Truth is only hateful to those who hate the truth.
Visits per city

Dickinson (ND) 384 Hits: 6.36%

Minneapolis (MN) 185 Hits: 3.06%

Macon (MO) 78 Hits: 1.29%

Chicago (IL) 55 Hits: 0.91%

Dallas (TX) 51 Hits: 0.84%

Phoenix (AZ) 45 Hits: 0.75%

Livonia (MI) 44 Hits: 0.73%

Houston (TX) 43 Hits: 0.71%

Montreal (QC) 41 Hits: 0.68%

Atlanta (GA) 37 Hits: 0.61%

Angola (IN) 35 Hits: 0.58%

Orlando (FL) 33 Hits: 0.55%

Wetumpka (AL) 32 Hits: 0.53%

Los Angeles (CA) 32 Hits: 0.53%

Edmonton (AB) 31 Hits: 0.51%

San Antonio (TX) 30 Hits: 0.50%

Ashburn (VA) 30 Hits: 0.50%

New York (NY) 29 Hits: 0.48%

Miami (FL) 29 Hits: 0.48%

Hellevoetsluis (ZH) 28 Hits: 0.46%

Social Media
Founder & Owner
Follow
Subscription Form

Get notified of updates and join my struggle

American Pravda: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

A Chinese Perspective on the Protocols

Last week I published a long article on the growing global confrontation between China and America, comparing their relative strengths with regard to economic, technological, and military factors. My assessment drew very heavily upon the writings of a retired Chinese business executive named Hua Bin, whose recent posts on his Substack I cited and excerpted.

Hua seemed a very knowledgeable and level-headed individual, and I found most of his analysis and his factual claims quite persuasive, with many of these strongly matching my own views from the last few years. Although some Westerners might strongly challenge his positions, I thought that almost none of his posts would be considered bizarre or irrational.

  • American Pravda: China vs. America
    A Comprehensive Review of the Economic, Technological, and Military Factors
    Ron Unz • The Unz Review • January 13, 2025 • 14,200 Words

However, there was one major exception to this pattern. As I wrote:

All of these Substack posts were written by an obviously intelligent and very well-educated Chinese author, and although many of the specific details might be sharply disputed by some of his mainstream Western counterparts, I doubt that any of the material presented would be regarded as shocking or unacceptably extremist.

However, the ideological taboos of Chinese society differ considerably from those of our own, and as a result some of the other posts he published during the first half of December fell into an entirely different category. Despite our boastful claims that we live in a free society, any mainstream Western academic, government official, journalist, or business leader who publicly expressed such controversial ideas would immediately be purged from respectability and probably would have his career and reputation destroyed, while perhaps even be facing imprisonment in some countries or de-banking with confiscation of his financial assets. As I’ve sometimes mentioned in my writings, such harsh social sanctions are related to a shrewd observation widely misattributed to Voltaire:

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

The titles of Hua’s posts indicated their incendiary content:

He opened his first post by setting forth his position in very clear terms:

After a year of observing the utter criminality and inhumanity of Israel’s actions in the Middle East, I have decided to investigate the origins of its dark national/racial/religious ethos from historical documents.

There seems to be numerous sources to draw insights from and there are many interesting analytical perspectives one can take, including –

  • The relationship between the decline of the west and the rise of the jews in western political establishment, especially in the US
  • The complete convergence of Zionism and neoconservatism to the point they are now interchangeable concepts
  • The roles played by the jews in the increasing militarism and jingoism in the west
  • The surprising (maybe not so surprising) similarities and parallel of Zionist ideologies and actions with the Nazis

One interesting piece of historical records seems a good place to start to understand Judaism and Zionism – the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

As an outside observer completely free from generations of our own intense ideological conditioning, the author simply went through numerous elements of that notorious early twentieth century document and noted how many of these seemed eerily similar to exactly what had taken place in the West since that time, especially with regard to the successful political strategies employed by our very powerful Jewish and Zionist minorities.

Henry Ford, The International Jew, and the Protocols

I’ve read the Protocols a couple of times, most recently a half-dozen years ago for a 2018 article that extensively discussed that topic. That same article had also focused upon The International Jew, an early 1920s series published by billionaire industrialist Henry Ford that had introduced the Protocols to the American public. As I’d explained in my article:

Ford himself was a very interesting individual, and his world-historical role certainly received very scanty coverage in my basic history textbooks. Although the exact reasons for his decision to raise his minimum wage to $5 per day in 1914—double the existing average pay for industrial workers in America—can be disputed, it certainly seems to have played a huge role in the creation of our middle class. He also adopted a highly paternalistic policy of providing good company housing and other amenities to his workers, a total departure from the “Robber Baron” capitalism so widely practiced at that time, thereby establishing himself as a world-wide hero to industrial workers and their advocates. Indeed, Lenin himself had regarded Ford as a towering figure in the world’s revolutionary firmament, glossing over his conservative views and commitment to capitalism and instead focusing on his remarkable achievements in worker productivity and economic well-being. It is a forgotten detail of history that even after Ford’s considerable hostility to the Russian Revolution became widely known, the Bolsheviks still described their own industrial development policy as “Fordism.” Indeed, it was not unusual to see portraits of Lenin and Ford hanging side-by-side in Soviet factories, representing the two greatest secular saints of the Bolshevik pantheon.

As for The Dearborn Independent, Ford had apparently launched his newspaper on a national basis not long after the end of the war, intending to focus on controversial topics, especially those related to Jewish misbehavior, whose discussion he believed was being ignored or suppressed by nearly all mainstream media outlets. I had been aware that he had long been one of the wealthiest and most highly-regarded individuals in America, but I was still astonished to discover that his weekly newspaper, previously almost unknown to me, had reached a total national circulation of 900,000 by 1925, ranking it as the second largest in the country and by far the biggest with a national distribution. I found no easy means of examining the contents of a typical issue, but apparently the anti-Jewish articles of the first couple of years had been collected and published as short books, together constituting the four volumes of The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem, a notoriously anti-Semitic work occasionally mentioned in my history textbooks. Eventually my curiosity got the best of me, so I clicked a few buttons on Amazon.com, bought the set, and wondered what I would discover.

Although subsequently purged from Amazon, that series is available on this website in convenient HTML format.

After discussing the general contents of the Ford series, I focused upon its most controversial articles, namely those presenting and analyzing the Protocols.

As mentioned, the overwhelming majority of The International Jewseemed a rather bland recitation of complaints about Jewish misbehavior. But there was one major exception, which has a very different impact upon our modern mind, namely that the writer took quite seriously The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Probably no “conspiracy theory” in modern times has been subjected to such immense vilification and ridicule as the Protocols, but a voyage of discovery often acquires a momentum of its own, and I became curious about the nature of that infamous document.

Apparently, the Protocols first came to light during the last decade of the 19th century, and the British Museum stored a copy in 1906, but it attracted relatively little attention at the time. However, all this changed after the Bolshevik Revolution and toppling of many other long-standing governments at the end of the First World War led many people to seek a common cause behind so many enormous political upheavals. From my distance of many decades, the text of the Protocols strikes me as rather bland and even dull, describing in rather long-winded fashion a plan of secret subversion aimed at weakening the bonds of the social fabric, setting groups against each other, gaining control over political leaders by bribery and blackmail, and eventually restoring society along rigidly hierarchical lines with an entirely new group in control. Admittedly, there were many shrewd insights into politics or psychology, notably the enormous power of the media and the benefits of advancing political front-men who were deeply compromised or incompetent and hence easily controllable. But nothing else really jumped out at me.

