[How Organized Jewry has taken control of the US government and subverted it as part of its goal of achieving world domination — KATANA]
[Click to enlarge]
Zion’s Trojan Horse
By Senator Jack B. Tenney
ZION’S TROJAN HORSE
A TENNEY REPORT
On World Zionism
By Senator Jack B. Tenney
Introduction by Col. John Beaty
Sons of Liberty P.O. Box 449
Arabi, LA 70032
Printed In the United States of America
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION By Col. JOHN BEATY ………………………………. 175
THE WANDERING JEW …………………………………………………. 177
In Dispersion From the Beginning …………………………………… 177
The Chosen People ………………………………………………………… 180
THE TERRIBLE POWER OF THE PURSE ………………………. 188
Jacob Henry Schiff ………………………………………………………… 189
The Rothschilds …………………………………………………………….. 190
The Warburgs ………………………………………………………………… 192
PRELUDE TO CONQUEST ………………………………………………. 193
The World Zionist Organization ……………………………………….. 193
Toward World Government …………………………………………….. 195
THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT ……………………………….197
The Jewish Socialist Federation of America ……………………….. 197
The Socialist International …………………………………………………. 202
The National Workmen’s Committee …………………………………. 204
JEWISH REVOLUTION ………………………………………………….. 205
“WE ARE ONE PEOPLE” ………………………………………………….. 211
“Unity of Mind and Purpose” ……………………………………………. 211
The Copenhagen Manifesto ………………………………………………. 214
THE JEWISH NATION ………………………………………………………. 215
The International Jew at Versailles …………………………………….. 215
The Versailles Treaty ………………………………………………………….. 217
Second Meeting of the American Jewish Congress ………………. 218
CONQUEST OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITIES ……………………… 219
Groundwork for World Government ……………………………………. 219
First World Jewish Conference ……………………………………………. 221
The Constituent Session of the World Jewish Congress …….. 224
Mobilization of World Jewry ……………………………………………….. 226
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS ……………………………………………… 228
AGITATION FOR WORLD WAR II …………………………………….. 236
ANTI-GENTILISM …………………………………………………………….. 239
CHANCE OR DESIGN? …………………………………………………….,. 246
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
INDEX [see PDF]
By CoL. JOHN BEATY, author of
The Iron Curtain Over America
To be of major significance, a book on the current world scene must meet three requirements:
(1) It must be the work of a person who has been in an exceptional position for breaking through censorship and learning the truth;
(2) it must be full and complete and written fearlessly, with no effort to hide or gloss over the evil deeds of any faction or minority; and
(3) it must be written by one who is skilled in the writer’s art.
ZION’S TROJAN HORSE, by Jack Tenney, possesses the triple qualification.
(1) Ten years of arduous work in the California Senate as Chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities has given Senator Tenney a great body of information on vital facts to which newspaper columnists and other political writers, and even academic historians, have no means of access. The reason is obvious. In his strategic position, Senator Tenney not only had opportunities denied to others for uncovering secret data; he even had the power to force the disclosure of much information which would under no circumstances have become known to a writer who was not in a similar position of government authority.
(2) An author’s incumbency in high office or in a strategic position does not, however, guarantee that his book is of major importance. Too many such personages have written books to throw a smoke screen over their own surrenders to political expediency or to alien pressure. Other authors have written books which purport to cover the history of the past half century or to deal with the foreign policy of the United States of America and yet, from fear of an alien minority, make no reference whatever to Middle East, Israel, Jews, Judaism, Khazars, or Zionism! These books name names, but never the names of such history-making Jews as, for example, the Rothschilds, Chaim Weizman, Samuel Untermeyer, Stephen A. Wise, and Louis D. Brandeis — much less the names of those Jews prominent in more recent times in atomic espionage; in the U. S. executive departments, especially Treasury and State; and above all, in the personal staffs of the last three Presidents of the United States.
Books that leave out such topics and such names are worse than useless. They are dangerous. They teach the reader to place the blame for the world’s perilous condition upon people of his own creed and kind, and not where it belongs — upon scheming alien manipulators. Such books present a picture as much distorted from the truth as would be presented by a history of the U. S. Revolutionary War which made no reference to taxation without representation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Continental Congress; and made no mention of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, or other men prominent at the time in influencing public opinion.
