Where does responsibility lie between those who incite to a deed and those who commit it?

Their name, Habiru, denoted no racial or tribal identity; it meant “nomads”. ..

The Jacobin leaders directed the Reign of Terror and, as good Illuminates, used classic pseudonyms in the manner initiated by “Spartacus” Weishaupt himself: Chaumette was Anaxagoras, Clootz (described as a Prussian baron) was Anarcharsis, Danton Horace, Lacroix Pllblicola and Ronsin Scaevola…

when politicians shun the truth as the devil might shun holy water…

In matters of fact he was always right; in those of opinion, he was ever on the side of the angels…

This was the process by means of which, as Disraeli said in Lothair (1870) “democracy has degraded statesmen into politicians”…

The German Jew then was wont to refer to “diese Ostjuden” (these Eastern Jews!) with aversion; the Eastern Jew for his part, when after the first world war he made his way from Russia and Poland into Germany, spoke with contempt of the settled Jews there as “diese Berliner” (these Berliners!).

the Levitical scriptures…

The Jews spoke similarly: one told him, “The land of our forefathers is dead, and Palestine is its grave . . . to attempt to form a nation from the polyglot people of Judaism today would only end in utter failure”…

Mr. Lloyd George’s later ones, “Acetone converted me to Zionism”

In particular, this applies (in Weishaupt’s papers and the Protocols alike) to the knowledge of human weaknesses, which are singled out with analytical exactitude, the method of exploiting each of them being described with disdainful glee…

Dr. Weizmann chose Manchester for his residence. He says “by chance”, but credulity balks…

In 1900 Americans still clung to their “American dream”, and the essence of it was to avoid ….foreign entanglements”…

Such notions, in a Texan of the late 19th Century, are as unexpected as Buddhism in an Eskimo…

“If The Times does not return to its independent line and act as watchdog of the public I shall wash my hands of it”…

No precedent existed for the donation of Arabian territory, by a European conqueror, to an Asiatic beneficiary…

“The diplomat’s word” and his “deed” were different…

it is like playing billiards with twisted cues and elliptical balls…

the Talmudic fingerprint mockingly left in the death-chamber of the Romanoffs…

The politicians of the West became professional dissimulators…

During the Second World War the Soviet dictator Stalin, being urged by the Western leaders to take account of the influence of the Pope, asked brusquely, “How many divisions has the Pope?”. Such at least was the anecdote, much retold in clubs and pubs, and to simple folk it seemed to express essential truth in a few words. Dr. Weizmann’s case shows how essentially untrue it was. He had not a single soldier, but he and the international he represented were able to obtain capitulations never before won save by conquering armies…

[Dr. Weizmann] wrote to Lady Crewe, “We hate equally anti-semites and philo-semites”.

———————————-

… for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself above all people that are on the face of the earth . . . Thou shalt be blessed above all people . . .

By giving material ambition the largest shape it can have on earth, they identified themselves forever with the baser of the two forces which eternally contend for the soul of man: that downward pull of the fleshly instincts which wars with the uplifting impulse of the spirit…

“A unifying idea underlay it all”, says Dr. Kastein, and this unifying idea was tribal nationalism, in a more fanatical form than the world has otherwise known. The Torah was not revealed religion but, as Mr. Montefiore remarked, “”revealed legislation”, enacted to an end…

With this glimpse of a loving God of all mankind the protests ended. The Levites and their Law were left paramount and there with the true captivity of ”’the Jews” began, for their enslavement to the law of racial and religious hatred is the only geniune captivity they have suffered…

These are the characters. Then comes the denouement, a Jehovan vengeance on “”the heathen” and a Jewish triumph in the form of a symbolic “restoration’ -. ….King Belshazzar”. when Daniel has foretold his doom, is killed “in the same night’ – and his kingdom falls to the enemy. The Jewish captors who killed the Russian Czar and his family, at the end of the First Twentieth Century war, quoted this precedent in a couplet “written on the wall” of the room where the massacre occurred; the Nazi leaders, at the end of the Second Twentieth Century war, were hanged on the Jewish Day of Atonement…

Thus the two World Wars of this century have confonned, in their outcomes, to the pattern of the Babylonian-Persian war of antiquity as depicted in the Old Testament…

The sect had yet to complete the Law and then to apply it to its own people. When that happened in 458 BC, under another Persian king, the controversy of Zion at last took the shape in which it still implacably confronts its own people and the rest of mankind. The umbilical cord between the Judahites and other men was then finally severed…

“Strangers” are usually puzzled to imagine any means by which the ruling sect could keep so firm a hold over a community scattered about the world. This power is based, ultimately, on terror and fear. Its mysteries are kept hidden from the stranger, but by diligent study he may gain some idea of them.

The weapon of excommunication is a dreaded one, and the fear which it inspires rests to some extent on the literal Judaists belief in the physical efficacy of the curses enumerated in Deuteronomy and other books; the Jewish Encyclopedia testifies to this continuing belief. In this matter there is a strong resemblance to the African Native’s belief that he will die if he is “‘tagati’d”, and to the American Negro’s fear of voodooist spells. Casting out of the fold is a much-feared penalty (and in the past was often a lethal one), of which examples may be found in the literature of our day…

During that period the Levites in Babylon completed the Law, the impact of which all nations have felt ever since. Ezekiel of the High Priest’s family was its chief architect and probably all five books of the Law, as they have come down, bear his mark. He was the founding-father of intolerance, of racialism and vengeance as a religion, and of murder in the name of God…

Then, in 458 BC, the Levites struck.
Their Law was ready, which was not by itself of much importance. The Persian King was ready to enforce it for them, and that was of the greatest importance, then and up to the present moment. For the first thing the ruling sect accomplished the wonder which they have since repeatedly achieved: by some means they induced a foreign ruler, who was their ostensible master and to all outer appearances a mighty potentate in his own right, to put his soldiers and money at their disposal.
On this day in 458 BC the Judahites in Jerusalem were finally cut off from mankind and enslaved in a way they never knew in Babylon. This was the true “”start of the affair”. The story is told in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Levitical emissaries from Babylon who were sent to Jerusalem to enforce Ezekiel’s law…

Ezra brought the new racial Law with him. He enforced it first among his own travelling companions, allowing only those to accompany him who could prove that they were Judahites by descent, or Levites. When he reached Jerusalem he was filled with horror and dismay” (Dr. Kastein) by the prevalence of mixed marriages. The Judahites were finding happiness in their fashion “by tolerating miscegenation with neighbouring tribes they had established peaceful relations based on family ties.”

Dr. Kastein says that ”’Ezra’s measure was undoubtedly reactionary: it raised to the dignity of a law an enactment which at that time was not included in the Torah (which the Levites, in Babylon, were still writing down). Dr. Kastein’s use of the word “dignity” is of interest in this connection; his book was published in Berlin, in the year, twenty-four centuries later, when Hitler enacted exactly the same kind of law; it was then called “infamous” by the Zionists, and the armies of the West, reversing the role of the Persian soldiers of 458 BC, were mobilized to destroy it!…

What had happened was that the earlier, Israelite tradition had been expunged or cancelled, and in its place the Judaic racial law had assumed ”’final and conclusive form”…

The subject motter, then, was the important thing, not historical truth, or “philological exactitude”, or the word of God. The subject matter was political nationalism in the most extreme form ever known to man, and conformity with this dogma was the only rule that had to be observed. The way in which these books were compiled, after Judah was cast off by Israel and the reasons, are clear to any who study their origin…

He was being enticed to declare himself openly: to say that “the heathen” were also “neighbours,” and thus to convict himself of transgressing The Law. In fact he replied in this sense, but in such a way that the interrogator was undone. Seldom was a lawyer so confounded.

The Levitical-Pharisaic teaching was that only Judeans were “neighbours,” and of all the outcast heathen they especially abominated the Samaritans (for reasons earlier indicated). The mere touch of a Sarnaritan was defilement and a major transgression (this continues true to the present day)…

uJe~l’ish I~je ~vas regulated by the leaching,\,’ qfthe Pharisees: the It’hole history (~lJudaism ~vas reconstructedfronl the Pharisaic ]Joint of’vieli’ . .. Pharisaisln shaped the character of’Judaisln and the life and the thought q{ the Jell’ fe);- all the ./llture … It lnakes (separatisrn’ its chie./’ ehar{leleristie”…

The story of Zion, from its start, falls into five distinct phases: those of the Levites, the Pharisees, the Talmudists, the “emancipation” interlude and the Zionists…

Nevertheless, in the case of the Jews there was an obvious paradox which repeatedly baffled and alarmed the peoples among whom they dwelt. The Jewish Law expressed the theory of the master-race in the most arrogant and vindictive [or inconceivable to the human imagination; how then could the Jews attack nationhood in others? Why did the Jews demand the levelling of barriers between men when they built an ever stronger barrier between the Jews and other men? How could people, who claimed that God had made the very world itself for them to rule, and forbade them to mix with lesser breeds, complain of discrimination?…

It was true that the Jewish clamour for emancipation was not truly concerned with the great idea or principle at issue: human liberty. The Judaic law denied that idea and principle. The Talmudic governors of Jewry saw that the quickest way to remove the barriers between themselves and power over nations was to destroy legitimate government in these nations; and the quickest way to that end was to cry “emancipation!”.
Thus the door opened by emancipation could he used to introduce the permanent revolutionary force into the life of nations: with the destruction of all legitimate government, the revolutionaries would succeed to power, and these revolutionaries would be Talmud-trained and Talmud-controlled. They would act always under the Mosaic Law, and in this way the end of Babylon could be reproduced in the West…