Perhaps one reason I found the text of the Protocols so uninspiring is that over the century since its publication, these notions of diabolical plots by hidden groups have become such a common theme in our entertainment media, with countless thousands of spy novels and science fiction stories presenting something similar, though these usually involve far more exciting techniques, such as a super-weapon or a powerful drug. If some Bond villain proclaimed his intent to conquer the world merely through simple political subversion, I suspect that such a film would immediately die at the box office.

But back one hundred years ago, these were apparently exciting and novel notions, and I actually found the discussion of the Protocols in many of the chapters of The International Jew far more interesting and informative than reading the text itself. The author of the Ford books appropriately treated it as any other historical document, dissecting its content, speculating on its provenance, and wondering whether or not it was what it purported to be, namely an approximate record of the statements of a group of conspirators pursuing mastery over the world, with those conspirators seeming to be an elite fraternity of international Jews.

Other contemporaries took the Protocolsvery seriously as well. The august Times of London fully endorsed it, before later retracting that position under heavy pressure, and I’ve read that more copies were published and sold in the Europe of that era than any other book save the Bible. The Bolshevik government of Russia paid the volume its own sort of deep respect, with mere possession of the Protocolswarranting immediate execution.

Although The International Jew concludes that the Protocols were probably genuine, I doubt that likelihood based upon the style and presentation. Browsing around on the Internet a dozen years ago, I discovered quite a variety of different opinions even within the precincts of the Far Right, where such matters were freely discussed. I remember some forum writer somewhere characterizing the Protocols as “based upon a true story,” suggesting that someone who was generally familiar with the secretive machinations of elite international Jews against the existing governments of Czarist Russia and other countries had drafted the document to outline his view of their strategic plans, and such an interpretation seems perfectly plausible to me.

Another reader somewhere claimed that the Protocols were pure fiction but quite significant nonetheless. He argued that the very keen insights into the methods by which a small conspiratorial group can quietly corrupt and overthrow powerful existing regimes arguably ranked the work alongside Plato’s The Republic and Machiavelli’s The Prince as one of the three great classics of Western political philosophy, earning it a place on the required reading list of every Political Science 101 course. Indeed, the author of Ford’s books emphasizes that there are very few mentions of Jews anywhere in the Protocols, and all the implied connections to Jewish conspirators could be completely struck from the text without affecting its content whatsoever.

Once again, the Protocols has been purged from Amazon but I’ve made the full text available on this website in convenient HTML format.

And ironically enough, the most lasting cultural legacy of the widespread anti-Jewish agitation of the 1920s may be the least recognized. As mentioned above, modern readers might find the text of the Protocols rather boring and bland, almost like they had been cribbed from the extremely long-winded monologue of one of the diabolical villains of a James Bond story. But it wouldn’t surprise me if there were actually an arrow of causality in the opposite direction. Ian Fleming created this genre in the early 1950s with his string of international best-sellers, and it is interesting to speculate about the source of his ideas.

Fleming had spent his youth during the 1920s and 1930s when the Protocolswere among the most widely read books in much of Europe and leading British newspapers of the highest credibility were recounting the successful plots of Schiff and other international Jewish bankers to overthrow the government of Britain’s Czarist ally and replace it with Jewish Bolshevik rule. Moreover, his later service in an arm of British Intelligence would surely have made him privy to details of that history that went far beyond those public headlines. I think it is more than pure coincidence that two of his most memorable Bond villains, Goldfinger and Blofeld, had distinctly Jewish-sounding names, and that so many of the plots involve schemes of world-conquest by Spectre, a secretive and mysterious international organization hostile to all existing governments. The Protocolsthemselves may be half-forgotten today, but their cultural influence probably survives in the Bond films, whose $7 billion of aggregate box-office gross ranks them as the most successful movie series in history when adjusted for inflation.

American Military Intelligence, Jews, and the Protocols

The following year I read a fascinating historical research study on the ideological beliefs of American Military Intelligence during the first half of the twentieth century. This weighty work prompted me to produce a long 2019 articledescribing some of my major conclusions:

These thoughts recently came to my mind when I decided to read a remarkable analysis of the American military by Joseph W. Bendersky of Virginia Commonwealth University, a Jewish historian specializing in Holocaust Studies and the history of Nazi Germany. Last year, I had glanced at a few pages of his text for my long article on Holocaust Denial, but I now decided to carefully read the entire work, published in 2000.

Bendersky devoted ten full years of research to his book, exhaustively mining the archives of American Military Intelligence as well as the personal papers and correspondence of more than 100 senior military figures and intelligence officers. The “Jewish Threat” runs over 500 pages, including some 1350 footnotes, with the listed archival sources alone occupying seven full pages. His subtitle is “Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army” and he makes an extremely compelling case that during the first half of the twentieth century and even afterward, the top ranks of the U.S. military and especially Military Intelligence heavily subscribed to notions that today would be universally dismissed as “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.”

Put simply, U.S. military leaders in those decades widely believed that the world faced a direct threat from organized Jewry, which had seized control of Russia and similarly sought to subvert and gain mastery over America and the rest of Western civilization.

In these military circles, there was an overwhelming belief that powerful Jewish elements had financed and led Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution, and were organizing similar Communist movements elsewhere aimed at destroying all existing Gentile elites and imposing Jewish supremacy throughout America and the rest of the Western world. While some of these Communist leaders were “idealists,” many of the Jewish participants were cynical opportunists, seeking to use their gullible followers to destroy their ethnic rivals and thereby gain wealth and supreme power. Although Intelligence officers gradually came to doubt that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was an authentic document, most believed that the notorious work provided a reasonably accurate description of the strategic plans of the Jewish leadership for subverting America and the rest of the world and establishing Jewish rule.

Although Bendersky’s claims are certainly extraordinary ones, he provides an enormous wealth of compelling evidence to support them, quoting or summarizing thousands of declassified Intelligence files, and further supporting his case by drawing from the personal correspondence of many of the officers involved. He conclusively demonstrates that during the very same years that Henry Ford was publishing his controversial series The International Jew, similar ideas, but with a much sharper edge, were ubiquitous within our own Intelligence community. Indeed, whereas Ford mostly focused upon Jewish dishonesty, malfeasance, and corruption, our Military Intelligence professionals viewed organized Jewry as a deadly threat to American society and Western civilization in general. Hence the title of Bendersky’s book.

 

The bulk of the fascinating material that Bendersky cites comes from Intelligence reports and official letters contained in permanent military archives. Therefore, we must keep in mind that the officers producing such documents would surely have chosen their words carefully and avoided putting all their controversial thoughts down on paper, raising the possibility that their actual beliefs may have been far more extreme. A particular late 1930s case involving one top general provides insight into the likely opinions and private conversations of some of those individuals.

Although his name would mean nothing today, Deputy Chief of Staff George Van Horn Moseley spent most of the 1930s as one of America’s most highly-regarded generals, having been considered for the top command of our armed forces and also serving as a personal mentor to Dwight D. Eisenhower, future Secretary of State George C. Marshall, and numerous other leading military figures. He seems to have been well-liked within our military establishment, and had an excellent personal reputation.

