WAR! WAR! WAR! CINCINNATUS

FIRST WORLD WAR—JEWS AND ANGLOPHILES

“I could a tale unfold whose lightest word Would harrow up thy soul; freeze thy young blood;

Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from thy sockets: . .

Hamlet.

Breathes there the man with soul so dead Who never to himself hath said,

This is my own, my native land!

Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned,

As home his footsteps he hath turned From wandering on a foreign strand!

If such there breathe, go, mark him well;

For him no minstrel raptures swell;

High though his titles, proud his name,

Boundless his wealth as wish can claim,

Despite these titles, power, and pelf,

The wretch, concentred all in self,

Living, shall forfeit fair renown,

And, doubly dying, shall go down To the vile dust from whence he sprung,

Unwept, unhonored, and unsung.

Lay of the Last Minstrel—Scott.

PLOTS

Only in recent years has the vast amount of evidence been dis­closed showing that the United States was drawn into the World War by a plot—or rather, a series of plots. The merits of the opposing sides in the War had little or nothing to do with our participation in it.

“You fool me once shame on you: you fool me twice shame on me.”

Watch each and every sleight of hand as hereafter disclosed. See how the same old shell-game, that bled us in 1917 and in 1918, is being worked again in 1940 to trick you into giving your sons’ blood, your savings, your freedom, in another war for so-called dem­ocracy.

A motley crew long served the plotters:

1. The habitual Tories who have always sided with England, even against their own country ever since Revo­lutionary days.
2. The political Anglophiles, of whom Robert Lansing,

Walter Hines Page, Col. Edward Mandel House, Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root, etc. were the greatest offenders.

3. The munitions manufacturers and the international banking houses, hot for blood-money.
4. The international and metropolitan press, because of the nature of their ownership, the influence of advertisers and their increased circulation from shrieking headlines and atroc­ity stories.
5. Some rich and fashionable Christian pulpits, especially those subject to the all powerful New York influence, with their deceptive sermons about humanity and defense of Chris­tian civilization.
6. War-mongering Presidents and Professors of opulent Tory colleges, who rushed to give England and France the lives of the student lads entrusted to them for education and guidance.
7. Ultimately and successfully—at last in the latter part of 1916 tipping the scales for America’s entrance into Europe's war—the Zionist Jews of England and America, in cahoots with German Jews, who switched to England the allegiance of World Jewry.

“It is quite often said that Americans entered the war with the greatest enthusiasm, but this is not true. The Eastern newspaper people, ministers, professors, and the upper classes throughout the country were, of course, strongly in favor of the move. But they had been partisan from the outset. On the other hand, among the common people who would have to fight the war, there was no re­joicing * * (It is the same to-day).

Propaganda for War, by H. C. Peterson, P. 322.

"Another * * factor to be considered was that American news­papers are primarily commercial undertakings. They exist largely for profits * * . Consequently, newspapers do not express the opin­ions or ideas of their editors or reporters, but the opinions of those who control the purse strings.” (It is the same today).

Ibid. Ps. 7-8.

"The problem of gaining the sympathy and support of the Amer­ican public turned upon the attitude of American newspapers.”

Ibid. P. 6.

“* * the British did all in their power to enlist Americans as pro­pagandists to overcome the resistance of Americans.” (It is the same to-day).       Ibid. P. 25.

"The immediate task of British propagandists was to make an ordinary political power struggle appear to be a fight between the forces of good and evil.” (It is the same to-day).

"The immediate problem for the British propagandists * * was to obtain the support of the leaders of American life. In this regard they were very fortunate. The American aristocracy was distinctly Anglophile. To assume a pro- British attitude was the ‘thing to do' * *. Nearly all foreign banking was handled through the English capital. One of the Morgan partners stated: ‘Like most of our contemporaries and friends and neighbors, we wanted the Allies to win * *. We were pro-Ally by inheritance, by instinct, by opinion.’ ” (It is the same today.)

Ibid. ps. 8-9.

"College professors, ministers, and above all, public school teachers, saw in England all that they thought was missing from America. * * (It is the same today.)

“The problem of winning the support of the political leaders of the United States appeared * * even less difficult than * * gaining the adherence of the social, economic and intellectual leaders. Primarily politicians are reflectors of opin­ion, and the opinions they reflect are usually those given in the press.” (It is the same today.)

Ibid. p. 9.

"An outstanding result of the practice of capitalizing on friendships was the development, by Americans, of organ­izations for defense or other purposes, but which actually became centers of pro-Ally propaganda. One of the most important * * was the violently pro-Ally Navy League. The roll call of this League demonstrates the effectiveness of Britain’s friends in securing the leaders of American economic life to back moves beneficial to the Allies. Among others it included: J. Pierpont Morgan; Thomas W. Lamont (Morgan) ; Elbert H. Gary (U. S. Steel) ; Harry P. Whitney (Guaranty Trust Co. — agent of Atlas Powder and Her­cules Powder Co.) ; S. H. P. Pell (International Nickel) ; Cornelius Vanderbilt (Lackawanna Steel); Ogden L. Mills (Lackawanna Steel) ; Frederick R. Coudert (National Surety Co.); Francis L. Hine (Bankers Trust Co.) ; Daniel G. Read (Guaranty Trust Co.—H. P. Whitney) ; Frank A. Vanderlip (President National City Bank—Standard Oil) * * and Percy Rockefeller.” (The names are slightly differ­ent—the "interests” are the same. Their successors’ hands will soon be drenched with blood-money) . Ibid. p. 31.

"In the last analysis, opinion in America was divided not upon geographic lines, but upon lines of wealth and education: it was the country club versus the country *_ * Starting as early as August 1914, prominent men of America hastened to join a cause which was intellectually fashion­able. Industrialists and financiers one by one took up the cudgels for the belligerents with whom they were doing so much profitable business * *, College professors and school

teachers repeated ^1,1 * the arguments which had originated in Wellington House (London) or in la maison de la presse. Close behind the educators came the ministers, and before long the American clergy was preaching a holy war, enlisting God and the Bible in the cause which newspapers told them was righteous. Just as strange as the enlistment of the clergy was the enlistment of the liberals. * *” (It is the same to-day.)         Ibid. p. 175-176.

" * * Robert N. Page, * * issued an open letter stating, 'Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The loan of $500,000,000 to England by American capital­ists, to say nothing of the profits of munitions manufacturers, has destroyed the semblance even of neutrality in the United States and will probably lead us into war.’ A few days later the New York Times ran a cartoon in which Page appeared as a ‘shade of Benedict Arnold.’ The loaic is not clear, but at least it explains the position of the Times."

Ibid. p. 221.

Robert N. Page was a Democratic Congressman from North Carolina, who came from a long line of American patriots. Charles . Lindbergh is the Robert N. Page of 1940, and the Jew New York imes, as usual, is defaming true Americans.

“The total amount of American exports during these neutral vears to the four great Allies * * were seven billions of dollars * *. For instance. Worth Brothers earned $4,013,184 on a capitalization of $250,000. a return of 1605 per cent. The Bethlehem Steel Comnanu * * earned $24,871,408 in 1915. At the end of 1916 the astonishing figure was $61,717,309. In the first Quarter of 1916 United States Steel earned over $81,000,000. and for the entire year. $348,000,000. The rough total of all of J. P. Moraan & Co.’s business * * was three billion dollars.” fThere arc hopes for them).                            Ibid. p. 256-257.

“LaFollette wrote in 1916: ‘Never in the history of this nation has there been a year like the past year for "surplus millions.” "melons.” "extra dividends.” for the rich and powerful few.’ Charles Lindbergh. Sr., shouted: amid all this confusion the lords of "special privilege” stand serene in their selfish glee, coining billions of profit from the rage of war.”

Ibid. p. 258.

"One very interesting aspect of this period was the fact that although the Easterners had been shouting for war. when it came time to enlist, their enthusiasm was not so apparent. For two and one-half uears the editors, teachers, preachers, hankers, lawyers and American societv leaders had scolded the West for its lack of patriotism. When the test actually
came, however, enlistments in the West surpassed those in the East.” (It will be the same after this election.)

Ibid. p. 324.

During those days we also heard a great deal of the chatter about the German “invasion” of this country exactly as it was heard dur­ing the Napoleonic Wars and as it is heard today.

“The attempt to identify the interests and ideals of the United States with those of England dominated all British propaganda. Every possible effort was made to make Ameri­cans feel the war was ‘our fight’

Propaganda for War. H. C. Peterson. P. 35.

"At one time it was cheerfully reported that the pro- Ally newspapers ‘believe that Great Britain is fighting Ameri­ca's battle, that the future of democracy is at stake, and that the United States will have to fight for it, if not now. then hereafter *

Ibid. P. 35.

“During the years of neutrality, New York newspapers seldom expressed views which would have been acceptable west of the Alleghanies.”

Ibid. P. 161.

"The passionate belligerency of prominent Americans was not shared by the common people.”

Ibid. P. 176.

The methods used to put over this cruel fraud which cost nearly 50.000 young American lives, the wounding of 300,000 and a for­eign war-debt too great ever to be paid, were deceptive, fraudulent and dishonest, not to say treasonable. All of this we propose to prove. The plotting by Jews for both sides became important almost from the beginning of the war, in August, 1914.

During the first two years of the War the German Jews in Eng­land and the United States were for Germany, viz., violently opposed to Russia. One, Sir William Speyer, was so loyal to Germany that he was deprived of his British citizenship and title and became an American citizen. Three German-American Jews — the brothers Paul and Felix Warburg and Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb 8 Co., were prominent — throughout this period — in backing the German cause. Long before he became an American citizen. Paul Warburg was a power in our Government. He had a hand in setting up the Federal Reserve System and became a member of the Federal Re­serve Board. Speaking of him in a letter written on November 3, 1914, the British Ambassador to the United States, Sir Cecil Spring- Rice, said:

"Warburg, nearly related to Kuhn, Loeb and Schiff, and a brother of the well-known Warburg o'f Hamburg, is a mem­ber of the Federal Reserve Board or rather the member. He

practically controls the financial policy of the Administration * * •>

American Goes to War, Tansill, P. 106.

On August 3, 1914 — before the War actually started — the Rothschilds approached J. P. Morgan with a proposal to raise $100,- 000,000 in this country for the French. Morgan replied that "* * it might be very possible and excellent thing to do and shall hope to take up the question with you as soon as possible.”

In his War Memoirs Robert Lansing states, on P. 18:

"I believed that it was unwise (in 1915) to attempt to obtain from Congress a declaration of war until American public opinion was practically unanimous in demanding such action. While it was hard to await the slow process of com­plete conversion to the cause of the Allies and to a right ap­preciation of the menace to human liberty in the possibility of a triumphant Germany, which then seemed more remote than in the autumn of 1914, there was no other course for the Administration to take, even thouah it aroused bitter criticism in many quarters.”

He mentioned for the first time in 1935 a memorandum, dated Uily 11, 1915, in which he advocated among other things, on P. 20:

"The actual participation of this country in the war in case it becomes evident that Germany will be the victor.

During the winter of 1915-16, Lansing and House were busily intriguing to force Wilson to declare war. Lansing urged war in August, 1915.

In October, 1915 Colonel House was expressing unhappiness over the fact that "* * * we had lost our opportunity to break with Ger­many,” and that “we should do something decisive now—something that would bring us in with the Allies.” Intimate Papers of Col. House V. 2, P. 85.

House, in his Intimate Papers, attests to the nature of the intrigue md does not hesitate to admit that he worked hand in glove with Jew Reading, Grey, Balfour and other British statesmen to force Wilson's Ii,»nd. When we protested against the illegal seizure of American argoes by Britain — as we also protested against German interfer- <nce with our trade,—House counseled the British on the text of the replies they should make, and over the head of the State Department, dictated the dispatches of the American Government. With Grey, he formulated a code to keep their communications secret from the British Ambassador arid our State Department.

Ambassador Page wrote in February, 1916, that House was back in London, “full of the idea of American intervention.”

“First his plan was that he and I and a group of the British cabinet should at once work out a minimum program of peace, the least the Allies would accept, which he assumed would be unacceptable to the Germans, and the President would present this program to both. The side that declined would be responsible for continuing the war. Then, to end the war, the President would help the other side — that is, the Allies. Of course the fatal moral weakness of the fore­going scheme is that we should plunge into the war not on the merits of the cause but by a carefully sprung trick.”

Even the Anglophile Page gagged at this trick, but House was not discouraged. He wrote the President, “If the Allies will agree to the conference and if Germany does not, I have promised for you that we will throw in all our weight in order to bring her to terms * *”

This is only another way of saying that House promised Ameri­can money, blood — on his own responsibility — long before either the American Congress or the American people were even consulted as to their wishes in the matter.

In response to a question by members of the British Cabinet as to what the United States wanted Britain to do, House replied: “The United States would like Great Britain to do those things which would enable the United States to help Great Britain to win the war.” As a matter of fact, the Anglophiles were already — exactly as they are today — preaching neutrality but helping the Allies in every possible way.

House for Wilson in February, 1916, treasonably promised “all our weight” to England. Jewish Bullitt, for Roosevelt, on January 15, 1939, pledged to Count Potocki, Polish Ambassador to the United States, all our resources and our active participation, viz., blood and money, to England and France.

Walter Hines Page appointed from New York (American Am­bassador to London) “was an able teacher. He helped to teach Grey how to handle Wilson and Lansing (of New York), how to con­trive blockades and persuade us to accept them. * * * He encouraged Wilson and House and Lansing in the conviction that Britain must not be stopped until victory was won. He could scarcely conceal his satisfaction in the sinking of American boats, for he saw that such acts would bring America into the war. He hoped for 'another

usitania.' He played upon the fear of a panic in the United States

• iiould loans be stopped.”

And So To War, p. 68.

Edward Mandell House, then of New York, “persuaded Wilson Out war was inevitable and necessary. * * * He concluded the secret Mouse-Grey Agreement of February 22, 1916, which pledged the ' United States to go to Britain's aid if Germany refused peace terms

• unsonant with Allied demands, * * * Ray Stannard Baker’s descrip­tion is justified, House was ‘used by the Allies as a pawn.' ”

Ibid., p. 69.

"* * * Said Spring-Rice (British Ambassador) to his chief, 'all dir State Department are on our side except Bryan who is incapable of forming a settled judgment on anything outside party politics.’ ”

Ibid, p. 70.

SEQUENCE OF PLOT,

House — Grey — Reading — Wilson London, February 10, 1916 — Jew Lord Chief Justice Reading Sir Rufus Isaacs) called on Edward Mandel House (Wilson’s roving

• icnt) in London immediately after breakfast, and made arrange­ments for a dinner at Reading’s home for House to confer with the ireat men of the British Government.

London, February 10, 1916 — House writes from London to President Wilson "The Allies will agree to the conference, and, if Germany does not, I have promised for you (Wilson and America) that we will throw in all our weight in order to bring her to terms;" •hat he is to lunch with the British statesmen on the following day to get their approval, and will dine with them (at Reading’s house) three days later to consummate the understanding.

London, February 11, 1916 — House had dinner with Lloyd tieorge and Reading. “Both groups were cautious.”

“Also, in view of the anxiety which Wilson had dis­played to avoid war with Germany and the American Am­bassador’s conviction of his unalterable pacifism, it is pqssible that they distrusted the President’s willingness to bring the United States into the war if Germany refused terms."

Intimate Papers of Colonel House, ps. 173-174.

London, February 11, 1916 — House writes to Wilson telling ’>im of what happened at the lunch and dinner, and informing him:

" 'The next point that came up was how the British Government could let us know they considered the time pro­pitious for us to intervene, without first submitting the ques­tion to the Allies, and, if they did not submit it to the Allies, how to avoid the charge of double-dealing.

“ ‘The solution I suggested for this was that at regular intervals I would cable Sir Edward Grey, in our private code, offering intervention. He could ignore the messages until the time was propitious, and then he could bring it to the at­tention of the Allies as coming from us and not as coming from Great Britain.’ ”                                Ibid. p. 176

" ‘It was agreed that we should leave Grey’s house sep­arately.’ ”

Ibid. p. 175.

London, February 14, 1916, (St. Valentine’s Day) — Edward Mandel House dines at the home of the Lord Chief Justice Reading, (Rufus Isaacs) at which Prime Minister Asquith sat on Reading’s right and America’s roving Ambassador on his left. They set forth their arrangements for the division of Europe and Asia. ‘We all cheerfully divided up Turkey, both in Asia and in Europe.” Ibid, ps. 179-182. (Palestine was then a part of Turkey).

London, February 15, 1916 — House sees Sir Edward Grey and receives from him congratulations upon House’s having committed Lloyd George so thoroughly to intervention by the President of the United States. Ibid. p. 182.

London, February 16, 1916 — House drove to the House of Commons with X in order that he might have a few minutes' pri­vate conversation.  Ibid. p. 183.

London, February 17, 1916 — Lord Chief Justice Reading called on House to congratulate him on the result of the conference at the dinner at Reading’s house.                                                                                      Ibid. p. 184.

London, February 21, 1916 — Sir Edward Grey tells House he has shown to the French Ambassador and three of the British Cab­inet the memorandum which Grey and House agreed upon last week. Grey states to House:

“He has seen the French Ambassador, who asked Grey how serious he thought my proposal was; whether the Presi­dent and I were in earnest, or whether we had in mind mere­ly the influencing of the British and French favorably to the President, in order that it might have a bearing upon the presidential campaign.”

Ibid. p. 195.

London, February 22, 1916 — Lord Chief Justice Reading call­ed on House to inform him of a private talk he had had with the Prime Minister, concerning the conference at the Reading dinner.

Ibid. p. 184.

London, February 23, 1916 — Sir Edward Grey gives House lhe agreement marked confidential to get the United States into the war, O.K.’d by Grey on Washington’s birthday. House asks Grey to •end Lord Reading to the United States in the event House cabled for him. House explains:

‘I am considering this as a precautionary measure and for my own protection. The President might agree (to war), and I would cable as much to Grey; then something might arise to cause the President to change his mind and I would he censured here (London) in unmeasured terms. Mean­while the Allied Governments might have gone ahead with this understanding in mind, and followed a course which they would not have done had they not had the agreement with us.”           Ibid. p. 196.

London, February 25, 1916 — House sailed from Britain to America.

Washington, March 6, 1916 —

" * * the walls in Washington, if walls had ears, would have a very exceptional privilege.”

House reports a long talk alone with President Wilson and lunches and spends most of the day with him, being only inter­rupted for an hour's interview with Lansing. That night House showed to the President the agreement which Sir Edward Grey and he had arrived at, which was the substance of House’s understanding with France and Great Britain, whereby America would become a belligerent. Ibid ps. 199-200. The President accepted the proposition, nly suggesting that the word “probably” be inserted. This treason- ible agreement, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, to intervene in Europe’s war, in which thousands of American boys it’ere to suffer and die and billions of American money to be spent and lent, committed the United States to propose peace terms to the Mlies and Germany on terms favorable to the Allies, "and. if it failed secure peace, the United States would (probably) leave the Con­ference as a belligerent on the side of the Allies, if Germany was un­reasonable.”    Ibid. p. 201.

Washington, March 8, 1916 — House cabled to Sir Edward ¹ >rey, in the private code, the President’s acceptance of the agreement n behalf of America. House also wrote to Grey on March 10, 1916: Dear Sir Edward:

"After explaining to the President all that occurred at our conference, he wrote the cable I sent you on March 8th. 7 added nothing, for it was a complete approval of what had been done. If the situation continues as now, and if Congress does not restrict him, everything will go through as planned. * * * It is now squarely up to you. * * * Be assured, my dear friend, that I am thinking of you always.”

Ibid. p. 220.

This treasonable agreement to put America into Europe’s war lay secret and silent, in the private archives of the President, while he ran again for President of the United States on the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War.” (Remember Roosevelt’s agent, Jew Bullitt’s simi­lar promise to Count Potocki on January 15, 1939.)

The Allies did not move fast enough to suit the redoubtable Colonel. He wrote, “It is stupid to refuse our proferred intervention on the terms I proposed in Paris and London. If Germany refused to acquiesce in such settlements, I promised we would take the part of the Allies and try to force it.”

“Colonel House was naturally and bitterly disappointed,” writes Professor Seymour, now President of Yale and sympathetic editor of House’s Intimate Papers, and ardent war mongerer. "He had con­ceived a plan of boldness and one involving a revolution in American foreign relations * *   Ibid. p. 283.

