SYNAGOGUE NAME CHANGING
If you will turn to "SHINNUY‑HA‑SHEM" in the Jewish Encyclopedia, you may read the synagogue formula for
changing the name of an invalid so as to fool those nincompoop low‑brow demons. Such saps! Owing to the
Pythagorean belief in the potency of letters and numbers on their own account, changing a name can fool the silly
things! Was Christ so wrong to call the Pharisees "Fools and blind!" (Matt. 23:17) with all their asinine books
of the Talmud on vowings, etc., along with running a synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9; 3:9)? Did He KNOW His subject?
Read the synagogue formula for fooling the sickness demons: "When the Righteous Judgement has already decreed
death from illness, our saintly rabbis said: 'Three things annul the decree; and one of them is changing the name
of the patient. We therefore, in conformity with their advice, have changed the name of (mention here the former
name) to the name of (mention the adopted name) who is now another person" (Note: THAT ought to fool'em, telling
that!) "The decree shall not have any force with regards to him..."
The Jewish Encyclopedia relates the following about "amulets," in part: "By the employment of these amulets
anlysis, sciatica, eye and ear ailments, leprosy, and other evils were to be cured. With a certain date fastened
around the thigh, a man might enter a fiery furnace and came out unscathed." This is what the Jews say saved
Shadrach, Meshack and Abednego whose story is told in Chapter Three of the Book of Daniel. (Daniel 3:16‑27)
"Material and inscription of the Amulet carried according to its purpose. By its means fish could be caught
[This is what Jesus used to catch the many fish as related in Luke Chapter Five]; the love of a woman secured and
retained [This is how Isaac obtained his wife in Genesis Chapter twenty‑four]; the sea crossed dry‑shod [Exodus
Chapter Fourteen]; wild animals slain [Judges Chapter Fourteen]; terror diffused through the world [Ezekiel
Chapter Thirty‑Two]; communion had with the dead [1 Sam. Chapter Twenty‑eight]; a sword obtained which would
fight automatically for its owner [Deut. Chapter Thirty‑two]; one's enemies set to tearing each other to pieces
[Judges Chapter Six]; oneself rendered invisible; springs of water found [Exodus Chapter Seventeen]; cleverness
attained [1 Kings Chapter Three]; and many similarly wonderful things accomplished in one passage a device that
is frequently met with in Babylonian and Egyptian magic is mentioned; namely, the preparation of an image and
working the charm desired by its medium. The prescription runs: 'If thou desirest to cause any one to perish,
take clay from two river banks and make an image therewith; write upon it the man's name; then take seven stalks
from seven date‑trees and make a bow [here follows the word] with horsehair (?); set up the image in a convenient
place, stretch thy bow, shoot the stalks at it, and with every one say the prescribed words...adding, 'Destroyed
be N., son of N.!'" This is how Jews believe that these miracles were performed.
DEMONOLOGY OF THE PHARISEES
All forms of demonology were adopted by the Pharisees and incorporated into so‑called Judaism. Demons of the
privy, of the night, of every phase of nature, were and are catered to by the tenets and customs of this sect.
The Talmud book of Yadayim (hands) is, for example, on ritual hand‑washing in connection with Pharisee
demonology. The Talmud is larded with occult works and practices.
The Pharisee custom in Christ's time of drizzling water alternately on the hands, to carry off demons (who
presumably live in water) is still in force. The "Code of Jewish Law" (Schulchan Aruch), which is a digested
"Mishna" of the Talmud, holds that an evil spirit takes over a sleeping person: "When he rises from his sleep the
evil spirit departs from his entire body excepting from his fingers. From there the unclean spirit does not
depart unless he spills water on them three times alternately. One is not permitted to walk four cubits without
having his hands washed." (Schulchan Aruch, Vol. 1, Chapter II: Hebrew Publishing Co. 77‑9 Delancey St. New York,
copyright 1927).
Says the Soncino Edition of the Talmud, in the Introduction to Yadayim (handwashing): "This...rite...formed
one of the chief breaches between Jesus and the Pharisees." (p. 545) When the Pharisees came to Christ, baiting
Him about His Apostles not doing these handwashing rituals, He came back at them, saying that they were
hypocrites, 'teaching for doctrines the commandments of men...Full well ye reject the commandment of God that ye
may keep your own tradition.'" (Matthew 15) Other such practices are condoned in Judaism.
Despite Moses' orders (Deut. 18:10‑12): "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or
daughter to pass through the fire or that useth divination, or an observance of times [astrology] or an
enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a necromancer. For all that do these
things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of the abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out
from before thee."
Yet all of these are permitted by Judaistic Pharisee scripture. (see Jewish Talmud, Sanhedrin 65a‑b)
Citing this very Scriptural passage, and reversing it, the Talmudic "sages" hold that calling up demons to
aid with sorcery is not idolatry since demons are not thereby worshipped!
The ancient practice of spirits speaking from the privates by soothsaying is dwelt upon in Judaism and this
practice is loathsomely attributed to Jesus ("He practiced enchantment by means of his membrum" Talmud, Sanhedrin
105a‑b)
"Ye shall not use enchantment nor observe times." (another of Moses' admonitions in Leviticus 19:26)
The "sages" also distort this clear scripture and declare: "This refers to those who practice enchantment by
means of weasels, birds, and fish" ‑‑ thus forbidding what no one cares to do anyway, and so as to open the way
for pagan practices elsewhere permitted. (Sanhedrin 65a)
The Christian need not wallow in darkness. In the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia it was already clearly written
down that the Pharisees took over "Judaism," removed all "obnoxious verbiage" concerning God, such as attributing
to Him Intelligence and control over this world and bestowed all Biblical powers ascribed to Him to lesser
spirits, or "angelic powers."
And, with the angelology and Demonology (of Babylon) and the Ma'asek Bereshit and Ma'aseh Merkabah, they
nullified the Bible into pantheism. Anthropmophism, or attributing to God any human quality like Intelligence,
Love, or Control, such as God gave man over the animal world, was and is "obnoxious" to the Pharisee (Jewish
Encyclopedia).
The Ma'aseh Mercabah and Ma'aseh Bershit are called in Judaism, the very basis of this occult gnosticism.
Pretending to be based upon Genesis and Ezekiel's chariot throne of God vision (Ezekiel 1), this last "mystery"
is called "Merkabah."
The words "by other means" are the most significant in the definition of the Merkabah in the Jewish
Encyclopedia (pp. 499‑500): "The mysteries rest on the belief in the reality of things seen in an ecstatic state
brought about by ablutions, fast, fervent invocations, incantations, and by other means...the Merkabah rider must
provide himself with amulets or seals containing mysterious names...The central figure in the theophany, however,
is the 'Prince of the Face,' Metatron...He is the one who imparted to man all the knowledge of heaven and of the
past and the future."
Even burning children to the demon Molech for black occult power is allowed today by the supreme scriptures
of Pharisaic Judaism.
JEWISH MAGIC
Rabbi Joshua Trachtenberg, listed in Who's Who in American Jewry, in his defensive yet illuminating book,
Jewish Magic and Superstition (Behrmann's, N.Y., 1939), writing of the age‑long reputation of Jews as
practitioners of black magic and all occult demonistic rites, states (Second chapter, entitled "The Truth Behind
the Legend"): "The sources indicate that Jews were at least acquainted with methods of inducing disease and
death, of arousing and killing passion, of forcing people to do their bidding, of employing demons for divinatory
and other purposes...We find accounts of the magician's power to project his soul to far‑distant places, there to
perform an errand, and then return to his comatose body." (p. 13) "Jewish magic... functioned within the
framework of the Jewish religion." (p. 15)
Rabbi Trachtenberg also states: "Knowledge of the names, through which Jewish magic worked, was inaccessible
to women, for it required not only a thorough training in Hebrew and Aramaic, which most of them lacked, but also
a deep immersion in mystical lore from which they were barred...Early mystical and magical lore was successfully
guarded by a limited oral transmission. The secret lore of the Kalonymides [Note: who brought it from Babylonia]
...was first written down in the 13th Century...Jewish life had turned more and more inward...and intensive study
of the Talmud had become almost its sole intellectual pursuit...But the German Kabbalah never attained the
theoretical depth of its Spanish counterpart, nor did it exert so much influence." (ibid, pp. 16‑17)
"So we may say that every Jew whose desire led him thither essayed a little magic in a small way. But it was
generally recognized that only a minor portion of the mystical lore had found its way into books; much of it
remained private, jealously guarded property." (p. 18)
In the same work, and under the title of "Forbidden and Permitted," Trachtenberg says: "The Bible had
pronounced an unqualified condemnation of sorcery. The Talmud...pursued its customary function of clarifying and
classifying Jewish law, and so broke up the all‑inclusive category of sorcery into several divisions..."
Then are cited various hairsplittings, ending with an admission that the Talmud actually permits the very
proscribed or forbidden acts denounced by the Bible.
Trachtenberg sums up: "From a practical standpoint, they succeeded in effectively excluding from the
proscribed 'magic' all the forms current among Jews." (pp. 19‑20)
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia cites Rabbi Tractenberg's Jewish Magic and Superstition as a rabbinical
authority on these subjects.
HABDALAH
Says Rabbi Trachtenberg: "On Saturday evening, during the Habdalah ceremony which marks the beginning of the
new week, another libation was offered to the spirits, as part of the ritual. Some of the wine was poured upon
the ground 'as a good omen for the entire week to symbolize good fortune and blessing.'"
Rabbi Trachtenberg then proceeds to de‑emphasize that this had any religious significance, and states:
"Moses Mat in the 16th Century wrote that this practice is intended to 'give their portion to the company of
Korah,' namely, to the powers of evil. And that portion was not inconsiderable. As one rabbi in Silesia remarked,
'If I had the wine that is poured upon the ground in Austria during Habdalah it would suffice to quench my thirst
for a whole year!'"
"This custom of pouring out some wine over which a blessing has been recited, which appears again in the
wedding ceremony, may have been considered by some people not as an offering to the spirits, but as a means of
driving them off." (Jewish Magic and Superstition, p. 167)
Just preceding this, Rabbi Trachtenberg covers various food offerings to demons such as leaving a loaf of
bread and cup of wine "left standing overnight," which, to quote, is categorized: "as 'setting a table for the
demons.' Yet it continued to be done, sometimes with the frank admission that 'it extends fulness of blessing
over the entire week.'
During the Passover Seder a cup of wine is filled expressly for the Prophet Elijah, who is believed to visit
every Jewish home on that occasion, and the door is opened for him to enter ‑‑ this time the offering is to a
good spirit, rather than an evil one. But during the same service, there is a late custom, which arose in German‑
Jewish circles, to pour out a drop of wine at the mention of each of the ten plagues, possibly to placate the
evil spirits, who may be impelled by the reference to so many disasters to visit some of them upon the
celebrants.
Israel Isserlein's biographer wrote of him, 'He always spilled some of the water from his cup before
drinking,' thus observing a universal Jewish custom going back to Talmudic times. The explanation then given was
that the water might have been contaminated by a demon ‑‑but obviously merely spilling some of it doesn't purify
at all. The intention was to induce the demon to neutralize the possible ill effect of the water by making him a
libation." (ibid, pp. 166‑67)
TASHLIK AND KAPPARAH
Rabbi Trachtenberg cites the power of the Kapparah rites in Judaism. In the first editions of the Shulhan
Aruch, an accepted code of Judaism compiled by Joseph Caro, his reference to Tashlik being a "silly custom" was
deleted, according to Rabbi Trachtenberg, "under the influence of the 16th century Polish annotator, Moses
Isserles...The various features of the ceremony accentuate its superstitions and even magical character."
Tashlik is the current and ancient Pharisee custom of dropping crumbs into a river or body of water at Rosh‑
Hashona, or flapping the garments at demons, as the Hasidim Jews do, to appease them. Brooklyn and Manhattan
bridges in New York, have been much used for this, says the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905 (under "Tashlik").
Rabbi Trachtenberg also states: "Fowl are closely associated with the spirits in Jewish and non‑Jewish lore,
and are the commonest oblation to them...The cock is employed to represent a man, the hen, a woman, in many magic
rites. The circles which are described about the head of the individual, and the numbers three and seven, are
well‑known magical elements.
The words which effectuate the substitution have all the earmarks of a typical incantation. In the earlier
texts the words 'this is my atonement' are not present; they were added so that the initials of the Hebrew terms
might form the word hatash, 'which is the name of the angel appointed over this.'"
Rabbi Trachtenberg continues: "The belief that evil spirits roost on roofs occurs often (the Talmud places
them under the eaves)...In view of this requirement that the entrails be thrown on a roof acquires special
significance. Thus analyzed there can be little doubt of the true meaning of the rite, which is still observed
today. It is probably the most blatantly superstitious practice to have entered Jewish religious usage, for where
the significance of other such practices has long since been lost sight of, the purpose of this is too apparent
to escape the dullest wits...Not unrelated is the rite of Tashlik, observed on the first day of Rosh‑Hashonah
...this ceremony represents merely the latest version of a complex of superstitious practices centering about the
belief in the existence of spirits in bodies of water...in later times Tashilk was postponed if the first day of
the New Year fell on a Sabbath on the ground that carrying bread was a violation of the Sabbath rules." (ibid, p.
164‑165)
Various "explanations" customarily used as a "whited sepulchre" coverup for the stark paganism of Pharisaism
are her mentioned by Trachtenberg, and then: "These explanations only too patently evade the main issue, the
bread offering to the spirits ...Under Kabbalistic influence an attempt was made to limit the rite to shaking
one's clothes at the river‑side..." (ibid, p. 166)
A picture appears in the Jewish Encyclopedia showing Jews with bags of bread at the river‑side performing
the Tashlik ceremony of appeasing the demons of the water.
The entire Jewish Talmud book of Yadayim ("hands") is based upon the superstition that demons live in water.
The Talmudist's objective here is not cleanliness, but getting the "demons" off into water. Small wonder that
Christ would have none of the Pharisee hand‑washing voodoo in His life, because of which the Pharisees upbraided
Him mercilessly.
LILITH ‑‑ FAVORITE DEMONESS
Of the hordes of demons the Jew who would win out must use and dismiss, none is more prominent than Lilith.
Some of the amulets meant to keep her in check is presented on pages 549‑50 of the Jewish Encyclopedia (under
Amulet).
Lilith is supposedly jealous of lying‑in mothers and their new‑born babies. Her main job is apparently
"spawning demons."
In his above noted publication, Rabbi Trachtenberg repeats the Talmudic tale that "when Adam was parted from
Eve, he had relations with female demons who bore him demonic offspring." He was at this for 130 years, we are
told. Says Trachtenberg (p. 37): "As a result of the legend of Adam's relations with Lilith (another spelling)...
the Liliths were most frequently singled out as the demons who embrace sleeping men and cause them to have
nocturnal emissions which are the seed of a hybrid progeny...As the demons whose special prey is lying‑in women,
it was found necessary to adopt an extensive series of protective measures against her...We seem to have her a
union of the night demon with the spirit that presides over pregnancy, influenced no doubt by the character of
the Babylonian Lamassu, and the lamiae and striga of Greek and Roman folklore."
SPIRITS AND CEMETERIES
"Obviously the spirits can help as well as harm the living...An observant visitor to the tomb of Simon bar
Yohai, for instance, at Meron, Palestine, will discern a host of written entreaties for the saint's aid [Note:
the 'saint' was a second century Talmudic voodoo‑worker associated with the Zohar, principal multi‑volumed work
of the Jewish Cabala]...The ancient practice of visiting the cemetery to entreat the offices of deceased
relatives or scholars persisted...In addition to such individual visits, there grew up the custom of the entire
congregation repairing to the cemetery annually on several occasions, such as the seven 'rain fasts,' and on
Tisha 'B'ab...and on the eves of New Year and the Day of Atonement, 'that the dead may beseech mercy on our
behalf.'" (Jewish Magic and Superstition by Trachtenberg, p. 64)
"The custom of washing the hands after a funeral is very widespread...Efforts were made to find a Biblical
precedent for this act, but...there was a general admission that it was done 'to dispel the spirits of
uncleanness' which cling to one's person, these being 'the demons that follow them home.'" (ibid, p. 179)
Today, one may note Jews at such places as Temple Sholom, on Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois, dripping
water on their hands after a funeral.
The Jewish Encyclopedia (under "Cemetery") refers to the custom of visiting the cemetery to consult the
spirits, and cites the Talmud, Niddah 17a. There it is stated that one "spending a night in a graveyard in order
that a spirit of uncleanness may rest upon him ‑‑ to enable him to foretell the future might sometimes be exposed
to danger." (Talmud, Soncino edition, Naddah, p. 113)
Reference to this practice is also made in Sanhedrin 65b. That cemeteries are infested with spirits and
demons is the general idea.
JEWISH NECROMANCY
Rabbi Trachtenberg says: "The future is an open book to the denizens of the supernatural realm, and like the
demons and the angels, the deceased can by eavesdroping pick up the latest decision of the court on high; 'they
flit through the universe to hear what has been decreed.' Then they report back to intimates on earth, in dreams
or personal appearances...But in general the spirit‑world is chary of its secrets and can be induced to reveal
them only by magical means...mystical invocations and occult rites are effective in forcing the dead to obey the
magician's will. The art of necromancy is a specialized function of sorcery." (Jewish Magic and Superstition, p.
65)
And: "The official language of the celestial court is Hebrew...This principle was advanced in the Talmud."
(ibid, p. 74)
In a chapter "The War With the Spirits," Rabbi Trachtenberg states: "The methods of warding off the spirits
fell into three general categories: 1. to drive them away ...2. to buy them off with gifts, to bribe them and
thus conciliate them; 3. to deceive them by disguising their intended victims, or by pretending that the
situation was other than what it was. Each of these methods, and often two or three of them combined, was known
and employed by Jews even found expression in special ceremonies which have become part and parcel of Jewish
ritual."
Rabbi Trachtenberg mentions putting a severed foreskin in a bowl of water, with attendants dipping their
fingers in bloody fluid, and burying the circumcizer with the foreskins he has severed, as demonic ritual.
The unluckiness of even numbers except on special nights when four cups of wine, instead of an odd number
may be imbibed, the protective, and divine nature of Talmud study for blunting demons, and the recitation of the
Shema at night are noted by the Rabbi, and he states: "There was no attempt to disguise the purpose of this
prayer‑service; it was frankly admitted time and again that 'if exists only because of the demons.'"
He quotes: "'at my right Michael, at my left Gabriel, before me Uriel, behind me Raphael.' This is nothing
more than the Jewish version of the ancient Babylonian incantation, 'Shamash before me, behind me Sin, Nergal at
my right, Ninib at my left,' or 'May the good Shedu at my right, the good Lamassu at my left,' etc.'" (Jewish
Magic and superstition, p. 156)
"The final weapon in the anti‑demonic strategy is that of deceit." Apart from wailers at weddings to deceive
the demons into thinking it a sad instead of glad occasion, breaking a glass at a wedding and the Shofar being
blown to scare the demons, this strategy of deceit, says the Rabbi, is "most commonly employed in changing an
invalid's name so that the spirits who might be charged with effecting his death would be unable to locate him...
just as criminals adopt aliases to evade the police." (ibid, p. 168)
Under "Shinnuy‑ha‑shem" in the Jewish Encyclopedia, one may read the synagogue formula for changing the name
of an invalid so as to fool the demons: "When the Righteous Judgement has already decreed death from illness, our
saintly rabbis said: Three things annul the decree; and one of them is changing the name of the patient. We
therefore, in conformity with their advice, have changed the name of (mention here the former name) to the name
of (mention the adopted name) who is now another person. The decree shall not have any force with regards to him
..." Was Christ so wrong to call the Pharisees "Fools and blind?" (Matthew 23:17)
MORE ON RITUAL MURDER
Over the centuries, and dating from the time of the Pharisee historian Josephus, in the 1st Century, Jews
have repeatedly been charged with "ritual murder," that is, murder for purposes of paganistic black magic,
charges always vehemently denied. Such denials are understandable, when one considers how loathsome such
practices are.
The 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia relates: "It may be positively asserted that there is no Jewish ritual which
prescribes the use of blood of any human being. Were there such a ritual...there would certainly be some
reference to it in the colossal mass of halakic literature [Halakic means legal]..."
This is an evasion, because no one has accused Judaism of carrying all the bloody business of its demonism
in the "halachah" or "legal" literature. Demonism belongs in the "Practical Cabala," the "theurgic" or wonder‑
working literature, the manuscripts for which are copied hand to hand. Occasionally one is printed in occult
works. Blood, blood, blood is through it all.
One of the many charges of ritual murder was in Russia, in 1912, when Mendel Beilis was accused of this
crime of murdering for the purposes of black magic. The American Jewish Committee succeeded in interesting
journalists to such an extent "that the country was convinced of the infamous character of the charge." Christian
ministers in the United States were induced to send protests to Russia. These "Christian divines" whom the
Committee inspired to protest to Russia "disavowed their belief in the atrocious charge." (Communal Register,
International Organizations, p. 1417)
The 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia elaborately denies the "Blood Accusation," but states: "Of the alarmingly large
number of ritual trials only a few of the more important and instructive can here be mentioned."
One hundred twenty‑two are covered. Thirty‑nine of these in one row bear dates in the 19th Century. These
trials took place from Rumania, Prussia, Bohemia and Germany through to Russia, England and France.
Is it not strange that so many court trials have been held for so many centuries in so many different
countries without any foundation whatever except some groundless prejudice? A reading of the section on
"Superstition" in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia will give a glimpse of occult practices of Judaism continuing
today, foul practices such as "to fig," Kapporah, and the like. Rabbi Joshua Trachtenberg is cited as an
authority as to his Jewish Magic and Superstition (Behrman's Jewish Book House, Publishers, 1939).
In it he seeks to erase the Ritual Murder charges of the centuries, referring to "the constant recurrence of
child sacrifice in these trials and the importance of human blood in the witches' ritual...the most
distinguishing elements in the technique of the sorcerer and the witch, as disclosed to popular view by the
campaign of the Church." (p. 9)
It is interesting to note that these occult practices are current. The late Dr. Dekker was at one time in
the Communist movement, and told of being a member of the same occult group with Communist Party Chief Earl
Browder, for the purpose of "influencing individuals."
The publication Ritual Magic is a good complement to Trachtenberg's Jewish Magic and Superstition and is a
documented book which contains much material and some bloody manuscripts. It was authored by Professor E.M.
Butler of Cambridge University (published by the University Press, 1949)
The vast scholarship, the documentation on this subject, are presented in a light hearted style not unmixed
with awareness of the perils and the ghastly viciousness of the occult "arts" which translations of museum
manuscripts must convey to any sane reader.
So reference is made in the Butler book to a branch of this demon magic as belonging to an earlier age: "to
the world of the Akkadian‑Chaldean 'Babylonian' inscriptions and of the Graeco‑Egyptian papyri animated by the
belief that the gods could and would support the magician in his dealings with the demons, if properly invoked;
and that by the use of certain mysterious and ineffable names as well as other spells, they could be forced to do
so even against their will. From the earliest times this extraordinary power was recognized as prone to abuse in
the hands of 'black' magicians, but the Art itself was not only respectable, it was a high and holy one.
Christianity altered all that, anathematizing magic..."
LaCROIX ON MOLOCH
As to the same rites, LaCroix states: "Moloch was represented under the figure of a man with the head of a
calif...erected upon an immense oven, which was lighted to consume at once the seven kinds of offerings. During
this holocaust, the priests of Moloch kept up a terrible music, with sistrums and tambours, in order to stifle
the cries of the victims. Then took place that infamy cursed by the God of Israel: the Molochites abandoned
themselves to practices worthy of the land of Onan [masturbation] and, inspired by the rhythmic sound of the
musical instruments, writhed about the incandescent statue, which appeared red thorough the smoke: and they gave
forth frenzied cries as, in accordance with the Biblical expression, they gave their seed [children] to Moloch."
(History of Prostitution, Paul LaCroix, French author and historian: 1806‑84)
JUDAISM PERMITS CHILD SACRIFICES TO MOLOCH
The whole Bible is full of and condemns the bloody business of pagan demonology, including Baal worship with
its self‑cutting with knives and Moloch worship with child sacrifice. Both are condoned or permitted by the
modern Jewish Babylonian Talmud. Every form of ancient paganism decried by the Bible may be found under the
"whited sepulchre" of so‑called "Judaism," which is actually Pharisee paganism.
"Christians," now, as formerly, would do well to read up on what the Bible condemns, and find those pagan
murder practices have not disappeared from the Earth, nor from the "synagogue of Satan."
Burning children to the demon Moloch is permitted today by the supreme legal authority of the so‑called
"Jewish" religion, which is the Babylonian Talmud, and, in particular, the Talmud book of Sanhedrin, Folios 64a‑
64b. Remember, the book of Sanhedrin is, according to its Introduction in the Soncino English translation of
1935, the "chief repository of the criminal law of the Talmud."
To justify child sacrifices to Moloch, the Talmud once again cites Scripture, which clearly condemns such
pagan practice, and then reverses the clear meaning of the Scripture with hairsplitting "exceptions" to justify
these sacrifices. (Talmud, Sanhedrin 64a‑64b)
Thus, as Christ put it to the Pharisees, you make the "commandment of God of non effect. Ye hypocrites! Well
did Esaias [Isaiah] prophecy of you, saying, This people draw nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me
with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men." (Matt. 15:7)
Christ also refereed to Isaiah 29:13. Isaiah well knew the breed of Satanists who used the Bible to destroy
it.
The "Mishna" of the Sanhedrin sets out to make the clear orders of Moses against burning or causing to be
burned any child to Moloch by:
1) handing the child to Moloch, and
2) causing the child to be burned.
But, note the "explanation" to the Talmudic Mishna, which states: "He who gives of his seed [children] to
Molech incurs no punishment unless he delivers it to Moloch" (1) "and causes it to pass through the fire" (2) "If
he gave it to Moloch but he did not cause it [the child] to pass through the fire, or the reverse" (i.e. cause
his child to pass through the fire, but did not give it to Moloch) "he incurs no penalty unless he does both." At
this point, does it really matter whether an innocent child has been burned in fire and also "given to Moloch"
when its murder by fire is condoned if the latter proviso is excluded?
In a footnote to the same Talmud "Mishna" reference it is explained: "(5) As two separate offenses, proving
that giving one's seed [child] to Moloch is not idolatry." What foul idolatry! The same Talmud section subverts
the Mishna exception "unless he gives it to Moloch" further to: "punishment is not incurred unless he delivers
his seed [child] to the acolytes of Moloch." Thus, if one delivers his own child into the fire, for death, and to
Moloch, there would be "no punishment."
A further "explanatory footnote" says: "He explains this to be the meaning of the Mishna unless he gives it
to Moloch (5). This proves that the offense consists of two parts; (1) formal delivery to the priests, and (2)
causing the seed to pass through the fire."
The same Talmud section includes the repetitional statement that: "the service of Moloch...is not included
in general idolatry."
[Note: Reversing the chief idolatrous practice denounced by the Bible!]. In Leviticus 20:2 it is stated:
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying...Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers [Jews]
that sojourn in Israel that giveth any of his seed [children] to Molech..." Then treatment of a murderer is
demanded: "He shall surely be put to death." As to this Biblical prohibition, the Talmud is a masterpiece of
satanism stating: "If one caused all his seed [children] to pass through the fire to Molech, he is exempt,
because it is written, 'of thy seed' implying, but not all thy seed." In footnote 4 the Biblical citation as
authority is given as the Leviticus reference referred to above.
