 |
 |
 |
Little has yet been said in this commentary on the Protocols about the political program contained in them. It is desirable that the points be taken separately in order that when our study turns to actual conditions in this country, the reader may be in a position to judge whether the written program agrees with the acted program as it may be seen all about us. The World Program as outlined in these strange documents turns upon many points, some of which have already been discussed. Its success is sought (a) by securing financial control of the world, this having already been secured by the overwhelming indebtedness of every nation through wars, and by the capitalistic (not the manufacturing or managerial) control of industry; (b) by securing political control, which is easily illustrated by the condition of every civilized country today; (c) by securing control of education, a control which has been steadily won under the blinded eyes of the people; (d) by trivializing the public mind through a most complete system of allurement which has just brought us into a period which requires the new word “jazz” to describe it; and (e) by the sowing of seeds of disruption everywhere—not the seeds of progress, but of economic fallacies and revolutionary temper. All of these main objectives entail various avenues of action, none of which has been overlooked by the Protocols.
In leading up to what the Protocols have to say about the selection and control of Presidents, it will be enlightening to take the views which these documents express about other phases of politics.
It may be very interesting to those Jewish apologists, who in all their pronouncements never discuss the contents of the Protocols, to know that so far from their being a plea for monarchy, they are a plea for the most drastic and irresponsible liberalism in government. The powers behind the Protocols appear to have absolute confidence in what they can do with the people once the people are made to believe that popular government has really arrived.
The Protocols believe in frequent change. They like elections; they approve frequent revisions of constitutions; they counsel the people to change their representatives often.
Take this from the First Protocol:
“The abstract conception of Liberty made it possible for us to convince the crowd that government is only the management for the owner of the country, the people, and that the steward can be changed like a pair of worn-out gloves. The possibility of changing the representatives of the people has placed them at our disposal and, as it were, has placed them in our power as creatures of our purposes.”
Note also how this Use of Change is buried in this paragraph from the Fourth Protocol, which describes the evolution of a Republic:
“Every republic passes through several stages. The first is that of senseless ravings, resembling those of a blind man throwing himself from right to left. The second is that of demagogy, which breeds anarchy and inevitably leads to despotism, not of a legal, open and consequently responsible character, but an unseen and unknown despotism, felt none the less because exercised by a secret organization. Such a despotism acts with even less scruple because it is hidden under cover and works behind the backs of various agents, the shifting and changing of which will not harm its secret power, but serve it, since such changes will relieve the organization from the necessity of expending its resources on rewards for long service.”
This “changing” of servants is not unknown in the United States. A former Senator of the United States could easily testify to this if he only knew who did the “changing.” Time was when he was the tool of every Jewish lobbyist in the Senate. His glib tongue lent charm and plausibility to every argument they wished to advance against the government’s intentions. Secretly, however, the Senator was receiving “favors” from a very high source, “favors” of a financial character. The time came when it was desirable to “detach” the Senator. The written record of his “favors” was abstracted from its place of supposed secrecy, a newspaper system that has always been the ready organ of American Jewry made the exposure, and an indignant public did the rest. It could not have been done had not the man been compromised first; it could not have been done without certain newspaper connivance; it would never have been done had not the Senator’s masters wished it. However, it was done.
In the Fourteenth Protocol, which begins “When we become rulers,” it is pictured how hopeless the Gentile peoples will have become of any betterment of conditions through changes of government, and therefore will accept the promise of stability which the Protocolists of that time will be prepared to offer:
“The masses will become so satiated with the endless changes of administration which we instigated among the Gentiles when we were undermining their governmental institutions, that they will tolerate anything from us * * *”
The official who is changed most quickly in this country is the man who questions certain matters which come from Jewish sources. There must be a small army of such men in the United States today. Some of them do not know even now how it happened. Some are still wondering why perfectly legitimate and patriotic information should have been lost in an icy silence when they sent it in, and why they should have lost favor for sending it.
Protocol Nine is full of the most amazing claims, of which these may serve as illustration:
“At the present time, if any government raises a protest against us, it is only for the sake of form, it is under our control, and it is done by our direction, for their anti-Semitism is necessary for keeping in order our lesser brothers. I will not explain this further as already it has been the subject of numerous discussions between us.”
