During my research of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I came across the name of an anti-semite known by quite a few names, among them, his birth name, Frederick Millingen, as well as many aliases, including Major Osman Bey and Major Vladimir Andrejevick; he was born in Istanbul in 1832, and for a brief period, he was an Ottoman officer, who, strangely enough, enlisted as a Union soldier, when he sailed to New York in 1865 to take part in the American Civil War, though he was too late to participate.
Millingen is now a very obscure figure in history, mostly known as a proponent for a global Jewish conspiracy before the Protocols were released in 1903. An author of several books, his most well-known work was his book on Jewry, The Conquest of the World by the Jews, written in 1873, a full 30 years before the Protocols. Though certainly the Jewish grip on power in the 19th century pales compared to the 20th century or the current era, his life was steeped in misfortune according to his memoirs, apparently even leading to his expulsion from multiple countries.
As can be seen by the fact that I only linked to one Jewish website, there is very little information on Millingen in English. The best source would probably be his memoirs, but they have yet to be translated to English.
The Conquest of the World by the Jews is a short book, perhaps more accurately described as a pamphlet, of some 70 pages. It briefly describes the general demeanor of Jews with a few historical events and examples. It touches on their evolutionary path as a diaspora people, their representation in usury and money lending, the Rothschilds, their greater rise to power with further modernization, etc. It's a very broad overview that's somewhat limited on details.
There are some novel ideas to be found in this text, and it has historical value as a precursor to the Protocols, so I will provide an overview of some of its core ideas, alongside commentary.
The Conquest of the World by the Jews
Millingen starts his text off by noting three principles--with the third one being of special relevance to the identity of the Jewish people--that of "the principle of material interests." He believes they were the first people to "discover that secret power," utilizing it expertly for the means of conquest. Their involvement with usury and finance is, of course, not a secret. The point made here is debatable, but in hindsight, seeing the successful political and social maneuvering by the Jews and their pillaging of wealth, it seems a reasonable assertion. They may not have been unique or the first in their mastery of this principle, but certainly they are now one of the great exemplars of it. There are also the principles of physical force and the theocratic principle that he lists. He will identify the Jews as having a split between the principles of physical force and material interests throughout their history, with that of material interests eventually winning.
The author lists Jews as once being an Arab tribe, though the Jews eventually diverged from this group. Historically, it's hard to say where this divergence might have begun. The Old Testament is... a mixture of historical events and fables. There's no certainty that Abraham was a real person, and he might have just been a type of symbol—the first Hebrew patriarch, whose two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, represent the Israelites or Hebrews and Arabs, respectively.
Its common knowledge that Jews and Arabs are both semitic people and closely related, even if the Jews have partially hijacked the word semitic with their absolute dominion over the word anti-semite. Not just the Mizrahi Jews, but also the Sephardic and Ashkenazi ones, are closely related to Arabs and share recent ancestors from the last few thousand years, as can be seen from DNA studies.
Millingen seems to have admired the Arabs, stating that their unusual mental faculties "throw those of all other races in the shade." As both Arabs and Jews came from the same seed, they both possess these same faculties, but the Jews possessed other qualities which gave them certain advantages. "The Jew combines with a fiery temperament an obstinacy so inflexible that it may well be said: the Jew never gives, and knows neither forgetting nor forgiving." Arabs tend towards the more abstract and ideal, while Jews value more so the material and practical. The Arab can see the beauty in an object for nothing other than the sake of beauty, but the Jew always questions, how can I make this beautiful object useful to me? How can a profit be made? This was, first and foremost, the Jew's preoccupation.
Rapacity and the "lust of gain" is what enraptures the Jew, placing the Jew in an everlasting antagonism with all gentiles of the world. Outlined is a conscious separation of the dual ideas of war and peace for the Arab, but there is no armistice for the Jew—life is an eternal struggle and competition among mankind. As the Jews see themselves as distinct from all other groups, and arguably superior and fit to rule over mankind (as can be seen by adherents to Judaism referring to gentiles as cattle and eventually slaves for Jewry), they shall wage war with them with no intermission in sight.
