Judaism in Action, Chapter 3 (p. 75 to 119)




There are a number of important policies in the Protocols which find a striking parallel in certain activities and movements among Jews in various parts of the world outside of Russia. Among these policies of the Protocols are: the control of the press for political purposes, securing international or so-called “minority” rights for the Jews, the stirring up of class hatred and social disorder, and the promotion of revolutions and internationalism,

Secret Kingdom of the Press”

1. The boast is made in the Protocols that in Europe the press, with unimportant exceptions, is under Jewish control. It is indeed true that the Jewish influence in the press in many parts of the world is very powerful. Just how powerful it is in America it is difficult to state. It is certainly a great and growing power in New York City. A Jewish magazine, The American Jewish News, recently pointed with pride to the great number of newspapers in New York which are either controlled by the Jews or in which Jews occupy important strategic positions. In the article referred to, which was published in the issue of March 28, 1919, under the title “Men Who Make Our Newspapers,” the following statement is made:

While it is an accepted fact that certain of our industries to-day are almost entirely directed and supported by Jewish


Page 75 ^


minds and labor, there are nevertheless just as many which are not generally conceded to come within the same classification which have at their head men of Jewish descent. Most important among these latter is the greatest of all public institutions – the press.

Hardly a newspaper of importance thrives in this city but it has at its head or in some position of paramount influence a man in whose fibre there is Jewish energy. And with one exception the achievements of these men who mould and interpret American public opinion could provide material for books of incalculable inspiration.”

The article proceeds to refer to several large dailies in New York which are owned or controlled by Jews, with biographical sketches of these men and their subordinates. At the end of the article it is stated that the men mentioned are “but a few of a great number.”

That there is nothing new in the Jewish policy of controlling the press is shown by the following statement of Isaac Adolphe Cremieux, who in 1860 founded the Alliance Israelite Universalle.

Consider the governmental and public offices as nothing. Look upon all honors as upon nonsense. Do not pay any attention for the time being to money itself .... Capture the press! Through it everything will come to you in the natural course of events.”1

1 Quoted from A. Shmakoff. Address in defense of T. Vekshin and others, p. 36. Moscow: University Printing Office 1907.


Page 76 ^


The complete dictatorship over the press exercised by the Jewish Bolshevist leaders in Soviet Russia is such a generally accepted fact that it needs no extended comment. All newspapers that have attempted in any way to criticize the Bolshevist government have been ruthlessly suppressed, and many writers who have dared to criticize Trotzky have been executed.

The policy of the Bolsheviks is well expressed by one of the Soviet officials, N. Bukharin, in “The Communist Program,” published by the Soviet printing office, called “The Communist.” Moscow, 1918, Chapter VII, pp. 20-23:

The Communist (Bolshevist) party receives from all sides accusations and even threats like the followin: ‘You close newspapers, you arrest people, you forbid meetings, you trample under foot freedom of speech and of the press, you reconstruct autocracy, you are oppressors and murderers.’ It is necessary to discuss in detail this question of the ‘liberties’ in a Soviet Republic.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

At present the following is clear for the workingmen and the peasants. The Communist party not only doesnot demand any liberty of the press, of speech, meetings, unions, etc., for the bourgeois enemies of the people, but, on the contrary, it demands that the government should be always in readiness to close the bourgeois press; to disperse the meetings of the enemies of the people, to forbid them to lie, slander, and spread panic; to crush ruthlessly all attempts at a restoration of the bourgeois regime. This is precisely the meaning of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”


Page 77 ^


Minority Rights” in the Light of the Protocols

2. From a practical point of view it is of the utmost importance to Christian countries to ascertain whether the Jews are to be treated as citizens who enjoy equal rights and equal duties with the rest of the community, or whether they are to have, in addition, special privileges uniform in every country because they are Jews.

The American Constitution grants equal rights to all citizens of the United States, without distinction as to race or religion. The same conception of citizenship prevails in a majority of the western European countries (Great Britain, Netherlands, France, Italy, Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden).

During the last two years, however, the Jews in various countries have adopted a peculiar policy, threatening the fundamental principles of equal citizenship, by demanding special national or minority rights in central and eastern European states. During the Peace Conference the Jews maintained an influential delegation at Paris which insisted that such rights be granted to the Jews in Poland, Austria, Roumania, (Romania) Jugoslavia (Yugoslavia), Czechoslovakia and Ukrainia. A special Bill of Jewish Rights was presented by the Jewish delegation to the Peace Conference. This bill contained the following stipulations:

First New guarantees of citizenship for those born in the territories affected, or resident therein since August, 1909.

Second All citizens to enjoy equal civil, religious, national and political rights, without distinction of


Page 78 ^


birth, race, nationality, or religion.

Third – The right to use the language of any national minority in business, private intercourse, public meetings or the press shall be guaranteed; nor shall there be any restriction of such language in the schools or other institutions, nor shall the validity of any transaction or document be affected by the use of any language whatsoever.

Fourth – The state shall recognize the several national minorities as constituting distinct autonomous organizations, having the right to establish, manage and control schools and religious, educational, charitable and social institutions.

Fifth – Each national minority shall be allotted its proportion of state, departmental and municipal funds, based on the ratio of its numbers in the respective areas, as well as in the entire population.

Sixth – Proportional representation of national minorities in elected bodies.

Seventh – Those observing any other day except Sunday as Sabbath shall not be required to perform on such days acts they regard as desecrations, and shall be permitted to conduct business on Sunday if they so desire.

Eighth – The. signatories to the treaty, or any minority which may be affected by failure to observe its provisions, shall be entitled to submit complaints for adjudication to the League of Nations, which will assume .jurisdiction.” (New York Tribune, June 12, 1919.)

This Bill of Rights was strongly endorsed by the American Jewish Congress held in Philadelphia in December, 1918. We quote an article in the New York Tribune of May 14, 1919, on. this subject:



Page 79 ^




According to a cable received by the Zionist Organization of America from its president, Judge Julian W. Mack, who is now in Paris, heading the American Jewish Congress delegation to the peace conference, and chairman of the Jewish delegations from every part of Europe, the treaty offered to Germany requires Poland and other nations to accept separate provisions guaranteeing rights to racial, religious and linguistic minorities within their boundaries.

Judge Mack says the word ‘national’ is not included in the treaty as now formulated, but that a decision on thispoint is expected in a few days.

He expresses himself as sanguine that the substance of the demands adopted by the American Jewish Congress, held in Philadelphia last December, will be obtained.”

Moreover, the Bill of Rights was endorsed by most of the recognized Jewish organizations throughout the world.

NINE MILLION JEWS PRESENT BILL OF RIGHTS AT PARIS,” is the title under which the universal support of Hebrew national rights within the boundaries of other nations was recorded by the New York Tribune on June 12, 1919.

