REC #1 HATONN
SUN., FEB. 22, 1998 8:49 A.M. YR. 11, DAY 190
SUN., FEB. 22, 1998
POWER OF THE PRESS AND MEDIA
Today, just as in 1920, the power of the press and media is THE most compelling tool of any regime. You will, as people, believe what you are told to believe.
I watch right now, as ones get up to speak on the subject of bombing innocent people in Iraq, that the big mouths (all Jewish, it happens to be) say things like, "Well, when we declare intent and the President decides to bomb Iraq ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE U.S. WILL JOIN WITH US AND BEHIND US--THEY ALWAYS DO!"
Do you hear me? "They always do...!!!" I see a foolish robot who knows nothing of "real life" standing up before people, for ONCE, while he says, "We (YOU) must sacrifice, and I will lead." BS squared. I see him speaking to the aroused dissenters, ready to clobber the speaker. Why don't you clobber the guilty once in a while instead of the innocent of someone somewhere else?
These "MOUTHS" who determine your life and death, friends, NEVER go to battle, never even dirty their grubby hands. They decide and are then shocked if you disagree. What do they do then? They make you AGREE and then send you off to kill and be killed. Is THIS GODLY? No, it is stupidity in its highest form.
What would you do if you called a war and nobody came? Well, you are about to witness that, blind lambs: Saddam Hussein has done the one thing that no tyrant can abide: He isn't going to do anything in response to your evil. BUT HIS BROTHERS OF THAT WORLD--WILL, WHEN THE TIME IS PERFECT FOR THEIR RESPONSE.
AND MOREOVER, GOD WILL EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD AGAINST THAT DAY.
Let us move on with our series so that we can then turn to more pressing business.
[QUOTING:] PART 9, GLOBAL PARASITES
ARTHUR BRISBANE LEAPS TO THE
HELP OF JEWRY
"What are you prating about? As long as we do not have the Press of the whole world in our hands, everything you may do is vain. We must control or influence the papers of the whole world in order to blind and deceive the people."
Once more the current of this series on the Modern Jewish Question is interrupted to give notice of the appearance of the Question in another quarter, the appearance this time consisting of a more than two-column "TODAY' editorial in the Hearst papers of Sunday, June 20, from the pen of Arthur Brisbane. It would be too much to say that Mr. Brisbane is the most influential writer in the country, but perhaps he is among the dozen most widely read. It is, therefore, a confirmation of the statement that the Question is assuming importance in this country, that a writer of Mr. Brisbane's prominence should openly discuss it.
Of course, Mr. Brisbane has not studied the Question. He would probably admit in private conversation--though such an admission would hardly be in harmony with the tone of certainty he publicly adopts--that he really knows nothing about it. He knows, however, as a good newspaper man, how to handle it when the exigencies of the newspaper day throw it up to him for offhand treatment. Every editorial writer knows how to do that. There is something good in every race, or there have been some notable individuals in it, or it has played a picturesque part in history--that is enough for a very readable editorial upon any class of people who may happen to be represented in the community. The Question, whatever it may be, need not be studied at all; a certain group of people may be salved for a few paragraphs, and the job need never be tackled again. Every newspaper man knows that.
And yet, having lived in New York for a long time, having had financial dealings of a large and obligating nature with certain interests in this country, having seen no doubt more or less of the inner workings of the great trust and banking groups, and being constantly surrounded by assistants and advisors who are members of the Jewish race, Mr. Brisbane must have had his thoughts. It is, however, no part of a newspaper man's business to expose his thoughts about the racial groups of his community, any more than it is a showman's business to express his opinion of the patrons of his show. The kinds of offense a newspaper will give, and the occasions on which it will feel justified in giving it, are very limited.
So, assuming that Mr. Brisbane had to write at all, it could have been told beforehand what he would write. The only wonder is that he felt he had to write. Did he really feel that the Jews are being "persecuted" when an attempt is made to uncover the extent and causes of their control in the United States and elsewhere? Did he feel, with good editorial shrewdness, that here was an opportunity to win the attention and regard of the most influential group in New York and the nation? Or--and this seems within the probabilities--was he inclined simply to pass it over, until secretarial suggestions reached him for a Sunday editorial, or until some of the bondholders made their wishes known? This is not at all to impugn Mr. Brisbane's motives, but merely to indicate on what slender strings such an editorial may depend.
But what is more important--does Mr. Brisbane consider that, having disposed of the Sunday editorial, he is through with the Question, or that the Question itself is solved? That is the worst of daily editorializing; having come safely and inoffensively through with one editorial, the matter is at an end as far as that particular writer is concerned--that is, as a usual thing.
