- Christogenea Saturdays
The Protocols of Satan, Part 23: Jewish Lies and Motivations
We subtitled the last episode of this series of The Protocols of Satan The Midgard Serpent and the Enslavement of Christendom. Of course, it should have been The Jews and the Enslavement of Christendom, but we chose to use the term “Midgard Serpent” for a couple of reasons. First, in Protocol No. 3 the authors of the Protocols themselves claimed to have the serpent as the symbol of their people, as they had said that “To-day I can tell you that our goal is close at hand. Only a small distance remains, and the cycle of the Symbolic Serpent — the symbol of our people — will be complete. When this circle is completed, then all the European states will be enclosed in it as in strong claws.”
Secondly, we want to claim back some Christian symbolism from the neo-pagans who have adopted it for themselves, evidently not being aware that these things were employed by Christians long before they were even considered by anyone to be pagan. I saw a response from from a certain pagan to what I had said about the Midgard Serpent, Odin and Loki in our last episode, and he insisted on separating certain elements which I had mentioned and claiming that they were “late additions” to his paganism. While that would only support my claim that the concepts were Christian in the first place, it startles me that he seemed to think there was somehow an original documented organized paganism which was in any way universal in its beliefs before Christianity came along.
As the ancients attested, the Germanic tribes did not write in their own language. Aside from symbols found on certain scattered archaeological artifacts, of which the meanings can only be hypothesized, there are no scriptures of early paganism. And while various European tribes had similar myths and beliefs, they were by no means consistent with one another. So Germanic neo-pagans must resort to records of the Romans, Greeks, and the ancient Near East to understand what they perceive to be their own paganism, and eventually they must arrive at the same place which is also the source of the Biblical literature.
But our point here is not to contend with pagans, especially in a discussion of the Protocols of Satan. Rather, we only want to illustrate something that ancient Europeans held in common in both Christian and pagan literature, which is the knowledge of an enemy that would eventually have them surrounded to a point which would culminate in a great war, and that the symbol which was used to describe that enemy identifies the enemy to this very day, even in their own words.
The serpent was a symbol of the rulers of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians and other world empires in the earliest times. The serpent has been worshipped in the Orient and elsewhere among the non-White races since the dawn of time. The serpent was used as a symbol to identify the enemies of Christians all throughout the Bible. The Revelation of Jesus Christ informs us that it is the dragon which gives its power to the beast, which in that context is a reference to Rome and the coming rule of the papacy. The terms dragon, serpent and leviathan were all used to identify the enemies of the God of Scripture. The same international bankers, whose early manifestations included the priesthoods of ancient Babylon, have been operating since the dawn of time, and propping up kingdom after kingdom which they could control from the shadows in order to enslave the common people.
No ancient writing identifies them as does the Christian Scripture. Yet here in the Protocols they admit that they themselves know it as well. However modern Christians – Christians over the last thousand years – are unaware even of this, that the concept of the serpent in the Scriptures represents a race of people who are eternally opposed to God. They fail to understand this because ever since the Church of the popes started to become involved with regional politics and money-lenders, converso-Jews have been writing Bible commentaries which obscure the facts of Scripture and history. As these money-lenders and priests of Satan increasingly gained power within the Christian society, the academic literature became more and more favorable towards them, to the point where now Christians worship Jews rather than Jesus. The Protocols are a result of that power, as we have said before, that when the Protocols were written, the authors were already confident that they had control of the society to the point where everything outlined within them could indeed be executed.
Before continuing with our presentation and discussion of the Protocols, I want to discuss the term bourgeoisie. That is because sometimes we might see the term used in a manner where we may want to defend the people given the label, and sometimes, on the other hand, we may despise the people which the term describes. But that is because the use of the term, in regards to whom it identifies, is not entirely consistent.
The term bourgeoisie originally referred to the people who lived in the borough, meaning the town or city of an area. We see the stem of the word in the suffix of many of the names of our modern cities, such as Williamsburg, Hamburg or Strasbourg. In the ancient world, towns often formed around places convenient for markets so that goods could be exchanged, so they were also convenient places for craftsmen. In Greek and Hebrew cities, because people could easily congregate at the markets, they also became the seats of the judges, and centers of civil business. Likewise, pagan temples –- which were also the banks and often the brothels of the ancient world – were set up in nearly every town. [This is an aspect of ancient paganism which most neo-pagans seem oblivious to.] But the wealthy landowners of the countryside, whether they employed serf or slave to operate their estates, could congregate in the towns for other reasons both cultural and political, and because of the luxuries they could enjoy in them, often lived in the towns rather than on their own estates.
The Greek word σχολή means rest or leisure, and from this we have the English word school, and words such as scholar and scholastic. The word academy is different, as it comes from the name of the Greek hero after whom the gymnasium was named where Plato had taught in Athens. In ancient times, only the landed class had the luxury of collecting in schools to learn and discuss, philosophy, music, mathematics and other such topics of learning. Even Paul of Tarsus taught at one such school for several years. Here is where our Western culture was developed.
The enemies of a society may exploit class divisions in order to upset the status quo and subvert the society, but the landed class are the children of those men who spilled or risked spilling their blood for the land in the first place, and who managed to hold it securely for the further growth and benefit of their own tribe. Furthermore, it is their obligation to further risk their lives in the defense of their holdings whenever the need arises, and defending their holdings they also defend not only their families, but the serfs and tradesmen, those who are generally the less fortunate of their own countrymen, that they otherwise employ at labor. From these concepts arose the nobility, the original landed classes of the families and tribes which became the European nations, and the system of honor, privilege and protection amongst the classes which we know as feudalism.