ZIONIST JEWS DESERT GERMANY FOR ENGLAND
AND ENTRAP AMERICA INTO WAR

The impression that Russia would soon collapse — something in which, as we will see, the Jews played a major part, began slowly to woo the German Jews from their alliance with Germany. Lord Reading had come to America, first as head of a British finan­cial mission to obtain a large loan and then as Ambassador.

Sir Cecil Spring-Rice was anxious to do everything possible for England but he did not like the idea that Lord Reading was to be the spearhead of the British campaign. In conversation with Colonel House, as reported by Prof. Tansill on page 109 of America Goes to War, "He distinctly mistrusted Jews” and thought "it would be necessary to save England in spite of herself.”

Jacob Schiff was one of the last to give in. Harold Nicholson, the English biographer of Dwight Morrow, a Morgan partner, re­lates the interesting incident.

The determining factor, which finally seduced Wilson to abandon his fight for peace, was the concentrated drive of the Zionists — those Jews who had organized to get Palestine as their homeland.

JEWS BOAST OF HOW THEY GOT AMERICA INTO WAR

This sinister plot is disclosed in the now-famous Landman Letter, published in the Jewish Chronicle of London on February 7, 1936.

Landman was Honorary Secretary of the Second Joint Zionist Council of the United Kingdom, Joint Editor of The Zionist, Secre­tary and Solicitor of the Zionist Organization. He is now legal advisor to the New Zionist Organization. Under the title of ‘‘Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine”, Landman writes in part:

"During the critical days of the War, in 1916, when the defection of Russia was imminent and Jewish opinion gen­erally was anti-Russian and had hopes that Germany if vic­torious would in certain circumstances give them Palestine, several attempts were made by the Allies to bring America into the War on their side. These attempts were unsuccessful. Mr. Malcolm, who, at that time, was in close touch with the late Sir Mark Sykes (of the War Cabinet Secretariat) and M. Georges Picot (of the French Embassy in London) and M. Gout of the Quai d’Orsay (Eastern Section), took the initiative in convincing these representatives of the British and French Governments that the best and perhaps the only way to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jewry by promising them Palestine. By so doing the Allies would enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful force of Zionist Jewry in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo basis. At that time, President Wilson attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of Mr. Justice Brandeis. . . . Sir Mark Sykes obtained permission from the War Cabinet to authorize Mr. Malcolm to approach the Zionists on that basis. Neither Sir Mark Sykes nor Mr. Mal­colm knew who were the Zionist leaders and it was Mr. L. J. Greenberg to whom Mr. Malcolm applied for information to whom he should address himself. . . . The Zionists carried out their part and helped to bring America in, and the Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917, was but the public con­firmation of the verbal agreement of 1916. This verbal agreement was made with the previous knowledge, acqui­escence and approval not only of the British, American, French and other allied Governments, but also of the Arab leaders.

* * *

“As already explained elsewhere by me in detail, Dr. Weizmann and Mr. Sokolow knew that Mr. James Malcolm came to them as the emissary of the British War Cabinet, which authorized him to say in their name that England would 'give Palestine to the Jews’ in return for Zionist assist­ance, through Justice Bcandeis, in inducing the United States to come to the help of the Allies.”

* * *

"Both Sir Mark Sykes and Mr. Malcolm informed the Arab representatives in London and Paris that without the assistance of the United States the prospects of any Arab State arising after the War were most problematical, and they must therefore agree that Palestine should go to the Jews, as the reward for their assistance in bringing in the United States.”

The fact that it was Jewish help that brought the United States into the War on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in Ger­man — especially Nazi — minds and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme.

This reminds us again of Belloc’s reference to the Jewish willing­ness to serve any cause that serves the Jews. The Landman Letter is a perfect example of Jewish policy in action. Since the Germans were ' unwilling — or unable — to deliver to the Jews what they wanted —Palestine — in return for their support, the international Jews withdrew their support from Germany and pledged the blood and money of the United States on condition — a quid pro quo contract —that England would pay the price.

The elements in this plot are most interesting. Up until late 1916 German and Zionist Jews in England and America were co-operating secretly and actively with England’s enemy Germany —while other Jews (American, German, and others) were sabotag­ing Russia, England’s Ally. The Zionists had hoped — as Land- man says — to get Palestine through German support. Then — when it became obvious that Russia's vitality was sapped, and that England would treat as a scrap of paper her promise to the Arabs and sell Palestine to the Jews — the American Zionists Jews began to add their pressure upon Wilson to abandon our isolation and pull their chestnuts from the fire.

The background of the Zionists as well as a history of Lord Reading’s amazing career and of how they engineered America into the war with the aid of Brandeis, Frankfurter, Jacob Schiff, Louis Marshall and other American Zionist Jews, is completely told for the first time in "The Eighth Crusade”, a book published in London in 1937 by a retired British intelligence officer. On P. 9-10 we read:

“The Inner Actions Committee of the Zionist Congress which met regularly in Berlin and transacted all international business between Congresses, was composed of members dis­persed in various countries throughout the world. During the War, the services rendered to Zionism by Dr. Schmaryar Levin in the United States were invaluable, as were those of members such as Max Warburg and Hantke. * * * Max Warburg, brother of Paul and Felix, associated with his brothers and Jacob Schiff in Kuhn-Loeb, and the Chief of the banking firm of Max Warburg 0 Company, of Hamburg, was one of the ‘German’ plenipotentiaries at the Peace Con­ference in Paris.

"The Zionist Inner Actions Committee operated from Constantinople through their agent Jacobson, who sheltered under the wing of his fellow tribesman, the United States Ambassador at the Sublime Porte, His Excellency ‘Sir’ Henry Morgenthau”. * * * (Father of our Henry).

The Eighth Crusade, Pp. 9-10.

The writer continues:

‘‘But the negotiations which culminated in Woodrow Wilson’s grandiloquent declaration of war had been long, ar­duous and intricate. That they resulted in Britain’s favour was due in no small measure to the finesse and prestige of her plenipotentiary in the United States, Lord Reading, whose’ rise to power had been astounding even for a Jew.

"His father, Joseph Isaacs, fruit and ship broker, had three sons, Harry, Godfrey and Rufus Daniel, all of whom have figured prominently in the law courts. When, in 1910, Godfrey became managing director of Marconi’s Wireless Telegraph Co. Ltd., he was already a director of Marconi International Marine Communications Co. Ltd., and of the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Companies of America and Cana­da. Harry had been equally successful * * * (Here the writer discusses Harry Isaac’s speculation in British Cellulose which was a major scandal of the day).

“But amazing though they were, the achievements of Godfrey and Harry were eclipsed entirely by the more than spectacular exploits of their brother Rufus. After miracu­lously escaping criminal proceedings following his youth­ful activities as a stockbroker, Rufus Daniel Isaacs became a lawyer and entered Parliament, thereafter his politico-legal- business career was meteoric.”                        Ibid. Pp. 28-29.

Here the writer discusses Rufus Daniel Isaacs’ (afterward Lord Reading); Herbert Lewis Samuel’s (now Viscount Samuel), and Godfrey Isaacs’ (Dan’s brother, Managing Director of the Marconi Company) notorious gamble in the Marconi shares.

"On October 11, Parliament reassembled and a fierce de­bate on the Samuel-Isaacs Wireless contract took place. Both Rufus Isaacs and Herbert Samuel strongly denied that they

or any of their colleagues ever held a share in 'this company’ whilst Lloyd George talked vaguely of ‘slander’ and ‘foul lips’. When eventually a committee was appointed to in­vestigate the scandal, Rufus Isaacs himself approached two of its members and privately informed them of his dealings in the Marconis and those of the other Ministers. * * * the Government instructed the committee to drop the matter and whitewash the culprits. Asquith appointed Rufus Isaacs Lord Chief Justice and two months later, Baron Reading of Erleigh. In June, 1915, he became a Knight of the Grand Cross of the Bath, and a year later a Viscount.

“His greatest triumph came early in 1917 when the En­tente financial crisis was nearing its climax, and Rufus Daniel Isaacs was selected * * * to represent the world’s greatest Em­pire * * * in America, where he prevailed upon Zion to bring down the United States on the British side of the fence. In the same year, Isaacs was elevated to the Earldom and two months later was appointed Great Britain's Ambassador to the United States. Subsequently he was created Marquess of Reading and received the Grand Crosses of the Star of India, the Indian Empire and the Royal Victorian Order.”

The Eighth Crusade, Pp. 30, 31, 32.

"So great was the influence exerted by Jews holding high office in the Wilson Government, both on the chief executive and on members of Congress, that the national policy of the United States was virtually controlled by Jews, amongst the most powerful of whom was the Zionist Louis D. Bran- deis. * * * He was closely associated with President Wilson, by whom he was invariably consulted on all matters relating to War Finance and was on intimate terms with the British Financial Commission to the United States headed by Rufus Daniel Isaacs * * *.                                                       Ibid. Pp. 32-33.

“The Warburgs were related to and associated with Jacob Schiff in Kuhn-Loeb & Co. Paul had a controlling influence in the Executive Council of the U. S. Federal Reserve Banks. ******

"As a result of intense propaganda, Zionism won over the masses and most of the leaders of American Jewry, including the notorious President of Kuhn, Loeb, Jacob Schiff, himself, who since 1905 had been an active financial supporter of the Russian revolution, the 'blessings' of which had convinced him of the efficacy of Zionism.

“Schiff was the greatest financial supporter of the German Jews Mutual Aid Society and during the war before America intervened, he and his colleague Heubsch formed the American Neutral Conference Committee which aimed at coercing the belligerents to make peace on Jewish terms. It was this Com­mittee that spread the idea of a League of Nations of which

the nominal centre was to be Geneva, but its real centre was, of course, already firmly established in the home of inter­national finance, under whose regime of international control all the nations would be welded into one vast servile state.”

Ibid. Pp. 34-35.

"In New York, on September 26, 1918, (the Jew) Louis Marshall wrote to the anti-Zionist Max Senior: ‘My reasons for supporting Zionism have been emphasized by the rapid march of events. The Allied armies have now swept the Turks and Germans out of Palestine. It is significant that Jewish units constitute a part of the victorious army. Presi­dent Wilson has expressed his approval of the principles laid down in the Balfour Declaration, and the Allied Powers are unanimously in favor of it. The American Jewish Commit­tee recognized the political importance of the Balfour Declara­tion as a factor in the efforts to defeat the Central Powers. Major Lionel de Rothschild states that the League for British Jews, of which he is president, is in agreement with the Ameri­can Jewish Committee.

"The Balfour Declaration with its acceptance by the Powers is an act of the highest diplomacy. It means both more and less than appears on the surface, for Zionism is but an incident of a far-reaching plan: it is merely a con­venient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon.”

The Eighth Crusade, P. 42.

"In 1916 (the date is significant), the Zionists secretly transferred their support from the Central Powers to the Allies and their headquarters from Berlin to London. From then on their influence was felt more and more in political and financial circles in Europe and America. * * *

"By its ruthless financial machinations the Transfer De­partment established a Zionist credit system throughout the world which was instrumental in compelling the Allied Governments to recognize the Zionist organization as the official representative of the Jewish people. In 1916. the chief task which engaged the Zionists was the revolution in Russia * *.

"Before that time Zionism in England * * * boasted no other patrons of any importance until Chaim Weizmann ao- proached Lloyd George who responded immediately and en­thusiastically.

"A memorandum was then presented to the Cabinet bv the Home Secretary. Mr. Herbert Samuel (now Lord Sam­uel), strongly advocating the annexation of Palestine bv Great Britain with the obiect of settling between three and four million Jews there. But Mr. Asquith was not favour­ably impressed with the idea, notwithstanding that among Britain’s Cabinet Ministers were some of Jewry’s principal

marionettes, including Edgar Speyer’s fidus Achates, the Prime Minister Herbert Asquith (whose anti-Zionist pronounce­ments made him an ideal foil to the real motives of Zionism ) and Lords Crewe and Curzon. of whom the former had mar­ried the grand-daughter of Meyer Rothschild, while the latter married the daughter of Levi Zeigler Leiter of Chicago *

"Of the Jews and pro-Jews behind the Government the most powerful were the shadow Minister and de facto Chan­cellor of the Exchequer, Rufus Isaacs (Lord Reading) and the following Jewish Privy Councillors who for years had wielded supreme power in the nation’s innermost council of State: Lord Rothschild: Sir William Goschen; Sir Alfred Mond (Lord Melchett); Sir Edgar Speyer, bosom friend of Asquith: Sir Ernest Cassell: Sir Edwin Samuel Montague: Herbert Lewis Samuel (Lord Samuel) ; Sir Harry Simon Sam­uel : Lord Swaythling (Lewis Samuel Montague), whose widow, Rachel, is vice-president of the English Speaking Union: Sir Stuart Samuel, who was Winston Churchill's princioal assistant in leading the opposition to the Alien Im­migration Measure and was associated with him in procuring abolition of naturalization fees: Sir Hamar Greenwood: Right Honorable Leopold Amerv, M. P., Sir Philip Sasoon. one­time Secretary to Lloyd George and to Field Marshal Haig. Isaac Blumchen in his Le Droit de la Race Superieure might have had the latter in mind when he wrote: ‘We (the Jews) watch over the Gentiles through their Jewish secretaries.’ ”

Ibid. Pp. 11 to 18.

It was not contemplated, so sure was House of himself, that those who opposed our entrance into the war would get very far. When he saw that our war was imminent — the war for whose imminence he himself was partly responsible — he promptly got in touch with the New Secretary of War, Newton D. Baker, and ad­vised him of the fact. He also (according to Prof. Tansill in Ameri­ca Goes to War, p. 496) told Baker to use a "firm hand" in sup­pressing disorders that might break out in large cities like New York and Chicago. ‘It is a ‘mistaken mercy’ to temporize with troubles of ‘this sort”, he said. Remember House held no official position until the war was over, and yet he thus ordered our Secretary of War to mercilessly slay Americans, who did not want to die for his dear England, before war was declared by our Congress.

It was also along about this time that Page, now fully ablaze with the sacred fire, wrote Con Embassy stationery) referring sar­castically to Wilson’s "bastard neutrality”: "The thing, the only thing is — a perfect understanding between the English speaking people. That’s necessary and that’s all that’s necessary. I frankly tell my friends here * * * that we Americans have got to hang our

Irish agitators and shoot our hyphenates and bring up our children u>ith reverence for English history and in awe of English literature.”— l ife and Letters of Walter H. Page. Vol. 2, p. 144.

Had the American people been sufficiently suspicious of Wilson's 'other self”, Colonel House, they might have read his novel Philip Dru in which he outlined the acts and policies of the Wilson Admin­istration — this before he ever met Woodrow Wilson. "Philip Dru” has also been one of the Bible books of Roosevelt’s New Deal. House had admitted himself to be a socialist of the Blanc school. Blanc’s doctrines of State Socialism, incidentally, have flowered as National Socialism under Adolf Hitler.

“It occurred to me,” House wrote on May 9, 1916, "that May 27, when the League to Enforce Peace meets in Wash­ington, would be the right time to make the proposal and I am so suggesting to the President.”

Intimate Papers of Col. House 1915-1917, P. 294.

Professor Seymour, now President of Yale, relates that Wilson realized the extent of House’s revolution of foreign policy, because ho points out that his address “threw completely to one side the doc­trine of isolation.”

In the light of recent statements from the White House on the subject of America’s duty toward the world are some striking phrases. This is Woodrow Wilson, not Franklin Roosevelt, speaking on May 24. 1916:

"We are participants, whether we would or not, in the life of the world. The interests of all nations are our own also. We are partners with the rest. What affects mankind is inevitably our affair as well as the affair of the nations of Europe and of Asia.”

Intimate Papers of Col. House 1915-1917. P. 295.

On the historic day when Woodrow Wilson uttered these words, the lives of over 50.000 young, strong and hopeful men drew near an undeserved end. The parallel with the situation today is almost too painful to expose.

Commenting on Wilson’s speech, Professor Seymour says, "In •■reat governmental crises of this sort, the public has no conception of what is happening behind the curtain.”

We cannot but conclude that what is "happening behind the i urtain” today — as in 1916 — is secret from those most intimately •incerned — those whose lives and money are at stake.

Tn an incredible exhibition of deception to help the Enqlish bv declaring armed English merchantmen not belligerent, Secretary of

State Lansing sent to the White House for transmission to Con­gress — when asked for an opinion regarding armed merchant­men — the historic decision of John Marshall in the Nereide case, on the subject; but Lansing’s opinion left out three entire lines of the Marshall opinion, with the result that the “conclusion” was exactly the reverse of Marshall's.

Speaking of this unbelieveable act, of which Prof. Tansill says President Wilson was "probably aware” (America Goes to War, P. 481), John Bassett Moore, the eminent international jurist said, in part, (Ibid. P. 481) :

"Of Marshall’s opinion in this famous case (the Nereide) a garbled version was got out here, a version so false as to constitute practically a forgery; but it was widely dissem­inated, and was used in speeches even in Congress. I repeat that this version practically involved forgery, because it omitted from Marshall’s opinion the passage in which it was declared that the ship, by reason of the fact that she was armed, was to be regarded as 'an open and declared belligerent, claiming all the rights, and subject to all the dangers of the belligerent character.’ ”

Professor Peterson, an American Professor of History, states;

"Eventually the idea became current that for an Ameri­can to be pro-Ally was to be patriotic and for him to be pro- German was to be anti-American.”

Peterson: Propaganda for War. P. 35.

The "atrocity stories” which encouraged us in our anger against Germany, such correspondents on the scene as Roger Lewis, Irvin S. Cobb. Harry Hansen, O’Donnell Bennett and John T. McCut- cheon denounced as "groundless”

"Many of the propaganda stories in the World War were not new merchandise but merely the stock-in trade garnered by former war propagandists.”                                                          Ibid. P. 59.

"Tn 1937 First Lord of the Admiralty. Mr. Alfred Duff Cooper, stated: ’* * we did everything in our power to starve the women and children in Germany!’ ” (Churchill was and is more brutally for starvation) .

Ibid. P. 83.

"Walter Hines Page stormed: ‘Tt would take several vears to kill that vast horde of Germans, but it will not take so long to starve them out.’ ”                                                                          Ibid. P. 83.

"Great impetus was given to the preparedness movement bv the anpearance of a certain motion picture * * 'The Battle Cry of Peace’. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were to witness this gory piece of incomparable propaganda for preparedness. They were to be thrilled and horrified by its portrayal of an unprepared America overrun by the brutal and licentious soldiery of a foreign power which, though un­named, uniformed its troops in a strangely close imitation of the Germans.” (Jew movies are again working this trick night and day.)

Ibid. P. 202.

"Numerous newsreels and feature length pictures were released in the United States and John Masefield reported that these cinemas had been effective.”                                                        Ibid. P. 238.

"Air attacks upon defenseless cities continued to provide material for the pity propaganda. Sir Gilbert Parker noted that ‘air raids upon London * * were supplying a most desirable tonic to American opinion.’ In this particular pro­paganda, as in that connected with gas, there occurred a some­what changed attitude in cases where the efficiency of the Allies was comparable with that of the Germans. On June 26, 1916, the Corpus Christi procession at Carlsruhe in Germany was bombed by planes belonging to the Allies. Five women and sixty-five children were killed. A little later Munich was attacked. * * * The New York Herald’s headline stated: 'Munich Bombed by Daring French Flyer in Great Feat’. Here the atrocity, when done by a French aviator, became a commendable action.”

Ibid. P. 244.

“In April, Bonar Law gave an interview, at the instiga­tion of Parker, on the danger of a German invasion of the United States."

Ibid. P. 245.

“The resulting climate of opinion made it impossible for those Americans who desired to keep out of the war to ex­press their views. Their warning cries were drowned out by the pro-Ally tub-thumping.”

Ibid. P. 247.

"Wilson’s extravagant partisanship was a product of the idealistic British propaganda which pictured the war as a holy _War.”

Ibid. p. 208.

The Rt. Hon. Winston Churchill, now Premier of His Imperial Majesty’s Government, and then First Lord of the Admiralty, after the disastrous retreat of the British Army, in the latter part of August, 1914, sent an urgent letter to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and to the Secretary of State for War, in chich Churchill stated, he had heard of the willingness of about 60,000 Americans, including a number of Southerners, to fight for England, and that wealthy Americans were anxious to subscribe to their equipment. Since Churchill was and is a friend of the big New York bankers who themselves only fight with money, it is probable that these were the wealthy Americans to whom he referred as anxious to put up money, so that the blood of American boys could be shed in the fields of Flanders, Churchill stated:

“It ought to be possible to organize in Canada an Amer­ican volunteer force amounting to at least a Division, which could go into action as such. Nothing will bring American sympathy along with us so much as American blood shed in the Reid”

The World Crisis, by Churchill, p. 293.