But how, the reader may ask, can one tell without reading it whether a book by a seemingly authoritative author gives a full coverage of its subject? Fortunately, there is an easy test. Consult the index of each book which has attracted your attention. Make your own comparison, and back the book of your choice. The merest glance at the index of ZION’S TROJAN HORSE will show its full and fearless coverage of all phases of its vital subject.
(3) Whatever a man’s former position of authority and however full his coverage of his subject, he cannot have maximum effectiveness unless he writes well. Senator Tenney writes with a confidence and a zeal which the reader immediately senses and shares. Imbued by the emotion of the author, the reader is swept forward through the mass of details which fill the years between Karl Marx and the present. He is both fascinated and terrified by the climactic story of the growth of two tremendous forces, Communism and Zionism, so closely related in their objectives. The reader sees with the horror which can be induced only by superb literary writing how the aims of these two forces, Communism and Zionism, are alike hostile to America as a nation and to the Christian civilization of which our nation is the finest flower. The reader shares the author’s indignation at the subtle way in which Communism and Zionism have played Christian nations against each other in bloody conflict, and is appalled at the combination of subtle infiltration, brazen bullying, and everlasting propaganda with which these two alien forces have ridden rough-shod over the world and have demanded and secured in this country rights and privileges which involve the destruction of America and the degradation of the Christian West.
In Paradise Lost John Milton wrote the epic of the fall of man, a fall which was engineered by an alien intruder into the Garden. In ZION’S TROJAN HORSE, Jack Tenney has written of the fall of American man, and of American women, too, under the blandishments, the bribes, and the intimidation of alien intruders into our garden-spot, America. To read this great book is to arm yourself with knowledge. With your increased knowledge you will feel increased confidence and have a new power to go forth and defend your country, your ideals, and your faith.
DECEMBER 4, 1953
Karl Marx’s attack upon religion as “the opium of the people” was not so much an attack upon all religions as it was a war against Christianity. Like most intellectual revolutionary Jews, Marx was no more an adherent of Judaism than he was of Christianity. Ethnically, however, he was a Jew. In substance Marx reminded the Jews that they must not demand equality with Christians; they must seek the total destruction of Christianity. Marx believed that the Jew has within himself the privilege of being a Jew. It was his contention that the Jew, as a Jew, has rights that the Christian does not have.
“Why does the Jew demand rights that he does not have and that Christians enjoy?” he asked.
He reasoned that the Jew, in demanding emancipation from the Christian State, demands that the Christian State abandon its religious prejudice.
And he, the Jew, does he abandon his own religious prejudices?
Has he then the right to demand of another that he relinquish his religion? Marx concludes that as long as the State remains Christian; as long as Jew remains Jew, both are equally incapable, the one to give emancipation, and the other to receive it.
Thundering in the columns of “Deutsch·Franzosishe Jahr bucher”, Marx demanded:
“Upon what title do you Jews ground your claim for emancipation? On your religion? It is the mortal foe of the State (Christian) religion.”
The Marxian philosophy does not tolerate compromise.
What then is the Marxian solution?
Concluding that as long as States are Christian and the religion of the Jews is the mortal foe of the state religion, Marx proceeds to lay down the formula for the destruction of Christianity; — the establishment of atheism.
“The most rigid form of opposition between the Jew and the Christian,” he avers, “is the religious opposition. How does one get rid of an opposition? By making it impossible. And how make impossible a religious opposition? By suppressing religion.”
Marx was willing to concede that the Jew had been emancipated In his day, but in a Jewish manner. He believed that the Jew had been emancipated in precise measure as the Christians had become Jews. He knew that the Jew, “who was merely tolerated in Vienna,” determined by his sole financial power the future of all Europe; that the Jew, who might be without rights in the smallest of the German states, decided the future of Europe. He believed that the Jew had made himself the master of the financial market through the medium of gold which had become a world power, and through the “practical Jewish spirit” which had become the spirit in practice of the Christian people. But, to Marx, this type of emancipation was not enough. Real emancipation, in the Marxist sense, could only be achieved by the total destruction of Christianity.