Apart from that permanent reason for revision, the new factor, Christianity, had arisen and the Law’s application to it had to be defined. Thus the Torah (the Law) began to receive its huge supplement, the Talmud, which was of equai or greater authority…

The core of dogma remained as Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah had shaped and enforced it; but the Talmud, in effect had taken the place of the Torah, as the Torah earlier had supplanted the “oral traditions.”…

The Jews who entered Spain with the Moors came from North Africa and when they left most of them returned thither or went to Egypt, Palestine, Italy, the Greek islands and Turkey…

An example of the different language which the Torah spoke, for Jews and for Gentiles, has previously been given: the obscure and apparently harmless allusion to “‘a foolish nation” (Deuteronomy, 32.21). According to the article on Discrimination against Gentiles in the Jewish Encyclopaedia the allusion in the original Hebrew is to “”vile and vicious Gentiles”, so that Jew and Gentile received very different meanings from the same passage in the original and in the translation. The Talmud, however, which was to reach only Jewish eyes, removed any doubt that might have been caused in Jewish minds by perusal of the milder translation~it specifically related the passage in Deuteronomy to one in Ezekiel, 23.20, and by so doing defined Gentiles as those “whose flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue of horses”! In this spirit was the “interpretation” of the Law continued by the Tahnudists…

the Jew who sells to a Gentile landed property bordering on the land of another Jew is to be excommunicated. A Gentile cannot be trusted as witness in a criminal or civil suit because he could not be depended on to keep his word like a Jew. A Jew testifying in a petty Gentile court as a slngte witness against a Jew must be excommunicated. Adultery committed with a non-Jewish woman is not adultery “for the heathen have no lawfully wedded wife, they are not really their wives”. The gentiles are as such precluded from admission to a future world…

In 1898, at the Second \Vorld Zionist Congress at Basel, a Zionist from Russia, Dr. Mandelstamm of Kieff, declared~ “The Jews energetically reject the idea of fusion with other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope, i.e., of world empire”…

The Zionists have gained political control over gentile governments and the Jewish masses alike, so that what the individual remonstrant says is of little weight. The Zionists have restored the Levitical Law, in its Pharisaic and Talmudic interpretations, in full force. Their actions towards others in the past have been and in the future will be guided by that, and not by what “the attitude of Modern Judaism” was in 1916…

This act of Gentile submission to the ruling sect recurs through all hIstory, from the time of Babylon to the present day…

What was actually permitted in the synagogues and schools was a unique form of dialectics, designed still further to strengthen the edifice of The Law. ‘The disputants were merely allowed to prove that anything was legal under the Talmud; one debater would state a proposition and another the contrary, each demonstrating that The Law allowed it!
This practice (the brothers Thoreau give glinlpses of it in their books) was called “pilpulism”. It gives the key to a mystery which often baffles Gentiles: the agility with which Zionists are often able to justify, in themselves, precisely what they reproach in others. A polemist trained in pilpulism would have no difficulty in showing the Judaic law ordaining the enslavement of household Gentiles to be righteous and the Roman ban on the enslavement of Christians by Jewish masters to be “”persecution”; the Judaic ban on intermarriage to be “voluntary separation ” and any Gentile counter-ban to be “discrimination based in prejudice” (Dr. Kastein’s terms); a massacre of Arabs to be rightful under The Law and a massacre of Jews to be wrongful under any law…

The study of hundreds of volumes, during many years, gradually brought realization that the essential truth of the story of Zion is all summed-up in Mr. Maurice Samuel’s twenty-one words: ~”We Jews, the destroyers, will remain the destroyer forever … nothing that the Gentiles will do will meet our needs and demands” …

Out of the experience of 458-444 BC, when the Levites with Persian help clamped down their law on a weeping people, the nation was born which ever since has performed its catalytic function of changing surrounding societies while remaining itself unchanged…

If neither king Ahasuerus nor “Mordecai sitting in the king’s gate” truly lived in 550 BC nevertheless Mordecai in our century is real and powerful and two generations of public men have adlninistered their offices from fear of him more than from care of their peoples’ interest.
It is our today which makes this remote, unplausible yesterday so plausible.
On the face of it. Belshazzar and Daniel, Ahasuerus and Mordecai seem to be symbolic figures, created for the purpose of the Levitical political programme, not men who once lived. But . . . the massacre of the Czar and his family, in our century, was carried out according to verse 30, chapter 5 of Daniel; the hanging of the Nazi leaders followed the precept laid down in verses 6 and 10, chapter 7, and verses 13 and 14, chapter 9, of Esther…

Dr. Kastein, the sect’s devotee, says of Greece and its civilization merely that “it was intellectually brilliant … but the prototype of everything that was mendacious, cruel, slanderous, cunning, indolent, vain corruptible, grasping and unjust”. He dismisses the episode of Greece with the triumphant note, “The Alexandrian Jews brought about the disintegration of Hellenic civilization”…

In our century conflicts between nations, on the Babylonian­ Persian model, even though they seemed at their start to be concerned with issues remote from any Jewish question, were turned into Judaic triumphs and Judaic vengeances, so that the destruction which accompanied them became an act of fulfilment under The Judaic Law, like the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn, the destruction of Babylon, and Mordecai’s pogrom…

Greece and Rome, in the Common Gentile view, created enduring values on which the civilization of Europe was built. Out of Greece came beauty and Greek foundations lie beneath all poetry and art out of Rome came law and Roman ones lie beneath Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus and the right of a man to fair and public trial, which was the greatest achievement of The West.

To the Zionist scholar Greece and Rome were just transient heathen manifestations, equally repellent. Dr. Kastein says disdainfully that in Rome “from the very beginning Judea quite rightly saw rnerely the representative of unintellectual and stupid brute force”…

The 450 years have seen three of these “‘revolutions” (counting only the chief ones). Each was more destructive than the last. Each was recognizable as the heir of the former one by its chief characteristics, and these, again, were the chief characteristics of the Judaic Law as laid down in the Torah-Talmud. The main assault in each case was on legitimate government, nationhood and Christianity. Under the Judaic Law the only legitimate government is that ofJehovah and the only legitimate nation is that of Jehovah’s chosen people, under the Talmudic supplelnent of that Law Christianity is specifically the chief of those “”other gods”, after whom the chosen are forbidden to “”go a-whoring”; and “”destruction”, as has been shown, is a supreme tenet of that Law.
When these revolutions began they were supposed to be aimed at “‘kings and priests”, as the symbolic figures of oppression. Now that the power of kings and priests is gone, but the revolution is established in permanence, it may be seen that these were false words, chosen to delude “”the multitude”. The attack was on nationhood (the rnurdered king being in each case the symbol) and on religion (the destruction of churches being the symbolic act)…

Talmudic incitement and control of the English and French revolutions cannot be discovered, at any rate by the present writer’s research. In each case the results bore the familiar signs of the Judaic triumph (the “return” of the Jews to England, the emancipation of the Jews in France), although at the start of both revolutions the Jewish question had not been present in the public mind as an issue at stake. As far as the student can ascertain at this distance of time, the projection of “the Jewish question” into these issues, and its elevation to a chief place among them, was sonlething achieved while the revolutions went along, and the Judaic elders who accomplished this did not actually bring about the revolutions.
The third case, that of the Russian revolution, is entirely different. It culminated in the greatest Judaic triumph and Judaic vengeance on record, either in Old Testamentary history or in later history, and was organized, directed and controlled by Jews who had grown up in the Talmud-controlled areas. This is a fact of our present day, demonstrable and undeniable, and it is the most significant fact in the whole story of Zion, illuminating all the past and giving the key to all the future.
For our century, which produced that event has also seen the word ”’revolution” given a new meaning, or more accurately, given its true meaning: destruction without end until The Law is fulfilled…

What was airned at was plainly the final consummation of The Law, in its literal form: “Thou shalt reign over every nation but they shall not reign over thee … the Lord thy God shall set thee on high above all nations of the earth”.
Without this motive the three revolutions would never have taken the course they took, the course they took prefigures the shape of the future. They represent stages in and steps towards the fulfillment ofThe Law, and, once again, those who in their day seemed to be great or powerful men in their own right, like King Cyrus and the mysterious King Ahasuerus, now look like mere puppets in the great drama of Judaic history as it moves towards its miraculous end in Jerusalem…

What is certain is that the French revolution, while it was brewing, was supposed to be for “the rights of man” (which presumably meant all men, equally), but when it began “the Jewish question”, as by magic, at once came to the fore. One of the earliest acts of the revolution (1791) was the complete emancipation of the Jews (just as the law against “anti-semitism” was one of the first acts of the revolution in Russia)…

The story of the Jews, under this control, was the same in Babylon, Persia, Egypt, (Greece, Rome and Spain, and could not be anything else, given the unique Judaic Law…

In Napoleonic manner he took it by the throat and tried to extract an answer from it to the eternal question: did the Jews truly desire to become part of the nation and to live by its law, or did they secretly acknowledge another law which commanded them to destroy and dominate the peoples among whom they dwelt?…

