The Protocols of Satan, Part 27: The Nazis and the Protocols

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


The Protocols of Satan, Part 27: The Nazis and the Protocols

In our last presentation of these Protocols of Satan we took another long digression to discuss Feudalism, its counterpart in the medieval smallholder, or independent farmer, and the eventual consequences for the common man in the rise of Capitalism and the democratic revolutions of Europe. The average laborer was apparently much more of a slave to his new masters than he had ever been to the old nobility, just as the Protocols had boasted. Now we embark on a new point of discussion raised by the Protocols, and that is related to the substance of the democratic constitutions of newly “liberated” States. This latest point was raised as we continued to present Protocol No. 3 from the text of Boris Brasol’s publication The Protocols and World Revolution. Here we will read our subject paragraph once more:


Protocol No. 3:

We have included in constitutions rights which for the people are fictitious and are not actual rights. All the so-called "rights of the people" can exist only in the abstract and can never be realized in practice. What difference does it make to the toiling proletarian, bent double by heavy toil, oppressed by his fate, that the babblers receive the right to talk, journalists the right to mix nonsense with reason in their writings, if the proletariat has no other gain from the constitution than the miserable crumbs which we throw from our table in return for his vote to elect our agents. Republican rights are bitter irony to the poor man, for the necessity of almost daily labor prevents him from using them, and at the same time deprives him of his guarantee of a permanent and certain livelihood by making him dependent upon strikes, organized either by his masters or by his comrades.

Reading this, we wanted to examine some of the constitutions of 19th century Europe, and we were quite disappointed that they were practically inaccessible. The Yale Law Library offers a reference to a German website which has archived copies of many European and other constitutions, but they are only publicly available in facsimile in their original languages. The website is operated by the German publishing company Walter de Gruyter GmbH, which publishes the work of certain German academics in this area of study. But subscription access to the texts costs hundreds of dollars, while the material is also found in books which they publish that cost thousands of dollars. Since we do not have access to university libraries, nor do we have appropriate funding, we will have to take other avenues of investigation.

Evidently, the study of European constitutions is one academic area that has been given little attention. That probably explains why the original source material which has been published is priced so dearly. We do not know much about Max Edling, except that he is the current Reader in Early American History at King’s College in London and has written several books on early American history with a special interest in the American constitution. Here is something he wrote in August of 2011 on the topic of constitutions for Oxford Bibliographies:


The age of Atlantic revolutions was also an age of constitution making. From Chile to Russia, from Norway to Malta, political reformers were everywhere busy writing new constitutions. An incomplete list includes more than six hundred constitutional propositions put forward by political reformers in the half century between 1775 and 1825. Yet it is only in the United States that constitutions have become an important field of historical investigation. As a result, the literature on constitutional history in the age of revolution is almost exclusively devoted to constitutional developments in the United States and the American colonies. Elsewhere, constitutional history is a dormant field. Robert Palmer placed constitutional developments at the center of his Age of Democratic Revolution, a work that was crucial to the evolution of Atlantic history, and there is no question that there was much exchange of constitutional documents around the Atlantic rim. Yet as a subfield of historical scholarship, Atlantic constitutional history can hardly be said to exist. One reason may be that the dividends from such investigations are difficult to determine. The adoption of a constitution says little about the evolution of constitutionalism, that is, the principle that legitimate political action is bounded by constitutional law. In most countries other than the United States, constitutionalism was established only long after the period that is conventionally covered by Atlantic history. Nevertheless, it is possible to perceive three fields of constitutional history that have a bearing on Atlantic history: Imperial history, the international history of the American founding, and the influence of U.S. constitutional principles abroad. This bibliography does not aim to furnish the means for comparative constitutional history; instead it provides an introduction to these three areas of inquiry and to the enormous literature on U.S. constitutional history.

General Overviews

Because constitution writing was a central part of the political upheavals of the late-18th- and early-19th-century age of revolutions, much of the literature on the American, French, and other revolutions are relevant to a constitutional history of the era. If Atlantic constitutional history means an attempt to link the events within nations to the Atlantic world, then the literature is very limited, however. Palmer 1959–1964 remains the essential starting point for an investigation of the exchange of constitutional ideas. Dippel 2005 provides a comparative constitutional history that takes the story into the 19th century. Hunt 2007 traces the long-term influence of the French Declaration of Man and Citizen globally. Most of the literature dealing with transnational constitutional influences studies the reception of U.S. documents and principles abroad and are listed under U.S. Constitutionalism in a Wider World. Kirsch 1999 analyzes the spread of the Napoleonic Constitution in 19th-century Europe. Constitutions of the World from the Late 18th Century to the Middle of the 19th Century is an international project that aims to publish not only every adopted constitution but also those that were drafted but not adopted in Africa, the Americas, and Europe from 1776 to 1849. It maintains a web page and publishes printed compilations of documents.

Here at the end of his short article, Edling promoted the website operated by De Gruyter’s which we had mentioned earlier. But our point is this, that even if we wanted to examine all of the European constitutions to test whether the boast of the Protocols rings true in this instance, it would be a very lengthy undertaking, and while Edling seems to provide a good starting point there seems to be only a handful of sources for the subject. But we will hopefully discuss this further as this series progresses.

