The Protocols of Zion Toolkit - Part 3

Peter Myers, September 22, 2002; update August 3, 2018. My comments are shown {thus}.

Write to me at contact.html.

You are at .

This is Part 3. Part 1 is at toolkit.html; Part 2 is at toolkit2.html.

Part 3 of the Protocols of Zion Toolkit deals with the events from 1914 to the early 1920s, which seemed to have been predicted in the Protocols: the World War, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Balfour Declaration inauguraing the state of Israel, and the attempt to make the League of Nations a World Government.

added March 6, 2018: 11. WWI as an Opportunity - Herzl wrote : 'we shall get [Palestine] not from the goodwill but from the jealousy of the Powers'

added March 6, 2018: 12. Benjamin H. Freedman discloses the huge Jewish delegation (117 Jews) at the Peace Conference of Versailles in 1919

9. The Push for World Government at the Peace Conference of Versailles (1919)

Those promoting World Government never quote ulterior motives, such as the pursuit of their own power or the imposition of their own ideology; instead, they speak of universal principles of morality and common humanity.

The attempt at world government was disguised under slogans such as "unifying mankind", "the war to end war", and "preventing future wars". Thus the name of the League To Enforce Peace.

Cyrus Alder wrote in Jacob H Schiff: His Life and Letters Volume II, (Doubleday, Doran and Company, New York, 1928):

{p. 193} He {Jacob Schiff} was also one of the first to recognize that thinking men must put their minds to work to devise some means to avoid future wars. In spite of his unwillingness to appear publicly in the matter, he was disposed, because of his strong convictions, to take an earnest part in the League to Enforce Peace, and, on October 27, 1916, he addressed a letter to President Wilson, referring to a conversation of a month previous, and urging the President to give the principal address at a dinner which was being arranged by the League for November 24. He likewise urged Wilson to join with Lord Bryce and other leaders of world opinion to take active steps for the avoidance of future wars. ...

{p. 315} Again he described the issue {in a letter to} to Zangwill, December 12th:

{p. 316} I have been carrying on ... conferences and discussions with Justice Brandeis and other Zionist leaders ... I want to be permitted to state I do not see any raison d'etre for a Jewish state in Palestine that does not have Judaism as its cornerstone, nor that I can consider anyone a Jew who does not acknowledge the Jewish concept of the Deity. ...

{end of quotes}

Yet the same Jacob Schiff had funded the Japanese naval buildup prior to the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. An advocate of "ending war" actually funded a major war only 15 years earlier.

Is this not a contradiction? But Schiff no doubt expected that in the One World inaugurated by the League, with its world army and world court, he would be one of those in power.

Inga Floto wrote in Colonel House in Paris (Princeton University Press, 1980):

{p. 197} ... it was Wickham Steed, more than any other man, who came to influence the atmosphere during the most critical phase of the Conference, because just at that time, Lord Northcliffe began his frontal attack on Lloyd George, and his most important weapons for this purpose included Steed's editorials in the (Paris) Daily Mail and The Times. ...

It was Auchincloss who provided Steed with a considerable part of the ammunition with which he thwarted all attempts by Lloyd George to support Bullitt's peace plan, and he went even further than that. In talks with Northcliffe and Steed, he encouraged them to bring pressure to bear not only on Lloyd George but also on Wilson. However, in this extremely disloyal behaviour, Auchincloss appears to have been acting entirely on his own initiative and House was not involved. All the same, as we have seen, this conduct did not escape the notice of Lloyd George or Wilson's closest advisers. Both Lloyd George and {Bernard} Baruch reacted on 4 April, and there is really no reason for thinking that Wilson was kept ignorant on matters much longer than this.

{end of quotes}

Alfred Zimmern, in his bookThe League of Nations and the Rule of Law(Macmillan, London 1939), quotes this letter from Senator Elihu Root to Colonel House:

{p. 231}
Clinton, New York
August 16, 1918
My Dear Colonel House

The first requisite for any durable concert of peacable nations to prevent war is a fundamental change in the principle to be applied to international breaches of the peace ...

{p. 232} The change involves a limitation of sovereignty, making every sovereign state subject to the superior right of a community of sovereign states to have the peace preserved.

Eric Samuelson described Elihu Root's role in forming the CFR, in his article An Introduction to the "Little Sister" of The Royal Institute of International Affairs: The U.S. Council on Foreign Relations:

[....] the CFR was, indeed, a British Round Table creation. This is one of the most important hidden secrets of the NYC-based CFR.

The League of Free Nations was created in early 1918 (in 1920 it became the Foreign Policy Association). The Foreign Policy Association "grew out of a meeting of nineteen writers, editors, educators, and such with a view to selling Wilsonian policies and the League of Nations to the public." The Foreign Policy Association, however, soon began to play "second fiddle" to the CFR.

In June 1918, a "more discrete" club of New York "financiers and international lawyers" was formed headed by Elihu Root (an Andrew Carnegie lawyer). The 108 members of the original Council on Foreign Relations were described by Whitney Shepardson as "high-ranking officers of banking, manufacturing, trading and finance companies, together with many lawyers." International Bankers provided the money: "In Britain the organization was (initially) called the Institute for International Affairs (IIA) while in New York it operated as the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR). The finances for the group came from wealthy international bankers..." The CFR was founded "by East Coast bankers, lawyers and academicians...".

Schiff and Baruch were leading Jewish proponents of World Government at the time of the Treaty of Versailles.

Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Keter Publishing House, 1971) records, under BARUCH:

"BERNARD BARUCH (1870-1965), stock analyst, self-styled "speculator" and statesman ... President Wilson ... made him chairman of the Commission on Raw Materials, Minerals, and Metals. Durinng World War I he served as chairman of the War Industries Board with power to virtually mobilize the American wartime economy. At the war's end he served on the Supreme Economic Council at the Conference of Versailles, where he was President Wilson's personal economic adviser ... "

The following information on Walter Lippman, with whom H. G. Wells worked closely, is from the Spartacus site

{quote} Walter Lippmann, the son of second-generation German-Jewish parents, was born in New York City on 23rd September, 1889. While studying at Harvard University he became a socialist and was co-founder of the Harvard Socialist Club and edited the Harvard Monthly.

In 1911 Lincoln Steffens, the campaigning journalist, took Lippmann on as his secretary. Like Steffens, Lippmann supported Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party in the 1912 presidential elections. Lippman's book, A Preface to Politics (1913) was well-received and the following year he joined Herbert Croly in establishing the political weekly, the New Republic.

Lippmann rejected his earlier socialism in Drift and Mastery (1914) and in 1916 became a staunch supporter of Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic Party. In 1917 Lippmann was appointed as assistant to Newton Baker, Wilson's secretary of war. Lippman worked closely with Woodrow Wilson and Edward House in drafting the Fourteen Points Peace Programme. He was a member of the USA's delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and helped draw up the covenant of the League of Nations. ... {endquote}

Trotsky wrote of Wilson's Fourteen Points, in his autobiography:

"After the October revolution, an enterprising New York publisher brought out my German pamphlet as an imposing American book. According to his own statement, President Wilson asked him, by telephone from the White House, to send the proofs of the book to him; at that time, the President was composing his Fourteen Points, and, according to reports from people who were informed, could not get over the fact that a Bolshevik had forestalled him in his best formulae."

The reference is Leon Trotsky, My Life: The Rise and Fall of a Dictator (Thornton Butterworth Limited, London 1930), p. 208; and in the paperback edition, My Life (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1975), p. 249.

R. H. Bruce Lockhart writes in Memoirs of a Secret Agent (Putnam, London 1932): "In the spring of 1917 Kerensky requested the British Government to facilitate Trotsky's return to Russia." (p. 227).

Herman Bernstein, Jewish author of Celebrities of Our Time: Interviews, quotes a British officer: "We wanted to hold him, but Milukov and Kerensky insisted upon our releasing him." (p. 212, below).

Kerensky, the Jewish leader of the Government in Russia after the Tsar's fall, thus facilitated the Bolshevik Revolution.

10. One man stops World Government

Henry Wickham-Steed, newspaper editor, single-handedly blocked the secret push for World Government at the Peace Conference of Versailles in 1919.

Only later did he fall out with Northcliffe. Wickham-Steed condoned Zionism but opposed Bolshevism and the push for World Government by Wilson, H. G. Wells, Jacob Schiff and others.

British Prime Minister David Lloyd-George wrote in his Memoirs of the Peace Conference VOLUME I (NEW HAVEN, YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1939):

{p. 217} On the 16th of January I brought the whole situation in Russia before the Peace Congress. ... The newer progressivism, which was concerned more with conditions than with forms, viewed the upheaval, it spite of its crudities and barbarities, with tolerance and a few regarded it with a considerable measure of sympathy. This did not mean any degree of acceptance of Communism as a creed. ...

{p. 218} This view was also taken by President Wilson. Our attitude was that of the Fox Whigs towards the French Revolution. Men like Clemenceau, however, who forgave all the terrors of the French Revolution because they thought them unavoidable in an insurrection of the masses against their oppressors and despoilers, judged harshly the violence and horrors perpetrated in the Russian Revolution, although the provocation was if anything greater. ...

Personally I would have dealt with the Soviets as the defacto Government of Russia. So would President Wilson. But we both agreed that we could not carry to that extent our colleagues at the Congress, nor the public opinion of our own countries which was frightened by Bolshevik violence and feared its spread. I therefore accepted as a compromise a proposal that we should proceed along the line of inviting delegates from all the contending sections to meet the Allies at some convenient time and place in the immediate future to effect a settlement which would bring peace to Russia and a good understanding between Russia and the rest of the world.

Henry Wickham-Steed, Through Thirty Years 1892-1922: A Personal Narrative Volume II (London, William Heinemann Ltd, 1924):

{p. 270} The first bad blunder was made on January 22nd when Mr. Lloyd George sudden]y proposed that Bolshevist delegates should be invited to Paris. A similar suggestion had been made by a Jewish writer ten days before in the Manchester Guardian. The notion was that the Bolshevists and the Russian border peoples whom they were striving to destroy should cease fighting and meet in Paris alongside of the Peace Conference; but its practical effect would have been to accredit Bolshevism and to stimulate its growth in Central Europe. The French were aghast at this suggestion. Even President Wilson seems not altogether to have favoured the idea of bringing the Bolshevists to Paris, though he sanctioned a pro-

{p. 271} posal that delegates from the Conference should be sent to meet them at Prinkipo in the Sea of Marmora. Even this compromise found little favour in the Peace Conference - especially when the Bolshevists replied by offering the Allies economic and commercial concessions in return for recognition. Americans generally felt the Prinkipo proposal to be as bad a mistake as that which President Wilson had made in November, 1918, when he issued his appeal for a vote in favour of his Administration on the eve of the American Congressional Elections instead of appealing to the electorate from a non-party standpoint as the head of the whole American people. That mistake he would hardly have made had Colonel House then been at his side, just as he would scarcely have launched the Prinkipo idea if House had been well enough to advise him. Indeed, I found "the Colonel" seriously perturbed at the President's tendency to deal himself with questions which he did not really understand while immobilizing the whole Conference by his refusal to delegate work. Ultimately the Prinkipo proposal broke down. The Bolshevists refused to cease fighting and the various governments established on the borders of Russia declined to "sit at the same table with bandits and murderers." Dr. Kramarzh, who had just been appointed first Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia and head of the Czechoslovak delegation in Paris, came to see me in a state of despair. He said,

"We have been working hard to consolidate the position in Czechoslovakia. The reaction against the attempt made to assassinate me at Prague brought all our Socialists on to an anti-Bolshevik basis. We have 50,000 Czechoslovak troops in Siberia who saved the situation there for the Allies and whom we have, with difficulty, persuaded not to come home at once. This quasi-recognition of the Bolshevists without our opinion having been asked may upset the whole position. It is an unpardonable piece of lightmindedness."

{p. 282} The most serious hitch came on February 11th when Wilson absolutely declined to accept the French demand for the creation of an international force that should operate under the executive control of the League of Nations. M. Bourgeois urged the French view with much eloquence and pertinacity. Wilson claimed that the Constitution of the United States did not permit of any such limitation upon its sovereignty; and Lord Robert Cecil took a similar view in regard to the British Empire. The French stood their ground and declined to surrender the claim which, in their view, could alone prevent the League of Nations Covenant from being a philosophical treatise, devoid of practical authority. Thus the sitting broke up towards midnight on February 11th, leaving the position very strained. That night, however, Mr. Oscar Straus arrived in Paris from New York with a mandate from ex-President Taft and the American League to Enforce Peace.

{Steed then says that House, like him, wanted to plant an acorn, whereas Wilson wanted to plant a mature oak tree.}

{p. 285} Nevertheless, Mr. Wilson overcame his obstinacy of February 12th and 13th sufficiently to agree to the draft Covenant and to present it to the Conference on February 14th in a hopeful speech.

"Armed force is in the background of this programme," he said, "but it is in the background, and if the moral force of the world will not suffice, the physical force of the world shall. But that is in the last resort, because this is intended as a constitution of peace, not as a league of war."


... a flutter was caused by the return from Moscow of Messrs. William C. Bullitt and Lincoln Steffens who had been sent to Russia towards the middle of February by Colonel House and Mr. Lansing "for the purpose of studying conditions, political and economic, therein for the benefit of the American Commissioners plenipotentiary to negotiate peace." Mr. Philip Kerr and, presumably, Mr. Lloyd George knew and approved of this mission. Mr. Bullitt was instructed to return if possible by the time President Wilson should have come back to Paris from the United States. Potent international financial interests were at work in favour of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists. Those influences had been largely responsible for the Anglo-American proposal in January to call Bolshevist representatives to Paris at the beginning of the Peace Conference - a proposal which had failed after having been transformed into a suggestion for a Conference with the Bolshevists at Prinkipo. The well-known American Jewish banker, Mr. Jacob Schiff, was known to be anxious to ensure recognition for the Bolshevists, among whom Jewish influence was predominant; and Tchitcherin, the Bolshevist Commissary for Foreign Affairs, had revealed the meaning of the January proposal by offering extensive commercial and economic concessions in return for recognition. At a moment when the Bolshevists were doing their utmost to spread revolution throughout Europe, and when the Allies were supposed to be making peace in the name of high moral principles, a policy of recognizing them, as the price of commercial concessions, would have sufficed to wreck the whole Peace Conference and Europe with it. At the end of March, Hungary was already Bolshevist; Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and even Germany were in danger, and European feeling against the blood-stained lunatics of Russia ran extremely high.

{p. 302} Therefore, when it transpired that an American official, connected with the Peace Conference, had returned, after a week's visit to Moscow, with an optimistic report upon the state of Russia and with an authorized Russian proposal for the virtual recognition of the Bolshevist regime by April 10th, dismay was felt everywhere except by those who had been privy to the sending of Mr. Bullitt. Yet another complication, it was apprehended, would be added to the general muddle into which the Conference had got itself, and the chances of its succeeding at all would be seriously diminished.

On the afternoon of March 26th an American friend inadvertently gave me a notion that a revival of the Prinkipo proposal, in some form, was in the air. That evening I wrote to Northcliffe:

{quote} The Americans are again talking of recognizing the Russian Bolshevists. If they want to destroy the whole moral basis of the Peace and of the League of Nations they have only to do so. {endquote}

And, in the Paris Daily Mail of March 27th, I wrote strongly against any proposal to recognize

{quote} the desperadoes whose avowed aim is to turn upside down the whole basis of Western civilization. {endquote}

That day Colonel House asked me to call upon him. I found him worried both by my criticism of any recognition of the Bolshevists and by the certainty, which he had not previously realized, that if the President were to recognize the Bolshevists in return for commercial concessions his whole "idealism" would be hopelessly compromised as commercialism in disguise. I pointed out to him that not only would Wilson be utterly discredited but that the League of Nations would go by the board, because all the small peoples and many of the big peoples of Europe would be unable to resist the Bolshevism which Wilson would have accredited. I insisted that, unknown to him, the prime movers were Jacob Schiff, Warburg, and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia.

{p. 303} Colonel House argued, however, that without relations of some kind with the Bolshevists it would be impossible to prevent the utter ruin of Russia and the starvation of thousands of the best Russians who were without food; and that, if supplies could be sent to Russia under proper control, the needy might be relieved and the Allied and Associated Governments might get trustworthy information of the true position in Russia. He asked me therefore to meet him and Auchincloss next morning to see if some sound line of policy could not be worked out. This I agreed to do; but, shortly after leaving Colonel House, information reached me that Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson would probably agree next morning to recognize the Bolshevists in accordance with Mr. Bullitt's suggestions. Feeling that there was no time to lose I wrote, forthwith, a leading article for the Paris Daily Mail of March 28th, called "Peace with Honour." Its principal passage ran:

The issue is whether the Allied and Associated Governments shall, directly or indirectly, accredit an evil thing known as Bolshevism. Prospects of lucrative commercial enterprise in Russia, of economic concessions and of guarantees for debts, are held out to them if they will only fall down and worship Lenin and Trotsky.

There is one man to whom such temptation cannot appeal. His name is Woodrow Wilson. Since he led his country into war against German Imperialist militarism and all the forces of international finance and unmoral commercialism that supported it, he has done more than any Allied or Associated statesman to accredit sane idealism as a positive force in the life of nations. He has stood out as the champion of small peoples and of their rights. He threw the whole strength of the American people into the struggle in support of the ideals he formulated for the world, and he promised them a peace with honour and justice. Were he to bring them a peace with commercialism, belief in the sincerity of Anglo-Saxon idealism would die the world over.

Who are the tempters that would dare whisper into the ears of the Allied and Associated Governments? They are not far removed from the men who preached peace with profitable dishonour to the British people in July, l914. They are akin to, if not identical with, the men who sent Trotsky and some scores of associated desperadoes to ruin the Russian Revolution as a democratic, anti-German force in the spring of 1917. They are the spiritual

{p. 304} authors of the Prinkipo policy, and they it is who, in reality, inspired the offer of Tchitcherin, the Bolshevist Commisary for foreign affairs, to make economic and commercial concessions to the Allies in connection with the Prinkipo Conference. ...

That intrigue failed. It may be revived. Lenin, who is a sinister fanatic, would promise any price to secure the recognition he needs in order that his agents and helpers in Allied and Associated countries may be able to raise their heads and openly to encompass the ruin of ordered democratic civilization by claiming that what Allied and Associated Governments had sanctioned in Russia is lawful and laudable elsewhere. ...

The establishment of just conditions of peace will by itself help to counteract Bolshevism. But the essential thing is that the Allied and Associated Governments should keep their escutcheon clean and be utterly resolved to have no peace that is not a true peace with honour.

I had hardly sent this article to the printers when an American friend, Mr. Charles R. Crane, who had been dining with President Wilson, called to see me. He showed great alarm at the turn things were taking. "Bullitt is back," he said, "and the President is already talking Bullitt's language. I fear he may ruin everything. Our people at home will certainly not stand for the recognition of the Bolshevists at the bidding of Wall Street." He urged me to point out the danger clearly in the Daily Mail. I reassured him and told him that what I could say was already said and that he would find it in the Daily Mail next morning.

Before I was up next day, Colonel House telephoned to say that he wished to see me urgently. Apparently, to use an Americanism, my article "had got under the President's hide." When I reached the Crillon, House and Auchincloss looked grave. I told them that, had I waited to discuss policy with them before writing, my article, the chances were that there would have been no policy to discuss because the President and, possibly, Lloyd George would have committed themselves to recognition of the Bolshevists that very morning. The Colonel begged me, however, in view of the delicacy of the situation to refrain from further comment until it could be seen how things would go; and I consented, on the understanding that nothing irrevocable would be done unless

{p. 305} I were informed beforehand.

{end of quotes}

(11) WWI as an Opportunity - Herzl wrote : 'we shall get [Palestine] not from the goodwill but from the jealousy of the Powers'

Leonard Stein wrote in his book The Balfour Declaration (Vallentine-Mitchell, London, 1961):

"Herzl describes in his diaries an interview with Chamberlain in April 1903, when the El Arish scheme was again discussed. He told Chamberlain, he says, that 'we shall get [Palestine] not from the goodwill but from the jealousy of the Powers. And if we are in El Arish under the Union Jack, then our Palestine will likewise be in the British sphere of influence.' This suggestion, Herzl writes, was not at all ill-received." (p. 25)

An image of the above text is at Stein-p.25-Herzl-Jealousy40.tif.

American Jewish News of September 19, 1919 published an article "When Prophets Speak", by Litman Rosenthal, on p. 464.

Rosenthal reported there a speech by Max Nordau just after the Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903.

Nordau noted that Britain invited Sardinia to join the Crimean War (1853-6) on the Allied side. Garibaldi and Mazzini did not want to send a fleet, but Cavour insisted. Nordau explained that by joining in, Italy would get to attend the Peace Conference following the war, where the spoils were being carved up:

"And if you now ask me again, what has Sardinia to do at Sebastopol, then let me tell you the following words, like the steps of a ladder: Cavour, Sardinia, the siege of Sebastopol, the future European peace conference, the proclamation of a free and united Italy."

Then Nordau explained the connected to Zionism:

"Herzl knows that we stand before a tremendous upheaval of the whole world. Soon, perhaps, some kind of a world-congress will have to be called, and England, the great, free and powerful England, will then continue the work it has begun with its generous offer to the Sixth Congress. And if you ask me now what has Israel to do in Uganda, then let me tell you as the answer the words of the statesmen of Sardinia, only applied to our case and given in our version; let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, The Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created."

In other words, for Zionists, World War I was an opportunity.

Robert John quotes another article from American Jewish News, of 7 March 1919:

"In conversation with a delegate at the First Congress, Litman Rosenthal, Herzl said:

'It may be that Turkey will refuse or be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now the question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. A European war is imminent ...The great European War must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the Peace Conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time. We will assuredly be called to this great conference of the nations and we must prove to them the urgent importance of a Zionist solution to the Jewish Question. We must prove to them that the problem of the Orient and Palestine is one with the problem of the Jews - both must be solved together. We must prove to them that the Jewish problem is a world problem and that a world problem must be solved by the world. And the solution must be the return of Palestine to the Jewish people.'" (Behind the Balfour Declaration, pp. 31 & 42) balfour.html

Litman Rosenthal's articles on this topic - text and images - are at herzl-rosenthal.html.