Mr. Edward Dillon, in his book “The Inside Story of the Peace Conference,” referring to these national rights and to the support which was extended to the Jewish demands, stated that the Allied policy was “looked upon as anything but disinterested.” Mr. Dillon further said:

Unhappily this conviction was subsequently strengthened by certain of the


Page 80 ^


measures decreed by the Supreme Council between April and the close of the Conference. The misgivings of other delegates turned upon a matter which at first sight may appear so far removed from any of the pressing issues of the twentieth century as to seem wholly imaginary. They feared that a religious – some would call it racial – bias lay at the root of Mr. Wilson’s policy. It may seem amazing to some readers, but none the less a fact, that a considerable number of delegates believed that the real influences behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic.

They confronted the President’s proposal on the subject of religion inequality, and, in particular, the odd motive alleged for it, with the measures for the protection of minorities which he subsequently imposed on the lesser states, and which had for their keynote to satisfy the Jewish elements in eastern Europe. And they concluded that the sequence of expedients framed and enforced in this direction were inspired by the Jews, assembled in Paris for the purpose of realizing their carefully thought-out program, which they succeeded in having substantially executed. However right or wrong these delegates may have been, it would be a dangerous mistake to ignore their views, seeing that they have since become one of the permanent elements of the situation. The formula into which this policy was thrown by the members of the Conference, whose countries it affected, and who regard it as fatal to the peace of eastern Europe, was this: ‘Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who, in turn, are swayed by their Jewish elements’.” (Pages 496, 497.)

Mr. Dillon emphasizes that the Jewish


Page 81 ^


demands for special national privileges were largely fomented by western Jews, including those of the United States. He even states that among the many Jews who were present at the Paris Peace Conference “the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States.” (Page l2.) According to this author, “Their principal mission, with which every fair-minded man sympathized heartily, was to secure for their kindred in Eastern Europe rights equal to those of the populations in whose midst they reside. And to the credit of the Poles, Rumanians (Romanians or Roumanians), and Russians, who were to be constrained to remove all the existing disabilities, they enfranchised the Hebrew elements spontaneously. But the western Jews who championed their eastern brothers, proceeded to demand a further concession which many of their own co-religionists hastened to disclaim as dangerous – a kind of autonomy which Rumanian (Romanian or Roumanian), Polish and Russian statesmen, as well as many of their Jewish fellow-subjects, regarded as tantamount to the creation of a state within a state.” (Page 13.)

The treaties imposed by the Allies upon Poland, Roumania (Romania), Czecho-Slovakia, Jugo-Slavia and Greece granted all, or nearly all the demands of the Jews contained in the above “Bill of Rights,” while Austria and Hungary gave pledges in their treaties with the Allied and Associated Powers, that they would protect “minority rights” in the same general way defined in the treaties with the other five powers.

These treaties, as Mr. Dillon correctly points out, go much further than to guarantee to the Jews residing in these several countries full political equality with other citizens, and freedom from persecution or discrimination on account of


Page 82 ^


race or religion. Not only did the treaties contain such guarantees, – which, Mr. Dillon states, the small powers in question were quits willing to give, – but they contained a principle new to international law, viz. that a racial minority should be treated in various relations as a separate entity within the State, with separate rights of its own, which it is permitted to enforce against the national government. An illustration of this new principle is found in certain articles of the treaty with Poland relating to educational matters. By these articles the Polish State is actually compelled to permit the Jews, in towns and districts where they constitute “a considerable proportion” of the population, to administer primary education in their own language in the Jewish schools, supported by an allocated part of the state funds. The articles of the treaty which create this extraordinary “minority right” are quoted verbatim below. The two articles must be read together and compared with each other to bring out their full meaning.

Article 9

Poland will provide in the public educational system in towns and districts in which a considerable proportion of Polish nationals of other than Polish speech are residents adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision shall not prevent the Polish Government from making the teaching of the Polish language obligatory in the said schools.

In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Polish


Page 83 ^


nationals belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of the public funds under the State, municipal or other budget, for educational, religious or charitable purposes.

The provision of this article shall apply to Polish citizens of German speech only in that part of Poland which was German territory on August 1, 1914.

Article 10

Educational Committees appointed locally by the Jewish Committees of Poland will, subject to the general control of the State, provide for the distribution of the proportional share of the public funds allocated to the Jewish schools in accordance with Article 9, and for the organization and management of these schools.

The provisions of Article 9 concerning the use of languages in schools shall apply to these schools.”

In some central European countries the Jews took prompt advantage of the favorable feeling created in Paris by the Jewish leaders towards the Jewish national demands. Thus, for instance, in Ukrainia a special ministry for Jewish affairs was established, headed by Krasny Pinhoos, a Jew. According to information contained in an editorial article in the New Witness of April 11, 1919, the new minister of the Jews “told a press representative that the Jews take part in the spiritual and social life of the Ukraine under conditions of equality with those of the rest of the population, but that in affairs appertaining to the Jewish


Page 84 ^


community they would govern themselves.”

The New Witness made a rather deduction from the above statement of Mr. Pinhoos:

But it is anyhow a good thing that in one country at least the Jewish race should be regarded and should consent to be regarded as something different and separate. We presume that as soon as the Jewish State in Palestine is established, Mr. Pinhoos will change his title to that of Jewish Ambassador. Mr. Pinhoos hopes that before long there will be many other such ministries established, but while Isaacs and Mond can govern England and dictate to the Peace Conference, there is not much hope that they will desire to rule the affairs of Whitechapel.”

Mr. Israel Zangwill, in a recent address at the Poale Zion Conference in London, went a step further when he stated that the race which produced “a Beaconsfield, a Reading, a Montagu, a Klotz, a Kurt Eisner, a Trotzky” should be represented as an independent member of the League of Nations. (See Mr. Zangwill’s statement in The Jewish Chronicle, February 27, 1920, No. 2656, p. 28.)

In view of the adoption of this policy by the Jews in Paris, Americans are justified in ascertaining just what is the position of the American Jewry with respect to enforcing such a program here. Our Constitution knows no such thing as foreign national rights enjoyed by persons who at the same time enjoy the privileges of American citizens. A subject of a foreign nationality when he becomes an American citizen renounces his former allegiance, and it is upon this condition only that he becomes a member of our body politic.


Page 85 ^


Nevertheless in the United States itself, where the Jews enjoy an absolute equality of rights with all other citizens, they have recently endeavored to build up an institution which is entirely opposed to the spirit of the American Constitution, namely, a special Jewish court which tries cases pertaining only to the Jews. This institution is known as “The Jewish Court of Arbitration” and holds its sessions in one of the Municipal Court rooms in New York City. This fact was briefly recorded by the New York Times in its issue of February 19, 1920, in an article under the title, “Jews Here Start Modern Sanhedrin.” While this significant fact may have passed almost unnoticed by the American public, nevertheless it has already attracted attention in France.

It is unthinkable to any American brought up under a system of government which has provided a check against the oppression of minorities by the majority, that special rights should be granted to any of the ethnic elements of our population, such as the Jews, the Chinese, the Negroes, or any other racial group, or that any of these groups should by virtue of such special rights diminish our sovereignty by a treaty provision similar to Article XII of the special treaty with Poland. By this article Poland agreed that any member of the Council of the League of Nations should have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction or an danger of infraction of any of these obligations (the national rights of the Jews), and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such directions as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.1

1 The full text of Article 12 of the Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Poland is the following:


Page 86 ^


Poland agrees that the stipulations in the foregoing Articles, so far as they affect persons belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities, constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under, the guarantee of the League of Nations. They shall not be modified without the assent of the majority of the Council of the League of Nations. The United States, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan hereby agree not to withhold their assent from any modification in these Articles which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations.