The strange world in which Napoleon thus set foot is little understood by Gentiles. It is illumined by the following two quotations:
“”Owing to the acceptance of the idea of the Chosen People and of salvation, the Jewish world was Judeocentric, and the Jews could interpret everything that happened only from the standpoint of themselves as the centre” (Dr. Kastein).
“The Jew constructed a whole history of the world of which he made hilnself the centre, and from this moment, that is, the moment when Jehovah makes the covenant with Abraham, the fate of Israel forms the history of the world, indeed, the history of the whole cosmos, the one thing about which the Creator of the world troubles himself. It is as if the circles always become narrower; at last only the central point remains: the Ego” (Mr. Houston Stewart Chalmberlain)…

[Napoleon] knew that, according to the Judaic Law, the world had been created, at a date precisely determined, solely for the Jews and everything that happened in it (including such an episode as that of his own fame and power) was calculated simply to bring about the Jewish triumph…

Napoleon’s questions went, like arrows to a target, straight to the tenets of the Torah-Talmud on which the wall between the Jews and other men had been built. The chief ones were, did the Jewish Law permit mixed marriages, did the Jews regard Frenchmen as “strangers” (foreigners) or as brothers, did they regard France as their native country, the laws of which they were bound to obey; did the Judaic Law draw any distinction between Jewish and Christian debtors?…

The Sanhedrin acknowledged the extinction of the Jewish nation to be an accomplished fact. This solved the central dilemma thrown up by the fact that the Law, which theretofore had always been held to be exclusively binding for Jews, allowed no distinction between religious and civil law. As “the nation” had ceased to exist, the Talmudic laws of daily Iife were proclaimed to be no longer be effective, but the Torah, as the law of faith, remained immutable, thus said the Sanhedrists. If any clash or dispute were to occur, the religious laws were to be held subordinate to those of the state in which individual Jews lived. Israel thenceforward would exist only as a religion, and no longer looked forward to any national rehabilitation.
It was a unique triumph for Napoleon (and who knows how much it may have contributed to his downfall?). The Jew’s were liberated from the Talmud; the way to their re-integration in their fellow men, their involvement in mankind, was reopened where the Levites had closed it over two thousand years before; the spirit of discrimination and hatred was renounced and exorcised. These declarations formed the basis on which the claim for full civil liberties was made and realized throughout the West in the years that followed…

Thenceforth Orthodox Judaism, “with the face it turned toward the West, denied any suggestion that the Jews would form a nation within nations. Reform Judaism in time eliminated every prayer expressing so much as even the suspicion of a hope or a desire for any form of Jewish national resurrection” (Rabbi Moses P. Jacobson). The ground was cut from beneath those opponents of Jewish emancipation in the British Parliament who contended that “the Jews look forward to the coming of a great deliverer, to their return to Palestine, to the rebuilding of their temple, to the revival of their ancient worship, and therefore, they will always consider England not as their country. but merely as their place of exile” (quoted by Mr. Bernard J. Brown).
Yet these warning voices spoke the truth. In less than ninety years the declarations of the Napoleonic Sanhedrin had in effect been cancelled…

It was an illusion. In the eyes of today’s Gentile student it seems to have been a great opportunity missed. In the eyes of the literal Jew it was an appalling danger narrowly averted: that of common involvement in mankind…

The one movement Zionism, aimed at reassembling a dispersed nation in a territory promised to it by the Jewish god,’ the second movement, Communism, aimed at the destruction of separate nationhood as such.
Thus these two movements appeared at first sight to be fixedly opposed to each other- for the one made nationalism its religion, even its god, and the other declared war to the death on nationalism. This antagonism was only apparent, and in truth the two movements ran on parallel tracks, not head on towards a collision on the same line, “for the god who promised land to the nation to be gathered-in also promised to set it “above all people that are upon the face of the earth” and to destroy all other nations ··with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed”. The world-revolution, which pursued the second of these aims, thus fulfilled the condition set for the first of them; either by accident or by design, it too was doing the will of Jehovah…

that fantastic feat of international stage-management on the grand scale in October 1917 when Communism (the destroyer of nationhood) and Zionism (the creator of the dominant nation) triumphed at the same instant!

“”Our governments”, in the half-century that has elapsed, have become such “willing slaves” of the Judaic master-sect that they are in fact the bailiffs or agents of a new, international ruling-class, and not true governors at all…

The West has come to this dilemma through the pressure of two rnillstones, Communism and Zionism, the nation-destroying world-revolution and the new, nation-creating, ruling-class. The one has incited the mob, the other has gained mastery over rulers. Are the organizers of both the same? This book seeks to answer the question in its rernaining chapters. What is clear is that each stage in the ruination of the West, during these 170 years, has been accompanied by successive stages of “the return” to the promised land. That is an indication of common managership too strong to be set aside unless it can be conclusively disproved. To the ”’heathen” masses of Christendom the process which began with the emergence of the world-revolution in 1789 has been merely one of sound and fury, signifying nothing; but the student perceives that in majestic rhythm it fulfils The Law and The Prophets of Judah…

The French revolution of 1789 is the one that provides the key to the mystery. It forms the link between the English one of 1640 and the Russian one of 1917 and reveals the whole process as a planned and continuing one which, having passed through these three stages, clearly will reach its final orgasm at some moment not far distant, probably during this century. That climax, foreseeably, will take the shape of an attempt to consummate and complete the world­ revolution by setting up a world-government under the control of the organization which has guided the revolutionary process from its start. This would establish the sway of a new ruling-class over the submerged nations. (As Dr. Kastein would say, it would “deterlnine the fate of the whole world”)…

Then, after the outbreaks of 1848, Disraeli returned to the subject, telling the House of Commons in 1852: “The influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property … The natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional governments and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them” (exactly the same thing recurred in Russia, in 1917, that is, seventy years after the 1848 outbreaks). Disraeli added, “The most skilful manipulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen people touch the hands of all the scum and low castes of Europe”. This, he said, was because they wished to destroy Christianity…

The whole dispute between ancient Israel and Judah of the Levites raged round this false deity [Moloch] and his demands, and Israel turned its back on Judah on this very account; this is the root of the controversy of Zion, three thousand years ago and now…

The god of love and mercy, the god of hatred, vengeance and human sacrifice: that was from the start the issue, and is today, and if Disraeli had lived a hundred years later Christendom might by this scion of Jewry have been spared the stigma of the Talmudic vengeance at Nuremberg. Similarly, Disraeli cannot be imagined lending himself, his office and his country’s strength to the support and spread of the world-revolution, as the leaders of Britain and America lent themselves in the fIrst and second world wars; his whole public life was spent in forewarning his country against the destructive conspiracy which their acts promoted…

The present writer thinks he erred in one matter, namely, in his opinion that the doctrines of Jesus were the completion, not the repudiation, of Judaism. The contrary seems to me to be true, namely, that Judaism was that very heresy (”’the worship of Moloch”) which Disraeli spurned, and which Jesus came to change…

Karl Marx and his Communist Manifesto were the outward and visible signs of a significant historic event: Talmudic Judaism had taken over the world-revolution…

That verdict of 1951 is obviously true and agrees with the contemporary one of the revolutionary eye-witness Benoit Malon: “Communism was handed down in the dark through the secret societies of the 19th Century.”

Thus when Disraeli died the thing he had striven to avoid had come about: the “secret societies had been welded into one world-revolutionary movement under Jewish control, and this was preparing to blow up the foundations of the 20th Century…

The sequence of events is significant. In 1772 Poland was partitioned and, after more than 2,500 years, the “centre” of Jewish Government “ceased to exist” (according to Dr. Kastein) or became a secret Jewish government (as the Russian authorities believed). In 1776 Adam Weishaupt founded his Illuminati. By 1846 Disraeli was writing that “the revolution is developing entirely under Jewish auspices”. In 1869 Michel Bakunin, the disciple of Weishaupt, attacked the Jews in the revolutionary movement. In 1872 Bakunin was expelled and the united Communist movement plainly emerged, under Karl Marx (in 1917 it produced an almost exclusively Jewish Bolshevist government).

Such was the result, foretold by Disraeli, of the removal of Jewish disabilities and of a few decades of Jewish emancipation. The lowering of the barriers had not had the effect of amalgamating the Jews in the comity of peoples, its consequences had been to give “the most formidable sect (Bakunin’s words) freedom to work for the ruination of these peoples by revolution. The responses given by the Sanhedrin to Napoleon’s questions at the century’s start by its middle-age had been shown to be void of force. Jews would not thenceforward be allowed to involve themselves, with other men, in the nationhoods and laws of the lands where they dwelt; on the contrary, identification with the world­ revolution set them more apart from others than even they had ever been before. The century of emancipation had been turned into a fraud even before it ended.

