TIJ Chapter 6

Tue Dec 16, 2025

28th October

The vernacular for addressing thought systems in forgotten days is “people believed …”.

I now realise that most people today “believe” that the nazis “believed” in a great Jewish Conspiracy.

Solidifying a sprawling universe of thought into “they believed” is bound to fail. In this particular case, all the more difficult, as it is easy to see that most people did not “believe” that. TIJ is approaching the position where they surrender wholeheartedly to the tasteless joke in the Protocols (which at a few times escalates into bad language). But they got into stiff opposition from the rest of USA.

According to the lexicon, the upper echelons of the Nazi party did not trust the Protocols either. They just used them as fuel on the bonfires. That makes it difficult to ascertain what people actually “believed”.

Belief is very different from keeping an option open. I am open to the possibility that God exists, and that his name may even be X. That is hardly a belief. Given how the average journalist loves to feed mysteries rather than cool insight, it is not hard to imagine a population that ends up not knowing what to believe. The fact that the Protocols sold like crazy in Germany (to what demographic segment?) says little. Polemical books today can sell too, but often only because people want to form their own opinion.

29th October

Chapter six in The International Jew takes advantage of the opportunity given by the publication of William Hard’s article “The Great Jewish Conspiracy” in Metropolitan Magazine 1920, in which Hard ridicules the Protocols of the Elders of Zion recently published, in fact the edition I myself am reading.

TIJ has of course been waiting for this moment to be able to break radio silence and defend the Protocols.

My interpretation is unsurprisingly completely missed by TIJ, who manage to demonstrate the exact vulgar debility that the Protocols accuses to masses of harbouring (while simultaneously exploiting the prejudices of the masses).

William Hard immediately grasps that the oddball Sergei Nilus as an orthodox dreamer, and yet, he seems to miss the very 1900’ish perspective of the Protocols and doesn’t understand it as a spoof, a twist on reality and a propaganda piece praising conservative values.

Hard’s defence of Jews is admirable, but as can be glimpsed from TIJ fruitless.

Much more of interest is his addition of several perspectives that I have missed. For instance that the gain of stoking the antisemitic fires is to smear Trotsky (Jew) and drum up resistance to his Red Army. But around 1900 when the Protocols were written, that of course was irrelevant.

Around that time it was less obvious whether Russia would succumb to liberalism, socialism or anarchism which is why the Jewish Council are behind all of them.

TIJ - Ch. 6 - Jewish Question Breaks Into The Magazines

● William Hard’s article proves that the Jewish question is real. Denying it only shows it is real. ● Gentiles are mentally unable to make conspiracies. Jews are mentally wired to do just like that. ● W.H.’s articles explains that the Question is being discussed anywhere it matters. ● The “Problem” evolves into the “Conspiracy”. ● W.H. professes that many Jews are in high positions in mutually inimical factions. TIJ: Proof that they are in control. ● Russia: Trotsky. Mensheviks. Lieber and Martov, Dan. Hungary: Bela Kun. ● Bolshevism ≠ Jew (but close). ● Otto Kahn, a “conservative” Jewish banker. ● Rose Pastor Stokes & Morris Hillquit (Jews) vs Eugene V. Debs and Bill Haywood (Gentile). ● Jews in pro-liberal propaganda are really moles. ● Judges. Justice Brandeis.

Sigh. Another day on the island with these obnoxious texts.

William Hard, a journalist of some fame, is being co-opted by an article in the Dearborn Independent’s newspaper to say the opposite of what Hard is saying. This is achieved through the usual means: Plain contradiction.

Well, at least something happens today: TIJ finally breaks into the matter of the Protocols.

It quickly becomes clear that they have known about them for a long time, but they needed someone from the politically correct regime to break the news first, according to the journalistic law that says that the mere mentioning of a phenomenon makes it at least in part real.

So Hard’s article transitions from:

WILLIAM HARD - METROPOLITAN 1920 - THE GREAT JEWISH CONSPIRACY, p.45 - PROLETARIAN JEWS OF LITHUANIA REFUSE AID FROM THEIR BOURGEOIS CO-RELIGIONISTS.

Observe this conspiracy, ladies and gentlemen. Observe that drawing rooms in Paris and in London and in Washington, in order to help their friends in Russia and in Poland against their enemies, can credulously fill the world with such nonsense as that Lenin’s name is Levi; and observe that human beings, in order to forward their fights against other human beings, can take the innumerable irreconcilable factions of the most politically divided race in the world and dream them into a single solid conspiracy! That’s all. Observe this conspiracy, ladies and gentlemen, and be prepared for the next one.

To:

… conspiracy …. … rooms in Paris .. in London .. in Washington … Lenin’s name is Levi; … race in the world … a single solid conspiracy! …

I am the “but that is not what he says” kind of guy. Looking away from a person’s own statements is anathema in political analysis.

Surrounding our small nerdy paradise of faithful adherence to the text is an Ouroboros of prejudice.