It is to be hoped that Mr. Brisbane is not through. He ought not to leave a big question without contributing something to it, and in his Sunday editorial he did not contribute anything. He even made mistakes which he ought to correct by further study. "What about the Phoenicians?" he asks. He should have looked that up while his mind was opened receptively toward the subject, and he would not have made so miserable a blunder as to connect them so closely with the Jews. He would never find a Jew doing that. It is permissible, however, in Jewish propaganda intended for Gentile consumption. The Phoenicians themselves certainly never thought they were connected in any way with the Jews, and the Jews were equally without light on the subject. If in nothing else, they differed in their attitude toward the sea. The Phoenicians not only built boats but manned them; the Jew would rather risk his investment in a boat than himself. In everything else the differences between the two peoples were deep and distinct. Mr. Brisbane should have turned up the Jewish Encyclopedia at that point in his dictation. It is to be hoped he will resume his study and when he has found something that is not printed in "simply written" Jewish books will give the world the benefit of it. It is hardly like the question of the rotundity of the Earth; this Question is not settled and it will be discussed.
Mr. Brisbane is in a position to pursue some investigations of his own on this subject. He has a large staff, and it is presumed that some of its members are Gentiles of unbiased minds; he has a world-wide organization; since his own modification of speech and views following upon his adventure in the money-making world, he has a "look-in" upon certain groups of men and certain tendencies of power--why does he not take this Question as a world problem and go after the facts and the solution?
It is a task worthy of any newspaper organization. It will assist America to make the contribution which she must make if this Question is ever to be turned from the bugbear it has been through all the centuries. All the talk on Earth about "loving our fellow men" will not serve in lieu of an investigation, because it is asking men to love those who are rapidly and insidiously gaining the mastery of them. "What's wrong with the Jew?" is the first question, and then, "what's wrong with the Gentile to make it possible?"
As in the case of every Gentile writer who appears as the Jew's good-natured defender, Mr. Brisbane is compelled to state a number of facts which comprise a part of the very Question whose existence is denied.
"Every other successful name you see in a great city is a Jewish name," says Mr. Brisbane. In his own city the ratio is even higher than that.
"Jews numbering less than one per cent of the Earth's population possess by conquest, enterprise, industry and intelligence 50 per cent of the world's commercial success," says Mr. Brisbane.
Does it mean anything to Mr. Brisbane? Has he ever thought how it will all turn out? Is he willing to absolve that "success" from every quality which humanity has a right to challenge? Is he entirely satisfied with the way that "success" is used where it is supreme? Would he be willing to undertake to prove that it is due to those commendable qualities he has named and nothing less commendable? Speaking of the Jew-financed Harriman railroad campaign, is Mr. Brisbane ready to write his endorsement upon that? Did he ever hear of Jewish money backing railroads that were built for railroad purposes and nothing else?
It would be very easy to suggest to Mr. Brisbane, as editor, a series of articles which would be most enlightening, both to himself and his readers, if he would only put unbiased men at work gathering the facts for them.
One of the articles might be entitled "The Jews at the Peace Conference". His men should be instructed to learn who were the most prominent figures at the Peace conference; who came and went most constantly and most busily; who were given freest access to the most important persons and chambers; which race provided the bulk of the private secretaries to the important personages there; which race provided most of the sentinels through whom engagements had to be made with men of note; which race went furthest in the endeavor to turn the whole proceeding into a festival rout by dances and lavish entertainment; which civilians of prominence oftenest dined the leading conferees in private session.
If Mr. Brisbane, with the genius for reporting which his organization deservedly has, will turn his men loose on that assignment, and then print what they bring him, he will have a story that will make a mark even in his remarkable career as an editor.
He might even run a second story on the Peace Conference, entitled, "Which Program Won at the Peace Conference?" He might instruct his men to inquire as to the business which brought the Jews in such quality and quantity to Paris, and how it was put through. Particularly should they inquire whether any jot or tittle of the Jews' world program was refused or modified by the Peace Conference. It should also be carefully inquired whether, after getting what they went after, they did not then ask for still more and get that, too, even though it constituted a discrimination against the rest of the world. Mr. Brisbane would doubtless be surprised to learn that of all the programs submitted to that conference, not excepting the great program on which humanity hung so many pathetic hopes, the only program to go through was the Jews' program. And yet he could learn just that if he inquired. The question is, having obtained that information, what would Mr. Brisbane do with it?
There are any number of lines of investigation Mr. Brisbane might enter, and in any one of them his knowledge of his country and of its relation to this particular Question would be greatly enlarged.
Does Mr. Brisbane know who owns Alaska? He may have been under the impression, in common with the rest of us until we learned better, that it was owned by the United States. NO, it is owned by the same people who are rapidly to own the United States.
Is Mr. Brisbane, from the vantage point afforded by his position in national journalism, even dimly aware that there are elements in our industrial unrest which neither "capital" nor "labor" accurately define? Has he ever caught a glimpse of another power which is neither "labor" nor "capital" in the productive sense, whose purpose and interest it is to keep labor and capital as far apart as possible, now by provoking labor, now by provoking capital? In his study of the industrial situation and its perfectly baffling mystery, Mr. Brisbane must have caught a flash of something behind the backmost scene. It would be good journalistic enterprise to find out what it is.
Has Mr. Brisbane ever printed the names of the men who control the sugar supply of the United States--does he know them--would he like to know them?
