160 WHO RULES AMERICA WHO RULES AMERICA 161 articles describe how the Kehillah made inroads in the media industry 65 years ago. These inroads have been developed so extensively in our present lifestyles that we no longer hear what the past great industrialists had to say about our industries, and we have become unaware of the Kehilla's control over our minds.* * THE BATTLE FOR PRESS CONTROL ~~~ ~~ Tlie first instinctive answer which the Jew makes to any criticism of s 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 is this: a "whispering drive" is begun first. 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 pre-empted 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. 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 reputation 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 to preserve 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 owner's 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. 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, under the influence of Adolph Ochs, 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 that 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 mayoral candidate. The newspaper owners were in a quandary. For several days