In the meantime, because it discusses aspects of one historically significant European constitution at length, which is that of the Weimar Republic in Germany, we are going to present a translation of part of the Introduction to the 1938 National Socialist edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is from the German Propaganda Archive at Calvin College. We will present a significant portion of this document this evening, and then present the balance of it on another evening before continuing with our presentation of the Protocols. History would have been written quite differently, in the event of a German victory.

Adolf Hitler mentioned the Protocols in Volume 1 Chapter 11 [we errantly cited it as chapter 9 in the podcast] of Mein Kampf, which is subtitled Race and People. There he said that “How much the whole existence of this people is based on a permanent falsehood is proved in a unique way by 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', which are so violently repudiated by the Jews. With groans and moans, the Frankfurter Zeitung repeats again and again that these are forgeries. This alone is evidence in favour of their authenticity. What many Jews unconsciously wish to do is here clearly set forth. It is not necessary to ask out of what Jewish brain these revelations sprang; but what is of vital interest is that they disclose, with an almost terrifying precision, the mentality and methods of action characteristic of the Jewish people and these writings expound in all their various directions the final aims towards which the Jews are striving. The study of real happenings, however, is the best way of judging the authenticity of those documents. If the historical developments which have taken place within the last few centuries be studied in the light of this book we shall understand why the Jewish Press incessantly repudiates and denounces it. For the Jewish peril will be stamped out the moment the general public come into possession of that book and understand it.” Of course, the proof that Hitler was right is all around us today.

The translator of this introduction to the National Socialist publication of the Protocols, Calvin College Professor Randall Bytwerk, is not friendly to National Socialism, and neither does he believe that the Protocols are authentic. Rather, he accepts the usual excuses and deflections of the Jews that claim that they are some sort of “forgery”. In a blog post on another site where the translator announced his publication of this work, he said that “My current project is a study of the uses to which the Nazis put the astonishing forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That document purports to be the records of a secret Jewish conclave that discussed progress in the Jewish campaign to take absolute world power. It is popular today in the Arab world (Egyptian television apparently did a series based on it), but even in the United States there are adherents.” Where he published this introduction to the Protocols, he made similar statements in a summary of the background of the document, which we are about to present. However in spite of his biases, we are persuaded that Mr. Bytwerk has performed a valuable task in his endeavor to translated much of the National Socialist literature for English readers.

Here is his summary and translation:

Background: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of the most astonishing documents in history. Although proven repeatedly to be forged it is still widely available today, and many (particularly in the Arab world) believe in it completely. It is supposedly the record of a meeting of Jewish leaders late in the nineteenth century to review their progress in gaining world domination. The Wikipedia article on the Protocols provides a good summary (at least it does as I write...).

Although there was sufficient evidence that the Protocols were forged by the early 1920’s, Hitler took them seriously, as did Goebbels and the Nazi propaganda system.

This is the introduction to the 1938 Nazi edition of the Protocols published by the Eher Verlag, the official party publishing house. I’ve not been able to determine the number of copies printed, but since the 1938 edition was the 22nd printing it was surely in the millions.

The source: Die Geheimnisse der Weisen von Zion, 22nd edition (Munich: Eher Verlag, 1938).

Introduction to 1938 Nazi edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The statements about Jewry’s plans for world domination brought together in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have had an enormous political impact of an educational nature about Jewry. Through them, thousands and thousands of people have been made aware of the corrupting character of Jewish thought and action. They then reach for other writings or watch their “citizens of the Jewish faith” more carefully and find confirmed the basic points of the Protocols. Hardly any other book has so aroused the hatred of Jewry, which attempts to destroy or defame the Protocols with all available methods.

World Jewry attempted to strike a decisive blow against this highly dangerous incriminating document before a court in Berne, Switzerland. The “Swiss-Israelite Federation” and the “Jewish Religious Society” brought suit in July 1933 against a Swiss bookseller who had sold the Protocols. The timing of the case alone proves that the Jews were launching a political attack on National Socialist Germany. The same goal was served by a case World Jewry brought before an international court in Cairo (the so-called Cairo trial), which like the battle about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion resulted in a major defeat for the Jews in their battle against National Socialism outside of Germany. The trial about the Protocols ended before the Berne court on 14 May 1935 after becoming a huge case. Experts were called and Jewish witnesses from around the world testified. Prominent witnesses for the defense, however, were not allowed to testify. The one-sided pro-Jewish nature of the trial found clear expression in the verdict. After all the effort, the defendant Silvio Schnell had to pay a fine of 20 francs and fellow defendant Fischer was fined 50 francs for distributing an anti-Semitic book. Such small fines were in contrast to the costs of the trial, 27,000 francs, which after the first trial were charged to the two defendants. This grotesque difference between the absurdly small fines — when compared to the importance of the legal issue — and the size of the court costs charged to the defendants shows the uncertainty of the judge, and probably the fact that the judge was not convinced of the “falsity” of the Protocols or that it was immoral literature.

