The Protocols of Satan, Part 11: The Press and the Puppets in Power

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20160910-Protocols_of_Satan_11.mp3 — Downloaded 7057 times

The Protocols of Satan, Part 11: The Press and the Puppets in Power

In our last segment of the Protocols of Satan, we saw their authors boast of the weakening of the governments of the West through the spread of Liberalism, a political phenomenon leading to the spread of the perceptibly democratic governments which the Jews have heralded, but which they never believed in themselves. They understood that if the West embraced democracy through liberalism, that they could then subvert democracy and seize the relinquished reins of power by the power of gold.

They knew that through their own control of money, something which they always had in Europe, once power was taken from the kings and princes of the nobility, they could control the masses through the use of money. So in the last lines which we encountered in the Protocols of Satan, their authors had first boasted that “In our day the power of gold has replaced liberal rulers.” Then, explaining how they would exercise that power, they boasted further that “Our right lies in might. The word ‘right’ is an abstract idea, unsusceptible of proof. This word means nothing more than: Give me what I desire so that I may have evidence that I am stronger than you.” The devils then asked rather rhetorically, “Where does right begin? Where does it end?”

PROTOCOL NO. I, continued:

In a state with a poorly organized government and where the laws are insignificant, and the ruler has lost his dignity as the result of the accumulation of liberal rights, I find a new right, namely, the right of might to destroy all existing order and institutions, to lay hands on the law, to alter all institutions, and to become the ruler of those who have voluntarily, liberally renounced for our benefit the rights to their own power.

We have already read in the Protocols that the right of might was exercised through the power of gold, or money. Therefore, diminishing government power through liberalism means the weakening of government resolve by buying representatives and through the process of party politics, where issues of any magnitude are endlessly argued, a consensus is rarely found, and it is increasingly impossible for states to protect themselves from a public opinion which has been formed by the Jewish-controlled media.

Adolf Hitler spoke on the weakness of the parliamentary system from a different perspective, where in Volume 1, Chapter 3 of Mein Kampf he relates his observations on the necessary qualities of leadership as he followed political life in Vienna as a young man. There he described the vulnerability of men who enter into political life without first having developed a firm foundation in learning as a basis for a firm conviction with which they could stand in support of definite principles. Speaking of the paths taken by politicians who lack such a foundation, he aptly describes what we may consider to be the typical modern politician where he says in part:

Should such a person, to the misfortune of all decent people, succeed in becoming a parliamentary deputy it will be clear from the outset that for him the essence of political activity consists in a heroic struggle to keep permanent hold on this milk-bottle as a source of livelihood for himself and his family. The more his wife and children are dependent on him, the more stubbornly will he fight to maintain for himself the representation of his parliamentary constituency. For that reason any other person who gives evidence of political capacity is his personal enemy. In every new movement he will apprehend the possible beginning of his own downfall. And everyone who is a better man than himself will appear to him in the light of a menace. I shall subsequently deal more fully with the problem to which this kind of parliamentary vermin give rise.

We cannot take the time required to examine the workings of every liberal government, or all of the workings of any liberal government. But when the United States was in its formative years, and in rebellion against the English king, the ideal that a man serve his people at his own expense was prevalent among the people, as it was considered an honor to be appointed to represent one’s people. At this time many Christians still believed that service to one’s community was service to God. Therefore, in Article 5 of the Articles of Confederation we read the following:

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years [in other words, no single person was allowed to serve in the federal congress for more than half of each six years]; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind. [There was no compensation of any sort from the federal government for representatives.] Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while they act as members of the committee of the States. [Individual States were able to compensate their representatives if and as they desired.]

However when the second federation was formed under the new U.S. Constitution in 1789, things changed, and we may perceive the influences of the money power infiltrating the political apparatus. The first sentence of Article 1, Section 6 of the United States Constitution says:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.

The term limits set forth in the Articles of Confederation were gone, and the representatives of government were able to immediately begin making their own laws regarding their compensation. At first it was a seemingly modest 6 or 7 dollars a day, and by 1818, 8 dollars a day. That these sums were paid per diem leads one to believe that representatives only received them for the days in which congress assembled. However the First United States Congress was convened for over 17 months during its designated two-year term, so the associated offices almost immediately became full-time positions.

And while 6 or 8 dollars a day sounds like a modest sum, according to a publication titled Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century, by The Conference on Research in Income and Wealth published in 1960 at the Princeton University Press [] the average farm salaries in Virginia and the Carolinas in 1830 were 6 or 7 dollars per month, although farm workers in other States fared somewhat better, and made as much as 12 dollars per month in Georgia. But farm salaries in the non-slave States were no higher. Our source tells us that “The rate paid farm labor (monthly with board) in Illinois was $12 as compared with $8 to $9 for Ohio and Indiana in 1818 and 1830.” The highest salaries were earned in frontier states, such as Louisiana and Illinois.