Poland agrees that any member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction of the Council, or any danger of infraction of any of these obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action as it may deem effective in the circumstances.

Poland further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or fact arising out of these Articles between the Polish Government and any one of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, or any other power, a member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Polish Government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant.” (End of footnote.)


Page 87 ^


The whole question of Jewish double national rights is of the utmost importance, since the recognized Zionist leaders and the international Zionist organizations have on various occasions strongly urged the adoption of such double rights. Such rights and privileges for the Jews indeed are more than “national rights”; they are in one sense international rights common to Jews living in different countries, In other words, under such a system they would enjoy both the rights of citizenship of the particular country in which they live, and in addition, special privileges granted to them alone. The granting of such privileges to the Jews would constitute a series of international rights conferred exclusively upon the Jewish race. The Protocols of the Zionist Zen of Wisdom contemplate this very thing in the following language:

Then our international rights will sweep away the national rights in a limited sense and will rule countries in the samemanner as the civil power of each state regulates the relationship of its subjects among themselves.” (Protocol No. II.)

It is a question to what extent the demands for Jewish minority rights in eastern European states may be a part of the general Zionist movement. To this movement little attention can be given in this volume. It is sufficient to quote a portion of an article published in the New York Globe on January 25, 1919, under the title “Want Brandeis to Govern Judea.” The staff correspondent of the New York Globe andChicago Daily News in London, under date of December 31, 1918, refers to the Zionist movement and the exposition


Page 88 ^


of its objects and purposes by one of its leaders, Ittimar Ben; Avi:

If the plans and ambitions of the recently proclaimed nation of Judea are fulfilled, Louis Brandeis, now Justice of the United States Supreme Court, will be “the first of the new rulers of Israel. The dream of the renationalization of Palestine which has lived for 2,000 years in the hearts of the Jews is fast entering the realm of reality. Judea is sending its delegates to the peace conference. Its existance as a nation has been recognized by the allies, its declaration of independence has been signed and its diplomats and politicians are already busy moulding the future of its institutions.

Ittimar Ben Avi is the first of its peace delegates to reach London. An impassioned idealist who already visions Judea enrolled among the great powers of the world, is Ben Avi, But his idealism and his oratorical agitations on behalf of Judea have not impaired his worth as a diplomat.


Israel cannot leap to its feet, full grown and capable,’ he explained, ‘It has been scattered and dormant too long. As delegate to the peace conference, I am to outline the demands of the new Judea. The first and most important of these is the political desire of the new Hebrew nation. We desire a British trusteeship for a period of twenty-five years. We do not want to establish a parliament or congress in Judea for at least twenty-five years. The British have emancipated us from the Turk. Great Britain is more capable of governing or over-seeing Palestine as a colony than any one other country.


Page 89 ^


If the English will agree to this our plan then includes the appointment by England of a Zionist as governor-general of Judea. It is more or less known among Zionists that Mr. Justice Brandeis is the most logical man now living for the position of governor-general. Under him there should be-two sub-governors, – one a Christian and the other a Moslem. Both should be appointed by England. We also intend to have attorney generals for the various provinces and mayors for the various communities in Palestine. These are to be elected by the people.

After twenty-five years Judea may be in a position to govern herself. As a totally independent nation and part of an entente including Armenia and Arabia, Judea would be a powerful asset to the western world not only as a producer of culture and a contributor to the world’s markets, but as a military barrier against any power seeking to control the Suez Canal.’


Ben Avi’s desire for a British over-lordship is inspired by the fact that were Palestine to proclaim a complete independence to-day and seek by popular vote to elect its own ruler, the Moslem and Christian peoples living there would outnumber and outvote the Hebrew population. The result would be a nation in which the Jews were in the minority. By England’s recognition of Judea as a Jewish nation and giving its Moslems and Christians representation through sub-governor generals, the Zionists are confident that their dreams will be most practically fulfilled.

The history of Palestine’s struggle towards renationalizing of the Jewish race is comparatively recent. Beginning some


Page 90 ^


forty years ago with the agitation of a handful of idealists, the movement expanded slowly. Great effort to repopulate Palestine with Jews drawn from Russia for the most part met with indifferent success. In the face of ridicule and protest from their own race, the Jews of England, the United States, France, Russia and Germany, acting as an intensive minority, pursued their dream.”

Radical and Revolutionary Activities of the Jews in Various countries

3. The strategy of stirring up class hatred in Christian nations, and the encouragement of revolutionary radicalism to that end, which has such a prominent place in the Protocols, finds corroboration in the very prominent part which, in recent times, the Jews have been taking in the radical and revolutionary movement in many parts of the world, including Hungary, Germany, Holland, Poland, the United States, and certain South American states.

The predominant influence of the Jews in the Bolshevist movement throughout the world is a question which is publicly discussed in the European press. The Budapest correspondent of the London Times some time ago stated:

Hungary is being terrorized by Jewish agitators.” (American Jewish News, May 2, 1919.)

Charges of this kind have appeared in the press in many European countries. In this connection we call the attention of the reader to an article of the Morning Post, entitled “An Insult to Poland,” August 30 1919. In this article, among other things, the following is stated:


Page 91 ^


It is unfortunately true that Bolshevism is very largely a Jewish movement. In Russia the Jewish Bolsheviks have taken a terrible revenge upon all whom they regarded as enemies, and also upon all who protected the Russian Peasantry against the exactions of the Jewish usurers.”

This article closes with the following sentence:

And we warn Jews also, not for the first time. They are showing themselves of Jewish faith, as we used to consider them, but a nation with a foreign policy of their own – and that policy hostile to the friends of England. And that is what in the end Englishmen will not stand.”

The three following documents are also of importance:

(a) An editorial article which appeared in the London Morning Post on April 8, 1919, entitled “Bolstering the Bolshevik.”

(b) A letter signed by Lionel Rothschild and nine other, well-known British Jews to the editor of the London Morning Post, which practically justifies the stand that was taken by that paper.

(c) Comment on the two above-mentioned documents published in the American Jewish News on May 2, 1919.

We set forth in full these three documents.

(a) “Bolstering the Bolshevik

The news from Russia fluctuates from day to day. It is now reported that the situation on the Murmansk Coast has somewhat improved; but the situation in Archangel is obviously critical. Our soldiers have driven off formidable attacks; but


Page 92 ^


the fighting is close and desperate. From South Russia the Bolsheviks reported that Odessa had been captured, and although we may hope that if this is true the Allied forces were safely evacuated, there remains a terrible anxiety as to the fate which may have overtaken our devoted friends in South Russia. For these critical situations we do not blame the War Office; but we do blame Allied policy which has trifled with the whole situation and has alternated between large promises to our Allies and obsequious approaches to our enemies. We are informed that although the anti-Bolshevist armies in Russia have been promised arms and supplies in abundance, what they have actually received has been contemptible. The result is that they are fighting almost naked and in many cases without arms. We may be certain both our soldiers and our allies in Russia are putting up a brave and desperate fight for their lives and their cause, but in these circumstances they must feel that they have been forgotten, if not betrayed, by those upon whom they looked for support. And so it is in Poland. We hear from trustworthy sources that the spirit of the Poles is magnificent. They are ready to become a strong and trusty support of the Allies upon the eastern borders of Germany; but they ask in vain for munitions, supplies and raw materials, and they see their vital communications with the Baltic left in the hands of their enemy and ours.