However the biggest mistake that the nobility of Europe made was to admit and employ the Jew. And as we have shown here in other contexts, the Jew came to be the middleman between greedy kings and the lower classes, changing the whole dynamic between nobility and commoner in Europe. Throughout Medieval England, the Jew was frequently depicted with horns and a long tail as a devil would be, because Medieval Englishmen understood that Jews were the devil. During the Middle Ages, when usury became more and more common in Europe, the Jew was the usurer and profitted from the blood of Christians, while Christians were generally forbidden to loan money at usury. So for centuries the Jews – who forever despised all Christians – accumulated wealth, and bid the time when they would overthrow the nobility in order to replace it with themselves.
But the Jew could never overthrow the nobility without first Judaizing a large segment of the society. Freemasonry was one vehicle which they had used to this end, but Freemasonry only accelerated the process, and the first vehicle was humanism, from which also sprung neo-paganism, which we had discussed at length here in our presentations on both the life of Martin Luther and our discussions of the Jews in Medieval Europe. But in concert with the rise of humanism, once usury finally became accepted by the Roman Church as well as by the Protestants of the West who followed after Calvin, the inevitable result was the plunge into materialism which accommodates the Judaization of society. We just aren’t certain whether it was the Jews who persuaded certain Christian sects to accommodate usury, or if it was Christians who wanted to compete with the Jews, something which we find more likely to be the case since except for the occasional setback, the Christian prohibition on usury seems to have never really inhibited the Jews.
During this process a new bourgeoisie had formed in Europe, which was the bourgeoisie of the usurer and the so-called capitalist that was comprised mostly of Jews and Judaized Christians. The development of industry helped this new bourgeoisie to grow wealthy enough and strong enough to eventually overthrow the old order. So, as we saw from the pages of Nesta Webster’s World Revolution in our last segment of this series, the Jews, through the Freemasonic lodges and other secret societies, had led the overthrow of the nobility of Europe in a series of revolutions which spanned many decades. And nearly as soon as the unsuspecting serfs had broken free of the nobles and gained control of the land upon which they and their ancestors had toiled for centuries, they fell into the hands of the usurers who became their new lords. The Jews had obviously understood how this process would work, and boasted in these Protocols of the inevitability that by these means, they would gain control of society.
So, speaking in very general terms, originally the term bourgeoisie refers to the class of those who originally took the greatest risks and toiled the hardest for the establishment and subsequent maintenance of their nation, and therefore they and their posterity enjoyed the benefits of owning the land. It was this class who then developed the culture of the nation, through the transmission of learning and the accumulation of knowledge, and if they did not do that themselves, they patronized those who did. It is this bourgeoisie which we as Christians should want to defend.
But to Jewish comics like Karl Marx, the term bourgeoisie represents only the new capitalist property-holding class, not the old order which had been overthrown, which exploits the lower classes while taking no risks of its own outside of superficial financial risks or doing any actual work of its own. This is a bourgeoisie that we should all despise, and the dichotomy of Marxism takes advantage of that so that they can destroy and demean the original bourgeoisie and the original Christian values that it once represented. But the original bourgeoisie itself having been Judaized and embracing materialism, even if it continued to marginally represent Christian values, hurried along its own demise. Wherever the Jews have not destroyed it, it is only because they intermarried with it and eventually, they became it, which is certainly the case in England.
But even in England, until the beginning of the last century, it was the landed class which produced the majority of scholars, and the majority of scholars were also warriors and officers in the military. Ulrich von Hutten, the misguided poet-knight of the Reformation, was an example of this dying breed in Germany. Now in modern times the scholars and the warriors are two different classes entirely, the first never seeing battle while they talk about war all the time, and the second being uneducated never really knows what it is that they are supposed to be fighting for.
When Marxists attack the bourgeoisie, more often than not they are attacking the values of the original bourgeoisie while they are also attacking the actions and attitudes of this modern replacement capitalist bourgeoisie. But for the most part this new bourgeoisie does not hold or reflect those same traditional values. That is why many readers fail to understand such writings as the Communist Manifesto, a document which we hope to discuss at length here one day in the near future. So while we do not care for the new capitalist bourgeoisie, which has come into its wealth mostly through its willing participation in a Judaized society, we would indeed defend the ancient values of the original bourgeoisie, which may not have been perfect in every way, but which developed from our own tribal history within the context of our generally Christian society.
We called Karl Marx a Jewish comic. Unfortunately his comedy had very serious consequences. He created a very simplistic portrait of the bourgeoisie based on purely materialistic terms, because the Jew does not understand anything but materialism. It is beyond the ability of the Jew to truly understand spiritual values. The socialism of Marx was not true organic socialism formed around a community of men of a common blood, common values, common morality and a common mythos or religious outlook, who could work together for the benefit of the entire community. Rather, Marxism insisted that the State should hold all property, and where Marxism prevailed the end result is that his fellow Jews came to own it all. Where Marxism failed, the Jewish capitalists profitted all the more in the pretense of opposing it. Marxism was a purposeful ploy by the same Jews who wrote the Protocols to enclose the Christian world in a dichotomy by which Jews would benefit either way. He managed to redefine socialism solely for the benefit of the international Jews who would use it for that very purpose. Marxism was never socialism, but it was only the socialism that the Jews promoted in order to obscure every other economic path and narrow the field of possibilities to what suited their own objectives. So to this very day Karl Marx, the Jewish comedian, has put the joke over on Christians everywhere. His fellow Jews continue the charade.
