The most striking fact in connection with the Protocols is the close resemblance which their ruthless program bears in many respects to the policies actually put into effect by the Bolsheviki in Russia. Indeed, without this fact before us, the necessity for a serious consideration of the Protocols would be much less apparent. If the evidence shows that the Bolshevist movement is a movement conducted under Jewish leadership and principally controlled by Jews, and, furthermore, that it closely corresponds with the political program outlined in the Protocols, then, indeed, we have facts of grave significance supporting the authenticity of the Protocols.
With regard to the question as to how far the Bolshevist movement is a Jewish movement in the sense that it is under Jewish control, there is some disagreement. Certain prominent Jews in this country, while admitting that most of the Bolshevist leaders in Russia are Jews, claim that this is a mere coincidence, and claim further that the Bolshevist leaders are only apostate Jews who do not adhere to the Jewish religion.[8] The evidence, however, is not very convincing on either point, for on the one hand the proportion of Jews among the Bolshevist leaders in Russia is so large that it strongly tends to show that it is not accidental but must be otherwise explained, while on the other hand, as to the allegation of apostasy, this seems to be principally based upon evidence that the Jewish leaders in Russia are denouncing religion in general on the ground that it is the bulwark of the capitalistic system and the enemy of the Socialistic State, in accordance with the teachings of Karl Marx and his followers. Such evidence, however, does not prove very much if in practice only the Christian church is actually attacked.
It is important to note in this connection that Karl Marx himself was a Jew, as are also practically all of the best known leaders of radical socialism, such as Bebel, Bernstein, Lassalle, Hillquit, the brothers Adler (in Austria), etc. The legend now prominently displayed by the Bolsheviki in Russia, that “religion is the opium of the people,” was the saying of Karl Marx himself, while it was Bebel who said: “Christianity and Socialism stand towards each other as fire and water.”
Moreover, there is evidence that there has been a marked persecution of Christian priests and their congregations by the Bolsheviki, and that the Jewish rabbis have not been molested. Generally speaking, we believe that the preponderance of evidence strongly tends to show that Bolshevism is Jewish in character in the sense that it is under the control principally of Jews who occupy, either openly or secretly, almost all of the positions of importance in the Soviet government in Russia. This was equally true in regard to the recent Spartacan and Bolshevist revolutions in Germany and Hungary. The one important exception is Lenin himself, Trotzky and almost all the other important Bolshevist leaders to-day being members of the Jewish race.
Evidence that the Bolsheviki in Russia have conducted a campaign of persecution against the Christian religion, while protecting the Jewish religion, will be considered below under the heading, “The Destruction of Religion and Christianity.” For the present we shall confine ourselves to other evidence which tends to show that the Bolshevik movement in Russia is under Jewish leadership and may be regarded as primarily a Jewish movement.
The testimony of a number of reliable witnesses before the Overman Committee is to the effect that from the very beginning the leadership of the Bolshevist revolution in Russia has been principally Jewish and that the movement had powerful support from Jews returning to Russia in the spring of 1917.
This testimony was taken early in the year 1919 and is contained in the printed Senate Report (a public document) entitled, “Bolshevik Propaganda—Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-fifth Congress, pursuant to S. Res. 439 and 469.”
Among the witnesses who testified as to the Jewish character of the Bolshevist movement before the Senate Committee was Dr. George A. Simons, a Methodist clergyman who had been for many years in charge of a church and other property belonging to the American Methodists in Petrograd. He was there during the Kerensky régime and during the Bolshevist régime until October 6, 1918.
Dr. Simons testified that “at the beginning of the so-called new régime [Kerensky’s] there was a disposition to glorify the Allies and to make a great deal of what the French Revolution had stood for; within from six to eight weeks there was an undercurrent just the opposite, and things began to loom up in a pro-German way.”[9]
He then told of the arrival of Lenin from Switzerland via Germany, and of Bronstein (alias Trotzky) from New York, and how they conducted a vigorous agitation in Russia while Kerensky was “running up and down the front.” He then goes on to testify as follows:
Senator Nelson. “Hebrews?”
Mr. Simons: “They were Hebrews, apostate Jews. I do not want to say anything against the Jews, as such. I am not in sympathy with the anti-Semitic movement, never have been, and do not ever expect to be. I am against it. I abhor all pogroms of whatever kind. But I have a firm conviction that this thing is Yiddish, and that one of its bases is found in the East Side of New York.”
Senator Nelson: “Trotzky came over from New York during that summer, did he not?”
Mr. Simons: “He did.”
Senator Overman: “You think he brought these people with him?”
Mr. Simons: “I am not able to say that he brought them with him. I think that most of them came after him, but that he was responsible for their coming.”
Mr. Simons further states (Senate Report, p. 114):
On the same page, referring to a pamphlet written by one Albert Rhys Williams, Dr. Simons states:
On page 116 the witness further states:
In a subsequent part of his testimony, he says:
On page 142 of his testimony Dr. Simons introduced a list of names, which he said was widely circulated in Petrograd in August, 1917, giving the real names and the Jewish names of the most important Bolshevist leaders. This list is as follows:
| Real name | ||
|---|---|---|
| “1. | Chernoff | Von Gutmann |
| 2. | Trotzky | Bronstein |
| 3. | Martoff | Zederbaum |
| 4. | Kamkoff | Katz |
| 5. | Meshkoff | Goldenberg |
| 6. | Zagorsky | Krochmal |
| 7. | Suchanoff | Gimmer |
| 8. | Dan | Gurvitch |
| 9. | Parvuss | Geldfand |
| 10. | Kradek | Sabelson |
| 11. | Zinovyeff | Apfelbaum |
| 12. | Stekloff | Nachamkes |
| 13. | Larin | Lurye |
| 14. | Ryazanoff | Goldenbach |
| 15. | Bogdanoff | Josse |
| 16. | Goryeff | Goldmann |
| 17. | Zwezdin | Wanstein |
| 18. | Lieber | Goldman |
| 19. | Ganezky | Fürstenberg |
| 20. | Roshal | Solomon” |
Dr. Simons also testified that when the Bolsheviki came into power the Yiddish language at once became predominant in official proclamations and posters. He says:
On page 135 Dr. Simons states:
Mr. Huntington was Commercial Attaché of the United States Embassy at Petrograd from June, 1916, until September, 1918. He was in Petrograd at the outbreak of the Bolshevist coup d’état in November, 1917, and remained there until February, 1918, when he was sent on a mission to Siberia by Ambassador Francis. When he returned to Russia he remained in Moscow from May, 1918, until August 26, 1918. He states on page 47:
On page 69 he testified:
Mr. Welsh was employed by the National City Bank and was in Russia from October, 1916, until September, 1918. He states on page 269:
In regard to the men who went to Russia from the East Side of New York, at the outbreak of the revolution, he stated:
The witness also stated that he knew “several cases” in which well-to-do Jews had been persecuted in the same way as other Russian bourgeois. On page 270 he states:
“Bolshevism cannot be explained along racial lines alone. The Bolsheviks are made up of the very worst elements of many races. It is important, however, that Jews in this country should not favor Bolshevism because of any liberties or privileges which they may think are being accorded to the Jews in Russia by the Bolsheviks. They should study the facts carefully and not be prejudiced by any racial feeling, or they are sure to bring the odium of Bolshevism unjustly to the door of the Jew. The best Jews in this country would do well to brand the Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia as anti-Jews, which they really are, for they bring nothing but discredit to the Jewish race.”
Mr. Simmons was Trade Commissioner, connected with the United States Department of Commerce, who was in Siberia and Russia from July, 1917, until November, 1918. He was in Vologda in July, 1918, and gives a graphic account of his imprisonment there by the assistant of the commissar of that community, a man named Iduke. He says:
“Iduke is a Lettish Jew, a man of a very irascible nature, and, on account of his experience in the uprising in Yaroslav, where the protest against the Bolshevik régime had become formidable, he had the reputation of being the cruelest and the most bloodthirsty Bolshevik leader of the revolution.”
Mr. Simmons then narrates how he himself escaped execution only because he succeeded in bribing a Lettish soldier who had been in America to deliver a letter to the Swedish Consul General. An English subject who was imprisoned with him in the same cell was actually executed. Shortly before his death this Englishman said to Simmons:
“I do not like the situation. I don’t understand these people. They are not Russians. I don’t know why they accuse me, nor what they are going to do with me.”[11]
Another witness, who was allowed to withhold his name, testified before the Senate Committee that he left Petrograd November 6, 1917, the night the Bolshevist uprising took place. His testimony on page 321 of the Senate Report is as follows:
“With regard to the industrial conditions before the Bolsheviki rising started, with the revolution of March, 1917, we found that there were quite a number of so-called Americans who had returned to Russia almost immediately after the revolution, commencing, probably, to arrive in April of 1917.”
Senator Nelson. “What sort of people were they? They were people who had been here, were they not?”
Mr. ⸺. “People who had been in this country.”
Senator Nelson. “Were they Hebrews?”
Mr. ⸺. “A large number of them were—that is Hebrew by race, non-Slavs—and we were continually meeting[82] these men on all sorts of labor conditions, (committees?) to regulate the hours of labor and the rates of remuneration, and quite a number of them spoke English.”
This witness testified that he left Petrograd on December 15, 1918, and that he had been there continuously for the three years previous to that date; that he belonged to no political party in Russia, but had lived among the peasants and workmen, teaching them agriculture. He at one time had been employed by the Russian Department of Agriculture, as an agent, in the United States.
On page 424 he testified in regard to the Jewish aspect of the movement as follows:
“And, besides these refugees, most of the people that are governing Russia now are Jews. I am not against Jews in general. They are a very capable and energetic people, but, as you Americans say, the right man must be in the right place. Their place is in the commission houses, in banks, in the offices, but not in the government of a fine agricultural country. They do not understand anything about agriculture, about production, about keeping materials, and about distribution. They do not know anything about those things at all.”
Senator Wolcott. “You mean those that are in charge of the Bolsheviki, do you not?”
Mr. Kryshtofovich. “I am talking about the Bolsheviki; because if you take out Bolshevik government, Lenine is a Russian and all these constellations that are turning around this sun are Jews. They have changed their names. For instance, Trotzky is not Trotzky, but Bronstein. We have Apfelbaum, and so on, and so on.”
It is important that other official documents pertaining to the Bolshevist activities in Russia also refer to the question which we are now discussing, namely, the Jewish character of the Bolshevist régime. In this connection we quote from the British White Book, Russia No. 1 (1919), entitled “A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. April, 1919.”
This document was published in London at the government printing office in 1919. In exhibit No. 33, a cablegram dispatched[83] by Mr. Alston to Earl Curzon, from Vladivostok to London, February 8, 1919 (“telegraphic—following from consul at Ekaterinburg, 6th February”), the following is stated:
“From examination of several labourer and peasant witnesses, I have evidence to the effect that very smallest percentage of this district were pro-Bolshevik, majority of labourers sympathising with summoning of Constituent Assembly. Witnesses further stated that Bolshevik leaders did not represent Russian working classes, most of them being Jews” (page 33).
In a cable dispatch from General Knox to the British War Office on February 5, 1919, from Omsk, Siberia, details are given as to the murder of the Imperial Russian family. This cable reads in part as follows:
“With regard to the murder of the Imperial family at Ekaterinburg, there is further evidence to show that there were two parties in the local Soviet, one which was anxious to save Imperial family, and the latter, headed by five Jews, two of whom were determined to have them murdered. These two Jews, by name Vainen and Safarof, went with Lenine when he made a journey across Germany” (page 41).
Again, in a report made by Rev. B. S. Lombard to Earl Curzon on March 23, 1919, referring to the results of the Bolshevist régime in Russia, among other things, the following is stated:
“All business became paralyzed, shops were closed, Jews became possessors of most of the business houses, and horrible scenes of starvation became common in the country districts. The peasants put their children to death rather than see them starve. In a village on the Dvina, not far from Schlusselburg, a mother hanged three of her children” (page 57).
Mr. Henry C. Emery, formerly Chairman of the United States Tariff Board, recently wrote a treatise on Bolshevism, of which Lord Bryce has said:
Mr. Emery comes to the conclusion that Bolshevism is the promotion of a relentless and universal class war, and that “a Bolshevik is a man who believes in the overthrow of the institution of private property by force of arms.” While this is the definition which he gives of Bolshevism as a movement, and his argument in support of it is certainly a very able one, it is interesting to note what he says in regard to the Jewish support of the movement:
Mr. Robert Wilton, a well-known Englishman, who was the Petrograd correspondent of the London Times, and a Knight of St. George, in his book entitled “Russia’s Agony,” refers to the part which the Jews played in undermining the Kerensky government and establishing the Bolshevist rule:
The author also states:
“Afterwards their numbers [referring to the Jew Extremists in the Soviet] increased largely, and although they studiously concealed their identity under assumed Russian or Polish names, it became known that the principal ones were: Nahamkez—Steklov, Apfelbaum—Zinoviev, Rosenfeldt—Kamenev, Goldmann—Gorev, Goldberg—Mekowski, Zederbaum—Martov, Himmer—Sukhanov, Krachman—Zagorski, Hollander—Mieshkowski, Lourier—Larim, Seffer—Bogdanov. Among the leaders of this gang—under Lenin—were: Trotzky, whose real name was Bronstein, and Feldmann, alias Chernov.”[12]
In the well-known French periodical L’Illustration, issued September 14, 1918, an article appeared under the title “Petrograd[85] under the Commune,” from which we reproduce the following extract:
“The Masters of the Hour.
“The Bolshevist Movement and the Jews of Russia
“When one lives in contact with the functionaries who are serving the Bolshevist government, one feature strikes the attention, which is that almost all of them are Jews.
“I am not at all anti-Semitic but I must state what strikes the eyes: everywhere in Petrograd, in Moscow, in Provincial Districts, in all commissariats, in district offices, in Smolny, in the former ministries, in the Soviets, I have met nothing but Jews and again Jews.
“A Jew is this District Commissary, former stock broker, with a double bourgeois chin. A Jew is this commissary of the bank, very elegant, with a cravat of the latest style, and a fancy waistcoat. Again a Jew, this inspector of taxes, with his hooked nose: he understands perfectly how to squeeze the bourgeois in order to cover the deficit in the Bolshevist budget which amounts for the first half year, 1918, to 14,000,000,000 rubles! Jewish are these little stenographers, these secretaries: the same hooked noses, the same jet black hair.
“The more one studies the second revolution the more one is convinced that Bolshevism is a Jewish movement which can be explained by the special conditions in which the Jewish people were placed in Russia.”
In the London Times of March 29, 1919, the following article appeared, entitled “Bolshevist Portraits III. Some Commissaries”:
“One of the most curious features of the Bolshevist movement is the high percentage of non-Russian elements amongst its leaders. Of the twenty or thirty commissaries or leaders who provide the central machinery of the Bolshevist movement not less than 75% are Jews....
“If Lenin is the brains of the movement, the Jews provide the executive officers. Of the leading commissaries, Trotzky, Zinoviev, Kameneff, Stekloff, Sverdloff, Uritsky, Joffe, Rakovsky, Radek, Menjinsky, Larin, Bronski, Zaalkind, Volodarsky, Petroff, Litvinoff, Smirdovitch, and Vovrovsky are all of the Jewish race, while amongst the minor Soviet officials the number is legion. Of all the Bolshevist leaders Petrovsky, the Commissary for the Interior, and a former member of the Duma, is practically the only one who in any way could be described as a working man. The rest are all intellectuals of bourgeois or paid bourgeois origin.”
