Controversy of Zion - Chap 40 - The Invasion of America

While military invasions and counter-invasions multiplied during the six years of the Second War, absorbing all thought and energy of the masses locked in combat, a silent invasion went on which produced more momentous effects than the armed ones. This was the political invasion of the American Republic and its success was shown by the shape of American state policy at the war's end, which was so directed as to ensure that the only military invasions that yielded enduring “territorial gains” were those of the revolution into Europe and of the Zionists into Arabia. Historically surveyed, Mr. Roosevelt's achievement may now be seen to have been threefold and in each respect perilous to his country's future: he helped to arm Zionism, he armed the revolution in its Moscow citadel, and he opened the doors of his American citadel to its agents.

He began the process at the start of his presidency by his recognition of the Soviet, when the ambassador of the revolution, Maxim Litvinoff, undertook that the revolutionary state would keep its nose out of American domestic affairs; Mr. Roosevelt's mentors were not the men to remind him that when once the fox gets in his nose he'll soon find ways to make his body follow. The story of his support of the revolutionary state by money and arms belongs to a later chapter; this one aims to tell the tale of its penetration of the American Republic on its own soil during his long presidency.

Mr. Roosevelt began by breaking down the barriers against uncontrolled immigration which the Congresses immediately before him strove to set up, because they saw in it the danger of the capture of the American administration by “a foreign group.” Under various of his edicts the supervision of immigration was greatly weakened. Immigration officials were forbidden to put questions about Communist associations, and the separate classification of Jewish immigrants was discontinued. This was supported by a continuous press campaign against all demands for enquiry into loyalty or political record as “discrimination against the foreign-born.”

None can say how many people entered the United States during that period. By 1952 Senator Pat McCarran, chairman of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, estimated that, apart from legal immigration, five million aliens had illegally entered the country, including large numbers of “militant Communists, Sicilian bandits and other criminals.” The chief investigating officer of the Immigration Service declined even to estimate the number of illegal entrants but said that at that time (when some measure of control had been re-established) “over half a million a year” were being intercepted and sent back at the Mexican border alone. The Social Security authorities, who supplied the cards necessary to obtain employment, were forbidden to give any information about applicants to the immigration or police authorities.

which Mr. Roosevelt's party (still following Mr. House's strategy) concentrated its electoral effort and its cry of “no discrimination.” Under the president's restrictions on loyalty-interrogations the way into the civil service and armed forces was opened to American-born or legally-domiciled alien Communists. The results to which this led were shown in part by the many exposures of the post-war period, the literature of which would fill an encyclopaedia of many volumes. The entire West was also involved (as the Canadian, British and Australian exposures in time showed) and the significant thing is that, with the Canadian exception, no governmental investigation ever led to these partial revelations, which were always the work of persistent private remonstrants; nor was genuine remedial action ever taken, so that the state of affairs brought about during the 1930's and 1940's today continues not much changed, a source of grave weakness to the West in any new war.

The renewal of large-scale immigration formed the background to the political invasion of the Republic. This was a three-pronged movement which aimed at the capture of the three vital points of a state's defences: state policy at the top level, the civil services at the middle level and “public opinion” or the mass-mind at the base. The way in which control over acts of state policy was achieved (through the “adviserships” which became part of American political life after 1913) has already been shown, this part of the process having preceded the others. The methods used to attempt the capture of government services will be discussed later in this chapter. In what immediately follows, the capture of the mass-mind in America, through control of published information, will be described; it was indispensable to the other two thrusts.

This form of political invasion is called by Dr. Weizmann, who exhaustively studied it in his youth, when he was preparing in Russia for his life's work in the west, “the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses.” The operation so described may now be studied in actual operation:

Far back in this book the reader was invited to note that “B'nai B'rith” put out a shoot. B'nai B'rith, until then, might be compared with such groups of other religious affiliation as the Young Men's Christian Association or the Knights of Columbus; its declared objects were the help of the poor, sick and fatherless and good works in general. The little offshoot of 1913, the “Anti-Defamation League,” had by 1947 become a secret police of formidable power in America.[24]

