=“At present, if any of the governments raises a protest against us, it
is done only as a matter of form and at our desire and by our order,
because their anti-Semitism is necessary to us to govern our smaller
brothers.” (Protocol IX.)=
_Substantiations_
(_a_) “The governments of all countries, scourged by anti-Semitism, will
serve their own interests in assisting us to obtain the sovereignty we
want.”
(_Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 11._)
(_b_) “Disaster binds us together, and, thus united, we suddenly discover
our strength. Yes, we are strong enough to form a State, and a model
State.”
(_Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 10._)
III. PARALLELISM BETWEEN THE PROTOCOLS AND CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE JEWS
OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA
There are a number of important policies in the Protocols which find
a striking parallel in certain activities and movements among Jews in
various parts of the world outside of Russia. Among these policies of the
Protocols are: the control of the press for political purposes, securing
international or so-called “minority” rights for the Jews, the stirring
up of class hatred and social disorder, and the promotion of revolutions
and internationalism.
“SECRET KINGDOM OF THE PRESS”
1. The boast is made in the Protocols that in Europe the press, with
unimportant exceptions, is under Jewish control. It is indeed true that
the Jewish influence in the press in many parts of the world is very
powerful. Just how powerful it is in America it is difficult to state.
It is certainly a great and growing power in New York City. A Jewish
magazine, _The American Jewish News_, recently pointed with pride to the
great number of newspapers in New York which are either controlled by
the Jews or in which Jews occupy important strategic positions. In the
article referred to, which was published in the issue of March 28, 1919,
under the title “Men Who Make Our Newspapers,” the following statement is
made:
“While it is an accepted fact that certain of our industries
to-day are almost entirely directed and supported by Jewish
minds and labor, there are nevertheless just as many which are
not generally conceded to come within the same classification
which have at their head men of Jewish descent. Most
important among these latter is the greatest of all public
institutions—the press.
“Hardly a newspaper of importance thrives in this city but it
has at its head or in some position of paramount influence
a man in whose fibre there is Jewish energy. And with one
exception the achievements of these men who mould and interpret
American public opinion could provide material for books of
incalculable inspiration.”
The article proceeds to refer to several large dailies in New York which
are owned or controlled by Jews, with biographical sketches of these men
and their subordinates. At the end of the article it is stated that the
men mentioned are “but a few of a great number.”
That there is nothing new in the Jewish policy of controlling the press
is shown by the following statement of Isaac-Adolphe Crémieux, who in
1860 founded the Alliance Israélite Universelle.
“Consider the governmental and public offices as nothing. Look
upon all honors as upon nonsense. Do not pay any attention
for the time being to money itself.... _Capture the press!_
Through it everything will come to you in the natural course of
events.”[27]
The complete dictatorship over the press exercised by the Jewish
Bolshevist leaders in Soviet Russia is such a generally accepted fact
that it needs no extended comment. All newspapers that have attempted
in any way to criticize the Bolshevist government have been ruthlessly
suppressed, and many writers who have dared to criticize Trotzky have
been executed.
The policy of the Bolsheviks is well expressed by one of the Soviet
officials, N. Bukharin, in “The Communist Program,” published by the
Soviet printing office, called “The Communist,” Moscow, 1918, Chapter
VII, pp. 20-23:
“The Communist (Bolshevist) party receives from all sides
accusations and even threats like the following: ‘You close
newspapers, you arrest people, you forbid meetings, you trample
under foot freedom of speech and of the press, you reconstruct
autocracy, you are oppressors and murderers.’ It is necessary
to discuss in detail this question of the ‘liberties’ in a
Soviet Republic....
“At present the following is clear for the workingmen and the
peasants. The Communist party not only does not demand any
liberty of the press, of speech, meetings, unions, etc., for
the bourgeois enemies of the people, but, on the contrary, it
demands that the government should be always in readiness to
close the bourgeois press; to disperse the meetings of the
enemies of the people, to forbid them to lie, slander, and
spread panic; to crush ruthlessly all attempts at a restoration
of the bourgeois régime. This is precisely the meaning of the
dictatorship of the proletariat.”
“MINORITY RIGHTS” IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROTOCOLS
2. From a practical point of view it is of the utmost importance to
Christian countries to ascertain whether the Jews are to be treated as
citizens who enjoy equal rights and equal duties with the rest of the
community, or whether they are to have, in addition, special privileges
uniform in every country because they are Jews.
