This Phoenix Journal was generated by scanning a printed edition using optical character recognition (OCR). Although efforts have been made to correct errors readers should refer to the image-based or printed version if discrepancies need to be resolved.

/Ground Crew

Version 1.0
This version was converted from a MS Word document and should work fine on any newer devices (Smartphones, Tablets, etc.)


The Phoenix Journals are intended as a "real time" commentary on current events, how current events relate to past events and the relationships of both to the physical and spiritual destinies of mankind.

All of history, as we now know it, has been revised, rewritten, twisted and tweaked by selfishly motivated men to achieve and maintain control over other men. When one can understand that everything is comprised of "energy" and that even physical matter is "coalesced" energy, and that all energy emanates from God's thought, one can accept the idea that the successful focusing of millions of minds on one expected happening will cause it to happen.

If the many prophecies made over thousands of years are accepted, these are the "end times" (specifically the year 2000, the second millennium, etc.). That would put us in the "sorting" period and only a few short years from the finish line. God has said that in the end-times would come the WORD--to the four corners of the world--so that each could decide his/her own course toward, or away from, divinity--based upon TRUTH.

So, God sends His Hosts--Messengers--to present that TRUTH. This is the way in which He chooses to present it, through the Phoenix Journals. Thus, these journals are Truth, which cannot be copyrighted; they are compilations of information already available on Earth, researched and compiled by others (some, no doubt, for this purpose) which should not be copyrighted. Therefore, these journals are not copyrighted (except SIPAPU ODYSSEY which is "fiction").

The first sixty or so journals were published by America West Publishing which elected to indicate that a copyright had been applied for on the theory that the ISBN number (so necessary for booksellers) was dependent upon the copyright. Commander Hatonn, the primary author and compiler, insisted that no copyrights be applied for and, to our knowledge, none were.

If the Truth is to reach the four corners of the world, it must be freely passed on. It is hoped that each reader will feel free to do that, keeping it in context, of course.


Vol. 2

ISBN 1-56935-180-5

First Edition Printed by


P.O. Box 27353

Las Vegas, Nevada 89126

February 1998

Printed in the United States of America




THU., JAN. 15, 1998




FRI., JAN. 16, 1998




SAT., JAN. 17, 1998










SAT., JAN. 17, 1998



PART II, Chapter 1



Chapter II





SUN., JAN. 18, 1998






SUN., JAN. 18, 1998

(Continuing Part 12:)









2/16/91 #1 HATONN



2/16/91 #2 HATONN



2/17/91 #2 HATONN




2/17/91 #3 HATONN




2/17/91 #4 HATONN

FOOTNOTES: (continued)


2/18/91 #2 HATONN





2/18/91 #3 HATONN





THU., JAN. 15, 1998 2:34 P.M. YR. 11, DAY 152

THU., JAN. 15, 1998

I am flooded with inquiries, as I have said before, on questions regarding this whole issue. If, however, I get distracted with things bearing no sequence we lose both the value of the lesson for memory recall and fail to keep continuity of flow.

The Kol Nidre oath denying all oaths taken before and after the highest Holy Day of the Jewish people, is the first oath done at the Holy Days. We have covered this many times. I will reprint the oath itself here but I have no intention of doing more at this writing. When you read Freedman's letter to Goldstein you will find that topic as well as the subject of the TALMUD covered better than I can cover it.


This has also become one of the ritual statements of attorneys of any Bar Association and this is why the Judge doesn't even slap their hands for lying under oath, for after all, how can you pick one oath above another "in the name of God"? Perhaps all you nice people should just go chant this oath, even if you have to read it, especially if you have a court appearance, for certainly everyone on the "court side of the barricade" will know what it means. The Bar Association is, by the way, not a licensing branch of any program--IT IS A PRIVATE CORPORATION JUST AS IS THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. The license by the Bar insures that those moving into the "new and obscenely Constitution-negating" thrust by the courts into case law and not justice, are TRAINED TO KNOW WHAT THE NEW REGULATIONS ARE AND HOW THEY ARE TO BE USED.

The other question coming to me is, why it appears the numbers of the various articles do not run in sequence but have portions missing. I can't answer that for I did not compile the articles used but they do need identification if anyone wishes to do a search.

Continuing with an article from DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, July 2, 1921


[QUOTING, Part 8:]



According to his own statements and the facts, Paul M. Warburg set out to reform the monetary system of the United States, and did so. He had the success which comes to few men, of coming an alien to the United States, connecting himself with the principal Jewish financial firm here, and immediately floating certain banking ideas which have been pushed and manipulated and variously adapted until they have eventuated in what is known as the Federal Reserve System.

When Professor Seligman wrote in the Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science that "the Federal Reserve Act will be associated in history with the name of Paul M. Warburg", a Jewish banker from Germany, he wrote the truth. But whether that association will be such as to bring the measure of renown which Professor Seligman implies, the future will reveal.

What the people of the United States do not understand and never have understood is that while the Federal Reserve Act was governmental, THE WHOLE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM IS PRIVATE. It is an officially created private banking system.

Examine the first thousand persons you meet on the street and 999 will tell you that the Federal Reserve System is a device whereby the United States Government went into the banking business for the benefit of the people. They have an idea that, like the Post Office and Custom House, a Federal Reserve Bank is a part of the Government's official machinery.

It is natural to feel that this mistaken view has been encouraged by most of the men who are competent to write for the public on this question. Take up the standard encyclopedias, and while you will find no misstatements of fact in them, you will find no direct statements that the Federal Reserve System is a private banking system; the impression carried away by the lay reader is that it is a part of the Government.

The Federal Reserve System is a system of private banks, the creation of a banking aristocracy within an already existing autocracy, whereby a great proportion of banking independence was lost, and whereby it was made possible for speculative financiers to centralize great sums of money for their own purposes, beneficial or not.

That this System was useful in the artificial conditions created by war--useful, that is, for a Government that cannot manage its own business and finances and, like a prodigal son, is always wanting money, and wanting it when it wants it--it has proved, either by reason of its inherent faults or by mishandling, its inadequacy to the problems of peace. It has sadly failed of its promise, and is now under serious question.

Mr. Warburg's scheme succeeded just in time to take care of war conditions; he was placed on the Federal Reserve Board in order to manage his system in practice, and though he was full of ideas then as to how banking could be assisted, he is disappointingly silent now as to how the people can be relieved.

However, this is not a discussion of the Federal Reserve System. General condemnation of it would be stupid. But it is bound to come up for discussion one day, and the discussion will become much freer when people understand that it is a system of privately owned banks, to which have been delegated certain extraordinary privileges, and that it has created a class system within the banking world which constitutes a new order. [H: And what do you think NOW, 85 years later?]

Mr. Warburg, it will be remembered, wanted only one central bank. But, because of political considerations, as Professor Seligman tells us, twelve were decided upon. [H: Care to guess which ones, strangers-in-Paradise?] An examination of Mr. Warburg's printed discussions of the subject shows that he at one time considered four, then eight. Eventually twelve were established. The reason was that one central bank, which naturally would be set up in New York, would give a suspicious country the impression that it was only a new scheme to keep the nation's money flowing to New York. As shown by Professor Seligman, quoted in the last number, Mr. Warburg was not adverse to granting anything that would allay popular suspicion without vitiating the real plan.

So, while admitting to the Senators who examined him as to his fitness for membership on the Federal Reserve Board--the Board which fixed the policies of the Banks of the Federal Reserve System and told them what to do--that he did not like the 12 district banks idea, he said that his objections to it could "be overcome in an administrative way". That is, the 12 banks could be so handled that the effect WOULD BE THE SAME AS IF THERE WERE ONLY ONE CENTRAL BANK, PRESUMABLY AT NEW YORK.

And that is about the way it has resulted, and that will be found to be one of the reasons for the present situation of the country.

There is no lack of money in New York today. Motion picture ventures are being financed into the millions. A big grain selling pool, nursed into existence and counseled by Bernard M. Baruch, has no hesitancy whatever in planning for a $100,000,000 corporation. Loew, the Jewish theatrical man, had no difficulty in opening 20 new theaters this year. [H: How about this year with $200 million dollars to sink the poor old Titanic again--and again--and again?]

But go into the agricultural states, where the real wealth of the country is in the ground and in the granaries, and you cannot find money for the farmer. [H: NEITHER CAN YOU FIND GRAIN IN THOSE GRANARIES.]

It is a situation which none can deny and which few can explain, because the explanation is not to be found along natural lines. Unnatural conditions wear an air of mystery. Here is the United States, the richest country in the world, containing at the present hour the greatest bulk of wealth to be found anywhere on Earth--real, ready, available, usable wealth; and yet it is tied up tight, and cannot move in its legitimate channels, because of manipulation which is going on as regards money.

Money is the last mystery for the popular mind to penetrate, and when it succeeds in getting "on the inside" it will discover that the mystery is not in money at all, but in its manipulation, the things which are done "in an administrative way".

The United States has never had a President who gave evidence of understanding this matter at all. Our Presidents have always had to take their views from financiers. Money is the most public quantity in the country; it is the most federalized and governmentalized thing in the country; and yet, in the present situation, the United States Government has hardly anything to do with it, except to use various means to get it, just as the people have to get it, from those who control it.

The Money Question, properly solved, is the end of the Jewish Question and every other question of a mundane nature.

Mr. Warburg is of the opinion that different rates of interest ought to obtain in different parts of the country. That they have always obtained in different parts of the same state we have always known, but the reason for it has not been discovered. The city grocer can get money from his bank at a lower rate than the farmer in the next county can get from his bank. Why the agricultural rate of interest has been higher than any other (when money is obtainable; it is not obtainable now) is a question to which no literary nor oratorical financier has ever publicly addressed himself. It is like the fact of the private business nature of the Federal Reserve System--very important, but no authority thinks it worth while to state. The agricultural rate of interest is of great importance, but to discuss it would involve first an admission, and that apparently is not desirable.

In comparing the present Federal Reserve Law with the proposed Aldrich Bill, Mr. Warburg said:

Mr. Warburg--"... I think that this present law has the advantage of dealing with the entire country and giving them different rates of discount, whereas as Senator Aldrich's bill was drawn, it would have been very difficult to do that, as it provided for one uniform rate for the whole country, which I thought was rather a mistake."

Senator Bristow--"That is, you can charge a higher rate of interest in one section of the country under the present law, than you charge in another section, while under the Aldrich plan it would have been a uniform rate."

Mr. Warburg--"That is correct."

That is a point worth clearing up. Mr. Warburg, having educated the bankers, will now turn his attention to the people, and make it clear why one class in the country can get money for business that is not productive of real wealth, while another class engaged in the production of real wealth is treated as outside the interest of banking altogether; if he can make it clear also why money is sold to one class or one section of the country at one price, while to another class and in another section it is sold at a different price, he will be adding to the people's grasp of these matters.

This suggestion is seriously intended. Mr. Warburg has the style, the pedagogical patience, the grasp of the subject which would make him an admirable public teacher of these matters.

What he has already done was planned from the point of view of the interest of the professional financier. It is readily granted that Mr. Warburg desired to organize American finances into a more pliable system. Doubtless in some respects he has wrought important improvements. But he had always the banking house in mind, and he dealt with paper. Now, if taking up a position outside those special interests, he would address himself to the special interests, he would address himself to the wider interests of the people--not assuming that those interests always run through a banking house--he would do still more than he has yet done to justify his feeling that he really had a mission in coming to this country.

Mr. Warburg is not at all shocked by the idea that the Federal Reserve System is really a new kind of private banking control, because in his European experience he saw that all the central banks were private affairs.

In his essay on "American and European Banking Methods and Bank Legislation Compared", Mr. Warburg says: (the italics are ours)

"It may also be interesting to note that, contrary to a widespread idea, the central banks of Europe are, as a rule, not owned by the governments. As a matter of fact, neither the English, French, nor German Government owns any stock in the central bank of its country. The Bank of England is run entirely as a private corporation, the stockholders electing the board of directors, who rotate in holding the presidency. In France the government appoints the governor and some of the directors. In Germany the government appoints the president and a supervisory board of five members, while the stockholders elect the board of directors."

And again, in his discussion of the Owen-Glass Bill, Mr. Warburg says:

"The Monetary Commission's plan proceeded on the theory of the Bank of England, which leaves the management entirely in the hands of business men without giving the government any part in the management or control. The strong argument in favor of this theory is that central banking, like any other banking, is based on 'sound credit', that the judging of credits is a matter of business which should be left in the hands of business men, and that the government should be kept out of business... The Owen-Glass Bill proceeds, in this respect, more on the lines of the Banque de France and the German Reichsbank, the presidents and boards of which are to a certain extent appointed by the government. These central banks, while legally private corporations, are semi-governmental organs inasmuch as they are permitted to issue the notes of the nation--particularly where there are elastic note issues, as in almost all countries except England--and inasmuch as they are the custodians of practically the entire metallic reserves of the country and the keepers of the government funds. Moreover, in questions of national policy the government must rely on the willing and loyal co-operation of these central organs."

That is a very illuminating passage. It will be well worth the reader's time, especially the reader who has always been puzzled by financial matters, to turn over in his mind the facts here given by a great Jewish financial expert about the central bank idea. Observe the phrases:

(a) "without giving the government any part in the management or control."

(b) "these central banks, while legally private corporations...are permitted to issue the notes of the nation."

(c) "they are custodians of practically the entire metallic reserves of the nation and the keepers of the government funds."

(d) "in questions of national policy, the government must rely on the willing and loyal co-operation of these central organs."

[H: If you don't memorize this above, readers, perhaps you deserve what you have become.]

It is not now a question whether these things are right or wrong; it is merely a question of understanding that they constitute the fact.


It is specially notable that in paragraph (d) it is a fair deduction that in questions of national policy, the government will simply have to depend not only on the patriotism but also to an extent on the permission and counsel of the financial organizations. That is a fair interpretation: questions of national policy are, by this method, rendered dependent upon the financial corporations.

Let that point be clear, quite regardless of the question whether or not this is the way national policies should be determined.

Mr. Warburg said that he believed in a certain amount of government control--but not too much. He said: "In strengthening the government control, the Owen-Glass Bill therefore moved in the right direction; but it went too far and fell into the other and even more dangerous extreme."

The "more dangerous extreme" was, of course, the larger measure of government supervision provided for, and the establishment of a number of Federal Reserve Banks out in the country.

Mr. Warburg had referred to this before; he had agreed to the larger number only because it seemed to be an unavoidable political concession. It has already been shown, by Professor Seligman, that Mr. Warburg was alive to the necessity of veiling a little here and there, and "putting on" a little yonder, for the sake of conciliating a suspicious public. There was also the story of the bartender and the cash register.

Mr. Warburg thinks he understands the psychology of America. In this respect he reminds one of the reports of Mr. von Bernstorff and Captain Boy-Ed of what the Americans were likely to do or not to do. In the Political Science Quarterly of December, 1920, Mr. Warburg tells how, on a then recent visit to Europe, he was asked by men of all countries what the United States was going to do. He assured them that America was a little tired just then, but that she would come 'round alright. And then, harking back to his efforts of placing his monetary system on the Americans, he said:

"I asked them to be patient with us until after the election, and I cited to them our experiences with monetary reform. I reminded them how the Aldrich plan had failed because, at that time, a Republican President had lost control of a congress ruled by a Democratic majority; how the Democrats in their platform damned this plan and any central banking system; and how, once in full power, the National Reserve Association was evolved, not to say camouflaged, by them into the Federal Reserve System."

Remembering this play before the public, and the play behind the scenes, this "camouflaging", as Mr. Warburg says, of one thing into another, he undertook to assure his friends in Europe that regardless of what the political platforms said, the United States would do substantially what Europe hoped it would. Mr. Warburg's basis for that belief was, as he said, his experience with the way the central bank idea went through in spite of the advertised objection of all parties. He believes that with Americans it is possible to get what you want if you just play the game skillfully. His experience with monetary reform seems to have fathered that belief in him.

Politicians may be necessary pawns to play in the game, but as members of the government Mr. Warburg does not want them in banking. They are not bankers, he says; they don't understand; banking is nothing for a government man to meddle with. He may be good enough for the Government of the United States; he is not good enough for banking.

"In our country," says Mr. Warburg, referring to the United States, "with every untrained amateur a candidate for any office, where friendship or help in a presidential campaign, financial or political, has always given a claim for political preferment, where the bids for votes and public favor are ever present in the politician's mind... a direct government management, that is to say, a political management, would prove fatal... There can be no doubt but that, as drawn at present (1913), with two cabinet officers members of the Federal Reserve Board, and with the vast powers vested in the latter, the Owen-Glass Bill would bring about direct government management."

And that, of course, in Mr. Warburg's mind, is not only "dangerous", but "fatal". Mr. Warburg had almost his whole will in the matter. And what is the result?

Turn to the testimony of Bernard M. Baruch, when he was examined with reference to the charge that certain men close to President Wilson had profited to the extent of $60,000,000 on stock market operations which they entered into on the strength of advance information of what the President was to say in his next war note--the famous "leak" investigation, as it was called; one of the several investigations in which Mr. Baruch was closely questioned.

In that investigation Mr. Baruch was laboring to show that he had not been in telephone communication with Washington, especially with certain men who were supposed to have shared the profits of the deals. The time was December, 1916. Mr. Warburg was then safely settled on the Federal Reserve Board, which he had kept quite safe from Government intrusion.

The Chairman-- "Of course the records of the telephone company here, the slips, will show the persons with whom you talked."

Mr. Baruch-- "Do you wish me to say, sir? I will state who they are." The Chairman-- "Yes, I think you might."

Mr. Baruch-- "I called up two persons; one, Mr. Warburg, whom I did not get, and one, Secretary McAdoo, whom I did get--both in reference to the same matter. Would you like to know the matter?"