Poland and Russia are one problem in this sense. We must support our friends if we are to defeat the Bolsheviks, and their secret abettors the Germans. For it is certain in that while Germany consistently suppresses Bolshevism in Germany she encourages it in Poland and Russia.


Page 93 ^


But we are not supporting our friends. We promised them supplies which did not arrive, and political support which breaks down before German opposition. What is the reason of it? We notice that the Daily Herald and the Daily News are persistently telling the people of this country that we are fighting Bolshevisim in obedience to the pressure of the capitalists. Now that is a lie. We are fighting Bolshevism in opposition to a very strong group of German-Jewish and Russian-Jewish capitalists, who are secretly working for the Bolshevist cause. Mr. Lansing may or may not be aware of the fact, but he is helping as corrupt a group of international financiers as ever lived. And the object of that group is to support Bolshevisim in Russia in order to make a deal with the Bolsheviks. We have mentioned several times the disagreeable fact that the Russian Bolsheviks were Russian Jews. These Russian Jews are at the present moment in control of the Russian Government and they have powerful friends in all the Allied countries who are helping them. We have appealed to the British Jews, but appealed so far in vain, to dissociate themselves formally from a cause which is doing the Jewish people terrible harm in all parts of the world. In reply the Jewish press shower upon us not only abuse but threats. Thus, for example, the Jewish World threatens us with the fate of Mordecai: ‘... we wish it no harm, but we would beg it to recollect,’ so it says, ‘while yet it has its feet upon the earth, the fate of its anti-Jewish forbear in that narrative, in the hope that it may mend its ways betimes.’

We are aware of the significance of that threat. We fully understand what it means, and the secret Allies upon whom the Jewish World reckons when it makes it. We


Page 94 ^


saw them at work in Glasgow and Belfast. We see them at work now in Budapest, where, it is reported, out of thirty members of the Bolshevik Soviet, twenty-six are Jews. We understand the threat, but we do not propose to be deterred in our duty to the British public by the terrorist methods of the Bolsheviks. And we suggest to the British Jewish community – most of whom, we believe, are by no means in sympathy with this crusade – that they are being served very badly in their newspapers, which openly threaten Bolshevik methods and scoff at advice which is tendered in a friendly spirit. In secret, we feel certain, the majority of the British Jews distrust and dislike the fanatics who are now leading Jewry astray in the cause of a spurious Jewish Imperialism. But they are afraid to dissociate themselves publicly from the dervishes of Judaism. In the meantime these powerful influences are at work in every country, and chiefly in Paris, where they are working powerfully against the cause of Poland. An unseen hand is at this present time stifling the infant Poland in its cradle, and this is being done in the interests of German-Jewish Capitalism, It is a conspiracy which is assisted by so-called Liberal newspapers like the Daily-News, and so-called Labor newspapers like the Daily World; but it is a conspiracy, nevertheless, which is directed against the cause of liberty in Poland and in the interests of alien Capitalism. For it remains true that our labor agitators, while they are the enemies of British Capital, contrive to be the friends of the Capitalism of the enemies of England. Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson – those champions of liberty – also appear to be more susceptible to the influence of an alien capitalism than to the cry for freedom of long


Page 95 ^


enchained Poland. We ask our readers, who remember the traditional friendship of England with. the Polish cause, to mark the note of anguish in Mr. Paderewski’s statement which we publish this morning. He speaks – and he speaks truly – of ‘the bitterness of the disappointment of the Polish population,’ but it is not only the Polish population that is disappointed by the great Danzig betrayal. Every student of Allied interests must see that, whereas a strong Poland might be a bulwark against both German militarism and Russian Bolshevism, a weak Poland must be the vassal of one and the victim of the other. As to the economic side of the question, British commerce may bid farewell to all hope of a connection in Poland if it leaves Poland in such a situation as to be the enforced dependent of Germany.”

(b) “Bolshevism and Jewry – a Repudiation

London Morning Post,

April 23rd, 1919.

To the Editor of the Morning Post:

We have read with deepest concern and with sincere regret certain articles which have recently appeared in two closely associated Jewish newspapers in this country on the topic of Bolshevism and its ideals. In our opinion, the publication of these articles can have no other effect than to encourage the adoption of the theoretic principles of Russian Bolsheviks among foreign Jews who have sought and found refuge in England. We welcome, accordingly, your suggestions that British Jews should ‘dissociate themselves from a cause which is doing the Jewish people harm in all parts of the world.’ This is profoundly true, and we, on our behalf and on behalf of members of British Jews


Page 96 ^


with whom we have conferred, desire to dissociate ourselves absolutely and unreservedly from the mischievous and misleading doctrines which those articles are calculated to disseminate. We repudiate them as dangerous in themselves and as false to the tenets and teachings of Judaism.

Partly in order to counteract the mistaken policy of the newspapers referred to, the League of British Jews was founded in November, 1917. The proceedings and views of the League are published in a monthly bulletin, entitled Jewish Opinion, which can be obtained at the office of the League, 708-709 Salisbury House, E.C.2, and which may eventually be merged in a larger journal appearing at more frequent intervals. For we thoroughly concur with your criticism that ‘the British Jewish community, most of whom,’ as you rightly day, ‘are by no means in sympathy with this (Nationalist) crusade, are being served very badly by their newspapers,’ Meantime we take this opportunity of repudiating in public the particular statements in those newspapers to which you have felt it your duty to call attention.

Yours, etc.,

Lionel de Rothschild


Philip Magnus

Marcus Samuel

Harry S. Samuel

Leonard L. Cohen

I. Gollancz

John Monash

Claude G. Montefiore

Isadore Spielmann.”

(c) “Prominent London Jews justify anti-Semitic Attack

General Monash, Rothschild and Montifiore Figure in Agitation.


Page 97 ^


In reply to a recent article in the London Morning Post, in which the editor accused the Jews as being Bolsheviks, a letter justifying the stand of the Post in the matter was sent to that paper nd signed by Baron Lionel Rothschild, Lord Swaythling, Sir Magnus, Sir Marcus Samuel, Sir Harry Samuel, General Monash, Sir Isadore Spielmann, Claude Montefiore, Leonard Cohen and Professor Gollancz.

As a result of this letter, a self-sanctifying leading editorial appeared in the Post,which cried out in virtuous indignation against all those who had previously questioned that the majority of the Jews are Bolsheviks. The letter, coming as it has, at a time when the anti-Semitic pot is boiling in London, has a peculiarly unfortunate effect. The opinion of London Jewry towards these ten men they consider have betrayed them, may best be left to the imagination.”

