Chapter Five The Wall Street Struggle

Tha-a-a-t Lenin understood very well! That bare ideas will get you no further forward, that you cannot make a revolution without power, that in our time the primary source of power is money, and that all other forms of power-organization, weapons, people capable of using those weapons to kill—are begotten of money,

 

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Lenin m Zurich

 

«one must lightly dismiss the question of race,” wrote Jill Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria’s Prime Minister, "ft is the key to world history, and it is precisely for this reason that written history so often lacks clarity-it is written by people who do not understand the race question and what belongs to it.” Before further use is made of the word “race,” a brief cautionary explanation is required.

 

Physical anthropology, the science of the study of race, has been heavily eclipsed during the twentieth century, as was astronomy in another age, because its findings were in conflict with the requirement of the prevailing great power. Technically, a race is an endogamous, or inbreeding, human unit. A race is not defined by the degree of homogeneity achieved but by the policies it pursues in resisting assimilation. Hence even a people of somewhat mixed race or genetic composition, like the Jews, can exhibit strong racial characteristics. “Race” and “nation1' in Old Testament times were, therefore, virtually synonymous.

 

So it is now the subject of race or nation in the realm of high finance that now needs to be explored.

 

Professor Sir Arthur Keith, one-time President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, compressed into one sentence the contents of two chapters of his book. A New Theory of Human Evolution:

 

My deliberate opinion is that racial characters are more strongly developed in the Jews than in any other Caucasian people.

 

This statement Keith supports with quotes from many other authorities. His use of the expression "Caucasian people” should be noted; he dismisses the idea that the Jews are “Semites/'

 

Those in whom racial characters are strongly developed have a keen awareness of kind, like the pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm sometimes fight among themselves, even to the point of slaughter, but always drawing a clear distinction between themselves and the “other animals.*’

 

Dr. Carrol] Quigley, late Professor of International Relations at the prestigious Georgetown Foreign Service School, Washington DC, in his monumental world history Tragedy and Hope makes no attempt overtly to explore the “catalytic’ role of the Jews in the history of our century; indeed, in a book of some 1300 pages he has virtually nothing to say about the Jews except when writing about the inauguration of the state of Israel; and the 36-page index does not even contain the words “Zionism" or ‘'Zionist,"

 

Nevertheless, the publisher, the Macmillan Company, abruptly ceased distributing this book when it was realized in establishment circles that it contained a great deal of information, some of it from confidential sources, from which sound conclusions about the racial aspects of twentieth century history could be drawn by the perspicacious student. Whether it was by an exercise of cunning that Dr. Quigley managed to get his book accepted and launched by an important establishment publisher, or whether he was so naive as to suppose that he could safely throw so much light on the activities and policies of the great power-wielders of high finance, we may never know. But Quigley demonstrated, as others had done before him, that there prevails in the West a system of censorship not as obvious as that once exercised behind Communism’s Iron Curtain, but equally effective.

 

And historiography most rigorously excluded from establishment bookshelves is precisely that in which some attempt has been made to explore and explain that "catalytic" Jewish presence-in other words, the “racial" factor.

 

In this chapter, therefore, we propose to illustrate Disraeli's comment by examining and comparing two modern books of history covering the same period and handling the same subject: Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, by Antony C. Sutton, and H'Tw Financed Hitler by James Pool and Suzanne Pool.1

 

Mention will be made to two other Sutton books: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and Wall Street and FDR.

 

THE PROFESSIONAL HISTORIAN

 

Dr. Sutton frankly admits that there is something missing from his Wall Street books, for in one of them, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (p, 167) he writes: "Why did the Wall Street elite, the international bankers, want Roosevelt and Hitler in power? That is an aspect we have not explored;" and on page 174 he raised the question whether the New York elitist establishment is “a subversive force" deliberately trying to suppress the constitution and a free society, adding that a consideration of the question “mil be a task ahead in the next decade,* is precisely the “Why?' question which George Orwell in his Nineteen Eighty-Four regards as all-important, for he has Winston Smith write in his secret diary: “I can understand HOW: I do not understand WHY."

 

We can find out quite easily what happened and how it happened, but we are no better off if we cannot find out what were the real motives of those who made it happen.

 

In all three books, Sutton writes as if Jews as an ethnic entity are now of no more historical significance than Gypsies or Eskimos, Having thus excluded race, or ethnic identity, as a factor, Sutton does not feel called upon to try to explain why, after World War II, only Max Warburg was exempted when all the German bankers on the supervisory board of directors of the great LG. Farben industrial empire were tried as “war criminals."

 

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler is notable for another most significant omission: There is no mention of the financing of the other “extremist party” in Germany which won spectacular successes in the elections of September 1930; namely, the Communists, who had launched the internal revolution that brought World War I to an abrupt end and who subsequently operated on a massive scale as a legitimate political party. It is reasonable to suppose that the identity and motives of those who financed Hitler might have had something to tell us about the identity and motives of those who were financing the Communists, Without this information and the inferences to be drawn from it, we are left with a book like Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, containing a great deal of painstakingly researched and documented informaton which could even be counter-productive, further confusing rather than clarifying all establishment versions of history “designed to hide a pervasive fabric of deceit and immoral conduct" (Sutton's words).

 

On the other hand, as we shall try to show, the information supplied by Sutton does have some value as being half of the truth - but only if it can be brought into combination with the missing half. The danger to be avoided is that of accepting Sutton's books about Wall Street as a balanced and objective account of the influences at work in modern politics promoting “deceit and immoral conduct."