So almost immediately, the elected representatives of the people were earning compensation many times greater than the average working citizen. By 1850, the rates were hardly ten percent higher, although by 1860, when the nation was about to be plunged into war, they ranged from about 11 to as much as 17 dollars per month. However Congress accordingly began to appoint itself regular salaries per annum, and starting at $3,000 in 1855 it was increased to $7,500 by 1871. In 1942 Congress voted for itself a lucrative pension system, which was repealed for the World War but finally succeeded in 1946. Amazingly, the propaganda in favor of the pension was that it would encourage older members of Congress to retire, a situation which was prevented entirely under the Articles of Confederation.

So where Hitler says that for many politicians “the essence of political activity consists in a heroic struggle to keep permanent hold on this milk-bottle as a source of livelihood for himself and his family”, we can see the development of that possibility in American politics in the formative years of the nation. The opportunity for the power of gold to replace the power of liberalism had fully developed along with it, as term limits were eliminated and party politics supplanted the control of the State legislatures over their representatives.

We are going to repeat the last paragraph of the Protocols, so that we can discuss other aspects of it:

In a state with a poorly organized government and where the laws are insignificant, and the ruler has lost his dignity as the result of the accumulation of liberal rights, I find a new right, namely, the right of might to destroy all existing order and institutions, to lay hands on the law, to alter all institutions, and to become the ruler of those who have voluntarily, liberally renounced for our benefit the rights to their own power.

I am going to read a couple of pages from a source that we can often despise, which is Wikipedia, however in this case the information presented is fairly accurate. This is a modern example of exactly how a liberal government controlled by financial interests can force radical changes in an institution, and how they lay their hands on the law, as they boast in the Protocols, to corrupt the original fabric of the nation. In the 1950’s, most southern Baptist Christians were being taught racial separatism as a Christian principle, which it most certainly is. However from that time, most of the Baptist organizations were becoming corrupted from that position, and began teaching egalitarianism under the guise of Christianity. One of the last large institutions to resist this corruption was Bob Jones University in South Carolina. In fact, in the 1950’s the University clashed with the already-famous Billy Graham over the acceptance of liberal evangelicals, and to its credit it would not compromise its principles.

The university was founded by its namesake, a fundamentalist and conservative Christian evangelist and friend of the populist politician William Jennings Bryant, in Panama City, Florida, in 1927. But because of the financial difficulties of the Depression it later moved to Cleveland Tennessee and then to its current home in Greenville, South Carolina. So here is an account given by Wikipedia, which follows the changes in university policy which were forced upon it by the government:

Although BJU had admitted Asians and other ethnic groups from its inception [there is no supporting evidence given for this assertion], it did not enroll Africans or African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, BJU admitted only married blacks, although the Internal Revenue Service had already determined in 1970 that "private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies" were not entitled to federal tax exemption. In 1975, the University Board of Trustees authorized a change in policy to admit black students, a move that occurred shortly before the announcement of the Supreme Court decision in Runyon v. McCrary (427 U.S. 160 [1976]), which prohibited racial exclusion in private schools.

The IRS is a private agency which operates outside of the bounds of representative government and interprets laws as it desires with very little oversight. This is one example of the Jews laying their hands on the law. In spite of public opinion, the Supreme Court does not have the power to create or enforce any laws. However the media long ago seems to have convinced the people that it does have such power, a perception which relieves the other branches of government from their own responsibilities. So in this case, the Protocols are fully correct, that the laws of the State, or its Constitution, are insignificant, and the Jews may lay their own hands upon it and ply it as they will.

Wikipedia continues:

However, in May of that year, BJU expanded rules against interracial dating and marriage. In 1976, the Internal Revenue Service revoked the university's tax exemption retroactively to December 1, 1970 on grounds that it was practicing racial discrimination. The case eventually was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982. After BJU lost the decision in Bob Jones University v. United States (461 U.S. 574)[1983], the university chose to maintain its interracial dating policy and pay a million dollars in back taxes. [It is not explained how donations were taxable, since gifts are generally not taxable. But evidently some of the University’s receipts must have become taxable without the exemption.] The year following the Court decision, contributions to the university declined by 13 percent. [They were no longer tax deductible for the donors.] In 2000, following a media uproar prompted by the visit of presidential candidate George W. Bush to the university, Bob Jones III dropped the university's interracial dating rule, announcing the change on CNN's Larry King Live. In the same year, Bob Jones III drew criticism when he reposted a letter on the university's web page referring to Mormons and Catholics as "cults which call themselves Christian".

So the real masters behind the scenes are represented by the media, and that is evident to us where the university president felt it necessary to pay homage to the Jews by appearing on a program operated by a prominent Jew in order to announce his repentance to Satan. When Bush, a candidate for president, made his appearance at Bob Jones University, CNN was the chorus leader of an immediate public outcry against the University’s policies on racial issues.

