COZ Chapter 33 • The League to Enforce Peace

 At the same moment in 1917 when the two kindred forces from Russia, revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary-Zionism, emerged into the full open, the third secret purpose of the war, the one of which they were the instruments, also was revealed. This was the project for a “federation of the world” to take over “the management of human affairs” and to rule by force.

The masses then (as in the Second War, twenty-five years later) were being egged on to destroy a “madman in Berlin” on this very ground, that he sought to rule the world by force. In England Mr. Eden Philpotts (one of many such oracles then and in the next war) thundered:

“You thought to grasp the world; but you shall keep its curses only, crowned upon your brow …” and that was the universal cry. Yet the secret plan promoted in the West was equally one to “grasp the world by force” and to put new “warlords” over it.

It was merely dressed in other words. What was reactionary Prussian militarism in Germany was one of Mr. House’s “advanced ideas” in Washington; what was megalomaniac ambition in the Kaiser was an enlightened concept of “a new world order” in London. The politicians of the West became professional dissimulators. Even Disraeli could not foresee in 1832 ( “The practice of politics in the East may be defined by one word: dissimulation”) that this would become the definition of political practice in the West in the 20th Century; but this happened when Western political leaders, by supporting Zionism and the world-revolution, yielded to the prompting of Asiatics; their acts took on an Asiatic duplicity in place of native candour.

Strangely, Mr. Woodrow Wilson, the most compliant of them all, at the start rebelled most fretfully against the secret constraints. He tried, as has been shown, to declare that “the causes and objects of the war are obscure,” and when this was forbidden by Mr. House, still avowed that the belligerents on both sides pursued “the same” objects. He went further at the very start of his presidency, when he wrote, “It is an intolerable thing that the government of the Republic should have got so far out of the hands of the people; should have been captured by interests which are special and not general. We know that something intervenes between the people of the United States and the control of their own affairs at Washington.” Presumably he learned the nature of these “interests” and this “control,” and the galling knowledge may have caused his collapse (and that of Mr. Roosevelt in the later generation).

Nevertheless, he was used to launch the plan for setting up “a federation of the world,” based on force. The idea was “oozed into his brain” by others; the phrase is used by Mr. House’s biographer to describe the method by which Mr. House prompted the actions of other men (and by which his own were prompted). In November 1915, when the American people were still ardent for the president who was keeping them out of the war, Mr. House instructed him:

“We must throw the influence of this nation in behalf of a plan by which international obligations must be kept and maintained and in behalf of some plan by which the peace of the world may be maintained.”

This was always the sales-talk: that “the plan” would “maintain world peace.” Mr. House had long been discussing the plan with Sir Edward Grey (Mr. Asquith’s Foreign Secretary; he became blind in 1914 but in a moment of spiritual clairvoyance used the words which have become truer ever since, “The lights are going out all over Europe”). Sir Edward Grey was captivated by “the plan,” and wrote to Mr. House, “International law has hitherto had no sanction; the lesson of this war is that the Powers must bind themselves to give it sanction.” “Sanction” was the euphemism used by the dissimulators to avoid alarming the masses by the sound of “war” or “force.” The dictionary definition, in such a context, is “a coercive measure,” and the only means of coercion between nations is, ultimately, war: no “sanction” can be effective unless it is backed by that threat. Therefore Sir Edward Grey thought war could be ended by making war. He was an incorruptible but apparently deluded man; the originators of the great “idea” knew what they meant (and in our day this also has been revealed).

By 1916 Mr. House had instructed Mr. Wilson as to his duty and in May the president publicly announced support for “the plan” at a meeting of a new body candidly called “The League to Enforce Peace.” Mr. Wilson knew nothing of its nature: “it does not appear that Woodrow Wilson studied seriously the programme of the League to Enforce Peace” (Mr. House’s Private Papers).

This was a reincarnation of the earlier “League to enforce peace” which (as Lord Robert Cecil had reminded Mr. House) “really became a league to uphold tyranny.” In 1916 the name gave away the game; American opinion was not then ready to walk into so obvious a trap. Senator George Wharton Pepper recalls: “A heavily-financed organization aptly entitled ‘The League of Peace’ was making our task easier by emphasizing, as its title indicated, that the Covenant” (of the League of Nations) “was intended to be made effective by force …Our constant contention, in opposition to theirs, was that the appeal to force was at the best futile and at the worst dangerous … I contrasted the certain futility of an appeal to international force with the possible hopefulness of reliance upon international conference, and declared myself favourable to any association of the latter type and unalterably opposed to a league which was based on the former.”

The dissimulators soon dropped the name, “The League to Enforce Peace,” but the “plan,” which produced “The League of Nations,” transparently remained the same: it was one to transfer the control of national armies to some super-national committee which could use them for “the management of human affairs” in ways serving its own special ends, and that has continued the motive to the present day. As in the earlier case of Zionism, President Wilson was committed long before the crucial moment (by his public declaration of May 1916) and as soon as America was in the war (April 1917) announced that it was involved in an undertaking to set up “a new international order”; this statement was made at the moment of the first revolution in Russia and of the preparation of the Balfour Declaration.