Rabbi Kook said that WW1 constituted a sign of the approaching salvation of Jews and the coming of the Messiah.

Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky wrote in their bookJewish Fundamentalism in Israel (Pluto Press, London, 1999):

"Rabbi Kook, the Elder, the revered father of the messianic tendency of Jewish fundamentalism [...] expressed delight in the belief that the death of millions of soldiers during World War One constituted a sign of the approaching salvation of Jews and the coming of the Messiah." (pp. ix-x) shahak2.html

12. Benjamin H. Freedman discloses the huge Jewish delegation (117 Jews) at the Peace Conference of Versailles in 1919

Benjamin H. Freedman (1890 ­ 1984) was a Jewish businessman who denounced the two main factions of organized Jewry - Communist and Zionist - and revealed their covert operations. Here, he discloses the huge Jewish delegation (117 Jews) at the Peace Conference of Versailles in 1919.

A Jewish Defector Warns America:

Benjamin Freedman Speaks on Zionism

This should do it! For the second and last time we are updating the transcript of Ben Freedman's 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel.

[Freedman's speech]

What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity. [...]

The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. And they were no good.

Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany. The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

Now the war -- World War One -- in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there -- we were railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened? After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.

Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it's history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.

Now, that brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. [...]

{endquote} More at freedman.html .

13. The Protocols of Zion and the Peace Conference of Versailles

E. J. Dillon, The Peace Conference, Hutchinson & Co., London, 1919:

{p. 10} Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, from Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Roumania, Greece, Britain, Holland and Belgium; but the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States.

{p. 422} This adverse vote on Mr. Wilson's pet scheme to have religious inequality proclaimed as a means of hindering sanguinary wars brought to its climax the reaction of the Conference against what it regarded as a systematic endeavour to establish the overlordship of the Anglo-Saxon peoples in the world. ... Most of them believed that a pretext was being sought to enable the leading Powers to intervene in the domestic concerns of all the other States ... other Delegates ... 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 it is 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

{p. 423} religious 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 programme, which they succeeded in having substantially executed. The formula into which this policy was thrown ... was this: "Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who, in turn, are swayed by their Jewish elements".

It is difficult to convey an adequate notion of the warmth of feeling - one might almost call it the heat of passion - which this supposed discovery generated. The applications of the theory to many of the puzzles of the past were countless and ingenious. The illustrations of the manner in which the policy was pursued, and the cajolery and threats which were said to have been employed in order to ensure its success, covered the whole history of the Conference, and presented it through a new and possibly distorted medium. The morbid suspicions aroused may have been the natural vein of men who had passed a great part of their lives in petty racial struggles; but according to common account, it was abundantly nurtured at the Conference by the lack of reserve and moderation displayed by some of the promoters of the minority clauses who were deficient in the sense of measure.

{end of quotes}

Dillon says that delegates noted that, at that very time, Communist revolutions were breaking out in Central and East European countries, led by Communist Jews for whom the religious Jews felt "disgust" (p. 69).

If the religious Jews distanced themselves from the Communist Jews, why did they defend the latter, instead of repudiating them, when governments cracked down on them? Why did religious Jews like financier Jacob Schiff want to bring down the Czar's government, on account of its pogroms against revolutionary Jews, if Schiff was repudiating those revolutionary Jews?

In his letters (Cyrus Alder, Jacob H Schiff: His Life and Letters, 1928), Schiff reveals an obsession with bringing down the Russian government. He admits to loaning money to Japan for the 1904-5 war, for a political purpose:

'I further said, that as a friend of Japan, who had rendered important services in financing her war loans, in order to enable her to defend herself and become victorious over Russia, "the enemy of mankind," ...' (vol I, p. 255).

He admits, "The claim that among the ranks of those who in Russia are seeking to undermine governmental authority there are a considerable number of Jews may be true" (vol II, p. 131), then goes on to blame and attack the Czar, rather than repudiate those revolutionary Jews.

Sigmund Freud and Wiliam C. Bullitt wrote in Thomas Woodrow Wilson: A Psychological Study (Houghton Mifflin Company Boston 1967):

{p. 166} As a statesman, Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, was House's ideal, and Wilson liked to handle the matters of the high-

{p. 167} est importance through secret communications between House and Grey. A passage in a letter from Sir Edward to the Colonel dated September 22, 1915, gave House an opportunity to move torward action. Grey wrote: "To me, the great object of securing the elimination of militarism and navalism is o get security for the future against aggressive war. How much are the United States prepared to do in this direction? Would the President propose that there should be a League of Nations binding themselves to side against any Power which broke a treaty; which broke certain rules of warfare on land or sea (such rules would, of course, have to be drawn up after this war); or which refused, in case of dispute, to adopt some other method of settlement than that of war?"

Thus for the first time, in a secret communication from the British Government to the American Government, appeared the words: League of Nations.

{p. 252} ... Admiral Grayson brought in Bernard M. Baruch, whose intimacy with the Wilsons had begun to increase as House's decreased.

{end of quotes}

William Bullitt, the co-author of this book with Freud, is the same Bullit mentioned by Steed, who recommended invitating the USSR to join the Peace Conference which was drafting, in effect, a covenant for World Government.

Either the push for World Government was British, or it was Jewish. Was the latter proceeding under the guise of the former? Steed saw that defacto recognition of the Bolsheviks, at the time that one government after another was falling to them, would destroy the "British" idea of World Government, and enthrone the Jewish one.

Many well-meaning socialists were deceived at the time, about the true nature of Bolshevism.

The Fabians were being influenced by Israel Zangwill, a Fabian and Jewish Zionist.

The Fabian Society issued a book International Government: Two Reports by L. S. Woolf Prepared for the Fabian Research Department With an Introduction by Bernard Shaw, London, George Allen & Unwin, 1923.

H. G. Wells, a major apologist for World Government at the Versailles Conference, was influenced by Zangwill, by Walter Lippman, and by David Lubin (all Jewish), and was an admirer of Trotsky: wells-lenin-league.html.

C. Howard-Ellis, The Origin Structure & Working of the League of Nations, George Allen & Unwin, London 1928:

{p. 5} To H. G. WELLS, BERNARD SHAW, G. LOWES DICKINSON and BERNARD RUSSELL the Prophets of a New Age, this Book is dedicated, in the Hope that it may prove a Useful Monograph on the Obstetrics of the Womb of Time

{p. 85} It is an interesting fact that the proposals relating to technical co-operation can be traced directly to Mr Leonard Woolf's International Government, already quoted. This book is a striking analysis of what already existed before the war in the way of technical co-operation and a powerful argument against rooting the League as deeply as possible in this particular field of international relations. The book was read by a promninent member of the Foreign Office, who was concerned with preparing the British official draft, and led him to write a lengthy minute strongly urging the inclusion of these provisions in the draft, which was accordingly done. In addition to stating that "the High Contracting Parties place under the control of the League all international bureaux established by general treaties and now located elsewhere, if the parties to such treaties consent," the draft provides ...

{p. 89} Signor Orlando presented a hastily concocted Italian scheme and M. Leon Bourgeois a carefully thought-out and elaborate French draft, framed by an important French official committee, of which M. Bourgeois himself had been the chairman.

{end of quotes}

L. V. A. Bourgeois, proponent of World Government at Versailles, is mentioned in the Protocols of Zion.

From Marc Cohen at


Hello all - I have made a new discovery concerning the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and the diaries of Theodor Herzl !!!

Protocol 16, point 8 ends with:

"The system of bridling thought is already at work in the so-called system of teaching by OBJECT LESSONS, the purpose of which is to turn the GOYIM into unthinking submissive brutes waiting for things to be presented before their eyes in order to form an idea of them .... In France, one of our best agents, Bourgeois, has already made public a new program of teaching by object lessons."

Now - please see "The Diaries of Thedor Herzl", pgs. 313 - 314:

"The Hague. June 13, [1899].

... In the evening I dined at Suttner's with Leon Bourgeois and others."

[The sentence that follows was CENSORED OUT of the first edition of these diaries - the 1922-1923, "Theodor Herzl's Tagebucher", published in 3 Volumes by the "Judischer Verlag", Berlin; it has been reproduced in the 1962 edition - Translated & Edited by Marvin Lowenthal; The Universal Library; Grosset & Dunlap, New York, 1962; Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 56-8112. O.K. , here's the censored sentence:]

"Bourgeois produced, if anything, an unpleasant impression. Posuer et phraseur sans distinction, a faithless radical with oversleek manners, a priestling of Free Thought."

The diary goes on to say that Suttner spoke to BOURGEOIS about Zionism, and the latter "liked the idea", and on pg. 314 Herzl and Bourgeois exchange a joke about not wanting to have their actions recorded for posterity.

On page 270, Bourgeois' name is dropped by Herzl in on 18 October, 1898, in an audience with the Kaiser. The sentence I have quoted - which is mocking of Bourgeois - is the only one censored from the 1922/1923 publication mentioning Bourgeois. The Bourgeois in question was, according to Lowenthal's "Biographical and Topical Notes" [pg. 447], a

"LEON VICTOR AUGUSTE BOURGEOIS (1851-1925) French statesman and author."

This is at the very least strong evidence that whomever wrote the PROTOCOLS was aware that Herzl/the Zionists were in cahootz with the same Bourgeois mentioned in Protocol 16:8. I have never seen mention of this fact before.

Spread the Word !

Marc Cohen

{end quote}

For Protocols 16:8 see or protocol.html.

The following biographical information is from


"Léon Victor Auguste Bourgeois (May 21, 1851-September 29, 1925), the «spiritual father» of the League of Nations, was a man of prodigious capabilities and diversified interests. A statesman, jurist, artist, and scholar, Léon Bourgeois, in the course of a long career, held almost every major office available in the French government of the Third Republic. ...

"As minister of public instruction in Freycinet's cabinet from 1890 to 1892 and again in 1898 under Brisson, Bourgeois instituted major reforms in the educational structure, reconstituting the universities by regrouping the faculties, reforming both the secondary and primary systems, and extending the availability of postgraduate instruction. When he gave up the education portfolio in 1892, he accepted that of the Ministry of Justice for two years. ...

"In January of 1918, heading an official commission of inquiry on the question of a League of Nations, he presented a draft for such an organization. President of a newly formed French Association for the League of Nations, he attended the 1919 international congress, convened in Paris, of various organizations interested in establishing a League, and in the same year served as the French representative on the League of Nations Commission chaired by Woodrow Wilson. He brought out another collection of his speeches at this time, Le Pacte de 1919 et la Société des Nations.

"The culmination of Bourgeois' career came in 1920 when he assumed the presidency of the French Senate, was unanimously elected the first president of the Council of the League of Nations, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."


Even so, in 1920, when the Red Army was invading Poland with a view to reaching Germany (wells-lenin-league.html), France sent help to Poland.

14. Douglas Reed on the ousting of Lord Northcliffe

14.1 The following information on Northcliffe (with minor typos) is from the Spartacus site

{quote} In 1898, Lord Northcliffe purchased the The Times for £320,000 was accepted. Circulation of the paper had fallen to 38,000 and was losing money. Northcliffe re-equipped its outdated printing plant, reduced the newspaper's price by a penny to twopence, and appointed a new editor, Geoffrey Dawson.

In March, 1914, Northcliffe reduced the price even further, and by the outbreak of the First World War, the one penny Times was selling 278,000 copies a day. During the early stages of the war Northcliffe created a great deal of controversy by advocating conscription and criticizing David Lloyd George and Lord Kitchener. This upset many readers and circulation of The Times began to fall again. Harmsworth stopped attacking the government and in 1918 was asked to take control of British war propaganda.

After a row with Northcliffe, Dawson resigned as editor of The Times in 1919. He was replaced by Henry Wickham Steed, the former foreign correspondent. When Lord Northcliffe, died in 1921, the newspaper passed into the hands of John Jacob Astor, the younger son of Lord Astor.


14.2 Douglas Reed, The Controversy of Zion, Veritas Publishing Company, PO Box 20, Bullsbrook, Western Australia 6084, 1985.

{p. 295} In 1919-1922 the censorship was ending and the newspapers naturally reverted, in the main, to the earlier practice of true reporting and impartial comment on the facts reported. This re-established the former check on governmental policies, and if it had continued would undoubtedly have thwarted the Zionist project, which could not be maintained if it were open to public scrutiny. Therefore the entire future for the Zionists, at this crucial moment when "the Mandate" still was not "ratified", turned on the suppression of adverse newspaper information and comment. At that very juncture an event occurred which produced that result. By reason of this great effect on the future, and by its own singular nature, the event (denoted in the heading to the present chapter) deserves relation in detail here.

At that stage in the affair England was of paramount importance to the conspirators (I have shown that Dr. Weizmann and Mr. House both used this word) and in England the energetic Lord Northcliffe was a powerful man. The former Alfred Harmsworth, bulky and wearing a dank Napoleonic forelock, owned the two most widely read daily newspapers, various other journals and periodicals, and in addition was majority proprietor of the most influential newspaper in the world, at that time, The Times of London. Thus he had direct access to millions of people each day and, despite his business acumen, he was by nature a great newspaper editor, courageous, combative and patriotic. He was sometimes right and sometimes wrong in the causes he launched or espoused, but he was independent and unpurchasable. He somewhat resembled Mr. Randolph Hearst and Colonel Robert McCormick in America, which is to say that he would do many things to increase the circulation of his newspapers, but only within the limits of national interest; he would not peddle blasphemy, obscenity, libel or sedition. He could not be cowed and was a force in the land.

Lord Northcliffe made himself the adversary of the conspiracy from Russia in two ways. In May 1920 he caused to be printed in The Times the article, previously mentioned, on the Protocols. It was headed, "The Jewish Peril, A Disturbing Pamphlet, Call for Enquiry". It concluded, 'An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and of their history is most desirable ... are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?"

Then in 1922 Lord Northcliffe visited Palestine, accompanied by a journalist, Mr. J.M.N. Jeffries (whose subsequent book, Palestine: The Reality, remains the classic work of reference for that period). This was a combination of a different sort from that forrned by the editors of The Times and Manchester Guardian, who wrote their leading articles about Palestine in England and in consultation with

{p. 296} the Zionist chieftain, Dr. Weizmann. Lord Northcliffe, on the spot, reached the same conclusion as all other impartial investigators, and wrote, "In my opinion we, without sufficient thought, guaranteed Palestine as a home for the Jews despite the fact that 700,000 Arab Moslems live there and own it ... The Jews seemed to be under the impression that all England was devoted to the one cause of Zionism, enthusiastic for it in fact; and I told them that this was not so and to be careful that they do not tire out our people by secret importation of arms to fight 700,000 Arabs ... There will be trouble in Palestine . . . people dare not tell the Jews the truth here. They have had some from me".

By stating this truth, Lord Northcliffe offended twice, he had already entered the forbidden room by demanding "inquiry" into the origins of the Protocols. Moreover, he was able to publish this truth in the mass-circulation newspapers owned by him, so that he became, to the conspirators, a dangerous man. He encountered one obstacle in the shape of Mr. Wickham Steed, who was editor of The Times and whose championship of Zionism Dr. Weizmann records.

In this contest Lord Northcliffe had an Achilles heel. He partlcularly wanted to get the truth about Palestine into The Times, but he was not sole proprietor of that paper, only chief proprietor. Thus his own newspapers published his series of articles about Palestine but The Times, in fact, refused to do so. Mr. Wickham Steed, though he had made such large proposals about the future of Palestine declmed to go there, and denied publicity to the anti-Zionist case.

These facts, and all that now follows, are related (again, with surprising candour) in the Official History of The Times (1952). It records that Mr. Wlckham Steed "evaded" visiting Palestine when Lord Northcliffe requested him to go there; it also records Mr. Wickham Steed's "inaction" following Lord Northcliffe's telegraphed wish "for a leading article attacking Balfour's attitude towards Zionism".

In what follows the reader's attention is particularly directed to dates.

In May 1920 Lord Northcliffe had caused publication of the article about the Protocols in The Times. Early in 1922 he visited Palestine and produced the series of articles above mentioned. On February 26, 1922 he left Palestine, after his request, which was ignored, to the editor of The Times. He was incensed against the incompliant editor and had a message, strongly critical of his editorial policy, read to an editorial conference which met on March 2, 1922. Lord Northcliffe wished that Mr. Wickham Steed should resign and was astonished that he remained after this open rebuke. The editor, instead of resigning, decided "to secure a lawyer's opinion on the degree of provocation necessary to constitute unlawful dismissal". For this purpose he consulted Lord Northcliffe's own special legal adviser (March 7, 1922), who informed Mr. Wickham Steed that Lord Northcliffe was "abnormal", "incapable of business" and, judging from his appearance, "unlikely to live long" and advised the editor to continue in his post! The editor then went to Pau, in France, to see Lord Northcliffe, in his turn

{p. 297} decided that Lord Northcliffe was "abnormal" (March 31,1922), and informed a director of The Times that Lord Northcliffe was "going mad".

The suggestion of madness thus was put out by an editor whom Lord Northcliffe desired to remove and the impressions of others therefore are obviously relevant. On May 3, 1922 Lord Northcliffe attended a farewell luncheon in London for a retiring editor of one of his papers and "was in fine form". On May 11, 1922 he made "an excellent and effective speech" to the Empire Press Union and "most people who had thought him 'abnormal' believed they were mistaken". A few days later Lord Northcliffe telegraphed instructions to the Managing Director of The Times to arrange for the editor's resignation. This Managing Director saw nothing "abnormal" in such an instruction and was not "in the least anxious about Northcliffe's health". Another director, who then saw him, "considered him to have quite as good a life risk as his own": he "noticed nothing unusual in NorthclifJe's manner or appearance" (May 24, 1922).

On June 8, 1922 Lord Northcliffe, from Boulogne, asked Mr. Wickham Steed to meet him in Paris; they met there on June 11, 1922, and Lord Northcliffe told his visitor that he, Lord Northcliffe, would assume the editorship ot The Times. On June 12, 1922 the whole party left for Evian-les-Bains, a doctor being secreted on the train, as far as the Swiss frontier, by Mr. Wickham Steed. Arrived in Switzerland "a brllliant French nerve specialist" (unnamed) was summoned and in the evening certified Lord Northcliffe insane. On the strength of this Mr. Wickham Steed cabled instructions to The Times to disregard and not to publish anything received from Lord Northcliffe, and on June 13, 1922 he left, never to see Lord Northcliffe again. On June 18, 19l2 Lord Northcliffe returned to London and was in fact removed from all control of, and even communication with his undertakings (especially The Times; his telephone was cut). The manager had police posted at the door to prevent him entering the office of The Times if he were able to reach it. All this, according to the Official History, was on the strength of certification in a foreign country (Switzerland) by an unnamed (French) doctor. On August 14, 1922 Lord Northcliffe died; the cause of death stated was ulcerative endocarditis, and his age was fifty-seven. He was buried, after a service at Westminster Abbey, amid a great array of mourning editors.

Such is the story as I have taken it from the official publication. None of this was known outside a small circle at the time; it only emerged in the Official History after three decades, and if it had all been published in 1922 would presumably have called forth many questions. I doubt if any comparable displacement of a powerful and wealthy man can be adduced, at any rate in such mysterious circumstances.

For the first time, I now appear in this narrative as a personal witness of events. In the 1914-1918 war I was one participant among uncomprehending millions. and only began to see its true shape long afterwards. In 1922 I was for an instant in, though not of the inner circle; looking back, I see myself closeted with Lord

{p. 298} Northcliffe (about to die) and quite ignorant of Zionism, Palestine, Protocols or any other matter in which he had raised his voice. My testimony may be of some interest; I cannot myself judge of its value.

I was in 1922 a young man fresh from the war who struggled to find a place in the world and had become a clerk in the office of The Times. I was summoned thence, in that first week of June when Lord Northcliffe was preparing to remove Mr. Wickham Steed and himself assume the editorship of The Times, to go as secretary to Lord Northcliffe who was at Boulogne. I was warned beforehand that he was an unusual man whose every bidding must be quickly done. Possibly for that reason, everything he did seemed to me to be simply the expression of his unusual nature. No suspicion of anything more ever came to me, a week before he was "certified" and, in effect, put in captivity.

I was completely ignorant of "abnormal" conditions, so that the expert might discount my testimony. Anyway, the behaviour I observed was just what I had been told to expect by those who had worked with him for many years. There was one exception to this. Lord Northcliffe was convinced that his life was in danger and several time said this; specifically, he said he had been poisoned. If this is in itself madness, then he was mad, but in that case many victims of poisoning have died of madness, not of what was fed to them. If by any chance it was true, he was not mad. I remember that I thought it feasible that such a man should have dangerous enemies, though at that time I had no inkling at all of any particular hostility he might have incurred. His belief certainly charged him with suspicion of those around him, but if by chance he had reason for it, then again it was not madness; if all this had transpired in the light of day such things could have been thrashed out.

I cannot judge, and can only record what I saw and thought at the time, as a young man who had no more idea of what went on around him than a babe knows the shape of the world. When I returned to London I was questioned about Lord Northcliffe by his brother, Lord Rothermere, and one of his chief associates, Sir George Sutton. The thought of madness must by that time have been in their minds (the "certification" had ensued) and therefore have underlain their questions, but not even then did any such suspicion occur to me, although I had been one of the last people to see him before he was certified and removed from control of his newspapers. I did not know of that when I saw them or for long afterwards. In such secrecy was all this done that, although I continued in the service of The Times for sixteen years, I only learned of the "madness" and "certification" thirty years later, from the Official History. By that time I was able to see what great consequences had flowed from an affair in which I was an uninitiated onlooker at the age of twenty-seven.

