Waters Flowing Eastward

http://iamthewitness.com/books/Denis.Fahey/Waters.Flowing.Eastward/0.1.Title.htm#Content

 
http://iamthewitness.com/books/Denis.Fahey/Waters.Flowing.Eastward/0.1.Title.htm#Content
 

 

Waters Flowing Eastward The War Against the Kingship of Christ by L. FRY (Paquita de Shishmareff) Click image to swap between front and back cover Edited and Revised by The Rev. Denis Fahey, C.S.S.P., B.A., D.Ph., D.D. (Professor of Philosophy and Church History) The Reverend Denis Fahey, C.S.SP., D.D, D.PH., M.A Editor of Waters Flowing Eastward Product Details: ISBN: none Format: Paperback, 283pp Pub. Date: 7th Edition, 1998 Publishers: GSG & Associates Publishers P.O. Box 590 San Pedro, California 90733 United States Phone 310-548-3455 Email: gsgbooks@sbcglobal.net FLANDERS HALL PUBLISHING COMPANY P.O. Box 10726 New Orleans, LA. 70181 THE LIBRARY THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and behold waters issued out under the threshold of the house eastward … Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea. EZEK. XLVII. 1, 8. It was in the 1950-5 that the Catholic theologian and writer, the Reverend Denis Fahey of Dublin offered to edit a new edition of Mrs. Fry’s book. During his lifetime he was unable to allow his name to appear as its submission for Eccleiastial Censorship might have led to complications. The foreword and appendices and a number of notes to the present edition were the work of Father Fahey. The authoress, Mrs. L. Fry, was married to one of the aristocrats of Czarist Russia and she suffered harrowing experiences in the days of the Bolshevist Revolution. This first hand knowledge of Communism in action has given authority to her writings. For many years she was associated with the work of the late French priest Monseigneur Jouin, helping hime in his researches into the atheistic and Judeo-Bolshevist plot against Christianity. 1st Edition 1931 2nd Edition Revised 1933 3rd Edition Revised 1934 4th Edition Revised 1953 5th Edition Enlarged 1965 6th Edition 1988 Copyright 1988 Flanders Hall Publishers CONTENTS. PUBLISHER’S FOREWORD. PREFACE. PART ONE. ZIONISM. CHAPTER I. The Balfour Declaration CHAPTER II. The Jewish Community: its Spirit and Organization CHAPTER III. New Links between Communities CHAPTER IV. Ginzberg the Interpreter of Jewish Aims CHAPTER V. Zionists and Anti-Zionists CHAPTER VI. Ten Years of Zionism PART TWO. THE PROTOCOLS. CHAPTER I. How the Protocols Came to Russia CHAPTER II. How an American Edition Was Suppressed CHAPTER III. More Attempts at Refutation CHAPTER IV. Text and Commentary of the Protocols Concluding Passage From The Epilogue Of Nilus CHAPTER V. Jacob Brafmann and his Work The Writing on the Wall The Kellogg Palestine Pact PART THREE. SOVIETIZATION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND THE UNITED STATES. CHAPTER I Fabianism CHAPTER II Freedom and Planning SUPPLEMENTS APPENDIX I. The State Of The World APPENDIX II. The Berne Trials APPENDIX III. The Rulers Of Russia GENERAL INDEX. INDEX to PROTOCOLS. · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com

 

./../../bg.png); } –> About the Author Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward (From the 7th Edition 1998) As a friend and coworker of the late Paquita “Mady” de Shishmareff, or Leslie (L.) Fry, as she signed her documents and books, it is heartening to see yet another edition of her timeless, masterful research for the beneficial use of mankind. Her unique life made Mady the only person in the world both able and willing to authenticate the true nature of The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion, erasing all doubt concerning their origin and purpose. Mady was a “late” born baby, born into a San Francisco banking family. An uncle was the banker we read of in our American history books who was cheating by the “salting” of a failed gold mine with a gold-dust-loaded shotgun. A child of extraordinary mental capacities, she was educated in French convents and English private schools. Her marriage was to a Russian military man of rank in the Czar’s Army. The couple spent a vacation each year in a country where they could master some new language. Mady spoke and read a handful of them. When the Bolshevik revolution was evident, her husband sent Mady and their two sons to America along with the family fortune. He was soon killed by the Bolsheviks. His death and the destruction of Christian Russia motivated Mady to understand the politics behind such a catastrophe. She began political, occult and monetary research which never stopped until her death in the fall of 1970. Always willing to let others step forward to accept credit, Mady’s influence as L. Fry was far greater than all but a few living today realize. She sat on the stage of America First rallies and was a first name acquaintance with such patriots as Charles Lindbergh and Gen. Pedro del Valle. She also sat for a time in a federal court in Washington, DC as a defendant in the infamous, FDR instigated “sedition trial.” When Henry Ford demanded of his editor of the Dearborn Independent, that he “start writing about the Jewish question,” editor Cameron didn’t know what Ford meant. At the time, Mady was operating, from a mansion in New York City, a “halfway house” for Russian nobility who managed to escape the Bolsheviks with their lives, but not their confiscated fortunes. She was also engaged in writing and publishing a broadsheet, applied to America’s future, the political, financial and occult facts she had already learned. After it came to her attention that Ford’s frustrated editor didn’t have the information requested, she furnished him with the research that eventually became famous in Ford’s book The International Jew. She and Elizabeth Starr Miller (Lady Queenborough by marriage to an English Lord) were fast friends. They read Nesta Webster’s books on the occult which excused British Grand Lodge masonry from the evils of other occultism. Knowing this was not so, the two spent 10 years together researching the occult from first recordings of history to date at the time. The result was the invaluable encyclopedia on occultism, Occult Theocrasy, also in reprint. This lady of quality, with the strength of her wisdom and superior knowledge, could send words that would cut steel in a letter directly to the “Presidents of the Jewish Agency of International Order of B’nai Brith of Universal Jewish Alliance of World Zionism.” Yet she had great compassion for the Amheretz, the non-political, small Jewish merchant who historically bears the brunt for the crimes of the moneyed Pharisees who would enslave us all. Mady had an unending sense of humor and the sharp wit of high intelligence. Yet she was as humble as a human being can be. When we worked together in the early 1960s at Laguna Beach, California, as The California League of Christian Parents, it was a great lesson to me, then a young man, to watch this mental titan, who influenced world leaders without them ever sensing it, carefully and lovingly tutoring my almost school-age children in the most basic concepts. Her books and bulletins, especially this book, were labors of love; frontal attacks on the devil’s offensive, and, at the same time, factual warnings for all people of the true nature and agentry of mankind’s enemy. – Tony Blizzard Washington, D.C. July, 1998 · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com

 

./../../bg.png); } –> Publisher’s Foreword Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward The Publishers are pleased to be able to present a new edition of Waters Flowing Eastward, considered by many to be the best and most complete work on the famous Protocols of the Sages of Zion. To stress the fact that the realization of the Protocols means the elimination of the rule of Christ the King, it has been thought well to Subtitle the book The War Against the Kingship of Christ. We are omitting some of the illustrations included in the earlier editions, but we are adding three important Appendices. Appendix I is the reproduction of a large portion of an article which appeared in The Australian Social Crediter, March and April, 1946. It shows the steady advance of the plans outlined in the Protocols and emphasizes the importance of the financial factor. Appendix II treats of the Berne Trials, in particular of the false statements circulated about the decision given in the Second Trial. This Appendix is the translation of an extract from a work by the late H. de Vries de Heekelingen, one of the ablest writers on this question. The Third Appendix contains some information about the Jews who hold leading positions in Russia and the Satellite Countries, as well as in U.N.O. and U.S.A., and about the persecution of Catholics in these countries and in Palestine. The information is taken from Free Britain (August 20, September 10, September 24, 1950), The Tablet (Brooklyn) and Social Credit (Canada). Several arguments against the authenticity of the Protocols are examined in the book. It may be well to mention here a completely new argument for their authenticity. In 1937, a Russian ex-officer of the Czarist Intelligence Service asked to see a friend of ours. The Russian ex-officer was accompanied, on the occasion of the meeting, by a man well and favourably known to our friend. The ex-officer informed our friend and his wife that, in 1897, he had been called from Washington, where he was working for the Czarist government, and sent to Basle, Switzerland, where the first Zionist Congress was being held that year. He was given a small detachment of picked secret service men. While the Jews were in secret conclave, his men staged a sham fire and dashed into the room shouting Fire! Fire! In the ensuing confusion he made his way quickly to the President’s or Lecturer’s table and took possession of all the papers that were on it. These papers contained the originals of the Protocols. This Russian officer escaped out of Russia in 1917 and lived mostly in Paris. He was an old man in 1937. Needless to say our friend’s veracity and reliability are unquestioned. To the information taken from Free Britain must be added the following from Know Your Enemy, by Robert H. Williams: “Mr. Ashberg, who was known throughout the banking world as a Jewish financier at the Nya Banken in Sweden before the Bolshevik Revolution, and was reported by Edgar Sisson as having arrived in Russia two months after the successful “October Revolution,” is still in Russia and is the banker for the U.S.S.R. The London Star, September 6, 1948, reported a visit by Ashberg to Switzerland ‘for secret meetings with Swiss government officials and banking executives.’ Diplomatic circles describe Mr. Ashberg as the Soviet Banker who advanced large sums to Lenin and Trotski in 1917. At the time of the revolution, Mr. Ashberg gave Trotski money to form and equip the first unit of the Red Army. A spokesman of the Soviet Legation in Berne said ‘Mr. Ashberg’s visit will be private. He has property in Switzerland’ … Note that Banker-Communist Ashberg was even permitted to own property, and in a capitalist nation. Gentile bankers-competitors of Jewish finance were liquidated as capitalists soon after the revolution.” (1) In The A.D.L. Bulletin of January, 1953, published by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, there appeared an article entitled “The Protocols and the Prague Trial.” The article began by asserting that the Protocols had been proved to have been “fabricated” under the Russian Czars. That statement is now seen to be doubly false from the testimony above adduced. The main purpose of the A.D.L. article was to attempt to show that the Protocols, in an astounding number of ways “were the source book for the Prague purge trials.” That is very interesting in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice in charge of the Prague “Anti-Semitic” trials was a Jew, Stefan Rais. He, of course, was acquainted with the Protocols from the Jewish side, and he was only one of the multitude of Jews who are in control behind the Iron Curtain. One of them was F. Herczog, who replaced as Minister of State-planning in Hungary the “purged” Jew, Zolton Vas. From Gothic Ripples of the 25th May 1953, we learn in addition that Beria, though officially known as a Georgian, is popularly believed to be either half-Jewish or of Jewish descent. … In Poland the Jew Stanislau Radiciewiez, is still Chief of the Secret Police, and the Jew, Gomulka, is still in prison. The Jew, Pavel F. Yudin, has been appointed Political Adviser to the Soviet Control Commission in Germany… The London Daily Express 1st May, 1953, says that there is to be a new purge of “incompetents ” in East Germany. It is to be carried out by Hermann Axen, who according to The Jewish Chronicle (London), of December 5th, 1952, is a Jew. We thank the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith for informing us that Jews are using the Protocols against Jews behind the Iron Curtain. Op. cit. p. 33. PREFACE It has been frequently observed that our civilization follows the course of the sun westward: from Greece to Rome, from Scandinavia and Germany to England, France and Spain, from Europe to America. It looks towards the west for fresh lands where it may build nobler cities and create more perfect forms of life, unhampered by the trammels of the past. It may be said that the west stands for independence of thought, free expression, and representative government: these principles are involved in the western conception of progress. Beneath this great westward flow of our civilization, there are undercurrents moving eastward. These are impelled by a spirit which looks back to the east, to the days of tyrant and slave, of luxury and misery, and incidentally the suppression of western culture. This spirit is retrogressive, though often calling itself “Progress,” and its ways are devious. But the currents for which it is responsible are broad, deep and violent in their effect. The following pages are designed to cast light on these eastern undercurrents which have undermined western states. Political problems which most governments prefer to ignore have been commented upon in detail. Special attention has been given to a struggle going on underground, and which is perhaps of greater significance than the so-called perils to western civilization, such as the Yellow Peril or the Black Peril, where every move is watched and understood not only by ther rulers in each nation, but also by the governed themselves as a whole. In brief, an attempt has been made to place in broad relief the inner structure of a system which has produced and still foments not only racial enmity, but also has even undermined certain civilizations and overthrown established national governments. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com

 

1.1 The Balfour Declaration Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward The world war had entered its fourth year in the latter part of 1917, with no indication of a rapid settlement in sight. The complexity and variety of events, increasing with the years, had emphasized its universal character. Every country engaged—whether America, Germany, Russia, Greece, France, Italy, or England—found its entire interests, political, economic, and ethnic, involved in the issue. All these nations seemed gripped in a deadlock, and at the same time felt the pressing need of deliverance. Before 1917, it had been thought that if the allies continued to hold the western front, the Russian “steam roller” would crash the central powers by sheer force of numbers. But the “steam roller” had itself exploded: there had been a revolution, and, by the end of July, Russian troops had withdrawn from Bessarabia and Moldavia, and between the Dniester and the Pruth, leaving the eastern front undefended. If this loss was somewhat offset by the fact that America, in spite of the President’s reluctance, had finally joined the allies, it was still doubtful whether her forces would arrive in time and in sufficient numbers to be of real military value. The scale on which the war was waged made all usual methods of reaching a settlement out of the question: no outside Power could be invoked as mediator; the Pope had issued a peace proposal on August 1, but the allies regarded it as inspired by Germany and turned a deaf ear. Allied statesmen had cast about for some principle on which an honourable peace could be proposed, if a crushing defeat could not be inflicted on the enemy. The principle of nationalities, viz., the right of small nations to form their own government, had been advanced, and had met with general acceptance. Thus America’s object in entering the war, according to President Wilson, was “to deliver the peoples of the world from autocracy,” “to make the world safe for democracy,” and the like. But the application of this principle presented difficulties. That Germany and Austria should be broken up into Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Hungary, Jugo-Slavia, etc., in the way that afterward occurred, was one matter; but the example of Russia, and the possibility of the principle being applied to England, then troubled by Irish agitators, and the other allies, led many to dread a completely dismembered Europe. Nevertheless, the idea had acquired a large measure of popularity in cities where reaction against over-organization had created an intense desire for freedom. In rough, this was the situation when the British government issued a note favouring a national home for the Jews: it took the form of a letter addressed to Lord Rothschild and signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir Arthur (later Lord) Balfour, and read: Foreign Office, November 2, 1917. “Dear Lors Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to, and approved by the Cabinet: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which, may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR.” Thus it was that the Jews, the “Chosen People,” after centuries of ispersion, were to be established in a homeland. Here was poetic justice; it seemed as though nineteen centuries of wrongs were to be righted. Six weeks later, the newspapers were full of the triumphal entry of General Allenby into Jerusalem, and the conquest of the Holy Land by the British army which included Jewish units: to the religious-minded, it was as though Providence had set the seal of approval on the Balfour declaration. Sceptics, on the other hand, remarked callously that Allenby’s army had been loitering about Palestine inactive for the last four months; that Jerusalem offered no resistance and one week ought to have sufficed for staging his entry. His forces undoubtedly counted some Jews in the commissary department, as there are in all armies; but the credit for the conquest was almost wholly due to the assistance of the Arabs, over a hundred thousand strong, to whom the promise of autonomy had been made by England in 1915. The Balfour declaration was a direct violation of this promise. But for every miracle there are unbelievers! More than a decade has passed, and, looking back, one is inclined to ask a few questions: Why was it that the British cabinet with a war on its hands resolved to set aside a national home for the Jews ? Had the cabinet proposed a home in the Near East to the Armenians first, and on the latter’s refusal turned to the Jews ? Was it to be an asylum for cripples and orphans; or a religious centre; or a sort of Liberia, like African Liberia founded in 1822 for freed negroes? Or were all the Jews in the world supposed to migrate back to Palestine ? This last idea, though excellent in theory, would hardly be feasible. Reading the declaration carefully, it becomes clear that certain Jews (the Zionist group), and not all the Jews, wanted a “national home”: they may even have intimated their desire to some member of the cabinet. Sir Arthur was dining one evening at Lord Rothschild’s country place and admiring his beautiful home, when, at the mention of that word, Lord Rothschild, turning away to hide a tear, said sadly that some of his friends “had no home [that is, no national home] where they could lay their heads.” Sir Arthur was touched and said he would mention it to His Majesty and to his colleagues, and knew that they would express their sympathy for Lord Rothschild’s friends in distress. Accordingly, the declaration of sympathy followed a few days later. For those who are satisfied with the above explanation there is no need to read further; those, however, who desire a fuller account of things may be willing to discard popular fallacies and study things afresh. As a background, a general idea of the history and character of the Jews and their institutions is essential. The longest path may be the shortest in the end. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com

1.2 The Jewish Community: Its Spirit And Organisation Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward In studying the Jewish people, special attention must be given to the Jewish community. This peculiar social order has for twenty centuries impressed its indelible mark on every one of its members in every quarter of the globe; uncrushed by pressure from without, it has administered its affairs according to its own arbitrary laws, often in defiance and to the detriment of the government of the land. The authority of the Jewish leaders, originally derived from the ten commandments delivered to Moses, l had already in the time of Augustus been widely extended 2 by a learned but unscrupulous priesthood 3 over an ignorant, superstitious people. In that age, while a struggle was going on between two rival sects, Pharisees 4 and Sadducees, 5 certain political clubs 6 were formed which concealed under a religious mask the grasping aims of a clique. 7 These clubs were not slow to take advantage of their country’s misfortunes. A few years later, during the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian, they won, by the betrayal of the Jewish cause, the favour of the Roman conqueror, 8 and were subsequently entrusted by the imperial government with the administration of Palestine. 9 Moreover, with the sack of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, and the death of the patriotic leaders, the common people found themselves utterly dependent, in spiritual as well as civil matters, upon these same self-styled societies of the learned, who alone possessed the secrets of the priesthood and copies of the sacred texts. By interpreting, altering, and augmenting the rules and ritual these texts contained, and by a system of espionage and assassination, 10 the new rulers established a strict control over the daily life of their co-religionists. Thus having taken hold of the Jewish people through the medium of the Roman authority, this clique easily placed its laws above the ten commandments, and formed a government whose control over its subjects was absolute. 11 This government became henceforth known as the Kahal. 12 The dispersion of the Jews which followed in 135 A.D., instead of destroying the Kahal, served on the contrary to set it on a new and firmer basis, on which it has continued ever since. Wherever Jewish emigrants settled, 13 they founded communities apart under the direction of the fraternities, and held to the precepts of the Talmud. 14 Each community had its representative, its rabbi, its synagogue: it was a miniature Kahal. The different aims of these communities always found themselves intimately related with those of the central body upon which their existence depended. For if the ruling clique or caste had begun by grinding down its own race,”it now saw that, by drafting them into its organization, it could exploit the gentiles on a far grander scale.” The number of fraternities was increased by the addition of trade unions, every trade in which the Jews engaged being represented. To strengthen its control and to advance the interests of the Jews as a whole, it developed and perfected that system of espionage which it still maintains. It sent agents 17 to watch over Jewish affairs at police stations, and, when opportunity offered, distribute gifts to the employees. Other agents were posted at the doors of shops, hotels, business houses, lawcourts, and even in the private households of government officials. These trained agents had each a special field to cover: police, export, import, exchange, government supplies, lawsuits, etc. The duty of an agents assigned to lawcourts was to keep constantly in touch with the proceedings, or with the official, meet the petitioners and, when practicable, 18 fix the sum they must pay for a favourable judgment. This concluded, the agent took all necessary steps, and often succeeded in obtaining a decision contrary to justice. But in every case, the first duty of the agent was to note all errors and irregularities committed by the court, and all scandals brought out in the course of trial: these, reported and carefully recorded in the files of the Kahal, could be used as weapons against any person involved, who might later wish to act contrary to Jewish interests. Thus the order derived strength from three sources: advance information on trade conditions, bribery, and blackmail. It is quite easy to understand the reasons of the concentration of trade in the hands of the Jews, wherever they have settled in sufficient numbers. For if on the one hand the individual Jew is the slave of the Kahal, his submission on the other hand is rewarded by its support in his struggle with non-Jewish competitors. He can count on the immediate help of his fraternity, and where necessary of the whole organization, and thus is assured of the victory over any single gentile. The teaching in the synagogue incited its following to a thorough exploitation of their gentile neighbours, care only being taken not to excite hostility to the extent of endangering the whole community. This doctrine, popular from the start, was eventually embodied in its most concrete form in a book of the Talmud, called the Shulchan Aruk. A few quotations will suffice to show its character: 19 “When a Jew has a gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same gentile, lend him money and in his turn deceive him, so that the gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a gentile (according to our law) belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has the full right to seize it.” 20 “When a Jew makes a deal with a gentile, and another Jew comes up and deceives the gentile no matter in what manner, whether he give him false measure or overcharge him, then both Jews must share between them the profits thus sent by Jehovah.” 21 “Although it is not a direct obligation for a Jew to kill a gentile with whom he lives in peace, yet, in no case, is he allowed to save a gentile’s life.” 22 “It is always a meritorious deed to get hold of a gentile’s possessions.” 23 “Marriages taking place among gentiles have no binding strength, i.e. their cohabitation is just as the coupling of horses, therefore their children do not stand as humanly related to their parents.” 24 Of the spirit which taught that all non-Jews were animals 25 to be stripped of their property for the benefit of Jewry, and which united the community in a common aim and a common hatred; of the Shulchan Aruk which transmitted this aim and this hatred from generation to generation, Jewish leaders of the last fifty years have written : 26 ” The Shulchan Aruk is not the book that we have chosen for our guide, but the book that has been made our guide, whether we would or not, by force of historical development: because this book, just as it is in its present form, with all its most uncouth sections, was the book that best suited the spirit of our people, their condition and their needs, in those generations in which they accepted it as binding on themselves and their descendants. If we proclaim that this is not our law, we shall be proclaiming a falsehood; this is our law, couched in the only form which was possible in the middle ages, just as the Talmud is our law in the form which it took in the last days of the ancient world, just as the Bible is our law in the form which it took while the Jews still lived as a nation on their own land. The three books are but three milestones on the road of a single development, that of the spirit of the Jewish nation.” A Jewish community, in the midst of a gentile population on which it preyed, depended for its success on two things: the absolute subordination of its members and the secrecy of its proceedings. The Kahal concealed its activities from the outside world under the guise of religion. ” The Jews were loyal subjects like their neighbours, but to them faith was life, and they were constantly preoccupied with the observance of their ritual “, it told the world. But this was not a sufficient screen. As in all secret organizations there are traitors and renegades whatever the penalty. The Kahal was obliged to shroud itself in mystery and mysticism, 27 even from its members. The multiplicity of the ritual laws, the voluminous civil code, the secret instructions of the fraternities, the continuance of obsolete forms, all served to create such a confusion that no non-Jew confronted with the documents could distinguish what was fundamental from what was prolix ritual or irrelevant. 