The International Jew, Ch. 6
And then he cries, look how the Jews are divided! How can there be conspiracy among people who thus fight themselves?
But another, looking at the same situation may say, look how the Jews control every phase of political opinion in Russia! Doesn’t there seem to be some ground for the feeling that they are desirous of ruling every where?

This chapter is full of that kind of reasoning. The “admission” that some Jew exists and the blank denial that said Jew may have formed opinions of his own, that he is not so much part of an unstoppable Jewish tribal genius destined to conquer the world and turn us all into slaves.

WILLIAM HARD - METROPOLITAN 1920 - THE GREAT JEWISH CONSPIRACY, p.37 - THE GREAT JEWISH CONSPIRACY HAS A KEY- STONE OF SOFT, LOOSE, DRIBBLING SAND!

There is Otto Kahn. In an address to the faculty and student body of the University of Wisconsin he declared his solidarity with Trotsky’s admirers in America by speaking of American Bolsheviks as follows:

“Ingrates, disturbers, ignorant of or disloyal to the spirit of America, abusers of her hospitality. The time is ripe and over-ripe to call a halt upon these spreaders of outlandish and pernicious doctrines.”

This is Hard’s idea: If the Jews are in misalignment publicly, they can’t be secretly coordinating a conspiracy.

However, the scales flip once you develop a lack of trust in the Jew’s sincereness, and start to believe firmly in some hidden personality, any amount of internal discord proves nothing.

This is the essence of the argument of racial character traits: They are unknown to the Jew him/herself, but not to the savvy bystander.

Which once again casts a dark shadow on all present racial arguments such as “White fragility” and so forth.

Werner Sombart - one of the books that TIJ draws inspiration from - reaches conclusions that on the look of it appears to be racial. On closer inspection Sombart not only does his utmost to avoid his study to fall into the hands of antisemitism, he repeatedly stresses that his conclusions are not relevant to race but culture. He traces the similarities between Jewish culture and the social changes coming from capitalism and concludes that the Jews have come out of history particularly apt to the new era.

WERNER SOMBART - THE JEWS AND MODERN CAPITALISM, p.191 - CHAPTER 12 JEWISH CHARACTERISTICS

[…] Hence we have the triple parallelism between Jewish character, the Jewish religion and capitalism. What was it we found as the all-controlling trait of the Jewish people? Was it not extreme intellectuality? And is not intellectuality the quality which differentiates the capitalistic system from all others? Organizing ability springs from intellectuality, and in the capitalistic system we find the separation between head and hands, between the work of directing and that of manufacturing.

“For the greatest work to be completely done, you need of hands a thousand, of mind but only one.” That sums up the capitalistic state of things.

Before capitalism came, exchange was a many-sided, multicoloured and technical process; now it is just one specialized act — that of the dealer: before there were many relationships between buyer and seller; there is only one now — the commercial. The tendency of capitalism has been to do away with different manners, customs, pretty local and national contrasts, and to set up in their stead the dead level of the cosmopolitan town.

In short, there has been a tendency towards uniformity, and in this capitalism and Liberalism have much in common. Liberalism we have already shown to be a near relative of Judaism, and so we have the kindred trio of Capitalism, Liberalism, and Judaism.

To Sombart, there is no reason to make a distinction between Western philosophy and its fruits (liberalism and capitalism) and Jewish culture. The Jews arrived at the doorstep of capitalism ready and trained.

But more than this: the special Jewish intellectuality is of a kind associated with sandy or stony deserts. The Jews are rational, are fond of abstraction. Once more we are reminded of the contrast between desert and forest, between North and South.

Deserts invite abstract thinking (?)

From Sombart to Ford to Hitler there is a strange discontinuous continuity. Sombart is a sceptic and yet, out of his text oozes the infallible conclusion that the Jew is caught up in behaviour he or she cannot escape.

WERNER SOMBART - THE JEWS AND MODERN CAPITALISM, p.224 - CHAPTER 13 THE RACE PROBLEM

A brief reference to the methods of some of the believers in the race theory will show how unreliable their conclusions are. They start out with the assumption that the Jews are a race. Since every race must have specific characteristics, Jews have theirs. In other words, their specific characteristics are rooted in their race. But for this there is no actual proof. If the truth must be told, we know nothing whatever of the connexion between somatic or anthropological features and intellectual capacities.

One can see the struggle in words. Sombart refutes the idea about race as a driver, because it is interwoven with the ascending “race theorists”. Instead he inadvertently invents a “cultural race theory”. The deluge stops at nothing, neither Hard’s insistence on the illogical conspiracy theories nor Sombart’s cautious attempts at characterising a social group.

