Mullins’ thesis was that modern governments cannot survive without an external threat, and that since the time of the Russian Revolution, and indeed before, the conflict managers and empire-building bureaucrats have consciously manufactured one external threat after another.

World War I was fought for economic reasons, Germany was taking British markets. The latter claim is unquestionably true, as is the claim, often made by other writers, that the Versailles Treaty set the world on course for World War II. There was no mention as yet, nor indeed in Mullins’ entire speech of Jews (as Jews), and it should be noted that this interpretation of history is not incompatible with mainstream Marxism. The idea is that “Imperialism” wants/needs war. The most cursory examination reveals this argument to be deeply flawed. What Imperialism wants is markets, and the only reason it wants markets is because of a serious flaw in the financial system: the acute deficiency of purchasing power. Why else should any nation want to sell capital and consumer goods when its own infrastructure needs developing and improving, and when its own citizens can benefit from the consumer goods it can produce in abundance?

Rightly or wrongly, Mullins blamed the Bank of England for World War II. He mentioned the Jekyll Island conspirators and the institution of the Federal Reserve - something which has since been documented by many authors. (25) During the First World War, the House of Morgan financed the British government, and the British Secret Service rather than the Jews were behind the Bolshevik Revolution. With the Bolshevik seizure of power, Russia was removed from the world scene as a competitor for foreign markets, a theme also emphasised by Sutton, and, indeed, Sutton goes further, suggesting that not only was the Soviet Union removed as a competitor, but that it was reserved as a captive market for the monopoly capitalists. (26)

The Sutton revelations make this clear, indeed, this is the ugly fact that lies behind the myth of the Cold War. Forget all the talk about “We will bury you”, forget the race to the Moon, forget the dirty tricks of the KGB and the CIA, forget the phony Cuba missile crisis and the arms race, forget all the dross about the communist menace, the reds under the bed and the “Evil Empire of the Soviet Union”, this was all just window dressing. The true facts are very different: the Soviet Union would never even have existed, much less survived, without the explicit financial and technological assistance of the United States and the rest of the “Free World” from the Bolshevik seizure of power to the present day. Whatever the politicians say, whatever the intellectual prostitutes of the controlled media say or don’t say, whatever the Socialist Workers’ Party or the KGB itself believe, the Soviet Union was made in the USA and has existed by dint of hand-outs disguised as peaceful trade since its inception. (27) Early in his speech, Mullins made the statement: “Your greatest enemy - no matter what your nationality - is your own government.”

If you are an American, that is certainly true. It is only a pity that he did not say this forty years ago instead of attempting to lay all the blame on the Jews. What is one to make of Mullins’ British conspiracy angle of the Bolshevik Revolution? Certainly the Americans, the British and the Germans aided the Bolsheviks. As Sutton has written, “Historians must never forget that Woodrow Wilson ...made it possible for Leon Trotsky to enter Russia with an American passport.” (28)

As well as the dubious activities of the Warburg brothers, Mullins claimed that Lenin was poisoned by Stalin, and later in his speech he likened the Democrats and the Republicans to the Trotskyite and Stalinist wings of the Bolsheviks. That’s what Irangate was all about. It was the Washington equivalent of the Moscow show trial. This appears to have caused some confusion, to my fellow researcher at least, but he did not mean that the Democrats and the Republicans were literally communists.

Mullins’ claim that the Fed is run from London is not entirely convincing. 53% of the stock of the Federal Reserve is owned by banks chartered in London was what he actually said, but added that it is an hereditary monopoly that is controlled from London.

Some of his claims in connection with the Second World War are extremely interesting, but if they are to be taken seriously, they will require a very high degree of proof, which in all likelihood will never be forthcoming. (29) Mullins claimed that Hitler never wanted war with Britain, which, in spite of the lies which still saturate the controlled media, is a fact that cannot reasonably be disputed by serious historians. (30)

However, his claims that the Anglo-German Fellowship duped Hitler into war and that he attacked Stalin in 1941 because of this are highly speculative. And what are we to make of the claim that Charles Lindbergh was married off to one of the conspirators’ daughters to keep him out of the way and that the kidnap and murder of the Lindbergh baby was all part of the same plot?

However plausible are these claims, the claims Mullins makes about himself are far less so; in many ways they are self-serving:

His book, Secrets of the Federal Reserve was, he said, commissioned by Ezra Pound, who paid him ten dollars a week to write it, while still incarcerated. (31) This is undoubtedly true, and it may be true also that Mullins was under surveillance by the FBI for 33 years, but this needs some qualification. (32)

He joined the staff of the Library of Congress, and, he claims he was sacked because he was writing for the Social Crediter. This does not ring true. (See interview). He also made the curious claim that Major Douglas did not understand that taxation is an instrument of social control. Anyone who reads Douglas will realise how absurd this claim really is.

The suggestion that J. Edgar Hoover tried to have him, Mullins, “nutted off” because he wrote to the press accusing the FBI of being a tool of the communists may indeed be well-founded, but anyone who seriously believes the FBI to be a communist front probably deserves to be nutted off.