Thus, THE TALMUD "NULLIFIES" THE WORD OF GOD, REVERSING IT WHILE GIVING IT AS AUTHORITY, TO PERMIT MURDERING
ONE'S CHILD IN THE SERVICE OF MOLECH! This cannot be from ignorance of God's Word, clearly cited, and is nothing
but SHEER BLASPHEMY.
JEWS NOT A RACE
"I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [Judeans] and are not, but are the synagogue of
Satan," said Christ from the Spirit to John, about 96 A.D. (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). At that time true Scripture
believers had accepted Christ and called themselves Christians. The Sadducees had disappeared, according to the
Jewish Encyclopedia, and the Pharisees were in complete control. Judaism was synonymous with Pharisaism (Jewish
Encyclopedia, p. 666)
The question arises whether the boasts of present day Pharisees "which say they are Jews [Judeans]" have any
genealogical backing. Are the so‑called Jews of today descendants of the patriarch Judah? The Bible is the best
answer to this. And the answer is that THEY ARE NOT! There was barely enough record in Christ's time to identify
Him and a few of His followers, as descendants of a certain Israel tribe. Paul was a Benjaminite, for example.
Whether or not they were lineal descendants of the patriarch Judah, a sinner, was not the issue. They had
had access to the Word of God, and instead, adopted a pagan tradition which nullified, as Christ said, the
commandments of God (Matt. 15:3‑9; Mark 7:5‑9).
He said: "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Faith in God and
His Word was the test.
As Paul said: "For he is not a Jew [Judean], which is one outwardly...But he is a Jew [Judean], which is one
inwardly...in the spirit...whose praise is not of men, but of god." (Romans 2:28‑29)
Again, Paul makes it clear that the promise of blessing through Abraham was Christ. "Now to Abraham and his
seed were the promises made, He saith not...seeds of many, but as of one ...which is Christ...There is neither
Jew [Judean] nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians
3:16, 28‑29)
The Prophet Isaiah was a prophet indeed when, after recounting the abominable practices of the Jews when he
foretold: "And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call
his servants by another name." (Isaiah 65:15) This was shortly after his Godly prophecy that Christ would be born
from the line of Judah.
"Thus saith the Lord...I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and one of Judah an inheritor of my mountains
and mine elect shall inherit it...but ye are they that forsake the Lord..." (Isa. 65:9‑10)
CHRIST BORN OF JUDAH
It is as anti‑Biblical to enthrone the abomination serving Pharisees [Jews] of today as it is to deny that
Christ was born, as foretold, through Judah. Otherwise, He has not yet come. To Abraham, to Isaac, his son, to
Jacob/Israel, his grandson, to David, of the same line, was a special revelation made that the Christ would be
their descendant, according to the flesh. That line identified Him when He came. It did not furnish His Divinity.
As Paul said: "It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah." (Hebrews 7:14) The patriarch Jacob/Israel, about
1700 B.C., had foretold that He would be. On his deathbed, he likened the coming Christ to Shiloh, where rested
the tabernacle of God. Jacob said: "The septre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet,
until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." (Gen. 49:10)
And the semblance of a Judah kingdom in Palestine did not disappear until after Christ was born there.
JEWS NOT "SEMITES"
According to the current Jewish‑American press, about half of the Jews in Israel today are Negroes and dark‑
skinned Orientals. A constant tug of war goes on, with continuous charges of "discrimination" raised by Oriental
and Negro Jews against the Western Jews. The true facts thoroughly disprove any pretensions that today's so‑
called Jews are genealogically "descendants of the prophets," or a "race" of any kind.
Shem, Ham and Japeth were the three race‑founding sons of Noah. To be a Semite one must have descended from
Shem, just as to be a Jew, genealogically, one must descend from Judah. Ham was the father of the abominating
Canaan who mistreated Noah sexually (Gen. 9:25), and Canaan's descendants who peopled the Land of Canaan had the
same proclivities. Thus, Moses, in leading the Israelites back from Egypt in 1491 B.C., warned them to make no
marriages, no alliances with the Canaanites, or they might lose their faith and decency.
And what is the Biblical record? Moses died in 1451 B.C., and Joshua actually led the Israelites into
Canaan, or Palestine. They had been told in no uncertain terms that they could choose between life and death,
blessing and cursing: "A blessing if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God...And a curse if ye will not."
(Deut. 11:26‑8; 30:19‑20).
The Israelites were to drive out the Canaanite abominators, and make no marriages or deals with them.
The sons of the cursed Canaan fathered the Jebusites, Amorites, Girgasites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites,
Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites, according to Genesis 10:15‑18 and 1 Chronicles 1:13‑16.
However, a reading of the books of Joshua and Judges will show that instead of driving out these Canaanite
tribes, the Israelites mixed with them all and adopted their abominations.
That is why the Prophets thundered and threatened, and the Northern, ten‑tribe Israel Kingdom was deported
by the Assyrians in 721 B.C., and "lost" by being strewn across their world empire.
Before the foretold slaughter and deportation, with loss forever of national sovereignty of the Israel
kingdom, for black magic pagan crimes, the Prophet Isaiah said: "His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant,
they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark: sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs
which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand; they all look to their own way, every
one for his gain, from his quarter." (Isaiah 56:10‑11)
Thus he prophesied 760‑698 B.C., and, in 721 B.C., the Israel kingdom was slaughtered and finished,
unrepentant, unhearing.
The fulminating by the Prophets continued against the people of the Judah‑Benjamin kingdom around Jerusalem
until they too were deported by the Babylonians in 606‑586 B.C. A remnant returned in 536 B.C.
JEWS A NON‑RACIAL PHARISEE SECT
Present‑day Jews are a pot‑pourri of every race of man, and they do not have any genealogical or racial
derivation from the ancient peoples of the Holy Land. Since "Jews" were a mixed race from the beginning, the term
"Semites" applied to them, admittedly, is silly. Thus, "Anti‑Semitism," actually means "Anti‑Pharisaism."
The Chazars, for example were, as we have already stated, were part of an Asiatic horde which adopted
Talmudism in the 8th Century, when their King, Bulan, and his Court did so.
Their descendants constituted the Ashkenaze Jews of Russia, Poland and Germany, who in turn migrated in
large numbers to the United States.
There have been Chinese "Jews" for centuries, also India "Jews," and Falasha Negro "Jews." The Negro Jews of
New York City have asked for money for a synagogue, claiming that they numbered about 120,000 members, maintain
five synagogues and needed money for more. Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, Negro Sammy Davis, and many others
have been notable additions to the Pharisee sect of "Chosen People"
WHY DO THEY "LOOK JEWISH?"
A long article, with pictures and charts, in the Jewish Encyclopedia, under "Types, Anthropological," seeks
to answer the question as to why there is a recognizable "Jewish look" as to so many self‑styled "Jews." Subjects
such as percentages of blonde and brunette types, their origins, skull formations, are discussed.
Then, to quote: "What is popularly known as 'the Jewish eye' is not a correlation of definite
anthropological measures or characteristics, but consists principally in a peculiar expression of face, which is
immediately and unmistakably recognized as 'Jewish' in a large number of cases...It has also been remarked that
persons who do not have the Jewish expression in their youth acquire it more and more as they grow from middle to
old age."
Illustrations of how Negroes, as well as Gentile adults and children, recognize this Jewish look, are
related. That the "look" is not racial is illustrated by "the Little Russians, who apparently resemble their
Gentile neighbors in every facial characteristic, but are differentiated from them by some subtle nuance which
distinguishes them as Semites...It is seemingly some social quality which stamps their features as distinctly
Jewish."
The Anti‑Defamation League of B'bnai B'rith has issued a series leaflets for Fireside Discussion Groups,
Number 7 is entitled: "Three Questions Jews Must Answer."
The question "Are Jews a Race?" is answered, briefly, with the conclusion that Jews are part of a "general
admixture" of races.
"Are Jews a nation?" is answered with the idea that Jews form parts of all nations; that some of them have
the Zionist ideal of a Palestinian nation but "Jews have a consciousness of world unity." To quote: Jews are
"definitely a type, and consciously a unity, we are an historic people ‑‑ a world community."
The question "Are Jews a Religion?" is answered by the assertion that "There are hundreds of thousands of
Jews who are unbelievers. Yet they still consider themselves Jews." The incident of Jews converted to
Christianity [In my opinion ‑‑ there are about the same number of Christian Jews as there are Virgin
Prostitutes!] asking to help build a Jewish Palestine is related, "It is true that there are hundreds of
thousands of atheist Jews, but they need not fear to be represented by Judaism. Of this they may be sure; that
Judaism will not misrepresent them."
This is a good place to stop and agree on that point. As noted more fully elsewhere, aside from the "whited
sepulchre" which constitutes the showmanship and trimmings of so‑called "Judaism," its basic doctrine is that God
is the "En Sof," a nature essence which has no attributes and can neither know nor be known. That is atheism and
the basis of all pagan pantheism. Communism merely calls the same concept "dialectical materialism."
The article ends: "In a race‑mad world, we will not be one more race. In a world destroyed by nationalism,
we will not add one more nationalistic fury. But in a world in which religion is trying to re‑establish
brotherhood, we...[are] the creators and bearers of one of the eternal faiths of the human race." But Pharisaism
is not an "eternal" faith of the "human" race and, in truth, teaches as a basic law that only Pharisees are "men"
or humans (Jewish Encyclopedia, under Gentiles, Vol. V, p. 619).
That "the synagogue of Satan," as Christ called Pharisaism (Rev. 2:9; 3:9) is "eternal," is denied by the
whole Bible. The B'nai B'rith pamphlet previously quoted also states: "We want a world in which nationalism shall
definitely diminish."
And, Jews feel they belong to one world unity. When the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, the Jewry of
northern Africa received them. When the Jews were expelled from Germany during the crusades, the nascent Jewry of
Poland received them.
When they were expelled from Poland in 1648, the reconstituted German community received them in turn; and
when Eastern Europe sent its Jewish...exiles across the world, American Jewry helped them find a home, they have
always welcomed their own exiles...We are the children of...a great and noble tradition. We were united by that
tradition.
AMERICA ‑‑ A TALMUDIC GOVERNMENT
It is becoming ever more evident that the government of the United States, as well as our people, have
become more and more Talmudic in concept and action. These statements seem so foreign to a nation whose roots
were founded in Christianity. Many will, no doubt, ask what is meant by a Talmudic Government. So we present the
following explanation for the growth of Talmudism in the United States.
As Solomon said in the Book of Ecclesiastes: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that
which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Eccl. 1:9).
The concept of a Talmudic government has all been done many times in the past. The principles written in the
Word of God are inviolate and we cannot escape them.
What was Jesus talking about in Matthew 23:13 when He said: "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye
them that are entering to go in."
What did He mean by "kingdom of heaven?"
It is that system of government here on earth that God has given us to follow. If we have a system of
government that follows His precepts, we are blessed. If we deny His concepts we are cursed. It's that simple.
Deut. 28 tells it all. Jesus said that the Pharisees were making the commandments of God of non effect by
the traditions of men.
In the book, The Wisdom of the Talmud by Rabbi ben Zion Bokser we read, "Prior to the destruction of the
Temple in 70 C.E. (A.D.) the state was intermittently under the influence of the Pharisees, the forerunners of
the rabbis who were the great builders of Talmudic law...Talmudic law came into its own after the destruction of
the Temple. In the limited autonomy enjoyed by the Jewish community in Palestine and Babylonia, Jewish law was
given far‑reaching scope; and that law was the law as interpreted and administered by the rabbis."
Rabbi Bokser should have included the Roman Empire along with Palestine and Babylonia. In the very
comprehensively‑written book, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation by Ammon Linder, we find unequivocal
evidence that the laws of the Roman Empire were materially influenced by the Talmudic concepts of law. (The Jews
in Roman Imperial Legislation, by Amnon Linder)
Thus we see something in common with each of these empires. They all fell ignominiously into ruin, never to
return to the greatness they once had, because of the Talmudic influence.
Has the Christian West fallen from its zenith of power and respect? Will it have been for the same reason,
that of "making the Word of God of none effect?"
Oswald Spendler wrote in The Decline of the West: "I see in you all the characteristic stigma of decay. I
can prove that your great wealth and your great poverty, your capitalism and your socialism, your wars and your
revolutions, your atheism and your pessimism and your cynicism, your immorality, your broken‑down marriages, your
birth control, that is bleeding you from the bottom and killing you off at the top in your brains‑can prove to
you that these are characteristic marks of the dying ages of ancient states Alexandria, Greece and neurotic
Rome."
What is it that causes once great an fruitful empires to fall? Isn't it when men and their rulers begin to
believe that they can modify the Laws of God to conform to their own extenuating circumstances? Isn't it nothing
but a repeat of the principle that we learned from Genesis 3 when Eve took from the tree of knowledge and thought
she could discern for herself what was good and evil?
The Talmud is a huge comprehensive compilation of ideas and thoughts on the Divine Laws of God and how they
can be modified to conform to the extenuating circumstances as required. Any nation that modifies or removes the
Laws of God from their plan of government and replaces them with any or all of the concepts of the Talmud is
destined to fall.
However, the Talmudists have always survived the fall of the nation and civilization because it is a
government in itself; a government within a government and a government above a government. The government and
the nation that the Talmud has influenced will fall but the Talmud itself remains intact. It was developed over a
span of many years with the thought of survival for its people.
Returning to The Wisdom of the Talmud by Rabbi Bokser we will read of the modifiers that change the black
and white of the Laws of God to the grey areas that destroy a nation.
"The pressure of a higher moral standard inspired the Talmudic liberalization of the Jewish criminal code.
Capital punishment is provided in the Bible for a variety of crimes. But the rabbis, as we have already noted,
found capital punishment reprehensible, and they rendered it almost inoperative by hedging it with conditions
that made of the old law a dead letter. Thus they insisted that the commission of the culpable act must be
preceded by a warning and by an expression of defiance on the part of the criminal in the face of that warning."
(Sanhedrin 40a)
So here we have the statement for the desire of a "higher moral standard" on the part of the Pharasees and
Talmudists. There is no higher moral standard than that of God's Word. We may not like to read of the so‑called
harsh renderings of justice that God demands but whenever we fail to heed them we fall as a civilization.
What does God say? "Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed." (Genesis 9:6) "So these
things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. Whoso
killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death." (Num. 35:29‑30)
It is the obligation of Christian government to provide for the execution of murderers. The officer required
to execute the criminal guilty of a capital crime is exonerated from guilt: "If the revenger of blood (the
executioner) kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood." (Num. 35:27)
These laws pertain to a country in a tranquil state of peace. They DO NOT pertain to a state of war either
within or without the country. Thus we have the stories of Ehud and Eglon as well as Jael and Sisera. This is not
murder but killing in times of war.
The Laws of God are also specific about kidnapping and rape. These are death sentences "to remove the evil
from among you."
Rabbi Bokser's book states, "Thus Rabbi Eliezer, who was an aristocrat, exempted arms from the prohibition
of carrying unnecessary objects on the Sabbath. He regarded them as ornaments and they were to be worn as a
normal part of a person's apparel. His colleagues, representing the point of view of the common people, forbade
it. Citing the prophetic contempt for war and its implements, they branded the wearing of arms as a disgrace."
(Mishnah, Shabbat 6:4)
In the book of Luke at the time of the last supper, Jesus spoke, "And he said unto them, When I sent you
without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But
now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his script: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:35‑36)
Our forefathers, not only here in the United States but in all of the nations of the Christian West, knew
this principle of God very well. They knew that to conquer a nation it must first be disarmed. The American
people refuse to be disarmed, in open defiance to Senator Metzenbaum's efforts and others like him who have the
Talmudic concept of government.
WELFARE A TALMUDIC CONCEPT
Now, let's look at welfare. The book The Wisdom of the Talmud says, "The Talmud gives evidence of a
continuously growing program of welfare legislation, in which ever wider sectors of social life were brought
under the control of a law, whose motivating impulse was the welfare of the common man. Thus the law empowered
the community to assume responsibility for elementary education and poor relief. It authorized the supervision of
weights and measures, and of fair wages and prices to prevent unethical business practices." (Baba Batra 21a, 8b;
Ketubot 49b)
Again, the Word of God says, "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the
corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy
vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and the
stranger: I am the Lord your God." (Lev. 19:9‑10).
"Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's rainment to
pledge...When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not
go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the Lord thy god
may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the
boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. When thou gatherest the grapes
of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the
widow." (Deut. 24:17‑21)
"And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying...And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which
the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses." (Lev. 10:11)
In the past, the Christian church has always taken care of its own poor and provided for the welfare of the
people. The body of Christ has always provided for the education of our children. From the earliest days in
America, the teaching of the children was from books such as McGuffey's Reader and the Holy Bible. It is even now
said among our people that the best way to teach a child to read, is to teach him to read the Bible. It is a gift
of God.
It is demeaning and humiliating to force our poor to stand in line at the government welfare office to
receive their sustenance. The system germinates fraud and theft by otherwise able bodied people. It creates a
system of perpetual poor whose sole ambition is to have children who will likewise have the "profession" of being
on welfare.
It causes distrust, disgust and anger among the average citizen who, living in a modest home, has to pay the
taxes that builds the expensive, highly modern, public housing which is far better than their own home. Only to
be torn apart by ungrateful blacks and other so‑called minority groups.
CREATOR OF THE LAW
Again from Rabbi Bokser's book The Wisdom of the Talmud we read the following which says it all, "The judge
served in effect as a CREATOR of law and not only as its interpreter ‑ a phenomenon which has been duplicated in
every system of jurisprudence."
As our once great Christian Republic fell deeper and deeper under the spell of the Talmudic concept of law,
we see the statement by Bokser that "The judge served in effect as a creator of law and not only as its
interpreter..." becoming more and more the situation in America. The "separation of powers" concept within our
system has been totally destroyed because of this Talmudic principle. A great share of our Legislators are also
lawyers.
They belong to the American Bar Association and they are members of the bar. That makes them automatically a
part of the Judicial Branch of government. They know that one day they will return to being a lawyer and they
will serve under a judge. Thus, every law they enact, they think of in terms of the Judicial Branch and whether
the judge will accept it or not. Making the judge, not only the interpreter of the law, but also its creator.
PERSONAL FREEDOM
In Bokser's chapter titled Social Welfare and Personal Freedom we read of a Talmudic concept that has caused
revolutions and insurrections among our Christian forefathers for centuries.
"The social process frequently brings individuals into a position where they exercise power over the lives
of others. In the social theory of Talmudic Judaism, it then becomes the task of the community to develop such
instruments of social control as will rationalize that power with moderation and justice.
The Talmudists declared individual property rights as subject to their consistency with the public welfare.
When it is to serve the public interest, these rights may be modified or suspended altogether.
Basing its action on this principle, Talmudic legislation regulated wages and hours of labor, commodity
prices and rates of profit. They held it was similarly the task of the community to provide other facilities for
promoting the public welfare, such as public baths, competent medical services, and adequate educational
facilities for all, at least on an elementary level." (Jebamot 89b; Baba Batra 8b; Sanhedrin 17b)
When and where in the history of our people did this Talmudic principle cause an insurrection that has been
the shining example of our continuing fight for individual freedom and liberty? To find the answer, we must go
back to England in the time of King William, the Conqueror. William was the last of the Norsemen from the area of
Normandy, France. This part of France had been conquered and settled by the Norse people (Scandinavian) many year
before.
Writing about William, "The very spirit of the sea‑wolves who had so long lived on the pillage of the world
seemed embodied in his gigantic form, his enormous strength, his savage countenance, his desperate bravery, the
fury of his wrath, the ruthlessness of his revenge." (A Short History of the English People, by J.R. Green) This
was the disposition of the man who conquered England and modified the old Saxon laws and customs.
The entire system of civilization in England was modified, some changes for the better, some for the worse.
But in general, as we shall see, the changes were toward the Talmudic concept of government.
As the conquering King of England, he needed money, lots of it. He immediately introduced the feudal system
to Saxon England. In the feudal system, the common man owned property only to the extent that he paid his "taxes"
to the local baron or ruler. The local feudal lord then paid his taxes to the king. The feudal barons and lords
were William's chosen men from France, of course.
From Green's Short History of the English People, we read: "But the greatest safeguard of the Crown lay in
the wealth and personal power of the kings. Extensive as had been his grants to noble and soldier, William
remained the greatest land‑owner in his realm. His rigid exaction of feudal dues added wealth to the great Hoard
at Winchester, which had been begun by the spoil of the conquered. But William found a more ready source of
revenue in the settlement of the Jewish traders, who followed him from Normandy, and who were enabled by the
royal protection to establish themselves in separate quarters or 'Jewries' of the chief towns of England.
The Jew had no right or citizenship in the land; the Jewry in which he lived was, like the King's forest,
exempt from the common law. He was simply the King's chattel, and his life and goods were absolutely at the
King's mercy. But he was too valuable a possession to be lightly thrown away.
A royal judiciary secured law to the Jewish merchant, who had not standing‑ground in the local courts; his
bonds were deposited for safety in a chamber of the royal palace at Westminster, which from their Hebrew name of
'starrs' gained the title of the Star‑Chamber; he was protected against the popular hatred in the free exercise
of his religion, and allowed to erect synagogues and to direct his own ecclesiastical affairs by means of a chief
rabbi.
No measures could have been more beneficial (sic) to the kingdom at large. The Jew was the only capitalist
in Europe, and, heavy as was the usury he exacted, his loans gave an impulse to industry such as England had
never felt before. The century which followed the Conquest witnessed an outburst of architectural energy which
covered the land with castles and cathedrals; but castle and cathedral alike owed their existence to the loans of
the Jew...To the kings (William and the Norman kings that followed) the Jew was simply an engine of finance.
The wealth which his industry accumulated was wrung from him whenever the King had need, and torture and
imprisonment were resorted to if milder entreaties failed. It was the wealth of the Jew that filled the royal
exchequer at the outbreak of war or of revolt. It was in the Hebrew (sic) coffers that the Norman kings found
strength to hold their baronage at bay."
It is as obvious as night follows day that these money lenders, just as the banks of today do, gave advice
to the kings. Obviously that advice will have been according to their own mores and customs. "The golden rule, he
who has the gold makes the rules."
Thus, the Talmudic concept that rabbi Bokser revealed in his book The Wisdom of the Talmud became the
civilization of the land starting at the time of the Norman kings in England. To emphasize this point, we repeat,
"The Talmudists declared individual property rights as subject to their consistency with the public welfare.
When it is to serve the public interest, these rights may be modified or suspended altogether...The century which
followed the Conquest witnessed an outburst of architectural energy which covered the land with castles and
cathedrals; but castle and cathedral alike owed their existence to the loans of the Jews."
Public structures were built everywhere and their construction was of the most expensive type possible.
Bridges were made of permanent stone, as well as other government buildings. The more expensive the building the
more money that would be loaned at usury. But as Green in his book points out, "He was simply the King's chattel,
and his life and goods were absolutely at the King's mercy."
Another action that these Norman kings took was to confiscate the Jew's property at the time of his death.
But that action didn't make any difference to the Jews. Because of the tremendous wealth to be made from usury,
their children could create their own wealth in a very short time.
If their children were started in the business while the parent was still alive, the usury system could be
handed down without an inheritance problem. Thus we see another Talmudic principle, that of disallowing
inheritance. We see that today in the Communist Manifesto along with all of the modern "social reforms."
CONTROL THE KEY WORD
The key word to the system is not ownership but control. The Jews, because of the instinct for survival,
created the economic system in which they didn't need to own anything that would be taken from them at the time
of their death. A system was developed that perpetuated the control of material wealth and not the direct
ownership. Thus, the laws of incorporation were the result of the system that was started as a means of survival.
The same can be said of the idea of the graduated income tax. The Norman kings extracted from these money
lenders the capital they needed in direct proportion to the wealth of the money lender. The richer he was, the
more money taken from him. The graduated income tax is also a Communist Manifesto concept.
CONFISCATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
Another Talmudic concept that started in the days of the Norman kings was that of confiscation of private
property for the king's (or government's) use. King William confiscated a tremendous amount of private property
for the government's use in what was called Carte de Foresta, or Forest Laws. "The king having a continual care
for the preservation of the realm, and for the peace and quiet of his subjects, he had therefore amongst many
privileges this prerogative, to have his place of recreation whomsoever he would appoint."
Thus, "for the preservation of the realm," we have the laws of Eminent Domain, which is the power of a
government over all the property within its limits, by which it is entitled to appropriate, or to authorize the
appropriation of, private property for public use, giving just (sic) compensation to the owner. We also have, as
a part, of this concept of Carta de Foresta, the current mania of creating vast, "wilderness" tracts that will
eventually be used as collateral for the public debt. This, is a part of what is called ‑ "The World Conservation
Bank." Private property is being confiscated at an alarming rate in the United States.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT LAWS
Another Talmudic concept that King William initiated was that of dissolving the Capital Punishment Laws.
Even though he would kill a man without batting an eye, so to speak, he did not believe in shedding blood by
process of law. Thus, he initiated the concept of no capital punishment because of a "higher moral standard."
The Norman kings continued to rule through four generations until the time of King John. The strong and
authoritarian concept of government started by King William the Conqueror became more demanding for the English
people. The concept of government spending using borrowed money was the accepted way. Capitalization of private
enterprises using borrowed money at usury resulted in what appeared on the surface a better way of life for the
English people.
But the people were losing their cherished freedoms and liberty. Vast tracts of private property were
confiscated by the government to be converted into forests and other uses for the "common good." The churches
were told to stay out of government business.
But it was in keeping with true Biblical principles that a change took place in England that proved that
there was a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. The reaffirmation of the Supreme Law of
inalienable rights for the common man is the great work of the Magna Carta.
It was once again a man of the church who brought about the confrontation between the barons and King John
on an island in a marsh called Runneymede. The English church leader Anselm had earlier withstood William the
Red, the son of William the Conqueror. The church leader Theobald rescued England from the lawlessness of
Stephen, the grandson of William the Conqueror. And now it was Stephen Langton, the new archbishop of Canterbury
who stood before the vicious King John. It was his intention to restore on a formal basis the older Saxon
freedoms of the realm.
For several months the nobles and the churchmen stood together against John. The several larger cities of
England saw the churchmen and barons enter their cities and claim freedom and liberty. In London, the barons were
organized under Robert Fitz‑Walter, "the marshal of the army of God and holy church."
It was the Talmudic principles of government that the Magna Carta addressed and it was the Christian church
which showed the barons what needed to be done at Runnymede. (A Short History of the English People, J.R. Green)
As a second witness to the analysis of history that has been described and to the understanding of what
happens when a nation follows the Talmudic concept of government, the following is extracted from the book simply
titled The Jews by the very well known author, Hilaire Belloc: "The Jewish element in this island (England),
whatever it may have been during the Roman occupation, was of small account during the Dark Ages. Things changed
at their close in the eleventh century.
The Jew is the camp follower of each new economic movement among us and that is why one finds him in the
wake of the Norman Conquest. Throughout the economic development which it began appears the secondary role of the
Jew. Every one knows the mediaeval rule of Jewish Status. It was established here as everywhere else in
Christendom.