 

Sutton remarks that “Quigley goes a long way to provide evidence for the existence of the power elite, but does not penetrate the operations of the elite,’ adding: "Possibly the papers used by Quigley had been vetted or did not include documentation on elitist manipulation of such events as the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s accession to power, and the election of Roosevelt in 1933.” Sutton had evidently failed to notice in Quigley’s book a number of hard facts which provide a fairly complete answer to the question which he had decided to leave unexplored (“Why did the Wall Street elite want Roosevelt and Hitler in power?").

 

Sutton avoids the race question as such, but it is significant that the WaD Street financiers he most frequently names are all unmistakably gentiles, these forming part of a vast constellation of financial and industrial power with J.P. Morgan in the center of it. And it is this financial elite which he blames both for the success of the Bolshevik Revolution and for the precipitation of World War II.

 

What he does not tell us, and what we most of all need to know, is that the major revolutionary changes which have characterized our century of conflict can be traced to two financial elites, their separateness hard to detect because they so often operated in unison, who found themselves increasingly in a relationship of fierce antagonism from about 1930, the one a gentile elite and the other Jewish.

 

Sutton comes close to admitting the existence of two Wall Street elites when he says that Henry Ford divided financiers into two classes, the "constructive” and the "destructive,'’ the first personified by J.P. Morgan, the others "the world’s real warmakers." Thereafter, however, he continues to write about Wall Street financiers as a homogeneous species in which there is no need to draw any distinction between Jew and gentile.

 

To cut a long story short, it turns out that World War II was a struggle between two financial elites, the one, including a substantial sector of Wall Street, using the German people as its proxy and the other, also with a Wall Street segment, using Germany's enemies.

 

We need to know the truth about what happened because, as George Orwell succinctly put it, “Who controls the present controls the past, and who controls the past controls the future."

 

In other words, we cannot hope to be about to understand what is happening now unless we know what happened in the past, and if we do not know what is happening now, we have lost all control over what happens to us in the future.

 

We know that the Germans were defeated in World War H, but what were the consequences of the real struggle between the two financial elites? It is an answer to that question we must have, if we are to understand what is happening now and what perils are to be averted.

 

First of all, however, we need to know how a situation arose in which two financial power elites became involved as opponents in a world war. The following is a much abridged account of what happened, for which endorsement can be found in Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope,

 

For several centuries international financial activity was largely monopolized by Jewish banking dynasties, the most powerful and best-known of these being the Rothschilds. However, financial capitalism was only fully consolidated on an international basis in the early years of the twentieth century.

 

During the second half of the 19th century the unprecedented economic development in the United States of America, nearly all of it under the direct control of pioneering families, including Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Astor, etc., gave rise to a corresponding development of banking under the control of the same kind of people, the most conspicuous of these being J.P. Morgan. Much the same happened in Britain and Europe, where gentile predominance in private-ownership capitalism and industrial enterprise produced national concentrations of finance capital which the Jewish banking families could exploit but could not dominate.

 

It should be remembered that industrialization in the West was exclusively a product of the inventiveness, energy and enterprise of ethnic Europeans; that is why no Jewish names are to be found among the names of those who founded the great industrial empires, whether in oil, coal, iron and steel, railways and shipping, automobiles, aircraft, electricity, chemicals or anything else. It was thus an explosive increase in the production of real wealth which conferred on the ethnic Europeans—the Christians, or gentiles-a short-lived supremacy in the realm of high finance.

 

So enormous was the new wealth generated that a newly created gentile financial power, in which personalities like J.P. Morgan and Montagu Norman figure most prominently, superceded the Jewish financial power of which the house of Rothschild formed the apex.

 

A very complex struggle ensued on many different planes. One mjyor setback for the gentile financiers, engineered by their Jewish rivals through their growing influence in the media and their direct involvement in party politics and the trade union movement, was the inheritance tax and graduated income tax aimed at the powerful gentile families in particular and the middle class in general.

 

Then, when the gentile elite allowed themselves to be lured into complicity in establishing privately owned central banking systems in all the countries of the West, the tables were decisively turned and the gentile elite began to lose ground at an alarming rate in the competitive rivalry of the two elites. In the United States the instigator of central banking was Paul Warburg, a scion of the powerful German-Jewish banking family.

The Morganites realized at once that their rivals had stolen a march on them by masterminding and funding the Russian Revolution and lost no time trying to get a "piece of the action,” But J.P. Morgan also supplied funds to the counter-revolutionary movement led by Admiral Kolchak and his White Army; it would have suited them very well to turn the tables on the Bolsheviks and those who were funding them.

 

In Germany it was different; although traditionally hostile to any form of German nationalism (hence World War II), here British and

 

American gentile bankers saw in the emergence of the National Socialist movement an opportunity to back a likely winner against their rivals who had given early financial and leadership backing to the Marxist revolutionaries.

 

Was there no other way in which the Morganites could defend or recover their top-dog position in international finance capitalism? The answer is no! The only possible way in which the battle against Jewish predominance could have been fought was closed to them because, as partners in the conduct and exploitation of a fraudulent centralized banking system, they had abandoned the moral position from which such a battle could have been fought. The Morganite bankers had been drawn too deeply into the dirtiest forms of financial power politics and had even tried to compete with Jewish rivals in buying their way into the control centers of radical leftist movements, including the Communist party, even in their own country,

 

Henry Ford, on the other hand, as a self-made and independent industrialist, came right out into the open and attacked those he regarded as his and his country's enemies, and he made no secret of his pro-German sympathies before World War II.