The chairman-- "Yes, I think it is fair that you should state it."

Mr. Baruch-- "I called up the Secretary, because someone suggested to me--asked me to suggest an officer for the Federal Reserve Bank, and I called him up in reference to that, and discussed the matter with him, I think, two or three times, but it was suggested to me that I make the suggestion, and I did so." (pp. 570-571)

Mr. Campbell-- "Mr. Baruch, who asked you for a suggestion for an appointee for the Federal Reserve Bank here?"

Mr. Baruch-- "Mr. E.M. House."

Mr. Campbell-- "Did Mr. House tell you to call Mr. McAdoo up and make the recommendation?"

Mr. Baruch-- "I will tell you exactly how it occurred: Mr. House called me up and said that there was a vacancy on the Federal Reserve Board, and he said, 'I don't know anything about those fellows down there, and I would like you to make a suggestion.' And I suggested the name, which he thought was a very good one, and he said to me, 'I wish you would call up the Secretary and tell him.' I said, 'I do not see the necessity; I will tell you.' No,' he said, 'I would prefer you to call him up.'" (p. 575)

There we have an example of the Federal Reserve "kept out of politics", kept away from government management which would not only be "dangerous", but "fatal".

Barney Baruch, the New York stock plunger, who never owned a bank in his life, was called up by Colonel E.M. House, the arch-politician of the Wilson Administration, and thus the great Federal Reserve Board was supplied another member.

A telephone call kept within a narrow Jewish circle and settled by a word from one Jewish stock dealer--that, in practical operation, was Mr. Warburg's great monetary reform. Mr. Baruch calling up Mr. Warburg to give the name of the next appointee of the Federal Reserve Board, and calling up Mr. McAdoo, Secretary of the United States Treasury, and set in motion to do it by Colonel E.M. House--is it any wonder the Jewish mystery in the American war government grows more and more amazing?

But, as Mr. Warburg has written--"friendship or help in a presidential campaign, financial or political, has always given a claim to political preferment." And, as Mr. Warburg urges, this is a country "with every untrained amateur a candidate for office", and naturally, with such men comprising the government, they must be kept at a safe distance from monetary affairs.

As if to illustrate the ignorance thus charged, along comes Mr. Baruch, who quotes Colonel House as saying, "I don't know anything about those fellows down there and I would like you to make a suggestion." It is permissible to doubt that Mr. Baruch correctly quotes Colonel House. It is permissible to doubt that all that Colonel House confessed was his ignorance about "those fellows". There was a good understanding between these two men, too good an understanding for the alleged telephone conversation to be taken strictly at its face value. It is possibly quite true that Mr. House is not a financier. Certainly, Mr. Wilson was not. In the long roll of Presidents only a handful have been, and those who have been have been regarded as most drastic in their proposals.

But this whole matter of ignorance, as charged by Mr. Warburg, sounds like an echo of the Protocols:

"The administrators chosen by us from the masses will not be persons trained for government, and consequently they will easily become pawns in our game, played by our learned and talented counsellors, specialists educated from early childhood to administer world affairs."

In the Twentieth Protocol, wherein the great financial plan of world subversion and control is disclosed, there is another mention of the rulers' ignorance of financial problems.

It is a coincidence that, while he does not use the term "ignorance", Mr. Warburg is quite outspoken concerning the benighted state in which he found this country, who are candidates for every office. These, he says, are not fitted to take part in the control of monetary affairs. But Mr. Warburg is. He said so. He admits that it was his ambition from the moment he came here, an alien Jewish-German banker, to change our financial affairs more to his liking. More than that, he has succeeded; he has succeeded, he himself says, more than most men do in a lifetime; he has succeeded, Professor Seligman says, to such an extent that throughout history the name of Paul M. Warburg and that of the Federal Reserve System shall be united.



Is anybody sick yet? Well, we are, so let's call it "a day" and get some rest.

We will, after all, be able to take up the topic of the Kol Nidre because the very next article deals with it. Thank you and good evening.



FRI., JAN. 16, 1998 8:11 A.M. YR. 11, DAY 153

FRI., JAN. 16, 1998


[QUOTING, Part 9:]

Continuing from the DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, Nov. 5, 1921.



"I have looked this year and last for something in your paper about the prayer which the Jews say at their New Year. But you say nothing. Can it be you have not heard of the Kol Nidre?"

"Lately in three cities I have heard a Jewish religious hymn sung in the public theaters. This was in New York, Detroit and Chicago. Each time the program said 'by request'. Who makes the request? What is the meaning of this kind of propaganda? The name of the hymn is Eli,Eli."

The Jewish year just passed has been described by a Jewish writer in the Jewish Daily News as the Year of Chaos. The writer is apparently intelligent enough to ascribe this condition to something besides "anti-Semitism". He says, "the thought that there is something wrong in Jewish life will not down," and when he describes the situation in the Near East, he says, "the Jew himself is stirring the mess." He indicts the Jewish year 5681 on 12 counts, among them being, "mismanagement in Palestine", "engaging in internal warfare", "treason to the Jewish people", "selfishness", "self-delusion". "The Jewish people is a sick people," cries the writer, and when he utters a comfortable prophecy for the year 5682, it is not in the terms of Judah but in terms of "Kol Yisroel"--All Israel--the terms of a larger and more inclusive unity which gives Judah its own place, and its own place only, in the world. The Jewish people are sick, to be sure, and the disease is the fallacy of superiority, and its consequent "foreign policy" against the world.

When Jewish writers describe the year 5681 as the Year of Chaos, it is an unconscious admission that the Jewish people are ripening for a change of attitude. The "chaos" is among the leaders; it involves the plans which are based on the old false assumptions. The Jewish people are waiting for leaders who can emancipate them from the thralldom of their self-seeking-masters in the religious and political fields. The enemies of the emancipation of Judah are those who profit by Judah's bondage, and these are the groups that follow the American Jewish Committee and the political rabbis. When a true Jewish prophet arises--and he should arise in the United States--there will be a great sweeping away of the selfish, scheming, heartless Jewish leaders, a general desertion of the Jewish idea of "getting" instead of "making", and an emergence of the true idea submerged so long.

There will also be a separation among the Jews themselves. They are not all Jews who call themselves so today. There is a Tartar strain in so-called Jewry that is absolutely incompatible with the true Israelitish raciality; there are other alien strains which utterly differ from the true Jewish; but until now these strains have been held because the Jewish leaders needed vast hordes of low-type people to carry out their world designs. But the Jew himself is recognizing the presence of an alien element; and that is the first step in a movement which will place the Jewish Question on quite another basis.

What the Jews of the United States are coming to think is indicated by this letter--one among many (the writer is a Jew):


"Because you believe in a good cause," said Dr. Johnson, "is no reason why you should feel called upon to defend it, for by your manner of defense you may do your cause much harm."

The above applying to me I will only say that I have received the books you sent me and read both with much interest.

You are rendering the Jews a very great service, that of saving them from themselves.

It takes courage, and nerve, and intelligence to do and pursue such a work, and I admire you for it."

The letter was accompanied by a check which ordered the DEARBORN INDEPENDENT sent to the address of another who bears a distinctively Jewish name.

It is very clear that unity is not to be won by the truth-teller soft-pedaling or suppressing his truth, nor by the truth-bearer strenuously denying that the truth is true, but by both together honoring the truth in telling and in acknowledging it. When the Jews see this, they can take over the work of truth-telling and carry it on themselves. These articles have as their only purpose: First, that the Jews may see the truth for themselves about themselves; second, that non-Jews may see the fallacy of the present Jewish idea and use enough common sense to cease falling victims to it. With both Jews and non-Jews seeing their error, the way is opened for cooperation instead of the kind of competition (not commercial, but moral) which has resulted so disastrously to Jewish false ambitions these long centuries.

Now, as the questions at the beginning of this article: THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT has heretofore scrupulously avoided even the appearance of criticizing the Jew for his religion. The Jew's religion, as most people think of it, is unobjectionable. But when he has carried on campaigns against the Christian religion, and when in every conceivable manner he thrusts his own religion upon the public from the stage of theaters and in other public places, he has himself to blame if the public asks questions.

It is quite impossible to select the largest theater in the United States, place the Star of David high in a beautiful stage heavens above all flags and other symbols, apostrophize it for a week with all sorts of wild prophecy and all sorts of silly defiance of the world, sing hymns to it and otherwise adore it, without arousing curiosity. Yet the Jewish theatrical managers, with no protest from the Anti-Defamation Committee, have done this on a greater or smaller scale in many cities. To say it is meaningless is to use words lightly.

The Kol Nidre is a Jewish prayer, named from its opening words, "All vows", (kol nidre). It is based on the declaration of the Talmud:

"He who wishes that his vows and oaths shall have no value, stand up at the beginning of the year and say: 'All vows which I shall make during the year shall be of no value.' "

It would be pleasant to be able to declare that this is merely one of the curiosities of the darkness which covers the Talmud, but the fact is that Kol Nidre is not only an ancient curiosity; it is also a modern practice. In the volume of revised "Festival Prayers", published in 1919 by the Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, the prayer appears in its fullness:

"All vows, obligations, oaths or anathemas, pledges of all names, which we have vowed, sworn, devoted, or bound ourselves to, from this day of atonement, until the next day of atonement (whose arrival we hope for in happiness) we repent, aforehand, of them all, they shall all be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, void and made of no effect; they shall not be binding, nor have any power; the vows shall not be reckoned vows, the obligations shall not be obligatory, nor the oaths considered as oaths."

If this strange statement were something dug out of the misty past, it would scarcely merit serious attention, but as being part of a revised Jewish prayer book printed in the United States in 1919, and as being one of the high points of the Jewish religious celebration of the New Year, it cannot be lightly dismissed after attention has once been called to it.

Indeed, the Jews do not deny it. Early in the year, when a famous Jewish violinist landed in New York, after a triumphant tour abroad, he was besieged by thousands of his East Side admirers, and was able to quiet their cries only when he took his violin and played the Kol Nidre. Then the people wept as exiles do at the sound of the songs of the homeland.

In that incident the reader will see that (hard as it is for the non-Jew to understand it!) there is a deep-rooted, sentimental regard for the Kol Nidre which makes it one of the most sacred of possessions to the Jew. Indefensibly immoral as the Kol Nidre is, utterly destructive of all social confidence, yet the most earnest efforts of a few really spiritual Jews have utterly failed to remove it from the prayer books, save in a few isolated instances. The music of the Kol Nidre is famous and ancient. One has only to refer to the article Kol Nidre in the Jewish Encyclopedia to see the predicament of the modern Jew: he cannot deny; he cannot defend; he cannot renounce. The Kol Nidre is here, and remains.

If the prayer were a request for forgiveness for the broken vows of the past, normal human beings could quite understand it. Vows, promises, obligations and pledges are broken, sometimes by weakness of will to perform them, sometimes by reason of forgetfulness, sometimes by sheer inability to do the thing we thought we could do. Human experience is neither Jew nor Gentile in that respect.

But the prayer is a holy advance notice, given in the secrecy of the synagogue, that no promise whatever shall be binding, and more than not being binding, is there and then violated before it is ever made.

The scope of the prayer is "from this day of atonement, until the next day of atonement."

The prayer looks wholly to the future, "we repent, afore-hand, of them all."

The prayer breaks down the common ground of confidence between men--"the vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory, nor the oaths considered as oaths".

It requires no argument to show that if this prayer be really the rule of faith and conduct for the Jews who utter it, the ordinary social and business relations are impossible to maintain with them.

It should be observed that there is no likeness here with Christian "hypocrisy", so-called. Christian "hypocrisy" arises mostly from men holding higher ideals than they are able to attain to, and verbally extolling higher principles than their conduct illustrates. That is, to use Browning's figures, the man's reach exceeds his grasp; as it always does, where the man is more than a clod.

But the Kol Nidre is in the opposite direction. It recognizes by inference that in the common world of men, in the common morality of the street and the mart, a promise passes current as a promise, a pledge as a pledge, an obligation as an obligation--that there is a certain assumption that its quality is kept good by straight moral intention. And it makes provision to drop below that level.

How did the Kol Nidre come into existence? It is the cause of the effect of that untrustworthiness with which the Jew has been charged for centuries.

Its origin is not from the Bible but from Babylon, and the mark of Babylon is more strongly impressed on the Jew than is the mark of the Bible. Kol Nidre is Talmudic and finds its place among many other dark things in that many-volumed and burdensome invention. If the Kol Nidre ever was a backward look over the failures of the previous year, it very early became a forward look to the deliberate deceptions of the coming year.

Many explanations have been made in an attempt to account for this. Each explanation is denied and disproved by those who favor some other explanation. The commonest of all is this, and it rings in the over-worked note of "persecution": The Jews were so hounded and harried by the bloodthirsty Christians, and so brutally and viciously treated in the name of the loving Jesus (the terms are borrowed from Jewish writers) that they were compelled by wounds and starvation and the fear of death to renounce their religion and to vow that thereafter they would take the once despised Jesus for their Messiah. Therefore, say the Jewish apologists, knowing that during the ensuing year the terrible, bloodthirsty Christians would force the poor Jews to take Christian vows, the Jews in advance announced to God that all the promises they would make on that score would be lies. They would say that the Christians forced them to say, but they would not mean or intend one word of it.

That is the best explanation of all. Its weakness is that it assumes the Kol Nidre to have been coincident with times of "persecution", especially in Spain. Unfortunately for this ex- planation, the Kol Nidre is found centuries before that, when the Jews were under no pressure.

In a refreshingly frank article in the Cleveland Jewish World for October 11, the insufficiency of the above explanation is so clearly set forth that a quotation is made:

"Many learned men want to have it understood that the Kol Nidre dates from the Spanish Inquisition, it having become necessary on account of all sorts of persecution and inflictions to adopt the Christian religion for appearances' sake. Then the Jews in Spain, gathering in cellars to celebrate the Day of Atonement and pardon, composed a prayer that declared of no value all vows and oaths that they would be forced to make during the year.

"The learned men say, moreover, that in remembrance of those days when hundreds and thousands of Maranos (secret Jews) were dragged out of the cellars and were tortured with all kinds of torment, the Jews in all parts of the world have adopted the Kol Nidre as a token of faithfulness to the faith and as self-sacrifice for the faith.

"These assertions are not correct. The fact is that the formula of Kol Nidre was composed and said on the night of Yom Kippur quite a time earlier than the period of the Spanish Inquisition. We find, for instance, a formula to invalidate vows on Yom Kippur in the prayer book of the Rabbi Amram Goun who lived in the ninth century, about five hundred years before the Spanish Inquisition; although Rabbi Amram's formula is not Kol Nidre but Kol Nidrim ('All vows and oaths which we shall swear from Yom Kippurim to Yom Kippurim will return to us void.')."

The form of the prayer in the matter of its age may be in dispute; but back in the ancient and modern Talmud is the authorization of the practice: "He who wishes that his vows and oaths shall have no value, stand up at the beginning of the year and say: 'All vows which I shall make during the year shall be of no value.'"

That answers our reader's question. This article does not say that all Jews thus deliberately assassinate their pledged word. It does say that both the Talmud and the prayer book permit them to do so, and tell them how it may be accomplished.

[H: Horn, Brent, and many others we can name right here right now--are pledged liars and do so to the COURTS, to the JURY, and an oath of office as in Municipal, or other, Judgeships--the entire oath to the people and under the Constitution to hold up all Constitutional authority IS NULLIFIED AND VOID BEFORE THE PERSON EVEN BEGINS ON HIS REIGN OF ASSAULTS AGAINST THE POOR PEOPLE WHO COME BEFORE HIM. THIS IS WHERE THE TERM "GOD" GOT APPLIED TO A JUDGE IN ANY COURT AND WHY NO ONE DARES TO, OR IF SO, COUNTER THE AUTHORITY FOR THEY ARE NEVER ALLOWED HEARING EVEN IF THEY CAN PROVE SUCH INDISCRETIONS AND INTENTIONS.

These two Jews who have cost the Ekkers their home, their property, their savings, etc., are both avowed Jews. Brent even advertises to collect Jews to form Jewish clubs. Yet when confronted claim that the Ekkers and anyone who touches them as friends or writers are Anti-Semitic. What does your religious affiliation have to do with whether an auctioneer fails to hold a property sale or not? Oh yes, this is EXACTLY what has taken place. These people have thrust that Anti-Semitic garbage right into the first Superior Court non-hearings, in the papers, all over everywhere in their public accusations.




Now, as to the Jewish religious hymn which is being sung "by request" throughout the country: the story of it is soon told.

The name of the hymn is Eli, Eli; its base is the first verse of the Twenty-second Psalm, known best in Christian countries as the Cry of Christ on the Cross.

It is being used by Jewish vaudeville managers as their contribution to the pro-Jewish campaign which the Jew-controlled theater is flinging into the faces of the public, from stage and motion picture screens. It is an incantation designed to inflame the lower classes of Jews against the people, and intensify the racial consciousness of those hordes of Eastern Jews who have flocked here.

At the instigation of the New York Kehillah, Eli, Eli has for a long time been sung at the ordinary run of performances in vaudeville and motion picture houses, and the notice "By Request" is usually a bald lie. It should be "By Order". The "request" is from Jewish headquarters which has ordered the speeding up of Jewish propaganda. The situation of the theater now is that American audiences are paying at the box office for the privilege of hearing Jews advertise the things they want non-Jews to think about them.

