The Twelfth Protocol --
"We shall handle the Press
in the following manner:
1. "We shall saddle it and keep tight reign
upon it. We shall do the same also with other printed
matter, for of what use is it to rid ourselves of attacks
in the Press, if we remain exposed to criticism through
pamphlets and books?"
2. "Not one announcement will reach the people
save under our supervision. We have attained this at the
present time to the extent that all news is received through
several agencies in which it is centralized from all parts
of the world"
3. "Literature and journalism are two most
important educational forces, and consequently our government
will become the owner of most of the journals. If we permit
ten private journals, we shall organize thirty of our
own, and so on. This must not be suspected by the public,
for which reason all the journals published by us will
be externally of the most contrary opinions and tendencies
thus evoking confidence in them and attracting our unsuspecting
opponents, who thus will be caught in our trap and rendered
harmless."
Chapter .15.
THE BATTLE FOR PRESS
CONTROL
The first instinctive answer which the Jew
makes to any criticism of his race coming from a non-Jew
is that of violence, threatened or inflicted. This statement
will be confirmed by hundreds of thousands of citizens of
the United States who have heard the evidence with their
own ears, seen it with their own eyes.
If the candid investigator of the Jewish Question
happens to be in business, the "boycott" is the first answer
of which the Jews seem to think. Whether it be a newspaper,
or a mercantile establishment, or a hotel, or a dramatic
production; or any manufactured article whose maker has
adopted the policy that "my goods are for sale, but not
my principles" -- if there is any manner of business connection
with the student of the Jewish Question, the first "answer"
is "boycott."
The technique of this: a "whispering drive"
is first begun. Disquieting rumors begin to fly thick and
fast. "Watch us get him, is the word that is passed along.
Jews in charge of national ticker news services adopt the
slogan of "a rumor a day." All leading news agencies in
America are Jew-controlled. Jews in charge of newspapers
adopt the policy of "a slurring headline a day." Jews in
charge of the newsboys on the streets (all the street concerns
are preempted by Jewish "padrones" who permit only their
own boys to sell) give orders to emphasize certain news
in their street cries -- "a new yell against him every day.
" The whole campaign against the critic of Jewry, whoever
he may be, is keyed to the threat, "Watch us get him."*
"The whispering drive," "the boycott," these
are the chief Jewish answers. They constitute the bone and
the sinew of that state of mind in non-Jews which is known
as "the fear of the Jews."
BENNETT'S STRUGGLE
This is the story of a boycott which lasted
over a number of years; it is only one of numerous stories
of the same kind which can be told of America. There have
been even more outstanding cases since this one, but it
dates back to the dawn of Jewish ambitions and power in
the United States, and it is the first of the great battles
which Jewry waged, successfully, to snuff out the independent
Press.
It concerns the long defunct "New York Herald,"
one newspaper to remain independent of Jewish influence
in New York. The Herald enjoyed an existence of 90 years,
which was terminated in 1920 by the inevitable amalgamation.
It performed great feats in the world of news-gathering.
It sent Henry M. Stanley to Africa to find Livingstone.
It backed the Jeannette expedition to the Arctic regions.
It was largely instrumental in having the first Atlantic
cables laid. Its reputations among newspaper men was that
neither its news nor its editorial columns could be bought
or influenced. But perhaps its greatest feat was the maintenance
during many years of its journalistic independence against
the combined attack of New York Jewry. Its proprietor, the
late James Gordon Bennett, a great American citizen famed
for many helpful activities, had always maintained a friendly
attitude toward the Jews of his city. He apparently harbored
no prejudices against them. Certainly he never deliberately
antagonized them. But he was resolved upon preserving the
honor of independent journalism. He never bent to the policy
that the advertisers had something to say about the editorial
policy of the paper, either as to influencing it for publication
or suppression. In Bennett's time the American Press was
in the majority free. Today it is entirely Jewish controlled.
This control is variously exercised, sometimes resting only
on the owners' sense of expediency. But the control is there,
and for the moment it is absolute. Fifty years ago there
were many more newspapers in New York than there are today,
since then amalgamation has reduced the competition to a
select few who do not compete. This development has been
the same in other countries, particularly Great Britain.
EDITOR'S NOTE: *Following the rise of the "popular"
syndicated "columnist" since 1920, the word is now "smear,"
it is specially prominent in political-press affairs.
Bennett's Herald, a three cent
newspaper, enjoyed the highest prestige and was the most
desirable advertising medium due to the class of its circulation.
At that time the Jewish population of New York was less
than one-third of what it is today, but there was much wealth
represented in it.
Now, what every newspaper man knows is this:
most Jewish leaders are always interested either in getting
a story published or getting it suppressed. There is no
class of people who read the public press with so careful
an eye to their own affairs as do the Jews. The Herald
simply adopted the policy from the beginning of this form
of harassment that it was not to be permitted to sway the
Herald from its duty as a public informant. And
this policy had a reflex advantage for the other newspapers
in the city.