In Doublespeak “anti-defamation” means “defamation” and this body lived by calumny, using such terms as anti-semite, fascist, rabble-rouser, Jew-baiter, Red-baiter, paranoiac, lunatic, madman, reactionary, diehard, bigot and more

of the like. The vocabulary is fixed and may be traced back to the attacks on Barruel, Robison and Morse after the French revolution; the true nature of any writer's or newspaper's allegiance may be detected by keeping count of the number of times these trade-mark words are used. The achievement of this organization (usually known as the A.D.L.) has been by iteration to make fetishes of them, so that party politicians hasten to deny that they are any of these things. Under this regime reasoned debate became outlawed; there is something of sorcery in this subjugation of two generations of Western men to the mumbo-jumbo of Asiatic conspirators.

When the A.D.L. was born in 1913 it had merely desk-room in the parent B'nai B'rith office and a tiny budget. In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, “Through the intervention of the A.D.L. we have succeeded in muzzling the non-Jewish press to the extent that newspapers in America abstain from pointing out that any person unfavourably referred to is a Jew.” In 1948 the Jewish Menorah Journal of New York wrote, “Should but one phrase in a reprinted literary classic reflect unjustly upon Jews, the A.D.L. will promptly belabour the innocent publisher until he bowdlerizes the offending passage. Let one innocent movie-producer incorporate a Jewish prototype, however inoffensive, in his picture and the hue and cry raised by the A.D.L. will make him wish he's never heard of Jews. But when Jews are subtly propagandized into accepting Communist doctrine … the A.D.L. remains silent. No word, no warning, no hint of caution, much less exposure and condemnation; although there are men high in the councils of the organization who should know by their own experience how the Communists ‘infiltrate.'” (The Menorah Journal spoke for the many Jews who were alarmed because the A.D.L. was attacking anti-Communism as anti-semitism).

These quotations show the growth of the A.D.L.'s power in thirty-five years. It has imposed the law of heresy on the public debate in America. No criticism of Zionism or the world-government plan is allowed to pass without virulent attack; criticism of Communism is only tolerated in the tacit understanding that any war with Communism would lead to the communized world-state; and as to that, “Jerusalem is the capital of the world no less than the capital of Israel” (the Zionist mayor of Jerusalem, 1952).

America has today a few surviving writers who fight on for independent debate and comment. They will discuss any public matter, in the light of traditional American policy and interest, save Zionism, which hardly any of them will touch. I have discussed this with four of the leading ones, who all gave the same answer: it could not be done. The employed ones would lose their posts, if they made the attempt. The independent ones would find no publisher for their books because no reviewer would mention these, save with the epithets enumerated above.

The A.D.L., of such small beginnings in 1913, in 1948 had a budget of three million dollars (it is only one of several Jewish organizations pursuing Zionist aims in America at a similar rate of expenditure). The Menorah Journal,

discussing “Anti-Defamation Hysteria,” said, “Fighting anti-semitism has been built up into a big business, with annual budgets running into millions of dollars.” It said the object was “to continue beating the anti-semitic drum” and “to scare the pants off prospective contributors” in order to raise funds. It mentioned some of the methods used (“outright business blackmail; if you can't afford to give $10,000 to this cause, you can take your business elsewhere”), and said American Jews were being “stampeded into a state of mass-hysteria by their self-styled defenders.”[25]

The Menorah Journal also drew attention to the falsification of news by Jewish newsagencies subsidized by the big organizations. It showed that some minor brawl among juveniles in Manhattan had been depicted in “front-page scare headlines which would have led a stranger to believe that a Czarist pogrom was going on” (by these same means the “Czarist pogroms” earlier, and Rabbi Stephen Wise's “reported pogrom in Berlin” in 1933 reached the world). Out of this particular “scare headline” grew a mass-meeting in Madison Garden, where another politician aspiring to presidential office (a Mr. Wendell Willkie at that moment) declared, “The mounting wave of anti-semitism at home shocks me … etc., etc.”