As Wikipedia continues, the situation is exacerbated, because continual announcements of repentance were evidently necessary:

In 2005, Stephen Jones, great-grandson of the founder, became BJU's president on the same day that he received his Ph.D. from the school. Bob Jones III then took the title Chancellor. In 2008, the university declared itself "profoundly sorry" for having allowed "institutional policies to remain in place that were racially hurtful". That year BJU enrolled students from fifty states and nearly fifty countries, representing diverse ethnicities and cultures, and the BJU administration declared itself "committed to maintaining on the campus the racial and cultural diversity and harmony characteristic of the true Church of Jesus Christ throughout the world".

Wikipedia then describes the public rewards that the University received for its capitulation:

In 2011, the university became a member of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS) and reinstated intercollegiate athletics.

So Bob Jones University, which we may consider to be one of the last stalwarts of Christian racial ethics in America, was beaten into submission by the media, the IRS and the courts. Then once it relinquished its racial principles, it joined in the sports idolatry cult which is the fabric of most modern universities. We have only offered this because it is a very visible example of the undermining of institutions and the values which they represent, by mostly unelected officials who are never held accountable by the people. Most of the other American religious institutions were corrupted much sooner, and much easier, through the dissemination of liberalistic and humanist ideas in the seminaries. That is another story entirely.

In Germany, Christianity was also undermined by the government, but in a far different way. Here we will let Adolf Hitler explain that, from Volume 1, Chapter 10 of Mein Kampf, which is an explanation of the reasons for the collapse of the Second Reich, under the government of Bismarck:

Undoubtedly no small amount of blame for the present unsatisfactory religious situation must be attributed to those who have encumbered the ideal of religion with purely material accessories and have thus given rise to an utterly futile conflict between religion and science.

But as we have seen, as the academies of science in Europe were founded by speculative Freemasons enamored with the Jewish Kabbalah, the Jewish rabbis dominated the studies of the sciences from their conception. Even Hitler seems to have been unaware of this predicament.

Continuing with Mein Kampf:

In this conflict victory will nearly always be on the side of science, even though after a bitter struggle, while religion will suffer heavily in the eyes of those who cannot penetrate beneath the mere superficial aspects of science.

And, we must add, those same people do not penetrate the allegorical nature of Scripture, that the Biblical accounts of Creation are parables, and are not at all meant to be scientific. In truth, there is no conflict between Christianity and true scientific inquiry. But the precepts of theoretical science, which is to be distinguished from actual scientific discovery, are also found in the Kabbalah, and originate in anti-Christian and unscientific Jewish mysticism.

Again, continuing with Mein Kampf:

But the greatest damage of all has come from the practice of debasing religion as a means that can be exploited to serve political interests, or rather commercial interests. The impudent and loud-mouthed liars who do this make their profession of faith before the whole world in stentorian tones so that all poor mortals may hear – not that they are ready to die for it if necessary but rather that they may live all the better. They are ready to sell their faith for any political quid pro quo. For ten parliamentary mandates they would ally themselves with the Marxists, who are the mortal foes of all religion. And for a seat in the Cabinet they would go the length of wedlock with the devil, if the latter had not still retained some traces of decency.

So with this, it should be no surprise that Christian Institutions have been shaken from their principles by supposedly Christian governments, as we have seen in the case of Bob Jones University. As Hitler noticed a hundred years ago, the politicians only used their profession of religion for their own advancement, and were actually serving commercial interests, the advantage of gold over liberal governments which is explained here in the Protocols.

Continuing with Mein Kampf:

If religious life in pre-war Germany had a disagreeable savour for the mouths of many people this was because Christianity had been lowered to base uses by political parties that called themselves Christian and because of the shameful way in which they tried to identify the Catholic Faith with a political party.

This substitution was fatal. It procured some worthless parliamentary mandates for the party in question, but the Church suffered damage thereby.

The consequences of that situation had to be borne by the whole nation; for the laxity that resulted in religious life set in at a juncture when everything was beginning to lose hold and vacillate and the traditional foundations of custom and of morality were threatening to fall asunder.

Then, in reference to the looming First World War, Hitler says in conclusion:

Yet all those cracks and clefts in the social organism might not have been dangerous if no grave burdens had been laid upon it; but they became disastrous when the internal solidarity of the nation was the most important factor in withstanding the storm of big events.

This continues to be the situation in Germany to this very day. It is an inescapable consequence of the usurpation of Christian nations by the power of gold. In Germany now, Angela Merkel is flooding the country with aliens from Africa and the Middle East, and her party is the CDU, which is the Christian Democratic Union, a supposedly conservative party in Germany.

Just so that we can see how the word Christian is sold as a political concept by people who are anything but Christian in their actions, we shall quote Wikipedia where it says of the CDU:

The Christian Democratic Union of Germany is a Christian democratic, and liberal-conservative political party in Germany. It is the major catch-all party of the centre-right in German politics. Along with its Bavarian sister party the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU), the CDU forms the CDU/CSU grouping, also known as the Union, in the Bundestag. The leader of the party, Angela Merkel, is the current Chancellor of Germany.…

So as Adolf Hitler had written 90 years ago, German politicians still continue “the practice of debasing religion as a means that can be exploited to serve political interests, or rather commercial interests.”

