were he would have overcome that by the fact that his Jewish religion
supplies the moral structure for both of the other great religions. Moreover,
it is stated that there are among English speaking nations 2,000,000 Jews
who acknowledge their race and not their religion, while 1,000,000 are
classed as agnostic—are these any less Jews than the others? The world
does not think so. The authoritative students of human differences do not
think so. An Irishman who grows indifferent to the Church is still an
Irishman, and it would seem to be equally true that a Jew who grows
indifferent to the Synagogue is still a Jew. He at least feels that he is, and so
does the non-Jew.

A still more serious challenge would arise if this contention of the
modernists were true, for it would necessitate the explanation of these
world-controlling Jews by their religion. We should have to say, "They
excel through their religion," and then the problem would turn on the

religion whose practice should bring such power and prosperity to its
devotees. But another fact would intervene, namely, that these world-
controlling Jews are not notably religious; and still another fact would
hammer for recognition, namely, the most devout believers and most
obedient followers of the Jewish religion are the poorest among the Jews. If
you want Jewish orthodoxy, the bracing morality of the Old Testament, you
will find it, not among the successful Jews, who have Unitarianized their
religion to the same extent that the Unitarians have Judaized their
Christianity, but among the poor in the side streets who still sacrifice the
Saturday business for their Sabbath keeping. Certainly their religion has not
given them world-control; instead, they have made their own sacrifices to
keep it inviolate against modernism.

Of course, if the Jew differs from the rest of mankind only when he is in
full accord with his religion, the question becomes very simple. Any
criticism of the Jew becomes sheer religious bigotry and nothing else! And
that would be intolerable. But it would be the consensus of thoughtful
opinion that the Jew differs less in his religion than in anything else. There
is more difference between the two great branches of Christianity, more
conscious difference, than between any branch of Christianity and Judaism.

So that, the contention of certain modernists notwithstanding, the world
will go on thinking of the Jew as a member of a race, a race whose
persistence has defeated the utmost efforts made for its extermination, a
race that has preserved itself in virility and power by the observance of
those natural laws the violation of which has mongrelized so many nations,
a race which has come up out of the past with the two great moral values
which may be reckoned on monotheism and monogamy, a race which today
is before us as the visible sign of an antiquity to which all our spiritual
wealth harks back. Nay, the Jew will go on thinking of himself as the
member of a people, a nation, a race. And all the mixture and intermixture

of thought or faith or custom cannot make it otherwise. A Jew is a Jew and
as long as he remains within his perfectly unassailable traditions, he will
remain a Jew. And he will always have the right to feel that to be a Jew is to
belong to a superior race.

These world-controlling Jews at the top of affairs, then, are there by
virtue of, among other things, certain qualities which are inherent in their
Jewish natures. Every Jew has these qualities even if not in the supreme
sense, just as every Englishman has Shakespeare's tongue but not in
Shakespeare's degree. And thus it is impracticable, if not impossible, to
consider the international Jew without laying the foundations broadly upon
Jewish character and psychology.

We may discount at once the too common libel that this greater form of
Jewish success is built upon dishonesty. It is impossible to indict the Jewish
people or any other people on a wholesale charge. No one knows better than
the Jew how widespread is the notion that Jewish methods of business are
all unscrupulous. There is no doubt a possibility of a great deal of
unscrupulousness existing without actual legal dishonesty, but it is
altogether possible that the reputation the Jewish people have long borne in
this respect may have had other sources than actual and persistent
dishonesty.

We may indicate one of these possible sources. The Jew at a trade is
naturally quicker than most other men. They say there are other races which
are as nimble at a trade as is the Jew, but the Jew does not live much among
them. In this connection one may remember the famous joke about the Jew
who went to Scotland.

Now, it is human nature for the slower man to believe that the quicker
man is too deft by far, and to become suspicious of his deftness. Everybody
suspects the "sharper" even though his sharpness be entirely honest. The

slower mind is likely to conceive that the man who sees so many legitimate
twists and turns to a trade, may also see and use a convenient number of
illegitimate twists and turns. Moreover, there is always the ready suspicion
that the one who gets "the best of the bargain" gets it by trickery which is
not above board. Slow, honest, plain-spoken and straight-dealing people
always have their doubts of the man who gets the better of it.

The Jews, as the records for centuries show, were a keen people in trade.
They were so keen that many regarded them as crooked. And so the Jew
became disliked for business reasons, not all of which were creditable to the
intelligence or initiative of his enemies.

Take for example, the persecution which Jew merchants once suffered in
England. In older England the merchant class had many easy-going
traditions. One tradition was that a respectable tradesman would never seek
business but wait for it to come to him. Another tradition was that to
decorate one's store window with lights or colors, or to display one's stock
of goods attractively in the view of the public, was a contemptible and
underhanded method of tempting a brother tradesman's customers away
from him. Still another tradition was that it was strictly unethical and
unbusinesslike to handle more than one line of goods. If one sold tea, it was
the best reason in the world why he should not sell teaspoons. As for
advertising, the thing would have been so brazen and bold that public
opinion would have put the advertiser out of business. The proper demeanor
for a merchant was to seem reluctant to part with his goods.

One may readily imagine what happened when the Jewish merchant
bustled into the midst of this jungle of traditions. He simply broke them all.
In those days tradition had all the force of a divinely promulgated moral law
and in consequence of his initiative the Jew was regarded as a great
offender. A man who would break those trade traditions would stop at

nothing! The Jew was anxious to sell. If he could not sell one article to a
customer, he had another on hand to offer him. The Jews' stores became
bazaars, forerunners of our modern department stores, and the old English
custom of one store for one line of goods was broken up. The Jew went
after trade, pursued it, persuaded it. He was the originator of "a quick
turnover and small profits." He originated the installment plan. The one
state of affairs he could not endure was business at a standstill, and to start
it moving he would do anything. He was the first advertiser—in a day when
even to announce in the public prints the location of your store was to
intimate to the public that you were in financial difficulties, were about to
go to the wall and were trying the last desperate expedient to which no self-
respecting merchant would stoop.

It was as easy as child's play to connect this energy with dishonesty. The
Jew was not playing the game, at least so the staid English merchant
thought. As a matter of fact he was playing the game to get it all in his own
hands—which he has practically done.

The Jew has shown that same ability ever since. His power of analyzing
the money currents amounts to an instinct. His establishment in one country
represented another base from which the members of his race could operate.
Whether by the natural outworking of innate gifts, or the deliberate plan of
race unity and loyalty, all Jewish trading communities had relations, and as
those trading communities increased in wealth, prestige and power, as they
formed relations with governments and great interests in the countries
where they operated, they simply put more power into the central
community wherever it might be located, now in Spain, now in Holland,
now in England. Whether by intention or not, they became more closely
allied than the branches of one business could be, because the cement of
racial unity, the bond of racial brotherhood cannot in the very nature of
things exist among the Gentiles as it exists among the Jews. Gentiles never

think of themselves as Gentiles, and never feel that they owe anything to
another Gentile as such. Thus they have been convenient agents of Jewish
schemes at times and in places when it was not expedient that the Jewish
controllers should be publicly known; but they have never been successful
competitors of the Jew in the field of world-control.

From these separated Jewish communities went power to the central
community where the master bankers and the master analysts of conditions
lived. And back from the central community flowed information of an
invaluable character and assistance wherever needed. It is not difficult to
understand how, under such a condition, the nation that did not deal kindly
with the Jews was made to suffer, and the nation that yielded to them their
fullest desire was favored by them. And it is credibly stated that they have
made certain nations feel the power of their displeasure.

This system, if it ever existed, exists in greater power today. It is today,
however, threatened as it has never been. Fifty years ago, international
banking, which was mostly in control of the Jews as the money brokers of
the world, was on top of business. It exercised the supercontrol of
governments and finance everywhere. Then came that new thing, Industry,
which expanded to a degree unguessed by the shrewdest prophets and
analysts. As Industry gathered strength and power it became a powerful
money magnet, drawing the wealth of the world in its train, not, however,
merely for the sake of possessing the money, but of making it work.
Production and profit on production, instead of loans and interest on loans,
became the master method for a time. The war came, in which the former
broker-masters of the world had undoubtedly their large part. And now the
two forces, Industry and Finance, are in a struggle to see whether Finance is
again to become the master, or creative Industry. This is one of the elements
which is bringing the Jewish Question to the bar of public opinion.

To state this and to prove it may be nothing more than to establish the
superiority of Jewish ability. Certainly it is not a tenable position to say that
the Jew is extraordinarily successful and therefore must be curbed. It would
be equally aside from the truth to say that the co-ordination of Jewish
activity has been, on the whole, a harmful thing for the world. It may be
possible to show that up to this point it has been useful. Success cannot be
attacked nor condemned. If any moral question arises at all, it must concern
the use made of the success which has been attained. The whole matter
centers there, after the previous fact is established. May the Jew go on as he
has gone, or does his duty to the world require another use of his success?

This inquiry obviously leads to further discussion, as well as a gathering
up of the remaining threads of the present discussion, which future articles
will attempt to do.

[Issue of June 12, 1920.]

"To this end we must organize. Organize, in the first place, so that the
world may have proof of the extent and the intensity of our desire for
liberty. Organize, in the second place, so that our resources may become
known and be made available . . . .

"Organize, organize, organize, until every Jew must stand up and be
counted—counted with us, or prove himself, wittingly or unwittingly, of the
few who are against their own people."

—Louis D. Brandeis, Justice of the United States Supreme Court,
"Zionism," pp. 113, 114.

V.

Anti-Semitism—Will It Appear in the U. S.?

Anyone who essays to discuss the Jewish Question in the United States
or anywhere else must be fully prepared to be regarded as an Anti-Semite,
in high-brow language, or in low-brow language, a Jew-baiter. Nor need
encouragement be looked for from people or from press. The people who
are awake to the subject at all prefer to wait and see how it all turns out;
while there is probably not a newspaper in America, and certainly none of
the advertising mediums which are called magazines, which would have the
temerity even to breathe seriously the fact that such a Question exists. The
press in general is open at this time to fulsome editorials in favor of
everything Jewish (specimens of the same being obtainable almost
anywhere), while the Jewish press, which is fairly numerous in the United
States, takes care of the vituperative end.

Of course, the only acceptable explanation of any public discussion at
present of the Jewish Question is that some one—writer, or publisher, or a
related interest—is a Jew-hater. That idea seems to be fixed; it is fixed in
the Jew by inheritance; it is sought to be fixed in the Gentile by propaganda,
that any writing which does not simply cloy and drip in syrupy sweetness
toward things Jewish is born of prejudice and hatred. It is, therefore, full of
lies, insult, insinuation, and constitutes an instigation to massacre. These
terms are culled at random from Jewish editorial utterances at hand.

It would seem to be necessary for our Jewish citizens to enlarge their
classification of Gentiles to include the class which recognizes the existence
of a Jewish Question and still is not anti-Semitic.

There are four distinct parties traceable among the Jews themselves.
First, those whose passionate purpose is to keep Jewish faith and life alive
at the cost of any sacrifice of popularity or success; second, those who are

willing to make whatever sacrifice may be needed to preserve Jewish
religion, but are not so particular about the traditional customs of Jewish
life; third, those who have no very strong convictions either way, but are
opportunists, and will always swerve in the direction of success; and,
fourth, those who believe and preach that the only solution of the
differences between the Jew and other men is the complete absorption of
the Jewish race by the other races. The fourth is the weakest, most
unpopular and least to be considered of all the parties.

With the Gentiles there are only two classes, as far as this special
question is concerned: those who dislike Jews, they cannot tell why; and
those who are disposed to fairness, in spite of the accident of congeniality
or uncongeniality, and who recognize the Jewish Question as, at least, a
problem. Both these attitudes, whenever they become apparent, are subject
to the charge of "anti-Semitism."

Anti-Semitism is a term which is bandied about too loosely. It ought to
be reserved to denote the real anti-Jewish temper of violent prejudice. If
used indiscriminately about all who attempt to discuss Jewish
characteristics and Jewish world-power, it may in time arrive at the estate of
respectability and honor.

Anti-Semitism in almost every form is bound to come to the United
States; indeed, it may be said that it is here now, and has been here for a
long time. If it be mislabeled now, the United States will not be able to
work within it the transformation which has been effected upon so many
other ideas that have arrived here in their journey round the globe.

I.

It may be a serviceable clearing of the ground to define what anti-Semitism
is not:

1. It is not recognition of the Jewish Question. If it were, then it could be
set down that the bulk of the American people are destined to become anti-
Semites, for they are beginning to recognize the existence of a Jewish
Question and will steadily do so in increasing numbers as the Question is
forced upon them from the various practical angles of their lives. The
Question is here. We may be honestly blind to it. We may be timidly silent
about it. We may even make dishonest denial of it. But it is here. In time all
will have to recognize it. In time the polite "hush, hush" of over-sensitive or
intimidated circles will not be powerful enough to suppress it. But to
recognize it will not mean that we have gone over to a campaign of hatred
and enmity against the Jews. It will only mean that a stream of tendency
which has been flowing through our civilization has at last accumulated
bulk and power enough to challenge attention, to call for some decision
with regard to it, to call for the adoption of a policy which will not repeat
the mistakes of the past and yet will forestall any possible social menace of
the future.

2. Again, the public discussion of the Jewish Question is not anti-
Semitism. Publicity is sanitary. The publicity given the Jewish Question, or
certain aspects of it, in this country has been very misleading. It has been
discussed more fully in the Jewish press than elsewhere, but not with
candor or breadth of vision. The two dominant notes—they are sounded
over and over again with monotonous regularity in the Jewish press—are
Gentile unfairness and Christian prejudice. These apparently are the two
chief aspects of life which impress Jewish publicists when they look over
the line of their own race. It is said in all soberness that it is fortunate for
Jews generally that the Jewish press does not circulate very widely among
Gentiles, for it is probably the one established agency in the United States

which, without altering its program in the least, could stir up anti-Jewish
sentiment by the simple expedient of a general reading among non-Jews.
Jewish writers writing for Jewish readers present unusual material for the
study of race consciousness and its accompaniment of contempt for other
races. It is true that in the publications referred to, America is constantly
praised, but not America as the land of the American people; America,
rather, as the land of the Jews' opportunity.

On the side of the daily press, there has been no serious discussion at all.
This is neither surprising nor reprehensible. The daily press deals with
matters that have reached the overheated stage. When it mentions the Jews
at all, it has stock phrases for the purpose; the effort includes a list of the
famous Jews of history, and usually closes with complimentary references
to certain local Jews of commendable qualities, whose advertisements are
not infrequently found in another part of the paper. Summing up, it may be
said that the publicity given the question in this country consists in
misrepresentative criticism of the Gentiles by the Jewish press and
misrepresentative praise of the Jews by the non-Jewish press. An
independent effort to give a constructive publicity cannot, therefore, be laid
to anti-Semitism, even when some of the statements which are made in the
course of it arouse the resentment of Jewish readers.

3. Nor is it anti-Semitism to say that the suspicion is abroad in every
capital of civilization and the certainty is held by a number of important
men that there is active in the world a plan to control the world, not by
territorial acquisition, not by military aggression, nor by governmental
subjection, not even by economic control in the scientific sense, but by
control of the machinery of commerce and exchange. It is not anti-Semitism
to say that, nor to present the evidence which supports that, nor to bring the
proof of that. Those who could best disprove it if it were not true are the
international Jews themselves, but they have not disproved it. Those who

could best prove it would be those Jews whose ideals include the good of
the whole of humanity on an equality and not the good of one race only, but
they have not proved it. Some day a prophetic Jew may arise who will see
that the promises bestowed upon the Ancient People are not to be fulfilled
by Rothschild methods, and that the promise that all the nations were to be
blessed through Israel is not to be fulfilled by making the nations the
economic vassals of Israel; and when that time comes we may hope for a
redirection of Jewish energy into channels that will drain the present
sources of the Jewish Question. In the meantime, it is not anti-Semitism, it
may even be found to be a world service to the Jew, to throw light on what
purpose motivates certain higher circles.

If the above propositions are true, then the term "anti-Semitic," so freely
bestowed on this series of articles, betrays a worse spirit in the critics than
in the author. But enough of that. There is much yet to do, and what is done
must stand on what merit remains after friend and foe alike are through with
praise and blame.

II.

Anti-Semitism has unquestionably swayed large sections of humanity at
various times, warping the vision, twisting the characters and staining the
hands of its victims, but the most amazing statement that can be made of it
is that it has never accomplished anything in behalf of those who used it,
and it has never taught anything to the Jews against whom it was used.

The grades of anti-Semitism are fairly numerous, and a few of them may
be cited here:

1. There is first that degree of anti-Semitism, if it may be so described,
which consists in plain dislike of the Jew as a person, no matter whom he

may be. This is often found in people of all grades. It is found mostly,
however, in those whose contact with Jews has been very limited. It begins
sometimes in childhood with an instinctive dislike for the word "Jew." It is
encouraged by the misuse of the word "Jew" as an epithet, or as an
adjective generally descriptive of unpopular practices. The feeling is not
different from that which exists toward Gentiles, concerning whom the
same notions are held, but it differs in that it is extended to the race of
unknown individual Jews instead of being restricted to known individuals
who may justify such a feeling.

Congeniality is not within our choice, but control of the sentiment of
uncongeniality is. Every fair-minded person is compelled at times to reflect
that it is not impossible that the person for whom he feels a dislike may be
as good and possibly a better person than he. Our dislike merely registers
the result of attraction and repulsion as they operate between another person
and oneself; it does not indicate that the disliked person is unworthy. Of
course, wherever intelligence is joined with this instinctive withdrawal from
social contact with members of the Jewish race, prejudice is forestalled,
except, of course, in those persons who hold that there are no individuals
among the Jews worthy of respect. This is an extreme attitude and is
composed of other elements beside natural dislike. It is possible for people
to dislike Jews and not be anti-Semitic. Indeed, it is not at all uncommon, it
grows more and more common, that intelligent and refined Jews themselves
do not relish the society of their own people except in cases of exceptional
refinement.

This reality calls for some comment on the manners and characteristics of
the ordinary member of the Jewish race, the accidents of behavior which
stand out most obnoxiously and of which Jews themselves are often the
most unsparing critics, but these comments must fall into place later.

2. A second stage of the spirit of anti-Semitism may be designated as
hatred and enmity. It should be noted that the antipathy referred to
immediately above was not hatred. Dislike is not hatred, nor is it
necessarily enmity. One may dislike sugar in his tea without troubling to
hate sugar. But undoubtedly there are people who because they have let
their dislikes deepen into prejudice, and perhaps also because of unpleasant
experiences with members of the Jewish race (probably a million
Americans have been brought to the verge of becoming Jew-haters this
winter because of contact with Jewish merchants and landlords) may be
classified as, at least, incipient anti-Semites. This is most of all unfortunate
for the persons who harbor these emotions. It is unfortunate in that it unfits
the mind to consider intelligently the facts which constitute the Jewish
Question, and also unfits it to deal with them in a fair and constructive way.
For one's own sake, whatever the provocation otherwise, it is better not to
let passion deflect the needle of one's mind. Hatred at the wheel means
hazard on the course. Enmity lives in the vicinity of the Jews more than of
any other race, and the reason for this is one of the puzzles of the ages. The
Jewish nature itself, as shown in ancient and modern history, is not without
its own share of enmity, and it either evokes or provokes enmity where it
comes in contact with those Aryan races which follow their natural
impulses unchecked by cultural and ethical influences. This age-long
conflict of the Jew has puzzled the minds of students for generations. Some
explain it Biblically as the curse of Jehovah upon His Chosen People for
their disobedience to the discipline by which He would have made them the
Prophet Nation of the world. If this offense must come, if it is part of the
Jew's heritage, an old saying—Christian and Scriptural, by the way—would
still remain true: "It must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man
by whom the offense cometh."

3. In some parts of the world at various times this feeling of hatred has
broken into murderous violence, which has roused, as wholesale physical

outrage always does, the horror and resentment of humanity. This is the
extreme form in which anti-Semitism has exhibited itself, and it is the
charge of intending to stimulate it here and elsewhere which every public
discussion of the Jewish Question has to bear. There is, of course, no excuse
for these outbreaks, but there is sufficient explanation of them. The Jews
usually explain them as expressions of religious prejudice, and the Gentiles
as rebellion against an economic yoke which the Jews have woven for the
people. It is an astonishing fact that, to take one country, the parts of Russia
where anti-Semitic violence has been most marked are the most prosperous
parts, so prosperous indeed and with a prosperity so unquestionably due to
Jewish enterprise that the Jews have openly declared that they have the
power to throw those parts of Russia back into commercial lethargy again
by simply withdrawing. It is utterly idle to throw denials at this statement. It
is confirmed time and time again by men who have gone to Russia full of
resentment against the attitude of the Russians toward the Jews, as that
attitude is represented in the Anglo-Saxon press, and who have come home
with a new light on the cause of these outbreaks, though not excusing their
character. Impartial observers have also found that some of the outbreaks
have been precipitated by the Jews themselves. A correspondent, known the
world over for his trenchant defense of the Jews under Russian persecution,
was always bitterly attacked by the Jews themselves whenever he stated the
truth about this, notwithstanding his protest to them that if he did not tell the
truth when they were in the wrong the world would not be ready to believe
him when he said they were blameless. To this day, in every country, the
Jews are slow to admit blameworthiness for anything. They must be
excused, whoever else may be accused. It is a trait which will have to be
disciplined before they can be brought to assist, if ever they can, the
removal of those characteristics which arouse the antagonism of other
peoples. Elsewhere in the world, it may be said that out-and-out enmity to
the Jews has an economic basis. This, of course, leads to the question

whether the Jew shall have to become a deliberate failure, or deny his
genius, and forego his just meed of prosperity before he can win the
approval of the other races—a question which will arise for discussion later.

As to the religious prejudice which the Jews are, as a rule, readiest to
affirm, it is safe to say that it does not exist in the United States. Yet it is
charged up to Americans by Jewish writers just as freely as it is charged up
to Russians. Each non-Jew reader is competent to settle this for himself. He
can easily do so by asking himself whether in all his life he has ever felt a
moment's resentment against the Jew on account of his religion. In an
address recently delivered in a Jewish lodge and reported in the Jewish
press, the speaker, a Jew, stated that if 100 non-Jews on the street were
approached at random and casually asked what a Jew is, the reply of the
majority would be, "He is a Christ-killer." One of the best known and most
highly respected rabbis in the United States said recently in a sermon that
children in Christian Sunday schools were taught to regard the Jew as a
Christ-killer. He repeated it in a conversation several weeks later.

It would probably be the testimony of Christians generally that they
never heard this term until they heard it in a Jewish complaint, and certainly
themselves never used it. The charge is absurd. Let the 20,000,000 now in
the Christian Sunday schools of Canada and the United States testify as to
the instruction given. There is no hesitation in stating that there is no
prejudice whatever in the Christian churches against the Jew on account of
his religion. On the contrary, there is not only a deep sense of indebtedness,
but a feeling of sharing with the Jew in his religion. The Sunday schools of
the Christian churches of the world are spending six months of this year
studying the International Lessons which are appointed for the Books of the
Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel and the Books of the Kings, and
every year is devoted in part to the Old Testament.

Here, however, is something for Jewish religious leaders to consider:
there is more downright bitterness of religious prejudice on the part of the
Jews against Christianity than could ever be possible in the Christian
churches of America. Simply take the church press of America and compare
it with the Jewish press in this regard, and there is no answer. No Christian
editor would think it either Christian or intelligent to attack the Jewish
religion, yet any six months' survey of the Jewish press would yield a mass
of attack and prejudice on the other side. Moreover, no religious bitterness
in America attains within infinite distances to that bitterness visited upon
the Jew who becomes a Christian in his faith. It amounts almost to a holy
vendetta. A Christian may become a Jewish proselyte and his motives be
respected; it is never so when a Jew becomes a Christian. These statements
are true of both the orthodox and liberal wings of Judaism. It is not his
religion that gives prominence to the Jew today; it is something else. And
yet, with undeviating monotony, it is repeated wherever the Jew takes
cognizance of the feeling toward him that it is on account of three things,
first and most prominent of which is his religion. It may be comforting to
him to think that he is suffering for his faith, but it is not true. Every
intelligent Jew must know it.

Every Jew ought to know also that in every Christian church where the
ancient prophecies are received and studied, there is a great revival of
interest in the future of the Ancient People. It is not forgotten that certain
Promises were made to them regarding their position in the world, and it is
held that these prophecies will be fulfilled. The future of the Jew, as
prophetically outlined, is intimately bound up with the future of this planet,
and the Christian church in large part—at least by the evangelical wing,
which the Jews most condemn—sees a Restoration of the Chosen People
yet to come. If the mass of the Jews knew how understandingly and
sympathetically all the prophecies concerning them are being studied in the
Church, and the faith that exists that these prophecies will find fulfillment

and that they will result in great Jewish service to society at large, they
would probably regard the Church with another mind. They would at least
know that the Church does not believe that it will be the instrument in the
conversion of the Jews—a point on which Jewish leaders are tragically
misled and which evokes more bitterness than anything else—but that it
depends on quite other instruments and conditions, which it is not the
function of this article to point out except to say that it will be the Jews'
very own Messiah which will accomplish it and not the "wild olive," or the
Gentile.

Curiously enough, there is a phase of anti-Semitism having to do with
religion, but not in the way here discussed. There are those, very few in
number and of atheistical tendencies, who assert that all religion is a sham,
being the invention of Jews for the purpose of enslaving the minds of the
people of the world to an enervating superstition. This position, however,
has had no effect on the main issue. It is a far extreme.

III.

Now, which of these exhibitions of anti-Semitism will show itself in
America? If certain tendencies continue, as they are certain to do, what
form will the feeling toward the Jew take? Not that of mass violence, we
may be sure. The only mass action visible now is that of the Jewish
agencies themselves against any person or institution that dares bring the
Jewish Question to public attention.

1. Anti-Semitism will come to America because of the habit which
emotions and ideas apparently have of making their way westward around
the world. North of Palestine, where the Jews have been longest settled and
where they are now in great numbers, anti-Semitism is acute and well-
defined. Westward, in Germany, it is clearly defined but, until the seizure of

German revolutionary agencies, was devoid of violence. Still farther
westward, in Great Britain, it is defined, but because of the comparatively
small number of Jews in the British Isles and their coalition with the ruling
class, it is more a feeling than a movement. In the United States it is not so
definite, but shows itself in a restlessness, a questioning, a sensible friction
between the traditional tendency of the American to fair-mindedness and his
respect for the cold facts.

Because the Question will assume more and more pressure in America it
behooves everyone of foresight to disregard the shortsighted protests of the
Jews themselves and see to it that the Question shall not present itself
among us as it has done among other people, in its most distressing and
confusing forms. It is a public duty to seize this problem at its beginning
and train it up, so to speak; that is, so prepare for it that it may be handled
here in a manner which will form a model for all other countries, which will
indeed supply all other countries with the essential materials for a
permanent solution. And this can be done only by exposing and recognizing
and treating with the serum of publicity the conditions before which,
heretofore, the nations have helplessly floundered because they lacked
either the desire or the means to get at the great root of the difficulty.

2. Another cause of the Question appearing here will be the great influx
of Jews which is planned for America. There will probably be a million
Jews enter the country this year, increasing our Jewish population to nearly
4,500,000. This does not mean merely an immigration of persons, but an
immigration of ideas. No Jewish writer has ever told us, in systematic
fashion, just what is the Jews' idea of non-Jews, how they regard the
Gentiles in their private minds. But there are indications of it, although one
would not attempt to reconstruct the Jewish attitude toward Gentiles. A Jew
ought to do this for us, but he would probably be cast out by his own people
if he discharged his task with rigorous jealousy for the exact fact.

These people are coming here regarding the Gentile as an hereditary
enemy, as perhaps they have good ground for doing, and so believing they
are going to model their behavior in a manner that will show it. Nor will
these Jews be so helpless as they appear. In stricken Poland, where the Jews
are represented as having been stripped of everything during the war, there
are hundreds daily appearing before the consulate to arrange their passage
here. The fact is significant. In spite of their reputed suffering and poverty,
they are able to travel a great distance and to insist on coming. No other
people are financially able to travel in such numbers. But the Jews are. It
will readily be seen that they are not objects of charity. They have been able
to keep afloat in a storm that has wrecked the other people. They know it
and they joy in it, as is natural. And they will bring here the same thoughts
toward the majority which they have harbored in their present lands of
domicile. They may hail America; they will have their own thoughts about
the majority of the American people. They may be in the lists as Russians or
Poles or what not, but they will be Jews with the full Jewish consciousness,
and they will make themselves felt.

All this is bound to have its effect. And it is not race prejudice to prepare
for it, and to invite American Jews themselves to consider the fact and
contribute to the solution of the problem which it presents.

3. Every idea which has ruled Europe has met with transformation when
it was transplanted in America. It was so with the idea of Liberty, the idea
of Government, the idea of War. It will be so with the idea of anti-Semitism.
The whole problem will center here and if we are wise and do not shirk it, it
will find its solution here. A recent Jewish writer has said: "Jewry today
largely means American Jewry . . . . . . . . . . all former Jewish centers were
demolished during the war and were shifted to America." The problem will
be ours, whether we choose it or not.

And what course will it take? Much depends on what can be
accomplished before it becomes very strong. It may be said, however, that
the first element to appear will be a show of resentment against certain
Jewish commercial successes, more particularly against the united action by
which they are attained. Our people see the spectacle of a people in the
midst of a people, in a sense which the Mormons never were, and they will
not like it. The Mormons made an Exodus; Israel is going back into Egypt
to subjugate it.

The second element which will undoubtedly appear is prejudice and its
incitement. The majority may always be right, but they are not always
initially reasonable. That prejudice which exists now, and which is freely
admitted by both Jew and Gentile, may become more marked, to the
distress of both parties, for neither the subject nor the object of prejudice
can attain that freedom of mind which is happiness.

Then we may most confidently look for a reaction of Justice. It is here
that the whole matter will begin to bend to the genius of Americanism. The
innate justice of the American mind has come to the aid of every object that
ever roused American resentment. The natural reaction with us is of very
brief duration; the intellectual and ethical reaction swiftly follows. The
American mind will never rest with merely resenting certain individuals. It
will probe deeper. Already this deeper probe has been begun in Great
Britain and America. We characteristically do not stop with persons when
principles are in sight.

And upon this there will be an investigation of materials, part of which
may yet be presented in this series and which may possibly be disregarded
for a time, but which at a future date will be found to be the clue to the
maze. Upon this, the root of all the trouble will be bared to the light, to die
as all roots do when deprived of their concealment of darkness, and then the

Jewish people themselves may be expected to begin an adjustment to the
new order of things, not to lose their identity or to curtail their energy or to
dim their brilliance, but to turn all into more worthy channels for the benefit
of all races, which alone can justify their claim to superiority. A race that
can achieve in the material realm what the Jews have achieved while
asserting themselves to be spiritually superior, can achieve in a less sordid,
a less society-defying realm also.

The Jews will not be destroyed; neither will they be permitted to
maintain the yoke which they have been so skillful in fastening upon
society. They are the beneficiaries of a system which itself will change and
force them to other and higher devices to justify their proper place in the
world.

[Issue of June 19, 1920.]

"We must force the Gentile governments to adopt measures which will
promote our broadly conceived plan already approaching its triumphal goal
by bringing to bear the pressure of stimulated public opinion which has in
reality been organized by us with the help of the so-called 'great power' of
the Press. With few exceptions, not worth considering, it has already fallen
into our hands."

—The Seventh Protocol.

VI.

Jewish Question Breaks Into the Magazines

Once upon a time an American faculty member of an American
university went to Russia on business. He was expert in a very important
department of applied science and a keen observer. He entered Russia with
the average American's feeling about the treatment which the government
of that people accorded the Jew. He lived there three years, came home for a
year, and went back again for a similar period, and upon his second return
to America he thought it was time to give the American public accurate
information about the Jewish Question in Russia. He prepared a most
careful article and sent it to the editor of a magazine of the first class in the
Eastern United States. The editor sent for him, spent most of two days with
him, and was deeply impressed with all he learned—but he said he could
not print the article. The same interest and examination occurred with
several other magazine editors of the first rank.

It was not because the professor could not write—these editors gladly
bought anything he would write on other subjects. But it was impossible for
him to get his article on the Jews accepted or printed in New York.

The Jewish Question, however, has at last broken into a New York
magazine. Rather it is a fragment of a shell hurled from the Jewish camp at
the Jewish Question to demolish, if possible, the Question and thus make
good the assertion that there is no such thing.

Incidentally it is the only kind of article on the Jewish Question that the
big magazines, whose mazes of financial controllers make most interesting
rummaging, would care to print.

Yet, the general public may learn much about the Question even from the
type of article whose purpose is to prove that the Question doesn't exist.

Mr. William Hard, in the Metropolitan for June, has done as well as could
be expected, considering the use he was supposed to make of such material

as he had at hand. And doubtless the telegraph and letter brigades, which
keep watch over all printed references to the Jews, have duly congratulated
the good editors of the Metropolitan for their assistance in soothing the
public to further sleep.

It is to be hoped, for the sake of the Question, that Mr. Hard's effort will
have a wide reading, for there is very much to be learned from it—much
more than it was anybody's intention should be learned from it.

It may be learned, first, that the Jewish Question exists. Mr. Hard says it
is discussed in the drawing-rooms of London and Paris. Whether the
mention of drawing-rooms was a writer's device to intimate that the matter
was unimportant and frivolous, or merely represented the extent of Mr.
Hard's contact with the Question is not clear. He adds, however, that a
document relating to the Question has "travelled a good bit in certain
official circles in Washington." He also mentions a cable dispatch to the
New York World, concerning the same Question, which that paper
published. His article was probably published too early to note the review
which the London Times made of the first document referred to. But he has
told the reader who is looking for the objective facts in the article that there
is a Jewish Question, and that it does not exist among the riff-raff either but
principally in those circles where the evidence of Jewish power and control
is most abundant. Moreover, the Question is being discussed. Mr. Hard tells
us that much. If he does not go further and tell us that it is being discussed
with great seriousness in high places and among men of national and
international importance, it is probably because of one of two things, either
he does not know, or he does not consider it consonant with the purpose of
the article to tell.