We had discussed the Berne trials at length from the account given by Dr. Karl Bergmeister in the very first parts of our presentation of the Protocols of Satan. Continuing with our source:

The Jews wanted to conduct a propaganda campaign against anti-Semitism at the cost of several anti-Semites, and one particularly aimed at National Socialist Germany. They found a judge who — if perhaps somewhat hesitantly — followed their political desires. He ruled in 1935 that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Theodor Fritsch’s edition) was immoral literature and violated the 1916 “Law on Movie Theaters and Measures against Immoral Literature.” He banned it in Berne Canton.

We will go into more detail on the Jewish conception of immoral literature later. Here we need only give the grounds for the acquittal after appeal to the Berne Supreme Court on 1 November 1937 to reveal the Jews’ political maneuvering. Judge Peter issued a carefully worded but sharp ruling about the decision by the lower court. He ruled that the lower court judge had improperly handled the testimony about the genuineness of the Protocols. Since the parties involved selected the experts, confidence in their testimony was shaken. The so-called unbiased expert Loosli (who used every opportunity to support the Jewish position) was not impartial. He had already written in a polemic, unscientific manner about the authenticity of the Protocols and one could only assume that the lower court judge was unaware of that. He was warned to be more careful about such testimony in the future. Furthermore, the expert testimony was entirely irrelevant. A possibly forged text was not necessarily immoral literature and an accurate text could nonetheless be immoral. The nature of the text was determined only by its content and form. Whether or not the Protocols was a forgery — as maintained by the plaintiffs — was therefore irrelevant. The only question was whether the Protocols was, as claimed, immoral literature. The law did not define the term precisely. One probably intended literature of no or limited value that met certain criteria contained in the law. Whether the material was distributed in the hope of making a profit was irrelevant.

Even if the Protocols was able to make its readers into opponents of the Jews, it would be going too far to claim that the Protocols encouraged or led to criminal behavior. If there were in fact attacks on Jews in Switzerland, it could not be proven that reading the Protocols caused them, nor that reading the Protocols was likely to encourage such behavior. The court believed that there were other causes. One could not, therefore, say that the Protocols endangered morality. The federal court stated that a text could not be banned “because it contained material unpleasant for the Jews.”

One may conclude from the acquittal that the task of a court is not to determine whether the Protocols is genuine or a forgery. That, we can conclude from the judge’s ruling, is the task of historical scholarship.

World Jewry’s political maneuver against National Socialist Germany thereby collapsed. Truth and justice triumphed. For the Jewish Religious Society in Berne, however, the decision brought back the question of paying for the witness and expert testimony. To persuade the judge of the lower court to turn his courtroom into a center of Jewish propaganda, they had pledged to cover the costs. After the defendants were freed not only from their fines, but also from the court costs, Berne’s Jews had to pay themselves for their political insanity of 1933.

So much for the trial that brought the Protocols to the attention of the world once again, in part because of Jewish propaganda itself. Its outcome not only reduced the suspicion that the Protocols was a forged and immoral document, but also made clear that the origin of the Protocols was not a matter to be determined by a court, but rather by historical scholarship. This is a matter worth great effort, but it must be said that outside of Germany only a few scholars have the necessary intellectual and physical resources. The majority of scholars are unable to study the matter because for most countries the Jewish question is raised only rarely because of Jewish power over the press and scholarship. Furthermore, in countries outside Germany the physical requirements are lacking, since studying the history of the Protocols is a scholarly task of international scope for which thorough and detailed investigation has to be conducted throughout the world, or at least in Europe and America. And above all, this scholarly work must be conducted in the archives of a country in which Jewry has absolute control, Soviet Russia.

Why Russia? The history and spread of the Protocols up to this edition proves why. The oldest reliable evidence of the Protocols is contained in the Russian magazine Snamja, published in 1903. In 1905, or at the latest 1906, a text by Georg Butmi titled The Roots of Our Troubles appeared in St. Petersburg. By 1907 the third edition was titled The Enemies of Humanity (St. Petersburg, 1907). Besides Butmi, the text was also published in 1905 by the Russian Sergei Alexandrovitsch Nilus as an appendix to the second edition of his book The Great in the Small: The Antichrist as a Coming Political Possibility. Further editions of this book appeared in 1911, 1912, and 1917. There is a copy of the 1905 edition at the British Museum in London. The third printing of Nilus’s 1911 edition was translated into German and published by Colonel Müller von Hanson under the pen name Gottfried zur Beck with his Auf Vorposten publishing firm. The rights were transferred to the Zentralverlag der NSDAP, Franz Eher, in Munich in 1929. [The publisher of the original of this edition.]

Since any reasonable person will grant the impossibility of researching the origin of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Jewdified Soviet Russia, we will have to limit ourselves in this introduction to examining the accuracy of the Protocols on the basis of evidence provided by the Jews within Germany. We want to choose several of the many individual paragraphs and sections from the Protocols for which there is frightening evidence from Jewish literature, particularly from the post-war period, that shows how they have been followed and realized. They differ from the statements in the Protocols only in form and in changes in the language from the turn of the century to the post-war period. The unbiased reader will recognize from these citations that Jewry has worked with even greater force in corrupting the German part of European culture than is evidenced in the Protocols. During the post-war period the Jews had unlimited freedom in Germany, and it seemed to them to be the beginning of Jewish domination of the German people such that they displayed openly and plainly their drive for power. Whenever the Jew speaks or acts as a Jew, his statements or acts will be shown to be consistent with the theses of the Protocols.