The Jew was the King's; that is, under the special protection of the State. If he were the subject of
popular attack, that attack was an attack on the King's peculiar, and liable to speedy repression. The individual
attacker was punished with special severity because the danger of mass‑movement is always great where the
populace is free to act in masses as it was throughout the middle ages, and the necessity for preventing
individual attacks from spreading was correspondingly great. Now and then the popular feeling got out of hand and
the monarch had to deal with numbers which he could not control; but as a rule the Jews, especially the rich Jew,
enjoyed a privileged position, both in Northern France and throughout England. The Jew of the early Middle Ages
in England was normally a well‑to‑do man and often an exceedingly rich man. Then, as now, a small number of Jews
were the richest men of their time.
He had mot of the finances in his hands, and this immense privilege (which he has lost), that he alone was
allowed to practice usury. Here we must pause a moment to define usury."
USURY
"Usury then (as now) signified the receiving of interest upon unproductive loans. It is a practice which
all moralists and all philosophers have condemned and which the Church in particular condemns. If you lend money
to a man for a productive purpose: if, for instance, he is to buy a ship and trade with the money you advance, or
to buya farm and grow produce, then, of course, you are perfectly free to stipulate for a portion of the profit.
But if you lend the money for a purpose not directly productive, as, for instance, to a man in grave necessity,
or in lieu of charity, or to build such a building as a church, which will not produce a rent, or if in any other
fashion you lend money to one who (to your knowledge) will not spend it in some reproductive agency, then it is
immoral to demand interest. Now an exception was made in mediaeval Christendom in favor of the Jew. He was
allowed to lend money at interest, even in the most grievous cases of necessity, and for services as unproductive
as religion and war. The only stipulation was that the moneys saved from this lucrative practice returned to the
Crown (in theory) upon the death of the licensee. In practice no doubt a very large part remained with the
accumulator, who during his lifetime was enjoying the income he had acquired by usury, who could give it to his
heirs while still living, and could use opportunities for secret investment, or pass it to the custody of others
throughout international Jewry. But liquid sums left by him, the product of his usury, returned to the Crown upon
his death. This wasa great advantage to the Crown, not only in protecting the Jew from the native hostility of
his alien hosts (and particularly of the populace), but in giving him that great privilege‑a monopoly.
The rate of interest was enormous. It varied from nearly 50 percent to over 80 percent. When Jews lent money
on security the King was party to the safe custody of the security, and their privilege extended so far that they
were exempt from the common law, and a case between an Englishman and his Jewish creditor could only be tried by
a mixed jury in which the Jew's own compatriots were present in equal numbers with the English. All during the
Angevin period Jewish financial domination continued, up to the end of the twelfth century and even into the
beginning of the thirteenth. But with the first half of the thirteenth century, for some reason of which I have
never seen a sufficient historical analysis and of which, perhaps, the full causes have been lost, the Jewish
power began to decline very rapidly, so far as England was concerned.
The Angevin period was when the French kings from the area of France called Anjou ruled over England. It is
considered to be from 1154 A.D. to 1399 A.D. Of course, William the Conqueror was the first French King to rule
England after he conquered the country. They were also known as the Plantegenet kings). And here it may be noted
that the misfortunes of the Jews in any country never begin until their financial position is shaken. As long as
they are the financial masters of the Government they are protected; but woe to them when they begin to lose
their financial power! Then there is no longer any reason for supporting them either on the part of the governing
classes in general or of the Executive in particular. Popular passion is let loose and disaster follows.
At any rate, the thirteenth century saw in England a rapid decline of Jewish financial power and at the same
time a rapid rise of official animosity towards them. They got poorer and poorer as the century proceeded. Their
activities were at the same time more and more restricted. They had lent money largely upon land and yet, in the
public interest, were at last forbidden to foreclose upon it. The final step came when their special license to
practice usury was withdrawn by Edward I in the earlier part of his reign; and at last, in 1290, after increasing
severities, they were all expelled from the country under penalty of death." (The end of the extraction from
Hilaire Belloc's book).
Notice that Mr. Belloc did not fully understand why the power of the money lenders declined in the first
half of the thirteenth century. The reason is apparent when you associate not only the lending of money at usury
but also the Talmudic concept of government with the conditions of the country at the time. Mr. Belloc hints at
this association but still does not fully grasp the significance when he writes this in the introduction to his
third edition of the book, The Jews: "The positive side of Jewish Communism as expressed by Mordecai himself
(Marx) and by all the other exponents of it, Jew and Gentile, is their insistence on the control of the means of
production, distribution and exchange, by officials of the community which turn out in practice to be in large
proportion Jews." (The Jews, Hilaire Belloc)
MAGNA CARTA
It was the Magna Carta that was forced upon King John at Runneymede and caused the power of the Jews to wane
and caused their eventual expulsion from the country.
1) Now we can understand why the Federal Reserve system has never been audited, let alone expelled from our
country.
2) Now we can understand why we still have "star‑chamber" courts where white collar crime is swept under the rug.
3) Now we can understand why billions of dollars can be stolen from the savings and loans associations, banks and
other lending associations.
4) Now we can understand why the American taxpayers end up paying for it all.
5) Now we can understand why we can have insider trader frauds and the Americans who invested in those companies
are losing their life's savings to Jewish Wall Street manipulators. Who are required to pay fines, to the
government, and not to the men and women who lost those savings. Is that justice? I think not!
But the principles of the World of God are always true. Eventually, the people understand that they are in
bondage and they cry unto God. When the people truly repent for allowing these things to happen, God sends
prophets to teach and then there is always another Gideon.
Winston Churchill made the following statement about the Magna Carta in his works A History of the English
Speaking Peoples: "Now for the first time the King himself is bound by the law.
The root principle was destined to survive across the generations and rise paramount long after the feudal
background of 1215 had faded in the past. The Charter became in the process of time an enduring witness that the
power of the Crown was not absolute.
The facts embodied in it and the circumstances giving rise to them were buried or misunderstood. The
underlying idea of the sovereignty of law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for
the national state. And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride
roughshod over the rights or liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again been
made, and never, as yet, without success."
It was many centuries later, here in America, that an appeal was again made to that doctrine of inalienable
rights because a government was "swollen with its own authority."
And now, near the close of the twentieth century, just two hundred short years later, another government,
led by the International Jewish Bankers, has become swollen with its own authority and is riding roughshod over
the rights and liberties of its subjects, its citizens. And it is for the exact same reasons as in the days of
the Norman kings that the American people have become disenchanted with the process of government in our own
land.
At first, the Talmudic system sounds so good. "Two chickens in every pot and from each according to his
ability and to each according to his needs." We will have day‑care centers for our children because this "great"
system has forced nearly every mother to work to help purchase those "two chickens and the pot."
A. We now have great public works projects to bring the civilization up to the standards of ancient Rome.
B. We now have judges who MAKE the law instead of simply refereeing the actions of a trial by jury.
C. We now have jails full of people instead of retribution for all crimes except those which require the death
penalty.
This "new" Talmudic concept gave us a public school system which require all students to proceed at the same
pace regardless of individual abilities. As a result, this great system has given us students who score at the
bottom scholastically among the industrialized nations. They are grossly overweight and physically out of shape.
At the same time many think of themselves as being among the best, if not the best, in the world. Such a
combination makes them "fat, dumb and happy."
Our country is dangerously close to a popular uprising. The one thing that is holding it back is the
indifference among the average church leader. That is caused by the total misunderstanding of the misnomer
"Judeo‑Christian." That is a term of recent origin and in reality it CAN NOT exist.
Some of these churchmen are slowly learning. It is either the Talmud or the Bible.
GEORGE WASHINGTON'S SURRENDER
"And many of the people of the land became Jews." (Esther 9:17)
The confession of General Cornwallis to General Washington at Yorktown has been well hidden by historians.
History books and text books have taught for years that when Cornwallis surrendered his army to General
George Washington that American independence came, and we have lived many years in happiness until the
tribulations of the twentieth century.
Jonathon Williams recorded in his Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington that, "a
holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but
her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."
Cornwallis went on to explain what would seem to be a self contradiction: "Your churches will be used to
teach the Jew's religion and in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world
government. That government that they believe to b e divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be
permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all‑
seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry."
And indeed George Washington himself was a Mason, and he gave back through a false religion what he had won
with his army.
Cornwallis well knew that his military defeat was only the beginning of world catastrophe that would be
universal and that unrest would continue until mind control could be accomplished through a false religion. What
he predicted has come to pass. A brief sketch of American religious history shows us that Masonry has infused
into every church in America with their veiled Phallic religion. Darby and the Plymouth Brethren brought a Jewish
Christianity to America. Masons Rutherford and Russell started Jehovah Witnesses' Judaism which is now worldwide
with their message of the divine kingdom. Mason Joseph Smith started Mormon Judaism with its Jewish teaching of
millennialism. At the turn of the twentieth century there appeared the Scofield Bible with a Jewish
interpretation of the prophecies.
With wide use of this "helpful" aid, almost all of the American churches have silently become synagogues. We
now have Baptist Jews, Methodist Jews, Church of God Jews, apostate Catholic Jews, Fundamentalist Jews, and many
Protestant Jews throughout America. We are aliens in our own country because of false religion. All are praying
for divine deliverance into that "Divine Government" which Cornwallis knew to be the British Empire. A false
religion has been used to deceive us into allegiance to our enemies of Yorktown and Bunker Hill, who in turn were
under the complete control of the Jewish Cahalla.
No! Not a gun has been fired but the invisible malignant process of conquering America with the Jew's
religion has gone on unabated. The Union Jack has been planted in our hearts with religious deception. All has
happened "legally," "constitutionally" "freely" and completely within our most sacred trust, our churches.
Religious deception is painless inoculation against truth. It cannot be removed from the conscience with surgery,
yet it is the motivator of our actions and directly controls our lives. Once man gives over to false religion, he
is no longer rational because he originates no original thought. His life is controlled by whomever controls his
religion. The veil of false religion is the sword of Damacles and its power to control humanity defies even the
imagination of the tyrants who use it.
This is not to say that George Washington was a traitor willingly, or even knowingly. He was beguiled into a
Satanic religious order that insidiously controls men's minds. So have American statesmen and military leaders
down through the years given aid and allegiance to the enemies of the United States because they did not have
knowledge of the invisible subterfuge that stalks this land. Many eyes were opened when they read Wagner's
Freemasonry An Interpretation [Given by Senator Joseph McCarthy, six months before his mouth was closed forever].
If every American would read it, they would no longer ask why and how all this has happened.
There is no doubt, if one will only look and learn. We are fighting a religious war. It is Judaism against
Christianity. We have had a revival of ancient Rabbinism and it will be a surprise to many who truly love our
Lord Jesus Christ to learn that the present teaching of the Kingdom of God is identical with first century
rabbinism. This is no accident. It has been carefully planned by the enemies of Jesus, and fed gradually to the
people, until today, most of our churches are promoting Judaism in the name of Christianity.
Although the church denominations in the past have had differences of opinion on some doctrines, they ALL
agreed that the true Kingdom of God is here on the Earth, and has been established in the New Jerusalem, the
United States of America. It has only been in the last one hundred years or so, that the teaching of a still
future, Kingdom of God has spread throughout the land, causing great confusion. It will help to know the true and
the false teachings of the kingdom.
If you should read Spiritual Communism and The Union Jack, then you would understand that that the Pharisaic
hypocrisy is not at its peak, with the entire world control by the invisible Pharisee Jew; and that they "stir up
the people." (Acts 6:12; 13:50; 14:2; 17:13; 21:27) All over the world in every way possible, even manipulating
the wars to whip communism, which they set up as a disguise. While controlling the right wing anti‑communists by
telling us horrible things about communism to keep us looking in that direction while the so‑called "Chosen
People" set up their One World Government, a New World Order, through the guise of Christianity.
All too many, today, believe that the Jews occupy Palestine in fulfillment of prophecy as declared by the
Zionists; but all the prophecies relating to the Jews returning to Palestine were made before or during the time
of captivity in Babylon, and all fulfilled at their return from Babylonia captivity. They occupy Palestine
today in fulfillment of what Jesus said to them in John 8:44; that they would do the works of their father, the
devil ‑‑ NOT in fulfillment of prophecy that has already been fulfilled.
If you are interested in how the so‑called Holy Land became transformed into a Zionist state, we present you
the following information. There are three causes:
1). False Zionist territorial claim to Palestine.
2). The Balfour Declaration.
3). The United Nations Participation Act.
The Zionist Jews that control the British Empire and the United States are the framework of the plot. The
Scofield Bible has been used to mislead Christians into believing that the earthly throne of David will be
under the control of the Jews.
NO COVENANT BETWEEN JEWS AND GOD
In "Issues," the quarterly periodical of the American Council for Judaism, Vol. 12, No. 8, we find on pages
12‑14: "Kaplan emphasizes the existence of a Jewish people but denies their superiority. He contends that Jews
cannot prove the existence of any specific covenant between them and God. Jews are neither superior human beings,
nor do they possess a superior tradition because of the Torah [Talmud], according to Kaplan. He implies that
other religious civilizations offer traditions equally good. He also rejects the inference that Jewish chosenness
consists of heightened ethical responsibility.
Berger rejects the existence of a Jew people...He says: I find nothing to support the thesis that there is
such an entity as a Jewish people except in the sense that among all Jews there are certain similarities of
religious belief and practice.
Berger argues that the people believing in the God of Moses constituted a religious community, not a
nationality. Moses was the prime example for this point, since he had married a Medianite rather than a Hebrew
girl [Berger does not understand that Moses' wife 'WAS' an Israelite Woman]. Berger rejects the divine origin of
this early monotheistic belief thus making it possible for him to refute by definition that divine decree made of
the Jews a distance people." (Mordecai M. Kaplan, Author of "Judaism as a Civilization"; Rabbi Elmer Berger,
Executive Director of the American Council for Judaism).
Following is a quote from The Union Jack, p. 93: "The Jew, in a fleshy racial sense does not exist and never
has from Old Testament times until the second appearance of Christ, at the final age of Gospel. The only true
application of Jew should be Pharisee, based on the belief of Rabbinism or Talmudism. Therefore, our use of Jew
refers to a religious sect, based on Luciferianism."
COMMUNISM IS JEWISH
What do George Bush, Helmut Kohl, John Major, most Western leaders, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and
Eduard Shevardnaze all have in common? They are all socialists, secular humanists and globalists, working for a
common socialist global government, called by Bush and Gorbachev "The New World Order."
A few years ago the "convergence theory" of history emerged. It held that America and the West would move to
the political left, the Soviets would move to the political right, and we would all meet and merge in the middle
as socialists or Social Democrats. The "covergence theory" of history seems to be right on track. Socialist
Russia, socialist Eastern Europe and socialist Western Europe are all moving toward merging into one giant
unitary state or federation over the next five years or so. It is believed by many that A massive Soviet
subversion and absorption of Western Europe will follow.
REORGANIZING THE USSR FROM TOP TO BOTTOM
Soviet leaders in the Central Committee, the Politburo, the KGB and the Soviet Academy of Sciences began to
conclude over a decade ago that in spite of the USSR's vast natural and human resources, that the country was
utilizing those resources in a most "barbaric manner."
They have concluded over the past decade that Soviet industry is lagging badly behind the West, especially
in controlling wastefulness of materials and energy, as well as human resources. Soviet industry uses two to two‑
and‑a‑half times more material resources and one to one‑and‑a‑half times more energy per unit of production than
Western countries do. Gorbachev and the Soviet leaders have therefore called for the reorganization of Soviet
society from top to bottom, but within the framework of socialism.
The "new economic policy" is called "free market" and borrows much terminology from the West, but to
Gorbachev and the Soviet leadership, "free market" means state and collectively owned property, businesses still
state‑run and state‑controlled, business or investment profits are still illegal, etc. To the Soviets, "free
market" means only that they will trade with us, while to Westerners, when the Soviets use the term, they think
the USSR is in a transition to capitalism.
Another example of word/concept manipulation is "liberation theology." The Soviets hatched "liberation
theology" about 15 years ago, which is a diabolical and seductive use of Marxist‑Leninist doctrine wrapped up in
Christian/Biblical terminology, doctrines, etc. Liberation theology has been a smashing success for the
Communists in Central and Latin America, South Africa, and the Philippines. Now they are taking Marxist and
socialist concepts and wrapping them up in free market terminology, concepts, etc., to seduce gullible Western
political and business leaders.
When Gorbachev talks about stagnation, electronization of industry, opening the country to market economy,
democratization of society, etc., he is really talking about getting rid of the corrupt, overpaid, inefficient
bureaucrats who are now running the Soviet Union instead of the workers. The bloated bureaucracy is about to be
cut away, "because it has lost its revolutionary fervor."
As Gorbachev said at the XXVth CPSU Congress: "What we see today is not the working class running the Soviet
Union, but the bureaucracy, which is satisfied to occupy soft and lucrative positions, but is hardly interested
in revolutionary movements, political underminings of the rest of the world, or military expansion of Communism.
This is clearly stagnation.'
THE NEW SOVIET APPROACH: THE VELVET GLOVE vs. THE IRONCLAD FIST
Since 1917, the Communists have hated nationalism and nationalists, who stand for strong national entities
as opposed to the international order sought by the Communists. According to the Socialist/Communist ideology,
nationalism hinders the development of socialism and eventually Communism, and is counter‑internationalist. From
the '60s to the '80s, nationalists in the Baltic States, Byelorussia and Ukraine have been under incessant attack
by the Communists.
However, with glasnost‑perestroika, the situation seemingly changed. National symbols such as flags and
other objects were suddenly allowed. Literally overnight, people turned to the old national emblems, parading
them in front of the Communists as if they had won the battle for national survival. The nationalists in the
Baltics and other republics exposed themselves and left no doubt as to who they were. This bringing potential
enemies to the surface was probably the main goal of the CPSU. Over the past few years, the Soviets have allowed
nationalist opposition to emerge, and have then turned around and infiltrated it, financed it, and co‑opted [or
taken over] much of it.
The Soviets are masters at either creating or taking over their own opposition. They did this with
Solidarity in Poland, the New Salvation Front in Romania, and with Shevardnadze and Yeltsin in the USSR. Much
more advantageous than destroying their opposition is to create or co‑opt it so they can use it for their own
purposes.
We hear a great deal about the "hardliners" versus the "reformers," or the "conservatives" versus the
"liberals." Western leaders, like Bush, and the Western media describe the "hardliners" [or "conservatives"] as
unrepentant Communist hawks, [i.e., such as the "gang of eight"]; and the "reformers" [or "liberals"] as lovers
of freedom, democracy and free markets [such as Gorbachev, Shevardnaze and Yeltsin]. In reality, both groups are
hard‑core Marxist‑Leninist Communists, hell‑bent on Soviet world domination or conquest. They simply disagree on
the most advantageous method for our destruction.
The "hardliners" would bludgeon us to death with an ironclad fist; the "reformers" would strangle us with a
velvet glove. The result is the same, our destruction. The quarrel between the so‑called "conservatives" and
"liberals" is over methodology, not results or the final outcome. The reformers believe you can catch more flies
with honey than vinegar. Gorbachev is widely viewed and described as a reformer, a liberal, and a lover of
democracy. And yet, in December '89, he said: "I am a Communist, a convinced Communist. For some that may be a
fantasy. But for me, it is my main goal."
In November '87, Gorbachev said: "In our work and worries, we are motivated by those Leninist ideals and
noble endeavors and goals which mobilized the workers of Russia seven decades ago to fight for the new and happy
world of socialism. Perestroika is a continuation of the October Revolution."
That same Gorbachev, described to the West as a lover of democracy and freedom, said in November '87: "We
are moving toward a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road."
And in June '90, Gorbachev, "the reformer," said: "I am now, just as I've always been, a convinced
Communist. It's useless to deny the enormous and unique contribution of Marx, Engels and Lenin to the history of
social thought and to modern civilization as a whole."
Gorbachev, Shevardnaze, Yeltsin, and the reform wing of the CPSU are dedicated Communists, they hate the
American and other Western "imperialists," and they still believe in the inevitability of the Communist conquest
of the world, but they believe a different strategy is presently needed for success. They want to discard the old
"hardline" strategy of confrontation, divide and conquer, making enemies, etc., and instead adopt a strategy of
cooperation, of embracing the West, making the West friendly to the socialist world, and eventually they intend
[through subtlety, deception, infiltration, subversion, and manipulation] to "absorb" the West. Western Europe
will be the first to be so absorbed.
And if that doesn't work Dimitri Manuilski, professor at the Lenin School of Political Warfare, under whom
Gorbachev trained, said over fifty years ago: "War to the hilt between Communism and Capitalism is inevitable.
Today of course we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come...to win we shall need the element of
surprise. The Western World will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular
Peace Movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist
countries stupid and decadent will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another
chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down WE WILL SMASH THEM WITH OUR CLENCHED FIST."
Every word of this is being fulfilled before our very eyes. Sure the Soviets will appear to make
concessions, abandon the old East European dictators and call for peace, but when the foolish Israel nations of
the Western world are disarmed and defenseless, they will attack in an attempt to destroy us.
The "reformers" want to incorporate their "new thinking" into the world thinking process in order to
ultimately control world politics. They want the economy of the world to be integrated with the economy of the
Soviet Union. They plan to take over the world the way the AIDS virus takes over the body, slowly, subtly,
surreptitiously. It is important for the West to understand that Gorbachev, Shevardnaze and Yeltsin [the
"reformers"] are just as dangerous enemies to our survival as the "gang of eight" [the "hardliners"].
In fact, these reformers are more dangerous because they have caused the West to lower its threat
perception, to lower its guard. Better the enemy you can see and defend against than the enemy who comes to you
as a friend, as Brutus did to Julius Caesar before he stabbed him.
The "reformers" will tell us what we want to hear, they will talk about democracy, free elections, free
markets, multi‑party systems, freedom, independence, etc., while giving these words their own Marxist‑Leninist
twist or meaning. If you are strangled by the hand in the velvet glove, instead of being bludgeoned by the
ironclad fist, you are still just as dead!
THE NEW SOVIET FEDERATION
We are being told that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [USSR] is collapsing. That is not really
true. It is being voluntarily disbanded by the Soviet leadership in favor of a new federation [or union] to be
called the Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics. this restructuring [not disintegration as it is portrayed by
Soviet disinformation and the Western media] of the USSR [the Evil Empire] has been on the drawing boards since
before Gorbachev came to power [actually dating back to the late '70s.
The leaders of the Soviet Union at that time began to realize that the present form of the Soviet Empire was
archaic, inefficient, and counter‑productive to further global expansion, except in remote areas of the world
[i.e. Africa, Nicaragua] not contiguous to the USSR.
In a certain sense, the Western policy of "containment" and the advent of NATO in the '50s had been
reasonably successful in restricting the USSR's European growth beyond Eastern Europe and the soviet republics.
Just as slavery in the old American south had become unprofitable, not productive and uneconomical before the
U.S. Civil War, so the Soviet Empire was seen over a decade ago to need deep reform in its imperial structure.
THE REBIRTH OF IMPERIAL RUSSIA
For the past nearly two thousand years there has been a conflict that has embroiled not only the two major
participants but the entire world. When the early Christians began telling everyone that the Savior had already
come and that we must rid ourselves of Phariseeism [later Talmudism, and even later Judaism], the Jews began
their unending contest to regain the birthright their father Easu had sold to Jacob‑Israel. They would shout to
anyone who would listen that Christian Israelites were: "These that have turned the world upside down are come
hither also." (Acts 17:6)
Jesus told them in a parable straight‑out, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from
you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Matthew 21:43)
If anyone might question the final outcome of this battle of two millenniums, the next verse in Matthew
21:44 should suffice. "And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall,
it will grind him to powder."
The battle began and it has never let up. At first, the antichrists were on top and the Bible tells only a
very small number of things they did. But Christianity continued to grow and influence the entire world in morals
and customs. The anti‑christs penetrated the early Universal Church with very clever heresies which came from the
minds of the masters of intrigue. The Universal Church decayed into the Popish Church because of it.
Martin Luther tried to reform it but the Protestant Reformation has penetrated even more deeply than the
earlier Universal Church. Christians would fight back with all the means at their disposal, with only limited
effect.
Finally, the inquisitions were ordered. This had only a limited, short term effect. the mistake was made to
allow the antichrists to be baptized and become "Christians." Thus, how they could continue their efforts to
destroy Christianity from within. Many took positions of leadership within the church. Until finally they took
absolute control in the 19th century.
Contrary to what is taught in the modern seminaries and contrary to the current array of laws designed to
show the antichrists as the winner, the fight still rages.
Proceeding now to more modern times, the question is often raised to determine the role that greater Russia
has played in this battle of the ages. It has been by sheer predestination that the people of Eastern Europe and
Russia have brought the battle to the struggle we see today. We will attempt to shed some new light on current
affairs in that respect.
The examples given are by no means the most important that have occurred in recent years, however, they are
current and perhaps, through that, you can better understand the conspiracy that still exists.
By now most Christians must be wondering what all of the activity in Russia portends for the future. We have
attempted to show you previously and will continue to attempt to show you further own in this presentation. It is
an attempt to lead you through the maze of the multitude of analyses that are being published, in such number as
to stagger the mind.
However, there are some observations that we can make that should give some insight as to how current
affairs fit together in the continuation of that great battle, between Christianity and Satan and his children.
Some of these observations are a little humorous [if it weren't so deadly serious] and are somewhat analogous to
the "rats leaving the sinking ship!"
By now, every person in the United States should [but doesn't] realize that the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917
was funded by Wall Street and the Jewish International Bankers. The conduct of the revolution was carried out by
a predominantly Jewish group of approximately 300 well trained revolutionaries. Communism, the 1905 and 1917
Bolshevik Revolutions and the USSR came from the minds of Talmudic Jewry. The September 10th, 1920 issue of the
American Hebrew, says it all: "The Bolshevist revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish
dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so
excellent a way in Russia, thinks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction and by Jewish planning,
shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world."
It is recognized that the Communist dream in Russia backfired on the perpetrators. Stalin's purge eliminated
many of the original leaders, along with their followers. However, the entire government of the USSR was
manipulated from within by the same Talmudic forces. The military was required to have a political commissar in
each division who was Jewish. The KGB was staffed almost entirely with Jewish agents.
However, as the world, and particularly the people of Russia, saw the utter futility of the Talmudic
Communist dream, the Jews of the world started to distance themselves from the ideals of the Soviet Union and
from world Communism, at least on the surface.
We are now witnessing what is being presented to the world as the dissolution of the Communist structure, at
least in Russia proper. We are also observing all sorts of "slight‑of‑hand" tricks to remove Talmudic Jewry and
Zionism from Communism. For example, when the recent coup was presented to us, the controlled media here in the
United States blatantly lied as to who the perpetrators were. Instead of informing the public that the leaders of
the coup were hardline Communist leaders [which all of know is defined as extreme left‑wing], they repeatedly
told us that they were radical conservatives of the extreme right‑wing!
This sort of intellectual dishonesty has been growing for some time now. It has already been shown that
Talmudic Jewry is very Socialistic in nature. The United States Congress conducted many investigations into
Communistic influence in our country in the '40s, '50s and early '60s. However, any Congressman, who spoke out on
this obvious connection was immediately labeled as anti‑Semitic. Men like Joseph McCarthy were driven to their
graves with vitriolic epithets such as "McCarthyism."
