“In a world of completely organized territorial sovereignties he (the Jew) has only two possible cities of refuge; he must either pull down the pillars of the whole national state system, or he must create a territorial sovereignty of his own . . . . In Eastern Europe, Bolshevism and Zionism seem to grow side by side . . . . not because the Jew cares for the positive side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a partaker in Gentile nationalism or Gentile democracy, but because no existing Gentile system is ever anything but distasteful to him.”

The All-Jewish Mark on “Red Russia”

We shall now briefly interrupt the commentary which we have been making on the Protocols to set at rest once and for all certain misstatements which are made for Gentile consumption.

To learn what the Jewish leaders of the United States or any other country think, do not read their addresses to the Gentiles; read their addresses to their own people. On such matters as these—Whether the Jew regards himself as destined to rule the world; whether he regards himself as belonging to a nation and race distinct from every other nation and race; whether he regards the Gentile world as the legitimate field of his exploitation by a lower moral method than is permissible among his own people; whether he knows and shares the principles of the Protocols—on such matters as these, the only safe guide is to be found in the words which Jewish leaders speak to Jews, not in the words they speak to Gentiles.

The notable Jewish names which appear oftenest in the Press do not represent the spokesmen of Judaism at all, but only a selected few who represent the Department of Propaganda Among the Gentiles. Sometimes that propaganda is in the form of donations for Christian charitable organizations; sometimes it is in the form of “liberal” opinion on religious, social and political questions. In whatever form it comes, you may depend upon it that the real activities of the Jewish hierarchy proceed under cover of that which the Gentile is invited to observe and approve.

The statements offered in this series are never made without the strictest and fullest proof, confirmation and corroboration in the utterances of Jewish leaders. This is one of the strange features of the multitude of Jewish attacks on this series: they are attacking what they themselves stand for, and their only reason for the attack must be their belief that this investigation has not been able to penetrate through to that which has been kept hidden from the world.

The most persistent denials have been offered to the statement that Bolshevism everywhere, in Russia or the United States, is Jewish. In these denials we have perhaps one of the most brazen examples of the double intent referred to above. The denial of the Jewish character of Bolshevism is made to the Gentile; but in the confidence and secrecy of Jewish communication, or buried in the Yiddish dialect, or obscurely hidden in the Jewish national press, we find the proud assertion made—to their own people!—that Bolshevism is Jewish.

Jewish propaganda has only two straws to grasp in the terrible tale of murder, immorality, robbery, enforced starvation and hideous humanism which make the present Russian situation impossible to describe and all but impossible to comprehend.

One of these straws is that Kerensky, the man who eased in the opening wedge of Bolshevism, is not a Jew. Indeed, one of the strongest indications that Bolshevism is Jewish is that the Jewish press emphasizes so fiercely the alleged Gentilism of a least two of the revolutionary notables. It may be cruel to deny them two among hundreds, but merely saying so cannot change Kerensky’s nationality. His name is Adler. His father was a Jew and his mother a Jewess. Adler, the father, died, and the mother married a Russian named Kerensky, whose name the young child took. Among the radicals who employed him as a lawyer, among the forces that put him forward to drive the first nail into Russia’s cross, among the soldiers who fought with him, his Jewish descent and character have never been doubted.

“Well, but there is Lenin,” our Jewish publicists say—“Lenin the head of it all, the brains of it all, and Lenin is a Gentile! We’ve got you there—Lenin is a Gentile!”

Perhaps he is, but why do his children speak Yiddish? Why are his proclamations put forth in Yiddish? Why did he abolish the Christian Sunday and establish by law the Jewish Saturday Sabbath?

The explanation of all this may be that he married a Jewess. The fact is that he did. But another explanation may be that he himself is a Jew. Certainly he is not the Russian nobleman he has always claimed to be. The statements he has made about his identity thus far have been lies. The claim that he is a Gentile may be unfounded too.