Thus the three great “plans” moved together into the West, and this was the project which was to crown the work of the other two. Its basic principle was the destruction of nation-states and nationhood so that it gave _expression, in modern form, to the ancient conflict between the Old Testament and the New, between the Levitical Law and the Christian message. The Torah-Talmud is the only discoverable, original source of this idea of “destroying nations”; Mr. House thought it almost impossible to trace any “idea” to its fount, but in this case the track can be followed back through the centuries to 500 BC, and it is nowhere obliterated during those twenty-five hundred years. If before that time anybody in the known world had made this “destructive principle” into a code and creed they and it have faded into oblivion. The idea contained in the Torah-Talmud has gone unbroken through all the generations. The New Testament rejects it and speaks of “the deception of nations,” not of their destruction. Revelation foretells a day when this process of deception of nations shall end. Those who seek to interpret prophecy might very well see in The League to Enforce Peace, under its successive aliases, the instrument of this “deception,” doomed at the end to fail.

Mr. House having decided, and Mr. Wilson having declared, that “a new international order” must be established, Mr. House (according to Mr. Howden) set up a body known as “The Inquiry” to draft a plan. Its head was his brother-in-law, Dr. Sidney Mezes (then president of the College of the City of New York), and its secretary a Mr. Walter Lippmann (then writing for The New Republic). A Dr. Isaiah Bowman (then director of the American Geographical Society) gave “personal advice and assistance.”

The group of men placed in charge of The Inquiry therefore was predominantly Jewish (though in this case not Russian-Jewish: this might indicate the true nature of the superior authority indicated by Dr. Kastein’s allusion to “a Jewish international”) and Jewish inspiration may thus reasonably be seen in the plan which it produced. This (says Mr. Howden) was a draft “Convention for a League of Nations” to which Mr. House put his signature in July 1918: “President Wilson was not, and never pretended to be, the author of the Covenant.” Here, then, are the origins of the League of Nations.

The Peace Conference loomed ahead when Mr. House prepared to launch this “new world order,” and its first acts pointed to the identity of the controlling-group behind the Western governments. Zionism and Palestine (issues unknown to the masses when the 1914-1918 war began) were found to be high, if not paramount among the matters to be discussed at the conference which ended it.

President Wilson, for this reason, seems to have known moments of exaltation between long periods of despondency. Rabbi Stephen Wise, at his side, depicted the Palestinean undertaking in such terms that the president, entranced, soliloquised, “To think that I, a son of the manse, should be able to help restore the Holy Land to its people.” While he thus contemplated himself in the mirror of posterity the rabbi beside him compared him with the Persian King Cyrus, who had enabled the exiled Jews of his land to return to Jerusalem.” King Cyrus had allowed native Judahites, if they wished, to return to Judah after some fifty years; President Wilson was required to transplant Judaized Chazars from Russia to a land left by the original Jews some eighteen centuries before.

Across the Atlantic Dr. Weizmann made ready for the Peace Conference. He was then evidently one of the most powerful men in the world, a potentate (or emissary of potentates) to whom the “premier-dictators” of the West made humble obeisance. At a moment in 1918 when the fate of England was in the balance on the stricken Western Front an audience of the King of England was postponed. Dr. Weizmann complained so imperiously that Mr. Balfour at once restored the appointment; save for the place of meeting, which was Buckingham Palace, Mr. Weizmann seems in fact to have given audience to the monarch. During the Second World War the Soviet dictator Stalin, being urged by the Western leaders to take account of the influence of the Pope, asked brusquely, “How many divisions has the Pope?” Such at least was the anecdote, much retold in clubs and pubs, and to simple folk it seemed to express essential truth in a few words. Dr. Weizmann’s case shows how essentially untrue it was. He had not a single soldier, but he and the international he represented were able to obtain capitulations never before won save by conquering armies.

He disdained the capitulants and the scene of his triumphs alike. He wrote to Lady Crewe, “We hate equally anti-semites and philo-semites.” Mr. Balfour, Mr. Lloyd George and the other “friends” were philo-semites of the first degree, in Dr. Weizmann’s meaning of the word, and excelled themselves in servience to the man who despised them. As to England itself, Dr. Weizmann two decades later, when he contemplated the wild beasts in the Kruger National Park, soliloquised, “It must be a wonderful thing to be an animal on the South African game reserve; much better than being a Jew in Warsaw or even in London.”

In 1918 Dr. Weizmann decided to inspect his realm-elect. When he reached Palestine the German attack in France had begun, the depleted British armies were reeling back, and “most of the European troops in Palestine were being withdrawn to reinforce the armies in France.” At such a moment he demanded that the foundation stone of a Hebrew University be laid with all public ceremony. Lord Allenby protested that “the Germans are almost at the gates of Paris!” Dr. Weizmann replied that this was “only one episode.” Lord Allenby obdured; Dr. Weizmann persisted; Lord Allenby under duress referred to Mr. Balfour and was at once ordered by cable to obey. With great panoply of staff officers, troops and presented arms (disturbed only by the sounds of distant British-Turkish fighting) Dr. Weizmann then held his ceremony on Mount Scopus. .

(I remember those days in France. Even half a million more British soldiers there would have transformed the battle; a multitude of lives would have been saved, and the war probably ended sooner. The French and British ordeal in France made a Zionist holiday in Palestine).

When the war at last ended, on November 11, 1918, none other than Dr. Weizmann was at luncheon the sole guest of Mr. Lloyd George, whom he found “reading the Psalms and near to tears.” Afterwards the Zionist chieftain watched from historic Ten Downing Street as the prime minister disappeared, borne shoulder high by a mafficking mob towards a Thanksgiving service in Westminster Abbey.

Masses and “managers”; did any among the crowd notice the high, domed head, with bearded face and heavy-lidded eyes watching from the window of Ten Downing Street?