As the Jewish love affair with Communism waned in the late '60s and '70s, their political affiliations also
changed. For many years, the description of "right‑wing" and "left‑wing" used the ordinary circle in its
definition. The centrist position was at the top of the circle and as a person became more "right‑wing" he would
move clockwise around the circle until he reached the bottom of the circle, at which time he became known as a
Nazi or a National Socialist. If he moved counter‑clockwise around the circle he became more "left‑wing" until he
would reach the bottom of the circle and he would then become known as a Communist. Both the extreme right‑wing
and the extreme left‑wing joined at the bottom of the circle. At least, this was the case by definition.
A mass exodus was taking place all over the world from Communism by Talmudic Jewry. Many of them left the
"left‑wing" or Socialist‑Communist persuasion and became "neo‑conservatives" but they did it with a particular
flair. They retained many of their Socialist views but joined the so‑called Republican party and brought into it
the totalitarianism of the old Federalists.
Consequently, greatly because of them, the old circle description of "left" and "right" had to be replaced.
It was replaced in political science circles with what is called the Nolan Chart. The definitions are changed. A
graph is formed with the ordinate or y axis reflecting social freedoms and is measured from 0 to 100%. This is
called "left‑wing." The abscissa or x axis represents the economic freedoms and is likewise measured from 0 to
100%. This is called "right‑wing."
Those who not many years ago were classified as Communists, can now fight for "social freedoms" such as
homosexuality, pre‑marital sex, sex education [Kindergarten through 12th grade], women's liberation,
liberalization of drug use, total pluralism, freedom from Christian principles, etc. At the same time, they can
have the economic freedoms of the free enterprise system guaranteed by the Christian principles. The only problem
is that they won't heed the limitations of economic freedoms placed on them by the same Christian principles.
The first response to this dichotomy is that they have given up Communism. No, they haven't given up
Communism. They have gained the social freedoms that they couldn't have even in the Soviet Union and at the same
time have unlimited economic freedoms, far exceeding the limits of Christian principles.
Returning to the Russian scene. During the recent coup attempt, three young men were killed in the heat of
the confrontation. One of the young men was Jewish and the other two were non‑Jewish. The Russian people
considered them all to be martyrs and a much publicized public service was held for them. The visibility of
Russian Orthodox priests was very evident. This appears to mean that the Christian Church is once again being
recognized. In fact, it is very obvious that the Christian Church is in the forefront of the massive changes
being seen in Russia. Whether its being orchestrated by the KGB or the Communist Central Committee remains to be
seen.
At the public service a Rabbi was also allowed to conduct his service for the young Jewish man who was
killed. It is significant that this young Jewish man had recently been given his immigration visa to go to
Israel.
What has been the response to these actions within the leadership of the American Jewish community? This can
best be described by excerpting from an article found in the Religious News Service for August 30, 1991. The
article was written by Rabbi James Rudin who is the director of the American Jewish Committee's interreligious
affairs and is a founder of the National Interreligious Task Force on Soviet Jewry.
After citing the incident described above he says, "For nearly 75 year the Soviet Union has officially been
an atheistic state, and for many of those years, the Communist rulers carried out an aggressive campaign that
prohibited parents from giving spiritual instruction to their children, closed seminaries, persecuted believers
and suppressed the publication and distribution of prayer books, Bibles and other articles of religious
expression. Soviet Jews, Ukrainian Roman Catholics and Pentecostal Christians were special targets of the
Communist authorities.
The Soviet regime often sponsored acts of anti‑Semitism, and Jewish activists like Natan Scharansky were
falsely imprisoned for many years. Many Jews who sought visas to leave the Soviet Union were kept waiting for
years, and a new word, 'refusnik,' entered our vocabulary.
For over 20 years, the struggle to bring freedom to Soviet Jewry has been one of the world's major human
rights efforts. In this country Jews and Christians worked together in a remarkable interreligious effort that
helped keep the Soviet Jewry movement alive, even in its darkest days.
At the same time that Jews were leaving in record numbers, the old Soviet anti‑religion policy was weakened,
and then finally abandoned. Religious faith, the first target of every totalitarian regime, has emerged with
renewed vigor and credibility. Although the recent public funeral in Moscow was a sad occasion, it was also a
symbolic confirmation of the failure of the atheistic Soviet state.
But with this sense of confirmation must also come a sense of caution. During Tsarist rule in Russia,
religious faith, especially that of the Russian Orthodox Church, was often source of extreme nationalism,
xenophobia and anti‑Semitism. The intense entanglement of the church and the regime usually resulted in political
corruption and moral decadence. In the popular mind, this likage is personified by Gregor Rasputin, an Orthodox
priest who wielded enormous political power during the last days of the Romanov dynasty.
Indeed, the very name, Rasputin, has come to mean the evil influence of religion in the affairs of state.
Today we rejoice that religion in the Soviet Union has been freed from the dungeon and has entered into the light
of freedom. However, we must remain vigilant. With credibility comes responsibility.
Just as we pressed our campaign to bring freedom to Jews and Christians who suffered under Communist rule,
we must now press with equal commitment our campaign to guarantee that religion within the USSR does not now
become an instrument for new prejudice and repression.
Many positive things have happened in the world of religion since 1917. Hopefully, the hard won principles
of religious liberty, individual conscience, minority rights and religious pluralism will also become an integral
part of the republics of the USSR. The symbolism and the rabbi and the patriarch drawn together by tragedy was
both startling and encouraging."
This is a typical example of intellectual dishonesty. Let us go over his points one by one. "For nearly 75
years the Soviet Union has officially been an atheistic state...closing seminaries, persecuted believers...
suppressed...Soviet Jews, Ukrainian Roman Catholics and Pentecostal Christians..."
This is now 1991 and 75 years ago was 1916. That was the very time that his own people were creating the
revolution and were assisted financially by people of like religious persuasion in the United States. Their
intentions from the outset were that Russia would be atheistic. He indicates that Jews, Roman Catholics, and
Pentecostal Christians were the targets. Which is a bald face lie the Jews were NEVER targets, it was the
Christians who were murdered by the millions by the Jews, not by some other group. No mention is made of the
Russian Orthodox Church. This is significant.
The Church Times in London on April 13, 1923 said: "Already twenty‑eight bishops and twelve hundred priests
of the Russian Holy Orthodox Church have been sacrificed to the Bolshevik [Jewish] hatred of the Christian Faith.
"Many Jews who sought visas to leave the Soviet Union were kept waiting for years..."
The Jews were the ONLY ones who were allowed to leave. Some had to wait because they were employed in
sensitive military or government positions and were forced to wait until they could be cleared by the higher
Soviet Jewish authorities. "The regime...sponsored...anti‑Semitism, and Jewish activists like Natan Scharansky
were falsely imprisoned for many years...'refusnik' entered our vocabulary."
Our history books don't read quite that way. George Bernard Shaw, quoted in The Jewish Guardian of London on
August 7, 1931 said: "I have seen the statement which Joseph Stalin gave recently to the Jewish Telegraphic
Agency on anti‑Semitism and in which the Soviet leader said that UNDER THE SOVIET LAWS MILITANT ANTI‑SEMITISM IS
PUNISHABLE BY DEATH."
Also, Kurt Blumenfeld stated in The Jewish Frontier (New York), January 1942, "Up to 50% of the Jews in the
Soviet Union are engaged as officials, clerks and in the intellectual profession. In the totalitarian Communist
system the Jew, instead of being engaged in trade and business, has been the official, the employee of the
State."
Rabbi Rudin makes no mention that the Jews officiated in the Soviet regime. "During Tsarist rule in Russia
...the Russian Orthodox Church was often a source of extreme nationalism, xenophobia and anti‑Semitism...resulted
in political corruption and moral decadence...this linkage is personified by Gregor Rasputin, an Orthodox priest
who wielded enormous political power during the last days of the Romanov dynasty...Rasputin, has come to mean the
evil influence of religion in the affairs of state."
Grigory Yefimovich Rasputin was born in 1872 and died December 30, 1916 in St. Petersburg. He was a
Siberian peasant and mystic whose ability to improve the condition of Alexis Nikolayevich, the hemophiliac heir
to the Russian throne, made him a powerful favorite in the court of Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra.
After a two year study at Mt. Athos in Greece, he returned to Russia and soon became widely known for his healing
arts.
He was in no way a Russian Orthodox Priest. The high society of St. Petersburg warmly received the filthy,
unkept peasant with brilliant eyes and extraordinary healing talents. He was recommended by high church officials
to the imperial family in 1905 because of his ability to heal illness.
When he demonstrated an ability to ease the suffering of the young Alexis, he was welcomed into the family
circle as a close and trusted friend, and Alexandra came to revere him as a holy man sent by God to save her son,
the Romanov dynasty, and the Russian autocracy.
When Emperor Nicholas II went off to take command of the army during World War I, the Empress Alexandra
acquired greater control of the domestic affairs. Rasputin moved in and replaced capable officials with
unscrupulous men who made decisions adverse to the best interests of the Christian Tzars and to Russia. It is
possible that these men were but forerunners of the 1917 revolution. The friends of the aristocracy attempted to
kill him by poison which didn't work and then by shooting him twice which also didn't work. Finally they
succeeded by drowning him in the Neva River by throwing him in a hole in the ice covered river.
It is true that Rasputin was a very base and course individual with unclean and immoral habits. But he was
in no way a Russian Orthodox Priest and he certainly did not represent the "intense entanglement of the church
and the regime (which) usually resulted in Political corruption and moral decadence."
Rabbi Rudin stated, "Just as we pressed our campaign to bring freedom to Jews and Christians who suffered
under Communist rule, we must now press with equal commitment our campaign to guarantee that religion within the
USSR does not now become an instrument for new prejudice and repression. Many positive things have happened in
the world of religion since 1917..."
It is certainly true many things have happened in the world or religion since 1917. But they have been
anything but positive.
Since 1917, Christianity has been changed into Judeo‑Christianity. The term was never heard of 75 years ago.
Judeo‑Christianity with its pluralism is now ordaining homosexuals and women. The greatest debates now going on
in official church councils relate to the values of pre‑marital sex and extra‑marital sexual relationships.
It is common knowledge that the so‑called Christian book publishers are owned by non‑Christians. The
seminaries use Jewish Rabbis as teachers of the Bible. There are very few individual Christian Churches where the
evils of our society and government are addressed. The people are staying home, just like they did in Russia, and
are receiving their guidance from those government approved preachers on television and radio.
Dr. Samuel Max Malamed, himself a Jew and an authority on the origin of Communism, stated as editor of The
Reflex, published in New York, in the November 1927 issue, Vol. 1, No. 5, on page 7, the following: "The Russian
Jew is often accused of being responsible for the rise of Bolshevism and for the continuation of the Bolshevist
regime.
This accusation is founded on fact that so many Jews were to be found in the offices of the Soviet
government in the first years of the revolution, and that their number was out of proportion to the Jews in
Russia. This fact cannot be denied."
Clare Sheridan, the well‑known journalist and student of the origin of Communism, stated in The New York
World, in an exhaustive analysis of the origin of Communism, on December 13, 1920, on page 13, the following:
"The Communists are Jews, and Russia is being entirely administered by them. They are in every Government office,
in every bureau, in every newspaper office."
Sir Winston Churchill, as familiar as any person in the world with the origin of Communism, was the author
of an article on that subject published in London, in Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920, on page 5
which among other things included this observation: "The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish
places of worship or excepted by the Bolshevists from their universal hostility has tended more and more to
associate the Jewish race in Russia with villainies which are now being perpetrated."
The British Guardian of London, recognized throughout the world as a highly dependable source of information
on the origin of Communism, on March 13, 1925, published in Vol, 6, No. 10, on page 73, the following: "...The
majority of the most influential Bolshevist leaders are Jews."
Henry C. Emery, in his analysis of the origin of Communism, published in The Yale Review of New Haven,
stated July 1919, in Vol. 8, No. 4 on page 676 of that scholarly study, the following: "In the minds of some
people, especially in Russia, Bolshevism takes on the color of a revolt of the Jews against Russians..."
David Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister at the time of the overthrow of the Russian Government by the
Communist revolution in 1917, is quoted in The World At the Crossroads, published in 1921 in Boston, by its
Russian author Boris Leo Brazol, as having stated: "...The Jews of Russia wielded considerable influence in
Bolshevik circles."
The Communist publication Kommunist of Kharkov, Russia, in its April 12, 1919 issue reported the following
concerning the origin of Communism, according to The World Hoax, published in Asheville, North Carolina in 1938
by Ernest F. Elmhurst: "Without exaggeration, it may be said that the great Russian Revolution was indeed
accomplished by the hands of the Jews."
George Pitt‑Rivers in his classic, The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, published in 1920 at
Oxford, observed the following concerning the origin of Communism: "...Jewry, as a whole, strove every nerve to
secure and heartily approved of the overthrow of the Russian monarchy, which they regarded as their most
formidable obstacle in the path of their own ambitions..."
Rabbi Judah Leon Magnes, whose understanding of the origin of Communism commanded the respect of his co‑
religionists as an expert on the subject, stated in The Jewish Forum on February 1919, published in New York, on
page 722, this observation on the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917: "The revolution in Russia set free creative
forces ‑‑ and look what a large company of Jews were available for immediate service."
Harry Waton, himself a Jew and a recognized authority on the question of the origin of Communism, is quoted
by others as having stated in his book, A Program For The Jews and Humanity, published in 1939 in New York, on
pages 143‑144 the following: "...In the Russian revolution the triumph of Communism was the triumph of Judaism
..."
The Jewish World, of London in its August 18, 1922 issue, is quoted by Colin Jordan in his Fraudulent
Conversion, published in London in 1955, as having published the following: "Business is gaining in Russia, and
with the new regime Jews are promptly becoming the captains of industry."
Robert Wilton in his history of the origin of Communism, The Last Days of the Romanovs, published in 1920 in
New York, reveals the illuminating fact on page 391 as follows: "Taken according to the numbers of population,
the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevist Russia they are nine in ten, if
anything, the proportion of Jews is still higher."
William Jocobus Oudendijk, Netherlands Minister in Petrograd during the Bolshevik revolution, in his
excellent explanation of the origin of Communisms, Ways and By‑Ways in Diplomacy, published in London in 1939
states on page 246: "Those who were not for the Bolsheviks were not allowed to be against them; they were to be
exterminated."
The eminent Professor Charles Sarolea, of the University of Edinburgh, in his analysis of the origin of
Communism, Impressions of the Soviet Russia, published in 1924 in London, on page 159 states as follows: "That
the Jews have played a leading part in the Bolshevist upheaval and are still playing a leading part in the
Bolshevist Government is a proposition which no one will deny who has taken the trouble to study Russian affairs
at first hand."
Before the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, in Washington, D.C. in 1920, dealing with
Bolshevik Propaganda, Colonel V.S. Hurban, Military Attache of the Czechoslovak Legation in Washington, D.C., in
sworn testimony testified to the following: "Perhaps I choose a very difficult question when I speak of the role
of the Jews in the Russian revolution...I can not deny it, because it is a fact, and it is useless to deny it,
that in the Soviets from the beginning there have been a very large percentage of Jews. It cannot be denied."
In an exhaustive study on the Origin of Communism published by Small, Maynard & Co. of Boston, Mass. in
1920, under the title The Protocols and World Revolution, not to be confused with the book of a similar name, The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The Morning Post of London is quoted as having published on April 9, 1991 the
following: "These Jews are at the present time in control of the Russian Government and they have powerful
friends in all the Allied countries who are helping them."
DeWitt Clinton Poole, Jr., the head of the Division of Russian Affairs in the Department of State in
Washington, D.C., prepared a "confidential" memorandum for the Secretary of State, on October 28, 1921, which
contained the following statement: "One of the American prisoners who recently returned from Russia made the
following comment upon the position of Jews in Russia: (1) though he saw many Commissars, he saw none who was not
a Jew; (2) he was tried by seven judges, all of whom were Jews."
The New York Times on February 17, 1938, on page 5, quoted Giornale d' Italia of Rome, which published that
Feodor Budenko, Charge d'Affairs of the Soviet Legation in Bucharest, Rumania, after severing all connections
with Bolshevism and fleeing to Rome, stated the following: "Jews who have replaced pre‑Bolshevist capitalists and
who virtually control big industry now have a monopoly of production and live lives of luxury."
The Morning Post of London on August 30, 1919 again quoted by Small, Maynard & Co. of Boston, Mass., in
1920, as above mentioned, published the following: "It is unfortunately true that Bolshevism is very largely a
Jewish movement. In Russia the Jewish Bolsheviks have taken a terrible revenge upon all whom they regarded as
enemies..."
Sefton Delmer, in The Daily Express of London on January 29, 1953, is quoted in Fraudulent Conversion
published in London in 1955, by Colin Jordan, as having stated: "When I last visited Russia in 1947 I found Jews
in key positions everywhere. I found them in the Foreign Office, in factories, in the secret police, and in
universities. Not only in Moscow and in Leningrad either, but in provincial Stalingrad."
Angelo S. Rappoport, himself a Jew and the author of a revealing classic on the origin of Communism,
Pioneers of the Russian Revolution, published in 1918 in London, in referring to the extent of their authority
throughout Russia, states on page 250 as follows: "There was no political organization in the vast empire that
was not influenced by Jews or directed by them."
Reverend Denis Fahey in his comprehensive exposure of the origin of Communism, The Rulers Of Russia,
published in Dublin, Ireland in 1939, quotes J. Fontenoy of Geneva, Switzerland, in his Counter‑Revolution
published in 1937, in which the following appears: "On my arrival in USSR in 1934, I remember I was struck by the
enormous proportion of Jewish functionaries everywhere. In the Press, and diplomatic circles, it was difficult to
find non‑Jews."
Lt. Col. P.R. Malone, a Pro‑Bolshevik Member of Parliament and married to a Jewess, in the official
publication, Parliamentary Debates, reported in Great Britain's House of commons, in Vol. 120, November 5, 1919,
in column 945, is reported to have stated: "It is said openly that the Soviet Government is a Government of the
Jews...Of course there are Jews in control of Russia. There are Jews behind the Commissars."
The illustrious Hilaire Belloc is quoted by Reverend Denis Fahey, in his Rulers Of Russia, as having stated
in London publication, G.K.'s Weekly, in its February 4, 1937 issue, the following: "As far anyone who does not
know that the present revolutionary Bolshevist movement is Jewish in Russia, I can only say that he must bea man
who is taken in by the suppressions of our deplorable press."
The eminent Robert Vaucher, an authority on the first revolution in 1905 and the second revolution in 1917,
by Bolsheviks in Russia, in an article in L'illustration, published in Paris, in its September 14, 1918 issue,
concerning the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, on page 259 states as follows: "The more one studies the second
revolution, the more he is convinced that Bolshevism is a Jewish movement..."
The Jewish Voice published in New York, in Vol. 2, No. 1 of January 1942, contained Joseph Stalin's
statement on Anti‑Semitism, given by Stalin to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on January 12, 1931, expounding upon
Stalin's stand against anti‑Semitism as follows: "In the USSR anti‑Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a
phenomenon profoundly hostile to the Soviet system. According to the laws of the USSR active anti‑Semites are
punished with death."
Moissaye J. Olgin, himself a Jew, in his study on the origin of Communism, published in the magazine Asia,
in December 1917, page 780, describes how Lenin disposed of those who opposed Communism thus: "Lenin does not
reply to an opponent; he vivisects him."
The Times of London, on March 29, 1919 on page 10, offers evidence that Lenin was the hatchet‑man of the
Bolshevist movement under the direction of commissar Jews in control of the Bolshevik revolution as follows: "If
Lenin is the brains of the movement, the Jews provide the executive officers. Of the leading commissars, Trotsky,
Zinovieff, Kameneff, Stekloff, Sverdloff, Uritsky, Joffe, Rekovsky, Radek, Menjinsky, Larin, Bronski, Zaalkind,
Volodarsky, Petroff, Litvinoff, Smidovitch, and Vorosky are all of them of the Jewish race, while amongst the
minor Soviet officials the number is legion."
Robert Wilton, in his celebrated history of the origin of Communism, The Last Days of the Romanovs,
published in 1920 in New York, recounts the murder of the Czar, on pages 392‑393 as follows: "...The Jews were
not Russians and to them the destruction of Russia was all in the way of business, revolutionary or financial.
The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of
the Czar deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov...and carried out by the Jews, Goloshchekin, Syromolotov,
Safarov, Voikov and Yurovsky, is an act not of the Russian people but of this hostile invader."
Eric D. Butler of Adelaide, Australia in 1946 published his book, The International Jew, not to be confused
with another book of a similar name, in which Jacob H. Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, in New York, predicts the
second revolution in Russia, on pages 60‑61, as follows: "Russia eventually accepted the mediation of America in
connection with this reign of terror [the 1905 first Bolshevik revolution in Russia], and Count Witte was the
Russian representative. Now, as Count Witte was married to a Jewess, he could hardly be termed 'anti‑Semitic.'
Jacob Schiff attended in person with the official American representative. At this conference of mediation, and
made it quite clear that the cause of the internal trouble in Russia was the status of his fellow Jews. Count
Witte tried to point out that most of the reports about the treatment of Jews in Russia were rather exaggerated,
whereupon Schiff said, 'If the Czar will not accord our people these desired liberties, then a revolution will
bring about a republic which will assure us our rights.'"
Jacob H. Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Company in New York, sent a telegram from Pittsburgh, Pa. on March 23, 1917
to the mass meeting in Carnegie Hall in New York City, celebrating the revolution in Russia, reported in The New
York Times of March 24, 1917, page 2, the telegram reading as follows: "Will you say for me to those present at
tonight's meeting how deeply I regret my inability to celebrate with the Friends of Russian Freedom the actual
reward of what we had hoped and strived for these long years."
In the history of the origin of Communism, The World At The Cross roads, published in 1921 in Boston, Boris
Leo Brrazol, "...It is of interest to recall a statement of Israel Zangwill, the well known Zionist leader, to
the effect that it was Mr. Jacob Schiff who financed 'the Japanese war against Russia' revealing the fact that it
was the same banker who financed revolution among Russian war prisoners in Japan."
Jacob H. Schiff, in a letter to President Woodrow Wilson in Washington, D.C., on October 1, 1918, advised
President Wilson that the Russians were aware of the reason for the Bolshevik revolution: "...The impression has
been fostered among the masses of the Russian people that the Jews are responsible for the woe that has come to
Russia, through the Bolsheviki..."
The American Jewish News, published in New York, contained an article by Lillian Rosenthal, on July 11,
1919, describing the extent of Jacob H. Schiff's international influence, on page 292 as follows: "For every
Jewish sorrow in Russia, for every Jewish calamity in Europe, 'Jacob Schiff' was the suggestion for a remedy. The
feeling was, that there, on the other side of the Atlantic, lived a man with a deeply sensitive heart, devoted to
his people and ever ready to answer to the call of their need."
The Catholic Times of London, on May 7, 1937, according to Fraudulent Conversion, published in London in
1965, confirmed the origin of Communism as follows: "The Soviet Government has been and still is largely composed
of Jews."
Dr. A. Homer in The Catholic Herald of London according to Reverend Denis Fahey, in The Rulers of Russia, in
1933 described the origin of Communism as follows: "The Soviet movement was a Jewish, not a Russian conception.
It was forced on Russia from without..."
Louis Levine, himself a Jew and an authority on the subject of Communism throughout the world, in his
classic compendium on the origin of Communism, in 1946, according to Borge Jensen in his The Palestine Plot,
published in 1948 by Lawyers at Aberfeldy, Scotland, states the following: "It was apparent...that the Soviet
Jews participate fully and freely on every level of government activity and in every phase of Soviet economic,
social scientific and cultural life...As we all know, Jews were among the first evacuated from the Western
regions threatened by the Hitlerite invaders, and shipped to safety east of the Urals...
Moreover, similar preference was accorded Jews from nearby countries. Almost 800,000 Jews streaming across
the Polish borders also were sent east. All in all, the Soviet Government rescued almost 2,000,000 Jews from the
path of the Hitlerite advance."
Sir Winston Churchill as a Member of the House of Commons in the British Parliament expressed his feelings
towards Jews in Russia, in Parliamentary Debates, of the House of Commons, Vol. 120, November 5, 1919, column
999, as follows: "No sooner did Lenin arrive than he began beckoning a finger here and a finger there to obscure
persons in sheltered retreats in New York, in Glasgow, in Berne, and other countries, and he gathered together
the leading spirits of a formidable sect, the most formidable sect in the world, of which he was the high priest
and chief.
With these spirits around him he set to word with demoniacal ability to tear to pieces every institution on
which the Russian state and nation depended. Russia was laid low. Russia had to be laid low. She was laid low to
the dust."
In a confidential report of Capt. Montgomery Schuyler, Chief United States Intelligence Officer, to Leut.
Col. David P. Barrows, Intelligence Officer with the American Expeditionary Forces, dated March 1, 1919, the
following appears: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is
and has been since its beginning been guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type, who have been
in the United States and there absorbed every one of the worst phases of our civilization without having the
least understanding of what we really mean by liberty..."
Lieutenant Colonel J.B. Maclean, proprietor of Maclean's Magazine. Canada's leading magazine, published in
Toronto, in an article entitled "Why Did We Let Trotsky Go?" in Vol. 32, No. 6, in the issue of June 1919,
referring to various explanations for Trotsky's release to return to Russia, states as follows: "Finally it is
said it was done at the request of the British Embassy at Washington over the head of the British and American
Intelligence Department; and that the Embassy acted on the request of the U.S. State Department, who were acting
for someone else."
Abraham Cahan, himself a Jew and a Prominent pro‑Bolshevik, in The New York Call, on March 17, 1937 was
reported to have stated: "We considered the Revolution a victory for the Jews, which opinion prevailed on the
East Side where rejoicing knew no bounds. We felt that this is a great triumph for the Jews' cause."
Louis Levine, a Jew and an eminent authority on the origin of Communism, in Soviet Russia Today, according
to Broge Jensen in The Palestine Plot, aforementioned, on page 95 states: "The Jewish people are unanimous in
their love for Stalin. They regard him as the greatest friend of the Jewish people. They attribute to his
understanding of national minorities and to his leadership the new exalted status of the Soviet Jews."
The World's Work, published in New York, in October 1918, in Vol. 36, No. 10, pages 613‑623, contained an
article on Communism, The Bolsheviki, Who They Are and What They Believe, written by a New York businessman whose
name is withheld for obvious reasons, which states the following: "...The control of the Bolsheviki and all their
high offices are in the hands of Jews, the prevailing element of whom are from New York."
During the Summer of 1916 a secret report was received by the Russian General Headquarters in Petrograd from
one of its agents in New York, dated February 16, 1916, as stated by Boris Leon Brazol in The World At The Cross
Roads, published in 1921 in Boston, states the following: "The Russian Revolutionary Party of America has
evidently resumed its activities. As a consequence of its momentous developments are expected to follow. The
first confidential meetings which marked the beginnings of a new era of violence took place on Monday evening,
February 14, 1916, in the East Side of New York City. It was attended by sixty‑two delegates, fifty of whom were
'veterans' of the revolution of 1905, the rest being newly admitted members. Among the members were a large
number of Jews, most of them belonging to the intellectual class, as doctors, publicists...some professional
revolutionists...The proceedings of this first meeting were almost entirely devoted to the discussion of finding
ways and means to start a great Revolution in Russia as the 'most favorable moment for it is close at hand.' It
was revealed secret reports had just reached the party from Russia, describing the situation as very favorable,
when all arrangements for an immediate outbreak were completed."