If even a vestige of decency, or the slightest appreciation of good taste remained, the Jews who control the theaters would see that the American public must eventually gag on such things. When two Jewish comedians who have been indulging in always vulgar and often indecent antics, appear before the drop curtain and sing the Yiddish incantation Eli, Eli, which, of course, is incomprehensible to the major part of the audience, the Jewish element always betrays a high pitch of excitement. They understand the game that is being played: the "Gentiles" are being flayed to their face, and they don't know it; as when a Yiddish comedian pours out shocking invectives on the name of Jesus Christ, and "gets away with it", the Jewish portion of his audience howling with delight, and the "boob Gentiles" looking serenely on and feeling it to be polite to laugh and applaud too!

This Yiddish chant is the rallying cry of race hatred which is being spread abroad by orders of the Jewish leaders. You, if you are a theatergoer, help to pay the expense of getting yourself roundly damned. The Kehillah and the American Jewish Committee which for more than ten years have been driving all mention of Christianity out of public life, under their slogan "This Is Not a Christian Country," are spreading their own type of Judaism everywhere with insolence unparalleled.

Eli, Eli is not a religious hymn! It is a racial war cry. In the low cafes of New York, where Bolshevik Jews hang out, Eli, Eli is their song. It is the Marseillaise of Jewish solidarity. It has become the fanatical chant of all Jewish Bolshevik clubs; it is constantly heard in Jewish coffee houses and cabarets where emotional Russian and Polish Jews--all enemies to all government--shout the words amid torrential excitement. When you see the hymn in point you are utterly puzzled to understand the excitement it rouses.

And this rallying cry has now been obtruded into the midst of the theatrical world.

The term "incantation" here used is used advisedly. The term is used by Kurt Schindler, who adapted the Yiddish hymn to American use. And its effect is that of an incantation.

In translation it is as follows: [H: How many of you readers could translate this for yourselves? It is in Yiddish, a language (NOT HEBREW) developed for the Talmudic Jew Antichrist.]

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

With fire and flame they have burnt us,

Everywhere they have shamed and derided us,

Yet none amongst us has dared depart

From our Holy Scriptures, from our Law.

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

By day and night I only yearn and pray,

Anxiously keeping our Holy Scriptures

And praying, 'Save us, save us once again!

For the sake of our fathers and our father's fathers!'

"Listen to my prayer and to my lamenting,

For only Thou canst help, Thou, God, alone,

For it is said, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God,

The Lord is One."

[H: Let us look at this as presented by Mr. Schindler, a name not easily overlooked.

I could have bet that Psalms came right before the book of Proverbs in the OLD TESTAMENT. How then could this be a reference to the "THE CRY OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS"? Ah, again the truth is given away in the face of the lies. It became recognized as the "Cry of 'Jesus' Christ on the Cross"--because nobody knew any better about anything. And just WHO wrote the PSALMS? I wonder if you have very much of any knowledge or understanding about your own religions?]

The words of the hymn are so much resembling a lament that they strangely contrast with the spirit which the hymn itself seems to arouse; its mournful melody inspires a very different spirit among the Jewish hearers than the same sort of melody would inspire among other people. Those who have heard its public rendition can better understand how a hymn of such utterly quiet and resigned tone could be the wild rage of the anarchists of the East Side coffee houses.

The motive, of course, for the singing of the hymn is the reference to non-Jewish people.

"With fire and flame THEY have burnt us, everywhere THEY have shamed and derided us". [H: My goodness, readers, this is prior to 1921 and they already are singing of a Holocaust to come? What is this garbage? NOW, MOREOVER, WHO DO YOU THINK MADE THE PICTURE, WHO WERE THE VAUDEVILLE ACTORS, AND WHO OWNED THE THEATER TO WHOM EVERY ONE HAD TO PAY TO GET IN? Yes, I know; it IS hard to look at Truth when you have been so blinded by the lies as to accept the lie as the Truth--YOU ARE PEOPLE OF THE LIE--AND THE JEWISH ANTICHRIST WILL BE THE FIRST TO AFFIRM THAT REALIZATION. YOU ARE, IN THEIR EYES, TOTAL FOOLS.] Who are "they"? Who but the goyim, the Christians who all unsuspectingly sit near by and who are so affected by the Jewish applause that they applaud too! Truly, in one way of looking at it, Jews have a right to despise the "gentiles".

"THEY have shamed and derided us; THEY have shamed us," but we, the poor Jews, have been harmless all the while, none among us daring to depart from the Law! That is the meaning of Eli, Eli. That is why, in spite of its words of religious resignation, it becomes a rallying cry. "They" are all wrong; "we" are all right.

It is possible, of course, that right-minded Jews do not approve of all this. They may disapprove of Kol Nidre and they may resent the use which the Jewish leaders are making of Eli, Eli. Let us at least credit some Jews with both these attitudes. But they do nothing about it. These same Jews, however, will go to the public library of their town and put the fear of political or business reprisal in the hearts of the Library Board if they do not instantly REMOVE the DEARBORN INDEPENDENT from the library; these same Jews will form committees to coerce mayors of cities into issuing illegal orders which cannot be enforced; these same Jews will give commands to the newspapers under their patronage or control-- they are indeed mighty and active in the affairs of the non-Jews. But when it is a matter of keeping Eli, Eli out of the theater, or the Kol Nidre out of the mouths of those who thus plan a whole year of deception "aforehand", these same Jews are very inactive and apparently very powerless.

The Anti-Defamation committee would better shut up shop until it can show either the will or the ability to bring pressure to bear on its own people. Coercion of the rest of the people is rapidly growing less and less possible.

The Kol Nidre is far from being the worst counsel in the Talmud; Eli, Eli is far from being the worst anti-social misuse of apparently holy things. But it will remain the policy of the DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, for the present at least, to let all such matters alone except, as in the present case, where the number of the inquiries indicates that a knowledge of the facts has been had at other sources. In many instances, what our inquirers heard was much worse than is stated here, so that this article is by way of being a service to the inquirer to prevent his being misled, and to the Jew to prevent misrepresentation.


God bless Henry Ford! And you thought all he did was make horseless carriages and your favorite pick-up truck.

Have you readers ever wondered why you can't find the Phoenix Journals or CONTACT in any library, or why you can't buy them in any establishment book store? They are banned even from the non-establishment book stores. Writings such as this series, just presenting fact from long research, the books, if caught, are disallowed passage of U.S. borders and, in the courts, the more important are BURNED.

It is YOUR life, people, and your choices are honored above all things. But your enemy, and yes the Antichrist IS YOUR ENEMY, plans to enslave you totally--and today, it is DONE. You did not see it nor could you believe it, so it slipped upon you LIKE THE THIEF IN THE NIGHT--but so too SHALL COME THE CHRIST EQUALLY SILENTLY AND TURN ON THE LIGHTS IN YOUR DARKENED HOUSES. SO BE IT FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND, NOW!




Will the adversary, in the form of courts, clowns and insipid assaulters continue to work their mischief? Of course, but not very diligently for with each thrust henceforth, TRUTH will counter them and they cannot stand in the face of TRUTH or the LIGHT BEING SHINED UPON THEIR EVIL AND WICKED DEEDS. Check out self and look at what ye do in the DARKNESS of night or in secret. Are there things you prefer not be known?

Wow, you don't hide from God, so I would suggest you begin to clean those closets a bit more carefully. And, shooting the truth-bringer or the messenger will merit you only worse tragedy into your experience. Join the enemy if you will, but you will soon find it futile as God marches through in TRUTH. And, oh yes, WE DO MARCH VERY, VERY WELL. Salu.



SAT., JAN. 17, 1998 8:46 A.M. YR. 11, DAY 154

SAT., JAN. 17, 1998


I am at a loss to understand WHY I receive objections to offering this information regarding Judaism, Christians, Moslems and thus and so. I have begun this series on Antichrist by presenting relevant material on the false "Jews" and it would seem to stir the Hornet's nest. Well, we have been acclaimed by the Anti-Defamation League and various and sundry attorneys, and other publications, as Anti-Semites (when WE are the Semites in point) and, thus, it seems important to go right on with our planned format of offering INFORMATION WHICH IS WELL RESEARCHED, EASY TO PROVE TO/BY ANY READER--HISTORICAL FACT.

Because some people feel they have to read this material in the corner of their most secure closet, let me offer you, AS REGARDS THE TALMUD, FROM THE PEOPLE OF WHOM WE WRITE. This first will be a direct QUOTATION from The Talmud Unmasked, the secret rabbinical teaching concerning Christians. You can put any definition on "christian" that you might choose. Since "Jesus" was not named until almost half a century AFTER Esu Immanuel's passage from the Holy Land, by Saul of Tarsus (Paul), IN GREECE, it is hard to believe that the TRUE Christians are the ones who worshipped Jesus, for what in the world would they have called him? Nothing was written in Gospel form or compiled into that New Testament (and into a book of Old Testament) UNTIL SOME 300 YEARS AFTER THE "CHRIST" EVENT, AT ANY RATE.


The book used here is by Rev. I. B. Pranaitis who was a Professor of the Hebrew Language in St. Petersburg. The originals were in Latin. The printing was originally done by the Printing office of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, 1892.

So, let us see what the "Jews" had to say. I might add, before beginning, that just as Jesus replaced Immanuel, so to did the Jews of the chosen title replace Semite to mean themselves. No more than "Jesus" means "Immanuel" does Semite mean Jew.


[QUOTING, Part 10:]


"Let our writings be open to all the people. [H: Well, right there you have the first lie for the teachings have never been open to the people.] Let them see what our moral code is like! We need not be afraid of this test, for we have a pure heart and a clean spirit. [H: This particular writer had just, undoubtedly, taken the Kol Nidre.] Let the nations investigate the habitations of the children of Israel, and of their own accord convince themselves of what they are really like! They will then exclaim for certain with Baalam, when he went out to curse Israel: 'How beautiful are thy tents, O Israel; how beautiful thy homes!"

"In its attitude towards non-Jews, the Jewish religion is the most tolerant of all the religions in the world... The precepts of the ancient Rabbis, though inimical to Gentiles, cannot be applied in any way to Christians." [H: Ready to barf yet?]

"A whole series of opinions can be quoted from the writings of the highest Rabbinical authorities to prove that these teachers inculcated in their own people a great love and respect for Christians, in order that they might look upon Christians, who believe in the true God, as brothers, and pray for them."

"We hereby declare that the Talmud does not contain anything inimical to Christians."

[H: Ok, perhaps you might wish to re-identify "inimical".]



"The teaching of the Jews is that God created two natures, one good and the other evil, or one nature with two sides, one clean and the other unclean. From the unclean side, called Keliphah--rind, or scabby crust--the souls of Christians are said to have come. Zohar (I, 131a): "Idolatrous people, however, since they exist, befoul the world, because their souls come out of the unclean side. [H: There had been a preceding statement denouncing Christians as unclean, animals, idolators, etc.]

Emek Hammelech (23d) says:

"The souls of the impious come from Keliphah, which is death and the shadow of death."

Again, from Zohar (I, 46b, 47a) goes on to show that this unclean side is the left side, from which the souls of Christians come:

"And he created every living thing, that is, the Israelites, because they are the children of the most High God, and their holy souls come out from Him, but where do the souls of the idolatrous gentiles come from? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the left side, which makes their souls unclean. They are therefore all unclean and they pollute all who come in contact with them."

[H: Please do not forget: THE TALMUD book of instructions to the Jews is written BY RABBIS AND ELDERS (human MEN) and claims no Holy God input as is claimed in the Torah.]


The Elders teach that Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna... and all the uncircumcised go down into hell. Uncircumcised means all Gentiles whether, believe it or not, they are Christians or other unclean. These Gentiles are recognized as "Heretics and Epicureans and Traitors [who] go down into hell." Rosch Haschanach (17a)

The bodies of Christians after death are called by the odious name of Pegarim, which is the word used in Holy Scripture for the dead bodies of the damned and of animals, but never for the pious dead who are called Metim. Thus the Schulchan Arukh orders that a dead Christian must be spoken of in the same way as a dead animal.

Lora Dea (377, 1) says:

"Condolences must not be offered to anyone on account of the death of his servants or handmaidens. All that may be said is 'May God restore your lost one, the same as we say to a man who has lost a cow or an ass.'" [H: Prior to this there was an edict that "Gentiles" could only be allowed as servants or handmaidens.]

Nor must Christians be avoided for seven days after they have buried someone, as the law of Moses commands, SINCE THEY ARE NOT MEN; for the burial of an animal does not pollute one.

Iebhammoth (61a) says:

Here, no sense is made at all, of the statement:

"The Nokhrim are not rendered unclean by a burial. For it is said: Ye are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture; ye ARE MEN. You are thus called men, but not the Nokhrim."


If this is not "inimical", what, at the least, could it be?

Inimical: adverse, antagonistic, bellicose, hostile, ill, nasty, spiteful, unfriendly.

Let us drop those topics for now and if we ever find time we will offer a lot of information from the Talmud. We will, however, now return to notes relative to the Protocols.



Judaism has been described by Moses Mendelssohn, a learned Jew, in this way: "Judaism is not a religion by a Law religionized." This definition does away effectively with the er- roneous belief prevalent among the non-Jews that Judaism is a religion.

In spite of the loud and frequent assertions, made by Jews and Christian divines alike, contending that the Jews were the first monotheists, it is a well proven fact that the high initiates of the Memphis priesthood were monotheists long before the Jews ever went to Egypt.

Judaism would be best described as a rite or compendium of rites, for, if one lends belief to the existence of the Jewish Lawgiver, Moses, one must bear in mind that he first studied among the high initiates of Egypt, and later, became the pupil and son-in-law of black Jethro, the Ethiopian magician whom one might call the Father of Voodooism, the name given to the magic practices and rites performed by the negroes.

The closer one studies the history of the Jews, the clearer it appears that they are neither a religious entity nor a nation. The absolute failure of Zionism which was a desperate effort on the part of certain Jewish leaders to bind all the Jews of the world into a national entity, whose territory would have been Palestine, proves the futility of such an effort.

Judaism is not a religion and the Jews are not a nation, but they are a sect with Judaism as a rite. [H: This does not say "right", it says: "rite".]

The obligations and rules of the rite for the Jewish masses are contained in the Talmud and Schulchan Arukh, but the esoteric teachings for the higher initiates are to found in the CABALA.

Therein are contained the mysterious rites for evocations, the indications and keys to practices for conjuration of supernatural forces, the science of numbers, astrology, etc.

The practical application of the Cabalist knowledge is manifested in the use made of it, through the ages, by Jews to gain influence both in the higher spheres of Gentile life and over the masses. Sovereigns and Popes, both, usually had one or more Jews as astrologers and advisers, and they frequently gave Jews control over their very life by employing them as physicians. Political power was thus gained by Jews in almost every Gentile country alongside with financial power, since Jewish court-bankers manipulated state funds and taxes.

Through the ages, also, can be followed the spreading power of the sect, and no more awful example of the devastating and destructive power of the penetration of a secret subversive society has even been witnessed.

With its B'nai B'rith Supreme Council as the directing head, the sect with its members swarming among all nations has become the sovereign power ruling in the councils of all nations and governing their political, economic, religious and educational policies.

In his book Nicholas II et les Juifs, Netchvolodow explains that "the Chaldean science acquired by many of the Jewish priests, during the captivity of Babylon, gave birth to the sect of the Pharisees whose name only appears in the Holy Scriptures and in the writings of the Jewish historians after the captivity (606 B.C.). The works of the celebrated scientist Munk leave no doubt on the point that the sect appeared during the period of the captivity. [H: Note, please, that although you probably can no longer find references since the great libraries were destroyed and so too were the records in Babylon (Iraq), the Pharisees were called "Phareecians". By the way, the monotheistic recognizers of Aton, the ONE Light, were called at that same time, "Atonians". This concept of Aton was buried as deeply as the Phareecians could manage to wipe out historical records.]

"From then dates the Cabala or Tradition of the Pharisees. For a long time their precepts were only transmitted orally but later they formed the Talmud and received their final form in the book called the SEPHER HA ZOHAR. [H: I wonder if about now my friend Al is getting any nervous twitches regarding teachers and guides? Use of very SIMILAR names are meant to confuse, confound, and misdirect, and look how wondrous an event to have sidetracked Al.]

The Pharisees were, as it were, a class whose tendency was to form a kind of intellectual aristocracy among the Jews. At first, they formed a sort of brotherhood, a "haburah", the members being called "haburim" or brothers. They were a subversive element, aiming at the overthrow of the Sadducean High-priesthood, whose members prided themselves on their aristocracy of blood and birth, to which the Pharisees opposed an aristocracy of learning. The war waged by the latter extends over a long period of time, and the rivalry was bitter. The Pharisees, who, although they professed as one of the their chief tenets, the utmost contempt of the "am haretz" or simple people, did not overlook the fact that they needed their mass support for the attainment of their own aim, and they enlisted it by opposing the Sadducean strictness of the Law in many instances, namely, in the observance of the Sabbath.

The power of the Sadducees fell with the destruction of the Temple by Titus and thenceforth the Pharisaic element held supremacy among the Jews.

Quoting an acknowledged authority on Judaism, Mr. Flavien Brenier, Lt. Gen. Netchvolodow further describes the policy of the sect as follows:

"Before appearing proudly as the expression of Jewish aspirations, The Tradition of the Pharisees had serious difficulties to surmount, the chief of which was the revival of the orthodox faith stimulated in the Jewish people by the Captivity. To the exiles, bemoaning the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem and begging Jehovah to end the misfortunes of their homeland, the revelation that Jehovah was only a phantom, entailed not only certain defeat, but also their own exposure to perils the last of which would have been the loss of all authority over Israel.

"The Pharisees then, judging it wiser to capture the confidence of their compatriots by taking the lead of the religious movement, affected a scrupulous observance of the slightest prescriptions of the law and instituted the practice of complicated rituals, simultaneously however cultivating the new doctrine in their secret sanctuaries. These were regular secret societies, composed during the captivity of a few hundred adepts. At the time of Flavius Josephus which was that of their greater prosperity they numbered only some 6,000 members.