Since the betrayal of the German soldiers at the front and the resulting beginning of parliamentary domination is at the opening of the post-war period, we will begin with the section of the Protocols titled “universal suffrage”:

“To secure this we must have everybody vote without distinction of classes and qualifications in order to establish an absolute majority, which cannot be gotten from the educated classes alone.” [Protocol 10]

The history of the World War and the post-war period in Germany alone provides an impressive collection of evidence such that one can speak of strict adherence to and systemic realization of a carefully thought-through plan. We have to limit ourselves here to a few convincing examples. The overwhelming role played by “German” Jews in treason and agitation against Germany during the war can be seen in a book by “a French journalist” titled Behind the Scenes of French Journalism (Berlin, 1925). In it a Jewish puppeteer, the American financial Jew Otto Kahn, reveals this dishonorable and filthy business:

“The Freie Zeitung was established in Berne, a newspaper of the worst sort. It employed journalists with rather broad consciences such as Grelling (the author of J’accuse and similar writings; [Jew, the editor]), Röselmaier, Fernau [a Jew, the editor], Edward Stilgebauer (author of the novel The Ship of Death, which portrayed the torpedoing and sinking of a huge ship in gruesome detail). They were under the direction of the Maison de las Presse (in Paris) and twisted the facts intentionally, subtly selecting documents and discovering bloodthirsty German atrocities. The Swiss government was powerless. It should not be forgotten that the well-known American banker Otto Kahn [a Jew, the editor] contributed $50,000 to establish the Freie Zeitung.

Otto Kahn was partners with Jacob Schiff and the Warburg brothers in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Of course, the Jews love to spread the false report that Kuhn, Loeb & Co. had financed the Nazis, but here in a National Socialist publication from 1938 we see that the Nazis had no kind words for Otto Kahn, who died in 1934. Continuing with our source:

That is how Jewry worked against a strong Germany that was determined to resist. In Germany itself, the Jews Alfred H. Fried, Alfred Einstein, Eduard Bernstein, privy councilor Witting-Witkowski, Wulfsohn, Siegfried Balder, Magnus Hirschfield, Dr. Oskar Cohn, Hugo Haase, Kurt Eisner, among whom Maximilian Harden (Wikowski) particularly stands out. Even before the war they worked hard to bring down the monarchy. Their racial comrade Max Reinhardt said:

“If one could trace the important events of this period to their origin, one would have to admit that all the threads led to a single man in Grunewald. Whatever the results of the great upheavals of the present may be, later observers will have to conclude that he was their cause.” (Maximilian Harden on 20 October).

After the war and in the midst of Germany’s greatest poverty, Harden celebrated his triumph in an unsurpassable hate-filled way:

“It [Germany, the editor] may regain its rights only when it has the courageous dignity, even before tramps, to admit its injustice.” (Zukunft, 1919, I, p. 328).

No worse an infernal monstrosity of Jewish thinking can be found in the Protocols. It corresponds to the practical proposals in the conclusion of the London Plan to impose war debts on Germany through trusts and later the Dawes Plan:

“Germany’s first task in the consortium [the trust, the editor], as debtor to its creditors, as the defeated to the victors, is to provide all necessary means for building up Russia, experts, technicians, skilled labor, tools and finished products, which will help it, along with the industry in Northern France and English and American commerce, to recover.” (Zukunft, Nr. 23, 4.3.1922).

Die Zukunft (The Future), was a German social-democratic weekly publication which ran from 1892 to 1923, and was founded and edited by the Jew Maximilian Harden. Harden’s real name was Felix Ernst Witkowski and he was born to a Jewish merchant in Berlin. He went to the Lake of Fire in 1927. Continuing with our source:

These facts and evidences give a picture of wide-spread Jewish efforts against Germany’s will to resist wherever it was to be found. It was the preliminary work for the Weimar Constitution, created by the Jew Hugo Preuß. It followed the Protocols’ call to establish “the absolute power of the majority” down to the smallest detail.

Hugo Preuß, or Preuss, is indeed credited with a draft version of the constitution that was passed by the Weimar National Assembly and enacted in August 1919. But Adolf Hitler seems to have had a different idea of how that constitution really came into existence. So he wrote in Volume 2, Chapter 12 of Mein Kampf that:

It is out of the question to think that a scheme for the Constitution of a State can be pulled out of a portfolio at a moment's notice and 'introduced' by imperative orders from above. One may try that kind of thing but the result will always be something that has not sufficient vitality to endure. It will be like a stillborn infant. The idea of it calls to mind the origin of the Weimar Constitution and the attempt to impose on the German people a new Constitution and a new flag, neither of which had any inner relation to the vicissitudes of our people's history during the last half century.

In another context, discussing agitation in Bavaria against Prussia, Hitler said in Volume 2, Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf “For the abuse and attacks of these so-called federalists were not levelled against the fathers of the Weimar Constitution – the majority of whom were South Germans or Jews – but against those who represented the old conservative Prussia, which was the antipodes [or direct opposite] of the Weimar Constitution.”

