In October 1992, Spearhead, the theoretical journal of the British National Party, published an article on the Protocols Of Zion. This article, which was credited to one Simon Smith, (1) amounted to a lengthy waste of space on account of its pathetic attempt to authenticate a fabrication which was first exposed over seventy years ago and which has since been critically examined numerous times by methodical scholars, and in each case found wanting.
I am assuming here that the reader is familiar with the Protocols and the substance of its claims. What I am not assuming is that he is in any way knowledgeable about the bizarre history of this equally bizarre document, the theology surrounding it, or the subsequent analyses. (2)
Organised Jewry have never stopped screaming about the Protocols since they first appeared, denouncing them as a forgery and implying that anyone who peddles them is an anti-Semitic lunatic. The Protocols and similar scurrilous literature, and a great deal of literature that is neither anti-Jewish nor scurrilous, has also been used by these same Machiavellian schemers to destroy what little freedom remains in this country and elsewhere, and to extract special privileges for their race, not the least of which is that of putting them above criticism on the grounds that anyone who refuses to kiss the arse of Imperial Zion can’t be anything but a rabid anti-Semite.
It is therefore important that everyone who wants to oppose – and eventually destroy – the power of Organised Jewry, is not sidetracked by this piece of dross, which, although they may denounce it to high heaven, has them secretly laughing up their sleeves. Here then are the true facts about the Protocols Of Zion.
In 1901, a Russian priest named Sergius Nilus (3) published a mystical tract called The Great in the Small. Antichrist considered as an imminent political possibility. (4) The third edition of this book (ie the second Nilus edition) was published at Tsarskoe Selo in December 1905 with the Protocols tacked onto the end as an appendix. (5) There is often some confusion here; the Protocols were (6) also published in 1903. A truncated version (and a different one) appeared in a newspaper, Znamya, (7) (the Banner). This was owned by Paul A. Krushevan. (8) Even before he published the Protocols, Krushevan had incited a pogrom, at Kishinev. (9) This was the earliest version of the Protocols as they are understood, and they appeared in Znamya between August 26 and September 7, 1903. (10) They were said to have been translated from the French. (11) It has also been claimed that another edition was published in 1912. This is not true. (12) As will soon become apparent, and as already stated, there was and remains a great deal of confusion over the origins of and early versions of the Protocols. The main reason for this is that its most enthusiastic proponents have been damned liars, fanatics, and, in many cases, both.
There is, apparently, only a single copy of the 1905 Nilus version still in existence; (13) it is of course printed in Russian. It runs to 417 pages and is held in the British Library at shelfmark C37e31 and is stamped 10 AU 1906 BRITISH MUSEUM. (14)
Initially, the Protocols received little or no attention outside of Tsarist Russia where they were used as part of the anti-Semitic campaign to incite pogroms. According to one reputable source, the Russian government permitted the printing of 2,837 anti-Semitic books and pamphlets between 1905-16; a total of 14,327,000 copies. The Tsar himself is said to have contributed 12,239,000 rubles of his own money towards this. (15)
Although as we have seen, the Protocols was in circulation as early as August 1903, it was all but ignored in Europe for over a decade. The first West European edition was published in German in January 1920 (dated 1919) under the title The Secrets of the Wise Men of Zion. Gottfried zur Beek was responsible for this; Gottfried zur Beek was actually the pseudonym of a notorious anti-Semite, Captain Müller von Hansen. The first UK edition was published in early 1920 by the eminently respectable publishing firm of Eyre and Spottiswoode, (16) which, forty-seven years later, published the definitive history of the Protocols, Norman Cohn’s Warrant For Genocide, cited many times in the current work. The second English edition was published by the Britons Publishing Company. The first American edition was also published in 1920 and was edited by a Russian emigre and anti-Semite, Boris Brasol, (17) who was later to boast that he had done more damage to the Jews with two books than with ten pogroms. (18)
Brasol, who was born in 1885, came to the United States in 1916, (19) he translated the Protocols with the help of a fellow White Russian, Miss Natalie de Bogory; (20) this version, which ran to 149 pages, was published anonymously. (21)
It is worth taking an in-depth look here at the Britons, the publishers of the second English edition of the Protocols, and by far the most prolific publisher of this document in Britain, if not the entire world. The stock charge by Organised Jewry and their academic dupes is that such people were anti-Semites, period. However, there are anti-Semites and anti-Semites, and an analysis of the literature produced by the Britons does more to convince one that its subscribers were three sandwiches short of a picnic than pathological Jew-haters.
The Britons was founded by Henry Hamilton Beamish. Born in Ireland in 1874, Beamish was the third son of a Vice-Admiral, and the first person to organise the dissemination of anti-Semitic propaganda in Britain. (22) Beamish travelled the world, and prior to his conversion to anti-Semitism he visited such diverse places as Alaska and Ceylon. He is said to have discovered the Jewish conspiracy in the Boer War, in which he fought. He claimed also to have trained Hitler from 1920-2, but this claim is extremely doubtful. (23)
The Britons was founded July 18, 1919 but ante-dated to July 18, 1918. It had a mere fourteen members. (24) To this day, organised anti-Semitism has a small but dedicated membership; this gives the lie to the claims of Organised Jewry and their fellow travellers that there exists a massive global conspiracy against the Jews. (25)
In February 1920, the Britons commenced publication of a journal, JEWRY ÜBER ALLES. This went through a series of name changes: to JEWRY UEBER ALLES or THE HIDDEN HAND EXPOSED in July 1920; to THE HIDDEN HAND or JEWRY UEBER ALLES in September 1920; to THE HIDDEN HAND or THE JEWISH PERIL in October 1923; then finally, in May 1924, to the British Guardian. It appears to have ceased publication suddenly in 1925. It was originally published monthly though there was an ill-fated attempt to increase its frequency to weekly in January 1925. The last issue in the British Library is dated Friday, June 19th, 1925.
One has to read this many titled journal to understand just how inadequate is the word “anti-Semitic” in this context. It preached a mystical “anti-Semitism” which bordered on lunacy, peddling not only the Protocols but other spurious anti-Jewish documents which no one in his right mind would take seriously. Beamish himself also published two editions of THE JEWS’ WHO’S WHO, which was subtitled ISRAELITE FINANCE. ITS SINISTER INFLUENCE. (26)
The most amazing thing about the Britons was not the garbage it peddled but the fact that its membership consisted largely of professional and otherwise eminently respectable people rather than the gutter anti-Semites one has come to associate with certain political “parties” of the modern era. Its membership included Dr J.H. Clarke, (27) who was a distinguished homoeopath; (28) Arthur Kitson, an entrepreneur, inventor and lifelong advocate of financial reform; and later, Arnold Leese, a distinguished veterinary surgeon whose book on the diseases of the camel was the standard work in India for half a century. (29) The Britons’ patron was Viscount Templetown. Beamish was its President.
The full story of how the Britons came to publish the Protocols is as follows. The Protocols was translated from the Nilus book in the British Museum by George Shanks with the assistance of Major Edward G. Burdon. (30) It was published – as a private order – by the otherwise respectable firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode. The plates were then sold to the Britons for £30. Not much is known about Shanks; it is said that he was halachically Jewish, (31) as he may well have been, but neither race nor religion are proof against stupidity, gullibility, venality or any other human weakness.
The Britons issued the second British edition of the Protocols in August 1920 and the third in September. (32) However, the Shanks translation was superseded by the Marsden translation, possibly because dead men don’t demand royalties. The sixth (Marsden) translation was published in November 1923, although Marsden had actually translated the Protocols as early as 1919. (33) Marsden is an interesting character, and the key – or one of the keys – to this entire Jewish conspiracy nonsense. Victor Emile Marsden was the Morning Post correspondent in Petrograd from 1911-8. Along with many other foreign correspondents, he suffered at the hands of the Bolsheviks. As the next few paragraphs will reveal, some of this suffering undoubtedly affected his sanity.
Although Marsden came out of the new Soviet Russia alive and joined the Prince of Wales on a tour, his health deteriorated and he died on October 29, 1920. (34) His funeral, which was scheduled for November 3, was supposed to have been attended by H.A. Gwynne the paper’s editor, among other press representatives. (35)
As well as translating the Protocols, Marsden wrote a pamphlet on the Russian revolution; although it was written in December 1918, it was not published until 1921 (ie after his death), by the Britons. One must read it to understand why. The full title of the pamphlet is as follows:
JEWS IN RUSSIA
WITH HALF-JEWS AND “DAMPED”
JEWS.
By the late Victor E. Marsden,
(Formerly Russian Correspondent of “The Morning Post.”)
WITH
A LIST OF THE NAMES
OF THE
447 Jews in the Soviet Government
of Russia
It ran to 24 pages and claimed, inter alia, that “the Jew-controlled British Government” was in on the plot as well, (36) the Lloyd George Government, that is. Obviously, Lloyd George must have had a change of heart, because in 1936 he was taken to task by the Jewish Chronicle for praising Hitler as perhaps the greatest man he had ever met! (37)
As well as referring to Lenine (ie Lenin) alias Oulianoff as a Calmyc Jew (38) by birth, the pamphlet claimed that Jewry had controlled the Tsar. Which does rather beg the question: Why did they organise the Bolshevik Revolution to overthrow the old order?
Such “anti-Semitism” as peddled by the Britons, Victor Marsden and their contemporaries would make most people persona non grata in any profession today, but a parallel can be found in such organisations as the Scientologists and the loony Aetherius Society. The latter’s members believe, among other things, that Jesus lives on the planet Venus! (39) In short, the Britons and other pedlars of the Protocols and the Jewish world plot were mystics rather than anti-Semites, or at worst, mystics first, anti-Semites second.
Another modern parallel can be drawn between the Britons and its spiritual successors, one that is far more frightening than the relatively innocuous Aethereans or the sometimes sinister Scientologists. (40) Today, any form of anti-Semitism has become taboo, and the notion that Jews kidnap and murder Christian children for ritual purposes and mix the blood of their victims in their Passover bread has been relegated to the lunatic fringe, but Satan is alive and well and living on planet Earth, and as everybody hates the Devil, Satanists – real and imagined – have become an easy target.
In the United States, and lately, here, the ritual abuse of children – Satanic and other – has become a live issue. A series of what can only be described as witch hunts has been mounted in the USA, where literally hundreds of child care workers, including middle aged women, have been accused of, indicted for, and even convicted of, monstrous and even impossible crimes, on the uncorroborated testimonies of very young children. One 1992 case (in Martensville, Canada), involved allegations against nine people associated with a baby-sitting service, including five members of the local police department. This included allegations that one boy had been placed naked in a cage and suspended by a rope; allegations of sodomy; murders (of presumably unidentified persons) and much more. No physical evidence was found, for obvious reasons, but, incredibly, two of the nine accused were convicted. (41) Researchers have traced the cult of Satanic abuse to Christian Fundamentalists, and to quack therapists who implant false memories in both children and adults. Back to the Protocols.
Before we discuss the various refutations of the Protocols, we’ll first take a quick look at how they were spread to the ends of the Earth, and at the major players who were responsible for their worldwide dissemination.
Having lain dormant for over a decade, the Protocols turned up being peddled by anti-Semitic cranks, hatemongers and mystics in Germany, France, Britain and the United States. The reason for this was the rise of Bolshevism and the involvement of racial Jews with the movement. The best known Jewish communists were Karl Marx (1818-83), a German-born hack, pseudo-economist and co-author with Frederick Engels of the Communist Manifesto; and Leon Trotsky (born Bronstein). Trotsky was eventually murdered in Mexico in August 1940 by a Stalinist agent.
Much has been made of the alleged Jewishness of communism, primarily on account of this, and much documentary evidence, most of it of doubtful value, has been adduced to prove that both the “Russian” Revolution and every revolution in history was the work of Jews. Like Zionists and Holocaust survivors, hard core anti-Semites have scant respect for truth, and continue to reiterate their nonsense however many times it may be refuted.
The truth is that both Marx and Trotsky and every other Jew involved in the communist movement from its inception to date have been racial Jews, ie men (and women) of Jewish origin who had turned their backs on the Jewish religion. Anti-Semitic propaganda churned out by White Russians portrayed, and continues to portray, Bolshevism as a Jewish plot, and it was undoubtedly this which led to the appeal of the Protocols. (42)
The Protocols were taken to the United States by Boris Brasol (whom we have already met). Brasol, who was first a Tsarist agent, then an American agent, and later a Nazi agent, sold them to Ernest Liebold, (43) and later, Liebold and Thomas Cameron churned out a stream of articles for a newspaper called the Dearborn Independent.