The first treachery of Marx as well as his critics is the failure to distinguish the new capitalist bourgeoisie from the real and original bourgeoisie. The second treachery of Marx as well as his critics is the failure to distinguish between Marxist socialism and true organic socialism. So the dichotomy between Marxism and Capitalism holds all sides in the hands of the Jews, and prevents men from finding their way back to the original ideals which for centuries shielded them from the Jews.
I have taken the risk of oversimplifying complex subjects in these observations, and have summarized them in my own words and without documentation, so that hopefully we may proceed through the Protocols with a better understanding of terms, and why our opinions may from time to time seem to conflict, because the application of terms in the source literature is not consistent.
As a digression, we must say that what we call true organic socialism, where men of a common blood, common values, common morality and a common Christian religion, is indeed the essence of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism, and it is Christian in every way – which is why Hitler embraced Christianity without embracing the already Judaized churches that only pretended to represent it. Both uphold nationalism, both uphold property rights, both allow a man to enjoy the fruits of his own labor, but both also insist that a man take consideration for his own kindred by working for the benefit of his community as well as himself. All of these things are anathema to the Jew, and for that reason they have worked so hard to destroy Christianity, and for that reason they also had to destroy National Socialism. They maintain power through lies, and have even trained all the Goyim to lie to one another continually on their behalf.
But not yet are we going to return to our presentation of the Protocols. Instead, we are going to pick up another topic from our previous presentation of the Protocols, which is that of supposed Jewish truth-tellers. Speaking of these, in our last episode we said “Men fall for this all the time, in the likes of a Nathaniel Kapner, a Henry Makow, a Bobby Fischer, a Harold Rosenthal, or some other Jew who says things that the supposedly awakened Goyim like to hear. But they are all snakes in the grass who will perpetuate the greatest lies while feeding little pieces of an incomplete puzzle to naive fools. If we are ever going to come to the real truth, we must end our fascination with devils.” Of course, we said this in regard to Myron Fagan and his many lies about Adolf Hitler and other things. I could have also included Benjamin Freedman and even several others to the list. But the fascination with supposed Jewish truth-tellers, or Jews who supposedly tell the truth, is not new and did not start with Fagan.
An even earlier supposed Jewish truth-teller was Benjamin Disraeli, and Henry Ford seemed to be enamored with him. So here we are going to present and discuss a chapter of The International Jew which is titled Disraeli – British Premier, Portrays the Jews. In it, Ford uses segments of Disraeli’s famous novel, Coningsby, to show how Disraeli was rather candid in his portrayal of Jewish behavior through his character Sidonia. While this is true, there is always strings attached, and we will discuss some of those based on the statements in Ford’s chapter.
This book, Coningsby, was published in 1844, a short time before the revolutions which plagued practically all of continental Europe in 1848. It is widely held that the book is based on the life of Nathan Mayer Rothschild, and that the Sidonia character is a composite of traits of both Rothschild and Disraeli himself. But it is not the book itself which is as important to us here as the conclusions which Ford draws from it. The book was set in 1830’s England in the political aftermath of the Reform Act of 1832, which itself was aimed at diminishing some of the political influence of the British bourgeoisie. So the following article was published in The Dearborn Independent, on 18 December 1920, and we shall interject our own comments and criticism:
Disraeli – British Premier, Portrays the Jews
The Jews have complained that they are being misrepresented. It is their usual complaint. They are always being "misrepresented" and "persecuted" except when they are being praised for what they are not. If the Jews were fully understood by the Gentiles, if the Christian churches, for example, were freed from their delusion that the Jews are Old Testament people, and if the churches really knew what Talmudic religion is, it is likely the "misrepresentation" would be still stronger.
As we always do in our critiques of articles from The International Jew, we credit Henry Ford for having written them, since he put his name to the book and the publication which first presented them. However we are aware that many of them may have been written by William J. Cameron, or even by others of the staff at The Dearborn Independent. But we will credit Ford nevertheless.
Here the author admits that the Jews are not the Old Testament people. But this is not what we may think it to be, as we shall see. Yet even with this claim, the Jews are often referred to as Judah in these articles, and that is not a correct identification. The Jews are as far removed from Judah as the Kaffirs currently occupying London are related to the original Jutes, Angles and Saxons. Continuing with Henry Ford:
The downfall of Russia was prepared by a long and deliberate program of misrepresentation of the Russian people, through the Jewish world press and Jewish diplomatic service. The name of Poland has been drawn in filth through the press of the United States under Jewish instigation, most of the signers of the latest Jewish protest against The Dearborn Independent's articles being leaders in the vilification of Poland, whose sole crime is that she wishes to save herself from the Jews. All this real misrepresentation is regarded as the Jews' privilege.