Although many of his claims may sound outrageous (to the uninitiated), his speech was totally free from anti-Semitism. Before the recess, I caught up with Mullins and told him that I would like to interview him at length. I told him that I was covering the conference for a Jewish magazine but that I myself am not Jewish. I also told him that I was researching into conspiriology myself. He agreed willingly and we went in search of somewhere to conduct the interview. We ended up in his dressing room. Here then, with additional notes, is what he had to say:

Question: May I ask how old you are, sir?
Eustace Mullins: I’m seventy years old.
Question: You don’t look it.
EM: Thank you. People tell me that.
Question: You’re the protegé of Ezra Pound?
EM: I am, the last living protegé as a matter of fact, and of course you know four of his protegés got the Nobel Prize, but I haven’t yet. [Laughing.]
Question: I’ve only ever found one of your books in the British Library, that’s your biography of Pound which I was looking through the other day. (33)
EM: I don’t have distribution in England, but I should have. I’m negotiating with a couple of publishers because I think there’s quite a market here.
Question: Which publishers?
EM: Routledge Kegan and, I forget the other one; Routledge Kegan are quite interested.
Question: Have you tried any of the other distributors: Historical Review Press or Bloomfield Books? (34)
EM: No, I haven’t, I won’t be able to pursue those things but I hope to come back in a few weeks and get something going. I think my books are ready to be distributed here.
Question: I haven’t actually read any of your books, but I have read a fair amount of conspiracy theory: Gary Allen and people like that.
EM: These are spin offs from me. Gary Allen ordered all my books before he wrote his books, and frankly attributed his work to me [in early printings] but later he dropped it out.
Question: Was that None Dare Call It Conspiracy?
EM: Yes, in early editions he quoted extensively from my work, but later that was eliminated. I pretty much pioneered in the development of this World Order conspiracy after World War Two through Pound’s work. Pound had already worked on it thirty years or so himself.
Question: I haven’t read much Pound but I have read a fair amount of Douglas and I am very sympathetic to his ideas. Have you come across Kitson at all? (35)
EM: Oh yes, Pound put me onto Kitson, Douglas, all those people.
Question: What about Mrs Emery in the United States?
EM: Mrs Emery, that name does ring a bell.
Question: The People’s Party back in the 1890s.
EM: I don’t go back that far with the populists. Most of the people I work with in the States today call themselves populists. Clinton is calling himself a populist. [Laughing.]
Question: I found a small book of hers called Seven Financial Conspiracies Which Have Enslaved The American People; it was published in 1892. (36)
EM: I think I encountered that book at the Library of Congress quite a few years ago. It’s quite an interesting book. I did most of my research at the Library of Congress. There I came into contact with a lot of sources that I would not have found elsewhere.
Question: It’s nearly as big as the British Library, the Library of Congress, isn’t it?
EM: Yes.
Question: What university did you graduate from?
EM: Washington Lee, which is called the Princeton of the South. It was founded by Washington and Lee, both of whom would have been hung for treason.
Question: You’ve published about thirty-five books?
EM: Yes, covering a multitude of subjects, pamphlets and so forth. There are actually fifteen books available now in bound form of which The Federal Reserve was one of the first, then The World Order, Curse of Canaan, Writ for Martyrs and Murder By Injection, each of these exposes a different conspiracy. I’ll be talking tomorrow about the medical conspiracy.
Question: I don’t know if I’ll be here tomorrow. Who publishes your books?
EM: I self-publish, self-distribute because there’s no publishing house in the United States which would publish these books.
Question: Not even the Noontide Press?
EM: I work with Noontide; Noontide is distributing my books but I still prefer to keep on publishing myself.
Question: Who finances them?
EM: I finance all my books out of my cash flow; they sell very well.
Question: Are you a man of independent means?
EM: No, actually I live on my books and on my income from speaking and so forth. (37)
Question: Do you have any connection with Willis Carto and company? (38)
EM: Yes, they’re one of the main distributors of my books. I’ve know Willis since 1952. They do promote my books and have publicised me quite a bit over the last several years.
Question: You have been called an anti-Semite.
EM: Oh yes, regularly, Ezra Pound was also called an anti-Semite. And in fact Ezra, in his radio broadcasts, did become quite anti-Jewish in the late forties, because he felt that the Jews had played that role and had instigated the War. He probably over-emphasised that, but at the same time he never had any prejudice against working with Jewish poets like [name unintelligible] and Stephen Spender and so forth. (39) Many Jews came to visit Pound during [unintelligible but probably a reference to Pound’s incarceration after the War].
Question: Personally I don’t believe Pound was an anti-Semite.
EM: No, he wasn’t an anti-Semite, and neither am I myself.
Question: I would have to take issue with that. [If you’re no longer an anti-Semite] you have been. Tell me about The Rabbi’s Speech.

[See Appendix C for the full text of The Rabbi’s Speech and A Racial Program For The Twentieth Century.]