It was probably Brasol by the way who introduced American intelligence officers to the Protocols; incredible though it may seem today, this stuff was actually taken seriously by such people at the time. In the United States, in France, and probably a good many other places, Russian emigres were making a living flogging the Protocols as the secret blueprint for world revolution; the very real fear of the rise of Bolshevism was undoubtedly responsible for this and provided them with the opportunity. Absurd as this may seem to us nowadays, it has contemporary parallels; in the 1970s and on into the 90s the Searchlight Organisation which is run by the Stürmer-like crypto-Jew Gerry Gable, has peddled stories of worldwide Nazi conspiracies to great effect. While in the United States, Christian Fundamentalists and fellow travellers have likewise made a comfortable living and forwarded their agendas by pushing stories about Satanic child abusers, whose networks have allegedly infiltrated and taken over the FBI and sundry police forces. (44)
Returning to Liebold, Cameron and the Dearborn Independent, this paper was purchased by their boss, Henry Ford in January 1919. (45) Ford may have been a great industrial genius, but in some respects he was incredibly gullible. He had already developed an obsession with the Jewish Question by the time he stumbled across the Protocols. In 1915, Ford had chartered a ship and sailed to Europe to try to stop the war. By then, Ford already believed that the war was the work of a mysterious group of financiers he called the International Jews. The fact that there were at least two Jews on this ship and that one of them had been the inspiration for the venture was totally irrelevant. (46)
Ford’s purpose in buying the Dearborn Independent was, among other things, to educate the American people and the world about the menace of the Jewish world plot. Immensely wealthy, he was able to buck both the already powerful vested interests of Organised Jewry and public opinion, and the articles on the so-called International Jews were published under his name, although they were actually written by Cameron and others. (47) There were ninety-two articles in all, and Ford said at one time that this educational programme was to last five years. (48) The first of the articles was published on May 22, 1920. The International Jew was eventually translated into no fewer than sixteen languages. (49)
Ford was roundly condemned as an anti-Semite, a stock charge which has become incredibly boring of late, and one which has since been used to silence all opposition to the machinations of political Zionism, and Organised Jewry generally, as well as to extract special privileges for the Jewish race and to make a comfortable living for all manner of boot-licking academics. (50) In reality, although he permitted and encouraged to be published under his name such appalling anti-Semitica, Ford was no manner of anti-Semite. As one of his numerous biographers, Keith Sward, said, Ford fully expected to have his crusade endorsed by all the good Jews of the country. “He gave expression to such a hope in the way he behaved toward one of his few Jewish friends, Rabbi Leo M. Franklin of Detroit.” (51) Ford had regularly presented Franklin with a new custom-built Ford automobile every year as a token of his friendship. Franklin was stunned when Ford launched his Dearborn attacks on the Jews and dumbfounded when some time later a chauffeur appeared with the gift. Ford was even more dumbfounded when the Rabbi refused the gift. He called him up and said, “What’s wrong, Dr. Franklin? Has anything come between us?” (52)
The American Hebrew newspaper fought a running battle against Ford’s foolishness and published a series of articles attacking both the Dearborn Independent and the Protocols. For example, the November 12, 1920 issue published A CHALLENGE to HENRY FORD. This was a sort of advertisement in which editor Isaac Landman offered to help Ford locate the root of the conspiracy and destroy it. A put up or shut up offer which, obviously, Ford ignored, (see page 8). An article in the April 8, 1921 issue, An Ally to the Pogrom Makers, covered Liebold’s relationship with Brasol. (53)
In spite of the uproar Ford’s absurd campaign caused in the United States, not everyone was unimpressed. Adolf Hitler was a great admirer of Ford, and the admiration was mutual. Hitler praised Ford as a great anti-Semite and was mightily impressed with the International Jew; (54) he is said to have plagiarised sections of it in Mein Kampf; (55) in turn, Ford was one of the Führer’s earliest secret backers. (56) One of the people who is said to have conveyed Ford funds to Hitler is Brasol. (57)
Sales of the Dearborn Independent peaked from 1923-7 at half a million, (58) but that didn’t stop Ford losing nearly five million dollars on the project, (59) a staggering sum in those days. In 1927, Ford dissociated himself from the paper’s educational campaign, publicly renouncing the Protocols, and claiming to have been unaware of the paper’s content, (60) an absurd claim, and one which was motivated by pragmatism rather than by any sincere change of heart. How Ford’s recantation came about is worth covering in some detail.
The Dearborn Independent articles’ attacks on the nebulous International Jews may have been scurrilous, but when the paper was so foolish as to attack a particular Jew, he issued a libel writ. The Jew in question was a lawyer named Aaron Sapiro, whom the paper accused of fleecing his clients and running the Jewish conspiracy in American agriculture. Sapiro sued for a million dollars. (61) [There is surely a lesson for Holocaust Revisionists here!] The case was made headlines internationally: the London Times of July 9, 1927 reported that Ford had issued a statement saying that he would have forbidden publication of the articles if he’d known of their existence. (62) On July 18, the paper reported that Ford and Sapiro had settled out of court; the terms of the settlement included Ford making a complete retraction, but apart from that they were to remain secret. (63) Ford was able to do this only because Cameron took the rap for him in its entirety. (64) Although both Organised Jewry and the wider public appeared to take Ford at face value, it remains to be seen if anybody really believed such dross.
After Ford’s public recantation, Organised Jewry reacted with a spirit of magnanimity it had seldom shown before and has never shown since. Letters poured in, most of them from Jews; the Jewish Tribune editorialised that “[Ford] will find that the spirit of forgiveness is not entirely a Christian virtue.” (65) While the American Hebrew wrote that Ford’s confession, ie his 600 word retraction “...must be accepted as a true repentant; it breathes honesty and sincerity no matter how the cynic may rationalize the motives behind the document. We forgive and will seek to forget.” (66)
In 1938, Ford demonstrated the depth of his sincerity by accepting a Nazi medal, the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle, to celebrate his 75th birthday. He was the first American and only the fourth foreigner to receive this, the highest honour a non-German could be awarded. This “raised a storm of criticism within Zionist circles in the U.S. Ford backed off to the extent of publicly meeting with Rabbi Leo Franklin of Detroit to express his sympathy for the plight of German Jews”.(67)
Ford was said to have validated the Protocols as late as September 1940. (68) But in 1942 he sent a letter to the ADL’s Chicago office repudiating anti-Semitism. (69) Two months later, William Cameron also recanted, claiming that anti-Semitism was “the negation of humanity, intelligence and Christianity”. (70)
Further confirmation of Ford’s insincerity comes from his fellow traveller Elizabeth Dilling, who claimed in her book, The Plot Against Christianity (71) that: “Henry Ford (who never changed his mind about the role of Jewry)” hired her to write a report in U. of Michigan in 1939. This ran to 80 pages. Mr Ford is also credited with contributing $5,000 that year to the cost of her office labour which cost $12,000 in total. (72)
Henry Ford was immensely wealthy and was more responsible than any man for the spread of the Protocols, but however wealthy and powerful one individual may be, governments have – for all practical purposes – limitless resources. (73) The Nazi government took over where Ford left off, and a propaganda office was established at Erfurt. Known as the Weltdienst (World Service), it published, among other things, the Protocols Of Zion.
Nazi anti-Semitica is too well known to require further documentation here, but mention might be made of Theodore Fritsch. His publishing house, Der Hammer of Leipzig, churned out six editions of The International Jew between 1920 and 1922, and by late 1933 he’d published no less than 29 editions! (74)
Okay, so that’s how the Protocols spread, now how have they been dealt with by their opponents? Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party, complained, truthfully, that the Jews never stop screaming that the Protocols are a forgery. (75) However, if the highly intelligent Rockwell (76) had taken the time to examine the historical record, he would have realised that even the servants of Imperial Zion don’t lie all the time. What then have serious critics made of the Protocols?
As stated, the Protocols were virtually unknown in the West until the Bolshevik Revolution; even so, the first serious analysis and rebuttal appeared as early as 1920. Between July 10 and July 29, 1920 the London newspaper the Morning Post published a series of articles under the generic title The Cause Of World Unrest. These traced an alleged conspiracy down through the ages, a conspiracy which was said to have been largely the work of Jews and secret societies, and one which was said would come as a surprise to many Jews. (77) Articles in this series, which were reprinted in book form (78) included “...“THE MOST FORMIDABLE SECT IN THE WORLD.” THE TERROR IN FRANCE...” (July 12); BEHIND THE RED CURTAIN. THE ILLUMINATI IN GERMANY. THE ARRIERE-LOGES. (July 13); and THE REVOLUTIONARY CHAIN. TURKEY AND PORTUGAL. THE MASONIC AND JEWISH PLOTS. (July 22).
One of the first and staunchest detractors of the Protocols was the distinguished Jewish historian and journalist Lucien Wolf (1857-1930). Far from being any sort of Machiavellian schemer like Chaim Weizmann, Avraham Stern (79) or the slime now in control of the British and American Jewish establishments, Wolf was a passionate anti-Zionist who once published an article in a Jewish magazine warning of the “Zionist peril”. (80) Originally published as a series of articles in the Manchester Guardian, (81) Spectator (82) and Daily Telegraph, Wolf’s expose of the nonsense of the Protocols was republished the same year as The Jewish Bogey. The original publisher was, surprise, surprise, the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Again, this was at a time when this now perfidious organisation had both some commitment to Judaism and some loyalty to Britain. The Jewish Bogey was published in the United States by the Macmillan Company. (83)
Wolf traced the origin of the Protocols to a long tradition of anti-Semitic hatemongering and fantasising which included a play written as long ago as 1834. Nie-Boska Komedya (The Undivine Comedy), by the Polish poet Krassinsky, was said to be a “dramatic treatment of a Jewish conspiracy against Christian Society...” (84) The most likely precursor of the Protocols proper that Wolf himself pointed to was Le Juif, le Judaisme, et la Judaisation des Peuples Chretiens, by Henri Roger Gougenot des Mousseaux, which was published at Paris in 1869.
In April 1921, a clergyman, the Reverend Elijah Bendor Samuel, delivered a paper to the Prophecy Investigation Society on the subject of the Protocols. This, it should be remembered, was at a time when it was far from de rigueur for the spokesmen of the Christian religion to kiss the arse of Imperial Zion. (85) Even so, the Reverend Samuel produced much in the way of impressive argument, including the revelation – undoubtedly not new – that, for example, a tract known as WE JEWS AND THE VICTORIOUS OUTLOOK ON LIFE, by Dr Siegfried Pentha-Tull, was actually written (pseudonymously) by one Hans Schliepmann, an anti-Semitic propagandist. (86)
Earlier that same year, Herman Bernstein (87) had published The History Of A Lie. Along with Madame Schwimmer, Bernstein had been one of the two Jews on the Oscar II, Ford’s “Peace Ship”. After Bernstein published The History Of A Lie, Ford claimed that Bernstein had told him aboard the ship that the war had in fact been controlled by the International Jews. Bernstein filed a $200,000 libel writ and Ford retracted. (88) Later, he sued Ford again, this time for a million dollars, over the Dearborn Independent articles. This case was also settled out of court, shortly after the Sapiro v Ford case. (89)
Bernstein’s The History Of A Lie was republished in 1928. (90) But in August 1921 came the biggest development then to date. This was the publication by the Constantinople correspondent of the Times, Philip Graves, of three articles which traced the origin of the Protocols conclusively to a book published in 1865. (91) This was Maurice Joly’s Dialogues In Hell, which was published anonymously at Brussels, the preface is dated October 15, 1864. (92) Joly (1829-78) (93) was a lawyer; his book was originally written as a defence of liberalism, and it didn’t go down at all well with the French authorities because it resulted in his arrest and a term of fifteen months imprisonment. (94) The Dialogues In Hell (or Geneva Dialogues) were republished in 1868 under his own name. He committed suicide ten years later. (95)
The plagiarism is significant and unmistakable. In 1935, the year of his death, Herman Bernstein published The Truth About “The Protocols of Zion”; (96) this book was republished in 1972 with an introduction by Norman Cohn, the author of Warrant For Genocide, the definitive history of the Protocols. (97) Bernstein’s book proves the
In the original publication, this was the end of page 7. Click here to continue to page 9.
[In the original publication, page 8 contained a photocopy from the American Hebrew newspaper. Due to the poor copy of the original, which was taken from a microfilm, I have been unable to scan it here. (Problem solved – click here for a decent quality scan of a photocopy of the original, added April 3, 2012). The text below is reproduced with the same layout as the original as far as my non-existent artistic skills permit. As with all my publications, any mistakes of either fact or interpretation are entirely my own unless stated explicitly to the contrary].
A CHALLENGE
to
HENRY FORD
YOU ALLEGE that there exists a conspiracy "to establish a Jewish im- perialism over the world."