Has he ever looked into the woolen situation in this country, from the change of ownership in cotton lands, and the deliberate sabotage of cotton production by banking threats, right on through to the change in the price of cloth and clothing? And has he ever noted the names of the men he found on that piece of investiation? Would he like to know how it is done, and who does it? Mr. Brisbane could find all these things and give them to the public by using his efficient staff of investigators and writers on this Question.
Whether Mr. Brisbane would feel free to do this, he himself best knows. There may be reasons why he would not, private reasons, prudential reasons.
However that may be, there are no reasons why he should not make a complete study of the Question--a real study, not a superficial glance at it with an eye to its "news value"--and arrive at his own considered conclusion. There would be no intolerance about that. As it is now, Mr. Brisbane is not qualified to take a stand on either side of the Question; he simply brushes it aside as troublesome, as the old planters used to brush aside the anti-slavery moralists; and for that reason the recent defense of the Jew is not a defense at all. It is more like a bid for favor.
Mr. Brisbane's chief aversion, apparently, is toward what he calls race prejudice and race hatred. Of course, if any man should fear that the study of an economic situation would plunge him into these serious aberrations of mind, he should be advised to avoid that line of study. There is something wrong either with the investigation or with the investigator when prejudice and hatred are the result. It is a mighty poor excuse, however, for an intelligent man to put forward either on his own behalf or on behalf of those whose minds he has had the privilege of molding over a course of years.
Prejudice and hatred are the very conditions which a scientific study of the Jewish Question will forestall and prevent. We prejudge what we do not know, and we hate what we do not understand; the study of the Jewish Question will bring knowledge and insight, and not to the Gentile only, but also to the Jew. The Jew needs this as much, even more than the Gentile. For if the Jew can be made to see, understand and deal with certain matters, then a large part of the Question vanishes in the solution of ideal common sense. Awaking the Gentile to the facts about the Jew is only part of the work; awaking the Jew to the facts about the Question is an indispensable part. The big initial victory to be achieved is to transform Gentiles from being mere attackers and to transform Jews from being mere defenders, both of them special pleaders for partisan views, and to turn them both into investigators. The investigation will show both Gentile and Jew at fault, and the road will then be clear for wisdom to work out a result, if there should perchance be that much wisdom left in the race.
There is a serious snare in all this plea for tolerance. Tolerance is first a tolerance of the truth. Tolerance is urged today for the sake of suppression. There can be no tolerance until there is first a full understanding of what is tolerated. Ignorance, suppression, silence, collusion--these are not tolerance. The Jew never has been really tolerated in the higher sense because he has never been understood. Mr. Brisbane does not assist the understanding of this people by reading a "simply written" book and flinging a few Jewish names about in a sea of type. He owes it to his own mind to get into the Question, whether he makes newspaper use of his discoveries or not.
As to the newspaper angle, it is impossible to report to the world even superficially without coming everywhere against the fact of the Jews, and the Press gets around that fact by referring to them as Russians, Letts, Germans and Englishmen. This mask of names is one of the most confusing elements in the whole problem. [H: And thus, why it is done.] Names that actually name, statements that actually define are needed for the clarification of the world's mind.
[H: It can be further described as being either EXPLICIT or IMPLICIT. For instance, a few days ago at the Ohio State University "open meeting" Mr. Cohen was asked EXPLICITLY: "How much are these military operations costing a day?"
Answer: Some five minutes of non-answer and NEVER was the question answered or attempted to be answered. There were some very IMPLICIT responses about it costing not MUCH MORE than running an army on a daily budget and expense schedule--if the army was at "home". But there was never an answer. Until you are explicit you will run on innuendos and implicit misunderstandings. Mr. Cohen could have been explicit if by nothing more than saying, "I don't know." But you see, he DOES KNOW and therefore must be implicit so that YOU DON'T FIND OUT THE ANSWER! If I ask you about Jesus or Confucius, I don't want you tell me about Buddha or Socrates. If I wanted that response from you I would have asked you about Buddha or Socrates.
And when "war" was mentioned to Ms. Albright she says, "Oh we are going to have only a military incursion, not a war." A what? Is this implicit enough by simple contradictory statements in ONE STATEMENT? A military incursion IS WAR. That is explicit and no implicit drivel makes a whit of difference except that you know YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED--DELIBERATELY]
Mr. Brisbane should study this question for the light such a study would throw on other matters with which he is concerned. It would be a help to that study if from time to time he would publish some of his findings, because such publication would put him in touch with a phase of Judaism which mere complimentary editorials could not. No doubt Mr. Brisbane has been deluged by communications which praise him for what he has written; [H: Remember that men such as Hitler, Stalin, and any considered "bad" men WROTE SOME FINE THINGS AS WELL. But to ban the speaking of or reference to these historically "important" (not famous, important) people is a worse COVER-UP OF THE CENSORS THEMSELVES THAN A REFLECTION ON THE "BADNESS" OF SUCH INDIVIDUALS. THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD ALWAYS TRY TO READ BANNED BOOKS AND SQUELCHED INFORMATION.] the real eye-opener would come if he could get several bushels of the other kind. Nothing that has ever come to him could compare with what would come to him if he should publish even one of the facts he could discover by an independent investigation.
