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.