Admiral Chadwick rightly distrusted England. Writing to President Wilson on May 16, 1916, he said a word of warning:

"* * * let us beware * * it is not for us. Never in our history was there greater need of caution; never was there greater need of all the serpent’s wisdom. English diplomacy is a deep and subtile game of which our people * * are as ignorant as kittens. She needs to be warily dealt with * * The future of our country is in the balance in this war, and it is England which will tip the scales against us if we are not cautious.”

The summary dismissal of Sir Cecil Spring-Rice as British Ambassador to make room for the Ambassador of Jewry, Lord Reading, was a shock to the former’s friends and an even greater blow to Spring-Rice. He died soon after — of heartbreak, said his friends. It is probable that he suspected that England’s cam­paign — which was synonymous with that of House and his mys­terious backers — to bring us into the war was not entirely the result of military necessity. His letter to Balfour on January 4, 1915, hints that he suspected something:

“Justice Brandeis,” he says, “called on me yesterday. He is the accepted leader of the Zionists and was nominee of many prominent Jews for the Supreme Bench.

“He is said to have much influence with the President.” Letters of Spring-Rice, Vol. 2, P. 421.

In her biography, My Memoir, the second Mrs. Wilson makes a single cryptic statement describing an event perhaps unimportant save as it reflects a condition—a state of affairs—which history only now is able to discuss. She says of the President:

“ ... he went alone at night to consult Mr. Justice Brandeis and shortly thereafter, on December 26th, took over, in the name of the Government, the control of the railroads.”

Were we not already familiar with the habitual secrecy of the

Itws and of the vast and powerful nature of their influence this— ■ von without its context—could be passed off as unimportant. It is, however, but one more record of the fabric of influence, of secret unremitting pressure. That a President should make an unconven- i icnal call alone on a Supreme Court Justice at midnight might have no significance ordinarily, but when it becomes one of an almost • ndless succession of links in a chain leading to an obvious end, it innot be dismissed lightly, especially when it is recollected that Wilson had few male friends or confidants, and made few if any ills upon them night or day.

In Boris Brasol's book, "The World at the Cross Roads," we read:

“It is not a mere coincidence that at the notorious meeting held at Stockholm in 1916, between the former Russian Minister of the Interior, Protopopoff, and the German agents, the German Foreign Offiice was represented by Mr. Warburg, whose two brothers were members of the international bank­ing firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., of which the late Mr. Jacob SchifF was a senior member * *

WE ARE IN

Our new Secretary of War, Newton D. Baker, former pacifist, married to a Jewess, was an able man. With George Creel, news­paperman and propagandist, who it is understood claims not to be .1 Jew, and the Jew Bernard Baruch, Wilson had a triumvirate which literally “ran” the United States. In Our Times, Vol. 2, p. 369, Mark Sullivan says of them:

“Baker, Baruch and Creel were at once simpatico to Wil­son and had charge of the three most important channels through which Wilson fought the war. Baker in charge of the Army, Baruch as head of industrial mobilization, and Creel in charge of the dissemination of ideas were the three tines of Wilson’s trident.”

******

“By the nature of this war, and especially in the way in which Wilson conceived it and directed it, the three principal agencies were Baker as Secretary of War, Baruch as Chairman of the War Industries Board, Creel as chairman of the idea- disseminating, emotion-arousing function that went with the Committee of Public Information."

CONGRESS

Delegated to Wilson the practically
arbitrary powers he needed as President

Wilson

Fought the War mainly through

Baker                                        Baruch                                          Creel

Secretary of War                   Chairman of                   Chairman of the

War Industries                  Committee on

Public Information

"Our Times", by Mark Sullivan, P. 369.

Of Baruch, Mrs. Wilson writes in My Memoir, p. 150:

“The industrial forces of the nation (were) regimented under the able direction of Mr. Baruch.”

Benedict Crowell, Assistant Secretary of War under Baker dur­ing the World War, said:

"One thing should be said about Baruch to explain his peculiar position of influence in the War Department—he had the ear and confidence of the President, an advantage which few of the executive heads in Washington could claim.”

How America Went to War by Crowell 0 Wilson, Vol. 1, P. 31.

"As to the control of American Business, it became abso­lute. There was no freedom of individual enterprise. The control was autocratic, as powerful as any which ever reigned in the Russia of the Romanoffs or in Prussia when her Junkers drank to Der Tag—one of these men" (Baruch, the Jew) "a civilian, guided the destinies of the War Indus­tries Board."

Ibid. P. 7.

Balfour, as head of the British delegation to the United States, told us that the most the Allies would ask from us was money and ships. “Papa” Joffre said he did want a few soldiers with our flag to restore French morale. It was not long before the Jew Lord Read­ing proposed that untrained American troops should be put in the front lines of Allied armies to die under English and French Generals. This bloody proposal was stopped only because General Pershing fought it with all the courage and stubbornness which was his.

THE WORLD’S CONFERENCE—THE JEWISH
LEAGUE OF NATIONS

It takes the word of one of the world's most distinguished and reliable writers—Mr. H. Wickham Steed—in his Through Thirty Years, to bring this chapter in the story up to date. Steed says, in part:—

* * * a flutter was caused by the return from Moscow of

Messrs. William C. Bullitt and Lincoln Steffens who had been sent to Russia towards the middle of February by Colonel House and Mr. Lansing, * * * Mr. Philip Kerr” (now Lord Lothian, British Ambassador to the U. S. and an earnest propagandist for American intervention in World War No. 2) ‘‘and, presumably, Mr. Lloyd George, knew and approved of this mission * * *. Potent international finan­cial interests were at work in favour of the immediate recog­nition of the Bolshevists. Those influences had been largely responsible for the Anglo-American proposal in January to call Bolshevist representatives to Paris at the beginning of the Peace Conference. * * * The well-known American-Jewish banker, Mr. Jacob Schiff, was known to be anxious to secure recognition for the Bolshevists, among whom Jewish influ­ence was predominant; and Tchitcherin, the Bolshevist Com­missar for Foreign Affairs, had revealed the meaning of the January proposal by offering extensive commercial and eco­nomic concessions in return for recognition. At a moment when the Bolshevists were doing their utmost to spread revo­lution throughout Europe, and when the Allies were supposed to be making peace in the name of high moral principles, a policy of recognizing them, as the price of commercial conces­sions, would have sufficed to wreck the whole Peace Conference and Europe with it. At the end of March, Hungary was already Bolshevist; Austria, Czechoslovakia. Poland, and even Germany were in danger, and European feeling against the bloodstained fanatics of Russia ran extremely high. There­fore. when it transpired that an American official, William

302. Bullitt, connected with the Peace Conference, had returned, after a week's visit to Moscow, with an optimistic report upon the state of Russia and with an authorized Russian pro­posal for the virtual recognition of the Bolshevist regime by April 10th, dismay was felt everywhere except by those who had been privy to the sending of Mr. Bullitt.” 301-302.

Steed says (p. 303) :

" * * * shortly after leaving Colonel House, information reached me that Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson would probably agree next morning to recognize the Bol­shevists in accordance with Mr. Bullitt’s suggestions.”

“I had hardlv sent this article to the printers when an Ameri­can friend. Mr. Charles R. Crane, who had been dining with President Wilson, called to see me. He showed great alarm at the turn things were taking. ‘Bullitt is back,’ he said, ‘and the President is already talking Bullitt’s language. 1 fear he may ruin everything. Our people at home will cer­tainly not stand for the recognition of the Bolshevists at the bidding of Wall Street.' * * *

“Before I was up next day, Colonel House telephoned to say that he wished to see me urgently. Apparently, to use an

Americanism, my article ‘had got under the President’s hide.' When I reached the Crillon, House and Auchindoss looked grave. I told them that, had I waited to discuss policy with them before writing my article, the chances were that there would have been no policy to discuss because the President, and, possibly, Lloyd George would have committed them­selves to recognition of the Bolshevists that very morning.”

Ibid. p. 304.

After the publication of the aforementioned article in the London Daily Mail, Bullitt testified that the next morning he had breakfast with Lloyd George and Philip Kerr (now Lord Lothian, his Maj­esty’s Ambassador, who is here now to get our sons and money. He is being begged by our English Speaking Unions and some of our Patriotic Societies, Colleges, and Chambers of Commerce to tell us how to speedily make the sacrifice). Bullitt further testified that he wrote to Wilson, but that the President did not reply since he (Wilson) would have been obliged to show that Lloyd George had made an untrue statement. Colonel House told Steed:

“The President, he said, was being influenced more and more by Lloyd George who was showing the Man­chester Guardian to him and persuading him that only by a pro-Bolshevist and semi-pro-German policy could a disaster be avoided in England.”

Ibid. p. 310 (Vol. 2).

This William C. Bullitt, the rich son of a Jewess of Philadelphia, husband of the widow of John Reed, Harvard's most distinguished Communist, who died in the Kremlin, was President Roosevelt’s first Ambassador to Soviet Russia. He is now more happily situated as Ambassador to France. His disgust with Russia dates from Stalin's purge of the "old Bolshevists” — Jews almost without exception. Bullitt is an ardent interventionist to-day and in documents to be set forth in part later in this volume—pledged America’s entrance in the second World War. This is the same Bullitt who the dis­tinguished English journalist, 'Wickham Steed, caught plotting at the end of the first World War for his fellow Jews and Bolsheviks in Russia.

After his report to the Peace Conference, in which he was joined by the late Lincoln Steffens, an avowed Communist, Bullitt quit the Peace delegation in a huff, and some aspects of his report were later denounced by the Congress as false and misleading. To con­tinue with Steed’s discussion:

“That day Colonel House asked me to call upon him. I found him worried both by my criticism of any recognition of the Bolshevists and by the certainty, which he had not pre-

viously realized, that if the President were to recognize the Bolshevists in return for commercial concessions his whole ‘idealism’ would be hopelessly compromised as commercial­ism in disguise. * * * 1 insisted that, unknown to him, the prime movers were Jacob Schiff, Warburg, and other inter­national financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia.”                                                     p. 302.

* * * Yet Jewish influence was more persistent and more efficient. Had it been united, and could it have been coher­ently directed, it might well have prevailed; but, in point of fact, Jewish idealism served, in part, to-counteract the work of Jewish finance and of Jewish cosmopolitan agencies. This Jewish idealism was of two kinds. Though, in one of its forms, it strengthened for a time the pro-German and pan- German tendencies of Jewish finance by bringing Jewish hatred of Imperial Russia into line with Jewish attachment to Germanism, its support of Germanism slackened when the Russian Empire fell. * * * The gulf that severed Western Europe from Russia during the latter half of the 19th Century was dug and kept open chiefly by Jewish resentment of Russian persecution of the Jews. Yet that resentment sprang also from Jewish detestation of the Russian Holy Synod and of the Russian Orthodox Church as survivals of mediaeval Christianity and as promoters of a crusade for the posses­sion of ‘Tsarigrad’ (Constantinople) and of the Holy Places. Against Russian Christian fanaticism was ranged an intense Jewish fanaticism hardly to be paralleled save among the more militant sects of Islam. This Jewish fanaticism allied itself with the anti-Russian forces before and during the earlier years of the war. It abated only when the Russian Revolu­tion of March 1917 and the subsequent advent of Bolshevism, largely Jewish in doctrine and in personnel, overthrew the Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church. The joy of Jewry at these events was not merely the joy of triumph over an oppressor but was also gladness at the downfall of hostile religious and semi-religious institutions * * “When international Jewish sentiment had thus ceased to be actively pro-German, another form of Jewish idealism came more effectively into play. The Zionist, or Jewish National, movement which was started by the late Dr. Theodore Herzl in the last decade of the 19th Century, * * * Towards the end of 1916, mainly through the instrumentality of the late Sir Mark Sykes, then an Under-Secretary to the British War Cabinet, and of Mr. James A. Malcolm, a prominent British Armenian, the Zionist organizations in Europe and the United States began to identify themselves with the Allied cause. Mr. Malcolm rightly urged that the Jews were less pro-German than anti-Russian and that their national aspirations were not

inimical to the Allied cause. As a result of discussions with Zionist leaders in England, especially Dr. Weizmann, Mr. Sokolow, and Dr. Greenberg, communications were established with prominent American Zionists who used their influence in favour of American participation in the war. * * * Not only did this declaration (Balfour Declaration) increase the interest of American Jewry in the war, but it tended to neutralize the influence in Russia of the pro-German Jewish Socialists who were working with the Bolshevists. The efforts subsequently made to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine and the difficulties inherent both in the nature of things and in some aspects of the Jewish character, belong rather to the history of the Zionist movement than to the consideration of the broad factors that operated in favour of an Allied victory; but it is incontestable that Zionism played a part in the defeat of the pan-Germanism with which so many Jewish financiers and business interests had been identified.’’

Ibid. ps. 390-391-392.

Earlier in his book, Steed emphasizes the influence of his opposi­tion to the recognition of Soviet Russia upon House and Wilson. It is worth noting that ever since the publication of Through Thirty Years there has been an unremitting effort on the part of certain forces to “play him down” and, also as in the case of Belloc, to decry his abilities and integrity. An attempt to buy the works of either of these two distinguished writers in this country will answer sceptics on ths point.

Summarized, all the evidence indicates that the Anglophiles, war­mongers and international bankers almost succeeded, but that the Jews, English, American and German—working behind House, Page and Lansing as “fronts”, finally were able to get us into the World War No. 1 in return for a national home in Palestine; that German and American Jews financed the Russian Revolution and pushed for recognition of the Bolshevists behind Bullitt, Lloyd George, and Lord Lothian as “fronts”; and finally, as we propose to show, that the whole force of Jewry attempted to push us into the League of Nations, a Jewish creation designed and set up to safeguard and consolidate Jewish international interests.

There is also a mass of evidence at hand to prove that the alleged “peace” which followed the Armistice, with its arbitrary redistribu­tion of territory according to the demands of the Jewish representa­tives at the Conference, was but another product of these secret influences. Russia and Palestine were only parts of the picture.

WHO WAS HOUSE?

Edward Mandell House in his furtive, slick way, was possibly

(he most baneful influence ever powerful in American public af­fairs. According to the recent book, "Mr. House of Texas,” pre­pared and written with the consent and aid of House by Howden Smith, House’s father emigrated from England to Texas before the ¹ 'ivil War and during that conflict accumulated a tremendous fortune running the blockade, shipping cotton, etc., to Europe, and "was one f the few Southerners who came through the war years without any appreciable diminution of wealth.” (Page 9.)

According to Howden Smith, there are malicious rumors that House was of Jewish extraction, but Smith says that this is not so and that he only named his son Edward Mandell after his intimate friend, a Jewish merchant.

While the Southern people were undergoing the sufferings and 'errors of reconstruction, the millionaire House, like Judah P. Ben­iamin, took his family, including Edward Mandell, back to the comforts and joys of old England and put the boys in a fashionable English school, where, according to Howden Smith, "here were planted (in Edward Mandell) the seeds of that partiality for Britain, his father’s homeland, which undoubtedly exerted a profound influ­ence upon his mental attitude in after years,” (Page 12).

After the people of the South regained their freedom from the •irpet-baggers, opulent House and family returned to Texas and on his death must have left many millions, considering the number of ihildren and the amount that each one received. Edward Mandell House moved to New York and, to the eternal sorrow of America, became Wilson’s only confidante, adviser and roving Ambassador. One of his sisters married Dr. Sidney Mezes, who became President of the College of the City of New York, and he and the Jew. Walter l.ippman, assisted House “in an atmosphere of secrecy” to prepare for the European peace, and the proposed League of Nations (Page 257).

House’s infamous book "Philip Dru”, Primer for the socialistic Wilson and Roosevelt doctrines, among other communistic state­ments, declared that the Constitution of the United States was "not only outmoded, but grotesque."

According to Howden Smith, House "was a fearless thinker, utterly untrammeled by accepted conventions. For example, he was under no illusions as to the basic character of the American Constitu­tion and the system of government it created. He believed that the Constitution, product of eighteenth-century minds and the quasi- classical. medieval conception of republics, was thoroughly outdated; that the country would be better off if the Constitution could be scrapped and rewritten. But as a realist he knew that this was impos­sible in the existing state of political education.” (Page 23).

63

At Versailles Wilson found House out and would have nothing more to do with him.

"Pertinax”, the well-known French foreign expert, writing in the Echo de Paris on April 28, 1920, following a discussion of the influence of the Warburgs and Jacob Schiff on both Washington and Berlin, says:

“According to the same authority, Jacob Schiff * * * ‘the great financial supporter of the Mutual Aid Society of Ger­man Jews’ founded the American Neutral Conference Com­mittee, which took upon itself the task of bringing about peace with a victorious Germany. Then appeared for the first time all the formulae of the Leapue of Nations, the ana­themas launched against the ‘old diplomacy’, which was said to be responsible for bringing about the war. On this point, consult the work How the Diplomatists Caused the War, written by Mr. Heubsch, the colleague of Mr. Schiff on the Neutral Conference Committee.”

1. Charles Maurras, brilliant French historian, in his Les Trois Aspects du President Wilson, says:

"The decisive influence exercised on Mr. Wilson was by a very small company, financiers by profession, domiciled between Hamburg, Frankfort and New York. They were identified with the Association for the l.eaque of Free Nations, with its seat in America, and including, amona other people, Mr. Felix Frankfurter, President of the War Labour Policies Board, a great banker, Jacob H. Schiff, the Cohens, the Blu- menthals, the Chapiros, not to speak of the Mrs. Mary Sim- kovich.”

Dr. Dillon, in his story of the Peace Conference, says in part: “Of all the collectivists whose interests were furthered at the Conference, (Versailles), the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, from Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Roumania, Greece, Britain, Holland, and Belgium: but the largest and most brilliant contingent were sent by the United States."

"* * * it is none the less a fact that a considerable number of Delegates believed that the real influences behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic."

“The formula into which this policy was thrown by the members of the Conference, whose countries it affected, and who regarded it as fatal to the peace of Eastern Europe, was this: ’Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo- Saxon Peoples, who in turn, are swayed by their Jewish elements.'

“It should be remembered that the original claims of the Jews went much further than those which were eventually sanctioned by the Conference. ‘The hero of the Minority Treaties,’ to quote a phrase of the Jewish Guardian, the able and moderate organ of Anglo-Jewry, was Mr. Lucien Wolf —the same gentleman who has recently been attacking the Protocols.”

It was Israel Zangwill, author of The Melting Pot, who said:

“The Minority Treaties were the touchstone of the League of Nations, that essentially Jewish aspiration ***.*'

The concept of the World State is essentially Jewish and the Jews have made little attempt to conceal it. This is natural enough \ince, as Belloc indicates, the Jew inevitably becomes unwelcome in the land where he is tolerated for any length of time. A boundary - Irss world is, to the Jew, an ideal world.

Jessie Sampter—Lady Queensborough, in her Occult Theocracy, p. 639, says: “The League of Nations is an old Jewish ideal.” She states that at the Congress of Grand Orient of Central Europe, held in Paris in June, 1917, the Congress announced that it was adopting the scheme for the League in thirteen articles which were sent to the Allies jnd neutrals. In Geneva vs. Peace, p. 73, the Compte de Saint-Aulaire reports that London “bankers” were the first and most liberal sub- icribers for League propaganda and that, "After the Peace Confer­ence was in session, telegraphed instructions were sent Woodrow Wilson on May 28, 1919, by Jacob Schiff, representing the Associa­tion of Free Nations.”

‘The League of Nations is a Jewish idea. We created it after a fight of twenty-five years.”

Nahum Sokolow, August 27, 1922, at the

Carlsbad Congress.

In 1938 Hubert Herring, a distinguished educator and author, published through the Yale University Press a book that every student of government and lover of his country should read. It is entitled "And So To War.” He shows how our unneutral acts led us into the last World’s War, and says:

“We paid for the war. We paid with the lives of the 126,000 dead, of the 234,300 mutilated and wounded. We paid with the dislocated lives of hundreds of thousands whom the war wrenched from their accustomed places in a peace­ful world. We paid in the imponderable damage to our national morale through the lashing of war hysteria. We paid with a period of economic confusion from which we have not yet escaped. The direct bill for the war has reached the figure of fifty-five billions of dollars. The indirect bill can never be reckoned.”

"And So To War”, p. 20.