However, Mr. Hard has already made it clear that there is a Jewish
Question, that it is being discussed, that it is being discussed by people who

are best situated to observe the matter they are talking about.

The reading of Mr. Hard's article makes it clear also that the Question
always comes to the fore on the note of conspiracy. Of course, Mr. Hard
says he does not believe in conspiracies which involve a large number of
people, and it is with the utmost ease that his avowal of unbelief is
accepted, for there is nothing more ridiculous to the Gentile mind than a
mass conspiracy, because there is nothing more impossible to the Gentile
himself. Mr. Hard, we take it, is of non-Jewish extraction, and he knows
how impossible it would be to band Gentiles together in any considerable
number for any length of time in even the noblest conspiracy. Gentiles are
not built for it. Their conspiracy, whatever it might be, would fall like a
rope of sand. Gentiles have not the basis either in blood or interest that the
Jews have to stand together. The Gentile does not naturally suspect
conspiracy; he will indeed hardly bring himself to the verge of believing it
without the fullest proof.

It is therefore quite easy to understand Mr. Hard's difficulty with
conspiracy; the point is that to write his article at all, he is forced to
recognize at almost every step that whenever the Jewish Question is
discussed, the idea of conspiracy occupies a large part in it. As a matter of
fact, it is the central idea in Mr. Hard's article, and it completely
monopolizes the heading—"Great Jewish Conspiracy."

The search for basic facts in Mr. Hard's article will disclose the additional
information that there are certain documents in existence which purport to
contain the details of the conspiracy, or—to drop a word that is unpleasant
and may be misleading and which has not been used in this series—the
tendency of Jewish power to achieve complete control. That is about all that
the reader learns from Mr. Hard about the documents, except that he
describes one as "strange and horrible." Here is indeed a regrettable gap in

the story, for it is to discredit a certain document that Mr. Hard writes, and
yet he tells next to nothing about it. Discreditable documents usually
discredit themselves. But this document is not permitted to do that. The
reader of the article is left to take Mr. Hard's word for it. The serious student
or critic will feel, of course, that the documents themselves would have
formed a better basis for an intelligent judgement. But laying that matter
aside, Mr. Hard has made public the fact that there are documents.

And then Mr. Hard does another thing, as well as he can with the
materials at hand, the purpose of the article being what it was, and that is to
show how little the Jews have to do with the control of affairs by showing
who are the Jews that do control certain selected groups of affairs. The
names are all brought forward by Mr. Hard and he alone is responsible for
them, our purpose in referring to them being merely to show what can be
learned from him.

Mr. Hard leans heavily on Russian affairs. Sometimes it would almost
seem as if the Jewish Question were conceived as the Soviet Question,
which it is not, as Mr. Hard very well knows, and although the two have
their plain connections, it is nothing less than well-defined propaganda to
set up Bolshevist fiction and knock it down by Jewish fact for the purpose
of the latter. However, what Mr. Hard offers as fact is very instructive, quite
apart from the conclusion which he draws from it.

Now, take his Russian line-up first. He says that in the cabinet of Soviet
Russia there is only one Jew. But he is Trotsky. There are others in the
government, of course, but Mr. Hard is speaking about the cabinet now. He
is not speaking about the commissars, who are the real rulers of Russia, nor
about the executive troops, who are the real strength of the Trotsky-Lenin
regime. No, just the cabinet. Of course, there was only one Jew prominent
in Hungary, too, but he was Bela Kun. Mr. Hard does not ask us to believe,

however, that it is simply because of Trotsky and Kun that all Europe
believes that Bolshevism has a strong Jewish element. Else the stupid
credibility of the Gentiles would be more impossible of conception than the
idea of a Jewish conspiracy is to Mr. Hard's mind. Why should it be easier
to believe that Gentiles are dunces than that Jews are clever?

However, it is not too much to say that Trotsky is way up at the top,
sharing the utmost summit of Bolshevism with Lenin, and Trotsky is a Jew
—nobody ever denied that, not even Mr. Braunstein himself (the latter
being Trotsky's St. Louis, U.S.A., name).

But then, says Mr. Hard, the Mensheviks are led by Jews, too! That is a
fact worth putting down beside the others. Trotsky at the head of the
Bolsheviks; at the head of the Mensheviks during their opposition of the
Bolsheviks were Leiber, Martov and Dan—"all Jews," says Mr. Hard.

There is, however, a middle party between these extremes, the Cadets,
which, Mr. Hard says, are or were the strongest bourgeois political party in
Russia. "They now have their headquarters in Paris. Their chairman is
Vinaver—a Jew."

There are the facts as stated by Mr. Hard. He says that Jews, whose
names he gives, head the three great divisions of political opinion in Russia.

And then he cries, look how the Jews are divided! How can there be
conspiracy among people who thus fight themselves?

But another, looking at the same situation may say, look how the Jews
control every phase of political opinion in Russia! Doesn't there seem to be
some ground for the feeling that they are desirous of ruling everywhere?

The facts are there. What significance does it bring to the average mind
that the three great parties of Russia are led by Jews?

But that does not exhaust the information which the matter-of-fact reader
may find in Mr. Hard's article. He turns to the United States and makes
several interesting statements.

"There is Otto Kahn," he says. Well, sometimes Otto Kahn is there, and
sometimes he is in Paris on important international matters, and sometimes
he is in London advocating certain alliances between British and American
capital which have to do in a large way with European political conditions.
Mr. Kahn is rated as a conservative, and that may mean anything. A man is
conservative or not according to the angle from which he is viewed. The
most conservative men in America are really the most radical; their motives
and methods go to the very roots of certain matters; they are radicals in
their own field. The men who controlled the last Republican Convention—
if not the last, the most recent—are styled conservatives by those whose
vision is circumscribed by certain limited economic interests; but they are
the most radical of radicals, they have passed the red stage and are white
with it. If it were known what is in the back of Mr. Kahn's mind, if he
should display a chart of what he is doing and aiming to do, the term which
would then most aptly describe him might be quite different. Anyway, we
have it from Mr. Hard, "There is Mr. Kahn."

"On the other hand," says Mr. Hard, "there is Rose Pastor Stokes." He
adds the name of Morris Hillquit. They are, in Mr. Hard's classification,
radicals. And to offset these names he adds the names of two Gentiles,
Eugene V. Debs and Bill Haywood and intimates that they are much more
powerful leaders than the first two. Students of modern influences, of which
Mr. Hard has long appeared as one, do not think so. Neither Debs nor
Haywood ever generated in all their lives a fraction of the intellectual

power which Mrs. Stokes and Mr. Hillquit have generated. Both Debs and
Haywood live by the others. To every informed person, as to Mr. Hard in
this article, come the Jewish names to mind when the social tendencies of
the United States are passed under reflection.

This is most instructive indeed, that in naming the leaders of so-called
conservatism and radicalism, Mr. Hard is driven to use Jewish names. On
his showing the reader is entitled to say that Jews lead both divisions here
in the United States.

But Mr. Hard is not through. "The man who does more than any other
man—the man who does more than any regiment of other men—to keep
American labor anti-radical is a Jew—Samuel Gompers." That is a fact
which the reader will place in his list—American labor is led by a Jew.

Well, then, "the strongest anti-Gompers trade union in the country—The
Amalgamated Clothing Workers—and very strong indeed, and very large—
is led by a Jew—Sidney Hillman."

It is the Russian situation over again. Both ends of the movements, and
the movement which operate within the movement, are under the leadership
of Jews. This, whatever the construction put upon it, is a fact which Mr.
Hard is compelled by the very nature of his task to acknowledge.

And the middle movement, "the Liberal Middle" as Mr. Hard calls it,
which catches all between, produces in this article the names of Mr. Justice
Brandeis, Judge Mack and Felix Frankfurter, gentlemen whose activities
since Armistice Day would make a very interesting story.

For good measure, Mr. Hard produces two other names, "Baron
Gunzberg—a Jew" who is "a faithful official" of the Russian Embassy of
Ambassador Bakhmetev, a repesentative of the modified old regime, while

the Russian Information Bureau, whose literary output appears in many of
our newspapers is conducted by another Jew, so Mr. Hard calls him, whose
name is familiar to newspaper readers, Mr. A. J. Sack.

It is not a complete list by any means, but it is quite impressive. It seems
to reflect importance on the documents which Mr. Hard endeavors to
minimize to a position of ridiculous unimportance. And it leads to the
thought that perhaps the documents are scrutinized as carefully as they are
because the readers of them have observed not only the facts which Mr.
Hard admits but other and more astonishing ones, and have discovered that
the documents confirm and explain the observations. Other readers who
have not had the privilege of learning all that the documents contain are
entitled to have satisfaction given to the interest thus aroused.

The documents did not create the Jewish Question. If there were nothing
but the documents, Mr. Hard would not have written nor would the
Metropolitan Magazine have printed the article here discussed.

What Mr. Hard has done is to bring confirmation in a most unexpected
place that the Question exists and is pressing for discussion. Someone felt
the pressure when "The Great Jewish Conspiracy" was ordered and written.

[Issue of June 26, 1920.]

"What are you prating about? As long as we do not have the Press of the
whole world in our hands, everything you may do is vain. We must control
or influence the papers of the whole world in order to blind and deceive the
people."

—Baron Montefiore.

VII.

Arthur Brisbane Leaps to the Help of Jewry

Once more the current of this series on the Modern Jewish Question is
interrupted to give notice of the appearance of the Question in another
quarter, the appearance this time consisting of a more than two-column
"Today" editorial in the Hearst papers of Sunday, June 20, from the pen of
Arthur Brisbane. It would be too much to say that Mr. Brisbane is the most
influential writer in the country, but perhaps he is among the dozen most
widely read. It is, therefore, a confirmation of the statement that the
Question is assuming importance in this country, that a writer of Mr.
Brisbane's prominence should openly discuss it.

Of course, Mr. Brisbane has not studied the Question. He would probably
admit in private conversation—though such an admission would hardly be
in harmony with the tone of certainty he publicly adopts—that he really
knows nothing about it. He knows, however, as a good newspaper man,
how to handle it when the exigencies of the newspaper day throw it up to
him for offhand treatment. Every editorial writer knows how to do that.
There is something good in every race, or there have been some notable
individuals in it, or it has played a picturesque part in history—that is
enough for a very readable editorial upon any class of people who may
happen to be represented in the community. The Question, whatever it may
be, need not be studied at all; a certain group of people may be salved for a
few paragraphs, and the job need never be tackled again. Every newspaper
man knows that.

And yet, having lived in New York for a long time, having had financial
dealings of a large and obligating nature with certain interests in this
country, having seen no doubt more or less of the inner workings of the

great trust and banking groups, and being constantly surrounded by
assistants and advisors who are members of the Jewish race, Mr. Brisbane
must have had his thoughts. It is, however, no part of a newspaper man's
business to expose his thoughts about the racial groups of his community,
any more than it is a showman's business to express his opinion of the
patrons of his show. The kinds of offense a newspaper will give, and the
occasions on which it will feel justified in giving it, are very limited.

So, assuming that Mr. Brisbane had to write at all, it could have been told
beforehand what he would write. The only wonder is that he felt he had to
write. Did he really feel that the Jews are being "persecuted" when an
attempt is made to uncover the extent and causes of their control in the
United States and elsewhere? Did he feel, with good editorial shrewdness,
that here was an opportunity to win the attention and regard of the most
influential group in New York and the nation? Or—and this seems within
the probabilities—was he inclined simply to pass it over, until secretarial
suggestions reached him for a Sunday editorial, or until some of the
bondholders made their wishes known? This is not at all to impugn Mr.
Brisbane's motives, but merely to indicate on what slender strings such an
editorial may depend.

But what is more important—does Mr. Brisbane consider that, having
disposed of the Sunday editorial, he is through with the Question, or that the
Question itself is solved? That is the worst of daily editorializing; having
come safely and inoffensively through with one editorial, the matter is at an
end as far as that particular writer is concerned—that is, as a usual thing.

It is to be hoped that Mr. Brisbane is not through. He ought not to leave a
big question without contributing something to it, and in his Sunday
editorial he did not contribute anything. He even made mistakes which he
ought to correct by further study. "What about the Phoenicians?" he asks.

He should have looked that up while his mind was opened receptively
toward the subject, and he would not have made so miserable a blunder as
to connect them so closely with the Jews. He would never find a Jew doing
that. It is permissible, however, in Jewish propaganda intended for Gentile
consumption. The Phoenicians themselves certainly never thought they
were connected in any way with the Jews, and the Jews were equally
without light on the subject. If in nothing else, they differed in their attitude
toward the sea. The Phoenicians not only built boats but manned them; the
Jew would rather risk his investment in a boat than himself. In everything
else the differences between the two peoples were deep and distinct. Mr.
Brisbane should have turned up the Jewish Encyclopedia at that point in his
dictation. It is to be hoped he will resume his study and when he has found
something that is not printed in "simply written" Jewish books will give the
world the benefit of it. It is hardly like the question of the rotundity of the
earth; this Question is not settled and it will be discussed.

Mr. Brisbane is in a position to pursue some investigations of his own on
this subject. He has a large staff, and it is presumed that some of its
members are Gentiles of unbiased minds; he has a world-wide organization;
since his own modification of speech and views following upon his
adventure in the money-making world, he has a "look-in" upon certain
groups of men and certain tendencies of power—why does he not take the
Question as a world problem and go after the facts and the solution?

It is a task worthy of any newspaper organization. It will assist America
to make the contribution which she must make if this Question is ever to be
turned from the bugbear it has been through all the centuries. All the talk on
earth about "loving our fellow men" will not serve in lieu of an
investigation, because it is asking men to love those who are rapidly and
insidiously gaining the mastery of them. "What's wrong with the Jew?" is

the first question, and then, "What's wrong with the Gentile to make it
possible?"

As in the case of every Gentile writer who appears as the Jew's good-
natured defender, Mr. Brisbane is compelled to state a number of facts
which comprise a part of the very Question whose existence is denied.

"Every other successful name you see in a great city is a Jewish name,"
says Mr. Brisbane. In his own city the ratio is even higher than that.

"Jews numbering less than one per cent of the earth's population possess
by conquest, enterprise, industry and intelligence 50 per cent of the world's
commercial success," says Mr. Brisbane.

Does it mean anything to Mr. Brisbane? Has he ever thought how it will
all turn out? Is he willing to absolve that "success" from every quality
which humanity has a right to challenge? Is he entirely satisfied with the
way that "success" is used where it is supreme? Would he be willing to
undertake to prove that it is due to those commendable qualities he has
named and nothing less commendable? Speaking of the Jew-financed
Harriman railroad campaign, is Mr. Brisbane ready to write his
endorsement upon that? Did he ever hear of Jewish money backing
railroads that were built for railroad purposes and nothing else?

It would be very easy to suggest to Mr. Brisbane, as editor, a series of
articles which would be most enlightening, both to himself and his readers,
if he would only put unbiased men at work gathering the facts for them.

One of the articles might be entitled "The Jews at the Peace Conference."
His men should be instructed to learn who were the most prominent figures
at the Peace Conference; who came and went most constantly and most
busily; who were given freest access to the most important persons and

chambers; which race provided the bulk of the private secretaries to the
important personages there; which race provided most of the sentinels
through whom engagements had to be made with men of note; which race
went furthest in the endeavor to turn the whole proceeding into a festival
rout by dances and lavish entertainment; which civilians of prominence
oftenest dined the leading conferees in private session.

If Mr. Brisbane, with the genius for reporting which his organization
deservedly has, will turn his men loose on that assignment, and then print
what they bring him, he will have a story that will make a mark even in his
remarkable career as an editor.

He might even run a second story on the Peace Conference, entitled,
"Which Program Won at the Peace Conference?" He might instruct his men
to inquire as to the business which brought the Jews in such quality and
quantity to Paris, and how it was put through. Particularly should they
inquire whether any jot or tittle of the Jews' world program was refused or
modified by the Peace Conference. It should also be carefully inquired
whether, after getting what they went after, they did not ask for still more
and get that, too, even though it constituted a discrimination against the rest
of the world. Mr. Brisbane would doubtless be surprised to learn that of all
the programs submitted to that Conference, not excepting the great program
on which humanity hung so many pathetic hopes, the only program to go
through was the Jews' program. And yet he could learn just that if he
inquired. The question is, having obtained that information, what would Mr.
Brisbane do with it?

There are any number of lines of investigation Mr. Brisbane might enter,
and in any one of them his knowledge of his country and of its relation to
this particular Question would be greatly enlarged.

Does Mr. Brisbane know who owns Alaska? He may have been under the
impression, in common with the rest of us until we learned better, that it
was owned by the United States. No, it is owned by the same people who
are coming rapidly to own the United States.

Is Mr. Brisbane, from the vantage point afforded by his position in
national journalism, even dimly aware that there are elements in our
industrial unrest which neither "capital" nor "labor" accurately define? Has
he ever caught a glimpse of another power which is neither "labor" nor
"capital" in the productive sense, whose purpose and interest it is to keep
labor and capital as far apart as possible, now by provoking labor, now by
provoking capital? In his study of the industrial situation and its perfectly
baffling mystery, Mr. Brisbane must have caught a flash of something
behind the backmost scene. It would be good journalistic enterprise to find
out what it is.

Has Mr. Brisbane ever printed the name of the men who control the sugar
supply of the United States—does he know them—would he like to know
them?

Has he ever looked into the woolen situation in this country, from the
change of ownership in cotton lands, and the deliberate sabotage of cotton
production by banking threats, right on through to the change in the price of
cloth and clothing? And has he ever noted the names of the men he found
on that piece of investigation? Would he like to know how it is done, and
who does it? Mr. Brisbane could find all these things and give them to the
public by using his efficient staff of investigators and writers on this
Question.

Whether Mr. Brisbane would feel free to do this, he himself best knows.
There may be reasons why he would not, private reasons, prudential
reasons.

However that may be, there are no reasons why he should not make a
complete study of the Question—a real study, not a superficial glance at it
with an eye to its "news value"—and arrive at his own considered
conclusion. There would be no intolerance about that. As it is now, Mr.
Brisbane is not qualified to take a stand on either side of the Question; he
simply brushes it aside as troublesome, as the old planters used brush aside
the anti-slavery moralists; and for that reason the recent defense of the Jew
is not a defense at all. It is more like a bid for favor.

Mr. Brisbane's chief aversion, apparently, is toward what he calls race
prejudice and race hatred. Of course, if any man should fear that the study
of an economic situation would plunge him into these serious aberrations of
mind, he should be advised to avoid that line of study. There is something
wrong either with the investigation or with the investigator when prejudice
and hatred are the result. It is a mighty poor excuse, however, for an
intelligent man to put forward either on his own behalf or on behalf of those
whose minds he has had the privilege of molding over a course of years.

Prejudice and hatred are the very conditions which a scientific study of
the Jewish Question will forestall and prevent. We prejudge what we do not
know, and we hate what we do not understand; the study of the Jewish
Question will bring knowledge and insight, and not to the Gentile only, but
also to the Jew. The Jew needs this as much, even more than the Gentile.
For if the Jew can be made to see, understand, and deal with certain matters,
then a large part of the Question vanishes in the solution of ideal common
sense. Awaking the Gentile to the facts about the Jew is only part of the
work; awaking the Jew to the facts about the Question is an indispensable
part. The big initial victory to be achieved is to transform Gentiles from
being mere attackers and to transform Jews from being mere defenders,
both of them special pleaders for partisan views, and to turn them both into
investigators. The investigation will show both Gentile and Jew at fault, and

the road will then be clear for wisdom to work out a result, if there should
perchance be that much wisdom left in the race.

There is a serious snare in all this plea for tolerance. Tolerance is first a
tolerance of the truth. Tolerance is urged today for the sake of suppression.
There can be no tolerance until there is first a full understanding of what is
tolerated. Ignorance, suppression, silence, collusion—these are not
tolerance. The Jew never has been really tolerated in the higher sense
because he has never been understood. Mr. Brisbane does not assist the
understanding of this people by reading a "simply written" book and
flinging a few Jewish names about in a sea of type. He owes it to his own
mind to get into the Question, whether he makes newspaper use of his
discoveries or not.

As to the newspaper angle, it is impossible to report the world even
superficially without coming everywhere against the fact of the Jews, and
the Press gets around that fact by referring to them as Russians, Letts,
Germans, and Englishmen. This mask of names is one of the most
confusing elements in the whole problem. Names that actually name,
statements that actually define are needed for the clarification of the world's
mind.

Mr. Brisbane should study this question for the light such a study would
throw on other matters with which he is concerned. It would be a help to
that study if from time to time he would publish some of his findings,
because such publication would put him in touch with a phase of Judaism
which mere complimentary editorials could not. No doubt Mr. Brisbane has
been deluged by communications which praise him for what he has written;
the real eye-opener would come if he could get several bushels of the other
kind. Nothing that has ever come to him could compare with what would

come to him if he should publish even one of the facts he could discover by
an independent investigation.

Having written about the Jews, Mr. Brisbane will probably have a readier
eye henceforth for other men's pronouncements on the same subject. In his
casual reading he will find more references to the Jew than he has ever
noticed before. Some of them will probably appear in isolated sentences
and paragraphs of his own papers. Sooner or later, every competent
investigator and every honest writer strikes a trail that leads toward Jewish
power in the world. THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT is only doing with
system and detail what other publications have done or are doing
piecemeal.

There is a real fear of the Jew upon the publicity sources of the United
States—a fear which is felt and which ought to be analyzed. Unless it is a
very great mistake, Mr. Brisbane himself has felt this fear, though it is quite
possible he has not scrutinized it. It is not the fear of doing injustice to a
race of people—all of us ought to have that honorable fear—it is the fear of
doing anything at all with reference to them except unstintedly praising
them. An independent investigation would convince Mr. Brisbane that a
considerable modification of praise in favor of discriminate criticism is a
course that is pressing upon American journalism.

[Issue of July 3, 1920.]

VIII.

Does a Definite Jewish World Program Exist?

In all the explanations of anti-Jewish feeling which modern Jewish
spokesmen make, these three alleged causes are commonly given—these
three and no more: religious prejudice, economic jealousy, social antipathy.
Whether the Jew knows it or not, every Gentile knows that on his side of
the Jewish Question no religious prejudice exists. Economic jealousy may
exist, at least to this extent, that his uniform success has exposed the Jew to
much scrutiny. A few Jewish spokesmen seek to turn this scrutiny by
denying that the Jew is pre-eminent in finance, but this is loyalty in
extremity. The finances of the world are in control of Jews; their decisions
and their devices are themselves our economic law. But because a people
excels us in finance is no sufficient reason for calling them to the bar of
public judgement. If they are more intellectually able, more persistently
industrious than we are, if they are endowed with faculties which have been
denied us as an inferior or slower race, that is no reason for our requiring
them to give an account of themselves. Economic jealousy may explain
some of the anti-Jewish feeling; it cannot account for the presence of the
Jewish Question except as the hidden causes of Jewish financial success
may become a minor element of the larger problem. And as for social
antipathy—there are many more undesirable Gentiles in the world than

there are undesirable Jews, for the simple reason that there are more
Gentiles.

None of the Jewish spokesmen today mention the political cause, or if
they come within suggestive distance of it, they limit and localize it. It is
not a question of the patriotism of the Jew, though this too is very widely
questioned in all the countries. You hear it in England, in France, in
Germany, in Poland, in Russia, in Rumania—and, with a shock, you hear it
in the United States. Books have been written, reports published and
scattered abroad, statistics skillfully set forth for the purpose of showing
that the Jew does his part for the country in which he resides; and yet the
fact remains that in spite of these most zealous and highly sponsored
campaigns, the opposite assertion is stronger and lives longer. The Jews
who did their duty in the armies of Liberty, and did it doubtless from true-
hearted love and allegiance, have not been able to overcome the impression
made upon officers and men and civilians by those who did not.

But that is not what is here meant as the political element in the Jewish
Question. To understand why the Jew should think less of the nationalities
of the world than do those who comprise them is not difficult. The Jew's
history is one of wandering among them all. Considering living individuals
only, there is no race of people now upon the planet who have lived in so
many places, among so many peoples as have the Jewish masses. They have
a clearer world-sense than any other people, because the world has been
their path. And they think in world terms more than any nationally
cloistered people could. The Jew can be absolved if he does not enter into
national loyalties and prejudices with the same intensity as the natives; the
Jew has been for centuries a cosmopolitan. While under a flag he may be
correct in the conduct required of him as a citizen or resident, inevitably he
has a view of flags which can hardly be shared by the man who has known
but one flag.

The political element inheres in the fact that the Jews form a nation in the
midst of the nations. Some of their spokesmen, particularly in America,
deny that, but the genius of the Jew himself has always put these
spokesmen's zeal to shame. And why this fact of nationhood should be so
strenuously denied is not always clear. It may be that when Israel is brought
to see that her mission in the world is not to be achieved by means of the
Golden Calf, her very cosmopolitanism with regard to the world and her
inescapable nationalistic integrity with regard to herself will together prove
a great and serviceable factor in bringing about human unity, which the total
Jewish tendency at the present time is doing much to prevent. It is not the
fact that the Jews remain a nation in the midst of the nations; it is the use
made of that inescapable status, which the world has found reprehensible.
The nations have tried to reduce the Jew to unity with themselves; attempts
toward the same end have been made by the Jews themselves; but destiny
seems to have marked them out to continuous nationhood. Both the Jews
and the World will have to accept that fact, find the good prophecy in it, and
seek the channels for its fulfillment.

Theodor Herzl, one of the greatest of the Jews, was perhaps the farthest-
seeing public exponent of the philosophy of Jewish existence that modern
generations have known. And he was never in doubt of the existence of the
Jewish nation. Indeed, he proclaimed its existence on every occasion. He
said, "We are a people—One people."

He clearly saw that what he called the Jewish Question was political. In
his introduction to "The Jewish State" he says, "I believe that I understand
anti-Semitism, which is really a highly complex movement. I consider it
from a Jewish standpoint, yet without fear or hatred. I believe that I can see
what elements there are in it of vulgar sport, of common trade jealousy, of
inherited prejudice, of religious intolerance and also of pretended self-
defense. I think the Jewish Question is no more a social than a religious

one, notwithstanding that it sometimes takes these and other forms. It is a
national question, which can only be solved by making it a political world-
question to be discussed and controlled by the civilized nations of the world
in council."

Not only did Herzl declare that the Jews formed a nation, but when
questioned by Major Evans Gordon before the British Royal Commission
on Alien Immigration in August, 1902, Dr. Herzl said: "I will give you my
definition of a nation, and you can add the adjective 'Jewish.' A nation is, in
my mind, an historical group of men of a recognizable cohesion held
together by a common enemy. That is in my view a nation. Then if you add
to that the word 'Jewish' you have what I understand to be the Jewish
nation."

Also, in relating the action of this Jewish nation to the world, Dr. Herzl
wrote—"When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the
subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises
also our terrible power of the purse."

This view, which appears to be the true view in that it is the view which
has been longest sustained in Jewish thought, is brought out also by Lord
Eustace Percy, and re-published, apparently with approval, by the Canadian
Jewish Chronicle. It will repay a careful reading:

"Liberalism and Nationalism, with a flourish of trumpets, threw open the
doors of the ghetto and offered equal citizenship to the Jew. The Jew passed
out into the Western World, saw the power and the glory of it, used it and
enjoyed it, laid his hand indeed upon the nerve centers of its civilization,
guided, directed and exploited it, and then—refused the offer * * *
Moreover—and this is a remarkable thing—the Europe of nationalism and
liberalism, of scientific government and democratic equality is more
intolerable to him than the old oppressions and persecutions of despotism *

* * In the increasing consolidation of the western nations, it is no longer
possible to reckon on complete toleration * * *

"In a world of completely organized territorial sovereignties he (the Jew)
has only two possible cities of refuge: he must either pull down the pillars
of the whole national state system or he must create a territorial sovereignty
of his own. In this perhaps lies the explanation both of Jewish Bolshevism
and of Zionism, for at this moment Eastern Jewry seems to hover
uncertainly between the two.

"In Eastern Europe Bolshevism and Zionism often seem to grow side by
side, just as Jewish influence molded Republican and Socialist thought
throughout the nineteenth century, down to the Young Turk revolution in
Constantinople hardly more than a decade ago—not because the Jew cares
for the positive side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a
partaker in Gentile nationalism or Gentile democracy, but because no
existing Gentile system of government is ever anything but distasteful to
him."

All that is true, and Jewish thinkers of the more fearless type always
recognize it as true. The Jew is against the Gentile scheme of things. He is,
when he gives his tendencies full sway, a Republican as against the
monarchy, a Socialist as against the republic, and a Bolshevist as against
Socialism.

What are the causes of this disruptive activity? First, his essential lack of
democracy. Jewish nature is autocratic. Democracy is all right for the rest of
the world, but the Jew wherever he is found forms an aristocracy of one sort
or another. Democracy is merely a tool of a word which Jewish agitators
use to raise themselves to the ordinary level in places where they are
oppressed below it; but having reached the common level they immediately
make efforts for special privileges, as being entitled to them—a process of

which the late Peace Conference will remain the most startling example.
The Jews today are the only people whose special and extraordinary
privileges are written into the world's Treaty of Peace. But more of that at
another time.

No one now pretends to deny, except a few spokesmen who really do not
rule the thought of the Jews but are set forth for the sole benefit of
influencing Gentile thought, that the socially and economically disruptive
elements abroad in the world today are not only manned but also moneyed
by Jewish interests. For a long time this fact was held in suspense owing to
the vigorous denial of the Jews and the lack of information on the part of
those agencies of publicity to which the public had looked for its
information. But now the facts are coming forth. Herzl's words are being
proved to be true—"when we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat,
the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party"—and these words were
first published in English in 1896, or 24 years ago.

Just now these tendencies are working in two directions, one for the
tearing down of the Gentile states all over the world, and the other for the
establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The latter project has the best
wishes of the whole world, but it is far from having the best wishes of the
whole, or even the larger part, of Jewry. The Zionist party makes a great
deal of noise, but it is really an unrepresentative minority. It can scarcely be
designated as more than an unusually ambitious colonization scheme. [See
note on page 95.] It is doubtless serving, however, as a very useful public
screen for the carrying on of secret activities. International Jews, the
controllers of the world's governmental and financial power, may meet
anywhere, at any time, in war time or peace time, and by giving out that
they are only considering the ways and means of opening up Palestine to
the Jews, they easily escape the suspicion of being together on any other
business. The Allies and enemies of the Gentile nations at war thus met and

were not molested. It was at a Zionist conference—the sixth, held in 1903
—that the recent war was exactly predicted, its progress and outcome
indicated, and the relation of the Jews to the Peace Treaty outlined.

That is to say, though Jewish nationalism exists, its enshrinement in a
state to be set up in Palestine is not the project that is engaging the whole
Jewish nation now. The Jews will not move to Palestine just yet; it may be
said that they will not move at all merely because of the Zionist movement.
Quite another motive will be the cause of the exodus out of the Gentile
nations, when the time for that exodus fully comes.

As Donald A. Cameron, late British Consul-General at Alexandria, a man
fully in sympathy with Zionism and much quoted in the Jewish press, says:
"The Jewish immigrants (into Palestine) will tire of taking in one another's
washing at three per cent, of winning one another's money in the family,
and their sons will hasten by train and steamer to win 10 per cent in Egypt *
* * The Jew by himself in Palestine will eat his head off; he will kick his
stable to pieces." Undoubtedly the time for the exodus—at least the motive
for the exodus—is not yet here.

The political aspect of the Jewish Question which is now engaging at
least three of the great nations—France, Great Britain and the United States
—has to do with matters of the present organization of the Jewish nation.
Must it wait until it reaches Palestine to have a State, or is it an organized
State now? Does Jewry know what it is doing? Has it a "foreign policy"
with regard to the Gentiles? Has it a department which is executing that
foreign policy? Has this Jewish State, visible or invisible, if it exists, a
head? Has it a Council of State? And if any of these things is so, who is
aware of it?

The first impulsive answer of the Gentile mind would be "No" to all
these questions—it is a Gentile habit to answer impulsively. Never having

been trained in secrets or invisible unity, the Gentile immediately concludes
that such things cannot be, if for no other reason than that they have not
crossed his path and advertised themselves.

The questions, however, answered thus, require some explanation of the
circumstances which are visible to all men. If there is no deliberate
combination of Jews in the world, then the control which they have
achieved and the uniformity of the policies which they follow must be the
simple result, not of deliberate decisions, but of a similar nature in all of
them working out the same way. Thus, we might say that as a love for
adventure on the water drove the Britisher forth, so it made him the world's
greatest colonist. Not that he deliberately sat down with himself and in
formal manner resolved that he would become a colonizer, but the natural
outworking of his genius resulted that way. But would this be a sufficient
account of the British Empire?

Doubtless the Jews have the genius to do, wherever they go, the things in
which we see them excel. But does this account for the relations which exist
between the Jews of every country, for their world councils, for their
amazing foreknowledge of stupendous events which break with shattering
surprise on the rest of the world, for the smoothness and preparedness with
which they appear, at a given time in Paris, with a world program on which
they all agree?

The world has long suspected—at first only a few, then the secret
departments of the governments, next the intellectuals among the people,
now more and more the common people themselves—that not only are the
Jews a nation distinct from all the other nations and mysteriously unable to
sink their nationality by any means they or the world may adopt to this end,
but that they also constitute a state; that they are nationally conscious, not
only, but consciously united for a common defense and for a common

purpose. Revert to Theodor Herzl's definition of the Jewish nation, as held
together by a common enemy, and then reflect that this common enemy is
the Gentile world. Does this people which knows itself to be a nation
remain loosely unorganized in the face of that fact? It would hardly be like
Jewish astuteness in other fields. When you see how closely the Jews are
united by various organizations in the United States, and when you see how
with practiced hand they bring those organizations to bear as if with tried
confidence in their pressure, it is at least not inconceivable that what can be
done within a country can be done, or has been done, between all the
countries where the Jews live.