Lord Northcliffe therefore was out of circulation, and of the control of his newspapers, during the decisive period preceding the ratification of "the mandate" by the League of Nations, which clinched the Palestinean transaction

{p. 299} and bequeathed the effects of it to our present generaion. The opposition of a widely-read chain of journals at that period might have changed the whole course of events. After Lord Northcliffe died the possibility of editorials in The Times "attacking Balfour's attitude towards Zionism" faded. From that time the submission of the press, in the manner described by the Protocols, grew ever more apparent and in time reached the condition which prevails today, when faithful reporting and impartial comment on this question has long been in suspense.

Lord Northcliffe was removed from control of his newspapers and put under constraint on June 18, 1922; on July 24, 1922 the Council of the League of Nations met in London, secure from any possibility of loud public protest by Lord Northcliffe, to bestow on Britain a "mandate" to remain in Palestine and by arms to instal the Zionists there (I describe what events have shown to be the fact; the matter was not so depicted to the public, of course).

{end of quotes}

15. More on the Ousting of Lord Northcliffe from The Times of London

Lord Northcliffe returned in February 1922 from a world trip. He had kept a diary, which was published in 1923 as My Journey Round the World; extracts are included below.

An opponent of Zionism, he recorded in that book:

"{p. 275} There will be trouble in Palestine. ... {p. 276} ... I see trouble, much trouble between 70,000 Jews and 700,000 Canaanites and Christians. ... {p. 277} People daren't tell the Jews the truth here. They've had some from me. I didn't come uninvited. The size of our Army here is not known to people at home. Why is the Army necessary? Because of the Moslem-Christian versus Jew feeling."

Quite rational objections, but at odds with the Zionist policy of the Government (administered in Palestine by Allenby) and of his own editor at The Times, Henry Wickham Steed.

15.1 The History of The Times, Volume 4

The History of The Times,
Volume 4, The 150th Anniversary and Beyond : 1912-1948;
Part II: 1921-1948
Written by Stanley Morison;
publisher: London : The Times, 1952.
AMICUS# 2476782


For the creator of the most powerful single engine of publicity ever known, and for the architect of the most spectacular political career in modern history, 1922 was a year of fate. Northcliffe and Lloyd George, parties to one of the most significant of all wartime alliances which had become one of the bitterest peacetime antagonisms, never met after the Armistice. ...

Northcliffe always felt braced by the first of January. The present was no exception. The combination of a new year and his being nearer home gave him immense

{p. 505} vitality. Landing at Colombo, the Chief was quickly on the mainland investigating, challenging, arguing with all in reach, and planning or deciding for the future. ... He was at Beirut on February 11, Port Said on the 13th, He arrived at Marseilles on the 18th. ...

The Editor, having in mind the events of the previous spring, suspected that a coup of some sort was being engineered. The suspicion was presently seen to be well-founded. In February Lord Rothermore, who had been campaigning against Lord Allenby in the columns of the Sunday Pictorial, sent The Times a fierce denunciation of Lord Allenby's policy. It was designed to occupy a whole page adverstisement in the paper, and was dramatically opposed to the current policy of The Times, but

{p. 506} since it was offered as an advertisement was not necessarily subject to the editorial pencil. The Editor believed that the Middle East would erroneously interpret The Times as having expressed an editorial view, and not as having merely published an advertisement. In Palestine the imputation to the paper of a statement that Allenby had been discredited would be serious. Either the wording of the advertisement must be altered, or it could not appear. Rothermore, told of the Editor's decision, at once complained to his brother. Northcliffe took the matter seriously. Had not the Editor evaded visiting Palestine at his personal insistence? Had he not already had reason to complain of Steed's inaction following his telegraphed wish for a leading article attacking Balfour's attitude towards Zionism? This was the sort of independence The Times people always thought they could claim with impunity, and he was not going to put up with it any longer. The Editor was always making him look foolish. He must act.

The Editor, the man who had travelled with him to washington little more than six months ago, was now to be discredited before his own staff.

{p. 509} Now Northcliffe's attitude towards the Editor was equivocal. He had, to all appearances, said and done nothing more to secure Steed's resignation.

{p. 520} The agreement of January 1, 1913, was thus endorsed on June 15:

{quote} I the within named John Walter acknowledge that the within named Viscount Northcliffe has purchased from me the whole of my 215,000 ordinary shares in the within named Times

{p. 521} Publishing Co., Ltd. ... {end quote}

Walter had sold his shares and in doing so, had necessarily sacrificed his option. It was a catastrophic act.

{the last sentence indicates a pro-Steed, anti-Northcliffe, bias}

{p. 547} It was impossible to say the same of Northcliffe's condition, or of Steed's editorship. The Editor had known for weeks that Northcliffe's critical condition was not only of the physical order. He knew that his tenure of the editorial chair was subject to a moment's notice. He knew on June 9 of Walter's sale of shares and surrender of the option. He had been summoned to Paris to meet Northcliffe on June 11.

{p. 551} Meanwhile there was infinite consternation at Printing House Square and Carmelite House. At midnight on June 12 Hubert Walter called on Ralph and informed him that he had heard indirectly from Paris that Northcliffe was insane and there was a queer story about a revolver. At last it seemed pretty clueer to both Hubert and Ralph Walter that Steed had not been as far wrong on the point of insanity, and that the sale must not go through. Ralph and Hubert Walter breakfasted together on Tuesday, the 13th, and telephoned his bankers, telling them not to hand over the share certificates without further instruction. ... The Deputy Editor had with him the Editor of the Literary Supplement. The latter suggested that in the event of Northcliffe's death some suitable person should purchase the property and control the paper. ...

{Note that the above actions were taken on the basis of an "indirect" message from Paris, from an un-named source; further, that French authorities had no jurisfiction in Britain}

Walter decided that no step could be taken until the crucial question of Northcliffe's state of mind was definitely settled. There was

{p. 552} still no proof that Northcliffe's mind was unhinged or his health beyond repair. That, too, was Sutton's opinion. ...

On Wednesday morning Steed and Sutton arrived in Paris and met Lints Smith with whom they went on to London, after Steed had used his influence with the French Government to save Northcliffe from action by the local authorities of Savoy against a person certified, as Northcliffe had then been {no evidence of this is provided in this book}. The Editor's instructions to London had already been acted upon. The directors of the Daily Mail had met and decided that nothing was to be published over the name of Northcliffe unless by the written authority of George Sutton. A statement about Northcliffe's health was published in the Daily Mail on Wednesday, June 14.

{Why deprive Northcliffe of the opportunity to publish his own version of events, in his own paper? If he was insane as claimed, this would then have been apparent to all. Is this not, rather, a dirty tactic in a political fight?}

{p. 553} Five minutes later Northcliffe rang Steed at home. He began by

{p. 554} cursing him for having broken faith with him; he had not gone back to Evian, not had he awaited him in Paris; he had not even gone to Victoria to meet him. Steed was no longer Editor. Northcliffe would send the police to turn him out of the office if he ever dared go back to Printing House Square. Steed's answer was that there was one thing and one thing only that Northcliffe had to do and that was to keep quiet and get well; and that "Until you do get well I will continue to look after things at this office." ... He possessed ... four telephone lines. He now used them one after the other to tell members of the staff of The Times and the Daily Mail that they were sacked. ... On Monday, June 19, three of his telephone lines were cut, but he continued to use the fourth.

John Walter, with or without scares, with or without option, was not powerless. He was still chairman. The medical report that Northcliffe's health was "entirely recoverable" but that it "will take many months," was made on the 17th when Walters received notice of a meeting of the Directors called for Monday afternoon the 19th, for the passing of the transfer.

{p. 555} After 3.50 pm on June 20 Northcliffe's medical advisers cut off his last telephone.

{this seems a strange action for medical advisers: depriving him of outside communication is a political act; and he was still Proprietor}

{p. 565} The climax came on the morning of August 14, when the following notice was issued:


The Chief was fifty-seven years mand one month old when he died from ulcerative endocarditis.

{end quotes}

Northcliffe died less than six months after returning from a trip around the world.

15.2 Alfred Viscount Northcliffe, My Journey Round the World

My Journey Round the World (16 July 1921 - 26 Feb. 1922), By ALFRED VISCOUNT NORTHCLIFFE, Edited by CECIL & ST. JOHN HARMSWORTH, London, John Lane The Bodley Head Ltd., 1923.


This is the Diary of Lord Northeliffe, kept by him during his journey round the world in 1921-1922.

{p. viii.} A sad truth revealed in the Diary is that the long holiday - perilously overdue - in quest of health and recuperation for a mind and bocly exhausted by the labours of many years, developed from the first on lines that were calculated to defeat rather than to promote, the all-important object in view. The holiday became an arduous tour of eploration into the problems

{p. ix} of the Emplire, and there is no doubt that Lord Northcliffe arrived home in February of last year less fit to resist the ravages of a scrious illness than when he set out on his travels, with so much happy confidence, in July, 1921. ...

Lord Northcliffe's companions at different stages of the world tour were -

HARRY GARLAND MILNER, his brother-in-law.
WICKHAM STEED, then Editor of The Times ...

{Note: Northcliffe's diary, written only months before he was accused of insanity, seems full of not "tiredness" but relish for involvement in political issues. Further, The History of The Times, Volume 4, Part II: 1921-1948 (above), records:

"{p. 504} Northcliffe always felt braced by the first of January. The present was no exception. The combination of a new year and his being nearer home gave him immense {p. 505} vitality."
Vitality, not exhaustion; now for Northcliffe's diary, written in 1922, but published in 1923, after his death}

{p. 270} Sunday, February 5th, 1922.

A brilliant Egyptian morning at seven o'clock, bracing, lovely sunshine. The gum trees outside are from Australia, and for one brief moment I thought I was out in tropical Qucensland again; not that I want to be there, for we've had enough of wet clothes and topees to last us for some time, and long for a fog or drizzle. ...

Monday, February 6th, 1922.
Gaza- Ludd- Jerusalem.

In train, Gaza, Palestine,

I had my first peep - after thirty years at the Holy Land at 6.15 a.m. - very green, with Bible figures moving in the dawn. I don't suppose anyone except a stone image can enter the country of Christ without deep emotion. I, for one of millions, cannot.

The private car provided for us was excellent. I had Graves, the Correspondent of The Times, with me.

At Gaza, which is smashed to pieces by the great battle, came the first Arab deputation to see me. For days, even as far back as when we were in Ceylon, we've been receiving telegrams from Arabs, Jews, Christians, asking that the "King of the Press" - and the rest of the Oriental Flub Dub (American) - should hear the grievances which are, briefly, that (in my opinion) we, without sufficient thought, guaranteed Palestine as a home for the Jews despite the fact that 700,000 Arab Moslems live there and on it. Arabs and Christians have now joined up against the Jews. There is hatred and there has been bloodshed.

At Ludd came another deputation. There was to have been a demonstration of some thousands, but it had been wisely stopped. Demonstrators in these countries always carry sticks, and trouble is sure. Churchill had some last year. The deputation alleged that all the Government offices were in the hands of the Jews, which I proved to be untrue. Both sides are Oriental liars.

At Ludd we were met by bundles of telegrams, an armoured car escort (why?), Sunbeam cars, and an aeroplane overhead.

{p. 271} On to Jerusalem, motoring through the Bible hills, mostly stony ("some fell on stony ground"), or reddish with scarlet anemones, and plenty of cyclamen in clumps under overhanging rocks. Road winding, mountainous, and surface good. Cold, cold, cold - - and sleet in the high hills. Dovn in the valleys are orange groves smothered in fruit and almond blossom by the mile. Arabs and donkeys and camels; Fords packed with queer-looking Jews, the males, old and young, with hanging side-locks. After the tropics the cold, which is really a bracing March at home, is such that I am frozen through and through.

You begin to be in Jerusalem before you know it, very suddenly round a corner, and in a minute there is before you the City set on a hill, like many another Oriental grey stone city. Seventy-five thousand people in it - and some mighty queer ones. ...

My host, Sir Herbert Samuel, who occupies one of the thorniest Governmental seats I've struck yet, was ill ...

I was in for a big luncheon palty at once, and then went off to a Jewish "Colony," an hour-and-a-quarter's journey by fast motor.

I am picking up views all the time. British officials, with few exceptions, don't like working under and witll Jews, though every one says that Samuel is as fair as he is courageous; and it requires courage to hold a very poor job like this when you might be a snug Cabinet Minister at home, which, at the age of forty or less, he was.

After a long and exhilarating spin through the cold spring sunshine, we come to where we take to ords and go over primeval American-like roads such as British motolists have never seen, to a long hamlet where we are led off by the Mayor, a long-established Russian Jew. There are speeches in Frenchand I have to give my reply in French. It has to be translatcd into Hebrew

{p. 272} and Yiddish for the rest of the crowd. Hebrew is being revived by the Jews, just as Irish is by the Irish. They seemed to be under the impression that all England was devoted to the one cause of Zionism, enthusiastic for it, in fact; and I told them that that wasn't so, and to be careful that they didn't tire out our people by any more secret importation of arms to fight 700,000 Arabs.

We went to the offices of the "Colony," which makes excellent wine of many kinds. Forty years ago these Jews, financed by the French Rothschilds, came here to a series of sand dunes and made this fine vineyard and settlement. ...

To-day I went to the Mosque of Omar {Dome of the Rock} and the Holy Sepulchre, the place where Christ's body lay, and I believe that it did lie there. It is the most holy place, the holy of holies in the Christian world. The Mosque of Omar where the wily Moslems had gathered their big men, muftis and others, to meet me, is the third most holy place of the 250,000,000 Moslems, now educating and organizing, which form so strange a force. ...

I have busy times here in Jemsalem where, en passant, more institutions, such as missions and hospitals, are kept up, by every nation, than anywhere else in the world. In many ways the town must be a town of cosmopolitan parasites; doctors, nurses, and the rest, including Jewish remittance men from many lands.

{p. 273} Wednesday, February 8th, 1922.

Most of the morning was spent in receiving Arabs, Christians, Zionists, and Orthodox Jews. All tried hard to get me to express an opinion on their cause. I declined, except to express the belief that the immigration of new Jews, unused to liberty and plenty, should be done with great care. All lie profusely; the Moslems outrageously, the Zionists artistically. The Orthodox Jews seem bitterest of all. I have now seen and questioned over two hundred of the various disputants. I am to see some of the newest Jewish arrivals on Thursday on my way to the sea. ...

After lunch, I went again with Storrs to see the Pool of Bethesda and the Jews' wailing-place, and to walk through the busy, narrow, often over-arched streets. Pekin, Fez, Cairo, Canton the back streets of any Eastern town, are all much of a muchness. Here were squatting Jews, selling carpets or oranges, or turning sewing machines. The spectacle of the Jews' wailing-place, where men and women poke their faces into cracks in the city wall and pray, is a queer one. They stand up, of course.

Government House has behaved very generously in providing me with accommodation to see deputations. Only one yesterday was in their favour. The Government is fair, enthusiastic, and ignorant of immigration.

Graves, The Times Near East Correspondent, is my secretary and correspondent pro tem.

{p. 274} Another huge dinner-party. I heard spoken around me, by the strangely assorted Bishops and Patriarchs, Greek, Armenian, Turkish (by my Christian neighbour married to a Moslem), Asiatic French, and English. Hebrew is also spoken.

The methods of Zionism arouse antagonism. Can Jews rule? ...

Yesterday a day of motoring from the shimmering sunshine, cold and crisp, of the Mount of Olives, through Jerusalem, which white cupolaed city with its great walls stands four square, though it is beginning to straggle into new suburbs. ...

I haven't time to deal with Palestine as the great battlefield of the Religions, which it has always been since Crusaders' times, and is to-day. ...

{p. 275} The valley of the Jordan is almost tropica; bananas grow there well. ...

There was a swarm of sheikhs and their followers waiting to be introduced to me - Beduins - "Beddoes," as the British officers called them. It was an interesting and primitive picture. Near by, across the hills, is the Arabian desert and then Mesopotamia. I wish I could have gone there, but the Egypt will be at Port Said on the 12th for Marseilles, and I must catch her.

We said good-bye to these wild men, all of them, through the Amir, in British pay, and made the long ride back to Jerusalem. It really did look like Jerusalem the Golden in the sunlight.

I made two calls, one American, one Moslem, and heard the usual tale of the fear of the Jews and the Zionist Council.

Early to bed, thank goodness.

There will be trouble in Palestine.

{p. 276} Friday, February 10th, 1922.
Beirut, Syria.

WAS a long day yesterday. We rose at six o'clock and werc on the road from Jerusalem to the seaside town of Haifa by 7.30. ...

I looked back at grey Jerusalem, the most faction-ridden city in the world ... At Jerusalem a film was taken of my departure, amidst the proffering to me of a gift which I couldn't refuse - a jewelled Old Testament in Hebrew, from the Jews.

If only all the Jews were sane and moderate like Ben Avi, editor of the Hebrew Daily Mail here, I should feel less anxious about Palestine. As it is, despite the protestations of Government officials, I see trouble, much trouble between 70,000 Jews and 700,000 Canaanites and Christians.

We stopped at two "Colonies," where young Lithuanian and Galician Jews were very slackly at work on road-making. Fine young fellows, many. We entered the eating tent and huts of

{p. 277} some of them. They are rude people. If you make them stand up, which they don't otherwise, they go on eating in your face, with their hats on the backs of their heads, and put their hahds in their pockets. The Dyaks of Borneo are better behaved. If they do that to us, whose coming they have awaited for hours, what do they do to the natives? I spoke my mind to their leader, much to the pleasure of British officers with me. People daren't tell the Jews the truth here. They've had some from me. I didn't come uninvited.

The size of our Army here is not known to people at home. Why is the Army necessary? Because of the Moslem-Christian versus Jew feeling.

Our Palestine developments, roads, railways, and the rest have been not a little the fruit of our Sudan Egyptian Civil Services, all represented here. This is a nev country superimposed on an old - even more difficult, perhaps, than colonising, say, Australia though that task is full of "snags."

{end of quotes}

15.3 Carroll Quigley discloses more information about the eviction of Lord Northcliffe from The Times in his book The Anglo-American Establishment.

The war against the Arabs and Islam is run by two conspiracies, an Anglo-American one (the whale, because it controls the oceans), and a Zionist one (the elephant, the one you can't see in the china shop until you join up the dots).

Some people can't see the whale; some can't see the elephant. Chomsky and the Trotskyist Left see the whale but not the elephant.

The Balfour Declaration marked the joining-up of two conspiracies, the British one (now Anglo-American) and the Zionist one: balfour.html.

The British one had wanted to get the US back into the Empire, even if that meant transferring the capital to the US. In the end, they were only able to do that with the assistance of Jewish middlemen.

Before the Balfour Declaration, the two conspiracies were working against each other. It was in the Zionist interest to keep the protagionists in World War I as evenly balanced as possible, i.e. keep the US out of the war, until the fall of the Tsar, their hated enemy. Then they auctioned their support to the protagonists.

Suppose that the U.S. had entered the war earlier, and mobilized its troops and sent them to the front. Then Britain would not have made the Balfour Declaration, as "a contract with World Jewry", whereby Zionists got Palestine in return for getting the U.S. into the war - because the U.S. would already have titled the balance.

The catch was this: the Zionist one knew about the Anglo one, because Cecil Rhodes had invited Lord Rothschild to join it; but the Anglos did not know about the Zionist one.

Quigley is unaware of the Zionist conspiracy, but is very revealing of the Anglo one. The following material begins with the role of Lord Esher (Reginald Baliol Brett, also known as Viscount Esher) at The Times. Lord Northcliffe's name by birth was Alfred Harmsworth.

Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, Books In Focus, New York 1981

{p. 42} Esher's reasons for refusing these positions were twofold: he wanted to work behind the scenes rather than in the public view, and his work in secret was so important and so influential that any public post would have meant a reduction in his power. ... This opportunity for influencing decisions at the center came from his relationship to the monarchy. For at least twenty-five years (from 1895 to after 1920) Esher was probably the most important adviser on political matters to Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, and King George V. ... in 1908, when a purchaser known only as "X" acquired control of The Times, Esher visited Lord Northcliffe on behalf of "a very high quarter" to seek assurance that the policy of the paper would not be changed. Northcliffe, who was 'X," hastened to give the necessary assurances, according to the official History of The Times. Northcliffe and the historian of The Times regarded Esher on this occasion as the emissary

{p. 43} of King Edward, but we, who know of his relationship with the Rhodes secret society, are justified in asking if he were not equally the agent of the Milner Group, since it was as vital to the Group as to the King that the policy of The Times remain unchanged. As we shall see in a later chapter, when Northcliffe did adopt a policy contrary to that of the Group, in the period 1917-1919, the Group broke with him personally and within three years bought his controlling interest in the paper. ...

{p. 101} Accordingly, the real efforts of the Milner Group

{p. 102} were redirected into more fruitful and anonymous activities such as The Times and The Round Table.

The Milner Group did not own The Times before 1922, but clearly controlled it as far back as 1912. Even before this last date members of the innermost circle of the Milner Group were swarming abot the great newspaper. In fact, it would appear that The Times had been controlled by the Cecil Bloc since 1884 and was taken over by the Milner Group in the same way in which All Souls was taken over, quietly and without a strggle. The midwife of this process apparently was George E. Buckle (1854-1935), graduate of New College in 1876, member of All Souls since 1877, and editor of The Times from 1884 to 1912. The chief members of the Milner Group who were associated with The Times have alrady been mentioned. Amery was connected with the paper from 1899 to 1909. During this period he edited and largely wrote the Times History of the South African War. Lord Esher was offered a directorship in 1908. Grigg was a staff writer in 1903-1905, and head of the Imperial Department in 1908-1913. B. K. Long was head of the Daminion Department in 1913-1921 and of the Foreign Department in 1920-1921. Monypenny was assistant editor both before and after the Boer War (1894-1899, 1903-1908) and on the board of directors after the paper was incorporated (1908-1912). Dason was the paper's chief correspondent in South Africa in the Selborne period (1905-1910), while Basil Williams was the reporter covering the National Convention there (1908-1909). When it became clear in 1911 that Buckle must soon retire, Dawson was brought into the office in a rather vague capacity and, a year later, was made editor. The appointment was suggested and urged by Buckle. Dawson held the position from 1912 to 1941, except for the three years 1919-1922. This interval is of some significance, for it revealed to the Milner Group that they could not continue to control The Times without ownership. The Cecil Bloc had controlled The Times from 1884 to 1912 without ownership and the Milner Group had done the same in the period 1912-1919, but, in this last year, Dawson quarreled with Lord Northcliffe (who was chief proprietor from 1908-1922) and left the editor's chair. As soon as the Milner Group, through the Astors, acquired the chief proprietorship of the paper in 1922, Dawson was restored to his post and held it for the next twenty years. Undoubtedly the skillful stroke which aquired the ownership of The Times from the Harmsworth {Northcliffe} estate in 1922 was engineered by Brand. During the interval of three years during which Dawson was not editor, Northcliffe entrusted the position to one of The Times's famous foreign correspondents H. W. Steed.