“Mass-hysteria” is not only produced among Jews and band-wagon politicians by this method; it produces another kind of mass-hysteria among earnest but uninformed people of the “Liberal” kind: the mass-hysteria of self-righteousness, which is a tempting form of self-indulgence. The late Mr. George Orwell was of those who helped spread “mass-hysteria” in this way. He was a good man, because he did not merely incite others to succour the weak and avenge injustice, but went himself to fight when the Civil War broke out in Spain, then discovering that Communism, when he saw it, was worse than the thing which (as he thought) he set out to destroy. He died before he could go to Palestine and experience any similar enlightenment, so that what he wrote about “anti-semitism” was but the echo of “anti-defamationist hysteria.” It is so good an example of this that I quote it; here a man of goodwill offered, as his own wisdom, phrases which others poured into his ear.

He explored “anti-semitism in

Britain

” (1945) and found “ a perceptibly anti-semitic strain in Chaucer.” Mr. Hilaire Belloc and Mr. G.K.Chesterton were “literary Jew-baiters.” He found passages in Shakespeare, Smollett, Thackeray, Shaw, T.S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley and others “which if written now would be stigmatized as anti-semitism” (he was right without knowing it; if written now they would have been stigmatized). Then he suffered what Americans call a pratfall. He said that “offhand, the only English writers I can think of who,

before the days of Hitler, made a definite effort to stick up for Jews are Dickens and Charles Reade.” Thus he extolled one of the A.D.L.'s “Jew-baiters” as a champion of Jews; in America the film of Oliver Twist was banned because of Fagin! This was the work of the A.D.L.; its representative, a Mr. Arnold Forster, announced:

“American movie-distributors refused to become involved in the distribution and exhibition of the motion picture after the A.D.L. and others expressed the fear that the film was harmful; the Rank Organization withdrew the picture in the United States.” Later the picture was released after censorship by the A.D.L.; “seventy two eliminations” were made at its command and a prologue was added assuring beholders that they might accept it as “a filmization of Dickens without anti-semitic intentions.” (In occupied Berlin the A.D.L. ban was final; the British authorities ordered Dickens withdrawn from German eyes).

I was in America at this time and thus saw the fulfilment of a prediction made in a book of 1943, when I wrote that, as the secret censorship was going, Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens would one day be defamed as “anti-semites.” I thought to strain probability, to make a point, but it happened in all three cases: a Shakespearean actor-manager visiting New York was ordered not to play The Merchant of Venice, Dickens was banned, and the defamationists put Chaucer on their black-list.

A private organization which can produce such results is obviously powerful; there is nothing comparable in the world. Mr. Vincent Sheehan wrote in 1949, “There is scarcely a voice in the United States that dares raise itself for the rights, any rights, of the Arabs; any slight criticism of the Zionist high command is immediately labelled as anti-semitic.” Miss Dorothy Thompson, whose picture and articles at that time were published everyday in hundreds of newspapers, similarly protested. Mr. Sheehan's popularity with book-reviewers immediately slumped; Miss Thompson's portrait and writings are seldom seen in the American press today.

How is the oracle worked? By what means has America (and the entire West) been brought to the state that no public man aspires to office, or editor feels secure at his desk, until he has brought out his prayer-mat and prostrated himself to Zion? How have presidents and prime ministers been led to compete for the approval of this faction like bridesmaids for the bride's bouquet? Why do leading men suffer themselves to be paraded at hundred-dollar-a-plate banquets for Zion, or to be herded on to Zionist platforms to receive “plaques” for services rendered?

The power of money and the prospect of votes have demonstrably been potent lures, but in my judgment by far the strongest weapon is this power to control published information; to lay stress on what a faction wants and to exclude from it all that the faction dislikes, and so to be able to give any selected person a “good” or a “bad” press. This is in fact control of “the mob.” In today's

language it is “the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses,” as Dr. Weizmann said, but it is an ancient, Asiatic art and was described, on a famous occasion, by Saint Matthew and Saint Mark: “The chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude… The chief priests moved the people …”

In forty years the A.D.L. perfected a machine for persuading the multitude. It is a method of thought-control of which the subject-mass is unconscious and its ability to destroy any who cry out is great. One of the first to be politically destroyed was the head of the Congressional Committee charged to watch over sedition (the Un-American Activities Committee). The Protocols of 1905 foretold that the nation-states would not be allowed to “contend with sedition” by treating it as crime and this “forecast” also was fulfilled. Mr. Martin Dies relates that he was required by the secret inquisition to restrict the definition of “subversion” to “fascism,” and to equate “fascism” with “anti-semitism.” “Subversion,” had these importuners had their way with him, would have been any kind of resistance to “the destructive principle,” not the subverting of the nation-state. He would not yield, but was driven out of political life by defamation.