"This group of intellectual pantheists was soon to acquire a directing influence over the Jewish nation. Nothing, moreover, likely to offend national sentiment ever appeared in their doctrines. However saturated with pantheistic Chaldeism they might have been, the Pharisees preserved their ethnic pride intact. This religion of Man divinised, which they had absorbed at Babylon they conceived solely in applying to the profit of the Jew, the superior and predestined being. The promises of universal dominion which the orthodox Jew found in the Law, the Pharisees did not interpret in the sense of the reign of the God of Moses over the nations, but in that of a material domination to be imposed on the universe by the Jews. The awaited Messiah was no longer the Redeemer of original Sin, a spiritual victor who would lead the world, it was a temporal king, bloody with battle, who would make Israel master of the world and "drag all peoples under the wheels of his chariot". The Pharisees did not ask this enslavement of the nations of a mystical Jehovah, which they continued worshipping in public, only as a concession to popular opinion, for they expected its eventual consummation to be achieved by the secular patience of Israel and the use of human means.

"Monstrously different from the ancient law were such principles as these, but they had nothing one could see, which might have rendered unpopular those who let them filter, drop by drop, among the Jews.

"The admirably conceived organizations of the Pharisees did not fail soon to bear fruit.

"One cannot better define its action in the midst of Jewish society before Jesus Christ," said Mr. Falvien Brenier, "than in comparing it with that of the Freemasons in modern society."

"A carefully restricted membership tightly bound, imposing on their members the religion of 'the secret', the Pharisees pursued relentlessly their double aim which was:

"1.The seizure of political power, by the possession of the great political offices (the influence of which was tremendous in the reconstituted Jewish nation) and the conquest of the Sanhedrin (Jewish parliament).

"2.To modify gradually the conceptions of the people in the direction of their secret doctrine."

The first of these aims was achieved when Hillel, a Pharisee of Babylon who claimed Davidic descent, was elected president of the Sanhedrin. Thus ended the bitter fight between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Opposed to Hillel was Shammai, a Sadduce, supporter of the Sadducean High Priest who was made Chief Judge of the assembly. The attitude of the two men towards each other is a matter of long record in the Talmud.

Among the most noted Pharisees, after Hillel, are: Ychanan be Zakkai, founder of the school of Yamnai, Akibah who, with Bar Cochba, fomented the revolt against the Romans under Hadrian, rebellion ending with the order for the dispersion of Jews (132 A.D.) Also Simon ben Yohai, who might be termed the great Magician and Father of the Cabala, lastly Judah the Prince who compiled the Babylonian Talmud. Under these chiefs, the Phariasaic power was definitely established in the Sanhedrin. Those among the Jews who clung to the Sadducean tradition and refused to acknowledge the domination of the Pharisees, remained as dissidents. Such were the Samaritans and the Karaites who rejected the Talmud.

[H: Are you beginning to be able to SEE the split in the actual ones who might wish to call themselves Jews? If you as Gentiles think there is difficulty in clearing up these confusions, be compassionate toward those God-believing Judeans who followed the Judean instructions and the books they ASSUMED were from God. There is not even an assumption that God had anything to do with the Talmud except to have these wise elders who knew, of course, more than anyone on the face of the Earth--in ORDER TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD INTO TOTAL CONTROL BY THEMSELVES.]

The second of the aims and its method of attainment is exposed in the so-called Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion so loudly denounced by the descendants of those who devised The Secret Doctrine in Israel. Israel here meaning the Jews as a religious community, most of whom remain quite ignorant of the intricate subversive schemes imputed to them.

The attitude of Jesus Christ to this sect [H: CULT] is definitely expressed in the New Testament (see Luke XI and John VIII).


Esoteric Judaism, the Jewish religion as practised in the twentieth century, is based on the Old Testament, and on equally ancient commentaries on it, preserved for ages as oral traditions, and known, as above stated, under the general name of the Talmud. All copies of this book were ordered to be burned by Philip IV, the Fair, King of France, in 1306, but the book survived the holocaust.

[H: Many so-called informed professors use this very concept as proving truth of the Talmud (without even an idea what is in the Talmud) as "if burned" they must hold truth. THANK YOU, READERS, for if this is the criteria for Truth, we must hold truth, for our books have been ordered BURNED, BANNED and CONFISCATED and my scribe incarcerated in prison on contempt charges.]

We know that the Jewish god is not the father of all men and the ideal of love, justice and mercy, like the Christian God, or even like Ahura-Mazd or Brahma. On the contrary, he is the god of vengeance down to the fourth generation, just an merciful only to his own people, but foe to all other nations, denying them human rights and commanding their enslavement that Israel might appropriate their riches and rule over them.

The following quotations will serve to illustrate this point:

"And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy to them." Deut. VII, 2

"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 upon the face of the Earth." Deut. VII, 6.

The Talmud comments upon it: "You are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts." Baba Mecia 114, 6.

"On the house of the Goy (non-Jew) one looks as on the fold of cattle." Tosefta, Erubin VIII.

From The Talmud (a prayer said on the eve of Passover, to the present day) "We beg Thee, O Lord, indict Thy wrath on the nations not believing in Thee, and not calling on Thy name. Let down Thy wrath on them and inflict them with Thy wrath. Drive them away in Thy wrath and crush them into pieces. Take away, 􀀲 Lord, all bone from them. In a moment indict all disbelievers. Destroy in a moment all foes of Thy nation. Draw out with the root, disperse and ruin unworthy nations. Destroy them! Destroy them immediately in this very moment!" (Pranajtis: Christianus in Talmudae Jeorum, quotations from: Synagoga Judaica, p. 212. Minhagin, p. 23, Crach Chaim 480 Hagah).

[H: Wow, the universal LAW of return, according to your sowing, this is going to be some heck of a show-and-tell on delivery day! I would have thought these wise-acres would have remembered that little detail before they offered up such obscenity and atrocity upon the world.]

"When one sees inhabited houses of the 'Goy' one says, 'The Lord will destroy the house of the proud.' And when one sees them destroyed he says, 'The Lord God of Vengeance has revealed himself." -- (The Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 58, 6.)

Those who do not own Torah and the prophets must all be killed. Who has power to kill them, let him kill them openly with the sword, if not, let him use artifices till they are done away with." -- (Schulchan Arukh: Choszen Hamiszpat, 425, 50.)

The Jewish Sages soon understood that Christ's way of commenting upon the old Law introduced, instead of hatred toward foreign nations, brotherly feelings and equality of all men in the face of God, thus denying the Jews their privileged position as masters of the world.

At the same time, Christ's reforming the very-primitive and rough moral ideas of the Old Testament deprived the Jews of their very convenient-in-the-battle-of-life, unscrupulous, double morality. Thence the Jewish hatred for the Christian faith is conspicuous in the following quotations from Talmudic sources:

"The estates of the Goys are like wilderness; who first settles in them has a right to them. (Baba Batra, 14b.)

"The property of the Goys is like a thing without a master." (Schulchan Arukh: Choszen Hamiszpat, 116, 5.)

"If a Jew has struck his spade into the ground of the Goy, he has become the master of the whole." (Baba Batra, 55a.)

In order to enhance the authority of the Old Testament equally recognized by the Christians, while simultaneously augmenting that of the Talmud and the Rabbis, its commentators and authors teach: --

"In the law (the Bible) are things more or less important, but the words of the Learned in the Scripture are always important.

"It is more wicked to protest the words of the rabbis than of Torah." (Miszna, Sanhedryn XI, 3.) "Who changes the words of the rabbis ought to die." (Erubin, 21b.)

"The decisions of the Talmud are words of the living God. Jehovah himself asks the opinion of earthly rabbis when there are difficult affairs in heaven." (Rabbi Menachen, Comments for the Fifth Book.) [H: Well, oh boy, I bet that "living god" must be in full- time council since the GOD OF LIFE has actively entered this "question".]

"Jehovah himself in heaven studies the Talmud [H: Want to bet?], standing; he has such respect for that book." (Tr. Mechilla).

To enhance the dignity of religious dogmas the following commandments are given: "That the Jewish nation is the ONLY nation selected by God, while all the remaining ones are contemptible and hateful. [H: Where does this leave YOU?]

"That all property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples." [H: And, where does THIS ONE leave YOU? It has already happened!]

"That an orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other nations, and on the contrary, he even ought to act against morality, if it were profitable for himself or for the interest of Jews in general."

"A Jew may rob a Goy (Goy means unclean, and is the disparaging name for a non-Jew), he may cheat him over a bill, which should not be perceived by him, otherwise the name of god would become dishonoured." (Schulchan Arukh, Choszen Hamiszpat. 348.)

"Should a Goy to whom a Jew owned some money die without his heirs knowing about the debt, the Jew is not bound to pay the debt." (Schulchan Arukh, Choszen Hamiszpat 283, 1.)

"The son of Noah, who would steal a farthing, ought to be put to death, but an Israelite is allowed to do injury to thy neighbor, is not said, Thou shalt not do injury to a goy." (Miszna, Sanhedryn, 57.)

"A thing lost by a goy may not only be kept by the man who found it, but it is forbidden to give it back to him." (Schulchan Arukh, Choszen Hamiszpat, 266, 1.)

"Who took an oath in the presence of the goys, the robbers, and the custom-house officer, is not responsible." (Tosefta Szebnot, 11.)

"In order to annul marriages, oaths, and promises, a Jew must go to the rabbi, and if he is absent, he must call three other Jews, and say to them that he is sorry to have done it, and they say, 'Thou are allowed to.' (Schulchan Arukh, 2, 1:247.)

The Kol Nidre prayer on the Day of Judgment, that acquits beforehand from the nonfulfillment of all kinds of oaths and vows, is given here.

"All vows, oaths promises, engagements, and swearing, which, beginning this very day of reconciliation, we intend to vow, promise, swear, and bind ourselves to fulfill, we are sorry for already, and they shall be annulled, acquitted, annihilated, abolished, valueless, unimportant, our vow shall be NO VOWS, and our OATHS NO OATHS AT ALL." (SCHULCHAN ARUKH, Edit. I, 136.)

"If a goy wants a Jew to stand witness against a Jew at the Court of Law, and the Jew could give fair evidence, HE IS FORBIDDEN TO DO IT, but if a Jew wants a Jew to be a witness in a similar case against a Goy, he may do it." [H: !!!!!] (Schulchan Arukh, Choszen Hamiszpat, 28 art. 3 and 4.)

"Should a Jew inform the goyish authorities that another Jew has much money, the other will suffer a loss through it, he must give him remuneration." (Schulchan Arukh. -- Ch. Ha., 338.)

"If there is no doubt that someone thrice betrayed the Jews, or caused that their money passed to the goys, a means and wise council must be found to do away with him."

"Every one must contribute to the expense of the community (Kahal) in order to do away with the traitor." Ibid. 163, 1.)

"It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere... it is permitted to kill him before he has denounced... though it is necessary to warn him and say, 'do not denounce.' But should he say, 'I will denounce,' he must be killed, and he who accomplishes it first will have the greater merit." (Ibid, 388, 10) [H: Listen up, sleepyheads, they are NOT kidding!]

"How to interpret the word 'robbery'. A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take woman slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew, but he (a Jew) is not forbidden to do all this to a goy." (Tosefta, Aboda Zara, VIII, 5.)

"If a goy killed a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew killed a goy he is not responsible." (Ibid., VDT, 5.)

The authors of the Talmud, having issued this horrible moral code, that acquits all kinds of crimes, in order to make easier the strife with foreigners to their own nation, understood the necessity of keeping its contents a secret and thus legislated:

"To communicate to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goys knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly." (Book of Libbre David, 37) [H: How much do you need, goyim gentiles? But to kill them? Oh no, there are ever so many other ways of retribution as to never need kill anyone over anything.]

"It is forbidden to disclose the secrets of the Law. He who would do it would be as guilty as if he destroyed the whole world." (Jaktu Chadasz, 171, 2.) [H: That is a pretty bad judgment, don't you think? Is it any wonder, then, that the secrets are kept, just like in other Orders which require blood sanctions if secrets are revealed.] The restrictions and commandments bearing this in view were raised to the dignity of dogmas of faith. It is not astonishing that in face of such prohibitions the secrets of the Talmud have been so little known to other nations, especially to the Western ones, and till the present day, even the most progressive and citizen-like Jews think the disclosure of the principles of the Talmud a proof of the most outrageous intolerance, and an attack on the Jewish religion.

In order to separate the Jewish nation from all others and thus prevent it from mixing with them, and losing their national peculiarities, a great many precepts of the ritual and rules for every-day life, prejudices and superstitions, the remains of the times of barbarism and obscurity have been gathered in the Talmud and consecrated as canons. The precepts observed by Eastern Jews till the present day deride even the most simple notions of culture and hygiene. [H: Would these not be rules for ANTICHRIST? Come on, readers, OPEN YOUR EYES.] For instance they enjoin:

"If a Jew [Eastern] be called to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he only ought to give a false explanation, that he might not, by behaving differently, become an accomplice in betraying this information. Who will violate this order shall be put to death." (Libbre David, 37)



[H: But what does this do to the Antiphone where it says: "Let our writings be open to all the people. Let them see what our moral code is like!....?]

"One should and must make false oath, when the goys ask if our books contain anything against them. Then we are bound to state on oath that there is nothing like that." (Szaalot-Utszabot. The Book of Jore d'a, 17.)

"Every goy who studies the Talmud, and every Jew who helps him in it, ought to die." (Sanhedryn 59a, Aboda Zora 8-6: Szagiga 13.)

"The ears of the goys are filthy, their baths, houses, countries are filthy." (Tosefta Mikwat, v. 1.)

"A boy-goy after nine years and one day old, and a girl after three years and one day old, are considered filthy." (Perferkowicz: Talmud t. v., p. 11.)

These principles afford an explanation of the action of governments in excluding Jews from judicial and military positions. [H: Well, not any more and, in fact, it is usually a requirement that in the Judicial (Jew-dicial) system that the membership in the Bar Association INSURES that even if a man is not a Jew, he becomes a Jew simply by oath of and service in the Bar Association, a private corporation overriding the laws of the Constitution in order to legislate and create LAWS as desired by this same bunch of Talmudic usurpers.] They also explain that mysterious phenomenon known as



Difficult to digest, isn't it? Well, this is why the term: PEOPLE OF THE LIE. How can you know Truth if you are given secret laws, secret rules, secret information in the form which cannot be translated, and if translated, the translator is doomed to death--under the law being utilized?

Why would Antichrist set forth such regulations as we have offered here, and within thousands of pages of instructions? Because, if they be known, no man would allow such atrocities or lies foisted off on anyone, even himself, for gain of some Earth-perceived property or treasure.

Perhaps you can get a better view from the mountain where sit the Moslems, Buddists, Islamic and yes, "CHRIST" Sanandans. I don't care what you call your "leaders", but you err when you buy into the lies of self-established LIES AND FALSE PRESENTATIONS.

If the Jews (Antichrists self-proclaimed, for they denied the one accepted by Christians as their leader) are on one side and ALL OTHERS are placed, by them, on the other, how think you that there will NOT be bloody confrontations? The Sanandan Atonians will do nothing save inform. But, you know and I know that the others will spread bloodshed throughout every nook and cranny of your globe as is possible and then leave the mess for the dying globalists.

If you call a rake, a shovel, just how much dirt do you suppose to lift with the tool? So, the first thing we do is to STOP calling, or allowing to be called, these enemies by false names. Every action is ANTI-Christ in concept, intention and action--so, get brave, gentiles and Judeans--call the rake a rake and let's get on with some TRUTH in this old weary world. The Antichrist has ALWAYS been the SAME Antichrist from the beginning and will be to the ending. This is not some new concept sprung on the world for this morning's refreshment or magic show. IT HAS NEVER BEEN OTHERWISE.

You do what you want about this but the FACTS remain that this is TRUTH, PROVEN, and you get with whatever "side" you think your false teachers will allow--and sit until hell freezes--which it won't but you will be right there in the middle of it wishing you had done your homework!

I am reminded that our readers won't read the paper if there is very much information. Well, sorry about that, good friends, for it is going to be both BIG AND THICK, and it will behoove YOU TO TAKE THE TIME TO STUDY EVERY WORD OF EVERY PRESENTATION. THE FINAL CHOICE IS HERE!

If, further, you claim self to be too dense to understand these messages then you are too dense for me and, therefore, may you do well in your choices, but count me out of your plans. Salu.



SAT., JAN. 17, 1998 2:48 P.M. YR. 11, DAY 154

SAT., JAN. 17, 1998

Continuing from: THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION (No authors or publishing information available.)


Note that any footnotes or comments will be inserted where appropriate within the body of the text.


[QUOTING, Part 11:]


Chapter 1


The word "protocol" (From Greek. protos (first) + killa (glue).) was used to signify a flyleaf pasted at the top of an official document, bearing either the opening formula or a summary of the contents for convenient reference. The original draft of a treaty was usually pasted on in this way, that the signatories might check the correctness of the engrossed copy before signing. The draft itself being based on the discussion at the conference, the word came to mean also the minutes of the proceedings.

In this instance "the protocols" mean the "draft of the plan of action" of the Jewish leaders. There have been many such drafts at different periods in Jewish history since the dispersion, but few of them have come into general circulation. In all, the principles and morality are as old as the tribe. By way of illustration we give an instance which occurred in the fifteenth century.