Moseley also had very strong opinions on the major public issues of the day, and after his retirement in 1938 freed him from military discipline, he began to aggressively promote these views, going on a nationwide speaking tour. He repeatedly denounced Roosevelt’s military buildup and in an early 1939 speech, he declared that “The war now being proposed is for the purpose of establishing Jewish hegemony throughout the world.” He stated that only Jews would profit from the war, claimed that leading Wall Street Jews had financed the Russian Revolution, and warned Americans not to let history repeat itself. Although Moseley’s outspokenness soon earned him a reprimand from the Roosevelt Administration, he also received private letters of support from other top generals and former president Herbert Hoover.

In his Congressional testimony just before the outbreak of World War II, Moseley became even more outspoken. He declared that the “murder squads” of Jewish Communists had killed “millions of Christians,” but that “fortunately, the character of the German people was aroused” against these traitors within their midst and that therefore “We should not blame the Germans for settling the problem of the Jew within their borders for all time.” He even urged our national leaders to “benefit” from the German example in addressing America’s own festering domestic Jewish problem.

As might be expected, Moseley’s 1939 praise of Germany’s Jewish policy in front of Congress provoked a powerful media backlash, with a lead story in The New Republic denouncing him as a Nazi “fifth columnist” and The Nation attacking him in similar fashion; and after war broke out, most public figures gradually distanced themselves. But both Eisenhower and Marshall continued to privately regard him with great admiration and remained in friendly correspondence for many years, strongly suggesting that his harsh appraisal of Jews had hardly been a deep secret within his personal circle.

Bendersky claims that Moseley’s fifty boxes of memoirs, private papers, and correspondence “embody every kind of anti-Semitic argument ever manifested in the history of Western civilization,” and based on the various extreme examples he provides, few would dispute that verdict. But he also notes that Moseley’s statements differed little from the depictions of Jews expressed by General George S. Patton immediately after World War II, and even maintained by some retired generals well into the 1970s.

 

Although I was extremely impressed by Bendersky’s exhaustive archival research and would not question his accuracy on those matters, I found much of the rest of his material less persuasive, and I was struck by some of the important facts that he completely ignored:

But far more serious than Bendersky’s lapses in areas outside of his professional expertise are the massive, glaring omissions found at the very heart of his thesis. His hundreds of pages of text certainly demonstrate that for decades our top military professionals were extremely concerned about the subversive activities of Jewish Communists, but he seems to casually dismiss those fears as nonsensical, almost delusional. Yet the actual facts are quite different. As I briefly noted last year after my cursory examination of his book:

The book runs well over 500 pages, but when I consulted the index I found no mention of the Rosenbergs nor Harry Dexter White nor any of the other very numerous Jewish spies revealed by the Venona Decrypts, and the term “Venona” itself is also missing from the index. Reports of the overwhelmingly Jewish leadership of the Russian Bolsheviks are mostly treated as bigotry and paranoia, as are descriptions of the similar ethnic skew of America’s own Communist Party, let alone the heavy financial support of the Bolsheviks by Jewish international bankers. At one point, he dismisses the link between Jews and Communism in Germany by noting that “less than half” of the Communist Party leadership was Jewish; but since fewer than one in a hundred Germans came from that ethnic background, Jews were obviously over-represented among Communist leaders by as much as 5,000%. This seems to typify the sort of dishonesty and innumeracy I have regularly encountered among Jewish Holocaust experts.

Admittedly, Bendersky’s book was published just 18 months after the seminal first Venona volume of John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr appeared in early 1999. But the Venona Decrypts themselves had been declassified in 1995 and soon begun circulating within the academic community. For Bendersky to stubbornly ignore the undeniable reality that a large and overwhelmingly Jewish network of Stalinist agents was situated near the top of the Roosevelt Administration, while ridiculing the military officers who made such claims at the time, raises severe doubts about his credibility as an objective historian.

As I pointed out earlier this year:

From 1941 to 1944 FDR’s Vice President was Henry Wallace, who would have succeeded to the presidency if Roosevelt had renominated him in that latter year or had died prior to early 1945. And although Wallace himself was not disloyal, his top advisors were mostly Communist agents. Indeed, he later stated that a Wallace Administration would have included Laurence Duggan as Secretary of State and Harry Dexter White as Secretary of the Treasury, thereby installing Stalinist henchmen at the top of the Cabinet, presumably supported by numerous lower-level officials of a similar political ilk. One might jokingly speculate whether the Rosenbergs—later executed for treason—would have been placed in charge of our nuclear weapons development program.

That America’s national government of the early 1940s actually came within a hair’s breadth—or rather a heart-beat—of falling under Communist control is a very uncomfortable truth. And our history books and popular media have maintained such total silence about this remarkable episode that even among today’s well-educated Americans I suspect that fewer than five in one hundred are aware of this grim reality.

The Venona Project constituted the definitive proof of the massive extent of Soviet espionage activities in America, which for many decades had been routinely denied by many mainstream journalists and historians, and its findings also played a crucial secret role in dismantling that hostile spy network during the late 1940s and early 1950s. But Venona was nearly snuffed out just a year after its birth. In 1944 Soviet agents became aware of the crucial code-breaking effort, and soon afterwards arranged for the Roosevelt White House to issue a directive ordering the project shut down and all efforts to uncover Soviet spying abandoned. The only reason that Venona survived, allowing us to later reconstruct the fateful politics of that era, was that the determined Military Intelligence officer in charge of the project risked a court-martial by directly disobeying that explicit Presidential order and continuing his work.

That officer was Col. Carter W. Clarke, but his place in Bendersky’s book is a much less favorable one, being described as a prominent member of the anti-Semitic “clique” who constitute the villains of the narrative. Indeed, Bendersky particularly condemns Clarke for still seeming to believe in the essential reality of the Protocols as late as the 1970s, quoting from a letter he wrote to a brother officer in 1977:

If, and a big—damned big IF, as the Jews claim the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were f—- cooked up by Russian Secret Police, why is it that so much they contain has already come to pass, and the rest so strongly advocated by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Our historians must surely have a difficult time digesting the remarkable fact that the officer in charge of the vital Venona Project, whose selfless determination saved it from destruction by the Roosevelt Administration, actually remained a lifelong believer in the importance of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

 

Let us take a step back and place Bendersky’s findings in their proper context. We must recognize that during much of the era covered by his research, U.S. Military Intelligence constituted nearly the entirety of America’s national security apparatus—being the equivalent of a combined CIA, NSA, and FBI—and was responsible for both international and domestic security, although the latter portfolio had gradually been assumed by J. Edgar Hoover’s own expanding organization by the end of the 1920s.

Bendersky’s years of diligent research demonstrate that for decades these experienced professionals—and many of their top commanding generals—were firmly convinced that major elements of the organized Jewish community were ruthlessly plotting to seize power in America, destroy all our traditional Constitutional liberties, and ultimately gain mastery over the entire world.

I have never believed in the existence of UFOs as alien spacecraft, always dismissing such notions as ridiculous nonsense. But suppose declassified government documents revealed that for decades nearly all of our top Air Force officers had been absolutely convinced of the reality of UFOs. Could I continue my insouciant refusal to even consider such possibilities? At the very least, those revelations would force me to sharply reassess the likely credibility of other individuals who had made similar claims during that same period.

Prof. John Beaty on Organized Jewish Conspiracies

In that 2019 article, I went on to discuss the work of one particular former Military Intelligence officer whose book had become an enormous conservative bestseller a few years after World War II. Although he never once directly mentioned the Protocols, his entire text described the sinister machinations of organized Jewish groups in exactly such terms, claiming that they were successfully subverting our society as part of their effort to gain control of America and perhaps ultimately the entire world.

