Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, London, Boswell Printing & Publishing Co. London, 1924. Reprints: Boswell, 1928 and 1936; London, The Britons Publishing Co., London, 1955 and 1964; Palmdale, Christian Book Club of America and Sudbury and Sudbury, Bloomfield Books, 198 [?]; Kessinger Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0766130665
The Real Jewish Peril
In considering the immense problem of the Jewish Power, perhaps the most important problem with which the modern world is confronted, it is necessary to divest oneself of all prejudices and to enquire in a spirit of scientific detachment whether any definite proof exists that a concerted attempt is being made by Jewry to achieve world-domination and to obliterate the Christian faith.
That such a purpose has existed amongst the Jews in the past has been shown throughout the earlier chapters of this book. The conception of the Jews as the Chosen People who must eventually rule the world forms indeed the basis of Rabbinical Judaism.
It is customary in this country to say that we should respect the Jewish religion, and this would certainly be our duty were the Jewish religion founded, as is popularly supposed, solely on the Old Testament. For although we do not consider ourselves bound to observe the ritual of the Pentateuch, we find no fault with the Jews for carrying out what they conceive to be their religious duties. Moreover, although the Old Testament depicts the Jews as a favoured race–a conception which we believe to have been superseded by the Christian dispensation, whereby all men are declared equal in the sight of God–nevertheless it does contain a very lofty law of righteousness applicable to all mankind. It is because of their universality that the books of Job and Ecclesiastes, as also many passages in the Psalms, in Isaiah, and the minor prophets, have made an undying appeal to the human race. But the Jewish religion now takes its stand on the Talmud rather than on the Bible. “The modern Jew,” one of its latest Jewish translators observes, “is the product of the Talmud.” The Talmud itself accords to the Bible only a secondary place. Thus the Talmudic treatise Soferim says: “The Bible is like water, the Mischna is like wine, and the Gemara is like spiced wine.”
Now, the Talmud is not a law of righteousness for all mankind, but a meticulous code applying to the Jew alone. No human being outside the Jewish race could possibly go to the Talmud for help or comfort. One might look through its pages in vain for any such splendid rule of life as that given by the prophet Micah: “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” In the Talmud, on the contrary, as Drach points out, “the precepts of justice, of equity, of charity towards one’s neighbour, are not only not applicable with regard to the Christian, but constitute a crime in anyone who would act differently…. The Talmud expressly forbids one to save a non-Jew from death, … to restore lost goods, etc., to him, to have pity on him.”
How far the Talmud has contributed to the anti-social tendencies of modern Judaism is shown by the fact that the Karaites living in the south of Russia, the only body of Jews which takes its stand on the Bible, and not on the Talmud,–of which it only accepts such portions as are in accordance with Bible teaching–have always shown themselves good subjects of the Russian Empire, and have therefore enjoyed equal rights with the Russian people around them. Catherine the Great particularly favoured the Karaites.
Thus even the Jews are not unanimous in supporting the Talmud; indeed, as we have already seen, many Jews have protested against it as a barrier between themselves and the rest of the human race.
But it is in the Cabala, still more than in the Talmud, that the Judaic dream of world-domination recurs with the greatest persistence. The Zohar indeed refers to this as a fait accompli, explaining that “the Feast of Tabernacles is the period when Israel triumphs over the other people of the world; that is why during this feast we seize the Loulab [branches of trees tied together] and carry it as a trophy to show that we have conquered all the other peoples known as ‘populace’ and that we dominate them.”God is, however, asked to accord these other peoples a certain share of blessings, “so that occupied with this share they shall not participate nor mingle with the joy of Israel when he calls down blessings from on high.” The situation may thus be compared with that of a king who, wishing to give a feast to his special friends, finds his house invaded by importunate governors demanding admittance. “What then does the king do? He orders the governors to be served with beef and vegetables, which are common food, and then sits down to table with his friends and has the most delicious dishes served.”
But this is nothing to the feasting that is to take place when the Messianic era arrives. After the return of the Jews from all nations and parts of the world to Palestine, the Messiah, we are told in the Talmud, will entertain them at a gorgeous banquet, where they will be seated at golden tables and regaled with wine from Adam’s wine-cellar. The first course is to consist of a roasted ox named Behemoth, so immense that every day it eats up the grass upon a thousand hills; the second of a monstrous fish Leviathan; the third of a female Leviathan boiled and pickled; the fourth of a gigantic roast fowl known as Barjuchne, of which the egg alone was so enormous that when it fell out of the nest it crushed three hundred tall cedars and the white overflowed threescore villages. This course is to be followed up by “the most splendid and pompous Dessert” that can be procured, including fruit from the Tree of Life and “the Pomegranates of Eden which are preserved for the Just.”
At the end of the banquet “God will entertain the company at a ball”; He Himself will sit in the midst of them, and everyone will point Him out with his finger, saying: “Behold, this is our God: we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.”
The eighteenth-century commentator, whose summary of these passages we quote, goes on to observe:
But let us see a little after what manner the Jews are to live in their ancient Country under the Administration of the Messiah. In the First Place, the strange Nations, which they shall suffer to live, shall build them Houses and Cities, till them Ground, and plant them Vineyards; and all this, without so much as looking for any Reward of their Labour. These surviving Nations will likewise voluntarily offer them all their Wealth and Furniture: And Princes and Nobles shall attend them; and be ready at their Nod to pay them all Manner of Obedience; while they themselves shall be surrounded with Grandeur and Pleasure, appearing abroad in Apparel glittering with Jewels like Priests of the Unction, consecrated to God….
In a word, the felicity of this Holy Nation, in the Times of the Messiah, will be such, that the exalted Condition of it cannot enter into the Conception of Man; much less can it be couched in human Expression. This is what the Rabbis say of it. But the intelligent reader will doubtless pronounce it the Paradise of Fools.
It is interesting to notice that this conception of the manner in which the return to Palestine is to be carried out has descended to certain of the modern colonists. Sir George Adam Smith, after watching Zionism at work in 1918, wrote:
On visiting a recently established Jewish colony in the north-east of the land, round which a high wall had been built by the munificent patron, I found the colonists sitting in its shade gambling away the morning, while groups of fellahin at a poor wage did the cultivation for them. I said that this was surely not the intention of their patron in helping them to settle on land of their own. A Jew replied to me in German: “Is it not written: The sons of the alien shall be your ploughmen and vinedressers?” I know that such delinquencies have become the exception in Jewish colonization of Palestine, but they are symptomatic of dangers which will have to be guarded against.
The fellahin may, however, consider themselves lucky to be allowed to live at all, for, according to several passages in the Cabala, all the goyim are to be swept off the face of the earth when Israel comes into its own. Thus the Zohar relates that the Messiah will declare war on the whole world and all the kings of the world will end by declaring war on the Messiah. But “the Holy One, blessed be He, will display His force and exterminate them from the world.”Then:
Happy will be the lot of Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen from amongst the goyim of whom the Scriptures say: “Their work is but vanity, it is an illusion at which we must laugh; they will all perish when God visits them in His wrath.” At the moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist, even as it is written: “The Lord alone will appear great on that day.”
The hope of world-domination is therefore not an idea attributed to the Jews by “anti-Semites,” but a very real and essential part of their traditions. What then of their attitude to Christianity in the past? We have already seen that hatred of the person and teaching of Christ did not end at Golgotha, but was kept alive by the Rabbis and perpetuated in the Talmud and the Toledot Yeshu. The Cabala also contains passages referring both to Christ and to Mohammed so unspeakably foul that it would be impossible to quote them here.
But it will be urged: the Jews of Western Europe to-day know nothing of the Cabala. This may be so, yet imperceptibly the Cabala has moulded the mind of the Jew. As a modern Jewish writer has declared:
[Kabbalism] has contributed to the formation of modern Judaism, for, without the influence of the Kabbala, Judaism to-day might have been one-sided, lacking in warmth and imagination. Indeed, so deeply has it penetrated into the body of the faith that many ideas and prayers are now immovably rooted in the general body of orthodox doctrine and practice. This element has not only become incorporated, but it has fixed its hold on the affections of the Jews and cannot be eradicated.