Lines are cited from Genesis to support the idea that Jews emigrated for the sake of plunder: first Canaan, then Egypt, where there was the famous exodus of the Jews, and following that, the land of the Philistines (especially of interest is Genesis 13:2, when Abraham enriches himself; Genesis 26:16 also indicates that the king of the Philistines, Abimelech, requested the Jews to leave, for they were too powerful, and Genesis 26:20-29 details some of the conflict between these two peoples and Abimelech's attempt to keep Isaac and his people from being a thorn in his side). The absolute plunder and draining of the resources from the Egyptians by Joseph can be read of in Genesis 47:14-18. One might call this "a good sense for business and a real go-getter attitude," much like you'd find with price gouging nowadays, but this kind of enrichment and exploitation of the people by the Jews is clearly what has led to so many societies despising the Jews and bringing about their subsequent expulsion.
The Jews were persecuted according to their so-called history, but it begs the question of why they were persecuted. A people are rarely persecuted for no reason at all, and there's no reason to assume Jews did not attempt to subvert or rob Egyptian society, just as they do with America and other countries today. Though it should be noted that they were not strictly "Jews" in this time period (though from here on out, I will generally refer to any Hebrews, Israelites, etc, as Jews)—a word originating much later—but were ancestors, with many ethnic or racial groups today and in centuries past squabbling about the 12 tribes of Israel and claiming to be the "true Israelites" over the Jews.
Most of these conflicts with the Jews didn't involve their employment of physical force or taking up arms, for they use their cunning to conquer people. The Jews have never been especially adept in war, and they've always remained a very tiny group, so they must exert power by more subtle means or by pitting multiple groups against each other (exceptions of a more militant form of conquest are with Canaan and the modern day state of Israel, but even then, they rely on others to do the bulk of fighting or providing them with protection), always remaining in the shadows and avoiding being identified as the "other" as much as they possibly can, until they could swindle people into accepting them into their societies unconditionally through ideas of liberalism.
He argues that the Jews used famines (such as the one in Canaan) in the lands they inhabited as an excuse to emigrate, before they engaged in their typical behavior in foreign lands amongst competing ethnic groups. Not only did they loot the coffers of these varied lands, but they did so with a sort of moral victory, wherein, they refer to their enemies as tyrants and persecutors. The actual history of what happened is not important for them. What is important is using this supposed history of persecution—little more than a will to power through victimhood—to maintain their stranglehold over gentiles. This is what Millingen refers to as the Jew's "true masterpiece of Machiavelism," embodying the "soul and spirit of Judaism."
Millingen states that this period, the second dispensation, led to a renouncement of past Jewish principles, specifically the principle of material interests, as represented by the rejection of the golden calf, a symbol he views not just as a false idol, but the spirit of usury and a representations of the principle of material interests. Given that it's made of gold and is obviously an extravagant item, this is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the meaning behind it. Is wealth and the pursuit of it not a sort of false god?
Although I have my doubts, the author believes there was an interim during the reign of the Kingdom of Judah, where this typically Jewish behavior fell into remission, again metastasizing once the kingdom collapsed, giving the Jews no recourse but to return to their old habits. Their pursuit of the principle of material interests brought about their desire for world conquest. It was with the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in 70 CE that the principle of physical force became untenable, and the Jews solely concentrated on material interest as a means to power.
"What use is it to us," said they [the Jews], "to possess a country of our own, a kingdom, fortress and armies, which a single storm can destroy in a moment, making us the slaves of the conqueror?"
"No, the mosaic principle may appear beautiful, but it is only a chimera. Our riches and our power must not be concentrated at one point; they must be everywhere and nowhere, so that they cannot become the prey of our enemies. No country, no kingdom, must be our own, but we must try to possess ourselves of the riches of all the countries and all the empires of the world. Scattered over the whole face of the earth, we must possess no fixed habitation, but hurry towards those spots where the harvest is most bountiful. Only through the principle indicated by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and only in this manner, and will, the prophecies be fulfilled, which promises to the sons of Israel the conquest of the world."