In the issue of “ASIA” February-March, 1920, there is an article entitled “Inside Soviet Russia.” The author of the said article, Mr. V. Anichkoff, is a well-known Russian scientist. Among other things, he states as follows:
We also refer the reader to the testimony of a well-known Jewish periodical published in London, The Jewish Chronicle, as to the identity of Bolshevism and Judaism. In part the article states as follows:
It is significant that one of the well-known Jewish leaders, Israel Zangwill, addressing a recent conference of the Poale Zion Congregation in London, glorified “the race which has[87] produced a Beaconsfield, a Reading, a Montagu, a Klotz, a Kurt Eisner, a Trotzky” (quoted from The Jewish Chronicle, February 27, 1920, No. 2656, p. 28). Referring to this statement, La Vieille-France says, “Thus, Trotzky is, in fact, the hero of Judaism” (No. 164, March 18-24, 1920).
It is important to note that the Jewish character of the Bolshevist movement which is so accentuated in Soviet Russia was equally apparent in Soviet Hungary when that country was under the Red rule of Bela Cohen (Kuhn). Mr. Edward Dillon in his book “The Inside Story of the Peace Conference,” devotes much attention to this subject. Referring to the situation in Hungary, Mr. Dillon states as follows, at page 224.
In this same connection the weekly magazine The New Witness, published in London, in its issue of April 11, 1919, remarked as follows:
“It is not only among the Allies that the Jewish influence is making itself felt. We know what a tight grip they have on the governments at Petrograd and Berlin. It now appears that the new government of Hungary is dominated by Jews. Ninety-five per cent of Hungarians are Christians and eighty per cent of the ministers are Hebrew. This fact becomes the more remarkable when we are told that the ministers are nearly all mediocrities.”
The Jewish character of the Bolshevist movement in Russia has been explicitly referred to in the Bolshevist press itself. In substantiation of this we present the following evidence:
In No. 1 of the Russian weekly newspaper, On to Moscow, published on September 23, 1919, in Rostov on the Don, an article was published, entitled “Not one Drop of Innocent Blood.” The article reads as follows:
“In the newspaper ‘Communist,’ issued on April 12, 1919, No. 72, which paper was published in the City of Kharkoff, 13 Karl Liebnecht Street, telephone No. 8-40, Mr. M. Cohan, in his article ‘Services of the Jewry to the working class,’ wrote as follows:
“‘Various kinds of reactionary regimental organizations and radas are working out agrarian “laws,” are giving away the land to the workmen, are establishing an eight-hour day, and throwing out other crumbs to the working masses with the sole object to remain in power. But let us unmask them and let us see what there is behind this servile mask. Let us, for instance, analyze their attitude towards the Jews. On all the territory which is occupied by the Don, Kuban and Voluntary gangs, the Jews are being annihilated and oppressed. One is unable to trace a Jew holding any office, be it important or unimportant, and this is called “equality and fraternity.” The Voluntary executioners scream about their humanitarianism and at the same time they oppress a whole nation which always had the esteem of the whole world. It should not be forgotten that the Jewish people, who for centuries were oppressed by kings and czars, are the real proletariat, the real internationale, which has no country.
“‘Without exaggeration, it may be said that the great Russian social revolution was indeed accomplished by the hands of the Jews. Would the dark oppressed masses of the Russian workmen and peasants have been able to throw off the yoke of the bourgeoisie by themselves? No, it was precisely the Jews who led the Russian proletariat to the dawn of the Internationale, and not only have led, but are also now leading the Soviet cause which remains in their safe hands. We may be quiet as long as the chief command of the Red Army is in the hands of comrade Leon Trotzky. It is true that there are no Jews in the ranks of the Red Army as far as privates are concerned, but in the committees and in Soviet organizations, as commissars, the Jews are gallantly leading the masses of the Russian proletariat to victory. It is not without reason that during the elections to all Soviet institutions the Jews are winning by an overwhelming majority. It is not without reason, let us repeat, that the Russian proletariat has elected as its head and leader the Jew comrade Bronstein-Trotzky. The symbol of Jewry, which for centuries has struggled against capitalism, has become also the symbol of the Russian proletariat, which can be seen even in the fact of the adoption of the Red five-pointed star, which in former times, as it is well-known, was the symbol of Zionism and Jewry. With this sign comes victory, with this sign comes the death of the parasites of the bourgeoisie, and let the supporters of Denikine, Krasnov and Kolchak tremble, these oppressors and executioners of the advance guard of Socialism—of the[89] gallant Jewish people. Their servility before the working masses will not help them, and Jewish tears will come out of them in sweat of drops of blood.’”
The publishers of the newspaper “On to Moscow” print a footnote to the article of Mr. Cohan which reads:
“The issue of the newspaper ‘Communist’ is kept at the office and everybody is invited to ascertain its authenticity.”
It will be recalled that the Protocols advocate a mass terror, a “program of violence.” In this connection also the actual Bolshevist policies are in complete harmony with the program of the Protocols. With reference to this point it becomes important to quote the Krasnaya Gazeta (Red Gazette), the official organ of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’, Red Army, and Peasants’ Deputies, which body is presided over by Zinovieff, alias Apfelbaum, a Jew. On August 31, 1918, in an editorial article, the following is stated:
“The interests of the revolution require the physical annihilation of the bourgeois class. It is time for us to start.”
More explicitly the program of violence is defined by the same paper on September 1, 1918, in an article entitled “Blood for Blood.” Therein it is stated:
“We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritzki, Zinovieff and Volodarski, let there be floods of blood of the bourgeois—more blood, as much as possible.”
Mr. Zinovieff—Apfelbaum went into further details as to the number of Russians whom he proposed to kill for the sake of Mr. Trotzky’s régime. In a speech of Zinovieff’s, reported in the Northern Commune, published in Petrograd[90] on September 19, 1918, No. 109, the following plain statement is quoted:
“To overcome our enemies we must have our own socialist militarism. We must win over to our side 90,000,000 of the 100,000,000 of population of Russia under the Soviets. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them; they must be annihilated.”
To be sure that the Jewish Bolsheviks were not boasting, the following report of the American Consul General at Moscow, dated September 3, 1918, is of the utmost significance. This report, which was published in the “Memorandum on Certain Aspects of the Bolshevist Movement in Russia,” Washington, Government Printing Office, 1919, reads in part as follows:
“Since May the so-called Extraordinary Commission to Combat Counter-revolution has conducted an openly avowed campaign of terror. Thousands of persons have been summarily shot without even the form of trial. Many of them have no doubt been innocent of even the political views which were supposed to supply the motive of their execution.”
The American Consul General concludes his report by stating:
“The situation cries aloud to all who will act for the sake of humanity.”[13]
Trotzky made an attempt to justify “mass terror” in an article signed by him in the official daily newspaper Izvestia on January 10, 1919, under the title “Military Specialists and the Red Army.” In this article Trotzky states among other things as follows:
“Terror as the demonstration of the will and strength of the working class, is historically justified, precisely because the proletariat was able thereby to break the political will of the Intelligentsia, pacify the professional men of various categories and work, and gradually subordinate them to its own aims within the fields of their specialties.”[14]
The London Times of November 14, 1919, printed a letter “sent by a British Officer in South Russia to his wife” stating that “the letter is published exactly as sent, except that names[91] and dates have been altered so that the writer and his wife will not be embarrassed.” The officer appeals to his wife to do all she can to put before the British public the information which he gives her as to the atrocities committed by the Bolsheviki which he had himself witnessed while fighting with the army of General Denikin.
“The Bolshevists are devils.... I hope to send you copies of 64 official photos taken by British officers at Odessa when the town was retaken from the Bolshevists.... As no paper will print them I suggest that you should have copies done. If we’re too hard up you could pay for them by sending me no parcels, or selling my Caucasian dagger, or Persian book, or something. And I suggest that you should then do with them as you think fit, to make them most widely known. Their horror may make people realize. They must realize. By God, they shall realize! They show men who’ve been crucified with the torture of the ‘human glove.’ The victim gets crucified, nails through his elbows. The hands are treated with a solution which shrivels the skin. The skin is cut out with a razor, round the wrist, and peeled off, till it hangs by the finger nails—the ‘human glove.’ I’m not sparing you. I hope you’ll show and send them to everybody we know. People at home, apathetic fools they are, do not deserve to be spared. They must be woken up. John and Katie ought to see them. Most of the photos are of women. Women with their breasts cut off to the bone.... Two little bits, ref. Bolshevist atrocities, you might type in as many copies as you can. If you and several others left them in different tea-shops every afternoon, it might touch quite a lot of people. I shall send you chapter and verse if I can. If I haven’t sent chapter and verse in a month, do your best without. Papers are no good, because papers would put it more delicately. We have here at H. Q. passes issued to Bolshevists by commissaries on occupying Ekaterinodar. These passes authorize their holders to arrest any girl they fancy for the use of the soldiery. Sixty-two girls of all classes were arrested like this and thrown to the Bolshevist troops. Those who struggled were killed quite early on. The rest, when used and finished, were mutilated and thrown, dead and dying, into the two small rivers flowing through Ekaterinodar. In all towns occupied by Bolshevists and reoccupied by us ‘slaughter-houses’ are found choked with corpses. Hundreds of ‘suspects,’ men, women, and children, were herded in these—doors and windows manned and the struggling mass fired into until most of them were dead or dying. The doors were then locked and they were left. The stench in these places, I am told, is hair-raising. These ‘slaughter-houses’ are veritable[92] plague spots and have caused widespread epidemics. I want you to proselytize Robinson and galvanize the Colonel and everybody else you can get hold of. I’d like James to see this and No. 47 and Dorothy. Above all the Mater. For I feel sure, that whatever happens, she and you will be glad that I’ve come out.”
(“The Horrors of Bolshevism,” reprinted from The Times, November 14, 1919, pp. 5 and 6.)
In the same letter the writer refers to the Bolshevist plans of extending their power to Asia and Africa, and discusses the part played by the Jews in the Bolshevist régime in Russia.
“... Bolshevist Russia is a channel of communication to the Committee of Union and Progress, to Egypt, India, and Afghanistan. Unless beaten by us, the Bolshies will beat us. It’s a side issue for the present, but the danger of their rousing and letting loose the Chinese is not so very remote. They have declared war on Christianity. The Bible to them is a ‘counter-revolutionary’ book, and to be stamped out. They are aiming at raising all non-Christian races against the Christian countries. The Bolshevists form about 5 per cent. of the population of Russia—JEWS (80 to 90 per cent. of the commissaries are Jews), Chinese, Letts, Germans, and certain of the ‘skilled labor’ artisans. The conscribed peasantry, originally captured by the catchwords mentioned in the pamphlets, now often goaded beyond endurance, is rising against them over wide districts. Still conscribed and put up to fight, under severe penalties, they form most of the ‘cannon fodder’ used by the Bolshies. They desert, often en masse, and many a peasant who marched for the Bolshevists last week is fighting for Denikin in the Volunteer Army to-day. Ref. Jews—In towns captured by Bolshevists the only unviolated sacred buildings are the synagogues, while churches are used for anything, from movie-shows to ‘slaughter-houses.’ The Poles, Galicians, and Petlura have committed ‘pogroms’ (massacres of Jews). Not the Russian Volunteer Armies under Denikin. Denikin has, in fact, been so strict in protecting the Jews that he has been accused by his sympathizers of favoring them. If, however, a Commissary, steeped in murder, with torture and rape, with mutilation, happens to be a Jew, as most of them are, should he receive exceptional treatment?”
(“The Horrors of Bolshevism,” p. 5.)
The London Times of December 3, 1919, published the statement of an eye witness of the “reign of torture” under the Bolsheviki at the time of the first capture of Odessa. The[93] witness is the Rev. R. Courtier-Forster, late British Chaplain at Odessa and the Russian Ports of the Black Sea. Space permits the reprint here of only the following passages from this important testimony as to one chapter of the Bolshevist terror:
“While I was still British chaplain of Odessa the city was deluged with blood. When the Bolshevist elements, grafting on to their main support the 4,000 criminals released from the city gaols, attempted to seize the town, people of education, regardless of social position, offered what armed resistance was in their power. Workmen, shop assistants, soldiers, professional men, and a handful of officers fought for freedom and liberty through the streets of the great port for three days and nights against the bloody despotism of the Bolshevists. Tramcars were overturned to make barricades, trenches dug in the streets, machine-guns placed in the upper windows of houses to move the thoroughfare with fire. The place became an inferno. The Bolshevists were victorious. On capturing Odessa Railway Station, which had been defended by a few officers and a number of anti-Bolshevist soldiers, the Bolshevists bayoneted to death the 19 wounded and helpless men laid on the waiting-room floor to await Red Cross succour.
“Scores of other men who fell wounded in the streets also became victims to the triumphant Bolshevist criminals. The majority of these wretched and unhappy sufferers completely disappeared. Inquiries at the hospitals and prisons revealed the fact that they were not there, and no trace of them was to be found. A fortnight later there was a terrible storm on the Black Sea, and the bodies of the missing men were washed up on the rocks of Odessa breakwater and along the shore; they had been taken out to sea in small boats, stones tied to their feet, and then been dropped over alive into deep water. Hundreds of others were captured and taken on board the Almaz and the Sinope, the largest cruiser of the Black Sea Fleet. Here they became victims of unthinkable tortures.
“On the Sinope General Chormichoff and some other personal friends of my own were fastened one by one with iron chains to planks of wood and pushed slowly, inch by inch, into the ship’s furnaces and roasted alive. Others were tied to winches, the winches turned until the men were torn in two alive. Others were taken to the boilers and scalded with boiling steam; they were then moved to another part of the ship and ventilating fans set revolving that currents of cold air might blow on the scalds and increase the agony of the torture. The full names of 17 of the Sinope victims were given me in writing by members of their families or their[94] personal friends. These were lost later when my rooms were raided, my papers seized, and I myself arrested and thrown into prison.
“The house in the Catherine Square in which I was first in captivity afterwards became the Bolshevists’ House of Torture in which hundreds of victims were done to death. The shrieks of the people being tortured to death or having splinters of wood driven under the quick of their nails were so agonizing and appalling that personal friends of my own living more than a hundred yards away in the Vorontsoffsky Pereulok were obliged to fasten their double windows to prevent the cries of anguish penetrating into the house. The horror and fear of the surviving citizens was so great that the Bolshevists kept motor lorries thundering up and down the street to drown the awful screams of agony wrung from their dying victims.
“This House of Torture remains as much as possible in the condition in which the Bolshevists left it and is now shown to those who care to inspect its gruesome and blood-bespattered rooms.
“Week by week the newspapers published articles for and against the nationalization of women. In South Russia the proposal did not become a legal measure, but in Odessa bands of Bolshevists seized women and girls and carried them off to the Port, the timber yards, and the Alexandrovsky Park for their own purposes. Women used in this way were found in the mornings either dead or mad or in a dying condition. Those found still alive were shot. One of the most awful of my own personal experiences of the New Civilization was hearing at night from my bedroom windows the frantic shrieks of women being raped to death in the park opposite. Screams of shrill terror and despair repeated at intervals until they became nothing but hoarse cries of agony like the death calls of a dying animal. This happened not once, or twice, but many times. Never to the day of my death shall I forget the horror of those dreadful shrieks of tortured women, and one’s own utter powerlessness to aid the victims or punish the Bolshevist devils in their bestial orgies.”
(“Bolshevism, Reign of Torture at Odessa,” by the Rev. R. Courtier-Forster, late British Chaplain at Odessa and the Russian Ports of the Black Sea. Reprinted from The Times, December 3, 1919, pp. 2, 3 and 4.)
The Protocols speak of concealed executions as well as of open violence when making use of the weapon of terrorism to secure political domination. The Bolsheviki closely paralleled the Protocols in this respect.