{end quotes}

More from Carroll Quigley on The Anglo-American Establishment: quigley.html.

16. Lloyd George explains why Britain made "a contract with Jewry"

David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, Volume II, New Haven, Yale University Press 1939; (ch. XXIII).

{p. 722} The next factor which produced a momentous change was the decision to come to terms with Jewry, which was clamouring for an opportunity to make Canaan once more the homeland of their race. There are more Irishmen living outside Ireland than dwell in the old country. Still, Ireland is the homeland of the Irish people. No one imagined that the 14,000,000 of Jews scattered over the globe could find room and a living in Palestine. Nevertheless this race of wanderers sought a national hearth and a refuge for the hunted children of Israel in the country which the splendour of their spiritual genius has made forever glorious.

It seems strange to say that the Germans were the first to realise the war value of the Jews of the dispersal. In Poland it was they who helped the German Army to conquer the Czarist oppressor who had so cruelly persecuted their race. They had their influence in other lands - notably in America, where some of their most powerful leaders exerted a retarding influence on President Wilson's impulses in the direction of the Allies. {before the Balfour Declaration} The German General Staff in 1916 urged the Turks to concede the demands of the Zionists in respect of Palestine. Fortunately the Turk was too stupid to understand or too sluggish to move. The fact that Britain at last opened her eyes to the opportunity afforded to the Allies to rally this powerful people to their side was attributable to the initiative, the assiduity and the fervour of one of the greatest Hebrews of all time: Dr. Chaim Weizmann. He found his opportunity in this War of Nations to advance the cause to which he had consecrated his life. ...

{p. 723} Propaganda on both sides probably played a greater part in the last war than in any other. As an illustration I might take the public declarations we made of the Allied intention to liberate and confer self-government on nationalities inside the enemy Empires, - Turkey, Germany, and Austria. These announcements were intended to have a propagandist effect, not only at home, but also in neutral countries and perhaps most of all in enemy countries. ...

{p. 724} The Balfour Declaration represented the convinced policy of all parties in our country and also in America, but the launching of it in 1917 was due, as I have said, to propagandist reasons. I should like once more to remind the British public, who may be hesitating about the burdens of our Zionist Declaration to-day, of the actual war position at the time of that Declaration. We are now looking at the War through the dazzling glow of a triumphant end, but in 1917 the issue of the War was still very much in doubt. We were convinced - but not all of us - that we would pull through victoriously, but the Germans were equally persuaded that victory would rest on their banners, and they had much reason for coming to that conclusion. They had smashed the Roumanians. The Russian Army was completely demoralised by its numerous defeats. The French Army was exhausted and temporarily unequal to striking a great blow. The Italians had sustained a shattering defeat at Caporetto. The unlimited submarine campaign had sunk millions of tons of our shipping. There were no American divisions at the front, and when I say at the front, I mean available in the trenches. For the Allies there were two paramount problems at that time. The first was that the Central Powers should be broken by the blockade before our supplies of food and essential raw material were cut off by sinkings of our own ships. The other was that the war preparations in the United States should be speeded up to such an extent as to enable the Allies to be adequately reinforced in the critical campaign of 1918 by American troops. In the solution of these two problems, public opinion in Russia and America played a great part, and we had every reason at that time to believe that in both countries the friendliness or hostility of the Jewish race might make a considerable difference. ...

{p. 725} The support of the Zionists for the cause of the Entente would mean a great deal as a war measure. Quite naturally Jewish sympathies were to a great extent anti-Russian, and therefore in favour of the Central Powers. No ally of Russia, in fact, could escape sharing that immediate and inevitable penalty for the long and savage Russian persecution of the Jewish race. In addition to this, the German General Staff, with their wide outlook on possibilities, urged, early in 1916, the advantages of promising Jewish restoration to Palestine under an arrangement

{p. 726} to be made between Zionists and Turkey, backed by a German guarantee. The practical difficulties were considerable; the subject was perhaps dangerous to German relations with Turkey; and the German Government acted cautiously. But the scheme was by no means rejected or even shelved, and at any moment the Allies might have been forestalled in offering this supreme bid. In fact in September, 1917, the German Government were making very serious efforts to capture the Zionist Movement.

Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the Allies of the policy of the declaration lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognised as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfilment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.

It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.

Men like Mr. Balfour, Lord Milner, Lord Robert Cecil, and myself were in whole-hearted sympathy with the Zionist ideal. The same thing applied to all the leaders of public opinion in our country and in the Dominions, Conservative, Liberal, and Labour. There were only one or two who were not so favourably inclined to the policy.

{end of quotes}

More at l-george.html.

Robert John on Behind the Balfour Declaration: balfour.html.

Benjamin Freedman's speech The Hidden Tyranny: freedman.html.

17. Marranism and Universalism

(Marranism is the hiding of Jewish identity)

The Jerusalem Post of Tuesday, January 12, 1999 reported:

{quote} Balfour Declaration's author was a secret Jew


LONDON (January 12) - Leopold Amery, the author of the Balfour Declaration - the 1917  document from British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild which laid the  groundwork for the establishment of the State of Israel - was a secret Jew.

This has been disclosed in just-published research by William Rubinstein, professor of  modern history at the University of Wales, who says Amery hid his Jewish background.


Amery, co-author of the Balfour Declaration, was a senior figure in the British Establishment. He was in the "Milner Group", set up by Cecil Rhodes as a brains trust to formulate policy for the Empire: quigley.html.

Robert J. Scally, The Origins of the Lloyd George Coalition, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1975:

{p. 75} ... the Webbs and Leo S. Amery, a Milner disciple, a former Fabian, and the Times' military correspondent in South Africa, conceived the idea of forming the "Coefficients Club" in November of 1902.

{p. 78} The criteria applied by Amery and the Webbs in choosing the personnel of the "Brains Trust" arose directly out of these goals.

{p. 79} ... it seems possible that the club was originally imagined as the "Brains Trust" of Rosebery's National Efficiency program. ...

Thus the twelve original Coefficients constituted a kind of non-party Shadow Cabinet of experts, roughly paralleling the general structure of departmental functions as follows: Sidney and Beatrice Webb (Local Government and Labor); L. S. Amery (Army); Sir Edward Grey (Foreign Policy); R. B. Haldane (Law); Sir Clinton Dawkins (Finance); W. A. S. Hewins (Economy); Bertrand Russell (Science); W. Pember Reeves (Colonies); Commander Carlyon Bellairs (Navy); Halford J. Mackinder (Empire); Leo Maxse (Press); and H. G. Wells (a kind of Cultural Minister without Portfolio).

{p. 84} The Coefficients were not, like the Webbs' past proteges, fresh graduates who might one day sit on royal commissions, but politicians, economists, and intellectuals, most of whom had already gained some foothold in one of the corridors of power.

Together with Russell, H. G. Wells was somewhat out of tune with the dominant mood of the club. ... He apparently took up the Coefficients idea as a possible foundation for one of his most cherished oriental fantasies ... He proposed the remodeling of the Fabian Society into what he called an "Order of the Samurai" which should "embody for mankind a sense of the State." That eccentric project would appear again in various guises in Wells' later works, but in the back of his mind at this moment was the wish to create a "constructive social stratum" which would become the new directive element of the empire ...

In The New Machiavelli, a pseudonymous autobiography in which the Coefficients appear as the "Pentagram Circle," he recorded their enthusiasm on the subject in language closer to their own:

{quote} The more complicated and technical affairs become, the less confidence will the elected official have in himself. We want to suggest that these expert officials must necessarily develop into a new class

{p. 85} and a very powerful class in the community. We want to organise that. It may be the power of the future. They will necessarily have to have very much of a common training. We consider ourselves as amateur unpaid precursors of such a class. ... {footnote 26: Wells, The New Macchiavelli, London, 1911, p. 317}

{Djilas later applied Wells' term new class to the nomenklatura of the USSR; but it applies equally to the rationalists running the West}

Wells' penchant for amplifying language does not obscure the harmony of sentiment behind the "Samurai" idea and the Webbs' recently refined "missionary" role of the expert.

{p. 226} Lloyd George had himself read Wells' book in February, possibly on Garvin's high recommendation, and seems to have been greatly impressed. "He is the only writer whose opinions on politics interest me in the least," he confessed to a close friend.

{end quotes}

In was in such an eminent group of universalist-minded "Leftists" that Amery, a Fabian and secret Zionist, performed as a back-seat driver. Israel Zangwill, Jewish Zionist, and advocate that the League of Nations should be a World Government, was another influential Fabian, and influenced Wells' formulation of his ideas: wells-lenin-league.html.

Wells "universalism" amounted to Marxism, despite his attempt to disguise it. His prescription for Marriage and the Family shows Trotskyist pedigree:

"Socialism, if it is anything more than a petty tinkering with economic relationships is a renucleation of society. The family can remain only as a biological fact. Its economic and educational autonomy are inevitably doomed. The modern state is bound to be the ultimate guardian of all children and it must assist, place, or subordinate the parent as supporter, guardian and educator; it must release all human beings from the obligation of mutual proprietorship, and it must refuse absolutely to recognize or enforce any kind of sexual ownership. It cannot therefore remain neutral when such claims come before it. It must disallow them." (Experiment in Autobiography, Gollancz, London, 1934, vol. ii, p. 481).

Likewise Bertrand Russell. He wrote, in In Praise of Idleness (London, Unwin Books, 1973):

{p. 35} All this would be changed if it were the rule, and not the exception, for married women to earn their living by work outside the home. ... {p. 36} The problem is to secure the same communal advantages as were secured in medieval monasteries, but without celibacy ... {p. 37} The separate little houses, and the blocks of tenements each with its own kitchen, should be pulled down. ... There should be a common kitchen, a spacious dining hall ... All the children's meals should be in the nursery school ... Fram the time they are weaned until they go to school, they should spend all the time from breakfast till after their last meal at the nursery school ...

{end quote}

With such sentiments among "universalist" intellectuals, the family is under siege.

18. Israel Zangwill on Zionism, the Peace Conference and the Protocols

Zangwill, a Fabian socialist, advocate of World Government, and Zionist publicist, ridicules those arguing the Jewish Conspiracy. His arguments were later taken up by Herman Bernstein.

Zangwill here welcomes the Bolsheviks; yet, despite his profession of socialism, he regards Lord Rothschild as a benefactor, confirming, in effect, that there is no real opposition between Rothschild and the Bolsheviks.

Israel Zangwill, Speeches, articles and letters of Israel Zangwill, London 1937.


[July 1920]

Nothing, in fact, is - to believe the anti-Semite - too colossal for the Jew to have achieved. He has at once made the world-war and pulled the strings of the peace-traps.

{p. 103} But, despite the momentary charge of Bolshevism, and the more permanent charge of Poverty - for it is as an invading pauper horde that Jewry more frequently figures to the Christian legislator - Capitalism is destined to remain the chief of the criminal stigmata by which the Jew may be known.

But not Capitalism merely for profit's sake. Capitalism for Jewry's sake. The Jew bankers of the world - that notorious intercatenation of super moneylenders - are engaged in the old Biblical business of exploiting the rest of mankind as a prelude to its extermination. I suppose nobody is in a better position than I to give the lie to the charge of Jewish solidarity, I, whose life has been half wasted in the effort to bring it about, who for twenty years toiled to unite the Jewish millionaires in the quest for a Jewish State, and whose supremest triumph lay in assembling three of them, a British, a Russian, and an American, in one Committee-room to promote - emigration from a Jewish centre!

{p. 104} As for the press being in the hands of the Jews, let us bring this questlon, too, into the open. I know only two daily papers in London of Jewish editorship or proprietorship, The Daily Express and The Daily Telegraph, and it is difficult to decide which is the more radically British.


[Speech delivered at Derby Hall, Manchester, April 1905.]

{p. 199} To this policy of 'Lie low and say nothing' comes Zionism, with a trumpet-cry of 'Fly high and say everything'. Zionism means the end of the Marrano period and the revival of the Maccabean. {what of Leo Amery?}


[From 'The Jewish Chronicle,' April 9th, 1915.]

'Public life !' I well remember the almost rasping vehemence with which Lord Rothschild conveyed to me his remedy for anti-Semitism.

{p. 138} Rothschild tells me that he cannot see where the money for a Jewish Colony is to come from, and I elaborately expound to him the sources of revenue inherent in a population of thirteen millions. 'It is so difficult to get Palestine,' he once said to me, wistfully.


[Letter to 'The American Hebrew', January 12th, 1917.]

Your cable reminding me of the seventieth birthday of my friend Jacob Schiff comes just before the departure of the American mail ...

{p. 139} If the Talmudical fancy is true that our good deeds crcate angels, by what a shining host must Jacob Schiff go attended!


[Speech delivered at the Thanksgiving Meeting held at the London Opera House, December 2nd, l917, Lord Rothschild being in the chair.]

IN my capacity of President of the Jewish Territorial Organization I have been honoured with an invitation to appear on your platform on this momentous occasion.

{p. 332} But it is not only a Jewish national home that our people needs. There is the further, and not less momentous, principle which Jewry has of late united in demanding - equality of rights with their fellow-citizens in every country for all Jews who may be unable or unwilling to take up the new citizenship in Palestine. This principle is the more important, inasmuch as, out of our thirteen or fourteen million Jews, only a small minority can possibly return to Palestine in any foreseeable period. Indeed, but for the fact that the Russian Revolution has in all probability brought freedom to the six

{p. 333} million Jews of Russia, I should still consider Palestine an utterly inadequate territory, and Galveston as still the one gate of hope.

{p. 336} I say that without the vision of a League of Nations the whole world will perish. And this vision is no mere dream of poets or dilettanti. It is the sober aspiration of statesmen like Mr. Asquith, like Lord Bryce, like Lord Lansdowne, like President Wilson, like the greatest personality the war has revealed, I mean General Smuts. But this aspiration was not originated by General Smuts or his fellow-statesmen. It is the vision of our own Isaiah: 'They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.' In such a world, if it emerges, would it matter if we Jews did have a single nationality, if within all these leagued nations there was this still finer core of comradeship?

{p. 337} Let us rather make a great act of faith, and instead of disavowing the brotherhood of Israel let us proclaim - from our Jerusalem centre - the brotherhood of man. {what of the Palestinians?}

Palestine is not yet ours, and even when it is, our work - despite the pioneers we shall always honour, despite even Baron Edmond de Rothschild, to whom Palestine stands eternally indebted - will only begin.

{p. 338} And though our goal be yet far, yet already whell I recall how our small nation sustained the mailed might of all the great empires of antiquity, how we saw our Temple in flames and were scattered like its ashes, how we endured the long night of the Middle Ages ... the seer who foretold hls people's resurrection was not less prophetic when he proclaimed also for all peoples the peace of Jerusalem.


[February 1919]

WITH the arrival in France of President Wilson, the champion of the League of Nations, the most momentous episode in all human history begins, the true 'War for the World' ...

If mankind thus builds a brotherhood, the immeasurable slaughter and suffering of the war will be redeemed, and the prophetic gospel of ancient Judea will come to its own at last: 'They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.' But Judaism stands to gain also a minor traditional hope from the Peace Conference: the repossession of Palestine And if this secondary consummation could be united with the setting up of Jerusalem as the seat of the League of Nations, instead of the bankrupt Hague, the two Hebraic dreams, the major and the minor, would be fused in one,

{p. 340} and the Hebrew metropolis - that meeting-point of three world-religions - would become at once the centre and symbol of the new era.


[Review of Sokolow's 'History of Zionism', vol. I. June 1919.]

{p. 345} Long before the first Colony was founded, Lord Shaftesbury had been memorializing Palmerston to set up the Jews in Palestine ...

{p. 346} As if the six hundred thousand Arabs already on the soil did not form a sufficient obstacle to the creation of the 'Jewish National Home'.


[Letter to 'The Times', May 13th, 1922.]

{p. 353} It is true that in promising Palestine to the Jews our statesmen exhibited as reckless a disregard of the existence of the six hundred thousand Arabs ...

{end of quotes}

Israel Zangwill, The Voice of Jerusalem, Macmillan, New York, 1921.

{p. 9} The soul of this "peculiar people" is best seen in the Bible, saturated from the first page of the Old Testament to the last page of the New with the aspiration for a righteous social order, and an ultimate unification of mankind.

{p. 13} "That men form one universal brotherhood, that they spring from one common origin, that their individual lives, their nations and races, interbreed and blend and go on to merge again at last in one common human destiny upon this little planet amidst the stars," is, according to Mr. Wells, the conclusion which science and history alike reach by their investigations. But, as he admits, all the world-religions had reached it by inspiration and insight. This conclusion was in fact the starting-point of Hebrew literature, declaring as it did that we are all sons of Adam, and that the colour-varieties sprang equally from the sons of Noah ...

{what, then, of the exhortation to avoid the goyim, i.e. non-Jews?}

{p. 50} These "little things" which "upset Jehovah" are scarcely the way to "the kingdom of God," of which Mr. Wells is the eloquent evangelist, and one constituent of which he specifically defines as "the progressive enlargement and development of the racial life." For, as Mr. Wells warms to his theme, we learn to our surprise that his own "Invisible King" {Wells wrote a book of this title} demands nothing if not ethical service. For him clergymen are to throw up their livings, barristers their briefs. "It is plain that he can admit no divided control of the world he claims. He concedes nothing to Caesar." Evidently then "a monopolist," between whom and Jehovah there is little to choose. Samuel himself was not more jealously republican for his God, than Mr. Wells for his. "God is to be made and declared the head of the world" and even the symbols on stamps are lese-majeste. And when we learn that the future is not to democracy but theocracy, and that the trinity is doomed, we are back in the derided Old Testament. The fact is, that Mr. Wells has all the "stigmata" of Hebrew prophecy - lips touched with the burning coal can in fact speak no otherwise.

{p. 51} Mr. Wells even unconsciously accepts in principle the dietary and sexual regimen of Judaism, which in an earlier chapter is contumeliously rejected. For "the believer owes all his being, and every moment of his life to God, to keep mind and body as clean, pure, wholesome, active, and completely at God's service, as he can. There is no scope for indulgence or dissipation in such a consecrated life." The fact that in orthodox Judaism the guidance is not left to individual ignorance does not afect the essence of the conception, which has been illustrated in contemporary life by the embargo on alcohol in America.

The sole difference between Mr. Wells's God and the ancient Hebrew's - as that God was apprehended in the best Semitic minds - is that Mr. Wells's God is finite. In His unity, invisibility or incorporeality, righteousness, jealousy, and unreserved and exclusive claim for service, He is identical with J hovah. And it is extremely interesting to witness the re-formation of ancient conceptions in an ultra-modern mind. Nor is the point of difference of supreme importance, for it is merely metaphysical, and the Hebrew genius in its palmy days had - I have already pointed out - no philosophy. Sufficient to obey and adore the unknowable Creator.

{p. 55} Nor ought I to complain that Mr. Wells's thought has "moved on" yet once more - it is like a muddy stream that purifies itself by force of going on - for he has now grown to understand the breadth of Jewish theology better, as well as the value of a "jealous" Jehovah. "Neither Gautama nor Lao Tse nor Confucius had any inkling of this idea of a jealous God, a God who would have 'none other gods,' a God of terrible Truth, who would not tolerate any lurking belief in magic, witchcraft, or old customs, or any sacrificing to the god-king or any trifling with the stern unity of things. The intolerance of the Jewish mind did keep its essential faith clear and clean." And again: "We have already noted the want of any progressive idea in primitive Buddhism. In that again it contrasted

{p. 56} with Judaism. The idea of a Promise gives to Judaism a quality no previous or contemporary religion displayed; it made Judaism historical {historicist} and dramatic. It justified its fierce intolerance because it pointed to an aim. ... Because of its persuasion of a promise and of a divine leadership to serve divine ends, it remained in comparison with Buddism bright and expectant, like a cared-for sword." Oddly enough, it is only when contrasting Judaism with Buddhism or Hellenism or with the doctrines of Lao Tse or Confucius that Mr. Wells is able to appreciate its claims to be the one sane central religion of humanity; when compared with Mohammedanism or Christianity it is accused of exclusiveness ...

{p. 58} It is in the chapter on the rise of Christianity that Mr. Wells shows himself least able to override his conscious prejudice against Judaism and his unconscious prejudice in favour of Christianity. Like most modern thinkers, he makes up for the denial of divinity to Jesus by divinising his doctrine land his life ...

{p. 61} These six hundred and thirteen precepts of the Mosaic code, though they doubtless embrace some survivals of primitive tabus and totems, are in the main only an attempt at a practical idealism, a sanctified sociology, an order in human affairs, which no one has demanded with more insistence - even unto pedantry and Philistinism - than Mr. Wells himself.

{more on Judaism as a "sanctified sociology" at p. 146 below}

{p. 120} The alternative Woodrow Wilson set up of the world as commonwealth or the world as cockpit was not clearly faced even by himself.

{p. 121} Had President Wilson returned home heart-broken at his defeat by the dark forces of Europe, he would have been the greatest success in human history. But that he should have triumphantly waved scraps of paper from which the Fourteen Points have been practically erased, here is the true tragedy of his downfall.