Having written about the Jews, Mr. Brisbane will probably have a readier eye henceforth for other men's pronouncements on the same subject. In his casual reading he will find more references to the Jew than he has ever noticed before. Some of them will probably appear in isolated sentences and paragraphs of his own papers. Sooner or later, every competent investigator and every honest writer strikes a trail that leads toward Jewish power in the world. The Dearborn Independent is only doing with system and detail what other publications have done or are doing piecemeal.
[H: And so too can you describe CONTACT.]
There is a real fear of the Jew upon the publicity sources of the United States--a fear which is felt and which ought to be analyzed. Unless it is a very great mistake, Mr. Brisbane himself has felt this fear, though it is quite possible he has not scrutinized it. It is not the fear of doing injustice to a race of people--all of us ought to have that honorable fear--it is the fear of doing anything at all with reference to them except unstintingly praising them. An independent investigation would convince Mr. Brisbane that a considerable modification of praise in favor of discriminate criticism is a course that is pressing upon American journalism.
Issue of July 3, 1920
[END OF QUOTING]
Take this off please so it can be sent to Dr. Young while we write the next segment.
I would not push for more today but the next segment is probably one of the more IMPORTANT topics of the entire series, and it should be offered immediately with this chapter. Thank you.
In the radiance of TRUTH shall all be known. Adonai.
REC #2 HATONN
SUN., FEB. 22, 1998 10:58 A.M. YR. 11, DAY 190
SUN., FEB. 22, 1998
[QUOTING:] PART 10, GLOBAL PARASITES
DOES A DEFINITE JEWISH
WORLD PROGRAM EXIST?
In all the explanations of anti-Jewish feeling which modern Jewish spokesmen make, these three alleged causes are commonly given--these three and no more: religious prejudice, economic jealousy, social antipathy. Whether the Jew knows it or not, every Gentile knows that on his side of the Jewish Question no religious prejudice exists. Economic jealously may exist, at least to this extent, that his uniform success has exposed the Jew to much scrutiny. A few Jewish spokesmen seek to turn this scrutiny by denying that the Jew is preeminent in finance, but this is loyalty in extremity. The finances of the world are in control of Jews; their decisions and their devices are themselves our economic law. But because a people excels us in finance is no sufficient reason for calling them to the bar of public judgment. If they are more intellectually able, more persistently industrious than we are, if they are endowed with faculties which have been denied us as an inferior or slower race, that is no reason for our requiring them to give an account of themselves. Economic jealously may explain some of the anti-Jewish feeling; it cannot account for the presence of the Jewish Question except as the hidden causes of Jewish financial success may become a minor element of the larger problem. And as for social antipathy--there are many more undesirable Gentiles in the world than there are undesirable Jews, for the simple reason that there are more Gentiles.
None of the Jewish spokesmen today mention the political cause, or if they come within suggestive distance of it, they limit and localize it. It is not a question of the patriotism of the Jew, though this too is very widely questioned in all the countries. You hear it in England, in France, in Germany, in Poland, in Russia, in Rumania--and, with a shock, you hear it in the United States. Books have been written, reports published and scattered abroad, statistics skillfully set forth for the purpose of showing that the Jew does his part for the country in which he resides; and yet the fact remains that in spite of these most zealous and highly sponsored campaigns, the opposite assertion is stronger and lives longer. The Jews who did their duty in the armies of Liberty, and did it doubtless from true-hearted love and allegiance, have not been able to overcome the impression made upon officers and men and civilians by those who did not.
But that is not what is here meant as the political element in the Jewish Question. To understand why the Jew should think less of the nationalities of the world than do those who comprise them is not difficult. The Jew's history is one of wandering among them all. Considering living individuals only, there is no race of people now upon the planet who have lived in so many places, among so many peoples as have the Jewish masses. They have a clearer world-sense than any other people, because the world has been their path. And they think in world terms more than any nationally cloistered people could. The Jew can be absolved if he does not enter into national loyalties and prejudices with the same intensity as the natives; the Jew has been for centuries a cosmopolitan. While under a flag he may be correct in the conduct required of him as a citizen or resident, inevitably he has a view of flags which can hardly be shared by the man who has known but one flag.
The political element inheres in the fact that the Jews form a nation in the midst of the nations. Some of their spokesmen, particularly in America, deny that, but the genius of the Jew himself has always put these spokesmen's zeal to shame. And why this fact of nationhood should be so strenuously denied is not always clear. It may be that when Israel is brought to see that her mission in the world is not to be achieved by means of the Golden Calf, her very cosmopolitanism with regard to the world and her inescapable nationalistic integrity with regard to herself will together prove a great and serviceable factor in bringing about human unity, which the total Jewish tendency at the present time is doing much to prevent. It is not the fact that the Jews remain a nation in the midst of the nations; it is the use made of that inescapable status which the world has found reprehensible. The nations have tried to reduce the Jew to unity with themselves; attempts toward the same end have been made by the Jews themselves; but destiny seems to have marked them out to continuous nationhood. Both the Jews and the world will have to accept that fact, find the good prophecy in it, and seek the channels for its fulfillment.