A tidal wave of atheism rolled across Europe in the wake of Marxism, inundating the low places in Christendom; — surged across the seas to America; rising higher and higher to wash against the walls of colleges and universities, — even to the pulpits of churches that had withstood fire and sword. As the muddy waters churned and seethed the flags of proud States went down to be lost in the flotsam and filth of the flood. Where the waters receded there appeared great scars of erosion on the face of the earth; — scars that reflected the dwindling dignity of man and his vanishing freedoms.
The apostles of Marx had succeeded better than they knew.
Religious faith and value appeared to be crumbling under the lashing waves of the flood. Eternal truths fled before the raucous shouts and taunts of sensual multitudes, and a long, black night descended over the earth.
Out of the chaos of the Nineteenth Century arose the powers of Communism and Zionism. Each made its appearance in Russia at almost the same moment; — springing full-grown ideologically from the minds of the same ethnic group. One movement announced that it sought world power and intended to take it through revolutionary action. The other group announced its purpose to acquire territory that did not belong to it and demanded exceptional powers and privileges everywhere else in the world. In 1918 both groups attained world significance: Zionism in the Balfour Declaration, and Communism in the Russian November revolution. When the confusion of World War I had passed away only Communism and Zionism could claim victories; the Soviet Union in Russia for the Communists, and the beachhead in Palestine for the Zionists, and both movements appeared to be under the same management.
Through the years both powers supported, promoted and protected each other. Both emphasized “anti-Semitism” in their propaganda programs, extending it, where advantageous, to include other “minority groups” in the area of their advance. Nationalism everywhere was the perpetual target of the day, yet both movements preached a chauvinistic nationalism never before known. Both planted agents in the governments of the world and manipulated compliant officials to their will. Where expedient they waved the flag and declared that “Communism is Twentieth Century Americanism” and that allegiance to Israel is “American patriotism”.
Both advocated “one worldism” and the surrender of the sovereignties of nations to the super-government they intend to create and are determined to control. Both are anti-Christian; both are anti-Republic. Each extol the virtues of democracy while practicing totalitarianism. Both denounce “racism” and “nordic superiority” while professing to be the elite of the world and the Chosen People. Adherents of each group considers themselves strangers sojourning in the land of their birth or residence, surrounded by hostile people. They are convinced that they must bend these foes to their will, utterly exterminate them, or be destroyed themselves.
“Anti-Semitism” is largely a myth. It is a “brain-washing” word in the same category with the term “red-baiters” of the thirties.
A slight bit of research and a little analysis reveals that it is a machiavellian device for ideological warfare, — and that it is used solely for that purpose. The average curious investigator will find few individuals — if in fact he can find one — who has antipathy for hatred’s sake of the Semites of the world. The modern use and intended implication becomes clear when it is known that the word “Semite” was originally employed by J. G. Eichhorn at the close of the Eighteenth Century to designate the “sons of Shem” which included the Babylonians, Assyrians, Aramaeans, Phoenicians and various other peoples of Southeastern Asia. Today the term is much more properly applied to Arabs than to Jews. Paradoxically the most anti-Semitic person in the world is the non-Semitic Khazar Jew because this Jew covets the Semitic Arab’s land and possessions.
In fact, the greatest anti-Semitic act of the ages was the driving out by the new State of Israel of nearly a million Arab people who are even today hungry and homeless in the desert, — an act of bloody rapine performed by non-Semitic Khazars.
Anti-Semitism, then, is an important propaganda term, designedly provocative both in attack and defense. Its most modern and effective use originated in Russia after the successful Bolshevik revolution. The laws enacted against “anti-Semitism” by the Soviets sought to silence criticism of the Jewish leadership of the Bolshevist government, and the term was used solely in its ethnic meaning. Since then Communists and organized Jewry have employed the term everywhere, seeking, not the protection of the Jewish people, but protection against criticism of organized Jewry’s political activities and objectives. The opprobrium is as ruthlessly thrown — and with equal venom — at Jew as well as Gentile, — whenever a Jew presumes to criticize the policies of self-appointed “officials” of Jewish organizations who boldly claim the right to speak for him. Anti-Semitism is, literally speaking, non-existent except in the attitude of Khazar Jews toward the Arabs.