It is thus not in the law of Moses thundered from Sinai, not in the dry ritual of the Talmud, but in the stupendous imaginings of the Cabala, that the real dreams and aspirations of Jewry have been transmitted through the ages. Belief in the coming Messiah may burn low, but faith in the final triumph of Israel over the other nations of the world still glows in the hearts of a race nurtured on this hope from time immemorial. Even the free-thinking Jew must unconsciously react to the promptings of this vast and ancient ambition. As a modern French writer has expressed it:
Assuredly sectarian Freethinkers swarm, who flatter themselves on having borrowed nothing from the synagogue and on hating equally Jehovah and Jesus. But the modern Jewish world is itself also detached from any supernatural belief, and the Messianic tradition, of which it preserves the cult, reduces itself to considering the Jewish race as the veritable Messiah.
Some colour is lent to this statement by an article which recently appeared in the Jewish press, in which it is explained that, according to the teaching of the “Liberal Jewish Synagogue,” the beautiful passages in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah concerning “the Man of Sorrows acquainted with grief,” usually supposed by Christians to relate to the promised Messiah, are interpreted to modern Jewish youth as relating to Israel and signifying that Israel’s “sufferings were caused by the sins of other nations,” who thus “escaped the suffering they deserved.” Consequently “Israel has suffered for the sake of the whole world.” How this amazing pretension can be maintained in view of the perpetual denunciations of the Israelites throughout the whole of the Old Testament is difficult to imagine. On their entry into Canaan they were distinctly told by Moses that the Lord their God had not given them “this good land” on account of their righteousness or the uprightness of their hearts; long afterwards Daniel declared that all Israel had transgressed the law of God; Nehemiah showed that on account of their rebellion and disobedience they had been delivered into the hands of their enemies. Isaiah spoke of the iniquities of Judah in burning words:
Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corruptors!… Wash your, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well, etc.
Thus even the Word of God itself is powerless to mitigate the immense megalomania of the Jewish race. It is doubtful indeed whether by the majority of Jews the Bible is now regarded as divinely inspired. “The ten commandments which we gave to mankind” is a phrase typical of the manner in which Israel now arrogates to itself the sole authorship of the Scriptures. The deification of humanity by the Freemasons of the Grand Orient finds its counterpart in the deification of Israel by the modern Jew.
It is here that we must surely see the cause of much of the suffering the Jews have endured in the past. No one of course would justify the cruelty with which they have frequently been treated; nevertheless to maintain there was no provocation on the part of the Jews would be absurd. A race that has always considered itself entitled to occupy a privileged position amongst the nations of the world must inevitably meet with resentment, and in a primitive age or population resentment is apt to find a vent in violence shocking to the civilized mind. Moreover, to represent the Jews as a gentle long-suffering people, always the victims but never the perpetrators of violence, is absolutely contrary to historic fact. In the dark ages of the past the Jews showed themselves perfectly capable of cruelties not only towards other races but towards each other. One of the first pogroms recorded in the Christian era was carried out by the Jews themselves. The Jewish historian Josephus describes the reign of “lawlessness and barbarity” that was inaugurated about the middle of the first century A.D. by the band of assassins known as the Sicarii, who infested the country round Jerusalem and, by means of little daggers that they wore concealed beneath their garments, “slew men in the daytime and in the midst of the city, especially at the festivals when they mixed with the multitude.” During one night raid on the small town of Engaddi they massacred more than seven hundred women and children. And Josephus goes on to say:
Somehow, indeed, that was a time most fertile in all manner of wicked practices among the Jews, insomuch that no kind of villainy was then left undone; nor could anyone so much as devise any bad thing that was new if he wished. So deeply were they all infected, both privately and publicly, and vied with one another who should run the greatest lengths in impiety towards God, and in unjust actions towards their neighbours, men in power oppressing the multitude, and the multitude earnestly endeavouring to destroy men in power.
It is futile then to maintain as do the Jews and their friends–for the pro-Jew is frequently plus royaliste que le roi–that all the faults of the modern Jew are to be attributed to bitterness engendered by persecution. Judaism has always contained an element of cruelty which finds expression in the Talmud. It is from the Talmud, not from the Mosaic law, that the inhuman methods of Jewish slaughtering are derived. The Talmud likewise gives the most horrible directions for carrying out capital punishment, particularly with regard to women, by the methods of stoning, burning, choking, or slaying with the sword. The victim condemned to be burnt is to have a scarf wound round his neck, the two ends pulled tightly by the executioners whilst his mouth is forced open with pincers and a lighted string thrust into it “so that it flows down through his inwards and shrinks his entrails.”
It will be said that all this belongs to the past. True, the practice here described may be considered obsolete, but the spirit of cruelty and intolerance that dictated it is still alive. One has only to study the modern Jewish press to realize the persecution to which Jews are subjected from members of their own race should they infringe one fraction of the Jewish code.
If, then, “the modern Jew is the product of the Talmud,” it is here that we must see the principal obstacle to Jewish progress. It is said that Isaac Disraeli, the father of Lord Beaconsfield, gave as his reason for withdrawing from the Synagogue that Rabbinical Judaism with its unyielding laws and fettering customs “cuts off the Jews from the great family of mankind.” Such a system is indeed absolutely incompatible not only with Christian teaching but with the secular ideas of Western civilization. The attitude it adopts towards women would be in itself sufficient to justify this assertion. The Jewish daily prayer, “Blessed be Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, that Thou has not made me a woman!” is a ludicrous anachronism in the present age. According to the Talmud a service can take place in the Synagogue only if ten persons are present, which number ensures the presence of God in the assembly. Drach explains however that these persons must all be men. “If then there were nine men and a million women there could be no assembly, for the reason that women are nothing. But there arrives [on the scene] only one small boy of thirteen years and a day, at once there can be a holy assembly and, according to our Doctors, it is permitted to God to be present.”
When therefore we say that we must respect the Jewish religion we cannot, if we know anything about it, mean that we respect that portion of it which is founded on the Rabbinical traditions of the Talmud and the Cabala, but only that ethical law set forth in the Old Testament, to which right-living Jews have faithfully adhered and which is largely in accord with Christian teaching.
Let us not forget that Rabbinical Judaism is the declared and implacable enemy of Christianity. Hatred of Christianity and of the person of Christ is not a matter of remote history, nor can it be regarded as the result of persecution; it forms an integral part of Rabbinical tradition which originated before any persecution of the Jews by Christians had taken place, and has continued in our country long after all such persecution has ended.
It is here that we cannot fail to detect the origin of much of that virulent anti-Christian teaching that is being disseminated in our midst to-day. This teaching will be observed to follow three lines, of which the course has been traced throughout this book. These consist in desecrating the Christian tradition by declaring that Christ was either (a) a myth, (b) a purely human teacher endowed with superior virtue and knowledge of natural laws, (c) a crazy fanatic or a malefactor. The first two theories are, as we have seen, those held by secret societies; the last is essentially Jewish. It is true that there is now a movement amongst the more enlightened Jews to recognize Jesus as a great teacher; so far, unfortunately, this is met by bitter hostility from the rest, and in the current Jewish press contemptuous and even blasphemous references to Christ and the Christian faith frequently occur. The fact that here in England, for nearly three hundred years, the Jews have been allowed to dwell in peace and carry out their religious rites unmolested, that they have been admitted to society, to masonic lodges, and to all offices of State and have met with increasing tolerance and favour, has done nothing to moderate that hatred of Christianity inculcated throughout nineteen centuries of Rabbinical teaching. Thus, for example, under the heading of “What Christianity has Meant,” we read in a modern Jewish periodical:
We are thinking of what Christianity as an institution has meant to us Jews. The twenty centuries of its existence have been coeval with the long-drawn tragedy of the Jew’s dispersal among the nations…. What kindliness and consideration we have received at the hands of Christianity has for the most part been tendered with the lure of the baptismal font. To the extent to which Christianity’s embodiment, the Church, has been puissant has the Jewish tragedy deepened. Only when and where the Church has been weak has life been tolerable for the Jew…. Hatred of the Jew, anti-Jewish outbursts and anti-Semitic campaigns, are traceable to nothing so surely as to antipathy to the Jew which has been inbred by Christianity…. There is thus precious little about which the Jew has for rejoicing and gladness in the institution of Christianity, etc.