Some years ago, I came across a totally obscure 1951 book entitled The Iron Curtain Over America by John Beaty, a well-regarded university professor. Beaty had spent his wartime years in Military Intelligence, being tasked with preparing the daily briefing reports distributed to all top American officials summarizing available intelligence information acquired during the previous 24 hours, which was obviously a position of considerable responsibility.

As a zealous anti-Communist, he regarded much of America’s Jewish population as deeply implicated in subversive activity, therefore constituting a serious threat to traditional American freedoms. In particular, the growing Jewish stranglehold over publishing and the media was making it increasingly difficult for discordant views to reach the American people, with this regime of censorship constituting the “Iron Curtain” described in his title. He blamed Jewish interests for the totally unnecessary war with Hitler’s Germany, which had long sought good relations with America, but instead had suffered total destruction for its strong opposition to Europe’s Jewish-backed Communist menace.

Beaty also sharply denounced American support for the new state of Israel, which was potentially costing us the goodwill of so many millions of Muslims and Arabs….

He was scathing toward the Nuremberg Trials, which he described as a “major indelible blot” upon America and “a travesty of justice.” According to him, the proceedings were dominated by vengeful German Jews, many of whom engaged in falsification of testimony or even had criminal backgrounds. As a result, this “foul fiasco” merely taught Germans that “our government had no sense of justice.” Sen. Robert Taft, the Republican leader of the immediate postwar era took a very similar position, which later won him the praise of John F. Kennedy in Profiles in Courage. The fact that the chief Soviet prosecutor at Nuremberg had played the same role during the notorious Stalinist show trials of the late 1930s, during which numerous Old Bolsheviks confessed to all sorts of absurd and ridiculous things, hardly enhanced the credibility of the proceedings to many outside observers.

Then as now, a book taking such controversial positions stood little chance of finding a mainstream New York publisher, but it was soon released by a small Dallas firm, and then became enormously successful, going through some seventeen printings over the next few years. According to Scott McConnell, founding editor of The American Conservative, Beaty’s book became the second most popular conservative text of the 1950s, ranking only behind Russell Kirk’s iconic classic, The Conservative Mind.

Bendersky devotes several pages to a discussion of Beaty’s book, which he claims “ranks among the most vicious anti-Semitic diatribes of the postwar era.” He also describes the story of its tremendous national success, which followed an unusual trajectory.

Books by unknown authors that are released by tiny publishers rarely sell many copies, but the work came to the attention of George E. Stratemeyer, a retired general who had been one of Douglas MacArthur’s commanders, and he wrote Beaty a letter of endorsement. Beaty began including that letter in his promotional materials, drawing the ire of the ADL, whose national chairman contacted Stratemeyer, demanding that he repudiate the book, which was described as a “primer for lunatic fringe groups” all across America. Instead, Stratemeyer delivered a blistering reply to the ADL, denouncing it for making “veiled threats” against “free expression and thoughts” and trying to establish Soviet-style repression in the United States. He declared that every “loyal citizen” should read The Iron Curtain Over America, whose pages finally revealed the truth about our national predicament, and he began actively promoting the book around the country while attacking the Jewish attempt to silence him. Numerous other top American generals and admirals soon joined Stratemeyer in publicly endorsing the work, as did a couple of influential members of the U.S. Senate, leading to its enormous national sales.

Having now discovered that Beaty’s views were so totally consistent with those of nearly all our Military Intelligence professionals, I decided to reread his short book, and found myself deeply impressed. His erudition and level-headedness were exactly what one would expect from an accomplished academic with a Columbia Ph.D. who had risen to the rank of colonel during his five years of service in Military Intelligence and on the General Staff. Although strongly anti-Communist, by all indications Beaty was very much a moderate conservative, quite judicious in his claims and proposals. Bendersky’s hysterical denunciation reflects rather badly upon the issuer of that fatwa….

At the very least, we should acknowledge that Beaty’s volume provides an excellent summary of the beliefs of American Military Intelligence officers and many of our top generals during the first half of the twentieth century.

 

Prof. Beaty’s huge conservative bestseller of 1951 had raised some very interesting issues, and a year ago I published a long article taking a much closer look at that work and the extremely harsh criticism directed against it. Near the beginning I noted that although the author was quickly demonized by Jewish groups, prior to its publication he had been regarded as an absolutely mainstream academic, someone who had won various honors over the years and whose activities had never drawn any controversy, while his wartime military service provided him an ideal vantage point for observing the true nature of that conflict.

A West Virginian born in 1890, Beaty earned his B.A. and M.A. at the University of Virginia, then completed his doctorate in Philosophy at Columbia University in 1921. Beginning in 1919 he spent his entire academic career teaching English at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, becoming a full professor in 1922 and finally retiring in 1957. For much of that time, he served as department chairman, and was a successful novelist and scholar, being the author or co-author of a dozen books, eventually used at over 700 American colleges and universities. During that long career, he enjoyed a number of academic honors and distinctions, even serving as president of the Conference of College Teachers of English, and prior to 1951 seems to have never attracted any significant controversy.

But Beaty was a patriotic individual who held a commission in the military reserves and as America moved towards involvement in World War II, his status was activated in 1941 and he joined our Military Intelligence as a captain, serving until 1947 when he left the army with the rank of full colonel and resumed his academic teaching career. During those war years, his government role had been an important one, serving as Chief of the Historical Section while also being responsible for summarizing all available American intelligence and producing the daily briefing report distributed to the White House and all of our other top political and military leaders. Later in the war, he was also required to interview and debrief thousands of our returning military servicemen, including very senior ones, summarizing their information and experiences for government files. Given such crucial activities, there were probably few Americans more familiar with nearly all aspects of our wartime information than Beaty when he returned to civilian life in 1947.

I went on to explore the nature of the main criticism against his book, discovering that nearly all of the public attacks had actually focused upon an entirely peripheral issue and seemed completely unwarranted, a conclusion that greatly buttressed his overall credibility.

 

By the early 1950s, the Protocols had long since been completely discredited within mainstream circles and any mention was totally excluded from respectable public discussion. Beaty was a reputable academic scholar, and although he must have heard of the Protocols, it’s not clear to me whether he had ever paid any attention to that controversial document, let alone read it and taken it seriously.

Moreover, all the important issues that he discussed in his book related to present-day matters or those of the very recent past, based upon his concerns that American society and democracy were threatened by Jewish political subversion and the overwhelming Jewish influence over the media. Much of that information came from his own central role in our wartime Military Intelligence service, fleshed out by the extensive research that he had conducted during the years since then.

Yet although no hint of the Protocols appeared anywhere in his text, the actual activities of the organized Jewish groups Beaty described at considerable length seemed eerily similar to what the Protocols had sketched out a half-century earlier. So Beaty’s book seemed to strongly affirm the value of the Protocols as a guide to Jewish subversive behavior even if the author himself might have completely rejected that document.

Thus, viewed in this light Beaty’s book tended to support the perspective of Henry Ford and numerous others in his camp. They have often stated that regardless of who had drafted the Protocols or why it had been written, the document’s importance was because it accurately described the reality of their world. For example, in an interview published in the February 17, 1921 edition of the New York World, Ford had famously declared:

The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. THEY FIT IT NOW.