This doctrine of the usefulness of anti-Semitism and the desirability of creating it where it does not exist are found in the words of Jewish leaders, ancient and modern.
“In reality there are no obstacles before us. Our super-government has such an extra-legal status that it may be called by the energetic and strong word—dictatorship. I can conscientiously say that at the present time we are the lawmakers.”
In that Protocol this claim is made:
“De facto, we have already eliminated every government except our own, although de jure there are still many others left.”
That is simple: the governments still exist, under their own names, having authority over their own people; but the super-government has unchallenged influence over all of them in matters pertaining to the Jewish Nation and particularly in matters pertaining to the purpose of The International Jew.
The Eighth Protocol shows how this can be:
“For the time being, until it will be safe to give responsible government positions to our brother Jews, we shall entrust them to people whose past and whose character are such that there is an abyss between them and the people; to people, for whom, in case of disobedience to our orders, there will remain only trial or exile (from public life), thus forcing them to protect our interest to their last breath.”
In the Ninth Protocol again is this reference to party funds:
“The division into parties has placed them all at our disposal, inasmuch as in order to carry on a party struggle it is necessary to have money, and we have it all.”
There have been many investigations of campaign funds. None has ever yet gone deep enough to inquire into the “international” sources of these funds.
Now, in the United States during the last five years we have seen an almost complete Judaized administration in control of all the war activities of the American people. The function of the regularly organized United States Government during that time was practically confined to the voting of money. But the administration of the business end of the war was in charge of a government within a government, and this inner, extra government was Jewish.
It is, of course, often asked why this was so. The first answer given is that the Jews who were immediately placed in charge of the business administration of the war were competent men, the most competent men who could be found. This was actually the answer given to an inquiry as to the reason for so large a part of the foreign policy of the United States depending on the counsel of a certain group of Jews—they were the men who knew, no one else knew so much, the officials chosen by the people had a right to select the most efficient and able counsel they could find.
Very well, let that stand. Let the explanation be that in all the United States, Jews were the only persons to be found who could handle the emergency with masterly ease. We shall see more of this phase of the matter at another time. The war is not under discussion in this article, merely the fact that in an emergency the government became distinctly Jewish.
But the Second Protocol would appear to throw a little light on the matter.
“The administrators chosen by us from the masses for their servility will not be persons trained for government, and consequently they will easily become pawns in our game, played by our learned and talented counsellors, specialists educated from early childhood to administer world affairs. As we know, our specialists have been acquiring the necessary knowledge for governing * * *”
The language is a trifle raw, as it usually is when Gentiles are under discussion. But the same fact, namely, that Jewish specialists have come to the aid of Gentile administrators in an emergency, when uttered for the consideration of the general public, may be very beautifully phrased.
The untrained Gentile administrator must have help; his unpreparedness makes it necessary. And who knows it better than those who have the help to offer? The Gentile public has been taught to suspect the man who has had experience in politics or government. This, of course, makes the whole situation doubly easy for those whose speciality it is to give “aid.” Just what interests they aid most will give, when discovered, a strong light upon their zeal.
But in all that the Protocols have to say about the political angle of the World Program, nothing is of so great interest as that which concerns the selection and control of Presidents. The whole plan is outlined in the Tenth Protocol. The fact that the President of France seems to have been in mind is a localism; the plan is applicable elsewhere; indeed has elsewhere its most perfect illustration.
This Tenth Protocol, then, leads gradually up to the subject, tracing the evolution of rulers from Autocrat to President, and of nations from Monarchies to Republics.
The language of this passage is particularly objectionable, but no more so than can be found in current Jewish literature where boasting of power is indulged in. Unpleasant as the whole attitude is, it is valuable as showing in just what light the supporters of the Protocol Program view the Gentiles and their dignities. It must be born in mind that the Jewish ideal is not a President, but a Prince and a King. The Jewish students of Russia marched the streets in 1918 singing this hymn—
“We have given you a God;
Now we will give you a King.”