At any rate, in the American Hebrew of June 25, 1920, Herman Bernstein
writes thus: "About a year ago a representative of the Department of Justice
submitted to me a copy of the manuscript of 'The Jewish Peril' by Professor
Nilus, and asked for my opinion of the work. He said that the manuscript
was a translation of a Russian book published in 1905 which was later
suppressed. The manuscript was supposed to contain 'protocols' of the Wise
Men of Zion and was supposed to have been read by Dr. Herzl at a secret
conference of the Zionist Congress at Basle. He expressed the opinion that
the work was probably that of Dr. Theodor Herzl. . . . . He said that some
American Senators who had seen the manuscript were amazed to find that
so many years ago a scheme had been elaborated by the Jews which is now
being carried out, and that Bolshevism had been planned years ago by Jews
who sought to destroy the world."

This quotation is made merely to put on record the fact that it was a
representative of the Department of Justice of the United States
Government, who introduced this document to Mr. Bernstein, and
expressed a certain opinion upon it, namely, "that the work was probably
that of Theodor Herzl." Also that "some American Senators" were amazed

to note the comparison between what a publication of the year 1905
proposed and what the year 1920 revealed.

The incident is all the more preoccupying because it occurred by action
of the representative of a government who today is very largely in the hands
of, or under the influence of, Jewish interests. It is more than probable that
as soon as the activity became known, the investigator was stopped. But it
is equally probable that whatever orders may have been given and
apparently obeyed, the investigation may not have stopped.

The United States Government was a little late in the matter, however. At
least four other world powers had preceded it, some by many years. A copy
of the Protocols was deposited in the British Museum and bears on it the
stamp of that institution, "August 10, 1906." The notes themselves probably
date from 1896, or the year of the utterances previously quoted from Dr.
Herzl. The first Zionist Congress convened in 1897.

The document was published in England recently under auspices that
challenged attention for it, in spite of the unfortunate title under which it
appeared. Eyre and Spottiswoode are the appointed printers to the British
Government, and it was they who brought out the pamphlet. It was as if the
Government Printing Office at Washington should issue them in this
country. While there was the usual outcry by the Jewish press, the London
Times in a review pronounced all the Jewish counter-attacks as
"unsatisfactory."

The Times noticed what will probably be the case in this country also that
the Jewish defenders leave the text of the protocols alone, while they lay
heavy emphasis on the fact of their anonymity. When they refer to the
substance of the document at all there is one form of words which recurs
very often—"it is the work of a criminal or a madman."

The protocols, without name attached, appearing for the most part in
manuscripts here and there, laboriously copied out from hand to hand, being
sponsored by no authority that was willing to stand behind it, assiduously
studied in the secret departments of the governments and passed from one
to another among higher officials, have lived on and on, increasing in power
and prestige by the sheer force of their contents. A marvelous achievement
for either a criminal or a madman! The only evidence it has is that which it
carries within it, and that internal evidence is, as the London Times points
out, the point on which attention is to be focused, and the very point from
which Jewish effort has been expended to draw us away.

The interest of the Protocols at this time is their bearing on the questions:
Have the Jews an organized world system? What is its policy? How is it
being worked?

These questions all receive full attention in the Protocols. Whosoever
was the mind that conceived them possessed a knowledge of human nature,
of history and of statecraft which is dazzling in its brilliant completeness,
and terrible in the objects to which it turns its powers. Neither a madman
nor an intentional criminal, but more likely a super-mind mastered by
devotion to a people and a faith could be the author, if indeed one mind
alone conceived them. It is too terribly real for fiction, too well-sustained
for speculation, too deep in its knowledge of the secret springs of life for
forgery.

Jewish attacks upon it thus far make much of the fact that it came out of
Russia. That is hardly true. It came by way of Russia. It was incorporated in
a Russian book published about 1905 by a Professor Nilus, who attempted
to interpret the Protocols by events then going forward in Russia. This
publication and interpretation gave it a Russian tinge which has been useful
to Jewish propagandists in this country and England, because these same

propagandists have been very successful in establishing in Anglo-Saxon
mentalities a certain atmosphere of thought surrounding the idea of Russia
and Russians. One of the biggest humbugs ever foisted on the world has
been that foisted by Jewish propagandists, principally on the American
public, with regard to the temper and genius of the truly Russian people. So,
to intimate that the Protocols are Russian, is partially to discredit them.

The internal evidence makes it clear that the Protocols were not written
by a Russian, nor originally in the Russian language, nor under the
influence of Russian conditions. But they found their way to Russia and
were first published there. They have been found by diplomatic officers in
manuscript in all parts of the world. Wherever Jewish power is able to do
so, it has suppressed them, sometimes under the supreme penalty.

Their persistence is a fact which challenges the mind. Jewish apologists
may explain that persistence on the ground that the Protocols feed the anti-
Semitic temper, and therefore are preserved for that service. Certainly there
was no wide nor deep anti-Semitic temper in the United States to be fed or
that felt the greed for agreeable lies to keep itself alive. The progress of the
Protocols in the United States can only be explained on the ground that they
supply light and give meaning to certain previously observed facts, and that
this light and meaning is so startling as to give a certain standing and
importance to these otherwise unaccredited documents. Sheer lies do not
live long, their power soon dies. These Protocols are more alive than ever.
They have penetrated higher places than ever before. They have compelled
a more serious attitude to them than ever before.

The Protocols would not be more worthy of study if they bore, say, the
name of Theodor Herzl. Their anonymity does not decrease their power any
more than the omission of a painter's signature detracts from the art value of
a painting. Indeed, the Protocols are better without a known source. For if it

were definitely known that in France or Switzerland in the year 1896, or
thereabouts, a group of International Jews, assembled in conference, drew
up a program of world conquest it would still have to be shown that such a
program was more than a mere vagary, that it was confirmed at large by
efforts to fulfill it. The Protocols are a World Program—there is no doubt
anywhere of that. Whose program, is stated within the articles themselves.
But as for outer confirmation, which would be the more valuable—a
signature, or six signatures, or twenty signatures, or a 25-year unbroken line
of effort fulfilling that program?

The point of interest for this and other countries is not that a "criminal or
a madman" conceived such a program, but that, when conceived, this
program found means of getting itself fulfilled in its most important
particulars. The document is comparatively unimportant; the conditions to
which it calls attention are of a very high degree of importance.

[NOTE: The statements indicated are those of non-Zionist Jews. The real
Jewish program is that program which is executed. It was the Zionist
program that was followed by the Peace Conference. It must therefore be
regarded as the official program.]

[Issue of July 10, 1920.]

"We are a people—One people . . . . When we sink, we become a
revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of a revolutionary party;
when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse."

—Theodore Herzl, "A Jewish State," pp. 5, 23.

IX.

The Historic Basis of Jewish Imperialism

A great unloosening of speech with reference to the Jewish Question and
the Jewish program for world power has occurred in this country since the
beginning of this series of articles. It is now possible to pronounce the word
"Jew" in a perfectly serious discussion, without timidity, or without
intimidation. Heretofore that has been regarded as the special prerogative of
the Jewish publicists themselves and they have used the name exclusively
in well-organized and favorable propaganda. They can oust portions of
Shakespeare from the public schools on the ground that the Jews are
offended; they can demand the removal of one of Sargent's paintings from
the Boston Library because it represents the Synagogue in a decline. But
when anything emanates from the Gentile side which indicates that the
Gentile is also conscious of the Jew, then the charge of prejudice is instantly
and strongly made. The effect of that in this country has been a ban on
speech which has had few parallels in our history. Recently at a banquet a
speaker used the term "Jews" in reference to the actions of a group of
Jewish bankers. A Jewish guest leaped to his feet demanding to know if the
speaker considered it "American" to single out a race that way. The speaker
replied, "I do, sir," and received the approval of the audience. In that
particular part of the country, business men's tongues had been tied for
years by the unwritten law that Jews must never by singled out as Jews.

No one would have predicted a year ago that a newspaper like the
Chicago Tribune could have convinced itself that it was good newspaper
policy to print in the first column of its first page a copyrighted article on
the Jewish program for world rule, printing the word "Jew" in large letters
in its headline, and abstaining from editorial retouching of the word "Jew"
in the body of the article. The usual plan is to do what an eastern newspaper
did when dealing with the same subject: wherever the term "international

Jew" occurred in the article which it printed, it was retouched to
"financiers."

The Chicago Tribune, however, on Saturday, June 19, 1920, printed in
the first column of the first page a cable dispatch from John Clayton, its
special correspondent, under the heading: "Trotsky Leads Jew-Radicals to
World Rule. Bolshevism Only a Tool for His Scheme."

The first paragraph reads as follows:

"For the last two years army intelligence officers, members of the various
secret service organizations of the Entente, have been bringing in reports of
a world revolutionary movement other than Bolshevism. At first these
reports confused the two, but latterly the lines they have taken have begun
to be more and more clear."

As previously stated in THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, our own
secret service is one of these, though there is reason to believe that because
of the influence of Jews upon the government these investigations were not
pursued with the persistency that might otherwise have been given them.
However, we know from Jewish sources, not to mention any other, that the
Department of Justice of the United States was at one time interested
enough to make inquiries.

What the Tribune writer does in the above paragraph is to show that this
interest has been sustained for two years by officials of the Entente, a fact
which ought to be borne in mind by those who declare that the whole matter
is of German instigation. The emergence of the Jewish Question into
American thought was immediately met by a statement from Jewish sources
that it was a German importation, and that the anti-Semitism which flowed
over Germany and resulted in cleaning out the overwhelming Jewish
revolutionary influences from the new German Government, was only a

trick to throw the blame for the defeat of Germany on the Jews. American
rabbis are even now unitedly preaching that history shows that every great
war is followed by a new "attack" on the Jews. It is undoubtedly a fact that
every war newly opens the people's eyes to the power which international
Jewish financiers exert with reference to war—and it would seem that such
a fact is worthy of a better explanation than that of "prejudice." However, as
the Tribune article shows, and as all the facts confirm, the interest is not
confined to the German side; indeed, it is not even strongest there. It is "the
various secret service organizations of the Entente" that have been most
active in the matter.

The second paragraph further distinguishes between Bolshevism and
Jewish imperialism:

"Bolshevism aims at the overthrow of existing society and the
establishment of an international brotherhood of men who work with their
hands as rulers of the world. The second movement aims for the
establishment of a new racial domination of the world. So far as the British,
French and our own department's inquiry have been able to trace, the
moving spirits in the second scheme are Jewish radicals."

Other statements in the article are:

"Within the ranks of communism is a group of this party, but it does not
stop there. To its leaders, communism is only an incident."

(This will recall the statement of Lord Eustace Percy, quoted last week
from the Canadian Jewish Chronicle—"Not because the Jew cares for the
positive side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a partaker
in Gentile nationalism or Gentile democracy, but because no existing
Gentile system of government is anything but distasteful to him.")

"They are ready to use the Islamic revolt, hatred by the central empires
for England, Japan's designs on India, and commercial rivalry between
America and Japan."

"As any movement of world revolution must be, this is primarily anti-
Anglo-Saxon."

"The organization of the world Jewish-radical movement has been
perfected in almost every land."

"The aims of the Jewish-radical party have nothing of altruism behind
them beyond liberation of their own race."

It will be conceded that these are rather startling statements. If they were
found in a propagandist publication of no responsibility, the average reader
might pass them by as preposterous, so little does the average reader know
of the secret influences which shape his life and frame his problems. But
appearing in a great newspaper, they must receive a different evaluation.

Nor did the Tribune stop at the news article. On June 21, 1920, an
editorial appeared entitled "World Mischief." The editorial is evidently an
effort to prevent possible misunderstanding of what the news article was
driving at.

"The Jewish phase of the movement, he asserts, aims at a new racial
domination of the world . . ."

The Tribune also says that while it is perhaps natural for the Jews of
other countries to be engaged in this "world mischief," the Jews of England
and the United States "are loyal nationalists and conservative upholders of
the national traditions." It were well if this were true. Perhaps it is true of
tens of thousands of Jews as individuals; it certainly is not true of those
internationalists who pull the strings of all the governments and who during
the last six tragic years have been meddling with world affairs in a way
which must soon be plainly told. The unfortunate circumstance is that all
the American and English Jews must for a time feel a distress which no one
desires them to feel, which everyone would do much to save them from, but
which seems inevitable until the whole story is told and until the mass of
the Jews themselves cut off from their name and support some who now
receive their deepest homage.

It is worth while observing the contrasts and similarities between the
Gentile and Jewish reaction to this alleged movement to establish a Jewish
imperialism over the world. Jewish publicists first deny it without
qualification. It is all false, all a lie, all hatched up by enemies of the Jews
in order to stir up hatred and murder. As the evidence accumulates, the
Jewish tone changes: "Well, suppose it is true," the publicists say; "is it any
wonder that the poor oppressed Jews, driven to madness through their
sufferings, should dream dreams of overthrowing their enemies and placing
themselves in the seat of authority?"

The Gentile mind, confronted with the statement, says: "Yes, but they are
Russian Jews. Don't mind them. American Jews are all right. They would
never be taken in by anything like that." Going a little deeper into the
subject, the Gentile mind is forced to admit the existence of some kind of a
subversive world movement, the power of which has shaken even this
country, and that the moving spirits in it are revolutionary Jews. And then
the tendency from that point forward is either to fall in with the theory that
the movement is really Jewish in its origin, agitation, execution and
purpose, or to set up the theory that it is a "world movement" undoubtedly,
but only incidentally Jewish. The end of both Jewish and Gentile reaction is
an admission that something answering to the movement charged actually
exists.

For example, the Christian Science Monitor, whose standard as a
newspaper no one will question, has this to say in a lengthy editorial on the
subject:

"In spite of this, it would be a tremendous mistake to conclude that the
Jewish peril, given another name and atmosphere, does not exist. It might,
indeed, be renamed, out of one of the grandest of the books of the Old
Testament, 'the terror by night,' for it is, essentially, the Psalmist's concept
of the forces of mental evil at which, consciously or unconsciously,
Professor Nilus is aiming. In other words, that a secret international
political organization exists, working unremittingly by means of its Bureau
of Psychology, though the world which should be awake to it is entirely
asleep to it, is, to the man who can read the signs of the times, a thing
unquestionable."

The Monitor gives warning against prejudice and disregard of the laws of
evidence which is exceedingly timely and is, indeed, the desire of anyone
who has ever undertaken to deal with this subject, but too often it is a

disregard of facts and not of evidence that makes the difficulty. It is safe to
say that most of the prejudice today is against the facts, it has not been
caused by them.

There are two preconceptions to be guarded against in making an
approach to this question. One is that the Jewish imperialistic program, if
such a thing exists, is of recent origin. Upon the mere mention of such a
program, Gentiles are likely to think that it was formulated last week, or last
year, or within recent time. That need not be the case at all, and in Jewish
matters it is very likely not to be the case. It is very easy to see how, if the
program were to be formulated today, it would be wholly different from the
one which is to be considered. The kind of program that would be made
today indeed exists too, but it is not to be compared in extent and profundity
with that which has existed for a very long time. Perfect constitutions of
invisible governments are not the creations of secret conventions; they are
the accumulated thought and experience of centuries. Moreover, no matter
how prone a modern generation may be to disregard such things, the mere
fact that they may have existed as a secret racial ideal for centuries is a
powerful argument for their respectable acceptance, if not active execution,
by the generation that now is. There is no idea deeper in Judaism than that
Jews constitute a Chosen People and that their future is to be more glorious
than their past. A large part of the Christian world accepts that, too, and it
may well be true, but in a moral universe it cannot come to pass by the
methods which have been and are being used.

But to mention the ancient lineage of the idea of the Chosen People is
merely to suggest that of all the programs that may have gathered round it
to assist its full historical realization, it is not strange that there should be
one very old one to which the wisest minds of Israel have contributed their
best of mind and heart to insure its success. That there is such a plan has
been the belief of many deep delvers in the hidden things of the world, and

that such a plan has at times had its dress rehearsals, so to speak, on a
limited stage, as if in preparation for its grand finale on the universal stage,
is another belief held by men at whose knowledge it is impossible to cavil.

So, then, it may be that we are dealing with something for which present-
day Jews, even the more important internationalists, are not originally
responsible. It may have come to them as part of their ancient Jewish
inheritance. Certainly, if it were a mere modern thing, hastily conceived and
thrown together after the modern fashion, it could be expected to disappear
in the same era which saw it born.

Another preconception to be guarded against is that every Jew one meets
has secret knowledge of this program. That is not the case. With the general
idea of the ultimate triumph of Israel every Jew who has retained contact
with his people is familiar, but with the special plans which for centuries
have existed in formulated form for the attainment of that triumph, the
average Jew is no more familiar than anyone else—no more so than was the
average German with the secret plans of the Pan-Germanic party whose
ideas started and guided the recent war. The average Jew enters into the
plans of the secret group just to this extent, except in specially selected
cases: It is perfectly understood that the consummation of the Jewish
triumph will not be distasteful to any Jew, and if the methods to be used
toward the end are a bit violent, every Jew can be depended upon to see in
that violence a very insufficient retribution visited upon the Gentile world
for the sufferings which it has caused the sons of Judah throughout the
centuries.

Still, with even these preconceptions guarded against, there is no escape
from the conclusion that if such a program of Jewish world imperialism
exists today, it must exist with the cognizance and active support of certain

individuals, and that these groups of individuals must have somewhere an
official head.

This is, perhaps, the one point at which more investigators stop than at
any other. The idea of a Jewish autocrat is too strange for the mind which
has not been much in contact with the main question. And yet there is no
race which more instinctively supports autocracy than does the Jewish race,
no race which more craves and respects position. It is their sense of the
value of position that explains the main course their activities take. The Jew
is primarily a money-maker for the reason that up to this time money is the
only means he knows by which to gain position. The Jews who have gained
position for any other reason are comparatively few. This is not a Gentile
gibe; it is the position of a famous Anglo-Jewish physician, Dr. Barnard Von
Oven, who wrote: "All other means of distinction are denied him; he must
rise by wealth, or not at all. And if, as he well knows, to insure wealth will
be to insure rank, respect and attention in society, does the blame rest with
him who endeavors to acquire wealth for the distinction which it will
purchase, or with that society which so readily bows down to the shrine of
Mammon?"

The Jew is not averse to kings, only to the state of things which prevents
a Jewish king. The future autocrat of the world is to be a Jewish king,
sitting upon the throne of David, so ancient prophecies and the documents
of the imperialistic program agree.

Is such a king in the world now? If not, the men who could choose a king
are in the world. There has been no king of the Jews since before the
Christian Era, but until about the eleventh century there were Princes of the
Exile, those who represented the headship of the Jews who were dispersed
through the nations. They were and still are called "exilarchs," or Princes of
the Exile. They were attended by the wise men of Israel, they held court,

they gave the law to their people. They lived abroad wherever their
circumstances or convenience dictated, in Christian or Mohammedan
countries. Whether the office was discontinued with the last publicly known
exilarch or merely disappeared from the surface of history, whether today it
is entirely abandoned or exists in another form, are questions which must
wait. That there are offices of world jurisdiction held by Jews is well
known. That there are world organizations of Jews—organizations, that is,
within the very strong solidarity of the Jewish nation itself—is well known.
That there is world unity on certain Jewish activities, defensive and
offensive, is well known. There is nothing in the condition or thought of the
Jews which would render the existence today of an exilarch distasteful to
them; indeed, the thought would be very comfortable.

The Jewish Encyclopedia remarks: "Curiously enough, the exilarchs are
still mentioned in the Sabbath services of the Ashkenazim ritual * * * The
Jews of the Sephardic ritual have not preserved this anachronism, nor was it
retained in most of the Reform synagogues of the nineteenth century."

Is there, then, a Jewish Sanhedrin?—a governing or counseling body of
Jews who take oversight of the affairs of their people throughout the world?

The Jewish Sanhedrin was a most interesting institution. Its origin and
method of constitution are obscure. It consisted of 71 members, with the
president, and performed the functions of a political senate. There is
nothing to show whence the Sanhedrin derived its authority. It was not an
elective body. It was not democratic. It was not representative. It was not
responsible to the people. In these qualities, it was typically Jewish. The
Sanhedrin was chosen by the prince or priest, not with the purpose of
safeguarding the people's interest, but to assist the ruler in the work of
administration. It was thus assembled by call, or it was self-perpetuating,
calling its own members. The arrangement seems to have been that well-

known device by which an aristocracy can maintain itself in power
whatever the political construction of the nation may be. The Jewish
Encyclopedia says: "The Sanhedrin, which was entirely aristocratic in
character, probably assumed its own authority, since it was composed of
members of the most influential families of the nobility and priesthood."

This body was flanked by a similar body, which governed the religious
interests of the nation, the members being drawn apparently from classes
nearer the common people.

The Sanhedrin exercised authority not only over the Jews of Palestine,
but wherever they were scattered throughout the world. As a senate
exercising direct political authority, it ceased with the downfall of the
Jewish State in the year 70, but there are indications of its continuance as an
advisory body down to the fourth century.

In 1806, in order to satisfy the mind of Napoleon upon some questions
which had arisen concerning the Jews, an Assembly of Notables was called,
whose membership consisted of prominent Jews of France. They, in turn, to
bring the sanction of all Jewry to the answers which they should give
Napoleon, convoked the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin assembled in Paris on
February 9, 1807. It followed the prescribed ancient forms; it was
comprised of Jews from all parts of Europe; it was assembled to put the
whole authority of Jewry behind any compact the French Jews may have
been able to make with Napoleon.

In putting forth its decisions, this Sanhedrin of 1807 declared that it was
in all respects like the ancient Sanhedrin, "a legal assembly vested with
power of passing ordinances in order to promote the welfare of Israel."

The significance of these facts is this: Whatever the leaders of the Jews
may do today in the way of maintaining the policy and constitution of

Israel, would not constitute a new departure. It would not signify a new
attitude. It would not be evidence of a new plan.

It would be entirely natural, Jewish solidarity being what it is, that the
Sanhedrin should still be continued. The ancient Sanhedrin appears to have
had a group of ten who were somewhat exalted in importance above the
rest; it would be perfectly natural if the leaders of the Jews were today
divided into committees, by countries or by objects.

There are always being held, year by year, world meetings of the
principal Jews of all lands. They come together whenever called, to the
disregard of everything else. Great judges from the high courts of the
various countries, international financiers, Jewish orators of the "liberal
type" who have the ear of the Gentiles, political maneuverers from all the
parties represented in the world, they assemble wherever they will, and the
subjects of their deliberations are made known only to the extent they will.
It is not to be supposed that all of the attendants on these conventions are
members of the inner circle. The list of delegates will show scores of
persons with whom no one would associate Lord Reading and Judge
Brandeis. If the modern Sanhedrin meets, and it would be the most natural
thing in the world if it should, we may be sure it meets within the closed
circle of those persons which the Jewish aristocracy of money, intellect and
power approves.

The machinery of a Jewish world government exists ready-made. The
Jew is convinced that he has the best religion, the best morality, the best
method of education, the best social standards, the best ideal of
government. He would not have to go outside the circle of that which he
considers best to get anything which he may need to advance the welfare of
his people, or to execute any program which may have to do with the
outside world.

It is the ancient machinery that the international Jew uses in all those
activities which he permits the world to see in part. There are gatherings of
the financial, political and intellectual chief rulers of the Jews. These
gatherings are announced for one or another thing—sometimes. Sometimes
there is a gathering of Jews in a world capital, with no announced purpose.
They all appear in one city, confer and depart.

Whether there is a recognized head to all of this is yet to be disclosed.
There can be little doubt, however, as to the existence of what may be
called a "foreign policy," that is, a definite point of view and plan of action
with reference to the Gentile world. The Jew feels that he is in the midst of
enemies, but he also feels that he is a member of a people—"one people."
He must have some policy with regard to the outer world. He cannot help
but consider present conditions, he cannot consider them without being
stirred to speculate upon what the outcome must be, and he cannot
speculate on the outcome without in some manner endeavoring to make it
as he would like it to be.

The invisible government of the Jews, its attitude toward the Gentile
world, its policy with regard to the future, are not, then, the abnormal things
that some would make them appear. Given the Jewish position, they are of
all things most natural. Jewish existence in this world is not such as woos
the Jew into sleepy contentment; it is such as stirs him into organization
against future contingencies and into programs which may shape those
contingencies to the benefit of his race. That there should be a Sanhedrin of
the Jews, a world body of the leading men of all countries; that there should
even be an exilarch, a visible and recognized head of the Sanhedrin,
mystically foreshadowing the autocrat to come; that there should even be a
world program, just as every government has its foreign policy, are not
strange, uncanny suppositions. They grow normally out of the situation
itself.

And it is also natural that not every Jew should know this. The Sanhedrin
always was the aristocracy, and would be today. When rabbis cry from their
pulpits that they know nothing about this thing, they are doubtless telling
the truth. What the international Jew depends upon is the likelihood of
every Jew approving that which brings power and prestige to his people. At
any rate, it is well enough known that however little the ordinary Jewish
leader may have been told about world programs, he regards with the
greatest respect and confidence the very men who must put these programs
through, if these exist at all.

The twenty-fourth Protocol of the Learned Elders of Zion has this to say:

"Now I will discuss the manner in which the roots of the house of King
David will penetrate to the deepest strata of the earth. This dynasty, even to
this day, has given the power of controlling world affairs to our wise men,
the educational directors of all human thought."

This would indicate, if reliable, that, as the Protocol goes on to recite, the
Autocrat himself has not appeared, but the dynasty, or the Davidic line in
which he must appear, have entrusted the work of preparing for him to the
Wise Men of Zion. These wise men are represented not only as preparing
those who exercise rulership over Judaism's affairs, but also as framing and
influencing the world's thought toward ends which shall be propitious to
these plans. Whatever may be hidden in the program, it is certain that its
execution or the effects of its execution cannot be hidden. Therefore, it may
be possible to find in the outer world the clues which, traced back to their
source, reveal the existence of a program, whose promise for the world,
good or bad, ought to be widely known.

[Issue of July 17, 1920.]

X.

An Introduction to the "Jewish Protocols"

The documents most frequently mentioned by those who are interested in
the theory of Jewish World Power rather than in the actual operation of that
power in the world today, are those 24 documents known as "The Protocols
of the Learned Elders of Zion."

The Protocols have attracted much attention in Europe, having become
the center of an important storm of opinion in England only recently, but
discussion of them in the United States has been limited. These are the
documents concerning which the Department of Justice was making
inquiries more than a year ago, and which were given publication in
London by Eyre and Spottiswoode, the official printers to the British
Government.

Who it was that first entitled these documents with the name of the
"Elders of Zion" is not known. It would be possible without serious
mutilation of the documents to remove all hint of Jewish authorship, and yet
retain all the main points of the most comprehensive program for world
subjugation that has ever come to public knowledge.

Yet it must be said that thus to eliminate all hint of Jewish authorship
would be to bring out a number of contradictions which do not exist in the
Protocols in their present form. The purpose of the plan revealed in the
Protocols is to undermine all authority in order that a new authority in the
form of autocracy may be set up. Such a plan could not emanate from a
ruling class which already possessed authority, although it might emanate
from anarchists. But anarchists do not avow autocracy as the ultimate
condition they seek. The authors might be conceived as a company of
French Subversives such as existed at the time of the French Revolution
and had the infamous Duc d'Orleans as their leader, but this would involve a
contradiction between the fact that those Subversives have passed away,
and the fact that the program announced in these Protocols is being steadily
carried out, not only in France, but throughout Europe and very noticeably
in the United States.

In their present form which bears evidence of being their original form,
there is no contradiction. The allegation of Jewish authorship seems
essential to the consistency of the plan.

If these documents were the forgeries which Jewish apologists claim
them to be, the forgers would probably have taken pains to make Jewish
authorship so clear that their anti-Semitic purpose could easily have been
detected. But only twice is the term "Jew" used in them. After one has read
much further than the average reader usually cares to go into such matters,
one comes upon the plans for the establishment of the World Autocrat, and
only then it is made clear of what lineage he is to be.

But all through the documents there is left no doubt as to the people
against whom the plan is aimed. It is not aimed against aristocracy as such.
It is not aimed against capital as such. It is not aimed against government as
such. Very definite provisions are made for the enlistment of aristocracy,

capital and government for the execution of the plan. It is aimed against the
people of the world who are called "Gentiles." It is the frequent mention of
"Gentiles" that really decides the purpose of the documents. Most of the
destructive type of "liberal" plans aim at the enlistment of the people as
helpers; this plan aims at the degeneration of the people in order that they
may be reduced to confusion of mind and thus manipulated. Popular
movements of a "liberal" kind are to be encouraged, all the disruptive
philosophies in religion, economics, politics and domestic life are to be
sown and watered, for the purpose of so disintegrating social solidarity that
a definite plan, herein set forth, may be put through without notice, and the
people then molded to it when the fallacy of these philosophies is shown.

The formula of speech is not, "We Jews will do this," but "The Gentiles
will be made to think and do these things." With the exception of a few
instances in the closing Protocols, the only distinctive racial term used is
"Gentiles."

To illustrate: the first indication of this kind comes in the first
Protocol in this way:

"The great qualities of the people—honesty and frankness—are
essentially vices in politics, because they dethrone more surely and more
certainly than does the strongest enemy. These qualities are attributes of
Gentile rule; we certainly must not be guided by them."

And again:

"On the ruins of the hereditary aristocracy of the Gentiles we have set up
the aristocracy of our educated class, and over all the aristocracy of money.
We have established the basis of this new aristocracy on the basis of riches,
which we control, and on the science guided by our wise men."

Again:

"We will force up wages, which however will be of no benefit to
workers, for we at the same time will cause a rise in the prices of prime
necessities, pretending that this is due to the decline of agriculture and of
cattle raising. We will also artfully and deeply undermine the sources of
production by instilling in the workmen ideas of anarchy and encourage
them in the use of alcohol, at the same time taking measures to drive all the
intellectual forces of the Gentiles from the land."

(A forger with anti-Semitic malice might have written this any time
within the last five years, but these words were in print at least 14 years ago
according to British evidence, a copy having been in the British Museum
since 1906, and they were circulated in Russia a number of years prior.)

The above point continues: "That the true situation shall not be noticed
by the Gentiles prematurely we will mask it by a pretended effort to serve
the working classes and promote great economic principles, for which an
active propaganda will be carried on through our economic theories."

These quotations will illustrate the style of the Protocols in making
reference to the parties involved. It is "we" for the writers, and "Gentiles"
for those who are being written about. This is brought out very clearly in
the Fourteenth Protocol:

"In this divergence between Gentiles and ourselves in ability to think and
reason is to be seen clearly the seal of our election as the chosen people, as
higher human beings, in contrast with the Gentiles who have merely
instinctive and animal minds. They observe, but they do not foresee, and
they invent nothing (except perhaps material things). It is clear from this
that nature herself predestined us to rule and guide the world."

This, of course, has been the Jewish method of dividing humanity from
the earliest times. The world was only Jew and Gentile; all that was not Jew
was Gentile.

The use of the word Jew in the Protocol may be illustrated by this
passage in the eighth section:

"For the time being, until it will be safe to give responsible government
positions to our brother Jews, we shall entrust them to people whose past
and whose characters are such that there is an abyss between them and the
people."

This is the practice known as using "Gentile fronts" which is extensively
practiced in the financial world today in order to cover up the evidences of
Jewish control. How much progress has been made since these words were
written is indicated by the occurrence at the San Francisco convention when
the name of Judge Brandeis was proposed for President. It is reasonably to
be expected that the public mind will be made more and more familiar with
the idea of Jewish occupancy—which will be really a short step from the
present degree of influence which the Jews exercise—of the highest office
in the government. There is no function of the American Presidency in
which the Jews have not already secretly assisted in a very important
degree. Actual occupancy of the office is not necessary to enhance their
power, but to promote certain things which parallel very closely the plans
outlined in the Protocols now before us.

Another point which the reader of the Protocols will notice is that the
tone of exhortation is entirely absent from these documents. They are not
propaganda. They are not efforts to stimulate the ambitions or activity of
those to whom they are addressed. They are as cool as a legal paper and as
matter-of-fact as a table of statistics. There is none of the "Let us rise, my
brothers" stuff about them. There is no "Down with the Gentiles" hysteria.

These Protocols, if indeed they were made by Jews and confided to Jews, or
if they do contain certain principles of a Jewish World Program, were
certainly not intended for the firebrands but for the carefully prepared and
tested initiates of the higher groups.

Jewish apologists have asked, "Is it conceivable that if there were such a
world program on the part of the Jews, they would reduce it to writing and
publish it?" But there is no evidence that these Protocols were ever uttered
otherwise than in spoken words by those who put them forth. The Protocols
as we have them are apparently the notes of lectures which were made by
someone who heard them. Some of them are lengthy; some of them are
brief. The assertion which has always been made in connection with the
Protocols since they have become known is that they are the notes of
lectures delivered to Jewish students presumably somewhere in France or
Switzerland. The attempt to make them appear to be of Russian origin is
absolutely forestalled by the point of view, the reference to the times and
certain grammatical indications.

The tone certainly fits the supposition that they were originally lectures
given to students, for their purpose is clearly not to get a program accepted
but to give information concerning a program which is represented as being
already in process of fulfillment. There is no invitation to join forces or to
offer opinions. Indeed it is specifically announced that neither discussion
nor opinions are desired. ("While preaching liberalism to the Gentiles, we
shall hold our own people and our own agents in unquestioning obedience."
"The scheme of administration must emanate from a single brain * * *
Therefore, we may know the plan of action, but we must not discuss it, lest
we destroy its unique character * * * The inspired work of our leader
therefore must not be thrown before a crowd to be torn to pieces, or even
before a limited group.")

Moreover, taking the Protocols at their face value, it is evident that the
program outlined in these lecture notes was not a new one at the time the
lectures were given. There is no evidence of its being of recent
arrangement. There is almost the tone of a tradition, or a religion, in it all,
as if it had been handed down from generation to generation through the
medium of specially trusted and initiated men. There is no note of new
discovery or fresh enthusiasm in it, but the certitude and calmness of facts
long known and policies long confirmed by experiment.

This point of the age of the program is touched upon at least twice in the
Protocols themselves. In the First Protocol this paragraph occurs:

"Already in ancient times we were the first to shout the words, 'Liberty,
Equality, Fraternity,' among the people. These words have been repeated
many times by unconscious poll-parrots, flocking from all sides to this bait,
with which they have ruined the prosperity of the world and true personal
freedom * * * The presumably clever and intellectual Gentiles did not
understand the symbolism of the uttered words; did not observe their
contradiction in meaning; did not notice that in nature there is no equality *
* *"

The other reference to the program's finality is found in the Thirteenth
Protocol:

"Questions of policy, however, are permitted to no one except those who
have originated the policy and have directed it for many centuries."