Leading Mainstream Writers on Hidden Jewish Power

As a result of publishing that one book, Beaty was hugely demonized for the remainder of his career, with those same harsh denunciations echoing down to the present day in the pages of Bendersky’s 2000 volume. Yet except for that book, Beaty would only have been known as a fully respectable and moderately successful American academic of the mid-twentieth century, and his name long since been totally forgotten.

But in late 2022 I briefly discussed an interesting book published several decades earlier by a vastly more prominent academic figure.

In sharp contrast, a different book published just over a century earlier might today be seen as a product of the conspiratorial fringe, but it was certainly not viewed that way at the time, given that the author was widely regarded as one of America’s leading public intellectuals and the work was favorably discussed in the influential Literary Digest. David Starr Jordan was the founding president of Stanford University, a biological scientist by training who had published at least ninety-odd books, mostly of a scientific nature but also including works of broader public policy.

Unseen Empire, which appeared in 1912, fell into that latter category and argued that although the United States and the major European powers remained nominally sovereign, their heavy, unproductive military spending had gradually bound them into tight coils of debt, leading most of them to quietly become political vassals of a network of powerful financiers, the “unseen empire” of the title. So instead of kings, parliaments, or kaisers, the true rulers of Europe were a set of interconnected and intermarried banking dynasties, almost all of them Jewish: the Sterns and Cassels of Britain, the Foulds and Pereires of France, the Bleichroders of Germany, the Gunzburgs of Russia, the Hirsches of Austria, the Goldschmids of Portugal, the Camondos of Turkey, the Sassoons of the Orient, and above all of them, the Rothschilds of London and Paris.

Although in today’s world, such a description might seem insane or at least incendiary, Jordan presented it rather matter-of-factly without rancor, and indeed that particular claim didn’t even constitute the main theme of his analysis. The Stanford University President firmly regarded modern warfare as disastrous for a society, but also argued that wars had become so ruinously expensive that they could not last for long. Moreover, since the true financial owners of Europe believed that they were bad for business, no major wars would be permitted to break out.

Obviously, Jordan’s predictions were exploded just a couple of years later, but subsequent events did provide some hints that his analysis was not entirely mistaken. For example, according to Stoddard’s account, much of Britain’s wealthy Jewish elite, often having German roots like the Rothschilds, was widely regarded as being in the peace camp, so much so that in 1916 hard-line publications regularly denounced the country’s German-Jewish financiers as undercutting Britain’s continuing military resolve. Similarly, Zelikow reports that Paul Warburg, the German-Jewish vice chairman of America’s Federal Reserve, was an enthusiastic supporter of Wilson’s efforts to pressure Britain into making peace, including discouraging American banks in late 1916 from making the additional loans that Britain required to purchase supplies. In private communications, the strongly pro-British head of the J.P. Morgan banking empire denounced that decision and argued for a public attack on the German-Jewish influence that he believed was behind this peace policy. Similarly, many of Germany’s wealthy Jewish financiers were generally in the peace camp. So Jordan’s main mistake was probably to overestimate the political power of Europe’s dominant banking interests.

Jordan’s book appeared in 1912, years after the Protocols first came to light but long before the success of the Bolshevik Revolution had elevated them to widespread public attention, so it’s very unlikely that either the author or any of his readers had ever heard of that controversial document. Therefore, it is quite intriguing that at the absolute height of Europe’s global dominance one of America’s leading public intellectuals published a well-regarded book casually explaining that nearly all of the continent’s great powers had quietly lost control over their own political destinies to an “unseen empire” of tightly-interrelated Jewish banking families, a perspective that was so obviously similar to much of what was explicitly presented in the roughly contemporaneous Protocols.

 

A decade after Jordan’s book, a leading Anglo-French writer and conservative Catholic public intellectual also published a book that never mentioned the Protocols but described matters that closely matched some of its elements. Hilaire Belloc’s slim 1922 volume The Jews made enormous efforts to fairly treat the subject of its title while describing the often troubled relationship between that tiny British minority and the country’s overwhelming Christian majority.

Belloc emphasized the persistent conflict between the two groups and discussed possible means of resolution. But he also noted that during the recent First World War, British political elites had suddenly discovered to their dismay that their own system of finance and so many of their most vital global commodities were entirely under the control of tight monopolies of international Jews, a situation they regarded as unacceptable in a powerful, self-governing nation. Furthermore, in recent years Jews had been responsible for some of the worst financial scandals involving the country’s leading politicians, and the author predicted that unless ameliorative steps were taken, the combination of these different factors would inevitably lead to a massive popular backlash against Jewish power and influence.

The 1937 edition of his book included a long introductory chapter describing the wave of anti-Jewish persecution that had begun in Nazi Germany, aimed at driving the Jews out of that country. Although Belloc strongly condemned those policies, he explained that they were influencing other countries across Europe, thereby demonstrating the importance of resolving the festering Jewish problem in more decent fashion.

He also emphasized that although not all Jews were Communists, the dangerous Communist movement was led by Jews almost everywhere, explaining why the phrase “Jewish Communism” appeared so regularly in ordinary conversations, although very rarely in the Jewish-dominated media. The ongoing Spanish Civil War represented a key current battleground against Communism, and Belloc made a strong case that the actual facts of that conflict were totally different than what was being reported by the media and for very similar ethnic reasons the circumstances of the recent Arab Revolt in Palestine against the growing Zionist colonization were also not being honestly presented.

Belloc wrote more than 150 books and together with H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and G.K. Chesterton has been ranked as one of the Big Four figures of Edwardian letters. Yet a non-specialist such as myself had scarcely been aware of his work, instead vaguely assuming that he had been some antisemitic fringe writer. I strongly suspect that the charges that permanently dogged him in the aftermath of that one short book were responsible for his modern-day obscurity, continuing a pattern that I have repeatedly noticed with other writers and thinkers who have touched upon highly sensitive matters. Indeed, although Belloc had always very strongly condemned Hitler and his policies, I think most ordinary Americans today have only encountered his name in homonymic form as that of the chief Nazi villain of Steven Spielberg’s 1981 blockbuster Raiders of the Lost Ark.

 

Another remarkable parallel to the claims of the Protocols can be found in a different book published nearly seventy years earlier.

The nineteenth century marked Britain’s apogee, during which it ranked as the world’s greatest power, possessing a world-girdling empire on which the sun never set. And one of its most consequential prime ministers of that era was Jewish-born Benjamin Disraeli, who acquired control of the Suez Canal, crowned Queen Victoria as Empress of India, and achieved great success at the Berlin Conference, while also creating the modern Conservative Party. One of Disraeli’s close friends and allies was Lord Nathan Rothschild, the Jewish scion of the world’s wealthiest banking dynasty, whose father Lionel de Rothschild‘s path into parliament Disraeli had enabled by helping pass legislation allowing non-Christian members to take the oath of office.

The combination of all these factors would probably rank Disraeli as the most politically powerful and influential ethnic Jew in human history to that date, or at least no obvious rival comes to my mind. Therefore, I think his statements and opinions on Jewish matters should be taken quite seriously.