The A.D.L. (and the American Jewish Committee) “set out to make the American people aware of anti-semitism.” It informed Jews that “25 out of every 100 Americans are infected with anti-semitism,” and that another 50 might develop the disease. By 1945 it was carrying out “a high-powered educational program, geared to reach every man, woman and child” in America through the press, radio, advertising, children's comic books and school books, lectures, films, “churches” and trade unions. This programme included “219 broadcasts a day,” full-page advertisements in 397 newspapers, poster advertizing in 130 cities, and “persuasions” subtly incorporated in the printed matter on blotters, matchbox covers, and envelopes. The entire national press (“1900 dailies with a 43,000,000 circulation”) and the provincial, Negro, foreign-language and labour newspapers were kept supplied with, “and used,” its material in the form of “news, background material, cartoons and comic strips.” In addition, the A.D.L. in 1945 distributed “more than 330,000 copies of important books carrying our message to libraries and other institutions,” furnished authors with “material and complete ideas,” and circulated nine million pamphlets “all tailored to fit the audiences to which they are directed.” It found “comic books” to be a particularly effective way of reaching the minds of young people, soldiers, sailors and airmen, and circulated “millions of copies” of propaganda in this form. Its organization consisted of the national headquarters, public relations committees in 150 cities, eleven regional offices, and “2,000 key men in 1,000 cities.”

The name of the body which supplied this mass of suggestive material never reached the public. During the 1940's the system of “syndicated writers” in New York or Washington enveloped the entire American press. One such writer's

column may appear in a thousand newspapers each day; editors like this system, which saves them the cost of employing their own writers, for its cheapness. Through a few dozen such writers the entire stream of information can be tinctured at its source (the method foretold in the Protocols). By all these means a generation has been reared in America (and this applies equally to England) which has been deprived of authentic information about, and independent comment on, the nature of Zionism, its original connection with Communism, the infestation of administrations and capture of “administrators,” and the relationship of all this to the ultimate world-government project.

The opposition to this creeping control was strong at first and was gradually crushed during two decades (I have given examples in England) by various methods, including the purchase of newspapers, but chiefly by unremitting and organized pressure, persuasive or menacing. In America a newspaper which prints reports or comment unacceptable to the A.D.L. may expect to receive a visit from its representatives. Threats to withdraw advertizing are frequently made. The corps of “syndicated” writers joins in the attack on any individual writer or broadcaster who becomes troublesome; many American commentators have been driven from the publishers' lists or “off the air” in this way. An illustrative example:

The Chicago Tribune in 1950 reported the view of a senior official of the State Department that the United States was ruled by “a secret government” consisting of three members of the deceased Mr. Roosevelt's circle: Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior, Justice Felix Frankfurter and Senator Herbert Lehman. The word “Jew” was not used; the article expressed the opinion of a high public servant on a matter held by him to be of great national importance. This article raised much commotion in the Zionist and Jewish press throughout the world (few non-Jewish newspapers paid attention to it, for the obvious reason). I was in South Africa but guessed what would follow and when I next went to America learned that I was right; the Tribune Tower in Chicago was besieged by the A.D.L. with peremptory demands for an apology. On this particular occasion none was made; the newspaper was at that time a lonely survivor from the days of independent reporting and comment. (A piquant detail; the writer of this “anti-semitic” report had interested himself, not long before, in efforts to obtain the release on parole of a Jew serving a life-term for murder, on the ground that expiation might reasonably be held to have been made).