EM: The Rabbi’s Speech was brought to me, and I felt it was an important document which should be released, and it was released, and actually was translated in Europe by Einar Aberg of Sweden, and he flooded the continent with it, many thousands of copies. Actually, now that you mention it, I haven’t heard of that in many years. It came out in ’52.
Question: It’s been republished fairly recently.
EM: Has it really? I haven’t seen that.
Question: It was published by Lady Birdwood. Have you heard of Lady Birdwood? (40)
EM: Oh yes, I’ve heard of her. Has she republished it?
Question: Yes. [And she believes every single word of it!]
EM: I’ll be damned.
Question: A Racial Program For The Twentieth Century.
EM: Yes, oh the Israel Cohen [book - which never existed!]. Well, that again was something that was done a long time ago, and it keeps popping up. And I have no connection with anybody who’s reprinting or distributing any of these things at the present time.
Question: Where did you obtain that from?
EM: I got that at the Library of Congress, I think it’s in the Congressional Record, I’m not sure. It goes back a long way. [Laughing.]
Question: Let me put this to you as diplomatically as I can. The Rabbi’s Speech and Israel Cohen’s A Racial Program For The Twentieth Century are notorious anti-Semitic fabrications, the products of a sick, diseased mind. Yours.
EM: Really. [Laughing.] That’s a rather harsh decision. I couldn’t agree with that.
Question: Okay, let’s try some other stuff: Jews Mass Poison American Children.
EM: Gosh, I don’t even remember that one. You’re going back about forty years. At my age I don’t remember things as well as I did.
Question: This was published in June 1955. I’m taking this from page 215 of ANTISEMITIC PROPAGANDA: An Annotated Bibliography and Research Guide, by Robert Singerman, published by Garland, (1982).

[See Appendix B for Mullins’ entries in this bibliography.]

EM: I’ve never seen that.
Question: You’ve got a few entries in it.
EM: Have I? A lot of things pop up...I will say that a lot of things have been circulated with my name on them. [Mullins laughed here and tried to make a joke out of it.]
Question: Do you deny that you wrote an article on the Salk vaccine?
EM: I wrote an article on what?
Question: On the Salk polio vaccine?
EM: I may have. That again is going far back. As you see, my books over the last twenty-five years don’t deal with anything [like that] because I went into deeper research on other subjects and I was no longer interested in those things.
Question: The Biological Jew, which was published circa 1968, is another of your works, I believe. I haven’t seen it but it’s been described as a nasty little book. Perhaps you’d like to tell me why it isn’t nasty.
EM: Interestingly enough, that whole theory came to me from Joe McWilliams, who was also called an anti-Semite. He was a leader of a Christian front back in the forties in New York City. (41) He was an Irish Catholic and he had practically all of the Irish policemen in New York City as members of his group. And he developed this theory that Jewish people over the years had developed a parasitic method of life, [battening] on their host and so on. So I developed that, I did some work on parasitism at the Library of Congress, and it was a viable theory, and I published this book in 1968. It’s never been republished, but it’s still floating around.
Question: You think Jews are parasites?
EM: This was a study of Jews in European history as a parasitic organism, and Pound himself believed that, he thought that the ghettos were a sort of parasitic enclave in the cities of Europe, so it was certainly a theory worth pursuing, and I pursued it, though I’ve never done any more on it [sic] since 1968. (42)
Question: I don’t know about parasitic, though they’re certainly paranoid, but with certain people [like you] around, they’ve every right to be.
Your book, Mullins’ New History of the Jews was described by no less a person than A.K. Chesterton as rabidly anti-Semitic in Candour magazine in an article entitled THIS MAN IS DANGEROUS. (43)
EM: Oh yes, I saw that, and interestingly enough, not long after that, A.K. Chesterton wrote to me appealing for me to help me collect royalties from a publisher - we had the same publisher [Serpico?] of California - so after attacking me like this, a few weeks later Chesterton writes to me asking me to do anything I could [sic] to help him collect royalties from Serpico, which no one could collect royalties from Serpico [sic], there was nothing I could do. But I thought it was chutzpah on his part, first he denounces me, then he asks for my help.

[The fact that Chesterton asked him for help (if he did) hardly mitigates the tone of the article, which was spot on. Incidentally, I personally believed the Israel Cohen quote was genuine for many years because it seemed just the sort of stupid, asinine thing a Jewish communist would say. Readers of Socialist Worker will understand why.]

Question: Money talks the same language. Now, you said you were hounded by the FBI and that you were kicked out of the Library of Congress because of your researches.
EM: I was under daily surveillance for thirty-three years, my file shows that. And I was fired by direct FBI intervention, but they were sent over by Senator Herbert Lehman who was at that time National Chairman of the Anti-Defamation League.
I’m still battling the ADL by the way, I have a thirty million dollar lawsuit going against a newspaper in the States now on that same thing.
Question: Leaving aside the fact that the ADL is a somewhat feisty organisation, it was reported in a book, They Never Said It, by a person whose name escapes me, that you were sacked by the Library of Congress for distributing anti-Semitica. (44)
EM: No, that’s totally false, the record shows that’s totally false because I actually sued the Library of Congress for reinstatement, and in their denial of reinstatement, they did not mention that, which they certainly would have, if that had been the case. I’ve never seen that claim anywhere in print. It’s totally false. I have all the documents relating to my dismissal, which was as a probationary employee. And that was never mentioned as a cause; what they said was that I had been writing for the Social Crediter, but they did not say that it was anti-Semitic. The Social Crediter had articles which were critical of the Jews, but mainly it was not what you’d call an anti-Semitic newspaper.
Question: I don’t believe Douglas was an anti-Semite.
EM: No, he was not, and the Social Crediter was not an anti-Semitic paper. I think it’s out of print now, but I’m not sure.
Question: In 1968 you published My Life in Christ, which is described by Singerman as “90 pages, explains how Marxist Jews and the Mafia control the FBI and the CIA”.
EM: Yes, in fact that theme is further developed in my book A Writ For Martyrs which is much longer, which contains 120 pages [reproduced from] my FBI file.
Question: Impeach Eisenhower?
EM: That was a pamphlet; I was a pamphleteer in those days, and this lady had published this little paper in Chicago, and I wrote some rather inflammatory things for her at that time.
Question: Like: Eisenhower is a willing tool of his Jewish advisers, all of whom are international communist agents?
EM: Well, that was the [headline] on this thing which was put on by this lady - the editor - she was very, openly anti-Semitic. She actually put some of these headlines on my articles, which were inflammatory. At that time I was working with her, and she was pretty much running it the way she wanted to.
Question: Who was she?
EM: Mrs Lyrl Clark Van Hyning, and the paper was called Women’s Voice: We The Mothers United For America. These were the mothers’ groups who went to Washington and picketed Roosevelt because he was trying to get us into the Second World War. In other words, these mothers did not want their sons killed in foreign wars. So they were approaching it from a very personal standpoint.