Earlier in Mein Kampf, in Volume 2 Chapter 10, which is subtitled The Mask of Federalism, Hitler spoke of disenchantment among the people and the hostility aroused by laws designed to protect an otherwise failed Republic from the dissatisfaction of its people, where he wrote in part:

The lack of sympathy for the political idea embodied in the Reich is not due to the loss of sovereign rights on the part of the individual states. It is much more the result of the deplorable fashion in which the present régime cares for the interests of the German people. Despite all the celebrations in honour of the national flag and the Constitution, every section of the German people feels that the present Reich is not in accordance with its heart's desire. And the Law for the Protection of the Republic may prevent outrages against republican institutions, but it will not gain the love of one single German. In its constant anxiety to protect itself against its own citizens by means of laws and sentences of imprisonment, the Republic has aroused sharp and humiliating criticism of all republican institutions as such.

So Germany had its equivalent to the Patriot Act perhaps as many as 95 years ago. Continuing with our source, the introduction to the National Socialist publication of the Protocols:

The importance to the Jews of “creating” new constitutions that affirm the absolute power of the majority is proven by the surprising fact that nearly all German “democratic” and “republican” constitutions have Jewish paternity. The creators of the first Reich constitution were the Jew Gabriel Riesler and Johann Jacoby. The former was “Reorganizer” of the Democratic Party of Prussia and spokesman for international democracy, the latter one of the most prominent attorneys in the “German Citizens of the Mosaic Faith.” They along with their baptized racial comrade Eduard von Simson created the first German Reich constitution. That same revolutionary year 1848, the Jewish demagogue Adolf Fischhof prepared a “representative constitution” in Vienna. It demanded complete freedom of the press, which means the unrestrained incitement of public opinion, the abolition of the death penalty, and “absolute majority rule.” It was followed exactly in the republican federal constitution of German-Austria, which was the work of the Jew Kelsen. And the Weimar Constitution of the German Republic not only agreed with the demands of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but was prepared by an exclusively Jewish committee. The Jew Paul Nathan published the following details about the history of this constitution in the newspaper Vorwärts, edited by his racial comrade Stampfer (who himself wrote on 20.10.1918, Nr. 289 [that]: “As socialists, our firm will for Germany is that it should lower its war flag forever without having brought it home the last time in victory.”):

“Late that fall Hugo Preuß, who usually did pay visits, surprised me by coming to my home and said:

‘Ebert has asked me to draft the German Reich constitution. Should I do it? And I instantly replied: ‘Naturally, if you are guaranteed a free hand.’ An hour later we were with...

...Theodor Wolff of the Berliner Tageblatt. Soon we were joined by...

...Witting, Maximilian Harden’s brother....

...and all of us whom Preuß had brought together...

were agreed that Preuß — as long as his independence was assured — should agree to Ebert’s request and had to do it. Thus Preuß moved from Jerusalem-Strasse to Wilhelm-Strasse.” ( Vorwärts, 9. 10. 1925).

From Jerusalem-Straße to Wilhelm-Straße! With that began the rule of the Jewish spirit over Germany in the preparation of the Reich constitution, the law under which all Germans were to live.

Knowing these facts, one can understand why the Jews were so happy after the successful “German revolution,” as they called the November revolt of 1918. In the “serious” Jewish magazine Der Jude we find an article not from the pen of a favorite author, but rather from the editors of this magazine itself. It represented a broad circle of the Jews in Germany, and displayed a spirit absolutely identical with the Protocols:

“The German revolution is the first powerful phase of the beginning of the liquidation of war, and this phase shows the scale and effects the individual phases of this liquidation will have. For us Jews the concluding phase of the war will be of enormous significance, determining the future perhaps even more than the years of the war itself.”

This statement was stressed once again in an unmistakable sentence:

“We were not deeply involved in the war.”

Then followed a genuinely Jewish interpretation of the November revolt and a prophesy about the post-war period that, as we learned, turned out to be all too true:

“We will feel bound to it [the age, the editor] and the ideas guiding it, and with the goals for which it is striving. It will set spirit against force, justice against power, peace between the peoples against war between the peoples, and we will know that Jewish ethos and Jewish pathos are at work. An age of the breakthrough of the Jewish spirit in the world comes once more, an age in which humanity moves forward to save itself. How could we stand aside when other peoples are transforming their lives? We will also experience this age in a positive and affirming way, fully aware that we are the children of the prophets.”

More precisely, the Jews are the children of the profits. They have no true positive connection to ancient Israelites. By itself, the attitude expressed by this Jew proves that he is no child of the prophets, as a true Israelite would know that the race cannot save itself. In truth, the Jews are not at all related to the prophets.

Hidden behind these general phrases is the claim that after the work before and during the war, the future will be a Jewish age. In the following passage this is said openly, in a way that to us leads back to the theses of the Protocols:

“The collapse of these three powers [Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, the editor] in their old form means that Jewish policy is much easier to conduct. The fact that the same war that inaugurated a Jewish national policy recognized world-wide also led to the collapse of three great powers hostile to the Jews is a unique combination of events that may give one cause to think.” (Der Jude, v. 3, 1918/1919, p. 449 and following).