The most cursory study of history would reveal the falseness of this contention. Antipathy to the Jew began long before the Christian era; in Egypt, Persia, and Rome he became, whether just or not, the object of suspicion to rulers. The reason given by Pharaoh for oppressing the Israelites was that if they were allowed to grow too powerful they might join themselves to the enemy in time of war; the Emperors of Rome regarded them as a turbulent element; Mohammed declared: “Their aim will be to abet disorder on the earth, but God loveth not the abettors of disorder.” Meanwhile, the antipathy shown by the “people” in every country was mainly based on economic grounds. It was not simply the possession of wealth–which according to the Socialist creed should justify any amount of hatred–but the manner in which it was acquired and the arrogance with which it was displayed that roused popular feeling against the Jews. An Arab Fakih, Abu Ishak of Elvira, thus warned his master of the growing power of the Jews in Spain in the middle of the eleventh century A.D.:
“The Jews, contemptible outcasts, have become great lords, and their pride and arrogance know no bounds…. Take not such men for thy ministers, but abandon them to curses, for the whole earth crieth out against them–ere long it will quake and we shall all perish. Turn thine eyes to other lands and behold how the Jews are treated as dogs, and kept apart….
I came to Granada, and there I beheld the Jews reigning. They had parcelled out the provinces and the capital between them: everywhere one of these accursed ruled. They collected the taxes, they made good cheer, they were sumptuously clad, while your garments, O Moslems, were old and worn-out. All the secrets of state were known to them; yet is it folly to put trust in traitors! While believers ate the bread of poverty, they dined delicately in the palace…. How can we thrive if we live in the shade and the Jews dazzle us with the glory of their pride?”
In mediæval France the chief cause for complaint against the Jews is that of not working with their hands but of enriching themselves by “excessive usury.” In the fifteenth century the Strasbourg preacher Geyler asks: “Are the Jews above the Christians? Why will they not work with their hands?… practising usury is not working. It is exploiting others whilst remaining idle.” Such quotations as these might be multiplied ad infinitum.
To attribute the persecution of the Jews to Christianity is therefore ludicrous. That in a less enlightened age the Church should have adopted rigorous measures–although no more rigorous than their own laws demanded–against those Jews who practised magic and witchcraft must appear deplorable to the modern mind, but so must many other phases of mediæval life. Why then hark back perpetually to the past? If the Jews were persecuted in a less enlightened age, so were many other sections of the community. Catholics were persecuted, Protestants were persecuted, men were placed in the stocks for minor offences, scolding women were ducked in the village pond. But if all these cruelties of the dark ages are to be remembered and perpetuated on the plan of a tribal blood-feud, what peace can there be for the world? The disastrous results of this tendency were seen in the Irish Intellectuals, nourished from infancy on the story of Ireland’s wrongs, who, instead of sanely facing present problems, unhinged their minds by brooding on historic grievances, thereby sealing their own doom and plunging their country into ruin. So, too, the enraged Feminists, harking back to injustices that had long ceased to exist, embittered their lives by proclaiming themselves the eternal enemies of Man. Emerson, the prophet of sanity, declared: “The only ballast I know is a respect to the present hour.” It is for lack of this ballast that the Jews have become victims of a fanaticism in which Christians from a mistaken idea of kindness have frequently encouraged them. In reality nothing is more cruel than to encourage in the minds of a nervous race the idea of persecution; true kindness to the Jews would consist in urging them to throw off memories of past martyrdom and to enter healthfully into the enjoyment of their present blessings, which are the direct outcome of Christian civilization.
Let us consider what Christianity has in reality done for the Jews. If so much is to be said about the persecutions they have endured, what of the extraordinary indulgence shown them as the result of Christian respect for the Bible? For hundreds of years Christian school children have been brought up on Old Testament history and Christian congregations have listened sympathetically to the story of Israel’s sufferings and hopes of final restoration. All the support lent to Zionism arose from this tradition. Christianity, then, so reviled by the Jews, has been their greatest protection. If Christianity goes, the whole theory that the Jews were once the Chosen People goes with it as far as Gentiles are concerned, and the Jewish race, divested of its halo of divine favour, will have to be judged on its own merits.
In our own country, the Chosen People theory has in fact been carried to the point of superstition–a superstition immensely advantageous to the Jews–which consists in interpreting the passage of Scripture containing the promise made to Abraham, “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curseth thee,” as meaning that favour shown to the Jews–who form merely a fraction of the seed of Abraham–brings with it peculiar blessings. In reality it would be easier to show by history that countries and rulers who have protected the Jews have frequently met with disaster. France banished the Jews in 1394 and again in 1615, and did not readmit them in large numbers till 1715-19, so that they were absent throughout the most glorious period in French history–the Grand Siècle of Louis XIV–whilst their return coincided with the Regency, from which moment the monarchy of France may be said to have declined. England likewise banished the Jews in 1290, and it was during the three and a half centuries they remained in exile that she was known as “Merrie England.” The fact that their return in force in 1664 was followed the next year by the Great Plague and the year after by the Great Fire of London would not appear to indicate that the Jews necessarily bring good fortune to the land that protects them. The truth is, of course, that kindness to any portion of the human race brings its own reward in the form of moral improvement in the individual or nation that performs it, but no more benefit attaches to philanthropy when exercised towards the Jew than towards the Chinaman.
I would urge, then, that the Jewish problem should be approached neither in the spirit of superstitious pro-Semitism nor in the bitter spirit of “anti-Semitism,” but with a sanity worthy of an enlightened age. To quote again the words of Bernard Lazare, let us enquire what part “the Jew, considering his spirit, his character, the nature of his philosophy and his religion,” may now be taking “in revolutionary processes and movements.” Is there, then, any evidence that there exists amongst Jewry to-day an organized conspiracy having for its objects world-domination and the destruction of Christianity such as the famous Protocols of the Elders of Zion suggest?
The theory of a Jewish world-conspiracy does not, of course, rest on the evidence of Protocols. To judge by the pæans of joy that rang through the press after the publication of the Times articles, one would imagine that with the so-called “refutation” of this one document the whole case against the Jews had collapsed and that the “anti-Semites” must be for ever silenced. But the arguments of the Jews and their friends go further than this; not only do they claim that there is no Jewish conspiracy, but no world-plot of any kind. This contention they had indeed maintained from the beginning, and Mr. Lucien Wolf, in his earliest “refutation” of the Protocols, derided the exponents of the secret-society danger as vehemently as he derided the perfidious author of the Jewish Peril. It will in fact always be noticed that references to the Illuminati meet with almost as much resentment from the Jewish press as allusions of a directly “anti-Semitic” character. Barruel, who refused to incriminate the Jews, and de Malet, who never referred to them at all, are denounced by Mr. Lucien Wolf no less as scaremongers than Gougenot des Mousseaux or Chabauty. To suggest that any Hidden Hand has ever been at work in the world is to raise immediately a storm of Jewish protest.
Yet intelligent Jews must be well aware that, whether secret societies have contributed as much to past revolutions as these writers believed, their existence and their very real influence is not a matter of surmise but of historical fact. No one ever warned the British public more distinctly of the danger they presented or of the role the Jews were playing in them than Disraeli, whose famous words have been quoted so frequently in this connexion: “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” What is this but a clear recognition of the Hidden Hand? Why, then, is Disraeli not included with Barruel, Robison, de Malet, and Des Mousseaux in Mr. Wolf’s list of scaremongers? Is it because Disraeli pointed the moral that, Jews being so dangerous, they should be employed?
If, then, leading Jews persist in villifying everyone who reiterates the warnings uttered by so eminent a member of their race, it is inevitable that they should come to be suspected of having some interest in suppressing further revelations.