In 1492, Chemor, chief Rabbi of Spain, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin, which had its seat in Constantinople, for advice, when a Spanish law threatened expulsion. The reply is found in the sixteenth century Spanish book, La Silva Curiosa, by Julio-Iniguez de Medrano (Paris Orry, 1608), on pages 156 and 157, shown in photostat, with the following explanation: "This letter following was found in the archives of Toledo by the hermit of Salamanca, (while) searching the ancient records of the kingdoms of Spain; and, as it is expressive and remarkable, I wish to write it here." This was the reply: [SEE PAGE 57]

"Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves.

The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:

1. As for what you say that the King of Spain (Ferdinand) obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise.

2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs.

3. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians' lives.

4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.

5. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix in affairs of State, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.

6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power.

Signed: Prince of the Jews of Constantinople."

These protocols given to the world by Nilus are only the latest known edition of the Jewish leaders' programme. The story of how the latter came into general circulation is an interesting one.

In 1884 the daughter of a Russian general, Mlle. Justine Glinka, was endeavoring to serve her country in Paris by obtaining political information, which she communicated to General Orgevskii (At that time Secretary to the Minister of the Interior, General Cherevin.) in St. Petersburg. For this purpose she employed a Jew, Joseph Schorst (Alias Schapiro, whose fa- ther had been sentenced in London, two years previous, to ten years penal servitude for counterfeiting.), member of the Mizraim Lodge in Paris. One day Schorst offered to obtain for her a document of great importance to Russia, on payment of 2,500 francs. This sum being received from St. Petersburg was paid over and the document handed to Mlle. Glinka. (Schorst fled to Egypt where, according to French police archives, he was murdered.)

She forwarded the French original, accompanied by a Russian translation to Orgevskii, who in turn handed it to his chief, General Cherevin, for transmission to the Tsar. But Cherevin, under obligation to wealthy Jews, refused to transmit it, merely filing it in the archives. (On his death in 1896, he willed a copy of his memoirs containing the Protocols to Nicholas II.)

Meantime there appeared in Paris certain books on Russian court life (Published under the pseudonym "Count Vassilii", their real author was Mme. Juliette Adam, using material fur- nished by Princess Demidov-San Donato, Princess Radzivill, and other Russians.), which displeased the Tsar, who ordered his secret police to discover their authorship. This was falsely attributed, perhaps with malicious intent (Among the Jews in the Russian secret service in Paris was Maniulov, whose odious character is drawn by M. Paleologue, Memoires.), to Mlle. Glinka, and on her return to Russia she was banished to her estate in Orel. To the marechal de noblesse of this district, Alexis Sukhotin, Mlle. Glinka gave a copy of the Protocols. Sukhotin showed the document to two friends, Stepanov and Nilus; the former had it printed and circulated privately in 1897; the second, Professor Sergius A. Nilus, published it for the first time in Tsarskoe-Tselo (Russia) in 1901, in a book entitled The Great Within the Small. Then, about the same time a friend of Nilus, G. Butmi, also brought it out and a copy was deposited in the British Museum on August 10, 1906.

Meantime, through Jewish members (Notably Eno Azev and Efrom. The latter, formerly a rabbi, died in 1925 in a monastery in Serbia, where he had taken refuge; he used to tell the monks that the Protocols were but a small part of the Jewish plans for ruling the world and a feeble expression of their hatred of the gentiles.), of the Russian police, minutes of the proceedings of the Basle Congress (Supra, Part I, 34) in 1897 had been obtained and these were found to correspond with the Protocols. (The Russian government had learned that at meetings of the B'nai B'rith in New York in 1893-94, JACOB SCHIFF (supra, 63, 65) had been named chairman of the committee on the revolutionary movement in Russia.)

In January 1917, Nilus had prepared a second edition, revised and documented, for publication. But before it could be put on the market, the revolution of March 1917 had taken place and Kerenski, who had succeeded to power, ordered the whole edition of Nilus's book to be destroyed. In 1924, Prof. Nilus was arrested by the Cheka in Kiev, imprisoned, and tortured; he was told by the Jewish president of the court that this treatment was meted out to him for "having done them incalculable harm in publishing the Protocols". Released for a few months, he was again led before the G.P.U. (Cheka), this time in Moscow and confined. Set at liberty in February 1926, he died in exile in the district of Valadimir on January 13, 1929.

A few copies of Nilus's second edition were saved and sent to other countries where they were published; in Germany, by Gottfried zum Beek (1919); in England, by The Briton (1920) in France, by Mgr. Jouin in La Revue International des Societes, and by The Beckwith Co. (New York 1921). Later, editions appeared in Italian, Russian, Arabic, and even in Japanese.

Such is the simple story of how these Protocols reached Russia and thence came into general circulation.

Mr. Stephanov's deposition relative to it is here given as corroboration. (The translation is the author's; photostat of the original is appended)


Chapter II


There is a saying in several languages that only the truth hurts. Recognizing the fact beneath this expression, one is little surprised at the zeal which certain parties seek to disprove documentary evidence. If the evidence were false, then it would be ignored by those concerned and pass quickly into the realm of forgotten things. But if the evidence is genuine and open to verification from many angles, then the truth will hurt and thus not be ignored.

If this reasoning is correct, the violent methods used by the Jews, particularly those affiliated with the Zionist movement, to discredit and suppress the document entitled The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, would alone constitute a proof of its authenticity.

Nilus and Butmi had published the document without comment. Its success therefore is entirely due to:

1. The self-evident character of the document;

2. The logical reasoning expressed in clear, simple terms.

3. The explanation it gives of international politics;

4. The fact that the events predicted in it have actually occurred since.

But if its publishers gave no guarantee of its genuineness, those who have attacked it have failed even more conspicuously to discredit and refute it. To quote a contemporary writer: (Cf. the works of Jouin, Lambelin and N. H. Webster.)

"The fact remains that the Protocols have never been refuted and the futility of the so-called refutations which have appeared, as well as its temporary suppression, have done more to convince the public of its authenticity than the writings of all the anti-Semites put together."

There is plenty of indisputable, documentary evidence which explains the Jewish plan of action, without recourse of the Protocols. Their importance lies in the fact that, published at a definite date, they foretold historical events which have upset the world, that they explained these events by the principles set forth in the work itself: This fact makes it superfluous to enquire whether the author of the Protocols is the Zionist Congress in corpore, a member of the congress, or some Jewish (or even Christian) thinker. Their source is of small moment: the facts, the relation of cause and effect, are there; the existence of the work prior to the events foretold in it can never be brought into question, and that is enough.

The first attempt at refutation appeared in 1920, entitled, The Jewish Bogey and the Forged Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, by a Jew, Lucien Wolf; it was followed by articles in the Metropolitan (New York) signed "William Hard". The effect of these articles, contrary to the intention of their authors, was to draw wider public attention to the existence of the Protocols. At the same time in America the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (This league compelled the Beckwith Co., which subsequently published the Protocols after Putnam's withdrawal, to insert in every copy sold a copy of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League's refutation.) [H: Remember, though, that the ADL is a branch of British INTELLIGENCE.] filled the papers with denunciations of the libel from all parts of the country, thus proving how powerful is Jewish organization. One of its members was Louis Marshall, and, as an illustration of its activity, the story of the suppression of the edition of the Protocols which an American publishing house had tried to bring out, is instructive. It shows not only the pressure the Jews can bring to bear on anyone who dares to lift his finger against them, but their own mental attitude of absolute intolerance towards others, while demanding of the world complete acquiescence in their schemes.

George Haven Putnam, head of the firm Putnam & Son, New York, after his annual visit to London, brought out in 1920 an American edition of The Cause of World Unrest. (The reproduction in book form of a series of articles which had appeared in the Morning Post of London.) About the same time, he decided to issue The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in book form. Advance notices were released and the book set up and ready to go on the stands about October 15. On the eve of its appearance, Putnam received the following letter from Louis Marshall.


As one who believes in those qualities that constitute the true American spirit, I have been greatly disturbed by the accounts given by the newspapers of the outrage to which you were subjected at the meeting held at Erasmus High School in Brooklyn the other evening. Knowing your patriotism, I can only regard the alleged cause, namely, that you had condemned the Declaration of Independence and were of the opinion that we owed an apology to England for severing our relations with her, as a slander, born of prejudice and ignorance.

I had scarcely finished reading this episode which had thus aroused my indignation, when I found upon my table a book, bearing the imprint of your firm, entitled The Cause of World Unrest, bound in a flaming red and purporting to be a republication of articles that have recently appeared in the London Morning Post with which I had become familiar. To say that I was shocked that your honored name should be made the vehicle of disseminating among the American people these outpourings of malice, intolerance and hatred, this witches' broth of virulent poison, is merely to confess the poverty of my vocabulary. On opening the book I turned to the publishers' note, which was apologetic and disclaimed responsibility for the publication. It was followed by an introduction which made it absolutely clear that the purpose of the book was to charge the Jews with an age-long conspiracy to destroy civilization in order that they might absorb the wealth and power of the world. Thus proclaimed, at length came the stupid drivel intended to support this thesis and calculated to make the Jew repulsive in the eyes of his fellowmen and to exterminate him, not figuratively, but literally, appealing, as it does, to the lowest passions and proceeding upon the same processes that were employed in the Middle Ages for the same object. Then it was the blood accusation, the charge of poisoning wells, of spreading plagues and pestilence, of the desecration of the Host. Now it is pretended conspiracy to overturn the economic system of the world by inciting warfare and revolution.

The slightest knowledge of history, the most elementary capacity for analysis, or even a minute inkling as to what the Jew is and has been, would suffice to stamp this book and the forged Protocols on which it is based, as the most stupendous libels in history. These writings are the work of a bank of conspirators who are seeking to continue to make the Jew, as he has been in all the centuries, the scapegoat of autocracy. The Protocols bear the hall- mark of the secret agents of the dethroned Russian bureaucracy, and the book which you have published is a mere babbling reiteration of what the murderers of the Ukraine, of Poland, and of Hungary are urging as justification for the holocausts of the Jews in which they have been engaged. It has been intimated, and there is much to sustain the theory, that the real purpose of these publications in the United States and in England is to arouse sufficient hostility against the Jew to subject them to mob violence and thus to give justification to those who have incited pogroms in Eastern Europe.

I have also observed that, upon the cover of the book to which I am now referring, you are advertising the publication of The Protocols, which I unhesitatingly denounce as on their face palpable forgeries. If you were called upon to circulate counterfeit money or forged bonds, you would shrink in horror at the suggestion. What you have done and what you propose to do is, however, in morals, incalculably worse. You are assisting in spreading falsehoods, in uttering libels, the effect of which will be felt for decades to come. You are giving them respectability, whilst the name of the author is shrouded in secrecy. Even Mr. Gwynne does not avow paternity for the book which he has heralded. Much as you may desire to shake off responsibility, therefore, the real responsibility for hurling this bomb, for such it is, prepared though it has been by others, rests upon you. Whoever may read this book and is of such a low type of intelligence as to be influenced by it, will not be apt to draw the fine ethical distinctions with which you are seeking to salve your conscience. As a patriotic American, do you believe that you are contributing to the creation of that spirit of justice and fair-play, of unity and harmony, which is the very foundation of that Americanism for which every good citizen has yearned, when you stimulate hatred and passion by the publication of these dreadful falsehoods? If there should occur in this country, in consequence of these publications and those of Henry Ford, what is earnestly desired by the anti-Semites with whom you have arrayed yourself, do you suppose that, when the Almighty calls you to a reckoning and asks you whether you have ever borne false witness against your neighbor, you will be guiltless in His eyes because of your publishers' note disavowing responsibility? [H: Boy, this one covers it all, doesn't he?]

I know that you must have been pained, as I was when I read of the treatment to which you were subjected, because of lying accusations directed against you. Are you able to appreciate the pain, the grief, the agony, that you are causing to three millions of your fellow-countrymen and millions of men, women and children in other parts of the world by your participation in the disgraceful and inhuman persecution which is now being insidi- ously carried on by means of publications in the distribution of which you are now actively engaged? I look upon this as a tragedy.

Louis Marshall

Major Putnam, still feeling and sincerely believing that he was an independent American, though not a very brave one, for throughout he uses the name of Mr. Gwynne as a screen, answered:

New York, October 15th, 1920

Dear Mr. Marshall:

Your letter of the 13th inst., which has to do with the publication of the volume entitled World Unrest and the announcement of the companion volume The Protocols, has been read before the members of our publishing board and has received the respectful consideration to which any communication from a citizen of your standing and reputation is assuredly entitled. I am asked by my associates to make report as follows as to our own understanding of the matters in question:

1. We are not prepared to accept your view of the responsibility that attaches to a publishing imprint, or to the association of such imprint with one volume or another. We believe that our own policy in this matter is in accord with that of the leading publishing houses on both sides of the Atlantic. It would be impossible to carry on the business of publishing books of opinion, whether the opinions have to do with the issues of today or with matters of the past, if the publisher was assumed to be in accord with the conclusions arrived at by one author or another. It is the intention to bring into print only such volumes as may present on such issues information that is understood to make an addition to the knowledge of the subject, or conclusions which appear to be entitled to consideration, to analysis, or possibly to refutation.

2. We have on our own catalogue, for instance, volumes expressing almost every phase of theological or religious belief. The list includes some books accepted by the Christian Scientists as fairly representative of their doctrines. In publishing such books we have, of course, no intention of announcing ourselves as upholding the theories of the Christian Scientists any more than in the publication of a volume by a Presbyterian divine we have expressed our acceptance of the Westminster catechism, or in printing a book by an Episcopal friend, we have been prepared to approve the reasonableness of the thirty-nine articles.

3. The volume, World Unrest, was, as you will have noted, brought into publication in London at the instance of Mr. Gwynne, the scholarly editor of the Morning Post. You doubtless have knowledge of the journals of England and will realize that the Post does not belong to the sensation-monger journals like Bottomley's John Bull or Hearst's American. It is a conservative paper which has the reputation of avoiding sensational material.

Mr. Gwynne had convinced himself that the papers brought into print in the Post, and later published under his direction in book form, were deserving of consideration. As we have stated in the publisher's-note, we are not prepared to express any opinion whatsoever in regard to the value of the so-called information presented, or as to the weight of the conclusions arrived at by the writer and endorsed by Mr. Gwynne. The recommendation came to us that, as the Gwynne volume used as a large part of its text the document entitled The Protocols, the readers of World Unrest would be interested in having an opportunity of examining the full text of The Protocols. You have already knowledge of this curious document. It has, it seems, been in print since 1905, and possibly earlier. An edition was published some months back by Eyre & Spottiswoode, conservative law publishers of London. The text that was brought to us in a translation freshly made from the Russian and is accompanied by a record of what is known of the original document. (This edition prepared by G. H. Putnam was subsequently published by The Beckwith Company, 299 Madison Avenue, New York.)

It is evident that the document has, as you point out, no voucher for authenticity and it is quite possible that it will be found to possess no historic importance. Attention has again been directed to it during the past year simply on the ground, according at least to the understanding of Mr. Gwynne's author and of himself, that certain of the instructions given and policies recommended in The Protocols appear to have been carried out by the Bolshevik government in Russia. Certain suggestions in The Protocols have also been connected with the policies of the Zionists, policies which, according to Mr. Gwynne and some other writers, are causing serious unrest in Palestine, Syria and Arabia.

In presenting The Protocols to American readers in a carefully printed edition, we have not the least intention of expressing the view that the documents are authentic, or that they will in the end be considered as possessing historic authority.

Mr. Gwynne takes the ground that neither World Unrest or The Protocols themselves present charges against the Jews as a whole. They emphasize certain things that have been done, or are alleged to have been done, by certain groups of Jews. It would be as fair to say a record of lynching in Texas or Arkansas, or a record of the attempt of the Bryan group to secure the payment of debts fifty cents on the dollar, was to be considered as a charge against the whole American people.

Mr. Gwynne's associates take the ground that the leading Jews on both sides of the Atlantic, men whose patriotism is unquestioned, ought not to put these documents to one side as of trifling importance. The time may very properly have come at which the charges made as said, only against certain groups of Jews, should be analyzed by the Jews whose judgments would be accepted as authoritative by English and American readers. If the charge is unfounded that Bolshevism as carried on in Russia has been conducted largely under Jewish direction, the statement ought to be refuted.

I received only yesterday a copy of a monthly entitled The Brooklyn Anti-Bolshevist. The magazine undertakes to make "defense of American institutions against the Jewish Bolshevist doctrines of Morris Hillquit and Leon Trotzky". It seems to me that American citizens of the Jewish race (and the group comprises some of the best citizens that we have) might properly interest themselves in making clear to the public that there is no foundation for any charge against the World Patriotism of the Jewish race. (Our italics)

I wish very much that you might yourself be interested in preparing a volume that should give consideration to the whole subject matter and particularly, of course, to these publications which have come into print as a result of the world's indignation against the Moscow government

G. P. Putnam's Sons would be well pleased to associate the imprint of their New York and London Houses with such a volume from the pen of a distinguished jurist like yourself.

One further thought occurs to me: You and I are believers in freedom of speech. We recognize that in war times certain reservations are in order for the sake of the nation, but we hold that, with the necessary reservations as to the rights of an individual, or as to a possible libel upon an individual, it is in order, and, from the point of view of the community, wise, to allow full freedom for platform utterances. If, however, this be true for the spoken word it should logically be applicable also to the word that comes into print.

In case you may be interested in considering the suggestion of a monograph from your pen to be prepared by yourself, or by some competent authority whom you might be able to interest, I should be ready to keep an appointment for a personal word at such time and place as you might find convenient.

Submitting the suggestion for your consideration, I am, with cordial regards,

Yours faithfully,

George Haven Putnam

The suggestion of the 'monograph' from Louis Marshall's pen was somewhat ironic. There is no doubt that on October 15, 1920, Major Putnam still felt himself an independent American.