According to the New York City papers. Secretary of State Bryan was guilty of "Unspeakable treachery not only to the President but to the nation.” "Bryan’s 'treachery' was neutrality.”

The elder Senator LaFollette, in speaking against our declaration of war, said:

"There is always lodged, and always will be, thank the God above us, power in the people supreme. Sometimes it sleeps, sometimes it seems the sleep of death: but, sir, the sovereign power of the people never dies. . . . The poor, sir, who are the ones called upon to rot in the trenches, have no organized power, have no press to voice their will on this question of peace or war: but, oh, Mr. President, at some time they will be heard . . . there will come an awakening: they will have their day and they will be heard. It will be as certain and as inevitable as the return of the tides, and as resistless, too.”

Congressman Lindbergh, father of Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, said:

"Spectulation and loans in foreign fields, especially with nations at war, are likely to bring us into war. They form a powerful incentive on the part of speculators to get us into the war but even if it results that way, they will never be stated as the cause. You can depend upon it that the trust- supported press will be used to trump up some other thing as the pretended cause, or things will be staged to force some country to commit acts of war on us.”

(When Congressman Lindbergh tried to publish a book enlarging upon these remarks. Government agents confiscated the book and destroyed the plates.)

Senator George W. Norris then said:

"I know that this war madness has taken possession of the financial and political powers of our country ... we are committing a sin against humanity and against our country­men.”

JEWISH POWER IN THE WORLD TODAY

“We have found the beast and pared its nails and now take it in our arms, fondle it, write plays to flatter it: it is visited by princes, affects a taste, patronizes the Arts and is the only liberal and gentleman-like thing in Christendom.”

Marlowe’s Rich Jew of Malta.

Douglas Reed, a British officer, twice wounded in the World War, afterwards a distinguished author and long time continental i orrespondent of the London Times, has always been most hostile to Hitler. His Insanity Fair was highly praised by John Gunther, i dwin Mowrer, Walter Duranty, and H. L. Knickerbocker. Of the results, Reed later wrote:

"After I wrote Insanity Fair I was swamped by offers from American publishers for my next book. I signed a con­tract with one firm. When I began Disgrace Abounding I did not know that it would be an anti-Semitic book. The anti- Semitic part is the result of my observation of the Jews in the last year and of my conviction that the mass influx of Jews to England is a political mistake and a national misfortune.

"The American publisher, after reading Disgrace Abound­ing, declined to publish on the ground that the Semitic part was ‘slanderous and libellous'. Read the Jewish part for yourself and see if this is true. I, for my part, declined to have the book published anywhere without the Jewish chapters. The real meaning of that decision is that, in America, you may ‘slander and libel' Germany as much as you like, and be paid for it, but you must not discuss the Jewish problem, you must not assert that there is a Jewish problem. Other American publishers declined the book on the grounds that they could not publish the Jewish chapters. One of them, not a Jew, said that an American publisher would court mis­fortune by publishing it, because 90 per cent of the American newspapers are Jewish, and the Jewish influence extends in similar proportion throughout the whole ring of trades con­nected with publishing.

"I see very little difference between the Jewish and the Hitlerist method, in this matter of free speech and free dis­cussion. The Jews are for free attacks on Germany, nothing else. The same thing happened in some of the Scandinavian countries, where Insanity Fair had great success and where

publishers were clamouring for the next book — until they saw the Jewish chapters. They asked to be allowed to pub­lish the book without them. I refused. The same thing happened in France even with Insanity Fair, where a publish­er contracted for the book who apparently could not read English and only realized when he saw the French transla­tion that there were a few passages in it which he did not con­sider sufficiently favourable to the Jews. He demanded their excision, I refused, and he sold the contract to another firm.

"So only in England, as yet, and possibly in France— although I do not yet know whether this book will appear in France — may a non-Jew openly discuss the for and against of the Jewish question.

"The importance of this, for you, is that you should real­ize that what is presented to you as ‘American approval’ or 'American disapproval' of this or that action of British pol­icy is not American bat Jewish opinion, and that this puts quite another face on the matter. If you are to fight Germany again, you must do it for England’s sake."

Disgrace Abounding, ps. 478,479.

Most of Reed’s references to the Jew in this Insanity Fair book were not critical. He made, however, one highly signficant statement about the Jewish race in that book. Referring to the change in Europe in the last few years, he said: (p. 159):

"The new prosperity was born in rearmament, and that was begun in the name of anti-Communism and anti-Semi­tism. Abyssinia, Spain and China have already shown that the new armament race spells death, not for Jews, but for indiscriminate millions of helpless Gentiles, Africans, Chinese and what not. The profits from the armaments race will go largely into the pockets of the Jews, because of their pre­ponderant share in retail trade, which in the last resort catches the pounds and pennies paid out by the manufacturers to their workers.”

Reed’s Insanity Fair preceded his Disgrace Abounding, the latter of which, because certain chapters dealt with the Jewish problem in Europe, was refused publication in America. Copies, however, can be obtained in London. In this later book Reed describes the reactions to certain references to the Jew in his previous book, Insanity Fair, and charges that the British and the world in general are easily aroused by stories of Jewish ‘persecution’ while not caring a whit about the persecution of other peoples. He also refers to the difficulties that have been placed in the way of the publication of his subsequent books.

"I wrote various incidental passages about Jews in In­sanity Fair * * * One British newspaper and two American spoke reproachfully of my anti-Semitism. If you discuss the question at all the welkin immediately rings with the yelping of'Anti-Semite,' * * * Disgrace Abounding, Ps. 230-231.

“I distrust the fiction that these Jews are Germans or Frenchmen or Englishmen, when I know that they are in all countries closely welded communities working, first and foremost, for the Jewish cause. * * * Race-antagonism began, not with the Gentiles, but with the Jews. Their religion is based on it. This racial lunacy which you detest in the Germans has possessed the Jews for thousands of years. When they become powerful, they practice it; as they consolidate their position in one trade after another, in one profession or another, the squeeze-out of Gentiles begins. That was why you found, in Berlin and Vienna and Budapest and Prague and Bucharest, newspapers with hardly a Gentile on the editorial staff, theatres owned and managed by Jews presenting Jewish actors and actresses in Jewish plays praised by the Jewish critics of Jewish newspapers, whole streets with hardly a non-Jewish shop in them, whole branches of retail trade monopolized by Jews.”

Ibid., 232, 233, 234.

“Walk any Saturday evening along Oxford Street or Regent Street, contemplate those thousands of hatless young men, of carefully dressed and arm-linked young women coming up from the east to go to the great film theatres * * * Do you believe these are English people? Do they?

‘‘Will they help us to re-make England into a sturdy and well-found land of craftsmen and farmers and sailors? Do they not rather stand for the cheap and tawdry frocks * * sweated labour * * for gaudy Babylonian film temples, for your blasted Glamour Girls, for trashy imitation jewelry, for spurious marble halls * *?”

"What have you in your heart for the Jews? Is it pity? "The answer is: ‘What have you in your hearts for Gen­tiles?”

"That brings you at a stroke to the root of the matter. Not anti-Semitism was first, but anti-Gentilism. You have heard * * about Hitler’s Nuremberg anti-Jewish laws, with their ban on intermarriage, which the Germans call race- defilement.

“A most intelligent and cultured and open-minded Jew * * said to me, ‘After all, the Nuremberg laws are only the translation into German of our own Mosaic laws, with their ban on intermarriage with Gentiles.' ”

Ibid. Ps. 232-233.

"In the defeated countries the Jews did not use the great

power they achieved to promote and accelerate assimilation. They used it to increase the power and wealth of the Jews, and their intensive mutual collaboration, in that era, to oust non-Jews from professions, trades and callings, was the out­ward and visible sign that anti-Gentilism remained within them. The race barriers that had existed against the Jews were broken down, every path was open; but the race-barrier within themselves still existed, and thus you had the misuse of this freedom and those grave signs of its abuse, the exploita­tion of cheap labor and of young non-Jewish womanhood, which were so repugnant a feature of life in Berlin and Vienna, and still are seen to-day, as I write, in Budapest and Prague.”

Ibid. p. 234.

He goes on to say that he knows many Jews who have fought for the side they wished to win. He adds,

‘‘But I also know that they had less to fear if their side lost, that they prosper in defeat and chaos. I saw this in Germany (after 1918, of course), and Austria and Hungary * * * / distrust the fiction that these Jews are Germans or Frenchmen or Englishmen., when I know that they are in all countries closely welded communities working, first and foremost, for the Jewish cause.”

‘‘I stood, in the heat of that September crisis (1938) * * and talked with a young Jewish journalist. ‘I am for war,’ he said loudly, ‘this is the moment to stop Germany.’ * * ‘What would you do in this war?’ (I asked). ‘Oh!’ he said, airily, ‘I intend to survive it.' ‘Then why call for war, if you are not going to fight?’ I asked. ‘What can I do?’ he said, ‘I am a Hungarian subject, that would mean fighting for Ger­many.’ ‘Why not go to Republican Spain and fight there,’ I answered, ‘or to Czechoslovakia, and fight with' the Czechs?’ ‘That would be difficult,’ he said, fidgeting. He too was thinking of a war between Gentiles for the purpose of exter­minating anti-Semitism.”            Ibid. P. 229.

‘‘There is a Jewish problem. Like the slum problem and the German problem you will leave it until it devours you.’’

Ibid. P. 230.

‘‘In three Central European capitals that I know the bap­tism of Jews, since the annexation of Austria, has become an industry. The step is taken in all cynicism, as a business pro­position, a means of getting into countries which have ban­ned the admission of Jews * * * The convert is usually re­converted to the Hebraic faith when the anti-Semitic period passes. These baptized Jews, who have no belief what­ever in Christianity, join the community of ‘non-Aryan Christians’ for whom your church leaders constantly appeal.”

“An industry has also grown up around the very distress of the Jews, namely, the industry of marriages bought and sold. All English readers have seen reports of cases where foreign Jewessess have paid foreigners to marry them in order to acquire another nationality and be beyond the reach of im­migration bans and business hindrances * * *. I was told by a Jew in Prague, ‘Any young Englishman could earn a million kronen by marrying a Jewess from here.’ His neighbour com­mented, ‘He wouldn’t need to be young.’ ”

Ibid. Ps. 234-235.

“The feeling towards Gentiles that is given the Jew when he comes into the world and is fostered in him within his family circle, is that the Gentiles are people more stupid than the Jews, who can be used to bring profit and advantage to the Jews. It is a fundamentally hostile attitude, the strength of which is that the Gentiles, by and large, do not realize its existence."

Ibid P. 236.

“It would put an end to the Jew who constantly steps across the frontiers and repeatedly changes his language, his nationality, and his professed allegiance, who is a German to-day, an Austrian to-morrow, a Hungarian the day after, and next week an Englishman, who claims a privileged place in the world that is open to no other race or faith, who, in the name of love for that particular country in which he happens at the moment to be, works beelike for war against the anti-Semitic state that he has left. Here you have the ruling idea of the dummec Christ again, the stupid Gentile who can be egged on to fight the other Gentiles in order to exterminate anti-Semitism. Organized international Jewry ought, in the name of dignity alone, to put a stop to this."

Ibid. P. 237.

“Protest and fight against anti-Semitism as much as you like, but do not expect the nations to go to war about it.”

Ibid. P. 237

"It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gen­tiles. They held all the posts on these Berlin newspapers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish. The opin­ions of these newspapers were quoted abroad as samples of German opinion. 'They represented the Jewish interest exclusively, in their attitude to both foreign and domestic affairs. If another country was friendly toward Jews, then were friendly toward that country; if it was anti-Jewish they attacked it.”

Ibid. P. 238.

"I remember a case, when a Lord Mayor of Berlin was detected taking bribes from a Jewish contractor. * * * I remember how the Jewish newspapers tried to whitewash that

scandal, to divert attention from the fact that the firm of con­tractors was a Jewish one. I observed this same attitude, on the part of Jewish newspapers, towards an endless series of financial scandals and criminal trials in which Jews were concerned, in Berlin and in Vienna.”

Ibid. P. 238.

‘‘In Berlin, one day, there was a Jewish journalist, a member of the staff of one of those snappy, sensational, bed­time story sheets. Came Hitler, and he retired to Vienna, and joined a newspaper of the same sort there. Came Hitler, and he retired to Prague.” * * * *

‘‘This man could by no stretch of imagination be called a German, an Austrian, or a Czech. He was a Jew, born in some place that once was Russia and now was Poland or Lithuania or Estonia or heaven knows what. He had sup­plied ‘the German view’ from Berlin, ‘the Austrian view’ from Vienna, 'The Czechoslovak view’ from Prague. Now I saw him. day by day, in hotel lounges, deep in conference with well-meaning but ill-informed English people who had come to ‘help the Czechs.’ He poured a heart-rending tale into their ears, threatened to commit suicide. This was no destitute fugitive, but a slick fellow who was always well-fed and well-dressed and stepped smoothly across the frontier into another land every time anything happened to make him move on.”

Ibid. P. 240.

“If you have eyes to see, take a look at this London of yours, the greatest city of the world, in 1939. Go. with open eves, from marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner, along Picca­dilly to Leicester Square, down the strand to Fleet Street. * * * It is as if a drag-net had been cast over Berlin and Vienna and Budapest and Prague and Naples and Paris and Warsaw and Cracow, and the catch dumped down here in this paradise of gilt, chromium, plush and neon-linhting. where Shakespeare once mustered his plavers. where Milton and Chaucer walked, whence Drake and Raleigh sailed in search of new worlds, where English craftsmen once, long ago. made gates of good wrought iron and chests of good oak. * * * where Englishmen now sit in imitation marble halls * * *

“Put your heads through the doors of the restaurants. (In London) Petit Paris. Klein Berlin. Manana’s. Hongen- steins’s. Posenovitch’s. Umpsky’s. and all the others, and see who is eating, who is serving, there. Stroll through the lounges * * * of the cheap but splendiferous hotels around Piccadilly, the Strand and Marble Arch, and see what manner of people are reclining In those cushioned depths.

"Take up your newspaper and read the small advertise­ments: * * *

"I, Aloysius Ibrahim Espagnolovitch hereby give 72

notice that I have changed my name to Arthur Eton- harrow * * *”

Ibid. Ps. 242, 243.

Reed describes the immoral and debased journalism of the Jewish newspapers in Berlin, Vienna, Budapest and Prague, where most of the dailies carried brothel advertisements of the most blatant sort. I le describes a condition in the entertainment world almost identical with that in this country, in which nearly all the theatres, movies, producing companies and dramatists were Jewish as were most of the performers.

"In 1919 a Red Republic was proclaimed in the land of the Magyars. Of the Government, of the twenty-six People’s Commissars, eighteen were Jews! * * * They had a straw man * * as President * * * but he had nothing to say. Theirs was the Hungarian Kingdom, the power and the glory. Aaron Cohen (Bela Kun), Josef Pogany (John Pepper in Ameri­ca), Tibor Szamuelly (Samuels) and the others reigned un­challenged, and did some very unpleasant things. Their fingers were no whit less quick on the trigger than those of Ad Hitler or A1 Capone. Many people are puzzled by the leading part that the Jews play in Communism. How can the Jews, who love money, be for a doctrine which denies the right of private property, the right to amass wealth, they ask their little selves. The answer is that there is always money at the top, and at the top is a thing that attracts Jews more than money—power.”

Disgrace Abounding, Ibid. P. 253.

“The machine of Jewish wits is set to work to foster the sympathy, to enlist the help, of the Christians.”

Ibid. P. 248.

“Seventeen years later, in 1938, the Jews in Hungary were richer and more powerfully established than ever before. The memory of the Bela Kun regime seemed completely to have faded * * * On paper, as always, the proportion of Jews to the population was very small — about * * * 6.5 per cent of the total * * *.

“In this matter of the Jews, figures are great prevarica­tors * * They owned 46% of all industrial undertakings. They manned 70% of the boards of all companies repre­senting big business. On the boards of the leading banking houses their share was between 75% and 80%: 67.2% of private brokers and 36% of banking clerks were Jews. They had even gained possession of 11.7% of all land in Hungary —against the urgent warning of a Zionist leader, who * * had told them:

'You are making a fatal mistake in acquiring landed 73

property. You already own more than half of the im­movable property in this land. The people cannot in the long run tolerate such a conquest. Only by force of arms can a minority, which is alien to the people, and is not historically renowned like the old aristocracy, maintain its hold on such possessions.’

"Of the bigger estates, 17.6% were in Jewish hands; 34.4% of all doctors were Jews, 49.2% of all lawyers, 31.6% of all journalists. In Budapest. * * * the proportion was much higher. The publishing and printing trades were almost exclusively Jewish, all privately-owned theatres were Jewish, and 40.5% of film theatres. To get a clearer picture of this almost monopolistic control take the boards of the twenty leading industrial undertakings in Hungary in 1934- 35. Of 336 names 235 were Jewish; 290 of the biggest industrial concerns in Hungary were under the control of the ten biggest banks. Of 319 names on the boards 223 were Jewish. In 1936, 19 newspapers in Budapest employed 418 editors, journalists and contributors; 306 were Jewish.

“Now leave the figures and look at Budapest, at the retail trade, the mightiest of all the Jewish strongholds * *. In Budapest there are miles of streets where you may search vainly for a non-Jewish shop * * *.

"The contrast between this strongly entrenched Jewish community, all its units earning a good living, and the pov­erty of the workers in outer Budapest, of the peasants in many parts of the country, is striking and depressing. Most of the workers work for Jews and, when they get their meagre pay envelope, hand it to their wives, who trot along to the Jewish shopkeeper and give it back * * * Nowhere where the worker or the peasant can get at it.

Ibid. Ps. 254, 255, 256.

” * * * I believe that if you cannot have your Jewish state, then you must resolutely close your frontiers to any more Jews and apply yourself diligently to assimilating those that you have, but in this case you must safeguard yourself against their rise to disproportionate power and affluence through methods which, in our code, amount to unfair competition."

Ibid. P. 261.

"Everything I have seen has confirmed the opinions I had formed during eleven years of wandering about the Contin­ent, and I have had these opinions confirmed to me by Jews themselves. Now all these Jews are making plans to go to England, to the British Dominions, to America. It is not a solution; this new emigration will bring with it the same deterioration of standards in those countries, the same dis­proportionate and unjustifiable rise in the level of prosperity in the Jews above that of the native population, the same

conditions that have played their large part in bringing about the present outburst of anti-Semitism * * *"

Ibid. Ps. 263-264.

“The other Jewish school of thought is for boldly ac­cepting the truth, that Jews are Jews and unassimilable, for setting up a National Jewish state somewhere of which all Jews should be subjects. It is* * * the solution and ought at all costs to be done. Then the native citizen of other countries would know with whom he had to deal and what motives he might expect in that citizen of a foreign state. It would put an end to the Jew who constantly steps across the frontiers and repeatedly changes his language, his nationality, and his pro­fessed allegiance, who is a German today, an Austrian to­morrow, a Hungarian the day after, and next week an Englishman, who claims a privileged place in the world that is open to no other race or faith, who, in the name of and love for that particular country in which he happens at the moment to be, works bee-like for war against the anti-Semitic state that he has left.

"Here you have the ruling idea of the dummer Christ again, the stupid Gentile who can be egged on to light the other Gentiles in order to exterminate anti-Semitism."

"I spent many years in Germany, both before and after Hitler * * and there had the opportunity to study the Jews in the heydey of their power. They were still almost debar­red from the army, but apart from that might attain to any post in Germany. The period of opening freedom and oppor­tunity which begins in the eighteen hundreds had reached its golden climax. Every door was open. How did they use this freedom? To work for Germany? * * No man’s hand was against them, but they used it to increase and fortify Jewish power and wealth to the detriment of the non-Jewish community.”

Ibid. P. 237.

"If we are, one day, to fight Germany again, it must not be to put the Jews back on their cushioned pasha’s thrones there."

Ibid. P. 265.

“We were in the most expensive dance-bar in Prague. * * * Nine out of ten of the males present were young, expen­sively dressed Jews. * * * An hour from Prague lay the new German frontier. * * * Jews were being driven across the fron­tier. The outer world was receiving every day a withers- wringing tale of Jewish misery. * * * In the weeks that fol­lowed, my English newspapers, every day, were .filled with outraged cries about the maltreatment of the Jews, with ap­peals to help them. You would have thought, to read these papers, that Jews everywhere were on the run, being beaten up.

robbed, murdered. Here in Prague, an hour from Hitler, I saw them every day and every night, dancing in the more expensive bars, lolling in the arm-chairs of the more expensive hotels, thronging the cafes, enjoying life, no whit less aggressive, monopolistic, loudly self-important than they had ever been before.”