When a scandal occurred in Jewish circles (and
at the turn of the century growing Jewish influence in America
produced many) influential Jews would swarm into the editorial
offices to arrange for the suppression of the story. But
the editors knew that the Herald would not suppress
anything for anybody. What was the use of one paper suppressing
if the others would not? So editors would say: We would
be very glad to suppress this story, but the Herald
will use it, so we'll have to do the same in self-protection.
However, if you can get the Herald to suppress
it, we will gladly do so, too.
But the Herald never succumbed, neither pressure
of influence nor promise of business nor threats of loss
availed. It printed the news.
There was a certain Jewish banker who periodically
demanded that Bennett discharge the Herald's financial editor.
The banker was in the business of disposing of Mexican bonds
at a time when such bonds were least secure. Once when an
unusually large number of bonds were to be unloaded on unsuspecting
Americans, the Herald published the story of an impending
Mexican revolution, which presently ensued. The banker frothed
at the mouth and moved every influence he could to change
the Herald's financial staff, but was not able to effect
the change even of an office boy.
Once when a shocking scandal involved a member
of a prominent family, Bennett refused to suppress it, arguing
that if the episode had occurred in a family of any other
race it would be published regardless of the prominence
of the figures involved. The Jews of Philadelphia secured
suppression there, but because of Bennett's unflinching
stand there was no suppression in New York.
A newspaper is a business proposition. There
are some matters it cannot touch without putting itself
in peril of becoming a defunct concern. This is especially
true since newspapers no longer receive their main support
from the public but from the advertisers. The money the
reader gives for the paper scarcely suffices to pay for
the amount of white paper he receives. In this way, advertisers
cannot be disregarded any more than the paper mills can
be. As the most extensive advertisers in New York were,
and are, the department stores, and as most department stores
were, and are, owned by Jews, it comes logically that Jews
often influence the news policies of the papers with whom
they deal.
At this time, it had always been the burning
ambition of the Jews to elect a Jewish Mayor of New York.
They selected a time when the leading parties were disrupted
to push forward their choice. The method they adopted was
characteristic. They reasoned that the newspapers would
not dare to refuse the dictum of the combined department
store owners, so they drew up a "strictly confidential"
letter which they sent to the owners of the New York newspapers,
demanding support for the Jewish mayoralty candidate. The
newspaper owners were in a quandary. For several days they
debated how to act. All remained silent. The editors of
the Herald cabled the news to Bennett who was abroad.
Then it was that Bennett exhibited that boldness and directness
of judgment which characterized him. He cabled back, "Print
the letter." It was printed in the Herald,
the arrogance of the Jewish advertisers was exposed, and
non-Jewish New York breathed easier and applauded the action.
The Herald explained frankly that it
could not support a candidate of private interests, because
it was devoted to the interests of the public. But the Jewish
leaders vowed vengeance against the Herald and
against the man who dared to expose their game.
They had not liked Bennett for a long time,
anyway. The Herald was the real "society paper" of New York,
but Bennett had a rule that only the names of really prominent
families should be printed. The stories of the efforts of
newly-rich Jews to break into the Herald's society
columns are some of the best that are told by old newspaper
men.
The whole "war" culminated in a contention which
arose between Bennett and Nathan Straus, a German-Jew whose
business house was known under the name of "R. H. Macy and
Company," Macy being the Scotsman who built up the business
and from whose heirs Straus obtained it. Straus was something
of a philanthropist in the ghetto, but the story goes that
Bennett's failure to proclaim him as a philanthropist led
to ill-feeling. A long newspaper-war ensued, the subject
of which was the pasteurization of milk, a stupid discussion
which no one took seriously, save Bennett and Straus.*
The Jews, of course, took Straus' side. Jewish
speakers made the welkin ring with laudation of Nathan Straus
and maledictions upon James Bennett. Bennett was pictured
in the most vile business of "persecuting" a noble Jew.
It went so far that the Jews were able to put resolutions
through the Board of Aldermen.
Long since, of course, Straus, a very heavy
advertiser, had withdrawn every dollar's worth of his business
from the Herald. And now the combined and powerful
elements of New York Jewry gathered to deal a staggering
blow at Bennett. The Jewish policy of "Dominate or Destroy"
was at stake, and Jewry declared war.
EDITOR'S NOTE: It is significant that, in the long years
since this first "food war," the business of "processing"
and "substituting" pure foods, messing about with natural
food-stuffs, has developed into a world wide business; mostly
controlled by Jews.
As one man, the Jewish advertisers withdrew
their advertisements. Their assigned reason was that the
Herald was showing animosity against the Jews. The real
purpose of their action was to crush an American newspaper
owner who dared to be independent of them.
The blow they delivered was a staggering one.
It meant the loss of 600,000 dollars a year. Any other newspaper
in New York would have been put out of business by it. The
Jews knew that and sat back, waiting for the downfall of
the man they chose to consider their enemy.
