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."
THE BATTLE FOR PRESS CONTROLThe 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 STRUGGLEThis 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.