YOU STATE
that "if such a program of world imperialism exists to- day, it must exist with the cognizance and active sup- port of certain individuals, and these individuals must have somewhere an official head."YOU ASSUME
that your allegations and statements are true and all the articles that have appeared in your publications have been based on those assumptions. --------- American Jews have no knowledge of such a conspiracy---are entirely out of sympathy with such a cause---would oppose it with every means of their command. If you can prove your assertions, the Jews of America will help you to fight such a conspiracy. They will even accept your leadership in the matter. The American Hebrew makes this offer to you: We will raise and place at your disposal a fund (adequate in size) to defray the costs of engaging the services of the world's leading detectives to unearth this con- spiracy and bring to light the conspirators. The detectives you select, however, must be approved by the Chief of the Secret Services of the United States Government. You must agree to publish the findings of this investigation in one hundred leading daily newspapers of the large cities of the United States, provided, however, that true copies of the original report be furnished The American Hebrew. Should the investigation fail to substantiate your charges: 1. That a Jewish world-imperialism exists (locating its center); 2. That certain individuals have cognizance of it (giving their names); 3. That certain individuals are actively supporting it (specifying their acts); and,. 4. That there is somewhere an official head of this world-imper- ialism (exposing him), you agree that you will publicly admit that you are mistaken and will reveal the influences brought to bear on you to publish the articles in your paper. The Jews of America demand that you either prove your assertions concretely, or admit your error.WE HOPE YOU WILL ACCEPT THIS CHALLENGE
THE AMERICAN HEBREW, Isaac Landman, Editor
The American Hebrew’s offer to Henry Ford: put up or shut up. In 1979, a Revisionist think tank made a similar offer to our contemporary myth makers, with exactly the same result.
Page 9 begins here:
plagiarism beyond any shadow of a doubt; among other things it includes parallel tracts from the Protocols and the Geneva Dialogues in English translation, and The Rabbi’s Speech, a precursor of the Protocols. However, the refutations of the Protocols do not stop there.
In 1924, the German-Jewish scholar Benjamin Wolf Segel (1867-1931) published an analysis at Berlin, Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion kritisch beleuchtet. In 1934, an
English translation appeared. (98) Among other things, Segel points out that the Protocols is perhaps the only book in the world for which there has never been a first edition, (page 34); that Nilus claimed the Protocols had been stolen from
Theodor Herzl (99) in 1901, (page 32); but that he did not connect Herzl to the Protocols until 1917, (page 31).
After Segel and Bernstein came probably the strongest textual analysis of the Protocols, by the Gentile historian John Shelton Curtiss. His Appraisal Of The Protocols... was published at
New York in 1942. (100) As well as
tracing the dubious history of this document, (101) Curtiss points out that
the 10th protocol contains a clear reference to the French Panama Canal scandal of 1899 which
dates the document at least two years later than the first meeting of the World Zionist Congress. (102) He also points out a
major inconsistency in the text of the Protocols itself, namely that on the one hand the Jews were said to be deliberately creating chaos to bring about world revolution, while on the other hand they were said already to control most of the world’s gold and real estate. (103)
Like others before and since, Curtiss also alluded to the bizarre theology of the Protocols. George Butmi, another
Russian mystic, (104) claimed that when the head of the Symbolic Snake of Judaism had returned to Jerusalem,
the Jewish conquest of the world would be complete. (105) A book by another mystic half a century later made similar claims. Citing the Epilogue to the 1905 edition, J.S. Drummond claimed that King Solomon sat down with the Elders of Zion in 929BC to plot the
conquest of the Universe (106) and that the Symbolic Snake of Judaism entered Greece in 429BC; the Rome of Augustus in about 69BC; Madrid in 1552; Paris in 1790; London in 1841; Berlin in 1871; and St Petersburg in 1881. (107)
It is customary to dismiss the likes of this author as anti-Semites, or at best, lunatics. Personally I am inclined to be charitable and assess him (and them) as neither bigots nor lunatics nor cranks but people who have not the faintest idea of how to assess evidence. Let’s take a closer look at some of Comm. Drummond’s claims. (108)
Drummond (citing Nilus) claims that Solomon and the Elders of Zion sat down to carve up the Universe in 929BC. How did Nilus know this? There are only two ways he could have known: either a written record was made and preserved down to the early Twentieth Century, or this claim was handed down by word of mouth. If the latter were true, then we had better dismiss it, because history affords countless examples of such oral traditions and they are all totally unreliable. For example, Robin Hood never met
Maid Marion. (109) And there are so many interpretations of Jesus that to even attempt to unravel the truth about this almost
certainly mythical figure is an impossible task. Some claim he was a composite figure, some that he didn’t exist at all, some that he was a spaceman, (110) one scholar presented evidence that
he was a mushroom. (111) There are even some cranks who believe he is alive and well and living on the Planet Venus! (112)
What about written records? As this was obviously some sort of conspiracy between Solomon and who knows who else, any such meetings would have been held in secret.
Were minutes kept? Did somebody spill the beans in their memoirs? Needless to say, there are no written records either, or they would have been produced a long time ago together with the first edition of the Protocols. So what evidence do we have that such a meeting took place? The unsupported assertions of a Russian mystic.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that Solomon couldn’t have sat down with a group of unidentified elders to plot the conquest of the Universe, indeed, throughout history men have plotted such deeds and have even achieved them to a limited degree. Alexander the Great conquered a vast empire; so did Genghis Khan. The Romans sent their armies as far afield as Africa and Scotland, so in a sense they did conquer the Universe, or at least the world, as it was known at the time. But we have no evidence at all that King Solomon – if he existed – ever hatched such a scheme, much less sought to put it into practice.
We are told that the Symbolic Snake of Judaism entered Greece in 429BC; the Rome of Augustus in 69BC; Madrid in 1552; Paris in 1790; London in 1841; Berlin in 1871; and St Petersburg in 1881. This is easily affirmed because all these dates were in the past when Nilus was penning his absurd screeds, but what about a prophecy that is made before the event? Remember Butmi’s claim that when the Symbolic Snake of Judaism had returned to Jerusalem, the Jewish conquest of the world would be complete? Well, the Symbolic Snake has long since returned to Jerusalem, but, much as they would like to conquer the world and subjugate the wicked goyim, Jewish leaders haven’t done so yet, nor have they shown any sign of doing so. True, they have succeeded in making Holocaust Revisionism illegal in Germany, but they are losing ground in the Middle East, and the rise of Islam – and other factors – means that in that area of the world at any rate, their power will soon be destroyed for good.
Still on the subject of prophecy, one of the most enthusiastic purveyors of the Protocols and world conspiracy
at the time this nonsense first reared its ugly head in Britain was a certain General Cherep-Spiridovich (also spelt Cherep-Spiridovitch), who was on the Russian Imperial General Staff. Cherep-Spiridovich wrote a series of articles for Plain English, a short lived and supposedly literary magazine which was edited by Lord Alfred Douglas, the former
homosexual lover of Oscar Wilde. (113) The Spiridovich articles were called, unsurprisingly, THE JEWISH PERIL, and were largely nonsense about the Illuminati, Bolshevism, et al. The twelfth article in the series was published in the November 13, 1920 issue of Plain English and bore the sub-heading THE SECOND WORLD WAR IMMINENT. And the December 1921 issue of The Hidden Hand ran an article GENERAL SPIRIDOVITCH AND HIS PROPHECIES which prophesied that “The second world war will be against the United States...” So much for the prophesies of the people who were peddling the Protocols. Their other claims about this spurious document have failed equally to deliver the goods. (114)
Returning now to our previous author; Henry Ford has often been quoted by the lunatic fringe, and Drummond is no exception. He quotes Ford thus: “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and have fitted the world situation up to
this time. THEY FIT IT NOW.” (115) Clearly the Protocols do not fit the world situation, and they never have, no more than any other vague, generalised predictions any one of us could make in a similar vein.
In 1934-5, a trial was held at Berne, Switzerland. (116) On May 14, 1935 the court ruled that the Protocols was a plagiarism from Joly. (117) However, on November 1, 1937, following an appeal by the defendants, it was ruled that although the Protocols constituted scurrilous and immoral literature, they were not indecent, and the verdict was quashed. (118) More than a year earlier, the defendant in another, similar case, a Dr Zander, had withdrawn his claim that the Protocols were read at the 1897 World Zionist Congress. (119)
The Berne Appeal Court’s overturning of the May 1935 judgment has been systematically misrepresented by the Anti-Semitic International, who have claimed that the court in effect authenticated the Protocols, which of course it never did, but if it had authenticated them this would raise another, and almost insurmountable, problem: namely, if the Jews control all nations: the economy, the press and the courts, how would the verdict have been overturned? Or perhaps that’s another twist in their demonic scheme. (120)
An earlier trial in South Africa over a publication which contained extracts from the Protocols resulted in a victory for the plaintiffs. (121) Hamilton Beamish appeared for the defence, (which couldn’t have done their case much good). (122) This, and the campaign against the Protocols as well as the at times fanatical campaign by Organised Jewry against what they call anti-Semitism, (123) has led to the belief that the Protocols have been suppressed by a hidden hand. This is not entirely a delusion, but it is a misinterpretation.
In 1988, a South African author named Klaus Vaque wrote: “The controversy over the origin of the Protocols has continued undiminished since the 1920s...The attacks on the book were so violent and the legal processes that often ensued were so costly that few ventured to reprint the Protocols.” (124) While former Times correspondent Douglas Reed, a man with impeccable anti-Nazi credentials, wrote: “Probably so much money and energy were never before in history expended on the effort to suppress a single document.” (125) Reed claimed also that “The proprietor of the Morning Post became the object of sustained vituperation until he sold the newspaper, which then ceased publication”, (126) and that the Berne judgment was set aside by a higher court. (127) We have already dealt with this last piece of nonsense, but what are the facts about the Morning Post?
The editor of this paper was a far more important player in our story than the then owner, because not only was he editor when The Cause Of World Unrest was published, but he wrote an introduction to the articles when they were republished in book form and distributed on both sides of the Atlantic. He was Howell Arthur Gwynne, CH (1865-1950), who was a correspondent for Reuters in his early career and covered the Boer War for the agency, among other things. [Incidentally, the Reuters news agency was founded by a German Jew, Julius Reuter. (128) The company was floated as a PLC in 1984 (129)]. Gwynne became Foreign Director of the Agency, moving quickly to The Standard as editor. The Standard was later bought by Alexander Davison Dalziel (1854-1928), later Baron Dalziel of Wooler, Dalziel was a journalist and entrepreneur. And yet another Jew! He was once described as “one of the most amazing and facile personalities that ever went in and out of Fleet Street”, a bit like his co-racialist Robert Maxwell more than half a century later. Dalziel purchased The Standard and the Evening Standard in 1910. He sold the Evening Standard in 1915, and The Standard closed the following year. He appears to have lost money on the latter, (130) (control of the press isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, for Jews any more than Gentiles). No sooner had Dalziel bought the paper than Gwynne had a run in with him, telling him that the proprietor’s place was in the boardroom. (131) This was and still is a common belief amongst newspaper editors; the current writer subscribes to the belief that “if it’s my toy, I’ll do what I like with it”. To wit, this is a simple matter of property rights.
While Dalziel lost money on The Standard, Gwynne made a living as editor of the Morning Post for 26 years until it merged with the Daily Telegraph on September 30, 1937. He died at a ripe old age too. As to Reed’s claim that “The proprietor of the Morning Post became the object of sustained vituperation until he sold the newspaper, which then ceased publication”, this is simply not true, because the propreitor of the Morning Post at the time it was pushing the Protocols was not a he but a her! Lady Bathurst inherited the paper from her father Lord Glenesk, and was propreitor from 1908-24; it was she who had engaged Gwynne in 1911. (132) In other words, the Morning Post didn’t cease publication until 13 years after she had sold it, and there is certainly nothing unusual about that; newspapers and magazines are forever starting up, folding, and being absorbed by other publications.
However, the greatest irony of all is that the totally worthless Lord Alfred Douglas, whom we have already met, himself a fanatical devotee of the Protocols, once sued the Morning Post over a letter it published from the editor of the Jewish Guardian which claimed that Douglas was in the Jew-hating business for profit, (133) and later still accused the Morning Post itself of being under Jewish control! (134)
Now let’s return to Klaus Vaque’s claims that: “The controversy over the origin of the Protocols has continued undiminished since the 1920s [and t]he attacks on the book were so violent and the legal processes that often ensued were so costly that few ventured to reprint the Protocols.”
I’ll deal with both these points in that order; firstly, as I think we have established conclusively, there has been absolutely no controversy whatsoever over the origin of the Protocols since at least 1921, they are clearly a plagiarism of Joly’s Dialogues In Hell. As countless scientists and investigators of the paranormal have proved equally conclusively, many supposed controversies exist only in the media; one might just as well talk about the controversy over the existence of the Loch Ness Monster or over the claim that Elvis Presley is still alive. Likewise, the controversy over the Protocols has been manufactured by the “Jew-wise”, by the credulous, by the gullible, by anti-Semites, and, not least, by the powerful institutions of Organised Jewry and their fellow travellers (135) who have used every dirty trick in the book to crush all dissent and to suppress anything they consider to be anti-Semitic, which extends far beyond obvious anti-Semitic lunacy like the Protocols. The irony is that the real conspiracy is a conspiracy by Organised Jewry to convince the world there is no conspiracy.