We have for a long time thought that Eastern Europe, and Poland and Romania especially, were turned over to the Soviets after the Second World War so that the Jews could take vengeance upon their Christian enemies in those states, who after many centuries of experience with the Jews certainly had come to hate them. The Christians of the West have not yet learned those lessons. Continuing with Henry Ford:
But wherever a hand has been raised to prevent the Jews overrunning the people and secretly securing control of the major instruments of life, the Jews have raised the cry of "misrepresentation." They never meet the question outright. They are not meeting it now. They cannot meet it without confession. False denials, pleas for sympathy, and an unworthy attempt to link others with them in their fall, constitute their whole method of defense.
Freemasons may wonder how they come into this affair; as they see the name of their ancient order coupled with that of the Jews in the latest Jewish defense. It is all very easily understood by those who are acquainted with Jewish strategy during the two centuries which comprise modern Masonic history.
Here Ford had a blind spot, because he himself was a Freemason. But Ford, a Freemason, essentially admits that Freemasonry is not really ancient at all, and indeed modern Masonry was just over three centuries old when Ford wrote. He continues:
Twice in the history of the United States, the people have been aroused by a sense of strange influences operating in their affairs, and each time the real power behind the influences was able to divert suspicion to the Freemasons. Once in George Washington's time, once in President Adams' time this occurred. Books were written, sermons preached, newspapers took up the search, but none of the observers saw the Jewish influence there. George Washington knew that the disloyal influence was not Masonic, but he saw signs of the concealed power trying to operate under the guise of Masonry. President Adams had not so clear a view of the matter.
We can only imagine that these references to Freemasonic agitation during these first American administrations are to the attempts to bring America into the French side of their wars with the British which began anew in 1793. This was first tried by The Directorate which ruled France after the French Revolution and during the presidency of Washington, and then by the court of Napoleon Bonaparte during the presidency of Adams. Near the start of the American Revolution, in 1778, the Continental government signed a treaty of alliance with the King of France. So when they returned to war with the British, both The Directorate and then Napoleon had contended that the treaty should still be in force, so that America was obligated to join against the British. This was one of the motivating factors in the speech Washington had given as he left office, concerning involvement in foreign wars.
In 1826, after the William Morgan affair, Freemasonry suffered and became quite unpopular. However it was still a large part of the hidden hand behind national affairs, to which Ford seems to be oblivious. Perhaps he was oblivious because he himself was a Freemason. Thus he continues:
Masonry emerged unstained because it was guiltless of subversive purposes. A pseudo-Masonry, of French origin, given to atheistic and revolutionary purposes, strongly patronized by Jews, was the disturbing element, but all that the public was able to see was the Masonic similitude and not the Jewish hand. A recrudescence of this misrepresentation of the Masons occurred also in 1826, and from then until the other day, when the Leaders of American Jewry linked the name of Freemasonry with their own, the name of the Order has been unscathed.
Here we shall object to both the opinions of Henry Ford and Nesta Webster concerning British Masonry. First, we would assert that speculative masonry had its origins in Britain, and was exported to France during the exile of King James II. But, as we hope to have shown in our series on The Jews in Medieval Europe, speculative masonry merged alchemy, fascination with the Jewish Kaballah, and the objectives of the Talmud with a secret society organized in such a manner that nefarious agendas could be conducted while keeping most of the membership blind to those ultimate purposes.
Both Ford and Webster seem to miss the fact that England’s great revolution happened in the days of Cromwell, after which the Jews regained entry to England, the Bank of England was founded, and nearly two hundred years before they enjoyed emancipation on the Continent, they were able to act almost as they wished in Britain, albeit there were some final political restrictions which were lifted in the 19th century. So in England, Freemasonry did not need to act in the revolutionary manner which it did on the Continent in order to achieve its objectives. The Jews already had England in their pocket. In post-Revolution America, Jews hardly had any restrictions, and therefore no further revolution was needed. That is the only thing that sets British masonry apart, and that allows us to be deceived into the idea that there may be a “good” Freemasonry, while the rest of their doctrines as are just as much anti-Christian as those of the French and other lodges.
In truth, the Freemasons of Europe acted in the manner in which they did so that the same Jews could come to control the nations of Europe as they had already come to control England, and by 1913, America as well. After that, every nation that they cannot control they have employed America and England to help them destroy. Ford continues:
This is to serve notice on the leaders of American Jewry that this time they will not be permitted to hide behind the name of Masonry, nor will they be permitted to hold up the name of Masonry as a shield to blunt the darts or as an ally to share the shafts aimed at their subversive purposes. That game has succeeded twice in the United States; it will never succeed again. Freemasonry is not and never was implicated in what the Jewish cabal has had in mind. And Freemasons everywhere are aware of the facts.
Ford was aware of Jewish treachery. How committed a Freemason he was, we cannot tell. The question has been frequently asked, because of Henry Ford, as to whether a Freemason can actually be an “antisemite”. There should be no doubt that Freemasonry upholds Jewish ideals and Jewish objectives, which is seen throughout their own writing, from the universal concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity, to the proto-Zionist desire to rebuild Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem, and in its rituals, fables and oaths, Freemasonry consistently espouses Jewish and anti-Christian ideals. But perhaps Ford himself did not know enough to understand the Judaism in Freemasonry. So he continues:
It is a curious fact that just as the Jews have sought to operate through the Masons and then leave that Order to take the brunt of the ensuing assault, so also have they at times sought to operate through the Jesuits, playing the same trick with that name and Order. If the Jesuits and the Masons would compare notes, they could both report the same thing. Jews have sought to use both, and have been frustrated, although in consequence the names of both Orders have suffered for a time.