28 The general scheme of the Kahal, which has been in operation since the second century A. D., remains in force to this day. Its essential characteristics may be outlined as follows: a) The council of elders or geronsia, 29 presided over by a patriarch or exilarch. Its functions were purely formal; it represented the Jews in official relations with foreign governments, acted as their spokesman when they wished to arouse public sentiment in their favour, but had no directresponsibility in the secret government whose existence it served to conceal. Composed of leading members of the fraternities, it could discuss at secret meetings questions of general interest, leaving their practical solution to the fraternities. b) The tribunal or beth-din. 30 c) The fraternities. The beth-din decided all lawsuits and differences arising between individual Jews, and between members and the Kahal itself. It existed in all localities where there were Jews, catered to their commercial needs, and had final jurisdiction in both civil and religious matters. It alone was competent to interpret the spiritual laws of the Talmud. To illustrate the character of this court, the following paragraphs from the Talmudic code 31 may be given: ” No Jew may appeal for justice to any court or judiciary other than the Jewish tribunal. This holds even when the laws of the country bearing on the question at issue agree with the Jewish laws, and when the two parties are willing to submit their differences to the former. Whoever breaks this injunction shall be outlawed; 32 his offence is equivalent to contempt and violation of the law of Moses. ” The beth-din judges cases involving loans, debts, marriages, legacies, gifts, damages, interest, etc. ” Although the beth-din has no right to fine a thief or looter, it may inflict the indoui on him until he makes full restitution. It may inflict fines for the infraction of rules as prescribed in the Talmud. ” When the beth-din notices that the nation is given to disorders, 33 it may, without confirmation by the Jewish authorities, impose fines, death-sentences, and other penalties; and in this connection it may waive the production of testimony to prove the guilt of the accused. Where the latter is a person of influence in the country, the beth-din may use the legal machinery of the country to punish him. His property may be declared outside the protection of the law (guefker), and he himself may be done away with as circumstances require.” It would be erroneous to suppose that all suits between Jews are tried by the beth-din. In many circumstances, and especially in thorny cases where the Jewish law is contrary to common sense, because the form and the terms do not agree with justice and conscience, the case is tried not by the judges of the beth-din, called dayans, but by a special court composed of persons chosen for their knowledge of business practice or other special reasons. The explanation of the mass of lawsuits between Jews before non-Jewish courts is as follows. For the most part, these have to do with drafts presented for payment and drawn on Jews who have incurred penalties at the hands of the beth-din. The laws of the country are thus used to execute the decisions of the Jewish tribunal. The beth-din makes a practice of binding the two parties in a suit submitted for its decision, by having them sign blanks before the trial. If, afterward, the party who has lost the case refuses to abide by the decision, the blank bearing his signature is converted into a draft and put into circulation. Turning to the fraternities which are the sinews of the organization, one finds their outward form strictly innocuous. The rules are nearly all on the same model, and fix the annual dues, the place and date for the regular meetings, the duties and obligations of members, and the penalties if disregarded; the latter range from small fines to expulsion from the fraternity. A member expelled from a fraternity found himself cut off from the community and generally died an outcast. Each fraternity has a religious or charitable purpose, connected with such worthy objects as the following: a) Reading from the sacred texts, 34 b) Burial of the dead, c) Ransoming of prisoners, d) Free loans, help for poor girls, aid for the sick, clothing for the poor, etc. It should be noted that these objects were not entirely disinterested: the fraternity charged with reading the texts, distorted them; those who buried the dead received fees, not only for that care, but also for plots in the Jewish cemetery, for the purification bath prescribed for Jewish women, for seats in the synagogue. 35 The fraternity for ransoming prisoners was composed of the most influential members of the community; as its chief concern was the freeing of delinquent Jews from gentile courts, it had to bring pressure to bear on police and government officials. 36 An excellent illustration of a Jewish community in the twentieth century is found in the account of the organizing of the Kehilla 37 in New York City in 1909 and of its subsequent operation, – published in the Jewish Communal Register. 38 The purpose of the Kehillah is to ” weld Jewish interests and develop community conscientiousness “; the immediate cause of its creation was ” the statement of the police commissioner, General Bingham, that the Jews contributed fifty per cent, of the criminals of New York City.” 39 The first step taken by the constitutive convention was the election of an executive committee and an advisory council of seventy members; the latter is the council of elders or gerousia, and its duty is to ” make its voice heard and its opinions felt (sic) in all questions affecting the Jews the world over.” The next thing of importance is the creation of a beth-din or court of arbitration, by the board of authoritative rabbis (vaad harabbonim) already charged with the regulations of marriage, divorce, circumcision, and ritual bath. 40 The beth-din will undertake to settle all disputes between labour and capital. 41 Further on, the purpose of the Kehillah is made clearer: it is for the ” coordination of the existing communal agencies 42 to save the synagogue from impending ruin,” to which end all the material and moral resources of the entire community are to be drafted. 43 In other words, the hierarchy of fraternities for which Judaism serves as a cloak and the synagogues as a lodge-room, is endeavoring to strengthen its hold on its members, among whom there is a tendency towards emancipation. Finally, mention is made of some of the fraternities, under the title of benevolent societies: the burial clubs and the visitors of the sick. It is particularly interesting to note that these orders assess their beneficiaries: that is, they operate as life insurance companies. 44 So well is the question of ritual meat (kosher) regulated by the Kehillah, that ” all the meat slaughtered in New York city and vicinity, whether for Jewish consumption or not, is slaughtered by schochetim under the supervision ofauthoritative rabbis.’ 45 Of New York’s sixty per cent gentile population, none can buy meat not prepared according to Jewish ritual. But this paternal interest of the Kehillah for its members and for the whole gentile population is not entirely unmotivated; for the Register goes on to explain that meat so killed brings ” prices far in excess of those paid for ordinary meat.” It pays the slaughter-houses to employ schochetim and contribute to the welfare of the authoritative rabbis. Thus the Jewish fraternities through the ages have kept their typical character of a secret government, disguised under the form of synagogues and schools. The life of the people, too, has changed little from generation to generation, and from one country to another: they are always and everywhere the tools of the ruling clique; to it they pay heavy, indirect taxes, and in return receive help in exploiting the land which harbours them. They have a heavy heritage, a Jewish conscientiousness, a hatred of non-Jews, a love of deceiving; all this they cannot easily shake off, and with it the yoke of the Kahal. Exodus xx. The Gospels themselves bear witness to the distortions of the divine law of Moses by the human additions of the rabbis. Cf. Matthew xv. 2: “Thus you have destroyed the commandment of God by your traditions.” Compare Matt. xxm. 14-36. Lit. the “separated”. From Sadoc, Greek form of Zadok (lit. “the just”), founder of the sect. Known as Imburah from habor, “join together”. Graetz, iv. History of the Jews, p. 85. Vespasian appointed Rabbi John Ben Zakkai, chief of the haburah, ruler of Jamnia: Jost, i. History of the Jem, p. 210. Brafmann, Jewish Brotherhoods, (Vilna, 1868) par. 18. The clubs were secret fraternities, each member binding himself by an oath; the penalty for disobedience was exclusion or death: Jost., op. cit. “Every day, and every hour of the day, and every act of every hour, had its appointed regulations, grounded on distorted texts of scripture, or the sentences of the wise men, and artfully moulded up with their national reminiscences of the past or their distinctive hopes of the future, -the divine origin of the law, the privileges of God’s chosen people, the restoration to the holy city, the corning of the Messiah.” Milman, n, History of the Jews (Everyman Library, 1923 edition p. 165). Literally, “community” or “commonwealth”. Nearly every province of the Roman empire had at least one colony of Jews at the end of the second century A.D. Talmud Torah, lit. “study of the law”, name for the agglomeration of rabbinical works. Contemptuously termed am-ha-aretz, lit. “people of the soil”, and debarred from bearing witness, etc.: Talmud Pessashim 98. They had to “submit to the haburah or perish”. Talmud Tainot 23. “The hatred of the am-ha-aretz towards the learned societies was so great, that, if we patricians had not obtained for them some material advantages, they would have killed us.” Talmud Pessashim 49. Called factors: Brafmann, Book of the Kahal, ch I. Depending on the character of the suit, judges, etc. The Shulchan Aruk is a manual of Jewish laws, drawn from the Talmud, and compiled by Rabbi Joseph Caro (1488-1575). Loc. cit., Law 24. Ibid., Law 27. Ibid., Law 50. Ibid., Law 55. Ibid., Law 88. Goyim, lit. “animals”. Quoted from Asher Ginzberg’s reply to Rabbi Lolli, in 1897. The part played by the Jews in the founding and spreading of gnostic sects is not treated here. “The Mosaic law, intricate enough, is woven into an inextricable network of decrees (in the Mischna)… The Mischna fully admits polygamy… Capital punishment is of four kinds: stoning, burning, slaying by the sword, strangling… The sixth book is on the subject of uncleanness and ablution: it is rigid and particular to the utmost repulsiveness… The object of this work was to fix on undoubted authority the whole unwritten law. But the multiplication of written statutes enlarges rather than contracts the province of the lawyer; a new field was opened for ingenuity, and comment was speedily heaped upon the Mischna, till it was buried under the weight, as the Mosaic law had been before by the Mischna… Those ponderous tomes, at once religious and civil institutes, swayed the Jews with uncontested authority.” Milman, op. cit., pp. 174, 175. A revival of the old Sanhedrin which governed Palestine. Lit. “house of religion”: see Brafmann, Bk. of the Kahal, ch. 8. Hocher-Hamichot. “The synagogue with its appendant school or law court, became the great bond of national union.” Milman, pp. 160, 161. Viz., the indoui or the herein, corresponding to excommunication and expulsion from the community. The meaning seems to be, “rebelling against the Kahal”. There were four fraternities or learned societies having this as their object: they were composed exclusively from the upper caste. For this and the following, see Brafmann, Jewish Brotherhoods, p. 21. Ibid., p. 38. Ibid., p. 33. Diminutive of kahal. New York, 1919. Jewish Communal Register (New York, 1919) n. If Bingham’s statement were without foundation, would it have aroused so much indignation? Ibid., p. 50. Ibid., p. 52. Ibid., p. 55. Ibid., p. 120. Ibid., p. 732. Ibid., p. 312. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
1.3 New Links Between Communities Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward The Jews, disseminated in all lands and claiming the same rights as other nationals, jealously guarded the secret of their hierarchy. Prior to the eighteenth century various nations had from time to time granted equality of rights to the Jews within their borders, 1 but in every case had retracted them. About 1770, Moses Mendelssohn 2 and others began preaching emancipation for all Jews everywhere, as the ultimate goal of the race. This suited the Kahal: if its members enjoyed the privileges of other nationals, they would eventually occupy important posts in gentile governments and thus extend its own power and influence. The aim was to a large extent realized a few years later. With the French revolution in 1789, the status of the Jews in that country was completely changed. 3 Not only did they obtain the franchise, but, profiting by the sale of confiscated property, they soon acquired great wealth. Napoleon remarked in 1806: ” By what miracle did whole provinces of France become heavily mortgaged to the Jews, when there are only sixty thousand of them in the country? “. 4 Jews in Austria and Germany as in France and England, obtained about the same time political freedom and soon rose to high social and administrative rank in the land of their adoption: the names of Rothschild, 5 Cremieux, 6 and Disraeli, 7 at once suggest themselves. But, freed from the restricting influence of the ghetto, the Jews tended to become assimilated not only in appearance, but in reality. The yoke of the Kahal seemed more irksome to those who had acquired wealth which they wished to enjoy undisturbed. As it could add nothing to their success in life, they longed to be rid of its ritual, indirect taxes, demands of personal services, and its threats. Jewish leaders, observing this tendency, felt the need of new links between communities, the more so, as the new facilities of communication of the nineteenth century- telegraph, railways, steamships-rendered intercourse between distant bodies much easier. A group of so-called ” universal brotherhoods ” was accordingly organized in only five years, 1864-1869; they were: a) Brotherhood for the awakening of the slumbering Jews, 8 at St. Petersburg; b) Alliance Israelite Universelle 9 at Paris; c) Jewish Emigration Society, 10 at London; d) Brotherhood for the enlightenment of the Jews, 11 at St. Petersburg; e) Brotherhood for the repopulation of Palestine. 12 The first of these societies was founded in 1864: in 1866, it already numbered twelve hundred members among the wealthiest and most influential Jews, at whose head stood: L. Silberman Prussia M. S. Magnus Prussia M. Strahun Russia Rabbi Albert Cohn France D. L. Loewe England Sir Moses Montefiore England In 1864 was also founded the Brotherhood for the enlightenment of the Jews (fourth in the above list) with its centre at St. Petersburg; within a year it numbered 227 wealthy Jews, including Dr. Bernstein, the bankers Ginzberg, Dr. Kalisher, Dr. Schwabacher, 13 and men prominent in science. It is therefore not surprising that their efforts should have met with sympathy among Christians. On closer examination, the enlightenment these societies sought appears not to be of the kind to raise the people above the racial prejudices fostered in the ghetto. On the contrary, the literature which the society for the awakening of the slumbering Jews published, with the exception of a book of travels, was strictly a course of studies in Talmudic laws, 14 and calculated to revive the sentiment of a common aim and common hatred found in the Shulchan Aruk. The book of travels, Even Saphir, is more stimulating: it points out in subtle language the power of the Kahal and Jewish solidarity. A passage may be quoted as illustration: 15 ” Here in Cairo, Jewish business is exchange, banking, and usury… The Jews derive great benefit from these three operations, thanks to the different foreign currencies and the fact that there are two rates of exchange, one fixed by the government, the other by merchants. ” These two rates constantly vary, rising and falling, and people who do not deal in money matters are easily misled. These operations are for the most part in the hands of the Jews, wise and clever people who, among capitalists, rank as high as the wealthiest in Europe. They occupy important positions in the pasha’s palaces and government offices. In fact the Jews at the present moment enjoy full freedom in every way: their word counts for much, and in trials and lawsuits with non-Jews their side always wins.” The Kahal resorted to another device to keep its flock within the fold. Whenever opportunity offered, it made a cause celebre of some Jew brought to trial in a gentile court, and then, when the case had become the common talk of the day, it had him released. In what better way could it show its power? The murder of a French missionary by three or four Jews in Damascus in 1840 furnished one such occasion, and the Dreyfus case in 1896 another. It found, too, little difficulty in organizing pogroms in Poland and in Russia. The peasants in these countries, though of a trusting, friendly nature, could be provoked by fraud and extortion at length to retaliate. A few Jews were killed, and millions of their race rallied around the synagogue. The privileges granted the Jews by the Tsar Alexander II necessitated the pogroms of 1882; and these were followed by a cry of ” anti-semitism,” which, as Herzl used to say, always gathered the sheep into the fold ” -the time at the conference at Kattowitz in 1884. Here eastern Jews 16 met their more assimilated brethren from the West, but little was accomplished. The latter, whose views had been modified by long contact with Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Germans, failed to understand the violent nationalism of the eastern ghettoes, where the aim was a return to Palestine, the creation of a Jewish state, and eventual world domination. The eastern group was known as “The Friends of Zion” 17 and was led by Leo Pinsker and Moses Lilienblum. Pinsker had already set forth his programme in a book, Auto-emancipation (1882), in which he had been inspired by the Rome and Jerusalem (1862) of Moses Hess. Fear of the Russian authorities preventing a full exposition of his aim, he had limited himself to claiming Palestine for the Jews as a refuge against persecution. One of his colleagues, Asher Ginzberg, was destined to carry his work much further. The latter, a fanatic, fanned Jewish national aspirations in the East, and from the date of the founding of the ” Sons of Moses ” in Odessa in 1889, the movement spread rapidly. Meantime in Germany and Austria, another active nationalist, Nathan Birnbaum 18 of Vienna, organized the Jewish students into a body called the kadimah. Its aim was to establish a Jewish centre in Palestine which should rule the world in the three spheres of politics, economics, and religion, through the medium of Jews at the control of affairs in every nation. If the western group, on the other hand, did not respond readily to a nationalist appeal, they yet were intrigued by the idea of world domination. International and clannish at heart, in spite of their outward assimilation, they were to prove by the sequel that they could be won to the eastern point of view: if they rejected it at first, it was largely because they thought they could obtain all they wanted without the help of their retrograde brethren. They were, moreover, divided into two camps: the Rothschilds and the German Jews in Germany and America. The second camp had invested a large part of their capital in German industry, which proved very productive in the years 1884 to 1896; they also shared, or pretended to share, in the plans of pan-German ambition. But when, in 1896, Germany obtained from the Sultan the concession for the Bagdad railway and reached out over Palestine towards India, some leading western Jews were alarmed and felt the need of uniting Jewry. The only basis of union was the eastern programme, for the eastern group, being fanatics, would accept no other. To win over the western group to the new aim, an assimilated Jewish writer, Theodore Herzl, was called on to paraphrase Leo Pinsker’s Auto-emancipation.19 This paraphrase, published in 1896, bore the title, The Jewish State. There was little that was original about the book, but the character and influence of the author carried much weight. Theodore Herzl was a typical assimilated Jew. 20 Born in Hungary in 1860, after finishing school in Budapest and studying law at the university of Vienna, he devoted himself to journalism and literature. As reporter for the Viennese paper, Die neuefreie Presse, he worked in Spain and later in France. While in Paris, he reported the Dreyfus case, under the influence of another Jew, the famous Dr. Blowitz, correspondent of the London Times. It is said that the Dreyfus case ” made a Jew of Herzl.” He did not know Hebrew, and had never been taught the fanatical books of the Talmud, such as the Shukhan Aruk and the Abodah Zarah. He was opposed to violent methods, and in one of his novels, Altneuland, has left a picture of a civilized Jewish state, patterned on those of Western Europe. In any case, after the publication of The Jewish State, the Friends of Zion in Odessa, and the body of students (Kadimah) under Nathan Birnbaum, adopted Herzl. The first Zionist congress was called at Basle the following year (1897). Herzl was elected president, a position which he held till his death (1904). At the congress, as the eastern group was the more numerous, the name ” Zionism”, coined by Nathan Birnbaum in 1886, was adopted, and its aim declared essentially democratic. But the western group was not wholly won. Some of them, mostly from England and France, responded coldly to Herzl’s appeal, fearing to compromise the rights and positions already acquired in those countries. The desired union could not yet be effected, and the two groups rallied around their respective leaders, Herzl and Ginzberg. Herzl nevertheless remained faithful to the task he had undertaken. 21 He entered into negotiations with the rulers of several nations to obtain some suitable home for the Jews. He failed to get Palestine from the Sultan, and later, the El Arish peninsula from the Khedive of Egypt; but he received, and virtually accepted, the offer of Uganda from Great Britain. In 1903, he laid this proposal before the sixth Zionist congress: it was thrown out by the Zionists who would have no land but Palestine. Herzl died the following year, and with him the leadership of the moderate party was soon to pass into the hands of the violent nationalists. 22 — An article in the Judisk Tidskrift (No. 6, Aug.-Sept., 1929), written by Dr. Ehrenpreis, Chief Rabbi of Sweden, contained, according to the Swedish paper Nationen, the following passage: ” I participated with Herzl in the first Zionist Congress which was held in Basle in 1897. Herzl was the most prominent figure at that first Jewish World Congress. He worked to achieve an object which had been fixed beforehand. Just as Isaiah foresaw, decades before the event occurred, the victorious power of Cyrus before anyone else, so did Herzl foresee twenty years, before we experienced them, the revolutions brought about by the Great War, and he prepared us for that which was going to happen. He foresaw the splitting up of Turkey, and he foresaw that England would obtain control over Palestine. ” We may expect important developments in the world.” These were the words spoken by Herzl twenty years before the Great War. He added that the events would offer the Jewish people fresh opportunities.” — 1. For example, in Spain, before the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella; in England, under Cromwell; in Russia, under the Tsar Alexis in th” seventeenth century. 2. Grandfather of the composer (1729-1786). 3. J. Darmstadter, in his essay, Histoire du peuple juif (Paris, 1886) says that, from this date, the Jews looked on France as their own possession. 4. Letter of Nov. 29, 1806, to Champagny, quoted in article ” MSS of Napoleon “, Synhedrian Allgemeine Zeitung des Jud. (Leipzig 1811), p. 33. 5. Cf. Corti, House of Rothschild (New York, 1928). 6. Cabinet minister in 1846 and 1871 ; one of the most active men in the coup d’etat of Louis-Napoleon in 1851 (1796-1880). 7. First Jewish M.P. The leading source for the life of Disraeli is W. F. Moneypenny and G. E. Buckle, Life of Disraeli (London, 1923) ; see also the admirable sketch, entitled Vie de Disraeli, by the Jew A. Maurois (Paris, 1927). 8. Haburah mekidze nirdamim. See Brafmann, Jewish Brother hoods, pp. 96-98. 9. Haburah kol Israel haberim. 10. Haburah shiluhe plakiloth. 11. Haburah marbe. 12. Haburah yishub Israel. To the foregoing list might be added the Jewish immigration society of New York, and also the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith (Sons of the Covenant) founded in 1843. 13. Op. cit., p. 100. 14. Including Pachad Ishak, ” fear of Isaac “, an index to Talmudic literature; Teschubat ha-gaonim ” decisions of the illustrious ” viz., of the ancient authorities on religious and legal matters, etc. Op. cit., p. 101. 15. Even Saphir, p. 18. 16. The two principal branches of the Jews are the Sephardim, settled mostly in the Spanish peninsula, and the Ashkenazim of Alsace- Lorraine, Germany, Poland and Russia. The former are the more cultivated. 17. Hoveve Zion. 18. His pen-name was Mathias Asher. 19. Whose direct orders Herzl was obeying is not clear: probably those of David Wolfsohn, acknowledged leader of western Jewry. 20. His enemies in the Zionist camp later hurled the epithet ” assimi lated ” at him to express their scorn for his moderation. 21. Osiah Tonn mentions several letters of Herzl, expressing the wish to retire from the Zionist movement as soon as possible. 22. David Wolfsohn succeeded Herzl as president for a short time. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