 

What the people of the West have not been permitted to know is that an “Anglo-American" establishment which Professor Quigley pointedly describes as "High Episcopalian, European-culture- conscious," sought first of all to prevent war against Germany, did what it could to strengthen the National-Socialist movement as a bulwark against a Jewish-sponsored Communist take-over bid and even helped to arm Germany when war Beemed inevitable, The facts are all to be found in Quigley’s massive "history of the world in our time," Tragedy and Hope, for those willing to dig for them and put them together.

 

Armed in our minds with a comprehensive picture provided by Quigley, we can give to Sutton’s three books an interpretation quite different from that indicated by Sutton himself.

 

What happened in Wall Street in the 1930s was invisible and unnoticed except to those directly involved; but plainly visible quite soon were the consequences produced as a gentile autocracy was superseded by a Jewish one. It is hard to believe that Quigley was not deliberately trying to expose the new kind of financial imperialism that had emerged when he wrote the following:

 

The shift occurred on all levels, from changing tastes in newspaper comic strips (from Mutt and Jeff or Bringing Up Father

 

to Steve Canyon or Little Orphan Annie) to profound changes in the power nexus of the “American Establishment." It was evident in the decline of J.P. Morgan Itself, from its deeply anonymous status as a partnership (founded in 1861) to its transformation into an incorporated public company in 1940 and its final disappearance by absorption into its chief banking subsidiary Guaranty Trust Company in 1959.

 

One of the major cultural and sociological consequences of the shift of the nexus of power in Wall Street, if not the most important of all, was the stripping from that "Ivy League, Anglophile, high Episcopalian, European-culture-conscious* elite of the power to nominate the presidents of America’s great universities (as recorded at page 937 of Tragedy and Hope). Quigley’s elliptical references to “changing tastes in newspapers comic strips’' and Morgan’s inability to nominate a replacement for Dr, Nicholas Murray Butler as President of Columbia University can only mean that he was drawing attention to radical policy changes in American higher education and in the media which followed as a direct consequence of the shift in Wall Street, An extra dimension of meaning is thus given to Dr. Butler’s oft-quoted remark, made at that time;

 

The world is divided into three classes of people: a very small group that makes things happen, a somewhat larger group that watches things happen, and the great multitude that never knows what happened.

 

In the three books forming Dr. Sutton’s Wall Street trilogy we find a complete avoidance of the factor of "race and what belongs to it" (Disraeli’s words) and a quite misleading concentration of attention on the actions of that Wall Street elite which Quigley describes as "high Episcopalian, European-culture-conscious," etc., these being exhibited throughout by Sutton as the destructive financiers, the world’s real war makers. Anxious not to give offence to that other financial power elite, he remarks that the objective of all the financiers who launched the Bolshevik Revolution and continued thereafter to support the Soviet Union was “profit and not ideology,* i.e. not political.

 

Sutton has been quoted as referring unflatteringly to what he calls "amateur historians, not fully trained in modem research techniques." It would seem, however, that there is some need for such "amateur historians" willing to undertake the dangerous and thankless task of establishing new bridgeheads in revisionist history which the professionals can later occupy with safety.

 

THE AMATEUR HISTORIANS

 

Of James Pool and his sister Suzanne, joint authors of Who Financed Hitler, one cannot be sure whether they were very cunning or very naive in digging out and presenting so much of the embarrassing historical truth. AH we know about them is that James Pool was an investment consultant operating out of Cincinnati, Ohio, and his sister was engaged in advanced study at an American university.

 

Their 500-page book was well received when first published, and was praised by the reviewers in several important establishment journals including the New Yorker {"One of the most illuminating studies of Nazism”), the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle (“Revealing, well documented”), and Newsday ("Well written and copiously documented").

 

This book, with its rather unflattering picture of a top halted Adolf Hitler on the front cover, and its several derogatory remarks about Hitler, "anti-Semitism" etc., in the preface and then, more by implication, all through the book has the appearance of just another ''history" designed to place the blame on the German people and their leaders for both world wars-but those who go on reading soon begin to realize that what they have before them is a thoroughly conscientious work of historical analysis that quietly disregards all the requirements of partisan propaganda and is also astonishingly frank.

 

To take one example at random: the chapter dealing with Henry Ford and the financial assistance he is supposed to have given to the Nazi party. There appears to be no proof of actual cash transfers, but Ford made no secret of the fact that he warmly admired Hider and his party, and there is ample evidence of channels through which financial assistance to the Nazis could have been, and probably was, transmitted. And, as every American knows, no important figure outside Germany more vigorously displayed his dislike of the Jews than did Henry Ford with his newspaper the Dearborn Independent, his book The International Jews, and the aid and encouragement he gave to others in the United States who were hostile to the Jews. The Pools tell the Ford story in some 45 pages and in such a way that, were he alive today, Ford could hardly find fault with it, We are told in considerable detail what it was that made him regard the Jews as enemies.

 

Ford's situation can be stated in one sentence: he found himself fighting tooth and nail to prevent himself being forced to operate on borrowed money like most other industrialists.

 

Write the Pools:

 

Ford clashed with the Wall Street financiers not only in the pages of his newspaper and books, but in reality as well. Authorities say that many of his ideas about Jewish financiers came from unpleasant personal experiences with bankers; one of the most violent conflicts between Ford and the financiers occurred early in 1921.

 

At that time rumors circulating the nation claimed that Ford was in difficult financial straits. Reports varied but each represented some aspects of the truth. It was said that Wall Btreet intended to foreclose on Ford and bring him to his knees. Many bankers were eager to supply him with capital. Some thought that General Motors would obtain financial control of the Ford Company. However, Ford was adamant in his refusal to part with one share of his stock. “Henry Ford has reached his limit," the Dow-Jones financial Ticker Service informed its clients. “It is beyond the power of any one man to raise money and carry forward single- handed the manifold enterprises in which he has started.”