This is one of the coincidences between the Protocols and the facts: the Protocols express themselves as against both the Masons and the Jesuits, but willing to use both to attain Jewish purposes.
What Ford should ask is why Jews gain entry into and subvert both the Jesuits and the Freemasons so easily. Both organizations have served throughout their history as a mask for Jewry. If the ideals of either group were truly Christian, Jews would not so readily subvert them. He continues with another wrong conclusion:
Both these orders are well able to take care of themselves, once they know the key to the Jewish plan. But there is much information on these matters of which the public is not aware, and at a future date a study may be made of the historical efforts of the Jews to use and destroy Freemasonry. Such a study will be useful in showing how Jewish influence operated in a day when the people had no means of identifying it as Jewish. The people attacked the thing they saw, but what they saw was not the source of the element they opposed. Progress has been made at least to this extent, that nowadays, more than at any previous time, the world plan of the Jews is known and recognizable.
And we will let Ford leave his discussion of these things with only one further criticism: perhaps there would have been no speculative masonry without the Christian European fascination with the Kaballah, and the need of the Jews to have vehicles by which to indoctrinate their Gentiles with the precepts of their Talmud, and to better exercise political power before they could openly take a political role for themselves. Ford continues:
The main purpose of the present article, however, is to show the reader that the Jews have not been misrepresented, the means of showing this being a presentation of the Jews by a notable Jew whom the Jews are delighted to honor.
Now since Ford wrote this, we have seen the pattern time and again repeated, by which truth-telling Jews are introduced to Christian patriots, and it is always just a little truth mixed in with a multitude of lies. Again he continues:
Benjamin Disraeli, who was Earl of Beaconsfield and prime minister of Great Britain, was a Jew and gloried in it. He wrote many books, in a number of which he discussed his people in an effort to set them in a proper light. The British Government was not then so Jewish as it has since become, and Disraeli was easily one of the greatest figures in it.
The “proper light” is, however, a lie in itself. Here we are going to cite Arnold Leese’s work on Jewish Ritual Murder, where he wrote: “The motive of Ritual Murder of Christians by Jews is almost certainly hate. It is in fact the same motive that Disraeli admitted to be the cause of revolutionary activities against Gentile governments; to use his words (from Life of Lord George Bentinck, 1852): ’The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen Race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.’” So Disraeli, striving to set jews “in a proper light”, asserts that they are the people of God, and the “chosen race”, and even that Christendom owes to Jews its name, all three things which are among the biggest of historical lies.
Perpetuating these lies, so long as people believe them it does not matter how much truth he tells about treacherous Jewish behavior, because Christian will always have to assume that the Jews are good people, being “God’s people”. Disraeli is not perpetuating these lies for nought. He had as a good friend of his family notable Englishmen, and scholars such as Sharon Turner, and with the dawn of English archaeology in the Near East, the real Bible story was being discovered by such British scholars. So Disraeli was only safeguarding the interests of the Jews in England, who are really the children of the devil. Continuing with Henry Ford:
In his book, "Coningsby," there appears a Jewish character named Sidonia, in whose personality and through whose utterances, Disraeli sought to present the Jew as he would like the world to see him.
Sidonia first announces his race to young Coningsby by saying, "I am of that faith that the Apostles professed before they followed their Master," the only place in the whole book where the "faith" is mentioned. Four times, however; in the brief preface to the fifth edition, written in 1849, the term "race" is used in reference to the Jews.
Once again, we see Disraeli perpetuating the biggest of Jewish lies, and Ford does not dispute it even though he himself at the beginning of this very article referred to the “delusion that the Jews are Old Testament people.” In truth though, the Jews are Old Testament people: the Edomites and Canaanites of the Old Testament. He continues:
In the first conversation between these two, Sidonia reveals himself as a great lover of power, and discourses charmingly of the powerful men of history, ending in this way: "Aquaviva [sic Claudio Acquaviva] was General of the Jesuits, ruled every cabinet in Europe and colonized America before he was thirty-seven. What a career!" exclaimed the stranger (Sidonia), rising from his chair and walking up and down the room; "the secret sway of Europe!" (p. 120. The references are to Longman's edition published in 1919. The italics are ours.)
Taking up a study of the character of Sidonia the Jew, Disraeli the Jew begins to refer to the Jews as "Mosaic Arabs." If a modern writer were to describe the Jews thus, virtually as Arabs of the Mosaic persuasion, it would be denounced as another attempt at "persecution," but Disraeli did this a number of times, his purpose evidently being to give the Jew his proper setting as to his original position among the nations. Again he refers to them as "Jewish Arabs." Both of these terms may be found on page 209.
And here, while Ford had spoken of the “delusion that the Jews are Old Testament people”, being in conflict with himself he seems to endorse the idea that Jews are “Mosaic Arabs” as the “proper setting” and “original position” of the Jews among the nations. But since the word arab means mixed in the Hebrew language, and the original Israelites were White and had despised arabs, Disraeli’s truth-telling is actually absolute treachery. It is not truth at all. But we shall continue with Ford:
Disraeli also gives voice to the feeling, which every Jew has, that whoever opposes the Jew is doomed. This is a feeling which is strongly entrenched in Christians also, that somehow the Jews are the "chosen people" and that it is dangerous to oppose them in anything. "The fear of the Jews" is a very real element in life. It is just as real among the Jews as among non-Jews. The Jew himself is bound in fear to his people, and he exercises the fear of the curse throughout the sphere of religion -- "I will curse them that curse thee." It remains to be proved, however, that opposition to the destructive tendencies of Jewish influences along all the principal avenues of life is a "cursing" of the Jews. If the Jews were really Old Testament people, if they were really conscious of a "mission" for the blessing of all nations, the very things in which they offend would automatically disappear. If the Jew is being "attacked," it is not because he is a Jew, but because he is the source and life of certain tendencies and influences, which, if they are not checked, mean the destruction of a moral society.