[This lady’s name was mistakenly given as Lyrl Park Van Hyning in the first edition. Her outfit appears to have been called “We the Mothers Mobilize for America”, though this mistake was probably mine].

Question: You also wrote for Christian Vanguard?
EM: Oh yes, I was [unclear] for Christian Vanguard for years; that paper’s defunct now.
Question: It is [or was] a grotesquely anti-Semitic paper; I’ve seen it. (45)
EM: Christian Vanguard was actually a Christian identity newspaper which published most of the articles on Christian identity. It reprinted Dr Wesley Swift, Dr [unclear], but they did have, I guess you would say, anti-Jewish articles from time to time. That paper is defunct now.

[Christian Vanguard may have been its name, but there was nothing Christian about it, although it was definitely in the vanguard of extreme anti-Semitism. Issue 50 was a Julius Streicher “Memorial Edition”, February 1976, a 16 page translation of the repulsive May 1934 issue of Streicher’s hate sheet Der Stürmer. (46)]

Question: I read an article in it by Ben Klassen which made out a very strong case against the Federal Reserve, but it was all Jews, Jews, Jews. [This article was actually published by Klassen himself and is listed by Singerman, page 324 (op cit) as The Brutal Truth about Inflation and Financial Enslavement. The Federal Reserve Board, the most Gigantic Counterfeiting Ring in the World, published by the Church of the Creator, Lighthouse Point, Fla, (1979), 16 pages.]
EM: Ben Klassen was very violently anti-Semitic, I’ve never worked with him. Later, he started his own newspaper called Racial Identity.
Question: Racial Loyalty.
EM: Racial Loyalty - I’ve never [had anything to do with that].
Question: Harold Covington described it as Racial Toiletry. (47)
EM: Harold Covington’s an FBI agent, [that’s been] known for many years.
Question: He’s living in East London at the moment. (48)
EM: Is he really? He circulated some very violent smears against me. [Laughing.]
Question: With respect, Mr Mullins, with respect to your earlier career, he wouldn’t have had to try very hard. Do you deny that you wrote Jews Mass Poison American Children?
EM: I don’t recall that article at all.
Question: On the Salk vaccine.
EM: I think there again that was a headline which Mrs Van Hyning put on it, and that that was not what the body of the article was about. When you go back forty or so years it’s difficult to remember. And these were very small circulation magazines which had about fifteen hundred circulation throughout the United States.

[The fact that the circulation of such publications is very small gives the lie to the wilder claims of Organised Jewry that there are Nazis lurking behind every bush. But it in no way mitigates the content of the articles.]