And the binding of The Protocols went on as usual.

But on October 29th came one more letter from the president of the American Jewish Committee:

New York City, October 29th, 1920

My Dear Sir:

Absence from the city and professional engagements have prevented me from replying earlier to yours of the 15th inst., in which you define your policy regarding the publication of the Cause of the World Unrest and your announcement of your intended publication of The Protocols.

I cannot accept the theories on which you seek to justify acts which, in all moderation, I sought to characterize in my letter of the 13th inst. You disregard entirely the proposition on which my criticism is based. Nobody can go farther than I do in upholding the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. It has been my privilege to aid in the creation of important precedents in furtherance of these fundamentals of liberty. Libel and slander, however, have always been looked upon in American law as abuses of a free press and of free speech and as attacks upon the integrity of the constitutional guarantees that you invoke. Nor do I question the right of any publisher to issue "books of opinion" to whatever subject the opinions may relate. They may be polemical or they may attack the soundness of scientific, political or theological theories or doctrines. No fair-minded man would for a moment venture to find fault because of strictures directed against his cherished doxy.

The Protocols and The Cause of World Unrest are not, however, books of opinion. They assume to deal with facts. [H: Wow, it reminds of Judge Jason Brent when he came to the bench, heard Jew Horn and then turned to the Ekkers and Legal Counsel and to the MANY WITNESSES PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM and loudly announced he would "hear no facts". He then launched into a tirade of insults which were captured on audio tape, after which he dismissed the case against Santa Barbara Savings and left the bench abruptly. The tapes, within one day, were MISSING. A hearing, without notification to the Ekkers (their case indeed), that there would be a "clarification hearing" for "since the tapes were missing, there needed to be a record made." Ah, but the record reflected NOTHING AT ALL OF THE ACTUAL HAPPENINGS and, in addition, it was required that Ekkers' attorney falsify the record by stating there had been a hearing when there was NO HEARING ALLOWED AT ALL. THE CASE WAS IMMEDIATELY DISMISSED FOLLOWING TILE TIRADE OF JUDGE BRENT. The Ekkers only found out about the secret "restructuring or clarification" hearing WHEN THEY RECEIVED A VERY LARGE BILLING FROM THEIR ATTORNEY'S FIRM.] The Protocols purport to be the pronouncements of so-called "Wise Men of Zion". The Cause of World Unrest undertakes to charge that the Jews and the Freemasons are together engaged in a conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the arrogation by them of world domination. It is these alleged facts that I denounce as falsehoods and as libels criminal in intent and criminal in their operation. The Protocols, which are made the basis of the Cause of World Unrest and which you properly describe as companion volumes, are so intrinsically false that even Mr. Gwynne concedes that he himself has a serious doubt as to their genuineness. That The Protocols are a fabrication similar to those that have appeared in every period of history, appears from every line of that document. I am credibly informed that the manuscript was offered for publication to seven different publishing houses in this country, who refused to have their names connected with it, before Small, Maynard & Co., undertook to issue it to the American public. The author of the Cause of World Unrest hides behind anonymity. You yourself speak of the author as being "Mr. Gwynne's author". Apparently even you do not know the pedigree of this incendiary book. Yet you have, I repeat, given it your endorsement by publishing it, even though you disavow responsibility. Your position is that of one who endorses a note to give it currency and at the same time makes a mental reservation against meeting his obligation.

No, Major Putnam, the principle which you seek to establish will not work. Whoever touches pitch is defiled. Whoever retails falsehoods and spreads them, whether it be orally or through the medium of the press, is responsible for those falsehoods. It will not do to say that you have many friends among the Jews whom you respect and that these books are not intended to reflect upon all Jews. The world is not so discriminating. People whose passions are aroused do not differentiate. The forger of The Protocols and the mysterious author of The Cause of World Unrest make no distinctions. Neither did their prototypes of the middle ages nor the black hundred of modern Russia indulge in such refinements. Troy and Tyre were alike to them.

Do not for a moment misunderstand me, I contend that there are no Jews who are now engaged or who have ever been engaged in a conspiracy such as that charged by you as existing in these books which emerge smoking from your presses. The cry of Bolshevism will not suffice. Your reference to the Brooklyn Anti-Bolshevist shows what a sad pass you have reached. To shelter yourself behind the bulwarks of an infamous pasquinade of the guttersnipe variety and to insinuate that because that sheet pretends to defend American institutions "against the Jewish Bolshevist doctrines of Morris Hillquit and Leon Trotzky" you may therefore descend to the same depths, is a revelation to me. I had not believed that any real, true American would thus lend himself to the creation of and malevolence. The fact that out of the mass of Russian Jews there is an infinitesimal percentage who are Bolshevists, affords no justification for laying the sins of Bolshevism at the door of the Jewish people. To say that Bolshevism is a Jewish movement is as ridiculous as to say that the Jews are responsible for capitalism, or because there are Jewish musicians, actors and poets, that music, the drama and poetry are Jewish movements. [H: Well???]

I am not a Zionist, and yet I regard the slurs that these books are attempting to make against Zionism to be unworthy. The very Zionists whom these books are attacking have been persecuted by the Bolsheviks and have been denounced as counter revolutionists, just as the mass of the Jews of Russia have been pursued as members of the bourgeoisie. I am not a member of the Masonic or of any other secret order, but the attempt in these books to charge Freemasonry with participation in such a conspiracy as is proclaimed almost argues the existence of a pathological condition on the part of the author that betokens mental aberration. When one remembers that fifteen of the presidents of the United States, including George Washington, have been Freemasons, it is unnecessary to go further in con- demnation of these volumes which you are pleased to denominate "books of opinion".

[H: Right at the end of this writing is the place I want you to put Washington's Farewell Address!]

I had not believed that a Jew in this country would ever be called upon to occupy the humiliating position of defending his people against the charges such as those which are being spread broadcast through your agency. If ever the time comes when it shall be desirable to answer such books, I am quite sure that it will be unnecessary for me to avail myself of your firm as publishers.

Very truly yours,

Louis Marshall

Two days later, Putnam bowed before the will of Jewry in the following terms:

November 1st, 1920

Dear Mr. Marshall:

Mr. Gwynne, at whose instance we brought into print the American edition of his volume on World Unrest, had taken the ground that the publication of the document known as The Protocols might throw light on the organization of the Bolshevists. Their operations have caused grave concern throughout the world and they are, therefore, a matter of legitimate public discussion.

It was his opinion that if it had not been for the apprehension aroused by Bolshevism, the document would probably have been permitted to rest in obscurity.

An edition of The Protocols was, therefore, published in London by Eyre & Spottiswoode, law publishers of high standing.

It had seemed to us that the readers of The World Unrest were entitled to have the opportunity of examining the complete document (to which frequent references are made in Mr. Gwynne's volume) and we had, therefore, undertaken the publication of a carefully prepared translation by us, which is now nearly in readiness, and has involved a considerable outlay.

We now find, however, that an edition printed in Boston is being distributed as a regular publication. There is no necessity for bringing into print another volume containing substantially the same material. We have decided, therefore, in deference to the objections raised by yourself, and by my valued friend, Oscar Strauss, not to proceed (our italics) with the publication.

I am, Yours very truly

George Haven Putnam

[H: And so another less-than-brave soul hit the ground, giving in to the actually STUPID and insipid threats and unabashed hogwash.]

What had taken place between October 29 and November 1st? Putnam wrote to one of the parties interested that so much pressure was brought to bear on him that he had to give up publishing The Protocols, and would even be obliged to withdraw unsold copies of World Unrest. It is safe to conclude that Putnam's firm was threatened with bankruptcy if it persisted. We understand that Small Maynard & Co. of Boston and The Beckwith Co. of New York and in fact practically every firm which has published The Protocols had difficulties within a year or two. Of course it is said that is purely accidental; but it was just such an "accident" that Putnam wished to avoid!


Are we pushing the river? Good grief, readers, the river is dry as the very ones you protect-- stole the water. You can't even get enough for irrigation to stay alive.

My question is: What are you going to do about it? We are so stretched thin here that we can't get more done. What about, as a recent speaker stressed, there needs to be a website or someone should put CONTACT and/or at the least, material we offer--on that internet. I welcome anyone who will do so to do so. We will even supply e-mail copy along with any relevant documentation accompanying our presentations.

Reach out and touch someone!

Thank you and good night.



Editor's note: The following complete version of Washington's Farewell Address has been extracted from the Internet, as Commander Hatonn requested for inclusion with the subject material of this week's CONTACT.

This address was written primarily to eliminate himself as a candidate for a third term. It was never read by the President in public, but it was printed in Claypoole's AMERICAN DAILY ADVERTISER, Philadelphia, September 19, 1796. The address is in two parts: In the first, Washington declines a third term, gives his reasons, and acknowledges a debt of gratitude for the honors conferred upon him and for the confident support of the people. In the second, more important part, he presents, as a result of his experience and as a last legacy of advice, thoughts upon the government.

George Washington gave Claypoole a manuscript which he called "his copy" and it was from this manuscript that the type was set in the newspaper, After Claypoole's death, the manuscript was ordered to be sold at auction on February 12, 1850. Senator Henry Clay on January 24 offered a joint resolution for its purchase by the government, but the resolution was not signed by President Taylor until the day of the sale. The manuscript was sold to James Lenox for $2,300, and passed, with his library, to the New York Public Library. There is no evidence of any bid on behalf of the national government.

The following is an exact word-for-word text of the original. Nothing has been changed or omitted except old English spelling and punctuation.

* * *

Friends, And Fellow Citizens

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest; no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice, that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; and am persuaded whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions, with which, I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that, if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans, by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so: for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immoveable attachment to it; accustoming yourself to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal Laws of a common government, finds, in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South in the same intercourse, benefitting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications, by lend and water, will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one Nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign Nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and imbitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the UNION as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantaged on the UNION by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the illconcerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils, and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its ac- knowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a Government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to with- stand the enterprise of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehen- sive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one Nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions: by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base of foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow- citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that 'tis folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. 'Tis an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the 22d of April, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope, that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers.



SUN., JAN. 18, 1998 8:21 A.M. YR. 11, DAY 155

SUN., JAN. 18, 1998

Before we dive off into another marathon writing, I need to express my appreciation for service above and beyond anything we could expect and much the less, produced in such a loving and magnificent way.

I asked that this very touchy material be gotten forth and into the hands of the public as quickly as possible, and working around the clock we have gotten some of the most IMPORTANT background information on Antichrist into your hands.

I have been petitioned to keep the papers smaller (the staff tries to put to press ALL of my writings as they come forth) so that financially we can perhaps stay in print longer and not overload you the readers. NO, I will not stop or slow the writings although neither I, nor my scribe, have anything to do with the paper.

This information goes directly to the Rise of Antichrist, the reign of Antichrist, and before we are done, it will cover the fall of Antichrist.

This is the most IMPORTANT information ever on your globe. It has been changed, buried, killed over, and used as a manipulation to allow "the LIE" to become your very breath of living death.

Can YOU keep up? That is not MY PROBLEM! You who want Truth will keep up and the ones who just want input to make a bit more money or a bit more insight to prophecy and doom will just have to glean what you can, however you wish to handle information flowing past your senses.

I note that we have several at great distance, and I mean GREAT distance, who have been receiving all of this on e-mail, fax or phone. They are IN the hotbeds of ongoing terror and not only do they keep up--they send us daily responses with backup information.


What mean I? Well, we have been asked as in tidal waves of inquiries about these very sectarian books. We found that Brother Philip is NOT "Philip" at all. The "Person" filling that role as pen-name is not "Philip". SECRET OF THE ANDES, as will shortly be referred to, was put to paper mostly of evenings while the writer was quite unable to realize up from down. There was great trouble in the group over this particular man's misbehavior. Ah, but the fun came when this book was presented as a gift to us from Sister Thedra, God rest her soul. She had been WITH the author of that book and related all sorts of interesting tales about the journeys and "Mystery" schools which were SO MYSTERIOUS that they did not exist AT ALL.

With that bit of information in mind, let me say that I chose to use a few passages from the book as reference as the correspondent has done here in this letter which I will share--and immediately from the adversary bunch of servants to the downfall of Man, came the cry of "Dharma's books are simply plagiarisms". What are historical records as handed down, readers? We always give full credit to all researchers and authors. Could it be that most of the information presented is purely BS and the books are written to make money off you searching beings? YOU BET YOUR BOTTOM NICKLE!

Many of you have asked why we don't advertise, why we don't push our books, our paper, ourselves. GOD'S INFORMATION IS FREE, READERS, SO WHEN THERE IS PRESENTATION WE ONLY WISH TO BE ABLE TO STAY IN PRINT UNTIL FUNDS COME FROM OTHER RESOURCES. IT WILL! WE HAVE NEVER CEASED TO FOLLOW EVERY LEAD OFFERED FOR THAT RESULT AND, AGAIN, MY TEAM WORKS DAY AND NIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT VERY FLOW HAPPENS. WE DO HAVE TO HAVE EXPENSES MET OR WE CAN'T PRINT ANYTHING. BUT EVEN WHEN WE CANNOT PRINT ANYTHING--WE STAY PREPARED AND WRITE AND WRITE AND WRITE UNTIL THE FINGERS ARE NUMB--AGAINST THE DAY IT CAN FREELY FLOW. ONCE TO PAPER, PRINTER AND COMPUTER, SCATTERED AND SHELTERED BY YOU THE SMALL CREW--IT CAN NEVER AGAIN "NOT BE". There are some 70 journals waiting with everything ready to ship to press. We will leave those sitting if necessary and this recent series will be placed in front immediately. If our monitors and assemblers take note, I would think the first two are full as you set up the journals. There were several lengthy writings prefacing these very pointed and dangerous printings. With the additional information I have asked to be accompanying the writings I do, I also want Sananda's writings included along with any other pertinent references from our compatriots. I do NOT want just every item we might reference placed in THESE journals of this series.

I repeat: THESE WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOKS EVER TO GRACE YOUR GLOBE ABOUT THIS TIME IN HISTORY OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE HERE. Historical TRUTH has been buried, burned and kept from you to better fool you people ALL THE TIME. When scholars recognize the lies and the game plan--they are murdered. No, I suggest that no matter how big that paper or overwhelming these journals may seem to your senses--STUDY THEM CAREFULLY--THEY ARE YOUR TICKET.

I will remind you, however: we give no thought or care to anyone either against us, denouncing us, shouting and yelling about "their" "anything"--period. They may do and judge ANY THING OR ANY WAY THEY CHOOSE. THEY are not our business nor focus, for before the end arrives, THEY WILL ALL BE GONE!

You nice people watching Paula Jones and Billy Boy in the news yesterday had better have not missed the IMPORTANT message from Iraq. Saddam announced that there will be a Jihad (Holy War), already structured and participants at ready, if sanctions against Iraq are not lifted. Yes indeed, it will also include such as Libya, whom you have tried to starve and destroy, and all those nice Arab, Moslem, Islamic nations. THE WAR IN CONFRONTATION IS AT YOUR DOOR.

Are the enemies of the enemy better or worse? Well, that is not my business for either or both "sides" will move in bloodshed, anti-Christ ways of inhumane tramplings, and go just as far as they can go in HATE. And, NO, God will not stop it, for all mankind has freedom of will and choice. All we will do, AT THIS TIME, is serve and offer information to you who want TRUTH.

Do you actually think that all those "Christians" who have bought into the LIE will give up such as a free RAPTURE in exchange for "believing" on the murdered BLOOD of a person, real or conjured, to deceive them? Who will be left, do you suppose?


One topic offered has brought a worthy response from South Africa and it references Eli, Eli. People here had to all admit they had never heard of this "chant", so well kept is the "meaning", and without the tune the whole escapes notice.

I will refrain from revealing our information sender so we will refer to the party as SA for South Africa:


Response from SA:


There is nothing new under the "SUN" but--it is never boring as we look at it from all the different webbed projections. God experiences Himself through the angle and perspective of everyone and everything like a 1-10D hologram. He never gets tired of himself, especially if there's free will at play! (my 'doing-no justice' perception) but......there are always new revelations to a misperception, i.e., The Dr. Jim Hurtak (A Jew) KEYS OF ENOCH factor. One of the many audio tapes sold at his seminars is called Eli, Eli, Lamina A'Sabachthani. Now, in the book SECRET OF THE ANDES by Brother Philip, Archangel Gabriel has this to say:


They do not mean what is written. "Father, Father, why has thou forsaken me?" Why should the Master, who vowed constantly the Aton -- The One God -- why should He in desperation finally doubt the Father and say, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" These are words of cowards, of those who have not fulfilled their mission, not words of The Christ. These have been misinterpreted, for they are not in the Aramaic language of the time. They are in the most ancient Solar or Mother Tongue which, of course, the Master would revert to at that time. The words are not "sabachthani"; they are spelled with a "Z" -"zbacthani": z-b-a-c-t-h-a-n-i. "Eli, Eli, lama zbacthani" means: "Those who defame me shall keep open my wounds"

-- "those who defame me shall keep open my wounds." "Eli, Eli, lama zbacthani." "Father, unto thee I commend my spirit: it is finished." The great war machines of the world are now massing together. In the Holy Land we see the beginning of the end for the Earth. Once again Egypt and Israel. Is it not significant? And it shall grow and grow. [H: And it HAS grown and grown!] The greatest battle that has ever been seen shall take place, not only amongst the elements. The Earth itself shall find a battlefield. The forces of Nature shall be unleashed because of man's wrong thinking and doing, as he has worshipped in word and not in deed, and has not served the master. (end quote)


I suggest that you who don't REALLY know the importance of such an entity as Archangel Gabriel get yourselves busy--in the Phoenix Journals--never mind that Bible. But I will assure that Gabriel will be among the decision-makers as to the longevity of your species in that "time shortening" sequence of events. When he toots his horn three times, and the first is already come and gone a decade ago, the second is now blowing loudly, and in the night when things are quiet--YOU SHALL BE GIVEN TO HEAR IT, and once you hear it you will KNOW because there is NO SOUND LIKE IT ON EARTH. When the call is issued again, the play will be on final run and mankind will have entered his choices in the BOOK OF LIFE. WHERE WILL YOUR IDENTIFICATION OF SOUL BE FOUND?