Herzl declared that the Jews are what the Ghetto made them.
He either believed that the Ghetto was forced on the Jews or neglected to say that the Ghetto was strictly a Jewish institution.
The fact is that Jewish leadership fought for, established, and resisted the abolition of, the Ghetto. Without elaboration or explanation Herzl accepted anti-Semitism in its literal sense, although apparently recognizing the obvious fact that there were Jews who might not exactly be considered “excellent men.” Despairing of solving “the Jewish question” in a sensible and rational manner he strengthened his Zionist scheme by concluding that;
“the nations in whose midst Jews live, are all either covertly or openly anti-Semitic.”
The proposition that some people are possessed of an in grained, unreasonable dislike or hatred of other people, or of a particular people, philosophy, or religion or what-not, is a comparatively recent weapon in ideological warfare. “Attitudes” do not just happen; they are the result of some situation, — the effect — and not the origin —of a chain of experiences. The child with the burned finger does not suddenly develop an “attitude” against fire, — he has experienced its effect. To assert that there has never been universal dislike and distrust of the Jews would be denying or ignoring the records of history. It is a fact that historians do not magnify or underscore, but a phenomenon that organized Jewry perpetuates and emphasizes. According to Jewish propaganda no other people have been so universally despised, excoriated and persecuted. To ask the Jewish propagandist for the causes of this universal hatred, this excoriation, this cruel treatment, is to be branded, without further hearing, an incurable “Nazi”, a “Fascist” and an “anti-Semite.” The tacit assumption — which must be the “attitude” of all concerned if they are to escape vicious condemnation — is that the Jews are the most innocent, the purest, the most lovable and the most virtuous of all mankind; that their oppressors — Christians for the greater part — are the most brutal, the most evil, the most heartless and the most degenerated of all the people on the earth.
To accept this assumption as true is to be hopelessly stupid.
No people are wholly bad or wholly good. Both the good and the bad reputations of a given people are traceable, in large measure, to the good-will, the ambitions, the intrigues and the characteristics of their leaders. Thus a Napoleon may earn a bad reputation for the French; a George III a bad name for the English; and a Hitler a Mussolini and a Stalin an evil character for the respective peoples of the countries they rule. But in between, before, and after, there are other leaders who exemplify the virtues of the people they represent, so that they are known as generous, forgiving, humane and compassionate where on other occasions they had appeared grasping, vengeful, inhuman and ruthless. But, thunders organized Zionism, wherever the Jew sojourned, there he was hated, robbed and persecuted. Nation after nation opened their arms to wandering Jews time and time again only to officially expel them when they had an opportunity to get acquainted with them. According to organized Jewry’s account there were no exceptions recorded on history’s pages; — no instance where “they lived happily ever after.” Only periods of sinister calms while the Christian persecutors recovered their breath and energies for new and more frightful atrocities against them.
What must an honest and impartial student of such a story reasonably conclude? That the Christians are, and always have been, a brutalized and unregenerated lot? That the Jew has always been an innocent victim, without evil, without provocation and without fault? Only an idiot or a partisan might so conclude.
Reason dictates that no man or group of men may claim perfection.
To assert that everyone is out of step but Jim is to be either completely blind to Jim’s shortcomings or a bigoted liar. Reason therefore dictates that the Jewish assertion of universal hatred of the Jews was either deserved or that the assertion is untrue.
People have always reacted in much the same way as they do today. There isn’t much evidence at hand to prove that they are much better or much worse in our time than they have been through the ages. Kindness, decency, and courtesy have always been contagious and good-will always created good-will. If there has been universal dislike and distrust of the Jews then it is necessary to look for the cause. It is unreasonable to believe that the Jews themselves, merely because they are Jews, were the cause.
The answer must be found in the character of Jewish leadership.