{p. 122} Not only is the League not a League of Nations, nor the Peace Treaty a Treaty of Peace, but President Wilson's tenaciously achieved embodiment of the first in the second was a triumph as hollow as the rest. For the whole point of the incorporation of the League in the Peace Treaty was that the co-existence of this covenant of co-operation, this new world- order, would react enormously upon the nature of the settlement, substituting as it must goodwill for hate, and reducing racial frictions to a minimum by the world-policy of the open door and free and equal access to ports, harbours and railways. In particular, boundary questions could be denuded of their significance, for the security of the individual frontier would depend not on its fortresses nor its geographical barriers but on the joint protection of the peoples.

But instead of the new world-order influencing the Peace Settlement, that Treaty is drawn up on the assumption of the constancy of the bad old world-order, and security of frontier has been pursued even to the sacrifice of the vaunted "principle of nationality."

{if we wants to do away with nations, why begin with creating Israel as a new nation?}

{p. 123} It is not, in fact, a League of Nations that has been brought forth, but a League of Damnations. ... In diminishing and crippling Germany to the utmost possible and in building up against her resurrection a barrier of new nations ...

{p. 124} Instead of a pact to guarantee one another's territorial integrity, the leagued nations should have undertaken to re-adjust one another's frontiers according to the variations of populations or their economic situation.

{p. 126} There is no need at all of strong nations inside the League, so long as there are no strong nations outside. Their union is strength, and all the strength necessary.

{p. 130} A Peace purporting to aim at a World-Unity ...

Bolshevism may be good or bad, but the United States of Russia would be in greater congruity with World-Peace than a swarm of conflicting nationalities; and if the Bolshevists can succeed in re-uniting them, they will to that extent be promoting the larger and truer ideal.

{p. 132} To increase the number of new nations without the preliminary creation of a real League of them, was merely to multiply the chances of conflagration. It was to add new denizens to the jungle.

{p. 133} This sullen resistance to the League has much in common with the super-millennial refusal of Israel to universalise the prophetic teaching and be absorbed in its diffiusion. {A theme echoed by Wells; and yet Zangwill remained a staunch Zionist, combining his universalism with dispossession of the Palestinians} ... In vain Paul cried: "There shall be neither Jew nor Greek." ... As if "Sovereign rights" were in any case unrestricted! As if they were something absolute and antinomian, immune from the claims of reason or justice!

{p. 143} As a body, Jews were the great agents of the Middle Ages - the wandering Jews, a human network of inter-communication. They carried literature and folk-lore; they brought science from Arabia to Europe by way of Spain; they invented the mechanism of commercial exchange, and, less creditably, were the chief slave-dealers. Medieval Israel was mainly an intermediary.

It is only through isolated individuals that Israel has influenced the world at first hand. Through Spinoza it affected the whole course of modern philosophy; through Ricardo it founded political economy; through Karl Marx and Lassalle it created socialism; through its financiers and politicians it has time and again shaped European politics; through a host of poets, scientists, actors, artists, musicians and journalists - of whom longum et dicere - it has been in the van of the world. To-day, in spite of two thousand years of suppression, and though but a small fraction of the population of the world, it looms large in the arts and letters and Bourses of every capital of civilisation.

But now we are confronted with the curious fact that the individuals through whom Israel has influenced the world have been for the most part divorced from the body proper. They have been heretics; caring little or nothing about "The Mission of Israel," and not immediately concerned about Righteousness They have been "racial," not "religious," Jews, and even their race they have sometimes disavowed.

{p. 145} By the positive side of Judaism, I mean simply the conception of life which is its essence. There is more in Judaism akin to the modern spirit than there is in any other religion, for the modern spirit is really akin to that of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament, invisible and incorporeal and incomprehensible, in whom is no variableness {on the contrary, he is partisan and vindictive}, neither shadow of tur ing, whose thoughts are not our thoughts, nor His ways our ways, who visits the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations, and who yet, on the whole, makes for righteousness and happiness, that terrible yet tender Father, who is still the God of Judaism, has more in common with the unity which we apprehend behind phenomena than the god of any other creed.

{p. 146} This Mosaic code, with its Rabbinical Commentaries, became the nucleus of a poetic domesticity that sweetened poverty and persecution; it made Israel cohere and be one in a brotherhood of obedience, despite dispersion to the four corners of the earth. This sanctified sociology made the sensuous sacred equally with the spiritual. Judaism sanctified the sensuous, Christianity was an abolition of the sensuous. In the result Christianity succeeded only in abolishing it from religion, not from life. No priestly pitchfork has ever expelled human nature.

{what of those Jews who tried to destroy the family in Bolshevik Russia?}

{more on Judaism as a "sanctified sociology" at p. 61}

{p. 147} For Judaism the centre of gravity is here and now {i.e. Earth, not a future life in Heaven}.

{p. 167} As some such grotesque notion of the ancient Jews and their bloodthirsty Jehovah is constantly cropping up (though in less surprising environments than a Congress of Races), it may be worth while to examine it in some detail, more especially as it shadows even the modern Jews in the guise of a suspicion, real or feigned, that they too cherish the dream of exterminating or at least conquering the heathen.

{Zangwill himself provides plenty of evidence of that}

{p. 180} The absence of a territory of their own in which new national history could be made forced them to cling to Zion in idea ... Thus Palestine soil clung still about the roots of Judaism,

{p. 181} Where eistence could be achieved legally, yet not without social inferiority, a minor form of Crypto-Judaism was begotten, which prevails to-day in most lands of Jewish emancipation, among its symptoms being change of names, accentuated local patriotism, accentuated abstention from Jewish affairs and even anti-Semitism mimetically absorbed from the environment. Indeed Marranoism, both in its major and minor forms, may be regarded as an exemplification of the Darwinian theory of protective colouring.

{p. 182} The notion, with which I shall presently deal in detail, that Jewish interests are Jesuitically federated or that Jewish financiers use their power for Jewish ends is one of the most ironic of myths.

{p. 190} Nothing in fact is - to believe the anti-Semite - too colossal for the Jew to have achieved. ... It was Jews who murdered the Czar, an accusation actually incorporated in the British White Book, and still exploited by The Times and the reactionary Russians {Note Zangwill's use of the word "reactionary", Bolshevik jargon for their opponents}, despite that even the Minister of Justice under Koltchak's Government has certified "that, among the number of persons proved bv the data of the preliminary enquiry to have been guilty of the assassination of the late Emperor Nicholas II. and his family, there was not any person of Jewish descent."

{Yet J. L. Talmon admits the contrary: talmon.html; and Robert Wilton, the Times' correspondent in Moscow, attests the Jewish control of the Revolution: wilton.html}

{p. 201} There is no Sanhedrin now extant, no "Learned Elders of Zion" exist whose meetings can be recorded in "Protocols," and "Nilus" seeming to have discovered this by the time his book reached a third and enlarged edition in 1911, substituted for his original melodramatic mendacities the story that his documents - described in the first edition as stolen from French Freemasonry - were simply the secret reports of the Zionist Congress at Basle in 1897. Unfortunately for "Nilus," I happened to be at all the sittings of that Congress, which was the first, and which I have described in my "Dreamers of the Ghetto." Nothing could be less like the operations of a Jew-

{p. 202} ish Jesuitry than this gathering, which laid the foundations of the Zionist movement and formulated its programme as "the acquisition of a publicly, legally recognised home for the Jewish people in Palestine." As this was an absolutelv new movement in Jewry, initiated in spite of great public opposition by a few more or less impecunious publicists, it seems indeed a strange manifestation on the part of the secret Semitic gang that ran - and runs - all the papers, parliaments and banks of the world, and in whose iconoclastic propaganda Charles Darwin was a prominent puppet! We have to do in fact with the forgery of a pious Russian, passionate for the Church and the Czar, edited in 1905 by an agency bent on drowning the Revolution of that year in Jewish blood. Such forgeries invariably appear in troubled periods, they are a stock historical weapon; though rarely has a forger admitted in more Irish fashion than the author of "The Jewish Peril" that he cannot prove the authenticity of his documents, for - he gravely explains - the essence of this criminal plot is secrecy!

It was like the journal which published the Pigott forgeries to take this grotesque fabrication seriously and thus encourage Count Reventlow and the reactionary monarchist parties in Germany, in whose platform anti-Semitism is a plank. Count Reventlow solemnly declared that he, for his part, had never credited the report that Lord Northcliffe was a Jew. The humourless Fatherland was flooded with a legend of a Jewish combination to destroy it, in which the gentle and venerable philanthropist, Jacob SchifF, figured side by side with Trotsky.

But it is impossible for even The Times to take "Nilus" seriously after the scathing scholarship of Mr. Lucien Wolf, who, in a letter to the Spectator, dissected the tangled threads of self-contradiction and, with a fascinating erudition, traced back the theory of the all-destroying Jew to the literature of Anti-christ that has been forged in successive centuries and in various blood-curdling shapes to explain the Lutheran Reformation, the Cromwellian Revolution, the French Revolution and

{p. 203} the Revolutions of '48 as all due to that same Semitic "hidden hand."

{Yet Benjamin Disraeli, writing in 1844, raid that a Revolution led by Jews was about to break out in Europe: disraeli.html}

{Here and in the following pages, Zangwill sets out the arguments later used by Herman Bernstein in his 1935 book The Truth About the "Protocols of Zion". Given the parallel passages, and Bernstein's unacknowledged debt to Zangwill, might he be accused of plagiarism? But this is the very charge levelled against Nilus or the Okhrana: fabricating the Protocols by plagiarising Joly. Note Zangwill's repetitive use of emotive words, fabrication, imaginary, fantastic etc., a trait copied by Bernstein}

The latest version of "The Jewish Peril" appears to be largely a plagiarism from the earlier fabrication by a German named Hermann Goedsche, who had actually been dismissed from the Prussian Postal Service for forgery, and it also borrows considerably from the pre-existing literature of the great Jewish conspiracy, e.g., Gougenot des Mousseau's "Le Juif, le Judaisme et la Judaisation des Peuples Chretiens."

To these contemporary forgeries may be added the imaginary speech of a Rabbi of Jaffa promising the Jews the conquest of the world (printed by Catholic newspapers in Holland), the letter to the same effect found in the pocket of a dead Bolshevist soldier, the utterance of the late Szamuely annexing Hungary as a Jewish land, the deliberations of the "Workers of Zion" at Kieff, and the circular recommending Bolshevism "disclosed" by a German paper as sent to the heads of the Alliance Israelite in Russia (a country where no branch of the Alliance exists or is permitted). There should also be noted the repetition of the libel on Zionism in the Brazol "revelations" that became the laughing-stock of America. Brazol had been assistant attorney for the Russian Government in the notorious Beilis case, and being in the States on Russian business, took occasion to publish a work with twenty-five apocryphal resolutions passed by an imaginary secret sitting of the First Basle Congress. Under examination, these schemes for the Bolshevisation of the world were found to be merely clumsy reproductions of existing anti-Semitic creations in Russian, German, or Rumanian. All these forgeries are, however, but the expression of a state of mind in the public, and doubtless sometimes in the forger too, who feels more like a champion putting his truth in artistic form than a malicious liar and a deliberate cheat {might not this also apply to Jewish missionaries like Zangwill?}. Hence, the danger of these fictions does not evaporate at their exposure, for the public credulity that inspired them persists and gives the breath of life to fresh embodiments of panic. For the fear, as well as the wish, is father to the thought. Note, as Renan said to Salomon Reinach, how uninventive is human malignity. "Elle tourne eternellement dans le meme cercle d'accusations." And the ascription of calamities to a "hidden hand" already hated is one of the most familiar workings of the mass-mind.

It is not even necessary that the accusation should come by the complex channel of forgery. A bouncing assertion suffices. Since I began this paper, the evidence has become overwhelm-

{p. 204} ing of a world-plot worked {i.e. a conspiracy revealed} by a little gang of exiles from Bolshevist Russia in the favourable atmosphere of a world-concordat of sentiment amongst the militarist and monarchical classes of all countries {note the Bolshevik jargon}, fomented by the chauvinisms of war, and finding vent in this same fantastic charge. According to the President of the Independent Order B'nai B'rith {note Zangwill's quoting of this peak body of Jewish Freemasonry}, a circular entitled "Jewry Ueber Alles" has been sent out by the gang "to American publicists and men of afairs, charging the Jew with the responsibility for the world war and with a vast conspiracy to control the economic world," and the same group "has been distributing throughout the American Legion posts a large amount of literature of the same general nature, urging ex-soldiers to arm themselves against 'the Jewish peril.'" The latest manifestation comes, as I write, to lift into notoriety the unknown Dearborn Independent, the personal organ of Henry Ford, the car manufacturer, who, after visiting Germany in a Peace Ship, turned into a rabid militarist when America's own tocsin sounded. An anonymous article in this journal, entitled "Germany's Reaction Against the Jew," brings the case against the world's whipping-boy to its comic culmination. For it declares that "the sole winners of the war were Jews." Early in the war, in my book, "The War for the World," I had predicted that the time would come when the Jews would be gibbeted as its sole starters, but even my cynical prescience did not foresee that they would grow into its sole winners. Poor Jews, whose bones bleach on every battlefield in Europe, Asia, and Africa! However, the Dearborn Independent deserves our gratitude, for, in reproducing the German case, it naturally reproduces the factor omitted from the British edition of "The Jewish Peril," and England reappears as the Jew's ally or tool in the conquest of the world. Pan-Juda - " the only State exrcising world-government, since all the other States can and may exercise national government only" - had before the war its Capital in London. Strange that I should have been born in this city and lived most of my life therein, and have never heard till this day of the "wonderfully organised All-Jewish Government" whose web radiates thence: the Government "whose fleet is the British fleet which guards from hindrance the progress of All-Jewish world-economy," and in return for which, "Pan-Juda assures Britain an undisturbed, political and territorial world-rule," and has recently "added Palestine to British control." What was Tamburlaine with his chariot drawn by bitted and harnessed kings to His Imperial Majesty,

{p. 205} Judaeus, who "is willing to entrust the government of the various strips of the world to the nationalistic Governments, and only asks to control the Governments"? It is a gesture that would have left even Beaconsfield breathless. This marvellous Jewish Super-Government "whose citizens are unconditionally loyal, wherever they may be, and whether rich or poor," and which "can make peace or war, anarchy or order," at its own financial will, "having wreaked its revenge on anti-Semitic Germany, will now go forth to conquer other nations. Britain it already has." Such is the chivalry of Germany to its Jews who, through Ballin and Rathenau, did more than any other section of its citizens to stave off the disaster which its fatuous generals and light-headed admirals brought upon it. It is, of course, these same monarchist elements that, learning and forgetting nothing, attribute to Jewish intrigue and purpose the Revolution which dethroned Junkerdom, and that see in their own inability to efect a counter-revolution the infallible evidence of the "hidden hand." Poor Ballin, one remembers, committed suicide, unable to survive the literal wreck of all his hopes for his Fatherland. But in the Junker version he apparently shot himself for joy at the revenge he had helped to wreak on Germany! To those who know that the Jews are, as John Davidson once wrote to me, "a race of ungovernable individuals," - still further broken up by geography and history - the humour of representing them as an army of ants with but one will and purpose, is of the last etravagance. Travesty can no further go. It is the very sublime of the ridiculous!

The clue to the great Jewish conspiracy is, we have already seen, to be sought less in the nature of the accused than in the psychology of the accuser. The Jew takes on the Protean shapes created by ever-changing panic. But beneath it all lies the same apprehension of mysterious power, of uncanny success, without which the legend of the advancing conqueror would lose its thrill. And this power in the last resort is money. Not to be exfurcated even by the charge of Bolsheism, lies the morbid sense of the Jew's money. It is by the criminal stigmata of £.s.d. that the Jew will be known when the accusations of to-day have vanished like the dew of the morning.

{p. 222} {Note Zangwill's efforts below, to deny Jewish control of Bolshevism; yet Benjamin Ginsberg admits the contrary: ginsberg.html. The same people who deny the Jewish leadership of the Bolshevik Revolution, also deny the authenticity of the Protocols}

... the first generator of Bolshevism was the fleet at Kronstadt, into which not a single Jew was admitted {but the Kronstadt sailors were massacred at Trotsky's order, a little later: kronstadt.html}; the second was the proletariat {note Zangwill's use of this Bolshevik jargon} of Petrograd, a town into which only a rare Jew could find entry. From these two centres it spread to Great Russia, where the Jews constitute less than 1 per cent. of the population. Victor Kopf, the Bolshevist Commissary at Berlin, complains that only one Jewish party in Russia - the Poale-Zion - welcomed Bolshevism, that the Jewish trading and shop-keeping classes are its greatest enemy, and that although they are massacred in pogroms organised by the counter-revolutionaries, they will not fall in with the Socialist regime.

A friend of my own, returning from Moscow, reported that the question: "Is there a God?" was raised in a public debate by Lunatscharsky, the Bolshevist Commissioner for Public Instruction. The only debater on the affirmative side was Rabbi Mase of Moscow. Not a single Russian pope, in that religious capital of Russia with its swarm of churches, dared to emulate this Jewish courage. In a letter to The Times I had ventured the above interpretation that the comparative preponderance of Jewish Commissaries was merely due to the Jews being an educated folk in an illiterate land. I see that Captain Peter Wright, in his official report on Poland, discussing the same question, says:-

{quote} Bolshevism requires a vast administration and propaganda, which in turn require that men shall at least be able to read and write. But in the proletariat of Eastern Europe only the Jews possess these accomplishments, and therefore the administrators and propagandists of Bolshevism must necessarily be Jews. So much so that Bolshevism appears at times to be almost purely a Jewish movement. But the Commission had the opportunity of studying it very close at hand on the Eastern frontier, and in that part of the world at least this was certainly not the case. {endquote}

Indeed, the Chief of the Commission, Sir Stuart Samuel, reports that "the Bolsheviks publicly complained that only 1 per cent. of their army were Jews."

{But Trotsky was the leader}

The attempt to represent Jewishness and Bolshevism as synonymous, naturally does not fall short of my own person, and persists in face of rectifications. ...

Mr. Bertrand Russell seems to have had to go to Russia to perceive these obvious implications of the communistic ideal ...

{Yet Russell admitted the Jewish control of Bolshevism: russell.html}

{p. 233} The mere eistence of the Jew to-day has been a triumph of idealism; it marks a dissent for the sake of an idea from the dominant forces of Asiatic or European civilisation, a protestantism persisted in despite the ceaseless persecution of all the centuries of Pagan or Christian supremacy. The real story of "The Wandering Jew" remains, when every deduction has been made, the story of camps of idealists entrenched everywhere in enemy's country, practising (inter se at least) those Hebraic principles of human brotherhood which are now only beginning to work their way from the creed to the life of Christendom, and organising existence round the synagogue and the Talmudical college so democratically that the beggar considered himself the equal, if not the benefactor, of the philanthropist he helped heavenwards.

{p. 236} Another American poet, Mr. Samuel Roth, has excoriated "Europe" with the same large utterance. Thus saith the Lord, he, too, dares to begin in the antique phrase, though his message is ultra-modern. And with the same sublime assurance he exclaims: "The face of Israel will shine with power when Europe will be a name difficult to remember." The voice of Jerusalem re-echoes from France, where in language of a Semitic sublimity M. Edmond Fleg in his "Le Mur des Pleurs," gives utterance to "Le Cri des Hommes," and proclaims his execration for that God of Battles who would resuscitate the very dead only to renew the slaughter:

"Sois maudit: a ton cri, nos os ressuscites, S'entre-tuent dans le temps et dans l'eternite!"

Perhaps this is the real uneasiness of Christendom in the presence of the Jew. Israel's emancipation has served, as Stevenson said of marriage, to "domesticate the Recording Angel." But the Jew is not content to record the crimes of Christendom. For him criticism is only the negative aspect of creation. He is out for victory. He will verify the legend of the Conquering Jew. With the sword of the spirit he will extirpate the heathen. He will overrun the planet. He will bring about a holy League of Nations, a Millennium of Peace. For the words of the Babylonian Isaiah still vibrate in his soul:

"I have put My spirit upon him, He shall make the right to go forth to the nations, He shall not fail or be crushed Till he have set the right in the earth, And the isles shall wait for his teaching."

The God whose spirit is thus interpreted, the God who uses a people to make the right to go forth to the nations, and who

{p. 237} through faithful followers labours to establish His Kingdom on earth, may be only a national working hypothesis, a divine dynamic. But the conception at least makes the worship of any lesser or rival God impossible, and justifies that jealousy for His service which inspired the anonymous medieval poet whose verses are still sung in the synagogue: -

"All the world shall come to serve Thee And bless Thy glorious Name, And Thy righteousness triumphant The islands shall acclaim, And the peoples shall go seeking Who knew Thee not before, And the ends of earth shall praise Thee And tell Thy greatness o'er.

... the uttermost peoples, hearing, Shall hail Thee crowned King.".

{p. 324} THE GOYIM

(The Venturer, October, 1920)

BEWARE of the Goyim, his elders told Jacob,
In the holy peace of the Sabbath candles,
They drink Jewish blood:
They are fiercer than flame,
Or than cobras acoil for the spring.
They make mock of our God and our Torah,
They rob us and spit on us,
They slaughter us more cruelly than the Shochet our cattle.
Go not outside the Ghetto.
Should your footsteps be forced to their haunts,
Walk warily, never forgetting
They are Goyim,
Foes of the faith,
Beings of darkness,
Drunkards and bullies,
Swift with the fist or the bludgeon,
Many in species, but all
Engendered of God for our sins,
And many and strange their idolatries,
But the worst of the Goyim are the creatures called Christians.

{p. 333} MR. LEONARD WOOLF, the presiding genius of the Fabian Society's scheme for a League of Nations, having started a much-needed International Review to keep us informed - despite the newspapers - of what was going on abroad, I duly ordered the first number from my bookseller.