The International Jew, Ch. 6
“There is Otto Kahn,” he says. Well, sometimes Otto Kahn is there, and sometimes he is in Paris on important international matters, and sometimes he is in London advocating certain alliances between British and American capital which have to do in a large way with European political conditions. Mr. Kahn is rated as a conservative, and that may mean anything. (!)… a conservative can be a communist, an egg or perhaps a philanthropist.
A man is conservative or not according to the angle from which he is viewed. The most conservative men in America are really the most radical; (!)
their motives and methods go to the very roots of certain matters; they are radicals in their own field. The men who controlled the last Republican Convention — if not the last, the most recent — are styled conservatives by those whose vision is circumscribed by certain limited economic interests; but they are the most radical of radicals, they have passed the red stage and are white with it. Careful, Dearborn Independent, not to upset the GOP too much.
If it were known what is in the back of Mr. Kahn’s mind, if he should display a chart of what he is doing and aiming to do, the term which would then most aptly describe him might be quite different.
Anyway, we have it from Mr. Hard, “There is Mr. Kahn.” The conclusion: Kahn exists and is a Jew. Everything else is irrelevant.

Same with the next chapter:

The International Jew, Ch. 6
“On the other hand,” says Mr. Hard, “there is Rose Pastor Stokes.” He adds the name of Morris Hillquit. They are, in Mr. Hard’s classification, radicals. And to offset these names he adds the names of two Gentiles, Eugene V. Debs and Bill Haywood, and intimates that they are much more powerful leaders than the first two.
Students of modern influences, of which Mr. Hard has long appeared as one, do not think so. Take that Mr. Hard!
Neither Debs nor Haywood ever generated in all their lives a fraction of the intellectual power which Mrs. Stokes and Mr. Hillquit have generated. Both Debs and Haywood live by the others. To every informed person, as to Mr. Hard in this article, come the Jewish names to mind when the social tendencies of the United States are passed under reflection. Yeah, and real CLEVER people happen to agree with me!

WILLIAM HARD - METROPOLITAN 1920 - THE GREAT JEWISH CONSPIRACY, p.38 - THE GREAT JEWISH CONSPIRACY HAS A KEY- STONE OF SOFT, LOOSE, DRIBBLING SAND!

Rose Pastor Stokes as a Communist, Morris Hillquit as a Socialist, are prominent indeed. But suppose you added to them every other prominent Jewish Communist and every other prominent Jewish Socialist and every other prominent Jewish “radical” of any other sort. Suppose you put them all into one lump and reeled off all their names. Honestly now! Would all their names together have the prominence and the power of leadership for “radicals” and the power of menace and alarm for “conservatives” that lie in the two names of Gene Debs and Bill Haywood? You know the answer very well. The two most formidable “radical” names in America are Gentile — and natively American.

Disagreement, nothing else. Who was most important? The Jewish or the gentile communist?

Futility characterises this dilemma and this way of arguing.

The chapter continues like this with TIJ playing trump cards against William Hard.

It concludes:

The International Jew, Ch. 6
It may be learned, first, that the Jewish Question exists. Mr. Hard says it is discussed in the drawing-rooms of London and Paris. Whether the mention of drawing-rooms was a writer’s device to intimate that the matter was unimportant and frivolous, or merely represented the extent of Mr. Hard’s contact with the Question is not clear. He adds, however, that a document relating to the Question has “traveled a good bit in certain official circles in Washington.” He also mentions a cable dispatch to the New York World, concerning the same Question, which that paper published. His article was probably published too early to note the review which the London Times made of the first document referred to.
But he has told the reader who is looking for the objective facts in the article that there is a Jewish Question, and that it does not exist among the riff-raff either but principally in those circles where the evidence of Jewish power and control is most abundant. Moreover, the Question is being discussed. Mr. Hard tells us that much. If he does not go further and tell us that it is being discussed with great seriousness in high places and among men of national and international importance, it is probably because of one of two things, either he does not know, or he does not consider it consonant with the purpose of the article to tell.

The airily thinking becomes clear when he says:

The International Jew, Ch. 6
[…] Of course, Mr. Hard says he does not believe in conspiracies which involve a large number of people, and it is with the utmost ease that his avowal of unbelief is accepted, for there is nothing more ridiculous to the Gentile mind than a mass conspiracy, because there is nothing more impossible to the Gentile himself. Mr. Hard, we take it, is of non-Jewish extraction, and he knows how impossible it would be to band Gentiles together in any considerable number for any length of time in even the noblest conspiracy.
Gentiles are not built for it. Their conspiracy, whatever it might be, would fall like a rope of sand. Gentiles have not the basis either in blood or interest that the Jews have to stand together. The Gentile does not naturally suspect conspiracy; he will indeed hardly bring himself to the verge of believing it without the fullest proof.

Note how ‘blood’ silently takes the lead as key explanation, clearly deviating from Sombart, and in fact also deviating from the first five chapters. With sleight of hand the cultural explanation is replaced with a hereditary one.

The continuum from shared culture to hereditary traits is the base on which everything else rests. The interchangeability between one and the other.

When discussing on a factual basis, you lean on the sociological leg. When the academics have retreated, you shift to the hereditary version and babbles about blood and honour.

PARADISE LOST