The cry of “religious persecution” began to sound hollow a long time ago. It was used in the beginning as the term “racism” is employed today, and for the same purpose. It was designed to amalgamate Jewish interest with dissonant Christian sects for the advancement of Jewish ambitions. Wherever it has been possible it has been organized Jewry that has engaged in “religious persecution.” While there have been, are, and undoubtedly will continue to be, doctrinal disagreements within the Christian churches none of these disputes attack the basis of Christianity itself. One need only turn to the “Jewish Year Books” and scan the list of “Christological manifestations” under attack by organized Jewry to get a picture of religious persecution in the United States. (See Zion’s Fifth Column). Both the Catholic and Protestant respects the followers of Judaism. Only organized Jewry appears to hate Christianity. Its long record of strenuous effort to eradicate every vestige of Christian expression from everyday life in America is easily discovered.
Herzl was quick to point out that;
“modern anti-Semitism is not to be confounded with the religious persecution of the Jews of former times.”
He did not believe that the question was social. To the founder of Zionism “anti-Semitism” was a “national” question, because the Jews “are a people — one people.”
Jewish writers and Gentile apologists have offered self-serving “reasons” for anti-Semitism. Jewish writers, without attempting to refute the charges, appear to be the first to explain Jewish persecution on the ground that Jews were “falsely alleged” to constitute a “race” bent upon exploiting the Gentile populations among whom they lived. A second theory of more recent invention is the “scapegoat” theme. In the same manner that Marxists reason fascism to be the product of expiring capitalism, some Jewish writers profess to explain anti-Semitism as a product of “decaying social systems.” In some instances the reasoning is identical. The “decaying social order” through its “bankrupt leadership” incites the mobs to pogroms against the Jews to deflect the wrath of the impoverished away from the “landlords”; calls for Jewish persecution so that “exploited workers” may direct their violence against the “innocent Israelites” instead of the “voracious employers and officials.” It should be apparent that this explanation is without rhyme or reason. It is pure invention without historical documentation; a gross insult to Christendom thinly veiled in psychological speculation.
What, then, is the basis for alleged anti-Semitism?
The answer is that anti-Semitism is non-existent. It is a term of Communist and Zionist invention to shield anti-Gentilism.
“The Jews are a distinct nationality” declared Justice Louis D. Brandeis of the Supreme Court of the United States. Said Theodor Herzl:
“I will give you my definition of a nation; and you can add the adjective ‘ Jewish.’ A Nation is, in my mind, an historical group of men of recognizable cohesion held together by a common enemy. Then, if you add to that the word ‘ Jewish ‘ you have what I understand to be the Jewish Nation.”
“Anti-Semitism”, therefore, may be said to be paint on Zion’s Trojan Horse.
The “common enemy” of the Jewish Nation, on Herzl’s authority, is Christianity. The leaders of Jewry through the ages looked upon Christians everywhere through the eyes of Simon ben Yohai and their ingrained attitude was perpetually anti-Gentile and anti-Christian. Such an attitude drilled into the hearts and the minds of succeeding generations of Jews must necessarily be reflected in their daily contacts and dealings with the despised enemy; must necessarily chafe and inflame the concealed resentment smoldering in the breasts of every one of them. To be the elite, the Chosen people, — the People of the Covenant, and yet to be compelled to seek haven and refuge in the lands of the “mortal foe” must be humiliating and frustrating beyond endurance.
To outwit, to trick, to maneuver and manipulate the enemy becomes an outlet for suppressed hatred. When their guiles are discovered and the wrath of the deceived fall upon their heads they cry out that they are the victims of “religious persecution” and “anti-Semitism.”
Among the many illustrations of this characteristic of Jewish leadership may be mentioned the Jewish Socialist Bund uprising in Odessa, Russia in 1905. The reign of terror was insolent, anti-National, violent and bloody. Rich Jewish merchants financed the purchase of arms which were distributed among several thousands of the younger men. Mobs of these armed Jews paraded the streets carrying the red flag. Believing they had succeeded in the revolt they proclaimed the South Russian Republic. The Municipal Council of Odessa formed itself into a Committee of Public Safety and issued a series of decrees in the presence of delegations from the Bund. Desiring to cripple the armed power, the Jews demanded the withdrawal of the regular military forces, the disarming of the police and the establishment of a citizenship-militia. When the counter-revolution came and the Bundists were hunted down and arrested the cry of “anti-Semitism” led many in other lands to believe that Czarist Russia had again embarked upon a cruel pogrom against the Jews.