As to Vaque’s second claim, that attacks on the book have been violent, yes, but these attacks have been made for two reasons: 1) the Protocols are clearly scurrilous l iterature; (136) 2) what we might call the “fear-of-the-Jews” syndrome, which we will discuss later.
The claim that the legal processes resulting from Organised Jewry’s harassment of the publishers of the Protocols were expensive is no doubt true, litigation always is, but the fact remains that in spite of this, the Protocols have been reprinted freely in many countries, in particular Britain, where they were even published during the war years; (137) the United States, which has constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression; and Nazi Germany and before that Weimar Germany. In Germany, Theodor Fritsch published at least thirteen editions of the Protocols, (138) while the Britons published over eighty! (139) So much for Klaus Vaque’s claim that few ventured to reprint the Protocols. As well as this perfidious piece of garbage, Vaque was taken in by the Israel Cohen hoax. (140)
The claim by Douglas Reed that enormous sums of money have been spent in attempts to suppress the Protocols is unquestionably true, but so what? (141) Every cent of this money has been wasted, as has every cent spent on publishing the damned book in the first place. Even the United States government has warned against the credulous and the gullible being taken in by the Protocols. (142)
Just as the Protocols is far from the only such document to claim that the Jews are/were plotting to take over the world, so it was neither the first nor the last. The first which came to light appears to have been the Letter of the Jews of Arles. (143) Also sometimes referred to as The Letter of the Jews of Spain, this and The Reply of the Jews of Constantinople, are dated 1489 but probably originate from the 16th Century. (144) Rather than being anti-Semitic these letters are satirical, but have been interpreted by both anti-Semites and mystics as another part of the plot by the Sanhedrin. (145)
Probably the first document to allege outright conspiracy – as understood in this context – was the Simonini letter, which was dated c1806, the first in a series of anti-Semitic forgeries (146) through to the Protocols and the works of Eustace Mullins.
In 1797, the French Jesuit the Abbé Barruel, published a 5 volume Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du Jacobinisme in which he argued that the French Revolution was the result of a conspiracy dating back to the Order of the Templars. Nine years later he received a letter (ostensibly) from an army officer, J. B. Simonini, which drew his attention to a fantastic Jewish plot. (147) In the letter, Simonini claimed that both the Order of the Freemasons and the Order of the Illuminati were founded by Jews. This is palpable nonsense.
Similar claims have been made concerning Adam Weishaupt, founder of the latter. (148) It is sometimes claimed by the “Jew-wise” that Weishaupt was a Jew or a secret Jew. (149) In reality, Weishaupt was raised by the Jesuits, and his Order, which most certainly did exist, appears to have been aimed at the destruction of religion. (150) Weishaupt believed that the priests and monks were “the adversaries of all progress”. (151) Reed and others interpret the Illuminati as a plot to enslave civilisation.
Another claim of the “Jew-wise” is that Maurice Joly was a Jew or of Jewish origin; this claim is untenable. That being so, some of them go further, and, for example, the 1978 B.P. Publications edition of the Protocols claims in the lengthy introductory section that Joly’s book is itself based on a similar work written by a Jew, to wit, Jacob Venedey’s Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, which was published at Berlin in 1850, (see pages 25-6). Venedey is said to have been a contemporary of Karl Marx and a Freemason, among other things. That may well be true, but a search of the major Jewish encyclopedias and of both the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Encyclopedia Americana reveals no trace of Venedey, so he was obviously a very minor figure. Moreover, the British Library Catalogue lists him as the author of books on Benjamin Franklin (1862 & 1865), and George Washington (1861). Both these books are said to be “Ein Lebensbild”, which to my very limited German sounds very much like “a life picture”. Whatever Venedey may have been: Jew, “communist”, Freemason, all three or a great deal more, it seems most unlikely that he was in any way concerned with furthering the ideas and ideals of the non-existent Elders of Zion than in other kinds of revolutionary activity, which, by today’s standards, are not so much revolutionary as Conservative.
The Simonini letter appears to have been a major turning point for world conspiracy. From here on in it was to have a largely Jewish (or anti-Jewish) slant. These then, briefly, are the roots of the Protocols and world conspiracy: mysticism and nonsense. But it gets worse. We have already mentioned Maurice Joly’s Dialogues In Hell; Joly was writing satire. Three years later when he published Biarritz, Hermann Goedsche (1815-78) was writing honest fiction. (152) (Goedsche had been a minor official in the Prussian postal service). One of the novels of the Biarritz series, To Sedan, contained a chapter called The Jewish Cemetery in Prague and the Council of Representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. (153) As stated, this was honest fiction and was reprinted in 1872, and the relevant chapter was published at St Petersburg as a pamphlet, again as fiction, but hinting that it was based on fact. (154) In 1876, a similar pamphlet was circulated in Moscow. (155) In 1880, the second edition now called In The Jewish Cemetery in Czech Prague (the Jews sovereigns of the world) appeared. In July 1881, it was republished in France by Le Contemporain as non-fiction. (156)
The original books by Goedsche were written pseudonymously as Sir John Retcliffe. By the time they were published, Goedsche himself had already been mixed up in a scandal involving forged letters which aimed to implicate the Prussian democratic leader Benedic Waldeck in a plot to assassinate the King of Prussia, (157) but it is doubtful if he could have foreseen where his honest novel would lead.
By 1921, according to the Jew-obsessed Britons, Goedsche’s alter ego Sir John Retcliffe had metamorphosed into Readcliff – who, on account of his revelations, was murdered by the Jews. (158) In 1933, this nonsense turned up in Sweden, and again, Sir John Readclif was said to have been murdered for exposing this dastardly conspiracy. (159) Although the Protocols is still in print, (160) they have to a degree been superseded by similar esoteric garbage. Probably the most notorious of these updates are the works of the American one-time anti-Semite Eustace Clarence Mullins. These cannot be discussed in any depth here because of lack of space, but I have expounded on them at length elsewhere, and anyone who wishes to read up on the full background to them should consult my pamphlet Not The Protocols Of Zion! (161)
In brief, they are A Racial Programme For The Twentieth Century, also known as the Israel Cohen hoax, and an update of the Rabbi’s speech. The latter was published originally as Abominable, Yet True, in the May 1952 issue of a small circulation anti-Semitic magazine Women’s Voice. Mullins’ other nonsense includes the claim that the Rothschilds control the Times newspaper, that the Jews own 84% of America, and that Arnold Leese was murdered by the Jews! (162)
Before we continue with the Protocols, it is worth mentioning that the Jews aren’t the only people who have been the victims of calumny and literary fabrication. A fabrication predating the Protocols by some considerable time is the The Secret Instructions of the Jesuits, usually known by its Latin name, Monita Secreta. (163) This fabrication, which is all but forgotten today, first appeared in Crakow in 1614 (falsified as Notobrigae, 1612). It went through 22 editions in 7 languages by 1700 and 42 editions by 1786. (164) An edition of the Monita Secreta was even published at Lima, Peru, in 1886. According to an official Jesuit publication, the Monita Secreta was the work of a renegade Jesuit, Heronym Zahorowski, (165) who “resentful and vengeful, published The Jesuits’ Secret Instructions. In this work...now long recognized as a clumsy forgery, he pretended to expose the hidden directives which guided the Jesuits in their malfeasance and trickery. A kind of archetype for anti-Jesuit literature, it has given direction to much that subsequent centuries, wittingly and unwittingly, have had to say about the Society.” (166)
An exposé of this fabrication published at the turn of the Century reported that Zahorowski who had been dismissed in 1611 or 1612, circulated the calumny in manuscript form, a Latin translation from the original Spanish which was supposedly drawn up by Father Claudius Aquaviva. (167) One anti-Jesuit critic claimed that while technically a forgery, the Monita Secreta “reflect the true spirit of the society.” (168) The same claim is frequently made of the Protocols. (169)
And well within living memory, a much safer target group has also been the victim of calumny: witches. The WICCA Letters were (allegedly) recovered after the (non-existent) 1981 convention of the Witches International Coven Council held in Mexico. They were apparently first reported in an article America’s Best Kept Secret, by John Frattorola in Passport magazine (a special report), 1987. Arthur Lyons reprints these Witches’ Protocols in his book Satan Wants You. (170) They are quite clearly based on the Protocols Of Zion. How seriously they were meant to be taken is difficult to say; they have more the appearance of satire (ie a wind up) than of evil intent.
Although both the Protocols and the Monita Secreta before them were fabrications that were published for political rather than financial reasons, (171) a great many other fabrications have been peddled purely or largely for financial gain. In our own era the Hitler diaries fiasco is still fresh in many people’s minds. This was a colossal forgery, but other forgeries and fabrications which took in the gullible in an earlier era defy rational belief.
In his 1907 work Literary Forgeries, James Anson Farrer recounts one forger who peddled the letters of Euripides, (172) while another enterprising fellow churned out a letter written to Pascal by Galileo, (173) over a thousand letters from Pascal to Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo and others, (174) letters from Roman emperors, from some of the Apostles, and ten from Plato. There were also letters from Lazarus to St. Peter and from Mary Magdalene to Lazarus. These were written on paper and in French! (175) The gullibility of some people knows no bounds, (176) and although modern technology has afforded the forger unparalleled opportunities in our day, people were every bit as devious and cunning in earlier eras. Crooked gambling dice have been found in the tombs of ancient Egypt and even in prehistoric graves! (177)
The Protocols is generally acknowledged to have been the work of the Okhrana (the Tsarist secret police), (178) and Nilus is believed to have been a dupe in their pay, although he was certainly no innocent. Though their precise origin will almost certainly be forever shrouded in mystery, the best evidence extant is that the orthodox history as related by Cohn, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia et al, is essentially correct in all but the finest detail. However, there are many alternative explanations for their origin, not all of them peddled by anti-Semites. To understand why there is so much alleged controversy about the origin of the Protocols requires nothing more demanding than a certain insight into human nature. Leaving aside the subject matter of the Protocols, it is a safe bet that any such document would be the subject of enormous speculation for the simple reason that the world is full of people who are long on speculation and imagination, and short on fact. A good analogy is that of the Kennedy assassination.
The book The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy, said to be “a comprehensive historical and legal bibliography”, covers the literature only up until 1979, yet runs to over 400 pages. (179) Everyone bar the Martians has been implicated in the shooting of the President at one time or another, and it is a safe bet that the majority of the American public, or if not an outright majority, then a sizeable minority, does not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin. Indeed, many of them obviously do not believe that Oswald was the assassin at all. Why not?
Because nobody trusts the government, and let’s face it, why should they? It lies to us about everything else. And because people believe that there is no smoke without fire. The logical implication of this is that every rumour however wild, absurd or insane must always contain a grain of truth. In reality, most of the so-called conspiracy theories concerning the shooting of the President, and much else, are nothing more than wild speculation. What genuine theories have been formulated are for the most part mutually exclusive. It stands to reason that there could have only been one assassin, (ie only one person could have fired the fatal bullet). The best available evidence indicates that Oswald was indeed a lone assassin, but aside from the conspiracy cranks, amateur sleuths, mystics and outright liars who are peddling their wares on the assassination to this day, researching the Kennedy assassination has long since become an industry. (180)
The Protocols also became an industry, and at one time it was an even bigger industry than the “Who Killed JFK?” industry. Henri Rollin once suggested that the Protocols was the most widely distributed book in the world next to the Bible! (181) Here then in brief are a few other explanations for their origin.
In 1982, the respectable publishing house of Jonathan Cape published THE HOLY BLOOD AND THE HOLY GRAIL, by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. This book runs to 445 pages and is typical mystical nonsense: poorly researched and long on speculation. It was a minor bestseller, and if it had been published as honest fiction it would have deserved to be. The Protocols gets a brief mention in this Masonic mystery; among other things it was said to have been in circulation as early as 1884. No evidence is adduced for this, though it is possible that the authors were referring to a precursor.
In 1976, Stephen Knight published JACK THE RIPPER: THE FINAL SOLUTION; this book has a foreword by Richard Whittington-Egan. (182) Knight’s thesis is that the original Ripper murders were part and parcel of a Masonic conspiracy involving the Royal physician Sir William Gull and the painter Walter Sickert. The prosaic truth is that Knight was spun a tall story by the painter’s son and elaborated on it further to make a bestseller. And a lie. (183) Like Baigent and company, Knight attributed the Protocols to the Freemasons. (184) Again, the fact that the Protocols did not turn up until the beginning of the Twentieth Century, more than a decade after the Ripper murders, is neither here nor there. One should never allow the facts to stand in the way of a good story. Later authors have totally discredited Knight’s thesis about Jack the Ripper; his views on the Protocols are similarly not worth the paper they’re printed on.