1.4 Ginzberg The Interpreter Of Jewish Aims Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward If Herzl strove to modify and conciliate Jewish ambition with its gentile surroundings, it was the task of Ginzberg to give it a new form and the strength of mass fanaticism. Asher Ginzberg 1 was born at Skvira, in the province of Kiev, in 1856, of well-to-do parents belonging to the Jewish sect of Hassidim. He received a strictly rabbinical education and, at seventeen, married the grand-daughter of a prominent rabbi, Menachem Mendel. Five years later (1878), he moved to Odessa, where he continued his studies, with special attention to the works of Spinoza, Moses Mendelssohn, and Nietzsche. Not long after, 2 he visited Berlin, Breslau, and Vienna where he met Charles Netter, a French Jew and one of the founders of the Alliance Israelite Universelle, who introduced him into that body. It was thus that, in 1884, on his return to Odessa, Ginzberg joined the Friends of Zion 3 under Leo Pinsker and Moses Lilienblum, and attended the conference at Katto-witz. His shrewd, restless mind and command of Hebrew soon raised him to prominence: a letter in Hebrew to the scientist S. Finn on his seventieth birthday, attracted the notice of Alexander Zederbaum. Zederbaum was the editor of the Hebrew paper Ha-melitz, and immediately invited Ginzberg to contribute. Although he had constantly criticized the methods of the Friends of Zidh privately, he hesitated to do so in print; but finally overcoming his scruples, he sent in a radical article, entitled Not the Way, 4 which appeared the same year (1889). In it, Ginzberg attacked Pinsker’s plan of sending Russian Jews to Palestine for the material advantages they might derive. 5 All attempts to improve the condition of Russian ghettoes were futile, he insisted; the Jews must first become consciously, aggressively national. The article with its direct appeal to fanaticism was read by Jews all over Europe; other articles by the same pen followed. He now broke with the Friends of Zion, and with him went a group of young men who had come to share his advanced views. These men he formed (1889) into a secret organization called the Sons of Moses. 6 It met in his house in Yamskaya Street, Odessa, and numbered among its first members, Ben Avigdor, Zalman Epstein, Louis Epstein, and Jacob Eisenstaat. It was to this small group that Ginzberg read what is to-day known as ” the protocols “, 7 in which the national aim is set forth in such direct, forceful language, -in strange contrast to the confused, pedantic style of the Talmud. The opening words give the tone of the whole. ” Let us put aside phraseology and discuss the inner meaning of every thought: by comparison and deduction let us illuminate the situation. In this way I will describe our system, both from our own point of view and that of the goyims. ” It must be remembered that people with base instincts,” he continues, ” are more numerous than those with noble ones; therefore, the best results in governing are achieved through violence and intimidation, and not through academic discussion. Every man seeks power; every one would like to become a dictator if he possibly could; and rare indeed are those who would not sacrifice the common good in order to attain personal advantage.” The argument is then developed with conciseness and lucidity: all objections are anticipated and met in a few terse phrases. No rhetorical effect is sought; expression is natural and vivid: e.g. of the mob at the time of a revolution, 9 the author says: ” These beasts fall asleep when they have drunk enough blood; it is then easy to shackle them.” The Protocols are sometimes criticized as containing nothing that had not been said previously by philosophers or statesmen; but even if that were true, it would detract little from their interest. For their importance does not lie in the aim, world domination, nor in the theory by which it is attained, exploitation of man’s baser instincts, but in the extraordinary astuteness with which the practical application of the plan has been suited to existing conditions. The very fact that the language is forceful and incisive, that all the allusions are striking, and the thesis so to speak irrefutable, is to some an obstacle to belief: nor is this surprising. If, at Waterloo, Napoleon had had a battalion of tanks and a few batteries of modern eight-inch guns, the forces of England and Prussia would have been driven from the field: with the improved methods of warfare of the last century at his command, he could have defied the armies of the world in 1814. For the past century the Jews have been making rapid progress in the theory and practice of politics, while the rest of the world thought them merely emerging from the ghetto; and, as it cannot understand the intricate new machinery of government they have devised and set up, it says, ” Such a thing is impossible.” Yet, like a great engine of war, the organization of the Kahal advances on the course determined, crashing all resistance. That course is succinctly stated in the twenty-four protocols of Ginzberg: they are an epitome of Jewish thought from Rabbi Akiba 10 and Maimonides 11 down to Marx 12 and Engels. At the same time the reader is reminded constantly of some familiar event of recent years which bears out the thesis. For example the passage: 13 ” To show that all the gentile governments of Europe are enslaved by us, we will manifest our power by subjecting one of them to a reign of terror, violence and crime.” Can anyone, recalling the Russian revolution of 1918, read this, knowing it was written before 1897, 14 and not be impressed by the correspondence between the prophecy and its fulfilment two decades later? But Ginzberg was no visionary: he knew of what he wrote, and the course of the revolutionary movement already on foot in Russia had been too carefully calculated to leave any doubt as to its eventual success. The Second International was formed in 1889, and the theories of Marx and Engels adopted. The labour movement was no longer represented by a small group of workingmen led by theorists, but by powerful national organizations of workers. Therefore the aim of the Second International to secure the transfer of power to the proletariat was to be pursued under conditions more favourable than those which had prevailed at the time of the First International. The dominant industrial and financial interests served to further the objectives of the socialists through a callous disregard for labour. 15 In 1900, on Lenin’s return from exile, appeared the first number of the revolutionary paper Iskra (” The Spark “) edited in London by Trotski (Braunstein) a Jew, and supported by another Jew, Blumenfeld. 16 Organizations directed by Iskra spread throughout Russia: it was the source from which the ideas of local leaders were derived. In March 1903, there emerged at its first meeting in Minsk, a completely formed Russian communist party; it represented six organizations and was headed by nine men, of whom at least five were of Jewish descent. 17 It was known as the ” Russian social democratic party ” (until 1918), and its methods as well as its motto ” Proletarians of all countries, unite “, were those of Marx and Engels. A second congress of the party met at Brussels and then at London, in July and August, of the same year. Here the doctrine that ” the necessary condition of the social revolution is the dictatorship of the proletariat “, was expressed for the first time. 18 Then came the split between bolsheviks and mensheviks, and the movement faced its first real test in 1905. Weakened by defeat in the war with Japan, the Tsarist government could not forestall strikes and disorders. The shooting down of workmen who had assembled before the winter palace encouraged the bolsheviks to attempt an armed uprising. A congress of the party met in London on April 25, 1905, and formulated the programme which was to be put in practice twelve years later. 19 The outbreak in Russia was immediately hailed by a Zionist paper as the work of Jews. ” The revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution, a crisis in Jewish history. It is a Jewish revolution because Russia is the home of about half the Jews of the world, and an overturning of its despotic government must have a very important influence on the destinies of the millions living there and on the many thousands who have recently emigrated to other countries. But the revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution also because Jews are the most active revolutionists in the Tsar’s empire “. 20 Unsupported by the peasants and the army, the revolts of 1905 failed. A period of reaction set in, bringing with it the arrest and exile of many of the revolutionary leaders. From that time, in fact, plans for a revolution in Russia had to be entirely directed from abroad. How the old leaders usually managed to escape their prison sentences; 21 how they secured funds to travel about and participate in congresses in Stockholm, Paris, Prague, Berne and other cities; and how they managed to keep alive a central organization is not explained in published documents; but the connection between these subversive activities and Zionism will become clearer further on. 22 Meantime the protocols, secretly circulated in Hebrew among the Sons of Moses, had helped the expansion of that order throughout Russia and Poland and contributed to its victory at the Basle congress in 1897, 23 when Zionism became an official movement. But when Ginzberg saw that Herzl’s conception of Zionism was ” an economic one first and foremost “, 24 excluding as it seemed the spirit of Jewish nationalism, he gathered his old adherents into a new secret order, the Sons of Zipn (B’nai Zion) to propagate the true faith. While affecting himself to keep outside of the official movement, he edited a Hebrew paper, Hashiloah (” The Way “), thanks to financial aid from a Moscow tea merchant, a Jew, Kalonymous Wissotzkii, and became head of a great Hebrew publishing firm called Ahiasaf. With these powerful organs, he could attack Herzl with impunity. One of the latter’s friends complains : 25 ” Ahad-ha-am (Ginzberg) reproaches Herzl with wanting to imitate Europe. He (Ginzberg) cannot admit that we should borrow from Europe its academies, operas, white gloves. The only thing he would transfer from Europe into Altneuland (i.e. Palestine) would be the principles of the inquisition, the way of acting of the anti-semites, the restrictions of the Rumanian laws… He understands freedom as practised in the ghetto, only in his conception the parts are reversed: persecutions are to continue, but this time, of the gentiles by the Jews… He is one of the worst enemies of Zionism, and it is our duty to protest against its name being used by him. His conception is the exact opposite of Zionism, and he would mislead us by speaking (slightingly) of ‘ political’ Zionism, in contrast to ‘ this secret Zionism 26 which is his very own.” Fourteen years of labour at last began to show fruit. In 1911, Ginzberg’s representatives, Chaim Weizmann and others, scored a victory at the tenth Zionist Congress. Two years later (1913), ” when he visited the congress for the second time,” writes a disciple, 27 ” he was happy. He could see how some of his ideas, some of the truths that he had fought so bitterly to advance, were already working within. He was happy, as a practical philosopher should feel when he realizes that his life has not been in vain, that he has been one link in the long chain that pulls Israel to a glorious future, that he has served Israel, and, through Israel, mankind “. From this point, Zionism, as Ginzberg understood it, became a reality which his disciples 28 have since carried from victory to victory under the eye of the master. He himself remained aloof, at least from public view, until his death in 1927 in a Judaized Palestine. — 1. His pen-name was Ahad-ha-am, lit. ” one of the people “; his father was a tax-collector. 2. Between 1882 and 1884. 3. Hoveve Zion: supra, ch. III. 4. Lo ha-shiloah. 5. Certainly in this he showed great shrewdness. 6. B’nai Moshe. 7. Infra Part : The Protocols. From internal evidence the date of the protocols may be placed between 1880-1890. 8. The text itself should be studied: to paraphrase or quote a few passages from it is to give a very defective notion of this important work. 9. Protocol II. 10. Compiler of the Mischna (from shanah ” to repeat “) or oral tradition of the Jews in the second century A. D. See Preface to Mischna by Maimonides; also, Milman, A History of the Jews, p. 133. 11. Spanish Jew, author of commentaries on Mischna and other works, in the twelfth century. 12. Karl Marx, author of Das Kapital, founder of first international, (1818-1883); joint author with Engels of communist manifesto. Marx’s real name was Mordecai. 13. Protocol VII, last paragraph. 14. A copy of the Protocols has been in the records of the British Museum since 1906: infra Part n, Chapter I. 15. W. R. Batsell, Soviet Rule in Russia (Published under the auspices of the Bureau of International Research of Harvard University New York, 1929), p. 756. 16. Batsell, op. cit., pp. 49, 691, 692. 17. Ibid., pp. 689, 690. 18. Ibid., p. 692. Compare, ” It suffices even for an instant to give the masses self-government, and they will become a disorganized mob… Capital which is entirely in our hands, will hold out to this state a straw, to which it will inevitably be forced to cling.” Protocol I, par. 6. 19. The central committee in 1905 was composed of the well known revolutionaries: Lenin (Ulianov), Rykov, Krassin (Vinter), Bogdanov, and Postalovskii; Batsell, op. cit., p. 694. 20. The Maccabean (New York, Nov., 1905), p. 250, under the title ” A Jewish Revolution “. 21. Thanks to the fraternity for the freeing of delinquent Jews: supra ch. II. 22. Infra, ch. V. 23. The Sons of Moses (B’nai Moshe) having achieved its object, was dissolved after the congress; for the latter, see supra, ch. III. 24. In the words of Richard Gottheil, Chief Rabbi of New York City. 25. Pamphlet entitled Audiatur et Altera Pars by Dr. Max Nordau, 1903, at the time of the publication of Herzl’s novel Altneuland, which Ginzberg attacked. 26. That set forth in the protocols. 27. Jesse Sampler, in his Guide to Zionism. 28. Among these should be mentioned Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolov, Leon Simon, Jabotinskii, Ussitchin, Schmaryar Levin. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
1.5 Zionists And Anti-Zionists During World War I Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward It has frequently been observed that Europe, whether considered as a whole or as so many separate countries, lost rather than benefited by the world war: the victorious allies, with a huge burden of debt, came off hardly better than the vanquished. But to Zionism, the war brought untold wealth and the complete realization of an immediate aim. ” The present war “, wrote Sokolov at the time, 1 ” has not affected the unity of the Zionist organization. As the latter was established on the federal principle, it was found possible to continue the essential work of the movement by utilizing the separate organizations of the different countries. The work of propaganda and the collection of funds… actually made great progress.” It may therefore be interesting to trace its activities in four capitals, Berlin, Petrograd, London and New York, during this period. At the outbreak of the war, Zionism had its headquarters in Berlin. 2 There also were the headquarters of the moderate party, represented by the society, Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden. This society had built in the Holy Land a number of schools, seminaries, and other institutions, superior to those of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and the Zionists. On this account, Germany had promised the society control over Palestine, as soon as she had completed the Berlin-Bagdad railway. But as such an eventuality would not have suited Zionist plans, they looked to a different solution.3 “The inner actions committee,” we learn,1 “which met regularly in Berlin and transacted all international business between congresses, was composed of members dispersed in various countries. Dr. Schmaryar Levin had come to America to attend the Zionist Convention in June (1914). His presence in America during the war was valuable both for American Zionism and the international cause. Warburg and Hantke, two Gentfan members, were in Berlin where they remained practically throughout the war; Jacobson, another German member, was then in Constantinople.” The strength of this Zionist international chain of communication did not escape the notice of the German government, which sought its support in addition to that of the Hilfsverein. In June 1915, an appeal was sent out from Berlin to all Zionists “asking for sympathy with Germany”.* The Zionists, however, were too shrewd to commit themselves while the issue of the war was still doubtful; at the same time, they wished to keep Germany’s confidence, which they subsequently exploited in connection with Russia. They therefore refused the request with the ironical explanation that “the Zionist movement could not be involved in world politics”. The following year, they secretly transferred their support from the central powers to the allies, and their headquarters from Berlin to London.6 From then on, their influence was felt more and more in political circles in Europe and America. In particular the Zionist Transfer Department, as it was called, was in a position to transmit funds and information to subversive elements in enemy countries. In this connection, Jacobson, seeing that “Constantinople could no longer be the centre of Zionist politics, left for Copenhagen, where, in a neutral country, he could be of practical use to the Zionists by transmitting information and funds. There he established a Zionist bureau. Chlenov, one of the Russian members, went back and forth between Russia and Denmark, and eventually went to England. Another Russian member, Nahum Sokolov, moved about freely in the allied countries “.7 Rudolf Steiner, occult adviser to the Kaiser, passed freely between Germany and England during the whole period of hostilities, in spite of police regulations. ” By its dependable financial methods, it established what was practically a Zionist credit throughout the world. This had no small share in bringing about that attitude on the part of the allied governments which later resulted in their recognition of the Zionist organization as the official representative of the Jewish people.”8 The chief task which engaged the Zionists at this time (1916) was the revolutionary movement in Russia. The body of professional revolutionaries which had prepared and directed the outbreak of 1905, had continued its subversive work through congresses held in the different capitals of Europe with undiminished zeal.9 Lenin had become the acknowledged leader of the bolsheviks: with him on the central committee (elected in 1912) and later prominent among those who took over the control of Russia were: Zinoviev (Jew), Ordzhonikidze (Georgian), Schwarzmann (Jew), Spandarian (Armenian), and later Stalin (Georgian), and Belostolskii (Jew).io Outside of it, Trotski (Jew) was active both in New York and London. Since 1914, these and other professional agitators had been carrying on, principally in Switzerland, a campaign against the war, which they hoped to turn into a class struggle.11 Under wartime conditions, however, a well organized revolutionary movement was difficult to effect. In 1905 the party in Russia had counted three million adherents, in 1906 one million, in 1907 three-quarters of a million, in 1908 only 174,000, and in 1910 just 46,000. In April 1917, a congress of the party claimed to represent 76,000 organized workers. It would be idle to fancy that this minute body was in any sense representative of the ‘proletariat’, or that it could become a welcome ruler, seven months later, over millions of people.12 But the Zionist task was facilitated by a clever exploitation of the German general staff in the beginning of 1917. The latter, in order to render Russia impotent and thus free troops for use on the western front, staked more on the use of subversives and thus played the Zionist game. ” Some man in Germany “, writes General von Hoffmann, then chief of the German staff on the Russian front, 13 ” who had connections with the Russian revolutionaries exiled in Switzerland, came upon the idea of employing some of them in order to hasten the undermining and poisoning of the morale of the Russian army. He applied to the deputy Erzberger and the deputy of the foreign office. And thus it came about that Lenin was conveyed through Germany to Petersburg in the manner that afterward transpired “. On May 10, 1917, shortly after his arrival in Russia from the sealed German railway car, Lenin spoke at the Petrograd conference of his party against the provisional government.14 He wanted to destroy at the roots every reminder of Russia’s Slavic past. He feared that a ” bourgeois government would make the Soviets unnecessary “,15 How, in the course of the ten months following, the bolsheviks replaced the provisional government, and, by preventing the constituent assembly from meeting, remained the absolute masters of Russia; how, faithful to their Zionist patrons, they manifested the strength of Zionism by subjecting the Tsar’s empire to a ” reign of terror, violence, and crime “,16 is common knowledge and cannot be treated here. Suffice it to say that they justified the judgment of the Austrian foreign minister, Count Czernin, who wrote (Nov. 17, 1917):” ” This Russian bolshevism is a peril to Europe, and if we had the power, beside securing a tolerable peace for ourselves, to force other countries into a state of law and order, then it would be better to have nothing to do with such people as these, but to march on Petersburg and arrange matters there. Their leaders are almost all of them Jews, with altogether fantastic ideas, and I do not envy the country that is governed by them. The way they begin is this: everything in the least reminiscent of work, wealth, and culture, must be destroyed, and the bourgeoisie exterminated. Freedom and equality seem no longer to have any place on their programme: only a bestial suppression of all but the proletariat itself.”1″ Zionism gained immeasurably by this success in both money and influence. Crown jewels and possessions, millions of paper rubles put into circulation, art treasures in museums, churches, and private houses, all have been turned to its account. Besides, the dramatic triumph of the ruthless methods advocated by Ginzberg did much to overawe the opposition to Zionism among the Jews. As a leading Zionist said:19 ” The downfall of the tsardom of Russia was undoubtedly one of the greatest events in the world’s history. Russia entered into a period of revolution which seemed to bring with it all the blessings of right and liberty. The restrictions affecting nationalities and creeds were removed. But far from destroying Zionism, the new liberty gave it an immense stimulus.” (The blessings mentioned, it appears, are reserved exclusively for Zionists.) While these events were taking place in Petrograd, Zionists in London were not idle. ” London from the beginning was the financial centre of the Zionist organization “;20 for, while the rival banking firm of Bleichroeder Mendelssohn in Berlin continued their support of the moderates, Rothschild had been won to the new movement. Nahum Sokolov had, during his frequent visits as member of the inner actions committee, been impressed with the opportunities offered for establishing a centre there:21 since 1914, he and Chaim Weizmann had been actively working to bring its political problems to the fore in England. To this end, Weizmann had entered into intimate ” relations with the house of Rothschild and done much to make this family more closely acquainted with Zionism.”22 Among the non-Jews, an invaluable friend was found in Sir Mark Sykes. How he was won to the cause is not clear:23 before the war he disliked it as ” bad cosmopolitanism and finance,” but, in the middle of the war, came to the decision which he announced in Hull, that ” It would mean that every Jew throughout the world would be made more valuable to the state which he had chosen for himself.”24 However that may be, from the beginning of 1917, Sykes devoted himself heart and soul to the movement, and his house at No. 9 Buckingham Gate, ” equipped with all such materials as correspondence files and telegraphic communications, became a Zionist centre.”25 Collaborating with Sykes was another gentile, Georges Picot. The first official meeting of what was known as the ” Political Committee ” took place on February 7, 1917, at the house of Dr. Moses Gaster. There were present (besides Gaster) Lord Rothschild, James de Rothschild, Sir Mark Sykes, Sir Herbert Samuel, Herbert Bentwich, Harry Sacker, Joseph Cowen, Chaim Weizmann, and Nahum Sokolov.26 The Zionist programme to serve as a basis for official negotiations, covering the future mandates of Palestine, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and a kingdom of the Hedjaz, was discussed in detail.27 On the following day (Feb. 8) there was a second, smaller conference, with Georges Picot, at Sykes’ house: the result was a plan known as the Sykes-Picot agreement, which was then put into execution. Sokolov left for Paris to negotiate with the French government. On March 22, 1917, he was received at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he ” outlined the principles of the Zionist programme. He received the assurance that the French government regarded the programme very favorably and was authorized to inform the Zionist organizations of Russia and America of this result by telegraph.”28 Sykes left for Rome, and thence for Port Said and Cairo; then to Jeddah to negotiate with King Hussein, returning on June 14 to London, where he was occupied until November 1917, arranging the preliminaries for the Balfour declaration.29 One must not suppose that this was all done on the sole initiative of the London group; on the contrary,” every idea born in London was tested by the Zionist organization in America, and every suggestion from America received the most careful attention in London.”çî The details of the diplomatic conversations in London which led to the declaration have not yet been made public; but, of the British cabinet besides Sir Herbert Samuel, Lloyd George, if not already a Zionist, was easily won to the cause;31 while Sir Arthur Balfour and other members who had the good of the nation at heart, were yet inclined to view it favourably from the following considerations: a) The financial support of the Rothschilds, at a time when the country had to float loan after loan, would be lost, if the Zionist request were refused. b) If granted, it would ensure Jewish co-operation throughout the empire and in other countries, both during the war and in the future. c) The Palestine mandate, coupled with that of Mesopo tamia, was the gateway to India: by calling it ” a national home for the Jews”, England would lull French and Italian jealousy. As against these, the mandate constituted a breach of England’s promise made to the Arabs in 1915 in return for their support in fighting Turkey. To offset this objection, the Zionists generously proposed to give the Arabs what they already owned, but with the new title of ” Kingdom of the Hedjaz “. Moreover the cabinet could count on a number of Zionist votes in the House, notably Sir Alfred Mond (the late Lord Melchett)32 and Sir Philip Sassoon among the Conservatives, and more among Lloyd George’s following. The shrewder members of the cabinet realized that they would eventually have to reckon with the British taxpayer, and the commercial advantages33 of Palestine lost nothing in Zionist exposition. But the great plea was that the English and the Jews, the two great trading races of the world, should unite forces and take over the trade routes between Europe and Asia.34 Although the Zionists had made all preliminary arrangements with the allied governments and the cabinet as a whole was desirous of complying with every point, yet some over-scrupulous member,35 with (the Zionists thought) undue regard for the actual inhabitants of Palestine, altered the text Weizmann’s committee had prepared.36 Instead of the words, ” The reconstitution of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish people “, at the last minute were substituted the words, ” The establishment of a national home in Palestine “. ” It can scarcely be necessary to explain at length,” wrote Asher Ginzberg indignantly three years later,37 ” the difference between the two versions. Had the British government accepted the version suggested to it, its promise might have been interpreted as meaning that Palestine, inhabited as it now is, was restored to the Jewish people on the ground of its historic right; that the Jewish people was to rebuild its waste places and was destined to rule over it and manage all its affairs in its own way, without regard to the consent or non-consent of its present inhabitants. For this rebuilding (it might have been understood) is only a renewal of the ancient right of the Jews, which overrides the right of the present inhabitants who have wrongly established their national home on a land not their own.” It does not seem, however, that Ginzberg advocated the Jews withdrawing from the rich lands of Europe and America, on the ground that they have there ” wrongly established their national home on a land not their own.” The Balfour declaration was issued on November 2, 1917, and transmitted to Lord Rothschild on behalf of the Zionist federation.38 Its endorsement by the other allies was a small matter between Nahum Sokolov and the two representatives, Pichon for France, Imperial! for Italy. From the debates in the French senate, April 5, 6, 1921, following the interpellation of Senator Dominique Delahaye, it subsequently appeared that neither the Chamber of Deputies nor the Senate had ever had the question of ratification put to them. To those active in Zionist circles, the declaration was no surprise: among the leaders it had been expected for many months. It was, however, made the occasion for public rejoicing in the Jewish and Jew-controlled gentile press,39 and mass meetings were held in London and addressed by Sir Mark Sykes,40 Sir Herbert Samuel,41 and others prominent in politics. But the Jewish moderates, headed by Claude G. Montefiore and David L. Alexander, raised a dissentient voice: they feared, as at the Basle congress,42 that the new nationalism would injure their social rights as Englishmen. Even more they disliked being eclipsed by Ginzberg’s satellites from the ghetto. They made, therefore, common cause with the anti-Zionists in America; and when anti-Zionism died out there, it disappeared in England. Meantime, in New York, changes were taking place of much importance to Jewry. When the Kehillah was organized in 1909,43 the control rested with a group of German Jews, including Jacob Schiff, president of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, a branch of the Bleichroeder Mendelssohn bank,44 Isidor Strauss, Julius Sachs, David Philipson, who, through