Question: You don’t consider yourself an anti-Semite?
EM: Not at all, in my latest book, Murder By Injection, I attribute practically all the directions of my research - not that I used any of their material - to Maurice Beal [sic?], Dr Robert Mendelsohn and Dr Emmanuel Josephson [sic?], and I knew the last two very well. These were three Jewish...
Question: Robert Mendelsohn published a book called Dissent In Medicine. (49)
EM: Yes, he died very suddenly of a heart attack. [He was] a lot younger than I am; a lot of people think he was done in. He was appearing on a lot of national TV shows. He was a licensed MD, [and] a member of the AMA, and he had begun to expose some of the abuses of the medical profession, and he really was an iconoclast, and my impression was that Robert Mendelsohn was a very brilliant, able fellow, and he began to do this out of a sort of snobbery...because he was contemptuous of the other doctors, Jews and non-Jews, that he had to work with. That’s why he began to criticise them. (50)
Question: Do you believe Jews are parasites?
EM: Parasites? Uh, no, as I say, this was a theme that I developed in 1968 in that one book. I’ve never referred to it again and in fact there is nothing about Jews in my last five books in the past twenty years simply because I moved into larger spheres, the world order...
Question: And you realised that the Jewish question is a red herring?
EM: It’s a red herring. The only mention of Jews as I say is that I mention that the direction of my research was guided by these three Jews, and they’re the only people that I mention in the book. They were largely responsible for my writing that book.
Question: Do you believe that communism is Jewish?
EM: No, I covered that in my talk today. Communism had a sort of native Russian wing under Stalin and a more international Jewish wing under Trotsky, and the international Jewish wing under Trotsky pretty well took over the Republican party of the United States in 1980 under the guise of neo-conservatism.
Question: You don’t believe that communism is a poison spread by Jews?
EM: No indeed. Even though Karl Marx was Jewish, Trotsky was Jewish and so forth. They say Lenin was a Jew... [Marx may have been descended from the rabbinate, but his credentials as an anti-Semitic propagandist are a matter of record though largely (and pragmatically) forgotten today.]
Question: No. (51)
EM: But I don’t consider that a particularly Jewish operation.
Question: You do realise that the two outstanding intellectual opponents of communism this century were both Jews: Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises? (52)
EM: Oh, well, I would say that Ayn Rand was not so much anti-communist as a native American conservative who believed in the free market system. [Ayn Rand was actually born in Russia.]
Question: Do you believe in the Jewish world conspiracy or the world Zionist conspiracy?
EM: Well, there definitely is a worldwide Zionist movement which is conspiratorial and which manifests itself in many ways through the depredations of Mossad and the Anti-Defamation League, [the latter of] which I come into personal contact with quite frequently. Most of the attacks on me here in England have come through the Anti-Defamation League; that is an international organisation, so that certainly would be an international Zionist conspiracy because I have never been in England, my books have never been circulated over here, and suddenly when I come here, there are these virulent articles that I am a sinister lunatic and so forth, which of course is pre-judgment... (53)
Question: Okay, I won’t push you on the authorship of Israel Cohen’s Program and The Rabbi’s Speech, but do you believe they are genuine?
EM: They were certainly brought to me under good auspices.
Question: By whom?
EM: By someone who came to me through the embassy...

[He pretended that he couldn’t remember.]

Question: You do accept that there is a tremendous amount of anti-Jewish fabrication circulated by anti-Semitic groups?
EM: Strangely enough I find that there’s practically no anti-Semitic provocation in the United States at the present time. Almost all the old anti-Semitic newspapers have disappeared: Women’s Voice, Common Sense and so forth. I don’t consider Willis Carto’s Spotlight an anti-Semitic publication.

[Possibly he misheard fabrication for provocation.]

Question: No, but the Protocols of Zion is still in circulation; surely you don’t believe that to be true?
EM: The Protocols of Zion were proven before a court in Berne, Switzerland, to be a forgery. And a forgery is an unauthorised copy of something which does exist. If you sign my name, that does not mean that my name doesn’t exist, it means that you’ve forged my [signature]. So from that standpoint, that they’ve been officially, legally found as a forgery, I would have to say that there is some basis for them somewhere.

[This is the sort of specious argument which the more “sophisticated” anti-Semitic propagandists use. It is nothing more than a semantic fallacy because the word “forgery” when used in this sense clearly refers to a fabrication.]

Question: Have you read Herman Bernstein’s refutation? (54)
EM: No, I haven’t.
Question: Bernstein traces the Protocols to Maurice Joly’s Dialogues In Hell, and proves conclusively that they are a plagiarism of this work.
EM: Joly, yes, I’ve heard of that, but I haven’t gone into it that deeply.
Question: Do you accept that the Protocols were used to incite hatred against the Jewish people?
EM: By the secret police?
Question: By organised Jew-haters. By the fellow travellers of Henry Ford, and by anti-Semitic propagandists to this day.
EM: Henry Ford believed them to be true, and Henry Ford was not a dummy by any means.
Question: I don’t doubt that, but we can all be wrong. We’ve just seen a university graduate in there telling us that the Nazis flew to Mars at the end of the War and that they had a secret military base on Antarctica. So you don’t have to be a fool to believe rubbish.
EM: No, that’s true. I think too people always look for melodrama, and perhaps the Protocols were a bit of melodrama which excited Henry Ford’s interest. Hitler had Ford’s photograph on his desk.
Question: By organised Jew-haters. By the fellow travellers of Henry Ford, and by anti-Semitic propagandists to this day.
EM: Henry Ford believed them to be true, and Henry Ford was not a dummy by any means.
Question: I don’t doubt that, but we can all be wrong. We’ve just seen a university graduate in there telling us that the Nazis flew to Mars at the end of the War and that they had a secret military base on Antarctica. So you don’t have to be a fool to believe rubbish.
EM: No, that’s true. I think too people always look for melodrama, and perhaps the Protocols were a bit of melodrama which excited Henry Ford’s interest. Hitler had Ford’s photograph on his desk.
Question: Yes, he did. Now can we talk a bit about the real conspiracy?
EM: Sure.
Question: The Federal Reserve conspiracy is a reality. The Fed is a private banking institution, it’s run for profit for a small clique of international financiers, there’s no doubt about that. How can we get rid of the Fed?
EM: In my book The World Order, in the last chapter, I point out very decisively that all of these operations: pitting Christians against Jews, and various nationalities against each other, are manipulated by the World Order in order to maintain their control.
Question: I’ll tell you something: there are two factions of the so-called anti-fascist movement in this country. The pro-Zionist faction is led by a man named Gable, who claims to be Jewish. He is of Jewish origin, and he is a proven agent of MI5. It did occur to me sometime ago that anti-Semites aren’t the only people who noticed that there are a lot of Jews involved in the communist movement, and people like Gable are deliberately selected, as a red herring. (55)
EM: There again that’s now ancient history, the number of Jews who were involved in communism. Of the first commissars in Soviet Russia, I think three hundred and twenty were Jews or something like that. As I say, that has now become irrelevant, but I do think that people were acting on a valid premise. Congressman John Rankin of Mississippi stood up on the floor of Congress in 1940 and said that 96% of American communists are Jews. And no one challenged him, and no one’s ever challenged him to this day. That’s a pretty high figure but there again J. Edgar Hoover probably gave him that figure. J. Edgar Hoover was always in the background feeding information but never taking a stand himself.