{end of quotes}

Zangwill's influence on H. G. Wells:

"When Wells finished his work, he and Israel Zangwill exchanged several visits and letters about his ideas and Zangwill sent copies to the Chief Rabbi in England for discussion." (David C. Smith, H.G. Wells: Desperately Mortal, Yale University Press, New Haven 1986, p. 230). wells-lenin-league.html

19. Herman Bernstein for World Government

Bernstein here records his interviews with "celebrities", many of whom are Jewish (e.g. Kerensky, Trotsky, Krassin, Rathenau), although Bernstein does not mention that.

Note that Trotsky is included among the "celebrities".

Bernstein is revealed here as a person of discernment, but with a sympathy for the Jewish Bolsheviks.

Herman Bernstein, Celebrities of Our Time: Interviews, New York, Joseph Lawren, 1924.

{p. v} {Dedication to Colonel House, advocate of World Government}



The liberal American statesman
Who is intimately familiar with
American and Foreign affairs
and deeply interested in their betterment
This volume is inscribed us a token of friendship and admiration.



Petrograd, 1917.

{Bernstein does not mention that Kerensky was Jewish}

{p. 192} Among all the Russian leaders here Alexander Kerensky is beyond doubt the most picturesque and dramatic figure. On the crest of the wave of the Russian revolution he rose to dizzy heights and became the favorite of the Russian people immediately after the collapse of the Romanoff dynasty.

I met him as Premier, when he was in his glory; I met him several times since then, and now I find him in his modest little room in Paris, where he lives in seclusion.

I asked him about Russia, about the Allied policy toward Russia, about the recognition of the Soviet Government. {installed by the Bolshevik Revolution which deposed Kerensky}

There was a tinge of bitterness and a certain degree of cynicism in his comments on the Allied attitude, but it was clear that his love for Russia was as profound as his confidence in the eventual readjustment of Russia as a great and powerful country.

"America," he said, "had the greatest opportunity to save Russia, but she lost it. Immediately after the overthrow

{p. 193} of the Romanoff dynasty Germany supported the Bolsheviki, while England and France supported the monarchists and reactionaries in Russia. Then America had the greatest opportunity, and we Russians hoped that she would help the democratic elements that sought to rebuild Russia.

"The Wilsonian peace policy was patterned after the policy of the Provisional Government of which I was the head. We outlined it first immediately after the revolution, but it was a policy distasteful to England and France. So they did everything they could to undermine us. They did not want us to participate in the liquidation of the war along the lines of our peace program. And we would not have been puppets at the Peace Conference.

"When President Wilson proclaimed his fourteen points the Allies maintained silence. They were glad that President Wilson created such sentiments. They knew what effect his speeches must have on the morale of the German people, and upon certain elements of the people in the Allied countries. But the Allied statesmen themselves did not regard President Wilson's statements seriously. They plotted to carry out their own program.

"Before President Wilson arrived in Europe the first time, a prominent British official said to me: 'We are not afraid of Wilson. He is not sufficiently familiar with European affairs. Lloyd George will be able to accomplish whatever he pleases.' And so it actually happened. Lloyd George has done whatever he pleased.

"England is now pursuing with regard to Russia the same policy that Germany pursued. England is now eager to dismember Russia, almost along the lines of the Brest- Litovsk treaty, and England will soon recognize and help the Bolshevist government, as the Germans did in 1918.

{One might have thought that Kerensky, whose Government was overthrown by the Bolshevik Revolution, would have opposed recognition and aid for them}

{p. 204} LEO TROTZKY

Petrograd, March, 1918.

I WENT to Russia to see what the Russian people thought of Bolshevism.

I interviewed a large number of representatives of factions, groups and partles of every political shade of thought in Russia.

I was particularly eager to meet Leo Trotzky, the cleverest among the Bolshevist leaders. {and one of the cruellest: worst.html}

I sent a card to him by messenger, stating that I wanted to interview him for the American newspaper which I represented. The messenger returned to my hotel saying:-

"Comrade Trotzky asks you to meet him tomorrow at eleven o'clock in the morning at the Smolny Institute."

Next morning on my way to the Smolny Institute, the Headquarters of the Bolsheviki, I read in the newspapers a dispatch from Moscow stating that Trotzky had arrived in the new capital of the Bolsheviki, together with the other Commissaries, to be present at the conference of the Council for the ratification of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty. I hesitated awhile, then decided to go to Smolny, notwithstanding the report that Trotzky had left the city.

The Smolny Institute, guarded by troops, with machine guns in front of the huge buildings, was almost deserted. The corridors were dirty. No one seerned to know anything about the departments that still remained in the Smolny.

{p. 203} Then the Bolshevist leader remarked:

"I must say that though Germany is employing methods of violence she deals after all with the realities of life, and that is why Germany is successful. The Allies, on the contrary, deal with appearances, with dreams rather than realities. Besides, they are six months too late. Any one who tells me that Japan is pursuing unselfish interests in Siberia is using a wretched diplomatic phrase. Japan is striking at Russia while we are organizing an army to resist German domination."

I looked at Trotzky in amazement. He was making this statement on the day the Bolsheviki were ratifying the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty.

"How long do you think your peace with Germany will last" I asked.

"We are continuing the war against Germany in the Ukraine right now," answered Trotzky. "Neither we nor Germany consider our peace of long duration."

"May I know how you expect Bolshevism to work out in Russia side by side with German imperialism" I asked.

"The Russia of soviets and militaristic Germany are absolutely incompatible," replied Trotzky. ... {"}

{p. 212} In Christiania the captain of the vessel on which Leo Trotzky left New York last year described to me how he was taken off by the British authorities at Halifax, who suspected that he was going to Russia to carry on a campaign for separate peace. Trotzky refused to leave the vessel when the officers asked him to follow them ashore. He was carried off by several men.

"Who knows" said one of the British officers to me at Halifax. "If we had kept Trotsky here perhaps the war would have been over long ago and history might have taken a different course. We wanted to hold him, but Milukov and Kerensky insisted upon our releasing him."

{p. 239} ROBERT CECIL.

{p. 240} I asked Lord Robert for his views concerning the terms of the peace treaty of Versailles. He said:

"The territorial arrangements affecting Germany as stipulated in the treaty are not so bad. The territorial arrangements with Austria are of course much worse. But the economic arrangements with both are utterly indefensible. It is only right to say that the device adopted - the undefined indemnity - was not an American invention."

"Could not the United States, then, exert sufflcient influence at the peace conference to prevent this device from being embodied in the treaty" I asked.

Lord Robert Cecil answered:

"Of course strong efforts were exerted, but in the end a compromise was made."

"Would you say, on the whole, that you are pleased with the outcome of the war" I asked.

To which he answered:

"Of course it was better to win the war than to have been defeated by Germany."

"That goes without saying," I remarked. "What I meant was whether you are pleased with the outcome of the peace as worked out in Paris."

"I certainly am not," he replied. "The economic arrangements of the German peace treaty are an insane policy. In effect the Allies have said to the Germans: 'However hard you work, you cannot count on reaping any

{p. 241} benefit from your exertion. The more money you make the more will we take from you by way of indemnity.' This has contributed to the demoralization of the will and energy of the German people which so many observers report. It has helped to render a section of them desperate and hopeless, ready for any adventure which may change their lot. It has been I am convinced one of the greatest incentives to German Bolshevism. It has also made it difflcult if not impossible for Germany to obtain outside credit. Who would lend to a debtor the whole of whose assets are already pledged to others? Finally, by keeping alive in the minds of some of the belligerent nations a hope of receiving very large indemnity it has prevented them from making the efforts and sacrifices required by their financial position."

"Do you think there will be any changes in the terms of the treaty with Germany?" I asked.

"Yes, I believe there will be changes," he answered. "Our Prime Minister has recently asked Germany to submit new economic proposals and has promised to consider them favorably if at all reasonable. Strangely enough, the most important questions were not those that attracted most attention at the Peace Conference. The questions that were most widely discussed- for instance, as to what shall be done with Danzig and the Saare Valley, were comparatively unimportant. The really vital matters were economic. The result was deplorable and some way out will unquestionably have to be found. It may be that the Reparation Commission will make a drastic use of its powers in modifying the terms of the indemnity. It may be the Treaty itself will have to be amended. But whatever is done, no time should be lost. The economic

{p. 242} position in Europe is steadily getting worse and may become past remedy. What a pity we have not the full influence of the United States to prevent the threatened disaster."

The following letter from Lord Robert Cecil is characterlstic:

"Foreign Office,

"October 7th, 1915.

"Dear Mr. Bernstein:

"I am much obliged to you for your letter from Rotterdam, as well as that from Berne. I am sorry that I did not reply to the Berne letter; I quite thought that I had done so, but I suppose I must have overlooked it.

"I am most grateful to you for sending me the further information about the position of the Jews in Russia. Everyone must sympathize with them in the sufferings which they have endured. Indeed, quite apart from any other cause, the mere evacuation of the conquered territories both by Jews and Russians has entailed, I am afraid, terrible hardships. Great efforts are, I understand, being made to assist these poor people, both by sympathizers outside Russia, and by the Russians themselves. It is inc dents of this kind which make one realise what really lies underneath the glories and glamour of war, and the man who is responsible, whoever he may be, for having loosed upon the world this terrible series of calamities, is surely one of the greatest criminals in the world's history.

"Your sincerely, ROBERT CECIL.

In response to a letter of mine, accompanied by my

{p. 243} article entitled "In Sackcloth and Ashes," depicting the tragedies of Belgium, Poland and the Jewish people in the World War, Sir Edward Grey sent me the following remarkable note:

"Foreign Office,

"June 5th, 1916.

"Dear Mr. Bernstein:

"I am much obliged for your letter enclosing a pamphlet which you have written and which has safely reached me.

"As regards the questions which you asked in the last two paragraphs of your letter, since the latter was written I made a speech in the House of Commons with regard to terms and prospects of peace. There is really nothing I can add to this when it is taken in conjunction with the other pronouncements made both by the Prime Minister and myself on the subject. In case what I said has not been reported fully in the United States press, I enclose a copy taken from the official records of the House of Commons in case you care to have it.

"I believe the best work neutrals can do for the moment is to work up opinion for such an agreement between nations as will prevent a war like this from happening again.

"If nations had been united in such an agreement and prompt and resolute to insist in July, 1914, that the dispute must be referred to Conference or to the Hague and that the Belgian Treaty must be observed there would have been no war.

"Yours very truly,

"E. GREY."


London, 1920.

{Krassin, a Bolshevik leader, was Jewish, but Bernstein does not mention this}

SEVERAL days after Leonid Krassin's arrival in London in 1920 I met him and discussed with him the problems which stirred the whole world at the time. He was in the midst of conferences with the British Foreign Offlce and was besieged by interviewers representing the leading newspapers of the world. He refused to give any interviews for publication. Finally I succeeded in meeting him at midnight and secured the following important statements from the ablest and most reasonable representative of the Soviet Government abroad:

{quote} You ask me to describe contemporary Russia. Soviet Russia is the State of the working people and the peasants who have taken away the land from the estate-owners and made it the property of the laboring people, who have expropriated the factories and the shops and given over their management into the hands of the workers themselves and to the organs of the Government which they have established. {endquote}


April, 1921.

{p. 256} I asked Dr. Weitzmann to describe the beginning of the work on the Balfour Declaration. He answered:

"When the war broke out, the Zionist organization was concentrated on plans of work in Palestine, with no political horizon, with indifference on the part of the Powers, and opposition on the part of Turkey. The war divided our forces, as we were separated by gulfs and trenches. Russian Jewry was practically broken up. The pale of settlement became the theatre of war, and in the wake of the contending armies came ruin and misery.

"There was a small band of our workers in England who thought it their duty to utilize their position to save what could still be saved. We were a small, unofficial, unrecognized band of workers, but we knew that we voiced the sentiments of the great masses of the Jewish people, and we set out to create a political position for the Zionist movement.

{p. 257} "We reasoned thus:- 'It is possible that as a result of this war Turkey will disappear. It is therefore possible that the territories constituting the Turkish empire may be considerably readjusted and recast. The whole political structure of the Old World will go by the board. Therefore, the Jewish claims must be clearly formulated, and we must secure the recognition of these claims by the Allies. We further thought that the war was really a duel between Germany and England.

"We felt that if we could get England to understand the achievements of the Jews in Palestine and thus secure England's support for Zionism, half the battle would be won. That was our theory. I agree it was a gamble, but a gamble worth taking. We had strong opposition. We were a small band of foreign Jews and against us were the might and prestige and bank accounts of the established leaders of the British Jewish community.

"But we were inspired by the righteousness of our cause, and we said to the British statement:- 'The Jews will get Palestine, whether you want it or not. There is no power on earth that can stop the Jews from getting to Palestine. You gentlemen can make it easy for them, or you can make it hard for them, but you cannot stop them.'

"They asked us how many Jews there were in Palestine, and what they had accomplished there. We opened our books to them. It is true, we had very little to show as yet. We said, 'All that you see has been achieved under most trying circumstances, always in the teeth of opposition on the part of the Turkish government, and also of your rich Jews who tell you that the Zionist movement is merely the fancy or hope of a few enthusiasts.

{Yet the Balfour Declaration was addressed to Lord Rothschild as head of world Jewry}

"'We tell you we have behind us the millions of Jews

{p. 258} who are inarticulate now and we speak on their behalf.'

"It took at least two thousand interviews with British statesmen to get them to understand Zionism. I myself made more than a thousand visits to British statesmen in order to familiarize them with the true meaning of Zionism. Of course, we had the great support of American Zionists, which was most helpful. People have criticised me because I asked only for a national home for the Jews and not for a Jewish state. They said the Balfour plan did not mean a Jewish state. It certainly did not mean a Jewish state.

"The Jewish colonists who went to Palestine years ago and who have done there such wonderful work really prepared our political claim for Palestine. They were the real political leaders of the Zionist organization. We only supplemented their work."

In answer to my question whether it was true that the British military authorities in Palestine were at that time more sympathetic to the Arabs than the Jews, Dr. Weitzmann said:

"It may seem strange, but it is true that almost all Englishmen, after visiting Jerusalem, were at first unsympathetically inclined to the Jews. But I can easily understand the reasons for that. The first reason is due to the appearance of the Jews in Jerusalem. The Englishmen saw long-coated, long-bearded, old Jews, with earlocks - the so-called Chalukah Jews. They had expected to find there the Jews of the Bible. So the officers and soldiers asked themselves, 'Is it for these Jews that we were called upon to make so many sacrifices, and shed our blood that they shall have Palestine?'

{p. 259} "The Arabs, on the contrary, seemed to them to fit much better into the scenery of the Orient by their picturesque garb.

"The second reason is that the British officials found the Jews more difficult to deal with than the Arabs, who obeyed their orders. They found the Jews intellectually their equal, and they resented it.

"The third reason is a personal one. Among the British troops there were clerks and businessmen who naturally looked for future opportunities, and some of them regarded Palestine as a good field for their activities after demobilization. Some of them had their eyes on certain concessions, but when the Zionists stopped these concessions, the British soldiers did not realize that it was done for the purpose of preventing speculation and exploitation. They simply attributed that to the eagerness of the Jews to grab everything in Palestine.

"I can understand the reasons why they liked the Arabs better than the Jews. But, then, I am not pleased with Jerusalem as it is, either. Jerusalem must be cleaned up. The Chalukah Jews, the Jews depending upon alms from abroad, must be changed. I know it is difficult to change the old generation. But the young generation can still be changed. We shall build Yeshivahs, houses of Jewish learning, for the younger element, for we must not destroy before we build.

"There are so many fine intellectual qualities in these Jews that we cannot afford to lose, now that so many of the important institutions of Jewish learning have been destroyed in Russia and Poland. We must build them new in Palestine. ...

{p. 262} "The Jews of America can give not only financial aid, but also some men and experience in the task of reconstruction. We see the beginning of this in the work of the American Zionist Medical Unit.

"I am sure that the Jews of this great country will make a glorious contribution to the ancient Jewish Homeland.

"Almost a year has passed since the Supreme Council at San Remo made its decision with regard to Palestine. The Jewish people is on trial. We are scrutinized by all the nations of the world, and we must make good, for we have both the forces and the resources necessary for the upbuilding of Palestine.

"While opportunities in Palestine are numerous and most enheartening, two-thirds of the Jewish race in Eastern Europe are living at this moment under intolerable con- ditions.

"On the eve of its renaissance Jewry stands wounded and mutilated. It has only one hand free for constructive labor, and with the other it is desperately struggling to ward off blows that threaten it with destruction. The Jews of America are providentially the remnant that may now liberate the larger part of Israel."

In 1923 Dr. Weizmann discussed the situation of Palestine and the Arab-Jewish problems in the Holy Land as follows:

"The mandate has been ratified. It has met with the a proval of the civilized world. The resolution of the American Congress will rank with the Balfour Declaration, and to us Jews this is one of the most important documents in the annals of our history. ...

{p. 263} "We are attempting to build a home in Palestine and we are conscious that this building can only be successful if it will be done in co-operation with the peoples and population of Palestine. We are coming into Palestine not as conquerors. We are coming into Palestine not to dominate anybody. We are coming to build up Palestine together with the people there, taking our place according to our merits and our achievements. The other people in Palestine, the Arabs and Christians, have to recognize that we have a right to do what we intend to do. Just as we recognize that Palestine is going to be the common homeland for Jews and Arabs, we want the Arabs to recognize that we have a right to come into Palestine to establish ourselves there, not on the back of anybody, but with them, to work and create new values of which Palestine is capable.

"Palestine has a population of about 700,000 non-Jews, an overwhelming majority of Moslems, a small minority of Christians and another small minority of Jews. Roughly speaking there are 500,000 Moslems, 100,000 Christians and 100,000 Jews. Since the war and even before the war there has been a striving on the part of the Arab people for a revival, and being anxious for the revival of the scattered Jewish people, we treat with respect and reverence any attempt of revival amongst other people.

"We recognize to-day, that between us and the Arabs in the Near East, and particularly in Palestine, stand many forces - perhaps destructive forces - which try to emphasize this estrangement that has taken place between these two races which are akin to each other. ...


Berlin, July, 1922.

One of America's best informed statesmen, who played a most important role during the war and the peace conference {could it be Colonel House, to whom this book is dedicated?} ... discussing the Russian situation and the Rapallo Treaty {negotiated by Rathenau}, said to me:

"It is as sure as fate that Russia and Germany will get together, that the Rapallo Treaty is but a prelude to a military alliance between these two nations in the futurell that the Allies have done with regard to Russia and Germany necessarily forced these two nations to combine.

{p. 286} "Such an alliance holds within it the seeds of the gravest consequences, for the Atlantic powers some day will be confronted by a new and formidable combination of powers. The Allies by their action have practically forced such an alliance among all the nations on the other side of the Rhine - Germany, Russia across Siberia, as far as the Pacific, with perhaps Japan and even China, and the Islamic world, against the Atlantic powers. What a regenerated Russia, a readjusted Germany, an aroused and irritated Islam, with Japan and China as their allies, could do in a conflict against the Atlantic powers within twenty-five or thirty years is a situation too terrible to contemplate."

Several days before the assassination of Walter Rathenau, Germany's Minister of Foreign Affairs, and one of Europe's foremost constructive statesmen, I had a long interview with him at the Foreign Office in Berlin. At first he was willing to give me a frank expression of his views, but not for publication. Afterward, however, he consented to my publishing an interview, provided I submitted to him a copy of the manuscript. He revised this interview on the eve of his tragic death. I received the manuscript, with his revisions, at eleven o'clock on Saturday morning at the Foreign Office. About ten minutes before, Rathenau had been murdered by agents of the monarchist organization near his home in Grunewald, on his way to the Foreign Office. His secretary had not received the news of his chief's assassination when he handed me the interview which Rathenau had revised during the previous day.

As Rathenau was practically the father of the Rapallo Treaty between Germany and Soviet Russia, I was particularly interested in his views on Russo-German relations. He denied that the Treaty was a step to a military alliance

{p. 287} between these two nations. He was particularly emphatic in denying that the Treaty contained any secret provisions. Then he asked me, with a smile:

"Do you think we would sign a secret treaty with the Soviet government of Russia? The secret would be out in twenty-four hours."

In revising the manuscript, Rathenau changed these words to read as follows:

"We have made no secret treaty with Russia, and we will not make any."

He explained to me his reasons for concluding the treaty with Russia at Rapallo while the Genoa conference was in session, as follows:

"The treaty we signed is a peace treaty between Germany and Russia. It is neither a military, political, nor even a trade treaty. We negotiated it some time before the Genoa conference and could have signed it before. But we did not desire to prejudice the work of the Conference. We signed it during the Conference because we learned that, according to a memorandum prepared in London before the Genoa Conference, it was planned to make Russia also a creditor of Germany. Russia was to be asked to insist also on reparations - perhaps not for herself, but for the other powers - she was to be asked that Germany's debts to Russia should be paid to the other powers. Practically all the great nations were our creditors, and Russia was to be added among our creditors. Before the Genoa Conference this was decided upon by the powers. Germany was the only power that was kept out of a series of secret preliminary conferences held at the Villa d'Alberti. It was then that we resolved to sign the Rapallo Treaty. We were blamed and sharply criticied for having done what we were actu-

{p. 288} ally forced to do. Two other powers did the same thing - they also negotiated treaties with Russia at the same time, only they signed them later, but they were neither criticized nor censured in any way.

"After the Rapallo Treaty we acted as mediators between Russia and other powers, and some of the statesmen of the other powers thanked us for our efforts in that direction. We helped to bring Russia closer to the Western powers. We encouraged the more conservative elements of the Russian government, as is evidenced by the fact that the only criticism in Russia against the treaty came from the ranks of the extreme Left."

In answer to my question whether there was any ground for the opinions that the Rapallo Treaty was but a prelude to a Russo-German military alliance in the future, Dr. Rathenau replied:

"The Rapallo Treaty is nothing else than a peace treaty, by which we recognized the Soviet Government. We have no secret treaties of any kind with Russia, and we will not make any.