their affiliations in Germany, were anti-Zionists and favoured the international Jewish policy. They maintained a ministry for foreign affairs, at first composed of appointees of the union of American-Hebrew congregations. The latter, through its delegates, established an ambassadorship at Washington to act for the Jewish people on immigration and other political matters. Subsequently the union was given the support of the B’nai B’rith,45 whose leading member had been appointed ambassador. ” For thirty years “, wrote an American Zionist,46 ” our ambassador at Washington was the Hon. Simon Wolf. He informed the United States government what the Jews of this country wanted and what they were opposed to. In Simon Wolf’s opinion, the Jews were not a nationality but a religious sect; they insisted upon being regarded solely as Americans. Mr. Wolf spoke in the name of assimilation on behalf of the Jews in America.” Later another more powerful group of Jews organized under the name of the American Jewish committee and took over the ministry of foreign affairs.47 During the Wilson administration certain Jews appointed to the highest posts exerted so much influence on the chief executive and members of congress as almost to control the national policy: in particular the Zionist Louis Brandeis of the supreme court, Bernard Baruch, chairman of the war industries board,48 Felix and Paul Warburg of the federal reserve, Julius Klein of the department of commerce, and Eugene F. Meyer.49 Under Zionist influence, the Yiddish newspapers, edited by radicals, started a campaign against the American Jewish committee on the grounds that it was autocratic, and demanded an American Jewish congress, elected by and responsible to the people. ” As Zionism moved forward,” continues the article quoted above, ” the opposition had to recede. When the congress is not in session, the affairs of the Jewish nation are regulated [1917] by the inner actions committee50 and the greater actions committee, two executive bodies the members of which are elected by the Zionist congress.” Thus Zionism, by clever propaganda, gained the masses. But it did not neglect to win over certain leaders of American Jewry, by what means may be guessed. Jacob Schiff had long been interested in the revolutionary movement in Russia and had transferred large sums to support it through his bank, as far back as 1905. The success therefore of the revolution in 1917, engineered by the Zionists, could not fail to change his views. ” I believe, ” he wrote Rabbi Philipson in 1918,51 ” I have heretofore explained to you the reasons which, soon after the outbreak of the Russian revolution, have induced me to change my former attitude towards the Zionist movement, and I have since become more and more convinced that it was in the best interests of our people that I did this.” Schiff had evidently shared the ” blessings “52 of the Russian revolution and quite properly gave credit where it was due. The letter continues. ” There can be no doubt that the success of these [Zionist] endeavours will have the most healthy and refreshing effect upon entire Israel, wherever in the world its members may be located, and the proposition you bring forward, to oppose these efforts, is, in my opinion, nothing less than preposterous.” When the opposition to Zionism came to a head in America, it found all the leading Jews on whose support it had counted either only nominally anti-Zionist, or frankly favourable. Rabbi David Philipson and Max Senior, who with others were attempting to call a conference to combat it in the autumn of 1918, met with little encouragement in New York. Oscar S. Strauss wrote:53 ” I regard the holding of a conference to counteract the activities of Zionists as distinctly unwise and harmful. I do hope that your committee will recall its proposed action. I make this suggestion, yea request, not as a Zionist, as I am not affiliated with that organization, but as an American and as a lover of our people.” An exchange of letters between Max Senior and Louis Marshall54 is more instructive. ” The reasons,” wrote the latter, ” which I then urged [in declining Rabbi Philip-son’s invitation] have been emphasized by the rapid march of events. The allied armies have now swept the Turks and the Germans out of Palestine. It is significant that Jewish units constitute a part of the victorious army. ” ” President Wilson expressed his personal views in support of the principles laid down in the Balfour declaration. France, Italy, and Greece have formally adopted it: there is therefore an unanimity of sentiment on the part of the allied powers. ” ” The American Jewish committee, although its members are in the main non-Zionists, recognised the political importance of the declaration as a factor in the effort to defeat the central powers. Major Lionel de Rothschild, president of the league for British Jews, informs me that that organization is in agreement with the American Jewish committee.”55 But, if Marshall pretended that the Jews should accept Zionism in order to comply with the ” unanimous sentiment of the allied powers ” who had determined to build a home for the Jews in Palestine, he was not blind to the real reason for Zionism. His letter continues: ” The Balfour declaration with its acceptance by the powers, is an act of the highest diplomacy. It means both more and less than appears on the surface. Zionism is but an incident of a far-reaching plan: it is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon.”56 The letter ends with a threat to non-Zionists: ” All the protests they may make would be futile. It would subject them individually to hateful and concrete examples of a most impressive nature. Even if I were disposed to combat Zionism, I would shrink from the possibilities which might result “. Senior’s reply is direct and fearless:57 ” I repudiate any connection on national, religious, racial, or cultural grounds, with a ‘ national home-land for the Jews in Palestine’. We have seen how demoralizing a divided allegiance was to the Germans in this country. I do not pretend to know the inside political history and intricacies of policy of which you hint… I am not to be intimidated into silence by either of the threats you mention… I regard the real danger to the Jew to lie in silent acquiescence to the Zionist claims. You recognize that the non-Zionists did not precipitate the rupture. The break was bound to come, but the recent Tammany-like circular to congressmen was certainly the breaking point… I refuse to accept the Zionist coup d’etat as an accomplished and sacred fact… Finally, you and I and the Zionists know that Palestine offers no solution for the Jewish question in Russia, Galicia, and Rumania. Six million Jews in these lands cannot be removed to Palestine. I certainly have no objection to Jews moving to Palestine, or Persia, or Patagonia, if they can secure freedom in those lands. But emigration is only a palliative. The Jewish question must ultimately be worked out in Russia, Galicia, and Rumania.” Senior’s fear that the ” real danger to the Jews (in America) lay in silent acquiescence to Zionist claims” has proved justified. The tasks since set by the Zionists for American Jewry have been heavier by far than those set by the Egyptians.58 But the Zionists cleverly lulled any lurking suspicions in the minds of all but a very few (including Senior) by a fanatical appeal to nationalism and a romantic picture of the ” land overflowing with milk and honey “. Anti-Zionism disappeared. Then came the peace conference; the formation of the League of Nations at Geneva;59 and the British mandate for the holy land, over which the Jews exercised complete control in practice, leaving to the English taxpayer the expense of civil administration.60 Thus Zionism gained its ends: in Berlin and Petrograd by subversive activities, in London and New York mainly by diplomacy. Without the influence of Zionism in America during the Wilson administration, and American money, the Balfour declaration, obtained by the efforts of Weizmann and Sokolov, would have remained a dead letter. — 1. Sokolov, History of Zionism, p. 21. 2. Jesse Sampler, Guide to Zionsm, p. 63. 3. Oscar S. Straus, in a letter to Rabbi Philipson, dated New York, Sept. 2,1918, alluding to this deal and writing in favour of Zionism asks, “Doyouwish Palestine to be under the tyranny of Germans, or of their brutalized tools, the Turks? “. 4. Sampter, op, cit., p. 63. 5. Ibid., p. 239. 6. Ibid., p. 63. 7. Ibid., p. 63. 8. Ibid., p. 63. 9. Supra, eh. IV. 10. Batsell, op. cit., p. 655. 11. In 1915 a conference of socialists opposed to war was held at Zimmerwald. Exponents of the programme of international revolution and class warfare were present in force. Ibid., p. 757. It was this year that Rosika Schwimmer (Jewess) induced Henry Ford to sail to Europe in the famous peace ship. 12. Ibid., p. 695. The population of Russia in 1917 was one hundred and thirty million. 13. The War of Lost Opportunities (New York, 1925), pp. 180-181. 14. Batsell, op. cit., p. 27. 15. 8 Speeches of Lenin (New York, 1928), pp. 19-26. 16. Protocol VII last par. 17. In the World War (London, 1919), pp. 216-217. 18. Cf. supra, ch. IV. Nordau’s criticism: ” He understands freedom as practised in the ghetto.” 19. Sokolov, History of Zionism, p. 38. 20. Ibid., p. 43. 21. Ibid., p. 44. 22. Ibid., p. 8. 23. His biographer, Shane Leslie, says ” it was his Catholicism that assisted Mark to understand the Jewish tragedy.” Mark Sykes (London, 1923), p. 269. 24. Loc. cit. 25. Sokolov II, History of Zionism, p. 29. 26. Ibid., p. 52. 27. This programme had been drafted by Gaster, Weizmann, Bentwich, Cowen and Sokolov at the end of 1916: he. cit. 28. Ibid., p. 52. 29. Shane Leslie, p. 270. 30. Sokolov, p. 82. 31. Lloyd George’s connection with the Jew Sir Basil Zaharoff (real name Zaccharia), large shareholder in Vickers, Maxim Ltd., munition works, should be kept in mind. For a statement on Zaharoff at this time see Boucard, Les dessous de I’espionnage anglais (Paris, 1929), pp. 228-234. 32. Vice-president (subsequently president) of one of the largest chemical firms, Brunner Mond & Co, in which Chaim Weizmann was also associated. Sassoon, another Jew, was closely connected with Mond in British politics. 33. The mineral deposits of the Jordan valley, for which Alfred Mond (the late Lord Melchett) obtained the monopoly in 1929. 34. ” The geographical position of Palestine, as the connecting link between three continents, if held by the English and the Jews, both shopkeepers, offers the opportunity of making the land of Israel the great emporium of “East and West”: Bernard Rosenblatt, Social Zionism, pp. 145, 146. 35. Presumably Sir Arthur J. Balfour himself. 36. The text was drafted under Ginzberg’s directions by the Jewish political committee composed of: Sokolov (chairman), Weizmann, Leopold Kessler, Cowen, Bentwich, Albert M. Hyamson, Simon Marks (secretary), Sacher, Israel Sieff, Leon Simon, Ettinger and Folkpvskii. 37. Ahad-ha-am, Essays on Judaism and Zionism, tr. by Leon Simon, p. 15. 38. Supra, ch. I. 39. ” But we all know how the declaration was interpreted at the time of its publication, and how much exaggeration many of our workers and writers have tried to introduce into it.” Ahad-ha-am, loc. cit. 40. Shane Leslie, p. 270. 41. In his speech at the demonstration of Dec. 2,1917, at the London opera-house, Samuel said that he ” had stood for Zionism not only in the cabinet, but outside it”. Sokolov, p. 47. 42. Supra, ch. III. ” 43. Supra, ch. II. 44. Affiliated with the big ” D ” banks in Germany: Deutsche Bank, Disconto Gesellschaft, Dresdener Bank, Darmstadter Bank. 45. Supra, ch. III. 46. Louis Lipsky: The Maccabean (New York, June, July, 1917), p. 276. 47. Loc. cit., Presumably at the beginning of the Wilson administra tion. 48. Baruch stated publicly that during the war in his official capacity he ” probably exercised more power than any other man in the country “. 49. Present head of the Federal Reserve Board. 50. Supra, ch. V. 51. Letter of the late Jacob H. Schiff to Rabbi David Philipson, dated: Bar Harbor, Sept. 5,1918. 52. Supra, ch. V. 53. Letter of Oscar S. Strauss to Rabbi David Philipson, Beechwood, Avenue Avondale, Cincinnati, Ohio, dated New York, Sept. 2, 1918. 54. Born in Syracuse, N. Y., 1856; graduated from Columbia law school; became partner in law firm of Guggenheimer, Untermeyer & Marshall; appointed, in 1908, chairman of N. Y. state immigration commission; acted as counsel for Gov. Sulzer in his impeachment. For twenty years, chairman of the commission on amendment, N. Y. Bar Association. Brought influence to bear on President Taft and Senate to abrogate treaty with Russia, on account of treatment of Jews in Russia. President of Jewish delegation at the peace conference. Served on the board of arbitration (or beth-din) which settled the cloth ing strike of 1919, in New York. Took a prominent part in Zionist movement; headed many Jewish charities, including the American Jewish relief commission which raised seventy-five million dollars ” for Jewish war sufferers “. Trustee of Syracuse university; president of N. Y. state college of forestry. Died in Zurich, Sept. 11, 1929. (Extract from press obituary notices on day following his death). 55. Letter of Louis Marshall to Max Senior, dated New York, Sept. 26, 1918. 56. Italics are ours. 57. Letter of Max Senior to Louis Marshall, dated Washington, Sept. 30, 1918. 58. The taxes and “-contributions ” for ” rebuilding Palestine ” have amounted to $100,000,000. Infra, ch. VI. 59. ” The League of Nations is an old Jewish idea.” Sampler, Guide to Zionism, p. 21. Leon Simon, in a draft for the Palestine mandate written in March 1918, said: ” It is fitting that one of the powers should act for the League as sovereign of Palestine during the period that must elapse before the Jewish nation can grow to full maturity.” 60. The construction of roads and the maintainance of an adequate police have been the two largest items. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
1.6 Ten Years Of Zionism Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward Sionism is a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon,” wrote Louis Marshall,1 meaning that the project of a national home in Palestine would serve as an excuse for building up a powerful, international organization to supplant eventually the present national governments. From whatever angle one considers it, the project is an experiment on a vast scale. Decades have passed since the experiment was begun, and it is time to ask: a) Is the experiment a success or a failure ? b) Have the promoters of the experiment proved that they have throughout always acted in good faith, or not? To answer these questions properly would require a careful study of onditions, not only in Palestine, but in the world at large: such a study is beyond the present scope. It is, however, possible to examine certain points which bear directly on the above, namely: Did the promoters of the national home for the Jews use undue political influence on the European powers, England in particular, in obtaining control of Palestine? Did the promoters (the Zionist organization) benefit by the realization of the project? Was their administration of funds scrupulous and competent ? Have the inhabitants of Palestine benefited by the mandate; has Great Britain benefited by it; and have the Jews as a whole benefited by it ? In connection with the first point, the origin of the Sykes-Picot agreement and of the Balfour declaration has already been traced.2 Both of these were in direct violation of the agreement made by the British government in 1915 through Sir Henry MacMahon with the Sherif of Mecca, Hussein. Then the Sherif had agreed to aid the British cause against the Turks, in return for a promise that Great Britain would recognize and support the independence of the Arabs, south of the prospective Turkish boundary. The British government has withheld from publication part of the official correspondence containing this agreement, in spite of requests made in the House of Lords and the House of Commons.3 It is affirmed by a writer to whom Hussein showed Sir Henry’s letters that, when the Arab leader flatly refused to accept territorial reservations proposed by the British authorities, the latter finally conceded the point and in January 1917 definitely undertook to support Arab claims in the whole territory south of the Turkish boundary, except in the protectorate of Aden and in the region of Basra in southern Iraq. In March 1916, Sir Henry wrote again to the Sherif confirming the agreement.4 But, as Chaim Weizmann once said,5 in this connection: ” Negotiating with a government is easy: one must demand things from a government; a government does not do things by itself; you must know what to demand, how to demand, and when to demand. If you know that, you know all the secret: that is essential for Zionists to understand.” The Balfour declaration was endorsed in February, 1918, by the French government; in May, by the Italian government through its ambassador in London; in August, 1918, by a published letter from President Wilson; and, later, by a joint resolution of the United States Congress in its 1922 session.6 To allay Arab fears, just before the armistice (Nov. 7, 1918), the British and French governments issued a joint declaration which was posted throughout Syria and Palestine and ran :7 ” The end aimed at by France and England in the East is the complete and final enfranchisement of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks, and the establishment of national governments and administrations, drawing their authority from the initiative and free choice of the native populations. “To fulfil these purposes, France and Great Britain have agreed to encourage and help the establishment of native governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia, which have been freed by the allies, and in the territories whose liberation they are now pursuing, and to recognize these as soon as they are effectively established. Far from wishing to impose upon the populations of these regions any particular institutions, the allies have no other desire than to assure, by their support and by an effective assistance, the normal functioning of the governments and administrations which the populations have freely given themselves. To assure an impartial and equal justice for all, to facilitate the economic development of the country by helping and encouraging local initiative, to favour the spread of education, to bring to an end Turkish political divisions, too long exploited, such is the role which the two allied governments assume in the liberated territories.” Early in 1919 there also gained currency in Palestine the twelfth of Wilson’s fourteen points, to the effect that nationalities under Turkish rule ” should be assured an undoubted security of life and an unmolested opportunity of autonomous development”.8 In May of the same year a purely American commission went to the Near East to ascertain the wishes of the communities as to a mandatory; the commission reported that Great Britain received second choice in 57.49 per cent, of the petitions; that there was a general agreement in favour of retaining the unity of Syria and Palestine, as well as a strong sentiment against France as a mandatory for Syria; less than one per cent, of the petitions supported the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, while 72.3 per cent, expressed opposition to it.9 Yet, without reference to these findings, the allied supreme council, at its meeting in San Remo on April 24, 1920, awarded the mandate for Syria and the Lebanon to France, and the mandates for Palestine and Iraq to Great Britain. This in itself was an act of bad faith on the part of the council; but the terms of the Palestine mandate were still less in keeping ” with the wishes of the native populations “. The mandate provided for carrying out the Jewish national home policy on the one hand, and for guaranteeing the rights of the existing population on the other. Throughout the confusion of the two aims, and the duplicity of both the British government and the Zionists behind it, are striking. In article 2 the mandatory made itself responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative, and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home; for the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. In article 4 the Palestine administration was to receive special advice from a so-called Jewish agency; under article 6 the British government undertook to facilitate Jewish immigration and encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands: other sections provided that local autonomy should be encouraged, that there should be free access to the holy places, etc. At the time when the mandate was awarded,10 Palestine bad a population of 757,182, of whom 590,890 were Moslems, 73,024 Christians, and 83,794 Jews; the remaining 9,474 were principally Druzes.11 The Jewish fraction, eleven per cent, of the population, was roughly divided into four groups: Descendants of Jews who had never left Palestine (negligible in number); Descendants of Jews who had returned to Palestine in the middle ages (few in number); Those who had come in during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, under non-Zionist auspices; Those who had come in under Zionist auspices. The mandate, however, recognized the Zionist organization as the Jewish agency with special public functions in Palestine, because Zionists were thoroughly organized both there and abroad and were the promoters of the whole experiment; and the Zionist, Sir Herbert Samuel, was appointed first British High Commissioner, taking office on July 1, 1920, superseding the military administration.12 The next point, whether the Zionist organization has gained by the venture, is easily elucidated by noting the enormous expansion of that body in the last decade and the millions of dollars that have passed through its hands. The world Zionist organization today includes forty-seven territorial Zionist federations, a few smaller Zionist societies, and certain special unions.13 all represented at the world Zionist congresses. There are seven members of the Zionist executive committee in Palestine (four general Zionists, two labourites and one Mizrachi Zionist). Their duty is to watch over the work of the Zionist organization in Palestine, and to keep in touch with their colleagues abroad. Of the latter, there are three in England, one in Germany, and one in the United States.14 To make its activities more effective, the world Zionist organization has delegated a considerable part of its practical work to certain corporations and companies, of which the more important are:15 The Jewish Colonial Trust, Ltd., with a balance sheet for the year 1928 of more than ?10,000,000. The Anglo-Palestine Co. Ltd., subsidiary of the above, also showing a balance sheet of more than ?10,000,000. The Jewish National Fund, which by 1929 had acquired about 71,500 acres of rural, and 450 acres of urban land. The annual receipts between 1924 and 1928 averaged $1,384,000, making over $5,500,000 for the four years. The Palestine Land Development Co, Ltd., which acquired about 38,400 acres, of which it sold to Jewish settlers about 14,300 acres. Its trial balance sheet in Dec. 1928 showed a balance of over $2,100,000. The Palestine Foundation Fund, Ltd. (Keren Hayesod), which received for Zionist projects during the eight years 1921-1929 a total of approximately $18,000,000. It maintains a complete educational system, including the Hebrew university at Jerusalem, a technical institute at Haifa, four technical and one music school, four normal schools, six secondary schools, and ninety-seven elementary schools. Under Zionist auspices there has been organized also: The Women’s International Zionist Organization; The Sick Benefit Fund17 with a membership of 15,000. Of the fifteen million Jews in the world today, 1,200,000 are enrolled as members of the Zionist organization. To secure the co-operation of all Jews and thus broaden its base of support, the organization entered into long negotiations with non-Zionists in America.18 In these, Samuel Untermeyer, Zionist, law partner of Louis Marshall (ostensibly anti-Zionist) in New York, took a leading part. The Zionist body altered its name to ” World Zionist Organization “; then in 1923, as money was not coming in fast enough, Chaim Weizmann at the Carlsbad congress suggested that the latter should be transformed into the ” Jewish Agency under the Mandate “, and should admit all non-Zionist Jews. Alfred Mond, the late Lord Melchett President of the English Zionist federation, was requested to go to America to promote the new Jewish agency and welcome Louis Marshall and his non-Zionist following into it. While in America, Mond said:19 ” The Jewish Agency under the mandate is the broadest possible basis for all those who wish to help. It will be an immense aid to Palestine and a great strength to the Zionist organization, and I am glad to think the negotiations which had been carried on in London, favoring a committee to include the Zionist executive and representatives of the most important Jewish bodies have been brought to a successful result. I told Chaim Weizmann that it will be one of the greatect honours that can be conferred on me to serve on a board of that kind.”20 After long negotiations, a basis of agreement was finally reached in August 1929. Zionists and non-Zionists are now merged in a new body known as the Jewish Agency: its council includes an equal number of Zionists and non-Zionists : the executive committee of the council, consisting of twenty Zionists and twenty non-Zionists, is henceforth to occupy the privileged position described under article 4 of the mandate. Such, in brief, are the visible organs established by Zionists for realizing their aim. What the sums collected by these and other organs would total is not easy to estimate. The Zionist organization is said to have spent seven million pounds ($34,000,000),2i and Baron Edmond de Rothschild an additional $50,000,000 in Palestine. 