This is an interesting but undoubtedly incorrect hypothesis. Mr Igra authored two publications in which he accused George Bernard Shaw of forging the Protocols. These are: THE “DOCTORS’ PLOT” IN MOSCOW and the PROTOCOLS OF THE WISE MEN OF ZION, published at Washington, apparently by the author, (1960). And GEORGE BERNARD SHAW ON SUCCESS, HIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS SUCCESS, HIS DRAMATIZATION OF SUCCESS, HIS INTRODUCTION OF SUCCESS IN THE PROTOCOLS OF THE WISE MEN OF ZION OF WHICH SHAW IS THE FORGER, Washington, (1972).
The former claims (page ii) that George Bernard Shaw authored the Protocols as an act of revenge on Dr Max Nordhau, (a Jewish author and leading Zionist). The author has done his homework but he is way off beam.
In the second publication, a 29 page manuscript, Igra suggests that the Wise Men of Zion were really the Wise Men of the Fabian Society. Igra draws comparisons between the Protocols and Shaw’s work, but like I said, he’s way off beam.
Henry Klein was an American-Jewish lawyer who believed passionately not only in the Protocols but in much else besides. He has several entries in Robert Singerman’s ANTISEMITIC PROPAGANDA. (185) A cynic might claim that the likes of Klein were Zionist agents provocateurs à la Ray Hill. In reality, there is no reason to deny the sincerity of the Henry Kleins of this world any more than there is to deny the sincerity of the likes of Arnold Leese. Klein’s death in New York at the age of seventy-six, was in fact reported by Leese in his anti-Jewish hate-sheet Gothic Ripples.
According to Leese, Klein claimed that the Protocols was a plan by which a handful of Jews, the Sanhedrin, aimed to rule the world by destroying Christendom. He claimed the Jews as a group knew nothing about the Protocols. Leese’s comment was: “Being a Jew he had to add the lie...” (186) (In serving the wicked, expect no reward). It is of course perfectly plausible that a group of Jews, or any group, could have sat down together and hatched a plan for the conquest of the world. Whatever the evidence for this – and as we have seen, it is somewhat nebulous – it is far, far more plausible that Mr Klein didn’t realise that his Gentile fellow travellers, including Arnold Leese, simply didn’t share his ideals. There have in fact been a number of anti-Semitic propagandists of Jewish origin, most of them undoubtedly far less sincere than Henry Klein.
Frederick Millingen alias Osman-Bey alias Kibridli-Zade alias Vladimir Andreevich, published World Conquest by the Jews in 1875. He was described as an international crook of Jewish origin. (187) It may have been that Millingen was in it purely for the money. I have no information on sales of anti-Semitic literature for the 19th Century, but there can be no doubt that a few people were making a comfortable living out of Jew-hating even then. And in this century, as well as churning out its own anti-Semitica through the Weltdienst (as already mentioned), it goes without saying that the Nazis also subsidised foreign anti-Semitica in much the same way as the Soviets had their paid agents in the West. Like researching the Kennedy assassination, peddling anti-Semitica became an industry, and still is, for some people.
Another Jewish-born anti-Semite was the recently deceased Ben Klassen, founder of the lunatic race-hate Church of the Creator. Klassen’s fanatical anti-Semitism was not just absurd, it bordered on the insane. And so it goes on. Let us now return to our subject matter.
It is clear then that the Protocols were used by the Anti-Semitic International and are still used by them to this day. But they have another, and far more sinister use, in particular they are used by Organised Jewry, the Socialist International and “International Finance” to discredit their opponents – real and imagined – to smear anti-statist researchers and campaigners as conspiracy cranks. In particular: anti-Zionists, Holocaust Revisionists, intelligent conspiracy theorists and, most important of all, financial reformers.
Although there is no worldwide Jewish conspiracy, there does exist a worldwide network of quasi-fascistic “Jewish” organisations which act in concert on particular issues. There is not necessarily anything sinister about this; an enormous number of organisations: political, religious, both and neither, operate in exactly the same way. To take just one example, virtually every sport has some sort of international governing body to harmonise rules and regulations throughout the world with regard to such things as competition, to draft policy and so on. And they don’t always agree; the most obvious example of this is professional boxing. There are now three main bodies which control world boxing: the IBF, WBA and WBC; as well as minor ones; at one point the situation was getting so out of hand that it looked as if soon every fight would be some sort of world title fight.
By the same token, “Jewish” organisations don’t always agree on every single issue; here the most obvious is the split between Orthodox and Reform Judaism. The Ultra-Orthodox, the true Jews – the men in black hats and caftans (and their womenfolk) – are passionately anti-Zionist, and mould their lives according to the dictates of the Torah; literally everything they do is decided in accordance with the Torah. On the other hand, Reform Judaism is a very much watered down version of the religion, in fact it is so watered down that it is hardly recognisable as Judaism at all. Not only do most or many Reform “Jews” endorse Zionism, but some of them even eat pork. Far more sinister even than that is the subversion of the Jewish religion by the same forces of darkness which have subverted the Christian religion. Reform rabbis haven’t yet got around to preaching “liberation theology” – ie kill whitey (188) – but some of them have endorsed homosexuality, and just as there is an international gay [sic] and lesbian Christian movement, so is there now such a thing as gay [sic] Judaism. There are even homosexual synagogues in the United States, and doubtless there soon will be here.
We have referred here to Judaism, which is what being a Jew means, at least what it meant originally, ie one who practices the Jewish religion. The reader will though doubtless be aware that very many people who call themselves Jews or who are called Jews do not practice the Jewish religion at all, and indeed the claim of many of them to be “Jewish” is tenuous to say the least. This is the great stumbling block with regard to the so-called Jewish Question, and until the reader appreciates this he will make no progress either in understanding it or in combating the cancer of Zionism.
The idea that one can be a Jew without keeping the precepts of the Torah is, in the words of a leading anti-Zionist rabbi, “a newfangled concept...a new phenomenon and a very grave danger to the Jewish people and to the Jewish faith. The State of Israel is a product of this belief, that one could be a Jew without keeping the Torah.” (189)
There is though the concept of halachical Jewishness. If one is born of a Jewish mother, then one is a Jew. The current writer was told by a leading anti-Zionist rabbi that in theory this means that such a person who wanted to be accepted into the Jewish faith (having lapsed) would not need to convert formally. (Anyone who has made the slightest study of the Jewish religion will realise just how extraordinarily complex it is). This is the theory, in practice though, many Jews discarded their religion and either converted to Christianity or, like most “Christians” couldn’t be bothered with religion at all.
Let me draw an analogy. Mrs Smith witnesses a punch-up in the high street and is summoned to court as a witness. She walks into the witness box and the usher says to her, “What is your religion?”
“Church of England,” she replies, and swears on the Bible; the fact that she hasn’t been to church since her daughter was Christened is neither here nor there. Apart from this, the only times she has been to church in her life were when she was Christened herself, when she was married, and when she buried her great-aunt Alice, but she walks into the witness box and announces to all and sundry that she is a Christian.
The Jewish Question is similar, and in practice anyone who is descended from Jewish stock can be called, will be called, and often will identify himself or herself as, a Jew. Some people have only to be called Jews to be branded one for life, including, in some quarters, the current writer. (190) By the same token many whites could be classified as Negroes, and many Negroes could be classified as whites, yet no one in his right mind would refer to a Negro with one white great-grand-parent as white, or to a white man whose great-great grandmother had been black, as a Negro. Many “Jews” have similar claims to Jewishness.
However, as anyone who is au fait with this situation will realise, the Jewish Question doesn’t work like that. Be it noted, there is no such thing as “half-Jewish”. Which brings us to the Jewish establishment. In her study Political Anti-Semitism in England..., Gisela Lebzelter writes: “After the passing of the acts of emancipation, the Anglo-Jewish community rapidly lost its group-consciousness.” (191) I’m not sure if this writer is a Jewess, or a German who has decided she must forever fawn at the feet of Imperial Zion for the alleged sins of her countrymen, but her commitment to historical truth leaves much to be desired. (192) The idea that Anglo-Jewry lost any of its group-consciousness, rapidly or otherwise, is too absurd for words. This small, yet powerful, and at times vicious, minority, is not only intensely group conscious but better organised than any racial minority bar none, and more so than many vastly more powerful vested interests such as the road lobby, the law and order lobby, the Christian Right, and so on.
It is organisation not conspiracy which lies at the heart of the Jewish Question. The “Jews” are organised. No, not all of them, not every single Jew, and you can’t look up Organised Jewry in the phone book, but, like organised labour, the Christian Right, (193) the organised homosexual movement, and – in the United States – such entities as the gun lobby, it is a force to be reckoned with. Organised Jewry’s power stems not primarily from its considerable financial muscle, but from the fear-of-the-Jews syndrome, namely, the utter spinelessness of politicians, journalists, and most of all, academics, of saying anything even slightly disparaging about those wonderful people who gave you Sabra and Shatila (194) for fear of being branded anti-Semitic.
Never, ever, ever use the words conspiracy. And Jew in the same sentence. As soon as you do that, you can and will be written off as a crank/lunatic anti-Semite, whatever you think of the Protocols. The all too cavalier use of that word conspiracy (195) has probably done more damage to the struggle against Zionist Imperialism than a thousand Zionist-sponsored agents provocateurs. (196)
Again, it is important to understand that this somewhat nebulous entity, Organised Jewry, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Jewish religion. For example, Gerry Gable, who, while not a member of the Jewish establishment is a willing servant of Organised Jewry, is one of the biggest shits around. Yet by his own admission he has never belonged to a synagogue, (197) and the most Jewish thing about this Stürmer-like crypto-Jew is his accent. Another Stürmer-like crypto-Jew is Mike Whine of the so-called Board of Deputies of “British” Jews defence committee. These are “Jews in suits” if you will; I don’t know anything about Whine, other than that like Gable he’s a nasty little shit, but it seems likely he dons a skullcap at Yom Kippur while Gable almost certainly doesn’t. But does that make him a Jew?
These people are political gangsters who hide behind the label “Jew” and smear as anti-Semitic anyone who doesn’t kiss the arse of Imperial Zion. So if you’ve ever questioned the Holocaust, the Jewish role in Hollywood, or the God-given right of brave Israeli soldiers to shoot Palestinian schoolchildren, then by their definition you too are an anti-Semite.
We have now explained the concept of Organised Jewry; the raison d’être of this entity and the full extent of its power has been documented by a number of studies, as has its total and utter ruthlessness. (198) These cannot be discussed here for want of space, but, unlike the Jewish conspiracy, Organised Jewry is both real and a force to be reckoned with.
Virtually the only people who peddle the Protocols today are the “Jew-wise”; (199) for the most part these are people who believe the Jews control everything, or practically everything. We have already met some of these people; they are certainly not non-entities, at least not all of them, but for the most part they have never wielded any political power or influence simply because people who witter on about the Jews all the time, and how they practice ritual murder, control the banks, the media and everything else, are not the sort of people who find their way into government, national or otherwise. (200) Indeed, their influence in any sphere is sorely limited because they are fanatics, and even people who believe they have good reason to hate the Jews seldom have time for fanatics.
The pogroms of Tsarist Russia and Poland during the Nazi era, (201) were the outcome not of the Protocols nor of anti-Semitism necessarily but of a different mind-set, one of an earlier, and supposedly more primitive age. Hitler didn’t come to power because he blamed the Jews for all the world’s ills as is often alleged, but because he was the product of his age, and because he was backed by powerful financial interests. (202) Leon Degrelle said that Hitler was born at Versailles. Rather than being any sort of asset, the Nazi persecution of the Jews was widely condemned; it wasn’t condemned as loudly as it should have been, nor because people didn’t care or didn’t believe what was going on, but because many people, including Jews, believed it was better to appease Hitler than to attack him. The current writer was told by a leading anti-Zionist rabbi that the Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany – which has been all but written out of history – did a lot of harm, and that if Hitler had been appeased – not in a military sense – it may have been possible to make him, or better elements in Germany, see reason. (203)
Although it is neither fashionable nor possible for governments anywhere in the world to persecute Jews, the persecution of other minorities goes on. We in Britain are constantly reminded, often by Organised Jewry, what filthy racists we are, but the truth is that Britain has one of the most tolerant and liberal regimes in the world when it comes to racial matters. In Africa we have seen black on black violence on a massive scale from the inter-tribal rivalry of the Zulus and the Xhosas in South Africa and civil war in Mozambique to the reigns of Idi Amin and Milton Obote to the terrible genocide in Rwanda. We have seen persecution and mass murder by the state in Iraq and Iran; and an all but unknown genocide in East Timor, not to mention Pol Pot. All these acts of mass inhumanity were achieved without the assistance of spurious documents alleging world control by Jews or anyone else.
