Which Way Western Man?
William Gayley Simpson
©1978 by William Gayley Simpson. Copyright renewed 2006 by the estate of William and Harriet Simpson. All rights reserved.
|Appendix 4||Index||Appendix 6|
IN REPLY TO DR. ANTONY SUTTON’S REJECTION OF THE IDEA OF A JEWISH CONSPIRACY
Dr. Sutton gives the grounds for his rejection in Appendix 2 (pp. 185-189) of his Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution, but, though I hold all the rest of Dr. Sutton’s work that I have seen in very high respect, I have to confess myself unimpressed by this.
On page 185, he denies the truth of Winston Churchill’s statement in his front-page article in the London Illustrated Sunday Herald of Feb. 8, 1920, “that with the exception of Lenin, ‘the majority’ of the leading figures in the revolution were Jewish.” He makes this rejection in the face of all the evidence for Jewishness that I have ever seen, and he does it, moreover, without bothering to submit a shred of evidence to support his rejection! And it simply is not permissible to dismiss (without any attempt at an answer) such evidence as I have submitted in this book, or am about to submit, that the crew of trained conspirators under Lenin and Trotsky were overwhelmingly Jewish—from 80 to 95 percent Jewish! Even Lenin, as I have shown, was one-quarter Jewish, Jewish by his paternal grandfather. And there is other very authoritative evidence that he was Jewish.
Again, Dr. Sutton tries to make out that Jacob Schiff not only did not support the Bolshevik Revolution, but would have welcomed its overthrow—“because the Bolshevist government does not represent the Russian people.” Such an attitude, on the part of Jacob Schiff, is, again, belied by all the evidence that I have seen—much of which I have quoted in foregoing pages. In fact, it flies in the face of one of the State Department documents that Dr. Sutton, with characteristic honesty, himself quotes—on pages 186-7. To be sure he pronounces it only “superficially damning,” but on what ground, he gives no clear indication. The “central” document of this collection is entitled “Bolshevism and Judaism,” and is dated Nov. 13, 1918. It is in the form of a report, stating that the Revolution was engineered “in February 1916,” and that “it was found that the following persons and firms were engaged in this destructive work.” Of the names given, that of Jacob Schiff comes first, and after him Kuhn, Loeb & Co; and as the responsible heads of Kuhn, Loeb’s management, again first of all, Jacob Schiff; and then Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mortimer Schiff and J. J. Seligman. And every last one of them was a Jew.
Dr. Sutton then continues as follows: “The report goes on to assert that there can be no doubt that the Russian Revolution was started and engineered by this group and that in April 1917 [quoting the document] “Jacob Schiff in fact made a public announcement and it was due to his financial influence that the Russian revolution was successfully accomplished, and in the spring of 1917 Jacob Schiff started to finance Trotsky, a Jew, for the purpose of accomplishing a social revolution in Russia.”
The document then gives further information about Max Warburg’s financing Trotsky (from Germany), about various German banks and the Nya Banken of Stockholm, which confirms what I have said in previous pages of this chapter; and then it goes on to point out that the connections between these institutions and their financing of the Bolshevik Revolution reveal how [quoting the document] “the link between the Jewish multi-millionaires and Jewish proletarians was forged.”
Dr. Sutton follows this by quoting cables, etc., which passed between certain Russian bankers and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., to show that Schiff did not back the Bolsheviks (pp. 194-7). But, once again, these so obviously fly in the face of all the other evidence about him that I am forced to wonder whether they may not, like the Sisson Documents, be forgeries, fabricated (before the documents that Dr. Sutton has recently had access to, were declassified) as a red herring drawn across the trail by powerful persons in the State Department, which we have already seen to be Jew-controlled: or else, whether, at the time of the Revolution, these communications were not sent in order to provide a cover for what, in fact, Jacob and his confreres were actually doing. Without some such explanation, I am simply mystified.
But I still have to reckon with Dr. Sutton’s rejection of the idea of a Jewish conspiracy. In the face of all the evidence, as I have assembled it through some twenty-five years and which to me is so impressive, how could he have come to this rejection?
To begin with, it is certainly true that two men, equally honest, can react differently to the same evidence. Also, if there be a conspiracy initiated and maintained by astute, trained and experienced men, it must go without saying that they will make every effort to hide their tracks, and must in the large be very successful at doing so. So that evidence of the conspiracy is something that we must expect to come upon only now and then, here and there, where it has somehow escaped all the conspirators’ precautions. And thus, taken as a whole, it will not be what Dr. Sutton calls “hard” evidence—that is, as it were, confessions signed, but rather an assembly of indications. Nevertheless, these indications may all point in one direction, and may, moreover, offer a better explanation, a more comprehensive and plausible accounting, than any other yet proposed, for what, plainly and undeniably, has been going on relentlessly for the past two centuries to smash the Western world of the White man, to control it, to poison it, to demoralize it, and at last utterly to disintegrate it. The first heavy blow fell on France, then Russia was the next to go, and after her Germany, followed by all eastern Europe and the dissolution of the British Empire (within twenty years!); and now the United States is being dissolved as a sovereign state.
Finally, and above all, I think that the most likely explanation of Dr. Sutton’s rejection of the idea of a Jewish conspiracy, whereas I am so convinced of it, is simply that he never has faced the whole body of available evidence. He has not had it set before him, or had occasion to search for it. After all, he is a specialist. And within his chosen field we must recognize that he has done work of exceptional quality and very great importance. But no man can read everything, least of all a specialist. Dr. Sutton’s reaction, therefore, is different from mine primarily because his judgment has been based on only a small part of the relevant evidence. That is, I have to assume that he has not explored all that the history of the past two centuries has to say about Jewish aims and activities, as revealed not only in full-fledged histories but also in biographies, memoirs, state papers, Jewish periodicals, studies of the Jewish character, and also in the writings of avowed anti-Semites, which (as we have seen) even so pro-Jewish and scholarly a writer as Hilaire Belloc found very voluminous, exact, accurate, and generally impressive.
And then, too, we have to reckon with the likelihood that to a man like Dr. Sutton the whole idea of a conspiracy, and especially a Jewish conspiracy, would run as counter to his own personal nature and ingrained prejudices as it did to mine. I remember well that it took me years to get to the place where I could take a fair look at the idea.
In short, I think that Dr. Sutton’s rejection of a Jewish conspiracy may be quite adequately explained by the simple fact that he has never had the opportunity, or the occasion, to face the whole body of evidence.