22 The first sum, however, represents but a fraction of the sums collected. The Keren hayesod alone brought in $18,000,000; and, in the single month of September 1929, the Jews of the United States raised more than ?1,500,000.23 A conservative estimate of the funds that have passed through Zionist hands since the Balfour declaration would be $100,000,000, irrespective of the large sums spent annually by the British government. Had such a large capital been placed in competent hands, there would be no need for further appeals or loans. Yet in May 1931, Alfred Mond made personal efforts to float a projected Zionist International loan and endeavoured to get the Italian government to join with the governments of Great Britain, France and Germany in guaranteeing it.24 But the Zionist administration of funds has been not only incompetent but irregular. A single instance may suffice. It concerns the opposition made by American Zionists to the administration of Louis Lipsky, President of the American Zionist organization, and the resignation from that body of Rabbi Stephen Wise, Samuel Rosensohn and Lawrence Berenson. At the Atlantic City (U. S. A.) Zionist convention the previous year, the disclosure had been made of the mismanagement of funds, and Berenson and Rosensohn were appointed to enquire into the affairs of the organization and restore the confidence of the Zionists in the country. Berenson said later:25 ” One of the first things we did was to create a thing heretofore unknown to the organization: namely a balanced budget—whereby the organization could never spend or invent a necessity for sums in excess of the budget. We found a deficit of $175,000, exclusive of guarantees, which had been created under the leadership of Mr. Louis Lipsky in the year or two prior to the Atlantic City convention. In the creation of a balanced budget, it became necessary to eliminate a lot of expenditures such as subsidies and compensation to favoured individuals.26 ” A note on the Mercantile Bank (New York) was endorsed by the organization for the American Zion Commonwealth for $285,000. A petition of bankruptcy has been filed against the American Zion Commonwealth in Palestine. An attempt is now being made to save the Commonwealth and to raise $200,000. That is futile. The liabilities are $1,068,000. The assets consist of approximately $400,000 of accounts receivable, money owed by American purchasers of the lands in Palestine, and which will not be paid until the deeds are produced; but those deeds can not be produced. The remaining asset is land in Palestine, purchased in the land boom a few years ago. In part, the moneys received, instead of being applied to acquire the deeds, were used to purchase additional lands. The American Zion Commonwealth attempted to build an hotel, but the project had to be abandoned. The Commonwealth has other contingent liabilities, and the Arabs threaten to foreclose. ” One of the obligations of the Zionist Organization of America was the endorsement of this note on the Central Mercantile Bank of New York for $285,000. President Weinstein and Rosenblatt had a hand in that work, and were the two prime movers in the land speculation. When the speculation was rife and it looked as though the America Zion Commonwealth would make money, Mr. Lipsky, a man without any business experience, endorsed the American Zion Commonwealth as an American Zionist institution, ran editorials in the New Palestine and other Zionist publications, and was largely responsible for inducing the American purchasers to make deposits for the acquisition of lands through the American Zion Commonwealth. Thus the United Palestine Appeal felt compelled to advance in cash to the American Zion Commonwealth a sum of $320,000; and about $125,000 more of the United Palestine Appeal money had to be used to pull the American Zion Commonwealth out of its difficulties. ” The endorsement was placed upon that note by Mr. Lipsky without the knowledge, consent or approval of anybody in the Zionist organization. ” The United Palestine Appeal found it necessary to advance these sums of money, because the indignation of the land purchasers was injuring the United Palestine Appeal campaign, and even affecting the confidence in the Zionist organization.” There remains to consider whether the native population of Palestine has benefited by the mandate. It is recalled that 79 per cent, of the population at the time of the St. Remo award was Moslem and it is therefore fitting to weigh the complaints of the Palestine Arabs. These may be grouped as follows: Prior to the British occupation, Jews and Arabs lived together in tranquillity; since, there have been four serious breaks, of which three occurred in 1920 and 1921 and totalled 104 killed and 400 wounded; the last was still more serious. In view of the fact that each break has inspired a fruitful campaign of Zionist appeals, there would seem to be a deeper connection between the former and the latter. The purpose of article 22 of the League covenant was to promote ” the well-being and development of the people” of the mandated territories. Alien Jews, living outside Palestine, did not come within the scope of this aim. The Balfour declaration prevented Pales tine from creating those self-governing institutions described in article 2 of the mandate. Article 20 of the League covenant provided that all states members of the League must take immediate steps to procure their release from any undertakings inconsistent with the terms of the covenant: the Balfour declaration fell under this category. Because of the Balfour declaration, the British authorities set up in Palestine a Jewish agency whose function was to advance Jewish interests above all others; Jews should be represented in a Palestinian legislature only in proportion to their numbers. The Jewish national home policy cannot be accepted by the Arabs. If it constituted a reason for letting the Jews outside Palestine enter the country ” as of right and not on sufferance,” it was the more reason that the Arabs themselves should be confirmed in their national home as against all intruders, and immigration placed in their control. The Jews already in Palestine were there by right and should enjoy the same status as the Arabs. But to argue (as the British did) that the right of the present Jewish community in Palestine should be extended to all the Jews of the world, was to adopt a line of reasoning ” which no people, let alone the Arabs, would accept if applied to itself.”27 5. The Arab-speaking inhabitants, to whom Palestine is Falastin (Philistia) resent its being referred to in all official documents as Eretz-Israel (land of Israel). They do not see why a country which they are accustomed to think of as their own should suddenly become Eretz Israel without their consent, simply because it has pleased other nations to set up in it a Jewish national home. They point out that their own possession of the country since the seventh century gives them rights to-day which the Jews scattered abroad do not possess. The next question is, have the Jews as a whole benefited by the national home policy ? The native Jewish population of Palestine is in much the same position as the Arab population: it has suffered from a large influx of immigrants causing acute unemployment. Nor have the immigrants benefited greatly. Although their future depended largely on agricultural development, the majority of Jewish immigrants, as shown by official figures and estimates, settled in the towns: in 1922 there were found to be 68,000 Jews in urban areas and only 15,000 in rural areas; in 1925, 85,000 in urban against 23,000 in rural.28 In 1926 and 1927 unemployment grew so acute that the Zionist organization had to resort to doles in the chief centres of Jewish population.29 For the seven years 1922-1928 the total number of Jewish immigrants was 79,894, nearly as many as the Jews in the country at the time of the British occupation; the total number of Jewish emigrants (mostly disappointed immigrants) for that same period was 23,761. The huge sums raised on the pretext of a national home, and the new taxes devised and levied by the Zionist organization have been a heavy drain on Jewry as a whole, without any palpable compensation.30 What of Great Britain? She has long desired to control the Palestine-Transjordan-Iraq route; by the Balfour declaration she was led to the belief that a friendly Jewish population in Palestine would be the best possible guarantee of continued British control of this route which flanks the Suez canal and guards the approach to India. Apparently it is her intention to continue to seek some means of reconciling conflicting interests in Palestine. But her prestige has already suffered: Arab discontent in Palestine has spread to Iraq and India; the Jews have been the first to go back on her and make her responsible for all their difficulties. Moreover Palestine is a heavy drain on her treasury: to it she has had to advance several loans, of which the first in 1927 was for 4,475,000. The Palestine administration has a public debt, guaranteed by the British treasury; it also has a yearly deficit, which in 1928 amounted to approximately 800,000. In conclusion, it is seen that the Zionists, through undue political influence, engaged England in carrying out a Jewish national home policy. This policy, contrary to England’s prior engagements and against her own best interests, has resulted in a costly and futile experiment. It has created a new politico-racial problem in the near east, and has been disastrous to the native population of Palestine, and even to Jewry taken as a whole. But to its Zionist promoters, it has brought vast influence through the expansion of their own powerful, international organization, and millions and millions in revenue. World Zionist organization, or Jewish agency, or Alliance Israelite Universelle—whatever name it takes, it is at bottom always the Kahal with its eighteen centuries of accumulated experience. Its aims and principles, whether shrouded in the mysticism of the Talmud or bluntly stated in the Protocols, are the same to-day as under the Roman empire. But in recent years the technical improvements in its methods of operating3! and the debility of national governments32 have advanced its cause with singular rapidity. Just fifty years ago, a German wrote:33 ” Russia is the last defence against the Jews, and its surrender is only a matter of time. The elastic spirit of Jewish intrigue will crush Russia in a revolution, such as the world has never seen the like. When it has overthrown Russia, it will have nothing to fear from any quarter; when it has seized in Russia all the offices of state as it has done with us, then the Jews will openly undertake the destruction of western civilization, and this ” last hour ” of condemned Europe will strike within a hundred or a hundred and fifty years at the latest, since the march of events moves more rapidly in our era than in preceding centuries.” 1. Supra, ch. V. * 1922-1932 2. Supra, ch. V. 3. J. de V. Loder, The Truth about Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Syria, p. 19. See also, Colonial Office, Correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation andihe Zionist Organization, Cmd. 1700, pp. 20, 26; H. W. V. Temperley, VI, History of the Peace Conference of Paris, p. 126. 4. A. Rihani, Around the Coasts of Arabia, ch. IX. 5. At a meeting at the metropolitan opera house, Philadelphia: Jewish Chronicle (May 25, 1928), p. 18. 6. The Balfour declaration was never submitted to either the French or British Parliament. On June 21, 1922, the House of Lords passed a resolution expressing its dissatisfaction with the terms of the mandate. Current History (Sept. 1922), p. 1008. 7. K. de V. Loder, The Truth about Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Syria, p. 32. 8. H. W. V. Temperley, I, A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, p. 434. 9. Ibid., p. 145. If Palestine belongs to the Jews by historic right, then Spain by the same right should be handed over to the Moors. 10. The mandate was approved by the council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922. 11. Colonial Office, Report of the High Commissioner on the Adminis tration of Palestine (1920-1925), p. 48. 12. Allenby’s troops had a song in which the chorus ran : ” And they gave the holy city To the Zionist committee.” 13. Fraternities such as the Order of Ancient Maccabeans, the Mizrachi, the Poale Zion, and Hitachduth. 14. Foreign Policy Association, Information Service (New York, Oct. 16, 1929), vol. V, no. 16, p. 279. 15. Ibid., p. 280. 16. Zionist Executive Report (1929), pp. 278, 283. 17. Cf. supra, ch. II. 18. Supra, ch. V. 19. Speech at the Town Hall, New York, Sept. 26, 1923. 20. The part played by Alfred Mond, now Lord Melchett, is some what mystifying. Very closely connected with Chaim Weizmann in the chemical company of Brunner, Mond and Co., he was a Zionist and favoured the Balfpur declaration, then he favoured the Jewish Agency. In June 1928, at his country house in England, a secret conference of the Jewish Agency took place, with Weizmann, Felix Warburg, Louis Marshall and Otto Wasserman. Yet on October 26,1928, there appeared a singular interview given by Lord Melchett deprecating the Jewish Agency, with such exclamations as: ” Oh, what is it? What does it want to be? Who needs it? ” Jewish Chronicle (October 26,1928). In April 1929, he is once more praising and advocating the Agency: Jewish Daily Bulletin (April 24, 1929). 21. Report of the Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan (1928) p. 117. 22. Reports of the Experts submitted to the Joint Palestine Survey Commission (1928), p. 34. 23. Foreign Policy Assoc., op. cit., p. 273. 24. Jewish Chronicle (May 18, 1928), p. 28. 25. Address on April 29, 1928, in Washington, D. C. Jewish Daily Bulletin, May 3, 1928. 26. Our italics. 27. Colonial Office, Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delega tion and the Zionist Organization (1922), pp. 18, 19. 28. Foreign Policy Assoc., op. cit., p. 287. 29. Report on the administration of Palestine and Transjordan (1927), p. 29. 30. The financial activities of Zionism before and after its transformation into the ewish world agency have a wide scope. They range from shekel gathering from every member of the Jewish community, innumerable appeals for funds for Palestine, direct taxation ” a’aser ” of every Zionist Jew, equally innumerable appeals for various relief funds, for government loans, etc. The money thus gathered represents huge yearly revolving funds hich constantly replenish the coffers of Jewish international financiers. How little such funds really benefit the Jewish needy masses can be judged from the constant ppeals for relief and the yearly deficits in every department. The Keren hayesod, the Keren hayemeth, the United Palestine Appeal, the Ort, the Russian colonization Fund, the Agro Joint for Jewish Farm settlements in Russia, the Joint Distributing Committee are a few of the outstanding fund-collecting-Jewish organizations. 31. In organizing revolutions, founding pseudo-religious fraternities like the Freemasons, Theosophists, etc. 32. Partly due to the increased facility of communication and con sequent breakdown of national feeling, partly to the spread of dema gogic ideals, sentimentalism, etc. 33. Wilhelm Marr, who took an active part in the revolution of 1848, in Der Sieg des Judentums fiber das Christentum (1879). · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
2.1 How The Protocols Came To Russia Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward The word ” protocol “i was used to signify a fly-leaf pasted at the top of an official document, bearing either the opening formula or a summary of the contents for convenient reference. The original draft of a treaty was usually pasted on in this way, that the signatories might check the correctness of the engrossed copy before signing. The draft itself being based on the discussion at the conference, the word came to mean also the minutes of the proceedings. In this instance ” the protocols ” mean the ” draft of the plan of action ” of the Jewish leaders. There have been many such drafts at different periods in Jewish history since the dispersion, but few of them have come into general circulation. In all, the principles and morality are as old as the tribe. By way of illustration we give an instance which occurred in the fifteenth century. In 1492, Chemor, chief Rabbi of Spain, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin, which had its seat in Constantinople, for advice, when a Spanish law threatened expulsion.2 This was the reply: ” Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves. The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following: As for what you say that the King of Spain 3 obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives. As for what you say of their destroying your syna gogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix in affairs of State, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power. (Signed) PRINCE OF THE JEWS OF CONSTANTINOPLE.” The protocols given to the world by Nilus are only the latest known edition of the Jewish leaders programme. The story of how the latter came into general circulation is an interesting one. In 1884 the daughter of a Russian general, Mile. Justine Glinka, was endeavouring to serve her country in Paris by obtaining political information, which she communicated to General Orgevskii4 in St. Petersburg. For this purpose she employed a Jew, Joseph Schorst,5 member of the Miz-raim Lodge in Paris. One day Schorst offered to obtain for her a document of great importance to Russia, on payment of 2,500 francs. This sum being received from St. Petersburg was paid over and the document handed to Mile. Glinka.6 She forwarded the French original, accompanied by a Russian translation, to Orgevskii, who in turn handed it to his chief, General Cherevin, for transmission to the Tsar. But Cherevin, under obligation to wealthy Jews, refused to transmit it, merely riling it in the archives.7 Meantime there appeared in Paris certain books on Russian court life8 which displeased the Tsar, who ordered his secret police to discover their authorship. This was falsely attributed, perhaps with malicious intent,9 to Mile. Glinka, and on her return to Russia she was banished to her estate in Orel. To the marechal de noblesse of this district, Alexis Sukhotin, Mile. Glinka gave a copy of the Protocols. Sukhotin showed the document to two friends, Stepanov and Nilus; the former had it printed and circulated privately in 1897; the second, Professor Sergius A. Nilus, published it for the first time in Tsarskoe-Tselo (Russia) in 1901, in a book entitled The Great Within the Small. Then, about the same time, a friend of Nilus, G. Butmi, also brought it out and a copy was deposited in the British Museum on August 10, 1906. Meantime, through Jewish members10 of the Russian police, minutes of the proceedings of the Basle congress11 in 1897 had been obtained and these were found to correspond with the Protocols.12 In January 1917, Nilus had prepared a second edition, revised and documented, for publication. But before it could be put on the market, the revolution of March 1917 had taken place, and Kerenskii, who had succeeded to power, ordered the whole edition of Nilus’s book to be destroyed. In 1924, Prof. Nilus was arrested by the Cheka in Kiev, imprisoned, and tortured; he was told by the Jewish president of the court, that this treatment was meted out to him for ” having done them incalculable harm in publishing the Protocols “. Released for a few months, he was again led before the G. P. U. (Cheka), this time in Moscow and confined. Set at liberty in February 1926, he died in exile in the district of Vladimir on January 13, 1929. A few copies of Nilus’s second edition were saved and sent to other countries where they were published: in Germany, by Gottfreid zum Beek (1919); in England, by The Britons (1920); in France, by Mgr. Jouin in La Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrètes, and by Urbain Gohier in La Vieille France; in the United States, by Small, Maynard & Co. (Boston 1920), and by The Beckwith Co (New York 1921). Later, editions appeared in Italian, Russian, Arabic, and even in Japanese. Such is the simple story of how these Protocols reached Russia and thence came into general circulation. Mr. Stepanov’s deposition’3 relative to it is here given as corroboration. ” In 1895, my neighbour in the district of Toula, Major (retired) Alexis Sukhotin, gave me a manuscript copy of the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion. He told me that a lady of his acquaintance, whose name he did not mention, residing in Paris, had found it at the house of a friend, a Jew. Before leaving Paris, she had secretly translated it and had brought this one copy to Russia and given it to Sukhotin. “At first I mimeographed this translation, but finding it difficult to read, I resolved to have it printed, making no mention of the date, town, or printer’s name. In this I was helped by Arcadii Ippolitovich Kelepovskii, who at that time was chief of the household of Grand Duke Sergius. He gave the document to be printed by the district printing press. This took place in 1897. Sergius Nilus inserted these Protocols in his work and added his own commentary. (Signed) PHILIP PETROVICH STEPANOV.” Formerly Procurator of the Synod of Moscow, Chamberlain, Privy Councillor, and (in 1897) Chief of the Moscow Kursk Railway in the town of Orel. April 17, 1927. Witnessed by PRINCE DIMITRI GALITZIN. President of the Russian Colony of Emigrants at Stari Fontag. — 1. From Greek, protos (first) + holla (glue). 2. The reply is found in the sixteenth century Spanish book, La Silva Curiosa, by Julio-Iniguez de Medrano (Paris, Orry, 1608), on pages 156 and 157, with the following explanation: ” This letter following was found in the archives of Toledo by the Hermit of Salamanca, (while) searching the ancient records of the kingdoms of Spain; and, as it is expressive and remarkable, I wish to write it here.”—vide, photostat facing page 80. 3. Ferdinand. 4. At that time Secretary to the Minister of the Interior, General Cherevin. 5. Alias Schapiro, whose father had been sentenced in London, two years previous, to ten years penal servitude for counterfeiting. 6. Schorst fled to Egypt where, according to French police archives, he was murdered. 7. On his death in 1896, he willed a copy of his memoirs containing the Protocols to Nicholas II. 8. Published under the pseudonym ” Count Vassilii”, their real author was Mme. Juliette Adam, using material furnished by Princess Demidov-San Donate, Princess Radzivill, and other Russians. 9. Among the Jews in the Russian secret service in Paris was Maniulov, whose odious character is drawn by M. Pateologue, Memoires. 10. Notably Eno Azev and Efrom. The latter, formerly a rabbi, died in 1925 in a monastery in Serbia, where he had taken refuge; he used to tell the monks that the protocols were but a small part of Jewish plans for ruling the world and a feeble expression of their hatred of the gentiles. 11. Supra, Part I. 12. The Russian government had learned that at meetings of the B’nai Brith in New-York in 1893-94, Jacob Schiff (supra, 52, 53) had been named chairman of the committee on the revol utionary movement in Russia. 13. The translation is the author’s; appended facing page 81. a photostat of the original is · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
2.2 How An American Edition Was Suppressed Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward There is a saying in several languages that only the truth hurts. Recognizing the fact beneath this expression, one is little surprised at the zeal with which certain parties seek to disprove documentary evidence. If the evidence were false, then it would be ignored by those concerned and pass quickly into the realm of forgotten things. But if the evidence is genuine and open to verification from many angles, then the truth will hurt, and thus not be ignored. If this reasoning is correct, the violent methods used by the Jews, particularly those affiliated with the Zionist movement, to discredit and suppress the document entitled The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, would alone constitute a proof of its authenticity. Nilus and Butmi had published the document without comment. Its success was therefore entirely due to: The self-evident character of the document; The logical reasoning expressed in clear, simple terms; The explanation it gives of international politics; The fact that the events predicted in it have actually occurred since. But if its publishers gave no guarantee of its genuineness, those who have attacked it have failed even more conspicuously to discredit and refute it. To quote Nesta Webster, in her World Revolution:1 “The truth is, then, that the Protocols have never been refuted, and the futility of the so-called refutations published, as also the fact of their temporary suppression, have done more to convince the public of their authenticity than all the anti-Semite writings on the subject put together”. There is plenty of indisputable, documentary evidence which explains the Jewish plan of action, without recourse to the Protocols. Their importance lies in the fact that, published at a definite date, they foretold historical events which have upset the world, that they explained these events by the principles set forth in the work itself: this fact makes it superfluous to enquire whether the author of the Protocols is the Zionist Congress in corpore, a member of the congress, or some Jewish (or even Christian) thinker. Their source is of small moment: the facts, the relation of cause and effect, are there; the existence of the work prior to the events foretold in it can never be brought into question, and that is enough. The first attempt at refutation appeared in 1920, entitled, The Jewish Bogey and the Forged Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, by a Jew, Lucien Wolf; it was followed by articles in the Metropolitan (New York) signed ” William Hard “. The effect of these articles, contrary to the intention of their authors, was to draw wider public attention to the existence of the Protocols. At the same time in America the Jewish Anti-Defamation League2 filled the papers with denunciations of the libel from all parts of the country, thus proving how powerful is Jewish organization. One of its members was Louis Marshall, and, as an illustration of its activity, the story of the suppression of the edition of the Protocols which an American publishing house tried to bring out, is instructive. It shows not only the pressure the Jews can bring to bear on anyone who dares to lift his finger against them, but their own mental attitude of absolute intolerance towards others, while demanding of the world complete acquiescence in their schemes. George Haven Putnam, head of the firm Putnam & Son, New York, after his annual visit to London, brought out in 1920 an American edition of The Cause of World Unrest.3 About the same time, he decided to issue The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in book form. Advance notices were released and the book set up and ready to go on the stands about October 15. On the eve of its appearance, Putnam received the following letter from Louis Marshall.4 MY DEAR SIR: As one who believes in those qualities that constitute the true American spirit, I have been greatly disturbed by the accounts given by the newspapers of the outrage to which you were subjected at the meeting held at Erasmus High School in Brooklyn the other evening. Knowing your patriotism, I can only regard the alleged cause, namely, that you had condemned the Declaration of Independence and were of the opinion that we owed an apology to England for severing our relations with her, as a slander, born of prejudice and ignorance. I had scarcely finished reading this episode which had thus aroused my indignation, when I found upon my table a book, bearing the imprint of your firm, entitled The Cause of World Unrest, bound in a flaming red and purporting to be a republication of articles that have recently appeared in the London Morning Post with which I had become familiar. To say that I was shocked that your honoured name should be made the vehicle of disseminating among the American people these outpourings of malice, intolerance and hatred, this witches’ broth of virulent poison, is merely to confess the poverty of my vocabulary. On opening the book I turned to the publishers’ note, which was apologetic and disclaimed responsibility for the publication. It was followed by an introduction which made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the book was to charge the Jews with an age-long conspiracy to destroy civilization in order that they might absorb the wealth and power of the world. Thus proclaimed, at length came the stupid drivel intended to support this thesis and calculated to make the Jew repulsive in the eyes of his fellow-men and to exterminate him, not figuratively, but literally, appealing, as it does, to the lowest passions and proceeding upon the same processes that were employed in the Middle Ages for the same object. Then it was the blood accusation, the charge of poisoning wells, of spreading plagues and pestilence, of the desecration of the Host. Now it is pretended conspiracy to overturn the economic system of the world by inciting warfare and revolution. LA SILVA CURIOSA: Photostat of the letter from the Grand Sanhedrin Constantinople to the Chief Rabbi of Spain in 1492. MR. STEPANOVS DEPOSITION: the story of how the Protocols reached Russia and thence came into general circulation. The slightest knowledge of history, the most elementary capacity for analysis, or even a minute inkling as to what the Jew is and has been, would suffice to stamp this book and the forged Protocols on which it is based, as the most stupendous libel in history. These writings are the work of a band of conspirators who are seeking to continue to make the Jew, as he has been in all the centuries, the scapegoat of autocracy. The Protocols bear the hall-mark of the secret agents of the dethroned Russian bureaucracy, and the book which you have published is a mere babbling reiteration of what the murderers of the Ukraine, of Poland, and of Hungary are urging as justification for the holocausts of the Jews in which they have been engaged. It has been intimated, and there is much to sustain the theory, that the real purpose of these publications in the United States and in England is to arouse sufficient hostility against the Jews to subject them to mob violence and thus to give justification to those who have incited pogroms in Eastern Europe. I have also observed that, upon the cover of the book to which I am now referring, you are advertising the publication of The Protocols, which I unhesitatingly denounce as on their face palpable forgeries. If you were called upon to circulate counterfeit money or forged bonds, you would shrink in horror at the suggestion. What you have done and what you propose to do is, however, in morals, incalculably worse. You are assisting in spreading falsehoods, in uttering libels, the effect of which will be felt for decades to come. You are giving them respectability, whilst the name of the author is shrouded in secrecy. Even Mr. Gwynne does not avow paternity for the book which he has heralded. Much as you may desire to shake off responsibility, therefore, the real responsibility for hurling this bomb, for such it is, prepared though it has been by others, rests upon you. Whoever may read this book and is of such a low type of intelligence as to be influenced by it, will not be apt to draw the fine ethical distinctions with which you are seeking to salve your conscience. As a patriotic American, do you believe that you are contributing to the creation of that spirit of justice and fair-play, of unity and harmony, which is the very foundation of that Americanism for which every good citizen has yearned, when you stimulate hatred and passion by the publication of these dreadful falsehoods? If there should occur in this country, in consequence of those publications and those of Henry Ford, what is earnestly desired by the anti-Semites with whom you have arrayed yourself, do you suppose that, when the Almighty calls you to a reckoning and asks you whether you have ever borne false witness against your neighbour, you will be guiltless in His eyes because of your publishers’ note disavowing responsibility ? I know that you must have been pained, as I was when I read of the treatment to which you were subjected, because of lying accusations directed against you. Are you able to appreciate the pain, the grief, the agony, that you are causing three millions of your fellow-countrymen and to millions of men, women and children in other parts of the world by your participation in the disgraceful and inhuman persecution which is now being insidiously carried on by means of publications in the distribution of which you are now actively engaged ? I look upon this as a tragedy. Louis MARSHALL. Major Putnam, still feeling and sincerely believing that he was an independent American, though not a very brave one, for throughout he uses the name of Mr. Gwynne as a screen, answered: New York, October 15th, 1920. DEAR MR. MARSHALL: Your letter of the 13th inst., which has to do with the publication of the volume entitled World Unrest and the announcement of the companion volume The Protocols, has been read before the members of our publishing board and has received the respectful consideration to which any communication from a citizen of your standing and reputation is assuredly entitled. I am asked by my associates to make report as follows as to our own understanding of the matters in question: 1. We are not prepared to accept your view of the responsibility that attaches to a publishing imprint, or to the association of such imprint with one volume or another. We believe that our own policy in this matter is in accord with that of the leading publishing houses on both sides of the Atlantic. It would be impossible to carry on the business of publishing books of opinion, whether the opinions have to do with the issues of to-day or with matters of the past, if the publisher was assumed to be in accord with the con clusions arrived at by one author or another. It is the intention to bring into print only such volumes as may present on such issues information that is understood to make an addition to the knowledge of the subject, or con clusions which appear to be entitled to consideration, to analysis, or possibly to refutation. 