In truth these facts, but also the points of the Protocols we have mentioned agree, and after this and similar statements yet another point of the Protocols is relevant, the policy of hampering the resistance of non-Jews through war and a universal world war. It says:

“We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbors of that country which dares to oppose us: but if those neighbors should also venture to stand collectively against us, then we must offer resistance by a universal war.” [Protocol 8]

Those three states about whose defeat the Jewish magazine rejoices already had anti-Semitic groups in public life before the war that “resisted” the Jews. And after the war these three countries were the first to suffer, and suffer most terribly, as hostages of Jewish communism.

Before we go into further points from the Protocols from the same standpoint to see whether they were realized in post-war Germany, we must consider the accuracy of the statement in Der Jude that the coming age, the years after 1918, would be Jewish. The Jew Lucien Wolf, a leader of the English Jews, had unsurpassed insight into the political activities of his racial comrades. With cynical openness, he provided an eloquent, if not exhaustive, insight into the role of the Jews in international politics after the war, particularly those who devised the Peace Dictate [the Treaty of Versailles]. In his essay in the [Jewish Central Press of Zurich] Jüdische Preß-Zentrale Zürich he wrote:

“The great progress of the second decade of the twentieth century and its democratic consequences offers the possibility for a significant increase in diplomatic activity on the part of the Jews. During the war, two Jews who followed the example of those of their faith in the 16th and 17th centuries helped to defend against new attacks on Europe’s freedom and on the balance of power. Lord Reading ... and Baron Sonnino brought about the Treaty of London in 1915 that dissolved the three-party pact and led to Italy’s entrance into the war.

Other than these two men, we Jews had no leading diplomatic representatives during the war. However, numerous Jews were quickly employed in the newly-established intelligence and propaganda agencies that were part of all the foreign ministries, since they possessed the traditional broad cosmopolitan vision and could speak other languages. A significant but not widely known fact is that none of the warring nations knew how to properly use the Jews. The foreign ministries in London, Paris, and Berlin organized special Jewish departments that concentrated on the analysis of Jewish matters. The history of the competition between these departments with regards to Palestine, which Zionist leaders used so effectively, must still be written. From the beginning the Zionist leanings of London’s Foreign Office was clear. The head of the new Jewish Department, although not a Jew himself, shared the name of a cousin who was a famous diplomat, journalist, and writer, and who was a pioneer of the Zionist idea. The Jewish Departments in Paris and Berlin were headed by famous Jewish professors who were, however, lukewarm about Zionism. One was Professor Sylvain Levi, the eminent Sanskrit scholar and current president of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, the other Professor M. Sobernheim, also an eminent Orientalist. The British and French departments have been eliminated, but the Jewish Department on Wilhelmstraße is still functioning and remains under the leadership of Professor Sobernheim. In recognition of Professor Sylvain Levi’s services to the Quai d’Orsay, his son Daniel Levi was accepted into the distinguished circle of French diplomacy. He is currently consul in Bombay.”

Of course, where he said that “we Jews had no leading diplomatic representatives during the war”, Lucien Wolfe is being misleading. We have already discussed how the denizens of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, Otto Kahn, Jacob Schiff and the Warburg brothers, together with their overseas contacts and relatives, acted as a supranational force above all of the governments of the States that engaged in the war. The bankers did not need diplomats, except that perhaps the Jews sought an appearance of legitimacy for all of their treachery.

In the paragraph which follows, there is a parenthetical note informing us that a Jew named Oskar Strauß, known in America as Oscar Solomon Straus, represented Taft at Versailles. We do not know if the note belongs to the original publication, or to a later editor, or even to the translator. However Taft was not in any public capacity during Versailles, and as a still-active political figure he was at odds with the Wilson Administration at the time over the issue of Versailles. The only senior member of Wilson’s administration with an official capacity at Versailles was Edward Mandell House. Straus’ career is interesting in other aspects, however. Under Taft he was the ambassador to the Ottoman empire in 1909 and 1910. Before that, he served for over two years in the Roosevelt cabinet as Secretary of Commerce and Labor. But even earlier, he was an Envoy to the Ottoman Empire for Grover Cleveland from 1887 to 1889, and Minister to the Ottoman Empire for William McKinley in 1898 and 1899. If Strauß was at Versailles, it may have been with that contingent of Jews led by Louis Marshall, but it does not seem to have been for Taft, whose presidential term ended in 1913 with his election loss to Wilson and his Jewish backers.

Continuing with our source:

“Many Jews [were] in the background at the conference (Versailles, where Oskar Strauß represented Taft), ephemeral representatives of a future state that hoped for recognition from the great powers. Lithuania was represented by the Kowno attorney Rosenbaum who was an assistant to the foreign minister. The Ukraine delegated two Jews, the Kiev attorney Arnold Morgolin and Samuel Sarachi, a physician who had had a practice on London’s Whitechapel Road. We find the signatures of a small group of other outstanding Jews on the final act of the peace conference. Baron Sonnino signed the Treaty of Versailles for Italy, Edwin Montagu for India, Louis Klotz on behalf St. Germain for France, Auguste Isaac for Trianon (also for France). Several of these representatives were also signatories to the treaties with Poland, Rumania, and Czechoslovakia. The treaty with Poland was signed by no fewer than three Jews, Sonnino, Klotz, and Montagu, while the other two main treaties were signed by Klotz.”