 

The Denver Post announced in bright red ink on its front page: "Ford Battles Wall Street to Keep Control of Property.” But Ford proceeded to outwit the bankers with a massive cutback in expenditure, by selling off some assets and by making the dealers pay cash for the cars they bought, thereby forcing many of them to borrow or lose the franchise, Not only do the Pools reveal that Henry Ford was hostile to the Jews, but they go on to repeat many of the most provocative statements which Ford made at that time in his newspaper and in his books, Here is an example from a reported press interview: “When there’s wrong in a country you'll find the Jews... the Jew is a huckster who doesn’t work to produce but to make something of what someone else produce s." I Nothing irritated Ford more than the idea of someone getting something for nothing. The Pools add:

 

In his autobiography Ford said he believed that a man should be permitted to take away from the community an equivalent of what he contributes to it, if he contributes nothing, he should take away nothing. In America he saw a "sinister element, made up of Jewish middlemen whose only aim was to get money." The Dearborn

 

Independent said a Jew “has no attachment for the things he makes, for he doesn't make any; he deals in the things which other men make and regards them solely on the side of their money-making value."

 

Not surprisingly, “the major role Jewish leaders played in the November (1918) revolution" which led to and followed the German surrender in World War I, convinced Henry Ford that what he was seeing in Germany was a repetition on a national scale of what he had himself experienced as an independent industrialist-a massive Jewish attempt to grab control.

 

Written history is seldom found to live up to the ethical requirements of genuine scholarship, for the obvious reason that most of it has been written by and for the victor in every major conflict, but the fact that most history, as Henry Ford put it, is "bunk" should not be allowed to obscure the all-important fact that there has always continued to exist in the Western world a scholarship which, when the emotions of partisanship have been allowed to subside, does try to set the record right for the better instruction of all mankind.

 

The Pools were smart enough to realize that the full meaning of the period between the two world wars, which was the subject of their investigation, must be sought in a much deeper and broader context of history; since, nearly always, it is the past which give meaning to the present, and no period of history is, as it were, written on a clean slate. Thus, we are sure to fall deeper into error and confusion if we begin a study of the emergence and growth of the National Socialist revolution in Germany before we have acquired clear ideas about World War I and its causes, and about the Versailles Treaty which the victorious nations imposed on a prostrate opponent, So, let us have a brief statement of the Pools’ opinion on that subject:

 

The Treaty of Versailles was finally signed by the Germans on June 28,1919, after the resignation of several German officials who refused to sign their names to such an “unjust" treaty. Territorially, Germany lost 25,000 square miles in Europe, inhabited by over sue million, and all her colonies, totaling more than a million square miles. In raw materials she lost 65 per cent of her iron ore reserves, 45 per cent of her coal, 72 per cent of her zinc, 12 per cent of her principal agricultural areas,,. In addition to limiting Germany's potential to move into expanding overseas markets, the Allies obtained a virtual blank check from Germany in terms of reparations... In retrospect it is dear that the Versailles Treaty was one of the primary causes of the failure of German democracy... Was the Versailles Treaty designed simply to protect the world from the threat of German militarism, or was the treaty deliberately planned to strangle Germany's militarism, or was the treaty deliberately planned to strangle Germany's economy and make her uncompetitive in world markets? To answer this question it is only necessary to look at the treatment of German non military shipping. - - The treaty called for the confiscation of Germany's entire ocean-going fleet... All German freighters and ocean liners were handed over to the Allies,.. (Emphasis added)

 

The Pools quote American economic writer Ludwell Denny to the effect that it was Germany's bid for industrial and commercial supremacy, based on a huge merchant fleet "that perhaps threatened British supremacy most and for which, had there been no other reason, Britain went to war."

 

In Who Financed Hitkr we are presented with a horrifying picture of a crushed and humiliated nation:

 

The so-called "dismantling" demanded by the Versailles Treaty was a very bitter experience for many German industrialists and undoubtedly played a part in their later willingness to accept Hitler. Thyssen, Krupp, Kirdorf and other executives stood helpless as they watched the work of generations senselessly destroyed. The forges were shut down and the dismantling began. It was a grim business. Toiling in the summer heat of 1920, the workers were forced to destroy their own source of livelihood... They scarcely spoke a word to one another. The allied engineers paced the shop floors marking with colored chalk the machine tools, lathes and other equipment to be shipped abroad. Once the crates had been hoisted away, the dynamiting began...

 

The Pools show that Hitler would have had no chance of persuading the German people to accept a one-party and one-man dictatorship, and by none would he have been more strongly opposed than by the big industrialists, except in the dreadful circumstances that prevailed after the end of World War I,

 

One feet of history that has been played down in the West almost to the vanishing point is that the German people, the industrialists included, had to choose in the end between two forms of totalitarianism: a Nazi one (national socialism) or a Communist one (international socialism).

 

In the dramatic September 1930 elections, which came as a shock to the Brilning regime: "It was the extreme parties, the Nazis and the Communists, who had won the most spectacular successes at the polls." It was no part of the Pools' terms of reference to find out who was financing the Communists, but the scale of their operations suggests that the Reds were never starved of funds. It is unlikely that Hitler would have found it necessary to go to the trouble and expense of setting up his own private SA and SS army if he and his followers had not encountered massive and well organized mob violence, which continued until he finally gained full control of the government.