Dharma, may we please continue on our topic.

Already I am being barraged with questions about who wrote these notations. I would refer you back to the first writings--Victor E. Marsden.



[QUOTING, Part 12:]

Chapter III


While the Jews have succeeded in having the Protocols suppressed, entirely in Russia, Poland, Rumania, and other countries in Eastern Europe, and partially in England and America, they have failed in their many ingenious efforts to have them refuted by non-Jews. Indeed the so-called refutations with which their henchmen flooded the press in 1920-21 reveal more of the real nature, workings, and associations of the Jews and their agents than they rebut the evidence of the Protocols.

It is noteworthy that not one of these numerous and contradictory refutations bears an honest, non-Jewish signature. There is the article of the notorious Princess Radzivill published in the Jewish Tribune (New York) for March 11, 1921, and followed by a statement by her friend, Mrs. Hurlbut. Princess Catherine Radzivill was convicted of forgery in London on April 30, 1902, the amount involved being 3,000 Pounds, and was sentenced to two years in prison (London Times, April 16, 29, and May 1, 1902). On October 13, 1921, suit was filed against her by the Hotel Embassy, New York, for failure to pay her bill of $1,239, and on October 30 she was arrested on the instance of the Hotel Shelbourne, New York, on a charge of defrauding the hotel of $352. (New York World, Oct. 14 and 31, 1921). Later, she went to live with her friend Mrs. Hurlbut at 506 West 124th Street, New York.

The former makes no mention of Mlle. Glinka and describes the forgery of the Protocols by "Golovinskii and a renegade Jew, Manassevich Manuilov, in Paris in 1904". She was one of the Russian Liberals in Paris in 1884 who furnished Mme. Juliette Adam with details of Russian court life. She has since claimed the authorship of the books by "Count Vassilii", really written by Mme. Adam. Further on, oblivious of chronology, she states that General Cherevin willed her his memoirs, including the Protocols, at the time of his death in 1896. Golovinskii and Manuilov might, it would seem, have saved themselves trouble by procuring a copy of the document, which, according to Mr. Stephanov's testimony, had been printed and privately circulated in 1897.

Another person who wrote against the Protocols, A. du Chayla, can hardly be taken more seriously. An article of his appeared on May 14, 1921, in the Tribune Juive of Paris; and later, another article on June 13 in the New York Call, a violent Communist sheet, besides articles in Soviet publications. Prof. Nilus mentions in one of his books, entitled On the Bank of the River of God, meeting this Frenchman, who then paraded as a devotee of the Russian Orthodox Church. The character of this adventurer is well drawn in the reply his articles drew from a Russian lady, Madame Fermor, which is given in full.

"Lately there appeared in the Russian paper Poslednii Novosti, Nos. 331-332, a series of articles by Count Alexander du Chayla, in which he casts doubt on the authenticity of a certain document (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion), because obtained by a man who did not inspire confidence.

If the value of a document be based on the credit of the person by whom it is produced, one must also analyze the character of him who discredits it.

That is why I am prompted to narrate how I became acquainted with Count du Chayla.

I usually spent the summer on my estate in White Russia, in a village near Moguileff, where there is a famous convent. There, one day, about ten years ago, I was visited by the Superior, the Archmandrite Arsene, who introduced a young man, Count du Chayla. Du Chayla had been sent to the convent to study the Russian language and the orthodox religion of which he pretended to be a devotee.

Mr. Sabler had invited him to come to Russia and sent him to the celebrated monastery of Optina Poustine, whence he was sent to our monastery to serve as an example of anti- Catholic propaganda. Sabler was procurator of the Holy Synod at St. Petersburg: he supported Rasputin and other pseudo-mystics and had a disastrous influence on the Russian church, (Cf. Paleologue, Memorires, 1927).

It must be admitted that he lived up to his character and showed himself more of a Russian Orthodox than the patriarch himself. Thanks to his zeal, beautifully sculptured angels in the Renaissance style were removed from the chapel of our monastery: du Chayla found them too Catholic. He told me the great joy he felt when he smashed these angels with a hammer. When I reproached him with an act of vandalism, his intolerance betrayed itself in the hatred which he then manifested against the Jews. Many a time I heard him say: "One must have a good pogrom in Russia." One can understand my astonishment when I read in his articles a false accusation of propaganda for pogroms against the White army, which he now blames, he, who so loudly proclaimed that pogroms were a necessity! It is from him that I heard of the existence of Drumont's books which he praised eloquently; he used to advise me to read them that I might understand to what extent the Jews had conquered France. He used to predict that the same fate would overtake Russia, if ever the Jews were granted full civil rights.

Great was my surprise when I read du Chayla's attack on Drumont, whose books he now calls lies. He, who had so much admired Drumont.

As I followed du Chayla's life in Russia, I was amazed to see the extraordinary rapidity of his political and ecclesiastical career. He became an intimate friend of the Bishops known for their Orthodoxy, and he preached the sacred and absolute power of the Russian Monarch and implacable hatred towards all foreigners. We saw du Chayla as an intimate friend of the Bishops Anthony, of Volinia and Evlogii of Holm, frequent the famous salon of Countess Ignatieff. As he rose in Russian society, his activities shifted from the religious field; he took up politics, and, as a follower of Count Bobrinsky, leader of the pan-Slavic Party, he was sent to Austria on a secret mission among the Galicians. He was subsequently arrested for espionage.

After his return to Russia, he directed a violent campaign against the smaller racial groups of the empire, especially against the Poles and Finns. As du Chayla was always in need of money, I recommended him to the president of the commission for the affairs of Finland, Mr. Korevo, who used him for anti-Finish propaganda in the foreign press. At the time of the declaration of war, du Chayla was a student in the theological academy of Petrograd; he was appointed chief of a field hospital organized by Bishop Pitirim and provided with funds from Rasputin. Then I lost sight of him until after the revolution, when I heard of him as an agent provocateur, inciting the Cossacks against the White Army. In 1919 du Chayla was tried by court martial and convicted of seditious activities in the pay of the Soviets. The sentence was published in the newspapers of the Crimea.

I was astonished to find his name appended to an article in a Russian newspaper notorious for its equivocal position concerning the reconstruction of Russia.

(Signed) Tatiana Fermor

June 9th, 1921, Paris

Not satisfied--and rightly so--with these efforts to discredit the Protocols, and yet unable to attach the signature of a noted gentile writer to their denials, the Jews sought another expedient: the seal of approval of one of the best known newspapers would impress the general public. Heretofore the articles had borne the name of private persons: now an official exposure of the Protocols was to be published over the signature of the "Correspondent of The London Times in Constantinople". The identity of the "correspondent" (Philip Graves), was not revealed although the most elementary sense of justice would insist on giving full credit to the gentleman who had made such a momentous discovery. Nor is there any evidence of his having been in Constantinople. Anyone who writes to the editor of a newspaper is a correspondent, and the number of lies which gain circulation in this fashion is notorious. The "sensational discovery" with The Times, August 16, 17, 18, 1921: reprint entitled, The Truth About The Protocols, 24 pages, is sold at the exorbitant price of one shilling, thus gave to its readers was that the Protocols were a "clumsy plagiarism" of a French book it calls The Dialogues of Geneva, published in Brussels in 1865.

The "correspondent" tells in an essay, off-hand manner and perfect self-assurance, about meeting in Constantinope a Mr. W., who said: "Read this book through and you will find irrefutable proof that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a plagiarism."

So it wasn't the correspondent who deserved the credit for the "sensational discovery" after all; but a "Mr. X, a Russian landowner with English connections": Again, it is a pity that the gentleman should not have given his name and received the large reward which would surely be his, from those who have been so active in suppressing and refuting the Protocols.

Then follows the story of Mr. X, with his views on religion, politics, secret societies, and the rest: this Mr. X is an old-fashioned gentleman and the reader is ready to believe every word, as reported by "our correspondent". Mr. X explains how he obtained the copy of the Geneva Dialogues from an old Okhrana officer; this establishes the fact that the Russian police had made use of the book to forge the Protocols. In fact the "correspondent" goes on to identify this very copy of the Geneva Dialogues as belonging to A. Sukhotin--there is an "A.S." scratched in the back which is conclusive--and from which the Protocols were "plagiarized" and given to Nilus. Parallel passages from the Dialogues and the Protocols are set opposite each other; and the English reader, never at home in Continental politics, is led into speculations on Napoleon III's relations with the Carbonari, his employment of Corsicans in the police, the employment of Corsicans by the Russian police, the knowledge Corsicans had of the existence of the Geneva Dialogues, Joly's purpose in writing them, the influence of Philippe, a Lyons mystic, on the Tsar, and so on, until the reader is completely overwhelmed. When he has reached this state, he is told: "At any rate, the fact of the plagiarism has now been conclusively established, and the legend (of the Protocols) may be allowed to pass into oblivion."


The information used was scientific in origin and supposedly public domain. However, full credit was given to the author who was unknown to Dharma--and to Green. Green, however, was a traveling seminar-giver with the head of the University in point and seemed to know what he was doing while failing to get permits, etc. It came to light later that Green had stolen some $400,000 in gold coins from the Institute intended for Dharma to be able to continue this very type of work as offered here. No, it has not been a journey free of hardship and false leaders and teachers. The bastard children always, however, show their colors before they finish their evil games and so, too, have these people in each instance.]

The publication of this news from Constantinople was hailed by all the Jews, whose instant enthusiasm is no less revealing than the following letter from a leading Zionist, which appeared in The Times on the same day as the "discovery".

"Editor, London Times.


Your Constantinople correspondent, who has done a world service in tracking to their source the Protocols (for they have been carefully published throughout the world), says: "There is no evidence to show how the Geneva Dialogues reached Russia." In your leading article, however, you suggest that the protocols were forged under the auspices of Rachkovskii, head of the Russian secret police in Paris. This appears to be the truth. M. A. du Chayla, a French student of theology at St. Petersburg in 1910, who was in 1918 on the staff of the army of the Cossacks of the Don, had testified through the Tribune Juive (Paris, May 14, 1921) that Nilus told him that the protocols were sent him from Paris by his friend, Mme. K---, who had received them from General Rachkovskii. M. du Chayla confirms a suggestion of yours, that the courier who brought the ms. from Paris was Alexander Sukhotin. He has seen this very ms., which, being in poor French and varying penmanship, suggests a complex authorship in the Russian police bureau. The fact that the Geneva Dialogues have now been bought from an ex-member of it, completes the chain.

That the object of the publication of 1905 was to drown the Russian revolution in Jewish blood, I, like you, have asserted. But it appears that there was a previous edition in 1902 in the shape of an appendix to the reprint of a pietistic work by Nilus, and the motive behind this earlier publication throws another curious sidelight upon the old Russian court. For that publication was apparently a move in the game to discredit in favor of Nilus a Lyons mystic, Philippe, of whose power over the Tsar the Grand Duchess Elizabeth disapproved. Knowing that Nilus was designed as Philippe's supplanter, Rachkovskii, it is thought, wished to secure his good graces by providing him with a valuable weapon against Russian liberalism.

I am sorry that your correspondent should conclude with the suggestion that those parts of the Protocols not in the Geneva Dialogues may possibly have been supplied by Jews who spied on their co-religionists; for this far-fetched hypothesis gives a gleam of hope to the considerable number of organs throughout Europe that live only in the Protocols. Now is your correspondent accurate in thinking that only moral harm has been done by this historic forgery? M. du Chayla offers evidence that it has helped to goad on those countless pogroms in the Ukraine, of whose horrors Western Europe is almost ignorant. As for Nilus, he appears to be a fanatical mytagogue, honest enough except for that theological twist which betrayed itself when, confronted by the suspicion that the Protocols were forged, he replied: "Even if they were, God who could speak through Balsam's ass, could also put the truth in a liar's mouth."

Yours, gratefully,

Israel Zangwill

Far End, East Preston, Sussex, August 18, 1921."

[H: I am continually amused at such prattlings for it is KNOWN FACT that all the persons taking over the Russian, later Soviet, machine were ALL JEWS. They each even changed their names so that the Jewish lineage would be overlooked. These were the very people who established COMMUNISM and set forth the worst regime ever thus far thrust on mankind upon a "Christian" Russia. They destroyed the "crown" and demanded that Communism be the rule of the day. Have all of you already forgotten such as Stalin (a Jew) and the Republic of Soviet Russia established by the bastards from HELL? What is the matter with your brains, perfect creations of God? He created you in perfection and you have worked ever since at total destruction of that incredible gift of reason and Truth. So be it and Selah--for it has come upon you, this beast in camouflage of the Prince of Peace, and you shall reap the reward of your refusal to see or hear. And, I might suggest that this destruction will be heaped upon you in this generation, this current generation of elders. What of your offspring? What you have planted, as the sower, shall be brought upon your offspring for they know no better than as YOU HAVE TAUGHT THEM--THE LIES.]



SUN., JAN. 18, 1998 8:21 A.M. YR. 11, DAY 155

SUN., JAN, 18, 1998

(Continuing Part 12:)

Since then, to some extent, the Protocols have been forgotten. But, Audeatur et altera pars, in the words of Max Nordau. The Times "correspondent" would convince us that there are similar or identical passages to be found in the Protocols and in the Dialogues; and this we readily admit. We go farther: identical passages will be found in earlier Protocols which go back to the days before the dispersion.

By way of illustration, let it be assumed that the Book of Common Prayer used in the Anglican Church were unknown to the Jews. Suppose, then, that a copy of it were secretly obtained by a certain Jew and published, and that the Jews were shocked by the Anglican doctrine of which they learned in this way for the first time. It would then be easy for another Jew to show that the Book of Common Prayer was a plagiarism: it contains passages copied, word for word, from the Gospels; the Psalms are a transcript from King James' Bible, and so on. And not only that, but there are many parallels to be found in the secular literature. "At any rate," one can imagine the second Jew saying at the end, "the fact of plagiarism has been conclusively established, and we may therefore affirm that no such Book of Common Prayer is used in the worship of the Church of England."

The second Jew would be right in pointing out the parallels in the earlier literature--though his conclusion would be ridiculous--for there is a very real connection: and so it is with the Protocols.

One might have thought that The Times, in its desire to publish the truth about the Protocols, would at least have given the correct title of the Geneva Dialogues, it is, Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu, published anonymously in Brussels in 1865. Moreover, a minute's search in a library catalogue shows that another book, bearing a similar title, was published some years earlier: namely, Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, by Jacob Venedey, published by Franz Dunnicker in Berlin in 1850. The Times, with its interest in plagiarisms, might have been tempted to glance at this latter volume as also at The Prince by Machiavelli and L'Esprit des Lois by Montesquieu. Had it done so, its curiosity would have been amply rewarded: passages quoted from the Protocols as plagiarized from the Dialogues of 1865, are similar to several in Venedey's book of 1850, and both Jacob Venedey and Maurice Joly should be branded as plagiarists. For example, the passage referring to Vishnu is found in Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, in the Dialogues, and in Protocol 12.

But the resemblance between the Protocols and Venedey's book does not stop with a few parallel passages: the spirit of both is the same; it is revolutionary, whereas the Dialogues of 1865 are socialistic and polemical. The anonymous author merely borrowed certain descriptive passages in Venedey to give color to his argument. Space does not allow us here to trace the links between Jacob Venedy the Alliance Israelite Universelle, Adolphe Cremieux, Maurice Joly, and Jules Janin.

Now hadn't The Times better discover a copy of Venedey belonging to a former Okhrana officer, so as to explain how the Russian secret police were able to plagiarize the spirit, as well as a few platitudes and descriptive bits, when forging the Protocols? Its correspondent in Peiping might make that discovery some day? No, the Peiping correspondent (or any other) will be very careful not to make that discovery, for the simple reason that Venedey was a Jew, whereas The Times' point is that the Jews had nothing to do with the drafting of the Protocols. Its argument is that the author of the Dialogues was a Corsican; that the Corsicans in the Paris Police preserved the Dialogues and gave a copy to the Corsican members of the Russian police, who used it to forge the Protocols: these insidious Corsicans! It is noteworthy that no Corsican has yet raised a voice in protest against the charges made in The Times. Yet it is the Corsicans who are the real victims of a libel, not the Jews. [H: How many of you even know who the Corsicans were? I thought not. Who won the 1997 Super Bowl?] But what of Venedey?

Jacob Venedey, born in Cologne in May, 1805, was early engaged in revolutionary activities which caused his expulsion from Germany. He settled in Paris, where, in 1835, he edited a paper of subversive character, called Le Procrit. Driven from Paris by the police, he moved to Havre, until, thanks to the representations of Arago and Mignet, friends of Cremieux, he was allowed to return to the capital. Meanwhile his book, Romanisme, Christianisme et Germanisme, won the praise of the French Academy. Venedey was a close friend and associate of Karl Marx. After spending the year 1843-44 in England, the headquarters of continental revolutionaries, he worked in Brussels for the founding, with Marx in 1847, of a secret organization, "The Communist League of Workers" (later the Societe International de la Democratie).