These are very interesting quotes, but are they mere speculation? Was this really a choice by the Jews, or did they simply not have the requisite power to have their own country or kingdom? Was it that they knew they could not maintain it with their meager numbers and lack of a warlike constitution? Perhaps. Most any people who have the power to form a country or kingdom will do so, just as the Jews revived Israel in the 20th century once they had the power and support to bolster their ambitions. But these quotes, though perhaps ill-thought out in some manner, do carry many threads of the Jewish ethos. They have been a diaspora people for well over a thousand years, and the diaspora thrives even now that Israel is again a country, often supporting the Jewish state and funneling resources back to the homeland.
It is even the case that despite the obvious advantage for the Jews to have their own country, some of them were wary of the idea of a Jewish homeland. One such example would be a Jewish minister in the UK named Edwin Montagu, around the period that the Balfour Declaration was drafted, and even the American Jewish Committee was hesitant to support zionism until just before the creation of Israel. Support for zionism prior to 1948 was mixed for many Jews. Not because they were truly against it, but it was a matter of optics—they thought it might result in a new fervor of anti-semitism or accusations of dual loyalty; a Jewish state might also increase the chance of an expulsion of the diaspora. All Jews, pro-zionist, anti-zionist, or those who were more neutral towards the emerging movement, were concerned with one thing above all else: what is good for the Jews? All of these groups and people were generally pro-Jewish, but they had different strategies and perspectives on what was best for the Jewish people.
Furthermore, this is a belief of the author that was expressed during the 19th century, long before the state of Israel was erected, Herzl's promotion of zionism, the Balfour Declaration, WWI, etc, all of which he really couldn't have predicted. His quote is a very, very good depiction of Jewish internationalist sentiment, all around, however. Jews have long been a diaspora people, even before the fall of Jerusalem, and much of the early books in the OT corroborate this tendency. A partial outline of their scattering can be found here.
The Middle Ages and Onward
With the decline of Roman rule and the invasion of the barbarians, this led to a period of greater decentralization, with many new nations and empires for the Jews to thrive within, heading to commercial centers of the cities and commonly engaging in usury. Speculation was far more of interest than agriculture or craftsmanship or anything that leads to production of a good.
The author stresses the connectedness of these scattered Jewish people and their adherence to the principle of material interests, citing the stronger connection of modern Jews to each other compared to that of Christians, as well as a greater concordance in terms of religion, historical tradition, and race.
Jewish solidarity is so great, that, if you attack one Jew in any particular place, all the Jews of the five continents arise as one man.
This statement might seem a bit exaggerated for the author's time, but it certainly rings true now, with the various Jewish interest groups and press in numerous countries clamoring about Jewish issues or anti-semitism abroad.
His example of this proclivity is Ulysses S. Grant's expulsion of the Jews from Paducah in 1862, which was an order issued primarily due to alleged profiteering by Jews in the area. This was a domestic situation that wouldn't have been well-known internationally at the time, but the small body of Jews spread throughout the U.S. were infuriated by the issuing of General Order No. 11 that mandated Jewish evacuation from this one area. This is actually a rather minor event in U.S. history, but it's one that has Jews kvetching even now. Grant actually went on to appoint many Jews to his cabinet, as well as coming to the defense of foreign Jews in both Russia and Romania during his presidency—one can assume this was an attempt to court them because of their power or to appease the Jews for his prior "transgression."
Given that the Jews have long been a diaspora and have adapted to this lifestyle of internationalism and cosmopolitanism like no other people on earth, they are a sort of nation scattered amongst all nations. Therefore, they do not love the host nations they inhabit or the people within—they love and seek to ameliorate only their own nation within a nation. They are nomads. Free to roam from one country to another for their own gain, just as Rothschild's sons scattered to multiple nations to establish their central banks in the most prosperous countries of Europe. They're the human equivalent of fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes migrating from one organism to the next for the sake of a meal—they're always symbiotic, often manipulating history and the media to give the impression they are engaged in mutualism, but in the longterm, it always turns out to be parasitism that they primarily engage in, though a small elite of gentiles are also benefitted at the expense of the majority.