While it is true that the number of victims of outright execution[95] by shooting, drowning, etc., have run into very large figures, they are undoubtedly few in comparison with the number who have been deliberately starved by the Bolsheviki. In pursuance of their avowed policy of exterminating the bourgeois class the Soviet government divided the people into four categories with respect to the receipt of food, the bourgeoisie being placed in the last two categories as to which the allowance of food was insufficient to support life. A report by “Mr. E.” found in the British White Book, “Russia No. 1” (1919), relating to the conditions in February, 1919, shows that the last two categories have been done away with altogether. The report states that the Bolsheviki have published statistics “showing that the fourth category was not necessary, as there were so few members.” “This proves,” he says, “that the 4th category people have either been exterminated or have been forced to work under the Bolsheviks in order to live.” The same witness states that the amount of food given to the first category was constantly varying according to the supplies. The rations allowed the four categories in October, 1918, are shown by the Bolshevist paper Vooruzheny Narod (The Armed People):
“The Commissary of Food of the Petrograd Labor Commune states that on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, for four days, the following products will be given on the presentation of the bread cards, according to category:
| 1st category | — | 1 lb. (Russian) of bread and 3 lb. of potatoes |
| 2nd category | — | ½ lb. of bread and 2 lb. of potatoes |
| 3rd category | — | ¼ lb. of bread and 1 lb. of potatoes |
| 4th category | — | ½ lb. of potatoes.”[15] |
Many witnesses, have referred to the cruelty of this category system. Of course, these rations for the 3rd and 4th categories are quite insufficient to support life, and as the bourgeois classes were not only placed in these categories, but were also persecuted and prevented from getting employment in many cases, it is not surprising that hundreds of thousands of them were exterminated by these measures.
As to the question of how the Jewish element in the population came out on the question of food as compared with the[96] Christian element there is little evidence at hand, but we may refer to one statement in a memorandum of a Mr. B. contained in the British White Book, “Russia No. 1 (1919),” as follows:
“At the Putilof Works anti-Semitism is growing, probably because the food supply committees are entirely in the hands of Jews—and voices can be heard sometimes calling for a ‘pogrom.’”[16]
Wholesale starvation in Russian cities is one of the most striking features of Russia’s tragedy. The bourgeoisie, and especially the intellectual classes of the Russian people, are systematically underfed by the treacherous rationing system of the Jewish Soviet officials. Manual labor as well as the intellectual workers are subjected to a most villainous tyranny, namely, to the tyranny of starvation. It is proper to propound the question: Is this policy carried out in accordance with the stipulation of the Protocols which reads as follows:
“Our power lies in the chronic malnutrition and in the weakness of the worker, because through this he falls under our power and is unable to find either strength or energy to counteract it.” (Protocol No. III.)
As already seen, the Protocols call for a program of hypocrisy as well as terror. The nature of the Bolshevist régime viewed from this angle is graphically described by Mr. Roger E. Simmons in his testimony before the Overman Committee. On pages 298 and 299 of the Senate Report he states:
“Along the trans-Siberian line, proceeding slowly, I had a chance of reading the literature that the Bolsheviki were distributing in connection with their active propaganda; also the decrees, proclamations, and the public formal announcements of all kinds of the local and national authorities. Many of these sounded plausible, aimed to be constructive, ostensibly, and in their idealism and promises were golden. I could see how people would be attracted, and for the first 8 to 10 weeks understood their sanguine hopes. But after this time disintegration was rapid and I saw the awful results. The modus operandi was not in line with theories. They talked ideals but did not act ideals. Practices showed there was decided immorality; decidedly, the game was not being played squarely,[97] the people being deceived by the leaders. I suspected it from the very beginning from what I saw in Siberia. If you will let me, I will read to you a significant admission in that connection.
“This statement was written to me, at my request, by an American that it could be given to the American Consul General. It reads as follows:
“‘Bonch Bruevitch, the executor of the acts of all the People’s Commissars, not a strong man, but a close friend of Lenine’s, who, working in the same office, is able to influence Lenine strongly. A power in the government as long as Lenine lives. He states that the Bolsheviki have not worked out a code of morals yet, and until they do, the end justifies the means. Any lies or dictatorial methods are worth using as long as they are in the interests of the working classes. A close friend of his says he has no compunctions, lying whenever there is an advantage to be gained from it for the Soviets.’
“The movement is immoral, absolutely.”
In this connection it is of the utmost importance to call the attention of the reader to the statement of one of the best known Jewish Soviet officials, Zinovieff—Apfelbaum, President of the Petrograd Soviet, regarding the means of spreading world-wide propaganda. The passage as quoted before proves how closely the policies advocated in the Protocols resemble the Jewish policies as carried out by the Soviet officials in Russia. This is what Zinovieff stated on February 2, 1919:
“We are willing to sign an unfavorable peace with the allies.... It would only mean that we should put no trust whatever in the bit of paper we would sign. We should use the breathing space so obtained in order to gather our strength in order that the mere continued existence of our government would keep up the world-wide propaganda which Soviet Russia has been carrying on for more than a year.”[17]
Here again the actual policies of the Bolsheviki fully coincide with the Protocols.
The most important passage in the Protocols as to the policy advocated in regard to religion is the following:
“Liberty could also be harmless and remain on the state program without detriment to the well-being of the people if it were to retain the ideas of the belief in God and human[98] fraternity, free from the conception of equality which is in contradiction to the laws of nature which establish subordination. With such a faith the people would be governed by the guardians of the parish and would thrive quietly and obediently under the guidance of their spiritual leader, accepting God’s dispensation on earth. It is for this reason that we must undermine faith, tearing from the minds of the Goys the very principle of God and Soul, and substituting mathematical formulas and material needs.”
It appears from the above excerpt that the Protocols advocate the destruction of religion and the religious spirit among the Gentiles on the ground that they are the political as well as the moral bulwarks of the Gentile states. In another place the Protocols state that the most formidable antagonist of the Jews in the past has been Rome, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church.
The Bolsheviki, whatever their real motives may be, have from the moment they came into power in Russia conducted a campaign of violence and persecution against the Christian religion, in the guise of a campaign against religion in general. While they have not attacked the Jewish religion or the Jewish rabbis, they have murdered and persecuted Christian priests and harassed their congregations in the churches. While professing to be merely following the Socialist teachings of Karl Marx (himself a Jew), who attacked religion in general as the creature of capitalism, the Bolshevist campaign against religion is in fact directed against Christianity.
Evidence of the above is found in the sworn testimony of several witnesses before the Overman Committee and in official reports of the British government and elsewhere.
An English clergyman, the Rev. B. S. Lombard, in a report to Earl Curzon, dated March 23, 1919, referring to the conditions in Soviet Russia, stated as follows:
“The treatment of the priests was brutal beyond everything. Eight of them were incarcerated in a cell in our corridor. Some of us saw an aged man knocked down twice one morning for apparently no reason whatever, and they were employed to perform the most degrading work and made to clean out the filthy prison hospital.”[18]
Mr. George A. Simons testified before the Overman Committee, in answer to a question of Senator King, as follows:
Senator King. “Did you find, then, that atheism permeates the ranks of the Bolsheviki?”
Mr. Simons. “Yes, sir. And the anti-Christ spirit as well.”
The testimony of Mr. Simons on this subject was as follows:
Senator King. “What I am trying to get at is, for my information, why Bolshevism is bitterly opposed to all sorts of religion or sacraments of the church—Christianity; because I suppose that they recognize that Christianity is the basis of law and order and of orderly government. I was wondering if you had discovered why they were so bitter against Christianity, and if you found that all the Bolsheviks were atheistic or rationalistic or anti-Christian?”
Mr. Simons. “My experience over there under the Bolsheviki régime has led me to come to the conclusion that the Bolsheviki religion is not only absolutely anti-religious, atheistic, but has it in mind to make all real religious work impossible as soon as they can achieve that end which they are pressing. There was a meeting—I cannot give you the date offhand; it must have been in August, 1918—held in a large hall that had once been used by the Young Men’s Christian Association in Petrograd for their work among the Russian soldiers. The Bolsheviki confiscated it; put out the Y. M. C. A. In that large hall there was a meeting held which was to be a sort of religious dispute. Lunacharsky, the Commissar of the People’s Enlightenment, as he was called, and Mr. Spitzberg, who was the Commissar of Propaganda for Bolshevism, were the two main speakers. Both of those men spoke in very much the same way as Emma Goldman has been speaking. I have been getting some of her literature, and recently I have been very much amazed at the same line of argumentation with regard to the attack on religion and Christianity and so-called religious organizations.”
Senator King. “She is the Bolshevik who has been in jail in this country and who will be deported as soon as her sentence is over?”
Mr. Simons. “I do not know as she will be deported.”
Senator King. “I think she will be.”
Mr. Simons. “She ought to be put somewhere where she cannot issue any more of that literature. Lunacharsky and Spitzberg came out with pretty much the same things that she has been saying and printing. This is one of these theses: ‘All that is bad in the world, misery and suffering that we have had, is largely due to the superstition that there is a God.’”
Senator King. “I noticed in yesterday’s paper that in[100] their schools the children are being taught, wherever they have schools at all, positive atheism. Did you verify that?”
Mr. Simons. “Lunacharsky, as the official head of the department of education, Commissar of the People’s Enlightenment, said: ‘We now propose to enlighten our boys and our girls and we are using as a textbook a catechism of atheism which will be used in our public schools.’ Yet he had the audacity to say: ‘We are going to give all churches the same chance.’ And a priest replied to him, saying: ‘Then you ought not to put your catechism of atheism into the schools.’”[19]
Referring further to the meeting at the Y. M. C. A., Mr. Simons said a little later in his testimony:
“Lunacharsky and Spitzberg said in that meeting, and they sent it out in their proclamations: ‘The greatest enemy to our proletarian cause is religion. The so-called church is simply a camouflage of capitalistic control and they are hiding behind it, and in order to have success in our movement we must get rid of the church.’ Now a frank statement like that seems to me to indicate their anti-religious and anti-Christian animus.”[20]
Mr. Simons further testified as follows:
Senator King. “Has there been a confiscation of church property and buildings?”
Mr. Simons. “Yes, sir; and in quite a number of instances monasteries, with their wealth, have been taken, and all kinds of indecent things have been done by certain Bolshevik officials.
“I have some data showing that they have turned certain churches and monasteries into dancing halls, and one instance has been reported to me where a certain Bolshevik official went into a church while the people were there waiting for the sacrament, and threw the priest out, so I am told, and himself put on the clerical garb, and then went on the altar and made a comedy of the ritual, which stirred up the religious sense of the people to that extent that they threatened—of course, among themselves—that they would yet kill that man. He happened to be an apostate Jew.”
Mr. Roger E. Simmons testified as follows in regard to the Russian priest who was put in the same prison with him by the Bolsheviki:
“A high priest of the church was there. He had been preaching sermons publicly denouncing the immorality of the Bolsheviki. They imprisoned him and shot him. This priest told me that he was a great admirer of Dr. Mott of America.”
Senator Nelson. “Do you not think that the church in the end will prove the rallying center for the anti-Bolshevik forces?”
Mr. Simmons. “I think it certainly will be one of the principal factors; no doubt of it. That priest took the occasion, knowing that I was an official of the American Government, thinking that it was the last duty he could perhaps perform for Russia, to beg me to go back and tell the American people, ‘For God’s sake, send us help.’ He was speaking, gentlemen, not for himself, but for the large class of people that he represented.”[21]
“As you know, gentlemen, the Russians are a very religious people. Like here in the United States, there are very many denominations there, but most of the people belong to the Greek Church. Of course, the priests and religious people are not very pleasant to the Bolsheviki, because the Bolsheviki deny any religion or any religious sentiment. They oppose the Russian clergy and the Russian clergy oppose the Bolsheviki, and the Russian priests are treated very badly. For instance, they are set to do streetwork, cleaning the streets, paving streets, digging ditches, and so on. The workmen told me several times, ‘The Bolsheviki are sending out priests to work in the streets. Why do they not send their rabbis?’ And that is true. The Jewish Rabbis are not sent to work on the streets. The Bolsheviki are opposing religion to such an extent that lately when I was going to Petrograd they raised a question of teaching atheism in the schools. They boast that they have opened so many schools, but they do not say that they closed as many schools as they opened. We had schools in connection with the churches, in connection with every church there was a school, and all these schools are closed now.”[22]
Further evidence that the Bolsheviki, although attacking Christianity, protect the Jewish religion, is found in the following article, which appeared on the 5th of July, 1919, in the weekly publication Soviet Russia, page 15. The article is entitled “Soviet Tolerance.” It reads as follows:
“The New York Jewish Daily, ‘The Day,’ in its issue of June 24th has the following cablegram from its European correspondent, N. Shiffrin: ‘Glad Tidings from Russia.’ ‘The Zionists have organized throughout Russia Food Co-operative Societies which are united in every city into Central Co-operative[102] Associations united in the All-Russian Federation of Jewish Food Co-operative Associations. The Federation is in part subsidized by the Moscow Soviet Government. All schools of the Zionists in which the language of instruction is ancient Hebrew, as well as the Hebrew High School in Minsk, have been taken over by the government. They have been incorporated in the Public School System which is maintained by the Commissariat of Public Education.’”
The significant part of this article consists in the fact that the old Hebrew is a religious language in which the Talmud is written. The old Hebrew can serve only for the study of the Talmud as well as of other Jewish religious writings. Thus, while combating the Christian religion, the Bolsheviki are extending protection to the Jewish religion and to the synagogues.
In a pamphlet entitled “The Russian Church under the Bolsheviks,” recently published in England, is printed the appeal of Father Serge Orlov, “who played an important part in the Reform movement in the Russian church,” and who is now in Switzerland, where the National Consistory has expressed its sympathy for the Russian people by composing a special prayer for the liberation of Russia from the Bolsheviks. We quote the following passages from this appeal of Father Orlov:
“Owing to Bolshevism the Orthodox Russian Church is passing through so acute a crisis that there is serious danger to the fundamental idea of the whole of Christianity.
“Bolshevism is essentially hostile to Christ, and manifests even greater hatred towards Christianity than did the pagan power of the first centuries....
“Bolshevism and the Christian Church cannot exist side by side.
“The persecution of the Church began in January, 1918, and has been increasing since then. The Bolsheviks issued a decree on the disestablishment of the Church, although never had the Russian Church been so firmly in the grip of the secular authorities as in Soviet Russia. The Church has not only been robbed but treated with contumely. Every commissary has the right of prohibiting a service if he suspects the priest or his congregation of counter-revolutionary tendencies. Practically whenever he chooses he can close a church, turn it into a cinema, mock at the ancient sacred relics, and in general insult people’s religious feelings.
“But it is strange that the greater the persecution of the Russian Church the nearer and dearer does it become to the tortured Russian people. Indeed, the priests of the Russian Church boldly denounce the Bolsheviks. Not one of the secular rulers has accused them so openly as Tikhon, the All-Russian Patriarch, over whom the Damocles sword of the Bolsheviks is always hanging. But the sword can only kill the body, and not the spirit.
“As early as last February, Patriarch Tikhon excommunicated the Bolsheviks, the excommunication being read in the churches. At that time the persecution of the clergy had already commenced, but the Patriarch had not been arrested. It was only later, in the autumn of 1918, during the universal Terror, that he was placed under domiciliary arrest in his apartments in the Kremlin, with a guard of Chinese, Letts and Red Army men, and deprived of his rations. But even as a prisoner the Patriarch issued declarations against the Bolsheviks, in which he severely denounced them.
“It is not enough,” writes the Patriarch, “that you have stained the hands of the Russian people with the blood of their brethren. You have instigated the people to open, shameless robbery. You have befogged their consciences and stifled their conviction of sin, but under whatever name you disguise an evil deed, murder, violence and robbery will always remain crimes and deeds of evil that clamor to Heaven for vengeance. Yes, we are going through a dreadful time under your dominion, and it will be long before it fades from the hearts of the nation, where it has dimmed the image of God and impressed that of the beast.
“But as yet the Bolsheviks have not dared to raise their hand against the aged Patriarch. Apparently he is alive.”