Theodor Herzl, one of the greatest of the Jews, was perhaps the farthest-seeing public exponent of the philosophy of Jewish existence that modern generations have known. And he was never in doubt of the existence of the Jewish nation. Indeed, he proclaimed its existence on every occasion. He said, "We are a people--One people."
He clearly saw that what he called the Jewish Question was political. In his introduction to The Jewish State he says, "I believe that I understand anti-Semitism, which is really a highly complex movement. I consider it from a Jewish standpoint, yet without fear or hatred. I believe that I can see what elements there are in it of vulgar sport, of common trade jealousy, of inherited prejudice, of religious intolerance and also of pretended self-defense. I think the Jewish Question is no more a social than a religious one, notwithstanding that it sometimes takes these and other forms. It is a national question, which can only be solved by making it a political world-question to be discussed and controlled by the civilized nations of the world in council."
Not only did Herzl declare that the Jews formed a nation, but when questioned by Major Evans Gordon before the British Royal Commission on Alien Immigration in August, 1902, Dr. Herzl said: "I will give you my definition of a nation, and you can add the adjective 'Jewish'. A nation is, in my mind, an historical group of men of a recognizable cohesion held together by a common enemy. That is in my view a nation. Then if you add to that the word 'Jewish' you have what I understand to be the Jewish nation."
Also, in relating the action of this Jewish nation to the world, Dr. Herzl wrote--"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." [H: Anything look familiar here?]
This view, which appears to be the true view in that it is the view which has been longest sustained in Jewish thought, is brought out also by Lord Eustace Percy, and re-published, apparently with approval, by the Canadian Jewish Chronicle. It will repay a careful reading:
"Liberalism and Nationalism, with a flourish of trumpets, threw open the doors of the ghetto and offered equal citizenship to the Jew. The Jew passed out into the Western World, saw the power and the glory of it, used it and enjoyed it, laid his hand indeed upon the nerve centers of its civilization, guided, directed and exploited it, and then--refused the offer... Moreover--and this is a remarkable thing--the Europe of nationalism and liberalism, of scientific government and democratic equality, is more intolerable to him than the old oppressions and persecutions of despotism... In the increasing consolidation of the Western nations, it is no longer possible to reckon or complete toleration....
"In a world of completely organized territorial sovereignties he (the Jew) has only two possible cities of refuge: He must either pull down the pillars of the whole national state system or he must create a territorial sovereignty of his own. In this perhaps lies the explanation both of Jewish Bolshevism and of Zionism, for at this moment Eastern Jewry seems to hover uncertainly between the two.
"In Eastern Europe Bolshevism and Zionism often seem to grow side by side, just as Jewish influence molded Republican and Socialist thought throughout the nineteenth century, down to the Young Turk revolution in Constantinople hardly more than a decade ago--not because the Jew cares for the positive side of radical philosophy, not because he desires to be a partaker in Gentile nationalism or Gentile democracy, but because no existing Gentile system of government is ever anything but distasteful to him."
[H: As you read along here, do not be distracted from ONE MAIN POINT: "GENTILE" IS EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE ELSE, EXCEPT A JEW. THIS "GENTILE" DEFINITION FITS ALL OTHER THAN JEWS! THAT MEANS ALL MOSLEMS, ISLAMICS, ACTUALLY ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS AS THEY WOULD DESCRIBE THEMSELVES, CONFUCIANS, YOU NAME IT...! Example? Well, let's see: Mr. Farrakhan, Mr. Quadafi, Mubarek, the Sultan of Brunei, Hussein and Hussein (Iraq and Jordan), Little Crow and Sitting Bull. IN THE JEWISH RECOGNITION THERE ARE JEWS AND GENTILES--PERIOD! SO, THERE IS NO REASON HERE TO MISINTERPRET WHERE "YOU" FIT. In the new Judeo-Christian RAPTURE crew, only you sucker Christian Gentiles are going to get deaded--for the Judeo part of that equation is not planning to go anywhere. They simply PLAN TO GET RID OF YOU GENTILES. IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND? THE PLANS ARE TO DEPOPULATE THE EARTH--WITH GETTING RID OF YOU GENTILES--PERIOD. THIS DOES MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT THE HARDEST BIT WILL BE THE "POOR JEWISH PEOPLE" SO THAT THE ELITE WILL NOT BE "FOUND OUT". NOT PRETTY? NO, IT IS ABOUT AS UGLY AS YOU CAN GET.]
All that is true, and Jewish thinkers of the more fearless type always recognize it as true. The Jew is against the Gentile scheme of things. He is, when he gives his tendencies full sway, a Republican as against the monarchy, a Socialist as against the republic, and a Bolshevist as against Socialism.