In Russia, Christian institutions were never actually undermined to the degree that they are now in Germany and in America. But rather, when the Bolshevik Jews came to power they immediately began butchering priests and nuns and other religious officials, and closed the churches to turn them into theaters or warehouses. They were reopened for propaganda purposes after the second World War, but then they were hardly Christian, being under Communist ideological control. However the synagogues remained open throughout the entire Communist period, and “antisemitism” was condemned by the Soviets.

On page 109 of The International Jew, The World's Foremost Problem by Henry Ford and the editors of The Dearborn Independent we read the following, which is in reference to Jewish protests against the publication of The International Jew as a weekly series of articles in The Dearborn Independent:

The most persistent denials have been offered to the statement that Bolshevism everywhere, in Russia or the United States, is Jewish. In these denials we have perhaps one of the most brazen examples of the double intent referred to above. The denial of the Jewish character of Bolshevism is made to the Gentile; but in the confidence and secrecy of Jewish communication, or buried in the Yiddish dialect, or obscurely hidden in the Jewish national press, we find the proud assertion made -- to their own people! – that Bolshevism is Jewish.

Jewish propaganda has only two straws to grasp in the terrible tale of murder, immorality, robbery, enforced starvation and hideous humanism which make the present Russian situation impossible to describe and all but impossible to comprehend.

One of these straws is that Kerensky, the man who eased in the opening wedge of Bolshevism, is not a Jew. Indeed, one of the strongest indications that Bolshevism is Jewish is that the Jewish press emphasizes so fiercely the alleged Gentilism of a least two of the revolutionary notables. It may be cruel to deny them two among hundreds, but merely saying so cannot change Kerensky's nationality. His name is Adler. His father was a Jew and his mother a Jewess. Adler, the father, died, and the mother married a Russian named Kerensky, whose name the young child took. Among the radicals who employed him as a lawyer, among the forces that put him forward to drive the first nail into Russia's cross, among the soldiers who fought with him, his Jewish descent and character have never been doubted.

"Well, but there is Lenin," our Jewish publicists say -- "Lenin the head of it all, the brains of it all, and Lenin is a Gentile! We've got you there -- Lenin is a Gentile!"

Perhaps he is, but why do his children speak Yiddish? Why are his proclamations put forth in Yiddish? Why did he abolish the Christian Sunday and establish by law the Jewish Saturday Sabbath?

The explanation of all this may be that he married a Jewess. The fact is that he did. But another explanation may be that he himself is a Jew. Certainly he is not the Russian nobleman he has always claimed to be. The statements he has made about his identity thus far have been lies. The claim that he is a Gentile may be unfounded too. [It has since been proven that Lenin was indeed a Jew, whose actual name was Ulyanov, although the Jews continued to deny him for many decades after Ford wrote this.]

No one has ever doubted Trotsky's nationality -- he is a Jew. His name is Braunstein. Recently the Gentiles were told that Trotsky had said he wasn't much of anything -- in religion. That may be. But still he must be something -- else why are the Russian Christian churches turned into stables, slaughter houses and dancing halls, while the Jewish synagogues remain untouched? And why are Christian priests and ministers made to work on roads, while Jewish rabbis are left their clerical privileges? Trotsky may not be much of anything in religion, but he is a Jew nevertheless. This is not mere Gentile insistence that he shall be considered a Jew whether or no; it is straight Jewish teaching that he is. In a future discussion on "religion or race?" we shall show that even without religion, Trotsky is, and is considered by all Jewish authorities to be, a Jew.

An apology must be made here for repeating well-known facts. Yet, so many people are not even now aware of the true meaning of Bolshevism, that at the risk of monotony, we shall cite a few of the salient facts. The purpose, however, is not alone to explain Russia, but to throw a warning light on conditions in the United States.

The Bolshevik Government, as it stood late this summer when the latest report was smuggled through to certain authorities, shows up the Jewish domination of the whole affair. It has changed very slightly since the beginning. We give only a few items to indicate the proportion. It must not be supposed that the non-Jewish members of the government are Russian.

Very few Russians have anything to say about their own country these days. The so-called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," in which the proletariat has nothing whatever to say, is Russian only in the sense that it is set up in Russia; it is not Russian in that it springs from or includes the Russian people. It is the international program of the Protocols, which might be "put over" by a minority in any country, and which is being given a dress-rehearsal in Russia.

The Jews openly destroyed the religious and social institutions of Russia in a very abrupt manner, unless they were Jewish institutions. However in Europe and the United States, they have used completely different methods to infiltrate and undermine those institutions. When there is opposition, what had happened to Bob Jones University is a good example of the result. Perhaps later in this presentation of the Protocols we will have an opportunity to discuss the subversion of Christian institutions by Jews from within.