During the 19th Century (as Dr . Kastein, again, records) the term “antisemitism” was born, for “persecution” could no longer be said to exist, some new word had to be found, capable of intimidating Gentiles and terrifying Jews, the second purpose being more important than the first, and “antisemitism” was invented. “Abracadabra” might have served as weIl for the term ….antisemitism.. is patently absurd in relation to people who are demonstrably not Semites and whose Law commands the extirpation of Semites (the Arab peoples of Palestine, any expression of sympathy with the Semitic Arabs, expelled from their native land by the Zionist intruders in 1948, in time came to be attacked as “antisemitism”)…

Contemplated in that historical perspective, the threefold purposes of the grand design become clear, and events have demonstrated them. First, through revolution the process of emancipation (and therewith of Jewish assimilation in the West) might be reversed and the supremacy of the ruling sect in Jewry maintained. Second, through revolution vengeance might be taken on Christendom for the expulsion from Spain. or perhaps for the existence of Christendom (for that is the affront to which the Talmud is in effect the answer). Third, revolution would promote the fulfillment of The Law, which ordained the ruination of the heathen and the triumph of the Chosen People, or at any rate of the sect which used that beguiling term…

Under The Law this destruction was not an end in itself; it was a means to the end laid down in The Law. The extirpation of nation-states was to be the essential prelude to the establishment of the triumphant nation-State, that of the chosen people in their promised land. Thus, in the middle of the last century, a second force also was brought into being in those same Eastern, Talmudic, ruled areas where the world-revolution received its shape and impetus…

The dominant-force [Zionism] corrupted the governments of these states at the top level; the revolutionary-force [Communism] eroded their foundations at the bottom level…

Thus the story of the emergence of Zionism from the ghettoes of Russia and of the delicate interplay between the two forces, the one coiling itself round the rulers of the West and the other undermining the structure of the nation-states, forms the next chapter of the controversy of Zion…

Communism was designed to subvert the masses, it was the “great popular movement” foreseen by Disraeli, by means of which “the secret societies” were to work in unison for the disruption of Europe. Zionism set out to subvert rulers at the top. Neither force could have moved forward without the other, for rulers of unimpaired authority would have checked the revolution as it had been checked in 1848…

He shows how, in those remote Talmudic communities nearly a hundred years ago, the strategy took shape which in its consequences was to catch up, as in a vortex, all peoples of the West. Americans and Britons, Germans and Frenchmen, Italians, Poles, Scandinavians, BaIts, the Balkanic peoples and all others were to be implicated. The lifeblood and treasure of the West were to be spent on the promotion of these two complementary purposes like water from a running tap…

The remaining mass of Jews in Russia. (that is, those that lived in the ghettoes under Talmudic rule) were divided into two groups by a vertical line which split households and families, including Dr. Weizmann’s own house and family. Both groups were revolutionary, that is to say, they agreed in working for the destruction of Russia. The dissension was solely on the point of Zionism. The “Communist-revolutionary” group held that full “emancipation”, would be achieved when the world-revolution supplanted the nation-states everywhere. The “”Zionist-revolutionary group”, while agreeing that the world-revolution was indispensable to the process, held that full “emancipation”, would only be achieved when a Jewish nation was established in a Jewish state.
Of these two groups, the Zionist one was clearly the superior in Talmudic orthodoxy, as destruction, under The Law, is but a means to the end of domination, and the dominant nation is that ordained to be set up in Jerusalem. In the households, dispute was fierce. The Communists maintained that Zionism would weaken the revolution, which professed to deny “race and creed”; the Zionists contended that revolution must lead to the restoration of the chosen people, of whom race was the creed…

The [first World Zionist] congress was in fact a Sanhedrin summoned to cancel the avowals made by the Napoleonic Sanhedrin eighty years before. That Sanhedrin repudiated separate nationhood and any ambition to form a Jewish state, this one proclaimed separate nationhood and the ambition of statehood…

Dr. Herzl found hiinself face to face with his masters and with the conspiracy, which through him was about to enter the West. He had declared war on emancipation and, like many successors, was unaware of the nature of the force he had released. He was soon left behind, a bugler whose task was done, while the real “managers” took over…

Herzl’s method was to exploit this general fear for his particular end, the Jewish State. He offered domestic peace if it were supported and revolution if it were not and he claimed to speak in the name of all the Jews…

The two forces moved forward together in synchronization (for Zionism, as has been shown, used the threat of Communism in Europe to gain the ear of European rulers for its territorial demand outside Europe). It was as if twin turbines began to revolve, generating what was in effect one force, from which the new century was to receive galvanic shocks…

The Greek drama continued. Mr. Balfour’s prime-ministership ended in a fiasco for his party when in the 1906 election eight out of nine Manchester seats were lost to it. He then faded temporarily from office. At that moment another personage entered the present narrative. Among the triumphant Liberal candidates was a rising young man with a keen nose for political winds, a Mr. Winston Churchill. He also sought election in Manchester and commended himself to the Zionist headquarters there, first by attacking the Balfour government’s Aliens Bill (which set a brake on large-scale immigration from such places as Russia) and next by supporting Zionism. Thereon the Manchester Jews promptly fell into line behind him as though he were a kind of latterday Moses, one of their leaders got up at an all-Jewish-meeting and announced that “any Jew who votes against Churchill is a traitor to the common cause” (Mr. R.C. Taylor). Mr. Churchill, elected, became Under Secretary for the Colonies. His public espousal of Zionism was simply a significant episode at that time; three decades later, when Mr. Balfour was dead, it was to have consequences as fateful as Mr. Balfour’s own aberration…

The later events showed that the Eastern conspiracy, in both its forms, entered America through this mass-immigration. The process of acquiring an ever-increasing measure of politicai power began, behind the scenes, about 1900 and was to become the major issue of American national life in the ensuing fifty years…

Mr. House did not guide American State policy, but deflected it towards Zionism, the support of the world-revolution, and the promotion of the world-government ambition…

Between 1900 and 1910 a million new Jewish immigrants arrived from Russia and under Zionist organization began to form an important body of voters…

Mr. Wilson, under coaching for the campaign, made a speech on “The rights of the Jews”, in which he said, “I am not here to express our sympathy with our Jewish fellow­ citizens but to make evident our sense of identity with them. This is not their cause; it is America’s”…

To the initiates it was a pledge to Zionism. It was also an oblique allusion and threat to Russia, for the implication of Mr.Wilson’s words was that he recognized the Jews in Russia (who were then the only organized Zionists) as representing all Jews. Thus he took the Balfourean part in the American production of this drama…

Before the election Mr. House drew up a list of cabinet ministers (see Philip Dru) in consultation with a Mr. Bernard Baruch, who now enters this tale. He might be the most important of all the figures who will appear in it during the ensuing fifty years, for he was to become known as “the adviser” to several Presidents and in the 1950’s was still advising President Eisenhower and Mr. Winston Churchill. In 1912 he was publicly known only as a highly successful financier. His biographer states that he contributed $50,000 to Mr. Wilson’s campaign…

In 1913 B’nai B’rith put out a tiny offshoot, the “Anti-Defamation League”. It was to grow to great size and power; in it the state-within-states acquired a kind of secret police and it will reappear in this story…

In England in 1914 the situation brought about in America by the secret captivity of President Wilson did not prevail. The leading political and military posts were held by men who put every proposal for the political and military conduct of the war to one test: would it help win the war and was it in their country’s interest. By that test Zionism failed. The story of the first two years of the four-year war is that of the struggle behind the scenes to dislodge these obstructive men and to supplant them by other, submissive men…

To the initiates they carried a commitment to support the plan, of which Zionism and Communism both were instruments, for establishing a “world federation” founded on force and the obliteration of nationhood, with the exception of one “nation” to be recreated…

The draft experienced revealing adventures between October 9 and November 2, when it was published. It was sent to America, where it was edited by Mr. Brandeis, Mr. Jacob de Haas and Rabbi Wise before being shown to President Wilson for his ‘”final approval”. He simply sent it to Mr. Brandeis (who had already had it from Dr. Weizmann), who passed it to Rabbi Stephen Wise, “to be handed to Colonel House for transmission to the British Cabinet”…

The conclusion cannot be escaped: if any honest explanation of his actions in this matter could be found Mr. Lloyd George would have given it. From this period in 1916-1917 the decay of parliamentary and representative government can be traced, both in England and America. If secret men could dictate major acts of American state policy and major operations of British armies, then clearly “election” and “responsible office” were terms devoid of meaning. Party distinctions began to fade in both countries, once this hidden, supreme authority was accepted by leading Western politicians, and the American and British electors began to be deprived of all true choice. Today this condition is general, and now is public. Leaders of all parties, before elections, make obeisance to Zionism, and the voter’s selection of president, prime minister or party makes no true difference…

These records show that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprized 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919 were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly ”’Socialist’· or other non-Communist parties (during that early period the semblance of “opposition” was permitted, to beguile the masses, accustomed under the Czar to opposition parties) were 55 Jews and 6 others. All the names are given in the original documents reproduced by Mr. Wilton. (In parentheses, the composition of the two short-lived Bolshevik governments outside Russia in 1918-1919, namely those of Hungary and Bavaria, was similar)…

The law against “”anti-semitism” (which cannot be defined) was in itself a fingerprint. An illegal government, predominantly jewish, by this measure warned the Russian masses, under pain of death, not to interest themselves in the origins of the revolution. It meant in effect that the Talmud became the law of Russia, and in the subsequent four decades this law has in effect and in growing degree been made part of the structure of the west…

The chief reason for recounting the details of the pogrom of the Romanoffs is to point to the “‘fingerprint” which was left in the room where it was done. One of the assassins, presumably their leader, stayed to exult and put a significant signature on the wall, which was covered with obscene or mocking inscriptions in Hebrew, Magyar and German. Among them was a couplet which deliberately related the deed to the Law of the Torah-Talmud and thus offered it to posterity as an example of the fulfilment of that law, and of Jewish vengeance as understood by the Levites. It was written in German by someone who parodied the Jewish poet, Heinrich Heine’s lines on the death of Belshazzar, the imaginary potentate whose murder is portrayed in Daniel as God’s punishment for an affront offered to Judah:

Belshazzar became the same night
Killed by the same servants.

The parodist, sardonically surveying the shambles, adapted these lines to what he had just done:

Belsatsar was the same night
Killed by his servants.