Even the figures for expenditure, staff and activities, above given, convey no true idea of the power and omnipresence of the A.D.L. I myself would not have believed, until I saw it, that a body of such might could almost invisibly operate in a state still nominally governed by president and Congress. Its numerous offices and sub-offices are clearly only the centres of a great network of agents and sub-agents, for its eye is as all-seeing as that of the N.V.D. in captive Russia or of the Gestapo once in Germany, as I found through personal experience:

I am a fairly obscure person and when I went to America in 1949 was almost unknown to the public there, the publication of most of my books having been prevented by the methods above described. I found that the A.D.L. watched me like a hawk from my arrival and from this first realized its immense spread and vigilance; I had not suspected that it scrutinized every roof for every sparrow. An American acquaintance who had read some of my books introduced me to a colleague who expressed pleasure at meeting their author. This man asked me to dine with him and a friend, whom he presented as “my cousin.” The cousin was an entertaining fellow; I learned a year later that he was head of the A.D.L.'s New York office and the true organizer of the little dinner-party.[26] This happened a few days after I landed and thereafter the A.D.L. knew my every movement. They knew about the book I was writing and when it was ready for publication the “cousin” approached the American publisher of an earlier book of mine with a pointed request to know if he contemplated issuing this one; a man of descretion, he answered No.

Three years later, in 1952, when this book had appeared in England, the American Legion's magazine at Hollywood published some five hundred words from it. The A.D.L. at once demanded a retraction from the Hollywood commander of the Legion, who referred to the magazine's editor. No inaccuracy was alleged; the deputation just called the book “anti-semitic.” The editor refused to retract unless false statement or other valid reason were proved, and resigned when the commander, ignoring him, published the familiar “apology” in face of threats that “all Jews” would boycott the Hollywood Stadium, which was operated by the Legion. The editor, departing, said this proved the truth of what was stated in the book. The apology availed the commander nothing for the nationwide American Broadcasting Company, which had been televising the Legion's events at the Stadium, at once announced that it would terminate its contract with the Legion and televise rival events; the commander ruefully said that this “comes as a complete shock to me.”

When I next visited America, in 1951, another acquaintance, who thought my books informative and wished me to write for American newspapers, refused to credit what I told him. He said he was sure a certain publication would welcome

an article from me on a subject then topical (not Zionism) and wrote to its editor. He was told, to his astonishment, that the publication of anything of mine, was “verboten,” and when he suggested publication without my name was informed that this would not avail: “there is probably a representative of the A.D.L. on our payroll” (I have the letter).

Another acquaintance, head of a large bookselling concern, ordered his office to obtain a book of mine from Canada and was told that the Toronto wholesaler reported inability to supply. I made enquiry and learned that no order had reached Toronto. My acquaintance then investigated and could not find out who, in his own office, had intercepted the order, telling me he now realized that my books were “on the index.”

The reader need only multiply these few examples from the personal experience of one man to see the effect on the total sum of information supplied to the public masses. The peoples of the Western nation-states are deprived of information in the matters most vitally affecting their present and future, by a press which (they are constantly told) is “the freest in the world.”

Another method used by the A.D.L. to keep Jews in “mass hysteria” and non-Jews in a state of delusion is that of the agent provocateur, the bogus “anti-semite” (the “cousin” above mentioned is an example). Part of this method is the distribution of “documents” exposing “the whole world plot” and usually attributed to some unverifiable gathering of rabbis. The serious student of the real Talmudic enterprise, which can be documented from authentic Talmudic sources, at once recognizes these fabrications. An “admirer” once sent me such a “document,” found (he said) in a secret drawer of an old family bureau which could not have been opened for a hundred years. I had the paper examined and then asked my correspondent to tell me how his long dead great grandfather had contrived to obtain paper manufactured in the 1940's. The correspondence closed.

An example of the employment of the bogus “anti-semite” by the A.D.L. is on record, authenticated by the organization itself. A prolific writer of books attacking “anti-semitism” in America is a man of Armenian origins, one Avedis Boghos Derounian, whose best known alias is John Roy Carlson. Several libel actions were brought against one of his books published during the Second War, in which he attacked over seven hundred persons, and one judge, awarding damages, said “I think this book was written by a wholly irresponsible person who was willing to say anything for money; I would not believe him on oath, nor at any time hereafter; I think that book was published by a publisher who was willing to publish anything for money.” In November 1952 a radio-interviewer confronted this man with a well-known American foreign correspondent, Mr. Ray Brock, who taxed Carlson with having formerly edited “a viciously antisemitic sheet called The Christian Defender.” This could not be denied, as the fact had become known, so Carlson said he had done it “with the approval of the Anti-

Defamation League.” The host-interviewer then interrupted to say that the A.D.L., on enquiry by him, confirmed this (the confirmation was unavoidable, the A.D.L. having admitted to the Chicago Tribune in 1947 that it had employed the man between 1939 and 1941 and “found his services satisfactory”).