What are the causes of this disruptive activity? First, his essential lack of democracy. Jewish nature is autocratic. Democracy is all right for the rest of the world, but the Jew wherever he is found forms an aristocracy of one sort or another. Democracy is merely a tool of a word which Jewish agitators use to raise themselves to the ordinary level in places where they are oppressed below it; but having reached the common level they immediately make efforts for special privileges, as being entitled to them--a process of which the late Peace Conference will remain the most startling example. The Jews today are the only people whose special and extraordinary privileges are written into the world's Treaty of Peace. But more of that at another time.
No one now pretends to deny, except a few spokesmen who really do not rule the thought of the Jews but are set forth for the sole benefit of influencing Gentile thought, that the socially and economically disruptive elements abroad in the world today are not only manned but also moneyed by Jewish interests. For a long time this fact was held in suspense owing to the vigorous denial of the Jews and the lack of information on the part of those agencies of publicity to which the public had looked for its information. But now the facts are coming forth. Herzl's words are being proved to be true--"when we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party "--and these words were first published in English in 1896, or 24 years ago.
Just now these tendencies are working in two directions, one for the tearing down of the Gentile states all over the world, the other for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The latter project has the best wishes of the whole world, but it is far from having the best wishes of the whole, or even the larger part of Jewry. The Zionist party makes a great deal of noise, but it is really an unrepresentative minority. It can scarcely be designated as more than an unusually ambitious colonization scheme. (NOTE: The statements indicated are those of non-Zionist Jews. The real Jewish program is that program which is executed. It was the Zionist program that was followed by the Peace Conference. It must therefore be regarded as the official program.) It is doubtless serving, however, as a very useful public screen for the carrying on of secret activities. International Jews, the controllers of the world's governmental and financial power, may meet anywhere, at any time, in war time or peace time, and by giving out that they are only considering the ways and means of opening up Palestine to the Jews, they easily escape the suspicion of being together on any other business. The Allies and enemies of the Gentile nations at war thus met and were not molested. It was at a Zionist conference--the sixth, held in 1903--that the recent war was exactly predicted, its progress and outcome indicated, and the relation of the Jews to the Peace Treaty outlined.
That is to say, though Jewish nationalism exists, its enshrinement in a state to be set up in Palestine is NOT the project that is engaging the whole Jewish nation now. The Jews will not move to Palestine just yet; it may be said that they will not move at all merely because of the Zionist movement. Quite another motive will be the cause of the exodus out of the Gentile nations, when the time for that exodus fully comes.
As Donald A. Cameron, late British Consul-General at Alexandria, a man fully in sympathy with Zionism and much quoted in the Jewish press, says: "The Jewish immigrants (into Palestine) will tire of taking in one another's washing at three per cent, of winning one another's money in the family, and their sons will hasten by train and steamer to win 10 per cent in Egypt... The Jew by himself in Palestine will eat his head off; he will kick his stable to pieces." Undoubtedly the time for the exodus--at least the motive for the exodus--is not yet here.
The political aspect of the Jewish Question which is now engaging at least three of the great nations--France, Great Britain and the United States--has to do with matters of the present organization of the Jewish nation. Must it wait until it reaches Palestine to have a State, or is it an organized State now? Does Jewry know what it is doing? Has it a "foreign policy" with regard to the Gentiles? Has it a department which is executing that foreign policy? Has this Jewish State, visible or invisible, if it exists, a head? Has it a Council of State? And if any of these things is so, who is aware of it?
The first impulsive answer of the Gentile mind would be "No" to all these questions--it is a Gentile habit to answer impulsively. Never having been trained in secrets or invisible unity, the Gentile immediately concludes that such things cannot be, if for no other reason than that they have not crossed his path and advertised themselves.
The questions, however, answered thus, require some explanation of the circumstances which are visible to all men. If there is no deliberate combination of Jews in the world, then the control which they have achieved and the uniformity of the policies which they follow must be the simple result, not of deliberate decisions, but of a similar nature in all of them working out the same way. Thus, we might say that as a love for adventure on the water drove the Britisher forth, so it made him the world's great colonist. Not that he deliberately sat down with himself and in formal manner resolved that he would become a colonizer, but the natural outworking of his genius resulted that way. But would this be a sufficient account of the British Empire?
Doubtless the Jews have the genius to do, wherever they go, the things in which we see them excel. But does this account for the relations which exist between the Jews of every country, for their world councils, for their amazing foreknowledge of stupendous events which break with shattering surprise on the rest of the world, for the smoothness and preparedness with which they appear, at a given time in Paris, with a world program on which they all agree?
The world has long suspected--at first only a few, then the secret departments of the governments, next the intellectuals among the people, now more and more the common people themselves--that not only are the Jews a nation distinct from all the other nations and mysteriously unable to sink their nationality by any means they or the world may adopt to this end, but that they also constitute a state; that they are nationally conscious, not only that, but consciously united for a common defense and for a common purpose. Revert to Theodor Herzl's definition of the Jewish nation, as held together by a common enemy, and then reflect that this common enemy is the Gentile world. Does this people which knows itself to be a nation remain loosely unorganized in the face of that fact? It would hardly be like Jewish astuteness in other fields. When you see how closely the Jews are united by various organizations in the United States, and when you see how with practiced hand they bring those organizations to bear as if with tried confidence in their pressure, it is at least not inconceivable that what can be done within a country can be done, or has been done, between all the countries where the Jews live.