No clearer clue to motive and identity was ever left behind…

At this period (1917­-1918) the student for the first time is able to establish that leading men began to give that secret support to Communism which they were already giving to its blood brother, Zionism…

Both of them Russian-born . . . they had swayed the crowds of Jewish students from one side of the street to the other; Leon Trotsky, apostle of Red revolution; Chaim Weizmann, apostle of a tradition unbroken for two thousand years. Now by a most strange coincidence in the same week each of them accomplished the fulfilment of his dream”.
In truth, the pincers in which the West was to be gripped had been forged, and each handle was held by one of two groups of revolutionaries “‘Russian-born” (but not Russian).

For Dr. Weizmann and his associates in London and Washington, the event in Moscow was a passing embarrassment, in one respect. They had based their demand for Palestine on the legend that “a place of refuge” must be found for Jews “persecuted in Russia” (an obvious non sequitur but good enough for “the mob”), and now there was no “persecution in Russia”, On the contrary, in Moscow a Jewish regime ruled and “anti-Semitism” was a capital offence. Where, then, were the Jews who needed ‘”a place of refuge”? (This is evidently the reason why Mr. Robert Wilton had to be prevented from reporting the nature of the new regime in Moscow)…

The corruption of the press (foretold by the Protocols) began with the censorship introduced during the First World War; the rise of the directing power behind the scenes had been shown by the cases of Colonel Repington, Mr. H.A. Gwynne and Mr. Robert Wilton in 1917-1918; experienced correspondents were driven to resign or to write books because their reports were ignored, burked, or suppressed; an editor who published the faithful report without submission to the censorship was prosecuted…

‘The fiasco of the ”’national home” was so clear that even the politicians began to hedge. Mr. Lloyd George in 1925 told the Zionists publicly “”any policy of expropriation or anything that suggests it will only make difficulties in the path of Zionism”. Dr. Weiznlann at once replied: “Mr. Lloyd George will believe me when I say that the Jews are the last people in the world to build their home on the back of somebody else. ‘The Jews have suffered so much from injustice that they have learned their lesson and I can assure you that the Arabs will not suffer at our hands”. Again “the word” invites comparison with “the deed” that ensued later…

Mr. LJoyd George in 1925 told the Zionists publicly “”any policy of expropriation or anything that suggests it will only make difficulties in the path of Zionism”. Dr. Weiznlann at once replied: “Mr. Lloyd George will believe me when I say that the Jews are the last people in the world to build their home on the backs of somebody else. The Jews have suffered so much from injustice that they have learned their lesson and I can assure you that the Arabs will not suffer at our hands”…

The emancipated Jews could have offered effective opposition to the Zionists if they had formed an anti­ Zionist organization. They feared to do so, and this was their undoing. ‘They did not want Zionist nationalism and a Jewish state, but they did want the Judaist Mecca, the cultural and religious centre, and feared that the term “anti-Zionist” would imply antagonism to that. Through this chink in their armour Dr. Weiztnann unerringly reached…

The gap left by the collapse, in 1917, of the legend of “Jewish persecution in Russia” was filled by ….the Jewish persecution in Germany” and, just when Zionism was “helpless and hopeless”, the Zionists were able with a new cry to affright the Jews and beleaguer the Western politicians. The consequences showed in the outcome of the ensuing war, when revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary-Communism proved to be the sole beneficiaries…

Mr. Roosevelt, after the Republican interregnum of 1921-1933, resumed the Wilson policies and in that spirit approached the major problem of America’s future at that moment: namely, whether the forces represented by the great Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe, which had occurred in the six decades following the Civil War, should or should not govern America. All competent authorities had observed – usually with foreboding – the rapid rise of this new problem in American life, and had depicted the effects of the transplantation to American soil of a large population-mass which, under its religious directors, rejected the concept of “the melting-pot” and of “assimilation”…

Such was the background of the dominant issue in American life when Mr. Roosevelt became president. Between 1881 and 1920 over three million legally­ recorded immigrants entered the United States from Russia, most of them Jews. According to the United States Census Bureau the country contained 230,000 Jews in 1877 and about 4,500,000 in 1926…

The next Congress went much further than the general statement above quoted; it was specific about the danger, the same Committee reporting:
“If the principle of individual liberty, guarded by a constitutional government, created on this continent nearly a century and half ago is to endure, the basic strain of our population must be maintained and our economic standards preserved . . . The American people do not concede the right of any foreign group … to dictate the character of our legislation”.

The years which then followed showed that the effect of Mr. Roosevelt’s presidency would be further to break down the principle stated, to alter “the basic strain”, and to enable “a foreign group” to dictate State policy…

Therefore Mr Long, although he could not have become president at that time, certainly could have prevented Mr. Roosevelt’s re-election, and the ruling few suddenly beheld a disturber of their regime. However, as Mr. Flynn says, ”Fate had gone Democratic and remained so”; on September 8, 1935 Mr. Long was shot in the Louisiana State Capitol by a young Jew, Dr. Carl Austin Weiss. The motive will never be known because Dr. Weiss, who might have explained it, was shot by Mr. Long’s tardy bodyguard…

Mr. Brandeis in America similarly, and imperially, decreed that “No Jew must live in Germany”. Mr. Churchill desired that “three or four million Jews” should be transplanted to Palestine; the Communist state, by profession anti-Zionist, supplied the first contingent of these.

When the smoke of battle cleared only three purposes had been achieved, none of them disclosed at its start: the world-revolution, with Western arms and support, had advanced to the middle of Europe; Zionism had been armed to establish itself in Palestine by force; the one-world-government”, obviously the result which these two convergent forces were intended to produce, had been set up anew in embryo form, this time in New York. The war behind the war was the true one; it was fought to divert the arms, manpower and treasure of the West to these purposes. Through the dissolving fog of war the shape of the great “design” first revealed by Weishaupt’s paper, and exposed again in the Protocols, showed clear…

The war was hardly begun when Dr. Weizmann appeared in Mr. Churchill’s offIce. Unknown to the general public, this remarkable man for thirty-three years (from the day of his interview with Mr. Balfour) had exercised mastery over the politicians of England and America. His person cannot have inspired such awe, so that they must have seen in him the representative of a force which cowed them; the one which Dr. Kastein called “the Jewish international” and Mr. Neville Chamberlain “international Jewry”.

Mr. Churchill. returned to office after ten years as First Lord of the Admiralty, presumably should have been absorbed by the war at sea, but Dr. Weizmann was concerned with other things. He said, “after the war we would want to build up a state (“three or four million Jews in Palestine” and states that Mr. Churchill replied, “Yes, indeed, I quite agree with that”. Mr. Churchill, twelve months earlier, had called for “solemn assurances” to the Arabs that Zionist imnligration would be regulated and restricted…

The ground had been prepared for him in America, where Rabbi Stephen Wise was instructing President Roosevelt (as he had instructed the long-dead President Wilson) about his duty towards Zionism: “‘On May 13,1941 I found it necessary to send the president firsthand reports from Palestine” (the rabbi’s firsthand reports about a “‘reported” pogrom in 1933 had produced the boycott in New York) ….and write about the imperilled status of the unarmed Jews . . . The British Government ought to he made to understand how enormous would he the shock and how, damaging its effect upon the democratic cause, if there should be a general slaughter because of failure adequately to arm the Jews as well as to strengthen the defences of Palestine with guns, tanks and planes”.
The president replied, “I can merely call to the attention of the British our deep interest in the defence of Palestine and our concern for the defence of the Jewish population there; and, as best I can, supply the British forces with the material means by which the maximum protection to Palestine will be afforded”. Equipped with this letter (as Dr. Weizlnann once with a report of an interview written on British Foreign Office letter-paper) Rabbi Stephen Wise “‘the next day left for Washington, and after conference with high government officials felt more confident that the British would be made to understand that there must be adequate equipment (guns, tanks and planes) for our people in Palestine . .. And probably thanks to the intervention of Mr. Roosevelt, the business of parity had been dropped to a large extent” (the last allusion is to the insistence of responsible British administrators that, if arms were being handed around, Arabs and Zionists in equal numbers should be armed in Palestine; even Mr. Churchill had found difficulty in resisting this proposal).

These Zionist potentates in the various countries applied “‘irresistible pressure on international politics” in perfect synchronization. If London lagged in compliance, it was “‘made to understand” by Washington; had the positions been reversed the procedure would have been the opposite. Thus the mechanism had been well oiled when Dr. Weizmann arrived and he soon satisfied himself that “‘the top political leaders” showed “real sympathy for our Zionist aspirations”…

At this stage he began close co-operation with Mr. Henry Morgenthau, junior, of the president’s inner circle, who was to prove of “peculiar assistance” at the later, decisive moment…

For nearly forty years, at that time, Dr. Weizmann had worked “behind the scenes”, deviously and in secret; history shows no comparable case. At one more behind-the-scenes meeting with President Roosevelt he then imparted Mr. Churchill’s message, or rather (according to his own account) a different one: he said Mr. Churchill had assured him that “the end of the war would see a change in the status of the Jewish National Home, and that the White Paper of 1939 would go”…

Mr. Roosevelts achievement may now be seen to have been threefold and in each respect perilous to his country’s future: he helped to arm Zionism, he armed the revolution in its Moscow citadel; and he opened the doors of his American citadel to its agents…

Mr. Roosevelt began by breaking down the barriers against uncontrolled immigration which the Congresses immediately before him strove to set up; because they saw in it the danger of the capture of the American administration by “a foreign group”. Under various of his edicts the supervision of immigration was greatly weakened. Immigration officials were forbidden to put questions about communist associations; and the separate classification of Jewish immigrants was discontinued. “this was supported by a continuous press campaign against all demands for enquiry into loyalty or political record as “discrimination against the foreign-born”.