However, Jewish suffering is not only more important to Jewish leaders than the suffering of goyim, it is the only suffering that counts, and the persecution of the Jews during the Nazi era and their suffering during the Second World War – real and imagined – demands special privileges. It is usual in this context for Jewish leaders, academics – the intellectual prostitute David Cesarani, for example – Jewish “anti-fascists” (204) and their goy apologists, to equate any opposition to Zionist Imperialism with anti-Semitism. And the perpetuation of the nonsense of the Protocols only lends spurious credence to their incessant whining and wailing.
One of the great academic controversies of our time is the supposed rewriting of history by alleged Nazi apologists in order to resurrect the Third Reich. Although a number of Revisionist Historians had challenged the establishment assumptions about the so-called Holocaust ever since the end of the Second World War, (205) it was not until November 1974 that the shit really hit the fan, in a metaphorical sense. What happened then was the pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die? (206) was reviewed, not unfavourably, by the credulous – some would say gullible – Colin Wilson (207) in the British literary monthly Books & Bookmen.
1976 saw the publication of the first edition of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. This has been called the book to silence all but conscious liars; the reader may draw his own conclusions from the fact that it failed to silence the Institute of Jewish Affairs, and in the November issue of that august institution’s theoretical journal, it was reviewed – in a manner of speaking – by a certain C.C. wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth Aronsfeld. (208) Before concluding on page 16 that “Dr. Butz quite simply does not know what he is talking about”, Aronsfeld had maintained that “Dr. Butz does not actually mention the Protocols but his engineering mind is plainly guided by the Hidden Hand.” (209)
The author of this polemic did not attempt to meet any of the arguments and documentation that Professor Butz presented; anti-Revisionists seldom do, for the obvious reason that the Emperor of the Holocaust has nothing on, as even the most fanatical Zionists must long since have concluded. That notwithstanding, it is one thing for Revisionists to be smeared as Nazis or Nazi apologists, but it is quite another for the servants of Imperial Zion to tar them with the same brush as the deranged Arnold Leese, H.H. Beamish and Julius Streicher.
In fact, this tactic is not uncommon, and it will almost certainly be used increasingly in the future to silence all dissent by the conspiracy we all know doesn’t really exist. Along with the increasing use of repressive legislation. Denying the so-called Holocaust can now bring a five year gaol term in Germany; (210) it is not clear yet whether such damned Holocaust liars as Simon (Nazi-hunter) Wiesenthal, Kitty Hart and Rudolph Vrba (211) will be gaoled along with sincere Revisionists, but it seems unlikely.
It is one thing for Imperial Zion to smear us as anti-Semites, and to throw us into gaol, it is quite another for them to relegate us to the world of conspiracy cranks, UFO abductees and other crazies. The propagation of the doctrine of world conspiracy à la the Protocols Of Zion can only play into the hands of the enemies of all nations but one. Indeed, a nyone who wilfully propagates such brazen nonsense must be regarded with the same suspicion as the Zionist-inspired agent provocateur and shabbos goy Ray Hill.
In 1901, Scottish-born Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) who had started as a $1.20 a week bobbin-boy, sold his steel holdings to J.P. Morgan for over $250 million. (212) That is an enormous sum nowadays, but it must have been virtually incomprehensible then. And Carnegie was a self-made man, as was that other fabulously wealthy American industrialist, John D. Rockefeller I. Others, including the Rothschilds, were not self-made. Unless the money of such 19th Century aspiring billionaires has disappeared, it must still be in existence, and is almost certainly still in their own pockets. (213)
There is a school of thought which says that such plutocrats are involved in a plot to control the world. Whether or not this is a conspiracy is beside the point; anti-Semites and their fellow travellers have long claimed that the “Russian” Revolution was financed by Wall Street bankers, (often said to be a coded phrase for Jews). One of the principal characters in this scheme was the American-Jewish banker Jacob Schiff (1847-1920). Cohn (and others) claim that the evidence for this is based on one forged anti-Semitic document. (214) In his conspiracy classic and runaway bestseller, Gary Allen pooh poohs this and claims that Schiff sank twenty million dollars into the Bolshevik Revolution. (215)
There appears to be some doubt about the actual role played by and the motives of Jacob Schiff (see next paragraph), but there can be no doubt whatsoever that Wall Street bankers, the most powerful, influential men in the financial world, colluded with United States and other officials, and that between them they brought the Bolsheviks to power and made sure they stayed there.
Antony Sutton has proved this conclusively, using for the most part official documents. He has published a series of books on this subject including Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution. (216) He has demonstrated also that the same people played a role in the financing of Adolf Hitler, although the Nazis also received financial assistance from such diverse sources as Henry Ford (217) and – if David Irving is to be believed – powerful Zionist Jews. (218) Sutton exonerates Schiff and points out that “...Schiff and fellow banker Kamenka, unlike J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, were as unhappy about the Bolsheviks as they had been about the tsars.” (219)
Ironically, in Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler, Sutton points out that Henry Ford, who attacked the International Jews for profiting from war, was not shy of making a shekel or two out of it himself.
In a 1938 interview with the New York Times, Ford claimed that probably no more twenty-five men who handled the nation’s finances were “the world’s real warmakers...” (220)
Ford claimed that the House of Morgan [the major US backer of the Bolshevik Revolution (221)] represented the constructive element of Wall Street, while of the unnamed (but presumably Jewish) destructive financiers, Ford said: “...if these financiers had their way we’d be in a war now. They want war because they make money out of such conflict – out of the human misery wars bring.” (222) But, adds Sutton: “...when we probe behind these public statements we find that Henry Ford and son Edsel Ford have been in the forefront of American businessmen who try to walk both sides of every ideological fence in search of profit. Using Ford’s own criteria, the Fords are among the ’destructive’ elements.” (223) It was Ford who built the Soviet Union’s modern automobile plant at Gorki, which was later used for military purposes (indirectly) against the United States.
Sutton’s other works include the mammoth Western Technology And Soviet Economic Development (224) and NATIONAL SUICIDE: Military Aid To The Soviet Union. Allen alludes to the former in None Dare Call It Conspiracy and concludes correctly that without constant US assistance from the word go, the Bolsheviks would never have consolidated power in Russia, indeed, they would never have come to power in the first place. The fact that Allen’s book is slavishly philo-Semitic did not save it from being branded anti-Semitic. (225)
It goes without saying that just as they have their spies, agents provocateurs and shabbez goyim, so do the enemies of all races but one have their tame academics. Historians like Richard Thurlow have made a comfortable living out of kissing the arse of Organised Jewry in academia, and Thurlow’s hatchet job on Sutton and his acolytes is no less impressive for that. Writing in Patterns Of Prejudice in 1978, Thurlow concluded that the secret world government of the Jews has been replaced by the Royal Institute for International Affairs [sic], the CFR and the Bilderbergers, and that Sutton “has developed a Protocols-style argument, complete with massive documentation...” (226)
The idea that a scholar’s arguments should be condemned because they are supported by massive documentation is novel to say the least, but, clearly, different criteria must be applied to Revisionist Historians. Incidentally, although he is certainly one of the more controversial of Revisionist Historians, Sutton is, or appears to be, an uncritical believer in the Holocaust. But only because he obviously hasn’t studied it in all but the most superficial detail.
In the same essay in which he attacks Sutton – albeit moderately, he doesn’t actually smear him as anti-Semitic – Thurlow refers to the works of A.K. Chesterton et al as “the myth of the revealed truth...” (227) All Thurlow and his ilk ever do is drag in the Protocols; no serious attempt is ever made to refute the hypotheses. Ditto with the arguments of the Holocaust Revisionists. (228)
Thurlow goes on to argue that “...all nations were dependent on international trade for economic development and their industrial infrastructure, including the United States...” and says that the reason Sutton’s works have been ignored by the media, and indeed by mainstream academics, is because Sutton “totally [disregarded] alternative explanations of Soviet industrialisation...” (229)
Again, this is clearly nonsense. What went on between the Wall Street plutocrats and the Bolsheviks (and later, Stalin and his successors) was not trade. Trade is like for like. Confirmation of this comes from an unexpected source, the ADL. In 1962, the American ultra-conservative John Birch Society organised a boycott of goods imported from the Eastern Bloc. Part of their campaign involved the distribution of a flyer marked with a hammer and sickle which bore the legend: “Always Buy Your Communist Products At -----” followed by the names of stores which were allegedly selling Communist-manufactured imports. (Presumably the Birchers were afraid that cheap goods imported from behind the Iron Curtain would lead to the loss of American manufacturing jobs). (230) This resulted in a Federal agency issuing a public statement to the effect that “the quantity of merchandise brought in from Communist countries was less than 1 percent of what [America] exported to them.” [Emphasis added.] (231) Incredibly, no one seems to have realised the implications of this and – undoubtedly many – similar statements.
In other words, in 1962, the United States was financing exports from its alleged Cold War enemy to the tune of 99%. Or alternatively, it was subsidising the Soviet economy to the same extent. As Sutton once pointed out, you do not subsidise an enemy. (232) The truth though is very different: from before the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks through the 1917 American Red Cross Mission to Russia (233) through the American Relief Administration which fed as many as ten million Russians a day (in August 1922); (234) through Lend-Lease during World War Two (235) through the Cold War down to the present day, the reality is that the (now former) Soviet Union was all but built in the United States.
All this is hard evidence of conspiracy, duplicity, or at the very least, the wilful misleading of the public by the government, international finance and the captive media, not to mention spineless and compliant academics like Thurlow. (236) Yet all this is conveniently laid at the door of the Elders of Zion and is thereby consigned to the memory hole as anti-Semitic propaganda of various shades of subtlety without the slightest attempt to examine the evidence critically.
As Sutton points out in The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, the US businessmen who sold Western technology to the (then) Soviet Union were not paid in roubles but dollars, and the USSR’s debts were underwritten by the American taxpayer. (237) The pretext given for this – when it could no longer be covered up or plausibly denied – is that the United States traded with Soviet and similar regimes in order to “liberalise” them. (238) Now that the Soviet Union has at last collapsed, this pretext will undoubtedly be pleaded as justified. In reality, it would have been possible for the United States and its Western allies not only to bring about the collapse of the USSR much sooner but to have made sure that the Soviets never consolidated power in the first place, and to have made sure that a constitutional republic had replaced the tsars, which was what the provisional government of Prince Lvov had wanted. (239)
It is not necessary to subscribe to any sort of conspiracy theory of history to see that Russia was handed over to the communists, as indeed was China, and tens perhaps hundreds of millions of people perished needlessly, and countless more were enslaved, for the sake of grey men in Washington and Wall Street Insiders playing power politics, and for the sake of profit.
In June 1939, the forever wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth Jewish Chronicle published a report of a meeting of the then recently formed British People’s Party, the President of which was the Marquess of Tavistock. (240) The Party was said to be against “international usury”, which some members of the audience equated with Jews. Indeed, at this particular meeting, such was the cry from the pro-fascist audience. (241)
The following week in a letter to the Jewish Chronicle the Marquess pointed out that the British People’s Party “is not anti-Semitic [and] I will never countenance any policy which persecutes a man of good behaviour merely by reason of his race...” He added too that “Jewish business men and the Jewish poor have as much to gain by monetary reform as any other section of the human race, and anti-social obstruction to monetary reform is not a vice peculiar to the members of any one nation.” (242)
The point about the Jewish poor is particularly relevant, because although Jews are a privileged minority in purely economic terms – in spite of their incessant whining and wailing (243) – the Jewish poor, like the poor of all nations, are with us and will be with us for a long time to come. (244)
It has often been said that the love of money is the root of all evil. In reality, the major defect of the financial system is the cause of most of this evil, in particular the creation of credit ex nihilo as an interest-bearing debt by the privately-owned banking cartel. The defect is or should be obvious to any right minded person, but strangely, some might say perversely, the only people who advocate financial reform are those who are branded cranks, fascists and anti-Semites.
Unfortunately, a number of financial reformers have indeed been taken in by such garbage as the Protocols. Two in particular: Arthur Kitson and the great C.H. Douglas, were true believers. (245) This led Richard Thurlow, whom we have already met, to dismiss the Social Credit theories of Major Douglas as “the mumbo jumbo of the A+B theorem”. (246) Douglas was not only an engineer but unquestionably the most innovative advocate of financial reform who ever lived, yet while the long discredited, quack, pseudo-economic “theories” of Karl Marx are still given wide coverage to this day, Douglas has been all but consigned to the memory hole, and his irrefutable, mathematically precise analysis of the financial system’s major defect is dismissed in less than a sentence by a supposedly distinguished academic.