In a letter dated July 27, 1917, A.J. Sack, Director of the Russian Information Bureau in New York City, in
a letter to Jacob Billikopf, Director of the American Jewish Relief Committee, in New York City, stated the
following: "...A great percentage of the Bolsheviki are Jews. Almost every one of them bears a pseudonym but all
know why they really are. So Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Joffe, Sverdlov and many others are Jews, and we must
fact the terrible and almost inevitable possibility that the elements will use these Jewish names in an endeavor
to present the entire Bolshevist movement, which ruined Russia, as being a Jewish movement...it is a general
Jewish problem which calls for immediate solution."
David Ben Gurion once stated: "The image of the world...as traced in my imagination ‑‑ the increasing
influence of the farmers and workers, and the rising political influence of men of science, may transform the
United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of
autonomous states having a socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the U.S.S.R. as a federated
Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an
international police force.
All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (A truly
United Nations) will build a shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be
the seat of the Supreme Court of mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents."
Henry Ford Sr., 1922 related: "If it is 'anti‑Semitism' to say that communism in the United States is
Jewish, so be it; but to the unprejudiced mind it will look very much like Americanism. Communism all over the
world, not in Russia only, is Jewish."
The Chicago Tribune, June 19, 1920: "This second movement aims for the establishment of a new racial
domination of the world...the moving spirits in the second scheme are Jewish radicals. Within the ranks of
Communism is a group of this party, but it does not stop there. To its leaders Communism is only an incident.
They are ready to use the Islamic revolt, hatred by the Central Empire of England, Japan's designs on India and
commercial rivalries between America and Japan. As any movement of world revolution must be, this is primarily
anti‑Anglo‑Saxon...The organization of the world Jewish radical movement has been perfected in almost every
land."
A secret report received by the Imperial Russian General Headquarters from one of its agents in New York,
dated February 15, 1916, and made known to the world by the Russian writer, Boris Brasol in his book, The World
at the Cross Roads. It says, in part: "The Russian Revolutionary Part of America has evidently resumed its
activities. As a consequence of it, momentous developments are expected to follow. The first confidential meeting
which marked the beginning of a new era of violence took place on Monday evening, February 14, 1916, in the East
Side of New York City. It was attended by sixty‑two delegates, fifty of whom were 'veterans' of the revolution of
1905, the rest being newly admitted as members.
Among the delegates were a large percentage of Jews, most of them belonging to the intellectual class, as
doctors, publicists, etc., but also some professional revolutionists...
The proceedings of this first meeting were almost entirely devoted to the discussion of finding ways and
means to start a great revolution in Russia as the 'most favorable moment for it is close at hand.' It was
revealed that secret reports had just reached the party from Russia, describing the situation as very favorable,
when all arrangements for an immediate outbreak were completed.
The only serious problem was the financial question, but whenever this was raised, the assembly was
immediately assured by some of the members that this question did not need to cause any embarrassment as ample
funds, if necessary, would be furnished by person in sympathy with the movement of liberating the people of
Russia. In this connection the name of Jacob Schiff was repeatedly mentioned."
Mr. Boris Brasol adds, on pages 70 and 71 of the same work: "The full history of the interlocking
participation of the Imperial German Government and international finance in the destruction of the Russian
Empire is not yet written...It is not a mere coincidence that at the notorious meeting held at Stockholm in 1916,
between the former Russian Minister of the Interior, Protopopoff, and the German Agents, the German Foreign
Office was represented by Mr. Warburg, whose two brothers were members of the international banking firm, Kuhn,
Loeb and Company, of which the late Mr. Jacob Schiff was a senior member."
According to the English review, The Patriot, of February 20, 1930, after Robert Wilton had written in 1920:
"The Jewish domination in Russia is supported by certain Russians...they are all mere screens or dummies behind
which the Sverdlovs and the thousand and one Jews of Sovdepia continue their work of destruction."
On page 29 of Les Derniers Jours des Romanof, we find: "In order not to leave myself open to any accusation
of prejudice, I am giving (on pages 136‑137) the list of the members of the Central Committee, of the
Extraordinary Commission and the Council of Commissars functioning at the time of the assassination of the
Imperial Family. The 62 members of the Committee were composed of 5 Russians, 1 Ukrainian, 6 Letts, 2 Germans, 1
Czech, 2 Armenians, 3 Georgians, 1 Karalm [a Jewish sect], 41 Jews. The extra‑ordinary Commission of Moscow was
composed of 36 members, including 1 German, 1 Pole, 1 Armenian, 2 Russians, 8 Letts, 23 Jews. The Council of the
People's Commissars numbered 2 Armenians, 3 Russian, 17 Jews.
According to the data furnished by the Soviet Press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik
State, including the above‑mentioned, there were in 1918‑1919, 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Letts,
15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 3 Poles, 3 Finns. 1 Czech, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews.
If the reader is astonished to find the Jewish hand every where in the affair of the assassination of the
Russian Imperial Family, he must bear in mind the formidable numerical preponderance of Jews in the Soviet
administration."
On pages 136‑138, then, of the same work, the author writes: "It is in the Central Committee of the
Bolshevik Party that the government power resides. It was composed as follows in 1918: Bronstein [Trotsky],
Apfelbaum [Zinovief], Lourie [Larine], Ouritski, Volodarski, Rosenfeldt [Kamenef], Smidovitch, Sverdlof [Yankel],
Nakhamkes [Steklof].
Jews 9
Oulianof [Lenine], Krylenko, Lounatcharski, Russians 3
12
"The other Russian Socialist Parties are similar in composition. Their Central Committees are made up as
follows: S.D. Mensheviks, 11 members, all Jews; Communists of the People, 6 members, of whom 5 are Jews and one
is a Russian; S.R. (Right Wing), 15 members, of whom 13 are Jews and 2 are Russians (Kerenski, who may be of
Jewish origin, and Tchaikovski); S.R. (Left Wing), 12 members of whom 10 are Jews and 2 are Russians; Committee
of the Anarchists of Moscow, 5 members, of whom 4 are Jews and one is a Russian; Polish Communist Party, 12
members all Jews, including Sobelson (Radek), Krokhenal (Zagonski) and Schwartz (Goltz). These parties, in
appearance opposed to the Bolsheviks, play the Bolsheviks' game on the sly, more or less, by preventing the
Russians from pulling themselves together. Out of 61 individuals at the head of these parties, there are 6
Russians and 55 Jews. No matter what may be the name adopted, a revolutionary government will be Jewish."
According to the erudite Russian writer, Petrovski, in La Russie sous les Juifs, p. 79. "Nicholas II, the
Imperial Family and the faithful members of his suite, were shot by the Jew, Yourowsky, assisted by the Jews,
Golostchokine and Voikoff, in obedience to the order sent from Moscow by the Jew, Sverdloff, and with the
approval of the Council of the People's Commissars."
Robert Wilton wrote in The Last Days of the Romanovs: "The Jewish domination in Russia is supported by
certain Russians...they (the Jews), having wrecked and plundered Russia by appealing to the ignorance of the
working folk, are now using their dupes to set up a new tyranny worse than any the world has known."
That tyranny is kept in existence by the same means by which it was set up. In Red Dusk and the Morrow, p.
303, by Sir Paul Dukes, formerly Chief of the British Secret Service in Russia, we read that a Lithuanian asked a
prominent Bolshevik how the regime was maintained.
The answer was: "Our power is based on three things: first, on Jewish brains; secondly, on Lettish and
Chinese bayonets; and thirdly, on the crass stupidity of the Russian people."
Lenin wrote: "We deny all morality in the bourgeois sense, for according to the bourgeois, morality has its
origin in the Commandments of God...our morality, on the contrary, is entirely subordinate to the interests of
the proletariat."
Mr. Hilaire Belloc wrote in G.K.'s Weekly, February 4, 1937: "As for anyone who does not know that the
present revolutionary Bolshevist movement is Jewish in Russia, I can only say that he must be a man who is taken
in by the suppressions of our deplorable Press."
Mr. Oudendyke, the representative of the Netherlands Government at St. Petersburg, when the Bolshevists
began their reign of terror. Mr. Balfour received the report via Christiania on September 18, 1918. It was
published as a British White Paper in April, 1919, and was entitled "Russia, No 1 (1919), A Collection of Reports
on Bolshevism in Russia. The following is extracted from Mr. Oudendyke's Report: "The danger is now so great that
I feel it my duty to call the attention of the British and all other Governments to the fact that, if an end is
not put to Bolshevism at once, the civilization of the whole world is threatened. This is not an exaggeration,
but a somber matter of fact...I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now
before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is
nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as
it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends
the existing order of things. The only manner in which this danger can be averted would be collective action on
the part of all the Powers."
In addition to the information about the Jewish Banking Houses which financed the Russian Revolution, the
document also gives the long list of Jews who took over the direction of the Russian people in 1917. Lenin is
given as a Russian, but all the other twenty‑four given on the list ‑‑ Trotsky, Zinovieff, Kameneff, Parvus, etc.
are stated to be Jews.
In Appendix B, of All These Things, by A.N. Field, quotes from Vol. III of United States Senate Document No.
62, 66th Congress, First Session, some extracts from the evidence of Rev. George A. Simons, Superintendent of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in Petrograd from 1907 to October 6th, 1918, before a Committee of the United States
Senate on February 12, 1919. The Rev. Mr. Simons stated with regard to the Bolshevik Government in Petrograd: "In
December, 1918...under the presidency of a man known as Apfelbaum (Zinovieff)...out of 388 members, only 16
happened to be real Russians, and all the rest Jews, with the exception of one man who is a negro from North
America...and 265 of these Jews belonging to this Northern Commune government that is sitting in the old Smolny
Institute come from the Lower East Side of New York, 265 of them."
Mr. Field also remarked in Appendix B of his book, All These Things: "Lenin was married to a Jewess, spoke
Yiddish in his family circle, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Jewish Zionist leader, was quoted in the London Jewish
Chronicle of December 16, 1932, as saying that Lenin had taken part in Jewish student meetings in Switzerland
thirty‑five years before. He is generally regarded as a Russian, but there is doubt."
In her book, From Liberty to Brest‑Litovsk, MacMillan, 1919, the Russian lady, Ariadna Tyrkova‑Williams,
widow of the late Dr. Harold Williams, a longtime Manchester Guardian correspondent in Russia, describes the
events of the first year of the Russian Revolution.
Mrs. Williams was a member of the last Duma and speaks with the authority of an eye‑witness and close
observer. On pages 297‑299 of her work: "There are few Russians among the Bolshevist wire‑pullers, i.e., few men
imbued with the all‑Russian culture and interests of the Russian people. None of them have in any way been
prominent in any stage of former Russian life...Besides obvious foreigners, Bolshevism recruited many adherents
from among emigres, who had spent many years abroad. Some of them had never been to Russia before. They
especially numbered a great many Jews. They spoke Russian badly. The nation over which they had seized power was
a stranger to them, and besides, they behaved as invaders in a conquered country. Throughout the Revolution
generally and Bolshevism in particular, the Jews occupied a very influential position. This phenomenon is both
curious and complex. But the fact remains that such was the case in the primarily elected Soviet (the famous trio
Lieber, Dahn, Gotz), and all the more so in the second one.
In the Soviet Republic all the committees and commissaries were filled with Jews. They often changed their
Jewish names for a Russian one ‑‑ Trotsky (Bronstein), Kameneff (Rozenfeld), Zinovieff (Apfelbaum), Stekloff
(Nakhamkes), and so on. But such a masquerade deceived no one, while the very pseudonyms of the commissaries only
emphasized the international or rather the alien character of Bolshevist rule...But, of course, there were also
Russians among the Bolsheviks‑workmen, soldiers, peasants. Oulianoff‑Lenin is a Russian. Lunacharsky, Bonch‑
Bruevich, Mme. Colontai, Chicherin, all these influential Bolshevist leaders are Russian by origin. But that
predominant class which very rapidly crystallized around the Bolsheviks was mainly composed of individuals alien
to the Russian people. This fact is probably useful to them to keep control over the masses, for Bolshevist
autocracy is founded upon their absolute contempt of the people whom they rule. The most terrible trait of
Bolshevism is its utter unscrupulousness as to ways and means, and the blunt cruelty of its leaders."
The Russian historian, D. Petrovsky, on page 37 of his detailed history of the revolution, La Russie sous
les Juifs (Russia under the Jews) says that Lenin (Oulianoff) is one of a number of Russian traitors, yet, on
page 86 of the same work, he adds in a note: "Lenin is commonly held to be a Russian, but the natives of Simbirsk
are of a different opinion. They relate that a convoy of prisoners traversed Simbirsk a good many years ago.
After the departure of the prisoners, a little boy remained behind and was picked up and reared by a gentleman
name Oulianoff.
Years after, a letter came, in ill‑formed characters, from the convict settlement, from a certain Ilko Sroul
Goldman saying that he had learned, as a result of lengthy inquiries, where his son was. He asked for news of
him. This Goldman was said to be Lenin's father. He never again wrote."
Victor E. Marsden, who was for many years the Morning Post's correspondent in Russia and who was present at
the time of the Revolution of 1917, wrote: "...Lenin is a half‑blooded Jew, that is to say, the original Ulianov
who bore the name of Lenin was so, but there is ground to believe that the present Lenin is impersonating that
man who is dead and that the actual Lenin of the Bolshevik business is what he looks, a full‑blooded Jew." (Jews
in Russia, page 5)
In the same pamphlet there is a note added to the lists of the names of the 447 Jews out of the 545
officials of the Soviet Bureaucracy. The note says that it is doubtful if Lenin is Russian; that he is Oulianoff
by adoption but really a Jew, married to a Jewess and that his children speak Yiddish. Thus though the consensus
of opinion is in favor of Lenin's Russian nationality, there is a certain element of doubt.
From this same pamphlet we read: "The Soviet movement was a Jewish, and not a Russian conception. It was
forced on Russian from without, when, in 1917, German and German‑American‑Jew interests sent Lenin and his
associates into Russia, furnished with the wherewithal to bring about the defection of the Russian armies...The
Movement has never been controlled by Russians.
a). Of the 224 revolutionaries who, in 1917, were despatched to Russia with Lenin to foment the Bolshevik
Revolution, 170 were Jews.
b). According to the Times of March, 29, 1919, 'of the 20 or 30 commissaries or leaders who provide the central
machinery of the Bolshevist movement, not less than 75 percent are Jews...among minor officials the number is
legion.'
According to official information from Russian, in 1920, out of 545 members of the Bolshevist
Administration, 447 were Jews. The number of official appointments bestowed upon Jews is entirely out of
proportion to their percentage in the State: The population of Soviet Russia is officially given as 158,400,000
the Jewish section, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, being about 7,800,000. Yet, according to the Jewish
Chronicle of January 6, 1933: Over one‑third of the Jews in Russia have become officials."
On pages 93‑94 of The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, a passage is quoted from Impressions of
Soviet Russia, by Charles Sarolea, Belgian Consul in Edinburg and Professor of French Literature in the
University of Edinburg, in which he says: "I am quite ready to admit that the Jewish leaders are only a
proportionately infinitesimal fraction, even as the British rulers of India are an infinitesimal fraction.
But it is none the less true that those few Jewish leaders are the masters of Russia, even as the fifteen
hundred Anglo‑Indian Civil Servants are the masters of India. For any traveller in Russia to deny such a truth
would be to deny the evidence of his own senses. When you find that out of a large number of important Foreign
Office officials whom you have met, all but two are Jews, you are entitled to say that the Jews are running the
Russian Foreign Office."
In the book by A.N. Field, which has already been quoted from, we find, on pages 276‑277, the following
remarkable statements: "Stalin, present ruler of Russia, is not a Jew, but took as his second wife the twenty‑one
year old sister of the Jew, L.M. Kagonowitz, his right‑hand man, who has been spoken of as his probable or
possible successor. Stalin's every movement is made under Jewish eyes."
CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, 1935
According to the Defender (Wichita, Kansas) for February, 1936, the Central Committee of the Communist party
in Moscow, the very center of International Communism, consisted of 59 members, of whom 56 were Jews, and the
other three were married to Jewesses.
The figures are found in several other journals as well: Non‑Jews married to Jewesses (3): L.V. Stalin, S.S.
Lobow, V.V. Ossinsky. Jews (56): V.V. Balitsky, K.J. Baumann, I.M. Vareikis, J.B. Gamarnik, I.I. Egoff, I.A.
Zelensky, I.D. Kabakoff, L.M. Kaganowitz, V.G. Knorin, M.M. Litvinoff, I.E. Liobimos, D.Z. Manouilsky, I.P.
Nossow, J.L. Piatakow, I.O. Piatnitzky, M.O. Aazoumos, M.L. Ruchimovitch, K.V. Rindin, M.M. Houtaevitch, M.S.
Tchoudow, A.M. Schvernik, R.I. Eiche, G.G. Iagoda, I.E. Iakir, I.A. Iakovlew, F.P. Griadinsky, G.N. Kaminsky,
I.S. Unschlicht, A.S. Boulin, M.I. Kalmanowitz, D.S. Beika, Zifrinovitch, Tratchter, Bitner, G. Kaner, Leo
Kirchman, A.K. Lepa, S.A. Lozovsky, B.P. Pozern, T.D. Deribass, K.K. Strevsky, N.N. Popow, G.I. Blagonravow, A.P.
Rosengolz, A.P. Serebrovsky, A.M. Steingart, I.P. Bavolunovsky, G.I. Soklonikow, C.I. Broido, V.I. Polonsky, G.D.
Veinberg.
Thus we are faced with the fact that: The Rulers of Russia, are Jews, and they are applying to the world the
doctrine of Karl Marx (Mardochai). Marx, according to the Jewish writer, Bernard Lazare, was: "...a clear and
lucid Talmudist...full of that old Jewish materialism which ever dreams of a paradise on earth and always rejects
the hope held out of the chance of a garden of Eden after Death."
Yes, it appears that Russia is changing and perhaps going back to the system of the Christian Tzars.
Certainly we haven't heard the last of Communism. There are hundreds upon hundreds of millions of Communists
still active in the world. It appears, just appears, there just might be a chance that white, Christian Russia is
returning to Christianity and old fashioned Imperial Tzarism.
Remember Lenin's admonition: "We advance through retreat." The "apparent" demise of the Soviet Empire will
speed the dismantling of NATO; Western Europe's and America's military structures will be dismembered in the new
"era of peace, death of Communism, end of the Cold War and collapse of the evil empire;" and the USSR's long‑term
goal of the neutralization of their western flank, preparatory to the absorption of Western Europe [politically,
economically and militarily] will have been accomplished.
AGENTS OF REVOLUTION AND THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION
Because of their importance and length, we have left a study of the Protocols until last. We will not begin
that study. Then you make up your own mind as to their veracity and truthfulness.
Mrs. Webster, after having set forth the history of the society, gives the answer in succinct fashion in
World Revolution, p. 181: "The Internationale, though itself an open and avowed association, thus became, through
the absorption of these existing secret societies, a huge semi‑secret society, that is to say, it formed the
outer shell that covered a ramification of conspiracies...of which the secrets were known only to its middle‑
class directors. The anti‑religious policy adopted by the Internationale was the work of these secret
influences."
For a full answer, however, it would be necessary to study the careers of the Jewish founders of this
society, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
A few words must suffice here, but they will be enough to show that many of the Gentile instruments, who
figure as leaders, are really the dupes of Jewish capitalism. Let us first examine Marx's formation and his
outlook on life.
Karl Marx was the grandson of a Jewish rabbin of Cologne [Marx's real name was Mordechai]. As a young man,
he entered the society, founded by Ganz, Zunz and Moses Moser, and known as the Jewish Union for Civilization and
Science. The directing idea of this union was that the Jewish nation, and not a member of that nation, WAS TO BE
THE MESSIAS WHO SHOULD CONQUER THE WORLD AND SUBJECT ALL NATIONS TO ITSELF. Here is how one of Karl Marx's neo‑
Messianic correspondents formulated the thesis: "THE JEWISH PEOPLE TAKEN COLLECTIVELY SHALL BE ITS OWN MESSIAS.
Their rule over the universe shall be obtained by welding together the other races, thanks to the suppression of
frontiers and monarchies, which form the bulwark of national particularities. Thus shall be established a
Universal Republic...In this new organization of humanity, the Jews, now scattered over the whole surface of the
globe, all belonging to the same race and moulded by the same traditional formation, without however forming a
separate nationality, shall everywhere become the ruling element without opposition. This will be particularly
easy, if they succeed in imposing on the masses of the working‑classes the guidance of some of their number. The
governments of the nations forming the Universal or World Republic shall all thus pass, without any effort, into
Jewish hands, thanks to the victory of the proletariat. Private property can then be suppressed by the Jewish
rulers who will be everywhere in charge of public affairs. Thus shall the promise of the Talmud be realized that
when the Messianic epoch will have arrived the Jews shall have control of the wealth of the nations."
For documents, etc., Les Origines Secretes du Bolchevisme, pp. 33‑34, by Salluste. This is the most complete
work on the question. For a student of all these matters in their connection with the real history of the world,
that is, with the history of man's acceptance or rejection of the Supernatural Life of the Mystical Body, it is
particularly interesting to note that, while these descendants of Jewish rabbis were preparing the Communistic
enslavement of the world, the son of a rabbi of Saverne was being drawn from Judaism to the Catholic priesthood.
Having become a priest, he initiated the modern movement for the diffusion of the Divine Life in Africa. Father
Libermann was born in 1804, was baptized in 1826 and ordained priest in 1841. In that same year he founded the
Society of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which was united to the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, with Father
Libemann as Superior‑General, in 1848.
Karl Marx combined these theories with the pantheistic philosophy of Hegel. For Hegel, there is no objective
Personal God, as Christians know and believe. God is only human though evolving or becoming; which, we have
previously pointed out is Kabbalistic Teaching. Thought is absolute sovereign of the world, in the threefold
state: passive (when it is interior); active (when it finds a point of contact in the external world); free (when
it triumphs in social organization, law, philosophy, art and religion).
All morality flows from the progressive and irresistible evolution of thought. God evolves or becomes, thus
indefinitely progressing with the universe and with humanity. This awful pantheism swept away any traces of
Jewish Deism which Marx still retained and left him only his pride in his race and the certitude that the
sovereign thought, which was destined to rule the world and enable it to progress indefinitely, was, in deed,
that of his race. Marx, in contradiction with Hagel, but in accord with the Materialism of Feuerbach, held that
spirit and thought have evolved out of matter, which is, needless to say, one of the many glaring absurdities in
his system.
The degree of mastery by thought over the forces of nature, that is, the stage of development of the
production of wealth, determines the perfection of a civilization. The proletariat class, which produces the
material goods on which human society lives, is a Messianic class destined by its rule to bring about a new era
for the world. This Messianic vocation of the proletariat, according to Marx found an answering echo in the
Messianic expectations of the Russian people. But both the proletariat in general and the Russian people in
particular are only means for the realization of the Messianic dreams of Marx's own people. Masters of production
through finance, they will shape the destines of the world‑god or collectivity‑god.
Marxism, then is derived from Feuerbach, from the point of view of its materialism and its criticism of
idealism or subjectivism, particularly of the subjectivism of Hegel, but from the point of view of its method, it
is derived from Hegelian dialectics. It may thus be rightly called Dialetic‑Materialism.
Thought is an attribute of material being, of the human body and the human head; accordingly, the whole
question turns round the matter of which the human head is composed. All causal action in society is to be
reduced to material causality, the action of the economic conditions on man's brain development.
All this Marx and Engels borrow from Feuerbach. Thus the Ego which evolves is not the idea of Hegelian
dialectics, which becomes conscious, but the body, of which thought is an attribute. The Hegelian logical process
of the creative idea becomes the devolution of matter, of which thought is a consequence and a property.
Thus the distinction of spirit and matter is denied. Evolving matter, not evolving gradually, but by leaps
and bounds, alone exists and is accordingly identified with God. This is the final result of the revolt against
the objective order of the world, ushered in by Luther, on the supernatural level, by his rejection of the
Catholic doctrine.
After having studied at the University of Berlin, Karl Marx became editor of a paper at Cologne. The
revolutionary tendencies of the paper brought about its suppression, and Marx passed on to Paris, where he
collaborated with Arnold Ruge, the leader of Young Germany, a section of the revolutionary society, Young Europe,
founded by Mazzini. Little by little, Marx, with his Jewish friends, Frederick Engels and Ferdinand Lassalle,
ousted Ruge from the direction of his paper, Les Annales Franco‑allemandes, and thus got control of Ruge's
organization, giving it a completely Communist turn.
Thus the sovereign thought of Hegelian philosophy passed from the passive to the active state, by the aid of
a fulcrum in the outer world. Marx could not, however, immediately proceed to action by the poor duped masses of
workmen under his influence, for the police were watching. He took refuge in England, but came back to the
Continent to take part in the Revolution of Bavaria in 1846 and then in that of Paris in 1848. After 1848 Marx
set to work to pass from secret action to open action by the foundation of the First Communist Internationale.
Thanks to this organization, great bodies of workmen could be moved to action by leaders whose secret
connections were carefully hidden. When the First Internationale was launched by Marx at St. martin's Hall, in
London, in 1864, it was the result, not of a spontaneous movement of enthusiasm, as the official histories tell
us, but of years of preparation. In that period of preparation, we find all the following Jews: Lassalle, then
Singer, leader of German socialism; Neumayer, Victor Adler and Aaron Libermann, directors of Austrian socialism;
Fribourg, Leon Frankel and Haltmayer, acting as chiefs of France; Kahn and Leon, in the United States, and so on.
[B. Lazare in L'Antisemitisme, pp. 343‑344, speaks also of James Cohen, Secretary for Denmark, Loeb, Lazare and
A. Levi as members of the Federation Parisienne de l'Internationale, Gompers in U.S.A., etc. For Marx's secret
and open activates in preparation for 1864, the work by Salluste already referred to, Les Origines Secretes du
Bolchevisme, pp. 55‑100].
It would be to long to recount the whole story of the growth of the Communist movement in Europe. The plan
of revolution is always substantially the same. The reins of government of some great nation must be captured and
then that nation must be made a sort of battering‑ram, in order to impose the revolutionary ideal on the
neighboring peoples. These plans are laid out in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which will be
presented in their entirety later. The France of 1789 and its people were used as revolutionary ammunition, to be
hurled at Europe, to be climaxed in Russia. If Marx had succeeded through his agents in the Paris Commune of
1871, France would have had the fate which was reserved to the Russia of 1917. In Russia the vast sums invested
in Communism by Jewish capitalists bore fruit and the sovereign thought of the Hegelian philosopher of Berlin has
passed form the passive state to the free state, with the results we know.
The ideas of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the native land, the family and the personality of the child, are
all being swept away in the name of "progress," while the financiers laugh at their poor dupes. The Russian
revolutionary, Bakunin, who knew Marx well and who used to describe him and his following as the "German‑Jew
Company," complained in his day of the contempt of Marx and Engels for the poor. Marx spoke of the poor and
destitute workers and the "ragged proletariat" (Lumpenproletariat).