"Russia's reconstruction can come about only through the united efforts of the powers, and the sooner that is started the better for all. Every day of delay now will cause much more than a day of delay afterward in bringing about such a reconstruction. Germany, knowing Russia well, and having come into closer contact with Russia in the past, will naturally be in a position to do most for Russia's readjustment, through our organization ability, our technical experience and our familiarity with the required methods."

"What is most essential for the purpose of the re-djustment of Europe and its reconstruction" I asked.

Dr. Rathenau replied:

{p. 289} "First of all it is essential to demobilize the public opinion created during the past seven years. Thus far the demobilization of this public opinion has not yet begun. For seven years the Allied countries and the United States heard only one side of the case. It was not a fair trial. The other side has really not been heard to this day. Whatever was said by us or in our favor was immediately branded as propaganda. As soon as any statement presenting our case appeared in any newspaper outside of Germany, hundreds of other newspapers declared such a statement to be a falsehood inspired by German propagandists.

"We are now going to publish twenty-two volumes of documents relating to the World War. We are throwing open the archives of our Foreign Office to the whole world. It is to be a scientific work, prepared under the supervision of unprej udiced historians. What other government is going to do the same? For seven years our side of the case was not heard. Now the 'criminal' is telling everything, while the innocent lambs will be taciturn on this subject. They are not going to open the archives of their Foreign Offlces which could reveal some very interesting facts. The demobilization of prejudiced public opinion should begin at once, if the world is to be readjusted.

"The United States will have to help in the reconstruction of the world. The United States will eventually discover that it cannot disregard the plight of Europe. I can understand why the United States dislikes Europe now, or why it is disgusted with it, or tired of it, but it will find out that it cannot continue to maintain this attitude of of indifference. The United States decided the outcome of the war and the United States decided the peace. ... {"}

{end of quotes}

20. One World - Utopian or Totalitarian?

During the Cold War there were two camps. Anyone unhappy in one could try to reach the other, or listen to its radio broadcasts, or smuggle out information to it, or at least be inspired by it. A "United World", on the other hand, allows no escape if the regime turns bad.

Could the desire for control be the motivator for "One World"? Israel Shahak draws attention to the totalitarian element in Judaism:

Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years Pluto Press, London 1994.

Shahak repeatedly says that Judaism has a totalitarian streak (on pp. 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 102, and 103). Do a "Find" on the word "totalitarian".

{p. 10} In May 1993, Ariel Sharon formally proposed in the Likud Convention that Israel should adopt the 'Biblical borders' concept as its official policy. There were rather few objections to this proposal, either in the Likud or outside it, and all were cased on pragmatic grounds. No one even asked Sharon where exactly are the Biblical borders which he was urging that Israel should attain. Let us recall that among those who call themselves Leninists there was no doubt that history follows the principles laid out by Marx and Lenin. It is not only the belief itself, however dogmatic, but the refusal that it should ever be doubted, by thwarting open discussion, which creates a totalitarian cast of mind. Israeli-Jewish society and diaspora Jews who are leading 'Jewish lives' and organised in purely Jewish organisations, can be said therefore to have a strong streak of totalitarianism in their character.

{p. 15} This was the most important social fact of Jewish existence before the advent of the modern state: observance of the religious laws of Judaism, as well as their inculcation through education, were enforced on Jews by physical coercion, from which one could only escape by conversion to the religion of the majority, amounting in the circumstances to a total social break and for that reason very impracticable, except during a religious crisis.

However, once the modern state had come into existence, the Jewish community lost its powers to punish or intimidate the individual Jew. The bonds of one of the most closed of 'closed societies', one of the most totalitarian societies in the whole history of mankind were snapped.

{p. 16} This has also led - again just as in Germany and other nations of Mitteleuropa - to a deceitful sentimental and ultra-romantic Jewish historiography, from which all inconvenient facts have been expunged.

So one will not find in Hannah Arendt's voluminous writings whether on totalitarianism or on Jews, or on both, the smallest hint as to what Jewish society in Germany was really like in the 18th century: burning of books, persecution of writers, disputes about the magic powers of amulets, bans on the most elementary 'non-Jewish' education such as the teaching of correct German or indeed German written in the Latin alphabet. Nor can one find in the numerous English-language 'Jewish histories' the elementary facts about the attitude of Jewish mysticism (so fashionable at present in certain quarters) to non-Jews: that they are considered to be, literally, limbs of Satan, and that the few non-satanic individuals among them (that is, those who convert to Judaism) are in reality 'Jewish souls' who got lost when Satan violated the Holy Lady (Shehhtnah or Matronit, one of the female components of the Godhead, sister and wife of the younger male God according to the cabbala) in her heavenly abode.

{p. 19} Historically it can be shown that a closed society is not interested in a description of itself, no doubt because any description is in part a form of critical analysis and so may encourage critical 'forbidden thoughts'. The more a society becomes open, the more it is interested in reflecting, at first descriptively and then critically, upon itself, its present working as well as its past. But what happens when a faction of intellectuals desires to drag a society, which has already opened up to a considerable extent, back to its previous totalitarian closed condition?

{p. 101} Also, many Jews who appear to be active in defending human {p. 102} rights and who adopt non-conformist views on other issues do, in cases affecting Israel, display a remarkable degree of totalitarianism and are in the forefront of the defence of all Israeli pollcies.

{p. 103} It should be recalled that Judaism, especially in its classical form, is totalitarian in nature. The behaviour of supporters of other totalitarian ideologies of our times was not different from that of the organised American Jews.

{end of quotes}

Israel Shahak, Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies, Pluto Press, London 1997:

{p. 139} The bulk of the organized US Jewish community is totalitarian, chauvinistic and militaristic in its views. This fact remains unnoticed by other Americans due to its control of the media, but is apparent to some Israeli Jews. As long as organized US Jewry remains united, its control over the media and its political power remain unchallenged.


In this book, Professor Shahak denies that the Protocols of Zion is authentic, but implies that it might as well be true (pp. 65, 66, 81, 131, 132, 141). He says that it suits Israel to have others thinking that it rules the US - this belief increases its clout:

{p. 66} Barnea's second conclusion is that 'the great [Israeli] fear that other states may yet realize that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are after all a myth - that the Jews do not rule the US ... .'

{p. 141} One of the most prestigious of Israeli commentators, Yoel Markus (Haaretz, 31 December 1993) recently spoke of the 'courtship' of Israel by various states, concluding that 'this courtship has nothing to do with the peace process: its only reason is the entire world's recognition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as true.

{end of quotes}

21. Stalin accused of endorsing the Protocols

My purpose in dealing with the Jewish involvement in Communism, is simply to get the history correct, free of ideological blinkers. Although I oppose Trotsky, I support and admire Jews like Israel Shamir and Jeffrey Blankfort. With Shamir, I agree on the need for public ownership and management of much of the economy, for the good of the people. And with Shamir, I oppose that kind of socialism which tries to stamp out religion, except the fundamentalist kind that promotes war.

19.1 Jewish lobbies accuse their critics of "equating" Jews with Communism.

This overstatement is easy for them to wriggle out of because (a) not all factions of Jews supported the early Bolsheviks (similarly, not all factions of European Christians invaded South America, but the invaders WERE Christians) (b) through Stalin's ascendancy, a non-Jewish (Russian) faction later gained control of Communism, and evicted the Jewish conspirators, congregated in the Trotskyist movement: zioncom.html.

Judaism has an atheistic variant, which rejects the anthroporphic depiction of God of the Bible as a human creation, but which nevertheless holds to the Bible-ordained mission of the Jews to "unify" the world and eliminate "injustice": philos.html.

The correct statement is that the Bolshevik Government was created by Jews of this non-theistic type - in the name of the "working class". Not being "workers" or "peasants" themselves, they could only hold power by pitting the minorities within the empire against the Russian majority: convergence.html.

This was comparable to "Multi-Culturalism" in the West at present. After Stalin got full power, he reversed this, in the name of "Russification": i.e. all the minorities had to learn and speak the Russian language.

Many other factions of Jews around the world, even if opposed to the Bolshevik Jews, suppress this knowledge from among non-Jews.

Similarly, the Anglo-American war against Islam is largely a Jewish war for Greater Israel and the Third Temple (tmf.html), disguised - by Chomsky and the Trotskyist Jews - as a war "for oil". On the contrary, in occupied countries the oil pipelines etc are being sabotaged by the resistance: production will fall, not rise.

There is a strong correlation between those who deny that the Bolshevik Government was created by Jews, and those who denounce the Protocols of Zion as a forgery.

19.2 The Bolshevik reality, and its denial

Bertrand Russell says Bolsheviks were Americanized Jews: russell.html.

Dmitri Volkogonov (Director of the Institute of Military History, in the USSR) and Joseph Nedava (a Jewish Zionist) on the Jewish identities of Lenin and Trotsky: lenin-trotsky.html.

Stuart Kahan, a Zionist, wrote a biography of his uncle Lazar Kaganovich, the most senior Jew in Stalin's government, and the man who later orchestrated the murder of Stalin:

Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin (William Morrow and Company, NY 1987)

{p. 80} Although the Church was left intact, its lands were seized. Even prior religious teaching was forbidden in the schools. Of course, word came down that it was the

{p. 81} Jews who did this. After all, wasn't the revolution prepared and fashioned by Jews? Both of Karl Marx's grandfathers were rabbis, and Lenin's grandfather was also Jewish. And wasn't Yakov Sverdlov, the first chief of state, a Jew, as was Trotsky himself? But most people believed the Jews could be dealt with, as they always had been dealt with before.

That Trotsky, unquestionably the most outstanding man among the Bolsheviks, was a Jew did not seem an insuperable obstacle in a party in which the percentage of Jews, 52 percent, was rather high compared to the percentage of Jews (1.8 per cent) in the total population.

Lazar would have to keep a close eye on this. Would the people accept the revolution orchestrated by the Jews, or would they accept only one aspect and discard the other?

{end quotes} More at kaganovich.html.

19.3 How Stalin stole their conspiracy

Trotsky regarded himself as equal to Lenin; Trotsky's supporters regarded him as the real leader of the revolution.

Trotsky's arrogance led other Jewish Bolsheviks to form coalitions against him. At one time, Lenin offered Trotsky the succession, but Trotsky wanted to concentrate on writing the historical record (to convert intellectuals abroard).

After Lenin's death, power was vested in a triumvirate (Kamenev, Zinoviev and Stalin), of which Kamenev was considered the head; Stalin was the only non-Jew of the three.

Lenin and Trotsky thought that they could not hold Russia unless they extended the revolution to other countries, especially Germany. The Red Army, under Trotsky, moved into Poland in 1920, but were defeated by the Poles under Pidulsky; this put an end to their hopes of reaching Germany. This failure of the "internationalist" brand of Communism led to support for Stalin's "socialism in one country", gradually shifting power to a developing "Russian" (non-Jewish) faction.

Trotsky failed to attend Lenin's funeral, because he was in the south, recuperating from an illness. Having his own private train with him, and motor cars hauled by it, he could have returned, but accepted Stalin's assurances that they could manage the funeral without him. His absence diminished his reputation among the Bolsheviks.

The Bolsheviks saw themselves as following in the steps of the French Revolution, and were wary lest some Napoleon arise among them, to "end" it. Trotsky, as head of the Red Army, was vulnerable to this accusation. To dis-associate himself from this charge, he did not resist when the triumvirate moved him to another position.

During World War II, Stalin had to reinstate Russian culture, and even the Orthodox Church, to gain the support of the people against the Nazis. The Jewish and non-Jewish factions of Communism united against the invaders.

Towards the end of the war, the Jewish faction, overconfident of Stalin's favour, pushed for a separate Jewish republic to be carved out of the USSR, in the Crimea. It was to be open to Jews from anywhere in the world, and to be funded by Jewish capitalists from the West: sudoplat.html.

This so alarmed Stalin, that he turned against the Jewish faction once more.

A little later, the US Government put to Stalin the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government, drafted by two Jews, David Lilienthal and Bernard Baruch. Lilienthal was head of the Atomic Energy Commission, and Baruch was a Wall Street banker. Stalin's rejection of the plan is one of the markers of the start of the Cold War: baruch-plan.html.

After the creation of the state of Israel in 1949, Jews could choose between two rival centres of government. Stalin was alarmed to see the Jewish allegiance to Israel when Golda Meir visited the USSR. A "Cold War" developed between Moscow and Jerusalem.

The Israeli Government was headed by David Ben-Gurion, an admirer of Lenin but a foe of Stalin - in effect, a Trotskyist. Thus, this unrecognized "Cold War" was between rival visions of Socialism. In Ben-Gurion's version, Eretz Israel was not only part of world socialism, but its centre.

Jews were polarised, split between the two.

In 1953, Stalin was murdered, two months after the "Doctors Plot" was publicised. The coup d'etat was done by a Jewish faction (Kaganovich, Beria), and a "Russian" faction (Khruschev): death-of-stalin.html.

Beria, of the Jewish faction, took over, and enacted anti-Stalinist measures of the kind Gorbachev implemented later. But the "Russian" faction, sensing the fall of the East Bloc, overthrew Beria: beria.html.

Israel's victory in the 1967 war brought many Communist Jews to its side. The Polish Government, run by Jews, sided with Israel against the USSR, and was forced to step down, being replaced by (non-Jewish) Poles: poland.html.

19.4 The meaning of "Convergence" between East and West

Convergence was a Zionist/Trotskyist idea.

The aim was to seize control of the USSR from the Stalinists, while securing the West for "Marxist" values as enacted in the early Bolshevik period: Gay Rights, Feminism, the abolition of Marriage, cultural revolution, minorities against the majority: sex-soviet.html.

This "Marxist Anti-Communism" in the West attacked the Soviet Union for betraying the "ideals" of Marxism: kostel.html.

Beria and Gorbachev attempted to return the Soviet Union to "Western" Marxism. Each emphatically rejected Stalin and looked to a return to early Bolshevism; but this "Western" Marxism is Trotskyism by another name: convergence.html.

David Ben-Gurion predicted World Government by 1987. In 1962, LOOK magazine invited him and other leaders to picture the world 25 years into the future, i.e. in 1987. His article published in the issue of January 16, 1962 shows amazing prescience. Despite the animosities of the Cold War then under way, ben Gurion sees Eastern Europe being torn from the USSR - undoing Stalin's "empire" - and joined with Western Europe; and China (even Mao's China) and Japan joining the US in what seems the first published depiction of APEC.

A World-Government has been created, with regional blocs in Europe, the USSR and the Pacific Rim, and a Supreme Court for Mankind has been established in Jerusalem, as well as a shrine commemmorating the Jewish role in the bringing-together of mankind. David ben Gurion LOOK magazine Jan 16, 1962: bengur62.jpg.

Ben Gurion explained the thinking behind this prediction, in terms of Judaism's mission to unify the world. Note that, even though an atheist, Ben Gurion derived this vision from the Jewish Bible: bengur-bible.html.

19.5 The Doctors Plot: Stalin branded a "Nazi"

It is common for Trotskyist and Zionist writers to liken Stalin to Hitler. Norman Cohn and J. L. Talmon depict Stalin this way.

Cohn writes,

"Stalin in his last years produced a new version of the conspiracy-myth, in which Jews figured as agents of an imperialist plot to destroy the Soviet Union and assassinate its leaders; this was used to secure the execution of Rudolf Slansky and his Jewish colleagues on the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist party in 1952, and it also formed the basis for the story of the 'doctors' plot' in 1953." (Warrant For Genocide, (Penguin edition, 1970, p. 15). More at cohn.html.

Talmon writes,

"Particularly horrifying is the Soviet-Arab sponsorship of an updated version of the Protocols of Zion: the Zionist-American-Imperialist world plot, operating not only against Arabs, Asians and Africans, but also against all the Socialist regimes, causing economic difficulties, student unrest, Catholic intransigence." (Israel Among The Nations, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1970, p. 188). More at talmon.html.

Edvard Radzinsky, in his biography, depicts Stalin the same way.

Edvard Radzinsky, STALIN: The First In-Depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives (translated from the Russian By H.T. Willetts, Hodder & Stoughton, London 1996):

{p. 534} Professor Vovsi, for instance, one of the Kremlin doctors, was related to Mikhoels. This prompted the idea of a proliferating Jewish conspiracy utilizing the world's most humane profession. Stalin had vivid memories of the anti-Semitic tracts devoured by the mob in his youth - Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the outpourings of the Union of the Russian People. With his mind always on the Great Dream he knew that there were two emotions which could unite society: fear, and hatred of the Jews.

{p. 535} ... The storyline Stalin concocted went as follows: the sinister Jewish organization Joint was bent on destroying the Russian people. It had probably begun operations in the days of Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev. Later, its agents, Mikhoels and other loyal instruments of Amencan imperialism, had infiltrated everywhere. ...

Zionists had infiltrated even the highest levels of the political elite. ...

In Czechoslovakia Slansky, the First Secretary of the Communist Party, was put on trial, and several other senior officials were tried with him. They had one thing in common: all of them were Jews. Slansky was shot as an agent of international Zionism.

{p. 565} In 1995 ... Another procession ... dozens of portraits of Stalin ... Communists, monarchists, and Russian fascists marched side by side, at one in their devotion to the Boss.

And rightly so. Was he not a greater national-socialist than Hitler?

{end of quotes} More from Radzinsky at radzinsk.html.

19.6 The "Stalin = Hitler" Syllogism

The syllogism is:

Opposition to Judaism is Evil
Stalin opposes Judaism
therefore, Stalin is Evil

Stalin is Evil
Evil is Hitler (Hitler being the personification of Evil)
therefore, Stalin is Hitler

With regard to the Protocols of Zion, the syllogism is:

Hitler believed the Protocols of Zion to be genuine
Hitler was a Nazi
therefore, anyone who believes the Protocols genuine is a Nazi

I admire the Jewish devotion to scholarship; but does it descend to this?

Here is this logic, expressed in an email I received on 8 Aug 2003, with my comments interspersed:

>> you apparently claim the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were genuine, when their origin with the Czarist Okhranka in 1903, plagiarized from a contemporary French source, is well documented.

comment: I constantly read this view. Documented by who? Names of authors, books, articles please. Page numbers etc.

>> That certainly classes you with Hitler

comment: Hitler thought that the earth is round. Since you and I agree, that "classes us with Hitler" too. The first people to observe that the Bolshevik revolution was a Jewish revolution, were its victims in Russia. It was they who alerted the rest of the world. Various people in other countries said so, including Churchill and Bertrand Russell. Hitler later said so too; but Russell said it before Hitler did. On your logic, all these people are "classed with Hitler".

>> your implication that Troksky playing chess with a (gasp!) Vienna Jew during his first exile from Russia is proof of some vast Jewish conspiracy.

comment: I did not infer such a conspiracy from his chess games; the evidence for that is from other material. And this was not just any "Vienna Jew", but Baron Rothschild. Marx wrote against the Rothschilds, but here's Trotsky playing chess with them. It doesn't imply animosity, does it? It doesn't compare with Trotsky's attitude to the Czar.

>> The moving letter from 1933 Ukraine that I sent you obviously had no effect upon your hate-filled mind.

comment: On the contrary, I believe that the Ukraine famine's 6 million victims are just as important as that other 6 million. Can you explain why we hear about one but not the other? At present, the US is like a bully in a school playground. Stalin was a bully too, but perhaps it would be better to have 2 bullies keeping each other in check, than one. Stalin, at least, had a good side too: one can see that the Russians were better off in the USSR than they have been since.

19.7 Jewish Bolsheviks turn to Neo-Conservatism

The Fraud of Neoconservative "Anti-Communism", by Max Shpak, May 15, 2002:

{quote} Stalin's purges of many of his former Bolshevik colleagues (including Trotsky, who was assassinated while in exile), his 1939 pact with Hitler, and rumors of Stalin's own anti-Jewish prejudices gave many would-be supporters pause. When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, it became clear the Russian masses would not fight for the sake of Bolshevism, an ideology that brought them so much misery, but rather for the sake of Russian blood and soil. From then on, the Soviet leadership had to court the very Russian nationalist elements that the early Bolsheviks had worked so hard to stamp out. This lead to an increasing tolerance towards the Russian Orthodox Church and a decreased Jewish presence in the Soviet politburo and KGB. Thus, the USSR was "betraying" the very elements that made it attractive to the Jewish establishment to begin with.

Perhaps even more significant a factor in the origins of neoconservatism was the emergence of an independent Israeli state. While many Jewish Marxists eagerly supported the Zionist state, the more intellectually consistent Left opposed Zionism on the grounds that all nationalisms, including Jewish ones, are enemies of global proletarian revolution. Thus, Jewish leftists who once advocated internationalism for gentile nations were forced to come to terms with the implications of this ideology for their own nationalist sentiments. Thus, they needed an ideology which would let them have their cake (opposing gentile nationalism) and eat it too (by supporting Israel), and they found just such a worldview with neoconservatism. ... {endquote} More at cia-infiltrating-left.html.

More on Stalin at stalin.html.

22. Conclusion

When considering the Protocols, one must remember that this book is, in effect, banned from public sale in the West (except by mail-order); and furthermore, that any book arguing its authenticity is also, it seems, banned.

When I first read Joly, I thought that the forgery argument may be correct. I used an A3 monitor to view Joly and the Protocols side by side (each as A4 size), to view the parallel passages better, looking for similarities and differences, and doing searches on individual words and expressions. I made notes as I went, and by the time I had finished, I could see that the forgery argument was far from proven.

Bernstein, Cohn et al set out to define the parameters within which the Protocols will be judged, mainly in terms of resemblance to earlier works, and not in relation to events in the future which the Protocols seem to be advocating.

For example, the push for World Government. Some verses of the Protocols says this will be done by coup d'etats; others say by persuasion.

After World War I, both of these happened.

In places conducive to persasion, this method was used, via the "universalist" arm of the socialist movement - H. G. Wells, Wilson, Colonel House et al, all pushing for World Government in the Treaty of Versailles. There was a strong Jewish presence behind the scenes, via Israel Zangwill, Walter Lippman, Bernard Baruch, Jacob Schiff and others.

In Eastern Europe, coups were used: in Russia, Germany (which failed), and several other countries. These were all led by Jews.

The think-tanks of the British Empire, clustered around the Round Table, were sold on the idea of World Government as an extension of the British Empire; sold by Wells, with Lionel Curtis articulating it for the Empire: curtis1.html

Lord Alfred Milner and other leaders of the Cecil Rhodes "Round Table" group were in the Coefficients Club, with thinkers like Wells: wells-lenin-league.html

Yet when it came to the crunch, the British Empire was being asked to submit to a sovereign body above itself. Further, Wilson, House, Wells et al wanted Lenin & Trotsky in it, this at the time when they were sponsoring coups in other countries of Eastern Europe, in a sort of domino effect.

The hope was that the Trotsky forces in the East would join with the Wells forces in the British Empire, to oust the Tory forces led by Northcliffe and Wickham Steed.

But Wickham Steed blocked them - narrowly.

H. G. Wells and Bertrand Russell later came to write explicitly about the movement for World Government: opensoc.html

They confirm the movement, and support it; there is nothing speculative about it. In a sense, their work is more solid than the Protocols; and yet, in the light of their work, the Protocols is seen to correctly identify a "One World" conspiracy, decades before such documents confirmed it. Prior to the Protocols, the conspiracy was pronounced in books by Barruel and Robison: (a) Abbe Barruel, Memoire pour servir a l'histoire du jacobinisme (1797) (b) John Robison, Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe. But the Protocols goes beyond them.

How then to deal with the Joly parallels?

Step back; consider other famous cases of parallel documents, such as the Gospels. Most scholars think that there was another document called Q, used by the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Here are some samples:


"Burton Mack, a professor of Claremont School of Theology ...  published The Lost Gospel: the Book of Q and Christian Origins in 1993. Mack defended Q as the most reliable source for the reconstruction of the historical Jesus. Q in turn was believed to have gone through three different revisions or redactions before it was used as a source for Matthew and Luke. Mack here was relying on the brilliantly argued work of John Kloppenborg who believed that Q originally consisted of a collection of wisdom sayings ..."

(ii) The Search for a No-Frills Jesus, by CHARLOTTE ALLEN, Atlantic Monthly, December  1996

(iii) David Seeley, JESUS' DEATH IN Q {This article first appeared in New Testament Studies 38 (1992) 222-34 ...]

(iv) Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem

My argument, then, is that both the Protocols and Joly use a document like Q, unknown to us.

How could this be?

The push for World Government has two guises. At the surface, it  casts itself as benevolent, universal; underneath, it is despotic and totalitarian. Compare the French Revolution.

That means that there must have been an effort to conceal its true nature from the "universalists" who would propound it. Yet there must have been some way this deception was communicated to those in the know, so that they would be able to work together for the common cause, whilst maintaining the deception.

Written documents would have been essential for this purpose. And since the plan remained much the same over time, such documents would have been similar too, but with variations in details to deal with events as they unfolded.

At the time of Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati, the Bavarian Government by chance found written documents on the person of one of the conspirators, which revealed the plot later to break out as the French Revolution, and specifically the way that the "universalist" leaders with their minds on Rousseau were to be subverted to an orgy of destruction and totalitarianism.

Joly's book depicts Napoleon III as the Machiavellian defeating the communist revolutionaries who represent true democracy; the Protocols depicts those revolutionaries, and the Jewish financiers behind them, as the Machiavellians.

Either the author of the Protocols used Joly's book, reversing the meaning; or Joly found a document being a forerunner of the Protocols, and reversed the meaning.

The question cannot be resolved either way.

Enough evidence has presented on both sides, to keep the question open. But if the document be genuine, it does not mean that all Jews are conspirators. Most would just be led along, or tagging along; and anyway, Jews are not a monolithic group.

If it be genuine, then the most important feature its its revelation that religion - the Jewish religion - is the key and the motivator. It is not a matter of race.

Mixing the two, but acknowledging the primacy of religion, Nahum Goldmann wrote in The Jewish Paradox (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978):

"{p. 13} ... the Jews saw their persecutors as an inferior race. ... Goy politics were of no concern to them. ... {p. 14} I have always retained a positive attitude, a blend of veneration and admiration, towards the Jewish religion. Without it there would be no Jewish people today."

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote a book about Jews in Russia before and after the Revolution, in which he says that although they went too far, he does concede that in some way they may have been the "agent of God". I think he means that Jewish activism did benefit various minority groups: Solzhenitsyn-200YT.html.

George W. Bush and Al Gore are each allied with factions of Judaism: the former "Zionist", the latter "Marxist". The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin proves that Jews really are divided into contesting camps.

I do not countenance judging an individual for what a group has done, whether that group be Jews as discussed here, or "white" invaders of the New World, or Japanese in East Asia, or Chinese in Tibet, or one African group against another. In the last analysis, we all have blood on our hands.

The UN idea is surely preferable to war, as launched by Sharon and Bush and their allies in other countries. So, in the end, I must side with those promoting the UN, but I urge it not to discredit itself by allowing its committees to be hijacked - whether by Bush or by extremists pushing Radical Feminism, Gay Marriage and the like - and not to unsettle existing states by pushing for a borderless world when we are not yet ready for it.

23. Challenge to Jared Israel and Alexander Baron (November 28, 2002)

To Jared Israel, at
You have argued against the Protocols of Zion on your website, at
Part 2 is at

But within 7 days of 9-11, you were condemning those who thought that Mossad might be behind it.

That would probably mean Sharon's involvement, although Victor Ostrovsky warned that Mossad sometimes acts without authorization. I don't think that Peres would countenance such a thing.

Ostrovsky wrote in By Way of Deception:

{p. vii} But it was the twisted ideals and self-centered pragmatism that I encountered inside the Mossad, coupled with this so-called team's greed, lust, and total lack of respect for human life, that motivated me to tell this story. It is out of love for Israel as a free and just country that I am laying my life on the line by so doing, facing up to those who took it upon themselves to turn the Zionist dream into the present-day nightmare.

{p. viii} The Mossad, being the intelligence body entrusted with the responsibility of plotting the course for the leaders at the helm of the nation, has betrayed that trust. Plotting on its own behalf, and for petty, self-serving reasons, it has set the nation on a collision course with all-out war. {end}

And Claire Hoy wrote in her Foreword:

{p. ix} One of the main themes of this book is Victor's belief that Mossad is out of control, that even the prime minister, although ostensibly in charge, has no real authority over its actions ... {end quotes}


To Alexander Baron, at A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK and at
You have argued against the Protocols of Zion on your website, in your Protocols Bibliography, at

To both of you,

How many of those who ridicule the Protocols, acknowledge that the Bolshevik Government, prior to Stalin's gaining power in the mid 1920s, was mainly run by Jews?

Not by all Jews, admittedly; the woman who shot Lenin, in an assassination attempt, was also Jewish. There were theistic (religious) Jews who feared the Bolsheviks; I believe some fled.

But it was Jewish, nonetheless.

Bertrand Russell, a supporter of the Revolution in principle, acknowledged such: russell.html.

More evidence on this is presented at

The Trotskyist forces of the world, and their Fabian dupes, suppress this information.

Here's my challenge to both of you:

I have put the best arguments that the Protocols is a forgery, i.e. those by Herman Bernstein and Norman Cohn, including the full text of Bernstein's book and Joly's book, on my website, in the Protocols of Zion Toolkit, at

So, while arguing against them, I have put their arguments to my readers, IN THEIR OWN WORDS. The arguments both ways are presented at the above link.

I challenge you to do the same: include on your website, within your articles on the Protocols of Zion, a link to my Protocols of Zion Toolkit, so that your readers can see the counter-arguments for themselves.

And when you have done that, please inform me.

Peter {End of Challenge}

Jared Israel did not reply.

Alexander Baron's reply:

Subject: Challenge to Alexander Baron
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:50:52 +0000
From: Alexander Baron <>
To: Peter Myers <>

Listen you stupid prick; for the past ten years I've had Kosher krazies and scumbags denouncing me as an anti-Semite simply for documenting the truth about Jewish perfidy.

I really don't give a flying fuck at having anti-Semites and nutters - like yourself - doing the same.

If you want to believe in the authenticity of the Protocols or the Book of Revelation for that matter that is your prerogative; just don't ask me to share a padded cell with you.

Now go away and bother someone else; better still, learn a little logic and common sense.
Alexander Baron {end}

24. Dr. John Coleman on "Colonel" House

Dr. John Coleman's book THE CONSPIRATORS' HIERARCHY: THE STORY OF THE COMMITTEE OF 300 (America West Publishers, P.O. Box 3300, Bozeman, MT 59772, 1992) contains valuable material, but his hectoring style and lack of supporting evidence let it down.

Anyone who has read much of Lyndon Larouche's material will note great similarity in this 1992 book by Coleman. Both say that the One-World Conspiracy is British, centred on the Monarchy. They "write out" any specifically Jewish involvement, although a number of Jewish bodies get a mention, e.g. the ADL.

Yet the Jewish Defense Organization calls Larouche a Nazi: "Lyndon LaRouche hired Jewish flunkies like Steinberg and Goldstien to do his dirtywork. The name of the game is Yockeyism, crypto-Nazism ... "

So, is there a hidden Jewish theme within Coleman's work?

When one considers the shocking press that the British Royals get (compared to, say, the Japanese or Danish Royals) with the media prying into their troubles, exacerbating them and putting them on the front pages; when one considers that Rupert Murdoch's media, and the Economist, promote the abolition of the British Monarchy; then another force is suspected behind the scenes.

Here's a clue: Coleman writes,

"... Robert Cecil of the Jewish Cecil family that had controlled the British monarchy since a Cecil became the private secretary and lover of Queen Elizabeth I ..." (Conspirators' Hierarchy, p. 201).

Coleman writes in his article King Makers, King Breakers: The Cecils (1985, © Dr John Coleman, W.I.R., 2533 N. Carson St., Suite J-118 Carson City, NV 89706):

{p. 25} The records at Hatfield House show that the Unity of Science Conferences was the brain child of Robert Cecil, as confirmed by the Dutch Jew, Mandell Huis alias Colonel House, who was the controller of Woodrow Wilson and Wilson's personal representative at the Paris peace Conference; and the special representative of the United States Government at the Inter-Allied Conference of Premiers and Foreign Ministers in 1917; U. S. representative at the Armistice in 1918 and a member of the Commission on Mandates in 1919. Mandell Huis, like the Cecils, professed to be a Christian, but was a Jew by birth and conviction. He was a firm friend of the Cecil clan, and it was Huis who forced Wilson to agree to the July, 1915 arrangement made by Arthur Balfour which gave Palestine to the zionists and brouqht America into the first world war. Americans should be taught these things in schools and universities, but so great is the power of the Black Nobility, the RIIA, the CFR and the Eastern Liberal Establishment gang of traitors, that the majority

{p. 26} of Americans will probably never hear the name of the Cecil family, as one of the names which shaped the destiny of our once free great republican America. Before leaving tlle subject of "Colonel House" (Huis is the Dutch word for house), let me say that in spite of the many important tasks he was given to carry out, "Colonel House" was never a member of the United States government, nor was he elected to hold any of these important offices by the sovereign people of the United States. Therefore I say to you; "Of what use is our present system? We call ourselves a republic and a democracy, yet, no matter who we elect to the White House, the secret government of America continues to enact its policies, without the slightest regard for our wishes. Of what use then, is our electoral system?" ... {end}

So here is the Jewish theme lurking with the British theme. Yet, in Conspirators' Hierarchy there are only glimpses of this, such as:

"Cecil John Rhodes, a Committee of 300 member who fronted for the Rothschilds in South Africa ... " (p. 134).

"Committee of 300 members Cecil John Rhodes, Barney Barnato and Alfred Beit instigated and engineered the war. Rhodes was the principle agent for the Rothschilds ... " (p. 150)

This reverses Rhodes' usual priority over Rothschild, and puts Rothschild at the helm. Beit, too, was Jewish. Carroll Quigley wrote in The Anglo-American Establishment:

"{p. 134} Even Rhodes ... was not a racist. ... Some of his closest friends {p. 135} were Jews (like Beit), and in three of his wills he left Lord Rothschild as his trustee, in one as his sole trustee." quigley.html

Here's another important quote from Conspirators' Hierarchy, on ties connecting Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays (both Jewish), with H. G. Wells and the British Fabian Socialists, who, Quigley shows, were linked to the Anglo-American Establishment via the the Coefficient Club:

{p. 200} In 1928, Lippmann's compatriot Edward Bernays wrote a book called "CRYSTALLIZING PUBLIC OPINION" and in 1928 a second book of his was published entitled simply "PROPAGANDA." In it Bernays described his experiences at Wellington House. Bernays was a close friend of Master Manipulator H.G. Wells, whose many quasi-novels were used by

{p. 201} Bernays to help formulate mass mind control techniques. Wells was not shy about his role as a leader in changing lower class society, mainly because he was a close friend of members of the British royal family, and spent a great deal of time with some of the most highly placed politicians of the day, men like Sir Edward Grey, Lord Haldane, Robert Cecil of the Jewish Cecil family that had controlled the British monarchy since a Cecil became the private secretary and lover of Queen Elizabeth I, Leo Amery, Halford Mackinder of MI6 and later head of the London School of Economics, whose pupil Bruce Lockhart would become MI6 controller of Lenin and Trotsky during the Bolshevik Revolution, and even the great man himself, Lord Alfred Milner. One of Well's favorite watering holes was the prestigious St. Ermins Hotel, meeting place of the Coefficient Club, a club to which certified gentlemen only were admitted and where they met once a month. All of the men mentioned above were members and also members of the Souls Club. Wells claimed that any nation could be defeated, not by direct confrontation but by understanding the human mind-- what he called, "the mental hinterlands hidden behind the persona."

With such a powerful backer, Bernays felt confident enough to launch his "PROPAGANDA":

"As civilization becomes more complex, AND AS THE NEED FOR INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY DEMONSTRATED (emphasis added-JC), the technical means have been invented and developed BY WHICH PUBLIC OPINION MAY BE REGIMENTED (emphasis added-JC). With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, and even instantaneously, across the whole of America."

Bernays had not yet seen how much better television, which was to follow, would do the job.

{endquote} More at british-conspiracy.html.

Is Coleman describing a Jewish conspiracy lurking within the British one and using it as a cover?

If so, this Jewish movement is divided into Internationalist ("Socialist") and Zionist wings. What Coleman says about Socialism applies to the former; he says nothing about the latter.

But the Fundamentalists in Israel are waging their own campaign against the former, which they call the "British" conspiracy (ignoring, for example, the Jewishness of Bill Clinton's cabinets).

The CIA is on one side; Mossad on the other.

The Socialist Internationalists (New Left), who can be considered either the Left faction of the "British", or as the Left faction of the "Jewish" block, are led by George Soros and Noam Chomsky. Both are Jewish; both oppose the war. Both support minority causes of the Gay Marriage type; a part of Chomsky's website is devoted to Gay and Lesbian issues.

Michael Higger writes in his book The Jewish Utopia that "A Jewish Utopia begins where Wells leaves off" (p. 6). jewish-utopia.html

Thus, we now witness a struggle between these two visions of Judaism. Gay Marriage and the World Court are litmus issues that identify the two camps.

"Colonel" Edward House's "novel" of 1912, Philip Dru: Administrator, a model Woodrow Wilson followed; Jacob Schiff's campaigns for Zionism and World Government; and how two Conspiracies, an "Anglo" one and a Zionist one, joined up: house-schiff.html.


25. Lenin's Opposition to the Treaty of Versailles

Lenin sent the Red Army to invade Poland in 1920, as a stepping-stone to Germany. He wrote, quoted by Richard Pipes:

Richard Pipes, ed., The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1996):

{p. 100}. ... somewhere in the proximity of Warsaw lies the center of the entire system of international imperialism ... Poland, as a buffer between Russia and Germany, Poland ... is the

{p. 101} linchpin of the whole Treaty of Versailles. ... Poland is such a powerful element in this Versailles Peace that by extracting this element we break up the entire Versailes peace. We had tasked ourselves with occupying Warsaw; the task changed and it turned out that what was being decided was not the fate of Warsaw but the fate of the Treaty of Versailles.

{endquote} More at wells-lenin-league.html.

So why invite the Bolsheviks to join the Peace Conference?


26. Afterword

by Peter Myers, March 6, 2018; updated March 9, 2018

The Protocols of Zion is usually regarded as a plagiarism from Maurice Joly's book, presented as a dialogue between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, with which it has extensive parallels.

Yet Joly's book has zero interest for today, whereas the Protocols remains a hot topic: it is still the most controversial book in the world.

Anyone who says it's genuine, or might be genuine, is smeared as an 'antisemite'. Norman Cohn even blamed the book for the Nazi Holocaust - hence the title of his book Warrant For Genocide. But Cohn also admits that the Protocols was ignored until the Bolshevik Revolution. Rather than blaming the book, he should have blamed Jewish actions.

Indeed, Cohn wrote, "what launched the Protocols on their career across the world was above all the murder of the imperial family at Yekaterinburg (now Sverdlovsk) on 17 July 1918." (Warrant For Genocide, p. 126) cohn.html. Robert Wilton, of the London Times, named the Jews running Russia at that time: wilton.html.

Debate about The Protocols has been raging for over a hundred years. Mostly it has been between Zionists & Bolsheviks on one side and Anti-Communists (often branded 'antisemites') on the other.

However, the Soviet Union itself issued a book called Caution, Zionism!, in August 1968, just after the 1967 Middle East war.

J. L. Talmon, in his book Israel Among the Nations (1970), called it an updated version of the Protocols:

"Particularly horrifying is the Soviet-Arab sponsorship of an updated version of the Protocols of Zion: the Zionist-American-Imperialist world plot, operating not only against Arabs, Asians and Africans, but also against all the Socialist regimes ..." (p. 188). talmon.html .

Stalin had overthrown the Jewish Bolsheviks. That Soviet expose of the Zionist world-plot is at ivanov.html.

One might posit that the "Jewish conspiracy" issue will not die, because Jews - that is, organized factions of Jews, not all Jews - keep acting in conspiratorial ways. It is THEY who keep the Protocols alive.

I first began researching this issue in 1995. My website dates from around the year 2000. In the years since then, I have met (mainly online) many Jews or ex-Jews who oppose the organized factions (i.e. the Soros camp and the Netanyahu camp). Many of them have joined my mailing list, which operated as a forum for about 10 years, and I have found their contributions helpful.

In the early years, I "sat on the fence" over the issue of the Nazi Holocaust. Fools and ideologues rush into that topic, but any responsible person does extensive reading, on both sides, before commenting. I finally did that thorough research in early 2009, and concluded that the Deniers / Revisionists are wrong on most matters. Yet Norman Finkelstein was right to append the word "Industry" to the word "Holocaust". And I also pointed out that the word "The" was the most important of the three, because the uniqueness claim allowed Israel to escape scrutiny as it carried out its own genocide, and pushed the US into wars to devastate the whole Middle East.

The Jewish conspiratorial factions are not the only conspiracies around. Both the Soros and Netanyahu camps are factions of a bigger conspiracy, the "Rhodes" or Anglo-Zionist conspiracy.

As democracy spread during the Nineteenth Century, the British elite turned to covert methods to maintain their dominance within the Empire. Thus Rhodes' adoption of Masonic methods, like the Secret Societies of the revolutionaries.

Even in the early days, it was not clear who called the shots, Rhodes or Rothschild. The Jewish financiers within the Rhodes / Milner group functioned like the Court Jews of the Absolute Monarchies. Karl Marx wrote, in his paper On the Jewish Question, that Jewish Bankers determine the fate of the Empire by their financial power:

"The Jew, who is merely tolerated in Vienna for example, determines the fate of the whole Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may be entirely without rights in the smallest German state, decides the destiny of Europe." marx-jewish-finance.html

That also applies within the Rhodes conspiracy, named by Professor Carroll Quigley the 'Anglo-American Establishment'. Quigley's book of that name was suppressed; but Stephen Zarlenga found the manuscript in the Quigley archives at Georgetown University, and republished it, thus revealing their secrets to the world. They had made the mistake of letting Quigley study their records.

Moses Hess, the Communist-Zionist 'Red Rabbi', urged Jewish bankers to fund and organize Zionism, in his book Rome and Jerusalem (1862 - Fifth Letter):

"there have arisen in Israel a number of men who possess great political influence or rule, by virtue of their wealth, men like Montefiore, Albert Cohn, Rothschild, Fould, and others. These men are Jewish Princes such as the Jewish people has not had since the dispersion. These should organize a Society for the colonization of Palestine".

Opponents of the various 'One World' conspiracies, whether Rhodes' or Soros' or Netanyahu's, do not use the Protocols much these days, because there is plenty of direct evidence about them.

It is the Zionists who have been making use of it, likening the book of Mearsheimer and Walt about the Jewish Lobby, to the Protocols; and then likening Jimmy Carter's book Peace Not Apartheid to the Protocols and to Mein Kampf.

Their argument was: The Protocols is a Forgery, therefore Mearsheimer and Walt are wrong on the Jewish Lobby, and Jimmy Carter is wrong about Apartheid in Israel's occupied territories.

Jimmy Carter, even in retirement, kept trying to mediate disputes around the world. He was as far from Hitler as any President could be; Netanyahu, on the other hand, has a lot in common with Hitler.

The Zionists were a bit over-confident. I saved those outrageous articles, and in response, launched a Debate about the Protocols in my forum. You will find those outrageous articles there: protocols-debate.html .

Finally, those outrageous Zionists have led me to update this Toolkit, to expose them.

Part 1 of the Protocols of Zion Toolkit is at toolkit.html;

Part 2 of the Protocols of Zion Toolkit is at toolkit2.html.

Back to the Zionism/Communism index: zioncom.html.

Write to me at contact.html.