The new flag of Palestine, now permitted to fly without hindrance, bears insignia, as does every synagogue, of a Jewish King. The Jewish hope is that the Throne of David shall be set up again, as doubtless it will be. None of these things is to be decried in the least, nor to be regarded with anything but a decent respect, but they should be borne in mind as a side light on the expressed contempt for Gentile Presidents and Legislatures.
The Tenth Protocol reaches the theme of President thus:
“Then the rise of the republican era became possible, and then in the place of a sovereign we substituted a caricature of him, a President picked from the crowd * * * Such was the foundation of the mine we laid underneath the Gentile people, or more accurately, the Gentile peoples.”
It is with something of a shock that one reads that men with a “past” are specially favored for the presidential office. Men with a “past” have become President in various countries, including the United States, there is no doubt of that. In some instances, the particular scandal that constituted the “past” has been publicly known; in other cases it has been hushed up and lost in a maze of rumor. In at least one case it was made the special property of a syndicate of men who, while protecting the official from public knowledge, compelled him to pay rather stiffly for their service. Men with a “past” are not uncommon, and it is not always the “past” but the concealment of it that concerns them most, and in this lack of frankness, this distrust of the understanding and mercy of the people, they usually fall into another slavery, namely, the slavery of political or financial blackmail.
“We will manipulate the election of Presidents whose past contains some undisclosed dark affair, some ‘Panama,’ then they will be faithful executors of our orders from fear of exposure and from the natural desire of every man who has attained a position of authority to retain the privileges, emoluments and the dignity associated with the position of President.”
The use of the word “Panama” here refers to the various scandals which arose in French political circles over the original efforts to construct the Panama Canal. If the present form of the Protocols had been written at a later date they might have referred to the “Marconi wireless” scandals in England—though on second thought, they would not have done so because certain men were involved who were not Gentiles. Herzl, the great Jewish Zionist leader, uses the expression in “The Jewish State.” Speaking of the management of the business of Palestine he says that the Society of the Jews “will see to it that the enterprise does not become a Panama but a Suez.” That the same expression should occur in Herzl and in the Protocols is significant; it has also another significance, which will be described at another time. It must be clear to the reader, however, that no one writing for the general public at this day would refer to a “Panama” in a man’s past. The reference would not be understood.
It is this practice of holding a man under obligation which makes it needful on the part of the true publicist to tell the truth and the whole truth about aspirants for public office. It is not enough to say of a candidate that he “began as a poor boy” and then became “successful.” How did he become successful? How explain the “rise” of his fortunes? Sometimes the clue leads deep into the domestic life of the candidate. It may be told of a man, for example, that he helped another out of a scrape by marrying the woman involved, and received a sum of money for doing so. It may be told of another that he was implicated by his too friendly relations with another’s wife, but was relieved of his predicament by the astute diplomacy of powerful friends, to whom thereafter he felt himself in debt of honor. It is strange that, in American affairs at least, the woman-note is predominant. In our higher offices that has more frequently occurred than any other, oftener than the money-note.
In European countries, however, where the fact of a man’s being entangled illegitimately with a woman does not carry so heavy a stamp of shame with it, the controlled men have been found to have “pasts” of another character.
The whole subject is extremely distasteful, but truth has its surgical duties to perform, and this is one of them. When, for example, a pivotal assemblage like that of the Peace Conference is studied, and the men who are most subject to the Jewish influence are isolated, and their past history is carefully traced, there is almost no difficulty whatever in determining the precise moment when they passed over into that fateful condition which, while it did not hinder them of public honors for one hour, made them unchangeably the servants of a power the public did not see. The puzzling spectacle which the observer sees of the great leaders of Anglo-Saxon races closely surrounded and continuously counseled by the princes of the Semitic race, is explained only by knowledge of those leaders’ “past” and those words of the Protocols—“We will manipulate the election of Presidents whose past contains some undisclosed dark affair.”
And where this Jewish domination of officials is glaringly apparent, it may be safely assumed that the custody of the secret is almost entirely with that race. When necessity arises, it may be a public service for those in possession of the facts to make them public—not for the purpose of destroying reputations, but for the purpose of damning for all time a most cowardly practice.