PROTOCOL NO. I, continued:

With the present instability of all authority our power will be more unassailable than any other, because it will be invisible until it is so well rooted that no cunning can undermine it.

Where government power is not diminished through liberalism quickly enough for the Jews, then it is diminished through war. The Rothschild banks instigated the American Civil War, which caused the breakdown of colonial society, the destruction of the South, and instilled contempt for the government in generation of Americans ever since, which is an important factor in the plan of the Protocols. Then later in that same century the banks and industrial corporations of the United States and Britain militarized Japan and instigated the war between Russia and Japan, but the corresponding first revolution in Russia nevertheless failed. The first attempt by the Jews to overthrow the Russian government came in the middle of the war with Japan, and when it failed many of the Jews who took part in ti found refuge in New York, where they would await another opportunity. Their second and successful attempt came in the middle of the war with Germany, and they were financed by New York bankers, who were also Jews.

In the United States, social unrest agitated the nation throughout the period of the First World War, but was organized and repackaged as a positive force during the Second World War [of which feminism is a prominent example]. The religious principles of the people were by then disintegrated. Then further unrest came on the heels of the Korean War. Then there were social revolutions organized as media events all throughout the war in Vietnam. In the 1960’s and 70’s the American media worked in virtual in collusion with dissidents organized by Jews to make opposition to the established order seem much bigger than it actually was. The media magnified the anti-war demonstrations of the 1960’s to sway public opinion and influence legislation. The democratic legislators always seemed to act with knee-jerk reactions to media-induced frenzy so they are not left behind perceived trends. So even when they are not directly controlled, they are nevertheless willing pawns for the Jewish subversives. And nobody ever suspects the media because the agencies are few and there is never any real oversight. On the part of democratic politicians, Adolf Hitler wrote about this phenomenon as well, in Volume 2, Chapter 1 of Mein Kampf where he was criticizing the reactionary methods of the older political parties:

Those people are always influenced by one and the same preoccupation when they introduce something new into their programme or modify something already contained in it. That preoccupation is directed towards the results of the next election. The moment these artists in parliamentary government have the first glimmering of a suspicion that their darling public may be ready to kick up its heels and escape from the harness of the old party wagon they begin to paint the shafts with new colours. On such occasions the party astrologists and horoscope readers, the so-called 'experienced men' and 'experts', come forward. For the most part they are old parliamentary hands whose political schooling has furnished them with ample experience. They can remember former occasions when the masses showed signs of losing patience and they now diagnose the menace of a similar situation arising. Resorting to their old prescription, they form a 'committee'. They go around among the darling public and listen to what is being said. They dip their noses into the newspapers and gradually begin to scent what it is that their darlings, the broad masses, are wishing for, what they reject and what they are hoping for. The groups that belong to each trade or business, and even office employees, are carefully studied and their innermost desires are investigated. The 'malicious slogans' of the opposition from which danger is threatened are now suddenly looked upon as worthy of reconsideration, and it often happens that these slogans, to the great astonishment of those who originally coined and circulated them, now appear to be quite harmless and indeed are to be found among the dogmas of the old parties.

Repeating the one sentence from the Protocols which we mean to address:

With the present instability of all authority our power will be more unassailable than any other, because it will be invisible until it is so well rooted that no cunning can undermine it.

Adolf Hitler noticed this trend among the political parties of Germany, that they resorted to the newspapers and the perceived public opinion in order to devise platforms that would allow them to stay in power come election day, and that was over a hundred years ago. But Hitler also understood that it was the media which controlled public opinion in the first place, through what they report as well as how they choose to report it. Here is what he says in relation to this in Volume 1, Chapter 3 of Mein Kampf:

Whatever definition we may give of the term 'public opinion', only a very small part of it originates from personal experience or individual insight. The greater portion of it results from the manner in which public matters have been presented to the people through an overwhelmingly impressive and persistent system of 'information'.

In the religious sphere the profession of a denominational belief is largely the result of education, while the religious yearning itself slumbers in the soul; so too the political opinions of the masses are the final result of influences systematically operating on human sentiment and intelligence in virtue of a method which is applied sometimes with almost-incredible thoroughness and perseverance.

By far the most effective branch of political education, which in this connection is best expressed by the word 'propaganda', is carried on by the Press. The Press is the chief means employed in the process of political 'enlightenment'. It represents a kind of school for adults. This educational activity, however, is not in the hands of the State but in the clutches of powers which are partly of a very inferior character. While still a young man in Vienna I had excellent opportunities for coming to know the men who owned this machine for mass instruction, as well as those who supplied it with the ideas it distributed. At first I was quite surprised when I realized how little time was necessary for this dangerous Great Power within the State to produce a certain belief among the public; and in doing so the genuine will and convictions of the public were often completely misconstrued. It took the Press only a few days to transform some ridiculously trivial matter into an issue of national importance, while vital problems were completely ignored or filched and hidden away from public attention.