Early in his career, Disraeli had been a novelist, with one of his most famous works being Coningsby, a political novel published in 1844, a few years after the author had first entered parliament. As the Ford book emphasized in a chapter, one of Disraeli’s major characters was Sidonia, an extremely wealthy and well-connected Jew, widely regarded as modeled upon Lord Lionel de Rothschild. And in a number of passages, Sidonia revealed that a secret network of international Jews influenced or dominated all of the major governments of Europe:

I resolved to go myself to St. Petersburg. I had, on my arrival, an interview with the Russian Minister of Finance, Count Cancrin; I beheld the son of a Lithuanian Jew…I had an audience immediately on my arrival with the Spanish Minister, Senor Mendizabel; I beheld one like myself, the son of a Nuevo Christiano, a Jew of Aragon…In consequence of what transpired at Madrid, I went straight to Paris to consult the President of the French Council; I beheld the son of a French Jew, a hero, an imperial marshal…We fixed on Prussia; and the President of the Council made an application to the Prussian Minister, who attended a few days after our conference. Count Arnim entered the cabinet, and I beheld a Prussian Jew…So, you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes…

You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews. That mysterious Russian Diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organized and principally carried on by Jews. That mighty revolution which is at the moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews.

So whether the Protocols had been based upon something real or were instead purely fictional, important elements of their contents echoed what the most powerful Jew in Europe had either revealed or invented a couple of generations earlier in his famous novel.

The Conspiratorial Analysis of Douglas Reed

The Wikipedia page for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion runs 10,000 words including a multitude of references and notes, and as usual it constitutes the extremely establishmentarian view of that controversial topic. The first few sentences are already peppered with harsh denunciations, describing the Protocols as “fabricated…plagiarized…fraudulent” while emphasizing that it had been assigned reading as a factual document for some schoolchildren in Nazi Germany. The introduction explains that “It played a key part in popularizing belief in an international Jewish conspiracy” and closes by quoting a scholar who described it as “probably the most influential work of antisemitism ever written.”

The vast majority of today’s mainstream Westerners probably have exactly this view of the Protocols, one that is so completely different from the conclusions of the curious Chinese writer who investigated its claims. And despite its very considerable length, the Wikipedia article makes absolutely no mention of the views of our Military Intelligence professionals, nor how closely elements of the Protocols match the contents of books by Beaty, Jordan, Belloc, or Disraeli. I regard those latter works as sufficiently important and credible that the nature and origins of the Protocols are worth exploring in considerable detail. Therefore, I focused upon the analysis of other, less mainstream writers, whose conspiratorial writings took the document very seriously.

Consider Douglas Reed, a journalist whose name has now been almost totally forgotten. During most of the 1930s and 1940s, Reed had first served as a leading European correspondent for the very influential Times of London and then as a highly-successful author, with numerous international best-sellers to his credit, works describing Europe’s contemporaneous politics. As one of the earliest and sharpest critics of Hitler and the German Nazis, his career flourished, but following World War II, he also became very critical of Jewish activitism and Zionism, as a consequence soon losing his foothold in mainstream publishing.

Reed then spent several years in the early 1950s researching and writing his exhaustive, highly conspiratorial magnum opusentitled The Controversy of Zion. That work ran nearly 300,000 words and its unpublished manuscript was found among his personal effects after his death in 1976. Released a couple of years later, the book eventually became quite influential in anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist circles.

His long work heavily discussed the Protocolsand he devoted an entire 7,400 word chapterto its contents and uncertain provenance, probably providing the best and most evenhanded treatment among all those writers who took it seriously. Although he regarded the Protocols as an authentic and extremely important description of the dark, conspiratorial forces promoting world revolution, and the vehement attacks against the document as totally unwarranted, he was not at all certain of its actual origins:

Their attribution to Jewish “Elders” is unsupported and should be rejected, without prejudice to any other evidence about Jewish leadership of the world-revolution as such. The Jewish attack on them was bent, not on exculpating Jewry, but on stopping the publication on the plea that it was “agitating the public mind without occasion or justification.” The arguments advanced were bogus; they were that the Protocols closely resembled several earlier publications and thus were “plagiaries” or “forgeries,” whereas what this in truth showed was the obvious thing: that they were part of the continuing literature of the conspiracy. They might equally well be the product of non-Jewish or of anti-Jewish revolutionaries, and that is of secondary importance.

Ironically enough, Reed noted that a 1913 publication had accused the Jesuits of a somewhat similar conspiratorial plot, but after that Catholic organization issued a simple denial, the matter was quickly forgotten. In sharp contrast, the unprecedented fury of the Jewish reaction to the Protocols seemed not merely aimed at denying their own role in any such conspiracy but even the possible existence of any plot, a position that Reed considered ridiculous based upon other evidence.

 

As Reed told the story, the Protocols first gained attention in 1920 when the document was translated into English by one of Britain’s top Russia correspondents, who died soon afterward. His employer, the Morning Post, was one of the oldest and most sober British newspapers, and its editor then drew upon his entire staff to publish twenty-three articles on the document, calling for a thorough investigation. The Times of London then ranked as the world’s most influential media outlet and it took a similar position in a long May 8, 1920 article, while Lord Sydenham, a foremost authority of that day, later did the same in the pages of the Spectator. Henry Ford’s newspaper soon published a long series of American articles discussing and publicizing the Protocols, eventually selling a million and a half copies of the reprints.

Organized Jewish groups reacted with massive, sustained fury against all these publications, a barrage of criticism that soon permanently ended any impartial public discussion of Jewish questions. Within several years, these attacks had forced the sale of the Morning Post and its eventual closure. Under tremendous pressure, the Times soon reversed itself and declared the document a plagiarized forgery, while within two years the Times proprietor was declared insane by an unnamed doctor in a foreign land, forcibly removed from control of his publications, and then died under highly suspicious circumstances.

Reed devoted an entire 5,900 word chapterto that last incident, claiming to have personal knowledge about the strange story that he revealed for the first time.

Alfred Harmsworth Lord Northcliffe had pioneered popular journalism and established himself as Britain’s most powerful media baron, owning the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, and numerous other publications, while acquiring the Times of London and the Sunday Times in 1908. In his day, Northcliffe was Britain’s Rupert Murdoch or William Randolph Hearst, while probably being far more dominant than either of those figures. As an example of that influence, Northcliffe’s fierce commitment to an outright British victory in the First World War apparently led him to play a crucial role in ending the 1916 efforts at peace negotiations by bringing down the prime minister who had been pursuing that policy.

Reed began his journalistic career as a young assistant to Northcliffe, and he explained how the latter reversed his position on Zionism in 1922 after visiting Palestine and discovering that the large Palestinian population was threatened by Jewish encroachment. Yet when the imperious Northcliffe directed the Times to publish that new position, his request was refused, leading him to demand the editor’s resignation. But instead Northcliffe was soon declared insane, and after complaining that he was being poisoned, he suddenly died at the age of 57. Reed only revealed these strange events in his book written decades later, arguing that Northcliffe’s endorsement of the Protocols and his new opposition to Zionism had probably sealed his fate.

Reed’s description of Lord Northcliffe’s strange end greatly surprised me. The story appeared in a manuscript only published after the author’s death, more than 55 years after the events he recounted, so I wasn’t sure how seriously to take Reed’s account when I read his book. But in 2023 I discovered that a long 1922 article published in a Canadian newspaper had fully confirmed Northcliffe’s complete reversal on Zionism and his promise to launch a British media campaign to oppose continuation of that policy in Palestine, with Northcliffe’s public statement quickly followed by the official declaration of his madness, his confinement, and his untimely death. Moreover, Ronen Bergman’s magisterial Rise and Kill First, a lengthy 2018 volume on the history of Zionist and Israeli assassinations opened in the early 1920s with cases of killings that were aimed at protecting the Zionist project and preventing any slackening in British support. So the combination of all this external evidence led me to generally accept Reed’s remarkable story.