Then Dr. Weizmann led a Zionist delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919 where “the new world order” was to be set up. He informed the august Council of Ten that “the Jews had been hit harder by the war than any other group”; the politicians of 1919 made no demur to this insult to their millions of dead. However, a remonstrant Jew, Mr. Sylvain Levi of France, at the last moment tried to instil prudence in them. He told them:

First, that Palestine was a small, poor land with an existing population of 600,000 Arabs, and that the Jews, having a higher standard of life than the Arabs, would tend to dispossess them; second, that the Jews who would go to Palestine would be mainly Russian Jews, who were of explosive tendencies; third, that the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine would introduce the dangerous principle of Jewish dual loyalties.

These three warnings have been fulfilled to the letter, and were heard with hostility by the Gentile politicians assembled at the Peace Conference of 1919. Mr. Lansing, the American Secretary of State, at once gave M. Lévi his quietus. He asked Dr. Weizmann, “What do you mean by a Jewish national home?” Dr. Weizmann said he meant that, always safeguarding the interests of non-Jews, Palestine would ultimately become “as Jewish as England is English.” Mr. Lansing said this absolutely obscure reply was “absolutely clear,” the Council of Ten nodded agreement, and M. Levi, like all Jewish remonstrants for twenty-five centuries, was discomfited. (He was only heard at all to maintain a pretence of impartial consideration; Rabbi Wise, disquietened by “the difficulties we had to face in Paris,” had already made sure of President Wilson’s docility. Approaching the president privately, he said, “Mr. President, World Jewry counts on you in its hour of need and hope,” thus excommunicating M. Levi and the Jews who thought like him. Mr. Wilson, placing his hand on the rabbi’s shoulder, “quietly and firmly said, ‘Have no fear, Palestine will be yours.’”)

One other man tried to avert the deed which these men, with frivolity, were preparing. Colonel Lawrence loved Semites, for he had lived with the Arabs and roused them in the desert against their Turkish rulers. He was equally a friend of Jews (Dr. Weizmann says “he has mistakenly been represented as anti-Zionist”) and believed that “a Jewish homeland” (in the sense first given to the term, of a cultural centre) could well be incorporated in the united Arab State for which he had worked.

Lawrence saw in Paris that what was intended was to plant Zionist nationalism like a time-bomb among a clutter of weak Arab states, and the realization broke him. Mr. David Garnett, who edited his Letters , says, “Lawrence won his victories without endangering more than a handful of Englishmen and they were won, not to add subject provinces to our empire, but that the Arabs whom he had lived with and loved should be a free people, and that Arab civilization should be reborn.”

That was Lawrence’s faith during his “Revolt in the Desert,” and what the men who sent him to Arabia told him. When the Paris Conference began he was “fully in control of his nerves and quite as normal as most of us” (Mr. J.M. Keynes). He arrived believing in President Wilson’s pledge (speech of the Fourteen Points, January 8, 1918), “The nationalities under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely independent opportunity of autonomous development.” He could not know that these words were false, because Mr. Wilson was secretly committed to Zionism, through the men around him.

After Dr. Weizmann’s reply to Mr. Lansing, and its approval by the Council of Ten, the betrayal became clear to Lawrence and he showed “the disillusion and the bitterness and the defeat resulting from the Peace Conference; he had complete faith that President Wilson would secure self-determination for the Arab peoples when he went to the Peace Conference; he was completely disillusioned when he returned.”(Mr. Garnett) Lawrence himself later wrote, “We lived many lives in those whirling campaigns” (in the desert) “never sparing ourselves any good or evil; yet when we achieved and the new world dawned the old men came out again and took from us our victory and remade it in the likeness of the former world they knew … I meant to make a new nation, to restore to the world a lost influence, to give twenty millions of Semites the foundations on which to build an inspired dream-palace of their national thoughts.”

Lawrence, who was broken by this experience, was then among the most famous men in the world. Had he joined the dissimulators hardly any rank or honour would have been refused him. He threw up his rank, and away his decorations, and tried from shame even to lose his identity; he enlisted under an assumed name in the lowest rank of the Royal Air Force, where he was later discovered by an assiduous newspaper man. This last phase of his life, and the motor-bicycle accident which ended it, have a suicidal look (resembling the similar phase and end of Mr. James Forrestal after the Second War) and he must be accounted among the martyrs of this story.

The leading public men were agreed to promote the Zionist adventure through the “international world order” which they were about to found, at any cost in honour and human suffering. In nearly all other questions they differed, so that, the war hardly ended, reputations began bursting like bubbles and friendships cracking like plaster, in Paris. Some breach occurred between President Wilson and his “second personality, independent self” (a similar, mysterious estrangement was to sever President Roosevelt and his other self, Mr. Harry Hopkins, at the end of another war).

Mr. House was at his zenith. Prime ministers, ministers, ambassadors and delegates besieged him at the Hotel Crillon; in a single day he gave forty-nine audiences to such high notables. Once the French Prime Minister, M. Clemenceau, called when Mr. Wilson was with Mr. House; the president was required to withdraw while the two great men privately conferred. Perhaps humiliation at last broke Mr. Woodrow Wilson; he was stricken by mortal illness in Paris (as Mr. Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta, though Mr. Wilson survived rather longer). Apparently the two never saw or communicated with each other again! Mr. House merely recorded, “My separation from Woodrow Wilson was and is to me a tragic mystery, a mystery that now can never be dispelled for its explanation lies buried with him.”