No one has ever doubted Trotsky’s nationality—he is a Jew. His name is Braunstein. Recently the Gentiles were told that Trotsky had said he wasn’t much of anything—in religion. That may be. But still he must be something—else why are the Russian Christian churches turned into stables, slaughter houses and dancing halls, while the Jewish synagogues remain untouched? And why are Christian priests and ministers made to work on roads, while Jewish rabbis are left their clerical privileges? Trotsky may not be much of anything in religion, but he is a Jew nevertheless. This is not mere Gentile insistence that he shall be considered a Jew whether or no; it is straight Jewish teaching that he is. In a future discussion on “religion or race?” we shall show that even without religion, Trotsky is, and is considered by all Jewish authorities to be, a Jew.

An apology must be made here for repeating well-known facts. Yet, so many people are not even now aware of the true meaning of Bolshevism, that at the risk of monotony, we shall cite a few of the salient facts. The purpose, however, is not alone to explain Russia, but to throw a warning light on conditions in the United States.

The Bolshevik Government, as it stood late this summer when the latest report was smuggled through to certain authorities, shows up the Jewish domination of the whole affair. It has changed very slightly since the beginning. We give only a few items to indicate the proportion. It must not be supposed that the non-Jewish members of the government are Russian.

Very few Russians have anything to say about their own country these days. The so-called “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” in which the proletariat has nothing whatever to say, is Russian only in the sense that it is set up in Russia; it is not Russian in that it springs from or includes the Russian people. It is the international program of the Protocols, which might be “put over” by a minority in any country, and which is being given a dress-rehearsal in Russia.

Table Showing Jewish Control of Russia

These are enlightening figures. The reader will note that the Jewish percentage is high at all times, never lower than 76 per cent in any case. (Curiously enough, the lowest percentage of Jews is found in the Commissariat of War.) But in those committees which deal most closely with the mass of the people, as well as in the committees of defense and propaganda, Jews fill literally all the places.

Remember what the Protocols say about Press control: remember what Baron Montefiore said about it, and then look at the Government Journalists. That committee comprises 41 men, and the 41 are Jews. Only Jewish pens are trusted with Bolshevist propaganda.

And then the so-called “Red Cross delegates,” which are merely Red Revolutionary delegates to the cities named—of the 8, there are 8 Jews.

The Commissariat of Social Assistance, upon whose word the life and privilege of tens of thousands hang—there are 6 members, and the 6 are Jews. And so on through the list.

Out of the 53 members of the Commissariat of Public Instruction, 11 are noted as non-Jews. But what kind of non-Jews is not stated. They may be “non-Jews like Lenin” whose children speak the Yiddish as their native tongue. Whatever they are, there is a sidelight upon their attitude in the fact that the Bolsheviki immediately took over all the Hebrew schools and continued them as they were and laid down a rule that the ancient Hebrew language should be taught in them. The ancient Hebrew language is the vehicle of the deeper secrets of the World Program.

And for the Gentile Russian children—? “Why,” said these gentle Jewish educators, “we will teach them sex knowledge. We will brush out of their minds the cobwebs. They must learn the truth about things!”—with consequences that are too pitiable to narrate. But this can be said: unquestionably there were deaths among innocent Jews when Hungary wrested itself free from the Red Bolshevism of Bela Kun (or Cohen). The Jews may well call it the “White Terror” that followed their failure to re-enact the tragedy of Russia in Hungary. But there are mountains of evidence to show that nothing had so potent an effect in producing the bloodshed of the “White Terror” as the outraged minds of parents whose children had been compulsorily drawn through sloughs of filth during the short time the Jewish Bolsheviki had charge of the schools.

American Jews do not like to hear this. Their shrinking from it would be greatly to their honor did they not immediately return to the defense of the people who do these things. It is well enough known that the chastity of Christians is not so highly regarded by the orthodox male Jew as is the chastity of his own people, but it would be pleasant to be certain that all of them condemn what went on in Russia and Hungary in the matter of education. However, as most of the influences which destroy Gentile youth today—in America—are in the hands of the Jews, and as it is plainly stated in the Protocols that one of the lines of campaign is “to corrupt the youth of the Gentiles,” the situation is one that calls for something more than mere hard feelings and angry denials whenever these facts are referred to.

It is not the economic experiment, so-called, that one objects to in Russia; it is not the fallacies, the sad delusion of the people. No. It is the downright dirty immorality, the brutish nastiness of it all; and the line which the immorality and nastiness draws between Jew and Gentile. The horrible cruelty involved we will not deal with, leaving it merely with the explanation which has found utterance in the Jewish press that “it may be that the Jew in Russia is taking an unconscious revenge for his centuries of suffering.”