There may have been and there probably were instances of unfounded abuse of the Jews. To believe otherwise is to be as bigoted as organized Jewry. History records many injustices to many people, the least of which, incidentally, were the Jews. But, unless Christianity is willing to assume the role organized Jewry has written for it — that of a brutal, inhuman, unreasoning mass of sadistic tyrants and despots — the alleged universal distrust and dislike of the Jews must have been merited. And — in case this may be quoted out of context — let it be remembered that it is organized Jewry who poses the universal Jewish persecution postulate.
The crux of the subject of “anti-Semitism” is to be found in the Nazi-like concept of race-purity and race-superiority; in the obsession that the Jew, regardless of his country, his station in life, the shade of his belief or lack of belief, his political orientation, or any other consideration, is a member of a distinct and special nationality.
“To deny Jewish nationality,” asserts one Jewish authority, “you must deny the existence of the Jew.”
Leon Simon declared that:
“Judaism has no message of salvation for the individual soul, as Christianity has; all its ideas are bound up with the existence of the Jewish nation.”
And Moses Hess, “the Communist Rabbi,” wrote that;
“every Jew is, whether he wishes it or not, solidly united with the entire nation.”
Is this not the basic center of Hitler’s dream of the Third Reich; — the ingathering of the “blood-brothers” — the protection and liberation of German “minorities”? Did Hitler demand or claim more for the German people than Simon, Herzl, Hess and Brandeis demanded and claimed for the Jews? The answer to this may be that Hitler was modest by comparison.
The result of such philosophy — and the subject might be extended ad infinitum — is the creation of a monolithic concept of race-superiority that defies every effort of good-will for the establishment of the brotherhood of man.
CHANCE OR DESIGN?
As we look back over the history of the last hundred years a number of events stand out in bold relief against the tumult and the shouting. Important among these events are the rise of Marxism, the rise of political Zionism, the frenzied mobilization of world Jewry, the Balfour Declaration, the triumph. of Communism in Russia: World War I, the League of Nations, the Great Depression, World War II, the United Nations and the invasion and the conquest of Palestine. There were many other events, of course, but none with such sweeping continuity and importance; none of such magnitude in world shaking consequence.
Were these events the disconnected results of the muddled minds that purported to direct the destiny of nations?
Were they merely the accidental sum totals of mistaken calculations?
Were they the chance results of a careless throw of dice from the trembling hands of an insane Destiny?
Are they connected in such a manner as to indicate the result of clever planning?
Does each event follow in natural sequence and in logical order?
We believe that each event is a logical step in a predetermined schedule; each incident a link in a chain carefully designed and forged; each catastrophe a check-mark on a time-table to world conquest.
We venture the opinion that there remains but two further important events for the successful culmination of a well laid plan, —World War III and World Government.
It should be made clear in this analysis that world Jewry: although it may be the means, is as much a victim in this scheme of things as are the Gentiles. And although world Jewry may be the means, compliant Gentile officialdom is the instrument.
Marxism may be said to be a devise for de-Christianizing Christendom; a chisel for dividing Nations and fragmentizing its citizenry. It is, in addition, an atheistic philosophy for brutalizing humanity, a doctrine of hate, of violence and bloodshed. Its battle cry of “brotherhood” and “equality” are deceptive slogans for class hatred and slavery.
Wherever Marxism has marched, brother has hated brother; its trail has been marked by mountains of dead and rivers of blood. The internationalism it preaches is designed to smother patriotism so that its victims will not resist conquest; its “classless society” is a world of slaves and masters. Through the years from the “Communist Manifesto” in 1848 its sinister doctrines have been preached wherever men might listen. Its oriental devices have been refined and perfected, and its trickery is practiced by cunning men throughout the world. Its doctrines have been carried by Jewish emigrants into the crowded places of the Diaspora where Jewish Socialist Bund branches nourished them and injected their virus into the blood-streams of other nations. Its inhuman philosophy bears the mark of Cain. Its gross materialism has stripped the world of its values and ushered in the Age of Delusion.