The illusions of power were dissolving. These men were never truly powerful, because they acted as the instruments of others. They already look wraithlike in the annals, and if the squares and boulevards named after them still bear their names, few remember who they were. Mr. Wilson returned to America and soon died. Mr. House before long was lonely and forgotten in the apartment in East 35th Street. Mr. Lloyd George found himself in the political wilderness and was only able to complete the ruin of a once-great Liberal party; within a decade he found himself at the head of four followers. Mr. Balfour, for a few more years, absent-mindedly haunted Saint James’s Park.

They were not able to accomplish all that their mentors wished. Shaken by the violence of American objections, Mr. Wilson “absolutely declined to accept the French demand for the creation of an international force that should operate under the executive control of the League.” The American Constitution (the president suddenly recollected) did not permit of any such surrender of sovereignty.

Thus the worst was averted, in that generation. The secret men, who continued to be powerful when these “premier-dictators” and pliable “administrators” were shorn of their semblance of power, had to wait for the Second World War to get their hands on the armies of the nation-states. Then they achieved their “League to enforce peace” almost (but still not quite) in the fullness of despotic power coveted by them. In 1919 they had to content themselves with a modest first experiment: The League Of Nations.

The United States would not even join it; the masses of America, disquietened by the results of the war and instinctively striving to regain the safe haven of “no foreign entanglements,” would have none of it. Britain joined, but under other prime ministers than Mr. Lloyd George would not hand over control of its armies. The way to the kind of “new world order” envisaged by Mr. House and his prompters was blocked for the time being. Nevertheless a way was found, through the League of Nations, to effect one fateful, and possibly fatal breach in British sovereignty.

The authority of this “League of Nations,” whatever it amounted to, was used to cover the use of British troops as a bodyguard for the Zionists intending to seize Palestine. The device employed to give this mock-legal air to the deed was called “the mandate,” and I have earlier shown where it was born. By means of it the League of Nations was able to install the Zionists from Russia in Arabia, where they revealed the “explosive tendencies” foretold by M. Sylvain Levi in 1919 and apparent to all today, in 1956. This was the sole, enduring accomplishment of the “new world order” set up in 1919 and by the ancient test, Cui bono?, the authorship of this “idea” may be judged.

The story of “The mandate” (and of a man who tried to avert it) therefore forms the next chapter in this narrative.

COZ Chapter 32 • The World Revolution Again

 The simultaneous triumphs of Bolshevism in Moscow and Zionism in London in the same week of 1917 were only in appearance distinct events. The identity of their original source has been shown in an earlier chapter, and the hidden men who promoted Zionism through the Western governments also supported the world-revolution. The two forces fulfilled correlative tenets of the ancient Law: “Pull down and destroy … rule over all nations”; the one destroyed in the East and the other secretly ruled in the West.

1917 gave proof of Disraeli’s dictum about the revolution in its 1848 phase, when he said that Jews headed “every one” of the secret societies and aimed to destroy Christianity. The controlling group that emerged in 1917 was so preponderantly Jewish that it may be called Jewish. The nature of the instigating force then became a matter of historical fact, not of further polemical debate. It was further identified by its deeds: the character of its earliest enactments, a symbolic mockery of Christianity, and a special mark of authorship deliberately given to the murder of the monarch. All these bore the traits of a Talmudic vengeance.

In the forty years that have passed great efforts have been made to suppress public knowledge of this fact, which has been conclusively established, by non-sequential rebukes to any who claim to discuss history. For instance, in the 1950’s an able (and deservedly respected) Jewish writer in America, Mr. George Sokolsky, in criticizing a book previously cited wrote, “It is impossible to read it without reaching the conclusion that Professor Beaty seeks to prove that Communism is a Jewish movement.” In respect of the leadership it was that for a long period before 1917 (as to later and the present situation, subsequent chapters will look at the evidence). It was not a conspiracy of all Jews, but neither were the French revolution, Fascism and National Socialism conspiracies of all Frenchmen, Italians or Germans. The organizing force and the leadership were drawn from the Talmudic-controlled Jewish areas of Russia, and in that sense Communism was demonstrably Eastern Jewish.

As to the purposes revealed when the revolution struck in 1917, these showed that it was not episodic or spontaneous but the third “eruption” of the organization first revealed through Weishaupt. The two main features reappeared: the attack on all legitimate government of any kind whatsoever and on religion. Since 1917 the world-revolution has had to cast aside the earlier pretence of being directed only against “kings” or the political power of priests.

One authority of that period knew and stated this. In the tradition of Edmund Burke and John Robison, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton and Disraeli, Mr. Winston Churchill wrote:

“It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were designed to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical … From the days of ‘Spartacus’ Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.”

This is the last candid statement (discoverable by me) from a leading public man on this question. After it the ban on public discussion came down and the great silence ensued, which continues to this day. In 1953 Mr. Churchill refused permission (requisite under English law) for a photostat to be made of this article (Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920), without saying why.

The fact of Jewish leadership was a supremely important piece of knowledge and the later suppression of it, where public debate would have been sanative, produced immense effects in weakening the West. The formulation of any rational State policy becomes impossible when such major elements of knowledge are excluded from public discussion; it is like playing billiards with twisted cues and elliptical balls. The strength of the conspiracy is shown by its success in this matter (as in the earlier period, of Messrs. Robison, Barruel and Morse) more than by any other thing.