Ibid. Ps. 267, 268.

"Just as the Jews tend to monopolize the callings and professions into which they penetrate, when there is no anti- Semitism, so did I find them monopolizing compassion and succour when there was anti-Semitism, and as their numbers are small compared with the great mass of non-Jews who are suffering from brutality and persecution in our times, I thought this to be the old evil, the squeeze-out of the non- Jews, breaking out in a new place.”

Ibid. P. 269.

“Do you think superior talent enables a Jewish actor or actress smoothly to step from leading parts in Berlin to lead­ing parts in Vienna, when Hitler appears, and again from leading parts in Vienna, when Hitler appears there, to leading parts in London? Do you think non-Jewish talent would find the same open-armed reception from film and theatrical and operatic producers in London, in Paris, and New York? Do you think it is a whim of nature that Jews from Poland, Russia, Galicia or Central Europe are needed to put English history on the screen, to portray famous figures of English history, a British officer, a Tudor prince? Do you imagine no Englishmen are available?”

Ibid. P. 240.

“The Jewish question, misunderstood as it is in England, clouds what would otherwise be a fairly clear issue for Eng­lish people. The great influence that organized Jewish com­munities in England, France and America have on the Press in those countries helps further to cloud it. You must not forget that when you read in your newspapers outbursts of indignation about the treatment of the Jews, you are some­times, and not infrequently, reading material inspired by Jews, whose innermost thought is that you should fight Germany, not for your own sake, but to exterminate anti-Semitism * * * "

Ibid. P. 279.

“It makes me read with the greatest skepticism all com­ment on the international dogfight which I know or suspect to come from Jewish sources.”

Ibid. P. 279.

"* * * Jewish children would be admitted to England in any number, without any limit whatever, ‘if they were sponsored by responsible bodies and individuals.’ ‘Without

any limit.’ Ten thousand, twenty thousand, fifty thousand Jewish children. Not a word about the non-Jewish children, so much more numerous. * * * This foreign-compassion- emigration and foreign succor business is being worked by the Jews in exactly the same spirit as, in the times of their power and prosperity, they use their position in business and the pro­fessions — to squeeze out the non-Jews. Even in adversity the spirit of racial antagonism drives them. They cannot help it, it is in them, they work like bees to get the best for their own people. If the non-Jews allow it, they are to blame. But it is monstrously unjust to the non-Jews who are in want and distress. * * * In Prague a young non-Jewish refugee, who saw no hope of ever getting away, said bitterly to me: ‘If I were a Jew I should have been out of this long ago.’ I could not challenge him. I knew this to be true in very many cases. I had seen far larger numbers of non-Jewish than of Jewish children, in a worse plight, uncared-for, with no organized community of sympathizers in the nearest town, with no one to enlist foreign sympathy on their behalf, coughing, breaking out in scrofulous sores, developing tuberculosis. * * * I knew English people who carried the banner of humanity about with them but seemed unmoved by the lot of these non-Jewish children, who were so much more numerous and no less deserving than the Jewish ones. Their active compas­sion seemed only capable of being awakened for Jews.”

Ibid., Ps. 302, 303, 304.

IN RUSSIA

Jewish groups ardently deny — now that it is popular to do so — that they played a dominant role in the Russian Revolution and in setting up the Communist movement, although in 1919 and 1920 they boasted about the Jewish leadership in bolshevism. The Jewish Chronicle (London) of April 4, 1919 carried an article stating —

‘‘There is much in the fact of bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are bolsheviks, in the fact that the ideals of bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.”

The American Hebrew (New York) of Sept. 10, 1920 carried the further statement:

‘‘What Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia, the same historic qualities of the Jewish mind and heart are tending to promote in other countries.”

Major Yeats-Brown, born of a fine old English family, a graduate of Harrow and of Sandhurst, a gallant officer in the English Army in

the World War, a distinguished author, editor and foreign correspondent, familiar to Americans through his “Lives of a Bengal Lancer” discusses in his latest book, “European Jungle" the situation in the various European countries. We quote him briefly:

“In 1917, Lenin was smuggled into the country (Russia) with four Jews, Leiba Bronstein (alias Leon Trotzky), Apfelbaum (alias Zinoviev), Rosenfeld (alias Kamanev), and Sobelsohn (alias Radek), with the help of the Germans and a Jewish banking house in New York, and through the agency of Israel Lazarevitch Helphand, alias Parvus, a Russian Jew who made his fortune in Denmark out of German coal.

“Karl Marx, the father of Bolshevism, whose real name was Mordecai, was the son of a rabbi in Treves. He hated the Jews, it is true, but then he held most of the human race in scorn, except the Proletariat, with whom he rarely came in contact. * * * *

“According to the Reverend George A. Simons, of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Petrograd, in December, 1918, no less than 265 were Jews from the Lower East Side of New York City. There were 106 European Jews, one North American Negro, and only 16 genuine Russians. Sixteen Russians, a negro, and 371 Jews! The president of this collection of aliens was the Jew Zinoviev.

“M. Oudendyke, the Dutch Minister in Petrograd, sent a report to the British Government * * stating that ‘unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately it is bound to spread all over Europe, in one form or another, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose object it is to destroy the existing order.” This report was published as a White Paper by the British Government, but disappeared almost immediately from circulation. When reprinted, the above passage was deleted.

“The population of Russia was then (1918) 158,400,000, of whom 7,800,000 were Jews. The present population is about 170,000,000, and probably the same proportion — say 5% — are Jews. Yet in 1935, in the Central Committee of the Communist Party, consisting of 59 members, 95% were Jews * * while the other three members were married to Jewesses — Stalin, Lobov, and Ossinsky.”

European Jungle, Ps. 179, 180, 181.

Major Yeats-Brown goes on to show that the Red Ambassadors to Berlin, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Ankara, Brussels, Oslo, Stockholm, Bucharest, Riga, Tallin and Helsingfors were Jews (1935) as were seven of the eight delegates to the League of Nations. He continues:

“During his travels along the border districts of the U.S.S.R., M. Jean Fontenoy found that 90% of the directors and secretaries of the collective farms he visited were Jews * * * The words Communist and Jew were synonymous with the peasants: they thought that the Jews were the rulers of the land.

“In Kremlin circles the two brothers-in-law of Stalin, Lazarus and Moses Kaganovitch, are Ministers of Transport and Heavy Industry, respectively: the guard of the Kremlin is confided to the Jewish Colonel Jacob Rappaport; while the concentration camps, with their population of 7,000,000 Russians, are in charge of a Jew, Mendel Kermann, aided by Lazarus Kaman and Semen-Firkin, both Jews. * * * Foreign policy is almost wholly in Jewish hands, beginning with that man of many aliases, M. Meyer Moses Polyanski, alias Enock Finklestein, alias Gustav Graf, alias Buchmann, Harrison, Maximovitch, Wallach, Berr, and Litvinof, the Foreign Minister of the U.S.S.R. at whose breakfast table Mr. Eden found pats of butter stamped with the slogan, ‘Peace is indivisible.' ”

European Jungle, Ibid. Ps. 181-182.

Major Yeats-Brown describes the murder of the Czar’s family:

“The Bolsheviks could find no Russians to murder him (the Czar), so the guard was replaced by one composed of foreigners. The commander, Jurovski, was a watchmaker in Tomsk, who had renounced the Jewish religion to become a Lutheran.

"At mid-night on July 16th-17th, Jurovski went to the rooms in which the prisoners slept, and woke them, telling them that they were to be moved elsewhere. The Czar car­ried the Czarevitch downstairs in his arms. He was followed by the Czarina, the four Grand Duchesses, the Court physi­cian, three servants and Anastasia’s pet dog, Jimmy. * * *

“Suddenly Jurovski arrived, followed by nine men with revolvers. * * * The Czar did not understand. He had only time to say ’What?’ before Jurovski shot him. At the same moment the nine other men opened fire on the Empress and the other members of the household. The Czarevitch fell on his face, groaning. Anastasia shrieked: they finished her off with bayonets, and the dog.’’

Ibid. ps. 36.

Major Yeats-Brown, whose credibility is attested by Winston Churchill in “Step by Step”, page 96, further describes Communist intrigue and outrages:

"One thousand six hundred churches in Moscow have been closed by the Communists. Last Easter an Archbishop, a Bishop, and twenty-five clergy were arrested. * * *

“During the first six months of 1938 more than 600 churches were closed in Russia. Persecution is not confined to the Orthodox Church. In prewar Russia there were 410 Roman Catholic churches, with 8 Bishops and 810 priests: now there are 11 churches with 10 priests.”

Ibid. ps. 38-39.

"Communist intrigue throughout the world is a matter of history. Here only the main facts are set down, in an effort to represent their results in terms of human life. If the list is wearisome to the eye and mind, the reader should reflect how much more tedious these incidents were for the individu­als and nations concerned:

“In 1918 some 6,000 persons were murdered in Finland, or fell in the struggle against Communism. In Esthonia, Communists shot 3,000 small shop-keepers and traders be­cause they were ‘capitalists.’ In Germany and Austria there were several risings inspired by Communists."

Ibid. p. 48.

IN HUNGARY

“In Hungary no one living during the Communist terror of 1918 forgets that nine-tenths of the Soviet Government was Jewish. The two most bloodthirsty savages were the President, Aaron Cohen, alias Bela Kun, and Tibor Szamu- elly, his chief executioner. Both were Jews. * * *

“The revolting cruelties of Kun, Szamuelly, Otto Korvin Klein, Eugene Hamburger, Bela Szanto (Schreiber), Bela Vago (Weiss), and subordinates such as Ascherowitz, Itzko- witz, Kereks, Goldberger, Lobl, Janosik, Dinnyes, Meszared. Imre Dogei, Alex Pap, Joseph Gasper, Dezso Reiheimer, Arpad Cohen (who confessed to eighteen murders and three robberies), and Isidor Bergfeld (who confessed to 155 mur­ders) . All these men were Jews.”

European Jungle, Ps. 190, 191.

* * the people of Hungary have not forgotten that a young Jew, Leo Reiss, spat on the Host when it was being carried through the streets of Old Buda on the day of Corpus Christi, 1918.”

Ibid., p. 192.

“Soon a levy of hostages began, among whom were six former ministers, several Bishops, and many leading business men. ‘There is nothing to be obtained without blood,’ said Bela Vago, one of the chiefs of the Revolutionary Tribunal. 'Without blood there is no terror, and without terror there is no Dictatorship.’ Bela Kun was of the same mind: ‘We must drown the counter-revolution in blood,’ he cried.

“In May, 1919, the Army was 'democratized' (i.c., the officers were cashiered or shot, and agents of Moscow put in their place), while the teaching of patriotism was abolished from the schools. Religion was derided. The Press was not only free, but filthy: the following being one of the milder specimens of punctuation-less ‘proletarian poetry’:

“Europe fat slimy

Whore with whisky eyes

The sweat of perfume factories

Christ pants between your breasts

Sailors stroke your belly

Freedom Equality Motherhood

A host of priests spring from your thighs

And crosses blossom in the shade of cows.”

Ibid. p. 224.

"Joseph Pogany, (John Pepper in America) some-time Commissar of Education, was a mountebank of notorious in­capacity and profligate life, who imagined himself to be the Napoleon of the movement, and was generally surrounded by prostitutes. He was despised even by his own associates: indeed, nobody took him seriously, except the victims of his robberies and murders.”

Ibid. p. 225.

“In Szolnok, Szamuelly hung twenty-four people (in­cluding Paul Suranyi, the President of the Court of Chancery) without even the semblance of a trial * * *

“Soon it became clear that a crash was coming.” (Aaron Cohen, alias) “Bela Kun transferred L50,000 to Basle. Throughout July a special train stood ready to take him and his friends to the safety of bourgeois (although bolshevizing) Austria.”

Ibid. ps. 226-227.

“Count Tisza was shot on October 31st, 1918, by sol­diers said to belong to the Social Democratic Party of Hun­gary, under the direction of a young Jew, Joseph Pogany, who afterwards became a Minister under the Communist regime of Bela Kun. So the revolution in Budapest began: its tide reached Vienna, Munich, Berlin, and Rome before receding; and advanced again, in 1934; to Geneva, Paris, Madrid, and Prague. Full tide of Comintern activity was in July, 1938, at Prague, when ‘the nations in their harness' seemed to be gathering for a world war; it turned again at Munich, and was at its low after the fall of Barcelona. But the friends of Moscow have by no means lost hope; there are still infinite possibilities of trouble in Central Europe.”

European Jungle, P. 220.

IN GERMANY

In Munich a Soviet was established, whose members mur­dered the hostages they had captured, robbing them and muti­lating their bodies. In Berlin, Dr. Oscar Cohen admitted that he had received 4,000,000 roubles ( £ 800,000) from the Soviet Ambassador, the late M. Joffe, for the purpose of fostering world revolution.

“In 1923 there were Communist risings in Germany and Bulgaria. Bela Kun, who had escaped from Budapest after his four months’ rule in 1919, was sent by his Moscow mas­ters to the Crimea, where he liquidated 70,000 people with m • hine-guns.”

European Jungle, Ibid. p. 48.

“In 1929 fierce street fighting occurred in various parts of Germany, where Communism grew apace, with even worse results than in Italy. Berlin was a sink of iniquity: German Communist writings of the time prove that the disintegra­tion of youth was one of the means by which it was hoped to produce a revolutionary situation.”

Ibid. ps. 49-50.

“The facts are that Communism began to advocate re­volution in Germany on August 4th, 1914, when the Sparta- kus League was formed by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, and Klara Zetkin. * * *

“* * * Strikes 'to weaken the home front’ were fomented by them in the Ruhr in January and February, 1917; in Hamburg and Bremen in March; in Kiel, Braunschweig, Ber­lin, Leipzig, Hanover, and Dresden in April (1917). * * *

“Immediately after the armistice in 1918 the first Commu­nist rising in Germany began in earnest. Workers’ and Soldiers’ Councils were formed in twenty-four cities. Throughout December there was street fighting in Berlin (Organized by Radek-Sobelsohn) * * *

“In April, 1919, a Communist Government came into power in Munich, under the leadership of three Russian Jews, Levine-Nissen, Levien, and Axelrod. This ‘Soviet Republic' lasted less than a month, but cost the citizens of the Bavarian capital 927 dead and several thousands wounded. A parti­cularly brutal murder of hostages (nine men and a woman) is noteworthy because of similar atrocities, inspired by simi­lar ruffians from Moscow, which have lately occurred in Spain.”

Ibid. ps. 140-141.

“Pornographic literature was displayed in the leading bookshops of the principal cities of Germany, and eagerly
bought by boys and girls who thought themselves emancipated from the cramping complexes of their elders.

Ibid. p. 142.

“In Berlin in 1931, out of 29 theatrical producers, 23 were Jews. Half the films made were made by Jews, who owned 19 out of 20 production firms. Out of 3,450 lawyers, 1,925 were Jews. Half the doctors were Jews. In Breslau, out of 285 lawyers, 192 were Jews. In Frankfurt, out of 659 lawyers, 432 were Jews. Fifteen Jewish bankers in Germany had 718 directorships. The German Communist presses were controlled by Herren Thalheimer, Meyer, Scho- lem, Friedlander, all Jews.

“In Vienna, where the Jewish problem was even more acute than in other German cities, 85 per cent of the lawyers were Jewish, 70 per cent of the dentists, and over 50 per cent of the physicians and surgeons, The boot and shoe industry was 80 per cent under Jewish control, newspapers 80 per cent, banks 75 per cent, the wine trade 73 per cent, the cinema 70 per cent, lumber and paper trade 70 per cent, fur and furriers 87 per cent, bakeries 60 per cent, and laundries 60 per cent under Jewish control.

“It is incontestable that the Jews in pre-Hitler Germany occupied too many key positions, and used their power to fur­ther policies alien to the wishes of the majority of the German people. During the inflation of 1923, some Jews with finan­cial connections abroad profiteered in a shameless fashion and acquired land and property which the German people now consider to have been stolen from them. In Berlin, until re­cently, 33 per cent of the real estate in the capital was in Jew­ish hands. The Jews who profiteered were generally not the long-settled residents, but strangers from the ghettos of Poland and Transylvania. But how were the Germans to discrim­inate?”

Writing in 1933, Dr. Manfred Reifer, a Rabbi of Czernovitz, • quoted by Major Francis Yeats-Brown as follows:

“The German Jews have avoided the fundamental ques­tions of history, and have looked at the world through rose- colored glasses. They were advocates of assimilation, they be­lieved in Liberalism, and that anti-Semitism was a passing phase to be cured by propaganda. They thought they could evade the course of history by declaring themselves Germans of the Mosaic faith, by denying the existence of the Jewish nation, by severing all the ties that bound them to Jewry, and by striking out the word ‘Zion’ from their prayer books.

“The German Jews fed themselves on false hope, over­looked reality, dreamed of cosmopolitanism, of the time of

Lessing and Mendelssohn. And this expressed itself in two ways; either they became Liberals, or they became the stand­ard-bearers of Socialism. Both fields of activity furnished new food to anti-Semitism.

“In all good faith, to serve themselves and humanity, the Jews began to reach actively into the life of the German people. We trusted to the rights of democracy, and felt our­selves as equal citizens of the State, posed as censors, poured satire upon the Germans, considered ourselves as prophets, made revolutions, gave to the international proletariat a second Bible * * * The Jew Lasalle organized the masses. The Jew Edward Bernstein popularized the Marxian ideology; and the Jews Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg brought the Spartacist movement to life. In Bavaria the Jew Kurt Eisner seized power. Against all this the German nation rebelled. She wanted to forge her own destiny and determine the fu­ture of her own children. Can we blame her? * * *

“Let us try to understand the Hitler regime. Have not we Jews rebelled and conducted bloody wars against every­thing foreign? What were the wars of the Maccabees but protests against a foreign, non-Jewish way of life? And of what else did the long fight of the Prophets consist? Surely of nothing else than eliminating foreign elements and foreign gods, and of the keeping sacred the original nature of Jewry? Did we not rebel against the racially related Kings of the House of the Idumaeans? And did we not exclude the Samaritans from our community because they practiced mixed marriages? Why should not the German nationalists do the same? We must learn to look the truth in the face.

“To dodge facts solves no problem. What is occurring today in Germany will come tomorrow in Russia. We shall have to pay dearly for the crimes of the Communist system, and for the fact that Trotsky, Joffe, Zinoviev had leading posts in Soviet Russia.

“Did not thousands of Jews lose their lives in Hungary because the Jew Bela Kuhn erected a Soviet Republic on the soil of Stephan the Holy? Hungarian Jews paid very dearly for their prophet * * * Within the internationals the Jews are the most radical elements. German. French, Poles, Czechs have a home, and their internationalism lives itself out in Germany, France, Poland and Czecho-Slovakia. It is only the Jews who have no home. The Jews Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg. Kurt Eisner, Gustav Landauer; they, and the children of Liberalism, all surely desired the best, but they attained the opposite. They were cursed with blindness, they saw not the approach of catastrophe, they heard not the footfall of time — the heavy footfall of the Nemesis of his­tory.” From European Jungle by Francis Yeats-Brown, ps. 189-190.

“Dr. Eugene Hamburger, a Jewish surgeon who became Commissioner for Agriculture, in Hungary, wrote to a Zionist correspondent: 'My good fellow, we mean to ruin the Chris­tian landlords first, then we shall send all the Christian of­ficials and professors to the dogs: and when once the people have given in. and made up their minds to acquiesce in com­munism, we can give up talking about Palestine.”

Ibid. ps. 191-192.

IN FRANCE

“* * * In France, even more unprepared than this coun­try, M. Leon Blum, M. Cot, M. Paul-Boncour and all their (Jewish) tribe were preaching the inevitability of conflict, and sometimes actually fomenting it.”

Ibid. P. 212.

(These Jews have been recently indicted in France but M. Cot is hiding in America.)

“To-day France is one of the most enjuive countries in Europe. The headquarters of the Comintern for Western Europe is in Paris, and its offices arc full of Jews.”

Ibid. P. 193.

IN SPAIN

“A few miles northwest of Guernica” (Spain) “a real atrocity occurred, of which little has been said. At Munguia stood the big Church of Santa Maria, used as a dancing hall by the Reds, with an inscription over the transept: ‘May Franco die as Mola did!’”