Russian Communism is, then, the triumph of the Marxian deification of man. But is Jewish thought the
directing and controlling sovereign thought, which is striving to mould the destines of Russia, and, through
Russia, of the world? We must here quote a certain number of documents to show how the Marxian neo‑Messianic
program was inaugurated in Russia and continues to be applied therein. The first document to be quoted is an
extract from the Patriot of December 5, 1929, and deals with the publication of certain facts and their
suppression later on by the British Foreign Office.
The Patriot article stated: "It may be well, at the cost of repetition, to recall the first beginnings of
the Bolshevik Power and the full information as to its nature and objects which was placed at the disposal of Mr.
Lloyd George's Coalition Government. M. Oudendyke was the very able representative of the Netherlands Government
at St. Petersburg, when the Bolsheviks began their reign of terror. He spoke Russian well and knew the principal
agents in this so‑called revolution, which he had watched in course of preparation. Equipped with knowledge
probably superior to that of any other neutral observer, he felt it to be his duty to convey this information to
the Christian Powers, whose existence he believed to be threatened. On September 6, 1918, therefore, he sent a
Report, one of the most weighty Reports ever drafted, with an important communication from the wretched British
subjects imprisoned in the Fortress of Peter and Paul, to Sir M. Finlay, our Minister at Christiania.
The latter forwarded this Report to Mr. Balfour, who received it on September 18 and published it as a White
Paper in April, 1919, after six months' delay. This revealing paper was entitled: 'Russia, No. 1 (1919), A
Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia.' The entire Report is illuminating as to Bolshevik proceedings and
aims, but the kernel of the whole matter is contained in the following extract: 'The danger is now so great that
I feel it my duty to call the attention of the British and all other Governments to the fact that, if an end is
not put to Bolshevism at once, the civilization of the whole world will be threatened.
This is not an exaggeration, but a sober matter of fact...I consider that the immediate suppression of
Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and
unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or
another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality and whose
one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.
The only manner in which this danger can be averted would be collective action on the part of all the
Powers. I would beg that this Report be telegraphed as soon as possible in cipher in full to the British Foreign
Office in view of its importance.'
Never has anyone shown more prophetic insight than M. Oudendyke. His forecast has been absolutely fulfilled
in every respect, and today the Bolsheviks, now about to be received in London, constitute the greatest danger to
the peace and stability of the world, even threatening civilization. Whether his vitally important Report reached
other Chancelleries we do not know, but our Foreign Office at least was forewarned, and it did not, at first,
withhold the warning from the public.
The sequel is, however, extraordinary. The original White Paper quickly became unprocurable, and another, an
'abridged edition' with the same title, promptly appeared at 6d. instead of 9d., from which all that we have
quoted, and more of almost equal importance, had been carefully eliminated.
It would be particularly interesting, but evidently impossible, to ascertain how this suppression of
pregnant facts was arranged at the Foreign Office."
The chief document, treating of the financing of the Russian Revolution, is the one drawn up by the American
Secret Service and transmitted by the French High Commissioner to his Government. It was published by the
Documentation Catholique of Paris on March 6, 1920, and preceded by the following remarks: "The authenticity of
this document is guaranteed to us. With regard to the exactness of the information which it contains, the
American Secret Service takes responsibility."
This document was quoted in 1920 in a supplement to the paper La Vieille France, which added: "All the
Government of the Entente were aware of this memorandum, drawn up from the data of the American secret Service
and sent at the time to the French High Commissioner and his colleagues."
The memorandum is also to be found in Mgr. Jouin's work, Le Peril Judeo‑Maconnique, Part III, pp. 249‑251,
with the added remark that the Jews have placed obstacles in the way of its publication, so that the great
majority of people is unaware of its existence [Though the Jewish origin of Kerensky, who brought about the first
Russian revolution of 1917, has been contested, it seems pretty certain he was the son of the Jew Aronne (Aaron)
Kerbiis and the Jewess Adler.
After the death of Kerbis, his widow married a certain Kerensky in Russian Turkestan. This man adopted young
Kerbis, who took the name of his stepfather]. The document is divided into eight sections. Sections I to IV as
well as VI to VIII will be here reproduced for the benefit of readers.
"Section I: ‑‑ In February, 1916, it was first discovered that a revolution was being fomented in Russia. It
was found out that the following persons as well as the banking‑house mentioned were engaged in this work of
destruction: 'Jacob Schiff (Jew); Guggenheim (Jew); Max Greitung (Jew); Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (Jewish Banking House),
of which the following are the directors Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mortimer Schiff, S.H. Hanauer
(all Jews).
There can be no doubt that the Russian revolution, which broke out a year after the information given above
had been received, as was launched and fomented by distinctively Jewish influences. As a matter of fact, in
April, 1917, Jacob Schiff made a public declaration that it was thanks to his financial help that the Russian
revolution had succeeded.'
Section II: ‑‑ In the spring of 1917, Jacob Schiff began to supply funds to Trotsky (Jew) to bring about the
social revolution in Russia. The New York Daily Forward, which is a Judaeo‑Bolshevik organ, gave a subscription
for the same purpose. "Through Stockholm, the Jew, Max Warburg, was likewise furnishing funds to Trotsky and Co.
They were also in receipt of funds from the Westphalian‑Rhineland Syndicate, which is an important Jewish
enterprise, as well as from another Jew, Olaf Aschberg, of the 'Nya Banken' of Stockholm, and from Givotovsky, a
Jew, whose daughter is married to Trotsky. Thus the communications were set up between the Jewish multi‑
millionaires and the Jewish proletarians.
Section III: ‑‑ In October, 1917, the social revolution took place in Russia, thanks to which certain Soviet
organizations took over the direction of the Russian people. In these Soviets the following individuals made
themselves remarkable: Lenin (Oulianow, Ulianoff); Trotsky (Trotzky, Bronstein); Steckloff (Nakhames); Martoff
(Zederbaum); Zinovieff (Apfelbaum); Kameneff (Rosenfield); Dan (Gourevitch, Yurewitsch); Ganetzky (Furstenberg),
Parvus (Helpfand); Uritzky (Padomilsky); Larin (Lurge); Bohrin (Nathansohn); Martinoff (Zibar); Bogdanoff
(Zilberstein); Garin (Garfeld); Suchanoff (Gimel); Kamnelff (Goldmann); Sagersky (Krochmann); Riazanoff
(Goldenbach); Solutzeff (Bleichmann); Piatnitzky (Ziwin); Axelrod (Orthodox); Glasunoff (Schultze); Zuriesain
(Weinstein); Lapinsky (Loewensohn) ‑‑ All Jews!
Section IV: ‑‑ At the same time the Jews, Paul Warburg, who had been in relation with [the English version
may have been 'acting on' instead of 'in relation with'] the Federal Reserve Board, was remarked to be in active
contact with certain Bolshevik notabilities in the United States. This circumstance, together with other points
about which information had been obtained, was the cause of his not being re‑elected to the above‑mentioned
Committee.
Section VI: ‑‑ On the other hand, Judas Magnes, subsidized by Jacob Schiff, is in close contact with the
world‑wide Zionist organization, Poale Zion, of which he is in fact the director. The final end of this
organization is to establish the international supremacy of the Jewish Labor Movement. Here again we see the
connection between the Jewish multi‑millionaires and the Jewish proletarians.
Section VII: ‑‑ Scarcely had the social revolution broken out in Germany when the Jewess, Rosa Luxemborug,
automatically assumed the political direction of it. One of the chief leaders of the International Bolshevik
Movement was the Jew, Haase. At that time the social revolution in Germany developed along the same lines as the
social revolution in Russia.
Section VIII: ‑‑ If we bear in mind the fact that the Jewish Banking‑House of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., is in touch
with the Westphialian‑Rhineland Syndicate, German‑Jewish House, and with the Brothers Lazare, Jewish House in
Paris, and also with the Jewish House of Gunzbourg of Petrograd, Tokio and Paris; if, in addition, we remark that
all the above mentioned Jewish Houses are in close correspondence with the Jewish House of Speyer & Co. of
London, New York and Frankfort‑on‑the‑Main, as well as with the 'Nya Banken,' Judaeo‑Bolshevik establishment at
Stockholm, it will be manifest that the Bolshevik movement is in a certain measure the expression of a general
Jewish movement and that certain Jewish Banking Houses are interested in the organization of this movement."
A few additional remarks about some of the personages above‑mentioned may be of interest. According to the
Echo de Paris of April 28, 1920, Max Warburg is the head of the Bank, Max Warburg & Co., of Hamburg. He is the
chief shareholder in the Hamburg‑America line and the Deutscher Lloyd. His two brothers, Paul and Felix, one of
whom is married to the sister‑in‑law, the other to the daughter of Jacob Schiff (born at Frankfort) are with
Schiff at the head of the Bank, Kuhn, Loeb & Co. From The German‑Bolshevik Conspiracy (p. 27), issued by the
Committee of Public Information, Washington D.C., October, 1918, we learn that Max Warburg was advancing money to
the Bolsheviks. The following telegram appears therein: Stockholm, 21st Sept., 1917. "Mr. Raphael Scholak,
Haparand. Dear Comrade. In conformity with a telegram from the Westphalian‑Rhineland Syndicate, Max Warburg &
Co.'s Bank informs you that an account is open for Comrade Trotzky's enterprise. (Signed) J. Furstenberg."
From information furnished by French sources, Mr. Jacob Schiff appears to have given 20‑million dollars for
the Russian revolution of 1917.
If we now turn to Mrs. Webster's The Surrender of an Empire (pp. 74‑79), we get some additional information
about the rise of Bolshevism. It seems that the real name of the individual mentioned above in Section III, under
the designation of Parvus, is Israel Lazarevitch Helphand and that he is a Jew of the province of Minsk, in White
Russia. In the second half of the eighties he took part in revolutionary work in Odessa. In 1886 he went abroad
and finally, after many wanderings, went to Copenhagen, where he amassed a large fortune as the chief agent for
the supply of German coal to Denmark, working through the Danish Social Democratic Party.
Dr. Ziv, in his Life of Trotsky, relates that when he was in America in 1916 he said to Trotsky: "How is
Parvus?" to which Trotsky replied laconically: "Completing his twelfth million." It is this Jewish multi‑
millionaire who, after Karl Marx, was the great inspirer of Lenin. It was through the intervention of Parvus that
Lenin was sent back to Russia by the Germans. Lenin was dispatched from Switzerland to Russia in a locked train
and was provided with no less than ¦ 2,500,000 by the German Imperial Bank. It was not, therefore, as a needy
revolutionary, setting forth on a precarious mission, his soul lit with pure zeal for the cause of the workers,
that Lenin journeyed into Russia, but as a well‑tried agent, versed in all the tricks of intrigue and the art of
propaganda and backed by the powerful organization of international finance. The people accompanying him were
predominantly aliens: out of a list of 165 names published, 23 are Russian, 3 Georgian, 4 American, 1 German and
128 Jewish [An illuminating sketch of Lenin's career is to be found in an article by Salluste in La Revue de
Paris (December 15, 1927). Lenin, according to this writer, was, at the same time, a paid agent of the Russian
secret police and of the Jewish financiers engaged in furthering the Marxist conspiracy. He profited by his
position as police agent to prepare the triumph of the schemes of the financiers].
The English accuse the Germans of having sent Lenin to Russia. We have seen the influences at the back of
that action. On the other hand, the Germans accuse the English of having sent Trotsky back, for Trotsky was set
free from arrest by order of the British Government (he had been arrested at Halifax), when he was needed by
Jacob Schiff and the others, as we saw above.
The truth is that Jewish financial influences were working behind the Governments of both peoples for their
own ends. "Russia" is not a triumph for the workers; but seems to be a gigantic investment of Jewish capitalists
for their own ends. Amid the welter of details about "Russia," the great fact must not be lost sight of, that the
men who seized power and retain it, as the taskmasters of the rationed and ticketed people of Russia, were put
there by a certain number of Jewish capitalists. The Russian middle‑class and the nobles, the natural leaders of
the people, WERE EXTERMINATED, while the manual workers, who were too uneducated to see through the plans of the
investors, were extolled to the skies.
The last testimony we shall cites in this connection is that of a distinguished scholar who carefully
studied Communism in action and then was not afraid to tell the truth. It is taken from the Impressions of Soviet
Russia, by Charles Sarolea (pp. 159‑160): "That the Jews have played a leading part in the Bolshevist Government
is a proposition which no one will deny who has taken the trouble to study Russian affairs at first hand.
I am quite ready to admit that the Jewish leaders are only a proportionately infinitesimal fraction, even as
the British rulers in India are an infinitesimal fraction. But it is none the less true, that those few Jewish
leaders are the masters of Russia, even as the fifteen hundred Anglo‑Indian Civil Servants are the masters of
India. For any traveller in Russia to deny such a truth would be to deny the evidence of his own senses.
When you find that out of large number of important Foreign Office officials whom you have met all but two
are Jews, you are entitled to say that the Jews are running the Russian Foreign Office...When you find that in
the Congress of the Third International all the debates from beginning to end are directed by Zinoveiv and Radek,
you are entitled to say that those two Jewish Bolshevists are running the Third International. When you find that
the same Zinoviev is also the omnipotent Dictator of Petrograd, that he was also the chairman of the Congress of
Baku...when you further find that the above‑mentioned Radek is the ubiquitous agitator and the chief of the
Bolshevist Propaganda department, when you discover at the same time that the leaders in every other Bolshevist
revolution in Budapest, in Bavaria, are invariably Jews, you are driven to the conclusion that the Jews have been
the protagonists of the Russian Drama."
Earlier in the same work we read: "Most of the places (at the universities) are reserved for boys and girls
of approved atheist and Bolshevik principles. It is thus that in Moscow University eighty per cent of the
medical students are Communist Jews." [The competence of this author is beyond question. In the Preface he says
that he submitted the manuscript of the work to some of the highest European authorities on things Russian and
Slavonic. The Jews who figure in the facade of the Bolshevik structure vary from time to time. They may even
appear to diminish in number because of fear of "Anti‑Semitism." The control never changes].
The tree planted by the Jewish Union for Civilization and Science has borne fruit.
How does the Communist Internationale seek to subject other countries? In Spain, the republican elements
Masonic and Bolshevik, together with a certain number of honest, decent Christians, who did not grasp the full
meaning of the struggle in the world against Christianity combined to overthrow the Monarchy. Masonry, as we have
seen, is aiming at subjecting all countries to the World‑Republic just as Communism is. And, why shouldn't it, it
is run by the same people. The same forces practically control both sections of the revolutionary army, Masons
and Communists. The Communists in the cities then profited by the arrival of the Masons to power to begin the
attack on the supernatural life of the country, by burning churches and convents. The following is the program
traced out by Moscow for their agents and dupes in that country. It is taken from La Liberte of Fribourg
(Switzerland) of June 20, 1931, which quotes from the official organ of the "Russian Kommintern."
"The flames ascending from the burning churches and monasteries of Spaon have shown the true character of
the Spanish revolution. Its prospects are excellent, but that it may develop and win through, the movement must
be directed by a thorough‑going Communist Party. This party is actually being formed."
Some of the points to be aimed at by the agents of Moscow in Spain are then given as follows: "(1)...
disbanding of the secret police. Arrest of the functionaries of that force...(2)...arming of the workers and
working‑farmers (peasants)...(7) Confiscation of the lands belonging to the Church and the landed proprietors...
These lands to be handed over to the agricultural workers and working‑farmers."
The document further insists upon: "the importance of the agrarian revolution, for which it is indispensable
to set up working‑farmers' committees for the requisition of the property of the landed proprietors, of the banks
and of the Church, and for the handing over of these lands to working‑farmers' and agricultural workers'
committees; to refuse to pay debts; to refuse to pay State contributions until the lands are divided up...For the
realization of all these revolutionary projects, the formation of committees (Soviets) of workers, working
farmers and soldiers is necessary. That must be our chief aim." [Mrs. Webster, in The Socialist Network (p. 47),
points out that the same individuals control both the Russian Government and the Kommintern or Communist
Internationale. The financiers, of course, control all].
Now the language and expressions used in this document, emanating from the Russian Kommintern, are largely
those with which the revolutionary papers have made their readers familiar in Ireland. In the leading article of
its issue of April 23, 1932, under the caption "On with the Old Cause," An Phoblacht ("The Republic"), one of
those revolutionary papers, stats that it is working for; "A Republic for the thirty‑two counties of Ireland,
free from any dependence on or connection with the British Empire. A Republic in which there shall be civil and
religious liberty, and equal rights and opportunities for all citizens. A Republic based on the public ownership
of the land, and instruments of production, distribution, and exchange."
What these declarations forebode for the farmers of the future Irish Republic may be learned from an article
on "Motives of Production" in An Phoblacht May 21, 1932. In the course of this article which the paper informs us
is one of a series setting forth its editorial policy: "The sin and crime growing out of the private monopoly of
land...must never be tolerated in a free Ireland...Thus in land, those who now occupy holdings in trust for the
nation shall be confirmed in their occupation and but one condition sought of them, the use of such holdings to
the maximum productivity point, and the making available for the nation of the surplus beyond the needs of the
occupiers' families."
The Communist movement in Ireland is advanced another stage by the declaration contained in the Manifesto to
the Irish People issued by the General Convention of the I.R.A. on January 8, 1933. That document states
unequivocally that: "We believe the reorganization of Irish life demands the public ownership of the means of
production, distribution and exchange in a state based on the needs of the mass of the people."
As the convention was "composed of elected delegates of all the volunteer units in the whole of Ireland," it
represents the official policy of the I.R.A. (Irish Republican Army). [The Irish Hierarchy warned their flocks
about these Communist preparations in their letter of October 18, 1931. For documents relating to Communist
movement in Ireland, see Could Ireland become Communist? by James Hogan].
Under cover of propaganda for the severance of Ireland from the British Empire, a Communist Republic, from
which private property in land and in the means of production would be excluded, is thus being prepared. Anyone
who would claim to own a mill or a portion of land would have to be suppressed as a British Imperialist. The
Communist Manifesto, of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, enlightens us with regard to the sincerity of the
national aims of every Communist movement. "The struggle of the proletariat against the middle‑class is not in
reality, but will be in APPEARANCE, a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must first overcome its
own middle‑class...Communists have been accused of wanting to do away with the native land and nationality.
Workers have no country. What they have not cannot be taken from them. Of course, the proletariat must first of
all attain political power, become the ruling class in the nation and constitute itself into the nation. In that
sense, it is still attached to nationality. But it is not attached to nationality as the middle‑class is attached
to it...The supremacy of the proletariat will efface them (all national distinctions)."
Thus, if ever a Communist Republic is set up in Ireland we shall be trampled under foot in another world‑
empire ruled form Moscow or JERUSALEM [at present Tel Eve]. [In The Socialist Network (p. 72), Mrs. Webster
refers to the relations between the I.R.B. and "the still more secret Irish Communist Brotherhood, founded in
1920 and controlled by a Supreme Council of Six." The existence of this latter body was made known by the
revelations of a Communist. It made its presence felt during the disastrous Civil War in Ireland in 1922].
It should be carefully borne in mind that Muscovite propaganda, while ever seeking to disturb and overthrow
the existing social order, so as to draw dupes under the sway of the new empire with its center in Moscow, will
try to profit by the existence of a national struggle in any country. Many thousands of Irish Catholics are being
pulled blindly along the road to the Communist empire by propaganda about the British Empire. And, needless to
say, every movement emanating from or controlled by Russia is steeped in hatred of Christianity. Among the
resolutions at the Congress of the Red International of Labor Unions (the Communist trade union organization with
headquarters in Moscow) in 1928 was one to the effect that "all attempts in Ireland to form Catholic or other
religious union of workers were to be fought against."
Of course, Muscovite propaganda, when attacking God and the hierarchical order of human society, will not
inform the people who are urged on to the class‑war and revolution that a new and savage feudalism or rather
slavery will be the result. The members of the Bolshevik party are the new supreme class, and against the party
and its members no rights exist, for there is no such thing as a right in the correct sense. "Behind all the
facades which portray identification of the Bolshevik State with the working masses hitherto enslaved by former
Governments, behind the Soviets and the federal organization, is hidden but one reality, which can be described
in a sentence: the workers' State is the unlimited rule of the Bolshevik party. State and party so far coincide
that all the political institutions are but machinery of which the party makes use to direct society and
determine its development...Any development, therefore, which might weaken the efficiency of the machine which
for the Bolsheviks constitutes the State, or restrict its operations, is made impossible from the outset...The
State knows only one right, the right of the Bolshevik party, which controls its machinery, to maintain its power
...Any limits actually observed in the application of force against non‑Bolsheviks are a matter of pure
expediency; and what expediency demands is decided by the Bolshevik party...The might of the ruling party is
unlimited, is, under the Bolshevik system, identical with right. The absence in the Bolshevik State of freedom of
opinion and public meeting is no temporary restriction necessitated by a temporary crisis...Moreover, there can
be no doubt that the Bolshevik party is above the State...in principle there can be no rights against the party."
But, then, the poor deluded masses in countries outside Russia are informed that, when the bourgeois
governments have been everywhere overthrown, there will be a reign of peace and concord, a Garden of Eden, in
fact, here below, but an Eden in which there will be no shadow cast by the irascible God of the bourgeois, intent
on punishment. Satan can certainly get his followers to swallow a considerable amount of garbage.
One question, however, always returns: "What about the Jewish international financiers who financed Lenin
and Trotsky in 1917? That their control over the figure‑heads of the Communist party, like Stalin, exists is
certain. In her book, Trois ans chez les Tsars rouges (p. 96), Madame Elise Despreaux speaks of the appearance of
anti‑Semitism in the Communist party: "It is its preponderance among the Communist which has brought about the
success of Stalin, in 1926 and 1927. Nevertheless, if the Georgian dictator maintains his position, it is at the
price of a manifest capitulation in face of the higher power of international finance. The part played by this
power in the destines of the USSR is undeniable. Of course, the exact nature of the part is difficult to prove,
on account of its secret character. The influence of this power has, however, been exercised recently in favor of
the Jews without whom the Russians would find it difficult to manage commercially and economically. [Madame
Despreaux was for several years in charge of the French school, opened at Moscow by the French Government].
It is well to link with this what the writer states on p. 75 of the same work, about the Hotel Lux as the
headquarters of the World‑Revolution: "The Government of the USSR is only a subordinate department of the
Executive Committee of the Third Internationale. The Communist International utilizes the results of the Russian
revolution for aims which have nothing to do with the interests of the Russian people. Each country is
represented at Moscow by permanent delegations and all these are at the service of the Muscovite General Staff.
it is significant that these staffs are paid, in spited of the material misery in which Communism has plunged the
Russian people generally outside the Communist aristocracy."
It is to the influence of international finance that the relative stability of the Russian revolution is
due. Just as greater skill in carrying out successful revolutions has been acquired by experience since 1789, so
also progress has been made in the art of maintaining the figure‑heads in power, in spite of the discontent of
the majority of the people and the unceasing struggle against the laws of nature.
Is such a thing as a Christian Workers' Republic possible? [The expression "Workers' Republic" is used in
the sense of Marx and Lenin]. Applying the principles which, we have seen, lie at the base of the Communist
movement, we can readily see that the name of Christian Workers' Republic attempts to link together two ideas
that are contradictory. The Communism of Karl Marx is based on the pantheistic evolution of all natural powers
under the supreme guidance of man's thoughts. Above man, for Marx, there is nothing. True Christianity means the
sharing by man of God's own Inner Life of Knowledge and Love communicated to man through the Christ.
Again, Marxian Communism is a neo‑Messianic movement, based on Jewish rejection of the Messias Who has come,
and the workers are merely the tools by which the Jews hope to exercise world domination. Accordingly, a true
Christian cannot be at home in that camp. Besides, Christianity is a religion of love, mercy and compassion,
while "the Marxian type of atheism is not moved at all by pity; on the contrary, it is pitiless. In order to
procure power and riches for the social collectively it proclaims ruthless cruelty towards men.
There are humanitarian elements left in it. It comes from Feuerbach, but it goes one further than him, and
rejects his religion of humanity. It was not in the name of man that Marx raised the standard of revolt, but in
the name of the mightiness of a new deity, the social Collectivity." (Nicholas Berdyaev, The Russian Revolution,
p. 31). The complete triumph of the so‑called Christian Workers' Republic can have no other result than the
extermination of all those who believe in the Divinity of Christ the King. "No man can serve to masters." (Matt.
6:24). Of course anyone, who stands up for the integral rights of Christ will be gotten rid of, ostensibly as an
enemy of the republic and a counter‑revolutionary. And be it noted that ideas work themselves out in act, or
rather men are spurred on to draw the final conclusions from the ideas they hold. Marxian republicans cannot stop
halfway and compromise with Christianity. They must seek to exterminate its adherents and educate a new
generation which will worship only matter, machinery and Satan.
A few extracts from Waldemar Gurian's able work from which we have already quoted will confirm these
statements: "The tyranny to which the Bolshevik doctrine of salvation leads is not simply a political and
economic oppression. It is far more comprehensive and therefore more intolerable than a tyranny of the normal
sort, because it is based on a fundamental philosophy, a particular conception of human nature and the objects of
society. It desires to impose on men particular doctrines, and is not content with their obedience to
governmental and economic regulations. The entire man must be embraced and occupied by Bolshevism.
In future, there must be no contrast between the individual and society, for the life of the individual must
belong completely to society, which is regarded as the goal of history. That alone which promotes this
development has any longer the right to exist. This produces an oppression of unparalleled magnitude. All
intellectual life that does not serve Bolshevik aims must be annihilated; intellectual freedom and independence
must yield to the dogmas of the Bolshevik creed; religion must disappear, and scientific research be exclusively
directed to results which are in harmony with the doctrines of dialectical materialism and above all serve the
Bolshevik rule...
In the bourgeois society [By bourgeois society, Gurian means chiefly what I prefer to call Judaeo‑Puritan
capitalist society, the sort of society depicted in Belloc's The Serviel State. Such a society has abused the
rights of private property. Between the two opposed errors of Judaeo‑Protestant Capitalism and Judaeo‑Masonic
Communism and above them stands the Christian Ideal] the Church can still carry on her work, although in practice
increasingly losing her influence over public life and, at best, recognized as a moral force within the
community. Nevertheless, she can be active and preach her doctrines. This is true even of a State with such
extremely anti‑clerical laws as France. In the bourgeois society and its State the Church can make her voice
heard. Even the anti‑clerical State does not venture to promote atheism by the use of violence and the annexation
of publicity in the hope of thus killing religion.
However anti‑clerical its professions it dare not carry them out consistently...This tolerance and regard
for tradition are alien to Bolshevism. It possesses a very definite philosophy of history, to whose fulfillment
its State and economic experiments must minister. This philosophy finds the goal of humanity in the self‑
sufficient society. Bolshevism is thus essentially and whole‑heartily intolerant of Christianity and the Church.
It cannot, therefore, allow the Church to work freely within its society and State; in this respect its attitude
is far more logical than that of the bourgeois State."