We see that this is a common tactic used by the American media, that whenever something politically serious is about to happen, where if the public were informed perhaps the consensus would go against the interests who control the media, the issue is ignored. Then some trivial event is given magnified publicity in order to distract the public from the gravely consequential issues.

Continuing with Mein Kampf:

The Press succeeded in the magical art of producing names from nowhere within the course of a few weeks. They made it appear that the great hopes of the masses were bound up with those names. And so they made those names more popular than any man of real ability could ever hope to be in a long lifetime. All this was done, despite the fact that such names were utterly unknown and indeed had never been heard of even up to a month before the Press publicly emblazoned them. At the same time old and tried figures in the political and other spheres of life quickly faded from the public memory and were forgotten as if they were dead, though still healthy and in the enjoyment of their full vigour. Or sometimes such men were so vilely abused that it looked as if their names would soon stand as permanent symbols of the worst kind of baseness. In order to estimate properly the really pernicious influence which the Press can exercise one had to study this infamous Jewish method whereby honourable and decent people were besmirched with mud and filth, in the form of low abuse and slander, from hundreds and hundreds of quarters simultaneously, as if commanded by some magic formula.

These highway robbers would grab at anything which might serve their evil ends.

We see this last tactic employed continually in modern American politics, while the substantial crimes of truly corrupt men are ignored, and their wives are even set up to continue after them.

In the 1920’s radio was a relatively new media, and by referring to the press, Hitler intended to describe the newspapers and other print media. This he had called “an overwhelmingly impressive and persistent system of 'information'”, sarcastically placing the word information in quotes. Imagine if Hitler had seen the information systems which exist today in television and the Internet, and which are used for the same purposes that the newspapers which he criticizes were used in the 1920’s?

And this is, primarily, why the power of the Jews is “more unassailable than any other”, because through the media they control the minds and thoughts of the people. As Hitler described it, their “public opinion” does not come from “personal experience or individual insight”, but rather it comes from the information they are given by the Jewish-controlled media.

In Adolf Hitler’s time, Jews were indeed in control of the largest newspaper concerns. In Dr. Wiebe’s booklet Germany and the Jewish Problem, we find the following under the heading The Jews in the German Press:

Jews have always possessed a special aptitude for journalism and the organisation of press work. Accordingly, they played a prominent part in the establishment of German newspapers. Hardly any other function has given them so much power as their influence on the press. They soon proved however that they had little or no interest in that sense of high moral obligation which is the duty of those who are responsible for influencing public opinion. On the contrary, their interests were primarily centred in the rich possibilities for material gain.

If one examines the Jewish controlled German press of the last decades, one realizes that for purely material reasons it served a craving for sensation, for vanity and the lower instincts of the masses. Circulation was increased in proportion as newspapers undermined in the most grave manner all respect for morals, law and order.

The two largest German newspaper concerns were, before 1933, in Jewish hands: viz. Ullstein and Mosse. Both these firms were founded by Jews and their directorates and editorial staffs were comprised of nearly all Jews.

Ullstein. Publishers & Printers

The circulation of this largest newspaper concern averaged 4 million daily. They published five large daily newspapers, several weekly papers and many periodicals and magazines of every description. The Ullstein News Agency influenced a great number of provincial papers. In addition to this, Ullstein possessed also an extensive book publishing branch.

The whole of the shares in this vast concern were held by the five Jewish Ullstein brothers. The directorate consisted of these brothers, three other Jews and only two Christians.

The largest newspaper issued by this concern was the Berliner Morgenpost which had a larger circulation than any other German paper (more than 600,000 daily). Besides a Jewish editor this paper had in 1927 ten other Jews as members of the editorial staff. The editorial staff of the Vossische Zeitung -- an extremely influential political organ -- was in charge of the Jew Georg Bernhard and fourteen Jewish sub-editors. Bernhard at that time was keen on making a name for himself in politics. The position in regard to the remaining Ullstein papers was practically the same.

Mosse. Publishers & Printers

This firm was, as far as size is concerned, not so important as Ullstein. Its daily circulation was 350,000. Established and maintained as a family concern by the Eastern Jew, Rudolf Mosse (formerly Moses), its influence was none the less very great. Its chief publication was the Berliner Tageblatt established long before 1933. It was this paper which for many years was looked upon abroad as representative of German public opinion.

The editor of this paper was the Jew Theodor Wolff, who also took a prominent part in politics. Apart from him the important positions on the editorial staff were filled by seventeen other Jews. In five important capitals outside the Reich the Berliner Tageblatt was represented by Jews.

Another paper issued by this concern was the Acht-UhrAbendblatt, another politically influential publication in which Jews were dominant with a chief editor and eight co-religionists as sub-editors.

It was only natural that the rest of the German press could play only a very insignificant part when compared with the activities of these two mammoth concerns. Neither the provincial press with its economic disunity nor the publishing house of August Scherl -- the only large Christian undertaking in the capital -- were able to exercise influence sufficient to seriously challenge the united power of these two big all-Jewish undertakings.