[This is the same J. Edgar Hoover whom Mullins would have us believe allowed Marxist Jews to run the FBI!]

Question: When you talk about Jews here though you’re talking about racial Jews as opposed to religious Jews. Have you ever seen a communist wearing a skull cap?
EM: No, I haven’t, but [regarding] the racial/religious division, you will find that quite often Jewish people will overlook that and ally themselves very quickly against any threat to Jewish people. They do generally overlook their differences to defend themselves against a common enemy. Anyone who they think is anti-Jewish.
Question: Anyone they don’t like, in other words?
EM: Anyone they don’t like, or consider as a threat.
Question: Another “anti-Semitic myth” is that of Jewish media control, yet at one time, every studio in Hollywood was owned by Jews. That’s a fact, isn’t it?

[It is indeed a well-documented, indisputable fact, one which is always met with specious charges of “anti-Semitism”. See for example, The Jewish Image in American Film (Appendix A) or the embarrassingly titled: An Empire of their Own. (56)]

EM: Very much so. Not only were they owned by Jews, but they were financed by Jewish bankers in New York, principally Kuhn Loeb and Lehman Brothers [who] up till 1940 pretty much controlled the purse strings of every movie produced in Hollywood. That’s a matter of record. So, the Jewish producers in Hollywood were answerable to the Jewish bankers in New York.
Question: There is though a fallacy here. [And one that is by no means obvious.] This is that because a lot of Jews work in the media, that they all control it, and that because a lot of Jews are rich, they all are. (10)
EM: Most of the Jews that I’ve met are not rich. The rich Jews don’t associate with me, but most of the Jewish people that I have met throughout my career have been of very modest means.
Question: Antony Sutton, you’re familiar with his work?
EM: Very much so, yes.
Question: He cited your work in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, and appears to have come to the reluctant conclusion that there is a [world] conspiracy.

[No, he didn’t cite Mullins’ work in this book; this was my mistake! What he does do in Chapter Twelve, Conclusions, is to pose the question: Is the United States Ruled by a Dictatorial Elite? He then compares the consistency of the theses of five Revisionist authors including Gary Allen, (None Dare Call It Conspiracy) and Carroll Quigley, (Tragedy and Hope). He does though list Mullins’ The Federal Reserve Conspiracy in the bibliography to his own 1977 monograph, The War on Gold. (57)]