At the time, the facts were available. The British Government’s White Paper of 1919 (Russia, No. 1, a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism) quoted the report sent to Mr. Balfour in London in 1918 by the Netherlands Minister at Saint Petersburg, M. Oudendyke: “Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.” The United States Ambassador, Mr. David R. Francis, reported similarly: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.” M. Oudendyke’s report was deleted from later editions of the British official publication and all such authentic documents of that period are now difficult to obtain. Fortunately for the student, one witness preserved the official record.

This was Mr. Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times, who experienced the Bolshevik revolution. The French edition of his book included the official Bolshevik lists of the membership of the ruling revolutionary bodies (they were omitted from the English edition).

These records show that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprized 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919, were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly “Socialist” or other non-Communist parties (during that early period the semblance of “opposition” was permitted, to beguile the masses, accustomed under the Czar to opposition parties) were 55 Jews and 6 others. All the names are given in the original documents reproduced by Mr. Wilton. (In parentheses, the composition of the two short-lived Bolshevik governments outside Russia in 1918-1919, namely those of Hungary and Bavaria, was similar).

Mr. Wilton made a great and thankless effort to tell newspaper readers what went on in Russia (broken, he survived only a few years and died in his fifties). He did not choose the task of reporting the most momentous event that ever came in any journalist’s path of duty; it devolved on him. Educated in Russia, he knew the country and its language perfectly, and was held in high esteem by the Russians and the British Embassy alike. He watched the rioting from the window of The Times office, adjoining the Prefecture where the ministers of the collapsing regime took refuge. Between the advent of the Kerensky government in the spring of 1917 and the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in November 1917, his duty was to report an entirely new phenomenon in world affairs: the rise of a Jewish regime to despotic supremacy in Russia and to overt control of the world-revolution. At that moment he was made to realize that he would not be allowed faithfully to report the fact.

The secret story is told, with surprising candour, in the Official History of his paper, The Times, published in 1952. It shows the hidden mechanism which operated, as early as 1917, to prevent the truth about the revolution reaching the peoples of the West.

This volume pays tribute to the quality of Mr. Wilton’s reporting, and his standing in Russia, before 1917. Then the tone of the references to him abruptly changes. Mr. Wilton’s early warnings of what was to come in 1917, says the book, “did not at once affect the policy of the paper, partly because their writer did not command full confidence.”

Why, if his earlier work and reputation were so good? The reason transpires.

The narrative continues that Mr. Wilton began to complain about the “burking” or suppression of his messages. Then The Times began to publish articles about Russia from men who had little knowledge of that country. As a result the editorial articles about Russia took on the tone, exasperating to Mr. Wilton, with which newspaper-readers became familiar in the following decades: “those who believe in the future of Russia as a free and efficient democracy will watch the vindication of the new regime with patient confidence and earnest sympathy.” (Every incident of Mr. Wilton’s experience in Moscow, which Colonel Repington was sharing in London, was repeated in my own experience, and in that of other correspondents, in Berlin in 1933-1938).

The “interregnum of five months began, during which a Jewish regime was to take over from Kerensky. At this very moment his newspaper lost “confidence” in Mr. Wilton. Why? The explanation emerges. The Official History of The Times says, “It was not happy for Wilton that one of his messages … should spread to Zionist circles, and even into the Foreign Office, the idea that he was an anti-semite.”

“Zionist circles,” the reader will observe; not even “Communist circles”; here the working partnership becomes plain. Why should “Zionists” (who wanted the British government to procure them “a homeland” in Palestine) be affronted because a British correspondent in Moscow reported that a Jewish regime was preparing to take over in Russia? Mr. Wilton was reporting the nature of the coming regime; this was his job. In the opinion of “Zionists,” this was “anti-semitism,” and the mere allegation was enough to destroy “confidence” in him at his head office. How, then, could he have remained “happy” and have retained “confidence.” Obviously, only by misreporting events in Russia. In effect, he was expected not to mention the determining fact of the day’s news!

When I read this illuminating account I wondered by what route “Zionist circles” had spread to “the Foreign Office,” and the Foreign Office to Printing House Square the “idea” that Mr. Wilton was “an anti-semite.” The researcher, like the lonely prospector, learns to expect little for much toil, but in this case I was startled by the large nugget of truth which I found in The Times Official History thirty-five years after the event. It said that “the head of propaganda at the Foreign Office sent to the Editor a paper by one of his staff” repeating the “allegation,” (which apparently was first printed in some Zionist sheet). The Official History revealed even the identity of this assiduous “one.”

It was a young Mr. Reginald Leeper, who three decades later (as Sir Reginald) became British Ambassador in Argentina. I then looked to Who’s Who for information about Mr. Leeper’s career and found that his first recorded employment began (when he was twenty-nine) in 1917: “entered International Bureau, Department of Information in 1917.” Mr. Leeper’s memorandum about Mr. Wilton was sent to The Times early in May 1917. Therefore, if he entered the Foreign Office on New Year’s day of 1917, he had been in it just four months when he conveyed to The Times his “allegation” about the exceptionally qualified Mr. Wilton, of seventeen years service with that paper, and the effect was immediate; the Official History says that Mr. Wilton’s despatches thereafter, during the decisive period, either miscarried or “were ignored.” (The editor was the same of whom Colonel Repington complained in 1917-1918 and to whom the present writer sent his resignation in 1938 on the same basic principle of reputable journalism.)