Perhaps it is to Ford’s credit that he judged the Jews by the content of their character. But we see Ford disconnect the Jews from the promises to Abraham based merely on their behavior, and then imagines that they have the capacity to change that behavior. So in essence, he too is admitting that the Jews are the people of the Old Testament, but that they are not “Old Testament people” merely because they behave badly. So Henry Ford is not as awakened to the treachery of the Jews as much as we may have hoped, and by promoting Disraeli’s truth-telling, he is unwittingly helping to promote even more grievous lies. He continues:
The persecution of the Jew to which Disraeli refers is that of the Spanish Inquisition, which rested on religious grounds. Tracing the Sidonia family through a troubled period of European history, our Jewish author notes:
"During the disorders of the Peninsular War *** a cadet of the younger branch of this family made a large fortune by military contracts, and supplying the commissariat of the different armies." (p.212.) Certainly. It is a truth unassailable, applicable to any period of the Christian Era, that "persecuted" or not, "wars have been the Jews' harvests." They were the first military commissaries. If this young Sidonia in supplying "the different armies" went so far as to supply the opposing armies, he would be following quite perfectly the Jewish method as history records it.
Military commissaries were around before the time of Moses, however it is true that modern Jews have always been military commissaries. But in ancient times they were Canaanites, a name which even became synonymous to the real Hebrews for merchant.
The Spanish Inquisition did not rest on religious grounds. Rather, it rested on the fact that Jews who converted to Christianity under pretense and in order to gain the privileges of Christians, continued to act as Jews and had even greater leverage by which to oppress Christians. So the Spanish Inquisition rested on reacting to Jewish treachery, but Ford himself is unwittingly helping them once again by his poor characterization of its causes. So here it is Ford who is “misrepresenting” the Jews. Returning to Ford:
"And at the peace, prescient of the great financial future of Europe, confident in the fertility of his own genius, in his original views of fiscal subjects, and his knowledge of natural resources, this Sidonia *** resolved to emigrate to England, with which he had, in the course of years, formed considerable commercial connections. He arrived here after the peace of Paris, with his large capital. He stakes all that he was worth on the Waterloo loan; and the event made him one of the greatest capitalists in Europe."
This is known to be true, to a degree, in relation to Nathan Mayer Rothschild, upon whose life the book was said to have been based. Ford continues to quote from it:
"No sooner was Sidonia established in England than he professed Judaism ***"
"Sidonia had foreseen in Spain that, after the exhaustion of a war of twenty-five years, Europe must require capital to carry on peace. He reaped the due reward of his sagacity. Europe did require money and Sidonia was ready to lend it to Europe. France wanted some; Austria more: Prussia a little; Russia a few millions. Sidonia could furnish them all. The only country which he avoided was Spain ***" (p. 213.)
Ford will ignore the fact that the Jews instigated these wars, but we digress… he continues:
Here the prime minister of Great Britain, from the wealth of his traditions as a Jew and the height of his observation as prime minister, describes the method of the Jew in peace and war, exactly as others have tried to describe it. He puts forward the same set of facts as others put forth, but he does it apparently for the Jews' glorification, while others do it to enable the people to see what goes on behind the scenes in war and peace. Sidonia was ready to lend money to the nations. But where did he get it, in order to lend it? He got it from the nations when they were at war! It was the same money; the financiers of war and the financiers of peace are the same, and they are The International Jews, as Benjamin Disraeli's book for the glorification of Jewry amply testifies. Indeed, he testifies on the same page just quoted:
"It is not difficult to conceive that, after having pursued the career we have intimated for about ten years, Sidonia had become one of the most considerable personages in Europe. He had established a brother, or a near relative, in whom he could confide, in most of the principal capitals. He was lord and master of the money market of the world, and of course virtually lord and master of everything else."
It is also true that this was the tactic of Rothschild, after he came to prominence among the bankers of England.
This comes as near [to] being the International Jew as anything can be, but the Jews glory in the picture. It is only when a non-Jewish writer suggests that perhaps it is not good for society that a Jewish coterie should be "lord and master of the money market of the world," and as a consequence "lord and master of everything else," that the cry of "persecution" arises.
Here Ford’s conclusion is good, but he allowed a river of lies to procure a trickle of truth that honest men could find without the help of a Disraeli. Continuing with Ford:
Strangely enough, it is in this book of the British premier that we come upon his recognition of the fact that Jews had infiltrated into the Jesuits' order. "Young Sidonia was fortunate in the tutor whom his father had procured for him, and who devoted to his charge all the resources of his trained intellect and vast and various erudition. A Jesuit before the revolution; since then an exiled Liberal leader; now a member of the Spanish Cortes; Rebello was always a Jew. He found in his pupil that precocity of intellectual development that is characteristic of the Arabian organization." (p. 214.)