The American Constitution grants equal rights to all citizens of the
United States, without distinction as to race or religion. The same
conception of citizenship prevails in a majority of the western European
countries (Great Britain, Netherlands, France, Italy, Switzerland,
Norway, and Sweden).
During the last two years, however, the Jews in various countries have
adopted a peculiar policy, threatening the fundamental principles of
equal citizenship, by demanding special national or minority rights
in central and eastern European states. During the Peace Conference
the Jews maintained an influential delegation at Paris which insisted
that such rights be granted to the Jews in Poland, Austria, Roumania,
Jugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Ukrainia. A special Bill of Jewish Rights
was presented by the Jewish delegation to the Peace Conference. This bill
contained the following stipulations:
“_First_—New guarantees of citizenship for those born in the
territories affected, or resident therein since August, 1909.
“_Second_—All citizens to enjoy equal civil, religious,
national and political rights, without distinction of birth,
race, nationality or religion.
“_Third_—The right to use the language of any national minority
in business, private intercourse, public meetings or the press
shall be guaranteed; nor shall there be any restriction of such
language in the schools or other institutions, nor shall the
validity of any transaction or document be affected by the use
of any language whatsoever.
“_Fourth_—The state shall recognize the several national
minorities as constituting distinct autonomous organizations,
having the right to establish, manage and control schools and
religious, educational, charitable and social institutions.
“_Fifth_—Each national minority shall be allotted its
proportion of state, departmental and municipal funds, based on
the ratio of its numbers in the respective areas, as well as in
the entire population.
“_Sixth_—Proportional representation of national minorities in
elected bodies.
“_Seventh_—Those observing any other day except Sunday as
Sabbath shall not be required to perform on such days acts
they regard as desecrations, and shall be permitted to conduct
business on Sunday if they so desire.
“_Eighth_—The signatories to the treaty, or any minority which
may be affected by failure to observe its provisions, shall be
entitled to submit complaints for adjudication to the League of
Nations, which will assume jurisdiction.” (New York _Tribune_,
June 12, 1919.)
This Bill of Rights was strongly endorsed by the American Jewish Congress
held in Philadelphia in December, 1918. We quote an article in the New
York _Tribune_ of May 14, 1919, on this subject:
“NATIONS MUST GUARANTEE RACIAL RIGHTS, SAYS MACK.
“CHAIRMAN OF JEWISH DELEGATION TO PARIS CABLES RESULTS OF ITS
EFFORTS.
“According to a cable received by the Zionist Organization of
America from its president, Judge Julian W. Mack, who is now
in Paris, heading the American Jewish Congress delegation to
the peace conference, and chairman of the Jewish delegations
from every part of Europe, the treaty offered to Germany
requires Poland and other nations to accept separate provisions
guaranteeing rights to racial, religious and linguistic
minorities within their boundaries.
“Judge Mack says the word ‘national’ is not included in the
treaty as now formulated, but that a decision on this point is
expected in a few days.
“He expresses himself as sanguine that the substance of the
demands adopted by the American Jewish Congress, held in
Philadelphia last December, will be obtained.”
Moreover, the Bill of Rights was endorsed by most of the recognized
Jewish organizations throughout the world.
“NINE MILLION JEWS PRESENT BILL OF RIGHTS AT PARIS,” is the title
under which the universal support of Hebrew national rights within the
boundaries of other nations was recorded by the New York _Tribune_ on
June 12, 1919.
Mr. Edward Dillon, in his book “The Inside Story of the Peace
Conference,” referring to these national rights and to the support which
was extended to the Jewish demands, stated that the Allied policy was
“looked upon as anything but disinterested.” Mr. Dillon further said:
“Unhappily this conviction was subsequently strengthened by
certain of the measures decreed by the Supreme Council between
April and the close of the Conference. The misgivings of other
delegates turned upon a matter which at first sight may appear
so far removed from any of the pressing issues of the twentieth
century as to seem wholly imaginary. They feared that a
religious—some would call it racial—bias lay at the root of Mr.
Wilson’s policy. It may seem amazing to some readers, but it is
none the less a fact, that a considerable number of delegates
believed that the real influences behind the Anglo-Saxon
peoples were Semitic.