It was possible to give only a few details about the secret origins of Socialism and Communism. What has
been said, however, will be sufficient to show at least a portion of what was in Pope Leo XIII's mind, when in
the Encyclical, Quod Apostolici Muneris (December 28, 1878), "On Socialism, Communism and Nihilism," he wrote as
follows: "You understand, as a matter of course, Venerable Brothers, that We are alluding to that sect of men
who, under the motley and all but barbarous terms and titles of Socialists, Communists and Nihilists, are spread
abroad throughout the world and bound intimately together in baneful alliance, no longer look for strong support
in secret meetings held in darksome places, but standing forth openly and boldly in the light of day, standing
forth openly and boldly in the light of day, strive to carry out the purpose long resolved upon of uprooting the
foundations of civilized society at large."
Pope Leo XIII regretted more than once that rulers did not heed the warnings of the Holy See about what was
being prepared for the world, in secret societies. Pope Pius XI, now that the struggle between Christ the King
and Satanic Communism is universal, urges the alleviation of conditions where possible and the removal of social
evils, but he reiterates the entreaties to those who have the power to use it for Christ: "We cannot contemplate
without sorrow the heedlessness of those who seem to make light of these imminent dangers, and with stolid
indifference allow the propagation far and wide of those doctrines which seek by violence and bloodshed the
destruction of all society. Even more severely must be condemned the foolhardiness of those who neglect to remove
or modify such conditions as exasperate the minds of the people and so prepare the way for the overthrow and ruin
of the social order." (Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno, "On the Social Order.").
HOW THE PROTOCOLS CAME TO RUSSIA
The word "protocol" 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.
The protocols given to the world by Nilus are only the latest known edition of the Jewish leaders program.
The story of how the latter came into general circulation is an interesting one.
In 1884 the daughter of a Russian general, Mlle. Justine Glinka, was endeavoring to serve her country in
Paris by obtaining political information, which she communicated to General Orgevskii, at the time Secretary to
the Minister of the Interior, General Cherevin, in St. Petersburg. For this purpose she employed a Jew, Joseph
Schorst, Alias Schapiro, whose father had been sentenced in London, in two years previous, to ten years penal
servitude for counterfeiting, member of the Mizraim 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 the document handed to Mlle. Glinka, Schorst fled to Egypt where, according to French police
archives, he was murdered. 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 filing it in the archives. On his death in 1896, he
will a copy of his memoirs containing the Protocols to Nicholas II.
Meantime there appeared in Paris certain books on Russian court life, published under the pseudonym "Count
Vassilii," their real author was Mme. Juliette Adam, using material furnished by Princess Demidov‑San Donato,
Princess Radzivill, and other Russians, which displeased the Tsar, who ordered his secret police to discover
their authorship. This was falsely attributed, perhaps with malicious intent, Among the Jews in the Russian
secret service in Paris was Maniulov, whose odious character is drawn by M. Paleologue, Memories, to Mlle.
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, Mlle. 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 members, ‑ 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 the hatred of the gentiles, ‑ of the
Russian police, minutes of the proceedings of the Basle congress in 1897 had been obtained and these were found
to correspond with the Protocols. The Russian government had learned that at meetings of the B'nai B'rith in New
York in 1893‑94, Jacob Schiff had been named chairman of the committee on the revolutionary movement in Russia.
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 Jewish
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 Societes Secretes, 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 the Protocols reached Russia and thence came into general circulation. Mr.
Stepanov's deposition relative to it is here given as corroboration. "In 1895, my neighbor 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 brought this one copy to
Russia and gave 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.
ATTEMPTS AT REFUTATION
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 their real nature, workings, and association 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 bear an honest, non‑Jewish
signature. There is the article of the notorious Princess Radzivill [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, October 14 and 31,
1921). Later she went to live with her friend Mrs. Hurlbut at 503 West 124th St. New York] published in the
Jewish Tribune (New York) for march 11, 1921, and followed by a statement by her friend, Mrs. Hurlbut. The former
[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].
makes no mention of Mlle. 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, 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
books, entitled On the Bank of the River of God, 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 Zion), 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. Sabler, who was the Procurator of the Holy Synod at St. Petersburg: he supported Rasputin and other
pseudo‑mystics and had a disastrous influence on the Russian Church, 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 that 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 Monarhch 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 Ingnatieff. 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) Tatina Fermor." June 9, 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
[however it has been discovered that his name was Philip Graves], 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 Times (August 16‑18, 1921: the articles were reprinted in a booklet
entitled, The Truth about The Protocols, 24 pages), thus gave to its readers was that the protocols were a
"clumsy plagiarism" of a French book it called "The Dialogues of Genevia," 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 of Zion 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 connections." 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 III'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."
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 public 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 plagiarism, 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 plagiarized from the Dialogues of 1865, are similar to
several [For example, the passage referring to Vishnu is found in Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, in the
Dialogues, and in Protocol 12] 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 color to hs argument. Space does
not allow us here to trace the links between Jacob Venedey, the Alliance Israelite Universelle, Adolphe Cremieux,
Maurice Joly, and Jules Janin.
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! It is noteworthy that no Corsican has yet raised a voice of protest against
the charges made in The Times. Yet it is the Corsicans who are the real victims of a libel, not the Jews. 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 Cremieux, 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 Democratie").
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 Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau in favor of
despotism and oppression. Another case of plagiarism at work!
When order was restored in Germany, Venedey was expelled from Berlin and Breslau. He was an active member of
the Freemasons and affiliated with the Carbonari; he died in February, 1871, and was also closely associated not
only with the revolutionaries of his day, but (as might be expected) with the leading Jews, the founders of the
Alliance Israelite Universelle. 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 labored towards a common aim, the establishment of
an international Jewish world power.
Prominent among them and in close touch with Venedey, was Adolphe Isaac Cremieux (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 1848, 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 police 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'etat
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, Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin, Pierre Leroux, and a group of socialists,
among whom was Maurice Joly ‑ Whose 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 Napoleon 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, and
committed suicide in 1878.
Joly, some thirty years younger than Cremieux, with an inherited hatred of the Bonapartes, seems to have
fallen very largely under his influence. Through Cremieux, 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 1864‑65, when his hatred of Napoleon, whetted by Cremieux, led him to publish
anonymously in Brussels the Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu. In his work he tells us,
"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, that at least, I am a Jacobin.
The French authorities, however, penetrated the thinly disguised 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 & Goldschmidt; he was also a friend of Cremieux. A third Jew in the
negotiations was the son of James Rothschild.
Bismarck, who had bet the latter's grandfather, knew that Rothschild's real name was Meyer, and regarded him
as a "Jewish 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. 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‑Prissian war. His favorite 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 [Judaism]; it voices its appeal to all cults and wants
to penetrate in all religions, as it has penetrated into all countries. Let us endeavor boldly to bring about the
union of all cults under one flag of 'Union and Progress': Such is the motto of humanity."
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.
THE BERNE TRIALS
"A lawyer, who assisted at the two trials, published in the review Hammer of December, 1937, a statement
according to which the Judge (of the Lower Court) was in debt to a Jew at the time of the trial. This very
serious allegation has never been denied. The Neue Berner Zeitung of October 29, 1937, formulated a not less
serious complaint against the same Judge, who was obliged by his superiors to take an action against the paper.
At the time of writing the action is not yet over. It would seem that the Judge was hardly the proper man to
decide such a delicate question.
It must be remarked also that, contrary to what appeared in many newspapers, the Court of Appeal found that,
in spite of the prescriptions of the law, the reports of certain depositions had been drawn up by the private
reporters of the Jewish plaintiffs. 'The proceedings as carried out in the Lower Court were not in accordance
with custom and law...The manner of drawing up the reports was in contradiction with the binding prescriptions of
the law (Art. 92 and 215 Str. V).' (Extract from Les Protocols des Sages de Sion constituent‑ils un faux by H. de
Vries de Heekelingen (Printed at Lausanne, 1938). In May 1935, the Judge of the Lower Court of the Swiss Canton
of Berne, Meyer, gave judgment in the action taken by the Swiss Jewish Association and the Jewish Community of
Berne against Theodore Fischer and Silvio Schnell concerning the Protocols and other publications. An appeal was
lodged by Fischer and Schnell against the judgment, and the Court of Appeal or Higher Court of Berne gave its
decision in October, 1937).
That seem clear and definite. Besides, the reports had not been read to the accused and had not been signed,
as the law prescribes. In addition, witnesses for the defense had not been convoked and the Judge (of the Lower
Court) had accepted from the plaintiffs, as coming from Moscow photographs which had been insufficiently
legalized as well as faulty translations of Russian documents. Is it astonishing then that the accused were
condemned by the Lower Court and that the Jews rejoiced? The proof that the Protocols were a forgery had been
furnished at last.
But they had to change their tune. The Berneses Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Lower Court. The
Higher Court found fault with the setting‑up of a commission of experts to examine the question of the
authenticity of the Protocols, since the authenticity or non‑authenticity of the Protocols did not concern the
Court.
Moreover, the Court of Appeal severely criticized the choice of the experts, especially the section of the
third. 'If we leave out the account of the completely unnecessary expense of the other judgments, in the
circumstances, this would have been satisfactory, provided that the third expert selected had been completely
impartial and unprejudiced. C.A. Loosli, however, had already, in 1937, published a pamphlet entitled Die
Schlimmen Juden, in which he had characterized the Protocols as a recklessly malevolent fabrication and had
heaped scorn on them as a forgery, in a manner that was purely polemical and absolutely unscientific.
The form that Loosli's judgment in the matter would take was, therefore, capable of being a large degree
calculated in advance, so that he did not enjoy the requisite confidence of all parties.' (M. de Vries de
Heekelingen again quotes from the German text of the High Court's decision). The Court then drew the obvious
conclusion: 'Such a mode of appointing an expert is not up to standard.'
It will be enough to mention one fact in order to justify this criticism of the expert, Loosli. A few pages
back I showed that the testimony of Radziwill was valueless, since it has been proved that the Protocols had
already been published in 1903. Loosli wanted, nevertheless, to make use of Radziwill's testimony in his
professional report of October, 1934. To get out of the difficulty, he simply changed the date of Radziwill's
testimony from 1903 to 1895.
The result of the second trial was never in doubt. The accused (Fischer and Schnell) were acquitted, and one
of them had to pay 100 francs costs out of a total of about 28,000 francs. Here it is interesting to note that
the whole Jewish Press took good care not to mention that this slight penalty had nothing to do with the
Protocols.
You will remember what I said at the beginning, namely, that the Jews had included other publications in
their action. The 100 francs costs were imposed on Mr. T. Fischer because of the article entitled Shweizermadchen
hute dich vor schandenden Juden.
A more disastrous result for the Jews could hardly be imagined. And what made it harder for them to bear was
the fact that the Berneses Higher Court alluded to a judgment of the Federal Court, in which it was stated that
the Swiss Law does not forbid and 'could not forbid journalists to express even very advanced opinions on the
Jewish question, however painful these expressions of opinion might be for the Jews.'
The Jews, however, are already 'putting across' their own version of the trial. The Jewish Daily Post of
April 28, 1935, wrote that the first trial had shown 'the success that could be achieved by means of good Jewish
organization.' This excellent organization was ready to go into action after the disaster of the second trial, as
a couple of examples will show.
The Jewish Chronicle of November 5, 1937, wrote that the Court of Appeal had declared the Protocols a
forgery and had held that they must be regarded as trashy literature. The same review asserted that the Court
found that the falsity of the Protocols had been proved. In reality the Court of Appeal had declared that the
authenticity of the Protocols had not been proved, which does not mean that their falsity had been proved. The
Higher Tribunal added that the Lower Court should not have entered upon that question at all. 'To enter upon an
expert examination of that question and carry it out was altogether superfluous.' The statement of the Jewish
Chronicle must be stigmatized as contrary to the truth.
The Revue de Geneve (Jewish Review of Geneva), in its issue of November 1937, and the Journal des Nations,
in its issue of November 3, 1937, were nearer the truth and sinned only by omission. They wrote that 'the proofs
of the authenticity of the Protocols had not been furnished,' but they left out that the Lower Court had been
blamed for having raised the question of authenticity, as that question did not concern it.
It is a universally admitted principle of historical criticism that when a document has been discovered,
that document must be held to be authentic so long as its lack of authenticity, in other words, its falsity, has
not been proved. This has always been the rule in regard to historical criticism. When it is stated that proof of
the authenticity of the Protocols has not been furnished, the cart is put before the horse. It is for the Jews to
prove that the Protocols constitute a forgery, and we know that all the attempts to prove this have
been lamentable failures.
What is more, it is known that the Provisional (Russian) Government of Prince Lwow, Freemason, handed over
to the Jew Winawer, all the documents concerning the Protocols that were to be found in the Russian Home Office
or at the Police Headquarters. If a proof or even a shadow of a proof, of the falsity of the Protocols had been
found among these documents, the Jews would have published it immediately.
I do not intend to weary my readers with the account of other misrepresentations and skilfully concocted
affirmations similar to those I have mentioned. It is a pity that writers, whose good faith cannot be called in
question, take their information from such dubious sources. They make the mistake of not subjecting those sources
to the severe criticism indispensable in a matter that aroused so much passionate feeling, and they neglect to
consult the official documents. They thus contribute to get the false Jewish version accepted. They consider that
they are acting charitably in defending unfortunate victims of persecution and calumny, while in reality they
are working for the triumph of the Jews.
A Belgian religious wrote a short time ago that the decision of the Higher Cantonal Court confirmed the
judgment of the Lower Court magistrate with regard to the falsity of the Protocols. The same author also asserted
that the Court declared the Protocols to be 'a document written in bad faith, a flagrant and poisonous forgery.'
The Reverend Father is wrong. It was not the Court, but the barristers for the Jews who attacked the Protocols as
the vilest product of the printing press ever published in Switzerland. I have carefully perused the 53 folio
pages of the judgment and I can affirm that the Court nowhere declared the Protocols to be 'a document written in
bad faith, a malignant and poisonous forgery.' That statement is absolutely opposed to the truth.
The Court certainly made use of some very severe epithets, such as 'stupid Jew‑baiting,' 'attempt to defame
the Jews as a body,' but these were employed with reference to the article Shweizermadchen hute dich vor
schandenden Juden, which had nothing to do with the Protocols, but which the Jews had cleverly included in their
case.
The Court declared that the Protocols were 'shoddy or trashy literature in the aesthetic and literary...
sense.' With that judgment we are in complete agreement. What remains to be determined is who is the author of
this 'trashy literature.' On that point the Court declared itself incompetent."
TEXT AND COMMENTARY OF THE PROTOCOLS
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 10, 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.
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 May 14, 1935, but it was announced in the Jewish Press BEFORE IT WAS DELIVERED BY THE COURT!
On November 1, 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 focussing
more public attention on other revealing utterances. In Disraeli's The Life of Lord Geroge 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 the 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 chose 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 24,
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
history of the last century is that today 300 Jewish financiers, all Masters of Lodges, rule the world."
The London Jewish Chronicle, on April 4, 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 15, 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 Ford Motor Co. In an interview
published in the New York World on February 17, 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 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 last few years have
seen the agitators for a World Police Force come close to achieving their objective.
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 ready made Ministries of Education (or Propaganda), Labor, Health, Food and
Agriculture, Justice, and 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 hearded into a state of civil war. 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 hearded into the same sort of pen as the nations of the East were once
contained. On the pretext that this is the only way in which they can save themselves fro Communism. They are
rapidly in the process of becoming controlled also on the social level. All alike are being told that their only
hope for survival lies in the surrender of their national sovereignty to the United Nations.
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.), the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund so
that no nation will be able to control its own economic destiny.
Even on the social level, individual national distinctions must disappear. For example, under the "Common
Market" Treaty which unites many European nations on the economic plane, provision is made for the "equalization
of social policies." And strenuous efforts have been made to herd all the other European Nations into this same
pen in the associated European Free Trade Area.
Even as early as 1934, when the leader of the British Labour 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 excreted. In 1957 there was an official declaration of the British Government's support for the plan
which was fore‑shadowed in the Protocols, when the Earl of Gosford, Joint parliamentary Under‑Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, said in the House of Lords on November 7, 1957: "Her Majesty's Government are 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, for many years, "federation," "integration," "regionalization," and "inter‑dependance"
are the order of the day. All this is foretold in the Protocols, published almost a century ago by Sergyei Nilus,
which, we are told, by the Jews are a forgery. Can all this be coincidence? could any forger be so precise in his
prophecies? 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?
Due to the fact that the Protocols are so easily obtained today we are, in the interest of conserving space,
not going to present them in their entirety, but will present selected portions in this presentation.
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION
A partial list
Protocol Number One ‑‑
Article 2: "What I am about to set forth, then, is our system from the two points of view, that of ourselves
and that of the goyim [non‑Jews]."
Article 3: "It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the
best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorization, and not by academic discussions. Every
man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who
would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare."
Article 4: "What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance
hitherto?
Article 5: "In the beginnings of the structure of society they were subjected to brutal and blind force;
afterwards ‑‑ to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature
right lies in force."
Article 6: "Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it
appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of
crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with
the idea of freedom, so‑called liberalism, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power.
It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately,
by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot
for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already
weakened by liberalism."
Article 7: "In our day the power which has replaced that of the rulers who were liberal is the power of
Gold. Time was when Faith ruled. The idea of freedom is impossible of realization because no one knows how to use
it with moderation. It is enough to hand over a people to self‑government for a certain length of time for that
people to be turned into a disorganized mob. From that moment on we get internecine strife which soon develops
into battles between classes, in the midst of which States burn down and their importance is reduced to that of a
heap of ashes."
Article 8: "Whether a State exhausts itself in its own convulsions, whether its internal discord brings it
under the power of external foes ‑‑ in any case it can be accounted irretrievably lost; IT IS IN OUR [Jews]
POWER. The despotism of Capital, WHICH IS ENTIRELY IN OUR HANDS, reaches out to it a straw that the State, willy‑
nilly, must take hold of: if not ‑‑ it goes to the bottom."
Article 9: "Should anyone of a liberal mind say that such reflections as the above are immoral I would put
the following questions: If every State has two foes and if in regard to the external foe it is allowed and not
considered immoral to use every manner and art of conflict, as for example to keep the enemy in ignorance of
plans of attack and defense, to attack him by night or in superior numbers, then in what way can the same means
in regard to a worse foe, the destroyer of the structure of society and the commonweal, be called immoral and not
permissible?"
Article 10: "Is it possible for any sound logical mind to hope with any success to guide crowds by the aid
of reasonable counsels and arguments, when any objection or contradiction, senseless though it may be, can be
made and when such objection may find more favor with the people, whose powers of reasoning are superficial? Men
in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, customs, traditions
and sentimental theorism, fall a prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis
of a perfectly reasonable argument. Every resolution of a crow depends upon a chance or packed majority, which,
in its ignorance of political secrets, puts forth some ridiculous resolution that lays in the administration a
seed of anarchy."
Article 11: "The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by the moral is
not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both
to cunning and to make believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for
they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy. Such
qualities must be the attributes of the kingdoms of the goyim, but we [Jews] must in no wise be guided by them."
"KOL NIDRE" (ALL VOWS PRAYER)
ALL VOWS, OBLIGATIONS AND OATHS...WHICH WE MAY VOW, SWEAR, OR PLEDGE...FROM THIS DAY OF ATONEMENT TO THE
NEXT, WE DO REPENT. MAY THEY BE DEEMED ABSOLVED, FORGIVEN, ANNULLED AND VOID AND MADE OF NO EFFECT...THE VOWS
SHALL NOT BE REKONED VOWS, THE OBLIGATIONS SHALL NOT BE OBLIGATORY, NOR THE OATHS BE OATHS. (NEDARIM 23a‑23b ‑‑
Jewish Talmud)
Article 12: "Our right lies in force. The word 'right' is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The
word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than
you."
Article 13: "Where does right begin? Where does it end?"
Article 14: "In any State in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of
the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find a
new right ‑‑ TO ATTACK BY THE RIGHT OF THE STRONG, AND TO SCATTER TO THE WINDS ALL EXISTING FORCES OF ORDER AND
REGULATION, TO RECONSTRUCT ALL INSTITUTIONS AND TO BECOME THE SOVEREIGN LORD OF THOSE WHO HAVE LEFT TO US THE
RIGHTS OF THEIR POWER BY LAYING THEM DOWN VOLUNTARILY IN THEIR LIBERALISM."
Article 15: "Our power in the present tottering condition of all forms of power will be more invincible than
any other, because it will remain invisible until the moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can
any longer undermine it."
Article 17: "Before us is a plan in which is laid down strategically the line from which we cannot deviate
without running the risk of seeing the labor of many centuries brought to naught."
Article 18: "In order to elaborate satisfactory forms of action it is necessary to have regard to the
rascality, the slackness, the instability of the mob, its lack of capacity to understand and respect the
conditions of its own life, or its own welfare. It must be understood that the might a mob is blind, senseless
and unreasoning, a force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side. The blind cannot lead the blind without
bringing them into the abyss; consequently, members of the mob, upstarts from the people even though they should
be as a genius for wisdom, yet having no understanding of the political, cannot come forward as leaders of the
mob without brining the whole nation to ruin."
Article 20: "A people left to itself, i.e., to upstarts from its midst, brings itself to ruin by party
dissensions excited by the pursuit of power and honors and the disorders arising there from. Is it possible for
the masses of the people calmly and without petty jealousies to form judgments, to deal with the affairs of the
country, which cannot be mixed up with personal interests? Can they defend themselves from an external foe? It is
unthinkable for a plan broken up into as many parts as there are heads in the mob, loses all homogeneity, and
thereby becomes unintelligible and impossible of execution."
Article 21: "It is only with a despotic ruler that plans can be elaborated extensively and clearly in such a
way as to distribute the whole properly among the several parts of the machinery of the State; from this the
conclusion is inevitable that a satisfactory form of government for any country is one that concentrates in the
hands of one responsible person. Without an absolute despotism there can be no existence for civilization which
is carried on not by the masses but by their guide, whosoever that person may be. The mob is a savage and
displays its savagery at every opportunity. The moment the mob seizes freedom in its hands it quickly turns to
anarchy, which in itself is the highest degree of savagery."
Article 22: "Behold the alcholized animals, bemused WITH DRINK, the right to an immoderate use of which
comes along with freedom. it is not for us and our to walk that road. The peoples of the goyim are bemused with
alcoholic liquors; THEIR YOUTH HAS GROWN STUPID ON CLASSICISM AND FROM EARLY IMMORALITY, INTO WHICH IT HAS BEEN
INDUCTED BY OUR SPECIAL AGENTS ‑‑ BY TUTORS, LACKEYS, GOVERNESSES IN THE HOUSES OF THE WEALTHY, BY CLERKS AND
OTHERS, BY OUR WOMEN IN THE PLACES OF DISSIPATION FREQUENTED BY THE GOYIM. In the number of these last I COUNT
THE SO‑CALLED 'SOCIETY LADIES' VOLUNTARY FOLLOWERS OF THE OTHERS IN CORRUPTION AND LUXURY."
Article 23: "Our countersign is ‑‑ Force and Make‑believe. Only force conquers in political affairs,
especially if it be concealed in the talents essential to statesmen. Violence must be the principle, and cunning
the make‑believe the rule for governments which do not want to lay down their crowns at the feet of agents of
some new power. This evil is the one and only means to attain the end...Therefore we must not stop at bribery,
deceit and treachery when they should sever towards the attainment of our end. In politics one must know how to
seize the property of others without hesitation if by it we secure submission and sovereignty."
Article 24: "Our State, marching along the path of...conquest, has the right to...maintain the terror which
tends to produce blind submission...merciless severity is the greatest factor of strength in the State; not only
for the sake of gain but also in the name of duty, for the sake of victory, we must keep to the program of
violence and make‑believe. The doctrine of squaring accounts is precisely as strong as the means of which it
makes use. Therefore it is not so much by the means themselves as by the doctrine of severity that we shall
triumph and bring all governments into subjection to our super‑government. It is enough for them to know that WE
ARE MERCILESS FOR ALL DISOBEDIENCE TO CEASE."
Article 25: "Far back in ancient times we were the first to cry among the masses of the people the words
'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,' words many times repeated since those days by stupid poll‑parrots who from all
sides round flew down upon these baits and with them carried away the well‑being of the world, true freedom of
the individual, formerly so well guarded against the pressure of the mob. The would be wise men of the goyim, the
intellectuals, could not make anything out of the uttered words in their abstractness; did not note the
contradiction of their meaning and inter‑relation; did not see that in nature there is no equality, cannot be
freedom; that Nature herself has established inequality of minds, of characters, and capacities, just as
immutably as she has established subordination to her laws; never stopped to think that the mob is a blind thing,
that upstarts elected from among it to bear rule are, in regard to the political, the same blind men as the mob
itself, that the adept, though he be a fool, can yet rule, whereas the non‑adept, even if he were a genius,
understands nothing in the political‑‑ to all these things the goyim paid no regard; yet all the time it was
based upon these things that dynastic rule rested; the father passed on to the son a knowledge of the course of
political affairs in such wise that none should know it but members of the dynasty and none could betray it to
the governed. As time went on the meaning of the dynastic transference of the true position of affairs in the
political was lost, and this aided the success of our cause."
Article 26: "In all corners of the earth the words 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity' brought to our ranks,
thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were
canker‑worms at work boring into the well‑being of the goyim, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet,
solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the goya States. As you will see later, this helped us to our
triumph; it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card the
destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the goyim, that
class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and
genealogical aristocracy of the goyim we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the
aristocracy of money. The qualifications for this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent
upon us, and in knowledge, for which our learned elders provide the motive force."
Article 27: "Our triumph has been rendered easier by the fact that in our relations with the men whom we
wanted to have always worked upon the most sensitive chords of the human mind, upon the cash account, upon the
cupidity, upon the instability for material needs of man; and each of these human weaknesses, taken alone, is
sufficient to paralyze initiative, for it hands over the will of men to the disposition of him who has bought
their activities."
Article 28: "The abstraction of freedom has enabled us to persuade the mob in all countries that their
government IS NOTHING BUT THE STEWARD OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY, AND THAT THE STEWARD MAY
BE REPLACED LIKE A WORN‑OUT GLOVE."
Article 29: "It is this possibility of replacing the representatives of the people which has placed them at
our disposal, and, as it were, given us the power of appointment."
Protocol Number Two: ‑‑
Article 1: "It is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in
territorial gains; war will thus be brought on to the economic ground, where the nations will not fail to
perceive in the assistance we give the strength of our predominance, and this state of things will put both sides
at the mercy of our international agentur; which possesses millions of eyes ever on the wealth and unhampered by
any limitations whatsoever. OUR INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS WILL then WIPE OUT NATIONAL RIGHTS, in the proper sense of
right, AND WILL RULE THE NATIONS PRECISELY AS THE CIVIL LAW OF STATES rule the relations of their subjects among
themselves."
Article 2: "The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their
capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore
easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers,
specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world. As is well known to you,
these specialists of ours have been drawing to fit them for rule the information they need from our political
plans; from the lessons of history, from observations made in the events of every moment as it passes.
The goyim are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical
routine, without any critical regard for consequent results. We nee not, therefore, take any account of them ‑
let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on
the memories of all they have enjoyed...let them play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept
as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our
press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the goyim will puff themselves up with
their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available
from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their
minds in the direction we want."
Article 3: "Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the
successes we arranged for DARWINISM, MARXISM, NIETZSHEISM [Nazi‑Socialism]. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be
plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim [non‑Jew]."