That the marxist party press was overwhelmingly directed and influenced by Jews has already been stated above. Moreover the official press departments of the government -- particularly in Prussia -- were also in charge of Jews. The three most important press departments in Prussia, the largest of the German federal states were, in 1930 for example, in charge of four Jews.

It was therefore only a matter of course that the professional and economic organisations of German journalists came entirely under Jewish influence. The largest of these organisations, the Reichsverband der deutschen Presse -- the German Press Association -- was directed for many years and until 1933 by the Jewish chief editor of the Vossische Zeitung, Georg Bernhard. In the Verein Berliner Presse -- the Berlin Press Union -- which was the leading social and benefit society for all journalists in the capital, the right to nominate and elect members had been vested from 1888 in the hands of a purely Jewish committee. Finally, the official organisation of "free lance" German writers, the Schutzverband deutscher Schriftsteller was controlled by a directorate which, in 1928 and 1929, consisted of 90% Jews. Its president was at that time the Jewish publicist Arnold Zweig, author of the war novel, Streit um den Sergeanten Grischa, in which he foully besmirched the national honour of the German people.

In this connexion it is necessary to examine the work and the significance of those Jews who for many years were regarded in Germany and abroad as the most authentic apostles of German publicism. We refer in particular to Georg Bernhard, Theodor Wolff and Maximilian Harden. All three were Jews. All three were journalists of surpassing technical skill, men who, through their masterly handling of the written word alone, were well able to make "converts" to the ideas they represented. But behind the winning exterior was bidden the same dangerous spirit of denial of all traditional values, of criticism for criticism's sake, the spirit of destruction, disintegration and instability which we have been compelled to recognize as the main characteristics of Jewry in all spheres.

It is exceptionally significant that Georg Bernhard's real profession was that of banker and stock exchange financier. He belonged until shortly before the Great War to social democracy, and his whole life displays a remarkable vacillation between two such contradictory things as stock exchange journalism and marxist activity. Then, in 1913, he was appointed chief editor of Ullstein's Vossische Zeitung. In this position, in two different hours of destiny in Germany's post-war history, he played a calamitous part:

In the critical weeks before the signing of the Versailles Treaty, when the German people and its leaders well-nigh unanimously rejected the intolerable and harsh conditions of that dictated peace, he made common cause with those really comparatively few men of public influence who, through the medium of the spoken and printed word, ruthlessly suppressed every flickering of the spirit of national resistance, and thereby destroyed all hopes of securing more bearable conditions. One requires only to glance at the old issues of the Vossische Zeitung for those weeks and months to realize how systematically Bernhard went about this work. Even the most humiliating terms of this treaty -- the "War-Guilt" clause, he attempted to represent as a mere bagatelle. Thus he wrote -- to give only one example -- on June 18th 1919:

"The German reader of the Note will most easily be able to reconcile himself with those parts which deal with the historical origin of the war and with the question of guilt for it ... if one regards the matter in this manner, one cannot take the scolding in the war-guilt paragraph tragically."

With these words Bernhard attacked the German government from behind whilst the latter was waging a dramatic struggle regarding these points of honour, in particular the clause relating to war-guilt and the release of German officers. It will be understood outside Germany as well that we cannot forget such a betrayal of national interests, such a lack of proper pride and feeling for honour as was displayed by the Jewish journalist Bernhard.

In the second case, we already find Bernhard committing open criminal treason. During the occupation of the Rhineland, there arose in the occupied zone a movement, supported and forwarded for political reasons by foreign money, which strove to prevent for ever the return of the occupied Rhineland to the Reich, and to establish its complete independence. Georg Bernhard with his Vossische Zeitung got into contact with these Rhenish separatists. The separatists received from him political advice and financial support. In the year 1930, one of the owners of Ullstein, the Jew Dr. Franz Ullstein, published this fact in the periodical Tagebuch. He declared that Georg Bernhard's agent in Paris, the Jew Dr. Leo Stahl, had paid a sum of money to Matthes, the leader of the separatists, and that Bernhard himself had corresponded and associated with Matthes.

This political scandal forced Bernhard eventually to retire from political journalism. He became, and this is also characteristic, the head of a large departmental store association. Since 1933 he has been busy abroad publishing an anti-German émigré paper.

Theodor Wolff, the editor of the Berliner Tageblatt behaved in a different but equally objectional manner. An apparently convinced monarchist during the war, there was, after the change of constitution in Germany, no one who reviled and slandered the deposed Hohenzollerns in so evil a manner as Wolff.

Even if we could forgive him such opportunism, quite inexcusable is his behaviour at the time when the increasing spread of indecency and immorality in Germany forced the government in 1926 to take constitutional steps for the suppression of filthy and otherwise low-grade literature. The intention was, above all, to protect youth from coarsening and indecent influences. Theodor Wolff openly opposed this effort. He condemned the new law and as a protest, resigned from the democratic party which he had helped to found because they had supported the new measure.