Reed’s posthumously published volume on Jews and Zionism lacked any notes or references. For those reasons and its extremely conspiratorial contents, I do not regard the work as highly reliable. However, on the multitude of items in which it diverges from our official narrative of historical events, I think that Reed was probably correct 70-80% of the time, so although his claims should be treated with considerable caution, they should also be taken very seriously.

Nesta Webster and Other Conspiratorial Writers

Reed explained how the Protocols had been translated and brought to public attention in 1920 by the Russia correspondent of the Morning Post. The staff of that newspaper subsequently published nearly two dozen mostly anonymous articles describing and analyzing the supposedly unfolding plan for Jewish world domination that the document revealed. Later that year, most of those articles were collected together as The Cause of World Unrest, a book published in both Britain and America that included a very lengthy introduction by the Morning Post‘s editor, with the contents now easily available online.

These articles repeatedly cited the works of Nesta Webster, a British writer who had published a lengthy historical analysis of the French Revolution a year earlier, and two of her personal contributions to the Morning Post series on the Protocols were also included at the end of the volume, while she may have more heavily contributed to the entire anonymous series.

The following year, Webster published World Revolution, her own much longer work on closely-related themes, describing the appearance and growth of secret, conspiratorial movements aimed at overthrowing all of Europe’s established Christian monarchies and replacing them with radical, socialistic governments. The author traced all of this back to the 18th century Illuminati movement of Adam Weishaupt, claiming that this project had gradually subverted the existing Masonic lodges of France and the rest of Continental Europe, then afterward used Freemasonry as the vehicle for its dangerous revolutionary plotting.

Although Webster argued that Jews had only been an insignificant early element of this conspiratorial movement, by the mid-nineteenth century they deployed their huge wealth to gain enormous influence in that project, probably becoming its leading force. She devoted much of the last chapter of her book to the Protocols, regarding its contents as an excellent summary of the secret plans of those subversive movements, whether or not the document itself was actually what it purported to be.

Based upon my own very mainstream historical reading, I’d always regarded talk of secret revolutionary plotting by the Illuminati, Freemasons, or any such similar groups as almost the epitome of crackpot lunacy, and I’d never even heard of Webster, who had been the leading writer on such matters. However, I discovered that some of Webster’s prominent contemporaries had been very impressed with her scholarship and had reached somewhat similar conclusions.

For example, around the time that the Morning Post was beginning its long series on the Protocols, British Cabinet Minister Winston Churchill published a major article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald in which he took somewhat similar positions on the dangerous plots of subversive international Jews, while praising Webster’s groundbreaking historical research:

SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world…

And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible…

First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life, and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them…

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews…This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Terrorist Jews.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing…

The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated…

It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy.

  • Zionism versus Bolshevism
    A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People
    Winston Churchill • Illustrated (London) Sunday Herald • February 8, 1920 • 2,100 Words

Indeed one hundred years later that incendiary 1920 article by Churchill provoked a furious dispute over whether the future British Prime Minister had actually endorsed the Protocols. Although that document was obviously never mentioned in his text, I do think that many of the sentiments he expressed were of a very similar nature.

 

Webster’s extensive focus upon the history of secret, conspiratorial revolutionary movements culminating in the one sketched out in the Protocols seemed to have been a central source for many other writers, including Reed and Churchill. Therefore I attempted to assess her credibility by considering some of her other books on similar subjects.

The year before her work on the Protocols she had published The French Revolution, a lengthy 1919 volume sharply challenging the traditional narrative of that watershed event. Historians had typically described the revolutionaries as inspired by growing notions of liberty, which culminated in a semi-spontaneous uprising against an ossified absolutist regime.

But Webster instead argued that the revolutionary upheaval had instead resulted from several overlapping conspiratorial projects, including the effort of the very wealthy and powerful Louis Philippe Duc d’Orleans to replace his cousin Louis XVI on the French throne. This had coalesced with the anti-monarchical efforts of the Illuminati and the Freemasons, whose organizations had actually been responsible for the creation of the network of revolutionary Jacobin Clubs so often emphasized in my textbooks. Although I haven’t yet finished that long work and am no specialist on that period, her historical analysis seemed solidly based upon the most reliable sources of that era.

Another Webster book that I plan to read but have so far only skimmed is Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, published in 1924. That work apparently summarized her accumulated research on those controversial subjects, and included an Appendix sharply refuting the allegations of plagiarism in the Protocols that had appeared in the media during the previous couple of years.

According to her Wikipedia entry, by that year Hilaire Belloc had begun privately denouncing her as “antisemitic” and her work as “lunatic,” and she eventually became an active supporter of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.

 

In 1931 Waters Flowing Eastward was published by L. Fry, the pen-name of Paquita “Mady” de Shishmareff, the San Francisco-born widow of a Czarist Russian officer killed by the Bolsheviks, with the Rev. Denis Fahey releasing a revised and edited edition in the 1950s.

Her work focused very heavily on Jews, Zionism, and the Protocols, and the author claimed to have been a leading early source for Ford’s series The International Jew. She also provided the alleged origins of the Protocols, which she claimed had been written by a leading early Zionist and then obtained by a Russian in 1884 from a Paris Masonic lodge. However, the publisher passed along an entirely different origin story, saying that the document had been circulating at the First Zionist Congress of 1897 in Basel, Switzerland, at which time a copy had been surreptitiously obtained.

Regardless of the reliability of any of this conflicting material, some have described this short collection of documents and essays as one of the best and most complete works on the Protocols, so it certainly seems worth considering.

Meanwhile, The World Conquerors was published in 1958 by Louis Marshalko, with the back cover describing the fiercely anti-Communist author as the former special correspondent for two leading Hungarian newspapers, as well as a novelist, playwright, and poet, with many hundreds of articles to his credit.

Aside from accepting the reality of the Protocolsand being intensely hostile towards Jews and Zionism, Marshalko provided an account of the events of World War II that very sharply diverged from the conventional narrative, claiming that organized Jews had been both the instigators and the ultimate victors of that huge global conflict, whose true details and aftermath were entirely different than what most Americans believe.

Presumably published under difficult circumstances, this book seemed absolutely riddled with blatant factual errors, so much so that almost nothing it contained could be relied upon. However, after casually comparing Marshalko’s version of historical events with the contrary version taught in our high schools or colleges, I’d have to admit that his account—severely error prone though it might be—is probably more nearly correct some 50-60% of the time, a very sad verdict on the state of our standard history books.

Taking Stock of the Protocols

After carefully reading through all of this extensive material, little of my previous perspective on the nature of the Protocols has changed. I still remain extremely skeptical that the document was what it purported to be, namely the summary of various presentations by the leadership of a conspiratorial organization of elite Jews describing their plans to gain control of most European countries and ultimately the entire world.

On the other hand, I also continue to regard the Protocols as representing a reasonably accurate description of the strategies and tactics employed by various conspiratorial movements, often heavily Jewish ones, in seeking to achieve their objective of obtaining political power.

However, another interesting thought came to my mind. Everyone agrees that although the Protocols had first come to light many years earlier, the document only began to attract widespread public attention in the aftermath of the successful Bolshevik Revolution, soon followed by failed Bolshevik uprisings and seizures of power in Germany, Hungary, and various other countries. Without the Bolshevik Revolution, the Protocols would have remained completely obscure and forgotten.