The fact that this man then was able (1951) to publish another book attacking “anti-semites” and to have it loudly praised in the leading New York newspapers (in face of the judicial comment above quoted) is a sign of the great change which this organization has brought about in American life in the last twenty years. The web of which the A.D.L. formed the centre stretched to other English-speaking countries, so that no independent writer anywhere could escape it. I give instances from my own experiences in that larger setting:

In March 1952 Truth (which was then unsubjugated), reported that the Canadian Jewish Congress had requested a Canadian bookseller to remove from his shelves a book of mine. When I visited Canada that year I made enquiry and found that this pressure was general on Canadian booksellers, many of whom had yielded to it. At that time also a Zionist journal in South Africa stated, “Until such time as racial groups receive protection in law, no bookshop is entitled to say that it will sell books … like some of Reed's books”; I later spent some time in South Africa and found the position there to be identical with the one in

Canada

. The “racial protection” foretold in the above quotation is the Zionist-drafted “Genocide Convention” of the United Nations, which contains a provision prescribing legal penalties for anything said by some faction to cause “mental harm”; this provision, if enforced during another war, would make the A.D.L. censorship permanent and worldwide. I never went to Australia but think I would have found there the secret interference prevailing in the bookshops of Canada and South Africa. However, about the same time an Australian senator, unknown to me even by name, in attacking an “anti-semitic” organization equally unheard of by me, said it was “in close touch” with me; Australian newspapers published this defamationist message but refused to print the factual correction. During these years I received many complaints from readers that the chief librarian of a large Toronto library had pasted on the flyleaves of books of mine a “warning” to readers about them; protests had no effect.

In all these ways a curtain was lowered between the public masses and factual information about their affairs. The capture of the mass-mind became as complete as that of “the top-line politicians.”

This left one position unconquered at the middle-layer between the captive politicians and the persuaded-multitude. It was the class of which Dr. Weizmann repeatedly complains: the permanent officials, the professionals and experts. From the start the strongest opposition to Zionism's encroachment came from this group (and from the “outside interference, entirely from Jews” of which Dr. Weizmann also complained). The non-elected official, the career civil servant, the professional soldier, the foreign expert all are almost impossible to suborn. The

permanent official does not depend on election and feels himself an integral part of the nation. The professional soldier instinctively feels that the nation and his duty are one, and recoils at the thought that military operations are being perverted for some ulterior, political motive. The expert cannot smother his knowledge at the bidding of party-men any more than an expert craftsman can be tempted to make a watch that goes backward.

In fact, only the complete capture of a state, including the power of dismissal, disqualification from employment and arrest can ever fully overcome the resistance of public servants, professionals and experts to something that clearly conflicts with their duty. The A.D.L., in my judgment, showed that it looked forward to a day when it would overcome this obstacle by an attempt that was made in 1943.

The high directing intelligence behind this body evidently knows that the best moment to attain its aims is in the later stages and aftermath of a great war. At the start the embroiled masses are still intent on the objects professed and after the period of confusion which follows the war they regain some clarity of vision and begin to ask questions about what has been done under cover of the war; if the secret purpose has not then been attained the opportunity has been lost. These secret purposes were advanced between 1916 and 1922 (not between 1914 and 1918) in the First War, and between 1942 and 1948 (not 1939-1945) in the Second War. If a third war were to begin, say, in 1965 and continue until 1970, ostensibly for the purpose of “destroying Communism,” the secret effort to realize the full ambition of Zionism and of the communized world-state would come during the period of greatest confusion, say, from 1968 to 1974.