“But,” asks some reader, “how may we know that all this is true?”

Bearing in mind that we are speaking of Russia, not for the interest of the Russian situation at all, but to indicate the international character of those who are responsible for conditions there, and to identify them for the protection of the United States, we shall look at the evidence.

There is, of course, the evidence brought to light by our own United States Senate and printed in a Report of the Committee on the Judiciary. We do not wish to spend much time on this, because we prefer in these articles to use Jewish testimony instead of Gentile. But we shall pause long enough to show the nature of the testimony brought out by our own government.

Dr. George A. Simons, a clergyman in charge of an American congregation in Petrograd at the time the Bolshevik terror broke out, was a witness. Parts of his testimony are given here:

“‘There were hundreds of agitators who followed in the trail of Trotsky-Bronstein, these men having come over from the lower East Side of New York * * * A number of us were impressed by the strange Yiddish element in this thing right from the start, and it soon became evident that more than half the agitators in the so-called Bolshevik movement were Yiddish.’

“Senator Nelson—‘Hebrews?’

“Dr. Simons—‘They were Hebrews, apostate Jews. I do not want to say anything against the Jews, as such. I am not in sympathy with the anti-Semitic movement, never have been, and do not ever expect to be * * * But I have a firm conviction that this thing is Yiddish, and that one of its bases is found in the East Side of New York.’

“Senator Nelson—‘Trotsky came over from New York during that summer, did he not?’

“Dr. Simons—‘He did.’

“Later Dr. Simons said: ‘In December, 1918 * * * under the presidency of a man known as Apfelbaum * * * out of 388 members, only 16 happened to be real Russians, and all the rest Jews, with the exception possibly of one man, who is a Negro from America, who calls himself Professor Gordon * * * and 265 of this northern commune government that is sitting in the Old Smolny Institute came from the lower East Side of New York—265 of them. * * *

“‘I might mention this, that when the Bolsheviki came into power, all over Petrograd we at once had a predominance of Yiddish proclamations, big posters, and everything in Yiddish. It became very evident that now that was to be one of the great languages of Russia; and the real Russians, of course, did not take very kindly to it.’”

William Chapin Huntington, who was commercial attache of the United States Embassy at Petrograd, testified:

“The leaders of the movement, I should say, are about two-thirds Russian Jews * * * The Bolsheviks are internationalists, and they were not interested in the particular national ideals of Russia.”

William W. Welch, an employee of the National City Bank, New York, testified:

“In Russia it is well known that three-fourths of the Bolshevik leaders are Jewish * * * There were some—not many, but there were some—real Russians; and what I mean by real Russians is Russian-born, and not Russian Jews.”

Roger E. Simmons, Trade Commissioner connected with the United States Department of Commerce, also testified. An important anonymous witness, whom the committee permitted to withhold his name, told the same things.

The British White Book, Russia, No. 1—“A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, April, 1919,” contains masses of the same testimony from many sources, all of them eyewitnesses.

In that very highly respected magazine Asia for February-March, 1920, is an article which contains, among other important ones, these statements: (the italics are ours)

“In all the Bolshevist institutions the heads are Jews. The Assistant Commissar for Elementary Education, Grunberg, can hardly speak Russian. The Jews are successful in everything and obtain their ends. They know how to command and get complete submission. But they are proud and contemptuous toward everyone, which strongly excites the people against them * * * At the present time there is a great national religious fervor among the Jews. They believe that the promised time of the rule of God’s elect on earth is coming. They have connected Judaism with a universal revolution. They see in the spread of revolution the fulfilling of the Scriptures: ‘Though I make an end of all the nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make an end of thee.’”

Now if Gentile proof were wanted, the files of the THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT for a whole year would not begin to contain it. But Jewish proof is better.

There has been a strange vacillation in Jewish opinion concerning Bolshevism. At first it was hailed with delight. There was no concealment whatever in the early days of the new regime as to the part which Jewry had in it. Public meetings, interviews, special articles poured forth in which very valuable elements of truth were mingled. There was no attempt at concealment of names.