A faint idea of what the Bolsheviks are doing to the Russian Church may be gathered from the following:
“According to information received from A. Kartashov, former Minister of Cults, by December, 1918, the Bolsheviks had killed ten archbishops and bishops; it is difficult to ascertain the number of priests killed. It reaches several hundreds. The Patriarch is a prisoner in his own house. According to the (later) message from the Archbishop of Omsk, President of the Supreme Administration of the Orthodox Church, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Metropolitan of Kiev, twenty bishops and hundreds of priests have been assassinated. Some were buried alive. ‘Wherever the Bolsheviks are in power,’ says the Archbishop of Omsk, ‘the Christian Church is persecuted with even greater ferocity than in the first three centuries of the Christian era.’
“When, in January, 1919, the town of Yuriev (Dorpat)[104] was taken by the Bolsheviks, Bishop Platon was arrested. The Reval papers thus describe the Bishop’s last moments. The Bolsheviks burst into his house at night, dragged him from his bed. Barefoot and clad only in his under-linen, the Bishop, with 17 other persons, was dragged down to the cellars of the house they had been arrested in. Here the Red executioners rushed at them with their axes and killed them.
“Near Kotlas, all the ten monks of the monastery, with the prior at their head, were shot for agitation against the Soviet authorities.”
Information has come from Omsk that as a result of a judicial investigation of the Bolshevik terror in Perm, the following has been discovered:—
“Archbishop Andronik was buried alive; Vassili, Archbishop of Chernigov, who had come to Moscow to inquire about the fate of Archbishop Andronik, was cut down and killed with his two companions. Bishop Feofan was first tortured, then dipped several times into the river through a hole in the ice, and finally drowned in the River Kama. Besides this, it was discovered that 50 priests had been executed. Before being killed they were horribly tortured.
“At the evacuation of Cherdyn the Bolsheviks took with them among other hostages a highly respected priest, Nicolas Koniurov, whom they subjected to atrocious torments.
“During a severe frost they stripped the old man naked and poured water over him until he was transformed into a statue of ice.”
(“The Russian Church under the Bolsheviks,” pages 1, 2, 3.)
The statement of the Rev. R. Courtier-Forster, British Chaplain at Odessa, already cited under the head of “Terror,” contains the following passage as to the martyrdom of Christians under the Bolsheviki:
“It was the martyrdom of the two Metropolitans and the assassination of so many Bishops and the killing of hundreds of various Christian ministers of religion, regardless of denomination or school of thought, that proved the undoing of the Scourge. Russian Orthodox clergy, Protestant Lutheran pastors, Roman Catholic priests, were tortured and done to death with the same light-hearted indiscrimination in the name of Toleration and Freedom. Then it was that the Scourge, seeing the last remnants of Liberty ground under the heel of a tyranny more brutal in its methods than a mediaeval torture chamber, published another full-page cartoon representing Moses descending from the Burning Mount, bringing in his[105] arms the Tables of Ten Commandments to Humanity, and being stoned to death by a mob of workmen’s and soldiers’ delegates.
“The following Sunday afternoon I was passing through the Town Gardens, when I saw a group of Bolshevist soldiers insulting an Ikon of the Thorn-crowned Face of Christ. The owner of the Ikon was spitting in the pictured Face, while the others were standing around watching with loud guffaws of laughter. Presently they tore the sacred picture into fragments, danced on it, and trampled and stamped the pieces into the mud.”
(“Bolshevism, Reign of Torture at Odessa,” by Rev. R. Courtier-Forster, reprinted from The Times, Dec. 3, 1919, page 4.)
It will be recalled that the Protocols specifically refer to the incitement of class hatred as one of the most effective means of bringing about the destruction of Christian, that is, “Goy” states. The concluding sentence of Protocol No. IV reads as follows:
“It will be at that stage that the lower classes of the Goys, not for the sake of doing good, nor even for the sake of wealth, but solely because of their hatred towards the privileged, will follow us against the intelligent Goys, our competitors for power.”
This remarkable stipulation of the Protocols is literally followed by the Jewish Soviet officials in Russia. This is how Mr. Roger E. Simmons, in his testimony before the Overman Committee, describes the policy of inciting class hatred by the Bolsheviki in Russia:
Mr. Simmons. “Being a social revolution, of course the worst parts about it are the results of the awful class hatred the Bolsheviki leaders are inciting. They are inciting it in every part of the country by their publications and in all their efficient propaganda. It has not been any more disastrous in any parts of Russia, I believe, than it has been in many villages among the peasantry.
“Their policy has as an underlying motive the arousing of class antagonism, the proletariat hating the bourgeoisie. In practice it means that the less fortunate in every industry and institution bear animus against those qualified to hold better positions. This has been indirectly the cause of most of the incidents of terrorism witnesses have spoken of, more of which I will tell you about later.
“When it was seen that the peasantry did not rally to the[106] support of the Bolshevik cause and that they refused to sell grain for rubles without value, the Bolsheviki took the class issue to the villages. Lenine calls this movement awakening class consciousness of the peasantry. He organized for this work ‘poor committees,’ as they are called in translation. These committees of soldiers go out to the villages to inflame the dissatisfied elements and to extract by force food from the peasants.... But Lenine sends the poor committees, agitators, to incite peasants who have no land to conspire against those who have, and to take the guns he gives them for fighting, robbing, and plundering neighbors in their own and neighboring villages who have land. When you come later to read, gentlemen, the history of the Russian revolution, some of the bloodiest fights, you will find, and worst horrors, have occurred in villages. Those simple, peace-loving people have been living among themselves for centuries in more or less harmony under their communistic system. But all of a sudden Lenine, by his nefarious policies, sets the passions of the demoralized class aflame and turns them against the other two classes. Instead of promoting brotherly love and helping to make the sentiment of the nation one for the good of all, as we are striving to do in America, the Bolsheviki are trying by jealousy and animosity to disintegrate the population of various localities into classes with a view of the honest toiler being overcome and subjected. Now this is a serious matter. The peasantry represent 85 per cent of the 160,000,000 Russians.
“In Russia class hatred is seen manifested everywhere. I will mention one illustration which I saw in Petrograd—the undressing of a woman. I had heard about it before. It was about 6:30, growing dark, as I was walking down the Nevsky Prospect on my way home. I heard a yell of distress from a woman up a street running perpendicularly to the Nevsky. There two soldiers were removing the cloak—a very good substantial cloth coat—from a woman. And when protests were made by the standers-by, the answer was, ‘We have blacked your boots and washed your clothes for many years. Now you bourgeoisie have got to bow to us and wash our clothes and black our boots.’ Undressing to steal clothes went on to a considerable extent in Moscow, Petrograd and Kiev, according to reports. It went as far as taking off besides cloaks the very dresses of women, and where they could handle it, taking also the clothes and overcoats off men....
“Now, you can see that all their practices aimed to invite people to do acts of that kind showing intense hatred—I wish I could think of another word, it is more than hatred—detestation—against people that they thought were a little higher up. Now, remember, as I pointed out in the first place this hatred is against a good many of these people in the cities,[107] and people like the peasants who had land, who belonged to the proletariat. But because they did not agree, they call them bourgeoisie. You can see that they are fighting parts of the very class for whom they say they are trying to establish a dictatorship. They are not trying to put the proletariat in power, but the most demoralized elements of that class, which represents, gentlemen, a very small per cent.
“Now, this class hatred is a matter we have got to consider, I think, with a great deal of interest and a great deal of seriousness, because it is the basis of their international movement.”[23]
The Protocols call for a world autocracy and state that liberalism in government is a source of weakness which should be encouraged by the Jews only for the temporary object of destroying Christian states with the ultimate purpose of establishing a Jewish despotism over the whole world.
“Only an autocrat can outline great and clear plans which allocate in an orderly manner all the parts of the mechanism of the government machinery.”
On the other hand, the Protocols state as follows:
“In all parts of the world the words ‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity’ have brought whole legions into our ranks through our blind agents, carrying our banners with delight. Meanwhile these words were worms which ruined the prosperity of the Goys, everywhere destroying peace, quiet, and solidarity, undermining all the foundations of their states.”
Ambassador Francis, when asked by Senator King whether Lenin and Trotzky and those who are in control of the Bolshevik government were there as the result of a general election, testified:[24]
Mr. Francis. “No, no. They are there as usurpers.”
Senator King. “By force and terror?”
Mr. Francis. “I do not think they represent more than ten per cent of the Russians.”
Senator Overman. “Of the whole 180,000,000?”
Mr. Francis. “Of the whole 180,000,000.”
Mr. Roger E. Simmons also describes the Bolshevik government as it existed when he left Russia in November, 1918, as follows:
That gradual despotism shown by the testimony of these witnesses to exist in 1918 has tended to become more and more complete is shown by evidence of a recent date. The British White Book, “Russia No. 1 (1919), Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia,” contains a report of a Mr. C. who was formerly connected with a commercial company which had a branch in Moscow. This document bears the date of January 21, 1919. Among other information therein contained is the following:
As recently as in the fall of 1919 conditions in the factories were reported to be intolerable. The Soviet officials have gone far beyond that part of the program of Karl Marx in his “Communist Manifesto,” which prescribes “Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.” The Soviet government’s Code of Labor Laws, translated into English and published in New York in Soviet Russia, the organ of the Russian Soviet Bureau, in its issue of February 21, 1920, imposes compulsory labor upon every one, male or female, between the ages of sixteen and sixty, unless physically disqualified, and enforces iron discipline of the most tyrannical nature.
Moreover, the New York World of Friday, April 9, 1920, published an article entitled “Mobilize Russian Labor,” in which it was stated that Trotzky, addressing the ninth convention of the Communist Party at Moscow on March 27, 1920, directed his address chiefly to defining the relation between the mobilization of industry to the industrial rehabilitation of Russia, and stated:
An elaborate system among the workmen had been gradually established and at present the communist spy reporting directly to the Soviets has almost mediaeval powers of executing a man merely for the reason that he is opposed to the tyranny of the Soviets. Moreover, by the weapon of starvation, the workman is compelled to work more hours than under any preceding form of government. The very right to strike is entirely denied the workmen. Every strike is called sabotage against the Soviets and every act of sabotage is forbidden under pain of capital punishment. Supplementary Decree No. 27 deals specifically with incitements to strike. Persons violating such decree are brought before the Extraordinary Committees to Combat Counter-revolution.
This situation strikingly recalls a passage in the Protocols where it is stated:
Is Trotzky this leader?
Immediately before his departure from the United States for Russia in order to join his brethren who were engaged in the destruction of the Russian state, Trotzky made the following boast:
“I stand forth the world’s greatest internationalist. I shall rule Russia.”
Then he made this appeal to the audience:
“On with our world civil war! On with the world revolution! Down with the governments!”
Unfortunately, the wise step taken by the British Government in arresting Trotzky at Halifax while on his way to Russia was countermanded, and Lieut.-Colonel J. B. Maclean, proprietor of Maclean’s Magazine, published at Toronto, in[110] an article entitled “Why Did We Let Trotzky Go?”, printed in the issue of June, 1919 (Vol. XXXII, No. 6), referring to various explanations for his release, says, “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 some one else.”
There are many passages in the writings and speeches of well-known Jewish leaders at various times during the last hundred years which show a remarkable parallelism with some of the important ideas set forth in the Protocols. The following instances may be cited as a result of a search which is by no means exhaustive. In each case we cite a passage taken verbatim from the Protocols, followed under the title of “Substantiations” by parallel quotations from well-known Jews.
(a) “The prophets have told us that we were chosen by God himself to reign over the world. God endowed us with genius to enable us to cope with the problem.” (Protocol No. V.)
(b) “God has given us, his chosen people, the power to scatter, and what to all appears to be our weakness has proved to be our strength, and has now brought us to the threshold of universal rule.” (Protocol No. XI.)
(c) “When the King of Israel places the crown on his sacred head, offered him by Europe, he will be the Patriarch of the World.” (Protocol No. XV.)
(a) “The men of all nations shall be subject to Israel, but those who have ruled over you shall be destroyed with the sword.”
(Apocalypse of Baruch (LXXII), a well-known Jewish work of the first century A.D.)
(b) “Our task is great and holy and its success is guaranteed. Catholicism, our greatest foe, lay wounded in its brains. The net which is being spread by Israel all over the surface of the earth will spread day by day, and the glorious prophecies of our holy rights will be finally realized. The time is approaching when Jerusalem will become the home of worship of all peoples and the banner of the Jewish monotheism will be flying on the most distant coast. Our strength is enormous, we must learn how to apply it in practice. What have we to be afraid of? The day is approaching when all the wealth of the world will become the property of the Sons of Israel.”
(Isaac-Adolphe Crémieux, founder of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, quoted by Serge Nilus, in a footnote which appears on page 172 in 1917 edition of his book, “It is near! At the door!” A reference to the same document of the Alliance Israélite Universelle can be found in issue No. 24, December 15, 1909, of the Arabic paper “Al Kalemat” (“The World”), which was published in New York. See article entitled, “A Chapter Concerning Moral Discussions. Concerning the Destroyers of the Foundation of the Christian Faith,” pp. 461-464.)
(c) “It has always been a unique feature of Judaism that its traits of particularism—essential to its self-preservation—have been blended with the highest aspirations of universalism.”
(Paul Goodman, “Zionism and Liberal Judaism,” Zionist Review, Nov. 1917.)
(d) “When we read in the Book of Isaiah that the prophet of the exile declared that the Jews were God’s witnesses, chosen for a religious purpose and charged with a religious mission, we believe that he was speaking words which were inspired by God.”
(Cl. G. Montefiore, “Outlines of Liberal Judaism,” p. 166. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited. 1912.)
(e) “The Jews energetically reject the idea of fusion with the other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope, i.e., of world empire.”
(From speech of Dr. Mandelstam, Professor in the University of Kiev, Russia, delivered at the Basel Zionist Congress of 1898. See H. S. Chamberlain’s “The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century,” Vol. I, p. 335. London: John Lane. 1913.)
(f) “The Jew will never be able to assimilate himself; he will never adopt the customs and ways of other peoples. The Jew remains a Jew under all circumstances. Every assimilation is purely exterior.”
(From speech of Rabbi Dr. Leopold Kahn on Zionism, delivered in July, 1901, in the orthodox Jewish school in Pressburg, Idem.)
(g) “The governments of all countries, scourged by anti-Semitism, will serve their own interests in assisting us to obtain the sovereignty we want.”
(Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 11. Published by the Federation of American Zionists, New York, 1917.)
(h) “Christianity itself seems to Jews only a stage in the[113] preparation of the world for a purified, developed and universalized Judaism.”
(Cl. G. Montefiore, “Outlines of Liberal Judaism,” p. 163. London. 1912.)
(i) “Liberal Judaism has higher ambitions for the Jewish people. Above all, it seeks to preserve the Jewish religion in full beauty and power, and to extend its workings to a sphere co-extensive with the universe of men.”[26]
(Rabbi Mattuck, quoted by Paul Goodman in his article on “Zionism and Liberal Judaism,” in the Zionist Review, November, 1911. Reprinted by Petty & Sons, Ltd., Whitehall Printeries, Leeds, pp. 2 and 3.)
(j) “It is not given to every one to understand that which is not yet finished.... Yes! The likelihood of realizing our demands and proposals grows with our numbers and with the increase in our strength. For the present we have reason to be satisfied with the spirit in which our aspirations were regarded by the mighty ones of the earth. Do not demand more than this intimation from your Action Committee. In this respect you must have implicit confidence in it. You may freely question it regarding all other matters.”
(Theo. Hertzl, “Congress Addresses,” delivered at London, August 13, 1900, at the Zionist Congress. Published by the Federation of American Zionists, New York, 1917.)
(k) “Let the sovereignty be granted us over a portion of the globe large enough to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the nation: the rest we shall manage for ourselves.”
(Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 11.)
(a) “We must follow a program of violence and hypocrisy, not only for the sake of profit, but also as a duty and for the sake of victory.” (Protocol No. I.)
(b) “When we finally become rulers ... we will see to it that no plots are hatched against us. To effect this we will kill heartlessly all who take up arms against the establishment of our rule.” (Protocol No. XV.)
(a) “Our people who are receiving the new country from the Society will also thankfully accept the new constitution it offers them. Should they, however, show signs of rebellion, they will be promptly crushed.” (Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 38.)