“Diplomatic activity by Jews after the treaty can be discussed briefly. Europe (!) [rather Germany] had a Jewish foreign minister in the person of the deceased Walter Rathenau... Working closely with him was a Jewish ambassador, the very capable Dr. Lujo Hartmann, a historian who represented Austria in Berlin. In London, Mr. Henry Rabbinowitsch was chancellor of the new and fully recognized Lithuania. Until recently, the outstanding Russian-Jewish historian served in the same capacity in the legation of the Ukraine. Another outstanding historian, Professor Szymon Askenasi, is the chief of the Polish delegation to the League of Nations in Geneva. Both the Soviet government and the ephemeral military government that fought the Bolshevist usurpation had a number of Jewish diplomats. The most prominent among the bolshevists was Litvinov, the former ambassador to Great Britain and current assistant to Foreign Minister Kameneff, as was his successor in London, Radek, who was also the first Soviet ambassador in Berlin. Salkind and Rothstein served as Soviet ambassadors to Teheran. On the other side, the old Russian attorney and senator Vinaver severed as foreign minister in the government of General Denikin, while the well-known international jurist Mandelstamm represented the same government in Paris.”

At this time the White Army, the remnant of the Imperial Russian Army, was still a political force in Russia, where they held the Ukraine and parts of southern Russia until 1920, and also held much of far eastern Russia until 1923. Deniken was commander of Southern Russia from 1919. So here we see that Jews even infested the opposition government in Russia. Continuing with our source:

“In addition to those named above, others who should be mentioned include, among others: Judge Abram Elkus of New York, former American ambassador to Constantinople; Mark Hyman of New York, general consul of the U.S. Shipping Board; Max D. Kirjassof, American consul in Manchuria and the American consuls Samuel Sale and Samuel Sokobin in Kalgan (China). Furthermore, there was Jacques Georges Nunberg, first secretary of the Polish embassy in Berne, and Milan Schwarz, Southern Slavish consul in Zürich. There were also several prominent Jews among the delegates to the League of Nations.”

After this overview of the Jewdification of diplomacy from a professional Jewish pen, there can be no doubt that during this period “Jewish ethos and Jewish pathos” were at work and that the leadership of world affairs was almost entirely in the hands of the “children of the prophets.”

During the post-war period Germany experienced the realization of another point of the program: “The constitution as a school of party discord”:

“Liberalism replaced self-government by constitutional states, which the Jews saw as their goal. [This is a misquotation, as the text has “Gentiles” rather than “Jews.’] A constitution, as you well know, is nothing but a school of discords, misunderstandings, quarrels, disagreements, fruitless party agitation, party whims — in a word, a school of everything that serves to destroy the personality of state activity.” [Protocol 10]

The actual paragraph in question, from Brasol’s edition, reads: “Constitutional governments were born of liberalism, which replaced the autocracy that was the salvation of the GOYS, for the constitution, as you well know, is nothing more than a school for dispute, discussion, disagreement, fruitless party agitation , dissension, party tendencies — in other words, a school for everything which weakens the efficiency of government.” But the way it is presented here in this introduction is just a paraphrase, which our translator misread or which was perhaps missing some punctuation, since the statement is certainly accurate according to the Protocols themselves as well as other writings of the Jews.

[Reading and editing our notes after having presented this in audio format as a podcast:]

We prefer the reading in Brasol’s edition as being more accurate. There is something missing in the translation which Mr. Bytwerk provides, or perhaps in the text from which he worked. Properly, Liberalism replaced autocratic governments with self-governing constitutional states.

Back to our source:

This development could already be seen at the turn of the century. The Jews had a leading role in founding all political parties. Of the parties that they founded or helped to found and controlled down to the smallest detail, we will name only the National Liberal Party, one of whose founders was the Jew Eduard Lasker, the Freethinker’s Party, one of whose founders was the Jew Ludwig Bamberger, the “Right Center” at the National Assembly in Frankfurt, founded and led by the baptized Jew Eduard von Simson, and finally the Democratic Party in Prussia, which was “reorganized” by the Königsberg Jew Johann Jacoby. At the same time in Vienna, we find Adolf Fischhoff, spiritus rector of the Democratic Party, who for a time during the Revolution of 1848 had the fate of Vienna in his hands as president of the security service. The Conservative Party of the pre-war period was founded by the Jew Friedrich Julius Stahl, who let himself be baptized. He built the intellectual foundation of Christian (!)-Conservative political thought. He was also the leader of the conservative faction in the upper house and had a central role as member of the Evangelical Church Council (!).