Setting all such evidence as the Protocols completely aside, let us examine the reasons for believing in the exisence of a Jewish world-conspiracy. Now, we know for certain that the five powers before referred to–Grand Orient Masonry, Theosophy, Pan-Germanism, International Finance, and Social Revolution–have a very real existence and exercise a very definite influence on the affairs of the world. Here we are not dealing with hypothesis but with facts based on documentary evidence. We know in each case the names of many of the leaders, their methods of organization, their centres of direction, and the aims they are pursuing. But with regard to the Jewish power we cannot proceed with the same certainty. We cannot cite the names of the leaders or the centres of direction, we cannot produce documentary evidence as to their methods of organization or their final aims. The very existence of such a power, in the sense of a united and organized body of Jews working for the destruction of Christianity and the existing social system, is still a matter of speculation and not of known fact. Investigations into the activities of such groups as the B’nai B’rith, Poale Zion, the Jewish Bund, and the Weltverband (or Jewish International Union of Socialists), might however throw much light on this question. The custom of printing their pidgin German, known as Yiddish, in Hebrew characters provides the Jews with a more or less secret code by means of which their ideas and aspirations are concealed from the great mass of the Gentiles.
Whether then the Jewish power is unified or not, Jews are to be found co-operating with, if not directing, all the five powers of which the existence is known. Thus Jews have long played a leading part in Grand Orient Masonry and predominate in the upper degrees. As we have already seen, Freemasonry is always said to be subversive in Roman Catholic countries. It will also be noticed that in countries where Freemasonry is subversive, Jews are usually less conspicuous in the revolutionary movement than in countries where Freemasonry is either non-existent or constitutional. Thus in France the masonic peril is much more generally recognized than the Jewish peril; in Italy the Freemasons have been banned by Mussolini, but the Jews are not regarded by him as a particular danger; in Portugal it was the Freemasons rather than the Jews who made the recent revolutions. In Hungary, however, the revolutionaries were principally both Jews and Freemasons. On the other hand, in England, Germany, and America, where Freemasonry is not subversive, the Jewish question is more apparent. All this would suggest that either Freemasonry is the cover under which the Jews, like the Illuminati, prefer to work, so that where the cover is not available they are obliged to come out more into the open, or that Grand Orient Masonry is the directing power which employs Jews as agents in those countries where it cannot work on its own account.
The preponderance of Jews in the ranks of “Aurora” has already been indicated, as also the influence of the Jewish Cabala in the teaching of Theosophy and Rosicrucianism. But it is important that the latter point should be further emphasized in connexion with the craze for occultism that is spreading through society. Ragon has said: “The Cabala is the key of all occult sciences”; therefore in this field of experiment the Gentile must always be at a disadvantage with the Jew. Indeed Mr. Waite, who certainly cannot be suspected of “anti-Semitism,” goes so far as to suggest that the gift of ceremonial magic was “the answer of Jewry to Christendom as a counter-blast” to “centuries of persecution.” It would be well if every Gentile who has been tempted to dabble in occultism were to realize this source of inspiration.
The rôle of Jews in social revolution and particularly in Bolshevism hardly needs comment. Yet since the Jewish press has chosen to deny this last and very obvious fact and still persists in setting down to prejudice or “anti-Semitism” a mere statement of facts, it may be well to quote here a few official statements on the subject which admit of no denial.
First of all, it must be remembered that the founder and patron saint of Bolshevism was the Jew Karl Marx, and that it was the Anarchist Bakunin, not the Duke of Northumberland, who described him and his following in the Internationale as “the German-Jew Company” and the “red bureaucracy.” It was therefore not surprising that when the “red bureaucracy,” avowedly founded on the doctrines of Marx, came to be set up in Russia, it should have been largely led by Jews. This is what the official British White Paper has to say on the matter:
Extract from Report from the Netherlands Minister at Petrograd on the 6th of September, 1918, forwarded by Sir M. Findlay, at Christiania, to Mr. Balfour:
I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.*
Mr. Alston to Lord Curzon, quoting statement from British Consul at Ekaterinburg, January 23, 1919:
The Bolsheviks can no longer be described as a political party holding extreme communistic views. They form a relatively small privileged class which is able to terrorize the rest of the population because it has a monopoly both of arms and of food supplies. This class consists chiefly of workmen and soldiers, and includes a large non-Russian element, such as Letts and Esthonians and Jews; the latter are specially numerous in higher posts.
Lord Kilmarnock to Lord Curzon, quoting information given by Frenchman from Petrograd, February 3, 1919:
The Bolsheviks comprised chiefly Jews and Germans, who were exceedingly active and enterprising. The Russians were largely anti-Bolshevik, but were for the most part dreamers, incapable of any sustained action, who now, more than ever before, were unable to throw off the yoke of their oppressors.*
Mr. Alston to Lord Curzon, forwarding Report from Consul at Ekaterinburg of February 6, 1919:
From examination of several labourer and peasant witnesses, I have evidence to the effect that very smallest percentage of this district were pro-Bolshevik, majority of labourers sympathizing with summoning of Constituent Assembly. Witnesses further stated that Bolshevik leaders did not represent Russian working classes, most of them being Jews.
The Rev. B.S. Lombard to Lord Curzon, March 23, 1919:
I have been for ten years in Russia, and have been in Petrograd through the whole of the revolution…. [I] had ample opportunity of studying Bolshevik methods. It originated in German propaganda, and was, and is being, carried out by international Jews. The Germans initiated disturbances in order to reduce Russia to chaos. They printed masses of paper money to finance their schemes, the notes, of which I possess specimens, can be easily recognized by a special mark.
As one of the results, the writer adds:
All business became paralysed, shops were closed, Jews became possessors of most of the business houses, and horrible scenes of starvation became common in the country districts.
In Hungary (where, as has been said, Socialism had been propagated by Jews in the masonic lodges) the outbreak of Bolshevism was conducted under the auspices of the same race. To quote again an official document on this question, the Report on Revolutionary Activities issued by a Committee of the New York Legislature, headed by Senator Lusk:
There was no organized opposition to Bela Kun. Like Lenin, he surrounded himself with commissars, having absolute authority. Of the thirty-two principal commissars, twenty-five were Jews, which was about the same proportion as in Russia. The most prominent of these formed a directorate of five: Bela Kun, Bela Varga, Joseph Pogany, Sigmund Kunfi, and one other. Other leaders were Alpari and Samuely, who had charge of the Red Terror, and carried out the torturing and executing of the bourgeoisie, especially the groups held as hostages, the so-called counter-revolutionists and peasants.
The same Report publishes a list of seventy-six men prosecuted by the Committee on the charge of criminal anarchy in America at the beginning of 1920, of which the overwhelming majority are seen by their names to be Jewish.
These names speak for themselves and are published without comment on the obvious nationality of the majority of the persons concerned. So far indeed does the Lusk Committee appear to have been removed from “anti-Semitism,” that nowhere in its vast Report, running to 2008 pages, is attention drawn to the preponderance of Jews concerned in the revolutionary movement, except in the one passage on Hungary quoted above. The Lusk Report must therefore be regarded as an absolutely impartial statement of facts.
In view of these official data, how is it possible for the Jewish press to pretend that a connexion between Jews and Bolshevism is a malicious invention of the “anti-Semites”? That all Jews are not Bolsheviks and that all Bolsheviks are not Jews is of course obvious; but that Jews are playing a preponderating part in Bolshevism it is absurd to deny.
An attempt has been made to show that Jews have suffered as much as the rest of the population in Russia under Bolshevism and that the Jewish religion has met with the same hostility as the Christian faith. Doubtless many Jews have suffered in Russia, since human violence, once allowed to go unchecked, is liable to express itself in various unexpected ways, and the resentment of the Russian “proletariat” towards the Jews was bound to break out under Lenin as under the Tzar. Again, a campaign against Christianity inevitably led in Russia, as in France, to a campaign against all forms of religion, and the Jewish Bolsheviks, being atheists themselves, were doubtless as ready as Lambert of the French Revolution to turn against the believers in the faith they had abandoned.
