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.