At any rate, in the American Hebrew of June 25, 1920, Herman Bernstein writes thus: "About a year ago a representative of the Department of Justice submitted to me a copy of the manuscript of The Jewish Peril by Professor Nilus, and asked for my opinion of the work. He said that the manuscript was a translation of a Russian book published in 1905 which was later suppressed. The manuscript was supposed to contain 'protocols' of the Wise Men of Zion and was supposed to have been read by Dr. Herzl at a secret conference of the Zionist Congress at Basel. He expressed the opinion that the work was probably that of Dr. Theodor Herzl... He said that some American Senators who had seen the manuscript were amazed to find that so many years ago a scheme had been elaborated by the Jews which is now being carried out, and that Bolshevism had been planned years ago by Jews who sought to destroy the world."
This quotation is made merely to put on record the fact that it was a representative of the Department of Justice of the United States Government, who introduced this document to Mr. Bernstein, and expressed a certain opinion upon it, namely, "that the work was probably that of Dr. Theodor Herzl". Also that "some American Senators" were amazed to note the comparison between what a publication of the year 1905 proposed and what the year 1920 revealed.
The incident is all the more preoccupying because it occurred by action of the representative of a government who today is very largely in the hands of, or under the influence of, Jewish interests. It is more than probable that as soon as the activity became known, the investigator was stopped. But it is equally probable that whatever orders may have been given and apparently obeyed, the investigation may not have stopped.
The United States Government was a little late in the matter, however. At least four other world powers had preceded it, some by many years. A copy of the Protocols was deposited in the British Museum and bears on it the stamp of that institution, "August 10, 1906". The notes themselves probably date from 1896, or the year of the utterances previously quoted from Dr. Herzl. The first Zionist Congress convened in 1897.
The document was published in England recently under auspices that challenged attention for it, in spite of the unfortunate title under which it appeared. Eyre and Spittswoode are the appointed printers to the British Government, and it was they who brought out the pamphlet. It was as if the Government Printing Office at Washington should issue them in this country. While there was the usual outcry by the Jewish press, the London Times in a review pronounced all the Jewish counter-attacks as "unsatisfactory".
The Times noticed what will probably be the case in this country also, that the Jewish defenders leave the text of the Protocols alone, while they lay heavy emphasis on the fact of their anonymity. When they refer to the substance of the document at all there is one form of words which recurs very often--"It is the work of a criminal or a madman."
The Protocols, without name attached, appearing for the most part in manuscripts here and there, laboriously copied out from hand to hand, being sponsored by no authority that was willing to stand behind it, assiduously studied in the secret departments of the governments and passed from one to another among higher officials, have lived on and on, increasing in power and prestige by the sheer force of their contents. A marvelous achievement for either a criminal or a madman! The only evidence it has is that which it carries within it, and that internal evidence is, as the London Times points out, the point on which attention is to be focused, and the very point from which Jewish effort has been expended to draw us away.
The interest of the Protocols at this time is their bearing on the questions: Have the Jews an organized world system? What is its policy? How is it being worked?
These questions all receive full attention in the Protocols. Whosoever was the mind that conceived them possessed a knowledge of human nature, of history and of statecraft which is dazzling in its brilliant completeness, and terrible in the objects to which it turns its powers. Neither a madman nor an intentional criminal, but more likely a super-mind mastered by devotion to a people and a faith could be the author, if indeed one mind alone conceived them. It is too terribly real for fiction, too well-sustained for speculation, too deep in its knowledge of the secret springs of life for forgery.
Jewish attacks upon it thus far make much of the fact that it came out of Russia. That is hardly true. It came by way of Russia. It was incorporated in a Russian book published about 1905 by a Professor Nilus, who attempted to interpret the protocols by events then going forward in Russia. This publication and interpretation gave it a Russian tinge which has been useful to Jewish propagandists in this country and England, because these same propagandists have been very successful in establishing in Anglo-Saxon mentalities a certain atmosphere of thought surrounding the idea of Russia and Russians. One of the biggest humbugs ever foisted on the world has been that foisted by Jewish propagandists, principally on the American public, with regard to the temper and genius of the truly Russian people. So, to intimate that the Protocols are Russian, is partially to discredit them.
The internal evidence makes it clear that the Protocols were not written by a Russian, nor originally in the Russian language, nor under the influence of Russian conditions. But they found their way to Russia and were first published there. They have been found by diplomatic officers in manuscript in all parts of the world. Wherever Jewish power is able to do so, it has suppressed them, sometimes under the supreme penalty.
Their persistence is a fact which challenges the mind. Jewish apologists may explain that persistence on the ground that the Protocols feed the anti-Semitic temper, and therefore are preserved for that service. Certainly there was no wide nor deep anti-Semitic temper in the United States to be fed or that felt the greed for agreeable lies to keep itself alive. The progress of the Protocols in the United States can only be explained on the ground that they supply light and give meaning to certain previously observed facts, and that this light and meaning is so startling as to give a certain standing and importance to these otherwise unaccredited documents. Sheer lies do not live long, their power soon dies. These Protocols are more alive than ever. They have penetrated higher places than ever before. They have compelled a more serious attitude to them than ever before.