Yet that the Jewish religion suffered to the same extent as Christianity, or that any organized campaign was conducted against it by the Government, is effectually disproved by the lamentations of professing Jews on the death of Lenin. Indeed, as is generally recognized, the fall of the Soviet Government must mean the downfall of the Jews from the position of privilege they now occupy.
That in our own country Jews are playing a part in the background of Bolshevism is again evident. The Patriot recently published a series of articles giving inside information on the organization of the revolutionary movement in Great Britain, where it was stated the whole plot was directed by a group of twelve men. This group in turn was controlled by three of its members. These three men, as the key revealed, were all Jews, so also was “the fiend in human form whose psychological perversion produced this plot,” and who was one of a group in America consisting of four Jews and a Jewess which controlled an outer revolutionary group of eighteen. The Irish Republican Brotherhood also maintained close relations with a ring of revolutionary Jews in America. Incidentally, it is curious to notice that the language employed in some of the correspondence that has passed between members of an inner group bears a strong resemblance to that of Weishaupt and his fellow-Illuminati.
Jewish influence in the less extreme forms of Socialism in this country is no less apparent. If the Labour Party is solidly pro-German, it is also solidly pro-Jewish. Whilst loudly proclaiming pacifism and pressing for the reduction of armaments, it has never uttered a word of protest against the employment of British troops to defend Jewish interests against the Arabs in Palestine. The blessed word Mesopotamia may be freely mentioned in connexion with the withdrawal of troops from military adventures, but never the word Palestine. Again, the free admission of aliens and particularly of Jews into this country has always been one of the principal planks in the Labour platform. Even the Jewish capitalist meets with indulgence at the hands of our Socialist Intellectuals, who whilst inveighing against British owners of property, never include Jewish millionaires in their diatribes.
This may perhaps throw some light on the question frequently propounded: How can one believe that Jews advocate Socialism since they stand to lose everything by it? The fact remains that many Jews do advocate it. After the recent accession of the Labour Party to office the Jewish World observed:
The result of the General Election in England is regarded as very gratifying by the Hebrew and Yiddish press. The Hebrew journals in Palestine, as well as the Hebrew and Yiddish organs in Europe and America, express satisfaction at the return to Parliament of men who have repeatedly assured the public of their intention to adhere to the Balfour declaration.
A further reason is advanced by the Jewish Courier for rejoicing at the downfall of the Conservative Government, namely, that “the election results have wiped out anti-Semitic remnants in England,” for “the Conservative Government does include several members who are far from favourably disposed towards Jews.” The indulgence shown to the Jews and the honours piled on them by Conservative statesmen therefore availed nothing to the Conservative cause, and the welfare of the whole country was subordinated to the interests of the Jews alone.
It is difficult at first to understand how the programme of the “Labour” Party, even when combined with ardent pro-Semitism, could however be in accord with the interests of the Jews, who have never displayed any hostility towards the Capitalist system which Socialism sets out to destroy. Indeed, we find the same Jewish paper which rejoiced at the advent of the present Government to office offering birthday congratulations to the richest Jew in this country, whose wealth, it goes on to observe with some complacency, “amounts to no less than £12,000,000 sterling, and is constantly increasing, apart from the interest that it brings, by the huge profits of the concerns in which he is interested.”
It would seem, then, that in the eyes of Jewry all capitalists are not to be regarded as monsters who should be mercilessly expropriated.
But in considering the war on Capitalism it is essential to bear in mind that capitalists are of two kinds: national industrial capitalists–largely Gentiles and usually men of brains and energy who have built up flourishing businesses–and international loan-mongering capitalists, principally, though not exclusively, Jews, who live by speculation. Whilst to the former, social unrest may prove fatal, to the latter any disturbances may provide opportunities for profit. As M. Georges Batault has well expressed it:
“From the strictly financial point of view, the most disastrous events of history, wars or revolutions, never represent catastrophes; the manipulators of money and the wary business men can make profit out of everything, provided they know beforehand and are well-informed…. It is certain that the Jews dispersed over all the surface of the earth … are particularly favourably situated in this respect.”
It is significant to notice that the capitalists most attacked by the Socialists and Pacifists are not those who make profit out of wars and revolutions, but those who contribute to the prosperity of the country and provide work for millions of people. Here, then, the Jews and the Socialists seem to find a point of agreement. It is evident, at any rate, that many rich Jews consider that they have nothing to fear from the threatened Capital Levy and other features of expropriation. Are we not irresistibly reminded of the passage in the Protocols–where incidentally the Capital Levy is specifically mentioned–“Ours they will not touch, because the moment of attack will be known to us and we shall take measures to protect our own”?
But let us consider further how the Socialist plan for “the nationalization of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange” might be reconciled even with the interests of Jewish Industrial Capitalists. The more we examine this magic formula which is to transform the world into a Paradise for the workers, the more we shall see that it approximates to the system of Super Capitalism, of which, as Werner Sombart has shown, the Jews were the principal inaugurators. Socialists are fond of explaining that “Capitalism” began with the introduction of steam; in reality, of course, Capitalism, in the sense of wealth accumulated in private hands, has always existed since the first savage made his store of winter food. What Socialists really mean by Capitalism is the modern system of Industrialism, which tends to concentrate all the means of production and distribution in the hands of individuals or groups, who, if they happen to be unscrupulous, are able by systematic sweating of the worker and bleeding of the consumer to conduct operations on so large a scale as to crush all competition by the home worker or the small tradesman.
Obviously, however, with the growing demand of the workers for better conditions of life and the increasing support lent to them by enlightened public opinion this possibility cannot continue indefinitely, and unless a violent convulsion takes place the time will come when great industrial magnates will have to content themselves with moderate profits on their outlay. Thus although at first sight it might appear that the Super-Capitalist must desire to maintain the existing order of things, if he is far-seeing he must realize that profiteering under present conditions must soon cease.
It is therefore conceivable that even the Jewish Industrial Capitalist may see in the nationalization of industry a preferable alternative to the limitation of profits under private enterprise. The same financial acumen and skill in management which has enabled him to control rings and trusts in the past would ensure him a place at the head of nationalized industries, which in effect would be nothing but gigantic trusts nominally under State control but really, like all State enterprises, in the hands of a few men. Under Socialism the position of these trusts would be rendered impregnable. For whilst under the present system any individual or group may set out to break a trust, no such competition would be possible in a State where private enterprise had been made illegal. The men in control of nationalized industries would therefore be able to exercise absolute authority both over the worker and the consumer. Further, if the worker can be persuaded to accept the ultimate scheme of Communism, which is compulsory labour in return for no monetary remuneration, but merely a daily ration of food and the other necessaries of life whenever State officials decide that he requires them, the directors of Labour, like the overseers in a slave plantation, will be able, as in Russia, to impose any conditions they please.
The Jews may well hope to occupy these posts, not only because of their aptitude for organization on so large a scale, but because their international relations would facilitate the sale or barter of goods between countries. The cohesion which exists amongst them would speedily lead to the monopolization of all the higher posts by members of their race.
It is idle to dismiss such a possibility as a chimera. This is what happened in Russia and is happening in Germany to-day. Here, then, we may find perhaps the inner meaning of a remark attributed to a prominent member of the Labour Party, that under Socialism a certain well-known Jewish capitalist might well be worth £10,000 a year. Lenin expressed much the same idea when he said that the Russian Soviet Republic might require a thousand first-class specialists “to direct the work of the people,” and that “these greatest ‘stars’ must be paid 25,000 roubles each,” or even four times that sum, supposing it were necessary to employ foreign specialists for the purpose.