European Jungle, Ibid. p. 273.

“* * * When the Anarchists retreated, they left a hidden mine, with a time fuse. Forty boys—a squad of young Requetes—were sweeping up litter, cleaning the desecrated altars, and some of them were climbing the dome to hoist the flag of Spain, when a terrific explosion buried them all. For hours their cries were heard by the terrified villagers, but they could not be rescued from the ruins.”

Ibid. P. 273.

“Within twenty-four hours the burning and looting ceased, and massed executions took their place. How many people were shot and shoveled wholesale into pits' has not yet been ascertained, but they numbered at least 10,000. (In Madrid at least 50,000 were murdered, and in Barcelona more than that number. The total of Communist murders com­mitted in Spain is believed to be 300,000, but it will be some time before the world can learn the exact figures.) There was no trial: merely an order from one of the gangs which con­trolled the city — Anarchists, Trotskyists, Marxists, or the several kinds of Socialists.”

“Presumably Lord Halifax did not know then of the torture prison in Barcelona (even if our Secret Service had re­ported it to the Foreign Office, it might well have escaped his attention in the press of events) , and he could not have known that the prisoners confined there would be taken by the Re­publicans toward the French frontier as hostages, and that at Pont des Molins on February 7th the Republicans would shoot the Bishop of Teruel and forty-one other elderly men, innocent of any crime except anti-Communism.”

Ibid. p. 285.

“In the sight of God the life of a Bishop is doubtless no more than that of a butcher (referring to the murder in Spain of the Bishop of Teruel and forty-one other anti- Com­munists) , but to us his liquidation cannot but seem more dramatic: it serves once again to remind us of our (the British) extraordinary tenderness toward the regime of the Left, especially as his murder is only one of a round dozen of Spanish bishops. When the Jews in Germany had their shops looted and synagogues burned, our condemnation was loud and bitter, but the atrocities of the anti-Fascist seem to arouse no general indignation.”

Ibid. Ps. 285-286.

“ ‘The Bishop and those who were shot with him.’ we read in The Times of March 6th. 1959. 'formed part of some 800 Nationalist prisoners who left Barcelona as General Franco’s forces advanced on the city, * * * The Bishop of Teruel was included in those separated from the main body of prisoners. A shepherd heard the shots being fired, and the forty-two bodies were later found. With the Bishop perished a Canon of Teruel Cathedral, a Lieutenant-Colonel of the Civil Guard, a Captain of the Legionaries, and Colonel Rey d’Ancourt. These were the only bodies which could be iden­tified amongst the charred remains in the ravine where they were found.”

Ibid. p. 286.

“At Brunete,, which I visited a few days after the battle, the ruins of the village were still strewn with the discarded harness of war, including many Russian bayonets and French carbines, and niles of Czech ammunition. There were 45 prisoners in a house nearby, of whom 30 were French and 5 Czech. I saw also some British prisoners. (One of them said: ‘My name is Levi. I'm a Canadian!’).”

Ibid. p. 288.

" * * All countries, manifested themselves in Spain: burn­ings, bombings, strikes, and murders, accompanied, as usual, bv sexual propaganda among the young. Professor Peers tells us that ‘pornographic literature was prominently fea­

tured in kiosks and bookshops, and, with Marxist literature, was sold outside the very entrances of the churches.”

Ibid. p. 293.         __

“This revolution, against a lawfully constituted Govern­ment with a Right majority of 275 members in the Cortes, met with no reprobation from the Left-Wing Press in Eng­land, or from the duped public of the United States/’

Ibid. p. 295.

* * * one must suppose that the British Foreign Office was acting under orders to please the Left-Wing supporters of the Government when it asked for the help of the U.S. S.R.”         Ibid. p. 266.

"It is obvious that the U.S.S.R. will encourage Europe to a conflict on the largest possible scale, but that her parti­cipation will be confined to picking up the pieces when the captains and the kings depart.”

Ibid. p. 266.

IN ENGLAND

"It was important for us, (Mr. Lloyd George told the House of Commons recently, June 19, 1936), "to seek every legitimate help we could get. We came to the con­clusion, from information we received from every part of the world, that it was vital we should have the sympathies of the Jewish communities.”

European Jungle, Ibid. p. 196.

What do we have here? The admission by the Premier of the greatest Empire in history then under attack, it should have the sup­port of the Jew in order to survive. How hath the mighty fallen!

To continue with Major Yeats-Brown:

"So what did we do? We sold the Arabs to win the favor of the Jews, especially the Jews of the United States of America. Mr. Lloyd George justified this action by claiming that we had to reward Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader, who ‘saved the British Army at a moment when a particular ingredient essential for our guns was exhausted.' But were we unable to find anything which was ours to give to Dr. Weizmann?”

Ibid. p. 196.

This question of Zionism and what the Zionists want is im­portant to all Americans today. We know that it was this Jewish body which, more than any other influence, tricked us into en­tering the World War. What we do not know, apparently, is how they dictate American opinion today. We know that English Jews

opposed British efforts against Germany in the World War until they were assured that the English, rather than the Germans, would give them Palestine. And that when they were thus assured, as Lloyd George intimates, they brought America into the war.

What is Palestine? Palestine is Arab land and it was promised its security by England in the World War on the condition that it support the Allies. But what happened? We all know. England betrayed the Arabs. And today — when we hear from every side that Palestine represents the spiritual and physical home of the Jews —the unhappy, persecuted Jews, who, for all the long centuries, have yearned for this “homeland”—we ask ourselves, What is Pal­estine today? What does it represent? Again we quote Major Yeats- Brown:

* * the Palestine Economic Corporation, which con­trols the Central Bank of Co-Operative Institutions, the Loan Bank, the Palestine Mortgage and Credit Bank, Palestine Mining Syndicate, Ltd., Bayside Land Corporation, Ltd., and Palestine Hotels, Ltd., may be said to be the real owner —or at any rate a very important real estate owner—of Pal­estine. And who, we may ask, are the directors of this great financial syndicate? They are twenty-four gentlemen of New York, with only one British-sounding name among them— David A. Brown. It is a safe bet that the ancestors of the majority of these gentlemen, whose interests are being safe­guarded by British soldiers in Palestine, once worshipped the Golden Calf. For them we are risking our traditional friend­ship with the whole Islamic world.’

European Jungle, Ibid. p. 199.

“While we were in a ferment of fury over the woes of the Abyssinians and while we were subscribing four hundred and fifty thousands pounds for the Jews in Germany, there were 7,000,000 people living on these islands (British Isles) in condition euphemistically described as ‘below the margin of subsistence’—that is, in misery and want * *”

Ibid. p. 352.

“This instinctive dislike of Jews en masse by other races is a fact, explain it as we may. It has persisted down the ages.”

Ibid. p. 176.

“In England we find the Jews established in A. D. 740. William the Conqueror favored them. When Richard Couer de Lion was crowned in 1189, pogroms broke out in London, Norwich, Edmundsbury, Stamford, and York. Under Henry III they were accused of clipping the coin of the realm and were compelled to pay 33% of their property into the Ex­chequer. In 1290 they were expelled * * and did not return in any numbers until the time of Cromwell."

Ibid. Ps. 193-194.

"Jews are not popular with insurance companies. The more our native doctors, dentists, and professors see of Jews the less they like them. They are not popular among the workers in the wholesale dress trade, where they predominate, and where they make women work long hours for small pay. Nor are they popular in the East End of London. Indeed, in England affection for Jews seems to vary inversely with the square of their distance. * *”

Ibid. p. 194.

"Lord Buckmaster, then Lord Chancellor, was more em­phatic. He declared that the McMahon-Hussein correspond­ence 'showed unmistakably that there had not been some­thing in the nature of casual inconsistency between different announcements at various times, as Lord Grey suggested, but that a deliberate pledge had been given on the one hand, and had been abandoned on the other.' Nothing could be plainer. It is deplorable that Mr. Winston Churchill should ever have prostituted his talents by upholding the quite untenable pro­position that Palestine had not been promised to the Arabs.”

Ibid. p. 197.

"I would not allow any more Jews to enter England, but I would like every Jew born in this country to be proud of his British citizenship. I would like every Jew to be asked if he wants to be an Englishman or a Zionist. The two are incompatible. If he wants to be an Englishman he should disinterest himself entirely in Zionism, and in all Jewish in­ternational affairs, except religious affairs. It should be clearly understood that no Jew can have two political loyalties.

"If, on the other hand, a Jew desires to be a Zionist, then, even if he cannot immediately go to Zion (wherever that Dominion may in due course be established) he should be given a Zionist passport, and not be allowed to take part in the political life of Great Britain, though he would be treated with all the courtesy due to a foreigner.”

Ibid. p. 201.

"In England, where it is possible to be blind to a great deal that is happening in the world, we have only lately been awakened to the Jewish problem. Even as late as last summer, when I suggested to a friend that there were powerful influ­ences in the British press which kept the public from realiz­ing the gravity of the situation in Palestine, * * *”

European Jungle, p. 173.

"We have five of the great ports in the world: London, Liverpool, Calcutta, Hongkong, Montreal. ‘We control half the world's supply of cattle, of coal, of jute, of palm-oil, of rice, rubber seeds, and tin.’ The oil of Mosul and the gold of South Africa are in our keeping. The manufacturing

power and mineral resources of the Empire are among the greatest in the world. Let us seize our opportunities.”

Ibid. ps. 351-352.

* * We must not be involved in a war to make the world safe for Stalin or international Jewry. Those of us who wish to uphold the French and British Empires have nothing in common with those who wish to destroy Germany and Italy. We do not want to destroy these Empires, unless their demands are impossible to accept. So far the only im­possible demand has been made by the Communists, who de­sire to dominate the world with their system.”

Ibid. ps. 354-355.

‘‘In the midst of German life,” wrote Walter Rathenau, once Foreign Minister of the Weimar Republic, and himself a Jew, "is a separated, strange race of people, strikingly clothed, hot-blooded, with animated features: an Asiatic horde on the sand of the Prussian marches. They live in congested groups, foreign organisms in the body of the population. The State has made them citizens and ed­ucated them to be Germans, but they have remained foreign.”

This was written by a German Jew about the influx of Russian, Polish, Ukranian, and Lithuanian Jews into Germany. These are the Ashkenazic Jews who have been and are now invading America.

Add to this the Treaty of Versailles, dominated by Jews and the League of Nations, plus disarmament and the multiple encroachments of the Jews upon the new German Republic and you have Hitler.

Hilaire Belloc, is a graduate of Oxford and an eminent writer, who served in the British Parliament. John Buchan, (Lord Tweeds- muir), recently Governor General of Canada, says in "Pilgrims Way”, p. 49, of Hilaire Belloc, "no man has written purer or nobler prose in the great tradition.” This statement of Buchan was made after Hilaire Belloc had published what we are about to quote. Belloc states:

"The positive side of Jewish Communism as expressed by Mordecai himself (Marx) and by all the other exponents of it, Jew and Gentile, is their insistence on the control of the means of production, distribution and exchange, by officials of the community — which turn out in practice to be in large proportion Jewish.”

The Jews, by Hilaire Belloc, 1937 edition, Foreword.

"It is objected of the Jew in finance, in industry, in com­merce — where he is ubiquitous and powerful out of all pro­portion to his numbers — that he seeks, and has already almost reached, dominion. It is objected that he acts every­where against the interests of his hosts: that these are being interfered with, guided, run against their will: that a power

is present which acts either with indifference to what we love or in active opposition to what we love. Notably it is said to be indifferent to, or in active opposition against our nation­al feelings, our religious traditions, and the general culture and morals of Christendom which we have inherited and desire to preserve: that power is Israel.”

Ibid. Ps. 44-45.

“Bolshevism stated the Jewish problem with a violence and insistence such that it could no longer be denied either by the blindest fanatic or the most resolute liar.”

Ibid. Ps. 45-46.

* * * from the years after Waterloo to the years im­mediately succeeding the defeat of the French in 1870-71, the weight and petition of the Jew in Western civilization increased out of all knowledge and yet without shock, and almost without attracting attention. They entered the Par­liaments everywhere, the English Peerage as well, and the Universities in very large numbers. A Jew became Prime Minister of Great Britain, another a principal leader of the Italian resurrection: another led the opposition to Napoleon III. They were present in increasing numbers in the chief institutions of every country. They began to take positions as fellows of every important Oxford and Cambridge college: they counted heavily in the national literatures: Browning and Arnold families in England, for instance, Mazzini in Italy. They came for the first time into European diplomacy. The armies and navies alone were as yet untouched by their influence * * The growth of an anonymous Press and of an increasingly anonymous commercial system further extended their power.” Ibid. p. 47.

"The Jews intermarried everywhere with the leading families and, before any sign that a turn of the tide had taken place, they had already achieved that position in which they are now being assailed * * *”                                                                                     Ibid. p. 48.

"Within a few years Rome was to see a Jewish Mayor, who supported with all his might the unchristianizing of the city and especially of its educational system * * * One small but significant factor in the whole business of these 70’s and early 80’s—the beginning of the last quarter of the nineteenth century—was the rise to monopoly of the Jewish interna­tional news agents, among which Reuters was prominent, and the presence of Jews as international correspondents of the various great newspapers, the most prominent example being Opper, a Bohemian Jew, who concealed his origin under the false name of ‘de Blowitz’, and for years acted as Paris correspondent for The Times, a paper in those days of international influence.”       Ibid. ps. 48-49.

"The Panama Scandals in the French Parliament had

already fed the movement (anti-Semitism) in France. The later Parliamentary scandals in England, Marconi and the rest, afforded so astonishing a parallel to Panama that the similarity was of universal comment.”                                                                  Ibid.   p. 51.

"After Karl Marx came a crowd of his compatriots, who led the industrial proletariat in rebellion against the increas­ing power of the capitalist system, and began to organize a determined revolt.’          Ibid.                                                                                   p. 53.

”* * * the Bolshevist movement, or rather explosion, was Jewish. * * The Bolshevist Movement, was a Jewish movement, but not a movement of the Jewish race as a whole.”              Ibid.   p. 55.

"But when in 1917 a socialist revolution was accom­plished suddenly at one blow, in one great State, and when its agents, directors and masters were seen to be a close cor­poration of Jews with only a few non-Jewish hangers-on (each of these controlled by the Jews through one influence or another), it was quite another matter. The thing had become actual. The menace to national traditions and to the whole Christian ethic of property was immediate.”

Ibid. ps. 56-57.

“The thing was called ‘The Republic of the Workmen and Peasants’. It was, in fact, nothing of the sort. It was the pure despotism of a clique, the leaders of which had been specially launched upon Russia under German direction * * * and all those Leaders, without exception, were Jews, or held by the Jews through their domestic relations, and all that followed was done directly under the orders of Jews, the most prominent of whom was one Braunstein, who dis­guised himself under the assumed name of Trotsky. A terror was set up, under which were massacred innumerable Russians of the Government classes, so that the whole framework of the Russian State disappeared. Among these, of course, must specially be noted great numbers of the clergy, against whom the Jewish revolutionaries had a particular grudge. A clean sweep was made of all the old social organizations, and under the despotism of this Jewish clique the old econ­omic order was reversed.”     Ibid. p. 58.

" * * * it is impossible, with their Jewish Committees thus in control of the Russian treasury and of Russian means of communications, that they should not have had some sympathy with their compatriots who were so largely in con­trol of Western finance. However sincere their detestation of capitalism * * * it is in the nature of things that one of their blood and kind should, however misguided they may think him, appeal to them more than one of ours. And it is this which explains the half alliance which you find through­out the world between the Jewish financiers on the one hand

and the Jewish control of the Russian revolution on the other. It is this which explains the half-heartedness of the defense against Bolshevism, the continued negotiations, the perpetual commercial protest, the recognition of the Soviet by our politicians * * * all that has taken place wherever Jewish finance is powerful * *                 Ibid. p. 61.

“There is no race which has produced so few traitors. It is net treason in the Jew to be international. It is not treason in the Jew to work now for one interest among those who are not of his people, now for another. He can only be charged with treason when he acts against the interests of Israel, and there is no nation nor ever has been one in which the national solidarity was greater or national weakness in the shape of traitors less.”                                                               Ibid. p. 78.

"He will serve France against the Germans, or the Ger­mans against France, and he will do so indifferently as a resident in the country he benefits or the country he wounds: for he is indifferent to either. The moment war breaks out the intelligence departments of both sides rely upon the Jew: and they rely upon him not only on account of his indiffer­ence to nationalism but also on account of his many languages, his travel, the presence of his relations in the enemy country. And this is true not only of war but of armed peace. But it is clear that in all this there are examples of what in us, would be treason. In him such actions are not treason, for he does not betray Israel. But they all have an atmosphere repellent to us. They are things which if we did them (or when we do them) degrade us. They do not degrade the Jew.”  Ibid. ps. 78-79.

The aforementioned references remind us of the common ac- lusation — made in all wars of the past — that the Jews passed between the enemy and friendly lines unhampered. There are avail­able countless records of such movements in the police and intelli­gence records of every army. They account for the entirely reason­able suspicion that the Jew is not to be trusted when one’s country is at war. Belloc continues:

“There is already something like a Jewish monopoly in high finance. There is a growing tendency to Jewish mon­opoly over the state for instance, the fruit trade in London, and to a great extent the tobacco trade. There is the same element of Jewish monopoly in the silver trade, and in the control of various other metals, notably lead, nickel, quick­silver. What is most disquieting of all, this tendency to monopoly is spreading like a disease. One province after another falls under it and it acts as a most powerful irritant. * * The thing is deservedly hated because it is exceedingly

unnatural and exceedingly tyrannical. * * It is intolerable in a people alien to us.”                                                         Ibid. ps. 91-92.

In this connection — the Jewish monopoly — we are even more unfortunate in the United States than in England. In America the Jew dominates the metropolitan Press through control of its adver tising, particularly that of the great department stores, which furnish the bulk of newspaper profit: and through the control of the news­papers, the control of the wire and news services. Their domination of the stage, moving pictures and radio industries is too blatant for argument. The Twin Giants of Communication in the United States today are David Sarnoff, Russian Jew, of the Radio Corpora­tion of America, owner of the National Broadcasting Company, and William S. Paley, son of a Russian Jew, of the Columbia Broad­casting Company. The other big radio net-work, the Mutual system, though nominally headed by a Gentile, is largely dominated by the Jewish department stores, L. Bamberger & Co., R. H. Macy 0 Co., and the Strauss family.

As reported in the Times-Herald of August 14, 1940, David Sarnoff, Russian Jew, President of the Radio Corporation of Amer­ica, owner of the war-mongering National Broadcasting Co., in con- ' sultation with ex-Senator George Moses of New Hampshire, operated in 1932 to obtain a postponement of an anti-trust case against the Radio Corporation of America until after the election of President Roosevelt, an intimate friend of Sarnoff's. Ex-Senator Moses, though defeated for reelection, still is a powerful figure among the Repub­licans in northern New England and an ardent pro-Jew, Tory, and* war-monger. Sarnoff admitted paying out large sums of money to get a continuance of the case.

In Westbrook Pegler’s column of October 4, 1940, it is stated:

“* * * _tbere may have been some transaction compar­able on the score of propriety with the retention of Charlie | Michaelson (a Jew) by a big radio corporation as a Wash­ington ‘front’, at a salary of $20,000. while he carried a latchkey to the White House and was so folksy with the President that he used to sit in on the regular press confer­ences, right under the flag. How do you like the idea of a corporation ‘front’ man practically living in the White House?”

We do not know how much more Michaelson (a Jew) gets as publicity man and smearer for the Democratic National Committee.

Precisely as in Berlin, Vienna and Prague (ante Hitler), the Jew­ish dominance of the professions of Law and Medicine is fast be­coming a peril, especially in the big cities along the Atlantic Sea­board. Of late years the disproportion of Jews in Law and Medicine in Eastern cities of the United States has increased to a highly dan­gerous stage. Only two years ago, a number of German and Austrian lews, holding certificates to practice medicine in those countries, ar­rived in New York. They immediately applied for the right to practice. After objecting strenuously to the alleged “discrimination” •>f the New York Board of Regents who "heartlessly” required them Co pass the regular professional tests imposed upon all citizens, they were finally forced to submit to these tests. According to statistics released at that time only about 10% were found to be qualified to practice. The failures set up a wail which was heard in Washington, and the Jewish members of Congress, almost as one, were bombarded with petitions calling upon the Federal Government to intervene and net aside the rulings of the New York Board of Regents, whose ttandards, incidentally, have had much to do with the high quality of medical practice in that state.