To concerned Europeans and Americans of that day, the correspondence between the proposed secret plan of action and the later public outcome must have seemed absolutely uncanny. The Protocols described the means by which a conspiratorial Jewish-led organization intended to overthrow Christian monarchies and seize power, perhaps in the aftermath of a wider war and social upheaval, and the conspiratorial Jewish-led Bolsheviks had done exactly that in 1917. According to the Protocols, Christianity would be suppressed and after a brief transitional period of political upheaval, a new and very harsh dictatorial regime would be imposed having Jews in control, and that had been the eventual outcome in Bolshevik Russia. Although supposedly radical, the Jewish conspirators described in the Protocols would be secretly assisted by wealthy Jewish bankers, and Jacob Schiff, Olaf Aschberg, and others had played exactly such a necessary role for the Bolsheviks.

Thus the astonishing, completely unexpected Russian political events of 1917 and afterward seemed to have been entirely predicted in a document published in Russia ten or twenty years earlier, naturally leading to the widespread belief among so many sincere individuals that the Protocols must be true. This verdict was further strengthened when the victorious Bolsheviks later declared mere possession of the Protocols a capital crime.

Yet from a distance of years or decades, let alone the passage of more than a full century, that conclusion seems completely unwarranted.

As far as I can tell, there was absolutely no connection whatsoever between the Bolsheviks and the Protocols, nor any indication that Lenin or any other leading Bolshevik had ever heard of the document until it began to receive attention in Britain years after their own revolution had emerged victorious. Any similarities between the Bolshevik project and the document already circulating a decade or two earlier were either merely coincidental or else followed from the general nature of conspiratorial, subversive organizations or Jewish political activism.

Although unstated in such terms, this seems to have been the ultimate conclusion of many early champions of the Protocols such as the officers of American Military Intelligence and Henry Ford. This was probably an important reason why serious discussion of that document rapidly faded away among thoughtful individuals, even including those leading figures of the Far Right who were strongly anti-Jewish and conspiratorially-minded. For example, in his seminal 1972 work The Dispossessed Majority, Wilmot Robertson only made two short, rather disparaging references to the Protocols in a couple of footnotes. Similarly, Prof. Revilo Oliver’s 1981 volume America’s Decline ridiculed the Protocols as an obvious fabrication.

Meanwhile, after having been cleansed of its Jewish elements, the central plotline of the Protocols—a sinister, secretive international organization bent on world conquest—became a huge staple of Hollywood scripts, almost ubiquitous in the movies and television shows I have watched since my childhood. James Bond regularly battled SPECTRE, the Man from Uncle faced THRUSH every week, and Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 of Control, regularly thwarted the diabolical schemes of KAOS. So what probably began as fiction eventually returned to that same category of writing.

 

However, there are some intelligent individuals who do continue to take that twenty-four part document quite seriously.

For a very interesting and much more conspiratorial analysis that largely treats the Protocols as essentially genuine, I’d strongly recommend an hour-long 2017 discussion by Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom available on BitChute. Kollerstrom was the well-regarded historian of science who had notoriously been purged from University College London almost a decade earlier for investigating aspects of the Holocaust and who subsequently published an excellent book on that subject entitled Breaking the Spell.

Video Link

The researcher began by emphasizing that in the wake of the heavily Jewish Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the Protocols became enormously popular throughout Europe and the rest of the world, often said to be more widely published and read than anything other than the Bible.

Although I was doubtful about many of Kollerstrom’s views, some of the points he made seemed extremely telling. According to the conventional narrative, the Protocols were concocted as a work of antisemitic propaganda in the early years of the twentieth century, yet it makes absolutely no mention of Zionism, which seems an astonishing omission given the controversial nature of that high-profile movement. Therefore, Kollerstrom plausibly argued that the document must have been written before Theodore Herzl had launched that movement in the 1890s, although very minor elements such as the mention of “Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzscheism” may have been later added. He also noted that sworn testimony had established that the original copy of the Protocolswas in French before being translated into Russian and distributed in that country.

As the Wikipedia entry demonstrated, the Protocols undeniably shared quite a number of passages with an obscure book published in 1864 by Maurice Joly, a French Jew whose satirical work was sharply critical of Napoleon III and therefore quickly suppressed by the latter’s government. So according to the standard narrative, the Czarist secret police or whatever other antisemitic group produced the Protocols had plagiarized Joly’s book.

But Kollerstrom considered this highly implausible since the latter work had nothing to do with Jews or antisemitism and any copies would have been extremely difficult to obtain decades later when the document was allegedly produced. Joly had been a Paris member of various Masonic lodges, so Kollerstrom persuasively argued that it was far more likely that his own book had borrowed elements from the Protocols, a document that must have been already available in his own political circles.

Kollerstrom suggested that as a ruthlessly logical and brilliant plan of Jewish political strategy involving many financial elements, the Protocolshad probably been drafted by a member of the powerful Rothschild family, and was then delivered as a series of lectures before groups of his Masonic or Jewish followers, perhaps as early as the 1830s or 1840s. But all of this seems extremely speculative to me. However, I do believe that Kollerstrom made a strong case that the original work had been produced in France decades before a copy reached Russia and it eventually came to public attention.

 

The Protocols contained some implausible elements and the authors who promoted that document over the decades have sometimes proposed even more outlandish notions. But I think that none of the those fantasies ever matched some of the real-life developments of recent American politics.

Would any of those dark, conspiratorial writers warning of nefarious Jewish political plots have dared to predict that the entire membership of a joint session of the American Congress would give fifty-eight standing ovations to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? Or that such an unprecedented tribute would occur so soon after a series of near-unanimous rulings by the International Court of Justice had declared that he and his entire government were plausibly guilty with genocide?

This weekend TikTok went dark, with one of our most popular social media platform banned despite the 170 million Americans who use it. Candid public statements by prominent political figures have confirmed that the most likely reason for that purge was TikTok’s willingness to allow an uncensored discussion of the Israel/Gaza conflict, leading to such extremely lopsided results that the Israeli Lobby had come to view the app as an enormous, almost existential threat to its power.

 

 

However, that blatant act of political censorship decision may have severely backfired. Many of the former TikTok users have begun migrating to another popular Chinese social media app called Rednote, which is similarly free of heavy-handed American political censorship.

But because that latter platform is also available in China, many of the Americans now using it have begun interacting with ordinary Chinese people for the first time, suddenly discovering that much of what they have always been told about the two societies differs very sharply from the actual reality, a development that may have fateful political consequences.

A central element emphasized by the Protocolswas that ruling a subjugated population required maintaining tight control over the media and other means of mass communication. It will be quite ironic if the social media platforms of Communist China not only restore freedom of thought to the American people, but also allow them to discover that their ordinary daily lives need not be as difficult as they gradually have become in our own country. Here are some of the resulting Tweets highlighted by a recent Andrew Anglin post.

 

 

 

 

 

As it happens, a couple of weeks ago I was interviewed by a small Chinese media organization called Thinkers Forum, and in one of the short segments they released a few days ago I suggested that America might be on the cusp of a political revolution. That clip is now approaching 400,000 views on YouTube, surprisingly strong results suggesting that my candid remarks may have struck a deep chord with many Americans.

Video Link

Related Reading

 

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion/

Total
0
Shares
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Article

DUTIES OF WIVES TO HUSBANDS

Next Article

Talmudic Bankers pushing illegal immigration of non-Whites into Dickinson, ND. Local newspaper and media running cover.

Related Posts