Then the horror of the thing began to take hold upon the world, and for just a breathing space Jewish opinion fell silent. There was a spasmodic denial or two. Then a new burst of glorification. The glorification continues within Judaism itself, but it now carries on the Gentile side of its face a very sad expression labeled “persecution.”

We have lived to see the day when to denounce Bolshevism is to “persecute the Jews.”

In the American Hebrew, for September 10, 1920, an article appears which not only acknowledges and explains the part which the Jew plays in the present unrest and upheaval, but justifies it—and justifies it, curiously enough, by The Sermon on the Mount.

The writer says that “the Jew evolved organized capitalism with its working instrumentality, the banking system.”

This is very refreshing, in view of the numerous Jewish denials of this economic fact.

“One of the impressive phenomena of the impressive time is the revolt of the Jew against the Frankenstein which his own mind conceived and his own hand fashioned * * *” If this is true, why is Jewish “organized capital with its working instrumentality, the banking system” supporting the revolt?

“That achievement (referring to the Russian overthrow), destined to figure in history as the overshadowing result of the World War, was largely the outcome of Jewish thinking, of Jewish discontent, of Jewish effort to reconstruct.”

“This rapid emergence of the Russian revolution from the destructive phase and its entrance into the constructive phase is a conspicuous expression of the constructive genius of Jewish discontent.”

(This, of course, requires proof that the constructive phase has appeared. The implication here is sheer propaganda. The Protocols, however, have a reconstructive program. We have not reached it as yet in this series of articles, but it is clearly outlined in the Protocols—destroy the Gentile society, and then reconstruct it according to “our” plans.)

Now read carefully:

“What Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia, the same historic qualities of the Jewish mind and heart ARE TENDING TO PROMOTE IN OTHER COUNTRIES.”

Read that again. “What Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia!” Just what was that? And just how did it “powerfully contribute?” And why are “Jewish idealism” and “Jewish discontent” always linked together? If you read the Protocols it is all very clear. Jewish idealism is the destruction of Gentile society and the erection of Jewish society. Was it not so in Russia?—Yiddish proclamations on the walls, the ancient Hebrew in the schools, Saturday substituted for Sunday, and the rabbis respected while the priests were put to work on the roads! All “powerfully contributed” to by murder, rapine, theft and starvation.

Our author is more candid than he realizes. He calls this linked idealism and discontent “the historic qualities of the Jewish mind.” THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT is indebted to him for this clear confirmation of what it has been saying for some time.

But even that is not all. “These same historic qualities of the Jewish mind” which “contributed so powerfully to accomplish in Russia” the Red Terror still existing there, are declared by this author to be tending to promote the same sort of thing in other countries. He says so in so many words—“tending to promote in other countries.”

But we knew that. The only difference is that when Gentiles said it, they were overwhelmed with the wildest abuse; but now a pro-Jewish writer says it in a leading Jewish publication. And he says it apologetically—listen to him:

“It was natural that * * * discontent in other parts of the world should find expression in overemphasis of issues and overstatement of aims.”

What discontent? Jewish discontent, of course. Discontent with what? With any form of Gentile rule. And how did it find expression? “In overemphasis of issues and overstatement of aims.” What were these issues and aims? To bring the Bolshevik revolution to the United States.

No, they did not overstate their aims; they exactly stated them—they simply selected the wrong country, that’s all.

There are Russian Bolshevists in this country now, hawking about the streets of New York the gold cigaret cases which they stole from Russian families, and the family jewels, the wedding and birthday rings, which they filched from Russian women. Bolshevism never got further than the pawnshop and burglar’s “fence” idea. The proof of this traffic in stolen property is going to drive some people into hiding before long. It will be a long, long time before America will be taking orders in Yiddish, or American women will be giving up their jewels to “the chosen race.”

However, that happens to be only the most recent acknowledgement that has come to hand. It is significant for its confession that “Jewish discontent” was “tending to promote” in “other countries” what it has “so powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia.”

And with such a link between the American Hebrew, Russian Bolshevism and the Protocols, there are still Jewish publicists with the crust to say that only crazy people could see the connection. Only blind people will not see it. But that is only a minor connection. This series of articles does not rest on anything so accidental as the Jewish New Year’s apology for Bolshevism in the great Hebrew weekly of the United States.

[THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 25 September 1920]