There were many Rebellos in Europe up to that point in history. But it is true, that Jews are Arabs. But Jews are neither Israelites nor Hebrews, and to completely expose the Jews, the true history of their origins must be exposed as well. They infiltrated ancient Judaea just as they later infiltrated every nation in Europe, They infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church through the Jesuits as well as other avenues, and it is amazing that even intelligent men very often do not see the pattern. Continuing with Ford:
Then followed in young Sidonia's career an intellectual mastery of the world. He traveled everywhere, sounded the secrets of everything, and returned with the world in his vest pocket, so to speak – a man without illusions of any sort.
"There was not an adventurer in Europe with whom he was not familiar. No minister of state had such communication with secret agents and political spies as Sidonia. He held relations with all the clever outcasts of the world. The catalog of his acquaintances in the shape of Greeks, Armenians, Moors, secret Jews, Tartars, Gypsies, wandering Poles and Carbonari [a secret society of 19th century Italy], would throw a curious light on those subterranean agencies of which the world in general knows so little, but which exercise so great an influence on public events *** The secret history of the world was his pastime. His great pleasure was to contrast the hidden motive with the public pretext, of transactions." (pp. 218-219.)
Here is The International Jew, full dress; he is the Protocolist too, wrapped in mystery, a man whose fingers sweep all the strings of human motive, and who controls the chief of the brutal forces – Money. If a non-Jew had limned [the verb limn is archaic, and means to draw or depict something, whether in art or in words] a Sidonia, so truthfully showing the racial history and characteristics of the Jews, he would have been subjected to that pressure which the Jews apply to every truth-teller about themselves. But Disraeli could do it, and one sometimes wonders if Disraeli was not, after all, writing more than a romance, writing indeed a warning for all who can read.
We would rather believe that Disraeli is writing a boast that he hoped would serve as a warning, with the motive of making Jews out to be the all-powerful people of God who cannot fail in their quest for world dominion, and Ford himself is buying the story. In truth, Jews only have power when Christians follow them in their sin. When Christians ever repent, there is an assurance that the Jew is going to be completely and utterly destroyed. Back to Ford:
The quotation just given is not the description of Sidonia only; it is also a description – save for the high culture of it – of certain American Jews who, while they walk in the upper circles, have commerce with the "adventurers" and with "the secret agents and political spies," and with the "secret Jews," and with those "subterranean agencies of which the world in general knows so little."
This is the strength of Jewry, this commerce between the high and the low, for the Jew knows nothing disreputable within the circle of Jewishness. No Jew becomes an outcast, whatever he may do; a place and a work await him, whatever his character.
There are highly placed persons in New York who would rather not have it known what they contributed to the "adventurer" who left New York to overturn Russia; there are other Jews who would rather not have it printed how much they know of "secret agents and political spies." Disraeli did more than draw Sidonia; he portrayed The International Jew as he is found also in America.
Thus far Sidonia is described from the outside. But now he begins to speak for himself, and it is in behalf and praise of the Jews. He is discussing the discrimination practiced against his people in England. It is the old story. Everywhere, even in the United States, the same story. Crying for pity while usurping power! "We poor Jews" wails a New York multi-millionaire at whose finger legislators quail and even Presidents of the United States grow respectful.
The following quotation was written in 1844: Britons must be impressed with its uncanny parallel to their affairs today: it is Sidonia speaking –
"*** yet, since your society has become agitated in England, and powerful combinations menace your institutions, you find the once loyal Hebrew invariably arrayed in the same ranks as the leveller and latitudinarian, and prepared to support the policy which may even endanger his life and property, rather than tamely continue under a system which seeks to degrade him."
Once again, Jews are not Hebrews. Society in England did at times become agitated, however in England the agitation was always restrained. We would posit the opinion that if perhaps English society never became agitated, then the Jews who run England would not have been able to conceal their hand in all of the treachery which had been occurring on the Continent. Ford continues:
Consider that. "Latitudinarianism" is the doctrine of the Protocols in a word. It is a break-up by means of a welter of so-called "liberal" ideas which construct nothing themselves, but have power to destroy the established order.
Note also Disraeli's answer to the question sometimes asked, "If the Jews suffer under Bolshevism, why do they support it?" or the Jewish spokesmen's form of it -- "If we are so powerful, why do we suffer in the disorder of the world?" The disorder is always a step to a new degree of Jewish power. Jews suffer willingly for that. But even so, they do not suffer as the non-Jews do. The Soviets permit relief to enter Russia for the Jews. In Poland, the "starving war-sufferers" are able to glut all available ships in taking high-priced passage to America. They are not suffering as other people are, but, as Disraeli sees, they are willing to suffer because they see in every breakdown of Gentile society a new opportunity for the Jewish power to dig nearer to the central seat of power.
Just how the Jew works to break down the established order of things, by means of ideas, as the Protocols claim, is shown in this same conversation of Sidonia: "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."
If these words had been written by a non-Jew, the cry of anti-Semitism would ring through the land. They are true, neither more nor less true, because written by a Jew. And Sidonia adds:
"And every generation they must become more powerful and more dangerous to the society that is hostile to them." (These quotations from page 249.)
Well, several generations have passed since these words were written. The Jew still regards every form of non-Jewish society as hostile to him. He organizes strongly against society. And, if Disraeli is to be taken as a prophet, his words remain -- "they must become more powerful and more dangerous." They have become more powerful. Whoso would measure the danger, look around.