While this attempt to undermine our professional standards was going on, much further proof of the Jewish tendency toward mon­opoly was coming to light. Jews almost "monopolize” the lists of doctors forbidden to practice by reason of unethical or illegal prac­tice They have recently figured in the abortion racket in Brooklyn. Jews predominate in the lists of lawyers disbarred from practice for illegal and unethical conduct.

The Jew in the underworld has become almost a monopoly. It is reliably reported that 90% of the wholesale liquor business, 90% of the liquor producers and a very high percentage of liquor retailers — the latter in the large cities — are Jewish. Along the Atlantic seaboard the Jewish domination of newspaper and magazine distribution is almost complete, to such extent at least that no regular news-stand will carry matter telling the truth about organized World Jewry.

The Frankfurters, Brandeis's, Cardozo’s, Untermyers’s, Liebo- witz’s, Ernst’s, write and interpret our law, and their racial claque maintain a constant bombardment of propaganda celebrating their genius, and mocking the itegrity and ability of non-Jewish lawyers and judges. The communistic "scientist”, Einstein, has become the Moses of American science, not by the demonstrable brilliance of his works but by the screaming and shouting of his racial gallery. Let the American people attempt to defend their judgment on the type of books they are to read and Jew Morris Ernst rises to mock them as "puritanical and narrow-minded.” Jewish money, donated by the arch-“liberal”, the late A. L. Filene, a Jew, of Boston, financed the

Institute for Propaganda Analysis which pretends to interpret all pro­nouncements on public policy, but which manages to follow a course indistinguishable from the “party line” laid down by the Communist Party. Henry Morgenthau controls our national fiscal policy and a little group of New Dealers, invariably disciples of the Jew Felix Frankfurter, and predominantly Jewish, write our laws and control our national political policy.

The assumption of Jewish power in the United States today has very nearly reached the height achieved in England. This is a sub­ject that will be discussed in detail in a subsequent chapter. Again the words of Hilaire Belloc:

"The reason these general monopolies are formed by Jews is that the Jew is international, tenacious and determined upon reaching the very end of his task. He is not satisfied in any trade until that trade is, as far as possible, under his com­plete control, and he has for the extension of that control the support of his brethren throughout the world. He has at the same time the international knowledge and inter­national indifference which further aid his efforts. But even were the quite recent monopolies in metal and other trades taken, as they ought to be taken, from these few alien masters of them, there would remain that partial monop­oly * * * which a few Jews have exercised not only today, but recurrently throughout history, over the highest finance: that is, over the credit of the nations, and therefore today, as never before, over the whole field of the world’s industry."

The Jews. P. 94.

A recurrent complaint—and a justified one—against the Jew is his habit of secrecy, his tendency to change his name with or with­out changing his citizenship. A name—to a non-Jew—is a per­sonal passport to respectable society. Only the criminal habitually turns to secrecy to conceal his identity. Belloc’s discussion of this tendency is to the point.

“It has unfortunately now become a habit for so many gen­erations. that it has almost passed into an instinct throughout the Jewish body, to rely upon the weapon of secrecy. Secret societies, a language kept as far as possible secret, the use of false names in order to hide secret movements, secret relations between various parts of the Jewish body: all these and other forms of secrecy have become the national method.”

Ibid. P. 99.

“Take the particular trick of false names. It seems to us particularly odious. We think when we show our contempt for those who use this subterfuge that we are giving them

96

no more than they deserve. It is a meanness which we asso­ciate with criminals and vagabonds; a piece of crawling and sneaking."

Ibid. P. 100.

Belloc goes on to cite certain instances of Jews assuming Gen­tile names. In a discussion of the influence of the Jew upon our foreign policy, especially as it relates to England, bis statement is important. He cites the change from Cohen to Curzon, from Solo­mon to Stanley, from Moses to Montague and from Benjamin to Benson as examples. "Men whose race is universally known,” he says (Ibid. 102), "will unblushingly adopt a false name as a mask, and after a year or two pretend to treat it as an insult if their origi­nal and true name be used in its place.” The list of Jews, mas­querading under distinguished non-Jewish names in the United States, is as long as it is startling.

At the Jew’s insistence upon his superiority, Belloc and many others, are rightfully indignant. There is a wealth of evidence to support the belief that this one trait, alone, is a sufficient explana­tion of, if not a justification for, a measure of anti-Semitism. Long before Disraeli said, "The Jew cannot be absorbed; it is not possible for a superior race to be absorbed by an inferior," Jews generally claim—before the world—that precisely because they are a superior people—God’s chosen people—they are entitled to the special rights and privileges which go with superiority.

” * * unfortunately he does not only repose on that founda­tion; he also acts upon it, and that is intolerable,” says Belloc.

"Thus, the Jew will write of our religion, taking it for granted that it is folly, and will marvel that we are offended. He will appear in our national discussions, not only giving advice, but attempting to direct policy, and will be puzzled to discover that his indifference to national feeling is an­noying. He will postulate the Jewish temperament as some­thing which, if different from ours, must, whether we like it or not, be thrust upon us.”

Ibid. P. 113.

In the foreword to this volume, reference is made to the danger of discussing the Jewish problem. It is a virtually undenied fact that the Jew himself has worked to prevent any discussion of him­self and his actions, however fortified by proof and under whatever reason or motive. The first of the weapons turned against the man who tries to bring this subject into the open is ridicule. To quote Belloc again:

“It was (is) the instinctive policy with the mass of the Jewish nation, a deliberate policy with most of its leaders, not only to use ridicule against anti-semitism but to label as 'anti-Semitic' any discussion of the Jewish problem at all, or, for that matter, any information even on the Jewish prob­lem. * * If a man alluded to the presence of a Jewish finan­cial power in any region—for instance—in India, he was an anti-Semite. If he interested himself in the peculiar char­acter of Jewish philosophical discussions, especially in mat­ters concerning religion, he was an anti-Semite, if the emi­grations of the Jewish masses from country to country, the vast modern invasion of the United States, for instance (which has been organized and controlled like an army on the march), interested him as an historian, he could not speak of it under pain of being called an anti-Semite. If he exposed a financial swindler who happened to be a Jew, he was an anti-Semite. If he exposed a group of Parliamen­tarians taking money from the Jews, be was called an anti- Semite. If he did no more than call a Jew a Jew, he was an anti-Semite.

Ibid. Ps. 160-161.

"You cannot long confuse interest with hatred, the state­ment of plain and important truths with mania, the discus­sion of fundamental questions with silly enthusiasm, for the same reason that you cannot long confuse truth with false­hood. Sooner or later people are bound to remark that the defendant seems curiously anxious to avoid all investigation of his case. * * I.say it was a fatal policy; but it was deliber­ately undertaken by the Jews.”                                                            Ibid. P. 161.

Belloc’s discussion of the Jewish part in the Communist move­ment, along with considerable evidence on the subject is treated in another chapter. He reaches the conclusion quite properly, that the fact that the Jew has directed and still directs the course of Com­munism is a sufficient argument for bringing the question of the Jew to the forefront.

Belloc’s words about the Jew in America are significant, since they represent the judgment of a brilliant and capable Englishman— one of the world’s great writers and historians.

“A regular and organized Jewish emigration began to pour in (the U. S.), especially from the Baltic. It flooded New York * * * it created ghettoes in most of the large Northern industrial towns and all the phenomena we associate in Europe with these movements began to show themselves. There was the growth of the financial monopoly and of monopolies in particular trades. There was the clamour for toleration in the form of ‘neutralizing’ religious teach­ing in schools; there was the appearance of the Jewish

revolutionary and of the Jewish critic in every tradition of Christian life. * * Anonymity in the Press came, of course.”

Ibid. P. 202.

Earlier in these pages, we referred to the fact that when we are asked to defend the England of today, it is not the England of our ancestors—the “mother country" who asks our arms and men, but a mongrel England, ruled not by Britons of the blood, but, largely by a galaxy of Jews, half-Jews, and quarter-Jews. Again we quote Belloc,

"London became after Waterloo the money market and the clearing house of the world. * * Every new economic enter­prise of the British state appealed to the Jewish genius for commerce and especially for negotiation in its most abstract form—finance. * * The two things dovetailed one into the other and fitted exactly, and all subsidiary activities fitted in as well. The Jewish news agencies of the nineteenth cen­tury favoured England in all her policy, political as well as commercial; they opposed those of her rivals and especially of her enemies. The Jewish knowledge of the East was at the service of England (Opium Wars—Indian Con­quest) . His international penetration of the European gov­ernments was also at her service—so was his secret informa­tion. * * The Jew might almost be called a British agent upon the Continent of Europe and still more in the Near and Far East. * * He was admitted to every institution in the State, a prominent member of his nation became chief officer of the English executive, and, an influence more subtle and penetrating, marriages began to take place, whole­sale, between what had once been the aristocratic territorial families of this country and the Jewish commercial fortunes.

“After two generations of this, with the opening of the twentieth century those of the great territorial English fam­ilies in which there was no Jewish blood were the excep­tion. In nearly all of them was the strain more or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the name was still an English name and the tradition those of a purely English lineage of the long past, the physique and character had become wholly Jewish and the members of the family were taken for Jews whenever they travelled in countries where the gentry had not yet suffered or enjoyed this admixture.”

Ibid. Ps. 222-223.

“Every English Government had (and has) its quota of Jews. They had entered the diplomatic service and the House of Lords; they swarmed in the House of Commons, in the Universities, in all the Government offices save the Foreign Office (and even there representatives of the Jewish nation have recently entered); they were exceedingly power­ful in the Press; they were all powerful in the City” (viz. in banking and finance).

Ibid. P. 226.

This is a picture of Jewish dominance of Europe, presented with sympathy and without passion by writers of integrity. The Eng­land which today beseeches us to come to her rescue is little more than another segment of the Jewish “nation"—as Belloc puts it.

The Jews have often strongly influenced France—seldom domin­ated it. The short rule of Leon Blum is one such instance and results recently were summarized in a letter to the New York Times. On the eve of the opening of the French Popular Front Legislature Leon Blum, Premier-designate, said: “We are going to try to assure passage from a capitalist to a Socialist regime * * * it is not possible any longer to save a bourgeois society.” The administration of the Jew Leon Blum begot the sit-down strike in France, which was almost imme­diately transplanted to America by the Communists.

Our own internationalists, who plead with us to spend our blood, our heritage and our money in their defense are but the spokes­men of international Jewry. We first felt the powerful impact of their influence when, against reason, honor and enlightened self-in­terest, they tricked us into the World War. The Zionist movement was the active political factor—the "engineer” of this betrayal. To­day organized World Jewry, and not the Zionists alone, are working night and day to betray us again. A detailed discussion of the great­est fraud in history—the background of our entry into the World War was discussed in a preceding chapter.

It is more than passing strange, that George Washington and nearly all of our Anglo-Saxon forefathers and patriots are insulted and their principle mocked, while the very Jews who assail them and plot to destroy their principles are celebrated. It is more than passing strange that the average American may speak his piece, condemning anyone who offends his sense of right and justice, yet is forbidden to ask, “What of the Jew”?

Strange and tragic is it that the American who loves his home­land and its great tradition must abandon his concept of patriotism, even his understanding of it, rooted in struggle and pain, and growth of Americanism is left to an Einstein to translate, a Bloom or a Dickstein to protect and a Brandeis or a Frankfurter to interpret.

Somehow, without our knowledge—because we are not a sus­picious people—this has come about. We have assumed, in our honesty and inherent decency, that we were immune from this afflic­tion. Yet it is here and we must deal with it. Unhappily, there is a residue of our own proud race and name, which is almost psy- chopathically more concerned with the welfare of the Jews than with that of Americans. Proudly they parade sympathy with the prob­lems of the world as if we had none of our own.

JEWS AND COMMUNISM

"First Witch: Round about the cauldron go:

In the poison’d entrails throw.

Toad, that under cold stone Days and nights has thirty-one Swelter’d-venom sleeping got,

Boil thou first i’ the charmed pot.

All: Double, double, toil and trouble:

Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

Second Witch: Fillet of a fenny snake,

In the cauldron boil and bake;

Eye of newt, and toe of frog,

Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,

Adder’s fork, and blind-worm's sting,

Lizard’s leg, and owlet’s wing,

For a charm of powerful trouble,

Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

All: Double, double, toil and trouble;

Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

Third Witch: Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,

Witches' mummy, maw and gulf Of the ravin’d salt-sea shark,

Root of hemlock digg’d i’ the dark,

Liver of blaspheming Jew,

Gall of goat, and slips of yew Silver’d in the moon’s eclipse.

Nose of Turk, and Tartar’s lips,

Finger of birth-strangled babe Ditch-deliver’d by a drab,

Make the gruel thick and slab:

Add thereto a tiger’s chaudron,

For the ingredients of our cauldron.

All: Double, double, toil and trouble;

Fire burn and cauldron bubble.”

Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”.

The Communist movement in the United States, despite argu­ments to the contrary, is stronger than ever before in its sordid history. The alliance between Stalin and Hitler, concluded just before their joint invasion of Poland, despite the ardent courtship of the Soviet by the United States, Britain and France, had the effect of driv­ing a few members of the Party from its ranks and caused great an­guish to certain fellow-travelers and United Front organizations. But it did not seriously affect either the Party or its program.

According to competent testimony—some of which will prob­ably have reached the public eye by this time—such “facade” units as The American League for Peace and Democracy have already changed their names and are now active in a new guise, though with sub­stantially the same leadership. While they might suffer momentary nausea at being associated with Dec Feuhrec, the possibility of the loot in heroic quantities, that may fall to them with Hitler’s victory, is enough to calm their queasy stomachs.

What is often overlooked, however, by those who prefer the wish to the fact, is that much of the opposition to Soviet Russia and its leader, Stalin, indeed, much of the most damaging testimony against this particular brand of Communism, is furnished by such Jews as Eugene Lyons, Alex Trachtenberg, Gen. Krivitsky (Schmel- ka Ginsberg), D. H. Dubrovsky, Ben Gitlow and others; and, it is significant to note, none of these expert witnesses has repudiated Communism pec se. They oppose Stalin and Stalinism—not Com­munism. The leader of the movement called “true” Communism has been our old dear brutal, bloody, brilliant, sinister Leon Trotsky (alias Braunstein). Trotsky’s last abode was in Mexico—a strongly Communistic state, by the way, and one increasingly active in defense of the Party Line. Trotsky was also head of the Fourth International, the avowed guardian of the doctrine of Marx and Lenin. Mexico, like Soviet Russia, a pet of the New Deal, has been for years and still is being subsidized by the purchase at an inflated price of millions of dollars of silver, and has been permitted to confiscate hundreds of millions of dollars of American property, with only a gentle slap on the wrist from our State Department. According to a recent news­paper article by New Dealers Pearson and Allen, our Department of. Justice was giving favorable consideration to inviting Trotsky to America from Mexico to help us catch Stalinite Communists.

The aforementioned gentry—whose "reform” dates, as does that of half-Jew William Bullitt, from the day Stalin purged Russia of “old Bolsheviks”—are almost without exception Jews. They argue that Stalin, a bloody Asiatic, is no longer a Communist. It is doubt­

ful if Stalin ever was a Communist. According to Lenin, who should have known, Stalin was an opportunist and a revolutionist. But a Communist, no.

The Jews Gitlow, Dubrovsky, Krivitsky and Lyons have repu­diated Stalin but they have not repudiated Communism and Trotsky. The secret of their defection may be found in the fact that, for some years, it has been whispered that Stalin is an anti-Semite. His slaughter of such old Bolsheviks as Apfelbaum alias Zinovieff, and Rosenfeld alias Kameneff, and his purge of Litvinoff (Finkelstein), Radek (Sobelsohn) and others of the race would seem to indicate something of the sort.

It is also significant that Soviet Russia, the largest country in the world with vast undeveloped territory and resources, alone of all the great countries, did not hold out a friendly hand to the Jews cast out of German territory with the advent of Hitlerism. It is equally important, that while Jewish leaders and Jewish refugees strive frantically to persuade other nations to offer aid, shelter and protections, they made no such demand of Soviet Russia. And while it may be captious to speak of it, none of those noisy “liberals” who have taken up the Jewish cause have organized to provide them haven in Soviet Russia.

Soviet Russia was, as has been shown, the product of Jewish phi­losophy, Jewish brains, Jewish capital and Jewish leadership, and anti-Semitism is still punished in Soviet Russia as "counter-revolu­tion”. Why then, one reasonably asks, has not Soviet Russia solved this problem of dealing with the latest Jewish dispersion by opening the gates of the Promised Land?

The obvious—and true—answer is that what we call Commu­nism is today divided into two camps—Stalinism and Trotskyism. We may further conclude that the Trotskyite brand of Communism is much nearer the Marxian definition than the brand of Joseph Stalin. No true Marxist could have joined hands with Hitler—so the Jewish Communists rightly argue.

Since the Stalin-Hitler pact, many Jews, frightened by the in­creasing and natural tendency of the public to identify Jewry with Communism, have argued somewhat after this manner:

“Now! You see? We told you that we Jews were not Com­munists! No Jewish movement could make common cause with Hitler”.

This argument is specious and deceptive since the High Priest of true Communism has been Leon Trotsky, a Jew, and his following predominantly Jewish. There is evidence at hand today that the Jews are leaving the American Communist Party—a creature of Stalin— by droves and that they are affiliating with the Trotsky organization. The "exposures” of Gitlow, Lyons, et al, are exposures of Stalinism— not of Communism.

The identification of the Jew with Communism is an historic thing. It is more than the expression of the                             temporary political ob­jective of                    a "persecuted”                                     people. It is the natural product of                the

Jewish mind—the political expression of his innermost spirit.

For proof of this we propose to cite a document recently pub­lished.

Harry Waton, of New York, a Jewish philosopher and disciple of Spinoza, published, in 1939, a book called A Program for the ■lews and Humanity, sponsored by the Committee for the Preservation of the Jews. He states that the Spinoza                                   Institute asked him   to

formulate    his program.            Out of this came   the Committee for     the

Preservation of the Jews, under whose auspices, Waton discusses the lew in terms of amazing boldness.

Since it is impossible to deal with more than the high lights of Waton’s analysis, we must content ourselves with that.

Stating that his program is "not only tor the Jews, but for the whole human race”, Waton says that "my program should be ac­cepted by non-Jews as well as Jews * * ”

After stating that fascism is a historical process, he S2ys that the Jews are "masters of the situation”. He says that “we shall be compelled to adopt fascist methods to meet the world situation,” but that 'private capitalism can no longer function,” and "with the death of private capitalism will also die all political and social insti­tutions resting on private capitalism. * * ”

What will take its place? Waton answers, "Once Socialism has been established, and all future social evolution would be towards a human society resting on universal communism, only then will all social problems be solved.”

This is his statement. He does not submit the question of what kind of a world it will be if and when all social questions are solved. He goes on: "The state must take in hand the land and the mech­anism of production and distribution, and it must determine their use in accordance with a national plan." He says that "state capi­talism may come from below through a bloody revolution, as was the case in Soviet Russia: or it may come from above, as will likely be the case in this country.”

He goes on to argue that under this happy dispensation, "The only right that will be reserved to the individual will be the right to work for the state upon terms and conditions determined by the state * * and that the state will “exploit the working class.”

Of the present state of affairs in this country he says, "Naive Americans still believe in the rights guaranteed to them by the Con­stitution, but they do not realize that the Constitution has already fundamentally changed its character. President Roosevelt may hon­estly believe that he is not a dictator, and he may sincerely hate dictatorship; yet, from day to day, he becomes ever more and more a dictator.”

“All that is necessary,” says Waton, "that in this country, state capitalism and fascism shall be completely established is a na­tional emergency or a war. Once such national emergency or war comes—and it will inevitably come in the near future—in this country we shall have the state capitalism and fascism that we see in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.”

He states that "President Roosevelt and his administration move in the direction of state capitalism.”

He adds that “Soviet Russia is the fatherland for all commu­nists in the world, no matter where they are, and all communists owe primary allegiance to Soviet Russia.”

“In fighting against state capitalism and fascism,” he says, “men are fighting against history; and he who fights against history is destroyed by history.”

He repeats (p. 40) "President Roosevelt, whether he is conscious of it or not, is a Stalin or a Hitler in the making. In the event of a national emergency or a war * * Roosevelt * * will assume dictatorial power * * *”

Waton argues that “The only course the Jews in this Country can rationally follow is to recognize this inevitability and accept it.” After a discussion of ways and means he states, “It therefore follows that the Jews should support Roosevelt and his measures that are in the direction of state capitalism and fascism.” He insists that since mankind has not been able to prevent the exploitation of labor, the States should do it and that (p. 44) "the profit system must be abolished."