But the Jewish capitalists doubtless see further that in England, as in Russia, this condition of things would be merely a temporary phase, and that the institution of Socialism by dispossessing the present Gentile owners of wealth and property would pave the way for a Jewish and German plutocracy. In Russia wealth has not been altogether destroyed; it has simply changed hands, and a class of new rich has sprung up which meets with no hostility from the professed advocates of equality. Those Jews who see in the Christian Intelligentsia the main obstacle to their dream of world-power, therefore naturally find in the promoters of class-warfare their most valuable allies. For the Christian Intelligentsia is the sole bare to the enslavement of the proletariat; most of the movements to redress the wrongs of the workers, from Lord Shaftesbury’s onwards, have arisen not amongst the workers themselves, but amongst the upper or middle classes; once these were swept away an iron bureaucracy would have the workers at their mercy. I do not say this is the plan, but I do say that such a hypothesis provides a reason for the otherwise unaccountable indulgence displayed by Socialists everywhere towards wealthy Jews and at the same time for the huge funds the Socialists appear to have at their disposal.
If big financiers are not at their back, I repeat: where does all the money come from? It seems unlikely that it can be derived from the British owners of wealth and property whom the Socialists are openly out to dispossess; the only body of financiers which can therefore be suspected of contributing towards this end is the body known as “International Finance,” which is mainly, though not exclusively, Jewish.
The influence of the Jews in all the five great powers at work in the world–Grand Orient Masonry, Theosophy, Pan-Germanism, International Finance, and Social Revolution–is not a matter of surmise but of fact. Let us now examine what part they are playing in the minor subversive movements enumerated in an earlier chapter.
Freud, the inventor of the most dangerous form of Psycho-Analysis, is a Jew. In this connexion the eminent American neuro-psychiatrist before quoted writes:
Not only the Freud theory of psycho-analysis but a considerable quantity of pseudo-scientific propaganda of that type has for years been emanating from a group of German Jews who live and have their headquarters in Vienna. From its inception, psycho-analysis has been in Jewish hands. There are not half a dozen physicians in the whole world, recognized as authorities in this field, whose names are identified with this movement who are not Jews. This may have been an accident, but nevertheless it is a fact.
I have already referred in an earlier chapter to the question of degenerate art defined in a circular to the New York Herald as “the deification of ugliness.” The originators of this cult are here described as a group of Satan worshippers in Paris, and the dealers by whom the movement was propagated as “Germans,” but we note amongst the lenders to the exhibition at which these “works of art” were displayed several Jewish names. Of one well-known Jewish artist a critic has written:
Were these works the product of a man who had imperfect control over his material, who, in stumbling towards the light, dwelt inevitably upon much darkness, who sought for beauty and found ugliness, who looked for purity and found filth–even then one might be silent and hope for better things to come. But here, apparently, unless my whole reading is ludicrously wrong, he delights in deformity and glories in degradation…. He brings to the world of art a new gospel, a black gospel, a gospel in which everything is to be inverted and distorted. Whatsoever things are hideous, whatsoever things are of evil report, whatsoever things are sordid: if there be any unhealthiness or any degradation: think on these things.
What better résumé could be given of that tendency to perversion denounced by the prophet Isaiah in the words: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness”? An organ of the Jewish press, with that sense of solidarity which always rallies Jews to the defence of their compatriots however culpable, immediately detects in the critic’s expression of opinion the insidious work of “anti-Semitism.” A more enlightened Jew, Mr. Frank L. Emanuel, however, having come to the support of the Gentile critic, the Jewish journal is obliged to admit the justice of his contention that “it is lamentable to think of the undue proportion of young Jews” who “have joined the Revolutionary or sham ‘Modern Art’ movement in this country.”
The same influence will be noticed in the cinema world, where, as has already been pointed out, history is systematically falsified in the interests of class hatred, and everything that can tend, whilst keeping within the present law, to undermine patriotism or morality is pressed upon the public. And the cinema trade is almost entirely in the hands of the Jews.
In the drug traffic Jews are playing a prominent part both here and in America. An eminent New York doctor writes to me as follows:
Members of the Federal narcotic squad attached to the Treasury Department and having the function of enforcing the provisions of the Harrison Act have long been convinced that there is a direct relationship between Radicalism and narcotism. From seven to ten years ago this was thought to be a manifestation of pan-German propaganda. Activity was and still is greater on the part of the distributors and pedlars than is to be accounted for by the large profits, according to their story. Curiously enough, the traffic largely stopped for several weeks following the signing of the Armistice.
In one instance, seven regularly licensed physicians of the “East Side,” all Jews, were arrested in succession during the summer of 1920 for illegitimate use of narcotic prescriptions, and every office raided had large quantities of Radical literature. Such associations are not uncommon.
As to the distribution, a recent investigation by Hearst’s Magazine definitely revealed the fact that the illegitimate distributors were almost invariably of the Jewish race, and that the pedlars were exclusively Jewish and Italian.
Enough, then, has been said to show that, whether as agents or as principals, Jews are playing a part in all subversive movements. A Christian Jew, no renegade to his race but deeply concerned for their future development, said recently to the present writer: “The growing materialism amongst Jews has made them the most destructive force in the world. The only hope for them is to accept Christianity. At present they are the greatest danger that Christian civilization has to face.”
The recognition of all these facts does not of course imply the belief that all Jews are destructive. Undoubtedly there are good and loyal Jews–particularly in France, where the Sephardim predominate–who have absolutely identified themselves with the country of their adoption, and are sincerely opposed to Bolshevism. But these isolated individuals carry little weight compared to the massed forces of subversive Jewry. The same thing was observed in America, where a report privately communicated to the present writer in 1923 stated:
It appears not without significance that Radical literature is never anti-Semitic, but, on the contrary, manifestoes issued by the Executive Committee of the Communist Party are often emphatically pro-Jewish. So far as I know, there is not one exclusively Jewish organization in the United States which is openly and consistently fighting Radicalism. Conservative Judaism loyal to the United States and its institutions as conceived by its founders is unorganized and inarticulate.
When, therefore, the Jewish press protests at the injustice of associating Jews with Bolshevism it may be legitimately answered: What has Jewry done collectively to disassociate itself from Bolshevism? What official protests has the Jewish press uttered against any subversive movement except when Jewish interests were threatened? Has it not, on the contrary, denounced all patriotic efforts to oppose the forces of destruction whenever such efforts necessitated the exposure of the corrupt elements in Jewry?
But these tactics have not been confined to the Jewish press alone. The general press of this country, over which the Jews exercise an increasing control, has followed the same policy. This process of penetration began long ago on the Continent. As early as 1846 an English missionary to the Jews in Berlin wrote:
Independently of the fifteen exclusively Jewish journals of Germany, four of which have made their appearance since the beginning of the present year, the daily political press of Europe is very much under the dominion of the Jews; as literary contributors, they influence almost every leading Continental newspaper, and as controversy seems to be their native air, and they bring into the field mental energies of no ordinary stamp, they find no lack of employment, and if any literary opponent ventures to endeavour to arrest the progress of Judaism to political power, he finds himself held up to public notice, and exposed to attack after attack in most of the leading journals of Europe. Such … was the lot of a Roman Catholic priest of Prague, who lately wrote a pamphlet entitled Guter Rath für Zeit der Noth, directed against the advancing power of Judaism. And such is my conviction of the extent of the participation the Jews take in the everyday literature of Germany, that I never pass by a crowded reading-room, but what I think I see standing behind the scenes a Jew, causing new ideas to rise and stir, and develop themselves in the unsuspecting mind of the Gentile.
Do we not see the same methods being pursued with still greater vigour to-day? It would not be an exaggeration to say that there is hardly a periodical in this country with the exception of The Patriot that dares to speak out freely on questions in which the interests of Jews are involved.
The fact is that the whole educational as well as the whole political and social world is permeated with Jewish influence. Every man in public life, every modern politician, to whatever party he belongs, seems to find it de rigueur to have his confidential Jewish adviser at his elbow, just as in the Middle Ages a prince had his Jewish doctor always at hand to mix his potions and ensure him long life. This appears to be owing not only to the utility of the Jew in financing projects, but to the almost universal belief in the superior intelligence of the Jewish race which the Jew has succeeded in implanting in the Gentile mind.
But the time has come to ask: Is the Jew really the super-man we have been taught to consider him? On examination we shall find that in the present as in the past his talents are displayed principally along two lines–financial and occult. Usurers in the Middle Ages, financiers to-day, the Jews have always excelled in the making and manipulating of wealth. And just as at the former period they were the great masters of magic, so at the present time they are the masters of the almost magical art of gaining control over the mind both of the individual and of the public.