“They confronted the President’s proposal on the subject of
religious inequality, and, in particular, the odd motive
alleged for it, with the measures for the protection of
minorities which he subsequently imposed on the lesser states,
and which had for their keynote to satisfy the Jewish elements
in eastern Europe. And they concluded that the sequence of
expedients framed and enforced in this direction were inspired
by the Jews, assembled in Paris for the purpose of realizing
their carefully thought-out program, which they succeeded in
having substantially executed. However right or wrong these
delegates may have been, it would be a dangerous mistake to
ignore their views, seeing that they have since become one
of the permanent elements of the situation. The formula into
which this policy was thrown by the members of the Conference,
whose countries it affected, and who regarded it as fatal to
the peace of eastern Europe, was this: ‘Henceforth the world
will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who, in turn, are
swayed by their Jewish elements.’” (Pages 496, 497.)
Mr. Dillon emphasizes that the Jewish demands for special national
privileges were largely fomented by western Jews, including those of the
United States. He even states that among the many Jews who were present
at the Paris Peace Conference “the largest and most brilliant contingent
was sent by the United States.” (Page 12.) According to this author,
“Their principal mission, with which every fair-minded man sympathized
heartily, was to secure for their kindred in Eastern Europe rights equal
to those of the populations in whose midst they reside. And to the credit
of the Poles, Rumanians, and Russians, who were to be constrained to
remove all the existing disabilities, they enfranchised the Hebrew
elements spontaneously. But the western Jews who championed their eastern
brothers, proceeded to demand a further concession which many of their
own co-religionists hastened to disclaim as dangerous—a kind of autonomy
which Roumanian, Polish and Russian statesmen, as well as many of their
Jewish fellow-subjects, regarded as tantamount to the creation of a state
within a state.” (Page 13.)
The treaties imposed by the Allies upon Poland, Rumania, Czecho-Slovakia,
Jugo-Slavia and Greece granted all, or nearly all the demands of the Jews
contained in the above “Bill of Rights,” while Austria and Hungary gave
pledges in their treaties with the Allied and Associated Powers, that
they would protect “minority rights” in the same general way defined in
the treaties with the other five powers.
These treaties, as Mr. Dillon correctly points out, go much further
than to guarantee to the Jews residing in these several countries full
political equality with other citizens, and freedom from persecution or
discrimination on account of race or religion. Not only did the treaties
contain such guarantees,—which, Mr. Dillon states, the small powers in
question were quite willing to give,—but they contained a principle new
to international law, viz. that a racial minority should be treated in
various relations as a separate entity within the State, with separate
rights of its own, which it is permitted to enforce against the national
government. An illustration of this new principle is found in certain
articles of the treaty with Poland relating to educational matters. By
these articles the Polish State is actually compelled to permit the Jews,
in towns and districts where they constitute “a considerable proportion”
of the population, to administer primary education in their own language
in the Jewish schools, supported by an allocated part of the state funds.
The articles of the treaty which create this extraordinary “minority
right” are quoted _verbatim_ below. The two articles must be read
together and compared with each other to bring out their full meaning.
“ARTICLE 9
“Poland will provide in the public educational system in towns and
districts in which a considerable proportion of Polish nationals of other
than Polish speech are residents adequate facilities for ensuring that
in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of
such nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision
shall not prevent the Polish Government from making the teaching of the
Polish language obligatory in the said schools.
“In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of
Polish nationals belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities,
these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and
application of the sums which may be provided out of the public funds
under the State, municipal or other budget, for educational, religious or
charitable purposes.
“The provision of this article shall apply to Polish citizens of German
speech only in that part of Poland which was German territory on August
1, 1914.
“ARTICLE 10
“Educational Committees appointed locally by the Jewish Committees of
Poland will, subject to the general control of the State, provide for the
distribution of the proportional share of the public funds allocated to
the Jewish schools in accordance with Article 9, and for the organization
and management of these schools.
“The provisions of Article 9 concerning the use of languages in schools
shall apply to these schools.”
In some central European countries the Jews took prompt advantage of
the favorable feeling created in Paris by the Jewish leaders towards
the Jewish national demands. Thus, for instance, in Ukrainia a special
ministry for Jewish affairs was established, headed by Krasny Pinhoos,
a Jew. According to information contained in an editorial article in
the _New Witness_ of April 11, 1919, the new minister of the Jews “told
a press representative that the Jews take part in the spiritual and
social life of the Ukraine under conditions of equality with those of the
rest of the population, but that in affairs appertaining to the Jewish
community they would govern themselves.”
The _New Witness_ made a rather peculiar deduction from the above
statement of Mr. Pinhoos:
“But it is anyhow a good thing that in one country at least
the Jewish race should be regarded and should consent to be
regarded as something different and separate. We presume that
as soon as the Jewish State in Palestine is established, Mr.