It is significant that the feeling that the Jews are largely instrumental in promotingBolshevism andradicalism in general is by no means confined to England. The New York World published on January 26, 1919, a cable from Buenos Aries entitled “Argentina Departs Fourteen Hundred Bolshevists.” The cable reads as follows:

Buenos Aires, January 25. – Fourteen hundred prisoners, charged with Bolshevist activities, are on board a cruiser here awaiting deportation, according to Secret Service Men. The majority of them are Russian Jews. Some Spaniards are among the number.”

In the same connection the New York Tribune, on January 24, 1919, reported that in Buenos Aires posters were put up in which the Russian Jews were blamed “for the


Page 98 ^


recent outbreaks, as well as the anarchistic outbreak in 1910,” and it was demanded that “the government rid the nation of this Jewish pest.”

In the issue of The Review of March 13, 1920, an article was published entitled “Bolshevism in Holland.” The article gives a brief description of the Bolshevist movement in Holland. It also gives the names of the most prominent leaders of the Bolshevist movement in that country. In part the article reads as follows:

First among these is Mr. David Wijnkoop, an Amsterdam Jew, of a fiery, impetuous temperament, a great orator with a strong hold on the masses. He is the Dutch counterpart of his Russian comrade Trotzky, whom he resembles even in outward appearance, and a faithful henchman of his Moscow alter ego in the spreading of the latter’s international propaganda.”

It is a well-known fact that in Hungary, during the Bolshevist revolution of 1919, Bela Kun, whose real name is Cohen, a Jew, became the dictator. It was often reported in various papers that out of the thirty-one Soviet officials in Hungary twenty-six were Jews.

In Austria revolutionary attempts were made to set up a Bolshevist government, and the two brothers Adler, as well as Friedrich Adler, all of whom are Jews, were the leading spirits of the Bolshevist revolutionary propaganda in that country.

In Germany the first Spartacan revolt was almost exclusively under the control of Jews. Among others were; Rosa Luxemburg, Clara Zetkin, Radek (whose real name is Sobelsohn), Eugene Zevine, Muscham.

In the recent attempt to overthrow the Ebert Government and set up a Bolshevist Republic, almost all of the leaders in Berlin


Page 99 ^


were Jews. The New York Sun, under date of March, l8, 1920, gives the names of the Communist leaders who attempted to overthrow the government as follows: Cohn, Daumig, Newmann, Dr. von Kahn, Kurt Bever, Levy.

As to the United States the following should be stated:

While it is a generally recognized fact that the Socialist, Communist, Radical, I.W.W., and Bolshevist movements are largely recruited from the foreign-born population of various nationalities, nevertheless it can scarcely be denied that the moving spirit of the destructive revolutionary propaganda is largely Jewish and fomented by Jews. Thus, for instance, the notorious “Russian” Soviet Bureau, headed by Ludwig C A.K. Martens, a German, was almost exclusively composed of Jews. Those who were in charge of responsible departments in the Bureau were as follows:

Abraham Heller – Manager of the Commercial Department

Nuorteva – Whose real name is said to be Neuberger, Manager of the Propaganda Department

Gregory Weinstein – General Office Manager

Morris Hillquit & Charles Recht – Counselors at law for the Soviet Bureau

All of the five Socialists who were recently ousted from the Assembly of the state of New York by an overwhelming vote were Jews. Their names are: Louis Waldman, August Classens, Samuel A. de Witt, Samuel Orr, and Charles Solomon. During the trial of these men one of the most sensational pieces of evidence introduced by the state to show that the Socialist Party advocated


Page 100 ^


the overthrow of the government by violence and revolution, was a book published in Yiddish by the Jewish Socialist Federation of America. This federation is a part of the Socialist Party. The official report of the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly of the State of New York remarks that in the book published in Yiddish, the principles of Socialism, “were not camoulflaged, as they frequently are in English” (page 31), The book in question typifies the extreme of revolutionary Socialism in the United States. We quotesome of the more striking passages:

Workingmen cannot depend on ‘peaceful evolution’; they must prepare for a revolution, and class-dictatorship” (page 207).

The Socialist movement rouses the workingmen to revolution; it preaches to them class-struggle, awakens within them class consciousness, makes all necessary preparations for a Socialistic order. When society is ready for the overturn, when the Socialist organization feels that the moment has come, it will make the revolution. To predict when and how this should be done is impossible. This is a thing which must be determined separately in every country, because the circumstances in every country are different. No sooner than the revolution is made, however, the first aim of the Socialists must be to seize the government, the state, by whatever means they can succeed in doing this with and then their rule must establish the dictatorship of the Proletariat.

This dictatorship will be employed for one thing, to eliminate capitalism by force, take away by force the capital from private owners and transfer it to the ownership of the community.

Socialists seek to be elected into the government principally for the sake of propaganda.


Page 101 ^


To the Socialist at present, the meaning of class struggle, Internationale, and dictatorship of the Proletariat must be clear. He must understand that Socialism is not a reform movement. He must know that Socialism is a Revolutionary world-perspective, and that the Socialist movement is a Revolutionary movement.”

The radical periodicals published in Russian are almost entirely managed and completely controlled by Jews. For in stance, the Russki Golos has an editorial staff composed of four men, all of whom are Jews, namely, Weinbaum, Zvesdichiy, Sokolov, Gisenkin. The official organ of the Russian Communist Branch of the American Communist Party, the Novy Mir, is edited by two Jews, namely, N. Hourwitch, and Stoklitzky. The Bolshevist weekly, Pravda, is edited by two Jews, namely, Finklestein and Weinstein. The Ukrainian Bolshevist tri-weekly publication, Robitnik, is published by a Jew, K. Pitlar. At the same time, even leaving out the well-known Yiddish publication The Jewish Daily Forward, with pronounced pro-Bolshevist tendencies, the new Anarchistic periodical, The Communist World, published in English, has the following men on its editorial staff, all of whom are Jews:

Maximilian Cohen ......................... Editor

B.D. Wolfe .................................... Associate Editor

George Ashkenauzi ...................... Buisness Manager

H. Winitsky .................................... Executive Secretary

Winitsky was recently convicted of criminal anarchy in the New York Courts.

Again, with the recently founded Communist Party of America, the role of the Jew is very important, inasmuch as its founder is Louis Fraina, an Italian Jew. Examples of this kind could be multiplied


Page 102 ^


almost indefinitely. For this reason we must content ourselves with a reference to an article published in the New York Call. This is the official organ of the Socialist Party of America, which is issued under the motto:

Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains, and a world to gain.”