This tendency only worsened with the ideas of thinkers like Voltaire and the spirit of liberalism and the enlightenment period. This led to a damaging tolerance of the parasitic Jewish people, increasing their power and influence.
There's a lot of very general information that's reiterated a few times, but the author goes on to talk about the media and which magazines are either owned, influenced, or controlled by Jews. Among them he lists The London Times, Les Debats, I' Independance Belge, La Revue des deux Mondes, and the New York Tribune as being supported by Jews either by subscription or shares that are personally bought up. It's somewhat difficult to clarify the connection of the Jews to these papers without more extensive research.
Another kind of newspaper is the one that appears to be specific to a particular nationality, like Germany or France, but is in fact a Jewish controlled organ. His example is The (London) Daily Telegraph, a newspaper with a circulation of 100,000 at the time, of which the proprietor is a Jew who bought it for $20,000 (not sure about the actual value, but I assume he's giving the amount in UK currency of that time). Joseph Moses Levy indeed took over this paper, and he was also the proprietor of the The Sunday Times.
In France, a Baron Soubeyrand was a Jew who is claimed to have owned La Patrie and the Paris Journal, though it's difficult to find any information on the English side of the internet for this. In Vienna there is Neue Presse (this must be the Neue Freie Presse, which was owned by Max Friedländer, Adolf Werthner, and Michael Etienne; the first two are jewish, and the third is French. Moriz Benedikt, a longtime editor at the time, was also Jewish), Perseveranza in Italy, and the German Frankfurter Zeitung (Leopold Sonnemann). There are many modern parallels of media outlets that appear to be representative of "American" or "British" press, but our more of a Jewish organ, with an obvious example being The New York Times.
Also listed are some openly Jewish newspapers: Das Judenthum, Israelit, Israelitisch Bibliothek; Jewish Chronicle, Baltimore; Jewish Messenger, New Jersey; American Israelite, Cincinnati; Jewish Record, Philadelphia; San Francisco Hebrew, Occident Chicago; Independent Hebrew, New Jersey; and the Jewish Gazette. Though obviously this is a minuscule sampling.
This text may have been eye-opening for the time (I can't really know until I unearth more books/pamphlets that preceded it and were sufficiently influential), but it's now rather quaint and pretty much all of the main points are addressed in any general anti-semitic or counter-semitic text. For those who already agree with the main points, it might help fine-tune their arguments a tad, but for one who has done much reading on the Jews, it will mostly seem like pretty standard information.
In the context of the 19th century, this text was probably effective rhetoric to influence those who had negative dealings with Jews or were aware of a few of these trends, but I'm not sure there's enough rigorous detail to convince anyone who went into reading it without prior knowledge of the Jews. It's general enough that most people will probably dismiss it as a conspiracy theory regarding the Jews.
However, the bulk of what is said ranges from mostly plausible to demonstrably true with even a cursory reading of history, along with a degree of critical thinking (and not the fake critical thinking pushed in university). It just so happens that the Jewish influence over history and media is so strong that most people aren't aware of these details without doing their own research, and all along the way, they see the messaging of "this is an anti-semitic conspiracy/canard." This results in cognitive dissonance engendered by liberalism that often leads to the individual dropping the inquiry altogether, because liberalism is predicated on anything equated with anti-semitism, racism, or all the other boutique -isms that leftists and Jews rally against, as being especially and uniquely evil.
For those looking for an introductory text on the subject, the best would probably be David Duke's Jewish Supremacism, Douglas Reed's Controversy of Zion (one issue some may have with this is it tends to have a scant number of citations, but most of the information is pretty easy to find, and it can be dated in some sense, like the adherence to the Khazar hypothesis), or the books of E. Michael Jones.