2. We have on our own catalogue, for instance, volumes expressing almost every phase of theological or religious belief. The list includes some books accepted by the Christian Scientists as fairly representative of their doctrines. In publishing such books we have, of course, no intention of announcing ourselves as upholding the theories of the Christian Scientists any more than in the publication of a volume by a Presbyterian divine we have expressed our acceptance of the Westminster catechism, or in printing a book by an Episcopal friend, we have been prepared to approve the reasonableness of the thirty-nine articles. 3. The volume, World Unrest, was, as you will have noted, brought into publication in London at the instance of Mr. Gwynne, the scholarly editor of the Morning Post. You doubtless have knowledge of the journals of England and will realize that the Post does not belong to the sensation-monger journals like Bottomley’s John Bull or Hearst’s American. It is a conservative paper which has the reputation of avoiding sensational material. Mr. Gwynne had convinced himself that the papers brought into print in the Post, and later published under his direction in book form, were deserving of consideration. As we have stated in the publisher’s note, we are not prepared to express any opinion whatsoever in regard to the so-called information presented, or as to the weight of the conclusions arrived at by the writer and endorsed by Mr. Gwynne. The recommendation came to us that, as the Gwynne volume used as a large part of its text the document entitled The Protocols, the readers of World Unrest would be interested in having an opportunity of examining the full text of The Protocols. You have already knowledge of this curious document. It has, it seems, been in print since 1905, and possibly earlier. An edition was published some months back by Eyre & Spottiswoode, conservative law publishers of London. The text that was brought to us is a translation freshly made from the Russian and is accompanied by a record of what is known of the original document.5 It is evident that the document has, as you point out, no voucher for authenticity and it is quite possible that it will be found to possess no historic importance. Attention has again been directed to it during the past year simply on the ground, according at least to the understanding of Mr. Gwynne’s author and of himself, that certain of the instructions given and policies recommended in The Protocols appear to have been carried out by the bolshevik government in Russia. Certain suggestions in The Protocols have also been connected with the policies of the Zionists, policies which, according to Mr. Gwynne and some other writers, are causing serious unrest in Palestine, Syria and Arabia. In presenting The Protocols to American readers in a carefully printed edition, we have not the least intention of expressing the view that the documents are authentic, or that they will in the end be considered as possessing historic authority. Mr Gwynne takes the ground that neither World Unrest nor The Protocols themselves present charges against the Jews as a whole. They emphasize certain things that have been done, or are alleged to have been done, by certain groups of Jews. It would be as fair to say that a record of lynching in Texas or Arkansas, or a record of the attempt of the Bryan group to secure the payment of debts fifty cents on the dollar, was to be considered as a charge against the whole American people. Mr. Gwynne’s associates take the ground that the leading Jews on both sides of the Atlantic, men whose patriotism is unquestioned, ought not to put these documents to one side as of trifling importance. The time may very properly have come at which the charges made as said, only against certain groups of Jews should be analyzed by the Jews whose judgments would be accepted as authoritative by English and American readers. If the charge is unfounded that bolshevism as carried on in Russia has been conducted largely under Jewish direction, the statement ought to be refuted. I received only yesterday a copy of a monthly entitled The Brooklyn Anti-Bolshevist. The magazine undertakes to make ” defense of American institutions against the Jewish bolshevist doctrines of Morris Hillquit and Leon Trotzki.” It seems to me that American citizens of the Jewish race (and the group comprises some of the best citizens that we have) might properly interest themselves in making clear to the public that there is no foundation for any charge against the World Patriotism of the Jewish race.6 I wish very much that you might yourself be interested in preparing a volume that should give consideration to the whole subject matter and particularly, of course, to these publications which have come into print as a result of the world’s indignation against the Moscow government. G. P. Putnam’s Sons would be well pleased to associate the imprint of their New York and London Houses with such a volume from the pen of a distinguished jurist like yourself. One further thought occurs to me: You and I are believers in freedom of speech. We recognize that in war times certain reservations are in order for the sake of the nation, but we hold that, with the necessary reservations as to the rights of an individual, or as to a possible libel upon an individual, it is in order, and, from the point of view of the community, wise, to allow full freedom for platform utterances. If, however, this be true for the spoken word it should logically be applicable also to the word, that comes into print. In case you may be interested in considering the suggestion of a monograph from your pen to be prepared by yourself, or by some competent authority whom you might be able to interest, I should be ready to keep an appointment for a personal word at such time and place as you might find convenient. Submitting the suggestion for your consideration, I am, with cordial regards, Yours faithfully, GEORGE HAVEN PUTNAM. The suggestion of a ‘ monograph’ from Louis Marshall’s pen was somewhat ironical. There is no doubt that on October, 15, 1920, Major Putnam still felt himself an independent American. And the binding of The Protocols went on as usual. But on October 29th came one more letter from the president of the American Jewish committee: New York City, October 29th, 1920. MY DEAR SIR: Absence from the city and professional engagements have prevented me from replying earlier to yours of the 15th inst., in which you define your policy regarding the publication of The Cause of the World Unrest and your announcement of your intended publication of The Protocols. I cannot accept the theories on which you seek to justify acts which, in all moderation, I sought to characterize in my letter of the 13th inst. You disregard entirely the proposition on which my criticism is based. Nobody can go farther than I do in upholding the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. – It has been my privilege to aid in the creation of important precedents in furtherance of these fundamentals of liberty. Libel and slander, however, have always been looked upon in American law as abuses of a free press and of free speech and as attacks upon the integrity of the constitutional guarantees that you invoke. Nor do I question the right of any publisher to issue ” books of opinion ” to whatever subject the opinions may relate. They may be polemical or they may attack the soundness of scientific, political or theological theories or doctrines. No fair-minded man would for a moment venture to find fault because of strictures directed against his cherished doxy. The Protocols and The Cause of World Unrest are not, however, books of opinion. They assume to deal with facts. The Protocols purport to be the pronouncements of so-called ” Wise Men of Zion”. The Cause of World Unrest undertakes to charge that the Jews and the Freemasons are together engaged in a conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the arrogation by them of world domination. It is these alleged facts that I denounce as falsehoods and as libels criminal in intent and criminal in their operation. The Protocols, which are made the basis of the Cause of World Unrest and which you properly describe as companion volumes, are so intrinsically false that even Mr. Gwynne concedes that he himself has a serious doubt as to their genuineness. That The Protocols are a fabrication similar to those that have appeared in every period of history, appears from every line of that document. I am credibly informed that the manuscript was offered for publication to seven different publishing houses in this country, who refused to have their names connected with it, before Small, Maynard & Co, undertook to issue it to the American public. The author of the Cause of World Unrest hides behind anonymity. You yourself speak of the author as being ” Mr. Gwynne’s author.” Apparently even you do not know the pedigree of this incendiary book. Yet you have, I repeat, given it your endorsement by publishing it, even though you disavow responsibility. Your position is that of one who endorses a note to give it currency and at the same time makes a mental reservation against meeting his obligation. No, Major Putnam, the principle which you seek to establish will not work. Whoever touches pitch is defiled. Whoever retails falsehoods and spreads them, whether it be orally or through the medium of the press, is responsible for those falsehoods. It will not do to say that you have many friends among the Jews whom you respect and that these books are not intended to reflect upon all Jews. The world is not so discriminating. People whose passions are aroused do not differentiate. The forger of The Protocols and the mysterious author of The Cause of World Unrest make no distinctions. Neither did their prototypes of the middle ages, nor the black hundreds of modern Russia, indulge in such refinements. Troy and Tyre were alike to them. Do not for a moment misunderstand me. I contend that there are no Jews who are now engaged or who have ever been engaged in a conspiracy such as that charged by you as existing in these books which emerge smoking from your presses. The cry of Bolshevism will not suffice. Your reference to the Brooklyn Anti-Bolshevist shows what a sad pass you have reached. To shelter yourself behind the bulwarks of an infamous pasquinade of the guttersnipe variety and to insinuate that because that sheet pretends to defend American institutions ” against the Jewish bolshevist doctrines of Morris Hillquit and Leon Trotzki ” you may therefore descend to the same depths, is a revelation to me. I had not believed that any real, true American would thus lend himself to the creation of ill-will and malevolence. The fact that out of the mass of Russian Jews there is an infinitesimal percentage who are Bolshevists, affords no justification for laying the sins of Bolshevism at the door of the Jewish people. To say that Bolshevism is a Jewish movement is as ridiculous as to say that the Jews are responsible for capitalism, or because there are Jewish musicians, actors and poets, that music, the drama and poetry are Jewish movements. I am not a Zionist, and yet I regard the slurs that these books are attempting to make against Zionism to be unworthy. The very Zionists whom these books are attacking have been persecuted by the Bolsheviks and have been denounced as counter-revolutionists, just as the mass of the Jews of Russia have been pursued as members of the bourgeoisie. I am not a member of the Masonic or of any other secret order, but the attempt in these books to charge Freemasonry with participation in such a conspiracy as is proclaimed almost argues the existence of a pathological condition on the part of the author that betokens mental aberration. When one remembers that fifteen of the presidents of the United States, including George Washington, have been Freemasons, it is unnecessary to go further in condemnation of these volumes which you are pleased to denominate ” books of opinion “. I had not believed that a Jew in this country would ever be called upon to occupy the humiliating position of defending his people against the charges such as those which are being spread broadcast through your agency. If ever the time comes when it shall be desirable to answer such books, I am quite sure that it will be unnecessary for me to avail myself of your invitation to make use of the services of your firms as publishers. Very truly yours, Louis MARSHALL. Two days later, Putnam bowed before the will of Jewry in the following terms: November 1st, 1920. DEAR MR MARSHALL: Mr Gwynne, at whose instance we brought into print the American edition of his volume on World Unrest, had taken the ground that the publication of the document known as The Protocols might throw light on the organization of the Bolshevists. Their operations have caused grave concern throughout the world and they are, therefore, a matter of legitimate public discussion. It was his opinion that if it had not been for the apprehension aroused by bolshevism, the document would probably have been permitted to rest in obscurity. An edition of The Protocols was, therefore, published in London by Eyre & Spottiswoode, law publishers of high standing. It had seemed to us that the readers of ” The World Unrest ” were entitled to have the opportunity of examining the complete document (to which frequent references are made in Mr Gwynne’s volume) and we had, therefore, undertaken the publication of a carefully prepared translation by us, which is now nearly in readiness, and has involved a considerable outlay. We now find, however, that an edition printed in Boston is being distributed as a regular publication. There is no necessity for bringing into print another volume containing substantially the same material. We have decided, therefore, in deference to the objections raised by yourself, and by my valued friend, Oscar Strauss, not to proceed1 with the publication. I am, Yours very truly. GEORGE HAVEN PUTNAM. What had taken place between October 29 and November 1 ? Putnam wrote to one of the parties interested that so much pressure was brought to bear on him that he had to give up publishing The Protocols, and would be obliged to withdraw unsold copies of World Unrest. It is safe to conclude that Putnam’s firm was threatened with bankruptcy if it persisted. We understand that Small, Maynard & Co. of Boston and The Beckwith Co. of New York and in fact practically every firm which has published The Protocols had difficulties within a year or two. Of course it is said that that is purely accidental: but it was just such an ” accident ” that Putnam wished to avoid! — 1. 1st edition, p. 305. 2. This League compelled the Beckwith Co, which subsequently published the Protocols after Putnam’s withdrawal, to insert in every copy sold a copy of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League’s refutation. 3. The reproduction in book form of a series of articles which had appeared in the Morning Post of London. 4. See ante, ch. V. 5. This edition prepared by G. H. Putnam was subsequently published by The Beckwith Company, 299 Madison Avenue, New York. 6. Our italics. 7. Our italics. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
2.3 More Attempts At Refutation The London Times Lends A Hand Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward While the Jews have succeeded in having the Protocols suppressed, entirely in Russia, Poland, Rumania, and other countries in Eastern Europe, and partially in England and America, they have failed in their many ingenious efforts to have them refuted by non-Jews. Indeed the so-called refutations with which their henchmen flooded the press in 1920-21 reveal more of the real nature, workings, and associations of the Jews and their agents than they rebut the evidence of the Protocols. It is noteworthy that not one of these numerous and contradictory refutations bears an honest, non-Jewish signature. There is the article of the notorious Princess Radzivill1 published in the Jewish Tribune (New York) for March 11, 1921, and followed by a statement by her friend, Mrs. Hurlbut. The former2 makes no mention of Mile. Glinka and describes the forgery of the protocols by Golovinskii and a renegade Jew, Manassevich Manuilov, in Paris in 1904 “. Further on, oblivious of chronology, she states that General Cherevin willed her his memoirs, including the protocols, at the time of his death in 1896. Golovinskii and Manuilov might, it would seem, have saved themselves trouble by procuring a copy of the document, which, according to Mr. Stepanov’s testimony,3 had been printed and privately circulated in 1897. Another person who wrote against the protocols, A. du Chayla, can hardly be taken more seriously. An article of his appeared on May 14, 1921, in the Tribune Juive of Paris; and later, another article on June 13 in the New York Call, a violent Communist sheet, besides articles in Soviet publications. Prof. Nilus mentions in one of his books4 meeting this Frenchman, who then paraded as a devotee of the Russian Orthodox Church. The character of this adventurer is well drawn in the reply his articles drew from a Russian lady, Madame Fermor, which is given in full. ” Lately there appeared in the Russian paper Poslednii Novosti, Nos. 331-332 a series of articles by Count Alexander de Chayla, in which he casts doubt on the authenticity of a certain document (The Protocols of the Elders of Ziori), because obtained by a man who did not inspire confidence. “If the value of a document be based on the credit of the person by whom it is produced, one must also analyze the character of him who discredits it. “That is why I am prompted to narrate how I became acquainted with Count du Chayla. “I usually spent the summer on my estate in White Russia, in a village near Moguileff, where there is a famous convent. There, one day, about ten years ago, I was visited by the Superior, the Archimandrite Arsene, who introduced a young man, Count du Chayla. Du Chayla had been sent to the convent to study the Russian language and the Orthodox religion of which he pretended to be a devotee. “Mr. Sabler5 had invited him to come to Russia and sent him to the celebrated monastery of Optina Poustine, whence he was sent to our monastery to serve as an example of anti-Catholic propaganda. “It must be admitted that he lived up to his character and showed himself more of a Russian Orthodox than the Patriarch himself. Thanks to his zeal, beautifully sculptured angels in the Renaissance style were removed from the chapel of our monastery: du Chayla found them too Catholic. He told me the great joy he felt when he smashed these angels with a hammer. When I reproached him with an act of vandalism, his intolerance betrayed itself in the hatred which he then manifested against the Jews. Many a time I heard him say: ” One must have a good pogrom in Russia.” One can understand my astonishment when I read in his articles a false accusation of propaganda for pogroms against the White Army, which he now blames, he, who so loudly proclaimed that pogroms were a necessity! It is from him that I heard of the existence of Drumont’s books, which he praised eloquently; he used to advise me to read them that I might understand to what extent the Jews had conquered France. He used to predict that the same fate would overtake Russia, if ever the Jews were granted full civil rights. “Great was my surprise when I read du Chayla’s attack on Drumont, whose books he now calls lies. He, who had so much admired Drumont. “As I followed du Chayla’s life in Russia, I was amazed to see the extraordinary rapidity of his political and ecclesiastical career. He became an intimate friend of the Bishops known for their Orthodoxy, and he preached the sacred and absolute power of the Russian Monarch and implacable hatred towards all foreigners. We saw du Chayla as an intimate friend of the Bishops Anthony of Volinia and Evlogii of Holm, frequent the famous salon of Countess Ignatieff. As he rose in Russian society, his activities shifted from the religious field: he took up politics, and, as a follower of Count Bobrinsky, leader of the Pan-Slavic Party, he was sent to Austria on a secret mission among the Galicians. He was subsequently arrested for espionage. “After his return to Russia, he directed a violent campaign against the smaller racial groups of the empire, especially against the Poles and Finns. As du Chayla was always in need of money, I recommended him to the president of the commission for the affairs of Finland, Mr. Korevo, who used him for anti-Finnish propaganda in the foreign press. At the time of the declaration of war, du Chayla was a student in the theological academy of Petrograd; he was appointed chief of a field hospital organized by Bishop Pitirim and provided with funds from Rasputin. Then I lost sight of him until after the revolution, when I heard of him as an agent provocateur, inciting the Cossacks against the White Army. In 1919 du Chayla was tried by court martial and convicted of seditious activities in the pay of the Soviets. The sentence was published in the newspapers of the Crimea. “I was astonished to find his name appended to an article in a Russian newspaper notorious for its equivocal position concerning the reconstruction of Russia. (Signed) TATIANA FERMOR.” June 9th, 1921—Paris. Not satisfied—and rightly so—with these efforts to discredit the Protocols, and yet unable to attach the signature of a noted gentile writer to their denials, the Jews sought another expedient: the seal of approval of one of the best known newspapers would impress the general public. Heretofore the articles had borne the name of private persons: now an official exposure of the protocols was to be published over the signature of the ” Correspondent of The London Times in Constantinople “. The identity of the ” correspondent ” was not revealed,^ although the most elementary sense of justice would insist on giving full credit to the gentleman who had made such a momentous discovery. Nor is there any evidence of his having been in Constantinople. Anyone who writes to the editor of a newspaper is a correspondent, and the number of lies which gain circulation in this fashion is notorious. The ” sensational discovery ” which. The Times1 thus gave to its readers was that the protocols were a ” clumsy plagiarism ” of a French book it called ” The Dialogues of Geneva”, published in Brussels in 1865. The ” correspondent” tells in a easy, off-hand manner and with perfect self-assurance, about meeting in Constantinople a Mr. W, who said: ” Read this book through and you will find irrefutable proof that the Protocols of the Learned Elders ofZion is a plagiarism “. So it wasn’t the correspondent who deserved the credit for the ” sensational discovery ” after all; but a ” Mr. X, a Russian landowner with English connexions “. Again, it is a pity that the gentleman should not have given his name and received the large reward which would surely have been his, from those who have been so active in suppressing and refuting the Protocols. Then follows the story of Mr. X, with his views on religion, politics, secret societies, and the rest: this Mr. X is an old-fashioned gentleman and the reader is ready to believe every word, as reported by ” our correspondent”. Mr. X. explains how he obtained the copy of the Geneva Dialogues from an old Okhrana officer; this establishes the fact that the Russian police had made use of the book to forge the Protocols. In fact the ” correspondent ” goes on to identify this very copy of the Geneva Dialogues as belonging to A. Sukhotin—there is an ” A. S. ” scratched in the back which is conclusive—and from which the protocols were plagiarized and given to Nilus. Parallel passages from the Dialogues and the protocols are set opposite each other; and the English reader, never at home in Continental politics, is led into speculations on Napoleon Ill’s relations with the Carbonari, his employment of Corsicans in the police, the employment of Corsicans by the Russian police, the knowledge Corsicans had of the existence of the Geneva Dialogues, Joly’s purpose in writing them, the influence of Philippe, a Lyons mystic, on the Tsar, and so on, until the reader is completely overwhelmed. When he has reached this state, he is told: ” At any rate, the fact of the plagiarism has now been conclusively established, and the legend [of the Protocols] may be allowed to pass into oblivion.” The publication of this news from Constantinople was hailed by all the Jews, whose instant enthusiasm is no less revealing than the following letter from a leading Zionist, which appeared in The Times on the same day as the “discovery”. To the Editor—The Times, “Sir, Your Constantinople correspondent, who has done a world service in tracking to their source the Protocols (for they have been carefully published throughout the world), says: “There is no evidence to show how the Geneva Dialogues reached Russia.” In your leading article, however, you suggest that the protocols were forged under the auspices of Rachkovskii, head of the Russian secret police in Paris. This appears to be the truth. M. A. du Chayla, a French student of theology at St. Petersburg in 1910, who was in 1918 on the staff of the army of the Cossacks of the Don, has testified through the Tribune Juive (Paris, May 14, 1921) that Nilus told him that the protocols were sent him from Paris by his friend, Mme. K—, who had received them from General Rachkovskii. M. du Chayla confirms a suggestion of yours, that the courier who brought the ms. from Paris was Alexander Sukhotin. He has seen this very ms., which, being in poor French and varying penmanship, suggests a complex authorship in the Russian police bureau. The fact that the Geneva Dialogues have now been bought from an exmember of it, completes the chain. That the object of the publication of 1905 was to drown the Russian revolution in Jewish blood, I, like