Unfortunately the Wikipedia article on the actual quotation is not one of the best that Wikipedia has ever produced. The article contains a number of problematic arguments and assertions, which it suggests 'disprove' the book's existence and therefore suggest Mullins invented it (and the quotation). Now I actually agree in the absence of other evidence with the general conclusion given by Wikipedia in so far that the quotation does seem to have been invented by Mullins from a non-existent work.
My reasons for this differ substantially from those given on Wikipedia. So to give the reader a serious anti-Semite's perspective on the issue I am going to explain why Wikipedia's arguments are not cogent and based, somewhat ironically, on unfounded premises. Unlike jewish organisations, such as '"Honest Reporting"', I am not going to sit here and make hysterical accusations against Wikipedia for 'bias', but rather assume that because the subject it is somewhat obscure and unlikely to generate much interest or further research on the part of Wikipedia's editors (so that even a badly constructed argument might seem cogent). It is unlikely that Wikipedia's editorial staff much care for something they have labelled, perhaps correctly, as the province of 'anti-Semites'. It is also worth stating that the arguments Wikipedia is using are not its own, but rather Representative Abraham Multer's arguments but by endorsing the arguments in the article Wikipedia agrees with them.
The actual quotation as given correctly by Wikipedia is as follows:
'"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negros. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."'
The Wikipedia article states as follows:
'"These included the nonexistence of a "British Communist party" in "1912" (it was founded in only 1920)"'
By stating this Multer shows his ignorance of the subject. When he argues that because there was not a British Community Party in 1912 and that because the author identifies the force as 'the Communist Party' in the quotation and therefore because the British Communist Party was not founded until 1920 he must therefore not be telling the truth. He is making a large cognitive leap without much evidence to do so that 'programme of the Communist Party' is to be taken in a purely literal sense. The British Communist Party indeed was founded some eight years later but a few years before Israel Cohen supposedly penned this work the socialist Labour party, which certainly included large numbers of communists (and would have been viewed at the time by them as the 'communist' party before a more particular split had occurred), had suddenly broken onto the scene of British politics and in short order eviscerated the old Liberal party. This sort of politicking by communists was exactly that espoused by Lenin in his 1905, '"Two Tactics of Social-Democracy"'. Where-in he advocated that the true 'champions of the proletariat' should temporarily ally with liberals and then get rid of them and then ally with socialists and be rid of them in time. Eventually; this strategy was only to leave the most 'socially radical', i.e. revolutionary, element to rule over the people in their best interest and therefore found the communist state.
So therefore we must find that Multer's objection, although potentially useful, is arguably unfounded because of the literalism with which he takes the passage from Israel Cohen rather than looking at the context of what Cohen might actually be referring to.
Multer's second and main objection is as follows:
'"the nonexistence of a British Communist author named Israel Cohen"'
This objection is also potentially unfounded for the simple reason that we don't know that there was not a Communist author of this name, perhaps even a nom-de-plume, living and writing in Britain at this point. There were certainly authors by this name publishing in Britain at the time, but whether they were Communists or not remains to be seen.
The method that Multer uses to demonstrate, in his opinion, Israel Cohen's non-existence is to state that this work cannot be found in the British Library's or the Library of Congress' catalogues of printed books. This can be said to hold some credibility since Mullins claims to have found Israel Cohen's work in a Zionist publication in the Library of Congress. However; what if the work itself was a printed pamphlet and was simply circulated by hand with a touch on the nose to say 'keep this to yourself' rather than being sold on street corners. It is quite impossible to state that the British Library and the Library of Congress have copies of all the printed matter (as much as they would like to), especially booklets and pamphlets, which may or may not have been circulated privately.
Mullins explanation of where he found the pamphlet '"in a Zionist publication"'[10] would indicate such a situation in which he found this pamphlet or booklet inside another book. Presumably left there by another individual, who was doing research/reading and then left it in a book by accident, which Mullins then found and quoted some time later. There have also been other such cases where previously unknown books/works have been deliberately or accidentally left in a major library/archive only be discovered later[11].
Therefore although Multer's objection can be said to be cogent, if in fact we are dealing with a book, since it is unlikely (although possible) something as sizeable as a book was missed by the Library of Congress or British Library catalogues but if we are dealing with a pamphlet or a booklet as seems more likely from both the title of the work and Mullins' comments about where he found it then it is potentially based on unsound foundations.