The president of this publication is S. Block, a Jew. The article in question, entitled “Chicago Workers Plan Big May Day Demonstrations,” deals with the arrangements for the May Day Parade of the Chicago radical labor organization in 1919. It enumerates some of the organizations which were represented in the conference which planned the demonstrations:

Joint Board, Cloak Makers’ Union

11 branches of the Workmen’s Circle

Millinery Workers, Local Union, 47

Northwest Side Jewish Socialist Branch

The Hebrew Trades

The Brushmakers’ Union

The 13th Ward Jewish Socialist Branch

The Karl Marx Jewish Socialist Branch

Yipsel Jewish Socialist Branches 1 and 4

Carpenters’ Union, Local 504

West Side Jewish Socialist Campaign Conference

The Northwest Side Jewish Socialist Campaign Conference

The 15th Ward Campaign Committee

West Side Jewish Socialist Branch

Amalgamated Local Union, 39

Waist Makers’ Union, 100

International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union

Bakers’ Union, 237

Capmakers’ Union, Local 5

Young Peoplets Progressive Dramatic Club


Page 103 ^


City Central Committee, Jewish Socialist Branches

City Central Committee, Workmen’s Circle

Douglas Park Jewish Socialist Branch”

Indeed, it can scarcely be denied that the Jewish labor organizations as enumerated by this publication itself were in complete control of the whole May Day parade in one of the biggest cities in the United States.

One more fact of importance which should be mentioned is that four Anarchists, who were convicted and sentenced to terms of twenty years by the United State’s District Court for the Southern District of New York, were Jews. Their names are: Jacob Abrams, Samuel Lipman, Hyman Lachowsky, Mollie Stimer.

Finally, we refer to the well-known activities of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, both of whom are Jews, and who were deported on the Soviet Ark “Buford.”

Of course, it is significant that the radical labor movement is largely controlled by Jewish internationalists, but still more significant appears the fact that several rabbis have taken a definite stand in support of the Red movement. We shall refer here to two instances. On October 25, 1919, the New York Tribune stated that Rabbi Judah L. Magnes had publicly announced that “he was a Bolshevik and in full sympathy with their doctrines and ideals.” The article referred to is entitled “Bolshevik Talk Forces Magnes Out.” Therein it is revealed that on account of his public announcement that he was in full sympathy with Trotzky, Rabbi Magnes was forced to resign from the American Jewish Committee. It is important to bear in mind that at that time Rabbi Magnes was one of the most honored members of the Jewish community. Rabbi Magnes was


Page 104 ^


deputed in 1916 to represent in Europe the American Jewish Relief organization. The Joint Distribution Committee, which, among other activities, solicited and distributed money and supplies to the Jews in territories occupied by the Central Powers. Whenever there is a great mass meeting Rabbi Magnes appears as the chief spokesman on behalf of the Jews in New York City, as has happened several times since his expulsion from the American Jewish Committee. Rabbi Magnes was one of the founders of the People’s Council, which was dissolved by the United States Government during the war. Here is a tentative enumeration of Rabbi Magnes’s activities as stated in the Tribune article above referred to:

Dr. Magnes was one of the organizers of the American Jewish Committee which has been engaged in philanthropic work among the Jews for the last fifteen years. Most of the work of the committee was confined to countries where the people were oppressed, Dr. Magnes has held many important posts and at one time was Rabbi of the Temple Emanu-El. Shortly after we entered the war he became a strong pacifist and was active in the People’s Council.

There was a movement started on the East Side early in the summer to make Dr. Magnes the Socialist candidate for Congress. The persons who attempted this move are now supporting Congressman London for reelection. Dr. Magnes is chairman of the American Jewish Kehillah.”

The other instance is that of Rabbi Maxwell Silver of Temple Shaari Zedek, Brooklyn, who, on January 8, 1920, was ousted by his congregation early in January, 1920, because of alleged radical utterances. “It was charged that he drew class lines and spoke of the rich as


Page 105 ^


oppressors.” (See New York Times, January 8, 1920.) This fact alone might not be of great importance, but the action of the Yew York Association of Reformed Rabbis, as reported in the Yew York daily press, is significant:

After the dismissal of Rabbi Maxwell Silver, of Congregation Shaari Zedek, of Brooklyn, the New York Association of Reformed Rabbis undertook the mediation of the trouble between the congregation and the Rabbi, and as a result pointed out that the whole difficulty was due to an unfortunate misunderstanding. Thereupon the trustees decided to recommend the reinstatement of Rabbi Silver, and we are happy to state that such reinstatement was ratified by the congregation after a special meeting last night. By a special resolution the New York Association of Reformed Rabbis expresses its confidence in the worthiness of Rabbi Silver and also in the good intentions of the Congregation Shaari Zedek to serve the cause` of Israel.”

It is also a peculiar fact to consider that certain powerful Jewish bankers were instrumental and active in spreading Bolshevism, which now threatens the whole world. In this connection we refer to one of the “Sisson Documents,” published by the United States Government in 1917 under the title “German Bolshevist Conspiracy”:

On September 21, 1917, one of the leading German Spartacan leaders, a Jew, by name of Furstenberg, wrote a letter to a Bolshevist by the name of Raphael Scholan, who became later one of the Bolshevist commissaries in Soviet Russia, as follows:


Page 106 ^


Stockholm, Sept. 21, 1917.

To Mr. Raphael Scholan,


Dear Comrade:

The banking house, M. Warburg, opened an account for the enterprise of Comrade Trotzky, upon receipt of a telegram from the Chairman of the ‘Rhein- Westphalian Syndicate.’ A lawyer, probably Mr. Kestroff, obtained ammunition and organized the transportation of same, together with that of money, to Lulea and Vardo, the firm of Essen & Son, Lulea, as to the consignee and the confidential persons to whom the sum demanded by Comrade Trotzky is to be handed. Fraternal greetings!

(sgd) Furstenberg.”

Rumors that international Jewish financiers have been supporting the Bolsheviki in Russia are persistent.

Who are the international financiers? Perhaps the answer is to be found in the following cable dispatch of the Wolff Agency on the German situation in 1919, published by La Vieille France in the issue of February 13, 1919:

The deputy Hyemann has revealed the curious fact: The Bolshevist movement is supported by financiers. The banker Bleichroeder, has contributed two millions to the Extremist Journal.”

It is of course known that Bleichroeder is one of the most powerful Jewish financiers in Germany.

It will be remembered that the Protocols bring out very distinctly two ideas, namely, economic and social dissensions of all kinds, including anarchism and communism and also a world war.

In a recently published book which has created much interest, entitled “The Inside


Page 107 ^


Story of Austro-German Intrigue,” by Joseph Goricar and Lyman Beecher Stowe, the authors advanced the theory that Jewish bankers have during the last century played an important role in European war conspiracies. Mr. Goricar was, during the early part of the late war, Austro-Hungarian Consul in Berlin. We refer to one of the most important passages in the book bearing upon the subject:

The pro-war bankers of 1854 as well as those of 1914 originated in the Semitic banking center of Frankfort-on-the-Main in Germany, the birthplace of the Bethmann- Hollwegs. the Goldschmidts, the Seligmans, Jacob Schiff,1 and the Rothschilds.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1 It has been stated by one of the leaders of Zionism, namely, Israel Zangwill, author of “The Children of the Ghetto,” that Mr. Jacob Schiff financed “the Japanese war against Russia.” This statement is made in a pamphlet entitled “The Problems of the Jewish Races,” p. 14, published by the Judean Publishing Company, New York City.