Yet in the realms of literature, philosophy, painting, sculpture, politics, and even science, Jews will be found frequently occupying the second or third ranks, and only very seldom the first. Heine may be cited as a poet of the first order, Spinoza as a philosopher, Disraeli as a statesman, but it would be difficult to prolong the list. On the stage and in music alone can the Jews be said to have proved absolutely the equals of their Gentile competitors. The fact is that the Jew is not usually a man of vast conceptions, nor is he endowed with great originality of mind; his skill consists rather in elaborating or in adapting other men’s ideas and rendering them more effectual. Thus the most important inventions of modern times have not been made by Jews, but have been frequently improved by them. Neither James Watt, Stephenson, Marconi, Edison, Pasteur, nor Madame Curie were of the Jewish race, and the same might be said of nearly all the greatest men who have lived since the dawn of our civilization. Napoleon was not a Jew, nor was Shakespeare, nor Bacon, nor Sir Isaac Newton, nor Michael Angelo, nor Leonardo da Vinci, nor Galileo, nor Dante, nor Descartes, nor Molière, nor Emerson, nor Abraham Lincoln, nor Goethe, nor Kant, nor even Machiavelli. Thrown on their own resources, what civilization were the Jews able to create? Whilst Egypt, Greece, and Rome have left immortal monuments, what monuments has Palestine bequeathed to the world?
The Jews, then, provide a high average of cleverness, but have they ever during the last two thousand years produced one mighty genius? Moreover, against this high average of intelligence must be set an equally high average of mental derangement. On this point we have the evidence of the Jewish Encyclopædia:
The Jews are more subject to diseases of the nervous system than the other races and peoples among which they dwell. Hysteria and neurasthenia appear to be most frequent. Some physicians of large experience among Jews have even gone so far as to state that most of them are neurasthenic and hysterical. Tobler claims that all the Jewish women in Palestine are hysterical; and Raymond says that in Warsaw, Poland, hysteria is very frequently met with among both Jewish men and Jewish women. The Jewish population of that city alone is almost exclusively the inexhaustible source for the supply of hysterical males for the clinics of the whole Continent (L’Etude des Maladies du Système Nerveux en Russie). As regards Austria and Germany, the same neurotic taint of the Jews has been emphasized by Krafft, Ebbing, etc…. In New York it has been shown by Collins that among 333 cases of neurasthenia which came under his observation, more than 40 per cent, were of Jewish extraction, etc.
The same American neuro-psychiatrist already quoted attributes the predominance of Jews in the revolutionary movement in America largely to this cause:
Anarchists have been developed largely from the criminal classes, and a belief in anarchy, per se, is a psychopathic manifestation. A student of anarchy, therefore, would not only be obliged to cover the field of criminology, but its more significant and important background, psycho-pathology. Some anarchists are actually insane, while others show marked psychological deficiencies. Under our laws as they are now framed, they cannot be restrained unless they commit acts of violence.
As it is, our asylums are filled with this class, and that introduces another phase of the matter. Our asylum insane are largely recruited from the Jewish race, at least recruited in tremendous disproportion to their number in the population. The fact that the revolutionary movement is so largely made up of Jewish elements furnishes an interesting confirmation of what I have said.
The Jewish World, recently commenting on the “generally admitted” fact that “the percentage of mental disorders among Jews is much greater than among non-Jews,” asks: “Is the cause inherent, that is to say, is there a racial disposition towards degeneracy, or is it the result of the external conditions and causes?” The writer goes on to refer to an article in the Zukunft which supports the view that the terrible experiences of the Jews in the Middle Ages have affected their nervous system, and therefore that the cause of mental derangement amongst them “is not due to racial disposition, is not an ethnic principle, but is the result of the tragic lot of the Jewish people.” It might perhaps be traced more surely to the habit of brooding on that tragic lot. At any rate, it is curious to notice that the two symptoms recognized in the first stages of “general paralysis of the insane,” the mania that one is the object of persecution and “exalted ideas” (known in France as the folie des grandeurs), are the two obsessions that the Talmud and the Cabala with their dreams of world-domination under an avenging Messiah have inculcated in the mind of the Jew.
But whatever are the causes of this neurosis, it is surely undesirable that a race which exhibits it should be allowed to control the destinies of the British Empire or indeed of any country. If “all the Jewish women in Palestine are hysterical,” presumably many of their menkind suffer from the same disability, which certainly does not promise well for the luckless Arab who is to live beneath their sway. How much of the trouble that has occurred already in Palestine may be attributed to this cause it is impossible to know. The increasing number of Jews in positions of authority in England presents, however, a far greater subject for alarm. Jews and Arabs are at any rate both Semites and may be expected to have certain ideas in common, but to place a highly civilized Aryan race under Semitic control is another matter. The time has come for every Briton to ask himself whether he seriously desires to see the traditions of his country, those great traditions of honour, integrity, and justice which have made the name of England great, replaced by Oriental standards. I do not say that there are no honourable and upright Jews, but I do maintain that the spirit of fair play which is the essence of the British character is not the characteristic of the Jewish race in general. The complete absence of this spirit shown in the attempts of agitators to suppress free speech during elections cannot be attributed to English working-men–whose “sporting” instinct is highly developed–and testifies to the alien character of the so-called Labour movement. If England loses the spirit of fair play, she will have lost her most priceless national heritage.
Conservatism, which has always stood for these great traditions, allows itself to be hypnotized by the memory of Disraeli and accepts his dictum that “the natural tendency of the Jews is to Conservatism”–hence the advisability of placing Jews in control of its interests. The late Mr. Hyndman saw further when he warned us that “those who are accustomed to look upon all Jews as essentially practical and conservative, as certain, too, to enlist on the side of the prevailing social system, will be obliged to reconsider their conclusions.” The causes of the recent débâcle of the Conservative Government are still obscure, but the fact remains that it was precisely at a moment when Conservative organization had passed largely into Jewish hands that Conservatism met with the most astounding disaster in the whole of its history. If the manner in which Conservative propaganda was conducted at this moment was an example of Jewish efficiency, it might be well to consider whether on a future occasion the task should not be confided into the hands of simple Britons.
The only effectual way of combating Socialism is to show up the alien influences behind it. As long as the working man believes it to be the outcome of a genuine British labour movement, he will turn a deaf ear to all warnings and anti-Socialist propaganda will merely serve to drive more recruits into the Socialist camp. But let him once suspect that he is being made the tool of foreign intrigue, and all his national feeling will assert itself. We have only to ask him whether he wants his work taken from him by the import of alien goods, his housing accommodation appropriated by alien immigrants, finally to make him understand who are the people behind the scenes advocating a policy so disastrous to his true interests, in order to gain his support. The Secret Service has overwhelming evidence on this last point, which under a Conservative Government might have been made public, but unseen influences in high places have ordained its suppression. The slogan “Britain for the Britons,” that would form the strongest counterblast to the false slogans of Socialism, has been barred from Conservative platforms and the very word “alien” avoided lest it should offend Jewish susceptibilities. Thus out of deference to the Jews, Conservatism allows its most powerful weapon to rust in its armoury.
In reality these tactics avail nothing to the Conservative cause. The great weight of Jewry will never be thrown into the scale of true Conservatism; only in so far as Conservatism abandons its patriotic traditions and compromises with the forces of Internationalism will it win any considerable Jewish support. We have but to follow the commitments on current politics in the Jewish press in order to realize that the only standard by which the Jews judge of any political party is the measure in which it will confer exclusive advantages on their own race. The Jewish question, therefore, does not turn on whether the Jews shall be accorded everywhere equal rights with the rest of mankind, but whether they shall be placed above the law, whether they shall be allowed to occupy everywhere a privileged position. Nothing less will satisfy them, and any attempt to oppose this claim will always be met by them with the cry of “persecution.” Further, this position of privilege represents to a section of Jewry merely a stage on the road to world-domination. For if, as we have seen by documentary evidence, this plan has always existed in the past, is it likely that it has been abandoned at the very moment which seems most propitious for its realization? The trend of present events and the tone of the Jewish press certainly do not warrant any such conclusion.