That being said I will now briefly explain my two reasons for why I don't believe Mullins quotation to be genuine:
Firstly, there is Mullins himself who has spent most of his life authoring work of a conspiratorial nature, and regardless of the objection that this doesn't mean he is liar, it does throw doubt on his quotations if they cannot be tracked back to their original source. What I mean by this is simply that Mullins as a writer trying to prove the existence of certain conspiracies against America's people, which are by their very nature very hard to evidence, needs to find evidence, which backs up the connections he makes. Since as I have said there is a great dearth in evidence by the nature of the subject and thesis of Mullins' work there is therefore a great temptation to quote out-of-context or even make up quotations in order to prove that thesis (presumably similar to the 'end justifies the mean' conception). This consideration when we track back Mullins' quotation and find no easily verifiable source for it (and Mullins doesn't himself have a copy) means we are forced to wonder if Mullins has made the quotation up to suit his thesis and make his case stronger.
Secondly, the actual quotation itself is not written in the characteristic verbiage of jewry or in communist jargon (it reads for better or for worse like an Americanized excerpt from the '"Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"'). For example; if a communist jew had written it the likelihood, based on my own intense observation of jews, is that he or she would have used more circumspect language more belying an ostensible communist aim. The assumption being for the jew that fellow jews would understand the inferences in the jargon to indicate actual meaning and gentiles would merely understand it as it was written in terms of communist thinking. For example when Cohen talks of:
'"With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."'
If he were a communist jew; I would expect that to be more subtle as Cohen himself states: '"In America we will aim for subtle victory"', but where is the subtly in what he has written? There is none. It is brash and open regardless of whether it was intended only for private consumption by a select audience it flies in the face of the jews in general to not use verbiage to cover negative intentions for others.
For example; a quote such as '"one gentile is not worth a jewish fingernail"' can be defended by making the case that this is due to the spiritual nature of jews and therefore is simply religious (and this then disarms it partially; and can be taken to a fuller developing to disarm it more or less fully). This is how jews in fact act, because they are able with their unique racial mindset to understand the inferences and what is not said by their fellows (or to read between the lines so-to-speak). This is the essence of their Freudian mentality and one that is on display if you read a jewish or a Freudian biography of an individual with their placing of special meaning on otherwise inconsequential or not particularly relevant facts or suggestions to create a rather strange argument about the subject of the biography deriving from this inferences about what he was thinking and what his motivations were.
The quote from Israel Cohen remains both unproven and unexploded, but we have reasons as I have briefly outlined above to express grave doubts about its authenticity. The moral of the story being: if you are anti-jewish please do not use quotes such as this to 'prove' your case, because unless you have conclusive proof of their origins then you will firstly make the argument for your opponent easier in discrediting what you say, and secondly it will allow them to use what you say to 'prove' to others that anti-jewish thought is all 'conspiracy theory, 'lunacy' and 'irrationality'.
If you care about fighting jewish power and the jews as a subversive influence in society: please don't use this quote.
It can be found at the following address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century [Accessed: 04/09/2008].
Wikipedia's content being user generated with few quality controls beyond other users who can claim but do not necessarily have expertise in these matters. This is part of the reason why Wikipedia's content is not considered permissible as evidence in submissions made by university students to their alma mater. Another point to
Which I would conjecture is not outside of his character since Mullins is a writer much taken with conspiratorial ideas and his written work has a very sensationalist flavour to it. Only one of Mullin's many books is worth reading for any serious student of the jewish question and that is '"The Biological Jew"', which is a small work comparing the jew to a biological parasite. Despite its vicious language the work is in its basis a cogent one, worth notice, study and being enlarged and improved upon.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia.asp [Accessed: 04/09/2008].
Wikipedia declares it to be an 'anti-Semitic hoax' so therefore it is safe to presume that it endorses Multer's arguments as they are the only counter arguments specifically cited.
Available at the following address: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/index.htm.
For example: Israel Cohen, 1931, '"A Ghetto Gallery"', 1st Edition, Edward Goldston: London.
Similar perhaps to Victor Gollancz's influential Left Book Club's now famous statement on the front cover of its books: '"Not for sale to the public"'.
Revolutionary manifestos though out history have been circulated by hand and by word of mouth; for example in the case of the jews in the Bar-Kochva (or Bar-Kochba) rebellion against the Romans, which covered large amounts of territory geographically and involved many disparate communities. It can hardly be claimed this has suddenly changed in our contemporary world or that of Israel Cohen.
[10] I cannot find a copy of Mullin's original comments as to inform us as to whether it was inside a book or quoted in one. Presumably given the tone of his quoted remarks it is the former; which is the assumption that I am working from.
[11] Such as in the case of the '"Dossiers Secrets d'Henri Lobineau"', which was placed in the Biblioth`eque nationale de France by Pierre Plantard and relates to the '"Priory of Sion"' hoax.