In its report of a Socialist meeting held in Carnegie Hall on March 23, 1917, to celebrate the revolution in Russia, the New York Times on March 24, 1917, says: “An authority on Russian affairs, George Kennan told of how a movement by the Society of the Friends of Russian Freedom, financed by Jacob Schiff, had at the time of the Russo-Japanese war spread among 50,000 Russian officers and men in Japanese prison camps, the gospel of the Russian revolutionists.”

The Jewish character of the first Russian revolution was strongly emphasized in a report presented to the Emperor of Russia, Nicholas II, by the Russian Foreign Minister, Count Lamsdorf, on January 3, 1906:


Page 108 ^


All the vast wealth of the banking house of the Rothschilds, amounting at the beginning of the war to some twenty billion francs, was made chiefly in war operations, war financing. The Rothschild brothers of the Central Empires have in fact sometimes financed simultaneously rival groups of belligerents.

Frankfort-on-the-Main is, and has been for more than a hundred years, the chief source of financial backing for wars. Kings, emperors, and war ministers have had to await the pleasure of these bankers before issuing their ultimata. To that centre have been added Vienna, Berlin, and Budapest, the other important centers of Jewish world finance, In Vienna the published in full in English translation in “The American Hebrew and Jewish Messenger,” in its issue of July 13, 1918. Therein it is stated that a very considerable part in the revolutionary activities was played by the Jews, “who individually, as ringleaders in other organizations, as well as through their own (the Jewish Bund in the Western Provinces), have always come forward as the most bellicose element of the revolution.” Count Zamsdorf further stated: “We may feel entitled to assume that the above mentioned foreign support of the Russian revolutionary movement comes from Jewish capitalist circles .... In June, 1905, a special Anglo-Jewish committee was openly established in England for the purpose of collecting money for arming fighting groups of Russian Jews: The well-known anti-Russian publicist, Lucien Wolf, was the leading member of this committee .... The Jews in America .... collect money for helping the pogrom sufferers and for arming the Jewish youth.”


Page 109 ^


Rothschilds’ word is law; in Berlin, the Hahnemans, Bleichroeders, Mendelssohns, especially the last named, who of late years have controlled Russia’s finances. To these same sources may be traced the origin of the World War.” (Pages 56 and 57.)

The “Protocols” have already attracted public attention in various countries, The attitude which the leaders will take in regard to them is a matter of great interest and deep concern. Until now they have kept silent. Only on rare occasions have the Jews referred, though very indirectly, to the question of the existance of a Jewish world conspiracy. The most explicit utterance on the subject in the United States is that of Rabbi Stephan Wise, in his address to the Congregation of Free Synagogues in Carnegie Hall, on March 1, 1920. The reports of the address in the daily press are rather meager. We set forth in full the report which appeared in the New York Tribune on the following day:


Speaking to the congregation of Free Synagogue in Carnegie Hall yesterday on the subject of ‘The Jewish Conspiracy,’ which has had its most recent revival in a story published in the London Morning Post, charging that Jews were in a plot to seize control of the world, Dr. Stephen S. Wise said that the only serious ‘conspiracy’ among the Jews to-day emanated from the young men who foreswore their ancient faith.

Saying that oppression and injustice have attended the followers of the Jewish faith for centuries, Dr. Wise added that


Page 110 ^


they had a right to be vindictive, but that it was not in their nature to be so.

It is the Jew who has been reduced to such a state of degradation by oppression that he lies when he swears allegiance to another faith which has not even touched his heart, who becomes a dangerous element in the life of the world,’said Dr. Wise.

The conspiracy,’ if there is one, is among those of Jewish birth who are or seem ashamed of their origin. They follow false gods or none at all, and among them will be those who may seize power for their own ends.”


In conclusion it stated that the motives which have actuated the publication of this book are not anti-Semitic. The object – already indicated in the introduction – is to call the attention of the American people to a document which may throw important light upon the international Bolshevist movement which menaces directly the vital interests of the United States.

That this attention is justified appears from a review of the recent publication of the Protocols in England, which appeared in the London Times on May 8, 1920. The article is so significant that it is reprinted in its entirety.


1 The Jewish Peril. Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1920.

A Disturbing Pamphlet


Page 111 ^


Call for Inquiry

(From a correspondent)

The Times has not as yet noticed this singular little book. Its diffusion is, however, increasing, and its reading is likely to perturb the thinking public. Never before have a race and a creed been accused of a more sinister conspiracy. We in this country, who live in good fellowship with numerous representatives of Jewry, may well ask that some authoritative criticism should deal with it, and either destroy the ugly “Semitic” bogy or assign their proper place to the insidious allegations of this kind of literature.

In spite of the urgency of impartial and exhaustive criticism, the pamphlet has been allowed, so far, to pass almost unchallenged. The Jewish Press announced, it is true, that the anti-Semitism of the “Jewish Peril” was going to be exposed. But save for an unsatisfactory article in the March 5 issue of the Jewish Guardian, and for an almost equally unsatisfactory contribution to the Nation of March 27, this exposure is yet to come. The article of the Jewish Guardian is unsatisfactory, because it deals mainly with the personality of the author of the book in which the pamphlet is embodied, with Russian reactionary propaganda, and the Russian secret police. It does not touch the substance of the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” The purely Russian side of the book and its fervid “Orthodoxy” is not its most interesting feature. Its author Professor S. Nilus, who was a minor official in the Department of Foreign Religions at Moscow, had, in all likelihood, opportunities of access to many archives and unpublished documents. On the other hand, the world-wide issue raised by the


Page 112 ^


Protocols” which he incorporated in his book and are now translated into English as “The Jewish Peril,” cannot fail not only to interest, but to preoccupy. What are the theses of the “Protocols” with which, in the absence of public criticism, British readers have to grapple alone and unaided? They are, roughly:

(1) There is, and has been for centuries, a secret international political of the Jews.

(2) The spirit of this organization appears to be an undying traditional hatred of the Christian world, and a titanic ambition for world domination.

(3) The goal relentlessly pursued through centuries is the destruction of the Christian national States, and the substitution for them of an international Jewish dominion.

(4) The method adopted for first weakening and then destroying existing bodies politic is the infusion of disintegrating political ideas of carefully measured progressive disruptive force, from liberalism to radicalism, and socialism to communism, culminating in anarchy as a reduetio ad absurdum of egalitarian principles. Meanwhile Jewry remains immune from these corrosive doctrines. “We preach Liberalism to the Gentiles, but on the other hand we keep our own nation in entire subjection” (page 55). Out of the welter of world anarchy, in response to the desperate clamour of distraught humanity, the stern, logical, wise, pitiless rule of “the King of the Seed of David” is to arise.

(5) Political dogmas evolved by Christian Europe, democratic statesmanship and politics, are all equally contemptible to the Elders of Zion. To them statesmanship is an exalted secret art, acquired by traditional training, and imparted to a select few in the secrecy of some occult sanctuary.


Page 113 ^


Political problems are not meant to be understood by ordinary people; they can only be comprehended, as I have said before, by rulers who have been directing affairs for many centuries.”