None can say how many people entered the United States during that period. By 1952 Senator Pat McCarran, chairman of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, estimated that apart from legal immigration, five rnillion aliens had illegally entered the country, including large numbers of “militant communists, Sicilian bandits and other criminals”.

This mass of immigrants went to swell the size of the “fluctuating vote” on which Mr. Roosevelt’s party (still following Mr. House’s strategy) concentrated its electoral effort and its cry of “no discrimination”. Under the president’s restrictions on loyalty-interrogations the way into the civil service and armed forces was opened to American-born or legally-domiciled alien Communists…

The renewal of large-scale immigration formed the background to the political invasion of the Republic. This was a three-pronged movement which aimed at the capture of the three vital points of a state’s defences: state policy at the top level, the civil services at the middle level and “public opinion” or the mass-mind at the base…

This form of political invasion is called by Dr. Weizmann, who exhaustively studied it in his youth, when he was preparing in Russia for his life’s work in the west, “the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses”.

Far back in this book the reader was invited to note that “B’nai B’rith” put out a shoot… The little offshoot of 1913, the “Anti-Defamation League”, had by 1947 become a secret police of formidable power in America. *
In Doublespeak “anti-defamation” means “defamation” and this body lived by calumny, using such terms as anti-semite, fascist, rabble-rouser, Jew-baiter, Red-baiter, paranoiac, lunatic, madman, reactionary, diehard, bigot and more of the like…

Under this regime reasoned debate became outlawed; there is something of sorcery in this subjugation of two generations of Western men to the mumbo­
jumbo of Asiatic conspirators…

the first Bolshevist administration in Russia, the “law against anti-semitism” introduced on July 27, 1918…

Therefore the authors of the vengeance of 1945 must be sought in the revolutionary area, and for this reason the nature of the revolution in 1945 may be examined, to discover whether it, and its leadership, had changed from 1917 (when it was ninety percent Jewish) and 1848 (when Disraeli said it was led by Jews)…

In my opinion the directing force of the revolution was from 1848 onward demonstrably that of the Talmudic rabbinate in the East, and in that sense “the revolution” was “a Jewish conspiracy”…

Thus the identity of the managers of the revolution did not change substantially between 1917 and 1939, they withdrew from most of the frontal places but retained the true “levers of control’…

This is an interesting case of the dissension in a Jewish family described by Dr. Weizmann in his account of his boyhood in Russia, where Jewish households were split between “revolutionary-Communism” and “revolutionary-Zionism”, and only in that question…

This was the requital for Mr. Churchill’s forty years of support for Zionism, he had not actually ordered British troops to clear Palestine of Arabs and, for a while, was an enemy…

Among the victorious Socialists a worthy party-man, one Mr. Hall, inherited the Colonial Office from Lord Lloyd, Lord Moyne and others dead or defamed, and was barely in it when a deputation from the World Zionist Congress arrived:
“I must say the attitude adopted by the members of the deputation was different from anything which I have ever experienced. It was not a request for the consideration by His Majesty’s Government of the decisions of the Zionist conference, but a demand that His Majesty’s Government should do what the Zionist Organization desired them to do”…

Dr. Weizmann knew exactly what was at stake and in his old age shrank from the prospect that reopened before him: reversion to the worship of Moloch, the god of blood. He had seen so much blood shed in the name of revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary-Zionism, the two causes which had dominated his parental home and home town in the Pale…

Dr. Weizmann (though deposed by the Zionist Organization for his warnings against terrorism) was once more the chief authority heard by UNSCOP in Jerusalem, and then quickly returned to New York where, in October and November of 1947, he dominated the hidden scene as lobbyist supreme. “irresistible pressure” operated with relentless force…

In these circumstances the successful candidate could only feel that election was a reward for “supporting partition” in November 1947 and “granting recognition” in May 1948; nothing could more clearly illustrate the vast change which the mass­ immigration of Eastern Jews, in the period following the Civil War, had brought about in the affairs of the American Republic…

(if American troops in the 1950’s or 1960’s find themselves in the Near East, any of them who have read Mr. Forrestal’s Diaries should know how they came to be there)…

on November 29, 1947 the General Assembly of the United Nations recommended (Zionist propaganda always says “decided”) that “independent Arab and Jewish states, and the specific international regime for the City of Jerusalem” should come into existence after termination of the British “Mandate” on August 1, 1948…

Dr. Weizmann then had called “the terror in Palestine” the “old evil in a new and horrible guise”. April 9, 1948 showed what he meant, and in particular why he called it the old evil. On that day the “activists”, the terror-and-assassination group of Zionism, “utterly destroyed” an Arab village in exact and literal fulfilment of ”the Law” laid down in Deuteronomy (which, the reader will recall, is the basic Judaic law but was itself an amendment of the original Mosaic law of the Israelites)…

Thereon alrnost the entire Arab population of Palestine fled into the neighbouring Arab states.
The massacre at Deir Yasin was briefly reported in the West, for instance Time Magazine of New York said:
“Jewish terrorists of the Stern Gang and Irgun Zvai Leumi stormed the village of Deir Yasin and butchered everyone in sight. The corpses of 250 Arabs, mostly women and small children, were later found tossed into wells”.

At the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919 Dr. Weizmann had declared, “”The Bible is our mandate”, and the words sounded good to Western ears. This event showed what they meant, and the same words were repeated by the Zionist leaders in Palestine thirty years after Dr. Weizmann used them. The massacre at Deir Yasin was an act of “observance” of the ancient “statutes and commandments”, including the relevant passage in Deuteronomy, “When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out … seven nations greater and mightier than thou … then thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them”, and the related passage, “thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them”. There are seven Arab states today, and each of them has its share of the fugitives of 1948, who for eight years now have been a living reminder to them of the common future fate with which Zionism threatens them under the ancient Law.

The passive condonation of this deed by Jewry as a whole showed more clearly than anything else the change which Zionism had wrought in the Jewish mind in a few years. Writing in 1933 (only fifteen years before Deir Yasin), Mr. Bernard J. Brown quoted the above passage from Deuteronomy as the reason for Arab fears, and added, “”Of course, the uncultured Arabs do not understand that the modern Jew does not take his bible literally, and that he is a kind and charitable person and would not be so cruel to his fellow-man, but he suspects that if the Jews bottom their claim to Palestine on the strength of the historic rights to that land, they can only do so on the authority of the Bible, and the Arab refuses to reject any part of it”. The Arabs were right and Mr. Brown was wrong; this enlightened Western Jew could not conceive, in 1933, that Zionism meant a full return to the superstition of antiquity in its most barbaric form…

All impartial authorities agree about the intention and effect of Deir Yasin, and from April 9, 1948 no doubt remained about the governing force of the ancient Judaic Law on all future acts and ambitions of Zion…

As the days passed, and the news from Deir Yasin flickered briefly over the tapes, [Dr. Weizmann] laboured tirelessly at his supreme task: the winning of “recognition” for the Jewish State set up by the terrorists at Deir Yasin…

Dates are again significant. On May 13 1948 Dr. Weizmann saw President Truman, the contest for the presidential nominations then lay immediately ahead and the presidential election a few months beyond, so that this was the ideal moment to apply “irresistible pressure”. Dr. Weizmann informed President Truman that the British mandate would end on May 15 and a provisional government would then take over “the Jewish state”. He urged that the United States “promptly” recognize it and the President acted with zealous alacrity…

“I [Dr. Weizmann] am certain that the world will judge the Jewish state by what it will do with the Arabs”…

The Iron Curtain, which had opened to let the invaders of Palestine leave, opened again to allow arms to reach them in decisive quantities.
This was the first major consequence of General Eisenhower’s order, issued under President Roosevelt’s direction, to halt the Allied armies west of the Berlin-Vienna line and allow Czechoslovakia to fall to the Soviet: the arms came from that captive country, where the great Skoda arsenal, as a result of his order, had merely passed from Nazi into Communist hands…

Speaking at Tel Aviv during an election campaign in 1950, Mr. Begin claimed credit for the foundation ofthe Zionist state, through the deed at Deir Yasin. He said the Irgun had “occupied Jaffa”, which the government party “had been ready to hand over to the Arabs”, and added:
“The other part of the Irgun’s contribution was Deir Yasin, which has caused the Arabs to leave the country and make room for the newcomers. Without Deir Yasin and the subsequent Arab rout, the present government could not absorb one-tenth of the immigrants.”…

For five years the public pretence was maintained that “the terrorists” had acted without authority at Deir Yasin and then, in April 1953, four Irgun men wounded at Deir Yasin claimed compensation. The Israeli government, through its Ministry of Security, denied the claim on the ground that the attack was “unauthorised”, whereon the Irgun commander produced a letter from the official Zionist military headquarters in Jerusalem authorizing the action. By that time the signatory was Israeli Minister in Brazil…

The “rigging” of the American electoral system is the determining factor in the events of the 20th Century. A mechanism originally designed to enable John Doe to express his opinion about policies and parties has been adjusted to such a point of nicety, almost precluding error, that he is left without voice in his national affairs; no matter what coin he inserts in which slot, the governing syndicate wins…