To sum up, then, I do not think that the Jews can be proved to provide the sole cause of world-unrest. In order to establish this contention we should be obliged to show the Jews to have been the authors of every past social convulsion in the history of modern civilization, to discover their influence behind the heretical sects of Islam, as behind the Bavarian Illuminati and the Anarchists of Russia. In the absence of any such conclusive evidence we must therefore recognize the existence of other destructive forces at work in the world.
But this is not to underrate the importance of the Jewish peril. Although the existence of an inner circle of Masonic “Elders” remains problematical, Jewry in itself constitutes the most effectual Freemasonry in the world. What need of initiations, or oaths, or signs, or passwords amongst people who perfectly understand each other and are everywhere working for the same end? Far more potent than the sign of distress that summons Freemasons to each other’s aid at moments of peril is the call of the blood that rallies the most divergent elements in Jewry to the defence of the Jewish cause.
The old complaint of the French merchants already quoted would thus appear to be justified, that “the Jews are particles of quicksilver, which at the least slant run together into a block.” One must therefore not be deceived by the fact that they often appear disunited. There may be, and indeed is, very little unity amongst Jews, but there is immense solidarity. A Jew named Morel, referring to the persecution of the converted Rabbi Drach by the Jews, observes:
What can the wisest measures of the authorities of all countries do against the vast and permanent conspiracy of a people which, like a network as vast as it is strong, stretched over the whole globe, brings its force to bear wherever an event occurs that interests the name of Israelite?
It is this solidarity that constitutes the real Jewish Peril and at the same time provides the real cause of “anti-Semitism.” If in a world where all patriotism, all national traditions, and all Christian virtues are being systematically destroyed by the doctrines of International Socialism one race alone, a race that since time immemorial has cherished the dream of world-power, is not only allowed but encouraged to consolidate itself, to maintain all its national traditions, and to fulfil all its national aspirations at the expense of other races, it is evident that Christian civilization must be eventually obliterated. The wave of anti-Jewish feeling that during the last few years has been passing over this country has nothing in common with the racial hatred that inspires the “anti-Semitism” of Germany; it is simply the answer to a pretension that liberty-loving Britons will not admit. Those of us who, sacrificing popularity and monetary gain, dare to speak out on this question have no hatred in our hearts, but only love for our country. We believe that not only our national security but our great national traditions are at stake, and that unless England awakens in time she will pass under alien domination and her influence as the stronghold of Christian civilization will be lost to the world.
We have now followed the course of associations working throughout nineteen centuries to undermine social and moral order and above all Christian civilization. We have also seen that although on the one hand the unholy spirit of destruction and on the other the natural spirit of revolt against oppression have always existed independently of any organization, it is to secret societies using and organizing these forces that the revolutionary movement has owed its success. Further, we have considered the possibility that behind both open and secret subversive societies there may exist a hidden centre of direction, and finally we have observed that at the present time many lines of investigation reveal a connexion between these groups and the Grand Orient, or rather with an invisible circle concealed behind that great masonic power. At the same time this circle is clearly not French in character since everywhere the activities of World Revolution are directed against France and England but seldom against Germany and never against the Jews. It would not be an exaggeration to say that no subversive movement in the world to-day is either pro-French, pro-British, or “anti-Semitic.” We must conclude then that if one Power controls the rest it is either the Pan-German Power, the Jewish Power or what we can only call Illuminism.
This last hypothesis is one that deserves serious consideration. In the light of our present knowledge it does not appear impossible that if an inner circle of World Revolution exists it consists of a purely International group of men whose aim is that of Weishaupt–the destruction of the present system of society. That such an aim can be seriously entertained is shown by the fact that it is openly proclaimed by a whole school of writers and thinkers ranging from gentle Idealists to ferocious Anarchists who, whilst widely differing as to methods and the ultimate ends to be attained, are agreed on the common purpose expressed by Rabaud de Saint-Étienne in the words: “Everything, yes, everything must be destroyed, since everything must be re-made.”
It is idle to say that so insane a project can present no danger to the world; the fact remains that an increasing number of people regard it with perfect equanimity. The phrase: “All civilizations have passed away; ours will doubtless pass away likewise,” is continually to be heard on the lips of apparently sane men and women who, whether they advocate such an eventuality or not, seem prepared to accept it in a spirit of complete fatalism and to put up no resistance. The point they ignore is that when civilization existed only in isolated spots on the earth’s surface it might pass away in one spot only to spring to life in another, but now that civilization is world-wide the dream of a return to nature and the joys of savagery conjured up by Rousseau and Weishaupt can never be realized. Yet if civilization in a material sense cannot be destroyed, it is none the less possible to take the soul out of it, to reduce it to a dead and heartless machine without human feelings or divine aspirations. The Bolsheviks continue to exist amidst telephones, electric light, and other amenities of modern life, but they have almost killed the soul of Russia. In this sense then civilization may pass away, not as the civilizations of the ancient world passed away, leaving only desert sands and crumbling ruins behind them, but vanishing imperceptibly from beneath the outward structure of our existing institutions. Here is the final goal of world revolution.
If, then, one inner circle exists, composed of Illuminati animated by a purely destructive purpose it is conceivable that they might find support in those Germans who desire to disintegrate the countries of the Allies with a view to future conquests, and in those Jews who hope to establish their empire on the ruins of Christian civilization–hence the superb organization and the immense financial resources at the disposal of the world revolutionaries. On the other hand it may be that the hidden centre of direction consists in a circle of Jews located in the background of the Grand Orient, or perhaps, like the early nineteenth-century Illuminati, located nowhere but working in accord and using both Pan-Germans and Gentile Illuminati as their tools.
On this point I think it would be dangerous at present to dogmatize. But that the problem is capable of elucidation I have no doubt whatever. If the Secret Services of the world had chosen to co-ordinate and make public the facts in their possession the whole plot might long since have been laid bare. A “Department for the Investigation of Subversive Movements” should have had a place in every ordered government. This might have been created by the recent Conservative Government in England, but the same mysterious influence that protected the enemy during the Great War has throughout prevented disclosures that would have enlightened the country on the real nature of the peril confronting it. In the present state of European politics the only course open to those who would save civilization is to act independently of governments, and form a counter-organization in each country with unofficial bureaux of information maintaining relations with each other, yet each retaining its national character.
As far as this country is concerned I am convinced that only a great national movement can save us from destruction–a movement in which men of all classes and above all of the working-class will take part. Fascismo triumphed in Italy, because it was not, as it has been absurdly represented, a reactionary movement, but because it was essentially democratic and progressive, because by appealing to the noblest instincts in human nature, to patriotism and self-sacrifice, it rallied all elements in a disorganized and disunited nation around the standard of a common cause.
One cannot bring about any great movement without first kindling a sacred fire in the hearts of men; one cannot move masses of people merely by appealing to self-interest; they must have a cause to fight for, a cause that is not entirely their own. Socialism, whilst enlisting a large proportion of its following by appealing to their baser instincts, has nevertheless, by its false ideals and promises, been able to kindle a fire in many generous hearts, and to persuade deluded enthusiasts that they are working for the welfare of humanity. The only way to combat Socialism is to create counter enthusiasm for a true ideal.
Yet even Mussolini found that a purely secular ideal was not enough, and that the spirit of religious fervour was necessary to defeat the spirit of materialism and destruction. For behind the concrete forces of revolution–whether Pan-German, Judaic, or Illuminist–beyond that invisible secret circle which perhaps directs them all, is there not yet another force, still more potent, that must be taken into account? In looking back over the centuries at the dark episodes that have marked the history of the human race from its earliest origins–strange and horrible cults, waves of witchcraft, blasphemies, and desecrations–how is it possible to ignore the existence of an Occult Power at work in the world? Individuals, sects, or races fired with the desire of world-domination, have provided the fighting forces of destruction, but behind them are the veritable powers of darkness in eternal conflict with the powers of light.