The bid to capture the civil service in America was made in 1943, the fourth year of the Second War, and was partially exposed (by chance) in 1947, when the fog was clearing. The aim was to interpose between the American people and their public services a secret, defamationist black-list which would prevent men of patriotic duty from entering them, and open them wide to approved agents of the conspiracy. The lists then compiled were at one period being so rapidly extended that they would soon have included every person in the United States whose employment in public office was not desired by the secret arbiters. The defamatory dossiers of the A.D.L. were being incorporated in the official files of the American Civil Service. This could have provided the basis for secret police action at a later stage (“political opponents” were rounded up on the strength of such lists by Goering's new secret police on the night of the Reichstag fire). All unknown to the American people, then and now, a coup of the first order was far advanced in preparation.

Mr. Martin Dies once described the A.D.L., which supplied these lists, as “a terrorist organization, using its resources, not to defend the good name of Jews, but to force and compel compliance with the objectives of their organization by

terrorist methods; it is a league of defamation.”[27] The description was borne out by the disclosures of the Subcommittee to Investigate the Civil Service Commission set up by the Committee on Expenditures of the American House of Representatives, which met on October 3, 6 and 7, 1947 under the chairmanship of Representative Clare E. Hoffman of Michigan.

This investigation also was brought about solely by the efforts of individuals; the whole effort of government was bent on averting it. Some loyal civil servant saw what was secretly being done and informed certain Congressmen that black lists were being inserted in the Civil Service files. Even that might not have led to any action, had not these Congressmen learned that they themselves were among the blacklisted! Under the restraints bequeathed by the long Roosevelt administration investigation, even then, could only be set in motion on grounds that “funds voted by Congress were being misused” (hence the intervention of the Committee on Expenditures).

About a hundred American Senators and Congressmen then learned that they (and some of their wives) were shown as “Nazis” on cards in the Civil Service files. They succeeded in securing copies of these cards, which bore a note saying that the defamationist information on them was “copied from the subversive files” of a private firm of Zionist lawyers. These files, the note continued, “were made up in co-operation with the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League; the sources of this information must not be disclosed under any circumstances; however, further information concerning above may be obtained …” (from the Zionist attorneys).

The senior officer of that department of the United States Civil Service Commission which was charged with investigating applicants for employment appeared before the sub-committee on subpoena. As the official directly responsible, he said the files were secret ones, the existence of which had only just become known to him (presumably, when he received the subpoena). The only files theretofore known to him were those normally kept by his department; they recorded persons investigated who for various reasons were to be rejected if they sought employment. He had ascertained that the secret files contained “750,000 cards” and had been prepared in the Commission's New York office (his own headquarters office was in Washington), and that copies of the cards had been sent to and incorporated in the files of every branch office of the Civil Service Commission throughout the United States. He said he had no power to produce the secret files; power to do this lay solely with the three Civil Service Commissioners (the very heads, under the president, of the Civil Service).

These Commissioners (a Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Flemming and Miss Perkins), then subpoenaed, refused to produce the files, stating that the president had forbidden this (the secret files had been introduced under President Roosevelt; this order

not to divulge came from President Truman). Thereon Mr. Hoffmann said, “This is the first time I have ever heard the acknowledgement that we have in this country a Gestapo.”

The Commissioners made no protest. Mr. Hoffmann then asked if persons who had no intention even of applying for a Civil Service post were black-listed. The senior Commissioner, Mr. Mitchell, confirmed that this was the case, thus explicitly admitting that the black list was of unlimited range. Mr. Hoffmann said, “Then it has nothing to do with the immediate case of a person applying for a job?,” and Mr. Mitchell agreed. Mr. Hoffmann continued, “You claim the right to list in your files the names of anyone and everyone in this country? Is that not correct?” and the three Commissioners silently assented.

The investigators discovered that in June and July of 1943 alone (that is, in the confusion-period of a great war) 487,033 cards had been added to the secret files, this work having occupied scores of clerks. A Congressman reminded the Commissioners that in the very year (1943) when these secret cards were incorporated the Civil Service Commission had specifically forbidden its investigators even to ask questions about any applicant's Communist associations (the policy generally introduced by President Roosevelt). The Commissioners showed great anxiety to avoid discussing the part played by the Anti-Defamation League in this affair and repeatedly evaded questions on that point.