Mr. Wilton struggled on for a time, continually protesting against the “burking” and suppression of his despatches, and then as his last service to truthful journalism put all that he knew into his book. He recognized and recorded the acts which identified the especial nature of the regime: the law against “anti-semitism,” the anti-Christian measures, the canonization of Judas Iscariot, and the Talmudic fingerprint mockingly left in the death-chamber of the Romanoffs.

The law against “anti-semitism” (which cannot be defined) was in itself a fingerprint. An illegal government, predominantly Jewish, by this measure warned the Russian masses, under pain of death, not to interest them selves in the origins of the revolution. It meant in effect that the Talmud became the law of Russia, and in the subsequent four decades this law has in effect and in growing degree been made part of the structure of the west.

The short-lived anti-Christian deeds of the French phase of the revolution reappeared in more open form. The dynamiting of churches and the installation of an anti-God museum in the Cathedral of Saint Basil were the most ostentatious indications of the nature of the regime, which Mr. Wilton indicated: “Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevist Russia they are nine in ten; if anything the proportion of Jews is still greater.” This was plain reporting, and if the report had related to “Ukrainians,” for instance, instead of “Jews,” none would have objected; the mere act of reporting a fact became the ground for secret denunciation because the fact related to Jews.

The memorial to Judas Iscariot, recorded by Mr. Wilton, was another deliberate intimation to Christendom. If the Jewish rulers merely wanted to bring about an equalitarian society in 1917, there was no relevance in bestowing a halo of heroism on a deed of AD 29; the revolution in Russia cannot be understood at all unless the symbolism of this act is comprehended.

The aspect of a Talmudic vengeance on “the heathen” was unmistakably given to the massacres of that period. In August 1918 a Jew, Kanegisser, shot a Jew, Uritsky; thereon a Jew, Peters, at the head of the Petrograd Cheka ordered “mass terror” on Russians and another Jew, Zinovieff, demanded that ten million Russians be “annihilated”; the British Government’s White Book on Bolshevism (1919) records the massacre of Russian peasants which followed.

By far the most significant act was the form given to the murder of the Romanoff family. But for Mr. Wilton this story would never have reached the world, which to this day might believe that the Czar’s wife and children ended their lives naturally in “protective” custody.

The Czar acted constitutionally to the end, abdicating at the advice of his ministers (March 5, 1917). Thereafter (during the Kerensky period and its first aftermath) he was relatively well treated for a year as the prisoner at Tobolsk of a Russian commandant and Russian guards. In April 1918, when the Jewish regime had gained control, he was transferred, by order from Moscow, to Ekaterinburg. The Russian guards were then withdrawn and their place inside his prison house was taken by men whose identity has never been established: The local Russians later recalled them as “Letts” (the only foreign-speaking Red soldiers known to them), but they seem to have been brought from Hungary.

The Russian commandant’s place was taken by a Jew, Yankel Yurovsky (July 7). That completed a chain of Jewish captors from the top, Moscow, through the regional Urals Soviet, to his prison at Ekaterinburg (which is in the Urals). The real ruler of Russia then was the terrorist Yankel Sverdloff, president of the Moscow Cheka, who was a Jew. The Ekaterinburg Cheka was run by seven Jews, one of them Yankel Yurovsky. On July 20 the Urals Soviet announced that it had shot the Czar and sent his wife and son to “a place of security.” The Moscow Cheka issued a similar announcement, signed by Sverdloff, “approving the action of the Regional Soviet of the Urals.” At that time the entire family was dead.

The truth only became known through the chance that Ekaterinburg fell to the White armies on July 25, that Mr. Wilton accompanied them, and that their commander, General Diterichs, a famous Russian criminologist, M. Sokoloff, and Mr. Wilton uncovered the buried evidence. When the White troops withdrew Mr. Wilton brought away the proofs; they appear in his book and include many photographs.

The murders had been carried out by order from and in constant consultation with Sverdloff in Moscow; records of telephone conversations between him and the Chekists in Ekaterinburg were found. Among these was a report to him from Ekaterinburg saying “Yesterday a courier left with the documents that interest you.” This courier was the chief assassin, Yurovsky, and the investigators believed that the “documents” were the heads of the Romanoffs, as no skulls or skull-bones were found.

The deed was described by witnesses who had not been able to escape, and at least one was a participant. At midnight on July 16 Yurovsky awoke the Czar and his family, took them to a basement room and there shot them. The actual murderers were Yurovsky, his seven unidentified foreign accomplices, one Nikulin from the local Cheka, and two Russians, apparently professional gunmen employed by the Cheka. The victims were the Czar, his wife, ailing son (who was held in his father’s arms as he could not walk), four daughters, Russian doctor, manservant, cook and maid. The room was still a shambles, from the shooting and bayoneting, when M. Sokoloff and Mr. Wilton saw it, and his book includes the picture of it.

The circumstances having been determined, the investigators almost despaired of finding the bodies, or their remains; they learned that Yurovsky, before escaping the town, had boasted that “the world will never know what we did with the bodies.” However, the earth at length gave up its secret. The bodies had been taken by five lorries to a disused iron pit in the woods, cut up and burned, 150 gallons of petrol being used; one Voikoff of the Urals Cheka (a fellow-passenger of Lenin in the train from Germany) as Commissar of Supplies had supplied 400 lbs. of sulphuric acid for dissolving the bones. The ashes and fragments had been thrown down the shaft, the ice at the bottom having first been smashed so that the mass would sink; then a flooring had been lowered and fixed over the place. When this was removed the search reached its end. On top lay the corpse of a spaniel belonging to one of the princesses; below were fragments of bone and skin, a finger, and many identifiable personal belongings which had escaped destruction. A puzzling find was a small collection of nails, coins, pieces of tinfoil and the like. This looked like the contents of a schoolboy’s pockets, and was; the little boy’s English tutor, Mr. Sidney Gibbes, identified it. The precautions taken to dispose of the bodies and of other evidence were of the kind that only criminals of long experience in their trade could have devised; they resemble the methods used in gang warfare, during the Prohibition period, in the United States.