Pinhoos will change his title to that of Jewish Ambassador. Mr.
Pinhoos hopes that before long there will be many other such
ministries established, but while Isaacs and Mond can govern
England and dictate to the Peace Conference, there is not much
hope that they will desire to rule the affairs of Whitechapel.”
Mr. Israel Zangwill, in a recent address at the Poale Zion Conference in
London, went a step further when he stated that the race which produced
“a Beaconsfield, a Reading, a Montagu, a Klotz, a Kurt Eisner, a Trotzky”
should be represented as an independent member of the League of Nations.
(See Mr. Zangwill’s statement in _The Jewish Chronicle_, February 27,
1920, No. 2656, p. 28.)
In view of the adoption of this policy by the Jews in Paris, Americans
are justified in ascertaining just what is the position of the American
Jewry with respect to enforcing such a program here. Our Constitution
knows no such thing as foreign national rights enjoyed by persons who at
the same time enjoy the privileges of American citizens. A subject of a
foreign nationality when he becomes an American citizen renounces his
former allegiance, and it is upon this condition only that he becomes a
member of our body politic.
Nevertheless in the United States itself, where the Jews enjoy an
absolute equality of rights with all other citizens, they have recently
endeavored to build up an institution which is entirely opposed to the
spirit of the American Constitution, namely, a special Jewish court
which tries cases pertaining only to the Jews. This institution is known
as “The Jewish Court of Arbitration” and holds its sessions in one
of the Municipal Court rooms in New York City. This fact was briefly
recorded by the New York _Times_ in its issue of February 19, 1920, in an
article under the title, “Jews Here Start Modern Sanhedrin.” While this
significant fact may have passed almost unnoticed by the American public,
nevertheless it has already attracted attention in France.
It is unthinkable to any American brought up under a system of government
which has provided a check against the oppression of minorities by the
majority, that special rights should be granted to any of the ethnic
elements of our population, such as the Jews, the Chinese, the Negroes,
or any other racial group, or that any of these groups should by virtue
of such special rights diminish our sovereignty by a treaty provision
similar to Article XII of the special treaty with Poland. By this article
Poland agreed that any member of the Council of the League of Nations
should have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any
infraction _or any danger of infraction_ of any of these obligations (the
national rights of the Jews), and that the Council may thereupon take
such action and give such directions as it may deem proper and effective
in the circumstances.[28]
The whole question of Jewish double national rights is of the utmost
importance, since the recognized Zionist leaders and the international
Zionist organizations have on various occasions strongly urged the
adoption of such double rights. Such rights and privileges for the
Jews indeed are more than “national rights”; they are in one sense
international rights common to Jews living in different countries.
In other words, under such a system they would enjoy both the rights
of citizenship of the particular country in which they live, and in
addition, special privileges granted to them alone. The granting of such
privileges to the Jews would constitute a series of international rights
conferred exclusively upon the Jewish race. The Protocols of the Zionist
Men of Wisdom contemplate this very thing in the following language:
“Then our international rights will sweep away the national
rights in a limited sense and will rule countries in the
same manner as the civil power of each state regulates the
relationship of its subjects among themselves.” (Protocol No.
II.)
It is a question to what extent the demands for Jewish minority rights in
eastern European states may be a part of the general Zionist movement.
To this movement little attention can be given in this volume. It is
sufficient to quote a portion of an article published in the New York
_Globe_ on January 25, 1919, under the title “Want Brandeis to Govern
Judea.” The staff correspondent of the New York _Globe_ and Chicago
_Daily News_ in London, under date of December 31, 1918, refers to the
Zionist movement and the exposition of its objects and purposes by one of
its leaders, Ittimar Ben Avi:
“If the plans and ambitions of the recently proclaimed nation
of Judea are fulfilled, Louis Brandeis, now Justice of the
United States Supreme Court, will be the first of the new
rulers of Israel. The dream of the renationalization of
Palestine which has lived for 2,000 years in the hearts of the
Jews is fast entering the realm of reality. Judea is sending
its delegates to the peace conference. Its existence as a
nation has been recognized by the allies, its declaration of
independence has been signed and its diplomats and politicians
are already busy moulding the future of its institutions.
“Ittimar Ben Avi is the first of its peace delegates to reach
London. An impassioned idealist who already visions Judea
enrolled among the great powers of the world, is Ben Avi. But
his idealism and his oratorical agitations on behalf of Judea
have not impaired his worth as a diplomat.