The official report, so astonishing by earlier standards, shows that the A.D.L. was in a position secretly to introduce into official records defamatory dossiers, quickly extensible into secret police files covering the entire country. This was recognizably an attempt to gain control of the American Civil Service and to make loyalty, by the earlier standards, a disqualification. As no assurance of remedial action was obtained, the result of this public investigation may be compared with a surgical examination by doctors who, having opened the patient and found a malignant growth near a vital organ, declare that they have order not to remove it and sew up the incision. Thus the unhealthy condition remained.

The uses which could conceivably be made of such secret, nation wide black-lists were illustrated by some strange episodes of 1951 and 1952, when bodies of troops suddenly swooped on small towns in California, New York State and Texas and “occupied” them in the name of “the United Nations” or of “Military Government.” City halls, police headquarters and telephone exchanges were taken over; mayors, officials and private individuals were arrested; bands of the “enemy” (garbed by some costumier in “Fascist” uniforms) were paraded around; trials were held by military courts and concentration camps were set up; proclamations were made threatening “resisters” and “conspirators” with dire penalties, and so on.

world might well see, in the confusion-period of any third war, if “the league to enforce peace” were making its third bid for world-authority. On this occasion, too, indignant private investigators were quite unable to discover what authority ordered these affairs. The official military spokesman, a colonel at the Pentagon, when hard pressed by an inquirer, was only allowed to say that the question was “one of local and political significance, over which the military exercises no control”! That pointed to the president, government and State Department, but all these authorities remained as silent as the Civil Service Commissioners had been uninformative.

By the end of the Second War this secret invasion, in all its forms, had impaired the inner structure of the American Republic to such an extent that some change in its outer form, as known to the world for 150 years, was likely during the confusion-period of any third war. The instinctive struggle of the original population to maintain itself and its traditions against a usurpation, the nature of which it was not allowed to comprehend, was failing. This resistance would gain strength, and mend some of the breaches, as the Second War receded, but grave weaknesses remained which were bound to show themselves under the strain of the new war, with the thought of which the American mass-mind was daily made familiar by the politicians and the controlled press.

From 1943 onward the weakness of the American Republic lay more in its own impaired foundations than in any foreign air forces or fleets.

[24] In fact though not in form. The secret police in countries where the institution is native (Hitler's Gestapo was copied from the Asiatic model, which had a century-old tradition in Russia and Turkey) have the entire power and resources of the state behind them; indeed, they are the state. In America Zionism built the nucleus of a secret police nearly as effective in many ways as those prototypes. It could only become equally effective if it gained full control of the state's resources, including the power of arrest and imprisonment, and in my judgment that was the ultimate goal. (return)

[25] The reader need not find any contradiction between this quotation and my statement in the preceding paragraph. Debate and comment are largely free in the Jewish press, which is intended chiefly for perusal “among ourselves,” and the newspaper-reader, anywhere in the world, who takes the pains regularly to obtain Jewish newspapers of all opinions will find himself much better informed about what goes on in the world. The black-out is in the non-Jewish press. (return)

[26] By this means material for dossiers and for “smearing” attacks is often obtained. In 1956 the A.D.L. published such a “smear” volume called Cross-Currents, described as “the book that tells how anti-semitism is used today as a political weapon.” It was filled with attacks on “anti-semites” and contained numerous extracts from letters and conversations supposed to have passed between the persons named. The reviewer of the book in the New York Times, though sympathetic (writing for that journal he would not be antagonistic) said “the authors do not let the reader in on the secret of how they came into possession of these intriguing papers … this reticence about sources is a major weakness and it is particularly serious where statements are quoted from an oral interview.” Who were these interviewers, he asked, and how did they go about their assignment? I could have told him, and the reader of this book has the answer. If my “oral interview” with the “cousin,” who purported to be a strong “anti-semite,” did not provide material for this volume, the reason is of interest. Late in a convivial evening he asked me suddenly how strong I thought “anti-semitism” to be in the United States. Believing him to be what he professed to be, I answered just as I would have answered, had I known his identity. I said that I had travelled in more than thirty of the forty-eight States and had never once heard the word “Jew” mentioned by any of the thousands of people I had met, which was the fact. (return)

[27] In 1956 President Eisenhower sent the annual convention of the A.D.L. a eulogistic message commending it for “reminding the nation that the ideals of religion must apply in all areas of life.”(return)