 

On the subject of “anti-Semitism" the Pools have at least done the Germans the justice of permitting them, in the pages of this book, to make a statement of their case. One of those who early regarded the Communist revolutionary movement as Jewish- instigated and led was Fritz Thyssen, the industrial tycoon, who lived in daily dread of the "Red terror" after he had narrowly, as he believed, escaped assassination at the hands of a gang of armed revolutionaries who abducted him from his home. Thyssen wrote in his autobiography:

 

I have spent my Hfe among workers. My father had worked with them at the beginning of his career. Never have the workers of our factory shown us any kind of hostility, still less of hatred.., all disorders and excesses have almost always been due to foreigners,

 

Thyssen believed that the organizers of the strikes and riots were professional political agitators and agents of Moscow-“Radek.,. Levine.,. Axelred... these were the men responsible for the riots and murders."

 

All the revolutionary leaders Thyssen came in contact with or mentioned were Jewish.

 

It was not only big industrialists like Thyssen, Kirdorf and Stinnes who identified the Jews with their country’s sufferings and the danger into which it was being drawn; others deeply concerned included the country’s large farming community and peasantry. The Pools write:

 

This image of conflict between the Jew and the peasant was not just propaganda, but has some foundation, however slight in reality. Jews functioned as middlemen in many German agricultural communities. It was usually in the capacity of cattle trader or small merchant that the Jew came into contact with the peasants. As a money lender he was hated most when the peasants were in financial difficulty, such as after a bad harvest, and had to rely on his bans at high interest rates to tide them over.

 

As German agriculture fell increasingly into ruin from a variety of causes beyond the farmers’ control, we read of families “driven from the soil which they and their ancestors had tilled for 300 years" by moneylenders who never seemed to be short'of funds.

 

The Pools chronicle the dreadful hardships and injustices suffered by the German people in the decade following the end of World War 1 with innumerable personal stories which bring history to life and grip the attention of the reader from the first page to the last: runaway inflation which ruined "good solid middle class citizens who had saved for the future" and enabled speculators with foreign currency to grab property at giveaway prices; one third of the population out of work and many of the others working only part-time; all this comes to a climax in the winter of 1931-32, "the hardest winter in one hundred years,” which struck Germany in the depths of the depression "when only a few people could afford warm clothes and coal for their furnaces."

 

"Hitler," say the Pools, “was one of the few politicians who correctly assessed the inflation as a deliberate campaign to defraud the middle class of their savings1’-the middle class being then, as always, the main bulwark against Marxist totalitarianism.

 

Supporting their statements with quoted passages from many sources, the Pools reveal that, if only in the earlier years of Hitler's career, Germany's National Socialist movement had many powerfully placed sympathizers abroad, one of the best known of these, on account of his outspokenness, being Henry Ford. The others may not have donated much money if any at all, but their support was sometimes of a kind that money cannot buy, as when Lord Rothermere with his mass circulation Daily Mail came out openly in support of the Nazis and their British counterpart, Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists; and Montagu Norman, chairman of the Bank of England, of whom the Pools write:

,.. because he was pro-German ore cannot jump to the conclusion that there was a connection between Norman and the Nazis; however, the fact that he also hated Jews arouses suspicion even more.

 

They add:

 

Naturally, Norman did not supply Hitler with money from the Bank of England, but there is evidence that he played a significant role in arranging the financing of the Nazis,

 

There is much more in the book about “powerful friends“ in the United Kingdom: these included Lord Sydenham, author of the book The Jewish World Problem; the Duke of Northumberland, a big shareholder in the Morning Post; Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times of London; the Duke of Windsor (who abdicated as King Edward VIII); and Sir Henri Deterding, head of the giant Anglo- Dutch Shell conglomerate. Not only are these and other distinguished persons named, but we are permitted to gain some insight into their attitudes and thinking. Of the Duke of Windsor, the Pools write:

 

Legend has it that Edward was compelled to abdicate due to his refusal to give up “the woman he loved." However this issue was used as a facade to conceal the more critical objection which the government had with the King-namely, his pro-Nazi attitude... it was not certain whether, because of Ms views, he would co­operate in an anti-German policy,

 

So, where did all the money come from that put the National Socialist movement in Germany on its feet and kept it going? Very little came from the German industrial magnates, except towards the end under threat of civil war and a Communist takeover; substantial donations were made from time to time by a number of wealthy individuals who had been fascinated by Hitler’s oratory, typical of these being Frau Helen Bechstein, wife of the piano manufacturer; but most of the financing came from the German masses, some as party membership dues and much more as unpaid services.

 

The American writer on economics and business, Peter Drucker, is quoted as follows:

 

The really decisive backing came from sections of the lower middle classes, the fanners and working class, who were hardest hit... as far as the Nazi party is concerned, there is good reason to believe that at least three-quarters of its funds, even after 1930, came from the weekly dues... and from the entrance fees to the mass meetings from which members of the upper classes were always conspicuously absent.

 

The Pools make no attempt to place their story in world- historical perspective but, unlike Antony Sutton, they present a rounded and balanced account of what happened and what was said; it is a story that conforms with the requirements of scholarship and strongly endorses Quigley’s version of the history of the world in our century.

 

3. HISTORY IN A NUTSHELL

 

What happened in Germany between 1918 and 1932 is not a complete historical drama in its own right, but only an episode in a much bigger world revolutionary drama which includes the Bolshevik Revolution, the dispossession of the nations of Europe of their colonial empires and the setting up of a spurious “world parliament" in the form of the United Nations, a drama now hastening towards some fearful denouement.

