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."