When 1948 ended, thirty-one years after the first triumph of the dual­ conspiracy (the Balfour Declaration and the Bolshevik revolution) the Zionist state had been set up…

The captivity of the London and Washington governments, and the identity of the captors, even today (1956) is not realized by the American and British masses (though the now apparent danger of a new world war beginning in and spreading outward from Zionised Palestine is for the first time disquietening them). In the rest of the world it has long been understood. As long ago as the 1920’s for instance, the Maharajah of Kashmir asked Sir Arthur Lothian (as that British diplomat relates), “why the British government was establishing a ‘Yehudi ka Raj’ (Rule of the Jews) in India. I demurred to this description, but he insisted that it was true, saying the Viceroy, Lord Reading, was a Jew, the Secretary of State, Mr. Edwin Montague, was a Jew, the High Commissioner, Sir William Meyer, was a Jew, and what more evidence did I want?” Thus a remote Indian Maharajah, thirty years ago, clearly saw the true shape of coming events in the Western world…

Probably the most characteristic passage in this typical statement is that which refers to “resettling Jews driven out of Europe by the Nazis”. Israel is the one place in the world where the numbers of the Jewish population may with accuracy be learned. According to Israeli government statistics, it was about 1,400,000 in 1953, and among these were only 63,000 Jews (less than five percent) from Germany and Austria. These 63,000 were the only inhabitants of Israel who by any stretch of imagination might have been said to have been driven out of Europe and to resettle in Israel. The great mass came from Poland, Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria some time after the war’s end (and certainly were not “driven out” as they were protected in those countries by special laws and preference in state employment) or from North Africa…

During the period of violence in Palestine which culminated in the pogrom of Arabs at Deir Yasin, this Mr. Hecht inserted a full-page advertisement in many of the leading newspapers throughout America. It was addressed “To the Terrorists of Palestine” and included this message:
“The Jews of America are for you. You are their champions . . . Every time you blow up a British arsenal, or wreck a British railroad train sky high, or rob a British bank, or let go with your guns and bombs at the British betrayers and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts” …

By March 1939 Mr. Winston Churchill felt able to inform Mr. Baruch (then in residence at his Barony in South Carolina) that “War is corning very soon … You will be running the show over there”…

His biographer quotes: “Of course we can flx the world, Baruch has said on many occasions”. And then, during the Second War, “Baruch had agreed with President Roosevelt and other leaders that a world organization should be established at the height of allied unity in the war”…

The disclosure in 1946 of his plan “to fix the world” gave that world a glimpse of what it might expect to be attempted in the later stages and aftermath of any third war; the “global plan” was fully revealed. In 1947 Mr. Baruch stated that his father “came to this country a hundred years ago”. The case offers the most significant example of the effect on America, and through America on world affairs, of the “new immigration” of the 19th Century. After just that hundred years the son had already for nearly forty years been one of the most powerful men in the world, though he worked “in the long grass . . . out of sight”, and he was to continue this work for at least another ten years…

The first fifty years of “the Jewish century” have had their natural effect on the Jewish soul, which once again is in violent unrest. They have made chauvinists of a mass of Jews who, a hundred and fifty years ago, seemed committed to involvement in mankind. They are once more in captivity (the recurrent “captivities” of the Jews were always captivity by the elders and their creed of exclusion, not by alien taskmasters). In the Zionist captivity, and under the pressure of the elders, they have been made into the most explosive force in recorded history. The story of this century, of its wars and revolutions and the denouenlent yet to come, is that of Talmudic chauvinism, which has its roots in Deuteronomy.

The very word “chauvinism” means an extravagant emotion… Nevertheless, the word is inadequate to describe the effect of Talmudic Zionism on the Jewish soul; no word exists, other than “Talmudism”, for this unique and boundless frenzy.

In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, “Being consciously Jewish is the lowest kind of chauvinism, for it is the only chauvinism that is based on false premises”. The premises are those of the Talmud-Torah; namely, that God promised a certain tribe imperial supremacy over all enslaved others in this world, and exclusive inheritance of the next world in return for strict observance of a Law based on blood sacrifice and the destruction or enslavement of the lesser breeds without this Law. Whether Talmudic chauvinisln or Zionist chauvinism (I believe either term is more correct than Mr. Brown’s “Jewish chauvinism”) is or is not “the lowest kind” of chauvinism, these fifty years have shown that it is the most violent kind yet known to man…

The Zionist state itself. as I have shown, was founded on a deed of ”utter destruction”, and thus of literal “observance” of this Law, at Deir Yasin…

The revolution and Zionism are both essential to the Deuteronomic Talmudic concept. and both movements, in my estimate, were developed under Talmudic direction…

Mr. Arthur Koestler, describing his scrutiny of Judaism, wrote, “Most bewildering of all was the discovery that the saga of the ‘Chosen Race’ seemed to be taken quite literally by traditionalist Jews. They protested against racial discrimination, and affirmed in the same breath their racial superiority based on Jacob’s covenant with God”. The effect of this “bewildering discovery” on this particular Jewish soul was that “the more I found out about Judaism the more distressed I became, and the more fervently Zionist”…

Mr.Hecht once wrote, “I lived forty years in my country” (America) “without encountering anti-semitism or concerning myself even remotely with its existence”. Therefore Mr. Hecht logically intended to live nowhere else. Nevertheless, when the Zionist state was being set up, he wrote that every time a British soldier was killed in Palestine “the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts”…

Other latterday Jewish remonstrants raised the ancient cry of a coming “catastrophe”. In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown had seen disaster coming: “Never in the history of the human race has there ever been a group of people who have enmeshed themselves into so many errors and persisted in refusing to see the truth, as our people have done during the last three hundred years” (the period which saw the emergence of the Talmudic “‘Eastern Jews” and the victorious Talmudist war against Jewish assimilation)…

The influence of his heredity and upbringing were still strong enough in him, a Catholic in North America, to form his first thought in those terms: the ordeal of 350,000,000 souls in Europe, which has left nearly half of them enslaved, was “the great Jewish catastrophe”…

Before studying the examples which follow, the reader might consider that the great mass of “explosive Eastern Jews” is now in America. This fact, more pregnant with possible consequences than any other of our day, seems scarcely to have entered the consciousness of the Western world, or even of America…

He concludes, therefore, that American Jews should be propagandized to become only ‘Lovers of Israel’, not actual Israelis in body and soul”…

Unless that happens the concluding decades of this century foreseeably will see either the fiasco or the transient triumph of Talmudic chauvinisrn. Either way, in failure or success, the accompanying “catastrophe” would be that of the non­ Jewish masses and Jewish suffering would be a minute fraction of it.
Afterwards, as the world obviously will not accept the Talmud, the Jews would at last have to accept the world as it is…

In 1953 Sovietized Russia was held up as the new anti-semitic monster, as Germany was held up in 1939 and Czarist Russia in 1914. This all-obscuring issue, to judge by the propagandist hubbub of that period, would again have befogged the battle and deceived the nations…

Mr. Ilya Ehrenburg, whose broadcasts to the Red Armies as they advanced into Europe incited them not to spare “even unborn Fascists”. A few days before he died Stalin prompted the Red Star to state that the struggle against “Zionism had nothing to do with anti-semitism; Zionism is the enemy of the working people all over the world, of Jews no less than Gentiles”…

The menace was always implicitly the same: ”Persecute men if you will, but you will be destroyed if you oppose the Jews”…

The masses in Russia, and later in the other countries which were abandoned to Communism, could not rise against the terror without being accused of “anti-semitism,” because the terror was always a Jewish and Talmudic terror, thus identifiable by its acts, and not a Russian, Communist or Soviet terror…

“In Czechoslovakia, as elsewhere in Central and South­ Eastern Europe, both the party intellectuals and the key men in the secret police are largely Jewish in origin; the man in the street, therefore, has been inclined to equate the party cares with the Jews and to blame the ‘Jewish Communists’ for all his troubles” (New Statesman, 1952);”…

Once more revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary-Zionism worked as in perfect synchronization, as in October 1917; the acts of each directly benefited the other…

The creation of the Zionist state proved to be even more ill-omened than the other creation of the Talmudic Jews in Russia, the Communist revolution…

Assured of this unstinting monetary backing, and of a political support in Washington which could not change, the new state set out on its grandiose ambition: to restore to full force, in the 20th Century of our era, the “New Law” promulgated by the Levites in Deuteronomy in 621 B.C. All that was to come was to be “fulfilment” of it; the Mongolian Chazars were to see that Jehovah kept his compact, as the Levites had published it. And what ensued was in fact an instalment on account of this “fulfilment”; the vision of “the heathen” bringing the treasures of the earth to Jerusalem began to become reality in the form of American money, German tribute and the like…

“In essence, the political support the state of Israel has in the United States makes any settlement antagonistic to Israeli interests irnpossible for a United States administration to contemplate” (1956). If this merely alludes to control of the election-machine, it means that the process of parliamentary government through “free elections” has been completely falsified. In my opinion, that is the case in the West in this century…

Assured of this unstinting monetary backing, and of a political support in Washington which could not change, the new state set out on its grandiose ambition: to restore to full force, in the 20th Century of our era, the ‘”New Law” promulgated by the Levites in Deuteronomy in 621 B.C. All that was to come was to be “fulfilment” of it; the Mongolian Chazars were to see that Jehovah kept his compact, as the Levites had published it. And what ensued was in fact an instalment on account of this “fulfilment”; the vision of ”the heathen” bringing the treasures of the earth to Jerusalem began to become reality in the form of American money, German tribute and the like.
With a purse thus filled, the little state began to pursue the fantasy of entire and literal “fulfIlment”, which in the miraculous end is to see all the great ones of the earth humbled, Zion all-powerful and all the Jews “gathered”…