The strongest centers of Jewry’s corrupting power are the two Marxist parties. In the history of The General German Workers' Union led by the Jew Ferdinand Lassale (Lasal) one can note that the Social Democrats and the Communist Party have the same father, Karl Marx-Mordochai, whose Jewish nature in both his works and person was accurately characterized by a Jew in this way:

“His spirit found a direction that forever overcame all supernatural forces because he showed how they were bound to the physical world; without realizing it himself he became in his deepest self a Jew in tradition of the prophets.” (Neue Jüdische Monatshefte, 25.4.1918).

But none of the prophets were Jewish, or the Bible would have been a banking and economics manual, rather than a book reflecting an agrarian society and espousing all of the morals which the Jews have forever despised.

Not only was the theoretician and founder of Marxism a Jew, but Jews are also the best-known Marxist practitioners whose deeds will forever be among the most terrible atrocities in history. We do not need to search for the names, but only refer to an essay by the Jew Georg Hermann in which he celebrates the atrocities as a revelation of Jewish nature, as a Jewish contribution to the history of humanity. He says:

“I hear Jews say nervously: ‘They hurt us, that is not good, it leads to bad blood.’ To the contrary: Let us be proud that a Marx, a Lassalle, a Singer, a Rosa Luxemburg, an Eisner, even a Haase, etc., are Jews. They represent the ancient human soul of our tribe better than any religious renewal is able to do. Let us cheerfully admit that also in Russia, in Hungary, many of those – whether they are correct or not I do not dare to say — many of those who seeking to bring the oppressed, miserable masses to new, better, humane forms of life, a Trotsky, a Bela Kuhn, are Jews. They only prove that human thought is best advanced by the Jews.” (Neue Jüdische Monatshefte, v. 3. Nr. 19/20).

Georg Hermann, the author of the well-known novel Jettchen Gebert, was fully aware of the significance of his words that he directed to his racial comrades in a Jewish magazine. In another work from the same time directed to the broader public of the German people, his Randbemerkungen (Berlin, 1919), he presented himself as an “opponent of nationality” and in a statement directed to the Germans wrote:

“We must finally learn to put humanity above nationality.”

So we see that Jews have always played the card that they play today, to pretend to be White when they want to lead Whites astray, and to be nationalistic Jews when they are addressing Jews. The internet is now full of memes exposing the blatant hypocrisy of this aspect of Jewish behavior. The trait is identified and further discussed in our source:

At the same time as he glorifies Jewish-Communist murderers like Trotsky and Bela Kuhn in a Jewish magazine as real leaders of modern Jewry, he tries in another work to take away from the German readership its faith in its great men:

“Humanity would be better had it never known its great statesmen, generals, and rulers – without great men and without great ages it would have been much better off. Socially and culturally, it would be 5,000 years ahead.” (Randbemerkungen, p. 90).

That is only one brief example of many that provides a look at the “school of discord” that the Protocols proposes as means to the end [referring to the making of constitutions]. The Marxist Jews promoted class struggle within the people, subverted national powers of resistance and public morality, while intellectual Jews who pretended to be non-partisan saw to it that Jewish unity was preserved. This wicked double game that praised Jewish-Marxist atrocities on one hand while subverting and weakening non-Aryan [sic Aryan?] peoples by inciting one group against another through carefully prepared slogans is well-founded in the plan found in the Protocols. One can take the following passages and translate them from the language of the turn of the century into that of the post-war period:

“They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this dream of equality is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world that one creature is unlike another and that personality plays a decisive role. If we have been able to blind them in this way, it is amazingly clear proof that their minds in no way measure up to ours. That is the guarantee of our success.” [Protocol 15]


“The word ‘freedom’ plunges human society into a battle against all powers, against the power of God and that of nature. When we sit on the throne we will erase this word from the human vocabulary because it is the very principle of brute force that turns the masses into bloodthirsty beasts of prey. These beasts, it is true, fall asleep after they have enjoyed their blood and can then easily be chained. If they are not given blood, however, they do not sleep, but rather fight.” [Protocol 3]


“It is from us that all-engulfing terror proceeds.” [Protocol 10]

Could the theory and practice of the Jewish rulers of Russia and the Komintern during the post-war period, and which they are doing today in Spain, be better expressed than they were at the turn of the century?

It would go beyond the bounds of this introduction were we to spend more time on the Jewish policies of the Marxist parties or list the actions and statements of the Jews that prove and justify the historical accuracy of these citations from the Protocols. Let us compare another thesis from the Protocols with historical facts. Regarding Jewish domination of the press it says:

“No news will reach the public without our approval. We have already practically reached this goal, since the news from the entire world flows through a few news agencies, where they are processed and only then sent on to the individual editorial boards, agencies, etc.” [Protocol 12]

The extent to which the source of the international press system was Jewdified even during the pre-war period is proven by looking at the three leading world press agencies. All three were founded by Jews and the two that survive today are still fully Jewdified. The French Agence Havas was founded by the Jew Charles Lois Havas, the English Reuters by Josaphat Beer, the son of a rabbi who later added the name “Reuter,” while the now defunct Wolff Telegraph Agency in Germany was the work of the Jew Bernhard Wolff.

We have already discussed these three news agencies and the Jews who founded them at length in earlier segments of our presentation of the Protocols. When we return, we will resume at this point in the National Socialist introduction to the text.