The Protocols would not be more worthy of study if they bore, say, the name of Theodor Herzl. Their anonymity does not decrease their power any more than the omission of a painter's signature detracts from the art value of a painting. Indeed, the Protocols are better without a known source. For if it were definitely known that in France or Switzerland in the year 1896, or thereabouts, a group of International Jews, assembled in conference, drew up a program of world conquest it would still have to be shown that such a program was more than a mere vagary, that it was confirmed at large by efforts to fulfill it. The Protocols are a World Program--there is no doubt anywhere of that. Whose program, is stated within the articles themselves. But as for outer confirmation, which would be the more valuable--a signature, or six signatures, or twenty signatures, or a 25-year unbroken line of effort fulfilling that program? [H: Try now, 78 years later.]
The point of interest for this and other countries is not that a "criminal or a madman" conceived such a program, but that, when conceived, this program found means of getting itself fulfilled in its most important particulars. The document is comparatively unimportant; the conditions to which it calls attention are of a very high degree of importance.
Issue of July 10, 1920.
[END OF QUOTING]
Are our people crazy or insane to present this material? No, neither. It is information from very substantial resources and sources, and in knowing TRUTH, freedom from the fear and terror comes. Would the "Jews" come against us? They already have done so in every criminal and madman type of assault, so what more can they do without making total fools of themselves? If the Jewish attitude be correct in that there are only Jews and Gentiles, then I would suggest that Gentiles outnumber the Jews of this definition--more than some thousand to one. What is to fear in that ratio? So what is the difference? The Jews never lost sight of their Satanic-oriented worldly goals and it has not yet occurred to all those Gentiles to unite or get goals worthy of the GOD THEY REPRESENT--you know, THAT CREATOR OF BALANCE, HONOR, INTEGRITY, PEACE AND PROSPERITY.
With ONE tool you can totally collapse the house of cards built on the blood and sweat of all Gentiles everywhere. You have to understand that the Arab world people--ARE SEMITES--GENTILES. With this realization there is only a tiny, TINY handful of super-controllers who will literally collapse in the face of "right-ness". This can come in unity from Pakistan to Wisconsistan or Tejasastan, Istanbul (Constantinople) to Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Stalingrad or St. Petersburg. You see changing names does not change the FACTS. Is Greece Elias or Athena? We move on now to being, as well, UNABLE TO EVEN WRITE IN THE ENGLISH ALPHABET THAT WHICH IS DEPICTED IN THE ARABIC OR GREEK OR CHINESE OR, OR, OR. Is Iran Iran or Persia? Is it Hatonn or Aton? You can paint out a leopard's spots or change them to painted stripes, but you do not change the leopard, do you?
There IS, HOWEVER, one thing you of God are going to learn and that is that all humans are not HUmans. Looking "like" something else does not make you something else, it simply makes you a bad imposter.
God Creator created greater HUman species. Satan DEVELOPED lower human species. There is a BIG AND MONSTROUSLY LARGE DIFFERENCE. You, as an individual, have an opportunity and a choice TO BE EITHER ONE. One is infinite and the other destined for downfall. One is eternal and the other very, very "mortal" indeed.
I am a bit like [radio personality] Imus (in the morning) where he makes some interesting thoughts for you to hear; i.e., "If adultery matters in your house, why doesn't it matter in the White House?" And this great observation: "With Clinton we elected a philanderer and he is just keeping up his end of the bargain." Well, readers, you have elected your puppet-masters and they are just keeping up their end of the bargain. It's a rotten job but "somebody has to do it".
You have to understand the mindset of these driven people. No matter how much they GET it is never enough for they cannot ever achieve or attain that which they really desire and that is Godship and inclusion within the blessed family of HUman; YOU ALREADY HAVE IT.
Now, may we please move on to create that which we need to bring change into this weary and worn old world. Pain and agony was not her intended lot and neither is it yours. God's people are destined for JOY and abundance. This old suffering garbage is a lot of hooey and now you know where the idea originates. Suffering and whining can be of Satan's crew; it is not acceptable for Creator's children.
Love multiplies and adds as you divide it with others. You never have to subtract Joy wherein you find Love. It is pretty straightforward and simple arithmetic.
Now am I to go back to being sorry and apologetic somehow over flooded plains and washouts or houses off cliffsides? No thank you--you SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO HAVE A HOUSE IN A FLOODPLAIN. WHO DO YOU SUPPOSE SOLD YOU THAT BILL OF GOODS TO GET YOUR MONEY FROM YOU? And, wait and see what these miserly old greed-mongers get from you AFTER the rains. They will pick up zillions of acres of "wetlands" and make more rules and regulations for your placements and you will slip further down the shackle stakes. You never seem to learn and THEY NEVER SEEM TO GET ENOUGH. So be it. Adonai.