But Bennett was a fighter. Besides, he knew
the Jewish psychology probably better than any other non-Jew
in New York. He turned the tables on his opponents in a
startling and unexpected fashion. The coveted positions
in his papers had always been used by the Jews. These he
immediately turned over to non-Jewish merchants under exclusive
contracts. Merchants who had formerly been crowded into
the back pages and obscure corners by the more opulent Jews,
now blossomed forth full page in the most popular spaces.
One of the non-Jewish merchants who took advantage of the
new situation was John Wanamaker, whose large advertisements
from that time forward were conspicuous in the Bennett newspapers.
The Bennett papers came out with undiminished circulation
and full advertising pages. The well-planned catastrophe
did not, then occur. Instead, there was a rather comical
surprise. Here were the non-Jewish merchants of America
enjoying the choicest service of a valuable advertising
medium, while the Jewish merchants were unrepresented. Unable
to stand the spectacle of trade being diverted to non-Jewish
merchants, the Jews came back to Bennett, requesting the
use of his columns for advertising. The "boycott" had been
hardest on the boycotters. Bennett received all who came,
displaying no rancor. They wanted their old positions back,
but Bennett said, No. They argued, but Bennett said, No.
They offered more money, but Bennett said, No. The choice
positions had been forfeited.
Bennett triumphed, but it proved a costly victory.
All the time Bennett was resisting them, the Jews were growing
more powerful in New York, and they were obsessed by the
idea that to control journalism in New York meant to control
the thought of the whole country.
The number of newspapers gradually diminished
through combinations of publications. Adolph S. Ochs, a
Philadelphia Jew, acquired the "New York Times."
He soon made it into a great newspaper, but one whose bias
is to serve the Jews. It is the quality of the Times
as a newspaper that makes it so weighty as a Jewish organ.
In this paper the Jews are persistently lauded, eulogized
and defended, no such tenderness is granted other races.
Then Hearst came into the field, a dangerous
agitator because he not only agitates the wrong things,
but because he agitates the wrong class of people. He surrounded
himself with a coterie of Jews, pandered to them, worked
hand in glove with them, but never told the truth about
them, never gave them away.
The trend toward Jewish control of the press
set in strongly, and has continued that way ever since.
The old names, made great by great editors and American
policies, slowly dimmed.
A newspaper is founded either on a great editorial
mind, in which event it becomes the expression of a powerful
personality, or it becomes institutionalized as to policy
and becomes a commercial establishment. In the latter event,
its chances for continuing life beyond the lifetime of its
founder are much stronger.
The Herald was Bennett, and with his
passing it was inevitable that a certain force and virtue
should depart out of it. Bennett, advancing in age, dreaded
lest his newspaper, on his death should fall into the hands
of the Jews. He knew that they regarded it with longing.
He knew that they had pulled down, seized, and afterward
built up many an agency that had dared to speak the truth
about them, and boasted about it as a conquest for Jewry.
Bennett loved the Herald as a man loves
a child. He so arranged his will that the Herald
should not fall into individual ownership, but that its
revenues should flow into a fund for the benefit of the
men who had worked to make the Herald what it was.
He died in May, 1919. The Jewish enemies of the Herald,
eagerly watchful, once more withdrew their advertising to
force, if possible, the sale of the newspaper. They knew
that if the Herald became a losing proposition,
the trustees would have no course but to sell, notwithstanding
Bennett's will.
But there were also interests in New York who
were beginning to realize the peril of a Jewish press. These
interests provided a sum of money for the Herald's
purchase by Frank A. Munsey.
Then, to general astonishment, Munsey discontinued
the gallant old paper, and bestowed its name as part of
the name of the "New York Sun."
The newspaper managed by Bennett is extinct.
The men who worked on it were scattered abroad in the newspaper
field and, in the main, retired or dead.
Even though the Jews had not gained actual possession
of the Herald, they at least succeeded in driving
another non-Jewish newspaper from the field. They set about
obtaining control of several newspapers, their victory is
now complete. But the victory was a financial victory over
a dead man. The moral victory, as well as the financial
victory, remained with Bennett while he lived; the moral
victory still remains with the Herald. It demonstrated
what could be done by fearless, independent minds, supported
by men who knew their work and loved it for its own sake.
It demonstrated what could have been achieved had these
men received the support of wide-awake, active, non-Jewish
Americans. The Herald is immortalized as the last
bulwark against Jewry in New York, in America. Today the
Jews are more completely masters of the journalistic field
in New York than they are in any capital in Europe. Indeed,
in Europe there frequently emerges a newspaper that gives
the real news of the Jews. There is none in New York.
And thus the situation will remain until Americans
shake themselves from their long sleep, and look with steady
eyes at the national situation. That look will be enough
to show them all, and their very eyes will quail the oriental
usurpers.