 

Therefore, we can only grasp the full meaning of the historical story so conscientiously and excitingly told by James Pool and Suzanne Pool if we can place it, like a piece of mosaic, in its correct position in the history of our century, for all the major changes in our “century of conflict” belong together and cannot be understood separately. This bigger, more comprehensive history can be compressed into a few words without any loss of essential meaning,

 

LaBt century finance capitalism existed in separate national concentrations, all in eager competition—hence the keen industrial and commercial rivalry, culminating in World War I, and last century's “scramble" for colonial possessions. Early in the twentieth century the great banking families or dynasties (Rothschild, Baring, Erlanger, Schroder, Seligman, Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Warburg, Oppenheimer, and Schiff, etc.), which had increasingly dominated the different national concentrations of high finance, were able to join hands and bring about a revolutionary change, drawing these national concentrations into coalescence to form a single integrated international financial system which they planned to control.

 

This revolutionary change in the realm of high finance called for a corresponding revolutionary change in the realm of politics, since a fully internationalized high finance cannot coexist in harmony with innumerable national concentrations of political power.

 

Zionism in this composite picture is the chauvinist nationalism of those who control high finance at the highest level, and Communism a kind of political high explosive to be used against all other nationalisms—two aspects of a global power political struggle which has given the world an age of conflict unprecedented in recorded history.

 

All the major changes which have occurred in the twentieth century can be easily explained in terms of the political requirements of those who control high finance on an international basis-and all the great struggles of our time, whether that of Henry Ford to retain control of his own great company, or of Montagu Norman, Geoffrey Dawson and others to preserve the national integrity of British capitalism, or of Henri Deter ding to keep control of Shell in genuine British and Dutch hands or of Germany to resist a Marxist revolutionary take-over bid, belong together as parts of Western civilization's struggle to survive an alien onslaught.

 

“Anti-Semitism” Examined

 

The failure of the powerful and wealthy Jewish America» community to launch one objective scholarly study of the causes of anti-Semitism is significant. Neither the religious nor the (ay leaders of the many Jewish organizations wish to kise this potent weapon. Remove prejudice and lose adherents to the faith...

 

This is the conspiracy of the rabbinate, Jewish nationals and other leaders of organized Jewry to keep the problems of prejudice alive.

 

Alfred M. Lilienthal,

 

The Other Side of the Coin

 

Of all the great falsehoods which combine to form the modern, “world of lies," there is none more powerful or more heavily charged with peril than that labelled “anti-Semitism."

 

It is most dangerous at this time because it is being used with great success as a weapon of psychological warfare to prevent the people of the West from discovering that they are in the process of being railroaded into a planned “New World Order.” It can be described as most powerful because it is being used and backed up with a global network of organizations armed seemingly with unlimited resources in money and manpower.

 

This great lie is being used ruthlessly to suppress information and to veto all genuine debate on many issues, the most important of these being developments in the Middle East, where the setting-up of the state of Israel has produced a chain reaction of the most alarming consequences for jew and gentile alike.

 

Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, the Jewish historian who sees in Zionism a great danger to the Jewish people and to the whole world, tells us how it is all done:

 

At critical moments in U.S. relations with the Arab world and Israel, there has invariably been some one person who has seen the problem in perspective, bestirred himself and attempted to tell the story to the American public. Equally invariably, like the wolf at

 

What upsets the Zionist leaders, as they have themselves admitted again and again, is not the fact that gentiles, especially Christians, scorn and reject persons of Jewish descent, but rather the opposite readiness of the rest of mankind to receive and assimilate the Jews.

 

Nothing, therefore, could be more typical of the prevailing Zionist sentiment than these remarks by Isi Leibler, President of the Executive Council of Australian jews as reported in the Australian Jewish Times (December 30,1979)?

 

The principal threat to our survival is still the ever-increasing loss of numbers experienced as a result of assimilation and intermarriage. Our problem in Australia is compounded by the fact that, like most Western communities, nearly all our young people attend universities. This is to be welcomed but it also accentuates assimilatory forces, because universities have always represented a challenge to religious, ethnic and particularistic groups.

 

Mr. Leibler went on to urge "intensification of positive Jewish educational activity" as the best means of counteracting the acceptance and absorption of Jews by the non-Jewish community, adding: "We can take exceptional pride in the fact that well over 50 per cent of all Melbourne Jewish children of school-going age attend Jewish schools."

 

Isi Leibler’s reaction to the "threat" of "assimilation and intermarriage" is typical of the reaction of Jewish leaders to what they have always seen as grave danger inherent in gentile liberalism and generosity. Here is an example, taken at random, from Howard Morely Sachar's The Course of Modem Jewish History,

 

Jewish nationalism emerged, too, during the Russian-Jewish “honeymoon" of Alexander ITs regime, by way of reaction to the danger of assimilation. We recall the dismay expressed by Judah Leib Gordon and Perex Smolenskin as they suddenly recognized that Haskcdah "modernism” was becoming a facade for the abandonment of Jewish loyalties. It was to stem the tide of this assimilation that Yehiel Michel Pines and Zeev Wolf Jawitz returned to a re-evaluation of the ghetto world, and discovered in that world a depth and tenderness they had not formerly recognized or appreciated. (Emphasis added).

 

Understandably, Tsar Alexander II cut short his liberal policy towards the Jews when he realized that it was not producing the expected results and that Jewish leaders were even using all the extra privileges to strengthen and harden the position of the Jews as a separate nation, insensitive to the needs and wishes of the rest of the population.

 

There can be no doubt that Isi Leibler of the Executive Council of Australian Jews was speaking for organized Jewry worldwide, as even an occasional casual glance at Jewish newspapers and periodicals will confirm.

 

Dr. Josef Kastein, one of the most famous of Jewish historians, supports this view when he remarks: "Let us remember the great teaching of our history that anti-Semitism is not a Jewish but a foreign problem" (History and Destiny of the Jews).