He says that “If Christianity had no effect upon Christians, then Christianity has no reason for existence, and, since it has no reason for existence, it cannot and will not exist.” He admits that “As soon as the Jews appeared * * * anti-Semitism appeared” and that "the Jews differ from all other races and peoples because of Judaism.” He says that “Judaism concerns itself only about this earth, and prom­ises all reward right here on earth.” He insists that "* * the Jews will inherit this earth, and that all other races will either disappear altogether or they will become Jews * * *”

After a lengthy dissertation on the perfection of Judaism and its disregard for color and race, he says (p. 75) : “Communism is the destiny of mankind.”

“And this is especially the duty of the Jews: the Jews must identify themselves with Communism (later he says they have al­ready done so), which means to identify themselves with history and human progress.”

In a statement, characteristically Jewish, he says (p. 77) : “Like Communism, internationalism is the foundation of society, it is the basis of all human progress, it is the hope of the working class, and it is the destiny of mankind.”

On page 79, he introduces again the idea of a “league of nations” in the statement, “Let all nations on earth become rational, let them enter into such a federation of nations as in this country we have a federation of states.”

Of the Jews he says (as did Brandeis) : "But at the same time the Jews are also nationalists as Jews. The Jews, all over the world, no matter where they lice, what language they speak, what mode of life they have, and what customs they follow—all Jews are iden­tified with one another as one people” (p. 80).

Waton describes Marxism as "nothing else than our old friends, communism and internationalism” and Nazism as nothing but an imitation of it. He lays claim to the Kingdom of God on Earth as "the highest virtue of Judaism”, and insists that "the Jews must identify themselves with communism, with internationalism, with Marxism and with the working class.”

On Page 86 he says that “God chose the Jews as his people,” and adds that the non-Jews only corrupted and distorted. He goes on to say that the "Jews never recognized a materialistic territorial state” and that "for this reason the Jewish state always was co-exten- sive with the Jewish people, and now that the Jews are spread over the whole earth, the Jewish state extends all over the earth." He adds that “This is the reason why the Jewish state is international and so powerful.”

He claims on p. 98 that “There is one work on sociology, and only one work, and that is Marx’s Capital,” and that "Only a Jew could write this work.” He promises that Marxism will triumph!

He says that * * the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth” and that since this is true, "the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth." He closes this theme by saying (p. 100), "The Jews will become the masters over the whole earth, and they will subordinate to themselves all nations, not by material power, not by brute force, but by light, knowledge, understanding, humanity, peace, justice and progress."

All of this, it appears, is to come to us at the hands of those who deliberately starved to death and murdered at least five million men, women and children, good and bad alike: who flayed alive those who opposed them in Hungry, Bavaria, Russia and Spain, and whose catalogue of crimes still awaits a full recording for the very good rea­son that they, the Jews, do not wish it published.

Probably no more complete glimpse of Jewish arrogance has ever been offered mankind than in Waton's kook. An analysis of it could hardly be more profitably concluded than in Waton’s own words. We find them on page 102:

"The Aryans will enlarge and beautify the earth; but they will settle to enjoy the world which they created only in the tents of the Jews. These tents are communism, inter­nationalism. ****’’

Several years ago Mr. W. G. Pitt-Rivers, an English Christian, completed a manuscript on the Communist Revolution, The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, following his study of the subject in Soviet Russia. Rabbi Levy was a friend of his. Rabbi Levy, after reading the manuscript, consented to write a preface to the book in which Rabbi Levy states:

"The question of the Jews and their influence on the world past and present, cuts to the root of all things, and should be discussed by every honest thinker * * the Jews * * are a sensitive Community, and thus very suspicious of any Gentile who tries to approach them with a critical mind.”

"You point out * * * the great danger that springs from the prevalence of Jews in finance and industry, and from the preponderance of Jews in rebellion and revolution. You re­veal * * * the connection between the Collectivism of the immensely rich international Finance * * * and the interna­tional Collectivism of Karl Marx and Trotsky * * * and all this evil and misery, the economic as well as the political, you trace back to one source * * * the Jews.

“Now other Jews will villify and crucify you for these outspoken views. * * * I can defend you from the unjust attacks of my often too-impetuous race. * * There is scarcely an event in modern Europe that cannot be traced back to the Jews. * * the Semitic idea has finally conquered and entirely subdued this apparently irreligious universe of ours.” (This was written in 1920.) * * * You yourself have a very strong foreboding about the Jews being the victims of their own theories and principles. * * ”

Dr. Levy continues:

"This reproach of yours * * * is only too well justified, and upon this common ground I am quite willing to shake hands with you and defend you against any accusation of pro­moting race hatred: If you are an anti-Semite, I, the Semite, am an anti-Semite, too, and a much more fervent one than ever you are * * * We have erred * * * we have most grievously erred. And if there was any truth in our error, three thou­sand, two thousand, nay, a hundred years ago, there is no­thing but falseness and madness, a madness that will pro-< duce an even greater misery and an even wider anarchy. I confess to you * * * We, who have posed as the saviours of the world, we, who have even boasted of having given it ‘the’ Saviour, we are to-day nothing else but the world’s seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners * * * We, who have promised to lead you to a new Heaven, have finally succeeded in landing you in a new Hell * * * There has been no progress, least of all moral progress * * *"

"* * * our last word is not yet spoken, our last deed is not done, our last revolution is not made. This last Revolu­tion, the Revolution that will crown our revolutionary work, will be the revolution against the revolutionaries. It is bound to come and may be upon us now. The great day of reck­oning is near.”

On page 193 of The Jews, Hilaire Belloc adds a single fateful postscript to the confession and prophecy of this great Jewish scholar:

"The case of Dr. Levy, turned out of this country by his compatriots in the Government, for having written unfavoura­bly of the Moscow Jews will be fresh in every one’s memory.”

Rabbi Morris Lazaron of Baltimore, in the March 1938 issue of Opinion, leading Jewish journal edited by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, is lead out of the Jewish "nation” for daring to advise Jews not to set themselves up as a separate community, thinking constantly of their European brothers.

In The World at the Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, quotes an illu­minating statement by Woodrow Wilson made after the Russian Revolution:

“Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia * * * The autocracy * * * has been shaken off and the great generous Russian people have been added, in all their native majesty and might, to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice and for peace.”

Brasol comments on this pronouncement of Wilson:

“It is not impossible that Mr. Wilson should have made such a misstatement, biased by some of his Jewish advisors, who might not have had a quarrel with the German people, but who certainly did have a quarrel with the Russian people. It will be remembered that at that time the White House was crammed with such men as Bernard Baruch, Justice Brandeis, Louis Marshall, the Warburgs and other leaders of American and International Jewry.”

Ibid. p. 159

Even Mr. Winston Churchill, now Prime Minister of Great Britain, seemed once—despite his efforts on behalf of Jewish immi­grants and his recent courtship of Soviet Russia—to have had an inkling of what was going on in Russia. On November 5, 1919. he said to the House of Commons:

“No sooner did Lenin arrive than he began to beckon a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats in New York, in Glasgow, in Berne, and other coun­tries, and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formid­able sect, the most formidable sect in the world, of which he was the high priest and chief. With these spirits around him he set to work with demoniacal ability, to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian State depended. Russia was laid low. She had to be laid low. She was laid low in the dust.”

In European Jungle p. 180 it is stated:

"In 1917, Lenin was smuggled into the Country (Rus­sia) with four Jews, Peiba Bronstein (alias Trotsky), Apfelbaum (alias Zinoviev), Rosenfeld (alias Kamenev), and Sobelsohn (alias Radek), with the help of the Germans and a Jewish banking house in New York, and through the agency of Israel Lazarevitcb Helphand, alias Parvus, a Rus­sian Jew who made his fortune in Denmark out of German coal.”

Mr. Yeats-Brown, author of European Jungle, goes on to say that, in 1935, the Soviet Russian delegation to the League of Nations (a statement which can probably be checked) consisted of one Geor­gian and seven Jews.

That the Communists early recognized Franklin D. Roosevelt as one of their own mind is apparent in the story filed by Donald Day, representative of the Chicago Tribune in the issue of October 27, 1933. Day says:

“The usually vigilant Bolshevik censorship has made one of the worst blunders of its existence * * * The Soviet blun­der consisted of the publishing by the central printing office of the Communist Party in Moscow of long instructions ad­dressed to American Communist organizations under the headline: The Working Class in the United States and their benefactor—the Socialist Roosevelt.”

BENJAMIN GITLOW

The individual histories of the Jews most prominent in the Com­munist movement are by now fairly well known to the American people. It might be well, however, to briefly discuss the life and record of that apostate from Stalinism, Benjamin Gitlow, whose autobiography, I Confess, recently appeared.

Gitlow is the son of two Russian-Jewish refugees and was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey. During 1916 and 1917 he was, along with such distinguished revolutionaries as the late Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, also Jews, active in the pacifist cause. He published the first Left Wing Socialist and Communist papers in this country, Revolutionary Age, Voice of Labor and The Communist. He helped to found the Communist Labor Party. He twice ran on the Communist ticket for Vice-President and once for Mayor of New York City. He was a member of the powerful Political Com­mittee of the American Communist Party and its dominating Sec­retariat of Three. He was Secretary of the Party—the job now held by Earl Browder—in 1923, member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, of the Red International of Trade Unions, and the leading Presidium of both Internationals. As such he visited the Soviet Union in 1927, 1928, and 1929.

He was convicted under the Criminal Syndicalist Law in 1919, of advocating—to quote the Supreme Court decision (Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652)—"in plain and unequivocal language, the necessity of accomplishing the ‘Communist Revolution’ by a militant and 'revolutionary Socialism.’ ” After three years in Sing Sing, he was pardoned by the Governor of New York, and was elected an honorary member of the Moscow Soviet while in prison.

Throughout his autobiography, I Confess, runs a steady flow of illuminating confessions. When arrested on the charge for which he was jailed, he says that in America:

“The first news of the Tsar's overthrow was received with great rejoicing. It stimulates above all those elements in the party that comprised the Slavic and Jewish federations, because most of their members hailed from Tsarist Russia. These federations were: The Russian Federation, the Jewish Federation, the Ukrainian Federation, the Lithuanian Fed­eration, the Esthonian Federation, the Polish Federation, the Lettish Federation and such allied Slavic federations as the Bulgarian and the Yugo-Slav. The Slavic language federa­tions began to grow very rapidly. Those who had immi­grated from Tsarist Russia began to look forward to the time when they would return to their native land, and as many as could left for Russia immediately. Among the latter were several staff members of the Novy Mir, Russian Socialist paper published in New York, such as, Leon Trotsky, Nich olas Bukharin, Volodarsky, who played stellar roles in the Bolshevik Revolution, and lesser luminaries, like Boris Rein- stein. * * *”

I Confess, P. 22.

“* * In New York one of the prominent leaders of the New York Left Wing was Harry Waton, who conducted a Marxian study group.”

Ibid. P. 33.

"* * About a tenth—roughly, six thousand members— were either American-born or belonged to the English-speak­ing branches. Of these, many were psychologically unfit for a revolutionary movement that sought to constitute itself the government of the United States. After the Chicago Con­ventions, both Communist parties were even more foreign- born in their complexion than the Left Wing had been.”

Ibid. P. 57.

”* * We openly called for the violent overthrow of the United States Government. We isolated ourselves by attack­ing the A. F. of L. as an agent of the capitalist government and calling upon the workers to build new unions that would not be afraid to use their economic power for revolutionary purposes. When strikes took place we called upon the workers to turn them into revolutionary channels, the Communist Party actually calling upon them, as it did in the strike of the Brooklyn street car men, to overthrow the government and establish soviets. We existed in a state of semi-legality, al ways expecting to be attacked and arrested.”

Ibid. P. 60.

‘‘Our attorneys succeeded in having our bail reduced to ten thousand dollars each, in either cash or Liberty Bonds. Dr. Julius Hammer supplied the Liberty Bonds.”

Ibid. P. 63.

‘‘Back in Sing Sing life was more pleasant. There we found Dr. Julius Hammer, serving a sentence for an illegal

abortion, having been betrayed to the authorities by political enemies, presumably.”

Ibid. Ps. 118-119.

Dr. Hammer was in Moscow during Gitlow’s visit there in 1929.

“He (the prominent Jewish lawyer, Joseph Brodsky), further informed me that Justice Cardozo had signed the writ which made my release on bail possible.”

Ibid. Ps. 128-129.

“The Supreme Court (268 U. S. 652) upheld my conviction on criminal syndicalism charges by a vote of seven to two, Justices Holmes and Brandeis dissenting.” (Justice Holmes at this time was 84 years of age).

Ibid. P. 226.

"At the first Left Wing convention (in New York, Feb. 1919), there was plenty of talk * * * If talk could make revolution, the Left Wing would have won in the United States * * * a city committee of fifteen was elected to carry on its work. This committee consisted of the following: Nicho­las I. Hourwich, Fanny Horowitz, Jay Lovestone (Lieb- stein), James Larkin, Harry Hilzik, Edward I. Lindgren, Milton Goodman, John Reed, Joseph Brodsky, Dr. Julius Hammer, Jeanette D. Pearl, Carl Brodsky, Mrs. L. Ravitch, Bertram D. Wolfe and myself.”

Ibid. P. 27.

“On the train I was informed of the circumstances that led to my pardon. The National Convention of the Inter­national Ladies Garment Workers Union was in session in Philadelphia. The sessions were torn by a bitter factional dispute * * * Sigm3n was trying to prevent the split * * * Those in the Left Wing who advocated a split, did so as a tactical maneuver, believing that, if a split should take place, Sigman would enter into negotiations with the Left Wing, * * * and would come to such terms with them as would result in the Left Wing virtually taking over the organiza­tion. Dr. Henry Moscowitz was present as ‘the representa­tive of the Governor’ (Mrs. Belle Israels Moscowitz, wife of Dr. Henry Moscowitz, held many prominent positions under the Governor of New York and was Vice-Chairman of the Democratic National Committee). * * * It was arranged that, when the Governor received the telegram, we would wire back the convention that upon their re­quest he had pardoned Gitlow. In fact, the convention was informed by 'the Governor * *’ that he had released me hours before the official papers had been signed and the authori­ties at Sing Sing notified.”

Ibid. Ps. 285-286.

"Our negro program was originally built around the de­mand that the Negro people in the United States be accorded full racial, social and political equality * * *

“I received a telegram from the National Office that, in addition to our regular Negro demands, I should add the demand for the right of the Negroes to national self-determina­tion. This demand of the Comintern (the Communist Inter­national in Moscow) that the Negro movement in the United States be considered as a movement of national liberation, the ultimate objective of which was the establishment of an independent Negro state and government in the South, though it originated in Moscow, did not appeal to me * * * The demand for a Negro republic I considered dynamite, which would be so explosive in the South that it would do the Negroes more harm than good.

“* * * when I returned to New York I made it my special point to discuss the whole question with Pepper, (Joseph Pogany). * * * I asked Pepper ‘What do you want to do with this policy? Create a situation in the South where you will bring about a civil war between the whites and the blacks? Do you realize where that will lead to? Do you not realize that such a policy will lead to the butchery and massacre of thousands of Negroes?’ ”

Ibid. Ps. 480-481.

* the Communist organizational network is con­trolled and directed. It is not confined to the Communist Party alone, because, due to the Party’s support of the New Deal and the C. I. O., it reaches into practically every walk of American life. The C. I. O. has augmented the Commu­nistic machine politically and financially beyond the fondest hopes of the Communists. Thousands of Communist Party members, who are under the direct orders of the Party, either acting openly or as concealed Communists, are holding down paid positions in the C. I. O. and its affiliated organizations. Stachel’s department takes good care of that. Besides, the Party’s support of the New Deal has made it possible for many Party members to parade around as non-Communists, and others without joining to work under the direction of the Party, with the result that the Party’s interests are being served in many important quarters and even in government circles. A weird system of hypocrisy and deceit has been built up to maintain this structure, so that it can effectively ac­complish things, which the Party openly as the Communist Party could never do. This weird system, this chameleon superstructure, is operated by crafty Stachel so stealthily that it hoodwinks many well-wishing innocent people, motivated by idealism and lofty sentiments.”

Ibid. P. 331.

"In 1932, after Roosevelt was elected and came out with his

New Deal program, Browder attacked Roosevelt as a potential Fascist and the New Deal as Fascist. Then he went to Moscow, saw the light, and returned a staunch champion of President Roosevelt and the New Deal.”

Ibid., P. 332.

"Yet with all this investment of money and energy, of political conniving and propaganda, we made no appreciable inroads into the body of American public opinion until about the advent of the New Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Why that was so, is another question. It may be mere coincidence. But such is the fact.”

Ibid., P. 470.

Earlier in these pages we discussed the effects of the brief Com­munist experiment in Hungary under Bela Kuhn, Joseph Pogany (Pepper) and other Jews. On a small scale, what happened there was a duplicate of what has been happening in Soviet Russia ever since 1917: wholesale murder, starvation and unbelieveable cruelty. No Oriental despot ever wreaked a harsher revenge upon his ene­mies than these Jewish revolutionaries brought to a virtually helpless people.

One of these murderers, Pepper-Pogany — and undoubtedly others of those who managed to escape the wrath of Admiral Horthy and the loyal Hungarians—is still in the United States and under various names, active in the Communist movement.

Radical Jew Alsberg villifies George Washington Parke Custis.

The Federal Writers Project of the W.P.A., a pet of Roosevelt, directed by Henry G. Alsberg, a radical fellow-traveler and New York Jew, in its costly and beautifully illustrated guide book of the City of Washington, prepared under the editorial direction of Joseph Gaer, another New York radical Jew, and paid for with taxpayers' money, went out of its way to make an outrageous attack on George Washington Parke Custis, step-grandson of George Washington and father-in-law of General Robert E. Lee, and asserted that he was the father of a Negress, Maria Syphax. Alsberg gave as his authority^- for the statement E. Delorus Preston, Jr., a Negro stu­dent and writer of history. Alsberg stated that the Syphax family of Negroes were descended from a distinguished line of the planta­tion aristocracy of the South.

Russian-Pole Anarchist assassinates President McKinley.

Leon Czolgosz, a Russian-Pole Anarchist, coldly and brutally assassinated President McKinley at Buffalo. He was a follower of

Red Emma Goldman, Russian Polish Jewish anarchist, and of Alex ander Berkman, a Russian Jewish assassin, and had been influenced by her writings and speeches and belonged to the same anarchistic union of assassins.

Henry A. Wallace, now Roosevelt's running mate, then his Sec­retary of Agriculture, in his original articles for his volume, “States­manship and Religion”, stated:

"The first thing that stands out in the lives of the re­formers of the Sixteenth Century (probably Calvin, Luther, and Knox) was their tremendous earnestness. The only people of this century who seem to have a comparable earn estness are such men as Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler.”

O'Donnell in Times-Herald, Oct. 7, 1940.

In an article by an eminent and patriotic Washington lawyer. Mr. George E. Sullivan, Congressional Record September 24, 1940, it is stated:

“Less than a century after such unsuccessful attempt of Clinton Roosevelt, another Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, is found to be extensively and persistently engaged in imposing upon you a creeping collectivism, as an experi ment to create a supposedly better social order for your general welfare. His so-called New Deal is far from new, and bears a strong resemblance to Marxian sabotage, some features of which so recently, under Blum, undermined France, and made her an easy victim of Hitler. Roosevelt's persistent opposition to balancing the Budget is steadily pro ducing ultimate bankruptcy, in strange accord with the dia bolical advice of Lenin and Stalin to cause ‘practical bank ruptcy’ to make a victim nation ‘fully ripe’ (or Communist take-over. (Foundations of Leninism, by Stalin, p. 95.) Mr. Roosevelt has arrogantly belittled your Constitution as a product of ‘horse-and-buggy days.’ Flis flagrant contempt for the salutary warning of the Father of your Country, ‘Let there be no change by usurpation.’ is quite obvious. He has brazenly urged Members of the House of Representatives not to ‘permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable’ to block legislation sought by him (vol. 79, Congressional Record, p. 14363). He has created a veritable labyrinth of bureaucracies, and is constantly gathering to himself new powers. He has even boasted about the building up of ‘new instruments of public power,’ which in other hands could ‘provide shackles for the liberties of the people.’ ”