These discoveries, becoming known in the outer world, exposed the untruth of Sverdloff’s announcement that only the Czar had been “executed” and his family sent to “a place of security.” The murderers staged a mock trial of “28 persons on the accusation of having murdered the Czar and his family.” Only eight names were published, all of them unknown in connection with the crime, and five persons were said to have been shot, who if they existed at all cannot have had any part in it. The arch-assassin, Sverdloff, was soon afterwards killed in some party dispute and thousands of innocent people died in the indiscriminate massacres which followed. Ekaterinburg was renamed Sverdlovsk to give enduring fame to his part in the symbolic deed.

The chief reason for recounting the details of the pogrom of the Romanoffs is to point to the “fingerprint” which was left in the room where it was done. One of the assassins, presumably their leader, stayed to exult and put a significant signature on the wall, which was covered with obscene or mocking inscriptions in Hebrew, Magyar and German. Among them was a couplet which deliberately related the deed to the Law of the Torah-Talmud and thus offered it to posterity as an example of the fulfilment of that law, and of Jewish vengeance as understood by the Levites. It was written in German by someone who parodied the Jewish poet, Heinrich Heine’s lines on the death of Belshazzar, the imaginary potentate whose murder is portrayed in Daniel as God’s punishment for an affront offered to Judah:

Belsazar ward aber in selbiger Nacht
Von selbigen Knechten umgebracht.[2]

The parodist, sardonically surveying the shambles, adapted these lines to what he had just done:

Belsa tsar ward in selbiger Nacht
Von seinen Knechten umgebracht.

No clearer clue to motive and identity was ever left behind.

The revolution was not Russian; the eruption was brought about in Russia, but the revolution had its friends in high places everywhere. At this period (1917-1918) the student for the first time is able to establish that leading men began to give that secret support to Communism which they were already giving to its blood brother, Zionism. This happened on both sides of the fighting-line; once the secret, but overriding purposes of the war came into play the distinction between “friend” and “foe” disappeared. The Zionists, though they concentrated “irresistible pressure” on the politicians of London and Washington, long kept their headquarters in Berlin; the Communists obtained decisive support from Germany at one moment and from Germany’s enemies the next.

For instance, Germany when the 1914-1918 war began started “sending back to Russia Russians of revolutionary tendencies who were prisoners here, with money and passports, in order that they may stir up trouble at home” (Ambassador Gerard in Berlin to Mr. House). Mr. Robert Wilton says the decision to Foment the revolution in Russia was formally taken at a German and Austrian General Staff meeting at Vienna late in 1915. The German Chief-of-Staff, General Ludendorff, later regretted this: “By sending Lenin to Russia our government assumed … a great responsibility. From a military point of view his journey was justified, for Russia had to be laid low; but our government should have seen to it that we were not involved in her fall.”

That, taken as an isolated case, might be a simple human error: what appeared to be a sound military move produced catastrophic political consequences not foreseen when it was made. But what explanation can be found for American and British politicians, whose foremost military and political principle should have been to sustain Russia and yet who supported the alien revolutionaries who “laid Russia low”?

I have already quoted the editorial about the revolution (“… a free and efficient democracy … the vindication of the new regime …”) which appeared in The Times of London while its experienced correspondent’s despatches were being “ignored” and “confidence” withdrawn from him because the newspaper had received “an allegation” that he was “an anti-semite.” On the other side of the Atlantic the true ruler of the Republic, Mr. House was confiding to his diary similar sentiments. For him the alien revolutionaries smuggled into Russia during wartime from the West (“this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America,” Mr. Churchill) were honest agrarian reformers: “the Bolshevists appeared to the peace-hungry and land-hungry Russians as the first leaders who made a sincere effort to satisfy their needs.”

Today all know what happened to the Russians’ “land-hunger” under Bolshevism. In 1917 the Czars and their ministers for fifty years had been toiling to satisfy this “land-hunger” and by assassination had been thwarted. Apparently Mr. House was ignorant of that. When the revolution was accomplished he instructed the shadow-president: “that literally nothing be done further than that an _expression of sympathy be offered for Russia’s efforts to weld herself into a virile democracy and to proffer our financial, industrial and moral support in every way possible.”[3]

The resemblance between the first phrase of this sentence and the editorial of The Times in London may be noted; powerful behind-scene groups in both capitals evidently were agreed to present the public masses with this false picture of a “virile” and “efficient” democracy in the making. The second phrase cancelled the policy initially recommended of “literally doing nothing” beyond uttering sympathetic words, by giving the order literally to do everything; for what more can be done than to give “financial, industrial and moral support in every way possible”? This was American state policy from the moment that Mr. House so instructed the president, and it exactly describes the policy pursued by President Roosevelt during the Second World War, as will be shown.