Can this be a reference to a secret Jewish Sanhedrin, self-perpetuating
within a certain Jewish caste from generation to generation?

Again, it must be said that the originators and directors here referred to
cannot be at present any ruling caste, for all that the program contemplates

is directly opposed to the interests of such a caste. It cannot refer to any
national aristocratic group, like the Junkers of Germany, for the methods
which are proposed are the very ones which would render powerless such a
group. It cannot refer to any but a people who have no government, who
have everything to gain and nothing to lose, and who can keep themselves
intact amid a crumbling world. There is only one group that answers that
description.

Again, a reading of the Protocols makes it clear that the speaker himself
was not seeking for honor. There is a complete absence of personal
ambition throughout the document. All plans and purposes and expectations
are merged in the future of Israel, which future, it would seem, can only be
secured by the subtle breaking down of certain world ideas held by the
Gentiles. The Protocols speak of what has been done, what was being done
at the time these words were given, and what remained to be done. Nothing
like them in completeness of detail, in breadth of plan and in deep grasp of
the hidden springs of human action has ever been known. They are verily
terrible in their mastery of the secrets of life, equally terrible in their
consciousness of that mastery. Truly they would merit the opinion which
Jews have recently cast upon them, that they were the work of an inspired
madman, were it not that what is written in the Protocols in words is also
written upon the life of today in deeds and tendencies.

The criticisms which these Protocols pass upon the Gentiles for their
stupidity are just. It is impossible to disagree with a single item in the
Protocols' description of Gentile mentality and veniality. Even the most
astute of the Gentile thinkers have been fooled into receiving as the motions
of progress what has only been insinuated into the common human mind by
the most insidious systems of propaganda.

It is true that here and there a thinker has arisen to say that science so-
called was not science at all. It is true that here and there a thinker has
arisen to say that the so-called economic laws both of conservatives and
radicals were not laws at all, but artificial inventions. It is true that
occasionally a keen observer has asserted that the recent debauch of luxury
and extravagance was not due to the natural impulses of the people at all,
but was systematically stimulated, foisted upon them by design. It is true
that a few have discerned that more than half of what passes for "public
opinion" is mere hired applause and booing and has never impressed the
public mind.

But even with these clues here and there, for the most part disregarded,
there has never been enough continuity and collaboration between those
who were awake, to follow all the clues to their source. The chief
explanation of the hold which the Protocols have had on many of the
leading statesmen of the world for several decades is that they explain
whence all these false influences come and what their purpose is. They give
a clue to the modern maze. It is now time for the people to know. And
whether the Protocols are judged as proving anything concerning the Jews
or not, they constitute an education in the way the masses are turned about
like sheep by influences which they do not understand. It is almost certain
that once the principles of the Protocols are known widely and understood
by the people, the criticism which they now rightly make of the Gentile
mind will no longer hold good.

It is the purpose of future articles in this series to study these documents
and to answer out of their contents all the questions that may arise
concerning them.

Before that work is begun, one question should be answered—"Is there
likelihood of the program of the Protocols being carried through to

success?" The program is successful already. In many of its most important
phases it is already a reality. But this need not cause alarm, for the chief
weapon to be used against such a program, both in its completed and
uncompleted parts, is clear publicity. Let the people know. Arousing the
people, alarming the people, appealing to the passions of the people is the
method of the plan outlined in the Protocols. The antidote is merely
enlightening the people.

That is the only purpose of these articles. Enlightenment dispels
prejudice. It is as desirable to dispel the prejudice of the Jew as of the
Gentile. Jewish writers too frequently assume that the prejudice is all on
one side. The Protocols themselves ought to have the widest circulation
among the Jewish people, in order that they may check those things which
are bringing suspicion upon their name.

[Issue of July 24, 1920.]

XI.

"Jewish" Estimate of Gentile Human Nature

"Upon completing this program of our present and future actions, I will
read to you the principles of these theories."—Protocol 16.

"In all that I have discussed with you hitherto, I have endeavored to
indicate carefully the secrets of past and future events and of those
momentous occurrences of the near future toward which we are rushing in a
stream of great crises, anticipating the hidden principles of future
relationships with the Gentiles and of our financial operations."—Protocol
22.

The Protocols, which profess themselves to be an outline of the Jewish
World Program, are found upon analysis to contain four main divisions.
These, however, are not marked in the structure of the documents, but in the
thought. There is a fifth, if the object of it all is included, but this object is
assumed throughout the Protocols, being only here and there defined in
terms. And the four main divisions are great trunks from which there are
numerous branches.

There is first what is alleged to be the Jewish conception of human
nature, by which is meant Gentile nature. It is inconceivable that such a

plan as that which the Protocols set forth could have been evolved by a
mind that had not previously based the probability of success on a certain
estimate of the ignobility and corruptibility of human nature—which all
through the Protocols is referred to as Gentile nature.

Then, secondly, there is the account of what has already been
accomplished in the realization of the program—things actually done.

Thirdly, there is a complete instruction in the methods to be used to get
the program still further fulfilled—methods which would themselves supply
the estimate of human nature upon which the whole fabric is based, if there
were nothing else to indicate it.

Fourth, the Protocols contain in detail some of the achievements which,
at the time these words were uttered, were yet to be made. Some of these
desired things have been achieved in the meantime, for it should be borne in
mind that between the year 1905 and the year 1920 there has been time to
set many influences in motion and attain many ends. As the second
quotation at the head of this article would indicate, the speaker knew that
events were "rushing in a stream of great crises," a knowledge which is
amply attested by Jewish sources outside the Protocols.

If this series of articles represented a special pleading upon the Jewish
Question, the present article would seek to win the reader's confidence by
presenting first the set of facts which are described under "secondly" in the
above list of main divisions. To begin with the estimate of human nature
here disclosed is to court alienation of the reader's interest, especially if the
reader be a Gentile. We know from abundant sources what the Jewish
estimate of human nature is, and it tallies in all respects with what is
disclosed in the Protocols, but it has always been one of the fallacies of
Gentile thought that human nature is, now, full of dignity and nobility.
There is little question, when the subject is considered in all its lights, that

the Jewish conception is right. And so far as these Protocols are concerned,
their low estimate of mankind, though harsh to human pride and conceit,
are very largely true.

Just to run through the Protocols and select the salient passages in which
this view is expressed is to find a pretty complete philosophy of the motives
and qualities of human beings.

Take these words from the First Protocol:

"It should be noted that people with evil instincts are more numerous
than those with good ones; therefore, the best results in governing them are
attained by intimidation and violence, and not by academic argument. Every
man aims for power; everyone desires to be a dictator, if possible;
moreover, few would not sacrifice the good of others to attain their own
ends."

"People in masses and people of the masses are guided by exceptionally
shallow passions, beliefs, customs, traditions and sentimental theories and
are inclined toward party divisions, a fact which prevents any form of
agreement, even when this is founded on a thoroughly logical basis. Every
decision of the mob depends upon an accidental or prearranged majority,
which, owing to its ignorance of the mysteries of political secrets, gives
expression to absurd decisions that introduce anarchy into government."

"In working out an expedient plan of action, it is necessary to take into
consideration the meanness, the vacillation, the changeability of the crowd
* * * It is necessary to realize that the force of the masses is blind,
unreasoning and unintelligent, prone to listen now to the right, and now to
the left * * *"

"Our triumph has also been made easier because, in our relations with the
people necessary to us, we have always played upon the most sensitive
strings of the human mind—on calculation, greed, and the insatiable
material desires of men. Each of these human weaknesses, taken separately,
is capable of paralyzing initiative and placing the will of the people at the
disposal of the purchaser of their activities."

In the Fifth Protocol, this shrewd observation on human nature is to be
found:

"In all times, nations as well as individuals, accepted words for acts.
They have been satisfied by what is shown them, rarely noticing whether
the promise has been followed by fulfillment. For this reason we will
organize 'show' institutions which will conspicuously display their devotion
to progress."

And this from the Eleventh Protocol:

"The Gentiles are like a flock of sheep * * * They will close their eyes to
everything because we will promise them to return all the liberties taken
away, after the enemies of peace have been subjugated and all the parties
pacified. Is it worth while to speak of how long they will have to wait? For
what have we conceived all this program and instilled its measures into the
minds of the Gentiles without giving them the possibility of examining its
underside, if it is not for the purpose of attaining by circuitous methods that
which is unattainable to our scattered race by a direct route?"

Notice also this very shrewd observation upon the "joiners" of secret
societies—this estimate being made by the Protocols to indicate how easily
these societies may be used to further the plan:

"Usually it is the climbers, careerists and people, generally speaking,
who are not serious, who most readily join secret societies, and we shall
find them easy to handle and through them operate the mechanism of our
projected machine."

The remarks under this head are curtailed by the present writer, because
the Protocols make reference to a very important secret order, the mention
of whose name in this connection might lead to misunderstanding, and
which is therefore reserved for future and fuller attention. It will, however,
be of interest to the members of that order to see what the Protocols have to
say of it, and then check up the facts and see how far they correspond with
the words.

To continue: "The Gentiles join lodges out of curiosity or in the hope that
through them they may worm their way into social distinction * * * We
therefore give them this success so that we can take advantage of the self-
conceit to which it gives birth and because of which people unconsciously
accept our suggestions without examination * * * You cannot imagine to
what an extent the most intelligent Gentiles may be brought to a state of
unconscious naivete under conditions of self-deceit, and how easy it is to
discourage them by the least failure, even the stopping of applause, or to
bring them into a state of servile subjection for the sake of regaining it. The
Gentiles are as ready to sacrifice their plans for the sake of popular success
as our people are to ignore success for the sake of carrying out our plans.
This psychology of theirs facilitates the task of directing them."

These are a few of the passages in which this estimate of human or
Gentile nature is made out in words. But even if it were not so baldly stated,
it could be easily inferred from various items in the program which was
depended upon to break up Gentile solidarity and strength.

The method is one of disintegration. Break up the people into parties and
sects. Sow abroad the most promising and utopian of ideas and you will do
two things: you will always find a group to cling to each idea you throw
out; and you will find this partisanship dividing and estranging the various
groups. The authors of the Protocols show in detail how this is to be done.
Not one idea, but a mass of ideas are to be thrown out, and there is to be no
unity among them. The purpose is not to get the people thinking one thing,
but to think so diversely about so many different things that there will be no
unity among them. The result of this will be vast disunity, vast unrest—and
that is the result aimed for.

When once the solidarity of the Gentile society is broken up—and the
name, "Gentile society" is perfectly correct, for human society is
overwhelmingly Gentile—then this solid wedge of another idea which is
not at all affected by the prevailing confusion can make its way
unsuspectedly to the place of control. It is well enough known that a body
of 20 trained police or soldiers can accomplish more than a disordered mob
of a thousand persons. So the minority initiated into the plan can do more
with a nation or a world broken into a thousand antagonistic parties, than
any of the parties could do. "Divide and rule" is the motto of the Protocols.

The division of society is perfectly easy, according to the estimate of
human nature made in these documents. It is human nature to take promises
for acts. No one who considered the list of dreams and vagaries and theories
that have swayed the people through the centuries can doubt this. The more
utopian, the more butterfly-like the theory, the more it commands public
adherence. Just as the Protocols say, Gentile society does not scrutinize the
origin or the consequences of the theories it adopts. When a theory makes
its appeal to the mind, the tendency is to believe that the mind which
receives it always had it in essence, and therefore the experience has all the
glow of original discovery.

In this manner, theory after theory has been exploited among the masses,
theory after theory has been found to be impracticable and has been
discarded, but the result is precisely that which the program of the Protocols
aims for—with the discarding of each theory, society is a little more broken
than it was before. It is a little more helpless before its exploiters. It is a
little more confused as to where to look for leadership. As a consequence
society falls an easy victim again to a theory which promises it the good it
seeks, and the failure of this theory leaves it still more broken. There is no
longer any such thing as public opinion. Distrust and division are
everywhere. And in the midst of the confusion everyone is dimly aware that
there is a higher group that is not divided at all, but is getting exactly what it
wants by means of the confusion that obtains all around. It will be shown,
as claimed by the Protocols, that most of the disruptive theories abroad in
the world today are of Jewish origin; it will also be shown that the one solid
unbroken group in the world today, the group that knows where it wants to
go and is going there regardless of the condition of society, is the Jewish
group.

The most dangerous theory of all is that which explains the rise of
theories and the social break-up which follows them. These are all
"symptoms of progress" we are told. If so, then "progress" is toward
dissolution. No one can predicate the fact of "progress" on the ground that,
whereas our fathers made wheels to go round with the blowing wind or the
running water, we make them go round by successive small explosions of
gasoline. The question of "progress" is, Where are the wheels taking us?
Was windmill and water wheel society better or worse than the present
society? Was it more unified in its morality? Did it more highly respect law,
did it produce a higher and sturdier type of character?

The modern theory of "ferment," that out of all the unrest and change and
transvaluation of values a new and better mankind is to be evolved is not

borne out by any fact on the horizon. It is palpably a theory whose purpose
is to make a seeming good out of that which is undeniable evil. The theories
which cause the disruption and the theory which explains the disruption as
good, come from the same source. The whole science of economics,
conservative and radical, capitalistic and anarchistic, is of Jewish origin.
This is another of the announcements of the Protocols which the facts
confirm.

Now, all this is accomplished, not by acts, but by words. The word-
brokers of the world, those who wish words to do duty for things, in their
dealings with the world outside their class, are undoubtedly the Jewish
group—the international Jews with which these articles deal—and their
philosophy and practice are precisely set forth in the Protocols.

Take for illustration these passages: The first is from the First
Protocol:

"Political freedom is an idea, not a fact. It is necessary to know how to
apply this idea when there is need of a clever bait to gain the support of the
people for one's party, if such a party has undertaken to defeat another party
already in power. This task is made easier if the opponent has himself been
infected by principles of freedom or so-called liberalism, and for the sake of
the idea will yield some of his own power."

Or consider this from the Fifth Protocol:

"To obtain control over public opinion, it is first necessary to confuse it
by the expression from various sides of so many conflicting opinions that
the Gentiles will lose themselves in the labyrinth and come to understand
that it is best to have no opinion on political questions, which it is not given
to society at large to understand but only to the ruler who directs society.
This is the first secret.

"The second secret consists in so increasing and intensifying the
shortcomings of the people in their habits, passions and mode of living that
no one will be able to collect himself in the chaos, and, consequently,
people will lose all their mutual understanding. This measure will serve us
also in breeding disagreement in all parties, in disintegrating all those
collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us and in
discouraging all personal initiative which can in any way interfere with our
undertaking."

And this from the Thirteenth Protocol:

"* * * and you may also notice that we seek approval, not for our acts,
but for our words uttered in regard to one or another question. We always
announce publicly that we are guided in all our measures by the hope and
the conviction that we are serving the general good.

"To divert over-restless people from discussing political questions, we
shall now bring forward new problems apparently connected with the
people—problems of industry. In these, let them lose themselves as much as
they like. Under such conditions we shall make them think that the new
questions have also a political bearing."

(It is to be hoped that the reader, as his eye passes over these details of
the Program, is also permitting his mind to pass over the trend of events, to
see if he may detect for himself these very developments in the life and
thought of the past few years.)

"To prevent them from really thinking out anything themselves, we shall
deflect their attention to amusements, games, pastimes, excitements and
people's palaces. Such interests will distract their minds completely from
questions on which we might be obliged to struggle with them. Becoming
less and less accustomed to independent thinking, people will express

themselves in unison with us because we alone offer new lines of thought—
of course, through persons whom they do not consider as in any way
connected with us."

In this same Protocol it is plainly stated what is the purpose of the output
of "liberal" theories, of which Jewish writers, poets, rabbis, societies and
influences are the most prolific sources:

"The role of the liberal Utopians will be completely played out when our
government is recognized. Until that time they will perform good service.
For that reason we will continue to direct thought into all the intricacies of
fantastic theories, new and supposedly progressive. Surely we have been
completely successful in turning the witless heads of the Gentiles by the
word 'progress.'"

Here is the whole program of confusing, enervating, and trivializing the
mind of the world. And it would be the most outlandish thought to put into
words, were it not possible to show that this is just what has been done, and
is still being done, by agencies which are highly lauded and easy to be
identified among us.

A recent writer in a prominent magazine has pointed out what he calls the
impossibility of the Jewish ruling group being allied in one common World
Program because, as he showed, there were Jews acting as leading minds in
all the divisions of present-day opinion. There were Jews at the head of the
capitalists, Jews at the head of the labor unions, and Jews at the head of
those more radical organizations which find even the labor unions too tame.
There is a Jew at the head of the judiciary of England and a Jew at the head
of Sovietism in Russia. How can you say, he asked, that they are united,
when they represent so many points of view?

The common unity, the possible common purpose of it all, is thus
expressed in the Ninth Protocol:

"People of all opinions and of all doctrines are at our service, restorers of
monarchy, demagogues, Socialists, communists and other Utopians. We
have put them all to work. Every one of them from his point of view is
undermining the last remnant of authority, is trying to overthrow all existing
order. All the governments have been tormented by these actions. But we
will not give them peace until they recognize our super-government."

The function of the idea is referred to in the Tenth Protocol also:

"When we introduced the poison of liberalism into the government
organism, its entire political complexion changed."

The whole outlook of these Protocols upon the world is that the idea may
be made a most potent poison. The authors of these documents do not
believe in liberalism, they do not believe in democracy, but they lay plans
for the constant preaching of these ideas because of their power to break up
society, to divide it into groups, to destroy the power of collective opinion
through a variety of convictions. The poison of an idea is their most relied-
on weapon.

The plan of thus using ideas extends to education:

"We have misled, stupefied and demoralized the youth of the Gentiles by
means of education in principles and theories, patently false to us, but
which we have inspired."—Protocol 9.

It extends also to family life:

"Having in this way inspired everybody with the thought of his own
importance, we will break down the influence of family life among the

Gentiles, and its educational importance."—Protocol 10.

And in a passage which might well provide the material for long
examination and contemplation by the thoughtful reader, this is said:

"Until the time is ripe, let them amuse themselves * * * Let those
theories of life which we have induced them to regard as the dictates of
science play the most important role for them. To this end we shall
endeavor to inspire blind confidence in these theories by means of our Press
***

"Note the successes we have arranged in Darwinism, Marxism, and
Nietzscheism. The demoralizing effect of these doctrines upon the minds of
the Gentiles should be evident at least to us."—Protocol 2.

That this disintegration and division of Gentile society was proceeding at
a favorable rate when the Protocols were uttered is evident from every line
of them. For it must be remembered that the Protocols are not bidding for
support for a proposed program, but are announcing progress on a program
which has been in process of fulfillment for "centuries" and "from ancient
times." They contain a series of statements regarding things accomplished,
as well as a forelook at things yet to be accomplished. The split of Gentile
society was very satisfactorily proceeding in 1896, or thereabouts, when
these oracles were uttered.

It is to be noticed that the purpose is nowhere stated to be the
extermination of the Gentiles, but their subjugation, at first under the
invisible rule which is proposed in these documents, at length under the rule
of one whom the invisible forces would be able to put in control of the
world through political changes which would create an office of World
President or Autocrat. The Gentiles are to be subdued, first intellectually, as
here shown, and then economically. Nowhere is it hinted that they are to be

deprived of the earth, but only of their independence of those whom the
Protocols represent to be Jews.

How far the division of society had proceeded when these Protocols were
given may be gathered from the Fifth Protocol:

"A world coalition of Gentiles could cope with us temporarily, but we are
assured against this by roots of dissension among them so deep that they
cannot be torn out. We have created antagonism between the personal and
national interests of the Gentiles by arousing religious and race hatreds
which we have nourished in their hearts for twenty centuries."

As far as that concerns the dissensions of the Gentiles or Christian world,
it is absolutely true. And we have seen in our own nation how "the
antagonism between personal and national interests" have rested on
"religious and race hatreds." But whoever suspected a common source for
these? More amazing still, who would expect any man or group to avow
themselves the source? Yet it is thus written in the Protocols—"we have
created the antagonism—we thus assure ourselves against the possibility of
a Gentile coalition against us." And whether these Protocols are of Jewish
origin or not, whether they represent Jewish interests or not, this is exactly
the state of the world, of the Gentile world, today.

But a still deeper division is aimed for, and there are signs of even this
coming to pass. Indeed, in Russia it has already come to pass, the spectacle
of a Gentile lower class led by Jewish leaders against a Gentile upper class!
In the First Protocol, describing the effects of a speculative industrial
system upon the people, it is said that this sort of economic folly—

"* * * has already created and will continue to create a society which is
disillusioned, cold and heartless. Such a society is completely estranged
from politics and religion. Lust of gold will be the only guide of the people

* * * THEN, not for the sake of good, nor even for the sake of riches, but
solely on account of their hatred of the privileged classes, the lower classes
of the Gentiles will follow us in the struggle against our rivals for power,
the Gentiles of the intellectual classes."

"The lower classes of the Gentiles will follow us * * * against * * * the
Gentiles of the intellectual classes."

If that struggle were to occur today, the leaders of the Gentile insurgents
against Gentile society would be Jewish leaders. They are in the leader's
place now—not only in Russia, but also in the United States.

[Issue of July 31, 1920.]

"There is all the difference in the world," said a young Jewish
philosopher, "between an American Jew and a Jewish American. A Jewish
American is a mere amateur Gentile, doomed to be a parasite forever."

—"The Conquering Jew," p. 91.

XII.

"Jewish Protocols" Claim Partial Fulfillment

"With the present instability of all authority, our power will be more
unassailable than any other, because it will be invisible until it has gained
such strength that no cunning can undermine it."—Protocol 1.

"It is indispensable for our purposes that, as far as possible, wars should
bring no territorial advantages. This will shift war to an economic footing . .
. . Such a condition of affairs will place both sides under the control of our

international agents with their million eyes, whose vision is unhampered by
any frontiers. Then, our international rights will eliminate national rights in
the narrow sense, and will govern the governments as they govern their
subjects."—Protocol 2.

As a mere literary curiosity, these documents which are called "The
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" would exercise a fascination by
reason of the terrible completeness of the World Plan which they disclose.
But they discourage at every turn the view that they are literature; they
purport to be statesmanship, and they provide within their own lines the
clue by which their status may be determined. Besides the things they look
forward to doing, they announce the things they have done and are doing.
If, in looking about the world, it is possible to see both the established
conditions and the strong tendencies to which these Protocols allude, it will
not be strange if interest in a mere literary curiosity gives way to something
like alertness, and it may be alarm.

A few general quotations will serve to illustrate the element of present
achievement in the assertions of these documents, and in order that the
point may be made clear to the reader the key words will be emphasized.

Take this from Protocol Nine:

"In reality there are no obstacles before us. Our super-government has
such an extra-legal status that it may be called by the energetic and strong
word—dictatorship. I can conscientiously say that, at the present time, we
are the lawmakers. We create courts and jurisprudence. We rule with a
strong will because we hold in our hands the remains of a once strong party,
now subjugated by us."

And this from the Eighth Protocol:

"We will surround our government with a whole world of economists. It
is for this reason that the science of economics is the chief subject of
instruction taught by the Jews. We shall be surrounded by a whole galaxy of
bankers, industrialists, capitalists, and especially by millionaires because,
actually, everything will be decided by an appeal to figures."

These are strong claims, but not too strong for the facts that can be
marshaled to illustrate them. They are, however, but an introduction to
further claims that are made and equally paralleled by the facts. All through
the Protocols, as in this quotation from the Eighth, the pre-eminence of the
Jews in the teaching of political economy is insisted upon, and the facts
bear that out. They are the chief authors of those vagaries which lead the
mob after economic impossibilities, and they are also the chief teachers of
political economy in our universities, the chief authors of those popular
textbooks in the subject, which hold the conservative classes to the fiction
that economic theories are economic laws. The idea, the theory, as
instruments of social disintegration are common to both the university Jew
and the Bolshevik Jew. When all this is shown in detail, public opinion
upon the importance of academic and radical economics may undergo a
change.

And, as claimed in the quotation just given from the Ninth Protocol, the
Jewish world power does today constitute a super-government. It is the
Protocol's own word, and none is more fitting. No nation can get all that it
wants, but the Jewish World Power can get all that it wants, even though its
demands exceed Gentile equality. "We are the lawmakers," say the
Protocols, and Jewish influences have been lawmakers in a greater degree
than any but the specialists realize. In the past ten years Jewish international
rule, or the power of the group of International Jews has quite dominated
the world. More than that, it has been powerful enough to prevent the
passage of salutary laws, and where one law may have slipped through to a

place on the statute books, it has been powerful enough to get it interpreted
in a sense that rendered it useless for its purpose. This, too, can be
illustrated by a large collection of facts.

Moreover, the method by which this is done was outlined long ago in the
program of which the Protocols purport to be an outline. "We create courts,"
continues the quotation, and it is followed in other Protocols by numerous
references to "our judges." There is a Jewish court sitting in a public
building in the city of New York every week, and other courts, for the sole
advantage and use of this people whose spokesmen deny that they are a
"separate people," are in formation everywhere. The Zionist plan has
already been used in some of the smaller European countries to confer an
extra-citizenship upon Jews who already enjoy citizenship in the lands of
their residence, and in addition to that a degree of self-rule under the very
governments which they demand to protect them. Wherever Jewish
tendencies are permitted to work unhindered, the result is not
"Americanization," or "Anglicization" nor any other distinctive nationalism,
but a strong and ruling reversion back to essential "Judaization."

The "agents" referred to in the first quotation will receive attention in
another article. To resume the claims of the Protocols: This from the
Seventeenth Protocol:

"We have taken good care long ago to discredit the Gentile clergy and
thereby to destroy their mission, which at present might hamper us
considerably. Their influence over the people diminishes daily.

"Freedom of conscience has been proclaimed everywhere. Consequently
it is only a question of time when the complete crash of the Christian
religion will occur. It will be easier to handle the other religions, but it is too
early to discuss this phase of the subject."

This will be of considerable interest, perhaps, to those clergymen who are
laboring with Jewish rabbis to bring about some kind of religious union.
Such a union would of necessity dispose of Christ as a well-meaning but
wholly mistaken Jewish prophet, and thus distinctive Christianity would
cease to exist insofar as the "union" was effective. The principal religious
aversion of the Protocols, however, so far as it is expressed, is against the
Catholic church in general and the pontifical office in particular.

A curious paragraph in this Protocol claims for the Jewish race a
particular skill in the art of insult:

"Our contemporary press will expose governmental and religious affairs
and the incapacity of the Gentiles, always using expressions so derogatory
as to approach insult, the faculty of employing which is so well known to
our race."

This from the Fifth Protocol:

"Under our influence the execution of the laws of the Gentiles is reduced
to a minimum. Respect for the law is undermined by the liberal
interpretation we have introduced in this sphere. The courts decide as we
dictate, even in the most important cases in which are involved fundamental
principles or political issues, viewing them in the light in which we present
them to the Gentile administration through agents with whom we have
apparently nothing in common, through newspaper opinion and other
avenues.

"In Gentile society where we have planted discord and protestantism * *
* *"

The word "protestantism" is evidently not used in the religious or
sectarian sense, but to denote a temper of querulous fault-finding

destructive of harmonious collective opinion.

This from the Fourteenth Protocol:

"In countries called advanced, we have created a senseless, filthy and
disgusting literature. For a short time after our entrance into power we shall
encourage its existence so that it may show in greater relief the contrast
between it and the written and spoken announcements which will emanate
from us."

Discussing in the Twelfth Protocol the control of the Press—a subject
which must be treated more extensively in another article—the claim is
made:

"We have attained this at the present time to the extent that all news is
received through several agencies in which it is centralized from all parts of
the world. These agencies will then be to all intents and purposes our own
institutions and will publish only that which we permit."

This from the Seventh Protocol bears on the same subject:

"We must force the Gentile governments to adopt measures which will
promote our broadly conceived plan, already approaching its triumphant
goal, by bringing to bear the pressure of stimulated public opinion, which
has been organized by us with the help of the so-called 'great power' of the
press. With a few exceptions not worth considering, it is already in our
hands."

To resume the Twelfth Protocol:

"If we have already managed to dominate the mind of Gentile society to
such a point that almost all see world affairs through the colored lenses of
the spectacles which we place before their eyes, and if now there is not one

government with barriers erected against our access to that which by
Gentile stupidity is called state secrets, what then will it be when we are the
recognized masters of the world in the person of our universal ruler?"

The Jewish nation is the only nation that possesses the secrets of all the
rest. No nation long protects a secret which directly concerns another
nation, but even so, no nation has all the secrets of all the other nations. Yet
it is not too much to say that the International Jews have this knowledge.
Much of it, of course, amounts to nothing and their possession of it does not
materially add to their power, but the fact that they have the access, that
they can get whatever they want when they want it is the important point—
as many a secret paper could testify if it could talk, and many a custodian of
secret papers could tell if he would. The real secret diplomacy of the world
is that which hands over the world's so-called secrets to a few men who are
members of one race. The surface of diplomacy, those activities which get
written down in the memoirs of comfortably aging statesmen, those coups
and treaties which are given high-sounding fame as if they really were
important—that is incomparable with the diplomacy of Judah, and its
matchless enginery for worming out the hidden knowledge of every ruling
group. The United States is included in all these statements. Perhaps there is
no government in the world so completely at their service as our own at
present, their control having been gained during the past five or six years.

The Protocols do not regard the dispersal of the Jews abroad upon the
face of the earth as a calamity, but as a providential arrangement by which
the World Plan can be more certainly executed, as see these words of the
Eleventh Protocol:

"God gave to us, His Chosen People, as a blessing, the dispersal, and this
which has appeared to all to be our weakness has been our whole strength.
It has now brought us to the threshold of universal rule."

The claims to accomplishment which are put forth in the Ninth Protocol
would be too massive for words were they too massive for concrete
realization, but there is a point where the word and the actuality meet and
tally.

"In order not to destroy prematurely the Gentile institutions, we have laid
our efficient hands on them, and rasped the springs of their mechanism.
They were formerly in strict and just order, but we have replaced them with
a liberal disorganized and arbitrary administration. We have tampered with
jurisprudence, the franchise, the press, freedom of the person, and, most
important of all, education and culture, the corner stone of free existence.

"We have misled, stupefied and demoralized the youth of the Gentiles by
means of education in principles and theories patently false to us, but which
we have inspired.

"Above existing laws, without actual change but by distorting them
through contradictory interpretations, we have created something
stupendous in the way of results."

Everyone knows that, in spite of the fact that the air was never so full of
theories of liberty and wild declarations of "rights," there has been a steady
curtailment of "personal freedom." Instead of being socialized, the people,
under a cover of socialistic phrases, are being brought under an
unaccustomed bondage to the state. The Public Health is one plea. Various
forms of Public Safety are other pleas. Children are hardly free to play
nowadays except under play-masters appointed by the State, among whom,
curiously enough, an astonishing proportion of Jews manage to find a place.
The streets are no longer as free as they were; laws of every kind are
hedging upon the harmless liberties of the people. A steady tendency toward
systemization, every phase of the tendency based upon some very learnedly
stated "principle," has set in, and curiously enough, when the investigator

pursues his way to the authoritative center of these movements for the
regulation of people's life, he finds Jews in power. Children are being lured
away from the "social center" of the home for other "centers"; they are
being led away (and we are speaking of Gentile children—no Gentiles are
ever allowed to regulate the lives of Jewish children) from their natural
leaders in home, church and school, to institutionalized "centers" and
scientific "play spots," under "trained leaders" whose whole effect,
consciously or unconsciously, is to lead the modern child to look to the
State, instead of its natural environment, for leadership. All this focuses up
to the World Plan for the subjugation of the Gentiles, and if it is not the
Jewish World Plan it would be interesting to know why the material for it is
so largely Gentile children and the leaders of it so often of the Jewish race.

Jewish liberties are the best safeguarded in the United States. Gentiles
take their chance with public matters, but every Jewish community is
surrounded by special protectors who gain special recognition by various
devices—political and business threats not the least of them. No public
spirited Gentiles are welcomed to the task of regulating the lives of Jewish
children. The Jewish community in every city is all-sufficient in itself as far
as such activities go. The most secret of all parochial schools are the Jewish
schools, whose very locations are not all known to the officials of large
cities. The Jew is almost anxious in his efforts to mold the Gentile mind; he
insists on being permitted to tell the Gentile what to think, especially about
the Jew; he is not averse to influencing general Gentile thought in a manner
which, though it come about by wide circles, works ultimately into the
Jewish scheme of things. The anxiety and the insistence, so well known to
all who have observed them, are only reflections of the Jew's conviction
that his is the superior race and is capable of directing the inferior race—of
which there is but one, including the whole non-Jewish world.

Every influence that leads to lightness and looseness in Gentile youth
today heads up in a Jewish source. Did the young people of the world
devise the "sport clothes" which have had so deleterious an effect on the
youth of the times that every publicist has thought it worthy of mention?
Those styles come out of Jewish clothing concerns, where certainly art is
not the rule nor moral influence the main consideration. The moving picture
is an interesting development of photography allied with the show business,
but whose is the responsibility for its development along such lines as make
it a menace to the minds of millions—so serious a menace that it has not
escaped observation and condemnation everywhere? Who are the masters
of musical jazz in the world? Who direct all the cheap jewelry houses, the
bridge-head show parks, the "coney islands," the centers of nervous thrills
and looseness? It is possible to take the showy young man and woman of
trivial outlook and loose sense of responsibility, and tag them outwardly
and inwardly from their clothing and ornaments to their hectic ideas and
hopes, with the same tag, "Made, introduced and exploited by a Jew."

There is, therefore, something most sinister in the light which events cast
upon that paragraph:

"We have misled, stupefied, and demoralized the youth of the Gentiles by
means of education in principles and theories, patently false to us but which
we have inspired."