The real reason for the building of the Soviet Union by Western multi-nationals is the lack of purchasing power in the system, which is what Douglas’s A+B theorem is all about. Purchasing power is distributed primarily by wages, salaries and dividends. But because entrepreneurs have to retain a certain amount of capital for investment, there must be a continued shortfall of purchasing power. As Douglas puts it, if A is the total purchasing power available, and B is retained for investment, then the total needed to purchase all the goods and services produced is A+B. But because B is retained there must be a shortfall, (because A is not equal to A+B). Therefore, Douglas pointed out, what is needed is a fresh creation of credit – debt-free – paid direct to consumers, to enable them to purchase all the goods and services produced. (247)
Because of the deficiency of purchasing power in the home market, goods have to be exported. Even some Insiders appear not to realise the full implications of this. In Tragedy And Hope, Professor Quigley writes “The interest of the United States in removing the restrictions on world trade was to be found in the fact that she had productive capacity beyond that necessary to satisfy articulate domestic demand in almost every field of economic activity. As a result she had to export or find her hands full of surplus goods.” (248) And, referring to Britain throughout the 19th Century, he says that “Savings were so plentiful that the surplus had to be exported, and interest rates fell steadily.” (249)
Both these statements are nonsense. How many Americans even today are the proud owners of surplus goods? And how many people even in Twentieth Century Britain (or indeed anywhere at any time) have surplus savings? Ie too much money? We’re less than five years away from the Twenty-First Century; the first men walked on the Moon in 1969; and we’ve still got people sleeping in the streets, kids suffering from malnutrition, a crisis in the NHS and much else besides. And this isn’t simply a case of poor logistics. Rather, the wealth that is being exported to prop up inefficient, statist – and at times openly tyrannical – governments should instead be used to feed, clothe and house our own citizens. The likes of the former Soviet Union would then have no option but to introduce free market reforms or perish. Free markets lead, slowly but inevitably, to a more open society.
As stated, trade is like for like; what went on between the United States and Soviet Russia was not trade; rather it was – and remains – giving away goods – capital goods as well as consumer goods – and, just as, if not more importantly, technology, and receiving next to nothing in return. In short, this is not trade, but aid. In effect, the legalised plunder of the American taxpayer to prop up a totalitarian dictatorship, and its alleged avowed enemy. Stalin himself paid tribute to the United States when he claimed that “...two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance.” (250)
The importance of financial reform, in particular the abolition of the debt-based money system, cannot be overemphasised. The end result of, not only Organised Jewry’s hate campaign, but brainwashing by the Socialist International, is that as soon as someone, anyone, mentions financial reform in any meaningful sense, he is dismissed as a conspiracy crank, anti-Semite etc, in exactly the same way Holocaust Revisionists are dismissed – and in the case of the latter, with ever-diminishing success!
The most vociferous attacks on financial reform are not made by Zionists, who probably genuinely believe that any attack on international bankers is a disguised attack on Jews. The most vociferous attacks on financial reform are not even made by bankers themselves or by their dupes. No, the most vociferous attacks on financial reform are made by the Socialist International, and for a very good reason. Socialists are not the slightest bit interested in liberating the workers, but in enslaving them. They realise that when working people – of all races – enjoy a relatively high standard of living, they are not the slightest bit interested in socialism. When (not if) the financial system has been liberated from the clutches of the privately-owned and controlled banking cartel, there will be a veritable explosion in living standards and wealth creation. And that will make the acolytes of Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky permanently redundant. Which is surely the last thing they want.
In the PREFACE to his 1921 study of the Protocols, the Reverend Elijah Bendor Samuel wrote “This far-reaching plot against the Jews is so craftily manoeuvred that the persecutor appears as the injured, and the blame is cast upon the sufferers. The actual criminal wilily pursues his innocent prey with cries of Stop thief! turning the public against the victim while he escapes.” (251)
In his study of the history of the Protocols, Norman Cohn wrote: “Although one knows that a great deal of antisemitic propaganda consists of deliberate lying, it is rare to find one of the liars admitting as much in writing.” (252)
Both these statements were true, and the second one still is. But, more significantly, both of them are also true of Organised Jewry. In the second case, Organised Jewry/political Zionism has a lie machine of vaster extent than even some of the crazier anti-Semites imagine, a lie machine that is maintained by fear, loathing, and often outright terror, in collaboration with their ugly friends in the Socialist International.
With regard to the first of these allegations, Organised Jewry and their same ugly, socialist friends have hatched a far reaching plot against Western civilisation, Western Man, and everything he stands for, including democratic values, individual liberty, and, most of all for the socialists, capitalism. They have done this by creating an entirely mythical international conspiracy known as fascism. Like its equally nebulous sister, racism, nobody seems to be too sure exactly what fascism is. Some say it is the strong arm of the capitalist system, some a sinister movement controlled by the landowner class; there is constant bickering and debate about its finer points, especially amongst the socialists, but two things all the socialists and all the Zionists always agree on is that fascism is totally undesirable and must be stopped whatever the costs; and that once it achieves power it will gas all the Jews, turn them into lampshades, and proceed to exterminate all non-whites. (253)
To this end, fascism must be opposed and destroyed BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY. Not by whatever legal means, take note, but by any means at all. (254) Although they are not so stupid as to openly advocate murdering fascists – real and imagined – let there be no doubt that this is exactly what they will do should they ever achieve a morsel of power. Before they start killing each other. (255)
It goes without saying though that both the socialists and the Zionists have absolutely no qualms about either preaching or practising their own particular brands of fascism, although they are often at loggerheads, particularly with regard to the Middle East.
In fact, the socialists (or communists) have consistently opposed the machinations of the fascistic philosophy of political Zionism in the Middle East while working hand in glove with Organised Jewry throughout the West to destroy freedom of speech, and capitalism, and to undermine Western democratic values in other ways. The fact that this is so, and that Jews can be found in both camps, causes a great deal of confusion on the extreme right, but it needn’t. Again, what they are witnessing is not a conspiracy at work, and certainly not any fulfilment of the Protocols. What they are witnessing is a popular front, a well-known phenomenon which needs no explaining here. These (usually) so-called anti-fascist organisations are controlled primarily by socialists with some input from Organised Jewry, and often a great many fellow travellers from both camps. And dupes, (useful idiots as Lenin called them).
It is, by the way, no part of the current writer’s thesis that the collaboration between Organised Jewry and the Socialist International is part of a conscious strategy, much less a conspiracy. Indeed, the more gullible (and the more dogmatic) amongst the socialists, really believe they are saving the world from the fascist menace, in exactly the same way the “Jew-wise” believe they are fighting the Jewish conspiracy, and the way dozens, scores or hundreds or groups throughout the world, political and otherwise, believe they are the victims of conscious conspiracy, oppression by the capitalist system, and so on.
One other thing that should be pointed out, but shouldn’t need to be, is that Zionism thrives on anti-Semitism. There is no single reason for this, but one very simple reason is that by consistently portraying themselves as the underdog, Organised Jewry have been able to get away with murder, or, as in the case of Sabra and Shatila, genocide.
Let us recall that phrase of the Reverend Bendor Samuel, but with a slight twist: “This far-reaching plot against the Holocaust Revisionists is so craftily manouevred that the persecutor appears as the injured, and the blame is cast upon the sufferers. The actual criminal wilily pursues his innocent prey with cries of Stop thief! turning the public against the victim while he escapes.”
Is this not the case with, not only Holocaust Revisionists, but all opponents of Zionist machinations and socialist schemers? In short, those who oppose the cancer of Zionism and any form of collectivism see themselves cast as the villains and persecutors (fascists if you will) by the forever wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth forces of internationalism who have been consistently allowed by the media to portray themselves as the saviours of a civilisation they are in fact doing their utmost to destroy.
There is no doubt that there is dirty work afoot here, but I must stress again, this is not a conspiracy, it is simply organised political gerrymandering, dirty tricks, racial hatred, and fascism of a different kind.
The Zionist exploitation of anti-Semitism – real and imagined – and their incitement of it, has been documented by far too many sources to require detailed exposition here, but here are a few examples. David Irving reported in ACTION REPORT (September 1994), that the staff of the Jewish Congressional candidate in New Orleans, attorney Donald Mintz, were caught distributing anti-Semitic flyers to raise funds from Jews. The New York Times was said to have claimed it frightened them into donating $200,000.
Gary Dworkin, a 38 year old Jew, was arrested for an alleged spate of anti-Semitic window breaking in New York in 1985. (256) No further information is known about this character, and it is possible that he was mentally unbalanced, but the Jewish Defence League is not. One of its members was caught red-handed staging anti-Semitic incidents, Mordecai Levy posed as the mythical neo-Nazi named James Guttman to arrange a public meeting. (257)
Other incidents of Zionist-inspired anti-Semitism include a series of attacks in Iraq in the early fifties. These bombings were blamed on Iraqi nationalists; it turned out to have been the work of Israeli agents, in this case the raison d’être was to stimulate aliyah. (258)
We have referred also in this study to the hidden hand. This is the very essence of conspiracy literature, that the forces of darkness – the International Jews or whoever – operate through the medium of the socialist network. The fact that some of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world have consistently supported socialist (collectivist) movements (including National Socialism) (259) does appear to lend credence to this claim. The truth though is that while there are most certainly hidden hands at work in politics, not all of them are Jewish. And far more often it is the agendas rather than the wire-pullers themselves which are hidden. In the cases of international Zionism and international socialism the hidden agendas are not that well hidden at all, and will be revealed by anyone who takes the trouble to perform the most basic textual analyses of their stated policies. For example, in the case of the socialists, “workers’ control” means the control of the socialist party, ie them. Hidden agendas are of course by no means the exclusive domain of either Imperial Zion or the Socialist International. One is reminded here of the words of the great Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith, who as long ago as 1776 wrote: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” (260)
Some people on the far right in Britain believe that the likes of Gerry Gable are manipulated by a hidden hand. Larry O’Hara and his ilk even go so far as to claim that Gable himself is in fact some sort of Kosher James Bond. Nothing could be either further from the truth or more absurd. (261) The fact is that Gable and his ilk are evil little bastards in their own right, and although they may take (or con) money from wealthy Jews, they don’t take orders from anyone.
Leaving aside their political agendas, Gable and his kind are making a comfortable living out of perpetuating their own brand of racial hatred. Somebody once said that rape is more about power than about sex; likewise, Zionism is more about power than about the State of Israel. It is the current writer’s belief that, ultimately, Zionism has little to do with the State of Israel or even with the Jewish Question at all; this is a view shared by many watchers of the world scene. But whatever the truth about Zionism’s relationship with “International Finance”, all attacks on this dreadful, inhuman philosophy must be conducted within the framework of a scientific methodology, rather than in the context of some mystical garbage about three thousand year old plots, symbolic snakes and bearded elders plotting world conquest at secret congresses. It should never be necessary to lie about these evil and thoroughly contemptible people when the unvarnished truth is so grotesque.
“Some of the biggest men in the U.S. in the fields of commerce and manufacturing know that there is a power so organized, so subtle, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” Woodrow Wilson (262)
Anyone who has studied the sensible conspiracy literature, (263) will realise that the global power bid has more to do with power politics than with political Zionism, and nothing at all to do with the Protocols Of Zion. We have explained in the current work why many people believe in the concept of world conspiracy, and we have also examined the roots of these beliefs. I think we have demonstrated clearly that these roots are less anti-Semitic than mystical. They appeal to all manner of people for many reasons, but probably the most convincing reason (for those conspiracy theorists who haven’t got bats in the belfry) is the similarity of human action down through the ages. But again, there is nothing sinister in this, at least no more sinister than human actions generally. In short, the conspiracy literature is an attempt by sundry persons to make sense out of nonsense, and more often out of duplicity by governments, bankers, Zionists, and all manner of other wire-pullers, schemers and pressure groups.
The appeal of the world’s great religions is that the truths they reveal have ultimately more to do with human nature than with the Deity. The stories of Cain and Abel; the Prodigal Son; and so on, are all things we can relate to, because man’s inhumanity to man, the ever-forgiving doting father...are eternal truths. Likewise, the conspiratorial methods adopted by Adam Weishaupt, the secret handshakes of the Freemasons, the dirty tricks of Organised Jewry, have extremely similar and in some cases identical modus operandi. The great fallacy is the belief that there is a continuous thread running from Adam Weishaupt to the Council on Foreign Relations, or even from the quasi-mythical King Solomon to the Trilateral Commission. Clearly there isn’t. (264) Similar ideas were developed by the British conspiracy theorist Nesta Webster. (265)
Just as the Jewish conspiracy theory of the Bolshevik Revolution was perpetuated and exploited by its real backers, the Gentile banking houses of Morgan and Rockefeller, (266) so has the Protocols been used as a smokescreen by Organised Jewry and its socialist fellow travellers to throw the blame for their Machiavellian scheming onto the Jewish religion. In fact, however much they may denounce it, the Zionists love the conspiracy literature, because it allows them to portray their deadliest enemies as cranks and anti-Semites, a role in which it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to cast the Holocaust Revisionists.