In order to understand the whole frivolous irresponsibility of this Jewish publicist, one must know just how far the flooding of the German book and periodical markets with dirty, pornographic productions had gone. We shall have more to say about this later on.

Still more influential than Georg Bernhard and Theodor Wolff, certainly the mightiest man of the pen which Germany had for a generation, was Maximilian Harden, a brother of Witting, the previously mentioned Jewish defeatist.

With his periodical, Die Zukunft -- The Future -- he indulged in high politics for more than twenty years. Hardly any other man has shown so much fluctuation in character and principles as he.

He began by setting himself up as judge of morality in Imperial Germany and dealt a death blow to the reputation of the monarchic system by his journalistic scandalmongering about the Hohenzollern court. During the Great War he was certainly the only real "annexationist" in Germany, demanding as the price of victory the whole of Belgium, the French coast opposite England and the Congo Basin, (Vide Zukunft of 17th October 1914). Then when the fortunes of war, in 1916, began to turn away from Germany, Harden also retreated. He attacked German war policy and became an enthusiastic admirer of President Wilson. In 1919, he finally conducted a cowardly campaign against the national resistance to the tyrannical peace treaty terms, naming this resistance "artificially-forced hysteria and miserable falsehood."

The driving forces of such characterless behaviour were vanity and petty selfish ambition. Harden is rightly described by the world-renowned historian, Friedrich Thimme, as "The Judas of the German people."

So where Germans were prominently involved in the German media, they were betrayers of the German people in favor of Jewish internationalist interests. And of course, Jews in German media were doing the same thing. So it was in America as well. By the dawn of the 20th century, Jews came to control most of the major and influential newspapers in America. The following is from an article entitled Facts of Jewish Media Control, and while we do not know the original author, we know from our own studies that the claims the article makes are true. While the article is somewhat dated, the circumstances it presents have been true throughout the past hundred or so years, and are still true today even if there have been changes in the form of the companies described.

The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over America's newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of the nation's three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. These three, dominating America's financial and political capitals, are the newspapers which set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what isn't, at the national and international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it, and all three newspapers are in Jewish hands.

The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones's estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper's current publisher and CEO. The executive editor is Max Frankel, and the managing editor is Joseph Lelyveld. Both of the latter are also Jews. The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe; twelve magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines.

Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing its "leaks" throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government. The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John McLean, and later inherited by Edward McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier. The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer's daughter. She is the principal stockholder and the board chairman of the Washington Post Co. In 1979, she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper. He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co. The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers, television, and magazines, most notably the nation's number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek.

The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation's largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation which also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron's, among other things. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal. Most of New York's other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News is owned by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm.

We are presently constrained by time, but perhaps soon we will demonstrate that nearly all of the major newspapers in England were also fully under Jewish control at an early period. Before this series ends, we will also illustrate the early Jewish control of the electronic media. Today, a half-dozen Jewish-controlled and mostly Jewish-staffed companies, at least at the important managerial levels, control over 95% of the world’s media, both print and electronic, both traditional and Internet. The largest alternative-media websites, such as The Huffington Post or, are controlled by Jews.

The important point which we sought to make this evening is this: that in a world of democracy, whoever controls public opinion controls the democratic governments. But the Jews were already in a position to control at least most of the Press even before the governments of the West became democracies. They were in this position because they already controlled the English and international banks, many of the other banks of Europe and America, and controlling the money power they could naturally control the power of the Press as well. In that manner, their control of governments remains invisible, and those who make the money, those who have the power of gold, through their ownership of the media, manipulate the people by creating their opinions for them.

The Jews knew that they could achieve what they boasted of here in the Protocols. They understood the power of printed propaganda from their experience in support of the Humanists in the Reuchlin Affair and in support of the Reformation, at a time when the printing press was relatively new, which we have discussed here exhaustively. Then there was the French Revolution, and the social revolutions of 1848, during which printed media played a crucial role. In most places in Europe the Jews themselves could not participate in the media openly until after 1848. But from that time, once they achieved their emancipation and could act openly, even the Encyclopedia Judaica admits, speaking of 1852, that “Jewish financiers in partnership with members of the nobility [in Austria] founded new industries and banks, outstanding among them the Creditanstalt. Jews founded leading newspapers and many became journalists.” By the dawn of the 20th century and the publication of the Protocols, the Jews were already its masters.

We will return to this series with a discussion of the so-called Pax Judaica, the arrogance of Liberalism to declare liberty to the people, so long as that liberty conforms to the ideals defined by world Jewry.

I pray that these articles continue to be informative, and put the Protocols of Satan into their proper historical perspective. The Bible is the Word of God, and the Protocols are a description of the rule of the Anti-Christ which the Bible warns us about, but not in a way that most so-called pastors can even yet perceive.