Its divisive technique is an important part in a plan, — perhaps the plan itself.
As the years marched by, Marx’s disciple, Moses Hess, would preach of Utopia in Zion, and another Marxist, Ferdinand Lassalle, would mobilize the proletariat for political power. A Pinsker and a Ginzberg would sing of Zion and ultimately a Herzl would proclaim the Jewish State. World Jewry would mobilize and a first World War would wring a declaration for a “Jewish Homeland in Palestine” from an English Balfour, — persuaded to barter an innocent people for dubious Jewish assistance in a great conflict. A Jewish chemist with first hand knowledge of the chemical wealth of an ancient body of water (the Dead Sea) would negotiate the deal and ultimately become the first president of the betrayed land.
With the passing of time a blood-red dawn would suddenly break over Holy Russia. Exiled refugees would return from New York’s East side to attack Russia’s new Republic, while stabbing her bleeding armies in the back. Fires of revolt would sweep over the doomed nation. Jewish bankers would supply finances for Bolshevik armies led by a Jew from the Ukraine, and, in the end freedom would perish and the Russian revolution would succeed.
Jews with no official status whatever would descend on Paris when World War I had ended to demand a League of Nations and the inclusion of its own “minority” clauses in peace treaties imposed upon the lands carved out of nations broken by war. The unsuspecting Peace Conference officials would comply; the Jewish clauses would be imposed, and the League of Nations would come into being.
In the years of its decline the League of Nations would become a disappointment to organized Jewry and its ultimate failure would be attributed by Jewish leaders to the “narrow patriotism” of the American people who blocked United States’ participation.
Its failure would be part of a plan that failed, but it would not be the failure of the plan. As the years rolled along there would come great prosperity.
An alien Jew from Germany would have reorganized the banking system of the United States to more closely conform to the banking institutions controlled and operated by his Jewish brethren in Europe. He would presume to rewrite the banking laws of his adopted country and ultimately sit in an important position on the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. Financial panic would follow prosperity and a hungry people would turn to any Pied Piper with a plan for sustenance. Communism would become fashionable and its agents would find influential places at the shoulders of the rulers of the world. Agents of Zionism and Communism would become Iagos to the nations’ Othellos and World War II would be in the making.
World War II! As we now contemplate it in its proper perspective it seems to fill an important gap in the picture that is taking shape in our jig-saw puzzle. Was this world conflagration the natural, reasonable and logical outgrowth of the conflict of national interests? Is there anything significant in the first phase of the war (September 1939 to May 1940) which was called “phony”; the long months when the English and French faced the armies of Germany and did nothing much about it? During the thirty-five days of the Polish campaign and for about eight months thereafter, the quiet of the western front was unbroken. Could it be possible that this strange, passive inactivity on the part of hostile powers had some connection with the tramp of Soviet boots into Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? What part did the Communist Parties of the world play in the “sitzkrieg” that marked the pastoral peace of the western front? What mysterious force caused the National Committee of the Communist Party of the United States to declare in October 1939 that “this war… is not a war against fascism, not a war to protect small nations from aggression…” and to declare just as emphatically in July of 1941 “down with the criminal war of German fascism against the Soviet Union”? Did it make sense in the beginning? In the middle, or in the end?
These are a few of the many questions that no one has satisfactorily answered. Perhaps they cannot be answered in the course of conventional inquiry. They scarce may be asked without provoking disapproval. The question-marks loom larger in perspective and inquiring minds must necessarily seek answers behind the iron curtain of censorship and secrecy — even into the dark recesses of diplomatic intrigue where no confidential documents are filed.
To speak of Yalta and Potsdam is to provoke another torrent of questions. The betrayal of Poland and China and other loyal allies; Korea and the defeat of American arms under United Nations direction; — all these things — and many more — cry out for explanation and clarification. Whatever is said, — no matter how well said — no matter how cleverly composed-the eternal question-mark remains. Is it because no one dares ask about the unknown quantity; the missing “x” in the equation?