The world would have raised a pandemonium of protest if a Kaiser or a Hitler had said such things. The ambition expressed by such words as “the full and undiminished programme of Zionism” is in fact boundless, for it is the political programme contained, in the guise of a compact with Jehovah, in the Torah; world dominion over ”the heathen”, wielded from an empire stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. The support of Western governments gave reality to what otherwise would be the most absurd pretension in all history…

“Activism” was always, from the old days in Russia, an euphelnism for violence in the forms of terror and assassination. From the moment when this word reappeared in the news the student of Zionism knew what to expect before the year’s end…

Therefore the last section of this chapter and book must survey again the workings of “irresistible pressure” behind the Western scene, this time in the phase of the approaching climacteric, the years 1952-1956. At the end of this phase revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary-Zionism, the twin destructive forces released from the Talmudic areas of Russia in the last century, were in extremis. By the act of the West, in the autumn of 1956, both were reprieved for further destruction…

This event showed, long before the actual election, that the nomination-mechanism had been so mastered that neither party could even nominate any but a candidate approved by powerful selectors behind the scene. The outcome of the presidential election itself is in these circumstances of relatively little account in America today, nor can the observer picture how the Republic might escape from this occult control. It is not possible for either party to nominate its party-leader, or any other man, unless he has been passed as acceptable to “the internationalists” beforehand…

On April 24, in Jerusalem, Mr. Ben­ Gurion once more proclaimed the nationalist and expansionist aim: “The continued ingathering of exiles is the supreme goal of Israel and an essential precondition for realization of the messianic mission which has made us an eternal people.”…

The American people in general know nothing of what “The Voice of America” says, or to whom it speaks. Even my research has not discovered what official department is supposed to supervise this “”voice”, which to listening peoples far away is taken to express the intentions of the American Government. I was able to learn that its funds, budgetary and other, are immense and that it is largely staffed by Eastern Jews. It appears to work in irresponsibility and secrecy.

From this moment the whole weight of Western propaganda was turned against Egypt. The events which followed might be considered in the light of Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s diarial note in the period preceding Pearl Harbour, to the effect that the aim of President Roosevelt’s administration was to manoeuvre Japan into “firing the first shot”. Subsequent events had all the appearance of being designed to manoeuvre Egypt into firing the first shot. Egypt did not do this. Then the world found that the firing of a first shot was no longer necessary to qualify as an aggressor; the country in question could be dubbed the aggressor while it was being invaded, and even before that; so far had the resources of mass-propaganda developed in the 20th century…

From that moment President Nasser received the “wicked man” treatment; this is the sure sign of the imminence of war. I have seen many “wicked men” built up in my life, and have observed that this propaganda can be turned on and off as by a tap, and infused with toxic effect into the public mind…

The state of servitude into which England had fallen at this period was shown by two symbolic events. In June 1956 the “Anglo-Jewish Community” held a banquet at the Guildhall to commemorate “the three hundredth anniversary of the resettlement of the Jews in the British Isles”; the young Queen’s consort, the Duke of Edinburgh, was required to appear in a Jewish skullcap. In September the “Cromwell Association” held a service at the statue of the regicide and butcher of Drogheda to celebrate this same fiction (that he “restored” the Jews to England three hundred years before). In his speech the president of this body, a Mr Isaac Foot, recommended that the young Prince Charles, when he reached the throne, take the name of “Oliver II” because “We don’t want Charles III”…

In any case, the only effective answer, if his act was intolerable, was to reoccupy the Canal forthwith, and that was not done. Instead, all the oracles, as if reading from a long-prepared script, began to dub him “Hitler”. Premier Ben­ Gurion began with ”dictator”, which soon became “Fascist dictator; and the French Prime Minister (a M. Guy Mollet at that instant) changed this to “Hitler”. Thereafter the campaign followed the lines of the one against Stalin in 1952-3. Dictator-Fascist Dictator-Hitler: the inference was plain; President Nasser was to be depicted, and punished ifhe were punished, as an enemy of the Jews…

These two policy statements gave the picture of a world in the Zionist thrall, and complemented the statements then being made by the British Government. They had no relation to any native American interest but reflected simply Zionist control of the election-machine, or the unshakeable belief of the party-managers in that control…

Mr Eisenhower was able to present a face of patient suffering to his people when he appeared on the television screen with the words, “We believe it” (the attack) “to have been taken in error for we do not accept the use of force as a wise or proper instrument for the settlement of international disputes”…

The ultimate “internationalist” ambition is the world-government project, to be achieved through the convergent, destructive forces of revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary­-Zionism, and it is the essence of this ambition that the two great English-speaking countries on either side of the Atlantic be kept divided, for only through their division can empire be achieved. This ambition dominated the Second War…

When was the case, for supporting “the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations”, ever put to the British elector in those terms?…

Can time distil good of all this? Clearly it can and will; only for contemporaries is the needless turmoil in which we live infuriating. The first signs of the long­ delayed turn for the better begin to show. The nations which lie in the chains of revolutionary-Communism are beginning to throw them off: the Eastern European peoples yet may save themselves by their exertions and the rest of the captive West by their example. I believe the Jews of the world are equally beginning to see the error of revolutionary-Zionism, the twin of the other destructive movement, and as this century ends will at last decide to seek involvement in common mankind.*

*A development which may have been foreshadowed by a report (if it was accurate, l published in the New York Times on December 30, 1956, that “fewer than 900 of the 14,000 Jews who have fled from Hungary … have decided to resettle in Israel”, the “vast majority” preferring to go to America or Canada. On the other hand, if they follow the example of their predecessors they will swell the mass of “explosive” Eastern Jews there whose transplantation, during the last seventy years, has produced the present situation: the incitement of these against America was shown by quotation from Jewish authorities in the preceding chapter…

I have seen more of the events of our century and of the secret perversions of national purposes than most, and have discovered through this experience that it was not all chance, but design…

In our time, I judge, a barbaric superstition born in antiquity and nurtured through the ages by a semi-secret priesthood, has returned to plague us in the form of a political movement supported by great wealth and power in all great capitals of the world. Through the two methods used, revolution from below and the corruption of governments from above, it has come far towards success in a fantastic ambition of achieving world dominion, using these two instruments to incite nations against each other…

In my judgment we have to deal with a force, released on the world in the 20th Century, the leaders of which think in terms of such superstitions; to what else can Dr. Chaim Weizmann’s belated, tormented words have alluded, ” …the resurgence of the old evil in a new and more horrible guise”.
Only this element of dark superstition, in my estimate, can account for the fear to which the Jewish masses yield, when they surrender to Zionist nationalism. They were almost liberated from it by the century of emancipation and in another fifty years would have been involved in mankind, but now have been drawn back into its clutch…

In this 20th Century process, which I feel as an accompanying “evil presence” all of us now alive, Jew and Gentile, are involved, and most of us will see the denouement. As to that Mr. Bernard J. Brown in 1933 misgivingly wrote, “Of course we must be feared and eventually hated if we persist in absorbing everything America offers us and yet refuse to become Americans just as we have always refused to become Russians or Poles.”
This statement applies to all countries of the West, not only to America, but Mr Brown was wrong. What he foresaw is one thing the Talmudists cannot achieve; hatred is their monopoly, and creed, and they cannot make Christians, or Gentiles, hate Jews. The hateful things done by the West in this century were done under Talmudic prompting; hatred and vengeance are not innate in Westerners, and their faith forbids these. The teaching of hatred, as part of a religion, still comes only from the literal Torah-Talmudists in the revolutionary area, in Palestine, and where they have nested in the Western capitals. No Westerner would speak as a Zionist leader spoke to a Jewish meeting at Johannesburg in May, 1953: “The beast that is called Germany must not be trusted. The Germans must never be forgiven and the Jews must never have any contact or dealings with the Gennans”.
The world cannot live like that and for this reason the insensate plan must ultimately fail. This is the heresy which the teaching of Christ above all else repudiated, it is the one to which the political leaders of the West have lent themselves since Mr Balfour, just fifty years ago, began to subordinate national policy to it. When the approaching climax has been overcome this heretic teaching, injected into the West from the Talmudic centre in Russia, will pass.
As a writer, I believe it will pass sooner and with less trouble for all involved, the more the general masses know about what has gone on in these fifty years.

they own our politicians
banks and media too
there is nothing we say
or hasbara’s on you
You cannot run for office
lest you represent the Jews
this shit keeps going on

they can sink our ships
and shoot our sailors as they swim
we pretend it didn’t happen
cuz we know that it was them
but there’s nothing we can do
Bcuz they own us through and through
this shit keeps going on

they can kill their neighbours
and lock them up inside
of an open air gulag
committing genocide
anyone who mentions it…
professional suicide
and the whole world looks away

They can murder babies
they’ve a right to self defense
one just threw a stone
better reenforce the fence
you can bet your ass that
it’s time to mow the grass
when they need uncle Schmuel

we must fight their battles
until the end of time
killing who they say
inventing silly crimes
even though americans
stand in a bread line
we must defend the Jews.

gory gory halejuha
gory gory halejuha
gory gory halejuha
this shit keeps going on