(b) “The interests of the revolution require the physical annihilation of the bourgeois class. It is time for us to start.” (Red Gazette, Aug. 31, 1918, No. 159. Published by the Petrograd Soviet of the Workmens’ & Soldiers’ Deputies, presided over by the Jew, Apfelbaum—Zinoviev.)
(c) “Blood and mercilessness must be our slogans.” (Leon Trotzky, International Communist Congress, Moscow, March, 1919. Quoted, New York Evening Sun, March 18, 1919.)
(a) “We will also artfully and deeply undermine the sources of production by teaching the workmen Anarchy and the use of alcohol, at the same time taking measures to expel all the intelligent Goys from the land.
“That the true situation should not be noticed by the Goys until the proper time, we will mask it by a pretended desire to help the working classes and great economic principles, an active propaganda of which principles is being carried on through the dissemination of our economic theories.” (Protocol VI.)
(b) “We will present ourselves in the guise of saviors of the workers from this oppression, when we suggest that they enter our army of Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, to whom we always extend our help under the guise of the rule of brotherhood demanded by the human solidarity of our social masonry.” (Protocol III.)
(a) “When the Jew gives his thought, his devotion, to the cause of the workers and of the dispossessed, of the disinherited of the world, the radical quality within him there, too, goes to the roots of things, and in Germany he becomes a Marx and a Lassalle, a Haas and an Edward Bernstein; in Austria he becomes a Victor Adler and a Friedrich Adler; in Russia, a Trotzky. Just take for a moment the present situation in Russia and in Germany. The revolution set creative forces free, and see what a large company of Jews was available for immediate service. Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviki, and Bolsheviki, Majority and Minority Socialists—whatever they be called ... Jews are to be found among the trusted leaders and the routine workers of all those revolutionary parties.”
(Rabbi J. L. Magnes in his address delivered at the opening session of the first Jewish Labor Congress, January 16, 1919, New York City. See the Jewish Forum, February, 1919, P. 722.)
(b) “The Jew, therefore, does take an active part in revolutions;[115] and he participates in them in so far as he is a Jew, or more correctly in so far as he remains Jewish.”
(Bernard Lazare, “Anti-Semitism: Its History and Causes,” p. 312. Published by International Library Publishing Co., New York, 1903.)
(c) “We must not, however, leave these problems (social) and this reform (social) outside of our Jewish thought, our Jewish activities. We must not let them be taken by active Christians and stamped as specifically Christian.”
(Rabbi Montefiore, “Outlines of Liberal Judaism,” pp. 266 and 267. London, 1912.)
(d) “Das Volk, a Jewish periodical published in America, writes in 1905:
“‘One cannot blame us that people with different mentalities and views as Social Democrats, Anarchists, and so on, are filled with our socialist territorial ideas, and enter in our ranks in order to struggle for a better future of the Jewish people. On the contrary, it shows that life itself has raised our ideal and drives all under our banner.’”
(The Jewish Life, March, 1906, p. 173. Jewish newspaper published in Russian, found in New York Public Library.)
(e) The following quotation is an estimate by Bernard Lazare, Jewish writer, of the part which was and is played by the Jews in the revolutionary movement throughout the world:
“Their [i.e., the Jews’] contribution to present-day Socialism was, as is well known, and still is, very great. The Jews, it may be said, are situated at the poles of contemporary society. They are found among the representatives of industrial and financial capitalism, and among those who have vehemently protested against capital. Rothschild is the antithesis of Marx and Lassalle; the struggle for money finds its counterpart in the struggle against money, and the world-wide outlook of the stock-speculator finds its answer in the international proletarian and revolutionary movement. It was Marx who gave the first impulse to the founding of the Internationale through the manifesto of 1847, drawn up by himself and Engels. Not that it can be said that he ‘founded’ the Internationale, as is maintained by those who persist in regarding the Internationale as a secret society controlled by the Jews. Many causes led to the organization of the Internationale, but from Marx proceeded the idea of a Labor Congress, which was held at London in 1864, and resulted in the founding of that society. The Jews constituted a very large proportion of its members, and in the General Council of the society, we find Karl Marx, Secretary for Germany and Russia, and James Cohen, Secretary for Denmark. Many of the Jewish members of the Internationale took part subsequently in the Commune,[116] where they found others of their faith. In the organization of the socialist party, the Jews participated to the greatest extent. Marx and Lassalle in Germany, Aaron Libermann and Adler in Austria, Dobrojan Gherea in Roumania, are, or were at one time, its creators and its leaders. The Jews of Russia deserve special notice in this brief résumé. Young Jewish students, scarcely escaped from the Ghetto, have played an important part in the Nihilistic propaganda; some, among them women, have given up their lives for the cause of Liberation, and to these young Jewish physicians and lawyers, we must add the large number of exiled workingmen who have founded in London and New York important labor societies, which serve as centers of socialistic and even of anarchistic propaganda.”
(Bernard Lazare, “Anti-Semitism,” pp. 312, 313, and 314.)
(f) “When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.”
(Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 10.)
(g) “Thus it would seem as if the grievance of the anti-Semite were well founded; the Jewish spirit is essentially a revolutionary spirit, and consciously or otherwise, the Jew is a revolutionist.”
(Bernard Lazare, “Anti-Semitism,” p. 298.)
“At present as an international force we are invulnerable.” (Protocol III.)
(a) “Nothing effectual can really be done to our injury.”
(Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 9.)
(b) “The very impossibility of getting at the Jews nourishes and embitters hatred of them.”
(Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 10.)
(c) “It is of course possible to get at shares and debentures in railways, banks and industrial concerns of all descriptions, by taxation, and where the progressive income tax is in force, all our realized property can eventually be laid hold of. But all these efforts cannot be directed against Jews alone, and where they have nevertheless been made, severe economic crises with far-reaching effects have been their immediate consequences.”
(Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 10.)
(d) “A distracted and divided people have been so well instructed in thought that the unity of Israel is greater than all the differing religions, social, economic and political views of the individuals who make up a nation, that the Rabbis of Eastern[117] Europe have entered in full force into the vanguard of the movement.”
(Jacob de Haas. See his preface to Hertzl’s “The Jewish State,” p. 8.)
(e) “... There is such a thing as a Kol (All) Israel policy to be pursued by all Jews together, regardless of their political, their economic, their spiritual outlook.”
(Rabbi Judas L. Magnes, Speech delivered at the Jewish Labor Congress, Jan. 16, 1919, at Yorkville Casino, New York City; quoted in the Jewish Forum, February, 1919, p. 720.)
(f) “The Jewish people, traditionally and through its experience, knows the meaning of internationalism, and it must apply the method of internationalism to its own national life as well, sharing the destiny of every people, free and oppressed, in freeing the world in order that it itself may be freed.”
(Rabbi Judas L. Magnes, Ibid., p. 721.)
(g) “But, in order that the Jewish people may do its work in the world, it must be organized—organized for its specific purposes as well as for participation in all of the cultural and spiritual movements of humanity.”
(Rabbi Judas L. Magnes, Ibid., p. 724.)
(h) “Here we are, just Jews and nothing else, a nation among nations. Take it or leave it.”
(From speech of Dr. Weizman, delivered in Manchester, England, Dec. 9, 1917, partially quoted in a pamphlet entitled “Great Britain, Palestine and the Jews,” p. 73. Published by Geo. H. Doran Co., New York.)
(i) “Our union is not a French one, nor English, nor Swiss, nor German. Nay, our union is Jewish and it is universal. The other peoples are split into nationalities. We, however, are the only ones who have no co-citizens, but exclusively co-religionists. The Jew will not sooner become the friend of a Christian or a Mohammedan than at the time when the light of the Jewish faith—the only religion of reason—will spread throughout the world. Scattered among peoples who are hostile to our rights, to our interests, we wish above all to be and always to remain Jews. Our nationality is the religion of our fathers and we do not recognize any other. Living in lands of dispersion we cannot be concerned about the changing aims of those lands which are strange to us until the time when our own aims both moral and material are in danger. The Jewish teachings must spread all over the world. Sons of Israel! however much the faith would disperse you all over the earth, always consider yourselves as members of a chosen people. If you realize and if you understand that the faith of our ancestors is our sole patriotism, if you realize that in spite of your cover nationalities you form only one and the same people, if you believe that only Judaism constitutes the religious and[118] political truth, if you are convinced in the above, you universal sons of Israel, you will come to us, you will listen to our appeal and you will prove that you accept it.”
(In 1860, Isaac Adolphe Crémieux, the well-known Jewish leader in France, founded the Universal Jewish Alliance (Alliance Israélite Universelle). On this occasion he issued a circular appeal to the Jewish organizations throughout the world. The above quotation is from this circular appeal. Quoted by A. Shmakoff, “Jewish Speeches,” p. 131.)
(j) “It is our opinion that the Jewish question can be solved only by the Jews themselves.... We no longer want to wear the mask of any other nationality.”
(Theo. Hertzl, in Congress Addresses delivered at Basle, December 26, 1901, p. 28. Published by the Federation of American Zionists, 1917, New York.)
(k) “Furthermore, it is well understood in Germany and in Austria that the Jews of Russia have never had real citizenship in Russia, and although a Jew may have been born in Russia, that does not necessarily imply that he has been a citizen of Russia. Realizing that, and for other apparent reasons, the German and Austrian Governments are making every effort to secure the coöperation and good-will of the large Jewish population, now under their control.”
(Rabbi Judas L. Magnes. See his letter to Mr. Byrlavski, June, 1916. Published in the Report of the Commission of the American Jewish Relief Fund. New York City, March, 1917.)
(l) “Let us forget whence we spring. No more talk of ‘German’ or of ‘Portuguese’ Jews. Though scattered over the earth we are nevertheless a single people.”
(Rabbi Salomon Lipmann-Cerfberr in his opening speech delivered on July 26, 1806, at the meeting preparatory to the Synedrion. Quoted by H. S. Chamberlain in his “Foundations of the Nineteenth Century” Vol. I, p. 329.)
(m) “Israel is a nationality. We are born Jews, ‘natu’ because we are born Jews. A child born from Jewish parents is Jewish. The very birth casts on him all the duties of an Israelite. It is not through circumcision that we obtain our Israelan quality. Nay, circumcision is in no way analogous to Christian baptism. We are not Israelites because we are circumcised, but, on the contrary, we circumcise our children because we are Israelites. We acquire the Jewish character through our birth, and we can never lose it nor get rid of it. Even if a Jew denies his religion, even if he is baptized, he does not cease to be an Israelite. All Israelite duties continue to remain with him.”
(Archives Israélites, 1864. Quotation from Ed. Drumont, “La France Juive,” Vol. I, p. 14, 12th ed. Paris: C. Marpont E. Flammarion.)
(a) “The economic crises were created by us for the Goys only by the withdrawal of money from circulation.” (Protocol XX.)
(b) “We hold in our hands the greatest modern power—Gold.” (Protocol XXII.)
(a) “The first official violation of Jewish liberties invariably brings about an economic crisis. Therefore, no weapons can be effectually used against us, because these cut the hands that wield them.”
(Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 43.)
(b) “When we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse,”
(Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 10.)
(c) “The day is approaching when all the wealth of the world will become the property of the Sons of Israel.”
(Isaac Adolphe Crémieux, quoted by A. Shmakoff, “Jewish Speeches,” p. 131.)
(d) “The Government of Palestine (in the hands of Jews), composed of men of wisdom and of intellectuals will guide the economic movement not only of the Orient and of Anatolia, but probably also of the whole world.”
(The Inkilab, a Jewish paper published in Constantinople. Quoted in La Vieille France, No. 108, February 13, 1919, p. 21.)
“At present, if any of the governments raises a protest against us, it is done only as a matter of form and at our desire and by our order, because their anti-Semitism is necessary to us to govern our smaller brothers.” (Protocol IX.)
(a) “The governments of all countries, scourged by anti-Semitism, will serve their own interests in assisting us to obtain the sovereignty we want.”
(Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 11.)
(b) “Disaster binds us together, and, thus united, we suddenly discover our strength. Yes, we are strong enough to form a State, and a model State.”
(Theo. Hertzl, “The Jewish State,” p. 10.)
There are a number of important policies in the Protocols which find a striking parallel in certain activities and movements among Jews in various parts of the world outside of Russia. Among these policies of the Protocols are: the control of the press for political purposes, securing international or so-called “minority” rights for the Jews, the stirring up of class hatred and social disorder, and the promotion of revolutions and internationalism.
1. The boast is made in the Protocols that in Europe the press, with unimportant exceptions, is under Jewish control. It is indeed true that the Jewish influence in the press in many parts of the world is very powerful. Just how powerful it is in America it is difficult to state. It is certainly a great and growing power in New York City. A Jewish magazine, The American Jewish News, recently pointed with pride to the great number of newspapers in New York which are either controlled by the Jews or in which Jews occupy important strategic positions. In the article referred to, which was published in the issue of March 28, 1919, under the title “Men Who Make Our Newspapers,” the following statement is made:
“While it is an accepted fact that certain of our industries to-day are almost entirely directed and supported by Jewish minds and labor, there are nevertheless just as many which are not generally conceded to come within the same classification which have at their head men of Jewish descent. Most important among these latter is the greatest of all public institutions—the press.
“Hardly a newspaper of importance thrives in this city but it has at its head or in some position of paramount influence a[121] man in whose fibre there is Jewish energy. And with one exception the achievements of these men who mould and interpret American public opinion could provide material for books of incalculable inspiration.”
The article proceeds to refer to several large dailies in New York which are owned or controlled by Jews, with biographical sketches of these men and their subordinates. At the end of the article it is stated that the men mentioned are “but a few of a great number.”
That there is nothing new in the Jewish policy of controlling the press is shown by the following statement of Isaac-Adolphe Crémieux, who in 1860 founded the Alliance Israélite Universelle.
“Consider the governmental and public offices as nothing. Look upon all honors as upon nonsense. Do not pay any attention for the time being to money itself.... Capture the press! Through it everything will come to you in the natural course of events.”[27]
The complete dictatorship over the press exercised by the Jewish Bolshevist leaders in Soviet Russia is such a generally accepted fact that it needs no extended comment. All newspapers that have attempted in any way to criticize the Bolshevist government have been ruthlessly suppressed, and many writers who have dared to criticize Trotzky have been executed.
The policy of the Bolsheviks is well expressed by one of the Soviet officials, N. Bukharin, in “The Communist Program,” published by the Soviet printing office, called “The Communist,” Moscow, 1918, Chapter VII, pp. 20-23:
“The Communist (Bolshevist) party receives from all sides accusations and even threats like the following: ‘You close newspapers, you arrest people, you forbid meetings, you trample under foot freedom of speech and of the press, you reconstruct autocracy, you are oppressors and murderers.’ It is necessary to discuss in detail this question of the ‘liberties’ in a Soviet Republic....
“At present the following is clear for the workingmen and the peasants. The Communist party not only does not demand any liberty of the press, of speech, meetings, unions, etc., for[122] the bourgeois enemies of the people, but, on the contrary, it demands that the government should be always in readiness to close the bourgeois press; to disperse the meetings of the enemies of the people, to forbid them to lie, slander, and spread panic; to crush ruthlessly all attempts at a restoration of the bourgeois régime. This is precisely the meaning of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”
2. From a practical point of view it is of the utmost importance to Christian countries to ascertain whether the Jews are to be treated as citizens who enjoy equal rights and equal duties with the rest of the community, or whether they are to have, in addition, special privileges uniform in every country because they are Jews.
The American Constitution grants equal rights to all citizens of the United States, without distinction as to race or religion. The same conception of citizenship prevails in a majority of the western European countries (Great Britain, Netherlands, France, Italy, Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden).
During the last two years, however, the Jews in various countries have adopted a peculiar policy, threatening the fundamental principles of equal citizenship, by demanding special national or minority rights in central and eastern European states. During the Peace Conference the Jews maintained an influential delegation at Paris which insisted that such rights be granted to the Jews in Poland, Austria, Roumania, Jugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Ukrainia. A special Bill of Jewish Rights was presented by the Jewish delegation to the Peace Conference. This bill contained the following stipulations:
“First—New guarantees of citizenship for those born in the territories affected, or resident therein since August, 1909.
“Second—All citizens to enjoy equal civil, religious, national and political rights, without distinction of birth, race, nationality or religion.
“Third—The right to use the language of any national minority in business, private intercourse, public meetings or the press shall be guaranteed; nor shall there be any restriction of such language in the schools or other institutions, nor shall the validity of any transaction or document be affected by the use of any language whatsoever.
“Fourth—The state shall recognize the several national[123] minorities as constituting distinct autonomous organizations, having the right to establish, manage and control schools and religious, educational, charitable and social institutions.
“Fifth—Each national minority shall be allotted its proportion of state, departmental and municipal funds, based on the ratio of its numbers in the respective areas, as well as in the entire population.
“Sixth—Proportional representation of national minorities in elected bodies.
“Seventh—Those observing any other day except Sunday as Sabbath shall not be required to perform on such days acts they regard as desecrations, and shall be permitted to conduct business on Sunday if they so desire.
“Eighth—The signatories to the treaty, or any minority which may be affected by failure to observe its provisions, shall be entitled to submit complaints for adjudication to the League of Nations, which will assume jurisdiction.” (New York Tribune, June 12, 1919.)
This Bill of Rights was strongly endorsed by the American Jewish Congress held in Philadelphia in December, 1918. We quote an article in the New York Tribune of May 14, 1919, on this subject:
“NATIONS MUST GUARANTEE RACIAL RIGHTS, SAYS MACK.
“CHAIRMAN OF JEWISH DELEGATION TO PARIS CABLES RESULTS OF ITS EFFORTS.
“According to a cable received by the Zionist Organization of America from its president, Judge Julian W. Mack, who is now in Paris, heading the American Jewish Congress delegation to the peace conference, and chairman of the Jewish delegations from every part of Europe, the treaty offered to Germany requires Poland and other nations to accept separate provisions guaranteeing rights to racial, religious and linguistic minorities within their boundaries.
“Judge Mack says the word ‘national’ is not included in the treaty as now formulated, but that a decision on this point is expected in a few days.
“He expresses himself as sanguine that the substance of the demands adopted by the American Jewish Congress, held in Philadelphia last December, will be obtained.”
Moreover, the Bill of Rights was endorsed by most of the recognized Jewish organizations throughout the world.
“NINE MILLION JEWS PRESENT BILL OF RIGHTS AT PARIS,” is the title under which the universal support of Hebrew national rights within the boundaries of other nations was recorded by the New York Tribune on June 12, 1919.
Mr. Edward Dillon, in his book “The Inside Story of the Peace Conference,” referring to these national rights and to the support which was extended to the Jewish demands, stated that the Allied policy was “looked upon as anything but disinterested.” Mr. Dillon further said:
“Unhappily this conviction was subsequently strengthened by certain of the measures decreed by the Supreme Council between April and the close of the Conference. The misgivings of other delegates turned upon a matter which at first sight may appear so far removed from any of the pressing issues of the twentieth century as to seem wholly imaginary. They feared that a religious—some would call it racial—bias lay at the root of Mr. Wilson’s policy. It may seem amazing to some readers, but it is none the less a fact, that a considerable number of delegates believed that the real influences behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic.
“They confronted the President’s proposal on the subject of religious inequality, and, in particular, the odd motive alleged for it, with the measures for the protection of minorities which he subsequently imposed on the lesser states, and which had for their keynote to satisfy the Jewish elements in eastern Europe. And they concluded that the sequence of expedients framed and enforced in this direction were inspired by the Jews, assembled in Paris for the purpose of realizing their carefully thought-out program, which they succeeded in having substantially executed. However right or wrong these delegates may have been, it would be a dangerous mistake to ignore their views, seeing that they have since become one of the permanent elements of the situation. The formula into which this policy was thrown by the members of the Conference, whose countries it affected, and who regarded it as fatal to the peace of eastern Europe, was this: ‘Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who, in turn, are swayed by their Jewish elements.’” (Pages 496, 497.)
Mr. Dillon emphasizes that the Jewish demands for special national privileges were largely fomented by western Jews, including those of the United States. He even states that among the many Jews who were present at the Paris Peace Conference “the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States.” (Page 12.) According to this author, “Their principal mission, with which every fair-minded man sympathized heartily, was to secure for their kindred in Eastern Europe rights equal to those of the populations in whose midst they reside. And to the credit of the Poles, Rumanians, and Russians, who were to be constrained[125] to remove all the existing disabilities, they enfranchised the Hebrew elements spontaneously. But the western Jews who championed their eastern brothers, proceeded to demand a further concession which many of their own co-religionists hastened to disclaim as dangerous—a kind of autonomy which Roumanian, Polish and Russian statesmen, as well as many of their Jewish fellow-subjects, regarded as tantamount to the creation of a state within a state.” (Page 13.)
The treaties imposed by the Allies upon Poland, Rumania, Czecho-Slovakia, Jugo-Slavia and Greece granted all, or nearly all the demands of the Jews contained in the above “Bill of Rights,” while Austria and Hungary gave pledges in their treaties with the Allied and Associated Powers, that they would protect “minority rights” in the same general way defined in the treaties with the other five powers.
These treaties, as Mr. Dillon correctly points out, go much further than to guarantee to the Jews residing in these several countries full political equality with other citizens, and freedom from persecution or discrimination on account of race or religion. Not only did the treaties contain such guarantees,—which, Mr. Dillon states, the small powers in question were quite willing to give,—but they contained a principle new to international law, viz. that a racial minority should be treated in various relations as a separate entity within the State, with separate rights of its own, which it is permitted to enforce against the national government. An illustration of this new principle is found in certain articles of the treaty with Poland relating to educational matters. By these articles the Polish State is actually compelled to permit the Jews, in towns and districts where they constitute “a considerable proportion” of the population, to administer primary education in their own language in the Jewish schools, supported by an allocated part of the state funds. The articles of the treaty which create this extraordinary “minority right” are quoted verbatim below. The two articles must be read together and compared with each other to bring out their full meaning.
“Article 9
“Poland will provide in the public educational system in towns and districts in which a considerable proportion of Polish nationals of other than Polish speech are residents[126] adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision shall not prevent the Polish Government from making the teaching of the Polish language obligatory in the said schools.
“In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Polish nationals belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of the public funds under the State, municipal or other budget, for educational, religious or charitable purposes.
“The provision of this article shall apply to Polish citizens of German speech only in that part of Poland which was German territory on August 1, 1914.
“Article 10
“Educational Committees appointed locally by the Jewish Committees of Poland will, subject to the general control of the State, provide for the distribution of the proportional share of the public funds allocated to the Jewish schools in accordance with Article 9, and for the organization and management of these schools.
“The provisions of Article 9 concerning the use of languages in schools shall apply to these schools.”
In some central European countries the Jews took prompt advantage of the favorable feeling created in Paris by the Jewish leaders towards the Jewish national demands. Thus, for instance, in Ukrainia a special ministry for Jewish affairs was established, headed by Krasny Pinhoos, a Jew. According to information contained in an editorial article in the New Witness of April 11, 1919, the new minister of the Jews “told a press representative that the Jews take part in the spiritual and social life of the Ukraine under conditions of equality with those of the rest of the population, but that in affairs appertaining to the Jewish community they would govern themselves.”
The New Witness made a rather peculiar deduction from the above statement of Mr. Pinhoos:
“But it is anyhow a good thing that in one country at least the Jewish race should be regarded and should consent to be[127] regarded as something different and separate. We presume that as soon as the Jewish State in Palestine is established, Mr. Pinhoos will change his title to that of Jewish Ambassador. Mr. Pinhoos hopes that before long there will be many other such ministries established, but while Isaacs and Mond can govern England and dictate to the Peace Conference, there is not much hope that they will desire to rule the affairs of Whitechapel.”
Mr. Israel Zangwill, in a recent address at the Poale Zion Conference in London, went a step further when he stated that the race which produced “a Beaconsfield, a Reading, a Montagu, a Klotz, a Kurt Eisner, a Trotzky” should be represented as an independent member of the League of Nations. (See Mr. Zangwill’s statement in The Jewish Chronicle, February 27, 1920, No. 2656, p. 28.)
In view of the adoption of this policy by the Jews in Paris, Americans are justified in ascertaining just what is the position of the American Jewry with respect to enforcing such a program here. Our Constitution knows no such thing as foreign national rights enjoyed by persons who at the same time enjoy the privileges of American citizens. A subject of a foreign nationality when he becomes an American citizen renounces his former allegiance, and it is upon this condition only that he becomes a member of our body politic.
Nevertheless in the United States itself, where the Jews enjoy an absolute equality of rights with all other citizens, they have recently endeavored to build up an institution which is entirely opposed to the spirit of the American Constitution, namely, a special Jewish court which tries cases pertaining only to the Jews. This institution is known as “The Jewish Court of Arbitration” and holds its sessions in one of the Municipal Court rooms in New York City. This fact was briefly recorded by the New York Times in its issue of February 19, 1920, in an article under the title, “Jews Here Start Modern Sanhedrin.” While this significant fact may have passed almost unnoticed by the American public, nevertheless it has already attracted attention in France.
It is unthinkable to any American brought up under a system of government which has provided a check against the oppression of minorities by the majority, that special rights should be granted to any of the ethnic elements of our population, such as the Jews, the Chinese, the Negroes, or any other[128] racial group, or that any of these groups should by virtue of such special rights diminish our sovereignty by a treaty provision similar to Article XII of the special treaty with Poland. By this article Poland agreed that any member of the Council of the League of Nations should have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction or any danger of infraction of any of these obligations (the national rights of the Jews), and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such directions as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.[28]
The whole question of Jewish double national rights is of the utmost importance, since the recognized Zionist leaders and the international Zionist organizations have on various occasions strongly urged the adoption of such double rights. Such rights and privileges for the Jews indeed are more than “national rights”; they are in one sense international rights common to Jews living in different countries. In other words, under such a system they would enjoy both the rights of citizenship of the particular country in which they live, and in addition, special privileges granted to them alone. The granting of such privileges to the Jews would constitute a series of international rights conferred exclusively upon the Jewish[129] race. The Protocols of the Zionist Men of Wisdom contemplate this very thing in the following language:
“Then our international rights will sweep away the national rights in a limited sense and will rule countries in the same manner as the civil power of each state regulates the relationship of its subjects among themselves.” (Protocol No. II.)
It is a question to what extent the demands for Jewish minority rights in eastern European states may be a part of the general Zionist movement. To this movement little attention can be given in this volume. It is sufficient to quote a portion of an article published in the New York Globe on January 25, 1919, under the title “Want Brandeis to Govern Judea.” The staff correspondent of the New York Globe and Chicago Daily News in London, under date of December 31, 1918, refers to the Zionist movement and the exposition of its objects and purposes by one of its leaders, Ittimar Ben Avi:
“If the plans and ambitions of the recently proclaimed nation of Judea are fulfilled, Louis Brandeis, now Justice of the United States Supreme Court, will be the first of the new rulers of Israel. The dream of the renationalization of Palestine which has lived for 2,000 years in the hearts of the Jews is fast entering the realm of reality. Judea is sending its delegates to the peace conference. Its existence as a nation has been recognized by the allies, its declaration of independence has been signed and its diplomats and politicians are already busy moulding the future of its institutions.
“Ittimar Ben Avi is the first of its peace delegates to reach London. An impassioned idealist who already visions Judea enrolled among the great powers of the world, is Ben Avi. But his idealism and his oratorical agitations on behalf of Judea have not impaired his worth as a diplomat.
UNDER BRITISH TRUSTEESHIP
“‘Israel cannot leap to its feet, full grown and capable,’ he explained. ‘It has been scattered and dormant too long. As delegate to the peace conference, I am to outline the demands of the new Judea. The first and most important of these is the political desire of the new Hebrew nation. We desire a British trusteeship for a period of twenty-five years. We do not want to establish a parliament or congress in Judea for at least twenty-five years. The British have emancipated us from the Turk. Great Britain is more capable of governing or overseeing Palestine as a colony than any one other country.
“‘If the English will agree to this our plan then includes the appointment by England of a Zionist as governor-general[130] of Judea. It is more or less known among Zionists that Mr. Justice Brandeis is the most logical man now living for the position of governor-general. Under him there should be two sub-governors—one a Christian and the other a Moslem. Both should be appointed by England. We also intend to have attorney generals for the various provinces and mayors for the various communities in Palestine. These are to be elected by the people.
“‘After twenty-five years Judea may be in position to govern herself. As a totally independent nation and part of an entente including Armenia and Arabia, Judea would be a powerful asset to the western world not only as a producer of culture and a contributor to the world’s markets, but as a military barrier against any power seeking to control the Suez Canal.’
“OUTNUMBERED BY OTHERS
“Ben Avi’s desire for a British over-lordship is inspired by the fact that were Palestine to proclaim a complete independence to-day and seek by popular vote to elect its own ruler, the Moslem and Christian peoples living there would outnumber and outvote the Hebrew population. The result would be a nation in which the Jews were in the minority. By England’s recognition of Judea as a Jewish nation and giving its Moslems and Christians representation through sub-governor generals, the Zionists are confident that their dreams will be most practically fulfilled.
“The history of Palestine’s struggle towards renationalizing of the Jewish race is comparatively recent. Beginning some forty years ago with the agitation of a handful of idealists, the movement expanded slowly. Great effort to repopulate Palestine with Jews drawn from Russia for the most part met with indifferent success. In the face of ridicule and protest from their own race, the Jews of England, the United States, France, Russia and Germany, acting as an intensive minority, pursued their dream.”
3. The strategy of stirring up class hatred in Christian nations, and the encouragement of revolutionary radicalism to that end, which has such a prominent place in the Protocols, finds corroboration in the very prominent part which, in recent times, the Jews have been taking in the radical and revolutionary movement in many parts of the world, including Hungary, Germany, Holland, Poland, the United States, and certain South American states.
The predominant influence of the Jews in the Bolshevist movement throughout the world is a question which is publicly discussed in the European press. The Budapest correspondent of the London Times some time ago stated:
“Hungary is being terrorized by Jewish agitators.” (American Jewish News, May 2, 1919.)
Charges of this kind have appeared in the press in many European countries. In this connection we call the attention of the reader to an article of the Morning Post, entitled “An Insult to Poland,” August 30, 1919. In this article, among other things, the following is stated:
“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, and also upon all who protected the Russian peasantry against the exactions of the Jewish usurers.”
This article closes with the following sentence:
“And we warn Jews also, not for the first time. They are showing themselves not Englishmen of the Jewish faith, as we used to consider them, but a nation with a foreign policy of their own—and that policy hostile to the friends of England. And that is what in the end Englishmen will not stand.”
The three following documents are also of importance:
(a) An editorial article which appeared in the London Morning Post on April 8, 1919, entitled “Bolstering the Bolshevik.”
(b) A letter signed by Lionel Rothschild and nine other well-known British Jews to the editor of the London Morning Post, which practically justifies the stand that was taken by that paper.
(c) Comment on the two above-mentioned documents published in the American Jewish News on May 2, 1919.
We set forth in full these three documents.
“The news from Russia fluctuates from day to day. It is now reported that the situation on the Murmansk Coast has somewhat improved; but the situation in Archangel is obviously critical. Our soldiers have driven off formidable attacks; but the fighting is close and desperate. From South Russia the Bolsheviks reported that Odessa had been captured, and although we may hope that if this is true the Allied forces[132] were safely evacuated, there remains a terrible anxiety as to the fate which may have overtaken our devoted friends in South Russia. For these critical situations we do not blame the War Office; but we do blame Allied policy which has trifled with the whole situation and has alternated between large promises to our Allies and obsequious approaches to our enemies. We are informed that although the anti-Bolshevist Armies in Russia have been promised arms and supplies in abundance, what they have actually received has been contemptible. The result is that they are fighting almost naked and in many cases without arms. We may be certain both our soldiers and our allies in Russia are putting up a brave and desperate fight for their lives and their cause, but in these circumstances they must feel that they have been forgotten, if not betrayed, by those upon whom they looked for support. And so it is in Poland. We hear from trustworthy sources that the spirit of the Poles is magnificent. They are ready to become a strong and trusty support of the Allies upon the eastern borders of Germany; but they ask in vain for munitions, supplies and raw materials, and they see their vital communications with the Baltic left in the hands of their enemy and ours.
“Poland and Russia are one problem in this sense. We must support our friends if we are to defeat the Bolsheviks, and their secret abettors the Germans. For it is certain in that while Germany consistently suppresses Bolshevism in Germany she encourages it in Poland and Russia. But we are not supporting our friends. We promised them supplies which did not arrive, and political support which breaks down before German opposition. What is the reason of it? We notice that the Daily Herald and the Daily News are persistently telling the people of this country that we are fighting Bolshevism in obedience to the pressure of the capitalists. Now that is a lie. We are fighting Bolshevism in opposition to a very strong group of German-Jewish and Russian-Jewish capitalists, who are secretly working for the Bolshevist cause. Mr. Lansing may or may not be aware of the fact, but he is helping as corrupt a group of international financiers as ever lived. And the object of that group is to support Bolshevism in Russia in order to make a deal with the Bolsheviks. We have mentioned several times the disagreeable fact that the Russian Bolsheviks were Russian Jews. These Jews are at the present moment in control of the Russian Government and they have powerful friends in all the Allied countries who are helping them. We have appealed to the British Jews, but appealed so far in vain, to dissociate themselves formally from a cause which is doing the Jewish people terrible harm in all parts of the world. In reply the Jewish press shower upon us not only abuse but threats. Thus, for example, the Jewish World threatens us with the fate of Mordecai: ‘ ... we wish it no harm, but we[133] would beg it to recollect,’ so it says, ‘while yet it has its feet upon the earth, the fate of its anti-Jewish forbear in that narrative, in the hope that it may mend its ways betimes.’
“We are aware of the significance of that threat. We fully understand what it means, and the secret Allies upon whom the Jewish World reckons when it makes it. We saw them at work in Glasgow and Belfast. We see them at work now in Budapest, where, it is reported, out of thirty members of the Bolshevik Soviet, twenty-six are Jews. We understand the threat, but we do not propose to be deterred in our duty to the British public by the terrorist methods of the Bolsheviks. And we suggest to the British Jewish community—most of whom, we believe, are by no means in sympathy with this crusade—that they are being served very badly in their newspapers, which openly threaten Bolshevik methods and scoff at advice which is tendered in a friendly spirit. In secret, we feel certain, the majority of the British, Jews distrust and dislike the fanatics who are now leading Jewry astray in the cause of a spurious Jewish Imperialism. But they are afraid to dissociate themselves publicly from the dervishes of Judaism. In the meantime these powerful influences are at work in every country, and chiefly in Paris, where they are working powerfully against the cause of Poland. An unseen hand is at this present time stifling the infant Poland in its cradle, and this is being done in the interests of German-Jewish Capitalism. It is a conspiracy which is assisted by so-called Liberal newspapers like the Daily News, and so-called Labor newspapers like the Daily World; but it is a conspiracy, nevertheless, which is directed against the cause of liberty in Poland and in the interests of alien Capitalism. For it remains true that our labor agitators, while they are the enemies of British Capital, contrive to be the friends of the Capitalism of the enemies of England. Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson—those champions of liberty—also appear to be more susceptible to the influence of an alien capitalism than to the cry for freedom of long enchained Poland. We ask our readers, who remember the traditional friendship of England with the Polish cause, to mark the note of anguish in Mr. Paderewski’s statement which we publish this morning. He speaks—and he speaks truly—of ‘the bitterness of the disappointment of the Polish population,’ but it is not only the Polish population that is disappointed by the great Danzig betrayal. Every student of Allied interests must see that, whereas a strong Poland might be a bulwark against both German militarism and Russian Bolshevism, a weak Poland must be the vassal of one and the victim of the other. As to the economic side of the question, British commerce may bid farewell to all hope of a connection in Poland if it leaves Poland in such a situation as to be the enforced dependent of Germany.”
London Morning Post,
April 23rd, 1919.
“To the Editor of the Morning Post:—
We have read with deepest concern and with sincere regret certain articles which have recently appeared in two closely associated Jewish newspapers in this country on the topic of Bolshevism and its ideals. In our opinion, the publication of these articles can have no other effect than to encourage the adoption of the theoretic principles of Russian Bolsheviks among foreign Jews who have sought and found refuge in England. We welcome, accordingly, your suggestion that British Jews should ‘dissociate themselves from a cause which is doing the Jewish people harm in all parts of the world.’ This is profoundly true, and we, on our behalf and on behalf of numbers of British Jews with whom we have conferred, desire to dissociate ourselves absolutely and unreservedly from the mischievous and misleading doctrines which those articles are calculated to disseminate. We repudiate them as dangerous in themselves and as false to the tenets and teachings of Judaism.
Partly in order to counteract the mistaken policy of the newspapers referred to, the League of British Jews was founded in November, 1917. The proceedings and views of the League are published in a monthly bulletin, entitled Jewish Opinion, which can be obtained at the office of the League, 708-709 Salisbury House, E.C. 2, and which may eventually be merged in a larger journal appearing at more frequent intervals. For we thoroughly concur with your criticism that ‘the British Jewish community, most of whom,’ as you rightly say, ‘are by no means in sympathy with this (Nationalist) crusade, are being served very badly by their newspapers.’ Meantime we take this opportunity of repudiating in public the particular statements in those newspapers to which you have felt it your duty to call attention.
Yours, etc.,
“General Monash, Rothschild, and Montefiore Figure in Agitation.
“In reply to a recent article in the London Morning Post, in which the editor accused the Jews as being Bolsheviks, a letter justifying the stand of the Post in the matter was sent to that paper and signed by Baron Lionel Rothschild, Lord Swaythling, Sir Magnus, Sir Marcus Samuel, Sir Harry Samuel, General Monash, Sir Isidore Spielmann, Claude Montefiore, Leonard Cohen and Professor Galantz.
“As a result of this letter, a self-sanctifying leading editorial appeared in the Post, which cried out in virtuous indignation against all those who had previously questioned that the majority of the Jews are Bolsheviks. The letter, coming as it has, at a time when the anti-Semitic pot is boiling in London, has a peculiarly unfortunate effect. The opinion of London Jewry towards these ten men they consider have betrayed them, may best be left to the imagination.”
It is significant that the feeling that the Jews are largely instrumental in promoting Bolshevism and radicalism in general is by no means confined to England. The New York World published on January 26, 1919, a cable, from Buenos Aires entitled “Argentina Deports Fourteen Hundred Bolshevists.” The cable reads as follows:
“Buenos Aires, January 25.—Fourteen hundred prisoners, charged with Bolshevist activities, are on board a cruiser here awaiting deportation, according to Secret Service Men. The majority of them are Russian Jews. Some Spaniards are among the number.”
In the same connection the New York Tribune, on January 24, 1919, reported that in Buenos Aires posters were put up in which the Russian Jews were blamed “for the recent outbreaks, as well as the anarchistic outbreak in 1910,” and it was demanded that “the government rid the nation of this Jewish pest.”
In the issue of The Review of March 13, 1920, an article was published entitled “Bolshevism in Holland.” The article gives a brief description of the Bolshevist movement in Holland. It also gives the names of the most prominent leaders of the Bolshevist movement in that country. In part the article reads as follows:
“First among these is Mr. David Wijnkoop, an Amsterdam Jew, of a fiery, impetuous temperament, a great orator with[136] a strong hold on the masses. He is the Dutch counterpart of his Russian comrade Trotzky, whom he resembles even in outward appearance, and a faithful henchman of his Moscow alter ego in the spreading of the latter’s international propaganda.”
It is a well-known fact that in Hungary, during the Bolshevist revolution of 1919, Bela Kun, whose real name is Cohen, a Jew, became the dictator. It was often reported in various papers that out of the thirty-one Soviet officials in Hungary twenty-six were Jews.
In Austria revolutionary attempts were made to set up a Bolshevist government, and the two brothers Alder, as well as Friedrich Adler, all of whom are Jews, were the leading spirits of the Bolshevist revolutionary propaganda in that country.
In Germany the first Spartacan revolt was almost exclusively under the control of Jews. Among others were: Rosa Luxemburg, Clara Zetkin, Radek (whose real name is Sobelsohn), Eugene Levine, Muscham.
In the recent attempt to overthrow the Ebert Government and set up a Bolshevist Republic, almost all of the leaders in Berlin were Jews. The New York Sun, under date of March 18, 1920, gives the names of the Communist leaders who attempted to overthrow the government as follows: Cohn, Daumig, Newmann, Dr. von Kahn, Kurt Bever, Levy.
As to the United States the following should be stated:
While it is a generally recognized fact that the Socialist, Communist, Radical, I. W. W., and Bolshevist movements are largely recruited from the foreign-born population of various nationalities, nevertheless it can scarcely be denied that the moving spirit of the destructive revolutionary propaganda is largely Jewish and fomented by Jews. Thus, for instance, the notorious “Russian” Soviet Bureau, headed by Ludwig C. A. K. Martens, a German, was almost exclusively composed of Jews. Those who were in charge of responsible departments in the Bureau were as follows:
All of the five Socialists who were recently ousted from the Assembly of the state of New York by an overwhelming vote were Jews. Their names are: Louis Waldman, August Classens, Samuel A. de Witt, Samuel Orr, and Charles Solomon. During the trial of these men one of the most sensational pieces of evidence introduced by the state to show that the Socialist Party advocated the overthrow of the government by violence and revolution, was a book published in Yiddish by the Jewish Socialist Federation of America. This federation is a part of the Socialist Party. The official report of the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly of the State of New York remarks that in the book published in Yiddish, the principles of Socialism, “were not camouflaged, as they frequently are in English” (page 31). The book in question typifies the extreme of revolutionary Socialism in the United States. We quote some of the more striking passages:
“Workingmen cannot depend on ‘peaceful evolution’; they must prepare for a revolution, and class-dictatorship” (page 207).
“The Socialist movement rouses the workingmen to revolution; it preaches to them class-struggle, awakens within them class-consciousness, makes all necessary preparations for a Socialistic order. When society is ready for the overturn, when the Socialist organization feels that the moment has come, it will make the revolution. To predict when and how this should be done is impossible. This is a thing which must be determined separately in every country, because the circumstances in every country are different. No sooner than the revolution is made, however, the first aim of the Socialists must be to seize the government, the state, by whatever means they can succeed in doing this with and then their rule must establish the dictatorship of the Proletariat.
“This dictatorship will be employed for one thing, to eliminate capitalism by force, take away by force the capital from private owners and transfer it to the ownership of the community.”
“Socialists seek to be elected into the government principally for the sake of propaganda.”
“To the Socialist at present, the meaning of class struggle, Internationale, and dictatorship of the Proletariat must be clear. He must understand that Socialism is not a reform[138] movement. He must know that Socialism is a Revolutionary world-perspective, and that the Socialist movement is a Revolutionary movement.”
The radical periodicals published in this country in Russian are almost entirely managed and completely controlled by Jews. For instance, the Russki Golos has an editorial staff composed of four men, all of whom are Jews, namely, Weinbaum, Zvesdichiy, Sokolov, Gisenkin. The official organ of the Russian Communist Branch of the American Communist Party, the Novy Mir, is edited by two Jews, namely, N. Hourwitch, and Stoklitzky. The Bolshevist weekly, Pravda, is edited by two Jews, namely, Finkelstein and Weinstein. The Ukrainian Bolshevist tri-weekly publication, Robitnik, is published by a Jew, K. Pitlar. At the same time, even leaving out the well-known Yiddish publication The Jewish Daily Forward, with pronounced pro-Bolshevist tendencies, the new Anarchistic periodical, The Communist World, published in English, has the following men on its editorial staff, all of whom are Jews:
| Maximilian Cohen | Editor |
| B. D. Wolfe | Associate Editor |
| George Ashkenouzi | Business Manager |
| H. Winitsky | Executive Secretary |
Winitsky was recently convicted of criminal anarchy in the New York Courts.
Again, with the recently founded Communist Party of America, the rôle of the Jew is very important, inasmuch as its founder is Louis Fraina, an Italian Jew. Examples of this kind could be multiplied almost indefinitely. For this reason we must content ourselves with a reference to an article published in the New York Call. This is the official organ of the Socialist Party of America, which is issued under the motto:
“Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains, and a world to gain.”
The president of this publication is S. Block, a Jew. The article in question, entitled “Chicago Workers Plan Big May Day Demonstrations,” deals with the arrangements for the May Day Parade of the Chicago radical labor organizations in 1919. It enumerates some of the organizations[139] which were represented in the conference which planned the demonstrations:
Indeed, it can scarcely be denied that the Jewish labor organizations as enumerated by this Socialist publication itself were in complete control of the whole May Day parade in one of the biggest cities in the United States.
One more fact of importance which should be mentioned is that four Anarchists, who were convicted and sentenced to terms of twenty years by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, were Jews. Their names are: Jacob Abrams, Samuel Lippman, Hyman Lachowsky, Mollie Stimer.
Finally, we refer to the well-known activities of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, both of whom are Jews, and who were deported on the Soviet Ark “Buford.”
Of course, it is significant that the radical labor movement is largely controlled by Jewish internationalists, but still more significant appears the fact that recently several rabbis have taken a definite stand in support of the Red movement. We shall refer here to two instances. On October 25, 1919, the[140] New York Tribune stated that Rabbi Judah L. Magnes had publicly announced that “he was a Bolshevik and in full sympathy with their doctrines and ideals.” The article referred to is entitled “Bolshevik Talk Forces Magnes Out.” Therein it is revealed that on account of his public announcement that he was in full sympathy with Trotzky, Rabbi Magnes was forced to resign from the American Jewish Committee. It is important to bear in mind that at that time Rabbi Magnes was one of the most honored members of the Jewish community. Rabbi Magnes was deputed in 1916 to represent in Europe the American Jewish Relief organization, The Joint Distribution Committee, which, among other activities, solicited and distributed money and supplies to the Jews in territories occupied by the Central Powers. Whenever there is a great mass meeting Rabbi Magnes appears as the chief spokesman on behalf of the Jews in New York City, as has happened several times since his expulsion from the American Jewish Committee. Rabbi Magnes was one of the founders of the People’s Council, which was dissolved by the United States Government during the war. Here is a tentative enumeration of Rabbi Magnes’s activities as stated in the Tribune article above referred to:
“Dr. Magnes was one of the organizers of the American-Jewish Committee which has been engaged in philanthropic work among the Jews for the last fifteen years. Most of the work of the committee was confined to countries where the people were oppressed. Dr. Magnes has held many important posts and at one time was Rabbi of the Temple Emanu-El. Shortly after we entered the war he became a strong pacifist and was active in the People’s Council.
“There was a movement started on the East Side early in the summer to make Dr. Magnes the Socialist candidate for Congress. The persons who attempted this move are now supporting Congressman London for reëlection. Dr. Magnes is chairman of the American Jewish Kehillah.”
The other instance is that of Rabbi Maxwell Silver of Temple Shaari Zedek, Brooklyn, who, on January 8, 1920, was ousted by his congregation early in January, 1920, because of alleged radical utterances. “It was charged that he drew class lines and spoke of the rich as oppressors.” (See New York Times, January 8, 1920.) This fact alone might not be of great importance, but the action of the New York Association[141] of Reformed Rabbis, as reported in the New York daily press, is significant:
“After the dismissal of Rabbi Maxwell Silver, of Congregation Shaari Zedek, of Brooklyn, the New York Association of Reformed Rabbis undertook the mediation of the trouble between the congregation and the Rabbi, and as a result pointed out that the whole difficulty was due to an unfortunate misunderstanding. Thereupon the trustees decided to recommend the reinstatement of Rabbi Silver, and we are happy to state that such reinstatement was ratified by the congregation after a special meeting last night. By a special resolution the New York Association of Reformed Rabbis expresses its confidence in the worthiness of Rabbi Silver and also in the good intentions of the Congregation Shaari Zedek to serve the cause of Israel.”
It is also a peculiar fact to consider that certain powerful Jewish bankers were instrumental and active in spreading Bolshevism, which now threatens the whole world. In this connection we refer the reader to one of the “Sisson Documents,” published by the United States Government in 1917 under the title “German Bolshevist Conspiracy”:
On September 21, 1917, one of the leading German Spartacan leaders, a Jew, by name of Furstenberg, wrote a letter to a Bolshevist by the name of Raphael Scholan, who became later one of the Bolshevist commissaries in Soviet Russia, as follows:
Stockholm, Sept. 21, 1917.
“To Mr. Raphael Scholan,
Haparanda.
Dear Comrade:
The banking house, M. Warburg, opened an account for the enterprise of Comrade Trotzky, upon receipt of a telegram from the Chairman of the ‘Rhein-Westphalian Syndicate.’ A lawyer, probably Mr. Kestroff, obtained ammunition and organized the transportation of same, together with that of the money, to Lulea and Vardo, the firm of Essen & Son, Lulea, as to the consignee and the confidential persons to whom the sum demanded by Comrade Trotzky is to be handed. Fraternal greetings!
(sgd) Furstenberg.”
Rumors that international Jewish financiers have been supporting the Bolsheviki in Russia are persistent.
Who are the international financiers? Perhaps the answer is to be found in the following cable dispatch of the Wolff Agency on the German situation in 1919, published by La Vieille France in the issue of February 13, 1919:
“The deputy Hyemann has revealed the curious fact: The Bolshevist movement is supported by financiers. The banker, Bleichroeder, has contributed two millions to the Extremist Journal.”
It is of course known that Bleichroeder is one of the most powerful Jewish financiers in Germany.
It will be remembered that the Protocols bring out very distinctly two ideas, namely, economic and social dissensions of all kinds, including anarchism and communism and also a world war.
In a recently published book which has created much interest, entitled “The Inside Story of Austro-German Intrigue,” by Joseph Goriĉar and Lyman Beecher Stowe, the authors advanced the theory that Jewish bankers have during the last century played an important rôle in European war conspiracies. Mr. Goriĉar was, during the early part of the late war, Austro-Hungarian Consul in Berlin. We refer to one of the most important passages in the book bearing upon the subject:
“The pro-war bankers of 1854 as well as those of 1914 originated in the Semitic banking center of Frankfort-on-the-Main in Germany, the birthplace of the Bethmann-Hollwegs, the Goldschmidts, the Seligmans, Jacob Schiff,[29] and the Rothschilds.
“All the vast wealth of the banking house of the Rothschilds, amounting at the beginning of the war to some twenty billion francs, was made chiefly in war operations, war financing. The Rothschild brothers of the Central Empires have in fact sometimes financed simultaneously rival groups of belligerents.
“Frankfort-on-the-Main is, and has been for more than a hundred years, the chief source of financial backing for wars. Kings, emperors, and war ministers have had to await the pleasure of these bankers before issuing their ultimata. To that centre have been added Vienna, Berlin, and Budapest, the other important centres of Jewish world finance. In Vienna the Rothschilds’ word is law; in Berlin, the Hahnemans, Bleichroeders, Mendelssohns, especially the last named, who of late years have controlled Russia’s finances. To these same sources may be traced the origin of the World War.” (Pages 56 and 57.)
The “Protocols” have already attracted public attention in various countries. The attitude which the Jewish leaders will take in regard to them is a matter of great interest and deep concern. Until now they have kept silent. Only on rare occasions have the Jews referred, though very indirectly, to the question of the existence of a Jewish world conspiracy. The most explicit utterance on the subject in the United States is that of Rabbi Stephen Wise, in his address to the Congregation of Free Synagogues in Carnegie Hall, on March 1, 1920. The reports of the address in the daily press are rather meager. We set forth in full the report which appeared in the New York Tribune on the following day:
“‘JEWISH PLOT’ ONLY AMONG APOSTATES, SAYS DR. WISE
“BELIEVES MEN WHO FORSWEAR ANCIENT FAITH WOULD SEIZE POWER FOR OWN ENDS
“Speaking to the congregation of the Free Synagogue in Carnegie Hall yesterday on the subject of ‘The Jewish Conspiracy,’ which has had its most recent revival in a story published[144] in the London Morning Post, charging that Jews were in a plot to seize control of the world, Dr. Stephen S. Wise said that the only serious ‘conspiracy’ among the Jews to-day emanated from the young men who foreswore their ancient faith.
“Saying that oppression and injustice have attended the followers of the Jewish faith for centuries, Dr. Wise added that they had a right to be vindictive, but that it was not in their nature to be so.
“‘It is the Jew who has been reduced to such a state of degradation by oppression that he lies when he swears allegiance to another faith which has not even touched his heart, who becomes a dangerous element in the life of the world,’ said Dr. Wise.
“‘The conspiracy,’ if there is one, is among those of Jewish birth who are or seem ashamed of their origin. They follow false gods or none at all, and among them will be those who may seize power for their own ends.”
In conclusion it must be stated that the motives which have actuated the publication of this book are not anti-Semitic. The object—already indicated in the introduction—is to call the attention of the American people to a document which may throw important light upon the international Bolshevist movement which menaces directly the vital interests of the United States.
That this attention is amply justified appears from a review of the recent publication of the Protocols in England, which appeared in the London Times on May 8, 1920. The article is so significant that it is reprinted in its entirety.
“THE JEWISH PERIL.”[30]
A Disturbing Pamphlet
Call for Inquiry
(From a correspondent)
The Times has not as yet noticed this singular little book. Its diffusion is, however, increasing, and its reading is likely to perturb the thinking public. Never before have a race and a[145] creed been accused of a more sinister conspiracy. We in this country, who live in good fellowship with numerous representatives of Jewry, may well ask that some authoritative criticism should deal with it, and either destroy the ugly “Semitic” bogy or assign their proper place to the insidious allegations of this kind of literature.
In spite of the urgency of impartial and exhaustive criticism, the pamphlet has been allowed, so far, to pass almost unchallenged. The Jewish Press announced, it is true, that the anti-Semitism of the “Jewish Peril” was going to be exposed. But save for an unsatisfactory article in the March 5 issue of the Jewish Guardian, and for an almost equally unsatisfactory contribution to the Nation of March 27, this exposure is yet to come. The article of the Jewish Guardian is unsatisfactory, because it deals mainly with the personality of the author of the book in which the pamphlet is embodied, with Russian reactionary propaganda, and the Russian secret police. It does not touch the substance of the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” The purely Russian side of the book and its fervid “Orthodoxy” is not its most interesting feature. Its author, Professor S. Nilus, who was a minor official in the Department of Foreign Religions at Moscow, had, in all likelihood, opportunities of access to many archives and unpublished documents. On the other hand, the world-wide issue raised by the “Protocols” which he incorporated in his book and are now translated into English as “The Jewish Peril,” cannot fail not only to interest, but to preoccupy. What are the theses of the “Protocols” with which, in the absence of public criticism, British readers have to grapple alone and unaided? They are, roughly:—
(1) There is, and has been for centuries, a secret international political organization of the Jews.
(2) The spirit of this organization appears to be an undying traditional hatred of the Christian world, and a titanic ambition for world domination.
(3) The goal relentlessly pursued through centuries is the destruction of the Christian national States, and the substitution for them of an international Jewish dominion.
(4) The method adopted for first weakening and then destroying existing bodies politic is the infusion of disintegrating political ideas of carefully measured progressive disruptive force, from liberalism to radicalism, and socialism to communism, culminating in anarchy as a reductio ad absurdum of egalitarian principles. Meanwhile Jewry remains immune from these corrosive doctrines. “We preach Liberalism to the Gentiles, but on the other hand we keep our own nation in entire subjection” (page 55). Out of the welter of world anarchy, in response to the desperate clamour of distraught[146] humanity, the stern, logical, wise, pitiless rule of “the King of the Seed of David” is to arise.
(5) Political dogmas evolved by Christian Europe, democratic statesmanship and politics, are all equally contemptible to the Elders of Zion. To them statesmanship is an exalted secret art, acquired only by traditional training, and imparted to a select few in the secrecy of some occult sanctuary. “Political problems are not meant to be understood by ordinary people; they can only be comprehended, as I have said before, by rulers who have been directing affairs for many centuries.”
(6) To this conception of statesmanship the masses are contemptible cattle, and the political leaders of the Gentiles, “upstarts from its midst as rulers, are likewise blind in politics.” They are puppets, pulled by the hidden hand of the “Elders,” puppets mostly corrupt, always inefficient; easily coaxed, or bullied, or blackmailed into submission, unconsciously furthering the advent of Jewish dominion.
(7) The Press, the theatre, stock exchange speculations, science, law itself, are, in the hands that hold all the gold, so many means of procuring a deliberate confusion and bewilderment of public opinion, demoralization of the young, and encouragement of the vices of the adult, eventually substituting, in the minds of the Gentiles, for the idealistic aspiration of Christian culture the “cash basis” and a neutrality of materialistic scepticism, or cynical lust for pleasure.
Such are the main theses of the “Protocols.” They are not altogether new, and can be found scattered throughout anti-Semitic literature. The condensed form in which they are now presented lends them a new and weird force.
Incidentally, some of the features of the would-be Jewish programme bear an uncanny resemblance to situations and events now developing under our eyes. Professor Nilus’s book was, undoubtedly, published in Russia in 1905. The copy of the original at the British Museum bears the stamp of August 10, 1906. This being so, some of the passages assume the aspect of fulfilled prophecies, unless one is inclined to attribute the prescience of the “Elders of Zion” to the fact that they really are the hidden instigators of these events. When one reads (page 8) that “it is indispensable for our plans that wars should not produce any territorial alterations,” one is most forcibly reminded of the cry, “peace without annexations” raised by all the radical parties of the world, and especially in revolutionary Russia. And again:—
We will create a universal economic crisis, by all possible underhand means and with the help of gold, which is all in our hands. Simultaneously we will throw on to the streets[147] huge crowds of workmen throughout Europe. We will increase the wages, which will not help the workmen as, at the same time, we will raise the price of prime necessities ... it is essential for us at all costs to deprive the aristocracy of their lands. To attain this purpose, the best method is to force up rates and taxes. These methods will keep the landed interests at their lowest possible ebb.
Nor can one fail to recognize Soviet Russia in the following:—
“... in governing the world the best results are obtained by means of violence and intimidation.... In politics, we must know how to confiscate property without any hesitation, if by so doing we can obtain subjection and power. Our State, following the way of peaceful conquest, has the right of substituting for the terrors of war, executions less apparent and more expedient, which are necessary to uphold terror, producing blind submission.... By new laws we will regulate the political life of our subjects as though they were so many parts of a machine. Such laws will gradually restrict all freedom and liberties allowed by the Gentiles.... It is essential for us to arrange that, besides ourselves, there should be in all countries nothing but a huge proletariat, so many soldiers and police loyal to our cause; ... in order to demonstrate our enslavement of the Gentile Governments of Europe, we will show our power to one of them by means of crime and violence, that is to say, a reign of terror; ... our programme will induce a third part of the populace to watch the remainder from a pure sense of duty or from the principle of voluntary service.”
Bearing in mind when this was published, we see, fifteen years later, a government established in Russia of which a high percentage of the leaders are Jews, whose modus operandi follows the principles quoted, and whose mainstay is a Communist Party, which answers to the last quotation. We see this, and it seems uncanny. The trouble is that all this fosters indiscriminate anti-Semitism. That the latter is rampant in Eastern Europe is a fact. That its propaganda in France, England, and America is growing is a fact also. Do we want, and can we afford to add exacerbated race-hatred to all our political, social, and economic troubles? If not, the question of the “Jewish Peril” should be taken up and dealt with. It is far too interesting, the hypothesis it presents is far too ingenious, attractive, and sensational not to attract the attention of our none too happy and none too contented public. The average man thinks that there is something very fundamentally wrong with the world he lives in. He will eagerly grasp at a plausible “working hypothesis.”
What are these “Protocols”? Are they authentic? If so, what malevolent assembly concocted these plans, and gloated[148] over their exposition? Are they forgery? If so, whence comes the uncanny note of prophecy, prophecy in parts fulfilled, in parts far gone in the way of fulfilment? Have we been struggling these tragic years to blow up and extirpate the secret organization of German world dominion only to find beneath it another more dangerous because more secret? Have we, by straining every fibre of our national body, escaped a “Pax Germanica” only to fall into a “Pax Judaeica”? The “Elders of Zion,” as represented in their “Protocols,” are by no means kinder taskmasters than William II and his henchmen would have been.
All these questions, which are likely to obtrude themselves on the reader of the “Jewish Peril,” cannot be dismissed by a shrug of the shoulders unless one wants to strengthen the hand of the typical anti-Semite and call forth his favourite accusation of the “conspiracy of silence.” An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and of their history is most desirable. That history is by no means clear from the English translation. They would appear, from internal evidence, to have been written by Jews for Jews, or to be cast in the form of lectures, and notes for lectures, by Jews to Jews. If so, in what circumstances were they produced and to cope with what inter-Jewish emergency? Or are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?
The publishers believe that the vast majority of the Jews in this country have never heard of the Protocols, and would denounce the plan which they set forth. The Jews here, constituting about three per cent of the population, enjoy the same rights and privileges as other citizens. All are equal before the law and all are free from persecution on religious grounds. American Jews are regarded by their fellow citizens, and for the most part doubtless regard themselves, as Americans of Jewish faith. They have indeed a special ground for gratitude to the country of their adoption, for they have found here opportunities which they did not enjoy in many other countries. They have shared in all the activities leading to prosperity and they have prospered. That they do, in fact, recognize their favorable situation is shown by the statements two of them are reported by the New York Times, in its issue of May 4, 1920, to have made at a mass meeting held on the preceding evening at Cooper Union under the auspices of the Independent Order of Brith Abraham, to express the gratitude of the Jewish people to Great Britain for taking the mandate[149] for Palestine. Judge Gustave Hartman, Grand Master of the order, is reported to have said in part:
“We didn’t know what a home was until we reached this greatest of all republics, the United States of America. Here we are given free and equal opportunity under the free institutions of this country. In this country the Jews have lived and prospered, and in all this country there are no better citizens than the Jewish people.”
Judge Otto A. Rosalsky said “that it became the duty of the Jewish citizens of America to cherish the ideals of this country and keep them intact, so that they might be handed down to their children’s children.”
Doubtless American Jews will recognize the menace to American institutions and American prosperity of any such political conspiracy as is outlined in the Protocols. But the situation demands more than tacit disapproval on their part. Bearing in mind the close parallelism shown to exist between the “Protocols” and the actual policies of Bolshevism as practiced in Russia, the dominant position occupied by the Jews in the Soviet Government, and the open sympathy and approval given to international Bolshevism by prominent Jews outside of Russia, it is vitally necessary that the American Jews should by word and deed express their condemnation not only of Bolshevism, but of any plan or program for world domination similar to that contained in the Protocols. Aside from their position on these matters, there is no likelihood of any change in the favorable situation of the Jews in this country unless by their own conduct they convince the American people that they are hostile to our institutions or to our system of government, or that they desire to constitute within the borders of the United States a race apart,—to be treated as members of a foreign nation, enjoying special rights, privileges, or immunities.