 

Louis Golding, another famous writer, say the same: "Anti- Semitism is not a Jewish, but a foreign problem" (The Jewish Problem),

 

Thus, a secret or covert racism practiced by the Jews produces an open and apparent racist response among the offended “foreigners” among whom they dwell, and this is then castigated as "anti-Semitism.”

 

Sir Arthur Keith summed it up with these words:

 

My anthropological colleagues, under the spell of ethical ideals, have done Jews and gentiles an ill-service by given euphonius names to vulgar things. They have assured the Jews that they are not a race but only “an ethnic group” kept together by having a religion in common. They also have assured all the other Caucasian people that they are raceless and that hence all the animosity which arises between gentiles and Jews is an artificially fomented form of hysteria. With the best intentions in the world professional anthropologists have succeeded in hiding from the world the nature of its running sores. (A New Theory of Human Evolution).

 

Does separation necessarily imply any antagonism? Here is Sir Arthur Keith's reply to that question:

 

Another mark of race possessed by the Jews must be mentioned. Their conduct is regulated by a "dual code”; their conduct towards their fellows is based on one code (amity) and that towards all who are outside their circle on another (enmity).The use of the dual code, as we have seen, is a mark of an evolving race.

 

The Jewish scholar Bernard Lazare was, therefore, only stating the obvious when he wrote:

 

Inasmuch as the enemies of the Jews belonged to divers races, as they dwelt far apart from one another, were ruled by different laws and governed by opposite principles; as they had not the same customs and differed in spirit from one another, so that they could not possibly judge alike of any subject, it must needs be that the general causes of anti-Semitism have always resided in Israel itself and not in those antagonistic to it. (Anti-Semitism, Bernard Lazare),

 

Such, then, is the blinding and stupefying effect of egalitarian fanaticism that modem leftist intellectuals in the West, in their eagerness to promote the egalitarian creed, have always welcomed the cooperation and even the leadership of the world’s most dedicated race separatists and race supremacists! The racially etiolated gentile intellectuals yearn for an imagined world in which all the supposed causes of antagonism and tension have been eliminated, while their Jewish comrades just as eagerly seek in the ethnic disarmament of others ideal conditions for the triumph of their own group consciousness and nationalism.

 

Dr. Nahum Goldmann put it with astonishing frankness: "We are at one and the same time the most separatist and moat universalist people in the world* (The Jewish Paradox), and he makes it quite clear that the separatism is for‘us," the Jews, and the universalism for "them," the gentiles-another version of the Pigs' doctrine in George Orwell's Animal Farm: *AU animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

 

The covert antagonism of a tightly knit unassailable minority has been expressed in innumerable different forms, but the general effect sought is nearly always the same-that of making the "foreigners" weak in the very things that make the minority strong, confusing group consciousness and attenuating the vitality, self- confidence and will of the host population. Setting aside the question of authorship, the so-called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion contains as complete a compendium of the means employed as will be found anywhere In print.

 

One of the major factors in this process of culture distortion, without which the rest would have been impossible, has been the falsification of all those academic disciplines which have to do with the study of man, like anthropology, psychology, ethnology, human genetics, political science and history.

 

The malevolent corruption of scientific doctrine is nowhere better exemplified than in psychology, that science which by definition concerns itself with the operations of the psyche; and it is precisely where most damage can be done that the anti-Semitic smear, or the fear of it, has exerted a major influence in our century. Writes Dr. Thomas Sazsz in his book The Myth of Psychotherapy:

 

The Inconsistency between Freud's passionate antireligious tirades and his profound commitment to Jewishness significantly highlights an important aspect of Freud’s personality and production, namely his anti-gen tilism. The popular image of Freud as an enlightened, emancipated, irreligious person, who, with the aid of psychoanalysis “discovered" that religion is mental illness is pure fiction... he was sympathetic to Zionism from the first days and was acquainted with and respected Herzl; he had once sent Herzl a copy of one of his works with a personal dedication, Freud’s son was a member of the Kadimah, a Zionist organization, and Freud himself was an honorary member of IL

 

Dr, Szasz remarks that Freud’s vengefulness towards personal enemies in particular and gentiles in general, as well as the “potential destructiveness of psychoanalysis as a rhetoric of execration and invalidation" was heavily protected by the notion, current in those times, that "if it is Jewish it is liberal, progressive and scientific"; hence it was hard for anyone to criticize the teachings of Freud without laying himself open to accusations of being influenced by anti-Semitic sentiments.

 

What always disturbed Freud most, therefore, was criticism which came from Jewish sources, like the courageous and penetrating analysis by the Viennese writer Karl Kraus, who described psychoanalysis as “the disease of which it pretends to be the cure,” and the description of psychoanalysis by another Jewish writer, Theodor Lessing, as “a monstrosity of the Jewish spirit."

 

Dr. Szasz, himself bom a Jew, one time professor of Psychiatry at the State University of New York, discussed a book by Frank Field in which an attempt is made to disvalue Karl Kraus's seemingly harsh judgment:

 

Field's remarks epitomize an intellectual-scientific attitude towards Freud and his work that developed in the early days of psychoanalysis before the First World War, and one which Freud did everything he could to cultivate. I refer here to the view that it was in bad taste to point out that psychoanalysis was not a matter of science but of Jewishness, or that it was, especially in its actual use by Freud and his lackeys, an immoral and ugly enterprise. If such a charge was made by a Christian-so held the supporters of this position-it revealed the critic’s anti-Semitism; and if it was made by a Jew it revealed a lapse of his judgment or grew out of his self- hatred as a Jew. Since there were few Mohammedans in Freud’s Vienna and fewer still who cared a whit about psychoanalysis, this attitude in effect exempted psychoanalysis from effective intellectual or scientific criticism. (Emphasis added),

 

There is a whole world of meaning in Dr. Szasz's description of psychoanalysis as "not a matter of science but of Jewishness," for the same comment applies, and with equal cogency, to other Jewish scholars and their scientific doctrines, like Professor Franz Boas and his school of egalitarian anthropology which insists that there are no mental differences corresponding with all the obvious physical differences among human races.