After the February revolution in 1848, Venedey joined Marx in Germany, where he became one of the chiefs of the revolutionary Committee of Fifty (March, 1848), and was sent as commissar into the Oberland to stand against Hecker. Later elected as member of the Left from Hesse-Homburg, he continued to serve on the Committee of Fifty. It was at this time that he brought out in Berlin his Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, stressing the views attributed to Machiavelli and Rousseau in favor of despotism and oppression. Another case of plagiarism at work!

When order was restored in Germany, Venedey was expelled from Berlin and Breslau. He was an active member of the Freemasons and affiliated with the Carbonari (Cf. Die Bauhutte, Feb. 1871, the date of Venedey's death); he was also closely associated not only with revolutionaries of his day, but (as might be expected) with the leading Jews, the founders of the Alliance Israelite Universelle. The latter included men of as different political parties as the reactionary-imperialist Fould, the liberal-conservative Disraeli, and the communist-revolutionary Marx, and whether living under an empire, a constitutional monarchy, or a republic, all laboured towards a common aim, the establishment of an international Jewish power. [H: Please don't lose sight of the fact that even these notations are done in 1920 or thereabouts. So, none of the things happening since then are included and boy, were there ever some biggies, such as the Great Depression, the Second World War (not to even mention the myriads of other wars) never proclaimed wars, and a total mind-control program put into action to finish you off as a species or, at the least, a global civilization.]

[H: At this point in the writings there are some very lengthy footnotes which I feel you must access:]

In his novel Coningsby (London, 1844), Disraeli draws a picture from life of the Jews ruling the world from behind thrones as graphic as anything in the Protocols of Nilus. (It is expected that The Times will shortly be in a position to establish that Coningsby is a plagiarism of a Byzantine novel of the XVIIth century.) The passage in which Rothschild (Sidonia) describes this runs as follows:

"If I followed my own impulse, I would remain here," said Sidonia. Can anything be more absurd than that a nation should apply to an individual to maintain its credit, its existence as an empire and its comfort as a people; and that individual one to whom its laws deny the proudest rights of citizenship, the privilege of sitting in its senate and of holding land; for though I have been rash enough to buy several estates, my own opinion is that by the existing law of England, an Englishman of Hebrew faith cannot possess the soil."

"But surely it would be easy to repeal a law so illiberal."

"Oh! as for illiberality, I have no objection to it if it be an element of power. Eschew political sentimentality. What I contend is that if you permit men to accumulate property, and they use that permission to a great extent, power is inseparable from that property, and it is in the last degree impolite to make it in the interest of any powerful class to oppose the institutions under which they live. The Jews, for example, independent of the capital qualities for citizenship which they possess in their industry, temperance, and energy and vivacity of mind, are a race essentially monarchical, deeply religious, and shrinking them- selves from converts as from a calamity, are ever anxious to see the religious systems of the countries in which they live, flourish; yet since your society has become agitated in England and powerful combinations menace your institutions, you find the one loyal Hebrew invariably arrayed in the same ranks as the leveller and the latitudinarian, and prepared to support rather than tamely continue under a system which seeks to degrade him. The Tories lose an important election at a critical moment; 'tis the Jews come forward to vote against them. The Church is alarmed at the scheme of a latitudinarian university, and learns with relief that funds are not forthcoming for its establishment; a Jew immediately advances and endows it. Yet the Jews, Coningsby, are essentially Tories, Toryism indeed is but copied from the mighty prototype that has fashioned Europe. And every generation they must become more powerful and more dangerous to the society which is hostile to them. Do you think that the quiet humdrum persecution of a decorous representative of an English university can crush those who have successively baffled the Pharaohs, Nebuchadnezzar, Rome, and the feudal ages? The fact is you cannot destroy a pure race of the Caucasian organization. It is a physiological fact; a simple law of nature, which has baffled Egyptian and Assyrian kings, Roman emperors, and Christian inquisitors. No penal laws, no physical tortures, can effect that a superior race should be absorbed in an inferior, or be destroyed by it. The mixed persecuting races disappear, the pure persecuted race remains. And at this moment, in spite of centuries, or tens of centuries, of degradation, the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe. I speak not of their laws, which you still obey; of their literature, with which your minds are saturated; but of the living Hebrew intellect. [H: Now just where do you think Mr. Rothschild is coming from in this outlay as he seems to blast one group of "Jews" while representing the higher intellect of the group within which he would place himself?]

"You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews [H: Wow, I didn't expect that confirmation so soon in coming.]; that mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organized and principally carried on by Jews; that mighty revolution (of 1848) which will be in fact a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is as yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolize the professorial chairs of Germany; NEANDAR, Founder of spiritual Christianity, and who is Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Berlin, is a Jew. [H: Say what? Go back, reader, it says "NEANDAR, FOUNDER OF SPIRITUAL CHRISTIANITY, and who is Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Berlin, IS A JEW.] Benary, equally famous, and in the same university, is a Jew. Wehl, the Arabic Professor of Heidelberg, is a Jew. Years ago, when I was in Palestine, I met a German student who was accumulating materials for the history of Christianity and studying the genius of the place; a modest and learned man. It was Wehl; then unknown, since become the first Arabic scholar of the day, and the author of the life of Mahomet. But for the German professors of this race, their name is legion. I think there are more than ten in Berlin alone.

"I told you just now that I was going up to town tomorrow, because I always made it a rule to interpose when affairs of state were on the carpet. Otherwise, I never interfere. I hear of peace and war in newspapers, but I am never alarmed, except when I am informed that the sovereigns want treasure; then I know that monarchs are serious.

"A few years back we were applied to by Russia. Now there has been no friendship between the Court of St. Petersburg and my family. It has Dutch connections which have generally supplied it; and our representations in favour of the Polish Hebrews, a numerous race, but the most suffering and degraded of all the tribes, has not been very agreeable to the Czar. However circumstances drew to an approximation between the Romanoffs and the Sidonias. I resolved to go myself to St. Petersburg. I had on my arrival an interview with the Russian Minister of Finance, Count Cancrin; I beheld the son of a Lithuanian Jew. The loan was connected with the affairs of Spain; I resolved on repairing to Spain from Russia. I travelled without intermission. I had an audience immediately on my arrival with the Spanish minister, Senor Mendizabel; I beheld one like myself, the son of a Nuevo Christiano, a Jew of Aragon. In consequence of what transpired at Madrid, I went straight to Paris to consult the President of the French council; I beheld the son of a French Jew, a hero, an imperial marshal, and very properly so, for who should be military heroes if not those who worship the Lord of Hosts?"

"And is Soult a Hebrew?"

"Yes, and others of the French marshals, and the most famous, Massena, for example; his real name was Mannaseh: but to my anecdote. The consequence of our consultations was that northern power should be applied to in a friendly and mediative capacity. We fixed on Prussia, and the President of the Council made an application to the Prussian minister, who attended a few days after our conference. Count Armin entered the cabinet, and I beheld a Prussian Jew. So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.

[H: The information contained in this "footnote" is as valuable as any you shall ever gain. Study it carefully for right here was locked up your SPIRITUAL attitudes toward "a" Christ and that "christ" would be presented to you in order that you all march to the same WRONG drummer's beat.]

[Continuing now with that following the footnote interruption:]

Prominent among them and in close touch with Venedey, was Adolphe Isaac Cremieux (1798-1880). A Nimes lawyer with an ardent admiration for Napoleon, he became legal adviser to the Bonaparte family and an intimate of Louis Napoleon with whom he joined in overthrowing the government of Louis Philippe in 1849. A member of the Mizraim Lodge, the Scottish Rite (of which he became supreme Master on the death of Viennet), he was familiar with all new movements; and his influence enabled him to render at least one important service to Jewry by having the Jewish murderers of Father Thomas in Damascus (1841) set at liberty. One of the leaders in the revolution of February 1848, he was appointed minister of justice under the provisional government, and used all his political influence in the election of Louis Napoleon to the presidency of the republic. Cremieux hoped in this way to be named Prime Minister and control French policy for a period, as Disraeli did in England somewhat later. Like Disraeli, he had the financial support of the Rothschilds; but when the President chose for his banker another Jew, Fould, and named General Cavaignac premier, Cremieux saw he had lost. Bitterly disappointed, he became so hostile to his former friend that, at the time of the coup d'etat in 1851, he was imprisoned at Vincennes. On his release, he identified himself with the enemies of the emperor; these inluded the communist associates of Marx, Mazzini, Jacob Venedey (already mentioned), Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin, Pierre Leroux, and a group of socialists, among whom was Maurice Joly. His father was Philippe Lambert Joly, born at Dieppe, Attorney-General of the Jura under Louis-Philippe for ten years. His mother, Florentine Corbara Courtois, was the daughter of Laurent Courtois, paymaster-general of Corsica, who had an inveterate hatred of Napoleon I. Maurice Joly was born in 1831 at Lons-le-Saulnier and educated at Dijon: there he had begun his law studies, but left for Paris in 1849 to secure a post in the Ministry of the Inte- rior under M. Chevreau and just before the coup d'etat. He did not finish his law studies till 1860. Committed suicide in 1878.

Joly, some thirty years younger than Cremieux, with an inherited hatred of the Bonapartes, seems to have fallen very largely under his influence. Through Cremieux, Joly became acquainted with communists and their writings. Though, until 1871 when his ambition for a government post turned him into a violent communist, he had not in 1864 gone beyond socialism, he was so impressed with the way they presented their arguments that he could not, if the chance were offered, refrain from imitating. And this chance came in 1864-1865, when his hatred of Napoleon, whetted by Cremieux, led him to publish anonymously in Brussels the Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu. In this work he tells us "Machiavelli represents the policy of Might, while Montesquieu stands for that of Right: Machiavelli will be Napoleon, who will himself describe his abominable policy." It was natural that he should choose the Italian Machiavelli to stand for Bonaparte, and the Frenchman Montesquieu, for the ideal statesman: It was equally natural that he should put in the mouth of Machiavelli some of the same expression which Venedey had put in it, and which Joly had admired. His own view was: "Socialism seems to me one of the forms of a new life for the people emancipated from the traditions of the old world. I accept a great many of the solutions offered by socialism; but I reject communism, either as a social factor, or as a political institution. Communism is but a school of socialism. In politics, I understand extreme means to gain one's ends--in that at least, I am a Jacobin."

The French authorities, however, penetrated the thinly disguised satire: Joly was arrested and sentenced to two years imprisonment (April, 1865). But the Dialogues had pleased Cremieux as much as they had displeased the emperor, and, when his term expired, his Jewish patron rallied to his support: Joly was able to found a legal review, Le Palais, with Jules Favre, Desmaret, Leblond, Arago, Berryer, and Adolphe Cremieux as its principal stockholders.

With the fall of Napoleon III, Adolphe Cremieux once more took an open part in politics. Pushing to the front his former secretary, Gambetta, he directed through him the negotiations with Bismarck. Bismarck himself was guided by the Jew Barnberger (1832-1899), a former revolutionary of '48, but who had for years managed the Paris branch of the Jewish bank Bischofsheim & Goldschmidt; he was also a friend of Cremieux. A third Jew in the negotiations was the son of James Rothschild. Bismarck, who had met the latter's grandfather, knew that Rothschild's real name was MEYER, and regarded him as an "Israelitish citizen of Frankfurt", hence a German subject. To make matters worse, the victor was obliged to discuss the terms of peace with this renegade subject in French, the language of the vanquished, because Rothschild professed not to understand German (from Corti, House of Rothschild, vol II.). In this way, care was taken that the treaty should be satisfactory, if not entirely to the signatories, yet at least so to the Alliance Israelite Universelle.

From then (1871) until his death in 1880, as President of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and supreme Master of the Scottish Rite, Cremieux was one of the promoters of the anti- clerical movement following the Franco-Prussian war. His favorite theme was that there should be one cult. Speaking at a general assembly of the Alliance he said: "the Alliance is not limited to our cult; it voices its appeal to all cults and wants to penetrate in all religions, as it has penetrated into all countries. Let us endeavor boldly to bring about the union of all cults under one flag of 'Union and Progress': such is the motto of humanity. This speech was made on May 31, 1864; "Union and Progress" was the name given to several revolutionary associations and Masonic lodges. "One cult" is strongly reminiscent of Protocol XVI.

One cult, one flag. Are the Protocols of Nilus, or the words of Machiavelli in Joly's book or in Venedeys book, anything but an elaborate exposition of the ideas thus briefly expressed by Cremieux? His activities are one of the best examples of Jewish internationalism. Thus the principal attempt to discredit the Protocols leads directly into historical studies which substantiate and illustrate their doctrine in a remarkable and unexpected manner.

Chapter IV


Of the Protocols themselves little need be said in the way of introduction. The book in which they are embodied was published by Sergyei Nilus in Russia in 1905. A copy of this is in the British Museum, bearing the date of its reception, August 10th, 1906. All copies that were known to exist in Russia were destroyed by the Kerensky regime, and under his successors the possession of a copy by anyone in Sovietland was crime sufficient to ensure the owner's being shot on sight. This fact is in itself sufficient proof of the genuinenes of the Protocols. The Jewish journals, of course, say that they are a forgery, leaving it to be understood that Professor Nilus, who embodied them in a work of his own, had concocted them for his own purposes.

Mr. Henry Ford, in an interview published in the New York World, February 17th, 1921, put the case for Nilus tersely and convincingly thus:

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

Indeed they do!

These Protocols give the substance of addresses delivered to the innermost circle of the Rulers of Zion. They reveal the concerted plan of action of the Jewish Nation developed through the ages and edited by the Elders themselves up to date. Parts and summaries of the plan have been published from time to time during the centuries as the secrets of the Elders have leaked out. The claim of the Jews that the Protocols are forgeries is in itself an admission of their genuineness, for they never attempt to answer the facts corresponding to the threats which the Protocols contain, and, indeed, the correspondence between prophecy and fulfillment is too glaring to be set aside or obscured. This the Jews well know and therefore evade.

When did the Meetings take place and by whom were the Protocols promulgated?

The answer to these questions is to a certain extent conjectural, but the presumption is strong that they were issued at the First Zionist Congress held at Basel in 1897 under the presidency of the Father of Modern Zionism, the late Theodore Herzl.

Is there in collateral evidence of this?

Yes; and a very striking bit of evidence it is. There has been recently published a volume on Herzl's Diaries, a translation of some passages of which appeared in the Jewish Chronicle of July 14, 1922, and his conversation with Colonel Goldsmid, a Jew brought up as a Christian, an Officer in the English Army, and at heart a New Nationalist all the time. Goldsmid suggested to Herzl that the best way of expropriating the English Aristocracy and so destroying their power to protect the people of England was to put excessive taxes on the land. Herzl thought this an excellent idea, and it is now to be found definitely embodied in Protocol VI!

The "liberal" victory in the English election of 1906 (the date of the reception of a copy of the Protocols by the British Museum, be it noted), which was essentially a Jewish victory, enabled the Elders to carry their land-taxing policy into practical effect. In consequence, the only option now left to a large proportion of the English Aristocracy is either to sell their estates to Jews or to marry their sons to Jewesses.

The above extract from Herzl's Diary is an extremely significant bit of evidence bearing on the existence of the Jew World Plot and authenticity of the Protocols, but any reader of intelligence will be able from his own knowledge of recent history and from his own experience to confirm the genuineness of every line of them, and it is in the light of this living comment that all readers are invited to study Mr. Marsden's translation of this terribly inhuman document.

[H: Well, there goes the theory out the window that Mr. Marsden did this section on notations and commentaries. The author shall, possibly forever, remain anonymous and that, readers, is the most secure place to be--not for the writer, particularly, be he even still alive, but for anyone associated with him or his acquaintances.]


Who, it may be asked, are the Elders of Zion?

They are sometimes called "the Sages of Zion", and their sayings are quoted as gospel by the Jews themselves.

And here is another very significant circumstance. The present successor of Herzl as leader of the Zionist movement, Dr. Weizmann, quoted one of these sayings at the send-off banquet given to Chief Rabbi Hertzon October 6th, 1920. The Chief Rabbi was on the point of leaving for his Empire tour--a sort of Jewish answer to the Empire tour of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales. And this is the "saying" of the Sages which Dr. Weizmann quoted: "A beneficent protection which God has instituted in the life of the Jews is that He has dispersed them all over the world." (Jewish Guardian, Oct. 8th, 1920.)

Now compare this with the last clause but one of Protocol XI.

"God has granted to us, His Chosen People, the gift of dispersion, and from this, which appears to all eyes to be our weakness, has come forth all our strength, which has now brought us to the threshold of sovereignty over all the world."

The remarkable correspondence between these passages proves several things. It proves that the Learned Elders exist. It proves that Dr. Weizmann knows all about them. It proves that the desire for a "National Home" in Palestine is only camouflage and an infinitesimal part of the Jew's real object. It proves that the Jews of the world have no intention of settling in Palestine or any separate country, and that their annual prayer that they may all meet "Next Year in Jerusalem" IS MERELY A PIECE OF THEIR CHARACTERISTIC MAKE-BELIEVE. It also demonstrates that the Jews are now a world menace, and that the Aryan races will have to domicile them permanently out of Europe. [H: OOPS! for America.]



But what are their names? This is a secret which has not been revealed. They are the Hidden Hand. They are not the "Board of Deputies" (the Jewish Parliament in England) or the "Universal Israelite Alliance" which sits in Paris. But the late Walter Rathenau of the Allgemeiner Electricitaets Gesellschaft has thrown a little light on the subject and doubtless he was in possession of their names, being, in all likelihood, one of the chief leaders himself. Writing in the Wiener Freie Presse, December 24th, 1912, he said:

Three hundred men (Jews, of course), each of whom knows all the others, govern the fate of the European continent, and they elect their successors from their entourage.

The Learned Elders are the general officers of these--not three, but--three hundred Fates.


I. -- "AGENTUR" AND &qu