Article 4: "It is indispensable for us to take account of the thoughts, characters, tendencies of the
nations in order to avoid making slips in the political and in the direction of administrative affairs...
Article 5: "In the hands of the States of today, there is a great force that creates the movement of
thought in the people, and that is the Press. The part played by the Press is to keep pointing out requirements
supposed to be indispensable, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and to create discontent.
It is in the Press that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. But the goyim States have not
known how to make use of this force; and it has fallen into our hands. Through the Press we have gained the power
to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade; thanks to the Press we have got the gold in our hands,
notwithstanding that we have had to gather it out of oceans of blood and tears. But is has paid us, though we
have sacrificed many of our people. Each victim on our side is worth in the sight of God a thousand goyim."
Protocol Number Three ‑‑
Article 1: "Today I may tell you that our goal is now only a few steps off. There remains a small space to
cross and the whole long path we have trodden is ready now to close its cycle of the Symbolic Snake, by which we
symbolize our people. When this ring closes, all the States of Europe will be locked in its coil as in a powerful
vise."
"O generation [race] of vipers [Serpents], how can ye [Jews], being evil, speak good things? for out of
the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Matt. 12:34)
Article 2: "The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with
a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot
on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they
have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots, the kings on their
thrones, are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and
irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. as they have no
means of getting at their people, into their midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to
terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. WE HAVE MADE A GULF BETWEEN THE FAR‑
SEEING SOVEREIGN POWER AND THE BLIND FORCE OF THE PEOPLE SO THAT BOTH HAVE LOST ALL MEANING, for like the blind
man and his stick, BOTH ARE POWERLESS APART."
Article 3: "In order to incite seekers after power to a misuse of power we have set all forces in opposition
one to another, breaking up their liberal tendencies towards independence. To this end we have stirred up every
form of enterprise, we have armed all parties, we have set up authority as a target for every ambition. Of States
we have made gladiatorial arenas where a host of confused issues contend...A little more, and disorders and
bankruptcy will be universal..."
Article 4: "Babblers inexhaustible have turned into oratorical contests the sittings of Parliament and
Administrative Boards [Congress and government agencies]. Bold journalists and unscrupulous pamphleteers daily
fall upon executive officials. Abuses of power will put the final touch in preparing all institutions for their
overthrow and everything will fly skyward under the blows of the maddened mob."
Article 5: "All people are chained down to heavy toil by poverty more firmly than ever they were chained by
slavery and serfdom; from these, one way and another, they might free themselves, these could be settled with,
but from want they will never get away. We have included in the constitution such rights as to the masses appear
fictitious and not actual rights. All these so‑called 'People's Rights' can exist only in ideas, an idea which
can never be realized in practical life. What is it to the proletariat labourer, bowed double over his heavy
toil, crushed by his lot in life, if talkers get the right to babble, if journalists get the right to scribble
any nonsense side by side with good stuff, once the proletariat has no other profit out of the constitution save
only those pitiful crumbs which we fling them from our table in return for their voting in favor of what we
dictate, in favor of the men we place in power, the servants of our agentur...Republican rights for a poor man
are no more than a bitter piece of irony, for the necessity he is under of toiling almost all day gives him no
present use of them, but on the other hand robs him of all guarantee of regular and certain earnings by making
him dependent on strikes by his comrades or lockouts by his masters."
Article 6: "The people under our guidance have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one and only
defense and foster‑mother for the sake of their own advantage which is inseparably bound up with the well‑being
of the people. Nowadays, with the destruction of the aristocracy, the people have fallen into the grips of
merciless money‑grinding scoundrels who have laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers."
Article 7: "We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to
him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces ‑ Socialists, Anarchists, Communists ‑‑ to whom we always give
support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule. (of the solidarity of all humanity) of our social
masonry...We are interested...in the diminution, the killing out of the goyim. Our power is in the chronic
shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made the slave of
our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will..."
Article 8: "By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands
we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way."
Article 9: "WHEN THE HOUR STRIKES FOR OUR SOVEREIGN LORD OF ALL THE WORLD [Satan] TO BE CROWNED IT IS THESE
SAME HAND WHICH WILLS WEEP AWAY EVERYTHING THAT MIGHT BE A HINDRANCE THERETO."
"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not..." (2 Cor. 4:4)
Article 10: "The goyim have lost the habit of thinking unless prompted by the suggestions of our
specialists. Therefore they do not see...that it is essential to teach in national schools one simple, true piece
of knowledge, the basis of all knowledge ‑‑ the knowledge of the structure of human life, of social existence,
which requires division of labour, and consequently, the division of men into classes and conditions. It is
essential for all to know that owing to difference in the objects of human activity there cannot be any equality,
that he who by any act of his compromises a whole class cannot be equally responsible before the law with him who
affects no one but only his own honor..."
Article 11: "...We shall create by all the secret subterranean methods open to us and with the aid of gold,
which is all in our hands, a universal economic crisis whereby we shall throw upon the streets whole mobs of
workers simultaneously in all the countries of Europe. These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of
those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they
will then be able to loot."
Article 12: "'Ours' they will not touch, because the moment of attack will be known to us and we shall take
measures to protect our own."
Article 14: "When the populace has seen that all sorts of concessions and indulgences are yielded it in the
name of freedom it has imagined itself to be sovereign lord and has stormed its way to power, but, naturally,
like every other blind man it has come upon a host of stumbling blocks, it has used to find a guide, it has never
had the sense to return to the former state and it has laid down its plenipotentiary powers at our feet. Remember
the French Revolution, to which it was we who gave the name of 'Great:' the secrets of its preparations are well
known to us for it was wholly the work of our hands."
Article 15: "Ever since that time we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another, so
that in the end they should turn also from us in favor of that King‑Despot of the blood of Zion, whom we are
preparing for the world."
Article 16: "At the present day we are, as an international force, invincible, because if attacked by some
we are supported by other States. It is the bottomless rascality of the goyim peoples, who crawl on their bellies
to force, but are merciless towards weakness, unsparing to faults and indulgent to crimes, unwilling to bear the
contradictions of a free social system but patient unto martyrdom under the violence of a bold despotism ‑ it is
those qualities which are siding us to independence. From the premier‑dictators of the present day the goyim
peoples suffer patiently and bear such abuses as for the least of them they would have beheaded twenty kings."
Article 19: "And thus the people condemn the UPRIGHT and acquit the GUILTY persuaded ever more and more that
it can do whatsoever it wishes. Thanks to this state of things the people are destroying every kind of stability
and creating disorders at every step."
Article 20: "The word 'freedom' brings out the communities of men to fight against every kind of force,
against every kind of authority, even against God and the laws of nature. For this reason we, when we come into
our kingdom, shall have to erase this word from the lexicon of life as implying a principle of brute force which
turns mobs into bloodthirsty beasts."
Protocol Number Four ‑‑
Article 1: "Every republic passes through several stages. The first of these is comprised in the early days
of mad raging by the blind mob, tossed hither and thither, right and left; the second is demagogy, from which is
born anarchy, and that leads inevitably to despotism ‑‑ not any longer legal and overt, and therefore responsible
despotism, but to unseen and secretly hidden, yet nevertheless sensibly felt despotism in the hands of some
secret organization or other, whose acts are the more unscrupulous inasmuch as it works behind a screen, behind
the backs of all sorts of agents, the changing of whom not only does not injuriously affect but actually aids the
secret force by saving it, thanks to continual changes, from the necessity of expending its resources on the
rewarding of long services."
Article 2: "Who and what is in a position to overthrow an invisible force? And this is precisely what our
force is. Gentile masonry, blindly serves as a screen for us and our objects, but the plan of action of our
force, even its very abiding place, remains for the whole people an unknown mystery."
Article 4: "In order to give the goyim no time to think and take note, their minds MUST BE DIVERTED TOWARDS
INDUSTRY AND TRADE. Thus, all the nations will be swallowed up in the pursuit of gain and in the race for it will
not take note of their common foe."
Protocol Number Five ‑‑
Article 1: "What form of administrative rule can be given to communities in which corruption has penetrated
everywhere, communities where riches are attained only by the clever surprise tactics of semi‑swindling tricks;
where looseness reigns; where morality is maintained by penal measures and harsh laws but not by voluntarily
accepted principles; where the feelings towards faith and country are obliterated by comospolitan convictions?
What form of rule is to be given to these communities if not that despotism which I shall describe to you later?
We shall create an intensified centralization of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the
community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws.
These laws will withdraw one by one all the indulgences and liberties which have been permitted by the goyim, and
our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions as to be at any moment and in
every place in a position to wipe out any goyim who oppose us by deed or word."
Article 4: "Moreover, the art of directing masses and individuals by means of cleverly manipulated theory
and verbiage, by regulations of life in common and all sorts of other quirks, in all which the goyim understand
nothing, belongs likewise to the specialists of our administrative brain. Reared on analysis, observation, on
delicacies of fine calculation, in this species of skill we have no rivals, any more than we have either in the
drawing up of plans of political actions and solidarity..."
Article 5: "For a time perhaps we might be successfully dealt with by a coalition of the Goyim of all the
world: but from this danger we are secured by the discord existing among them whose roots are so deeply seated
that they can never now be plucked up. We have set one against another the personal and national reckonings of
the goyim, religious and race hatreds, which we have fostered into a huge growth in the course of the past twenty
centuries. This is the reason say there is not in State which would anywhere receive support if it were to raise
its arm, for every one of them must bear in mind that any agreement against us would be unprofitable to itself.
We are too strong ‑‑ there is no evading our power. The nations can not come to even an inconsiderable private
agreement without our secretly having a hand in it."
Article 7: "Capital, if it is to cooperate untrammelled, must be free to establish a monopoly of industry
and trade; this is already being put in execution by an unseen hand in all quarters of the world. This freedom
will give political force to those engaged in industry, and that ill help to oppress the people. Nowadays it is
more important to disarm the peoples than to lead them into war; more important to use for our advantage the
passions which have burst into flames than to quench their fire; more important to catch up and interpret the
ideas of others to suit ourselves than to eradicate them. The principal object of our directorate consists in
this: to debilitate the public mind by criticism; to lead it away from serious reflections calculated to arouse
resistance; to distract the forces of the mind towards a sham fight of empty eloquence."
Article 8: "In all ages the peoples of the world, equally with individuals, have accepted words for deeds,
for they are content with a show and rarely pause to note, in the public arena, whether promises are followed by
performance. Therefore we shall establish show institutions..."
Article 9: "We shall assume to ourselves the liberal physiognomy of all parties, of all directions, and we
shall give that physiognomy a voice in orators who will speak so much that they will exhaust the patience of
their hearers and produce an abhorrence of oratory."
Article 10: "In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by
giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to
make the goyim lose their heads in the labyrinth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any
kind in matters political, which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by
him who guides the public. This is the first secret."
Article 11: "The second secret requisite for the success of our government is comprised in the following: To
multiply to such an extent national failings, habits, passions, conditions of civil life, that it will be
impossible for anyone to know where he is in the resulting chaos, so that the people in consequence will fail to
understand one another. This measure will also serve us in another way, namely to sow discord in all parties, to
dislocate all collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us, and to discourage any kind of personal
initiative which might in any degree hinder our affair. There is nothing more dangerous than personal initiative;
if it has genius behind it, such initiative can do more than can be done by millions of people among whom we have
sown discord. We must so direct the education of the goyim communities that whenever they come upon a matter
requiring initiative they may drop their hands in despairing impotence. The strain which results from freedom of
action saps the forces when it meets with the freedom of another. From this collision arise grave moral shocks,
disenchantments, failures. By all these means we shall so wear down the goyim that they will be compelled to
offer us international power of a nature that by its position will enable us without any violence gradually to
absorb all the State forces of the world and to form a Super‑Government...we shall set up a bogey which will be
called the Super‑Government Administration. Its hands will reach out in all directions like nippers and its
organization will be of such colossal dimensions that it cannot fail to subdue all the nations of the world."
Protocol Number Six ‑‑
Article 1: "We shall soon begin to establish huge monopolies, reservoirs of colossal riches, upon which even
large fortunes of the goyim will depend to such an extent that they will go to the bottom together with the
credit of the States on the day after the political smash..."
Article 4: "The aristocracy of the goyim as a political force, is dead ‑‑ we need not take it into account;
but as landed proprietors they can still be harmful to us from the fact that they are self‑sufficing in the
resources upon which they live. It is essential therefore for us, at whatever cost, to deprive them of their
land. This object will be best attained by increasing the burdens upon landed property ‑‑ in loading lands with
debts. These measures will check land‑holding and keep it in a state of humble and unconditional submission."
Article 6: "At the same time we must intensively patronize trade and industry, but, first and foremost,
speculation, the part played by which is to provide a counterpoise to industry: the absence of speculative
industry will multiply capital in private hands and will serve to restore agriculture by freeing the land from
indebtednesses to the land banks. What we want is that industry should drain off from the land both labour and
capital and by means of speculation transfer into our hands all the money of the world, and thereby throw all the
goyim into the ranks of the proletariat. Then the goyim will bow down before us, if for no other reason but to
get the right to exist."
Article 7: "To complete the ruin of the industry of the goyim we shall bring to the assistance of
speculation the luxury which we have develop among the goyim, that greedy demand for luxury which is swallowing
up everything. We shall raise the rate of wages which, however, will not bring any advantage to the workers, for,
at the same time, we shall produce a rise in prices of the first necessaries of life, alleging that it arises
from the decline of agriculture and cattle‑breeding: we shall further undermine artfully and deeply sources of
production, by accustoming the workers to anarchy and to drunkenness and side by side therewith taking all
measure to extirpate from the face of the earth all the educated forces of the goyim."
Article 8: "In order that the true meaning of things may not strike the goyim before the proper time we
shall mask it under an alleged ardent desire to serve the working classes and the great principles of political
economy about which our economic theories are carrying on an energetic propaganda."
Protocol Number Seven ‑‑
Article 1: "The intensification of armaments, the increase of police forces ‑‑ are all essential for the
completion of the aforementioned plans. What we have to get at is that there should be in all the States of the
world, besides ourselves, only the masses of the proletariat, a few millionaires devoted to our interests, police
and soldiers."
Article 2: "Throughout all Europe, and by means of relations with Europe, in other continents also, we must
create ferments, discords and hostility. Therein we gain a double advantage. In the first place we keep in check
all countries, for they well know that we have the power whenever we like to create disorders or to restore
order. All these countries are accustomed to see in us an indispensable force of coercion. In the second place,
by our intrigues we shall tangle up all the threads which we have stretched into the cabinets of all States by
means of the political, by economic treaties, or loan obligations. In order to succeed in this we must use great
cunning and penetration during negotiations and agreements, but, as regards to what is called the 'official
language,' we shall keep to the opposite tactics and assume the mask of honesty and compliancy. In this way the
peoples and governments of the goyim, whom we have taught to look only at the outside whatever we present to
their notice, will still continue to accept us as the benefactors and saviours of the human race."
Article 3: "We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbors of that
country which dares to oppose us; but if these neighbors should also venture to stand collectively together
against us, then we must offer resistance by a universal war."
Article 4: "The principal factor of success in the political is the secrecy of its undertakings; the word
should not agree with the deeds of the diplomat."
Article 5: "We must compel the governments of the goyim to take action in the direction favored by our
widely‑conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public
opinion, secretly prompted by us through the means of that so‑called 'Great Power' ‑ The Press, which, with a few
exceptions that may be disregarded, is already in our hands."
Protocol Number Eight ‑‑
Article 1: "We must arm ourselves with all the weapons which our opponents might employ against us. We must
search out in the very finest shades of expression and the knotty points of the lexicon of law justification for
those cases where we shall have to pronounce judgments that might appear abnormally audacious and unjust, for it
is important that these resolutions should be set forth in expressions that shall seem to be the most exalted
moral principles cast into legal form. Our directorate must surround itself with all these forces of civilization
among which it will have to work. It will surround itself with publicists practical jurists, administrators,
diplomats and, finally, with persons prepared by a special super‑educational training in our special schools.
These persons will have cognizance of all the secrets of the social structure, they will know all the languages
that can be made up by political alphabets and words; they will be made acquainted with the whole underside of
human nature, with all its sensitive chords on which they will have to play. These chords are the cast of mind of
the goyim, their tendencies, shortcomings, vices and qualities, the particularities of classes and conditions.
Needless to say that the talented assistants of authority, of whom I speak, will be taken not from among the
goyim, who are accustomed to perform their administrative work without giving themselves the trouble to think
what its aim is, and never consider what it is needed for. The administrators of the goyim sign papers without
reading them, and they serve either for mercenary reasons or from ambition."
Article 2: "We shall surround our government with a whole world of economists. That is the reason why
economic sciences form the principal subject of the teaching given to the Jews. Around us again will be a whole
constellation of bankers, industrialists, capitalists and, the main thing, millionaires because in substance
everything will be settled by the question of figures."
Protocol Number Nine ‑‑
Article 3: "We are in a position to tell you with a clear conscience that at the proper time we, the law‑
givers, shall execute judgment and sentence, we shall slay and we shall spare, we, as head of all our troops are
mounted on the steed of the leader. We rule by force of will, because in our hands are the fragments of a once‑
powerful party [the Roman Catholic Church], now vanquished by us. And the weapons in our hands are limitless
ambitions, burning greediness, merciless vengeance, hatreds and malice."
Article 4: "It is from us that the all‑engulfing terror proceeds. We have in our service persons of all
opinions, of all doctrines, restorating monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of
every kind. We have harnessed them all to the task: each one of them on his own account is boring away at the
last remnants of authority, is striving to overthrow all established form of order. By these acts all States are
in torture; they exhort to tranquility, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace: but we will not give them
peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super‑Government and with submissiveness."
Article 9: "In order not to annihilate the institutions of the goyim before it is time we have touched them
with craft and delicacy, and have taken hold of the ends of the springs which move their mechanism. These springs
lay in a strict but just sense of order: we have replaced them by the chaotic license of liberalism. We have got
our hands into the administration of the law, into the conduct of elections, into the press, into liberty of the
person, but principally into education and training as being the corner‑stones of a free existence."
Article 10: "We have fooled, bemused and corrupted the youth of the goyim by rearing them in principles and
theories which are known to us to be false although it is by us that they have been inculcated."
Article 11: "Above the existing laws without substantially altering them, and by merely twisting them into
contradictions of interpretations, we have erected something grandiose in the way of results. These results found
expression first in the fact that the interpretations masked the laws: afterwards they entirely hid them from the
eyes of the governments owing to the impossibility of making anything out of the tangled web of legislation."
Article 13: "You may say that the goyim will rise upon us, arms in hand, if they guess what is going on
before the time comes; but in the West we have against this a maneuver of such appalling terror that the very
stoutest hearts quail ‑ the undergrounds, metropolitans these subterranean corridors which, before the time
comes, will be driven under all the capitals and from whence those capitals will be blow into the air with all
their organizations and archives." [They are speaking of their ability to entice mobs to do their bidding; to
destroy everything and everyone in sight].
Protocol Number Ten ‑‑
Article 1: "...bear in mind that governments and peoples are content in the political with outside
appearances. And how, indeed, are the goyim to perceive the underlying meaning of things when their
representatives give the best of their energies to enjoying themselves? For our policy it is of the greatest
importance to take cognizance of this detail; it will be of assistance to us when we come to consider the
division of authority, freedom of speech, of the press, of religion (faith), of the law of association, of
equality before the law, of the inviolability of property, of the dwelling, of taxation (the idea of concealed
taxes), of the reflex force of the laws. All these questions are such as ought not to be touched upon directly
and openly before the people. In cases where it is indispensable to touch upon them they must not be
categorically named, it must merely be declared without detailed exposition that the principles of contemporary
law are acknowledged by us. The reason of keeping silence in this respect is that by not naming a principle we
leave ourselves freedom of action, to drop this or that out of it without attracting notice; if they were all
categorically named they would all appear to have already given."
Article 2: "The mob cherishes a special affection and respect for the geniuses of political power and
accepts all their deeds of violence with the admiring response: 'rascally, well, yes, it is rascally, but it's
clever!...a trick, if you like, but now craftily played...what impudent audacity!'..."
Article 5: "To secure this we must have everybody vote without distinction of classes and qualifications, in
order to establish an absolute majority, which cannot be got from the educated propertied classes. In this way,
by inculating in all sense of self‑importance, we shall destroy among the goyim the importance of the family and
its educational value and remove the possibility of individual minds splitting off, for the mob, handled by us,
will not let them come to the front nor even give them a hearing; it is accustomed to listen to us only who pay
it for obedience and attention. In this way we shall create a blind, mighty force which will never be in a
position to move in any direction without the guidance of our agents set at its head by us as leaders of the mob.
The people will submit to this regime because it will know that upon these leaders will depend its earnings,
gratifications and the receipt of all kinds of benefits."
Article 6: "...It is allowable, therefore, for us to have cognizance of the scheme of action but not to
discuss it least we disturb its artifulness, the interdependence of its component parts, the practical force of
the secret meaning of each clause. To discuss and make alterations in a labor of this kind by means of numerous
votings is to impress upon it the stamp of all ratiocinations and misunderstandings which have failed to
penetrate the depth and nexus of its plottings. We want our schemes to be forcible and suitably concocted.
Therefore, WE OUGHT NOT TO FLING THE WORK OF GENIUS OF OUR GUIDE to the fangs of the mob or even of a select
company."
Article 9: "When we introduced into the State organism the poison of Liberalism its whole political
complexion underwent a change. States have been seized with a mortal illness ‑‑ blood‑poisoning. All that remains
is to await the end of their death agony."
Article 10: "Liberalism produced...States, which took the place of what was the only safeguard of the goyim,
namely, Despotism; and...as you well know, is nothing else but a school of discords, misunderstandings quarrels,
disagreements, fruitless party agitations, party whims ‑‑ in a word, a school of everything that serves to
destroy the personality of State activity. The tribune of the 'talkeries' has, no less effectively than the
Press, condemned the rulers to inactivity and impotence, and thereby rendered them useless and superfluous, for
which reason indeed they have been in many countries deposed. Then it was that the era of republics became
possible of realization; and then it was that we replaced the ruler by a caricature of a government ‑‑ by a
president, taken from the mob, from the midst of our puppet creatures, our slaves. This was the foundation of the
mine which we have laid under the goy people, I should rather say, under the goy peoples."
Article 13: "We shall arrange elections in favor of such presidents as have in their past some dark,
undiscovered stain, some 'Panama' [delictum] or other ‑‑ then they will be trustworthy agents for the
accomplishment of our plans out of fear of revelations and from the natural desire of everyone who has attained
power, namely, the retention of the privileges, advantages, and honor connected with the office of president...
but we shall take from it the right to propose new, or make changes in existing laws, for this right will be
given by us to the responsible president, a puppet in our hands. Naturally, the authority of the president will
then become a target for every possible form of attack, but we shall provide him with a means of self defense in
the right of an appeal to the people, for the decision of the people over the heads of their representatives,
that is to say, an appeal to that same blind slave of ours ‑‑ the majority of the mob. Independently of this we
shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the
ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal, in case of need
for the defense of the new republican constitution, the right to defend which will belong to him as the
responsible representative of this constitution."
Article 14: "It is easy to understand that in these conditions the key of the shrine will lie in our hands,
and no one outside ourselves will any longer direct the force of legislation."
Article 15: "Besides this we shall, with the introduction of the new republican constitution, take from the
Chamber the right of interpolating on government measures, on the pretext of preserving political secrecy, and,
further, we shall by the new constitution reduce the number of representatives to a minimum, thereby
proportionately reducing political passions and the passion for politics. If, however, they should, which is
hardly to be expected, burst into flame, even in this minimum, we shall nullify them by a stirring appeal and a
reference to the majority of the whole people...
Upon the president will depend the appointment of presidents and vice‑president will depend the appointment
of presidents and vice‑presidents of the Chamber and the Senate. Instead of constant sessions of Parliaments (and
Congress) we shall reduce their sittings to a few months. Moreover, the president, as chief of the executive
power, will have the right to summon and dissolve Parliament, and, in the latter case, to prolong the time for
the appointment of a new parliamentary assembly. But in order that the consequences of all these acts which in
substance are illegal, should not, prematurely for our plans, fall upon the responsibility established by us of
the president, we shall instigate ministers and other officials of the higher administration about the president
to evade his dispositions by taking measures of their own, for doing which they will be made the scapegoats in
his place...This part we especially recommend to be given to be played by the Senate, the Council of State, or
the Council of Ministers, but not to an individual official."
Article 16: "The president will, at our discretion, interpret the sense of such of the existing laws as
admit of various interpretations; he will further annul them when we indicate to him the necessity to do so,
besides this, he will have the right to propose temporary laws, and even new departures in the government
constitutional working, the pretext both for the one and the other being the requirements for the supreme welfare
of the State."
Article 17: "By such measures we shall obtain the power of destroying little by little, step by step, all
that at the outset when we enter on our rights, we are compelled to introduce into the constitutions of States to
prepare for the transition to an imperceptible abolition of every kind of constitution, and then the time is come
to turn every form of government into our despotism."
Article 18: "The recognition of our despot may also come before the destruction of the constitution; the
moment for this recognition will come when the people, utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence ‑‑
a matter which we shall arrange for ‑‑ of their rulers, will clamor: 'Away with them and give us one king over
all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the causes of discords ‑‑ frontiers, which we cannot find under
our rulers and representatives.'"
Article 19: "But you yourselves perfectly well know that to produce the possibility of the expression of
such wishes by all the nations it is indispensable to trouble in all countries the people's relations with their
governments so as to utterly exhaust humanity with dissension, hatred, struggle, envy and even by the use of
torture, by starvation, BY THE INOCULATION OF DISEASES, by want, so that the Goyim see no other issue than to
take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and in all else."
Article 20: "But if we give the nations of the world a breathing space the moment we long for is hardly
likely ever to arrive."
Protocol Number Eleven ‑‑
Article 3: "Having established approximately the modus agendi we will occupy ourselves with details of those
combinations by which we have still to complete the revolution in the course of the machinery of State in the
direction already indicated. By these combinations I mean the freedom of the Press, the right of association,
freedom of conscience, the voting principle, and MANY ANOTHER THAT MUST DISAPPEAR FOREVER FROM THE MEMORY OF MAN,
or undergo a radical alteration the day after the promulgation of the new constitution. It is only at that moment
that we shall be able at once to announce all our orders, for, afterwards, every noticeable alteration will be
dangerous, for the following reasons: if this alteration be brought in with harsh severity and in a sense of
severity and limitations, it may lead to a feeling of despair caused by fear of new alterations in the same
direction; if, on the other hand, it be brought in in a sense of further indulgences it will be said that we have
recognized our wrongdoing and this will destroy the prestige of the infallibility of our authority, or else it
will be said that we have become alarmed and are compelled to show a yielding disposition, for which we shall get
no thanks because it will be supposed to be compulsory...Both the one and the other are injurious to the prestige
of the new constitution. What we want is that from the first moment of its promulgation, while the peoples of the
world are still stunned by the accomplished fact of the revolution, still in a condition of terror and
uncertainty, they should recognize once for all that we are so strong, so inexpugnable, so super abundantly
filled with power, that in no case shall we take any account of them, and so far from paying any attention to