EM: A Jewish conspiracy?
Question: A conspiracy.
EM: I know Tony quite well, and Tony himself never touched the Jewish question with the tip of a pole, and in fact in none of his books or his lectures will he discuss this situation.
Question: In Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution he makes it clear that it was Gentile interests that financed Trotsky and co. (58)
EM: Yes, very much so.
Euestion: And that the whole Jewish conspiracy thing was put up as a red herring.
EM: Yes, you see, the first recognition of the Bolshevik regime by the rest of the world: England and America in particular, it was all Jewish, so it was quite easy to draw the inference that the communists were Jewish because they did not know who the backers were.
Question: In other words it was raceless capital?
EM: I make all this clear in The World Order, that they’re constantly manipulating all the forces in the world against each other in any way that they can. If they can get Jews fighting each other or Jews fighting Christians, that’s fine, that’s what they want.
Question: Conflict management?
EM: Yes.
Question: In The Most Secret Science, Archibald Roberts lists eight banks which own the Fed, seven of which have Jewish names. (59) What are they doing to get rid of the Fed?
EM: Nothing. Absolutely nothing. There’s no movement at all. Roberts got some of the legislatures to [table] resolutions, that’s over a twenty year period, and he’s pretty much inactive at the present time. As far as I know, nothing is being done. As far as I know, Carto is sponsoring bills in Congress to audit the Fed, which I don’t see will have any effect one way or the other. It might even give them legitimacy, putting them under official government audit, which will make the people believe that they are indeed official government institutions.
Question: How much is the US National Debt?
EM: Four trillion dollars.
Question: So who owns that debt?
EM: Japan owns one third of it.
Question: When you say Japan, what do you mean?
EM: The Japanese bankers.
Question: What would happen if this debt were to be annulled overnight?
EM: I don’t think this would have any effect at all. The repudiation of debt simply means that it continues to be rolled over or amortised by other means. There is never a total repudiation.
Question: Why not? Surely that would be possible.
EM: Total repudiation would mean that all of the paper would become worthless immediately, and this is never the case. It continues to be traded, it’s scaled down, that’s what happens.
Question: The point is that we’ve been fed this idea by the enemies of freedom that money has to come into circulation as debt.
EM: Yes, that’s the old Babylonian system, five thousand years old.
Question: If the debt were to be completed repudiated, you’d have debt-free dollars.
EM: Definitely.
Question: Under the current system, if the government wants say a billion dollars, it goes to the bankers who float a bond and the money is created as a debt to the bankers.
EM: Yes, that’s right.
Question: But all the government has to do is issue its own notes [or credit].
EM: Oh definitely, the Constitution Article 1, Section 8, provides for that - Congress shall have the right to issue money. The Founding Fathers thought they were giving us debt-free money, but the banks were issuing national bank notes, which were interest-bearing notes. Then Lincoln issued the greenbacks, which were non-interest bearing notes. He was assassinated. John F. Kennedy issued non-interest bearing notes, and he was assassinated.
Question: Kennedy actually did issue non-interest bearing bank notes?
EM: Yes, I’ve seen them, they’re all around. Kennedy issued US Treasury notes.
Question: You believe this was the reason he was assassinated?
EM: The movie JFK and L. Fletcher Prouty, whose book the movie is based on, Fletcher is very intimately connected with the military-industrial complex, and he felt that the trigger was Kennedy’s resolve to pull out of Vietnam because there was no point in it, [the Vietnam War]. Outside of the military-industrial complex wanting it, nobody else wanted it. So they simply killed him. It’s more likely that he was killed over Vietnam than over the Federal Reserve, but it certainly could have been both.
Question: Who do you think killed him?
EM: Definitely the CIA and the Mafia working together.
Question: The CIA and the Mafia working together?
EM: Mark Lane has been on national television many times in the States and has said baldly that the CIA killed Kennedy, and no one’s ever really refuted that. (60)
Question: Do you believe in the "Holocaust"?
EM: I think the “Holocaust” probably was exaggerated, the number of casualties. In fact now they’ve scaled down the number of [Jews allegedly killed in Auschwitz] from four million to one [million].
Question: One and a half million?
EM: One and a half.
Question: Do you believe in the gas chambers?
EM: All the evidence that I’ve seen and the new evidence that’s coming out now [indicates] that the gas chambers were built after the War. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre of course continues to promote the old hard line....My brother actually went to Dachau concentration camp...two years ago; he brought back a photograph on the wall, a big photograph saying THESE GAS CHAMBERS WERE NEVER USED AS GAS CHAMBERS.
  That’s what the tourists see when they go to Dachau, that there were no gas chambers used to exterminate people, and so when you have all these things, then I certainly think you have to take a hard look at all these claims which are quite fantastic and say let’s look into it further.

[Simon Wiesenthal is, of course, the famous “Nazi hunter”. For a slightly more objective view of Wiesenthal, the reader is referred to pages 120-2 of The Journal of Historical Review, Volume Five, Number, One, 1984. (61)]

Question: While we’re still on the subject of the Jews, did you write a pamphlet called Jewish TV: Sick, Sick, Sick!?
EM: I may have, I don’t know, as I said, I was doing a lot of pamphleteering. I used to turn out those things in a few minutes, and it’s quite possible I did, but then again you’ll find that this was thirty or forty years old.

[Mullins adopted this apologetic attitude every time he was questioned about his anti-Semitica. Does this signify remorse, perhaps?]

Question: There was no orchestrated campaign to keep you out of the country. Mike Whine of the Board of Deputies of British Jews was quoted in Time Out magazine; he said your ideas are so mad they’re laughable. Normally they try to keep people [like you] out. They kept Zündel out, for example.
EM: Zündel they considered a more direct threat because he’s a German, so he’s going back and forth between Germany and Canada, but by my position in the States, having no affiliation with any political party or any large movement, I don’t think they’re [too concerned].
Question: How can we get rid of the Fed and the Bank of England?
EM: The Bank of England is supposed to be nationalised, so it belongs to the people. You can’t do anything about the Bank of England.
Question: We’ve got a National Debt as well.
EM: Of course, whenever you have a Central Bank you’ll have a National Debt; that’s what a Central Bank’s created for. When the Bank of England started operation in 1694, you started to have a National Debt soon after that, and then there was war finance, they financed wars and built up a healthy debt to the Bank, and you’ve been [struggling] under that load ever since.
Question: The point though is that the debt is owned by the bankers, isn’t it?
EM: Oh definitely, always, because people have no ownership of the debt. In the States, a widow can buy a T bill for ten thousand dollars, and you can say that she’s a part owner of the debt, but actually what she has is a banking instrument, a negotiable instrument of the bankers themselves. It’s worth ten thousand dollars only in law as the bankers agree that it can be paid.
Question: Could we form pressure groups to get rid of the Fed?
EM: That’s a start, you want pressure groups.
Question: We could get rid of the debt if we tried. Politicians don’t seem to understand it, they don’t even seem to realise it exists. You might just as well be talking about flying saucers on Mars.
EM: The politicians are practical...All their funding comes from bankers. You have wealthy people who give ten thousand or a hundred thousand dollars to politicians, but by and large their funds come through the banks one way or another. As long as that situation exists, the politicians are not going to take up [this issue] in any serious way.
Question: You didn’t mention the role of the Bilderberg Group or the Trilateral Commission in your speech.
EM: The Trilaterals are simply another instrument of the World Order of the bankers. You have the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs...these think tanks. These think tanks exist solely to present palatable programmes to the people of what the bankers want to accomplish. Naturally they can’t say “We want to do this for ourselves”, so they present them as programmes to improve the infrastructure, to improve education and to borrow more billions of dollars from the bankers to achieve these goals, and most people fall for it.
Question: One last word on anti-Semitism. If we get rid of the anti-Semitic element, can we reform the financial system for everybody’s benefit?
EM: In the States there’s actually very little anti-Semitism anywhere because it’s been made totally unfashionable by the bankers themselves. Anyone who criticises Jews [they say] wants another “Holocaust”.
Question: The point is that anyone who criticises the bankers is implied to be criticising Jews.
EM: Not in the States.
Eustace Mullins, thank you very much.