 

As in the case of psychoanalysis, all the persons most prominently involved in launching and promoting this egalitarian anthropology were Jewish: Boas himself, bom of Russian Jewish parents; Ruth Benedict, born in New York, later Professor of Anthropology at Columbia University; lsador Chein, born New York, one of the Supreme Court authorities on the segregation issue; Theodosius Dobzhansky, bom in Russia, Professor of Zoology, Columbia University; Melville Herskovits, Professor of Anthropology at Northwestern University; Otto Klineberg, lec­turer in anthropology and psychology, Columbia University; Ashley Montagu (not his original name), Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University; Gene Weltfish, lecturer in anthropology at Columbia University; etc.

 

Gentile critics of the Boas doctrine who extend to their opponents the traditional courtesies of academic discourse which naturally presupposes a shared honesty of purpose, surrender their one winning card, which is to show, as can be so easily done, that the Boas doctrine is not a matter of science at all but of Jewishness, being primarily an exercise aimed at promoting Jewish, and especially Zionist, political purposes, Moreover, it could be shown quite easily that all these Jewish proponents of the egalitarian dogma themselves do not believe it, since it is the exact opposite of what is practiced by the community to which they adhere so loyally and uncritically.

 

It is precisely because the Boas school of anthropology is not a matter of science that, in all those universities where Jewish authority prevails, there can be no genuine debate on the subject, and any arguments against it are dealt with at once in the language of “execration and invalidation,1' including expressions like “racism,” “fascism,” “nazism” and even “mental illness."

 

With history, especially that covering the period of World War II, it is precisely the same. The story of the alleged gas chamber killing of six million Jews by the Germans is not a matter of history but of Jewishness; hence it cannot be exposed to the normal processes of academic investigation and discussion; and, since Jewish geopolitical interests and security are involved, any attempt to refute it can only be countered by non-academic means, namely "execration and invalidation," supported sometimes even with physical violence.

 

There are many signs that the instrument of intimidation is today used mainly against gentiles, whereas in the past, when the Jews were less powerful in the world, it was used frequently and effectively among themselves as a means of preserving group solidarity.

 

Bernard Lazare remarks, that modem Jews have forgotten the meaning of the religious ceremonies, and that rabbinical Judaism has been transformed into what he calls “a religion of rationalism.” What now holds the Jews together, he says, is ''national consciousness”; the Jew practices his faith no longer, he is irreligious, even an atheist, "but he continues to be a Jew because he believes in his race.” These remarks Lazare supports with quotations from other Jewish sources.

 

The transformation that has taken place in this century amounts to this: fear has been largely replaced by appetite as the major motivational source of Zionist cohesion. Thus, modem Jews are not so much afraid of stepping out of line as they are enchanted by the prospects of personal enrichment and advancement which loyalty to the group offers. In a Western world atomized by a spirit of bourgeois money-making and competitiveness, the Jews’ own fervent unity-in-dispersion with its infinitely variable twin code of ethics is a veritable open sesame to success in both business and the professions.

 

Bernard Lazare even boasts of it: “The Jew who, personally, is better endowed than his competitors, increases his advantage by uniting with his co-religionists.. > and thus augments his power by acting in common with his brethren.”

 

But, is the Jew "personally, better endowed than his competitors?”

 

Jewish leaders were stung to the quick by Boris Pasternaks comment that it is only the mediocre who find it necessary to seek advantage for themselves by banding together within a society-and Pasternak presently found himself branded as “an anti-Semitic Jew.”

 

Another enormous advantage accruing to the Jews In a modem bourgeois environment, where only personal success counts, is that their own success is massively compounded by the power of a patronage which they can exercise, with gentiles almost falling over each other in their eagerness to gain Jewish favor-in business, the professions, and, most significantly, in politics, which thus fall largely under Jewish control.

 

Finally, what can the gentile “foreigners" do about the “problem1’ which has been planted in their midst?

 

The first requirement, obviously, is to understand the problem and to define it correctly-which is what we have tried to do in this chapter. What we, the "foreigners," need is something that only sympathetic comprehension of the problem can supply: namely, an attitude in which intelligence prevails over blind emotional responses.

 

After all, it is an attenuation of the problem and, hopefully, its final disappearance that we want, and not only an occasional discharge of the tension of resentment which only makes the problem more intractable.

 

Leading Australian Jew Isi Leibler himself gives us the answer we seek: We must accentuate and intensify those “assimilatory forces.” What is to him the “principle threat" is to us the best hope.

 

The peoples of the West, both as nations and as individuals, have a duty to arm themselves in their minds against any dual code practiced in their midst, thereby robbing it of most of its power.

 

Simultaneously, however, if they are wise, they will accentuate those assimilatory forces by extending to Jewish citizens, in all their personal contacts, unfailing courtesy, consideration and kindness-at the same time taking great care not to expose themselves to the risks of unwarranted trustfulness.

 

The experience of 2000 years should surely have taught us that the problem of what the Jews call "anti-Semitism,” but which we call anti-genteelism, is never going to be solved by rabble-rousing and persecution.

 

Meanwhile, however, we would do well never to forget that it is a chauvinist Zionist ambition that is edging mankind towards the brink of another global catastrophe, and that its most potent weapon is the mind-paralyzing lie of “anti-Semitism,"