"Principles and theories" do not necessarily imply lofty or even modest
intellectual qualities. The youngster who spends his noon hours and
evenings at the movies is getting his "principles and theories" just as the
more intellectual youngster from a higher grade of society who listens to a
Jewish "liberal" expound "sex liberty" and the "control of population" is
getting his. The looseness which inheres in these "principles and theories"
does not emanate from the Gentile home, or the Gentile church, or from any

line of money-making which is filled principally with Gentiles, but from
theories, movements and lines of money-making mostly fancied by Jews.
This line of accusation could be run much deeper, but it is preferred to
restrict it to what is observable by decent eyes everywhere.

And that "the youth of the Gentiles" are the principal victims, and not the
youth of the Jews, is also observable. While a certain percentage of Jewish
youth itself is overcome by this social poison, the percentage is almost
nothing compared with the results among the youth of the Gentiles. It is a
significant fact that Jews who link this process of enervation of Gentiles
with large profits are not themselves, nor are their sons and daughters, the
victims of this enervation. Jewish youth comes through more proudly and
more cleanly than the mass of Gentile youth.

Many a father and mother, many a sound-minded, uncorrupted young
person, and thousands of teachers and publicists have cried out against
luxury. Many a financier, observing the manner in which the people earned
and flung away their money, has warned against luxury. Many an
economist, knowing that the nonessential industries were consuming men
and materials that were necessary to the stabilizing of essential industries;
knowing that men are making knick-knacks who should be making steel;
knowing that men are engaged in making gew-gaws who should be working
on the farm; that materials are going into articles that are made only to sell
and never to use, and that materials are thus diverted from the industries
that support the people's life—every observer knowing this crazy insistence
on luxurious nonessentials has lifted up a strong voice against it.

But, according to these Protocols, we have been starting at the wrong
end. The people, it is true, buy these senseless nonessentials which are
called luxuries. But the people do not devise them. And the people grow
tired of them one by one. But the stream of varieties continues—always

something else being thrust at the people, dangled before their eyes, set
bobbing down the avenue on enough mannikins to give the impression that
it is "style"; newspaper print and newspaper pictures; movie pictures; stage
costumes enough to force the new thing into "fashion" with a kind of force
and compulsion which no really worthy essential thing can command.

Where does it come from? What power exists whose long experience and
deliberate intent enable it to frivolize the people's minds and tastes and
compel them to pay most of their money for it too? Why this spasm of
luxury and extravagance through which we have just passed? How did it
occur that before luxury and extravagance were apparent, all the material to
provoke and inflame them had been prepared beforehand and shipped
beforehand, ready for the stampede which also had been prepared?

If the people of the United States would stop to consider, when the
useless and expensive thing is offered them—if they would trace its origin,
trace the course of the enormous profits made out of it, trace the whole
movement to flood the market with uselessness and extravagance and thus
demoralize the Gentile public financially, intellectually, and socially—if, in
short, it could be made clear to them that Jewish financial interests are not
only pandering to the loosest elements in human nature, but actually
engaged in a calculated effort to render them loose in the first place and
keep them loose—it would do more than anything else to stop this sixfold
waste—the waste of material, the waste of labor, the waste of Gentile
money, the waste of Gentile mind, the waste of Jewish talent, and the worse
than waste of Israel's real usefulness to the world.

We say the Gentile public is the victim of this stimulated trade in useless
luxuries. Did you ever see Jewish people so victimized? They might wear
very noticeable clothing, but its price and its quality agree. They might wear
rather large diamonds, but they are diamonds. The Jew is not the victim of

the Jew, the craze for luxuries is just like the "coney island" crowd to him;
he knows what attracts them and the worthlessness of it.

And it is not so much the financial loss that is to be mourned, nor yet the
atrocities committed upon good taste, but the fact that the silly Gentile
crowds walk into the net willingly, even gaily, supposing the change of the
fashion to be as inevitable as the coming of spring, supposing the new
demand on their earnings to be as necessary and as natural as taxes. The
crowds think that somehow they have part in it, when their only part is to
pay, and then pay again for the new extravagance when the present one
palls. There are men in this country who know two years ahead what the
frivolities and extravagances of the people will be, because they decree
what they shall be. These things are strictly business, demoralizing to the
Gentile majority, enriching to the Jewish minority.

Look at the Sixth Protocol for a sidelight on all this:

This is an excerpt from a longer passage dealing with the plans by which
the people's interest could be swung from political to industrial questions,
how industry could be made insecure and unfair by the introduction of
speculation into its management, and finally how against this condition the
people could be rendered restless and helpless. Luxury was to be the
instrument:

"To destroy Gentile industry, we shall, as an incentive to this speculation,
encourage among the Gentiles a strong demand for luxuries—all enticing
luxuries."

And in the First Protocol:

"Surely we cannot allow our own people to come to this. The people of
the Gentiles are stupefied with spirituous liquors * * *"

—incidentally, the profits of spirituous liquors flow in large amounts to
Jewish pockets. The history of the whiskey ring in this country will show
this. Historically, the whole prohibition movement may be described as a
contest between Gentile and Jewish capital, and in this instance, thanks to
the Gentile majority, the Gentiles won.

The amusement, gambling, jazz song, scarlet fiction, side show, cheap-
dear fashions, flashy jewelry, and every other activity that lived by reason
of an invisible pressure upon the people, and that exchanged the most
useless of commodities for the prices that would just exhaust the people's
money surplus and no more—every such activity has been under the
mastery of the Jews.

They may not be conscious of their participation in any wholesale
demoralization of the people. They may only be conscious of "easy money."
They may sometimes yield to surprise as they contrast the silly Gentiles
with their own money-wise and fabric-wise and metal-wise Jews. But
however this may be, there is the conception of a program by which a
people may be deliberately devastated materially and spiritually, and yet
kept pleasant all the time—and there also is the same program translated
into terms of daily transactions and for the most part, perhaps altogether
under control of the members of one race.

[Issue of August 7, 1920.]

XIII.

"Jewish" Plan to Split Society by "Ideas"

The method by which the Protocols work for the breakdown of society
should now be fairly evident to readers of these articles. An understanding
of the method is necessary if one is to find the meaning of the currents and
cross-currents which make so hopeless a hodge-podge of the present times.
People who are confused and discouraged by the various voices and
discordant theories of today, each seeming to be plausible and promising,
may find a clear clue to the value of the voices and the meaning of the
theories if they understand that their confusion and discouragement
comprise the very objective which is sought. The uncertainty, hesitation,
hopelessness, fear; the eagerness with which every promising plan and
offered solution is grasped—these are the very reactions which the program
outlined in the Protocols aims to produce. The condition is proof of the
efficacy of the program.

It is a method that takes time, and the Protocols declare that it has taken
time, indeed, centuries. Students of the matter find the identical program of
the Protocols, announced and operated by the Jewish race, from the first
century onward.

It has taken 1900 years to bring Europe to its present degree of
subjugation—violent subjugation in some countries, political subjugation in
some, economic subjugation in all—but in America the same program, with
almost the same degree of success, has required about 50 years. Certain
mistaken ideas of liberalism, certain flabby ideas of tolerance, all of them
originating at European sources which the Protocolists had completely
polluted, were transported to America, and here under cover of the
blindness and innocence of a false liberalism and tolerance, together with
modern appliances for the swift acceleration of opinion, there has been
worked a subjugation of our institutions and public thought which is the
amazement of European observers. It is a fact that some of the important
students of the Jewish Question, whom Jewish publicists are pleased to
damn with the term "Anti-Semites," have been awakened to the existence of
the Question not by what they have observed in Europe, but by what they
have seen in the swift and distinct "close-up" which has been afforded in
American affairs.

The center of Jewish power, the principal sponsors of the Jewish
program, are resident in America, and the leverage which was used at the
Peace Conference to fasten Jewish power more securely upon Europe, was
American leverage exercised at the behest of the strong Jewish pressure
which was brought from the United States for that purpose. And these
activities did not end with the Peace Conference.

The whole method of the Protocols may be described in one word,
Disintegration. The undoing of what has been done, the creation of a long
and hopeless interim in which attempts at reconstruction shall be baffled,
and the gradual wearing down of public opinion and public confidence,
until those who stand outside the created chaos shall insert their strong calm
hand to seize control—that is the whole method of procedure.

Putting together the estimate of human nature which obtains in these
Protocols, and their claims to a rather definite though as yet incomplete
fulfillment of the World Program (these two comprising the themes of the
previous two articles), some of the aspects of this propaganda of
disintegration have become clear. But not all of them. There are yet other
aspects of these methods, which will be dealt with in the present article, and
there are yet future reaches of the program which will be considered later.

The first point of attack is Collective Opinion, that body of ideas which
through men's agreement with them, holds large groups together in
political, racial, religious, or social unity. Sometimes we call them
"standards," sometimes we call them "ideals"; whatever they may be called,
they are the invisible bonds of unity, they are the common faith, they are the
great overarching reason for group unity and loyalty.

The Protocols assert that here the first attack has been made. The history
of Jewish propaganda in the world shows that also.

The first wave of attack is to corrupt Collective Opinion. Now, to
"corrupt" in the real sense does not mean anything unsavory or unclean.
The whole power of every heresy is its attractiveness to the good mind. The
whole explanation of the strong hold which untruth has gained upon the
world of our day, is that the untruth is reasonable, inspiring and apparently
good. It is only after a long discipline in false ideals—which are reasonable,
inspiring and good—that the evil fruits appear in acts and conditions which
are unreasonable, destructive and wholly evil. If you will trace the idea of
Liberty as it has appeared in Russian history, from its philosophic beginning
(a Jewish beginning, by the way) to its present ending (a Jewish ending
also), you will see the process.

The Protocols claim that the Gentiles are not thinkers, that attractive
ideas have been thrown at them so strategically and persistently that the

power of thought is almost destroyed out of them. Fortunately this is a
matter on which any Gentile may apply his own test. If he will segregate his
ruling ideas, especially those that center round the thought of "democracy,"
he will discover that he is being ruled in his mind by a whole company of
ideas into whose authority over him he has not inquired at all. He is ruled
by "say so" whose origin he has not traced. And when, pursuing those ideas,
he finds that they are not practicable, he is received by the explanation that
"we are not yet sufficiently advanced." Yet when he does see men who are
sufficiently "advanced" to put these very ideas into operation, he recoils
from what he sees them do, because he knows that "advancement" such as
that is deterioration—a form of disintegration. Yet every one of the ideas
were "good," "reasonable," "inspiring," "humane," to begin with. And, if
this Gentile will observe a little further, he will see that they are the most
persistently preached ideas in the world; he will also see who the preachers
are.

The Protocols distinctly declare that it is by means of the set of ideals
which cluster around "democracy," that their first victory over public
opinion was obtained. The idea is the weapon. And to be a weapon it must
be an idea at variance with the natural trend of life. It must indeed be a
theory opposed to the facts of life. And no theory so opposed can be
expected to take root and become the ruling factor, unless it appeals to the
mind as reasonable, inspiring and good. The Truth frequently seems
unreasonable; the Truth frequently is depressing; the Truth sometimes
seems to be evil; but it has this eternal advantage, it is the Truth, and what is
built thereon neither brings nor yields to confusion.

This first step does not give the control of public opinion, but leads up to
it. It is worthy of note that it is the sowing of "the poison of liberalism," as
the Protocols name it, which comes first in order in those documents. Then,
following upon that, the Protocols say:

"To obtain control over public opinion it is first necessary to confuse it."

Truth is one and cannot be confused, but this false, appealing liberalism
which has been sown broadcast, and which is ripening faster under Jewish
nurture in America than ever it did in Europe, is easily confused because it
is not truth. It is error, and error has a thousand forms. Take a nation, a
party, a city, an association in which "the poison of liberalism" has been
sown, and you can split that up into as many factions as there are
individuals simply by throwing among them certain modifications of the
original idea. This is a piece of strategy well known to the forces that
invisibly control mass-thought. Theodor Herzl, the arch-Jew, a man whose
vision was wider than any statesman's and whose program paralleled the
Protocols, knew this many years ago when he said that the Zionist (cryptic
for "Jewish") state would come before the Socialist state could come; he
knew with what endless divisions the "liberalism" which he and his
predecessors had planted would be shackled and crippled.

The process of which all Gentiles have been the victims, but never the
Jews—never the Jews!—is just this—

First, to create an ideal of "broad-mindedness." That is the phrase which
appears in every Jewish remonstrance against public mention of the Jew
and his alleged World Program: "We thought you were too broad-minded a
man to express such thoughts;" "we thought Mr. So-and-So was too broad-
minded a man to suspect the Jews of this;" "we thought the daily or weekly
or monthly such-and-such a paper was too broad-minded editorially to
consider such material." It is a sort of keyword, indicative of the state of
mind in which it is desired that the Gentles be kept. It is a state of flabby
tolerance. A state of mind which mouths meaningless phrases about Liberty,
phrases which act as an opiate on the mind and conscience and which allow
all sorts of things to be done under cover. The phrase, the slogan, is a very

dependable Jewish weapon. ("In all times people have accepted words for
acts."—Protocol 5.) The reality behind the phrase the Protocols frankly
admit to be non-existent.

Nothing has served to create "broad-mindedness," a state of mind whose
breadth indicates its lack of depth, so much as the ideas of liberalism which
the Jews are constantly teaching to Gentiles and on which they never
themselves act. We need a new sort of allegiance to the reality of life, to the
facts as they are, which will enable us to stand up under all cajoling to
"broad-mindness" and assert a new intolerance of everything but truth. The
terms "narrow" and "broad" as they are used today represent lies. The
liberal man ought to believe more, he ought to be deep and wide in his
beliefs in order to merit that name; but as a usual thing he believes nothing.
He is not liberal at all. When you seek belief, belief with a foundation,
belief with vitality, you must seek it among men who are sneered at, under
this false Jewish-propagated notion of liberality, as "narrow men." Jewish
propaganda, in common with the Protocols, is against men who have dug
down to the rock; they want "broad-minded men" who can easily be shifted
about the surface and thus serve the invisible scheme in any manner
desired. This type of men, on their part, never imagine but that their "broad-
mindedness" is a mark of their superiority and independence.

Now, see what follows. Men are born believers. For a time they may
believe in "broad-mindedness" and under the terrific social pressure that has
been set up in its favor they will openly espouse it. But it is too shallow to
satisfy any growing roots of life. They must believe, deeply, something. For
proof of this, notice the undeniable strength of the negative beliefs which
are held by men who fancy that they believe nothing. Therefore, some who
are highly endowed with independence of spirit, root down into those
prohibited matters which at some point touch Jewish concerns—these are
the "narrow" men. But others find it more convenient to cultivate those

departments which promise a highway whereon there shall be no clashes of
vital opinion, no chance of the charge of "intolerance"; in short they transfer
all their contemplative powers to the active life, even as it is written in the
Protocols—

"To divert Gentile thought and observation, interest must be deflected to
industry and commerce."

It is amazing to look around and see the number of men who have been
actually browbeaten into committing their whole lives to these secondary or
even tertiary things, while they look with great timidity and aversion at the
vital things which really rule the world and upon the issue of which the
world really depends.

But it is just this deflection to the materialistic base that offers the
Protocolists, and similarly Jewish propagandists, their best hold. "Broad-
mindedness" today consists in leaving vital matters severely alone. It
descends quickly to material-mindedness. Within this lower sphere all the
discord which distresses the world today is to be found.

First, there is the ruin of the upper circles of industry and commerce:

"To make it possible for liberty definitely to disintegrate and ruin
Gentile society, industry must be placed on a speculative basis."

No one needs to be told what this means. It means, as everything about
us shouts, the prostitution of service to profits and the eventual
disappearance of the profits. It means that the high art of management
degenerates into exploitation. It means reckless confusion among the
managers and dangerous unrest among the workmen.

But it means something worse; it means the splitting up of Gentile
society. Not a division between "Capital" and "Labor," but the division
between the Gentiles at both ends of the working scheme. Gentile managers
and manufacturers are not the "capitalists" of the United States. Most of
them have to go to the "capitalists" for the funds with which they work—
and the "capitalists" are Jewish, International Jews.

But with Jewish capital at one end of the Gentile working scheme putting
the screws on the manufacturers, and with Jewish agitators and
disruptionists and subversives at the other end of the Gentile working
scheme putting the screws on the workmen, we have a condition at which
the world-managers of the Protocol program must be immensely satisfied.

"We might fear the combined strength of the Gentiles of vision with the
blind strength of the masses, but we have taken all measures against such a
possible contingency by raising a wall of mutual antagonism between these
two forces. Thus, the blind force of the masses remains our support. We,
and we alone, shall serve as their leaders. Naturally, we will direct their
energy to achieve our end."—Protocol 9.

The indication that they are highly satisfied is that they are not only not
doing anything to relieve the situation, but are apparently willing to have it
made worse, and if it be at all possible for them to do so they would like to
see this coming winter, and the privations which are scheduled for it (unless
Gentile flabbiness before the Jewish power, high and low, receives a new
backbone), bring the United States to the verge of, if not across the very line
of Bolshevism. They know the whole method of artificial scarcity and high
prices. It was practiced in the French Revolution and in Russia. All the
signs of it are in this country too.

Industrial problems for their mental food and light amusement for their
leisure hours, these are the Protocols' method with regard to the Gentile

mind, and under cover of these the work is to be done—the work which is
best expressed by the motto, "Divide and Rule."

Read this:

"To divert over-restless people from discussing political questions, we
shall now bring forward new problems apparently connected with them—
problems of industry."—Protocol 13.

Has not everyone been struck by the divorcement which exists in this
country between the mass-thought which is almost exclusively devoted to
industrial questions, and the party-thought which is endeavoring to keep the
field of pure politics? And is it not a fact that our friends, the Jews, are
strongly entrenched in both fields—in politics to keep it reactionary, and in
industrial circles to keep it radical—and so widen the split? And what is this
split but a split of the Gentiles?—for society is Gentile, and the disruptive
influences are Jewish.

Read this:

"We have included in the constitution rights for the people that are
fictitious and not actual rights. All those so-called 'rights of the people' can
only exist in the abstract and can never be realized in practice * * * The
proletarian gains no more from the constitution than the miserable crumbs
thrown from our table in return for his votes to elect our agents and pass our
measures. Republican rights are a bitter irony to the poor man, for the
pressure of daily labor prevents him from using them, and at the same time,
deprives him of the guaranty of a permanent and certain livelihood by
making him dependent upon strikes, organized either by his employers or
his comrades."—Protocol 3.

This remark about strikes is not at all puzzling to anyone who has studied
the different types of strikes in this country. The number fomented from
above the working class is astoundingly large.

Read this also:

"We will force up wages, which, however, will be of no benefit to the
workers, for we will at the same time cause a rise in the prices of
necessities, pretending that this is due to the decline of agriculture and of
cattle raising. We will also artfully and deeply undermine the sources of
production by instilling in the workmen ideas of anarchy."—Protocol 6.

And this:

"We will represent ourselves as the saviours of the working class who
have come to liberate them from this oppression by suggesting that they
join our army of socialists, anarchists, communists, to whom we always
extend our help under the guise of the fraternal principles of universal
human solidarity."—Protocol 3.

"Broad-mindedness" again! In this connection it is always well to
remember the words of Sir Eustace Percy, heretofore quoted, words which
are sponsored by Jews themselves—"Not because the Jew cares for the
positive side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a partaker
in Gentile nationalism or Gentile democracy, but because no existing
Gentile system of government is ever anything but distasteful to him."

Or, as the author of "The Conquering Jew" says: "He is democratic in his
sentiments, but not in his nature. When he proclaims the common
brotherhood of man, he is asking that the social gate now closed against
him in so many quarters shall be open to him; not because he wants
equality, but because he desires to be master in the social world, as he is

showing himself in so may other spheres. Many an honorable Jew will, I
doubt not, dispute the accuracy of this distinction; but if he does it will be
because he has lived so long in the atmosphere of the West that he is
unconscious of what is bred in the bone of his Eastern race."

It is not difficult, therefore, to see the genealogy of the Jewish ideas of
liberalism from their origin to their latest effects upon Gentile life. The
confusion aimed for is here. There is not a reader of these lines who has not
felt in his own life the burden of it. Bewilderment characterizes the whole
mental climate of the people today. They do not know what to believe. First
one set of facts is given to them, then another. First one explanation of
conditions is given to them, and then another. The fact-shortage is acute.
There is a whole market-full of explanations that explain nothing, but only
deepen the confusion. The government itself seems to be hampered, and
whenever it starts on a line of investigation finds itself mysteriously tangled
up so that procedure is difficult. This governmental aspect is also set forth
in the Protocols.

Add to this the onslaught on the human tendency toward religion, which
is usually the last barrier to fall before violence and robbery unashamed
stalk forth. In order to bring the condition about at which this World
Program aims, the Fourth Protocol says:

"It is for this reason that we must undermine faith, eradicate from the
minds of the Gentiles the very principles of God and Soul, and replace these
conceptions by mathematical calculations and material desires."

"When we deprived the masses of their belief in God, ruling authority
was thrown into the gutter, where it became public property, and we seized
it."—Protocol 5.

"We have taken good care long ago to discredit the Gentile clergy."—
Protocol 17.

"When we become rulers we shall regard as undesirable the existence of
any religion except our own, proclaiming One God with Whom our fate is
tied as The Chosen People, and by Whom our fate has been made one with
the fate of the world. For this reason we must destroy all other religions. If
thereby should emerge contemporary atheists, then, as a transition step, this
will not interfere with our aims."—Protocol 14.

This will probably offer matter for reflection by the "broad-minded."

It is curious to note how this religious program has worked out in Russia
where Trotsky (as loudly heralded in the American Jewish Press) is said to
have no religion, and where Jewish commissars tell dying Russians who ask
for priests, "We have abolished the Almighty." Miss Katherine Dokoochief
is reported, under a Philadelphia date, to have told the Near East Relief that
Russian Christian churches have been subjected to the vilest indignities by
the Bolsheviki, details of which she gives; but "the synagogues remain
untouched, meeting with no damage."

All these lines of attack, whose object is the destruction of the natural
rallying points of Gentile thought, and the substitution of other rallying
points of an unwholesome and destructive nature, are assisted, as we saw in
the last article, by the propaganda for luxury. Luxury is recognizedly one of
the most enervating influences. Its course runs from ease, through softness,
to flabbiness, to degeneracy, mental, physical and moral. Its beginnings are
attractive, its end is lasciviousness in some form, testifying to the complete
breakdown of all the strong fiber of the life. It may make a theme for a
more complete study some day, this lure to lasciviousness through luxury,
and the identity of the forces that set the lure.

But now, to conclude this general view of the method, rather this part of
the method, the confusion itself, which all these influences converge to
produce, is expected to produce another more deeply helpless state. And
that state is, Exhaustion.

It needs no imagination to see what this means. Exhaustion is today one
of the conditions that menace the people. The recent political conventions
and their effect upon the public fully illustrate it. Nobody seemed to care.
Parties might make their declarations and candidates their promises—
nobody cared. The war and its strain began the exhaustion; the "peace" and
its confusion have about completed it. The people believe little and expect
less. Confidence is gone. Initiative is nearly gone. The failure of movements
falsely heralded as "people's movements" has gone far to make the people
think that no people's movement is possible.

So say the Protocols:

"To wear everyone out by dissensions, animosities, feuds, famine,
inoculation of diseases, want, until the Gentiles see no other way of escape
except an appeal to our money and power."—Protocol 10.

"We will so wear out and exhaust the Gentiles by all this that they will be
compelled to offer us an international authority, which by its position will
enable us to absorb without disturbance all the governmental forces of the
world and thus form a super-government.

"We must so direct the education of Gentile society that its hands will
drop in the weakness of discouragement in the face of any undertaking
where initiative is needed."—Protocol 5.

The Jews have never been worn out or exhausted. They have never been
nonplused. This is the true psychic characteristic of those who have a clue

to the maze. It is the unknown that exhausts the mind, the constant
wandering around among tendencies and influences whose source is not
known and whose purpose is not understood. Walking in the dark is wearing
work. The Gentiles have been doing it for centuries. The others, having a
pretty accurate idea what it was all about, have not succumbed. Even
persecution is endurable if it is understandable, and the Jews of the world
have always known just where it fitted in the scheme of things. Gentiles
have suffered from Jewish persecutions than have the Jews, for after the
persecutions were over, the Gentile was as much in the dark as ever;
whereas Judaism simply took up again its century-long march toward a goal
in which it implicitly believes, and which, some say who have deep
knowledge of Jewish roots in the world and who too may be touched with
exhaustion, they will achieve. However this may be, the revolution which
would be necessary to unfasten the International Jewish system from its
grip on the world, would probably have to be just as radical as any attempts
the Jews have made to attain that grip. There are those who express serious
doubts that the Gentiles are competent to do it at all. Maybe not. Let them at
least know who their conquerors are.

[Issue of August 14, 1920.]

XIV.

Did the Jews Foresee the World War?

Before proceeding to a more detailed study of the connection between the
written program of the documents which are called "The Protocols of the
Learned Elders of Zion," and the actual program as it can be traced in real
life, we shall now view those plans which were future when the Protocols
were uttered. It must be borne in mind, however, that what was future in
1896 and 1905, may be past today, that what was plan then may be
fulfillment now. To bear this in mind will be in exact accord with the
expression of Protocol 22—"I have endeavored to indicate carefully the
secrets of past and future events, and of those momentous occurrences of
the near future toward which we are rushing in a stream of great crises."
Some of those "momentous occurrences" have come to pass, and with them
a brighter light on the Question which we are studying.

An illustration of this which is fresh in the minds of all was furnished by
the Great War. Jewish comment on this series of articles has made much of
the fact that one of the articles was devoted to the then prominence of the
Jewish Question in Germany, and it was sought to mislead the people to
think that this series was really a part of subtle German after-the-war
propaganda. The fact is that articles on the Question in a number of
countries were set aside in order to bring the Question itself prominently

before the minds of Americans with the least delay. The postponed articles
will appear in due season, though out of their order. Germany is today, with
perhaps the possible exception of the United States, the most Jew-controlled
country in the world—controlled within and from without—and a much
stronger set of facts could be presented now than was presented in the
original article (the facts of which were at first denied and later admitted by
the Jewish spokesmen in the United States). For, since that article was
written, public sentiment in Germany has swept the Jews largely out of
public office. German public opinion exerted itself to the utmost to put
German political administration back into German hands. But did that
liberate Germany from the Jews? Not at all. For their entrenchments
stretched further and deeper than mere display of official power. Their hold
on the basic industries, the finances, the future of Germany has not been
loosened in the least. It is there, unmovable. In what that hold consists, the
reader will be told at some convenient time.

Germany is mentioned now, in connection with the Jews, for this
purpose: It will be remembered that it was from Germany that the first cry
of "annexations" came, and it came at a time when all German war
activities and war sentiment were admittedly in Jewish control.
"Annexations" was the cry that flashed across the world one day. And back
across the world, from the United States, a nation that was not even a party
to the war at that time, the word flashed back, "No Annexations." Thus by a
dramatic play the whole question was thrust before the world.

Soon the people of all countries had forgotten the blood of battle, the war
profiteers and every other vital point, and were discussing a matter which
belonged to the end of the war and not the beginning, the question of
"annexations." Now, when it is known who were controlling the
formulation of war-aims in Germany and who were the chief counselors of
the foreign policy of the United States at the same time, the projection of

this question of "annexations" into the world's mind becomes interesting;
interesting but not wholly intelligible.

Not until you read the Protocols do you get a full light on this—and this
report of the Protocols which is now given the world probably dates from
1896; there is absolutely ironclad proof of the date 1905.

The Second Protocol begins on the note of war, and its opening words are
these:

"It is indispensable for our purpose that as far as possible, wars should
bring no territorial advantages. This will shift war to an economic footing,
and nations will perceive the strength of our superiority in the aid we
render."

Who was thinking, between 1896 and 1905, of the new "no annexations"
rule to be applied to war? Were you? Do you know of any statesman who
was? We know that military men were concerned about the appliances and
operations of any future war that might occur. We know that statesmen, of
the more responsible sort, were working to consolidate a balance of
interests that would make war extremely improbable. Who had outdistanced
them all in foresight and planning sufficiently to lay down a definite
program of "no annexations?"

Fortunately the clue to the answer is supplied to us by unquestionable
Jewish sources. The American Jewish News of September 19, 1919, had an
advertisement on its front page which read thus:

"WHEN PROPHETS SPEAK

By Litman Rosenthal

Many years ago Nordau prophesied the Balfour Declaration. Litman
Rosenthal, his intimate friend, relates this incident in a fascinating memoir.

The article, on page 464, begins: "It was on Saturday, the day after the
closing of the Sixth Congress, when I received a telephone message from
Dr. Herzl asking me to call on him."

This fixes the time. The Sixth Zionist Congress was held at Basle in
August, 1903.

The memoir continues: "On entering the lobby of the hotel I met Herzl's
mother who welcomed me with her usual gracious friendliness and asked
me whether the feelings of the Russian Zionists were now calmer.

"'Why just the Russian Zionists, Frau Herzl?' I asked. 'Why do you only
inquire about these?'

"'Because my son,' she explained, 'is mostly interested in the Russian
Zionists. He considers them the quintessence, the most vital part of the
Jewish people.'"

At this Sixth Congress the British Government ("Herzl and his agents
had kept in contact with the English Government"—Jewish Encyclopedia,
Vol. 12, page 678) had offered the Jews a colony in Uganda, East Africa.
Herzl was in favor of taking it, not as a substitute for Palestine, but as a step
toward it. It was this which formed the chief topic of conversation between
Herzl and Litman Rosenthal in that Basle hotel. Herzl said to Rosenthal, as
reported in this article: "There is a difference between the final aim and the
ways we have to go to achieve this aim."

Suddenly Max Nordau, who seems at the conference held last month in
London to have become Herzl's successor, entered the room, and the

Rosenthal interview was ended.

Let the reader now follow attentively the important part of this
Rosenthal story:—(the italics are ours)

"About a month later I went on a business trip to France. On my way to
Lyons I stopped in Paris, and there I visited, as usual, our Zionist friends.
One of them told me that this very same evening Dr. Nordau was scheduled
to speak about the Sixth Congress, and I, naturally, interrupted my journey
to be present at this meeting and to hear Dr. Nordau's report. When we
reached the hall in the evening we found it filled to overflowing and all
were waiting impatiently for the great master, Nordau, who, on entering,
received a tremendous ovation. But Nordau, without paying heed to the
applause showered upon him, began his speech immediately, and said:

"'You all came here with a question burning in your hearts and trembling
on your lips, and the question is, indeed, a great one, and of vital
importance. I am willing to answer it. What you want to ask is: How could I
—I who was one of those who formulated the Basle program—how could I
dare to speak in favor of the English proposition concerning Uganda, how
could Herzl as well as I betray our ideal of Palestine, because you surely
think that we have betrayed it and forgotten it. Yet listen to what I have to
say to you. I spoke in favor of Uganda after long and careful consideration;
deliberately I advised the Congress to consider and to accept the proposal of
the English Government, a proposal made to the Jewish nation through the
Zionist Congress, and my reasons—but instead of my reasons let me tell
you a political story as a kind of allegory.

"'I want to speak of a time which is now almost forgotten, a time when
the European powers had decided to send a fleet against the fortress of
Sebastopol. At this time Italy, the United Kingdom of Italy, did not exist.
Italy was in reality only a little principality of Sardinia, and the great, free

and united Italy was but a dream, a fervent wish, a far ideal of all Italian
patriots. The leaders of Sardinia, who were fighting for and planning this
free and united Italy, were the three great popular heroes: Garibaldi,
Mazzini, and Cavour.

"'The European powers invited Sardinia to join in the demonstration at
Sebastopol and to send also a fleet to help in the siege of this fortress, and
this proposal gave rise to a dissension among the leaders of Sardinia.
Garibaldi and Mazzini did not want to send a fleet to the help of England
and France and they said: "Our program, the work to which we are pledged,
is a free and united Italy. What have we to do with Sebastopol? Sebastopol
is nothing to us, and we should concentrate all our energies on our original
program so that we may realize our ideal as soon as possible."

"'But Cavour, who even at this time was the most prominent, the most
able, and the most far-sighted statesman of Sardinia, insisted that his
country should send a fleet and beleaguer with the other powers Sebastopol,
and, at last, he carried his point. Perhaps it will interest you to know that the
right hand of Cavour, his friend and adviser, was his secretary, Hartum, a
Jew, and in those circles, which were in opposition to the government, one
spoke fulminantly of Jewish treason. And once at an assembly of Italian
patriots one called wildly for Cavour's secretary, Hartum, and demanded of
him to defend his dangerous and treasonable political actions. And this is
what he said: "Our dream, our fight, our ideal, an ideal for which we have
paid already in blood and tears, in sorrow and despair, with the life of our
sons and the anguish of our mothers, our one wish and one aim is a free and
united Italy. All means are sacred if they lead to this great and glorious goal.
Cavour knows full well that after the fight before Sebastopol sooner or later
a peace conference will have to be held, and at this peace conference those
powers will participate who have joined in the fight. True, Sardinia has no
immediate concern, no direct interest in Sebastopol, but if we will help now

with our fleet, we will sit at the future peace conference, enjoying equal
rights with the other powers, and at this peace conference Cavour, as the
representative of Sardinia, will proclaim the free and independent, united
Italy. Thus our dream for which we have suffered and died, will become, at
last, a wonderful and happy reality. And if you now ask me again, what has
Sardinia to do at Sebastopol, then let me tell you the following words, like
the steps of a ladder: Cavour, Sardinia, the siege of Sebastopol, the future
European peace conference, the proclamation of a free and united Italy.'"