The reader should also bear in mind that the Zionists and the socialists are far from only players in this game, and they are certainly neither of them the most powerful. Oswald Spengler hit the nail on the head when he wrote “There is no proletarian, not even a Communist, movement that has not operated in the interest of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time permitted by money – and that, without the idealist amongst its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.” (267)
Evidence for this comes from all manner of disparate sources. As long ago as 1888, up to 50,000 copies of a brave little booklet called SEVEN FINANCIAL CONSPIRACIES were distributed by an American Populist, a Kansas woman named Mrs Sarah Emery (1838-95), (268) in which the author claimed that the Wall Street bankers had been in virtual control of the United States since 1861 and before. (269) Mrs Emery may have been no economist, but she certainly understood the mechanism of usury, and its inevitable, evil results. She was described by the author of the standard work on the People’s Party as a large, competent person and an active campaigner for financial reform since 1880. (270) Incredibly, SEVEN FINANCIAL CONSPIRACIES has been smeared by Organised Jewry and their fellow travellers as anti-Semitica, even though it contains no mention of Jews. (271)
At the other end of the scale we have the quite blatant admissions by Insider Carroll Quigley who asserted, among other things, that the “International Bankers” sought to control the money supply for their own ends, and that “To do this it was necessary to conceal, or even to mislead, both governments and people about the nature of money and its methods of operation.” (272) It was Professor Quigley who dug out the seemingly innocuous but in reality Earth-shattering quote from a 1921 edition of the Financial Times that “half a dozen men at the top of the five big banks could upset the whole fabric of Government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury bills...” (273)
It is of course, not simply the money supply but us whom the international plutocracy seeks to control, and this is where the conspiracy literature has some relevance; it is the interpretation of the facts which the conspiracy buffs dig out rather than the facts themselves which are at fault. A conspiracy cannot operate on a global scale, but what can operate on a global scale is mind control; the simplest and most obvious example of mind control is of course organised religion: keep on the straight and narrow in this world, pay your dues to God (and your tithes to the Church!) and you’ll get your reward in the hereafter. Socialism doesn’t promise rewards in the hereafter but here on Earth, for those gullible enough to listen to its prophets.
As stated, the people with the real power are those with the money, or rather those who control it, in other words, money talks. What’s so mysterious, conspiratorial, mystical or hard to understand about that? The money creators and their allies and dupes do not exercise control by a conscious conspiracy, but they can and do exercise control by a variety of mechanisms, one of which is manufactured public opinion. As Antony Sutton points out, there is a great deal of evidence that the United States is, in some sense, ruled by a dictatorial elite, and that “no idea becomes respectable or is published in the United States without the tacit approval, or perhaps lack of disapproval, of this elitist circle.” (274) In other words, the monied aristocracy acts as a sort of unelected Executive. Again, what’s so outrageous about that idea? The Socialist International has been saying virtually the same thing since its inception, but in the final analysis they are not interested in opposing the elite; it is only the elite’s methods, not its ends, that socialism objects to.
It is not only so-called conspiracy cranks, “fascists” and dissident historians who are aware of the existence of this elite, and its raison d’être, politicians too are aware of it. A former high ranking US military man wrote: “Their goal is to impose a benign stability on the quarreling family of nations through merger and consolidation. They see the elimination of national boundaries, the suppression of racial and ethnic loyalties as the most expeditious avenue to world peace.” (275)
It hardly pointing out that peace can be found in the graveyard, or that the policies of this unelected elite have cost tens or even hundreds of millions of lives and unfathomable misery over the course of the last century. (276) Or that this passage reads like something out of the Protocols Of Zion.
The elite’s control is more subtle than tyrannical, thus certain books will never be reviewed in mainstream newspapers and journals, or if they are they will be reviewed scathingly and dismissed as the ravings of the lunatic fringe. Sutton has personal experience of this; (277) the same intellectual prostitute (Richard Thurlow) who dismissed the seminal writings of C.H. Douglas, the greatest economist of all time, as “the mumbo jumbo of the A+B theorem”, made similar disparaging remarks about him. It was Douglas, incidentally, who correctly identified the purpose of the current financial system as one of punishment and reward rather than one of distributing the goods and services the community demands, (278) (the original purpose for which money was invented).
All of this takes us a long way from political Zionism, for it is in the hands of the money creators rather than those of the whiners and wailers that the real power lies. In 1993, the Zionists were finally kicked into line by the real rulers of the West, which must surely include the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, those two families of mythical conspiracy fame, not to mention the other powerful, vested interests of Western usury capitalism, whom Gary Allen and others have correctly stated are loyal only to themselves. It may be that ultimately even Zionism was no more than a pawn in the game, (279) but whether or not that proves to be the case, those who swallow the mystical claptrap of the Protocols and perpetuate the nonsense that the Jewish religion is the Siamese twin of communism, the root of all evil and the cause of world unrest, do nothing but lend spurious credibility to the leaders of Organised Jewry and political Zionism as persecuted scapegoats, instead of exposing them for the Machiavellian schemers and enemies of humanity they and their allies in the popular front against Western democracy really are.
Again, it must be stressed that however much they may whine and wail about it, the Zionists love the conspiracy literature, exactly the same way they love depicting their perceived enemies as baby-eating Nazi monsters. Proof of this will be found not only in the current writer’s aforementioned documented exposé of shabbes goy Ray Hill, but in every issue of Searchlight with both the ridiculing and the demonising of “fascists”, racists, “boneheads”, ad nauseum. Just as Searchlight is a reflection of its controller Gerry Gable’s unconditional hatred for Western civilisation, so is the depiction by the media and tame academics of conspiracy buffs a mirror of their perception of the way “Nazis”, racists, “fascists” and “anti-Semites” are supposed to behave.
Let me draw another analogy, this time with the Lyndon LaRouche organisation. The LaRouchites have been branded anti-Semitic, and a great deal more besides, although the charge of anti-Semitism against them is patently ludicrous. So what do they believe in if not the Jewish or Zionist conspiracy? Among other things, the LaRouchites believe that the Anti-Defamation League is a front for Scottish Rite Freemasonry, that the rulers of Britain – yes, Britain – are engaged in a sinister plot to recolonise the United States, and that part of this plot involves the international drug trade, which is backed by the Queen of England, Henry Kissinger, and half the banks in Hong Kong.
Their beliefs are actually far, far worse than that, but the above paragraph is example enough. Rather than perpetuating a conspiracy theory, the LaRouchites’ Weltanschauung consists of a seemingly endless series of mainly unsupported assertions and bizarre conclusions. For example, in his autobiography, LaRouche states baldly that “[Karl] Marx was recruited to British political-economy by an agent for British intelligence, Friedrich Engels”, and that “In London, Marx came under the control of the section of British intelligence which coordinated its actions with Mazzini’s operations, specifically Palmerston’s agent Urquhart, operating out of the British Museum.” It was Urquhart, apparently, who told Marx what to write, presumably including Das Kapital. (280)
No evidence is ever adduced for such nonsense, for the simple reason that there is none, but some people reason that if something is so absurd it must be true. No one could have the imagination to invent such enormous brazen lies. Clearly this is not so, because if the Holocaust isn’t an enormous brazen lie, then Holocaust Revisionism is. Und so weiter.
The venality of Organised Jewry is exposed by an article in the April 1986 issue of the Institute of Jewish Affairs magazine Patterns Of Prejudice. Under the heading Radical Round Up, the Zionist creep Tony Lerman says that LaRouche uses an unusual codeword for the Jews, he calls them the British! (281) LaRouche is also said to be a Holocaust Revisionist, which is the first I’ve heard of it. In reality, LaRouche is as staunch an anti-Nazi as they come, even if he is crazy. In May 1994, a LaRouche journal, The New Federalist, published a 32 page attack on the then forthcoming Cairo conference on world population. Its front cover reads as follows:
NEVER AGAIN!
STOP
The United Nations’
Genocide
Conference
On page 3 it is claimed that the UN’s Boutros Boutros-Ghali had been installed by the British in 1992; it refers to him as a Brown-Skinned Hitler. The conference itself is branded a programme for genocide, as the reader may have already deduced.
Spurious credence was given to the LaRouche organisation when LaRouche was gaoled on a bum rap concerning a financial scam, (282) but the simple truth is that if you accuse everyone from Henry Kissinger to the Queen of England of running the international drug trade, you must make a few powerful enemies. (283)
The LaRouche organisation is obviously partly a money-making scam, although just as obviously, the people who run it and its front the Schiller Institute – including Jews and blacks – are, for the most part, sincere. However, the really interesting thing about the LaRouchites is that although 95% and more of what they espouse is complete crap, they do also publish some absolutely splendid material. To take just two examples, they publish an excellent magazine called 21st CENTURY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, (284) and they have exposed the powerful vested interests behind the evil, totalitarian philosophy known as the Green Movement. (285) But like I said, their good stuff is mixed up with so much complete and utter crap that nobody outside of an asylum would take seriously anything they say without the strongest possible independent corroboration.
And here is a possible, indeed, the most likely, explanation for the LaRouchites and the continued perpetuation of the Protocols, among other nonsense. Writing in Tragedy And Hope, Professor Quigley tells us that: “The whole purpose of secrecy in government should not be to keep information from other states (this is almost impossible) but to make it as difficult as possible for other states to get certain information, so that, when they do get such restricted information, it will be so intermingled with other information and misinformation that it cannot be evaluated promptly enough to do them much good.” (286) Or cannot be evaluated at all. And “...the most successful kind of counterespionage work is achieved, not by preventing access to secrets, but by permitting access to information which is not true.” And he goes on to cite examples from World War Two. (287) Quigley was right, and he should know. (288) And it goes without saying that what applies to government applies equally if not more so to other fields of human activity, in particular, the financing of governments.
Consider the following hypothesis:
Question: It’s about time somebody stood up to the Israel lobby and spoke up for Palestinian rights. They seem to have all the politicians and all the newspapers in their pockets.
Answer: Oh yes, it’s all in the Protocols Of Zion. (289)
Question: I can’t understand why so many Jewish organisations attack anti-communists.
Answer: All anti-communist organisations are anti-Semitic; they think communism is a Jewish conspiracy à la the Protocols Of Zion.
Question: Don’t you think that a lot of the arguments of the Holocaust Revisionists make sense?
Answer: Superficially they seem to, but what you must remember is that this is simply an update of the Protocols Of Zion. (See Aronsfeld’s Patterns Of Prejudice article, already alluded to).
Question: The Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and other power elites must be up to no good.
Answer: Yes, don’t you know, they’re the new Elders of Zion. (Ie the arguments of the intellectual prostitute Richard C. Thurlow, already alluded to). (290)
Question: Why does the government allow the banking system to create credit as an interest-bearing debt and then sell it instead of creating its own credit against its own assets, the wealth of the nation?
Answer: Because the Jews control the banking system, and the government would never dare to stand up to the Elders of Zion.
I hope the reader gets the picture. Obviously the LaRouchites and many so-called extremist organisations do ask some very inconvenient questions, and sometimes they come up with the right answers. (291) So what better way to destroy their credibility than to feed them a pound of pyrite with every ounce of gold?
We are not talking here about simply the ADL, the Board of Deputies of “British” Jews and one or two other quasi-fascistic Zionist organisations; the exploitation of the Protocols and the mystical theology behind it is used to railroad and smear a great many individuals and organisations besides anti-Zionists and anti-Semites. (292) Like the Nazi gas chambers, the Protocols Of Zion are used as a big club to batter over the head anyone who challenges the perceived (and specious) wisdom of, not just the Jew as powerless, persecuted and innocent scapegoat, but the machinations of political Zionism, international socialism, the usurious money system, and the real power elite.
One final example of the complete and utter venality of Organised Jewry must be given. In December 1981, the Institute of Jewish Affairs published a ten page RESEARCH REPORT called The Post-War Career of the “Protocols of Zion”. However, instead of the usual whining and wailing about mischief-makers distributing mystical tracts accusing the Jews of plotting to take over the world, this report was an attack on the late Gary Allen’s None Dare Call It Conspiracy, among other works. (293) It is difficult for any rational person who has done his homework on both the Jewish Question and the money creators to draw any conclusion other than that these people know exactly what they are doing, and of course they do.
Be that as it may, and a lot more besides, there is no reason for opponents of the cancerous ideology of political Zionism to sink to the same depths as the Zionists themselves. The philosophical and political cases against Zionism and all it symbolises stand on their own merit. According to the historian Christopher Sykes, when news of the fabrication was brought to his attention, Tsar Nicholas II replied: “Drop the Protocols. We cannot defend a pure cause by foul means.” (294) The same could and indeed should be said about the struggle against financial slavery, socialism, and the racial death Gerry Gable and his ilk are plotting for us.
Once again, the Protocols Of Zion has been analysed to death and is not worth wasting one’s precious time on. The Protocols has absolutely nothing to do with Zionism, and the cancer of Zionism has likewise no connection whatsoever with the benign if boring religion of Judaism.
To Selected Bibliography Of Sources
To Notes And References
Back To Introduction
Preface To The Internet Edition
Back To Back To Cover
To Bibliography Of The Protocols Of Zion
Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index