you, have asserted. But it appears that there was a previous edition in 1902 in the shape of an appendix to a reprint of a pietistic work by Nilus, and the motive behind this earlier publication throws another curious sidelight upon the old Russian court. For that publication was apparently a move in the game to discredit in favour of Nilus a Lyons mystic. Philippe, of whose power over the Tsar the Grand Duchess Elizabeth disapproved. Knowing that Nilus was designed as Philippe’s supplanter, Rachkovskii, it is thought, wished to secure his good graces by providing him with a valuable weapon against Russian liberalism. I am sorry that your correspondent should conclude with the suggestion that those parts of the protocols not in the Geneva Dialogues may possibly have been supplied by Jews who spied on their co-religionists; for this far-fetched hypothesis gives a gleam of hope to the considerable number of organs throughout Europe that live only in the Protocols. Now is your correspondent accurate in thinking that only moral harm has been done by this historic forgery? M. du Chayla offers evidence that it has helped to goad on those countless pogroms in the Ukraine, of whose horrors Western Europe is almost ignorant. As for Nilus, he appears to be a fanatical mystagogue, honest enough except for that theological twist which betrayed itself when, confronted by the suspicion that the Protocols were forged, he replied: ” Even if they were, God who could speak through Balaam’s ass, could also put the truth in a liar’s mouth.” Yours gratefully, ISRAEL ZANGWILL “. Far End, East Preston, Sussex, August 18, 1921. Since then, to some extent, the Protocols have been forgotten. But, Audiatur et altera pars, in the words of Max Nordau.8 The Times ” correspondent ” would convince us that there are similar or identical passages to be found in the Protocols and in the Dialogues; and this we readily admit. We go farther: identical passages will be found in earlier Protocols9 which go back to the days before the dispersion. By way of illustration, let it be assumed that the Book of Common Prayer used in the Anglican Church were unknown to the Jews. Suppose, then, that a copy of it were secretly obtained by a certain Jew and published, and that the Jews were shocked by the Anglican doctrine of which they learned in this way for the first time. It would then be easy for another Jew to show that the Book of Common Prayer was a plagiarism: it contains passages copied, word for word, from the Gospels; the Psalms are a transcript from King James’ Bible; and so on. And not only that, but there are many parallels to be found in the secular literature. ” At any rate “, one can imagine the second Jew saying at the end, ” the fact of plagiarism has been conclusively established, and we may therefore affirm that no such Book of Common Prayer is used in the worship of the Church of England.” The second Jew would be right in pointing out the parallels in the earlier literature—though his conclusion would be ridiculous—for there is a very real connection: and so it is with the Protocols. One might have thought that The Times, in its desire to publish the truth about the Protocols, would at least have given the correct title of the Geneva Dialogues, it is, Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu, published anonymously in Brussels in 1865. Moreover a minute’s search in a library catalogue shows that another book, bearing a similar title, was published some years earlier: namely, Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, by Jacob Venedey, published by Franz Dunnicker in Berlin in 1850. The Times, with its interest in plagiarisms, might have been tempted to glance at this latter volume as also at The Prince by Machiavelli and L’Esprit des Lois by Montesquieu. Had it done so, its curiosity would have been amply rewarded: passages quoted from the Protocols as plagiarised from the Dialogues of 1865, are similar to several10 in Venedey’s book of 1850, and both Jacob Venedey and Maurice Joly should be branded as plagiarists. But the resemblance between the Protocols and Venedey’s book does not stop with a few parallel passages: the spirit of both is the same; it is revolutionary, whereas the Dialogues of 1865 are socialistic and polemical. The anonymous author merely borrowed certain descriptive passages in Venedey to give colour to his argument.11 Now hadn’t The Times better discover a copy of Venedey belonging to a former Okhrana officer, so as to explain how the Russian secret police were able to plagiarize the spirit, as well as a few platitudes and descriptive bits, when forging the Protocols ? Its correspondent in Peiping might make that discovery some day? No, the Peiping correspondent (or any other) will be-very careful not to make that discovery, for the simple reason that Venedey was a Jew, whereas The Times’ point is that the Jews had nothing to do with the drafting of the Protocols. Its argument is that the author of the Dialogues was a Corsican; that the Corsicans in the Paris Police preserved the Dialogues and gave a copy to the Corsican members of the Russian police, who used it to forge the Protocols: these insidious Corsicans!12 But what of Venedey ? Jacob Venedey, born in Cologne in May, 1805, was early engaged in revolutionary activities which caused his expulsion from Germany. He settled in Paris where, in 1835, he edited a paper of subversive character, called Le Proscrit. Driven from Paris by the police, he moved to Havre, until, thanks to the representations of Arago and Mignet, friends of Cr6mieux, he was allowed to return to the capital. Meanwhile his book, Romanisme, Christianisme et Germanisme, won the praise of the French Academy, Venedey was a close friend and associate of Karl Marx. After spending the years 1843-44 in England, the headquarters of continental revolutionaries, he worked in Brussels for the founding, with Marx in 1847, of a secret organization, ” The Communist League of Workers ” (later the ” Societe internationale de la Democratic “). After the February revolution in 1848, Venedey joined Marx in Germany, where he became one of the chiefs of the revolutionary committee of Fifty (March, 1848), and was sent as commissar into the Oberland to stand against Hecker. Later elected as a member of the Left from Hesse-Homburg, he continued to serve on the Committee of Fifty. It was at this time that he brought out in Berlin his Machia-yelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, stressing the views attributed to Machiavelli and Rousseau in favour of despotism and oppression.13 When order was restored in Germany, Venedey was expelled from Berlin and Breslau. He was an active member of the Free Masons and affiliated with the Carbonari;14 he was also closely associated not only with the revolution 12. It is noteworthy that no Corsican has yet raised a voice ofprotest against the charges made in The Times. Yet it is the Corsicanswho are the real victims of a libel, not the Jews tionaries of his day, but (as might be expected) with the leading Jews, the founders of the Alliance Israelite Univer-selle.15 The latter included men of as different political parties as the reactionary-imperialist Fould, the liberal-conservative Disraeli, and the communist-revolutionary Marx, and whether living under an empire, a constitutional monarchy or a republic, all laboured towards a common aim, the establishment of an international Jewish world power.16 Prominent among them and in close touch with Venedey, was Adolphe Isaac Cr6mieux (1798-1880). A Nimes lawyer with an ardent admiration for Napoleon, he became legal adviser to the Bonaparte family and an intimate of Louis Napoleon with whom he joined in overthrowing the government of Louis Philippe in 1849. A member of the Mizraim Lodge, the Scottish Rite (of which he became Supreme Master on the death of Viennet), he was familiar with all new movements; and his influence enabled him to render at least one important service to Jewry by having the Jewish murderers of Father Thomas in Damascus (1841) set at liberty. One of the leaders in the revolution of February ] 848, he was appointed minister of justice under the provisional government, and used all his political influence in the election of Louis Napoleon to the presidency of the republic. Cremieux hoped in this way to be named Prime Minister and to control French policy for a period, as Disraeli did in England somewhat later. Like Disraeli, he had the financial support of the Rothschilds; but when the President chose for his banker another Jew, Fould, and named General Cavaignac premier, Cremieux saw he had lost. Bitterly disappointed, he became so hostile to his former friend that, at the time of the coup d’e”tat in 1851, he was imprisoned at Vincennes. On his release, he identified himself with the enemies of the emperor; these included the communist associates of Marx, Mazzini, Jacob Venedey (already mentioned), Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin, Pierre Leroux, and a group of socialists, among whom was Maurice Joly.17 Joly, some thirty years younger than Cr6mieux, with an inherited hatred of the Bonapartes, seems to have fallen very largely under his influence. Through Cr6mieux, Joly became acquainted with communists and their writings. Though, until 1871 when his ambition for a government post turned him into a violent communist, he had not in 1864 gone beyond socialism, he was so impressed with the way they presented their arguments that he could not, if the chance were offered, refrain from imitating it. And this chance came in 1864-1865, when his hatred of Napoleon, whetted by Crdmieux, led him to publish anonymously in Brussels the Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu. In this work he tells us,18 ” Machiavelli represents the policy of Might, while Montesquieu stands for that of Right: Machiavelli will be Napoleon, who will himself describe his abominable policy “. It was natural that he should choose the Italian Machiavelli to stand for Bonaparte, and the Frenchman Montesquieu, for the ideal statesman: it was equally natural that he should put in the mouth of Machiavelli some of the same expressions which Venedey had put in it, and which Joly had admired. His own view was: ” Socialism seems to me one of the forms of a new life for the people emancipated from the traditions of the old world. I accept a great many of the solutions offered by socialism; but I reject communism, either as a social factor, or as a political institution. Communism is but a school of socialism. In politics, I understand extreme means to gain one’s ends—in that at least, I am a Jacobin.”19 The French authorities, however, penetrated the thinlydisguised satire: Joly was arrested and sentenced to two years imprisonment (April, 1865). But the Dialogues had pleased Cremieux as much as they had displeased the emperor, and, when his term expired, his Jewish patron rallied to his support: Joly was able to found a legal review, Le Palais, with Jules Favre, Desmaret, Leblond, Arago, Berryer, and Adolphe Cremieux as its principal stockholders. With the fall of Napoleon III, Adolphe Cremieux once more took an open part in politics. Pushing to the front his former secretary, Gambetta, he directed through him the negotiations with Bismarck. Bismarck himself was guided by the Jew Bamberger (1832-1899), a former revolutionary of ’48, but who had for years managed the Paris branch of the Jewish bank Bischofsheim & Gold-schmidt; he was also a friend of Cremieux. A third Jew in the negotiations was the son of James Rothschild.20 In this way, care was taken that the treaty should be satisfactory, if not entirely to the signatories, yet at least so to the Alliance Israelite Universelle. From then (1871) until his death in 1880, as President of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and Supreme Master of the Scottish Rite, Cremieux was one of the promoters of the anti-clerical movement following the Franco-Prussian war. His favourite theme was that there should be one cult: speaking at a general assembly of the Alliance he said: ” The Alliance is not limited to our cult; it voices its appeal to all cults and wants to penetrate in all religions, as it has penetrated into all countries. Let us endeavour boldly to bring about the union of all cults under one flag of ” Union and Progress “: such is the motto of humanity.”21 One cult, one flag. Are the Protocols of Nilus, or the words of Machiavelli in Joly’s book or in Venedey’s book, anything but an elaborate exposition of the ideas thus briefly expressed by Cremieux? His activities are one of the best examples of Jewish internationalism. Thus the principal attempt to discredit the Protocols leads directly into historical studies which substantiate and illustrate their doctrine in a remarkable and unexpected manner. — 1. Princess Catherine Radzivill was convicted of forgery in London on April 30,1902, the amount involved being ?3,000, and was sentenced to two years in prison (London Times, April 16, 29, and May 1, 1902). On October 13, 1921, suit was filed against her by the Hotel Embassy, New York, for failure to pay her bill of $1,239, and on October 30 she was arrested on the instance of the Hotel Shelbourne, New York, on a charge of defrauding the hotel of $352. (New York World, Oct. 14 and 31, 1921). Later she went to live with her friend Mrs. Hurlbut at 503 West 124th Street, New York. 2. She was one of the Russian Liberals in Paris in 1884 who furnished Mme. Juliette Adam with details of Russian court life. She has since claimed the authorship of the books by ” Count Vassilii”, really written by Mme. Adam. 3. Supra, p. 75. 4. Entitled On the Bank of the River of God. 5. Sabler was Procurator of the Holy Synod at St. Petersburg: he supported Rasputin and other pseudo-mystics and had a disastrous influence on the Russian Church. (Cf. Paleologue, Memoires, 1927). 6. Philip Graves. 7. August 16, 17, 18, 1921: the articles were reprinted in a booklet entitled, The Truth about The Protocols, 24 pages. 8. Supra, p. 41 (note 25). 9. Supra, pp. 71, 72. 10. For example, the passage referring to Vishnu is found in Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, in the Dialogues, and in Protocol 12, infra. 11. Space does not allow us here to trace the links between Jacob Venedey, the Alliance Israelite Universelle, Adolphe Cre’mieux, Maurice Joly, and Jules Janin. 13. Another case of plagiarism at work! 14. Cf. Die Bauhiitte, Feb. 1871, date of Venedey’s death. 15. Supra, p. 30. 16. In his novel Coningsby (London, 1844), Disraeli draws a picture from life of the Jews ruling the world from behind thrones as graphic as anything in the Protocols of Nilus. (It is expected that The Times will shortly be in a position to establish conclusively that Coningsby is a plagiarism of a Byzantine novel of the XVIIth century). The passage in which Rothschild (Sidonid) describes this runs as follows: ” If I followed my own impulse, I would remain here,” said Sidonia. ” Can anything be more absurd than that a nation should apply to an individual to maintain its credit, and with its credit, its existence as an empire and its comfort as a people; and that individual one to whom its laws deny the proudest rights of citizenship, the privilege of sitting in its senate and of holding land; for though I have been rash enough to buy several estates, my own opinion is that by the existing law of England, an Englishman of Hebrew faith cannot possess the soil.” ” But surely it would be easy to repeal a law so illiberal.” ” Oh! as for illiberality, I have no objection to it if it be an element of power. Eschew political sentimentality. What I contend is that if you permit men to accumulate property, and they use that permission to a great extent, power is inseparable from that property, and it is in the last degree impolitic to make it in the interest of any powerful class to oppose the institutions under which they live. The Jews, for example, independent of the capital qualities for citizenship which they possess in their industry, temperance, and energy and vivacity of mind, are a race essentially monarchical, deeply religious, and shrinking themselves from converts as from a calamity, are ever anxious to see the religious systems of the countries in which they live, flourish; yet since your society has become agitated in England and powerful combinations menace your institutions, you find the once loyal Hebrew invariably arrayed in the same ranks as the leveller and the latitudinarian, and prepared to support rather than tamely continue under a system which seeks to degrade him. The Tories lose an important election at a critical moment; ’tis the Jews come forward to vote against them. The Church is alarmed at the scheme of a latitudinarian university, and learns with relief that funds are not forthcoming for its establishment; a Jew immediately advances and endows it. Yet the Jews, Coningsby, are essentially Tories. Toryism indeed is but copied from the mighty prototype which has fashioned Europe. And every generation they must become more powerful and more dangerous to the society which is hostile to them. Do you think that the quiet humdrum persecution of a decorous representative of an English university can crush those who have successively baffled the Pharaohs, Nebuchadnezzar, Rome, and the feudal ages? The fact is you cannot destroy a pure race of the Caucasian organisation. It is a physiological fact; a simple law of nature, which has baffled Egyptian and Assyrian kings, Roman emperors, and Christian inquisitors. No penal laws, no physical tortures, can effect that a superior race should be absorbed in an inferior, or be destroyed by it. The mixed persecuting races disappear, the pure persecuted race remains. And at this moment, in spite of centuries, or tens of centuries, of degradation, the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe. I speak not of their laws, which you still obey; of their literature, with which your minds are saturated; but of the living Hebrew intellect. ” You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews: that mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organised and principally carried on by Jews; that mighty revolution (of 1848) which will be in fact a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is as yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolise the professorial chairs of Germany. Neander, the founder of Spiritual Christianity, and who is Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Berlin, is a Jew. Benary, equally famous, and in the same university, is a Jew. Wehl, the Arabic Professor of Heidelberg, is a Jew. Years ago, when I was in Palestine, I met a German student who was accumulating materials for the history of Christianity and studying the genius of the place; a modest and learned man. It was Wehl; then unknown, since become the first Arabic scholar of the day, and the author of the life of Mahomet. But for the German professors of this race, their name is legion. I think there are more than ten at Berlin alone. ” I told you just now that I was going up to town to-morrow, because I always made it a rule to interpose when affairs of state were on the carpet. Otherwise, I never interfere. I hear of peace and war in newspapers, but I am never alarmed, except when I am informed that the sovereigns want treasure; then I know that monarchs are serious. ” A few years back we were applied to by Russia. Now there has been no friendship between the Court of St Petersburg and my family. It has Dutch connections which have generally supplied it; and our representations in favour of the Polish Hebrews, a numerous race, but the most suffering and degraded of all the tribes, have not been very agreeable to the Czar. However circumstances drew to an approximation between the Romanoffs and the Sidonias. I resolved to go myself to St. Petersburg. I had on my arrival an interview with the Russian Minister of Finance, Count Cancrin; I beheld the son of a Lithuanian Jew. The loan was connected with the affairs of Spain; I resolved on repairing to Spain from Russia. I travelled without intermission. I had an audience immediately on my arrival with the Spanish minister, Senor Mendizabel; I beheld one like myself, the son of a Nuevo Christiano, a Jew of Aragon. In consequence of what transpired at Madrid, I went straight to Paris to consult the President of the French Council; I beheld the son of a French Jew, a hero, an imperial marshal and very properly so, for who should be military heroes if not those who worship the Lord of Hosts? ” ” And is Soult a Hebrew? ” ” Yes, and others of the French marshals, and the most famous, Massena, for example; his real name was Mannaseh: but to my anecdote. The consequence of our consultations was that some northern power should be applied to in a friendly and mediative capacity. We fixed on Prussia, and the President of the Council made an application to the Prussian minister, who attended a few days after our conference. Count Arnim entered the cabinet, and I beheld a Prussian Jew. So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes (pp. 249-252). 17. His father was Philippe Lambert Joly, born at Dieppe, Attorney- General of the Jura under Louis-Philippe for ten years. His mother, Florentine Corbara Courtois, was the daughter of Laurent Courtois, paymaster-general of Corsica, who had an inveterate hatred of Napo leon I. Maurice Joly was born in 1831 at Lons-le-Saulnier and educated at Dijon: there he had begun his law studies, but left for Paris in 1849 to secure a post in the Ministry of the Interior under M. Chevreau and just before the coup d’etat. He did not finish his law studies till 1860. Committed suicide in 1878. 18. Maurice Joly: son passe, son programme (autobiography), Paris, 1870. 19. Ibid. 20. Bismarck, who had met the latter’s grandfather, knew that Rothschild’s real name was Meyer, and regarded him as an ” Israelitish citizen of Frankfurt”, hence a German subject. To make matters worse, the victor was obliged to discuss the terms of peace with this renegade subject in French, the language of the vanquished, because Rothschild professed not to understand German. Corti, House of Rothschild, vol. II. 21. Speech made on May 31, 1864; ” Union and Progress ” was the name given to several revolutionary associations and Masonic lodges. ” One cult” is strongly reminiscent of Protocol XVI, infra. Cf. Cr6mieux, Paris, Capitate des Religions. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
2.4.1 Text And Commentary Of The Protocols Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion may be briefly described as a blueprint for the domination of the world by a secret brotherhood. Whatever may be the truth about their authorship—and, as will be shown, this has been the subject of bitter dispute—there can be no doubt that the world society to which they look forward is nothing more or less than a world police state. The book in which the Protocols were first embodied was published by Professor Sergyei A. Nilus in Russia in 1905, a copy being received in the British Museum on August 10th, 1906. Professor Nilus’s concern was to expose what he believed to be a ruthless, cold-blooded conspiracy for the destruction of Christian civilization. Earlier, in August and September, 1903, the Russian newspaper Snamia had published the Protocols, and they are also believed to have been published in the winter of 1902/1903 in the newspaper Moskowskija Wiedomosti. They remained unknown outside Russia, however, until after the Bolshevik Revolution, when Russian emigrants brought Nilus’s book to North America and Germany. The similarity between what was forecast in the Protocols and the fate which had befallen Russia under the Bolsheviks was so marked that, after these long years of neglect, they rapidly became one of the most famous (or notorious) documents in the world. In Bolshevik Russia, the penalty for their mere possession was death. It remains so to this day, both in the Soviet Union and in the Satellite countries. Outside the Iron Curtain, in South Africa possession of the Protocols is also forbidden by law, although the penalty is less drastic. As a result of their rapidly growing fame, numerous attempts were made to discredit the Protocols as a forgery. But it was not until 1933 that the Jews resorted to legal action. On 26th June, 1933, the Federation of Jewish Communities of Switzerland and the Berne Jewish Community brought an action against five members of the Swiss National Front, seeking a judgment that the Protocols were a forgery and a prohibition of their publication.1 The procedure of the Court was astounding, the provisions of the Swiss Civil Code being deliberately set aside. Sixteen witnesses called by the plaintiffs were heard, but only one of the forty witnesses called by the defendants was allowed a hearing. The judge allowed the plaintiffs to appoint two private stenographers to keep the register of proceedings during the hearing of their witnesses, instead of entrusting the task to a Court official. In view of these and similar irregularities, it was not surprising that, after the case had lasted just on two years, the Court pronounced the Protocols to be a forgery and demoralizing literature. The decision was given on 14th May, 1935, but it was announced in the Jewish Press before it was delivered by the Court. On 1st November, 1937, the Swiss Court of Criminal Appeal quashed this judgment in its entirety. Jewish propagandists, however, still declare that the Protocols have been “proved” to be a forgery. It was natural that the Jews should try to discredit the Protocols, for their growing fame was focusing more public attention on other revealing utterances. In Disraeli’s The Life of Lord George Bentinck, written in 1852, there occurs this quotation: “The influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or the Christian form, the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional Governments and men of Jewish Race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen Race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.” Max Nordau, a Jew, speaking at the Zionist Congress at Basle in August 1903, made this astonishing “prophesy”: “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.” Walter Rathenau, the Jewish banker behind the Kaiser, writing in the German Weiner Frei Presse, December 24th 1912, said: “Three hundred men, each of whom knows all the others, govern the fate of the European continent, and they elect their successors from their entourage.” Confirmation of Rathenau’s statement came twenty years later in 1931 when Jean Izoulet, a prominent member of the Jewish Alliance Israelite Universelle, wrote in his Paris la Capitale des Religions: “The meaning of the history of the last century is that today 300 Jewish financiers, all Masters of Lodges, rule the world.” The London Jewish Chronicle, on April 4th, 1919, declared: “There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.” On March 15th, 1923, the Jewish World asserted: “Fundamentally Judaism is Anti-Christian.” These and many similar assertions from Jewish sources were damaging enough from the Jewish point of view. Taken in conjunction with the Protocols, with which more and more people were becoming familiar, they were damning. The attitude of many people whose concern over the growing attack on Christian civilization was rapidly increasing was summed up by the late Henry Ford senior, the founder of the world-famous motor manufacturing company. In an interview published in the New York World on February 17th, 1921, Mr. Ford declared: “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and have fitted the world situation up to this time. THEY FIT IT NOW.” Those who, like Henry Ford, could see that “they fit it now” only sixteen years after Nilus’s first publication of the Protocols, naturally tended to concentrate their attention on the relatively recent phenomenon of Bolshevism. Few of them then understood the equally dangerous, if more insidious, danger of internationalism. Now, however, more than half a century after Nilus’s publication of the Protocols, the reality of that danger must be crystal clear to anybody who views the world situation objectively. The Protocols are full of references to a “super-Government”. Protocol VI, for example, states: “In every possible way we must develop the significance of our super-Government by representing it as the Protector and Benefactor of all those who voluntarily submit to us.” That is exactly the way in which the United Nations organization, set up at the end of the second World War, is represented to those who voluntarily submit to it. It is exactly the way the various United Nations special agencies—U.N.E.S.C.O. (U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization); I.L.O. (International Labor Organization); W.H.O. (World Health Organization); F.A.O. (Food and Agriculture Organization); Commission on Human Rights; Genocide Convention, etc.