Politically, so the Jewish publicists tell us, Jews do not vote as a group. Because of this so we are told, they have no political influence. Moreover, we are told, they are so divided among themselves that they cannot be led in one direction.
It may be true that when it is a question of being for anything, the Jewish community may show a majority and minority opinion—a small minority, it is likely to be. But when it becomes a question of being against anything, the Jewish community is always a unit.
These are facts to which any ward politician can testify. Any man in political life can test it for himself by announcing that he will not permit himself to be dominated by Jews or anybody else. Just let him mention Jews in that manner; he will no longer have to read about Jewish solidarity; he will have felt it. Not that, in a vote, the Jewish solidarity can accomplish anything it wishes; the Jew’s political strength is not in his vote, but in the “pull” of, say, seven men at the seat of government. The Jews, a political minority so far as votes are concerned, were a political majority so far as influence was concerned, during the last five years. They ruled. They boast that they ruled. The mark of their rule is everywhere.
The note which everyone observes in politics, as in the Press, is the fear of the Jews. This fear is such that nowhere are the Jews discussed as are, say, the Armenians, the Germans, the Russians, or the Hindoos. What is this fear but reflection of the knowledge of the Jews’ power and their ruthlessness in the use of it? It is possibly true, as many Jewish publicists say, that what is called anti-Semitism is just a panic-fear. It is a dread of the unknown. The uncanny spectacle of an apparently poor people who are richer than all, of a very small minority which is more powerful than all, creates phantoms before the mind.
It is very significant that those who most assume to represent the Jews are quite content that the fear should exist. They wish it to exist. To keep it delicately poised and always there, though not too obtrusively, is an art they practice. But once the balance is threatened, their crudeness instantly appears. Then comes the threat, by which it is hoped to re-establish the fear again. When the threat fails, there comes the wail of anti-Semitism.
How strange this is, that the Jews should not see that the most abject form of anti-Semitism is just this fear which they are willing to have felt toward them by their neighbors. This fear is “Semitophobia” in its worst form. To inspire fear—what is more dreaded by the normal man, and yet what more delights an inferior race?
Now, a great service is done when the people are emancipated from this fear. It is the process of emancipation that Jewish publicists attack. It is this they call anti-Semitism. It is not anti-Semitism at all; it is the only course that can prevent anti-Semitism.
The process involves several steps. The extent of the Jewish power must be shown. To this, of course, strong Jewish objection is made, though no strong disproof can be made.
Then the existence of this power must be explained. It can be explained only by the Jewish Will to Power, as it may be called, or by the deliberate program which is followed in the attainment of the power. When the method is explained, half the damage is undone. The Jew is not a superman. He is bright, he is intense, his philosophy of material things leaves him free to do many things from which his neighbor draws back; but, given equal advantages, he is not a superman. The Yankee is more than his equal any time, but the Yankee has an inborn inclination to observe the rules of the game. When the people know by what means this power is gained—when they are informed how, for example, political control is seized, as it has been in the United States, the very method takes all the glamour from the power, and shows it to be a rather sordid thing after all.
This series of articles is attempting to take these orderly steps, and it is believed the complete effort will justify itself to reasonable minds, both Jewish and Gentile.
In the present article one important means of power has been described on the authority of the Protocols. Whether the method laid down by the Protocols is worth considering or not depends entirely on whether it can be found in actual affairs today. It can be found. The two tally. The parallel is complete. It were well for the Jew, of course, if no trace of him could be found in either the written or the actual program. But he is there, and it is illogical for him to blame anyone but himself for being there. Certainly, it is small defense against the fact to heap abuse upon the one who discloses the fact. We have agreed that the Jews are clever, but they are not so clever as to be able to cover their work. There is a certain element of weakness in them which reveals the whole matter in the end. And even the revelation would not mean much if the thing revealed were not wrong. But that is the weakness of the Jewish program—it is wrong. The Jews have never gained any measure of success so great that the world cannot check it. The world is engaged in a great checking tactic now, and if there are still prophets among the Jews they should lead their people in another path.
The proof and the fruit of any exposure of the World Program is the removal of the element of fear from the peoples among whom the Jews live.
[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 18 September 1920]