(6) To this conception of statesmanship the masses are contemptible cattle, and the political leaders of the Gentiles, “upstarts from its midst as rulers, are likewise blind in politics.” They are puppets, pulled by the hidden hand of the “Elders,” puppets mostly corrupt, always inefficient, easily coaxed, or bullied, or blackmailed into submission, unconsciously furthering the advent of Jewish dominion.

(7) The Press, the theatre, stock exchange speculations, science, law itself, are, in the hands that hold all the gold, so many means of procuring a deliberate confusion and bewilderment of public opinion, demoralization of the young, and encouragement of the vices of the adult, eventually substituting, in the minds of the Gentiles, for the idealistic aspiration of Christian culture the “cashbasis” and a neutrality of materialistic scepticism, or cynical lust for pleasure.

Such are the main theses of the “Protocols.” They are not altogether new, and can be found scattered throughout anti-Semitic literature. The condensed form in which they are now presented lends them a new and weird force.

Incidentally, some of the features of the would-be Jewish programme bear an uncanny resemblence to situations and events now developing under our eyes. Professor Nilus’s book was, undoubtedly, published in Russia in 1905. The copy of the original at the British Museum bears the stamp of August 10, 1906. This being so, some of the passages assume the aspect of fulfilled prophecies, unless one is inclined


Page 114 ^


to attribute the prescience of the “Elders of Zion” to the fact that they really are the hidden instigators of these events. When one reads (page 8) that “it is indispensable for our plans that wars should not produce any territorial alterations,” one is most forcibly reminded of the cry, “peace without annexations” raised by all the radical parties of the world, and especially in revolutionary Russia. And again:

We will create a universal economic crisis, by all possible underhand means and with the help of gold, which is all in our hands. Simultaneously we will throw on to the streets huge crowds of workmen throughout Europe. We will increase the wages, which will not help the workmen as, at the same time, we will raise the price of prime necessities ... it is essential for us at all costs to deprive the aristocracy of their lands. To attain this purpose, the best method is to force up rates and taxes. These methods will keep the landed interests at their lowest possible ebb.

Nor can one fail to recognize Soviet Russia in the following:

...in governing the world the best results are obtained by means of violence and intimidation .... In politics, we must know how to confiscate property without any hesitation, if by so doing we can obtain subjection and power. Our State, following the way of peaceful conquest, has the right of substituting for the terrors of war, executions less apparent and more expedient, which are necessary to uphold terror, producing blind submission ... By new laws we will regulate the political life of our subjects as though they were so many parts of a machine. Such laws will gradually restrict all freedom and liberties allowed by the Gentiles .... It is essential for us to arrange that,


Page 115 ^


besides ourselves, there should be in all countries nothing but a huge proletariat, so many soldiers and police loyal to our cause; ... in order to demonstrate our enslavement of the Gentile Governments of Europe, we will show our power to one of them by means of crime and violence, that is to say, a reign of terror; ... our programme will induce a third part of the watch the remainder from a pure sense of duty or from the principle of voluntary service.”

Bearing in mind when this was published, we see, fifteen years later, a government established in Russia of which a high percentage of the leaders are Jews, whose modus operandi follows the principles quoted, and whose mainstay is a Communist Party, which answers to the last quotation. We see this, and it seems uncanny. The trouble is that all this fosters indiscriminate anti-Semitism. That the latter is rampant in Eastern Europe is a fact. That its propaganda in France, England, and America is a fact also. Do we want, and can we afford to add exacerbated race-hatred to all our political, social, and economic troubles? If not, the question of the “Jewish Peril” should be taken up and dealt with. It is far too interesting, the hypothesis it presents is far too ingenious, attractive, and sensational not to attract the attention of our none too happy and none too contented public. The average man thinks that there is something very fundamentally wrong with the world he lives in. He will eagerly grasp at a plausible “working hypothesis.”

What are these “Protocols”? Are they authentic? If so, what malevolent assembly concocted these plans, and gloated over their exposition? Are they forgery? If so, whence comes the uncanny note of


Page 116 ^


prophecy, prophecy in parts fulfilled, in parts far gone in the way of fulfillment? Have we been struggling these tragic years to blow up and extirpate the secret organization of German world dominion only to find beneath it another more dangerous because more secret? Have we, by straining every fibre of our national body, escaped a “Pax Germanica” only to fall into a “Pax Judaeica”? The “Elders of Zion,” as represented in their “Protocols,” are by no means kinder taskmasters than William II and his henchmen would have been.

All these questions, which are likely to obtrude themselves on the reader of the “Jewish Peril,” cannot be dismissed by a shrug of the shoulders unless one wants to strengthen the hand of the typical anti-Semite and call forth his favourite accusation of the “conspiracy of silence.” An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and of their history is most desirable. That history is by no means clear from the English translation. They would appear, from internal evidence, to have been written by Jews for Jews, or to be cast in the form of lectures, and notes for lectures, by Jews to Jews. If so, in what circumstances were they produced and to cope with what inter-Jewish emergency? Or are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?

The publishers believe that the vast majority of the Jews in this country have never heard of the Protocols, and would denounce the plan which they set forth. The Jews here, constituting about three per cent of the population, enjoy the same rights and privileges as other citizens. All are equal before the law and all are free from persecution on religious grounds, American Jews are regarded by their fellow


Page 117 ^


citizens, and for the most part doubtless regard themselves, as Americans of Jewish faith. They have indeed a special ground for gratitude to the country of their adoption, for they have found here opportunities which they did not enjoy in many other countries. They have shared in all the activities leading to prosperity and they have prospered. That they do, in fact, recognize their favorable situation is shown by the statements two of them are reported by the New York Times, in its issue of May 4, 1920, to have made at a mass meeting held an the preceding evening at Cooper Union under the auspices of the Independent Order of Brith Abraham, to express the gratitude of the Jewish people to Great Britain for taking the mandate for Palestine. Judge Gustave Hartman, Grand Master of the order, is reported to have said in parts:

We didn’t know what a home was until we reached this greatest of all republics, the United States of America. Here we are given free and equal opportunity under the free institutions of this country. In this country the Jews have lived and prospered, and in all this country there are no better citizens than the Jewish people.”

Judge Otto A. Rosalsky said “that it became the duty of the Jewish citizens of America to cherish the ideals of this country and keep them intact, so that they might be handed down to their children’s children.”

Doubtless American Jews will recognize the menace to American institutions and American prosperity of any such political conspiracy as is outlined in the Protocols. But the situation demands more than tacit disapproval on their part. Bearing in mind the close parallelism shown to exist between the “Protocols”


Page 118 ^


and the actual policies of Bolshevism as practiced in Russia, the dominant position occupied by the Jews in the Soviet Government, and the open sympathy and approval given to international Bolshevism by prominent Jews outside Russia, it is vitally necessary that the American Jews should by word and deed express their condemnation not only of Bolshevism, but of any plan or program for world domination similar to that contained in the Protocols. Aside from their position on these matters, there is, no likelihood of any change in the favorable situation of the Jews in this country unless by their own conduct they convince the American people that they are hostile to our institutions or to our system of government, or that they desire to constitute within the borders of the United States a race apart, – to be treated as members of a foreign nation, enjoying special rights, privileges, or immunities.


Page 119 ^