—are represented. For some years there has been in existence an international organization calling itself the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government, which pursues the same objective as that of another long-established international organization, Federal Union. This body does not disguise the fact that the United Nations, by means of a few relatively minor changes in its Charter, could be transformed virtually overnight into a World Government. There has long been agitation for the creation of a World Police Force. This would enable the United Nations super-Government to function as the master of an all-powerful World Police State, and the closing years of the 1950’s have seen the agitators for a World Police Force come close to achieving their objective. The U.N. Emergency Force, established after the Suez crisis of 1956, has been openly regarded as a “pilot scheme”. Should the few changes in the Charter necessary to transform the U.N. into a super-Government be made, it will have in the special agencies readymade Ministries of Education (or Propaganda), Labor, Health, Food and Agriculture, “Justice” etc. Can it be an accident that these things are so accurately fore-shadowed in the Protocols? The full-scale World super-Government is not the only, nor perhaps the most immediate, danger. It is obvious to everyone that the nations of the East are being herded into subjection under the dominance of the Soviet Union. But what of the nations of the West? Are they really the “free nations” which they are popularly supposed to be? Far from it! They are being herded into the same sort of pen as are the nations of the East under Communism—and often on the pretext that this is the only way in which they can save themselves from Communism. Late in 1957, the process had gone far enough to be given an official name. That name was the “policy of inter-dependence”. The nations of the West are being brought under international control at political, military and economic levels. They are rapidly in process of becoming controlled also on the social level. All alike are being told that their only hope lies in the surrender of national sovereignty. National Parliaments must give way to such bodies as the Council of Europe or the Atlantic Council. National Forces must be submerged in such bodies as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (N.A.T.O.), the Baghdad Pact or the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (S.E.A.T.O.), so that no nation has control over its own means of defense. National economies must be submerged in such bodies as the Organization for European Economic Co-operation (O.E.E.C.), the European Payments Union (E.P.U.) or the World Bank, so that no nation may control its own economic destiny. Even on the social level, individual national distinctions must disappear. For example, under the “Common Market” Treaty which unites six European nations on the economic plane, provision is made for the “equalization of social policies”. And strenuous efforts have been made to herd other European nations, Great Britain among them, into this same pen in the associated European Free Trade Area. In 1934, when the leader of the British Labor Party (Mr. Clement Attlee) told the party’s annual conference: “We are deliberately putting loyalty to a world order above loyalty to our own country”, he was widely execrated. Twenty-three years of propaganda, however, leave their mark, and when, in 1957, a Conservative Prime Minister of Britain told the British people that they must surrender some of their national sovereignty to an unknown international cabal, scarcely a voice was raised in protest. At the close of 1957 there was an official declaration of the British Government’s support for the plan which was foreshadowed in the Protocols over sixty years ago. The Earl of Gosford, Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said in the House of Lords on 7th November, 1957: “Her Majesty’s Government is fully in agreement with World Government. We agree that this must be the goal, and that every step that is humanly possible must be taken to reach that goal.” All over the world, “federation”, “integration”, “regionalization” and “inter-dependence” are the order of the day. All this is foreshadowed in the Protocols, published more than half-a-century ago by Sergyei Nilus, which, we are told, are a forgery. Can all this be coincidence? Could any forger be so prescient? Or are the Protocols what Nilus and many others believed them to be—the blueprint of a conspiracy to destroy Christian civilization and place the whole world under the domination of a small, select cabal ? The British Museum Library stamp Дозводено цензурою. Москва, 28 сентября 1905 годл The Subtitle page from the 2nd edition (1905) with the words: Passed by the Censor Moscow. 28th of September, 1905. NOTES I — “AGENTUR” and “The Political” There are two words in this translation which are unusual, the words “Agentur” and “political” used as substantives. “Agentur” appears to be adopted from the original text and it means the whole body of agents and agencies directed by the Elders, whether members of the tribe or their Gentile tools. By “the Political” Mr. Marsden means, not exactly the “body politic” but the entire machinery of politics. II—The Symbolic Snake of Judaism Protocol III opens with a reference to the Symbolic Snake of Judaism. In his Epilogue to the 1905 Edition of the Protocols Nilus gives the following interesting account of this symbol: According to the records of secret Jewish Zionism, Solomon and other Jewish learned men had already, in 929 B.C., thought out a theoretical scheme for the peaceful conquest of the whole universe by Zion. As the course of history unfolded, this scheme was elaborated in detail and completed by later generations of men who had been initiated into their secrets. These learned men decided by peaceful means to conquer the world for Zion with the slyness of the Symbolic Snake, whose head was to represent those who have been initiated into the plans of the Jewish administration, and the body of the Snake to represent the Jewish people—the administration was always kept secret, even from the Jewish nation itself. As this Snake penetrated into the hearts of the nations which it encountered it undermined and devoured all the non-Jewish power of these States. It is foretold that the Snake has still to finish its work, strictly adhering to the designed plan, until the course which it has to run is closed by the return of its head to Zion and until, by this means, the Snake has completed its round of Europe and has encircled it—and until, by dint of enchaining Europe, it has encompassed the whole world. This it is to accomplish by using every endeavor to subdue the other countries by economic conquest. The return of the head of the snake to Zion can only be accomplished after the power of all the Sovereigns of Europe has been laid low, that is to say, when by means of economic crises and wholesale destruction effected everywhere, there shall have been brought about spiritual demoralization and moral corruption, chiefly with the assistance of Jewish women masquerading as French, Italians, etc. Their example is the surest method of encouraging licentiousness among the leaders of the nations. A map of the course of the Symbolic Snake is shown as follows:—Its first stage in Europe was in 429 B.C. in Greece, where, about the time of Pericles, the Snake first started eating into the power of that country. The second stage was in Rome in the time of Augustus, about 69 B.C. The third in Madrid in the time of Charles V, in A.D. 1552. The fourth in Paris about 1790, in the time of Louis XVI. The fifth in London from 1841 onwards (after the downfall of Napoleon). The sixth in Berlin in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war. The seventh in St. Petersburg, over which is drawn the head of the Snake under the date of 1881. All these states which the Snake traversed have had the foundations of their constitutions shaken, Germany, with its apparent power, forming no exception to the rule. In economic conditions England and Germany are spared, but only till the conquest of Russia is accomplished by the Snake, on which at present (i.e., 1905) all its efforts are concentrated. The further course of the Snake is not shown on this map, but arrows indicate its next movement towards Moscow, Kieff and Odessa. It is now well known to us to what extent the latter cities form the centres of the militant Jewish race. Constantinople is shown as the last stage of the Snake’s course before it reaches Jerusalem. (This map was drawn years before the occurrence of the “Young Turk”—i.e., Jewish— Revolution in Turkey). III—The term GOYIM The term “Goyim”, meaning Gentiles or non-Jews, is used throughout the Protocols and is retained by Mr. Marsden. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
2.4.2 Concluding Passage From The Epilogue Of Nilus Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward (Edition of 1905) According to the testament of Montefiore, Zion is not sparing, either of money or of any other means, to achieve its ends. In our day, all the governments of the entire world are consciously or unconsciously submissive to the commands of this great Supergovernment of Zion, because all the bonds and securities are in its hands; for all countries are indebted to the Jews for sums which they will never be able to pay. All affairs—industry, commerce, and diplomacy —are in the hands of Zion. It is by means of its capital loans that it has enslaved all nations. By keeping education on purely materialistic lines, the Jews have loaded the Gentiles with heavy chains with which they have harnessed them to their ” Supergovernment”. The end of national liberty is near, therefore personal freedom is approaching its close; for true liberty cannot exist where Zion uses the lever of its gold to rule the masses and dominate the most respectable and enlightened class of society. ” He that hath ears to hear, let him hear “. It is nearly four years since the Protocols of the Elders of Zion came into my possession. Only God knows what efforts I have made to bring them to general notice—in vain—and even to warn those in power, by disclosing the causes of the storm about to break on apathetic Russia who seems, in her misfortune, to have lost all notion of what is going on around her. And it is only now when I fear it may be too late, that I have succeeded in publishing my work, hoping to put on their guard those who still have ears to hear and eyes to see. One can no longer doubt it, the triumphant reign of the King of Israel rises over our degenerate world as that of Satan, with his power and his terrors; the King born of the blood of Zion—the Antichrist—is about to mount the throne of universal empire. Events are precipitated in the world at a terrifying speed: quarrels, wars, rumours, famines, epidemics, earthquakes— everything which even yesterday was impossible, today is an accomplished fact. One would think that the days pass so rapidly to advance the cause of the chosen people. Space does not allow us to enter into the details of world history with regard to the disclosed ” mysteries of iniquity,” to prove from history the influence which the ” Wise Men of Zion ” have exercised through universal misfortunes, by foretelling the certain and already near future of humanity, or by raising the curtain for the last act of the world’s tragedy. Only the light of Christ and of his Holy Church Universal can fathom the abyss of Satan and disclose the extent of its wickedness. I feel in my heart that the hour has already struck when there should urgently be convoked an Eighth Oecumenical Council which would unite the pastors and representatives of all Christendom. Secular quarrels and schisms would all be forgotten in the imminent need of preparing against the coming of the Anti-christ.1 — 1. This forecast of Sergius Nilus is all the more remarkable, when one considers that it appeared in the Epilogue to his edition of the Protocols of 1905. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
2.5.1 Jacob Brafmann and his Work Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward About the middle of the last century, Jacob Brafmann, a Jewish rabbi in Russia, became a convert to Christianity and spent the rest of his life endeavouring to throw light on the Jewish questions in general, and on the situation in Russia in particular, both in the interest of gentiles and of the Jews themselves. His two works, The Book of the Kahal,1 and The Jewish Brotherhoods,* were first published at government expense some sixty years ago and are still the best source of information on many points. Brafmann’s story, given in his own words in the preface to the Book of the Kahal, is reprinted here :* “During his majesty’s (Alexander II) stay at Minsk in 1858, I submitted to him a report on the social status and organization of the Jews in Russia. Some time after, by order of the holy synod (April 29, 1859), I was called to St. Petersburg in connection with the report, and was subsequently (May 13, 1860) appointed professor of Hebrew at the Minsk seminary. I was also charged with finding a means for overcoming the obstacles to conversion to Christianity set up by the Jews … Thoroughly familiar with the Jewish question (as I had professed Judaism till the age of thirty-four), I knew where to draw the materials necessary for the work, and the archbishop of Minsk furnished me with the means. My task was facilitated by the co-operation of several enlightened Jews4. I thus obtained valuable material which served not only for the work in hand, but also to throw light on the Jewish question in general, as well as their social and religious organization in Russia. This material included over a thousand acts of the Jewish Kahal (civil administration), and of the beth-dins (Talmudic law courts), showing the power and extent of their secret government. The Kahal goes so far as to decree what individuals may be invited to, and what dishes served at, a Jewish family feast. On the important question, whether the law of the land is binding on the Jews, the comments in the Talmud are evasive, but the documents here listed (under Nos. 5, 16, 166) show that the Jews must abide by the instructions of the Kahal and the beth-din, in contradistinction to the law of the land and their own conscience. Similarly, on the question of the real estate and appurtenances belonging to non-Jews, the Talmud is obscure; but the thirty-seven acts cited in our fifth article prove conclusively that the Kahal may sell to Jews the right (Hasaka and Meropie) to the real estate and appurtenances of any gentile. The documents also prove that the Kahal and the beth-din are not bound to judge according to Jewish law, but may hand down personal decisions as they please-Thus, by secret acts, the Jews circumvent their Christian competitors and acquire a controlling share of the capital and real estate of the country. I submitted these documents together with my recommendations to Gov. Gen. von Kaufmann, who appointed a commission to examine them, with the result that the official Jewish Kahal was suppressed by the circular of Aug. 34, 1867. The authenticity of all the documents is thoroughly established; the 290 documents published herewith cover the period from 1794 to 1803. To facilitate their study, they have been arranged in seventeen categories, each preceded by a short explanation on the laws and customs referred to, and indicating their real aim and influence on the Jews and on the gentiles.” As the subject of Brafmann’s other work, The Jewish Brotherhoods, has been treated rather fully in chapter II, it is hardly necessary to give an analysis of the book here. — 1. First edition (Vilna, 1869), excellent German translation by Siegfried Passarge, Das Such vom Kahal (Hammer Verlag, Leipzig, 1928), 2 vol. French translation by Mgr. Jouin, Les Sources de VimpM- alisme juif: Le Qahal (Paris, 1925). 2. (Vilna, 1868). 3. Our translation, somewhat abbreviated. 4. See Vilna Gazette (1866), 169: ” Views of an individual Jew.” · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
2.5.2 The Writing on the Wall Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward THE CABBALISTIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MYSTERIOUS INSCRIPTION FOUND ON THE WALL OF THE ROOM IN WHICH THE IMPERIAL RUSSIAN FAMILY WAS MURDERED. The three letters N of the inscription are the letter ” ” repeated three times in three different languages.1 The first letter on the right is a L (lamed) in the cursive handwriting of the ancient Hebrew alphabet. It is the twelfth letter of that alphabet with the numerical value of 30 (cabbalistically reduced to the fundamental number: — 3 + 0 = 3, which explains why the letter ” L ” is thrice repeated in the inscription).2 The second letter is also the letter lamed but in the Samaritan script.3 The third letter A. is the Greek letter lambda, corresponding to the same letter lamed. In ancient sacred Hebrew, based on the ancient sacred language of the Egyptian temples, each letter, apart from its vernacular value as sound and number, has, moreover, secret meanings known only to adepts. Fabre d’Olivet thus characterizes the accumulation of the different meanings contained in the ancient Hebrew alphabet: ” Moses, in his teaching, followed the method of the Egyptian priests who made use of three methods to express their thoughts: the first was the common use; the second was symbolical or figurative; the third was sacred or hieroglyphic. Such was the character of that language. According to their will, the same word had the ordinary, figurative or the allegorical meaning. Heraclitus has expressed this difference in three terms: namely, the spoken word, the symbol, and the hidden meaning.”4 Moreover, each letter stood for one of the names of God, and for one of the mysterious keys of the Tarot, the sacred book wherein, under different images, is concentrated all the ancient practice of magical science.5 The name of God, corresponding to the letter lamed, is Shadai, composed of three letters, represented by A (the Greek capital letter D) and it governs the sphere of Saturn. The number of Saturn is also 3. This explains once again why the letter lamed is thrice repeated.6 On the other hand, following cabbalistic teaching, the letter lamed stands for the heart, the king of the body, wherein dwells the soul—Ruach. Cabbalists affirm that man is formed of three main invisible parts: namely, Nesham, the mind, Ruach, the soul, and Nefesh, the lower soul or subconscience which governs directly the material body. Nesham has its seat in the brain; Nefesh, in the liver, and Ruach, in the centre, between liver and brain, namely, in the heart. According to the ancients, the heart is king of the body (Melek = king), and, we repeat again, was situated in the body between brain and liver, that is, in the centre.7 This is clearly shown by the cabbalistic analysis of the word Melek = king. Three words are fused in one: ” brain “, represented by the first letter of the word mem; ” heart ” by the first letter of the word lamed; and ” liver “, by the first letter of the word kaph, which is the same letter as ;J, but in the form used at the end of a word. It is clear, therefore, that the letter L (lamed), symbolising the ” heart “, which is found in the centre between ” liver ” and ” brain “, is placed in the word Melek between letters representing these two organs.8 Therefore, according to the ancients, the heart (lamed) is the king (Melek) of the organism and the seat of life. The destruction of the heart causes the death of the organism and, in symbolical language, it also means that the destruction of the king brings about the downfall of the kingdom. Furthermore, in studying the hidden meaning of the roots, one discovers that the root LL (double lamed), still found in Arabic, means the agony of a man being torn to pieces.9 The addition of a third only strengthens this meaning and indicates the agony bf a desperate situation. Interpreting the inscription on the wall with the help of the Tarot,10 one finds that the letter L corresponds to the twelfth card of the Great Arcana,l1 and also to the letter Luzain, of the sacred language of the Egyptian Magi. This arcanum represents a man hanging by one foot from a pole whose two ends rest on two trees from each of which six branches have been cut. The man’s arms are tied behind his back and folded so as to form the base of a triangle pointing downwards; the apex is formed by the head of the man. It is the sign of violent death, but it can also mean sacrifice.12 Therefore, reading the cabbalistic meaning of the three letters, one gets: HERE THE KING WAS STRUCK TO THE HEART IN PUNISHMENT OF HIS CRIMES, or, HERE THE KING WAS SACRIFICED TO BRING ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS KINGDOM. Finally, the line drawn beneath these three letters (in Magical Science the horizontal line is the symbol of the passive principle) indicates that those who killed the king did not do so of their own will, but in obedience to superior command. Whoever wrote this inscription was a man well versed in the secrets of the ancient Jewish cabbalism, as contained in the Cabbala and the Talmud. In accomplishing the deed in obedience to superior order, this man performed a rite of Black Magic. It is for this reason that he commemorated his act by a cabbalistic inscription in cipher, which belonged to the rite. The inscription therefore proves: That the Tsar was killed. That the murder of the Tsar was committed by men under the command of occult forces; and by an organiza tion which, in its struggle against existing power resorted to the ancient cabbalism in which it was well versed. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
2.5.3 The Kellogg Palestine Pact Leslie Fry Waters Flowing Eastward The Kellogg Palestine Pact Extract from League of Nations—Treaty Series, vol. XLin-1926, No. 1046, pages 41-59. Convention respecting the Rights of the Governments of the two Countries and their respective Nationals in Palestine, signed at London, December 3, 1924. English official text communicated by His Britannic Majesty’s Foreign Office. The registration of this Convention took place January 6, 1926. This Convention was also transmitted to the Secretariat by the Department of State of the Government of the United States of America, February 17, 1926. (Preamble followed by the text of the mandate as it was approved by the Council of the League of Nations, 28 articles, signed at London, July 3, 1922.) Whereas the mandate in the above terms came into force on September 29, 1923; and Whereas the United States of America, by participating in the war against Germany, contributed to her defeat and the defeat of her Allies; and to the renunciation of the rights and titles of her Allies in the territory transferred by them, but has not ratified the Covenant of the League of Nations embodied in the Treaty of Versailles; and Whereas the Government of the United States and the Government of His Britannic Majesty desire to reach a definite agreement independently with respect to the rights of the two Governments and their respective Nationals in Palestine; His Britannic Majesty and the President of the United States of America have decided to conclude a convention to this effect, and have named as plenipotentiaries: His Majesty (titles): The Right Honourable Joseph Austen Chamberlain (titles); The President of the United States of America: His Excellency the Honourable Frank B. Kellogg (titles); Who have agreed as follows: ARTICLE 1. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention the United States consents to the dominion of Palestine by His Britannic Majesty, pursuant to the mandate recited above. ARTICLE 2. The United States and its nationals shall have and enjoy all the rights and benefits secured under the terms of the mandate to Members of the League of Nations and their nationals, notwithstanding the fact that the United States is not a Member of the League of Nations. ARTICLE 3. Vested American property rights in the mandated territory shall be respected and in no way impaired. ARTICLE 4. A duplicate of the annual report to be made by the Mandatory under Art. 24 of the mandate shall be furnished to the United States. ARTICLE 5. Subject to the provisions of any local laws for the maintenance of public order and public morals, the nationals of the United States will be permitted freely to establish and maintain educational, philanthropic, and religious institutions in the mandated territory, and to receive voluntary applicants and to teach in the English language. ARTICLE 6. The extradition treaties and conventions which are or may be in force between the United States and Great Britain, and the provisions of any treaties which are or may be in force between the two countries which relate to extradition or consular rights shall apply to the mandated territory. ARTICLE 7. Nothing contained in the present Convention shall be affected by any modification which may be made in the terms of the mandate, as recited above, unless such modification shall have been assented to by the United States. ARTICLE 8. The present Convention shall be ratified in accordance with etc. Done in duplicate at London this 3rd day of December, 1924. (L.S.) Austen Chamberlain. (L.S.) Frank B. Kellogg. Note an the Kellogg-Briand Pact This pact was not written by Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg, but was entirely the work of a Jewish Chicago lawyer, Solomon O. Levinsohn. He first presented it to the late M. Briand and later to Mr. Kellogg, who sponsored it. It became known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact and was signed in Paris on August 27, 1928. (Cf. The story of this Pact in the Revue Internationale des Societts Secretes, Paris, 1930). — 1. The student may be confused by the fact that, in the photograph which is reproduced facing page 192, the characters appear as though reversed, and written from right to left. But this is not the case, and is explained by the position assumed by the writer, who stood with his back to the wall, with his right arm stretched down, and formed the letters from right to left, in the Hebrew manner. 2. The cabbalistic interpretation of letters and words is found in the following books: Kircher, Oedipus Aegyptiacus; Lenain, La Science Cabbalistique; Dee, Monas Hieroglyphica; H. Krumrath, Amphitheatre de Veternel sapience; Franck, La Cabbale. 3. Fabre d’Olivet, La Langue hebralque restitute. 4. Fabre d’Olivet, op. fit. 5. Eliphas Levy, Dogme et Rituel de la haute magie. 6. Cornelius Agrippa, Philosophic Occulle. 7. Cf. The report made by Leinigen to the Munich Psychological Society, March 3, 1887. 8. To cipher the real meaning, cabbalists frequently resort to a special kind of hieroglyphics, one form of which is synthetic, whereby a word is concealed by several others. For instance, the first letters of several words are taken and assembled in one word, as in the present case in the word Melek. See Molitor, Philosophic de la Tradition. The above is a reproduction of the photograph of the inscription found on the wall of the room in Ekaterinburg where the Tsar Nicholas II and his Family were murdered, in 1918, by order of the Bolsheviks. The town was retaken from the Bolsheviks, a tew weeks after the murder, by the forces of General Denikin, at whose command an official inquest was instituted: the bodies of the Imperial Family were exhumed, etc., and a careful record of the proceedings was kept. The photograph is found in this record. The name of the town has since been changed by the Bolsheviks to Sverdlovsk, after the Jewish President, Sverdlov, of the Court which ordered the murder. The student must not be confused by the fact that in the above photograph the characters are written upside-down and from right to left. That is explained by the fact that the writer stood with his back to the wall, with his right arm stretched down, and he formed the letters from right to left, in the Hebrew manner. 9. Fabre d’Olivet, op. cit. 10. Eliphas L6vy, op. cit. Papus, Tarot des Bohimiens. 11. The Arcana (arcana= mysterious) are the cards of the Tarot: the Great Arcana, of which there are twenty-two, correspond to the letters of the sacred alphabet which was first of all Egyptian and after wards became Jewish. Their invention is attributed to the founder of the Egyptian secret science, Hermes Tot or Trismegistos. Our playing cards today originally came from the Lesser Arcana. 12. P. Christian, Histoire de la Magie. · Previous · Contents · Next · http://iamthewitness.com
http://iamthewitness.com/books/Denis.Fahey/Waters.Flowing.Eastward/0.1.Title.htm#Content

Published on July 31, 2009 at 4:50 am  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://jewise.wordpress.com/waters-flowing-eastward-2/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: