Parts 37  through 42
By Willie Martin

Jew Watch

History - Part 37

    Further on, oblivious of chronology, she states that General Cherevin willed her his memoirs, including the protocols, at the time of his death in 1896. Golovinskii and Manuilov might, it would seem have saved themselves trouble by procuring a copy of the document, which, according to Mr. Stepanov's testimony, had been printed and privately circulated in 1897.

    Another person who wrote against the protocols, A. du Chayla, can hardly be taken more seriously. An article of his appeared on May 14, 1921, in the Tribune Juive of Paris; and later, another article on June 13 in the New York Call, a violent Communist sheet, besides articles in Soviet publications. Prof. Nilus mentions in one of his books, entitled On the Bank of the River of God, meeting this Frenchman, who then paraded as a devotee of the Russian Orthodox Church.

    The character of this adventurer is well drawn in the reply his articles drew from a Russian lady, Madame Fermor, which is given in full. "Lately there appeared in the Russian paper Poslednii Novosti, Nos. 331-332 a series of articles by Count Alexander de Chayla, in which he casts doubt on the authenticity of a certain document (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion), because obtained by a man who did not inspire confidence. If the value of a document be based on the credit of the person by whom it is produced, one must also analyze the character of him who discredits it. That is why I am prompted to narrate how I became acquainted with Count du Chayla.

    I usually spent the summer on my estate in White Russia, in a village near Moguileff, where there is a famous convent. There, one day, about ten years ago, I was visited by the Superior, the Archimandrite Arsene, who introduced a young man, Count du Chayla. Du Chayla had been sent to the convent to study the Russian language and the Orthodox religion of which he pretended to be a devotee.

    Mr. Sabler, who was the Procurator of the Holy Synod at St. Petersburg: he supported Rasputin and other pseudo-mystics and had a disastrous influence on the Russian Church, had invited him to come to Russia and sent him to the celebrated monastery of Optina Poustine, whence he was sent to our monastery to serve as an example of anti-Catholic propaganda.

    It must be admitted that he lived up to his character and showed himself more of a Russian Orthodox than the patriarch himself. Thanks to his zeal, beautifully sculptured angels in the Renaissance style were removed from the chapel of our monastery: du Chayla found them too Catholic. He told me that the great joy he felt when he smashed these angels with a hammer. When I reproached him with an act of vandalism, his intolerance betrayed itself in the hatred which he then manifested against the Jews.

    Many a time I heard him say: 'One must have a good pogrom in Russia.' One can understand my astonishment when I read in his articles a false accusation of propaganda for pogroms against the White Army, which he now blames, he who so loudly proclaimed that pogroms were a necessity! it is from him that I heard of the existence of Drumont's books, which he praised eloquently; he used to advise me to read them that I might understand to what extent the Jews had conquered France. He used to predict that the same fate would overtake Russia, if ever the Jews were granted full civil rights.

    Great was my surprise when I read du Chayla's attack on Drumont, whose books he now calls lies. He, who had so much admired Drumont. 'As I followed du Chayla's life in Russia, I was amazed to see the extraordinary rapidity of his political and ecclesiastical career. He became an intimate friend of the Bishops known for their Orthodoxy, and he preached the sacred and absolute power of the Russian Monarhch and implacable hatred towards all foreigners. We saw du Chayla as an intimate friend of the Bishops Anthony of Volinia and Evlogii of Holm, frequent the famous salon of Countess Ingnatieff. As he rose in Russian society, his activities shifted from the religious field: he took up politics, and, as a follower of Count Bobrinsky, leader of the Pan-Slavic Party, he was sent to Austria on a secret mission among the Galicians. He was subsequently arrested for espionage.

    After his return to Russia, he directed a violent campaign against the smaller racial groups of the empire, especially against the Poles and Finns. As du Chayla was always in need of money, I recommended him to the president of the commission for the affairs of Finland, Mr. Korevo, who used him for anti-Finnish propaganda in the foreign press. At the time of the declaration of war, du Chayla was a student in the theological academy of Petrograd; he was appointed chief of a field hospital organized by Bishop Pitirim and provided with funds from Rasputin. Then I lost sight of him until after the revolution, when I heard of him as an agent provocateur, inciting the Cossacks against the White Army. In 1919 du Chayla was tried by court martial and convicted of seditious activities in the pay of the Soviets. The sentence was published in the newspapers of the Crimea.

    I was astonished to find his name appended to an article in a Russian newspaper notorious for its equivocal position concerning the reconstruction of Russia. (Signed) Tatina Fermor." June 9, 1921 - Paris.

    Not satisfied, and rightly so, with these efforts to discredit the Protocols, and yet unable to attach the signature of a noted gentile writer to their denials, the Jews sought another expedient: the seal of approval of one of the best known newspapers would impress the general public. Heretofore the articles had borne the name of private persons: now an official exposure of the protocols was to be published over the signature of the "Correspondent of The London Times in Constantinople." The identity of the "correspondent" was not revealed [however it has been discovered that his name was Philip Graves], although the most elementary sense of justice would insist on giving full credit to the gentleman who had made such a momentous discovery. Nor is there any evidence of his having been in Constantinople. Anyone who writes to the editor of a newspaper is a correspondent, and the number of lies which gain circulation in this fashion is notorious.

    The "sensational discovery" which The Times (August 16-18, 1921: the articles were reprinted in a booklet entitled, The Truth about The Protocols, 24 pages), thus gave to its readers was that the protocols were a "clumsy plagiarism" of a French book it called "The Dialogues of Genevia," published in Brussels in 1865.

    The "correspondent" tells in a easy, off-hand manner and with perfect self-assurance, about meeting in Constantinople a Mr. W, who said: "Read this book through and you will find irrefutable proof that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a plagiarism."

    So it wasn't the correspondent who deserved the credit for the "sensational discovery" after all; but a "Mr. X, a Russian landowner with English connections." Again, it is a pity that the gentleman should not have given his name and received the large reward which would surely have been his, from those who have been so active in suppressing and refuting the Protocols.

    Then follows the story of Mr. X, with his views on religion, politics, secret societies, and the rest: this Mr. X is an old-fashioned gentleman and the reader is ready to believe every word, as reported by "our correspondent." Mr. X, explains how he obtained the copy of the Geneva Dialogues from an old Okhrana officer; this establishes the fact that the Russian police had made use of the book to forge the Protocols. In fact the "correspondent" goes on to identify this very copy of the Geneva Dialogues as belonging to A. Sukhotin, there is an "A.S." scratched in the back which is conclusive, and from which the protocols were plagiarized and given to Nilus.

    Parallel passages from the Dialogues and the protocols are set opposite each other; and the English reader, never at home in Continental politics, is led into speculations on Napoleon III's relations with the Carbonari, his employment of Corsicans in the police, the employment of Corsicans by the Russian police, the knowledge Corsicans had of the existence of the Geneva Dialogues, Joly's purpose in writing them, the influence of Philippe, a Lyons mystic, on the Tsar, and so on, until the reader is completely overwhelmed. When he has reached this state, he is told: "At any rate, the fact of the plagiarism has now been conclusively established, and the legend [of the Protocols] may be allowed to pass into oblivion."

    The publication of this news from Constantinople was hailed by all the Jews, whose instant enthusiasm is no less revealing than the following letter from a leading Zionist, which appeared in The Times on the same day as the "discovery."

History - Part 38

    The second Jew would be right in pointing out the parallels in the earlier literature, though his conclusion would be ridiculous, for there is a very real connection: and so it is with the Protocols. One might have thought that The Times, in its desire to public the truth about the Protocols, would at least have given the correct title of the Geneva Dialogues, it is, Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu, published anonymously in Brussels in 1865. Moreover a minute's search in a library catalogue shows that another book bearing a similar title, was published some years earlier: namely, Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, by Jacob Venedey, published by Franz Dunnicker in Berlin in 1850.

    The Times, with its interest in plagiarism, might have been tempted to glance at this latter volume as also at The Prince by Machiavelli and L'Esprit des Lois by Montesquieu,. Had it done so its curiosity would have been amply rewarded: passages quoted from the Protocols as plagiarized from the Dialogues of 1865, are similar to several [For example, the passage referring to Vishnu is found in Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, in the Dialogues, and in Protocol 12] in Venedey's book of 1850, and both Jacob Venedey and Maurice Joly should be branded as plagiarists.

    But the resemblance between the Protocols and Venedey's book does not stop with a few parallel passages: the spirit of both is the same; it is revolutionary, whereas the Dialogues of 1865 are socialistic and polemical. The anonymous author merely borrowed certain descriptive passages in Venedey to give color to his argument. Space does not allow us here to trace the links between Jacob Venedey, the Alliance Israelite Universelle, Adolphe Cremieux, Maurice Joly, and Jules Janin.

    Now hadn't The Times better discover a copy of Venedey belonging to a former Okhrana officer, so as to explain how the Russian secret police were able to plagiarize the spirit, as well as a few platitudes and descriptive bits, when forging the Protocols? Its correspondent in Peiping might make that discovery some day? No, the Peiping correspondent (or any other) will be very careful not to make that discovery, for the simple reason that Venedey was a Jew, whereas The Times' point is that the Jews had nothing to do with the drafting of the Protocols.

    Its argument is that the author of the Dialogues was a Corsican; that the Corsicans in the Paris Police preserved the Dialogues and gave a copy to the Corsican members of the Russian police, who used it to forge the Protocols: these insidious Corsicans! It is noteworthy that no Corsican has yet raised a voice of protest against the charges made in The Times. Yet it is the Corsicans who are the real victims of a libel, not the Jews. But what of Venedey?

    Jacob Venedey, born in Cologne in May, 1805, was early engaged in revolutionary activities which caused his expulsion from Germany. He settled in Paris where in 1835, he edited a paper of subversive character, called Le Proscrit. Driven from Paris by the police, he moved to Havre, until, thanks to the representations of Arago and Mignet, friends of Cremieux, he was allowed to return to the capital. Meanwhile his book, Romanisme, Christianisme et Germanisme, won the praise of the French Academy, Venedey was a close friend and associate of Karl Marx. After spending the years 1843-44 in England, the headquarters of continental revolutionaries, he worked in Brussels for the founding, with Marx in 1847, of a secret organization, "The Communist League of Workers" (later the "Societe internationale de la Democratie").

    After the February revolution in 1848, Venedey joined Marx in Germany, where he became one of the chiefs of the revolutionary committee of Fifty (March, 1848), and was sent as commissar into the Oberland to stand against Hecker. Later elected as a member of the Left from Hesse-Homburg, he continued to serve on the Committee of Fifty. It was at this time that he brought out in Berlin his Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau in favor of despotism and oppression. Another case of plagiarism at work!

    When order was restored in Germany, Venedey was expelled from Berlin and Breslau. He was an active member of the Freemasons and affiliated with the Carbonari; he died in February, 1871, and was also closely associated not only with the revolutionaries of his day, but (as might be expected) with the leading Jews, the founders of the Alliance Israelite Universelle. The latter included men of as different political parties as the reactionary-imperialist Fould, the liberal-conservative Disraeli, and the communist-revolutionary Marx, and whether living under an empire, a constitutional monarchy or a republic, all labored towards a common aim, the establishment of an international Jewish world power.

    Prominent among them and in close touch with Venedey, was Adolphe Isaac Cremieux (1798-1880). A Nimes lawyer with an ardent admiration for Napoleon, he became legal adviser to the Bonaparte family and an intimate of Louis Napoleon with whom he joined in overthrowing the government of Louis Philippe in 1849. A member of the Mizraim Lodge, the Scottish Rite (of which he became Supreme Master on the death of Viennet), he was familiar with all new movements; and his influence enabled him to render at least one important service to Jewry by having the Jewish murderers of Father Thomas in Damascus (1841) set at liberty.

    One of the leaders in the revolution of February 1848, he was appointed minister of justice under the provisional government, and used all his political influence in the election of Louis Napoleon to the presidency of the republic. Cremieux hoped in this way to be named Prime Minister and to control French police for a period, as Disraeli did in England somewhat later. Like Disraeli, he had the financial support of the Rothschilds; but when the President chose for his banker another Jew, Fould, and named General Cavaignac premier, Cremieux saw he had lost. Bitterly disappointed, he became so hostile to his former friend that, at the time of the coup d'etat in 1851, he was imprisoned at Vincennes.

    On his release, he identified himself with the enemies of the emperor; these included the communist associates of Marx, Mazzini, Jacob Venedey, Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin, Pierre Leroux, and a group of socialists, among whom was Maurice Joly - Whose father was Philippe Lambert Joly, born at Dieppe, Attorney-General of the Jura under Louis-Philippe for ten years.

    His mother Florentine Corbara Courtois, was the daughter of Laurent Courtois, paymaster-general of Corsica, who had an inveterate hatred of Napoleon I. Maurice Joly was born in 1831 at Lons-le-Saulnier and educated at Dijon: there he had begun his law studies, but left for Paris in 1849 to secure a post in the Ministry of the Interior under M. Chevreau and just before the coup d'etat. He did not finish his law studies till 1860, and committed suicide in 1878.

    Joly, some thirty years younger than Cremieux, with an inherited hatred of the Bonapartes, seems to have fallen very largely under his influence. Through Cremieux, Joly became acquainted with communists and their writings. Though, until 1871 when his ambition for a government post turned him into a violent communist, he had not in 1864 gone beyond socialism, he was so impressed with the way they presented their arguments that he could not, if the chance were offered, refrain from imitating it.

    And this chance came in 1864-65, when his hatred of Napoleon, whetted by Cremieux, led him to publish anonymously in Brussels the Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu. In his work he tells us, "Machiavelli represents the policy of Might, while Montesquieu stands for that of Right: Machiavelli will be Napoleon, who will himself describe his abominable policy." It was natural that he should choose the Italian Machiavelli to stand for Bonaparte, and the Frenchman Montesquieu, for the ideal statesman: it was equally natural that he should put in the mouth of Machiavelli some of the same expressions which Venedey had put in it, and which Joly had admired. His own view was: "Socialism seems to me one of the forms of a new life for the people emancipated from the traditions of the old world. I accept a great many of the solutions offered by socialism; but I reject communism, either as a social factor, or as a political institution. Communism is but a school of socialism. In politics, I understand extreme means to gain one's ends, that at least, I am a Jacobin.

History Part 39

    The French authorities, however, penetrated the thinly disguised satire: Joly was arrested and sentenced to two years imprisonment (April, 1865). But the Dialogues had pleased Cremieux as much as they had displeased the emperor, and, when his term expired, his Jewish patron rallied to his support: Joly was able to found a legal review, Le Palais, with Jules Favre, Desmaret, Leblond, Arago, Berryer, and Adolphe Cremieux as its principal stockholders.

    With the fall of Napoleon III, Adolphe Cremieux once more took an open part in politics. Pushing to the front his former secretary, Gambetta, he directed through him the negotiations with Bismarck. Bismarck himself was guided by the Jew Bamberger (1832-1899), a former revolutionary of '48, but who had for years managed the Paris branch of the Jewish bank Bischofsheim & Goldschmidt; he was also a friend of Cremieux. A third Jew in the negotiations was the son of James Rothschild.

    Bismarck, who had bet the latter's grandfather, knew that Rothschild's real name was Meyer, and regarded him as a "Jewish citizen of Frankfurt," hence a German subject. To make matters worse, the victor was obliged to discuss the terms of peace with this renegade subject in French, the language of the vanquished, because Rothschild professed not to understand German. In this way, care was taken that the treaty should be satisfactory, if not entirely to the signatories, yet at least so to the Alliance Israelite Universelle.

    From then (1871) until his death in 1880, as President of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and Supreme Master of the Scottish Rite, Cremieux was one of the promoters of the anti-clerical movement following the Franco-Prissian war. His favorite theme was that there should be one cult: speaking at a general assembly of the Alliance he said: "The Alliance is not limited to our cult [Judaism]; it voices its appeal to all cults and wants to penetrate in all religions, as it has penetrated into all countries. Let us endeavor boldly to bring about the union of all cults under one flag of 'Union and Progress': Such is the motto of humanity."

    One cult, one flag. Are the Protocols of Nilus, or the words of Machiavelli in Joly's book or in Venedey's book, anything but an elaborate exposition of the ideas thus briefly expressed by Cremieux? His activities are one of the best examples of Jewish internationalism. Thus the principal attempt to discredit the Protocols leads directly into historical studies which substantiate and illustrate their doctrine in a remarkable and unexpected manner.

The Berne Trials

    "A lawyer, who assisted at the two trials, published in the review Hammer of December, 1937, a statement according to which the Judge (of the Lower Court) was in debt to a Jew at the time of the trial. This very serious allegation has never been denied. The Neue Berner Zeitung of October 29, 1937, formulated a not less serious complaint against the same Judge, who was obliged by his superiors to take an action against the paper. At the time of writing the action is not yet over. It would seem that the Judge was hardly the proper man to decide such a delicate question.

    It must be remarked also that, contrary to what appeared in many newspapers, the Court of Appeal found that, in spite of the prescriptions of the law, the reports of certain depositions had been drawn up by the private reporters of the Jewish plaintiffs. 'The proceedings as carried out in the Lower Court were not in accordance with custom and law...The manner of drawing up the reports was in contradiction with the binding prescriptions of the law (Art. 92 and 215 Str. V).' (Extract from Les Protocols des Sages de Sion constituent-ils un faux by H. de Vries de Heekelingen (Printed at Lausanne, 1938).

    In May 1935, the Judge of the Lower Court of the Swiss Canton of Berne, Meyer, gave judgment in the action taken by the Swiss Jewish Association and the Jewish Community of Berne against Theodore Fischer and Silvio Schnell concerning the Protocols and other publications. An appeal was lodged by Fischer and Schnell against the judgment, and the Court of Appeal or Higher Court of Berne gave its decision in October, 1937).

    That seemed clear and definite. Besides, the reports had not been read to the accused and had not been signed, as the law prescribes. In addition, witnesses for the defense had not been convoked and the Judge (of the Lower Court) had accepted from the plaintiffs, as coming from Moscow photographs which had been insufficiently legalized as well as faulty translations of Russian documents. Is it astonishing then that the accused were condemned by the Lower Court and that the Jews rejoiced? The proof that the Protocols were a forgery had been furnished at last.

    But they had to change their tune. The Berneses Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Lower Court. The Higher Court found fault with the setting-up of a commission of experts to examine the question of the authenticity of the Protocols, since the authenticity or non-authenticity of the Protocols did not concern the Court.

    Moreover, the Court of Appeal severely criticized the choice of the experts, especially the section of the third. 'If we leave out the account of the completely unnecessary expense of the other judgments, in the circumstances, this would have been satisfactory, provided that the third expert selected had been completely impartial and unprejudiced. C.A. Loosli, however, had already, in 1937, published a pamphlet entitled Die Schlimmen Juden, in which he had characterized the Protocols as a recklessly malevolent fabrication and had heaped scorn on them as a forgery, in a manner that was purely polemical and absolutely unscientific.

    The form that Loosli's judgment in the matter would take was, therefore, capable of being a large degree calculated in advance, so that he did not enjoy the requisite confidence of all parties.' (M. de Vries de Heekelingen again quotes from the German text of the High Court's decision). The Court then drew the obvious conclusion: 'Such a mode of appointing an expert is not up to standard.'

    It will be enough to mention one fact in order to justify this criticism of the expert, Loosli. A few pages back I showed that the testimony of Radziwill was valueless, since it has been proved that the Protocols had already been published in 1903. Loosli wanted, nevertheless, to make use of Radziwill's testimony in his professional report of October, 1934. To get out of the difficulty, he simply changed the date of Radziwill's testimony from 1903 to 1895.

    The result of the second trial was never in doubt. The accused (Fischer and Schnell) were acquitted, and one of them had to pay 100 francs costs out of a total of about 28,000 francs. Here it is interesting to note that the whole Jewish Press took good care not to mention that this slight penalty had nothing to do with the Protocols.

    You will remember what I said at the beginning, namely, that the Jews had included other publications in their action. The 100 francs costs were imposed on Mr. T. Fischer because of the article entitled Shweizermadchen hute dich vor schandenden Juden.

    A more disastrous result for the Jews could hardly be imagined. And what made it harder for them to bear was the fact that the Berneses Higher Court alluded to a judgment of the Federal Court, in which it was stated that the Swiss Law does not forbid and 'could not forbid journalists to express even very advanced opinions on the Jewish question, however painful these expressions of opinion might be for the Jews.'

    The Jews, however, are already 'putting across' their own version of the trial. The Jewish Daily Post of April 28, 1935, wrote that the first trial had shown 'the success that could be achieved by means of good Jewish organization.' This excellent organization was ready to go into action after the disaster of the second trial, as a couple of examples will show.

    The Jewish Chronicle of November 5, 1937, wrote that the Court of Appeal had declared the Protocols a forgery and had held that they must be regarded as trashy literature. The same review asserted that the Court found that the falsity of the Protocols had been proved. In reality the Court of Appeal had declared that the authenticity of the Protocols had not been proved, which does not mean that their falsity had been proved. The Higher Tribunal added that the Lower Court should not have entered upon that question at all. 'To enter upon an expert examination of that question and carry it out was altogether superfluous.' The statement of the Jewish Chronicle must be stigmatized as contrary to the truth.

History Part 40

    The Revue de Geneve (Jewish Review of Geneva), in its issue of November 1937, and the Journal des Nations, in its issue of November 3, 1937, were nearer the truth and sinned only by omission. They wrote that 'the proofs of the authenticity of the Protocols had not been furnished,' but they left out that the Lower Court had been blamed for having raised the question of authenticity, as that question did not concern it.

    It is a universally admitted principle of historical criticism that when a document has been discovered, that document must be held to be authentic so long as its lack of authenticity, in other words, its falsity, has not been proved. This has always been the rule in regard to historical criticism. When it is stated that proof of the authenticity of the Protocols has not been furnished, the cart is put before the horse. It is for the Jews to prove that the Protocols constitute a forgery, and we know that all the attempts to prove this have been lamentable failures.

    What is more, it is known that the Provisional (Russian) Government of Prince Lwow, Freemason, handed over to the Jew Winawer, all the documents concerning the Protocols that were to be found in the Russian Home Office or at the Police Headquarters. If a proof or even a shadow of a proof, of the falsity of the Protocols had been found among these documents, the Jews would have published it immediately.

    I do not intend to weary my readers with the account of other misrepresentations and skillfully concocted affirmations similar to those I have mentioned. It is a pity that writers, whose good faith cannot be called in question, take their information from such dubious sources. They make the mistake of not subjecting those sources to the severe criticism indispensable in a matter that aroused so much passionate feeling, and they neglect to consult the official documents. They thus contribute to get the false Jewish version accepted. They consider that they are acting charitably in defending unfortunate victims of persecution and calumny, while in reality they are working for the triumph of the Jews.

    A Belgian religious wrote a short time ago that the decision of the Higher Cantonal Court confirmed the judgment of the Lower Court magistrate with regard to the falsity of the Protocols. The same author also asserted that the Court declared the Protocols to be 'a document written in bad faith, a flagrant and poisonous forgery.' The Reverend Father is wrong. It was not the Court, but the barristers for the Jews who attacked the Protocols as the vilest product of the printing press ever published in Switzerland. I have carefully perused the 53 folio pages of the judgment and I can affirm that the Court nowhere declared the Protocols to be 'a document written in bad faith, a malignant and poisonous forgery.' That statement is absolutely opposed to the truth.

    The Court certainly made use of some very severe epithets, such as 'stupid Jew-baiting,' 'attempt to defame the Jews as a body,' but these were employed with reference to the article Shweizermadchen hute dich vor schandenden Juden, which had nothing to do with the Protocols, but which the Jews had cleverly included in their case.

    The Court declared that the Protocols were 'shoddy or trashy literature in the aesthetic and literary...sense.' With that judgment we are in complete agreement. What remains to be determined is who is the author of this 'trashy literature.' On that point the Court declared itself incompetent."

Text and Commentary of The Protocols

    The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion may be briefly described as a blueprint for the domination of the world by a secret brotherhood. Whatever may be the truth about their authorship, and, as will be shown, this has been the subject of bitter dispute; there can be no doubt that the world society to which they look forward is nothing more or less than a world police state.

    The book in which the Protocols were first embodied was published by Professor Sergyei A. Nilus in Russia in 1905, a copy being received in the British Museum on August 10, 1906. Professor Nilus's concern was to expose what he believed to be a ruthless, cold-blooded conspiracy for the destruction of Christian civilization. Earlier, in August and September, 1903, the Russian newspaper Snamia had published the Protocols, and they are also believed to have been published in the winter of 1902/1903 in the newspaper Moskowskija Wiedomosti.

    They remained unknown outside Russia, however, until after the Bolshevik Revolution, when Russian emigrants brought Nilus's book to North America and Germany. The similarity between what was forecast in the Protocols and the fate which had befallen Russia under the Bolsheviks was so marked that, after these long years of neglect, they rapidly became one of the most famous (or notorious) documents in the world.

    In Bolshevik Russia, the penalty for their mere possession was death. It remains so to this day, both in the Soviet Union and in the Satellite countries. Outside the Iron Curtain, in South Africa possession of the Protocols is also forbidden by law, although the penalty is less drastic.

    As a result of their rapidly growing fame, numerous attempts were made to discredit the Protocols as a forgery. But it was not until 1933 that the Jews resorted to legal action. On 26th June, 1933, the Federation of Jewish Communities of Switzerland and the Berne Jewish Community brought an action against five members of the Swiss National Front, seeking a judgment that the Protocols were a forgery and a prohibition of their publication.

    The procedure of the Court was astounding, the provisions of the Swiss Civil Code being deliberately set aside. Sixteen witnesses called by the plaintiffs were heard, but only one of the forty witnesses called by the defendants was allowed a hearing. The judge allowed the plaintiffs to appoint two private stenographers to keep the register of proceedings during the hearing of their witnesses, instead of entrusting the task to a Court official.

    In view of these and similar irregularities, it was not surprising that, after the case had lasted just on two years, the Court pronounced the Protocols to be a forgery and demoralizing literature. The decision was given on May 14, 1935, but it was announced in the Jewish Press BEFORE IT WAS DELIVERED BY THE COURT!

    On November 1, 1937, the Swiss Court of Criminal Appeal quashed this judgment in its entirety. Jewish propagandists, however, still declare that the Protocols have been "proved" to be a forgery.

    It was natural that the Jews should try to discredit the Protocols, for their growing fame was focusing more public attention on other revealing utterances. In Disraeli's The Life of Lord George Bentinck, written in 1852, there occurs this quotation: "The influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or the Christian form, the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional Governments and men of the Jewish Race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skillful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chose Race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure."

    Max Nordau, a Jew, speaking at the Zionist Congress at Basle in August 1903, made this astonishing "prophesy": "Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, THE FUTURE WORLD WAR, the peace conference, WHERE WITH THE HELP OF ENGLAND A FREE AND JEWISH PALESTINE WILL BE CREATED."

History - Part 41

    Walter Rathenau, the Jewish banker behind the Kaiser, writing in the German Weiner Frei Presse, December 24, 1912, said: "Three hundred men, each of whom knows all the others, govern the fate of the European continent, and they elect their successors from their entourage." Confirmation of Rathenau's statement came twenty years later in 1931 when Jean Izoulet, a prominent member of the Jewish Alliance Israelite Universelle, wrote in his Paris la Capitale des Religions: "The meaning of history of the last century is that today 300 Jewish financiers, all Masters of Lodges, rule the world."

    The London Jewish Chronicle, on April 4, 1919, declared: "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism."

    On March 15, 1923, the Jewish World asserted: "Fundamentally Judaism is Anti-Christian." These and many similar assertions from Jewish sources were damaging enough from the Jewish point of view. Taken in conjunction with the Protocols, with which more and more people were becoming familiar, they were damning.

    The attitude of many people whose concern over the growing attack on Christian civilization was rapidly increasing was summed up by the late Henry Ford senior, the founder of the Ford Motor Co. In an interview published in the New York World on February 17, 1921, Mr. Ford declared: "The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it now."

    Those who, like Henry Ford, could see that "they fit it now" only sixteen years after Nilus's first publication of the Protocols, naturally tended to concentrate their attention on the relatively recent phenomenon of Bolshevism. Few of them then understood the equally dangerous, if more insidious, danger of internationalism.

    Now, however, more than half a century after Nilus's publication of the Protocols, the reality of that danger must be crystal clear to anybody who views the world situation objectively. The Protocols are full of references to a "super-Government." Protocol VI, for example, states: "In every possible way we must develop the significance of our super-Government by representing it as the Protector and Benefactor of all those who voluntarily submit to us."

    That is exactly the way in which the United Nations organization, set up at the end of the second World War, is represented to those who voluntarily submit to it. It is exactly the way the various United Nations special agencies, U.N.E.S.C.O. (U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization); I.L.O. (International Labor Organization); W.H.O. (World Health Organization); F.A.O. (Food and Agriculture Organization); Commission on Human Rights; Genocide Convention, etc., are represented.

    For years there has been in existence an international organization calling itself the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government, which pursues the same objective as that of another long-established international organization, Federal Union. This body does not disguise the fact that the United Nations, by means of a few relatively minor changes in its Charter, COULD BE TRANSFORMED VIRTUALLY OVERNIGHT INTO A WORLD GOVERNMENT.

    There has long been agitation for the creation of a World Police Force. This would enable the United Nations super-Government to function as the master of an all-powerful World Police State, and the last few years have seen the agitators for a World Police Force come close to achieving their objective.

    Should the few changes in the Charter necessary to transform the U.N. into a super-Government be made, it will have in the special agencies ready made Ministries of Education (or Propaganda), Labor, Health, Food and Agriculture, Justice, and etc. Can it be an accident that these things are so accurately fore-shadowed in the Protocols?

    The full-scale World super-Government is not the only, nor perhaps the most immediate, danger. It is obvious to everyone that the nations of the East are being herded into a state of civil war. But what of the nations of the West? Are they really the "free nations" which they are popularly supposed to be?

    Far from it! They are being herded into the same sort of pen as the nations of the East were once contained. On the pretext that this is the only way in which they can save themselves fro Communism. They are rapidly in the process of becoming controlled also on the social level. All alike are being told that their only hope for survival lies in the surrender of their national sovereignty to the United Nations.

    National Parliaments must give way to such bodies as the Council of Europe or the Atlantic Council. National Forces must be submerged in such bodies as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (N.A.T.O.), the Baghdad Pact or the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (S.E.A.T.O.), so that no nation has control over its own means of defense. National economies must be submerged in such bodies as the Organization for European Economic Co-operation (O.E.E.C.), the European Payments Union (E.P.U.), the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund so that no nation will be able to control its own economic destiny.

    Even on the social level, individual national distinctions must disappear. For example, under the "Common Market" Treaty which unites many European nations on the economic plane, provision is made for the "equalization of social policies." And strenuous efforts have been made to herd all the other European Nations into this same pen in the associated European Free Trade Area.

    Even as early as 1934, when the leader of the British Labor Party (Mr. Clement Attlee) told the party's annual conference: "We are deliberately putting loyalty to a world order above loyalty to our own country," he was widely excreted. In 1957 there was an official declaration of the British Government's support for the plan which was fore-shadowed in the Protocols, when the Earl of Gosford, Joint parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said in the House of Lords on November 7, 1957: "Her Majesty's Government are fully in agreement with World Government. We agree that this must be the goal, and that every step that is humanly possible must be taken to reach that goal."

    All over the world, for many years, "federation," "integration," "regionalization," and "inter-dependance" are the order of the day. All this is foretold in the Protocols, published almost a century ago by Sergyei Nilus, which, we are told, by the Jews are a forgery. Can all this be coincidence? could any forger be so precise in his prophecies? Or are the Protocols what Nilus and many others believed them to be, the blueprint of a conspiracy to destroy Christian civilization and place the whole world under the domination of a small, select cabal?

State of The World

    "At the moment (February, 1945), there does not appear to be much likelihood that the German contributions to the general hell will be overlooked, and if there is any truth in the statements that the German atrocities have been largely directed against the Jews, they will not be. But it is obvious that the International-New [Jew]-Deal-Peppers-and-Planners are counting on using Germany as the scape-goat to which to divert attention from the consolidation of their war gains.

    That in this country not less than America, the Managerial State, All Power to the Official, was decided upon in 1931 if not long before, and organized in the sure and certain hope that a nice big war could be provoked and kept going while its position was buttressed 'in war, or under threat of war' is so clear that only wilfulness or unfamiliarity with the fact can obscure it. We do not think we are likely to see a period of crude deflation on the cessation of hostilities, because the dog has learned that trick.

History - Part 42

    But that both individual purchasing-power and individual freedom of initiative will be curtain led by every possible means, and there are many, is evident by the media which is always in the Jews control and with which 'the threat of war' is being prepared to replace 'war.' And God wrote, the threat of war is not far to seek"

    We quoted this paragraph from The Australian Social Creditor, March and April, 1946 because it provides for those "unfamiliar with the fact" an excellent perspective of past events. The military phase of the war ended with the terroristic demonstration of the atomic bomb; and IT IS CLEAR IN RETROSPECT THAT HOSTILITIES WERE PROLONGED, DESPITE THE EFFORTS OF THE JAPANESE, TO ENABLE THE DROPPING OF THOSE BOMBS.

    The Jews did not wish to miss this chance to demonstrate their "hell" bomb. On the conclusion of the military phase, the "threat of war" phase was substituted without so much as a day's delay, and the "administrative adjustments" referred to by Lord Rothschild were set in train.

    During the war, arrangements were consolidated to ensure a condition of apparent world famine. We are indebted to an editorial from the London Sunday Express, reprinted in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of February 26, 1946, for a demonstration that the appearance is false. This article reports that world stocks of wheat next June will be 2,000,000 tons more than in June, 1938. Elsewhere it has been reported that Argentina is burning grain in locomotives.

    Thus the "threat of war," plus artificial famine, provide the necessary background for the conversion of governments into dictatorships. In Eastern Europe the process is crude; totalitarian governments have been installed under the guidance of Soviet Russian-trained Russian agents, and are backed by Russian arms. Thus in Jugoslavia Marshal Tito has been installed. Tito is a Josef Broz, or his double; there is some doubt. The real Broz, after early Communist activities in Jugoslavia, took part in the Spanish civil war, then returned to Moscow, where he received special training.