Thus the West, or powerful men in the West, began to range itself with the world-revolution against the Russians, which meant, against all men who abhorred the revolution. Not all the powerful men, or men later to become powerful, lent them selves to this hidden undertaking. At that time Mr. Winston Churchill again stated the nature of the revolution:

“Certainly I dispute the title of the Bolshevists to represent Russia … They despise such a mere commonplace as nationality. Their ideal is a worldwide proletarian revolution. The Bolsheviks robbed Russia at one stroke of two most precious things: peace and victory, the victory that was within her grasp and the peace which was her dearest desire. The Germans sent Lenin into Russia with the deliberate intention of working for the downfall of Russia … No sooner did Lenin arrive there than he began beckoning a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats in New York, in Glasgow, in Berne and other countries” (the reader will perceive whence the “Russian” revolutionaries were brought to Russia) “and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect, the most formidable sect in the world … With these spirits around him he set to work with demoniacal ability to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian state and nation depended. Russia was laid low. Russia had to be laid low … Her sufferings are more fearful than modern records hold and she had been robbed of her place among the great nations of the world.” (House of Commons, 5 November 1919.)

Mr. Churchill’s description remains valid, particularly the phrase, “the most formidable sect in the world,” which resembles the phrase used by Bakunin in his attack on Jewish usurpation of the revolution fifty years earlier. The passage quoted from Mr. Churchill’s article earlier in this chapter shows that he was equally aware of the identity of this sect.

Thus Dr. Chaim Weizmann’s youthful fellow-conspirators from the Talmudic area of Russia triumphed in Russia at the very moment when he triumphed in London and Washington. The only difference between him and them, from the start, was that between “revolutionary-Zionism” and “revolutionary-Communism,” as he shows. In his student days in Berlin, Freiburg and Geneva, he had waged many a hot debate about this point of difference, which for those who reject revolution as such is a distinction without meaning. Mr. Balfour’s amanuensis, Mrs. Dugdale, portrays the blood-brothers of the revolution in argument during the years when their simultaneous triumph was in preparation:

“Lenin and Trotsky took power in the same week of November 1917 that Jewish nationalism won its recognition. Years before, in Geneva, Trotsky and Weizmann had night after night expounded from rival cafés in the university quarter their opposed political beliefs. Both of them Russian-born … they had swayed the crowds of Jewish students from one side of the street to the other; Leon Trotsky, apostle of Red revolution; Chaim Weizmann, apostle of a tradition unbroken for two thousand years. Now by a most strange coincidence in the same week each of them accomplished the fulfilment of his dream.”

In truth, the pincers in which the West was to be gripped had been forged, and each handle was held by one of two groups of revolutionaries “Russian-born” (but not Russian).

For Dr. Weizmann and his associates in London and Washington, the event in Moscow was a passing embarrassment, in one respect. They had based their demand for Palestine on the legend that “a place of refuge” must be found for Jews “persecuted in Russia” (an obvious non sequitur but good enough for “the mob”), and now there was no “persecution in Russia.” On the contrary, in Moscow a Jewish regime ruled and “anti-Semitism” was a capital offence. Where, then, were the Jews who needed “a place of refuge”? (This is evidently the reason why Mr. Robert Wilton had to be prevented from reporting the nature of the new regime in Moscow).

Rabbi Elmer Berger says, “The Soviet government even privileged Jews as Jews … at a single stroke, the revolution emancipated those very Jews for whom, previously, no solution other than Zionism would be efficacious, according to Zionist spokesmen. Soviet Jews no longer had need of Palestine, or any other refuge. The lever of the suffering of Russian Jewry, which Herzl had often used in attempts to prise a charter for Palestine from some power, was gone.”

That did not deter Dr. Weizmann. At once he informed the Jews that they must not expect any respite:

“Some of our friends … are very quick in drawing conclusions as to what will happen to the Zionist movement after the Russian revolution. Now, they say, the greatest stimulus for the Zionist movement has been removed. Russian Jewry is free … Nothing can be more superficial and wrong than that. We have never built our Zionist movement on the sufferings of our people in Russia or elsewhere. These sufferings were never the cause of Zionism. The fundamental cause of Zionism was, and is, the ineradicable striving of Jewry to have a home of its own.”

Dr. Weizmann spoke truth in untruth. It was true that the organizers of Zionism, in their private hearts, had never in reality built their movement on “the sufferings of our people in Russia or elsewhere”; they were indifferent to any suffering, Jewish or other, caused by Zionism. But they had beyond all dispute used “the sufferings of our people in Russia” as their argument in beleaguering Western politicians, who from Mr. Wilson in 1912 onward repeatedly alluded to it.

In this crucial week, the falsity of the entire contention, though revealed, made no difference, for the British Government, as Mrs. Dugdale recorded, was at length committed. Not even a pretence could be maintained that any Jews needed “a place of refuge” but Mr. Lloyd George had undertaken to conquer Palestine for “the Jews.”

The basic fallacy of the enterprise was exposed at the very instant when it was clamped like a millstone round the neck of the West. Although this irreparable flaw in its foundation must cause its ultimate collapse, like that of Sabbatai Zevi’s messiahship in l666, the tragi-comedy thenceforth had to be played to its ruinous end.

But for one later event, the undertaking would have died a natural death within a few years and would survive today in the annals merely as Balfour’s Folly. This event was the coming of Hitler, which for a while filled the gap left by the collapse of the legend of “persecution in Russia” and produced in some Jews a desire to go even to Palestine. For the Zionists Hitler, had he not arisen, would have needed to be created; a collapsing scheme was made by him to look almost lifelike for some time. The Hitlerist episode belongs to a later chapter in this narrative.