Disraeli was not a prophet any more than the Protocols were a prophecy. Rather, he too, in his own way, was boasting of Jewish power and the warning is only evident when the Gentiles notice it, but it is always already too late – just like the Russian prince had told Sergei Nilus that it was too late by the time he had first read the Protocols. Ford continues:
Let the charming Sidonia proceed with his revelations:
"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."
It will be remembered that Sidonia held no governmental position. The time had not come for that. Power was exercised behind the scenes long before the craving for the spotlight was gratified. But whether there be Jews in office or not, the power they exercise behind the scenes is always greater than the power they show in the open. It can be seen, therefore, that the more numerous they are in office, the greater their secret power. Sidonia continues:
"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 favor of the Polish Hebrew, a numerous race, but the most suffering and degraded of all the tribes, have 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.
Perpetuating the lie that the Jews are Hebrews, along with the boastful admission that Jews are the ministers of finance even in Russia, a nation typically hostile to Jews. Back to Ford:
"The loan was connected with the affairs of Spain; I resolved on repairing to Spain from Russia. I traveled 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.
Disraeli was one such “new Christian”, a baptized Jew, which was the polite colloquial term for conversos in Spain. Otherwise, more fittingly they were called Marranos.
"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 ***"
If Sidonia were traveling today he would find whole groups of Jews, where, in his day, he found one, and he would find them in exalted places. Suppose Disraeli were alive today and should revise "Coningsby," including the United States in the tour of this money master of the world! What a host of Jewish names he could gather from official circles in Washington and New York – such a host, indeed, as makes the occasional Gentile look like a foreigner who had been graciously permitted to come in by the Jews!
There were at least a million and a half Jews in New York, and a great number of them in positions of power, when Ford wrote this. To continue:
"The consequence of our consultations was, that some 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 Arnim entered the cabinet, and I beheld a Prussian Jew."
Hitler complained of the many intermarriages between the Prussian nobility and the Jews, which evidently precipitated the short-lived Prussian rise to the hegemony of Europe in the 19th century. And those who had the visible rule, Otto von Bismarck as well as Wilhelm I, were both Freemasons. Ford continues:
Sidonia's comment upon all this is offered as an address to every reader of this article: "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." (pp. 251-252.)
It is indeed! Why not let the world see behind the scenes for a little?
But this is nothing new. It is actually a circumstance as old as time itself, and it was only recent with the rise of humanism and the disintegration of Christianity in northern Europe. But even under the popes, Jews and Conversos frequently had undue control and influence. As it says in the Revelation, the dragon gives its power to the beast, and it is no different today. Ford continues:
And now for the most illuminating lines Disraeli ever wrote – lines which half compel the thought that maybe, after all, he was writing to warn the world of Jewish ambition for power:
"You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews. That mysterious Russian Diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organized and principally carried on by Jews. That mighty revolution which is at the moment preparing in Germany, and which will be in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews." (p. 250.)
American Jews say that the Protocols are inventions. Is Benjamin Disraeli an invention? Was this Jewish Prime Minister of Great Britain misrepresenting his people? Are not his portrayals taken as true history? And what does he say?
He shows that in Russia, the very country where the Jews complained they were least free, the Jews were in control.
He shows that the Jews know the technique of revolution, foretelling in his book the revolution that later broke out in Germany. How did he foreknow it? Because that revolution was developing under the auspices of Jews, and, though it was then true that "so little is yet known in England," Disraeli the Jew knew it, and knew it to be Jewish in origin and development and purpose.
Disraeli the Jew knew it, because he was an agent of the Rothschilds who bought and paid for it. Disraeli was not truth-telling, but rather he was boasting and hoping to signal Jewish power to his readers in a way that would put the whole world in “fear of the Jews”, so that no man would rise against them. So he made not a prophecy, but rather he revealed part of a plan, so that when it happened, his readers would indeed be in fear. Ford continues:
One point is sure: Disraeli told the truth. He presented his people before the world with correctness. He limns Jewish power, Jewish purpose, and Jewish method with a certainty of touch that betokens more than knowledge – he shows racial sympathy and understanding. He sets forth the facts which this series is setting forth. Why did he do it? Was it boastfulness, that dangerous spirit in which the Jew gives up most of his secrets? Or was it conscience, impelling him to tell the world of Judah's designs?
No matter; he told the truth. He is one man who told the truth without being accused of "misrepresenting" the Jews.
[The Dearborn Independent, issue of 18 December 1920]
Notice that Sidonia is named for Sidon, one of the foremost of the cities of the ancient Canaanites. So even his character was named for his true ancestors.
What is true, is that there are no good Jews, and there are no “truth-telling” Jews. When a Jew moves his lips, he is lying, even if he tells the truth in order to perpetuate a greater lie, or to create a false impression. And even Henry Ford didn’t catch it. A bad tree cannot possibly produce good fruit, and the fruit of the Jews has been absolutely rotten for all generations. Couldn’t even Henry Ford see the pattern?
Disraeli told a little truth, but with it he perpetuated a multitude of lies, and it is the acceptance of those lies that continues to keep the Jews in power. When the mask is pulled off, only then can Christians even begin to overcome the devil. And with that we must say, that only Christian Identity pulls the mask from the Jew. But when will the fat and happy masses ever listen? Perhaps when they are no longer so fat, or so happy...