Ambitious men have been known to deliberately provoke war in order to advance their own interests. History calmly records their steps of provocation; frankly traces the design of their deadly maneuvers. They were usually men who headed petty principalities although there were others who headed great States.
In every case they gambled their own necks and fortunes on the outcome of the conflict and often shared the fate of the most humble of their people in the disaster of the conflagration they kindled.
History does not speak kindly of such men.
That it is possible to promote and instigate wars is plainly obvious. Is it possible, on the other hand, for third parties to instigate war? Is it possible that men may be capable of adroitly promoting antagonisms between nations and cleverly maneuvering them into hostile positions from which they are unable to extricate themselves without resort to armed conflict? The answer, on the record of history, must be in the affirmative. It is neither fantastic nor incredible. War is but the natural continuation of frustrated diplomacy and the bayonet is easily substituted for the umbrella.
And it is not improbable that wars have been instigated by third parties. Quite a number of historical instances may be found. In each case the conspirator must desire the ultimate weakness of the warring powers and he must have an interest in the aftermath of war. He must necessarily have the confidence of the leaders of both sides of the conflict; either personally or through trusted agents. He must be powerful in his own way, machiavelian in his methods, and ruthless in the execution of his plan.
Is it possible for an international organization to deliberately maneuver nations into a world war? The answer again must be in the affirmative. What type of organization would be capable of succeeding in such an action? Only an organization devoid of any allegiance whatever to any nation and whose objectives exclude the interests of the organized states of the world. Its particular interests and objectives must be served in some manner by the devastating aftermath of war. It must have exhausted its efforts in the fields of propaganda and diplomacy. Such an organization must be Jed by men who are international in thought and action.
They must be men who are incurably hostile to the world and who are convinced that the world is hostile to them and all they represent. They must, of necessity, believe themselves superior to all others and have an abiding faith that their objectives are sacred. They must be convinced that the end thoroughly justifies the means. They must be possessed of unlimited funds and supported by innumerable loyal agents. They must have access to the ears of the mighty and their agents must have the confidence of the powerful in every important post throughout the world. They must be able to manipulate the mysteries of finance and control the minds and actions of people everywhere. They must be in control of the means of communication and dominate the propaganda media throughout the world.
And, finally, they must have a well conceived plan that allows for errors and failures; a plan that reckons the possibility of road-blocks and delays, but charts the methods of demolition where possible and the shortest detours where other devices fail. They must be men who are endowed with oriental patience as well as oriental cunning; men who might spend a life-time picking a lock so that their successors might enter the door.
————————— END —————————
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jack B. Tenney was born in St. Louis, Missouri, April 1, 1898. At the age of 10 he came to Los Angeles, California and graduated from the public schools here. He served with the American Expeditionary Forces in France in the Adjutant General’s Department until May, 1919, and was stationed at Headquarters Western Department, United States Army, San Francisco, until October 2, 1919.
Senator Tenney is a talented musician, with piano and organ his favorite instruments. His “Mexicali Rose” is still a popularly known selection. In 1935 he extended his versatile talents to the practice of law In the State of California. He was admitted to practice law in. the Federal courts In 1936, and to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1945.
Elected to the California Legislature as Assemblyman from the 46th Assembly District, Los Angeles County, in 1936, he was re-elected in the primaries in 1938 and 1940. Seeking the Senate seat, a four-year term, he won in the 1942 and 1946 primaries. In 1950, he received both nominations. Republican and Democratic. In the primary and received 1,126,157 votes in the General Election in November.
Serving as Chairman of the Senate Fact-finding Committee on Un-American Activities In California, 1941-1949, he was constantly the target of forces that sought to destroy the documented work of the committee. The printed reports of the Committee have been generally accepted for their accumulation of accurate information.
— THE PUBLISHER.
Version History & Notes
Version 1: Published Jul 16, 2015
* The original text was part of a larger work, hence the page numbering starting from p. 175.
* Images not in the original document.
* Footnotes are not in the original document.
* Cover page is a modified version of the original.
Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival
(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen at
Version 2: Jul 17, 2015 — Added PDF of complete book.