"The whole assembly was under the spell of Nordau's beautiful, truly
poetic and exalted diction, and his exquisite, musical French delighted the
hearers with an almost sensual pleasure. For a few seconds the speaker
paused, and the public, absolutely intoxicated by his splendid oratory,
applauded frantically. But soon Nordau asked for silence and continued:

"'Now this great progressive world power, England, has after the
pogroms of Kishineff, in token of her sympathy with our poor people,
offered through the Zionist Congress the autonomous colony of Uganda to
the Jewish nation. Of course, Uganda is in Africa, and Africa is not Zion
and never will be Zion, to quote Herzl's own words. But Herzl knows full
well that nothing is so valuable to the cause of Zionism as amicable
political relations with such a power as England is, and so much more
valuable as England's main interest is concentrated in the Orient. Nowhere
else is precedent as powerful as in England, and so it is most important to
accept a colony out of the hands of England and create thus a precedent in
our favor. Sooner or later the Oriental question will have to be solved, and
the Oriental question means, naturally, also the question of Palestine.
England, who had addressed a formal, political note to the Zionist Congress
—the Zionist Congress which is pledged to the Basle program, England
will have the deciding voice in the final solution of the Oriental question,
and Herzl has considered it his duty to maintain valuable relations with this

great and progressive power. Herzl knows that we stand before a
tremendous upheaval of the whole world. Soon, perhaps, some kind of a
world-congress will have to be called, and England, the great, free and
powerful England, will then continue the work it has begun with its
generous offer to the Sixth Congress. And if you ask me now what has
Israel to do in Uganda, then let me tell you as the answer the words of the
statesmen of Sardinia, only applied to our case and given in our version; let
me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a
ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, The Zionist Congress, the
English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference
where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.'

"Like a mighty thunder these last words came to us, and we all were
trembling and awestruck as if we had seen a vision of old. And in my ears
were sounding the words of our great brother Achad Haam, who said of
Nordau's address at the First Congress:

"'I felt that one of the great old prophets was speaking to us, that his
voice came down from the free hills of Judea, and our hearts were burning
in us when we heard his words, filled with wonder, wisdom and vision.'"

The amazing thing is that this article by Litman Rosenthal should ever
have been permitted to see print. But it did not see print until the Balfour
Declaration about Palestine, and it never would have seen print had not the
Jews believed that one part of their program had been accomplished.

The Jew never betrays himself until he believes that what he seeks has
been won, then he lets himself go. It was only to Jews that the 1903
"program of the Ladder"—the future world war—the peace conference—
the Jewish program—was communicated. When the ascent of that ladder
seemed to be complete, then came the public talk.

A similar illustration of this is to be found in the fall of the Czar. When
that event transpired it was an occasion of great rejoicing in New York, and
a Gentile of world-wide fame made a speech in which he lauded an
American Jew of national reputation for having begun the downfall of the
Czar by providing the money with which propaganda had been made
among Russian prisoners in Japan during the Russo-Japanese war. The story
came out only after the success of the plot. It is not at all out of keeping that
the last men to see the last act of the plot carried out, the actual murder of
Nicholas Romanovitch, his wife, his young daughters and his invalid boy,
were "five Soviet deputies, the latter five all Jews." What began with the
assistance of an American financier, finished with Soviet deputies.

Did International Jews in 1903 foresee the war? This Rosenthal
confession is but one bit of evidence that they did. And did they do nothing
but foresee it? It were well if the facts stopped at foresight and did not run
on to provocation.

For the present the reader is invited to retain in his mind two points in
this Rosenthal article: "Perhaps it will interest you to know that the right
hand of Cavour, his friend and adviser, was his secretary, Hartum, a Jew."
This is the way the Jewish press speaks of its own. If this paper, or a
Chicago paper, or a New York paper should go through the list of the
secretaries of the men of power in the world today and make the note after
the names—"His secretary, a Jew," the Anti-Defamation Society would
send letters of protest. There is one rule for the Gentile and one for the Jew,
in the Jewish mind. Writing in the public prints about Hartum, he would be
described as an "Italian."

Were the Jewish secretaries who abounded before the war, during the war
and throughout the Peace Conference of less brilliance than Hartum? Were
there not Hartums in England, France, Germany, yes and in Russia too (in

the United States there were many) who saw the "program of the Ladder"?
Did Max Nordau who saw it so clearly in 1903 forget it in 1914 and 1918?

We know this: the Jews in their Congress at Basle in 1903 foresaw "the
future world war." How did they know it was to be a "world war"?

We know this also: the Protocols, perhaps as early as 1896, certainly not
later than 1905, foresaw the policy of "no annexations."

The World War came to pass.

"No annexations" came to pass. What was then future in the Jewish
world program, is now past.

In the Protocols there are two forms of declaration. One is, "we have."
The other is, "we shall." If somewhere in the world this summer the high
secret spokesman of the World Program is addressing his class of
International Initiates, he will have to say "we have" in many places where
this spokesman of 1896 said "we shall." Things have been accomplished.

"We will represent ourselves as the saviors of the laboring classes." That
has been and is being done. "We will deflect the thoughts of the Gentiles to
industry and commerce." That has been done. "We will create a strongly
centralized administration so as to grasp all the social forces strongly in our
hands." That has been done. "We will adopt for ourselves the liberal side of
all parties and all movements and provide orators." That has been done.
"We will force up wages." That has been done. "We will at the same time
cause a rise in the price of prime necessities." That has been done. "We will
also undermine the sources of production by instilling in the workmen ideas
of anarchy." That has been done.

"To demonstrate our enslavement of the Gentile governments of Europe,
we shall show our power to one by crimes of violence, that is, by a reign of
terror."—Protocol 7.

Who that sees Russia and beholds the attitude of the premiers of England,
France, and Italy toward the Soviets, the "enslavement" of statesmanship by
a condition that tangles more gnarledly the more it is dealt with—who that
sees the prostration of Europe before a wound that is deliberately kept from
healing, can forbear to say: That too has been done!

"Our plans will not upset contemporary institutions immediately. Their
management will only be altered and consequently the whole procedure of
their activity will thus be directed according to plans laid down by us." That
has been done.

"We shall saddle the press and keep a tight reign upon it." That has been
done. The rein is being strongly pulled in the United States at this moment,
as many an editor can testify.

"Even if there should be those who desire to write against us, no one will
print their writings." In large part, that has been done. It has been done
completely with the profit-making press.

"We shall, as an incentive to speculation, encourage among the Gentiles a
strong demand for luxuries—all-enticing luxuries." That has been done.

"To each act of opposition we must be in a position to respond by
bringing on war through the neighbors of any country that dares to oppose
us, and if these neighbors should plan to stand collectively against us, we
must let loose a world war." (Protocol 7). The term "world war" is the same
as that used by Rosenthal and Nordau. "Herzl knows," said Nordau in 1903,
"that we stand before a tremendous upheaval of the whole world."

"We must create unrest, dissension and mutual animosities throughout
Europe and, with the help of her relationships, on other continents." This
has been done. This passage continues: "There is a double advantage in this.
First, we shall command the respect of all countries by this method, for they
will realize that we have the power to create disorder or establish order at
will." This too has been done.

Truly did the spokesman of 1896 speak of "those momentous occurrences
of the near future toward which we are rushing in a stream of great crises."

Not only was "no annexations" achieved "as far as possible," just as the
Protocols outlined it, but a host of other plans have matured in achievement
along with it. "No annexations" as a matter of political morality is one
thing; and "no annexations" for the reason that "this will shift war to an
economic footing and nations will perceive the strength of our superiority in
the aid we render" is quite another thing. The world was with the "no
annexations" program as a matter of political morality; the other program,
which used this morality as its vehicle, was hidden.

There are still other matters in this group which must receive attention,
but another article will be necessary to do it. In the meantime, it is natural to
wonder whether, with the program as outlined in this report of the Protocols
having received fulfillment in so many particulars, a new Protocol, or a
further unfolding of the Ladder has been made by the Wise Men to their
Initiates; and whether any additional unveiling will ever come to the
knowledge of the world. It would seem that a proper estimate of the
knowledge now available would lead to such an awakening as to nullify the
present program and make all future ones impossible. But Gentiles like
their ease, and Judah is beckoned on by a bright star.

[Issue of August 21, 1920.]

XV.

Is the Jewish "Kahal" the Modern "Soviet"?

The Soviet is not a Russian but a Jewish institution. Nor is it the
invention of Russian Jews of the present time, a new political device which
has been set up as a vehicle of the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky; it is of
ancient Jewish origin, a device which the Jews themselves invented to
maintain their distinctive racial and national life after the conquest of
Palestine by the Romans.

Modern Bolshevism, which is now known to be merely the outer cloak of
a long-planned coup to establish the domination of a race, immediately set
up the Soviet form of government because the Jews of all countries who
contributed to Russian Bolshevism had long been schooled in the nature
and structure of the Soviet.

The Soviet appears in the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"
under the ancient name of KAHAL. In the Seventeenth Protocol this
passage occurs:

"Even now our brothers are under obligation to denounce apostates of
their own family or any person known to be opposed to the Kahal. When

our kingdom comes, it will be necessary for all subjects to serve the state in
a similar manner."

Anyone who is acquainted with contemporary Jewish life knows what
this denunciation of apostates means. The bitterness of the persecution
which falls upon a convert to Christianity or upon the Jewish son or
daughter of an orthodox family who chooses to marry a Gentile, is without
parallel among men. Very recently in a western state a fine Jewish girl
chose to marry a Gentile, who was a newspaperman. From the time of her
announcement of intention, the girl was treated as an apostate. Had she died
a most wretched death, had she descended to a status of most ignominious
shame, the feelings which her fate would have aroused could not have been
more terrible. A darkly solemn funeral service was held for her, and on her
bridal day she was declared to be dead to her people.

The case is very far from being unusual. Perhaps one of the most moving
descriptions of it is to be found in the life of Spinoza, the great philosopher
whom modern Jews are fond of holding up for exhibition as a great
ornament of their people. Spinoza's studies led him to question many of the
dogmas the rabbis taught, those "commandments of men" of which the New
Testament speaks, and as Spinoza was already a person of influence the
very common Jewish tactic of bribery was tried upon him.

There would be some hesitation in using the words just set down—"the
very common Jewish tactic of bribery"—if they were not known to be true.
There is no desire to cast aspersions which grow out of malice. But Jewish
history as written by Jews provides mountains of proof that bribery was,
while present knowledge amply testifies that it still is, the favorite and most
dependable weapon of the Jews. A Jewish writer, Jacob Israel De Haan, a
Dutch lawyer resident in Jerusalem, has recently stated that one hope of a
settlement of the Arab agitation in Palestine is the ease with which the Arab

press can be bribed. His words are: "There is a strong agitation here among
the Arabs against what they call the Zionist peril. But the Arabs, especially
the Arabian papers, are open to bribe. This weakness will cause them, in the
long run, to lose out against us."

So, young Spinoza was offered an annual stipend of 1,000 florins if he
would be silent upon his convictions and from time to time show himself at
the synagogue. This he refused with high-minded scorn. He made ready to
earn his bread by polishing lenses for optical instruments. Upon this, he was
excommunicated, a proceeding which is thus described:

"The day of excommunication at length arrived, and a vast concourse
assembled to witness the awful ceremony. It began by the silent and solemn
lighting of a quantity of black wax candles and by opening the tabernacle
wherein were deposited the books of the Law of Moses. Thus were the
imaginations of the faithful prepared for all the horror of the scene. The
chief rabbi, the ancient friend and master, now the fiercest enemy, of the
condemned, was to order the execution. He stood there pained, but
implacable; the people fixed their eager eyes upon him. High above, the
chanter rose and chanted forth in loud lugubrious tones the words of
execration; while from the opposite side another mingled with these curses
the thrilling sounds of the trumpet. And now the black candles were
reversed and were made to melt drop by drop into a huge tub filled with
blood." (Lewes: Biographical History of Philosophy.)

Then came the final anathema. "'With the judgment of the angels and of
the saints, we excommunicate, cut off, curse and anathematize Baruch de
Espinoza, with the consent of the elders and all this holy congregation, in
the presence of the holy books: by the 613 precepts which are written
therein, with the anathema wherewith Joshua cursed Jericho, with the curse
which Elisha laid upon the children, and with all the curses which are

written in the law. Cursed be he by day, and cursed be he by night. Cursed
be he in sleeping, and cursed be he in waking, cursed in going out, and
cursed in coming in. The Lord shall not pardon him, the wrath and the fury
of the Lord shall henceforth be kindled against this man, and shall lay upon
him all the curses written in the Book of the Law. The Lord shall destroy his
name under the sun, and cut him off for his undoing from all the tribes of
Israel, with all the curses of the firmament which are written in the Law * *
* And we warn you that none may speak with him by word of mouth nor by
writing, nor show any favor unto him, nor be under one roof with him, nor
come within four cubits of him, nor read any paper composed by him.'"
(Pollock: Life of Spinoza.)

"As the blasting words were uttered, the lights were all suddenly
immersed in the blood, a cry of religious horror and execration burst from
all; and in that solemn darkness, and to those solemn curses, they shouted
Amen, Amen!" (Professor J. K. Hosmer: The Jews.)

That is a commentary on the decree of denunciation. It also throws a very
strong light on the pressure which is brought against many Jews who would
cry out against the anti-social ideas of their people, but who dare not
because of the penalties it would bring.

This denunciation, as Protocol Seventeen orders, is to be made against
anyone who is "known to be opposed to the Kahal" or ancient Soviet
system of the Jews.

After the destruction of the Jewish state by the Romans, the Jews
maintained a center in the Patriarch; and after the dispersion of the Jews out
of Palestine this center of nationality was preserved in the Prince of the
Exile, or Exilarch, an office which is believed to persist to the present time,
and which some believe to be held now by an American Jew. In spite of all
assertions to the contrary, the Jews have never ceased to be "a people"; that

is, a consciously united racial group, different from all others, and with
purposes and ideals which are strictly of the Jews, by the Jews, and for the
Jews in distinction from the rest of the world. That they constitute a nation
within the nations, the most responsible Jewish thinkers not only declare
but insist upon. And this is wholly in accord with the facts as observed. The
Jew not only desires to live apart from other people, but he works with his
own people as against others, and he desires as much as possible to live
under his own laws. In the city of New York today, the Jews have succeeded
in establishing their own court for the settlement of their own questions
according to their own laws. And that is precisely the principle of the
Soviet-Kahal.

From the first century forward, as any reader can see by consulting the
Jewish Encyclopedia, the "community," "assembly" or "Kahal" has been the
center of Jewish life. It was so earlier, in the time of the Babylonian
captivity. And the last official appearance of it was at the Peace Conference,
where the Jews, in accordance with their World Program, the only program
that passed successfully and unchanged through the Peace Conference,
secured for themselves the right to the Kahal for administrative and cultural
purposes in addition to many other privileges in countries where their
activities had been a matter of protest. The Polish question is purely a
Jewish question, and Paderewski's failure as a statesmen was entirely due to
his domination by Jewish influences. The Rumanian question is likewise a
Jewish question, and all Rumanians speak of the United States as "The
Jews' Country" because they know through their statesmen the terrific
pressure which was exerted by American Jews against their country, a
pressure extending to the very necessities of life, and which compelled
Rumania to sign agreements which are as humiliating as those that Austria
asked of Serbia, out of which the World War grew. The Jewish Question is
written all over the forces that provoked the war, and over all the hindrances
to peace which the world has since seen.

Under the Kahal or ancient Soviet, the Jews lived by themselves and
governed themselves, doing business with the government solely through
their representatives. It was communism in a more drastic form than has
been seen anywhere in the world outside Russia. Education, health, taxes,
domestic affairs, all were under the absolute control of a few men who
constituted the ruling board. This board, as the present-day Jewish hierarchy
is supposed to be, was self-perpetuating, the office often passing in an
unbroken line of hereditary succession through many generations. All
property was in common, which however did not prevent the leaders
becoming rich. These Kahals or Soviets existed in Rome, France, Holland,
Germany, Austria, Russia, Denmark, Italy, Rumania, Turkey and England.
In the United States the idea has developed around the synagogue and
around national and international secret societies of Jews, of which more
will be said in succeeding articles.

The Kahal is the traditional Jewish political institution during the
dispersal of the race among the nations. Its international aspect is to be seen
in the higher councils. These councils enlarged as the Jews spread over the
world. The Jewish Encyclopedia cites the Council of Three Lands, the
Council of Four Lands, and the Council of Five Lands, showing an
international relationship in earlier years. But like all such records, public
view of them is not easily accessible so far as they relate to modern times.
The recent Zionist Congress in London, where doubtless much business
was done that pertained to the Jewish people throughout the world, though
not in public halls by any means, may be called the Council of Thirty-Seven
Lands, for the delegates to that congress came from all parts of the world,
from points remote as Lapland and South Africa, Persia and New Zealand.
The purpose of these World Councils was the unification of the Jews, and
the records of their assemblages run back through the centuries.

It is therefore no new thing that has arisen in Russia. It is the imposition
by the Jewish revolutionists upon Gentile Russia of a form of control in
which Judaism has been schooled from the earliest times of its contact with
the world. Soviet Russia could not have been possible had not 90 per cent
of the commissars been Jewish. Soviet Hungary could not have been
possible had not Bela Kun, the chief Red, been a Jew, and had not 18 of his
24 commissars been Jews. The Jews are the only group schooled in the
erection and administration of the Kahal.

An Associated Press dispatch under date of August 12 throws a light on
the congeniality of the Soviet system and the Jewish mind. Speaking of the
Polish towns and villages occupied by Bolshevik forces in their recent
drive, the dispatch says:

"The local Jewish parish populations already are said to be setting up
Soviet and Communist governments."

Of course. Yet this is in strange contrast with what we are constantly told
through the press of the sufferings of the Jews under the Soviet form and of
their abhorrence of the Reds. However, most of what we read concerning
this in the public press is Jewish propaganda, pure and simple, and the
reports of men on the spot contradict it all. One relief worker testifies that
relief work in Poland is frequently "hung up because some Jew landlord
asks an exorbitant rent for his premises," while another testifies that though
railroad fares in the supposedly famine-stricken districts have gone up
1,000 per cent, the best and highest-fare trains are "exclusively occupied by
Jews." He adds, of his trip through Hungary, "The Hungarians have no
money any more, but the Jews have."

"But American Jews abhor Trotsky and Sovietism" is the plea sometimes
made.

Do they?

On page 9 of the American Jewish World, of July 30, a letter signed
"Mrs. Samuel Rush" appears. It is headed: "Are We Really Ashamed of
Trotsky?" Read a few excerpts from it:

"I have read of late several laments from editors of Jewish publications
that the Jew is now libeled as a radical.

"It is true that many Jews are radicals. It is also true that some of the
radical leaders are Jews.

"But before weeping over the downfall of the race, let's think a bit.

"Trotsky himself has never been represented as anything but a cultured
man, a student of world economics, a powerful and efficient leader and
thinker who will surely go down in history as one of the great men our race
has given the world.

"* * * Very few of us doubt any longer that behind the absurdities written
about Russia is the great truth that Russia is in that unsettled state which
attends reconstruction. There is a plan behind this seeming disorder, and out
of the upheaval will come order. It will not be utopia, but as good a
government as the undoubtedly high-minded practical idealists who are
building for Russia can build with the necessarily imperfect materials—
human beings—with which they must work.

"And one of the leaders is Leon Trotsky!

"Are we really ashamed of Trotsky?"

The lady is evidently not ashamed of Trotsky, or Mr. Braunstein, as his
real name is.

Or take Judge Harry Fisher, of Chicago. While drawing a salary for work
in the court, Judge Fisher went abroad on Jewish relief work. His plans
were changed somewhat after his departure and he landed in Russia. He
asserts in several interviews that he was permitted to arrive in Russia on
condition that he leave political matters alone. There has been no such
restriction placed upon him since his return to the United States, for he
appears as an open advocate of full trade relations with the Soviet
Government of Russia.

The Chicago Tribune thus quotes him:

"'We must leave Russia alone' he said in summarizing his views. 'We
should resume trade with the Soviet. The Bolshevist Government is
permanent. * * * While there are only 700,000 members of the Communist
party, the peasants, who represent almost 100,000,000 people, are solidly
back of the Lenin regime.'"

Among the Soviet devices which the 100,000,000 peasants of Russia are
said to be "solidly back of," is the following (it is particularly interesting in
view of the fact that Judge Fisher is judge of the Morals Court of Chicago):

"'Some time ago, it was published that the women of Russia had become
national property,' he said. 'That is untrue, but the ease with which marriage
and divorce may be effected makes for rapid changes. Everyone wanting to
marry goes to what we would call the city hall and registers.

"'Inducements to marry are great. When people are hard pressed for
clothes and food they sometimes make a pact to wed for a day.

"'The next day they go down to the city hall and register again. This time
their names are put side by side in the divorce book. That is all that is
necessary to be divorced, and they have had a good feed in the bargain.'"

Judge Harry Fisher, of Chicago, who has returned from Jewish relief
work abroad, evidently is one with the others in not being ashamed of
Trotsky.

Also Max Pine, for many years secretary of the United Hebrew Trades of
New York, had been abroad in Soviet Russia as "a labor delegate." He too
had many good things to say of the Soviets, among other things the strange
contradiction that the Jews are doing very well in Russia but are not pro-
Bolshevik!

Here are three persons from widely different spheres of life, yet each one
of them indicates a natural liking for the Kahal or Soviet, an admiration of
its methods, and a distinct good feeling towards its rulers. For Sovietism is
the rankest form of autocracy, and the marriage laws of Soviet Russia are in
full harmony with the program stated in the Protocols—

"We will break down the influence of family life among the Gentiles."

Whether the Soviet-Kahals of Russia will succeed in completely
undermining Russian family life is extremely doubtful. The weakness of
Soviet rule is the same as that of the Protocols—a moral weakness that must
eat like a cancer until it destroys the institutions which it infests.

Russia today, viewed in the light of the Protocols, does not represent the
Judaic state, but it represents the Gentile state seized by Jewish forces.
There are three degrees of action set forth in the Protocols. There is first the
secret process of breaking up the integrity of society by the admixture of
alluring but disruptive ideas. This is a work in which Gentile agitators are
used. When the ideas have worked sufficiently to break up society and
explode in a crisis, then as in Germany, the forces that have worked in
secret swiftly come to the front to take the reins and guide the riot. In
Germany this immediately occurred upon the collapse which followed the

armistice, but the Germans were wise enough to know the meaning of the
influx of Jews into all the official positions of the former empire, and it was
not long before they were politically ousted. In Russia, however, the Jews
sprang immediately into official positions and have succeeded in remaining
there. It began with Kerensky compelling the Czar to lay aside his crown; it
continues with Trotsky and his armies at the throat of Europe.

But this seizure of a country, as was attempted in Germany, and as was
not only attempted but succeeded in Russia, is not the end of the Program.
It is only the beginning of its open or public phase. The Soviet-Kahal makes
for the complete breaking up of society, the entire cutting off of co-
operation and communication, the ruling of each little section in the way
desired, until the whole country lies helpless in isolated bits. The process
includes, of course, the disintegration of industry also, the massing of
Gentiles into an army, and a general destruction of morality and order. It is
the Protocol program in its last stage before the reconstruction begins which
shall make the conquered country a Jewish state.

The world has not seen that last stage yet. It has not come, even in
Russia. If the Russian people waken from the daze into which they have
been thrust, it will not come. Jewish voices loudly proclaim that Soviet
Russia has come to stay. The only authoritative voice on that subject is the
voice of Russia, and Russia has not yet spoken. Today the world is
trembling on the very verge of Real Russia's awakening, and with it a
retribution most terrible upon the Sovietists.

The program of the Protocols once came near succeeding in the French
Revolution, but its essential immorality overreached itself. It has come a
step nearer success in Russia, but there too its defiance of the moral law
will be its undoing. The Jewish Question of today is being fought out in
Russia and Poland, and the strength of the Jewish forces is largely and

mostly supplied from the United States of America. No wonder those small
East European independencies which are fighting for their lives refer to our
country as "The Land of the Jews."

"We will show our power to one," say the Protocols. "In order to
demonstrate our enslavement of the Gentile governments of Europe, we
shall show our power to one of them by crimes of violence, that is, by a
reign of terror." (Protocol Seven.)

One by one the Gentile nations of Europe have been compelled to
withdraw their troops from Russia. One by one the premiers of Europe have
submitted to heavy shackling of their official hands with regard to the
Russian question. And today the world looks on while little Poland,
apparently the second country on the list of Soviet victims, is made to feel
heavy vengeance for her daring to be independent of Jewish power. Russia
has been made to pay for her attempted independence of the Jew; Poland is
now being made to pay. It is a flame, the Jews of Eastern Europe hope, and
many Jews of America also, which will sweep round the world.

If the ruling Jews of the world wished the Russian people freed, if they
wished the flames of Bolshevism to be quenched, if they wished Jewish
participation in revolutionary movements to be withdrawn, they could
accomplish it in a week. What is going on today is going on by permission
of the Jewish world powers.

There is apparently no desire to curtail a movement which largely
originated in American Jewry. This is the program of "showing our power
to one," and the program will be followed out. The "showing," however, is
twofold; it is a showing of power, but it is also a showing of the people who
wield the power, and in the end it might have been just as well had the
power never been coveted, attained, or used.

Anyone who desires to test the exactitude of the Protocols' estimate of
human nature may do so by observing his own reactions to the Russian
Bolshevist situation. It is undeniable that there exists among all classes of
Gentiles in America a kind of admiration for the coup which Lenin and
Trotsky have managed on such a massive scale. The audacity of it, the
ability to stay afloat thus long in defiance of so many laws, have conspired
to draw out unwilling applause.

Consider then this passage from the Tenth Protocol:

"The people feel an especial love and respect toward the genius who
wields political power, and they say of all his high-handed actions: 'It is
base, but clever! It is a trick, but how he played it! So majestic! So
impudent!'

"We count on attracting all nations to the constructive work of laying the
foundations for the structure planned by us. It is necessary for us first of all
to acquire the services of bold and fearless agents, who will overcome all
obstacles in our pathway.

"When we accomplish our governmental coup d'etat, we will say to the
people: 'Everything has gone badly, all have suffered. We will eliminate the
cause of your sufferings—nationality, frontiers and diversity of coinage. Of
course you are free to pronounce sentence upon us, but that can scarcely be
just if you do so before giving a trial to that which we offer you.'"

This is very well conceived, and this is the way in which, up to this time,
it has worked out. But there will be a strong reaction set in. False promises
like chickens come home to roost. The real originators, the real purpose of
the movement hidden behind Bolshevism will become evident. And then
the world will crush out again the World Program which at times has
seemed so near success.

There will probably be more light upon this World Program as a result of
the Russian Kahal-Soviet system than from any other attempt to realize it.
For five generations the world has lived in a false light supposed to be shed
by the French Revolution. It is now known that that revolution was not the
Revolution of the French People, but the disorders of a minority who sought
to impose upon the French People the very Plan which is now being
considered. It was the French People who ultimately put down the so-called
French Revolution. And France, as a result of that upheaval of a well-
organized minority, has been bound by Jewish control ever since.

The Russian Revolution will go down in history with no such false halo
of romance around it. The world now knows it for what it is. The world will
soon know whose was the money and whose were the brains that fostered
it, and from what part of the world the principal impetus came. The Russian
upheaval is racial, not political nor economic. It conceals beneath all its
false socialism and its empty mouthings of "human brotherhood" a clear-cut
plan of racial imperialism, which is not Russian, and which the common
sense and interest of the world will speedily stamp out.

[Issue of August 28, 1920.]

XVI.

How the "Jewish Question" Touches the Farm

The real estate speculations of the Jews are familiar to all, but
unfortunately do not constitute their entire land program. Many American
cities have changed their characters entirely during the past 15 years by
reason of Jewish speculation in residence property, and it is a fact
established in the larger eastern cities that the recent exorbitant and
extortionate rise in rents was largely a matter of the Jewish landlord. The
governor of one of the most important of our commonwealths was loath to
sign a bill regulating rents. His hesitancy was encouraged by very heavy
pressure brought to bear upon him by the weightiest Jewish financial
interests in his own and neighboring states. He finally decided that he
would sign the bill and give the law effect, and the fact that decided him
was his personal investigation and the investigation of his personal agents
into hundreds of cases of abuse where he discovered that it was a common
practice among Jewish landlords to transfer the same piece of property
round and round to every member of the family in turn, each "transfer"
being the excuse for a new increase in the rent. Men have their eyes opened
to the Jewish Question in various ways: this was the way a governor had his
eyes opened.

That, however, is not the peculiarity of Jewish landlords alone; Gentile
landlords have played the same trick. But landlordism is peculiarly a Jewish
ambition and distinction; the Jew is the Landlord of America. Any group of
tenants almost anywhere in America, except the West, could testify to this.

Nor is landlordism itself reprehensible, things being what they are, unless
it is anti-social and anti-American. And just here is where it gets point.
Some of the oldest and most sacred shrines of Americanism in the East have
entirely lost their character as such by the invasion—not of "foreigners"—
but of Jews.

The more one sees of the invasion, the more one utterly distrusts the
statistics given out by Jews as to the Jewish population of the United States.

Do you know that the one nationality on which the Government of the
United States is estopped from asking questions, either for immigration or
census statistics, is the Jewish?

Do you know that when the Government of the United States wants to
know anything about the Jews it must go to statisticians which the Jews
themselves support?

If a nation claims that it is no nation with respect to the United States
Government, as the Jews claim, and has no national statistics which it will
permit to government to collect in the official way, why should it treat itself
as a nation and keep its own records?

The Jews of the United States, like the Jews of every European country,
are a nation among themselves, with their own government, their own
policy, their own records; and the United States Government does business
with the Jewish Government in America through chosen Jews—no doubt of
that.

It is, however, a digression. The matter of Jewish statistics will come up
again. In the meantime a glance at the rapid changing of so many American
cities in all parts of the land leads to the belief that the Jewish statistics
furnished by the Jews for Gentile consumption entirely misstate the facts,
and this belief is strengthened by the knowledge that the statistics given by
the Jews for Jewish consumption are very different from those supplied for
the outside world.

Landlordism may be explained by the inclination of the Jew toward
speculation, and we know that real estate has been made one of the most
speculative of occupations, disgracefully, almost disastrously so. The Jew
cannot be condemned for becoming a landlord, for becoming the most
conspicuous landlord in America; he cannot be condemned apart from his
Gentile co-offenders for the abuse he has made of his advantage as
landlord. But it is a matter for American concern that the cities to which, in
the schoolbooks, our children are taught to look as the birthplaces of liberty
and as still the spokesmen of Americanism, should become Semite cities,
financially and politically, and the recruiting grounds of the world's
Bolshevism.

Until recently, however, the Jew in America has not cared for the land. It
is a characteristic. The Jew is not an agriculturist. Lavish fortunes have been
expended to make him so, but the productive work of farming has not had,
and does not now have, any appeal to him. His choice in land is this: land
that produces gold from the mine, and land that produces rents. Land that
produces mere potatoes and wheat has not directly interested him.

It is true, of course, that the land question has been distinctly Jewish in
countries like Poland and Rumania. No law against Jews owning land in
those countries has ever been effective in preventing their control of whole
provinces. Not that the Jews demanded the right to farm the land, their

choice was to farm the farmers. By devious methods and the use of "Gentile
fronts" they could always secure control of the land, and thus dominating
the peasants they could create almost any condition they wished. That is
what they actually did. That is the Jewish Question in those parts of the
world. Not for farming purposes, it must be understood, but for the purpose
of controlling the main source of wealth in agricultural countries and for
taking the control of people away from their natural Gentile leaders.

These two things always go together in countries where there is
intellectual or landed aristocracy to which the people look for leadership:
the Jewish program is to destroy that leadership by gaining control of the
land. It is profitable, of course, but when you survey the outworking of the
plan you always see something other than profits involved. The
consummate perfection of the Jewish plan for World Control is that it does
not involve sacrifice as have other plans, it is immensely profitable at every
stage, and the greater the profitableness the more surely the purpose is
being achieved.

In America there was no aristocracy to be cut under by the gaining of
land control. Jewish activity in the United States until recently has confined
itself to the control of land products after they have been produced: that is,
so to say, Jewish interests do not engage in trapping, but they control the fur
trade.

Speaking of furs, it is very funny to see how some affairs turn out.
During the war there was a great to-do made about the German control of
the American fur trade. It was true that the fur trade was controlled from
Germany, but not by Germans—by Jews! And then a great to-do was made
about seizing, confiscating and absolutely selling out that "German" fur
business to Americans, and the "Americans" who bought it were—Jews!

The actual control has never changed; the profits still find their way to the
"International" purse.

But furs is just an example. Jewish interests do not engage in raising
grain, but control the grain that others produce. The need of the United
States is a "Who's Who of Jewish Financiers" that the people may identify
the men about whom they read as having made this "corner" or sprung that
"coup." These interests, which have simply grabbed American-produced
wealth and made American consumers pay and pay and pay, have been able
to operate almost openly because of the sheer blindness of the American
people as they read their newspapers. And, of course, while the American
newspaper will gladly inform you that this man is an Italian and that man a
Pole and the other man a Briton, it will never tell you that the fourth man is
a Jew. There is a Jewish organization in every city, large and small, to
prevent it—and they prevent it by methods that are violent and wholly
subversive of the American ideal of liberty.

So, until recently, the plan in the United States has been to seize the
commodity at just that point in its passage from the producer to the
consumer where the heaviest weight of profit can be extracted from it—at
the neck of the bottle, so to speak—and control it there. It is not service that
the people pay for; they pay for seizure.

But a new movement has begun in the United States. Jewish millions are
now being used to secure immense tracts of American lands. Formerly it
was enough to control the cotton, as the bread was controlled, but now the
movement is toward controlling the cotton lands. The operations are
carefully guarded; "Gentile fronts" are used almost exclusively; but follow
the trail through all the "blinds" and "false scents," and you come at last to
the International Jew, whose throne is set up in London.

Many Jews have written THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT saying that
they do not know about these racial plans for world control. It may well be
believed that they do not. One purpose of these articles is to tell them about
it. But this every Jew rejoices in—the movement of his people toward
power. And it is this sentiment that the International Jew implicitly trusts,
and because this sentiment exists the International Program secures a
maximum of success at a minimum risk of exposure. Jewry is not a
democracy but an autocracy. Of course the ordinary Jew does not know!
The question is, Why should he revile the Gentile who tries to tell him? If a
Jew will not seal his mind against the statements made in these articles, he
will find in his own knowledge sufficient corroboration of their principal
features, and he will be in a better position to assist in the solution of the
Jewish Question.

It is with amazement at certain men's conception of editorial honesty that
THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has read some of the reports made of
these articles. Under cover, principally of the Yiddish, alleged translations
of these articles have been flung broadcast among non-English speaking
Jews, translations which not only bear no resemblance to the original, but
actually insert whole paragraphs of matter which never appeared in the
original at all. Is there a fear of permitting the average Jew to read this
series? Nothing is more desired by those whose purpose is to lay
foundations for the solution of the Jewish Question in America than that
every Jew in the United States should know exactly what is being printed
here week by week. The Jew has been deceived by his leaders long enough.