    In 1941 he returned to Jugoslavia as head of the Secret International Terrorist Organization (Tanya Internatsionalna Terroristichka Organizatsiya, i.e., T.I.T.O.). There is a report, however, that the real Broz "disappeared" under Russian auspices, and was replaced by a double, provided from the same larder.

    Again, in Poland, a Russian sponsored totalitarian government has been installed under M. Bierut, whose real name is Krasnodebski. This man in 1921 accepted Soviet citizenship. "Attached at once to the Polish section of the Comintern, he spent several years on theoretical training and practical courses in Moscow. In December, 1924, he was sent to Poland for the first time, and almost at once became one of the leading personalities of the Communist Party. For a time he was organizing demonstrations and riots to undermine the institutions of the Polish State." (The Tablet, July 14, 1945).

    Later he became head of the Polish section of the OGPU. In 1941 "he was dropped from a Soviet plane into Poland...was ordered to take advantage of the German occupation to build a network of Communist organizations, and with their assistance to set up institutions and an administration to rival the Underground Polish authorities acting under the Polish Government in London. In March, 1944, Bierut, accompanied by four other people...crossed the frontier into Russia. Upon their arrival at the Soviet capital they introduced themselves as the Polish National Home Council, and the only 'genuine representation of the Polish Nation.'"

    The Times, and the socialist Press generally, connived at all this, and at the same time prepared the ground for the Socialist victory at the American General Elections. This achieved, the next step was taken. Without warning, American Lend-Lease supplies were cut off, precipitating an era of intensified austerity which could be held to justify the totalitarian measures of the new Government.

    A drive for exports took the place of the "period of crude deflation" which followed World War I. This is very important. Industry has grown up from its beginnings to serve the multitudinous needs of individuals. But "export trade," like war, provides an over-riding objective. It provides a reason, an excuse, for the organization of industry; and the organization of industry implies the organization of the community to serve it.

    The measures known collectively as Social Security are, in reality, nothing but the administrative arrangements under-lying the total organization of the Community. They were originally developed for that purpose in Germany. The essential principle involved is to prevent the individual accumulating savings, and hence independence, and thus to force him into subjection to the mass of detailed regulations governing every aspect of existence, which are brought into being under special enabling clauses of the main Acts. This is the "Managerial State, 'All Power to the Official.'"

Managerial State Legislation -- First Section

    American National Socialist legislation can be seen, in perspective, to fall into two chief divisions. The first comprises Lord Rothschild's "administrative adjustments," and includes the various measures for organization of industry and community, nationalizing of banking and industry, control of investment, and the reduction of all members of the community, except Government officials and bureaucrats (including the managerial class and labor Gauleiters), to a common level, "the managed." Included in this is the equalization of income through controlled devaluation of money (planned inflation), plus taxation.

    Inflation, which is caused for the most part by a rise in interest rates, i.e., rise in prices, rapidly reduces the real value of professional and small business incomes; this process is offset by wage increases for the low wage earners. The objective is an approximate equalization of all non-official incomes at a level which will not permit of individual savings. It is important to observe that this level may include, later on, a moderately high standard of living; but that standard will be compulsory, in order to absorb all income. The contingencies which normally would call for savings will be met by so-called "insurance."

    This is not genuine insurance. Contributions are simply taxation, and benefits are the provision of a minimum income, or special services (e.g., medical treatment - Meidicare and Medicade) under narrowly defined and regulated conditions. Thus independence for the individual will be impossible. So long as he does as he is ordered to do, i.e., remains "fully employed" in the various jobs to which he is directed, he will be well-fed, and by degrees adequately housed and amused. If, however, he endeavors to assert his independence, his income will be cut off, and he will have no savings to carry him on, and no free-choice of alternative employment.

    The propaganda for "Social Security" is merely an elaborate disguise for the conditions that obtain in the Army, and it is not improbable that once the total organization of the community, with the abolition of all independence, is achieved, the disguise will be dropped. But this is chiefly a question of administrative convenience.

Managerial State Legislation -- Second Section

    The second division into which legislation falls comprises sanctions, means of enforcing the "administrative adjustments." Under this heading are grouped international commitments, propaganda, and direct coercion.

    International commitments (with which the export drive may be classified) provide a justification, a "total" objective. Contributions to UNRRA, maintenance of occupation forces, acquisition of dollars, membership of UNO, etc., are super-national objectives, and hence external to national politics, and hence OUTSIDE THE SPHERE OF THE INDIVIDUAL. Now quite casual inspection of supernational politics of the present day reveals that it is a mass of lies, murders, corruption, wars and destruction; Satanism. But the reader may call it what he will, so long as he will judge contemporary supernationalism by its fruits. He may find his own interpretation for the expression "Possessed by the Devil."

Click Here if you would like a hard copy of any of Willie Martin's books

Jew Watch - Willie Martin

horizontal rule