This was the end of our interview. Later, I introduced Mr Mullins to Lady Birdwood. Lady Birdwood, this is Mr Eustace Mullins, the author of The Rabbi’s Speech: I said. No, he discovered it, she said. It’s a complete fraud, isn’t it, Mr Mullins? There never was a Rabbi Rabinovich. At this point, a certain geriatric interjected that he’d always maintained that The Rabbi’s Speech was a fraud.

This was the person who had nearly been ejected from the meeting for standing up during Vladimir Terziski’s presentation and lambasting him for calling the Nazis Satanic. You’re a dirty liar! Why don’t name the real culprits? The international Jews! And here he was in his Dalek-like staccato, denouncing The Rabbi’s Speech. “The whole thing is absolute rubbish!” Is this the “selective anti-Semitism” that Henry Ford was supposed to have practised? “I’m absolutely against that; communism and Zionism are not identical forces...they might on certain levels cooperate, but they’re aetiologically totally disparate.”

The reality is that a lot of people who are in no sense of the word anti-Semitic, believe in the world Jewish conspiracy or the Zionist world conspiracy, for there is good prima facie evidence for it. In the United States if not in Britain, Jews can in some sense be said to control the media, and they have certainly had pretty much their own way with regard to US foreign policy over the past four and a half decades. This though has been more of a partnership between the Israelis and the fascists who have hijacked the State Department, than overt Zionist manipulation. (62)

Then there is the embarrassing plethora of Jewish names associated with banking, big business and the mysterious quasi-secret power elites which somehow never get a mention in the mainstream press, a press which is fiercely proud of its independence, remember?

However, on closer examination, the Jewish/Zionist conspiracy does not hold water, although there is certainly dirty work afoot here. We conclude this section with the rest of the Mary Seal/Keith Mears interview.

As already stated, Seal was less than happy with the Guardian. Had she been libelled? No, but “There wasn’t one word they printed which was true.” !!!

Fabricated everything she said; so what’s that if not libel?

Question: Do you know about Mr Mullins’ background?
Mary Seal: Yes.
Question: Do you know about the anti-Jewish publications he’s done: Jews Mass Poison American Children?
MS: Yes.
Question: You know all about that?
MS: Yes.
Question: Are you happy with that?
MS: No.
Question: Was pressure put on you to stop him coming?
MS: No, no, there was no pressure at all put on me to stop him coming.
Question: Do you think he’s an anti-Semite, now?
MS: No, he’s not now...I’m not saying he definitely was, I think he took that road many years ago because obviously of his research [sic] he found out certain facts, but now if you read his book you’ll realise he’s not anti-Semitic.
Question: He did fabricate The Rabbi’s Speech and the Israel Cohen quote to start with.
MS: I don’t know about that; he’s suing the people who said that: the Anti-Defamation League.

[So he says.]

Question: Back in the 1950s, that’s well established, that was the [real] reason he was sacked by the Library of Congress.
Keith Mears: I would like to say regarding Eustace Mullins, if he’s gone down one road, and he’s found that it’s the wrong road, he’s done the right thing...I was involved with religion for twelve years; you can’t condemn me for my beliefs then, and the fact of the matter is now we’re not working on beliefs, because everybody who works on a belief system is led up the wrong path. So the only way to identify which is right and which is wrong...is to look at the evidence...
Question: Dr Strecker’s presentation was probably the most controversial; the line he took was that it [AIDS] has been deliberately manufactured. From what I’ve read recently I certainly think it’s possible that AIDS was developed in the laboratory by accident...
MS: Why is it that Third World nations have got the highest incidence of AIDS? Why is it that eighty percent of the black belt of Africa is involved?

[Keith Mears claimed at this point that Strecker had in his possession documents that proved that AIDS had been made to order.]

MS: The virus was requested, and there was money allocated to develop it.
Question: A couple of months ago, the Libertarian Alliance held a conference on AIDS - Dissenting Voices - in which it was claimed with fairly impressive medical evidence that the spread of AIDS in the West has been almost purely amongst homosexuals, and in Africa, places like Uganda, it has spread purely because of the war-like conditions.
MS: You see the point in all of this is that nobody is saying: believe us. All we are saying to you is we are presenting facts which we have researched personally. It’s up to you to make sense out of those facts. Check them out. There are lots of things that can’t be proven...All we are doing is providing people’s own research, documents to back certain of those contentions, point out certain anomalies which exist in the way our economy is, the way governments are manipulated by the international banking system, so on and so forth. Facts that anybody can check out.

Back To Cover
Back To Update And Acknowledgments
To Conclusion And Afterword
To Appendix A: Bibliography
To Appendix B
To Appendix C
To Notes And References

Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index