The fact is, then, that there is a definite and already well forwarded
movement toward the control of the cotton lands of the United States. The
first step was to depreciate the market value of these lands as much as
possible. Pressure was brought through certain banks to limit the cotton
farmers' efforts. They were told that if they planted more acreage to cotton

than they were told to, they would not be financed. Cotton production was
to go down while cotton prices were to go up, and the profits were not the
farmers' but those who controlled the course of cotton from the first market
to the wearer. Cotton farming was to be made less profitable, while cotton
speculation was to become more profitable. The public was being
compelled to supply the money by which the Jewish controllers were to buy
the land. In brief, it was to be made more profitable to sell cotton lands than
to sell cotton.

These statements are being deliberately restricted to the traffic in cotton
lands. Jewish financiers in New York and London know these things, even
if Jewish editors and rabbis do not.

This movement has been within the knowledge of certain classes of
business men for a long time, indeed some have been forced by what used
to be called "the pressure of circumstances," to serve the movement. But
they were not able to interpret its meaning. It is only recently that the more
important Gentile business men of the United States have been able to
interpret certain things. The war was a potent eye-opener.

Those wonderful documents known as the "Protocols," with their strong
grasp of every element of life, have not overlooked Land. The Land
Program found in the Sixth Protocol, which is one of the briefest of these
documents and may be quoted in full to show now the relation it bears to
certain excerpts made in previous articles:

Protocol VI.

"We shall soon begin to establish huge monopolies, colossal reservoirs of
wealth, upon which even the big Gentile properties will be dependent to
such an extent that they will all fall together with the government credit on
the day following the political catastrophe. The economists here present

must carefully weigh the significance of this combination. We must develop
by every means the importance of our super-government, representing it as
the protector and benefactor of all who voluntarily submit to us.

"The aristocracy of the Gentiles as a political force has passed away. We
need not take them into consideration. But, as owners of the land, they are
harmful to us in that they are independent in their sources of livelihood.
Therefore, at all costs, we must deprive them of their land.

"The best means to attain this is to increase the taxes and mortgage
indebtedness. These measures will keep land ownership in a state of
unconditional subordination. Unable to satisfy their needs by small
inheritances, the aristocrats among the Gentiles will burn themselves out
rapidly.

"At the same time it is necessary to encourage trade and industry
vigorously and especially speculation, the function of which is to act as a
counterpoise to industry. Without speculation, industry will cause private
capital to increase and tend to improve the condition of Agriculture BY
FREEING THE LAND FROM INDEBTEDNESS FOR LOANS by the
land banks. It is necessary for industry to deplete the land both of laborers
and capital, and, through speculations, transfer all the money of the world
into our hands, thereby throwing the Gentiles into the ranks of the
proletariat. The Gentiles will then bow before us to obtain the right to
existence.

"To destroy Gentile industry, we shall, as an incentive to this speculation,
encourage among the Gentiles a strong demand for luxuries, all-enticing
luxuries.

"We will force up wages, which however, will be of no benefit to
workers, for we will at the same time cause a rise in the prices of prime

necessities, pretending that this is due to the decline of agriculture and of
cattle raising. We will also artfully and deeply undermine the sources of
production by instilling in the workmen ideas of anarchy, and encourage
them in the use of alcohol, at the same time taking measures to drive all the
intellectual forces of the Gentiles from the land.

"That the true situation shall not be noticed by the Gentiles prematurely,
we will mask it by a pretended effort to serve the working classes and
promote great economic principles, for which an active propaganda will be
carried on through our economic theories."

The local and passing element in this is "the aristocracy of the Gentiles."
That is to say, the program is not entirely fulfilled by the passing of
aristocrats. Jewry goes on just the same. Its program stretches far. Jewry
will retain such kings as it desires as long as it desires them. Probably the
last throne to be vacated will be the British throne because what to the
British mind is the honor of being Jewry's protector and therefore the
inheritor of the blessing which that attitude brings, is to the Jewish mind the
good fortune of being able to use a world-wide empire for the furtherance
of Jewry's purpose. Each has served the other and the partnership will
probably last until Jewry gets ready to throw Britain over, which Jewry can
do at almost any time. There are indications that it has already started in this
last task.

But the permanent elements in the Protocol are the Land, the Jews, and
the Gentiles. A word of explanation may be necessary on this inclusion of
the Gentiles as permanent: the Protocols do not contemplate the
extermination of the Gentiles, nor the making of this world a completely
Jewish populated world. The Protocols contemplate a Gentile world ruled
by the Jews—the Jews as masters, the Gentiles as hewers of wood and
drawers of water, a policy which every Old Testament reader knows to be

typically Jewish and the source of divine judgement upon Israel time and
again.

Now, look at this whole Program as it concerns the Land.

"Owners of the land * * * are harmful to us in that they are independent
in their sources of livelihood."

That is a foundation principle of the Protocols. It matters not whether the
owners are the "Gentile aristocracy," the peasants of Poland, or the farmers
of the United States—land ownership makes the owners, "independent in
their sources of livelihood." And any form of independence is fatal to the
success of the World Program which is written so comprehensively in the
Protocols and which is advancing so comprehensively under Jewish
guidance in the world of actual affairs today.

Not "tillers" of the land, not "dwellers" on the land, not "tenants," not an
"agricultural peasantry," but "owners of the land"—this is the class singled
out for attention in this Sixth Protocol, BECAUSE they are "independent in
their sources of livelihood."

Now, there has been no time in the history of the United States when
apparently it was more easy for the farmer to own his land than now.
Mortgages should be a thing of the past. Everywhere the propaganda of the
question tells us that the farmers are growing "rich." And yet there were
never so many abandoned farms!

"Therefore, at all costs we must deprive them of their land."

How? "The best means to attain this is to increase land taxes and
mortgage indebtedness." High taxes to keep the land at all, borrowed
money to finance the tilling of it.

"These measures will keep land ownership in a state of unconditional
subordination."

We will leave it to the farmers of the United States to say whether this is
working out or not.

And in a future reference to this subject we will show that whenever an
attempt is made to enable farmers to borrow money at decent rates,
whenever it is proposed to lighten the burden of "mortgage indebtedness"
on the farm, Jewish financial influence in the United States steps in to
prevent it, or failing to prevent it, mess it all up in the operation.

By increasing the farmer's financial disability on the one hand, and by
increasing industrial allurements on the other, a very great deal is
accomplished. The Protocol says: "It is necessary for industry to deplete the
Land both of laborers and capital."

Has that been done? Have the farms of the United States been depleted
both of laborers and capital? Certainly. Money is harder for the farmer to
get than it is for any other man; and as for labor, he cannot get it on any
terms.

What is the result of these two influences, the one working on the farm,
and the other in the cities? It is precisely what the Protocol says it will be:
Increased wages that buy less of the materials of life—"We will at the same
time cause a rise in the prices of prime necessities, pretending that this is
due to the decline of agriculture and cattle raising."

The Jew who set these Protocols in order was a financier, economist and
philosopher of the first order. He knew what he was talking about. His
operations in the ordinary world of business always indicated that he knew

exactly what he was doing. How well this Sixth Protocol has worked and is
still working out in human affairs is before the eyes of everyone to see.

Here in the United States one of the most important movements toward
real independence of the financial powers has been begun by the farmers.
The farmer's strong advantage is that, owning the land, he is independent in
his sources of livelihood. The land will feed him whether he pleases
International Jewish Financiers or not. His position is impregnable as long
as the sun shines and the seasons roll. It was therefore necessary to do
something to hinder this budding independence. He was placed under a
greater disadvantage than any other business man in borrowing capital. He
was placed more ruthlessly than any other producer between the upper and
nether stones of a thievish distribution system. Labor was drawn away from
the farm. The Jew-controlled melodrama made the farmer a "rube," and
Jew-made fiction presented him as a "hick," causing his sons to be ashamed
of farm life. The grain syndicates which operate against the farmer are Jew-
controlled. There is no longer any possibility of doubting, when the facts of
actual affairs are put alongside the written Program, that the farmer of the
United States has an interest in this Question.

What would this World Program gain if the wage-workers were enslaved
and the farmers were allowed to go scot-free? Therefore the program of
agricultural interference which has been only partially outlined here.

But this is not all.

Any writer who attempts fully to inform the Gentile mind on the Jewish
Question must often feel that the extent of the Protocols' Conspiracy is so
great as to stagger the Gentile mind. Gentiles are not conspirators. They
cannot follow a clue through long and devious and darkened channels. The
elaborate completeness of the Jewish Program, the perfect co-ordination of
its mass of details wearies the Gentile mind. This, really more than the

daring of the Program itself, constitutes the principal danger of Program
being fulfilled. Gentile mental laziness is the most powerful ally the World
Program has.

For example: after citing the perfectly obvious coincidence and most
probable connection between the Protocols and the observable facts with
reference to the farm situation, the writer is compelled to say, as above,
"But this is not all." And it is a peculiarity of Gentile psychology that the
Gentile reader will feel that it ought to be all because it is so complete. This
is where the Jewish mind out-maneuvers the Gentile mind.

Gentiles may do a thing for one reason: the Jew often does the same
thing for three or four reasons. The Gentile can understand thus far why
Jewish financiers should seek control of the land in order to prevent
widespread Agricultural Independence which, as Protocol Six says, would
be "harmful to us." That reason is perfectly clear.

But there is another. It is found in the Twelfth Protocol. It contemplates
nothing less than the playing of City against Country in the great game now
being exposed. Complete control over the City by the industrial leverage,
and over the Country by the debt leverage, will enable the Hidden Players
to move first the Country by saying that the City demands certain things,
and then move the City by saying that the Country demands certain things,
thus splitting Citizens and Farmers apart and using them against one
another.

Look at the plainness and the boldness, yet the calm assurance, with
which this plan is broached:

"Our calculations reach out, especially into the country districts. There
we must necessarily arouse those interests and ambitions which we can
always turn against the city, representing them to the cities as dreams and

ambitions for independence on the part of the provinces. It is clear that the
source of all this will be precisely the same, and that it will come from us. It
will be necessary for us before we have attained full power to so arrange
matters that, from time to time, the cities shall come under the influence of
opinion in the country districts, that is, of the majority prearranged by our
agents * * *"

The preliminaries of the game are here set forth—to jockey City and
Farm against each other, that in the end the Conspirators may use whichever
proves the stronger in putting the Plan over. In Russia, both schemes have
been worked. The old regime, established in the Cities, was persuaded to
lay down power because it was made to believe that the peasants of Russia
requested it. Then, when the Bolshevists seized power, they ruled the
peasantry on the ground that the Cities wanted it. The Cities listened to the
Country, now the Country is listening to the Cities.

If you see any attempt made to divide City and Farm into antagonistic
camps, remember this paragraph from the Twelfth Protocol. Already the
poison is working. Have you never heard that Prohibition was something
which the backwoods districts forced upon the cities? Have you never heard
that the High Cost of Living was due to extravagant profits of the farmer?—
profits which he doesn't get.

One big dent in this Program of World Control could be made if the
Citizen and the Farmer could learn each other's mind, not through self-
appointed spokesmen, but directly from each other. City and Farm are
drifting apart because of misrepresentation of outsiders, and in the widening
rift the sinister shadow of the World Program appears.

Let the Farmers look past the "Gentile fronts" in their villages or
principal trading points, past them to the real controllers who are hidden.

[Issue of September 4, 1920.]

XVII.

Does Jewish Power Control the World Press?

The purpose of this article is twofold: to set forth what the Protocols have
to say about the relation of the Press to the World Program, and to make an
introduction to a study of Jewish influence on the Press.

The Jewish race has always been aware of the advantages to be derived
from news. This was one of the factors in its control of European commerce
from the earliest Christian times. To be informed beforehand, to know what
was coming before the Gentiles among whom they lived knew it, was a
special privilege of the Jews, made possible by the close communication in
which widely separated Jewish groups kept themselves. From the first they
were inveterate correspondents. They were the inventors of the news-letter.

This does not imply, however, that the Jews were the forerunners or even
the sponsors of the modern Press. It was no part of their purpose to
distribute news among the people, but to keep it for themselves as a secret
advantage. The political, economic and commercial news which sped with
really remarkable facility throughout Europe, from Jewish community to
Jewish community, was in reality the official budget by which each
community informed all the others of what was transpiring, as to war, trade
currents, rising emergencies, or whatever the matter may have been. For

centuries the Jews were the best informed people on the continent; from
their secret sources in courts and chancellories, from privileged Jews who
were placed in every position of vantage, the whole race was informed of
the state of the world.

Scouts were kept in motion everywhere. Far down in South America,
before the British or Dutch colonies in North America had hardly secured a
foothold, there were Jews who served as outposts for European trade
interests. The world was spied out in the interests of their race, just as today
the entire planet is under the watchful eyes of Jewish agents—mostly
Gentiles, it must be said—for any hint of new gold discoveries.

An interesting and historic illustration of the Jews' appreciation of news
is to be found in the career of Nathan Rothschild. Rothschild had laid all his
plans on the assumption that the Emperor Napoleon, then banished to Elba,
was finally eliminated from European affairs. Napoleon unexpectedly
returned, and in the "Hundred Days" it seemed as if the Rothschild financial
edifice might collapse. Feverishly the financier aided both Prussia and
England, and as the Battle of Waterloo approached, no one was more
interested in the outcome than he.

Rothschild was a man who shrank from the sight of blood; he was
physically a coward, and any sign of violence unnerved him; but so intense
was his interest in the battle on which his whole fortune seemed to depend,
that he hastened to France, followed the British Army, and when the battle
began he hid himself in "some shot-proof nook near Hougomont" where he
watched all day the ebb and flow of battle. Just before Napoleon ordered
the last desperate charge Rothschild had made up his mind. He said
afterward that his exclamation at this point was, "The House of Rothschild
has won the battle."

He hurried from the field, galloped wildly to Brussels, communicating
not a word of what he knew to the anxious people he met by the way.
Hiring a carriage at an exorbitant price, he galloped away to Ostend. Here a
fierce storm was raging on the ocean and no sailor was willing to set out for
England, about 20 miles away. Rothschild himself, always afraid of danger,
forgot his fear in his visions of the stock market. He offered 500, 800, and
at length 1,000 francs to the man who would take him across. But no one
dared. Finally one sailor proposed that if Rothschild would pay 2,000 francs
into his wife's hands, he would attempt it.

Half dead the two men reached the English coast, but without rest
Rothschild ordered express post and hurried away to London. Whip and
spur were not spared on that journey.

There were no telegrams in those days, no swift communication. England
was anxious. The rumors were bad. And on the morning of June 20, 1815,
when Nathan Rothschild appeared in his usual place at the Stock Exchange
and leaned against the column, England knew nothing of what he knew. He
was pale and broken. The sight of his face led the other financiers to believe
that he had received bad news from the front. Then it was seen that he was
quietly selling his securities. What? Rothschild unloading? The market
dropped disastrously, a very panic seized the financiers, the market was
flooded with consols offered for sale—and all that was offered, Rothschild's
agents bought!

So it went on, all day the 20th, and all day the 21st. At the close of
business the second day, Rothschild's heavy chests were crammed with
securities. Then in the evening a courier galloped into London with the
news that Wellington had won and Napoleon was a fugitive. But Nathan
Rothschild had made $10,000,000 and the men he did business with had
lost that much—all as an affair of news!

There was a little incident in Washington during the war—a "leak" of
news, it was called. The wise men of Wall Street sometimes whisper that
even between 1914-1918 there were men of Rothschild's race who showed
his same appreciation of "news," with the same profitable results. And not
only the men of "Rothschild's race," but some of their "Gentile fronts," also.

There were times during the war when no Gentile knew what was going
on in certain countries. The Jewish leaders always knew. Some very
interesting testimony can be presented on that point.

Aside from its own interest, this Rothschild narrative fully illustrates the
statement that while the Jews were very early news-gatherers, they were not
publicists. They used the news for their own benefit; they did not
disseminate it. If it had depended on their influence, there would have been
no public Press at all. It was in France, which had no newspapers outside
the capital, that the French Revolution was possible. There being no reliable
exchange of news and opinion, the people were kept in ignorance. Paris
itself did not know that the Bastille had fallen until next day. Where there is
no Press, minorities easily gain control—as the Jewish-Bolshevist
revolution in Russia illustrates.

One of the most dangerous developments of the time is public distrust of
the Press. If the day ever comes when swift, reliable and authoritative
communication with the entire people shall be necessary for public action in
the interests of public safety, the nation may find itself sadly crippled unless
a new confidence in the daily Press can be built up. If for no other reason
than that the free press is a safeguard against minority seizure of control,
such laws as the zone laws, or any restrictions on the freest and fullest
communication between various parts of the country, should be absolutely
abolished.

But, the Press being in existence, and being largely an Anglo-Saxon
creation, it is a force not to be treated lightly, and that is the point where the
World Program and Jewish Control come in contact with it.

The Protocols, which overlook nothing, propose a very definite plan with
regard to the Press. As in the multitude of other matters with which these
remarkable documents deal, there are the two phases—"what we have
done," and "what we will do."

As early as the Second Protocol, the Press comes in for attention. It is
significant that it makes its appearance in the same Protocol in which the
"No Annexations" program was announced 20 years before the World War,
in the same Protocol in which it is announced that Gentile rulers will be
allowed to appear before the people for a short period, while Jewish
influences were organizing themselves behind the seats of power, and in the
same Protocol where Darwinism, Marxism and Nietzscheism are claimed
among the most "demoralizing" doctrines which Jewish influence has
disseminated. These are very curious statements, but not stranger than the
actuality that has come to pass.

Says the Second Protocol:

"There is one great force in the hands of modern governments which
creates thought movements among the people, that is, the Press. The
presumed role of the Press is to indicate supposedly indispensable needs, to
register popular complaints, and to create discontent. The triumph of 'free
speech' (babbling) rests in the Press. But governments are unable to profit
by this power, and it has fallen into our hands. Through it we have attained
influence while remaining in the shadow. Thanks to it, we have amassed
gold, though it has cost us torrents of blood and tears."

In the same Protocol, "our Press" is spoken of as the agency through
which are disseminated "those theories of life which we have induced them
(the Gentiles) to regard as the dictates of science."

"To this end we shall certainly endeavor to inspire blind confidence in
these theories by means of our Press."

Then follows the claim made concerning the three most revolutionary
theories in the physical, economic and moral realms, namely Darwinism,
Marxism and Nietzscheism.

In the Third Protocol the claim is made that this control of the Press is
being used to break down respect for authority:

"Daring journalists and audacious pamphleteers make daily attack upon
the personnel of the administration. This abuse of authority is definitely
preparing the downfall of all institutions, and everything will be overturned
by blows coming from the infuriated populace."

Again, in the Seventh Protocol, discussing the progress which the World
Program has already made, the part played by the Press is indicated:

"We must force the Gentile governments to adopt measures which will
promote our broadly conceived plan already approaching its triumphal goal,
by bringing to bear the pressure of stimulated public opinion, which has in
reality been organized by us with the help of the so-called 'great power' of
the Press. With few exceptions not worth considering, it is already in our
hands."

Thus twice is the claim made to control of the Press. "It has fallen into
our hands," says the Second Protocol. "It is already in our hands," says the
Seventh. In the Second Protocol the Press is represented as furthering

revolutionary physical, economic and moral philosophies; while in the
Seventh it is used to create the "pressure of stimulated public opinion" for
the purpose of "forcing Gentile governments to adopt measures which will
promote our broadly conceived plan, already approaching its triumphal
goal."

A word of comment may be made here upon the claim of the Second
Protocol that "thanks to it (the Press), we have amassed gold, though it has
cost us torrents of blood and tears."

This is a statement which can be illustrated in many ways. "Though it has
cost us torrents of blood and tears" is an admission upon which the
Protocols throw light, a light which also shines upon the Jewish argument
regarding responsibility for the recent war, namely, that Jewish World
Financial Power could not have willed the war seeing that Jews suffered so
heavily in Eastern Europe. The Protocols frankly recognize the possibility
of Jews suffering during the establishment of the World Program, but it
consoles them with the thought that they fall as soldiers for the good of
Israel. The death of a Jew, we are told in the Protocols, is more precious in
the sight of God than the death of a thousand "seed of cattle," which is one
of the delicate names applied to the Gentiles.

The reference to the amassment of gold is very clear. It does not apply to
ownership of publications and a share in their profits only, but also the use
that may be made of them through silence or outcry to promote
International Jewish Financiers' schemes. The Rothschilds bought editors as
they bought legislators. It was a preliminary of nearly every scheme they
floated to first "fix" the newspapers, either for silence or claque boosting. In
matters of war and peace; in the removal of administrations inimical to
Jewish financial or political plans; in the elimination by public exposure of
"Gentile fronts" whom their Jewish masters wished to be rid of; in the

gradual building up of reputation and influence for "rising men" who had
been chosen for work in the future—in these and like matters the Press very
greatly aided the International Cabal in attaining its end.

All the details of the foregoing paragraph can be illustrated at length by
instances which have occurred in the United States within the past 15 years.

There was once a Senator of the United States who—but that story
illustrates another point also, and will be reserved until that point is reached
in this series of discussions.

The Twelfth Protocol, however, contains the entire plan of Control of the
Press, reaching from the present time into the future when the Jewish World
Government shall be established. The reader is invited to read carefully and
thoughtfully the deep and wide outreaching of this plan.

Keep also in mind the boast that has been made for generations that no
publication that has handled the Jewish Question in a manner distasteful to
the Jewish powers has been allowed to live.

"What role is played at present by the Press? It serves to inflame the
passions of selfish partisanship which our interests require. It is shallow,
lying and unfair, the most people do not understand what end it serves."

In that quotation we have the same low estimate which was noted when
we studied "the estimate of human nature" which the Protocols contain.

Now, for the Plan of Press Control: We separate the points for
convenience:

"We shall handle the Press in the following manner:

1. "We shall saddle it and keep tight rein upon it. We shall do the same
also with other printed matter, for of what use is it to rid ourselves of
attacks in the Press, if we remain exposed to criticism through pamphlets
and books?"

2. "Not one announcement will reach the people save under our
supervision. We have attained this at the present time to the extent that all
news is received through several agencies in which it is centralized from all
parts of the world."

A sidelight on the first sentence above may be had from the Jewish
statement regarding the British Declaration relating to Palestine: "This
Declaration was sent from the Foreign Office to Lord Walter Rothschild. *
* * It came perhaps as a surprise to large sections of the Jewish people * * *
But to those who were active in Zionist circles, the declaration was no
surprise. * * * The wording of it came from the British Foreign Office, but
the text had been revised in the Zionist offices in America as well as in
England. The British Declaration was made in the form in which the
Zionists desired it. * * *" pp. 85-86, "Guide to Zionism," by Jessie E.
Sampter, published by the Zionist Organization of America.

3. "Literature and journalism are two most important educational forces,
and consequently our government will become the owner of most of the
journals. * * * If we permit ten private journals, we shall organize thirty of
our own, and so on. This must not be suspected by the public, for which
reason all the journals published by us will be EXTERNALLY of the most
contrary opinions and tendencies thus evoking confidence in them and
attracting our unsuspecting opponents, who thus will be caught in our trap
and rendered harmless."

This is most interesting in view of the defense now being made for so
many Jewish journals. "Look at the newspapers owned and controlled by

Jews," they say; "see how they differ in policy! See how they disagree with
each other!" Certainly, "externally," as Protocol 12 says, but the underlying
unity is never hard to find.

Besides, one way of discovering who are the people that have knowledge
of the Jewish World problem, of who can be convinced of it, or who will
write about it is just to start a paper which "externally" seems to be
independent of the Jewish Question. So deeply is this thought shared by
even uneducated Jews that a rumor is today widespread in the United States
that the reason for the present series of articles in THE DEARBORN
INDEPENDENT is the desire of its owner to forward the Jewish World
Program! Unfortunately, this scheme of starting a fake opposition in order
to discover where the real opposing force is, is not confined to the Jewish
Internationalists, although there is every indication that it was learned from
them.

This idea of a misrepresentative front for certain secret purposes is
expressed at length not only with reference to the Press, but throughout the
Protocols in other relations. But in Protocol 12 it is fully developed with
regard to the Press, as the following quotations show.

(a) In order to force writers into such long productions that no one will
read them, a tax on writing is proposed—"on books of less than 30 pages a
double tax." Small articles are most feared. Therefore doubly tax the
pamphlets of less than 30 pages. The longer articles fewer will read, so the
Protocols argue, and the double tax will thus "force writers into such long
productions that they will be little read, especially as they will be
expensive."

BUT—

"That which we ourselves shall publish for directing the public mind will
be cheap and widely read. The tax will discourage mere literary ambition,
whereas the fear of punishment will make the writers subservient to us.
Even if there should be those who may desire to write against us, no one
will publish their writings." (How many American writers know this!)

"Before accepting any work for printing, the publisher or printer must
obtain permission from the authorities. Thus we will know in advance what
attacks are being prepared against us and shall be able to counteract them
by coming out beforehand with explanations on the subject."

That is largely the situation today. They do know in advance what is
being done, and they do seek to disarm it beforehand.

(b) Here are the Three Degrees of Jewish Journalism, which are not only
stated in the Protocols but are observable in the everyday world of the
present.

"The leading place will be held by organs of an official character. They
will always stand guard over our interests and consequently their influence
will be comparatively small.

"The second place will be held by semi-official organs whose aim it will
be to attract the indifferent and lukewarm.

"In the third category we shall place organs of apparent opposition. At
least one will be extremely antagonistic. Our true opponents will mistake
this seeming opposition as belonging to their own group and will thus show
us their cards.

"I beg you to notice that among those who attack us there will be organs
founded by us, and they will attack exclusively those points which we plan

to change or eliminate.

"All our papers will support most diverse opinions: aristocratic,
republican, even anarchist, so long of course as the Constitution lives. * *
These fools who believe they are repeating the opinions expressed by their
party newspapers will be repeating our opinions or those things which we
wish them to think.

"By always discussing and contradicting our writings superficially, and
without touching upon their essence, our press will keep up a blank fire
against the official newspapers, only to give us opportunity to express
ourselves in greater detail than we could in our first declaration. This will
be done when useful to us.

"These attacks will also convince the people of the full freedom of the
press, and it will give our agents the opportunity of declaring that the papers
opposing us are mere wind-bags, since they cannot find any real arguments
to oppose our orders."

Undoubtedly that would be the case were all the papers controlled. In the
case of the present series of articles, however, the tables appear to be
turned. It is the Jewish Press which has so signally failed to bring forward
disproof either by fact or argument.

"When necessary, we shall promulgate ideas in the third section of our
Press as feelers, and then refute them vigorously in the semi-official press.

"We shall overcome our opponents without fail because they will not
have organs of the Press at their disposal.

"The pretext for suppressing a publication will be that it stirs up the
public mind without basis of reason"—a pretext which has already been

urged time and again, but without the legal power to effect suppression,
although without legal power the Jewish interests in the United States have
effected a pretty complete suppression of everything they do not desire.

How far does Jewish influence control the Newspapers of the United
States?

In so far as the use of the word "Jew" is concerned, the Press is almost
completely dominated. The editor who uses it is certain to hear from it. He
will be visited and told—contrary to everything the Jew is told—that the
word "Jew" denotes a member of a religious denomination and not a
member of a race, and that its use with reference to any person spoken of in
the public prints is as reprehensible as if "Baptist," "Catholic," or
"Episcopalian" were used.

The Jew is always told by his leaders that regardless of religion or
country of birth, he is a Jew, the member of a race by virtue of blood. Pages
of this paper could be filled with the most authoritative Jewish statements
on this point. But what the Jew is told by his leaders, and what the Gentile
editor is told by the Jewish committee are two different and antagonistic
things. A Jewish paper may shriek to the skies that Professor So-and-So, or
Judge So-and-So, or Senator So-and-So is a Jew, but the secular newspaper
that should do that would be visited by an indignant committee bearing
threats.

A certain newspaper, as a mere matter of news, published an excerpt
from one of THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT articles. Next day a
number of advertising accounts dropped for lack of copy. Inquiry developed
the fact that the reticent advertisers were all Jewish firms and the cause of
their action was the really unimportant excerpt which the paper published.
It developed also that the advertising agent who handled all the advertising
for those Jewish firms was himself a Jew who also held an office in a

Jewish secret society, which office was concerned exclusively with the
control of newspapers in the matter of Jewish publicity. It was this man who
dealt with the editor. A lame editorial retraction followed which faintly
praised the Jews. The advertising was returned to the paper, and it is just a
question whether that editor was rightly handled or not. Certainly he has
been made to feel the power. But the diplomacy of it was bad. The editor,
along with hundreds of others, has only been given the proper background
for estimating the Jewish power in its wider reaches.

This is not to say that every editor should enter upon a campaign to
expose the secret power. That is a matter for personal decision. Every
editor, however, is so situated that he can see certain things, and he ought to
see them, note them, and inwardly digest them.

Jewish publicity in response to these articles is very easy to get in almost
any newspaper. Some have fallen most lamentably for lying statements.
Others have opened their columns to propaganda sent out from Jewish
sources. That is all very well. But the Gentile interest in the question has
been largely ignored, even in cases where the editors are awake to the
whole Question. This too affords a vantage from which the average editor
can view what is transpiring in this country.

If a list of the Jewish owners, bondholders and other interests in our
newspapers should be published the list would be impressive. But it would
not account for the widespread control of the Press as observed in this
country. Indeed, it would be unfair in such a connection as this to list some
of the Jewish-owned newspapers of the United States, because their owners
are fair and public-spirited servants of the people.

Actual ownership does not often account for much in a newspaper.
Ownership in the newspaper business in not always synonymous with
control.

If you wish to know the control of the newspaper, look to its attorney and
the interests he serves; look to the social connections of its chief editors;
look to the advertising agents who handle the bulk of Jewish advertising;
and then look to the matter of the paper's partisanship or independence in
politics.

Newspaper control of the Press by the Jews is not a matter of money. It is
a matter of keeping certain things out of the public mind and putting certain
things into it.

One absolute condition insisted upon with the daily Press is that it shall
not identify the Jew, mention him, or in any but the most favorable way call
the public's attention to his existence.

The first plea for this is based on "fairness," on the false statement that a
Jew is not a Jew but a church member. This is the same statement which
Jewish agents in the United States Government have used for years to
prevent the United States Government from listing the Jews in any racial
statistics. It is in direct contradiction to what the Jews themselves are told.
A flabby "fairness," a sloppy "broad-mindedness," a cry of "religious
prejudice," is the first plea. The second is a sudden cessation of Jewish
patronage. The third is withdrawal of patronage by every Gentile concern
that is under the grip of Jewish financiers. It is a mere matter of brutal
bludgeoning. And the fourth act, in a community thoroughly blinded to the
Jewish Question, is the collapse of the offending publication.

Read the Jewish Encyclopedia for a list of some of the papers which
dared open up the Question, and ceased!

When old Baron Moses Montefiore said at Krakau:

"What are you prating about? As long as we do not have the press of the
whole world in our hands, everything you may do is vain. We must control
or influence the papers of the whole world in order to blind and deceive the
people."

—he knew what he was saying. By "blinding" the people he only meant
that they should not see the Jew, and by "deceiving" them he only meant
that the people should think certain world movements meant one thing
when they really meant another. The people may be told what happens: they
may not be told what was behind it. The people do not yet know why
certain occurrences which have affected their whole lives, should have
occurred at all. But the "why" of it is very definitely known in certain
circles whose news service never sees print, and sometimes not even
writing.

Statistics as to the space given the Jews by newspapers concerning things
they want to get into print would also be an eye-opener. A minority nation,
they get more publicity than any ten of the important minor nations of
Europe—of the kind of publicity they want!

The number of Jewish contributors to the Press of the United States
makes another interesting statistical bit. It would be sheer prejudice to make
objectionable mention of many Jewish journalists and writers, and they
come within the scope of this study only as they have shown themselves to
be the watchful agents and active servants of the System. This is what many
of them are. Not the ambitious young Jewish reporter who runs around the
streets gathering news, perhaps, but the journalist at the seat of the news
and at the necks of those two or three important international runways
through which the news of the world flows.

The whole matter, as far as extent of control is concerned, could be
visualized on a map of the United States, by means of colored pins showing

the number of Jewish-owned, provably Jewish-controlled papers, and the
number of Jewish writers who are directing the majority thought of the
various sections of the country.

The Jewish journalist who panders to unrest, whose literary ambition is
to maintain a ferment in his readers, whose humor is sordid and whose
philosophy is one of negation; as well as the Jewish novelist who extols his
or her own people even while the story sows subtle seeds of disruption in
Gentile social or economic life must be listed as the agents of that World
Program which would break down society through the agency of "ideas."
And it is very striking how many there are, and how skillfully they conceal
their propaganda in their work.

Here and there in the United States it is now becoming possible to print
the word "Jew" in the headlines of an article, and tell the Jewish committee
which calls the next day that this is yet a free country. Quietly a number of
newspapers have tested the strength of this assumed control in their
communities, and have discounted it.

There is no reason for fear on the part of the editor who has his facts. But
the editor who backs down will more and more feel the pressure upon him.
The man who courageously and fairly holds his ground will soon learn
another thing that is not so generally known, namely, that with all the
brilliance there is a lot of bluff, and that the chain of control once broken is
felt throughout the whole system as a blow.

There is nothing that the International Jew fears so much as the truth, or
any hint of the truth about himself or his plans. And, after all, the rock of
refuge and defense, the foundation of endurance for Jew or Gentile must be
the Truth.

[Issue of September 11, 1920.]

XVIII.

Does This Explain Jewish Political Power?

Little has yet been said in this commentary on the Protocols about the
political program contained in them. It is desirable that the points be taken
separately in order that when our study turns to actual conditions in this
country, the reader may be in a position to judge whether the written
program agrees with the acted program as it may be seen all about us. The
World Program as outlined in these strange documents turns upon many
points, some of which have already been discussed. Its success is sought (a)
by securing financial control of the world, this having already been secured
by the overwhelming indebtedness of every nation through wars, and by the
capitalistic (not the manufacturing or managerial) control of industry; (b) by
securing political control, which is easily illustrated by the condition of
every civilized country today; (c) by securing control of education, a
control which has been steadily won under the blinded eyes of the people;
(d) by trivializing the public mind through a most complete system of
allurement which has just brought us into a period which requires the new
word "jazz" to describe it; and (e) by the sowing of seeds of disruption
everywhere—not the seeds of progress, but of economic fallacies and
revolutionary temper. All of these main objectives entail various avenues of
action, none of which has been overlooked by the Protocols.

In leading up to what the Protocols have to say about the selection and
control of Presidents, it will be enlightening to take the views which these
documents express about other phases of politics.

It may be very interesting to those Jewish apologists, who in all their
pronouncements never discuss the contents of the Protocols, to know that so
far from their being a plea for monarchy, they are a plea for the most drastic
and irresponsible liberalism in government. The powers behind the
Protocols appear to have absolute confidence in what they can do with the
people once the people are made to believe that popular government has
really arrived.

The Protocols believe in frequent change. They like elections; they
approve frequent revisions of constitutions; they counsel the people to
change their representatives often.

Take this from the First Protocol:

"The abstract conception of Liberty made it possible for us to convince
the crowd that government is only the management for the owner of the
country, the people, and that the steward can be changed like a pair of worn-
out gloves. The possibility of changing the representatives of the people has
placed them at our disposal and, as it were, has placed them in our power as
creatures of our purposes."

Note also how this Use of Change is buried in this paragraph from the
Fourth Protocol, which describes the evolution of a Republic:

"Every republic passes through several stages. The first is that of
senseless ravings, resembling those of a blind man throwing himself from
right to left. The second is that of demagogy, which breeds anarchy and
inevitably leads to despotism, not of a legal, open and consequently

responsible character, but an unseen and unknown despotism, felt none the
less because exercised by a secret organization. Such a despotism acts with
even less scruple because it is hidden under cover and works behind the
backs of various agents, the shifting and changing of which will not harm
its secret power, but serve it, since such changes will relieve the
organization from the necessity of expending its resources on rewards for
long service."

This "changing" of servants is not unknown in the United States. A
former Senator of the United States could easily testify to this if he only
knew who did the "changing." Time was when he was the tool of every
Jewish lobbyist in the Senate. His glib tongue lent charm and plausibility to
every argument they wished to advance against the government's intentions.
Secretly, however, the Senator was receiving "favors" from a very high
source, "favors" of a financial character. The time came when it was
desirable to "detach" the Senator. The written record of his "favors" was
abstracted from its place of supposed secrecy, a newspaper system that has
always been the ready organ of American Jewry made the exposure, and an
indignant public did the rest. It could not have been done had not the man
been compromised first; it could not have been done without certain
newspaper connivance; it would never have been done had not the Senator's
masters wished it. However, it was done.

In the Fourteenth Protocol, which begins "When we become rulers," it is
pictured how hopeless the Gentile peoples will have become of any
betterment of conditions through changes of government, and therefore will
accept the promise of stability which the Protocolists of that time will be
prepared to offer:

"The masses will become so satiated with the endless changes of
administration which we instigated among the Gentiles when we were

undermining their governmental institutions, that they will tolerate anything
from us * * *"

The official who is changed most quickly in this country is the man who
questions certain matters which come from Jewish sources. There must be a
small army of such men in the United States today. Some of them do not
know even now how it happened. Some are still wondering why perfectly
legitimate and patriotic information should have been lost in an icy silence
when they sent it in, and why they should have lost favor for sending it.

Protocol Nine is full of the most amazing claims, of which these may
serve as illustration:

"At the present time, if any government raises a protest against us, it is
only for the sake of form, it is under our control, and it is done by our
direction, for their anti-Semitism is necessary for keeping in order our
lesser brothers. I will not explain this further as already it has been the
subject of numerous discussions between us."

This doctrine of the usefulness of anti-Semitism and the desirability of
creating it where it does not exist are found in the words of Jewish leaders,
ancient and modern.

"In reality there are no obstacles before us. Our super-government has
such an extra-legal status that it may be called by the energetic and strong
word—dictatorship. I can conscientiously say that at the present time we
are the lawmakers."

In that Protocol this claim is made:

"De facto, we have already eliminated every government except our own,
although de jure there are still many others left."

That is simple: the governments still exist, under their own names,
having authority over their own people; but the super-government has
unchallenged influence over all of them in matters pertaining to the Jewish
Nation and particularly in matters pertaining to the purpose of The
International Jew.

The Eighth Protocol shows how this can be:

"For the time being, until it will be safe to give responsible government
positions to our brother Jews, we shall entrust them to people whose past
and whose character are such that there is an abyss between them and the
people; to people, for whom, in case of disobedience to our orders, there
will remain only trial or exile (from public life), thus forcing them to
protect our interest to their last breath."

In the Ninth Protocol again is this reference to party funds:

"The division into parties has placed them all at our disposal, inasmuch
as in order to carry on a party struggle it is necessary to have money, and
we have it all."

There have been many investigations of campaign funds. None has ever
yet gone deep enough to inquire into the "international" sources of these
funds.

Now, in the United States during the last five years we have seen an
almost complete Judaized administration in control of all the war activities
of the American people. The function of the regularly organized United
States Government during that time was practically confined to the voting
of money. But the administration of the business end of the war was in
charge of a government within a government, and this inner, extra
government was Jewish.

It is, of course, often asked why this was so. The first answer given is that
the Jews who were immediately placed in charge of the business
administration of the war were competent men, the most competent men
who could be found. This was actually the answer given to an inquiry as to
the reason for so large a part of the foreign policy of the United States
depending on the counsel of a certain group of Jews—they were the men
who knew, no one else knew so much, the officials chosen by the people
had a right to select the most efficient and able counsel they could find.

Very well, let that stand. Let the explanation be that in all the United
States, Jews were the only persons to be found who could handle the
emergency with masterly ease. We shall see more of this phase of the matter
at another time. The war is not under discussion in this article, merely the
fact that in an emergency the government became distinctly Jewish.

But the Second Protocol would appear to throw a little light on the
matter.

"The administrators chosen by us from the masses for their servility will
not be persons trained for government, and consequently they will easily
become pawns in our game, played by our learned and talented counsellors,
specialists educated from early childhood to administer world affairs. As we
know, our specialists have been acquiring the necessary knowledge for
governing * * *"

The language is a trifle raw, as it usually is when Gentiles are under
discussion. But the same fact, namely, that Jewish specialists have come to
the aid of Gentile administrators in an emergency, when uttered for the
consideration of the general public, may be very beautifully phrased.

The untrained Gentile administrator must have help; his unpreparedness
makes it necessary. And who knows it better than those who have the help

to offer? The Gentile public has been taught to suspect the man who has had
experience in politics or government. This, of course, makes the whole
situation doubly easy for those whose speciality it is to give "aid." Just what
interests they aid most will give, when discovered, a strong light upon their
zeal.

But in all that the Protocols have to say about the political angle of the
World Program, nothing is of so great interest as that which concerns the
selection and control of Presidents. The whole plan is outlined in the Tenth
Protocol. The fact that the President of France seems to have been in mind
is a localism; the plan is applicable elsewhere; indeed has elsewhere its
most perfect illustration.

This Tenth Protocol, then, leads gradually up to the subject, tracing the
evolution of rulers from Autocrat to President, and of nations from
Monarchies to Republics.

The language of this passage is particularly objectionable, but no more so
than can be found in current Jewish literature where boasting of power is
indulged in. Unpleasant as the whole attitude is, it is valuable as showing in
just what light the supporters of the Protocol Program view the Gentiles and
their dignities. It must be born in mind that the Jewish ideal is not a
President, but a Prince and a King. The Jewish students of Russia marched
the streets in 1918 singing this hymn—

"We have given you a God; Now we will give you a King."

The new flag of Palestine, now permitted to fly without hindrance, bears
insignia, as does every synagogue, of a Jewish King. The Jewish hope is
that the Throne of David shall be set up again, as doubtless it will be. None
of these things is to be decried in the least, nor to be regarded with anything

but a decent respect, but they should be borne in mind as a side light on the
expressed contempt for Gentile Presidents and Legislatures.

The Tenth Protocol reaches the theme of President thus:

"Then the rise of the republican era became possible, and then in the
place of a sovereign we substituted a caricature of him, a President picked
from the crowd * * * Such was the foundation of the mine we laid
underneath the Gentile people, or more accurately, the Gentile peoples."

It is with something of a shock that one reads that men with a "past" are
specially favored for the presidential office. Men with a "past" have become
President in various countries, including the United States, there is no doubt
of that. In some instances, the particular scandal that constituted the "past"
has been publicly known; in other cases it has been hushed up and lost in a
maze of rumor. In at least one case it was made the special property of a
syndicate of men who, while protecting the official from public knowledge,
compelled him to pay rather stiffly for their service. Men with a "past" are
not uncommon, and it is not always the "past" but the concealment of it that
concerns them most, and in this lack of frankness, this distrust of the
understanding and mercy of the people, they usually fall into another
slavery, namely, the slavery of political or financial blackmail.

"We will manipulate the election of Presidents whose past contains some
undisclosed dark affair, some 'Panama,' then they will be faithful executors
of our orders from fear of exposure and from the natural desire of every
man who has attained a position of authority to retain the privileges,
emoluments and the dignity associated with the position of President."

The use of the word "Panama" here refers to the various scandals which
arose in French political circles over the original efforts to construct the
Panama Canal. If the present form of the Protocols had been written at a

later date they might have referred to the "Marconi wireless" scandals in
England—though on second thought, they would not have done so because
certain men were involved who were not Gentiles. Herzl, the great Jewish
Zionist leader, uses the expression in "The Jewish State." Speaking of the
management of the business of Palestine he says that the Society of the
Jews "will see to it that the enterprise does not become a Panama but a
Suez." That the same expression should occur in Herzl and in the Protocols
is significant; it has also another significance, which will be described at
another time. It must be clear to the reader, however, that no one writing for
the general public at this day would refer to a "Panama" in a man's past. The
reference would not be understood.

It is this practice of holding a man under obligation which makes it
needful on the part of the true publicist to tell the truth and the whole truth
about aspirants for public office. It is not enough to say of a candidate that
he "began as a poor boy" and then became "successful." How did he
become successful? How explain the "rise" of his fortunes? Sometimes the
clue leads deep into the domestic life of the candidate. It may be told of a
man, for example, that he helped another out of a scrape by marrying the
woman involved, and received a sum of money for doing so. It may be told
of another that he was implicated by his too friendly relations with another's
wife, but was relieved of his predicament by the astute diplomacy of
powerful friends, to whom thereafter he felt himself in debt of honor. It is
strange that, in American affairs at least, the woman-note is predominant. In
our higher offices that has more frequently occurred than any other, oftener
than the money-note.

In European countries, however, where the fact of a man's being
entangled illegitimately with a woman does not carry so heavy a stamp of
shame with it, the controlled men have been found to have "pasts" of
another character.

The whole subject is extremely distasteful, but truth has its surgical
duties to perform, and this is one of them. When, for example, a pivotal
assemblage like that of the Peace Conference is studied, and the men who
are most subject to the Jewish influence are isolated, and their past history
is carefully traced, there is almost no difficulty whatever in determining the
precise moment when they passed over into that fateful condition which,
while it did not hinder them of public honors for one hour, made them
unchangeably the servants of a power the public did not see. The puzzling
spectacle which the observer sees of the great leaders of Anglo-Saxon races
closely surrounded and continuously counseled by the princes of the
Semitic race, is explained only by knowledge of those leaders' "past" and
those words of the Protocols—"We will manipulate the election of
Presidents whose past contains some undisclosed dark affair."

And where this Jewish domination of officials is glaringly apparent, it
may be safely assumed that the custody of the secret is almost entirely with
that race. When necessity arises, it may be a public service for those in
possession of the facts to make them public—not for the purpose of
destroying reputations, but for the purpose of damning for all time a most
cowardly practice.

Politically, so the Jewish publicists tell us, Jews do not vote as a group.
Because of this so we are told, they have no political influence. Moreover,
we are told, they are so divided among themselves that they cannot be led in
one direction.

It may be true that when it is a question of being for anything, the Jewish
community may show a majority and minority opinion—a small minority, it
is likely to be. But when it becomes a question of being against anything,
the Jewish community is always a unit.

These are facts to which any ward politician can testify. Any man in
political life can test it for himself by announcing that he will not permit
himself to be dominated by Jews or anybody else. Just let him mention
Jews in that manner; he will no longer have to read about Jewish solidarity;
he will have felt it. Not that, in a vote, the Jewish solidarity can accomplish
anything it wishes; the Jew's political strength is not in his vote, but in the
"pull" of, say, seven men at the seat of government. The Jews, a political
minority so far as votes are concerned, were a political majority so far as
influence was concerned, during the last five years. They ruled. They boast
that they ruled. The mark of their rule is everywhere.

The note which everyone observes in politics, as in the Press, is the fear
of the Jews. This fear is such that nowhere are the Jews discussed as are,
say, the Armenians, the Germans, the Russians, or the Hindoos. What is this
fear but reflection of the knowledge of the Jews' power and their
ruthlessness in the use of it? It is possibly true, as many Jewish publicists
say, that what is called anti-Semitism is just a panic-fear. It is a dread of the
unknown. The uncanny spectacle of an apparently poor people who are
richer than all, of a very small minority which is more powerful than all,
creates phantoms before the mind.

It is very significant that those who most assume to represent the Jews
are quite content that the fear should exist. They wish it to exist. To keep it
delicately poised and always there, though not too obtrusively, is an art they
practice. But once the balance is threatened, their crudeness instantly
appears. Then comes the threat, by which it is hoped to re-establish the fear
again. When the threat fails, there comes the wail of anti-Semitism.

How strange this is, that the Jews should not see that the most abject
form of anti-Semitism is just this fear which they are willing to have felt
toward them by their neighbors. This fear is "Semitophobia" in its worst

form. To inspire fear—what is more dreaded by the normal man, and yet
what more delights an inferior race?

Now, a great service is done when the people are emancipated from this
fear. It is the process of emancipation that Jewish publicists attack. It is this
they call anti-Semitism. It is not anti-Semitism at all; it is the only course
that can prevent anti-Semitism.

The process involves several steps. The extent of the Jewish power must
be shown. To this, of course, strong Jewish objection is made, though no
strong disproof can be made.

Then the existence of this power must be explained. It can be explained
only by the Jewish Will to Power, as it may be called, or by the deliberate
program which is followed in the attainment of the power. When the
method is explained, half the damage is undone. The Jew is not a superman.
He is bright, he is intense, his philosophy of material things leaves him free
to do many things from which his neighbor draws back; but, given equal
advantages, he is not a superman. The Yankee is more than his equal any
time, but the Yankee has an inborn inclination to observe the rules of the
game. When the people know by what means this power is gained—when
they are informed how, for example, political control is seized, as it has
been in the United States, the very method takes all the glamour from the
power, and shows it to be a rather sordid thing after all.

This series of articles is attempting to take these orderly steps, and it is
believed the complete effort will justify itself to reasonable minds, both
Jewish and Gentile.

In the present article one important means of power has been described
on the authority of the Protocols. Whether the method laid down by the
Protocols is worth considering or not depends entirely on whether it can be

found in actual affairs today. It can be found. The two tally. The parallel is
complete. It were well for the Jew, of course, if no trace of him could be
found in either the written or the actual program. But he is there, and it is
illogical for him to blame anyone but himself for being there. Certainly, it is
small defense against the fact to heap abuse upon the one who discloses the
fact. We have agreed that the Jews are clever, but they are not so clever as
to be able to cover their work. There is a certain element of weakness in
them which reveals the whole matter in the end. And even the revelation
would not mean much if the thing revealed were not wrong. But that is the
weakness of the Jewish program—it is wrong. The Jews have never gained
any measure of success so great that the world cannot check it. The world is
engaged in a great checking tactic now, and if there are still prophets among
the Jews they should lead their people in another path.

The proof and the fruit of any exposure of the World Program is the
removal of the element of fear from the peoples among whom the Jews live.

[Issue of September 18, 1920.]

"In a world of completely organized territorial sovereignties he (the Jew)
has only two possible cities of refuge; he must either pull down the pillars
of the whole national state system, or he must create a territorial
sovereignty of his own . . . . In Eastern Europe, Bolshevism and Zionism
seem to grow side by side . . . . not because the Jew cares for the positive
side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a partaker in Gentile
nationalism or Gentile democracy, but because no existing Gentile system is
ever anything but distasteful to him."

XIX.

The All-Jewish Mark on "Red Russia"

We shall now briefly interrupt the commentary which we have been
making on the Protocols to set at rest once and for all certain misstatements
which are made for Gentile consumption.

To learn what the Jewish leaders of the United States or any other
country think, do not read their addresses to the Gentiles; read their
addresses to their own people. On such matters as these—Whether the Jew
regards himself as destined to rule the world; whether he regards himself as
belonging to a nation and race distinct from every other nation and race;
whether he regards the Gentile world as the legitimate field of his
exploitation by a lower moral method than is permissible among his own
people; whether he knows and shares the principles of the Protocols—on
such matters as these, the only safe guide is to be found in the words which
Jewish leaders speak to Jews, not in the words they speak to Gentiles.

The notable Jewish names which appear oftenest in the Press do not
represent the spokesmen of Judaism at all, but only a selected few who
represent the Department of Propaganda Among the Gentiles. Sometimes
that propaganda is in the form of donations for Christian charitable
organizations; sometimes it is in the form of "liberal" opinion on religious,
social and political questions. In whatever form it comes, you may depend
upon it that the real activities of the Jewish hierarchy proceed under cover
of that which the Gentile is invited to observe and approve.

The statements offered in this series are never made without the strictest
and fullest proof, confirmation and corroboration in the utterances of Jewish
leaders. This is one of the strange features of the multitude of Jewish attacks
on this series: they are attacking what they themselves stand for, and their
only reason for the attack must be their belief that this investigation has not

been able to penetrate through to that which has been kept hidden from the
world.

The most persistent denials have been offered to the statement that
Bolshevism everywhere, in Russia or the United States, is Jewish. In these
denials we have perhaps one of the most brazen examples of the double
intent referred to above. The denial of the Jewish character of Bolshevism is
made to the Gentile; but in the confidence and secrecy of Jewish
communication, or buried in the Yiddish dialect, or obscurely hidden in the
Jewish national press, we find the proud assertion made—to their own
people!—that Bolshevism is Jewish.

Jewish propaganda has only two straws to grasp in the terrible tale of
murder, immorality, robbery, enforced starvation and hideous humanism
which make the present Russian situation impossible to describe and all but
impossible to comprehend.

One of these straws is that Kerensky, the man who eased in the opening
wedge of Bolshevism, is not a Jew. Indeed, one of the strongest indications
that Bolshevism is Jewish is that the Jewish press emphasizes so fiercely
the alleged Gentilism of a least two of the revolutionary notables. It may be
cruel to deny them two among hundreds, but merely saying so cannot
change Kerensky's nationality. His name is Adler. His father was a Jew and
his mother a Jewess. Adler, the father, died, and the mother married a
Russian named Kerensky, whose name the young child took. Among the
radicals who employed him as a lawyer, among the forces that put him
forward to drive the first nail into Russia's cross, among the soldiers who
fought with him, his Jewish descent and character have never been doubted.

"Well, but there is Lenin," our Jewish publicists say—"Lenin the head of
it all, the brains of it all, and Lenin is a Gentile! We've got you there—
Lenin is a Gentile!"

Perhaps he is, but why do his children speak Yiddish? Why are his
proclamations put forth in Yiddish? Why did he abolish the Christian
Sunday and establish by law the Jewish Saturday Sabbath?

The explanation of all this may be that he married a Jewess. The fact is
that he did. But another explanation may be that he himself is a Jew.
Certainly he is not the Russian nobleman he has always claimed to be.
The statements he has made about his identity thus far have been lies.
The claim that he is a Gentile may be unfounded too.

No one has ever doubted Trotsky's nationality—he is a Jew. His name is
Braunstein. Recently the Gentiles were told that Trotsky had said he wasn't
much of anything—in religion. That may be. But still he must be something
—else why are the Russian Christian churches turned into stables, slaughter
houses and dancing halls, while the Jewish synagogues remain untouched?
And why are Christian priests and ministers made to work on roads, while
Jewish rabbis are left their clerical privileges? Trotsky may not be much of
anything in religion, but he is a Jew nevertheless. This is not mere Gentile
insistence that he shall be considered a Jew whether or no; it is straight
Jewish teaching that he is. In a future discussion on "religion or race?" we
shall show that even without religion, Trotsky is, and is considered by all
Jewish authorities to be, a Jew.

An apology must be made here for repeating well-known facts. Yet, so
many people are not even now aware of the true meaning of Bolshevism,
that at the risk of monotony, we shall cite a few of the salient facts. The
purpose, however, is not alone to explain Russia, but to throw a warning
light on conditions in the United States.

The Bolshevik Government, as it stood late this summer when the latest
report was smuggled through to certain authorities, shows up the Jewish
domination of the whole affair. It has changed very slightly since the

beginning. We give only a few items to indicate the proportion. It must not
be supposed that the non-Jewish members of the government are Russian.

Very few Russians have anything to say about their own country these
days. The so-called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," in which the proletariat
has nothing whatever to say, is Russian only in the sense that it is set up in
Russia; it is not Russian in that it springs from or includes the Russian
people. It is the international program of the Protocols, which might be "put
over" by a minority in any country, and which is being given a dress-
rehearsal in Russia.

Table Showing Jewish Control of Russia

| Number | Number of | Jewish
| of | Jewish | Per-
| Members | Members | centage
————————————————+————-+—————-+
————
The Council of the Commissaries | | |
of the People | 22 | 17 | 77.2%
The Commissariat of War | 43 | 33 | 76.7%
The Commissariat of Foreign | | |
Affairs | 16 | 13 | 81.2%
The Commissariat of Finance | 30 | 24 | 80.0%
The Commissariat of Justice | 21 | 20 | 95.2%
The Commissariat of Public | | |
Instruction | 53 | 42 | 79.2%
The Commissariat of Social | | |
Assistance | 6 | 6 | 100.0%
The Commissariat of Work | 8 | 7 | 87.5%
Delegates of the Bolshevik Red | | |

Cross to Berlin, Vienna, | | |
Varsovie, Bucharest, Copen- | | |
hagen | 8 | 8 | 100.0%
Commissaries of the Provinces | 23 | 21 | 91.3%
Journalists | 41 | 41 | 100.0%

These are enlightening figures. The reader will note that the Jewish
percentage is high at all times, never lower than 76 per cent in any case.
(Curiously enough, the lowest percentage of Jews is found in the
Commissariat of War.) But in those committees which deal most closely
with the mass of the people, as well as in the committees of defense and
propaganda, Jews fill literally all the places.

Remember what the Protocols say about Press control: remember what
Baron
Montefiore said about it, and then look at the Government Journalists.
That committee comprises 41 men, and the 41 are Jews. Only Jewish pens
are trusted with Bolshevist propaganda.

And then the so-called "Red Cross delegates," which are merely Red
Revolutionary delegates to the cities named—of the 8, there are 8 Jews.

The Commissariat of Social Assistance, upon whose word the life and
privilege of tens of thousands hang—there are 6 members, and the 6 are
Jews. And so on through the list.

Out of the 53 members of the Commissariat of Public Instruction, 11 are
noted as non-Jews. But what kind of non-Jews is not stated. They may be
"non-Jews like Lenin" whose children speak the Yiddish as their native
tongue. Whatever they are, there is a sidelight upon their attitude in the fact
that the Bolsheviki immediately took over all the Hebrew schools and
continued them as they were and laid down a rule that the ancient Hebrew

language should be taught in them. The ancient Hebrew language is the
vehicle of the deeper secrets of the World Program.

And for the Gentile Russian children—? "Why," said these gentle Jewish
educators, "we will teach them sex knowledge. We will brush out of their
minds the cobwebs. They must learn the truth about things!"—with
consequences that are too pitiable to narrate. But this can be said:
unquestionably there were deaths among innocent Jews when Hungary
wrested itself free from the Red Bolshevism of Bela Kun (or Cohen). The
Jews may well call it the "White Terror" that followed their failure to re-
enact the tragedy of Russia in Hungary. But there are mountains of evidence
to show that nothing had so potent an effect in producing the bloodshed of
the "White Terror" as the outraged minds of parents whose children had
been compulsorily drawn through sloughs of filth during the short time the
Jewish Bolsheviki had charge of the schools.

American Jews do not like to hear this. Their shrinking from it would be
greatly to their honor did they not immediately return to the defense of the
people who do these things. It is well enough known that the chastity of
Christians is not so highly regarded by the orthodox male Jew as is the
chastity of his own people, but it would be pleasant to be certain that all of
them condemn what went on in Russia and Hungary in the matter of
education. However, as most of the influences which destroy Gentile youth
today—in America—are in the hands of the Jews, and as it is plainly stated
in the Protocols that one of the lines of campaign is "to corrupt the youth of
the Gentiles," the situation is one that calls for something more than mere
hard feelings and angry denials whenever these facts are referred to.

It is not the economic experiment, so-called, that one objects to in
Russia; it is not the fallacies, the sad delusion of the people. No. It is the
downright dirty immorality, the brutish nastiness of it all; and the line which

the immorality and nastiness draws between Jew and Gentile. The horrible
cruelty involved we will not deal with, leaving it merely with the
explanation which has found utterance in the Jewish press that "it may be
that the Jew in Russia is taking an unconscious revenge for his centuries of
suffering."

"But," asks some reader, "how may we know that all this is true?"

Bearing in mind that we are speaking of Russia, not for the interest of the
Russian situation at all, but to indicate the international character of those
who are responsible for conditions there, and to identify them for the
protection of the United States, we shall look at the evidence.

There is, of course, the evidence brought to light by our own United
States Senate and printed in a Report of the Committee on the Judiciary. We
do not wish to spend much time on this, because we prefer in these articles
to use Jewish testimony instead of Gentile. But we shall pause long enough
to show the nature of the testimony brought out by our own government.

Dr. George A. Simons, a clergyman in charge of an American
congregation in Petrograd at the time the Bolshevik terror broke out, was a
witness. Parts of his testimony are given here:

"'There were hundreds of agitators who followed in the trail of Trotsky-
Bronstein, these men having come over from the lower East Side of New
York * * * A number of us were impressed by the strange Yiddish element
in this thing right from the start, and it soon became evident that more than
half the agitators in the so-called Bolshevik movement were Yiddish.'

"Senator Nelson—'Hebrews?'

"Dr. Simons—'They were Hebrews, apostate Jews. I do not want to say
anything against the Jews, as such. I am not in sympathy with the anti-
Semitic movement, never have been, and do not ever expect to be * * * But
I have a firm conviction that this thing is Yiddish, and that one of its bases
is found in the East Side of New York.'

"Senator Nelson—'Trotsky came over from New York during that
summer, did he not?'

"Dr. Simons—'He did.'

"Later Dr. Simons said: 'In December, 1918 * * * under the presidency of
a man known as Apfelbaum * * * out of 388 members, only 16 happened to
be real Russians, and all the rest Jews, with the exception possibly of one
man, who is a Negro from America, who calls himself Professor Gordon * *
* and 265 of this northern commune government that is sitting in the Old
Smolny Institute came from the lower East Side of New York—265 of
them. * * *

"'I might mention this, that when the Bolsheviki came into power, all
over Petrograd we at once had a predominance of Yiddish proclamations,
big posters, and everything in Yiddish. It became very evident that now that
was to be one of the great languages of Russia; and the real Russians, of
course, did not take very kindly to it.'"

William Chapin Huntington, who was commercial attache of the United
States Embassy at Petrograd, testified:

"The leaders of the movement, I should say, are about two-thirds Russian
Jews * * * The Bolsheviks are internationalists, and they were not
interested in the particular national ideals of Russia."

William W. Welch, an employee of the National City Bank, New York,
testified:

"In Russia it is well known that three-fourths of the Bolshevik leaders
are Jewish * * * There were some—not many, but there were some—real
Russians; and what I mean by real Russians is Russian-born, and not
Russian Jews."

Roger E. Simmons, Trade Commissioner connected with the United
States Department of Commerce, also testified. An important anonymous
witness, whom the committee permitted to withhold his name, told the same
things.

The British White Book, Russia, No. 1—"A Collection of Reports on
Bolshevism in Russia, presented to Parliament by Command of His
Majesty,
April, 1919," contains masses of the same testimony from many sources,
all of them eyewitnesses.

In that very highly respected magazine Asia for February-March, 1920, is
an article which contains, among other important ones, these statements:
(the italics are ours)

"In all the Bolshevist institutions the heads are Jews. The Assistant
Commissar for Elementary Education, Grunberg, can hardly speak Russian.
The Jews are successful in everything and obtain their ends. They know
how to command and get complete submission. But they are proud and
contemptuous toward everyone, which strongly excites the people against
them * * * At the present time there is a great national religious fervor
among the Jews. They believe that the promised time of the rule of God's
elect on earth is coming. They have connected Judaism with a universal
revolution. They see in the spread of revolution the fulfilling of the

Scriptures: 'Though I make an end of all the nations whither I have scattered
thee, yet will I not make an end of thee.'"

Now if Gentile proof were wanted, the files of the THE DEARBORN
INDEPENDENT for a whole year would not begin to contain it. But Jewish
proof is better.

There has been a strange vacillation in Jewish opinion concerning
Bolshevism. At first it was hailed with delight. There was no concealment
whatever in the early days of the new regime as to the part which Jewry had
in it. Public meetings, interviews, special articles poured forth in which
very valuable elements of truth were mingled. There was no attempt at
concealment of names.

Then the horror of the thing began to take hold upon the world, and for
just a breathing space Jewish opinion fell silent. There was a spasmodic
denial or two. Then a new burst of glorification. The glorification continues
within Judaism itself, but it now carries on the Gentile side of its face a very
sad expression labeled "persecution."

We have lived to see the day when to denounce Bolshevism is to
"persecute the Jews."

In the American Hebrew, for September 10, 1920, an article appears
which not only acknowledges and explains the part which the Jew plays in
the present unrest and upheaval, but justifies it—and justifies it, curiously
enough, by The Sermon on the Mount.

The writer says that "the Jew evolved organized capitalism with its
working instrumentality, the banking system."

This is very refreshing, in view of the numerous Jewish denials of this
economic fact.

"One of the impressive phenomena of the impressive time is the revolt of
the Jew against the Frankenstein which his own mind conceived and his
own hand fashioned * * *" If this is true, why is Jewish "organized capital
with its working instrumentality, the banking system" supporting the revolt?

"That achievement (referring to the Russian overthrow), destined to
figure in history as the overshadowing result of the World War, was largely
the outcome of Jewish thinking, of Jewish discontent, of Jewish effort to
reconstruct."

"This rapid emergence of the Russian revolution from the destructive
phase and its entrance into the constructive phase is a conspicuous
expression of the constructive genius of Jewish discontent."

(This, of course, requires proof that the constructive phase has appeared.
The implication here is sheer propaganda. The Protocols, however, have a
reconstructive program. We have not reached it as yet in this series of
articles, but it is clearly outlined in the Protocols—destroy the Gentile
society, and then reconstruct it according to "our" plans.)

Now read carefully:

"What Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so powerfully
contributed to accomplish in Russia, the same historic qualities of the
Jewish mind and heart ARE TENDING TO PROMOTE IN OTHER
COUNTRIES."

Read that again. "What Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so
powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia!" Just what was that? And

just how did it "powerfully contribute?" And why are "Jewish idealism" and
"Jewish discontent" always linked together? If you read the Protocols it is
all very clear. Jewish idealism is the destruction of Gentile society and the
erection of Jewish society. Was it not so in Russia?—Yiddish proclamations
on the walls, the ancient Hebrew in the schools, Saturday substituted for
Sunday, and the rabbis respected while the priests were put to work on the
roads! All "powerfully contributed" to by murder, rapine, theft and
starvation.

Our author is more candid than he realizes. He calls this linked idealism
and discontent "the historic qualities of the Jewish mind." THE
DEARBORN INDEPENDENT is indebted to him for this clear
confirmation of what it has been saying for some time.

But even that is not all. "These same historic qualities of the Jewish
mind" which "contributed so powerfully to accomplish in Russia" the Red
Terror still existing there, are declared by this author to be tending to
promote the same sort of thing in other countries. He says so in so many
words—"tending to promote in other countries."

But we knew that. The only difference is that when Gentiles said it, they
were overwhelmed with the wildest abuse; but now a pro-Jewish writer says
it in a leading Jewish publication. And he says it apologetically—listen to
him:

"It was natural that * * * discontent in other parts of the world should
find expression in overemphasis of issues and overstatement of aims."

What discontent? Jewish discontent, of course. Discontent with what?
With any form of Gentile rule. And how did it find expression? "In
overemphasis of issues and overstatement of aims." What were these issues
and aims? To bring the Bolshevik revolution to the United States.

No, they did not overstate their aims; they exactly stated them—they
simply selected the wrong country, that's all.

There are Russian Bolshevists in this country now, hawking about the
streets of New York the gold cigaret cases which they stole from Russian
families, and the family jewels, the wedding and birthday rings, which they
filched from Russian women. Bolshevism never got further than the
pawnshop and burglar's "fence" idea. The proof of this traffic in stolen
property is going to drive some people into hiding before long. It will be a
long, long time before America will be taking orders in Yiddish, or
American women will be giving up their jewels to "the chosen race."

However, that happens to be only the most recent acknowledgement that
has come to hand. It is significant for its confession that "Jewish discontent"
was "tending to promote" in "other countries" what it has "so powerfully
contributed to accomplish in Russia."

And with such a link between the American Hebrew, Russian Bolshevism
and the Protocols, there are still Jewish publicists with the crust to say that
only crazy people could see the connection. Only blind people will not see
it. But that is only a minor connection. This series of articles does not rest
on anything so accidental as the Jewish New Year's apology for Bolshevism
in the great Hebrew weekly of the United States.

[Issue of September 25, 1920.]

"Out of the economic chaos, the discontent of the Jew evolved organized
capital with its working instrumentality, the banking system . . . .